The changing rhetoric of the Irish financial crisis

The bailout of the Irish banks by the European Central Bank, heading presumably towards a conclusion over the next week or so, has resulted in a somewhat confused media coverage as a consequence of the apparent uncertainty by the Irish government on how to handle the story.   We have had the crisis linked by Irish Ministers and commentators to the 1916 Rising; to the Civil War; 90 years of independence from Britain; even to the patriot  Michael Collins.   The Financial Times pointedly linked the confusing reaction of the Irish government to a protection of Irish elite groups - a story line which Jon Snow of Channel 4 amongst others had also picked up earlier. As the story developed one could sense the growing exasperation by international media trying to understand the communications agenda or "rhetoric" of the Irish government and its failure to accept the realities of the situation.

Michael Collins, Irish patriot and Minister in first Free State government in 1922 part of the emotional imagery drawn on by Irish government in initial response to ECB support.

There was no sense by the Irish government of preparing the country, of reaching out to the electorate to explain the situation and the opportunities of the situation.  Better to be able to borrow money at 5% rather than 8% as currently.   Right up until this weekend there has been the totally unconvincing message that no rescue was needed.  The reality for the last few weeks or so, is that Irish banks have not been able to access international markets and have only been able to borrow from the ECB.  Robert Peston on the BBC earlier this week was devasting in setting out the severity of the situation and his latest blog confirms the situation.

In fact it could be said that the markets have taken a more rational view of the situation and have decided that the Irish economy could not sensibly take more cuts but needs to grow, hence the need for a bailout and access to more capital.  Liquat Ahmad in Lords of Finance points out, in an excellent book on the main actors in the 1920/30s financial crash, that the problems in that era were accentuated by bankers cutting more and more, when already heading into a desparate recession and failing to understand the measures which should have been taken including recapitalisation which will be the case for Ireland.


In rhetorical terms, one could say that the Irish government's approach to communications has been strong on emotion (pathos) but weak on facts (logos) although that is changing.  Why did the Irish government try to hold a line that support was not necessary backed up by a nationalistic approach about sovereignty?  This will only have heightened the sense of disillusionment of the Irish electorate when they have to change this position which they are now doing.   The Irish government should take lessons from John Major in the UK who pulled the UK out of the ERM, forerunner of the Euro, suffered the temporary brickbats, was totally pragmatic about the situation, enjoyed two years of growth (admittedly less easy in the Euro) and won the next election.