You may have read the other day of a visit by Queen Elizabeth to the Commonwealth island of Sark, the smallest and last independent feudal state in the Western world.
Neither part of the UK nor the EU, yet not a colony, Sark has since 1565 been leased by the British monarchy in perpetuity to the island seigneur for a rent of £1.79 a year.
It might be that the political impasse in Northern Ireland could be solved were the region to be granted the same status as Sark. For both nationalists and unionists there would be many appealing aspects to such status.
Leaving aside the possibly thorny question of who might be appointed as seigneur, the main appeal for unionists would be that New Sark, as Northern Ireland might then be designated, would remain a crown possession, while nationalists could rest secure that the region, being leased in perpetuity, would never revert to the queen or her descendants.
Many members of both communities would undoubtedly also approve of New Sark's low taxes, ban on divorce and relaxed attitude towards wife-beating (provided no bones are broken or blood drawn). The North's many traditionalists would enjoy the anachronistic feudal regime.
It might, of course, happen that if peace were to descend on the newly-created state of New Sark after the long history of discord, some community members, missing the old cut-and-thrust of Northern Ireland, would become listless. If so, they might be encouraged to engage in what is known as the Sark lark, the use of the region as a haven for international tax evasion, subterfuge and fraud.
Indeed, the Irish connection should prove invaluable on New Sark. It was reported by the Sunday Times four years ago that at least six people on Sark are nominee directors of more than 500 Irish-registered companies each, with another 55 people having less demanding connections. No doubt the duties are onerous, but at £75 annually (in 1997) per directorship, a reasonable income can obviously be made.
It won't be as much fun as "policing" various neighbour hoods in paramilitary gear, and it's all depressingly legal, but yet it still retains a frisson of illegality, which should make many of the more vigorous members of the New Sark community feel at home.
The attractions are obvious enough. Also, New Sark nationalists will revel in furthering the cause of Irish freedom (to make money), while citizens of the unionist variety who might object to fronting "Irish" companies can be discreetly assured that these companies are ultimately owned by wealthy, low-profile foreigners.
It is good to see some fresh air, so to speak, blown into the dreary ongoing controversy over the supposed evils of tobacco. Philip Morris, the king of tobacco-makers, has just sent a report to the Czech Republic, telling it that the country is saving more than £100 million annually in healthcare and pension costs because people who smoke die early.
The combination of excise duty and "healthcare cost savings due to early mortality" was found by the report to outweigh the costs of caring for sick smokers and the loss of income tax from deceased wage-earners.
In other words, smokers are net contributors to the Czech Republic's wealth.
And since we all know, or ought to by now, that money is the only genuine factor in the wellbeing of nations (despite deluded socialist drivel about other components), Czech smokers are, therefore, also net contributors to their republic's health.
My information is that, per capita, the Irish smoke a little less than the Czechs, and even taking all the above factors into account (healthcare and pension savings etc), as a nation we are still losing out in the smoking equation. The expenditure and losses exceed the income.
The obvious solution, then, must be to encourage more smoking. We must get more people taking up this attractive habit at an earlier age; I would suggest from about three onwards (perhaps even encouraging smoking in maternity wards?) and ask current smokers to increase their consumption in the national interest. We must lift the ludicrous bans on tobacco advertising.
We should also ensure that when smokers become terminally ill, they are given, befitting their status as contributors to the national wellbeing, the very best hospital treatment, though not so good as to delay their passing and thus risk upsetting the loss/gain smoking equation. That would be unfair to them.
If all this still leaves us on the debit side, we must penalise non-smokers financially by means of a substantial tax. Those who can prove they are passive smokers, and thus doing their bit for the nation (though not as actively as they might), could be excused, but the rest of us should be made to pay up.
Our puritanical and prissy attitude to smoking and smokers must be exposed for what it is: a refusal to recognise where the good of our society lies.
bglacken@irish-times.ie