Archives - Page 300 of 491 - Village Magazine

Posted in:

Politics

Referendums often give the wrong result

by Village 9 July, 2015

By Eoin O’ Malley The marriage referendum was a roller-coaster. The reports of thousands of Irish taking boats and flights home to vote in the marriage referendum were heart-lifting. Ursula Halligan’s revelation in the last week of the marriage-referendum campaign that she had hidden her sexuality from everyone, including at times herself was heart-breaking. She cited the referendum campaign as the reason she finally found the bravery to come out. We can only assume that she was relieved at the response and delighted at the result of the referendum. The referendum gave popular approval to what we had already known: that Ireland and its people are decent and kind. Few who witnessed it will forget the happy, open and emotional atmosphere in Ireland on the weekend of the result. But there’s a reason why Ireland is the first country in the world to approve same-sex marriage by popular vote. Not many countries want to have to go to the people every time they want to change their laws, even constitutional law. As well as being expensive and slow it may cause more harm than good. The referendum last month has probably settled the issue of same-sex marriage. But that’s because it confirmed a measure that was on the path society was already following. There was no such settlement in the UK when a couple of years ago it rejected a change to its electoral laws. Many, from UKIP to the Greens, are calling to revisit that decision. And referendum certainly hasn’t settled the issue of Scottish independence. In fact the referendum has accentuated divisions within Scottish society. In the marriage referendum one Irish Times columnist proclaimed to be “heartsick at what we have witnessed in these past weeks”. Rather than unite the country it has exposed and deepened a division. This isn’t surprising. This is what happens in referendums. This is because as Paul Romer observes in a recent issue of the American Economic Review: “Politics does not yield to a broadly shared consensus. It has to yield to a decision, whether or not a consensus prevails. As a result, political institutions create incentives for participants to exaggerate disagreements between factions. Words that are evocative and ambiguous better serve the factional interest than words that are analytical and precise”. Romer was talking about politics generally, but the referendum process is even more guilty than representative democracy of incentivising division. Because referendums offer only an either or; they create binaries whereas issues are on a continuum. Instead of a Seanad referendum on its retention or abolition we could have had a debate on the nature of the second chamber we might actually want. There is a lot of shouting in parliament the main purpose of which is signalling to voters that the politicians care about an issue; but behind the scenes, in committees and, yes, in the Dáil bar politicians talk and share experiences (sometimes even evidence) and they work together usually in a slow and sloppy way to make things better. Productive collaboration is completely ditched in electoral campaigns, as politicians accentuate the differences between them and the other lot. That’s fine in the marketplace for competent politicians: you want to see how politicians perform under pressure. In referendums finding the best policy is important, but extreme positions are taken in an attempt to win. I experienced it directly when I was involved in the Seanad referendum campaign, on the side in favour of abolition. In response to what we thought was fanciful fear-mongering about democracy in danger, we exaggerated our rhetoric, to talk of the Seanad as a danger to democracy. In fact neither contention was true. The referendum was pointless, and neither outcome was going to change anything very much. I started out with that position, but campaigning moved me towards an extreme. In moving to the extremes we divide the country, and in having a referendum on marriage equality we missed an opportunity to talk to each other about the problems gay people have, well beyond the issue of marriage, and listen to the – we have to assume – genuine concerns of those opposed to marriage equality. The most righteous proponents on either side saw the morality of their position but made no attempt to speak to or hear the other side. As the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt points out, “[Morality] binds us into ideological teams that fight each other as though the fate of the world depended on our side winning each battle. It blinds us to the fact that each team is composed of good people who have something important to say”. The No side was dishonest. It didn’t want to say that it thinks homosexuality immoral, so it muddied waters with children and surrogacy. This appeals to those who are uncomfortable about the speed and direction Ireland is moving. The Yes side was honest in its frame about equality and fairness. This pushes buttons for liberals, but does nothing to convince for conservatives. The Yes side seemed to be saying ‘This is Ireland, your one is dead’ and didn’t care about bringing people along with it. Instead conservatives could have been persuaded by emphasising respect. Battle lines had been drawn when the campaign started with a call for a ‘homophobia watchdog’; we were never going to come to a genuine understanding of the other side. It was one where genuine doubters were called names and increasingly illiberal stances were assumed by many of either persuasion. We didn’t learn much, except to hate the other side. The media are also to blame. They stopwatch the different sides, and pick sometimes-extreme proponents of each view. This is the John Waters-effect. We like to hear strong opinions not rational ones. Some lawyers took a sceptical view of the children’s rights referendum. They wondered aloud whether it was needed at all because all these rights were already implied in judgments. But they weren’t clearly on one side or the other so instead of hearing these views,

