Why Ireland Turned Woke, and the Irish Who Are Fighting Back

Having suffered defeat after defeat throughout the 10's, a new, better organized conservative movement has emerged to fight back against wokeism. Is a counter-revolution brewing in Ireland?

Dear Readers,

Unbeknownst to most outside of Ireland, tomorrow on Friday March 8, Irish voters will head to the polls to vote in two referendums. I myself am not Irish, but I did live in Ireland as a young adult, earning first a BA and subsequently a PhD at the university in Maynooth, co Kildare.

Referendums are common in Ireland, and five have been held just these past ten years. Most significantly among these were the referendum in 2015, when 62 percent of Irish voters voted to legalize same-sex marriage, and in 2018 when fully two thirds voted to legalize abortion. A historically very culturally conservative country and stronghold of the Catholic Church, Ireland has in little over a decade become quite possibly the ‘wokest’ country in Europe. Having suffered humiliating defeat after defeat since the 2010s began, Irish conservatives are now regrouping and surging, seeking a much-needed win to boost morale and turn the tide.

What are the referendums on Friday about?

Currently, the Irish constitution states that the family is a fundamental unit of society. The first of the two amendments that are being voted on, which has been nicknamed the ‘Family amendment’, would if verified add that this applies both to families founded on marriage and those founded on “durable relationships”, and would also delete another section of the constitution that states families are founded on marriages. What is a ‘durable relationship’, you ask? Nobody knows, and the ‘Yes’ side has openly stated that this will be for the Supreme Court, which is dominated by progressive judges, to decide. In any case, such relationships will be constitutionally equal to marriages.

The other amendment, popularly known as the ‘Care amendment’, would erase a section of the constitution that explicitly recognizes the crucial work mothers do in caring for their homes and families, and also remove the duty of the state to ensure that mothers are not forced to work for economic reasons. Proponents of this amendment argue that the constitution in its current form states that a woman’s place is in the home, despite the constitution never being used to force any women out of the labor market. On the other hand, Ireland is one of relatively few European countries where married couples, like in the U.S., are allowed to file jointly, reducing the effective tax rate for single-income households. There are fears that, with the state no longer obligated to ensure mothers do not have to work, this generous tax treatment could be ended (or, alternatively, that it may have to be extended to all “durable relationships” which would be opening a can of worms).

How did Ireland turn woke?

Ireland’s path from the most Catholic country in Europe to the most progressive is a tragic tale. Obviously, there is enough to be said about this topic to fill a book, but there are two events in particular that I would like to highlight, that together, happening at roughly the same time, served to destroy Ireland’s traditional identity.

The first was the financial crisis. Having joined the Eurozone in 2002, Ireland did not control its own interest rates, which were instead set by the European Central Bank. During the years preceding the crash, the years that became known as the “Celtic tiger” years, interest rates were set far too low for Irish needs. A property bubble formed, and the government, rather than raising the alarm, instead rode the wave of popularity created by the boom’s illusory wealth.

So far, Ireland’s story is not too different from other countries during this era. What happened next, however, would set it apart. In September 2008, the Irish government promised that it would guarantee the loans and deposits of all its banks. The idea was to calm investors and avoid a bank run. The problem was that Ireland, unlike the United States, was far too small and its banks far too big in relation to the size of its economy and revenue for this promise to be credible: The total value of liabilities guaranteed was €440 billion, three times the size of Ireland’s GDP. The Irish government soon found itself chasing money on a frozen international credit market. While Ireland could have afforded to reimburse ordinary Irish savers, the government had also promised to guarantee the liabilities to all the international creditors who had invested in the Irish banks prior to the crash.

It didn’t take long until the government had to go, cap in hand, to ask the EU for help. Now, there was a problem. Long before the United Kingdom decided on Brexit, Ireland was the country that time and again caused headaches at the EU headquarters in Brussels. Throughout its existence, the EU has continuously expanded its power over the member states of the Union. Somewhat simplified, each major expansion of power requires a new treaty, and each treaty must be approved unanimously by all member states. The Irish constitution, unlike the other member states’, does not allow for the government to cede power to any foreign entity without first holding a referendum. Thus, ever since Ireland joined, the EU has had to wait for the Irish to hold a referendum before a new treaty has been able to take effect. And it hasn’t always gone smoothly.

