Farewell to a remarkable & lucky Taoiseach

Published on May 2, 2008 in Politics. 0 Comments

“TAOISEACH John Bruton has announced his intention to step down as Taoiseach on 7 May 2008. Mr Bruton, who first became Taoiseach in December 1994, has led Ireland during a period of unprecedented economic growth which also heralded the creation of a new relationship with Northern Ireland. He was the first leader of Fine Gael to be returned to office winning general election successes in 1997, 2002 and again last year. In that period, he saw off Bertie Ahern as Fianna Fail leader while Ahern’s successor Charlie McCreevy has thus far failed to lead his party back to power following its longest ever stretch in opposition.” 

A scenario from the world of fantasy politics, yes. But, with the distance of time, when the history of the Ahern era is fully written, a key question to be answered will be, just how did Ahern emerge from the 1997 general election as Taoiseach. Or put another way, how did Bruton’s three-party Rainbow coalition fail to win?

Bruton came to power in late 1994 after a period of political turmoil involving Fianna Fail and the Labour Party. The Albert ReynoldsDick Spring arrangement had been riven at a senior level by personality differences and policy disputes although, it has to be said, more of the former than the latter.

Fianna Fail’s second attempt at participating in a coalition government ended in controversy and left a lingering doubt over the party’s ability to deal with a minor partner. Bruton’s new government restored political stability. In a few short years, Ireland became the fastestgrowing economy in Europe.

The statistics are worth recalling: GNP was 2.6% in 1993 but hit 9% in 1997; the unemployment rate was 15.5% in 1993 but by 1997 had fallen to 9.8%; the general government balance moved from a deficit of . . .2.2% in 1993 to a surplus of 1% in 1997.

There are many who claim credit for contributing to the birth of the so-called Celtic Tiger but the facts show the boom really took off during the Bruton regime. Yet, when the votes were counted and the seats were distributed in 1997, the Fine Gael-LabourDemocratic Left side had 75 TDs. Ahern’s Fianna Fail had 77 seats which, when combined with four Progressive Democrat TDs and the support of some independent deputies, was enough to oust Bruton from office. Last week in the Dail chamber, as tributes were paid to Ahern for his 11-year tenure as Taoiseach, Eamon Gilmore recalled the circumstances in which the Fianna Fail leader came to power: “It is not in any way to underestimate your subsequent achievements to state you were in many respects a lucky Taoiseach who came to office at a time of remarkable opportunity.”

Ahern was certainly lucky in 1997. His time as leader of the opposition had not convinced. It is forgotten now but his Dail performances were patchy and his opinion poll satisfaction ratings were unspectacular. So Bruton lost, and Ahern won . . . but how? With a conservative budget prior to the 1997 election, the Rainbow threw away their trump card on the economy. Fianna Fail also presented a clearer message on income taxation.

But, more importantly, during the election campaign Ahern wooed the voters.

Fianna Fail built a campaign around his personality. And the voters fell in love with ‘Bertie’. Even Sylvester Stallone, at the opening of the Planet Hollywood restaurant on St Stephen’s Green, took off his jacket and draped it across Ahern’s shoulders. At that moment the celebrity politician was born. And Ahern never looked back.

The man with the complicated private life . . . played out in public . . . moved seamlessly from the political columns to the gossip pages, and back again. He comfortably popped up as a pundit with Eamon Dunphy on The Premiership. He raised smiles . . . and expletives from his opponents . . . with his talk of tending to hanging baskets, cooking a bit of fish at the end of a working day and naming his favourite song as ‘How much is that doggy in the window?’.

And with a popstar for a son-in-law and a chick-lit novelist as a daughter, he built a celebrity profile around ‘Being Bertie’. In September 2006, on the day the first story about his controversial personal finances appeared in public, I was with Ahern in Co Clare. In public houses, hotels and schools . . . even at the opening of a women’s clothing shop . . . the public wanted to meet their Taoiseach. They wanted to shake his hand and have their photograph taken with him. At several functions, photographs from his previous visits adorned the walls. He continually brought his fame into their lives and, in return, sufficient numbers rewarded him with three successful electoral outcomes.

Northern Ireland will remain his greatest achievement. Only in the years to come will we properly judge if enough was achieved with the economic largesse of the boom years.

And more time again will be needed . . . and assessments required from those not so close to contemporary events . . . to judge the real impact of the money revelations. I have been consistently critical of his behaviour in accepting that money, but any judgements in that sphere should not take from the fact that Ahern was, and remains, a remarkable politician.