Posted in:

Opinion

Springing backward

by Village 9 July, 2015

By Sinéad Pentony Remember the Spring Statement? Mainstream commentary reassured us that it was ‘prudent’, ‘getting the balance right’, providing ‘clarity’, ‘breaking with the policies of the past’ and ‘anchoring expectations in forecasts’. Some just suggested ‘nothing has changed’. Then silence. It was of course a political exercise but fundamental questions raised by the Spring Statement got little attention. In terms of process the Spring Statement is a welcome development. The macro-economic goals are set out and the detail on how these goals will be achieved is the business of the October budget. Previously, this was done in reverse, with deals then being done with various interest groups, which were added up to become the macro-economic goals. The Government’s “intention to examine the possibility of establishing of an Independent Budget Office” is also welcome. This Office would allow for independent costings of policy proposals from all political parties and Groups in the Oireachtas. The Office of Budget Responsibility in the UK and the Parliamentary Budget Officer in Canada are both good examples of how such an office can contribute to evidence-based debate on the budgetary choices about taxation and expenditure. It would have been reassuring to get something more than an “intention”, however, and it remains to be seen if it will materialise. Most of the criticism focused on the ratio between taxation and expenditure measures. The forthcoming budget will see a modest expansion of €1.2bn to €1.5bn that will be split 50:50 between expenditure and taxation measures. More of the same can be expected in the following years if growth forecasts of 3-4% are realised. The underlying assumptions associated with the growth forecasts and the impact of external factors including low oil prices, a low-interest-rate environment and weak euro, the combination of which have reduced costs and increased competitiveness were also a focus for criticism. However, it is the trickle-down model of development that should have been the focus for criticism. “Policies for Growth” is the dominant section. Six policies are identified as growth drivers including: a growth-friendly tax system; access to finance for SMEs; labour market policies; recouping the cost of the bank bailout; reducing the drag from public debt; and targeted sector specific intervention. Sound macro-economic policies are a pre-condition for sustained growth, employment and poverty alleviation. However, focusing exclusively on growth and assuming that its benefits will automatically trickle down to different segments of the population may undermine growth in the long run. This is one of the findings from new research from the OECD: ‘In it Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All’. The OECD research points to the importance of carefully assessing the potential consequences of pro-growth policies on inequality. It also indicates that policies aimed at helping to limit or, ideally, reverse the long-run rise in inequality would not only make societies less unfair, but also richer. The central argument in the report is that, beyond its serious impact on social cohesion, high and often growing inequality raises major economic concerns, not just for the low earners themselves but for the wider health and sustainability of our economies. Put simply: rising inequality is bad for long-term growth. Addressing the multidimensional nature of inequality and its impacts on different segments of the population, therefore, matters for sustainable economic growth. Inequalities arise for income, educational attainment, health conditions and employment opportunities. All of these have become important determinants of growth and wellbeing. “Inclusive Growth” is a new approach to economic growth that aims to improve living standards and share the benefits of increased prosperity more evenly across social groups. Fostering “Inclusive Growth” is an important part of a pro-growth agenda and the OECD research identifies four main policy areas where action is needed: women’s participation in economic life; employment promotion and good-quality jobs; skills and education; and tax-and-transfer systems for efficient redistribution. First, though gender gaps in employment and earnings have declined, they remain large and there is a need for policies to eliminate the unequal treatment of men and women in the labour market. Policy solutions include affordable and high-quality childcare; changing the dearth of women in senior positions; measures aimed at reconciling work and family life; and measures aimed at reducing the concentration of women in jobs that are less valued and are paid less. Second, there is a need for more inclusive labour-market policies which focus not only on the quantity but also on the quality of jobs. This requires a focus on earnings; job security; and the quality of the work environment. In Ireland, low pay is a significant issue in the labour market and is concentrated by gender and in certain sectors of the economy such retail and hospitality. The lowest earners lost proportionately more of their income over the five-year period 2008-2013 than all other income groups (see Chart 1). Research from NERI (Quarterly Economic Observer, Spring 2015) shows that a quarter of employees earn less than the Living Wage threshold of €11.45 per hour and almost a third (30%) earn below the EU low-pay threshold of €12.20 per hour. The newly-estab lished Low Pay Commission will have an important role to play in raising the wage floor. There also needs to be focus on illustrating the contribution of wage-led growth to greater equality and inclusive economic growth. The quality of the work environment can be improved by strengthening the rights of workers through collective bargaining and the introduction of legislation on the right to collective bargaining. This will hopefully start the process of reversing the trend toward precarious low paid employment. Thirdly, lack of investment in skills and education is a key transmission mechanism between inequality and growth. While there is always a gap in education outcomes between individuals with different socio-economic backgrounds, the gap widens when people in disadvantaged households struggle to get quality education. This implies large amounts of wasted potential and diminished chances of improving standards of living and quality of life. In particular, low-skilled temporary workers face substantial wage penalties, earnings instability