In 2001, Irish voters rejected the Treaty of Nice. What did the EU do? They made some concessions, and pressured the Irish government to hold another referendum the following year, in which a majority of voters said yes. Ireland’s insistence on having its voters have a say on matters of sovereignty delayed the implementation of the treaty by over a year.

Then in 2008, a few months before the crash, Irish voters rejected the Lisbon treaty. In Brussels, policy-makers were cursing the Irish obstinacy. As luck would have it for them, not long thereafter the Irish government would come knocking, inquiring about maybe possibly getting a bailout. The EU made its position rather clear: Hold another referendum. And this time, your voters better not give us the wrong answer.

Facing the prospect of state bankruptcy, Ireland and its voters relented, their spirits now thoroughly broken. The EU, however, were not done. In exchange for saving Ireland from bankruptcy, the EU demanded that it, together with the IMF and the European Central Bank, would get total control over Ireland’s finances. This meant that every budget for several years had to be approved by an unelected Troika (as it delegation became known), and resulted in extreme austerity measures.

This should have caused opposition to the EU to rise, but instead, Irish voters focused their anger on their government. The Fianna Fáil party had dominated Irish politics since the 1930s, and in 2007 it had been re-elected with 41 percent of the vote. The next election in 2011 would see its share of the vote collapse to a mere 17 percent. Crucially, Fianna Fáil was the main party of the Catholic, traditional Ireland. With its collapse, the influence of social conservatives was also dramatically reduced.

Second, at the same time as the economy was melting down, the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal was breaking. 2009 saw the release of the Irish Commission to Inquire Into Child Abuse report. The report detailed institutional abuse at Church-run institutions for children and for unwed mothers, including sexual abuse, and accused the Church of cover-up. It was far worse than anyone had expected, and sent shockwaves around the country. The Irish were at a loss: Not only could they not trust their government, but they couldn’t even trust the Church that had been at the center of their national identity for hundreds of years. Weekly church attendance collapsed from almost half to a third in the span of a few years.

An awkward feature of Irish party politics was, for the longest time, the non-existence of a “left” and “right”. The two traditionally largest parties in Irish politics, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, are both more or less economically right-wing. The dividing line was instead being the more British-friendly, internationalist and urban Fine Gael, and the more traditional, rural and nationalistic Fianna Fáil. Ireland did have minor left-wing parties that would occasionally form part of coalition governments, but their influence was limited.

The financial crisis and the imposition of the Troika saw the end of that. The Irish left successfully utilized popular anger against cuts to public services and the imposition of new taxes and fees. With both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael agreeing to concede all power over economic policy to the Troika, neither could offer a very appealing message, and support for the left grew in response.

By the time the Irish economy began to recover and the Troika left, the political scene had been reshaped. Leftist voices and organizations that originally had gained a platform to oppose spending cuts, now used their momentum to urge voters to reject everything associated with the “old Ireland”. The FG-Labour government elected in 2011 announced a referendum on legalizing same-sex marriage. This was not only a concession to the left, but also to the EU, which, being made up mostly of very secular countries, had long despised Ireland’s outdated social policies. In fact, one of the reasons why the Lisbon treaty was initially rejected was that some voters feared it would give the EU power to force Ireland to legalize abortion. Now, after years of living under the boot, Irish politicians had grown accustomed to give Brussels whatever it wanted.

There were of course those who attempted to resist the progressive wave. I lived in Ireland at the time of the same-sex marriage referendum, and followed the campaign closely. I personally knew that the ‘No’ campaign was going to lose when I saw a campaign poster quoting the Bible. The ‘No’ campaigners seemingly had not fully grasped that Ireland was no longer the deeply religious country it had been just a few years back, and thus quoting the Bible was not going to convince a majority of voters. It was as if they were still shell-shocked, unable to adapt to a new reality. In the end, as mentioned earlier, 62 percent of voters checked the ‘Yes’ box.