But he was also a lucky one. 

OECD recommends an Irish property tax, again.

Published on April 21, 2008 in Politics and Sunday Tribune. 0 Comments

Full marks to the OECD for perseverance. The international policy organisation continues to tell a few home truths about the Irish economy. It has done so now for several decades. But governments of different hues have selectively picked the reasonable advice and, politely, ignored the difficult bits. There is little confidence that the latest OECD report issued last week will be treated any differently, especially in relation to property taxation.

The housing market may have paused but that is not an excuse for avoiding a debate on the merits of a new tax on property. Indeed, a very good case can be made for a properly constructed tax on non-primary residences. All those holiday homes and investment apartments accumulated in recent years would be included. The population-wide benefits from such an initiative would be considerable. There would be more money for public services and even a reduction in taxes on labour. But the universal public benefit from such an undertaking never gets an airing as, unfortunately, politicians listen most to the concerns of middle-class voters.

Pat Kenny’s legal case showed the Irish fascination with land. Equally, we have a poor record of taxing land and property. Three different forms of property taxation have existed in the Irish tax code, and each was eventually abolished. The most recent, residential property tax (RPT), was in place from 1983 to 1997. In his budget speech in 1994, then finance minister Bertie Ahern made great assertions about shifting the tax burden from income to other areas including property. His action, however, was to make very minor changes to RPT.

Ahern’s measures were aimed at increasing the annual RPT yield by about £5m to £14m. Almost 36,500 house owners paid RPT in 1994 . . . just under 15% of all households. These minor changes, however, generated irrational media and public debate as well as an opportunistic political response. The controversy said much about where power lies in Irish society.

The RPT tax had a disproportionate affect on a small but vocal group of people with relatively high-priced houses and incomes. This middle-class group was the only response category in a post-budget opinion poll which showed a strong ‘harmful’ effect from the RPT. In 1995 nearly one in five of all RPT taxpayers were located in the Dublin 2 and Dublin 4 postal districts. These areas contain some of the most expensive residential properties in the state and coincided with the Dublin South East constituency of Michael McDowell, the PD spokesman who led the post-1994 campaign seeking to abolish the tax.

None of the Leinster House parties came well out of the RPT debacle. Fianna Fail and Labour in government bungled the changes. In opposition, Fine Gael, the PDs and Democratic Left exploited the controversy. Enda Kenny was at his colourful best in responding in the Dail to the 1994 changes. “All Irish people believe that a man’s house is his castle. It is morally unjust and unfair to tax a person’s homef [This tax] reminds me of a vampire tax in that it drives a stake through the heart of home initiative, and sucks the life blood of people who want to own their own home.” The reality was very different. But politicians never let the facts get in the way of an intelligent argument.

What the OECD failed to acknowledge in its latest report is that there is still no analytical or ideological framework in Ireland for considering the value of property taxation. Perhaps the cause might be taken up by the new commission on taxation.

From Sunday Tribune, 20 April 2008

George Mitchell & multi-party talks

Published on April 7, 2008 in Sunday Tribune. 0 Comments

Edited version of Irish Review article which appeared in Sunday Tribune, 6 April 2008.

THE involvement of senator George Mitchell in securing peace in Northern Ireland has been widely acknowledged. “I think that anybody who knows anything about the hours he has had to sit and spend listening to us squabbling and arguing must give him good credit, ” Reg Empey of the Ulster Unionists has said. Mitchell brought a unique perspective to the Northern Ireland talks but his participation also points to the key role a peace talks chairperson can make in assisting the transition from conflict to peace. Mitchell was an independent chairman and that allowed him achieve a degree of neutrality between the various parties. There was Ulster Unionist suspicion about his involvement and outright hostility from the DUP.

Indeed, there is deep irony that Ian Paisley, who opted out of the process and initially sought to undermine the agreement, is now . . . a decade later . . . the principal figurehead in the institutional framework shaped in the Mitchellchaired negotiations.

Progress at the talks was slow. The negotiations only got serious as a Mitchellimposed deadline loomed in April 1998. The final week involved serious compromise by the main participants. Mitchell was not without his moments of despair at the historic grievances between the two communities in Northern Ireland. Tony Blair’s advisor, Alastair Campbell, records in his diaries on 8 April 1998 bumping into Mitchell on the corridor: “He looked pretty fed up too. He said he felt we were living through a Greek tragedy.”

Mitchell as chairman instilled confidence in the process, he focused the parties on the need to compromise and he was realistic about what the settlement deal could achieve in the short term. “The implementation of this agreement will take a very long time . . . there will be dozens of crises and all kinds of ways in which opponents can create difficulty, ” he observed.

The agreement was eventually signed on 12 April 1998 and a number of important lessons from Mitchell’s involvement can be identified:

(1) Confidence in process Alongside the symbolism of having the US administration involved, Mitchell’s presence in Belfast was also important for the personal qualities of patience and understanding which he brought to the peace process. Mitchell’s initial observations about the negativity that surrounded politics in Northern Ireland are reflective of the environment in most conflict societies.

“I was struck, throughout my three years in Northern Ireland, by the pessimism of the people. I can’t tell you how many times, maybe hundreds, people would come up to me on the street, at the airport, in a restaurant, wherever I happened to be, almost always very politely, almost always quite complimentary, ‘Thank you senator, we really appreciate what you are doing. We know you’re working hard. You’re making a great sacrifice.’ Then, always at the end, ‘But you are wasting your time. This problem can’t be solved. We are doomed to conflict here forever.’ A sort of dark belief that nothing good could ever happen.” Mitchell’s quiet patience was wrapped in a steely determination to succeed.

(2) Win-Win The Mitchell formula in Belfast was marked out by the US politician’s experience garnered from years on Capitol Hill in Washington. He had learnt the value of compromise, and not seeing concession that led to progress as a defeat.

“Ireland’s whole history and culture is one of ‘I win, you lose’. There is no such thing as what we Americans call a ‘win-win situation’.

Everything is played out as in a zero-sum game. With every decision made, if one side likes it, then the other side, by definition, will dislike it. When someone wins something, there is no such thing as the magnanimous victor. It’s always, ‘Let me rub the other guy’s nose in it, if I can’ and ‘Let me poke a finger in his eye, if it is possible.’

This kind of thinking has created a provocative atmosphere, one of hostility and one intended to convey insult.”

(3) Time Mitchell did not specialise in idealised talk about what could be achieved at the multi-party talks. “There is no magic wand or formula you can take off the shelf and apply in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, the Middle East and other places. What is necessary to solve the problems in each of these places is patience, understanding and a desire to create a situation in which people can make an accommodation to live side by side.” In one very important respect, the US politician brought a practical approach to his position in the peace talks. In the months after the arrival of Sinn Fein at the negotiating table in September 1997, there was little obvious progress, with the main parties unwilling to indicate the areas where compromise and concession were possible.

Mitchell’s judgement in allowing the parties time to establish their respective positions was important as it emphasised the seriousness of his subsequent intervention in setting a deadline for the conclusion of the process. In the week in which many tributes are paid to Bertie Ahern for his efforts in securing peace, it is appropriate that we recall one of the other key participants in the process.

Ahern’s peace process legacy

Published on April 7, 2008 in Politics and Sunday Tribune. 0 Comments

BERTIE AHERN quite rightly identified his role in the peace process in Northern Ireland as one of the key achievements of his 11 years as Taoiseach. There was no IRA ceasefire in place when he won his first general election in June 1997. At the start of the previous year the IRA had restarted its campaign of violence. Death and destruction had returned as the defining features of life in Northern Ireland.

 

Ahern was still savouring his electoral success and waiting to be elected Taoiseach when RUC constables John Graham and David Johnston were on foot patrol in Lurgan at 11.45am on 16 June 1997. The police officers were approached by two IRA gunmen who shot them in the head.

Thirty-year-old Johnson was married with two children. Graham was 34 and a married father of three. At his funeral a card on a wreath from his seven-year-old daughter read: “Dear Dad, I want to let you know that we love you and miss you, love Abigail.”

Eleven years later and such tragedy no longer defines Northern Ireland.

Ahern deserves credit for his part in bringing about this peaceful situation. His negotiating skills and patience were invaluable in facilitating the successful conclusion of the Good Friday agreement talks. One paragraph in his resignation statement last week aptly captured the work undertaken and the success achieved:

“Through painstaking negotiations, colossal work has been done in laying the foundations of reconciliation and justice between the communities in Northern Ireland. The cycle of hatred and violence which many people thought might never end has been well and truly broken. The Good Friday agreement now provides the political framework for an island that can at last achieve its full potential.”