The 2016 election saw the far-left Sinn Féin rise to record levels of support, while Fianna Fáil made a partial recovery reaching 24 percent of the vote. A confidence-and-supply agreement was reached between Fianna Fáil and the larger Fine Gael, which meant the former would tolerate the latter’s government in exchange for some political influence. At this point Fianna Fáil had more or less abandoned social conservatism, making the political calculation that standing up for Christian values was too costly in a now rather secular country. In the run-up to the 2018 abortion referendum, this party that had once introduced the abortion ban meekly declared itself neutral. The one-third of the Irish population that still attended church every Sunday was officially, politically homeless.

The years following the abortion referendum would see the floodgates open. No longer having a strong national identity and tradition to fall back on, lost Irish voters began to mindlessly copy just about every political trend from continental Europe and the U.S, often going even further than their role models on issues ranging from transgenderism and the rights of religious schools and parents to racism. Progressive Irish politicians have even insisted that, even as the Irish were dying from the great famine in the mid-19th century, they were still benefiting from “white privilege”.

Maybe it is to make up for this imagined “privilege” that Ireland, which historically accepted relatively low numbers of refugees, have left its borders wide open, with the government now buying out hotels and student dorms to house asylum seekers. In the meantime, the number of homeless have quadrupled in less than ten years and violent crime is on the rise. That the Irish people have accepted this is arguably a direct result of the destruction of national identity and pride that began fifteen years ago. Now, however, there are signs that the tide is turning.

How Irish conservatives are fighting back

Having initially been taking by surprise by the rise of not just the economic but the identity left, Irish conservatives have now began to pick up the pieces. With Irish mainstream media having played a great role in the country’s progressive turn through its unbalanced coverage, voices on the right realized the need to launch their own media outlets, the most prominent of which is Gript, launched in 2019. Many Irish conservatives have also built up sizeable followings on social media, allowing them to bypass traditional outlets.

Those working to defeat the amendments up for a vote tomorrow have also changed their strategies markedly compared to past campaigns. Instead of pretending that Ireland is still the rosary bead-encrusted nation that it once was, the No campaign has fully embraced its rebel underdog status. Part of the success of the progressives in past referendums and elections were due to their ability to frame the issue being voted on as part of something bigger: A vote to legalize abortion wasn’t framed as just being about abortion, it was about embracing modernity and rejecting the horrors of Ireland past, with its Magdalene asylums and schools run by strict nuns. While conservatives appealed to common sense and attempted to reason with people, progressives successfully played on emotions.

This time, the ‘No’ campaigners have caught on to this strategy, framing a rejection of the amendments as a rejection not so much of un-married, cohabiting couples, but a rejection of the government, whose approval numbers aren’t great. Many voters who do not care deeply one way or the other see the vote on Friday as a way to express discontent with the government and more broadly the political establishment, a sentiment the campaign has encouraged.

The No campaign has also successfully highlighted every possible consequence that a Yes vote to either amendment could lead to, using both realistic and far-reaching scenarios: What is a ‘durable relationship’, and why should it be equal to marriage? If a man has a long-term mistress and he dies, is the mistress entitled to a share of the wife’s inheritance since she had a ’durable relationship’ with her husband? What about “throuples” and other polygamous, non-marriage relationships, such as Sharia-law marriages that may involve one husband with four wives? Irish voters who are already skeptical of the high levels of immigration are concerned that such a “durable relationship” may be deemed sufficient to qualify for a family visa, which would further increase migration.

Finally, since there is no paper trail involved in forming a “durable relationship”, unlike with a marriage where you both have to sign a marriage license, could someone end up in a “durable relationship” without their knowledge or consent? “Yes” campaigners can only respond to these and other questions by saying Irish voters must trust the country’s famously progressive Supreme Court judges not to define the insanely vague “durable relationship” term in any unfortunate way.

In an unguarded moment, the chair of the Electoral Commission admitted that all it may take for someone to be considered to be in a “durable relationship” with another person could be that they had received a Christmas card addressed to the both of them. The ‘No’ campaign has exploited this gaffe for all its worth.

The tactic employed by the ‘No’ campaign is highly reminiscent of the tactics used by the pro-abortion campaigners who six years ago successfully steered the conversation to focus only on extreme cases (“What if a teenager gets pregnant from rape?”), rather than the more “average” cases.