Ahern brought pragmatism to the peace process. As leader of the opposition from 1994 to 1997 he adhered to positions to protect pan-nationalism to ensure Sinn Fein was locked into the democratic process. He was following a policy path outlined by Albert Reynolds in securing the August 1994 ceasefire. But as head of government from late June 1997, Ahern’s stance broadened to encompass the concerns of unionism. He established a good working relationship with Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble, which was key to ensuring the eventual deal.

In more recent times, Ahern’s affability was important to winning over Ian Paisley and offering assurances that there were no hidden agendas to the Irish government’s acceptance of the principle of consent.

Ahern built key relationships in pursuing his peace process aim. None was more important than with his counterpart in No 10 Downing Street.

Indeed, Ahern’s working relationship with Tony Blair was vital to the multiparty talks as the two governments managed the expectations and the concerns of the the various parties in the North.

The taoiseach and the British prime minister persisted with the process in the years after 1998 and, to their great credit, battled the delays in getting the institutions established over disputes about policing and decommissioning. Few politicians would have shown the commitment of Ahern and Blair but for their efforts they got the final reward of normal politics in Northern Ireland.

As part of the overall settlement, Ahern successfully oversaw changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, despite some reservations from within his own party. The referendum result on the constitutional changes and the Good Friday agreement in the republic, with 94.4% backing the agreement, will rank in historical terms alongside Ahern’s general election successes.

Ahern and his money, again

Published on March 31, 2008 in Politics and Sunday Tribune. 0 Comments

THE profession of politics is no longer held in high regard in Ireland. Survey evidence shows the public hold politicians in low esteem. There are few principles left in Irish politics. The line between right and wrong has blurred. Decisions are taken, and remarks uttered, based on how they will play in the media and with the public. Since the first revelations about Bertie Ahern’s finances emerged in September 2006, every senior political figure, and all the main parties, have compromised on the truth.  Fianna Fail: A few nonentity councillors are as far as public criticism of Ahern has gone. With local elections next summer, the councillors are worried about their seats. This electoral self-interest has sparked their recent concern. Meanwhile, senior party figures battle on for Ahern. Pat Carey described the latest evidence at the Mahon tribunal as “disturbing”. But is it any more disturbing than the house transactions, the dodgy dig-outs or the tax affairs? For a year-and-a-half, individuals who battled Charlie Haughey have looked away. Excuses have been offered, from a difficult separation to helping out old ladies under threat of eviction. We have been told that no ethical guidelines were in place so no rules were broken. Every party utterance has been driven by political consideration and, up to now, the comfort of reasonable opinion poll results. Right, wrong and principle have hardly figured.  PDs: Fiona O’Malley and Mary Harney created last week’s stir with their calls for clarification about the Taoiseach’s Irish Permanent sterling lodgements. With a leadership contest underway, O’Malley, and some PD members, have become exercised about the latest contradictory evidence at the Mahon tribunal. But what about previous contradictions? Are the PDs happy with the clarifications about the sterling cash Ahern took from strangers at a function in Manchester? If they are, then they might think about enlightening the rest of us. When the story first emerged 18 months ago, Michael McDowell huffed and puffed but he kept his party in government. And despite the new contradictions about Ahern’s tax affairs, after last year’s general election Harney opted to rejoin Ahern at the cabinet table. If real principle was at stake, the PDs would not need clarification about the latest Ahern financial peculiarity. Green Party: John Gormley made a verbal slip last week when he said more information from Ahern would be helpful. Within minutes, Gormley’s handlers were backtracking and re-interpreting the import of the comment. Eamon Ryan later engaged in verbal somersaults on radio in saying nothing controversial about Ahern’s finances. Paul Gogarty said he was unhappy, but he urged everyone to wait for the tribunal to conclude its work. Dan Boyle is emerging as the Jim Kemmy of this coalition. In opposition, the Greens would be saying something very different. In government, the party offers ethical fudge. Fine Gael & Labour: When the first revelations about Ahern’s finances emerged, Enda Kenny could not bring himself to call on the Taoiseach to go. Pat Rabbitte complained that he would get no thanks in the opinion polls for seeking Ahern’s resignation. The two parties grumped during the general election campaign that real issues were not receiving an airing. They monitored the voters’ response to Ahern’s plight as they judged their public utterances. The two main opposition parties only finally turned up the heat on Ahern in recent months as he has stumbled towards the exit door. For all the main parties, political expediency has ruled over principle. Real and lasting damage has been done to politics. And not just by Ahern, but also by those responding to him.

Irish Review - Special Issue on Belfast Agreement

Published on March 25, 2008 in Books, Media News and Politics. 0 Comments

Contents

The Post-Agreement North

In From The Cold: The Rise to Prominence of the Democratic Unionist Party Since 2003

STEVEN KING

George Mitchell and the Role of the Peace Talks Chairman

KEVIN RAFTER

Rumours from Monaghan: A Radio Documentary

PETER WOODS

‘Troubles at home’: A Personal Journey from the Northern Irish border to Post 9/11 America

MICHELLE ROGERS

Kicking with both Feet?: Marie Jones’s A Night in November

EAMONN JORDAN

Disagreements

Reflections on 8 May, 2007

Tommy McKearney

Chuckle Ar La

Anthony McIntyre

A Comparison of Aspects of the 1913-21 and 1998-2007 Irish ‘Peace Processes’

Ronan O’Brien

The Antiwar Movement in Northern Ireland and the Case of the ‘Raytheon Nine’

Julie Kipp

Poem

If There Was Time All Day To Wait

Alan Gillis

Interview

Joan Lingard talks to TOM HUBBARD

Immigration and Irish Newspapers

Backlash! Just in case: ‘Political Correctness’, Immigration and the Rise of Preactionary Discourse in Irish Public Debate

Gavan Titley

The Pretenders of Irish Aristocracy

The ‘The’: Clan Chiefs in Modern Ireland

Joep Leerssen

Review Article

Best of Times and Worst of Times

KIERAN KEOHANE

Reviews

GUY BEINER

Evi Gkotzaridis, Trials of Irish History: Genesis and Evolution of a Reappraisal, 1938-2000

LIZ STEINER-SCOTT

Louise Ryan and Margaret Ward (eds), Irish Women and the Vote: Becoming Citizens

SARA KEATING

Eoin Flannery, Versions of Ireland: Empire, Modernity and Resistance in Irish Culture

Wanda Balzano, Anne Mulhall, Moynagh Sullivan (eds), Irish Postmodernisms and Popular Culture

MARGARET KELLEHER

Clíona Ó Gallchoir, Maria Edgeworth: Women, Enlightenment and Nation

CLíONA Ó GALLCHOIR

Helen O’Connell, Ireland and the Fiction of Improvement

CAROLINE MAGENNIS

Eoin McNamee, 12:23. Paris. 31st August 1997

STIOFÁN Ó CADHLA

Proinsias Ó Drisceoil, Seán Ó Dálaigh: Éigse agus Iomarbhá

Notes on Contributors

Goodbye to Ian Paisley

Published on March 9, 2008 in Politics and Sunday Tribune. 0 Comments

Seven years ago journalist Deaglan de Breadun wrote a book on the Northern Ireland peace process based on his time as the Northern Editor for the Irish Times. With parliament buildings at Stormont in the background five faces dominated the cover of The Far Side of Revenge. The five individuals were Tony Blair, Bertie Ahern, John Hume, Gerry Adams and David Trimble. Each of these men played an important role in the normalisation of politics in Northern Ireland. But there was no place on the cover of De Breadun’s book for Ian Paisley, and for very good reason. Paisley had made no positive contribution to the search for peace on this island. He choose to absent himself, and the DUP, from the multi-party talks which led to the Good Friday Agreement in April 1998. He campaigned against the deal in the subsequent referendum. One of my most vivid memories of that period is being at the referendum count centre in Belfast when Paisley was joustled by supporters of the fringe loyalist parties as they mocked him by singing the Madness song, Yesterday’s Man. It should still be his theme tune despite the many warm tributes offered last week when Paisley announced his intention to stand down as Northern Ireland’s First Minister. Paisley deserves no praise. His has been a career marked by bigotry and destruction. In the 1960s, as an opponent of the civil rights movement, he protested against developing civil relations between the government in Northern Ireland and its counterpart in the Irish Republic. In the 1970s he protested against the Sunningdale Agreement and used inflamatory language which only stoked loyalist violence. In the 1980s he protested against the Anglo-Irish Agreement with his refrain of ‘Ulster says No’. And in the 1990s he protested against the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement.