While Irish progressives in the past only faced opposition from the likes of the Catholic Church and religious organizations, this time advocates for ‘No’  have been able to reach out and create a bigger tent. Supporters for ‘No’ include otherwise progressive people who are worried about immigration volumes increasing, and disability rights advocates who feel the phrasing of the ‘Care’ amendment implies that disabled people are nothing but a burden and does not guarantee that the state, rather than family members (mothers or not), do its duty to care for them. In a twist that received quite a bit of attention, Irish mixed martial arts fighter Conor McGregor endorsed a “No” vote to both amendments, and he was backed up by Elon Musk himself, something that caused progressives to angrily accuse the latter of “meddling” in the referendums.

The suddenly-competent Irish conservatives have left progressives scrambling, with support for Yes, which less than 4 weeks ago stood at 53 and 60 percent respectively for the ‘Family’ and ‘Care’ amendments having now dropped to 42 and 39 percent. Almost 40 percent of voters are still undecided as of the last opinion poll, and historically, these voters tend to break in favor of ‘No’ regardless of the referendum question (a reflection of status quo bias). Turnout is predicted to be low, which historically is also a good sign for conservatives.

In addition to new media outlets, new parties have sprung up to fill the vacuum left by the others

. On the left, socially conservative Sinn Féin members have formed Aontú, whereas on the right the Irish Freedom Party has formed to fill the void. The latter have seen a surge of momentum, campaigning to reduce immigration and take back power from the EU. Both parties will be hoping that the momentum from a No/No vote will carry over into the local and European elections held in June.

What does the future hold?

Even if “Yes” were to ultimately prevail on Friday, the competency of the campaign, and the general surge in opposition to ‘woke’ policies that Ireland has experienced in recent months, shows great promise for the future. A close referendum result (with ‘No’ getting north of 45 %) would be a moral victory, if not a political one, and provide momentum to upstart parties like the aforementioned Aontú and the IFP.

I personally believe that the long-term success of Irish conservatives will depend on their ability to keep building coalitions, and more broadly, on rewriting the historical narrative: As incompetent as the Fianna Fáil government was, it was the irresponsible monetary policies of the European Central Bank that caused the housing bubble and subsequent crash. Had Ireland refused to pass the Lisbon treaty or refused to hand over the reins to the Troika, the EU would still have bailed it out, simply because not doing so would have risked the complete collapse of the Euro currency, and also threatened the European Union itself, something Brussels could never allow. Their threats were a bluff that the Irish were understandably too scared to call them on at the time. The self-flagellation that so diminished Irish people’s pride in themselves and their country was completely uncalled for, and it has to end.

Likewise, Ireland needs a new perspective on its own history and relationship with the Church. There is a saying along the lines that children grow up thinking their parents are superheroes. Then, once they become teenagers, they realize their parents are only human and lash out against them. Finally, as they become adults, they learn to forgive their parents for just being human. Ireland, for the past decade and a half, have been stuck in an unproductive “teenage rebellion” against the Catholic Church, fueled by the realization that the Church is imperfect and the priests and nuns are not the “superheroes” that the Irish once viewed them as.

In the next stage, the Irish must figuratively speaking grow up and forgive the Church for being made out of normal, fallible human beings. This does not mean going back to the way things were in the past, nor denying that the Church sometimes abused its powerful position, but it does mean respectfully acknowledging the great contributions of the Church to Irish history. It is a matter of fact that the Irish state, ravaged and impoverished after years of war first against Britain and then against itself, would almost certainly have collapsed had it not been for the Catholic Church. Nuns and priests provided welfare services, including education, elderly and hospice care and for a fraction of the price the State would otherwise have had to pay. The reason all Irish people above a certain age remember being taught by strict nuns is because the Irish state couldn’t afford anything else at the time. And long before that, the Church saved countless of Irishmen during the famine when the government in London failed them.

If one or both amendments are rejected on Friday, it will send shockwaves through the Irish political system and prove that the conservative resurgence and backlash against the ‘woke’ is real and not just confined to social media platforms like X (Twitter) and Facebook. As someone who to this day considers Ireland to be my second home, I hope and pray for this outcome.

Sincerely,
John Gustavsson, PhD