There is a deep irony that Paisley eventually came to participate in the institutions established by the Good Friday Agreement. But he did so because he had nowhere else to go. The republican movement had made the necessary concessions and compromises. In the absence of IRA violence, IRA arms and Sinn Fein’s opposition to the police service there was nothing left for Paisley to oppose short of Catholics and nationaists themselves. Those who now praise Paisely need to remember that he has never taken a risk for peace in Northern Ireland. His was the easy task on 8 May last year when the cross-party power sharing government was formed. The hard work was already done.  In truth, Paisley has traded on the efforts and risks of David Trimble. As Ulster Unionist leader Trimble took many risks for peace. A stronger leader with a more open personality than Trimble’s would have ensured the DUP was truly buried after the Good Friday Agreement was signed. Trimble was unfortunate in leading a divided party, getting little support from republicans and facing a hostile Paisley. The De Breadun book cover is testimony to Paisely’s role in the peace process. He wasn’t a player. And when he finally steps down in May those offering tribuutes should be honest. A smiling photograph with Martin McGuinness does not erase half a century of negativity. 

Sunday Tribune, 9 March 2008 

EU meeting on consumer rights

Published on March 5, 2008 in Sunday Tribune. 0 Comments

The European Commission Representation in Ireland will Thursday 6 March host a public seminar on consumer rights. The “Consumer Rights – How extensive should Europe’s role be?” seminar will be held in the European Commission offices on Dawson Street, Dublin 2, at 11.30am. This is the third in an extensive series of public meetings that the European Commission is hosting this year.

This seminar will be chaired by broadcaster and writer Kevin Rafter, and will be addressed by:

· Micheál Martin TD, Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment
· Ann Fitzgerald, Chief Executive, National Consumer Agency
· Tina Leonard, Director, European Consumer Centre Ireland
· Dermot Breen (Director of Corporate Affairs - Tesco), Retail Ireland

Campaign for Irish Unity

Published on March 2, 2008 in Politics and Sunday Tribune. 0 Comments

SINN Fein is planning an international campaign to promote Irish unity in the lead-in to the 100th anniversary of the 1916 Rising. Party president Gerry Adams confirmed this weekend that he would shortly be establishing a task force “to drive forward the roadmap to Irish unity.” He told delegates at the Sinn Fein ard fheis in Dublin that there was growing support for Irish unity and that “we are closer to bringing about Irish re-unification than at any time in our past.” The task force will be led by senior republicans including Martin Ferris, Gerry Kelly, Bairbre de Brun and Rita O’Hare. Like-minded people from outside Sinn Fein will be invited to join the campaign.

In his address, Adams referred to the internal leadership difficulties in the Democratic Unionist Party. “Most people were uplifted, if a little taken aback, by the visible signs that Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley have a civilised working relationship. Others within unionism, who are opposed to this process, including some within Ian Paisley’s own party, have an opposite view. They are against power sharing. And they have been actively seeking to bring it to an end.”
Sunday Tribune, 2 March 2008

EU Seminar on Migration

Published on February 26, 2008 in Politics. 0 Comments

EUROPEAN COMMISSION TO HOLD SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC SEMINAR ON MIGRATION

The European Commission Representation in Dublin will host a public seminar on the important topic of migration tomorrow (Tuesday). “The EU and Migration – Challenges and Opportunities” seminar will be held in the European Commission offices on Dawson Street, Dublin 2, at 2pm.

This is the second in an extensive series of public meetings that the European Commission is hosting throughout 2008, each of which is addressing an issue of significant importance to the European Union.

This seminar will be chaired by broadcaster and writer Kevin Rafter, and will be addressed by:

· Conor Lenihan TD, Minister of State with Responsibility for Integration

· Dr Steve Loyal, School of Sociology, UCD

· Siobhan O’Donoghue, Director, Migrant Rights Centre Ireland

· Dr Constantin Gurdgiev

Commenting on this upcoming seminar, Martin Territt, Head of the European Commission Representation in Dublin, stated:

“Over the next 20 years, it is estimated that Europe will need 20 million immigrants from outside our borders to cope with labour shortages and to address the difficulties posed by the Union’s ageing population.

“All European Union countries, including Ireland, will face a challenge in integrating new immigrants. It is very important that European Union Member States plan for this properly.

“The European Commission Representation in Ireland, in organising this upcoming seminar on migration, wants to facilitate and encourage an open and well-informed debate.”

The third in the series of European Commission seminars – ‘Consumer Rights – How extensive should Europe’s role be?’ – will take place on March 6th.

Ends