Posted in:

Opinion

Right2ALittleMore

by Village 9 July, 2015

By Niall Crowley Is there a new politics in the offing? The trade unions in the Right2Water campaign published “Policy Principles for a Progressive Irish Government” at their Mayday event. They are reconvening the trade union, political and community representatives that attended with a view to developing these into a policy platform. There is, however, much to be done to ensure this initiative can embrace the full spectrum of civil society including those working on issues of equality, environmental sustainability, cultural rights, global justice, and rural decline. The Policy Principles start with the “Right2Water”. The prominence given to this issue is understandable given the origins of this initiative, however, it stands awkwardly in comparison to the scale of other issues. The document reflects a significant and valuable broadening of the campaign to include the “Right2Jobs & Decent Work”, the “Right2Housing”, the “Right2Health”, the “Right2Education”, the “Right2Debt Justice”, and the “Right2Democratic Reform”. The Policy Principles promote a Decent Work Act and an end to low pay with the living wage eventually set as the statutory floor. They commit to ending homelessness and clearing social housing lists. They support a universal health system free at the point of entry as well as the reduction of student-teacher ratios, restoration and increased provision of special needs assistants, and investment in early childhood education. They call for a European Debt Conference and a state-led programme to restructure and write-down mortgage debt. They seek a system of recall of people elected to the Oireachtas and a citizen power to call a referendum in relation to legislation introduced by the Oireachtas. This is a valuable start for a new politics. A progressive taxation model is promised. This will be key in ensuring a policy platform emerges that is credible. It will need to: ensure a minimum effective corporate tax rate; increase the rate of income tax on higher earnings and increase effective income tax rates; and introduce a wealth tax along with increased capital gains tax and capital acquisitions tax. The difficulties in the coalition building that could create an effective new politics are evident in two significant and overarching omissions. These are the issues of climate change and environmental sustainability, and of inequality and diversity. A broader engagement of environmental and community sector organisations is needed. This should be addressed in the June meeting. Claiming Our Future has put forward proposals to further evolve the Policy Principles for a more inclusive platform. The Policy Principles need to look to the needs of future generations. Policy commitments should include: effective environmental legislation including climate legislation with ambitious binding targets; the implementation of EU targets for reduction of emissions and the provision of renewable energy; and international co-operation to reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. The Policy Principles need to look to the achievement of equality for a diversity of groups. Policies need to: name economic, social and cultural rights in the Constitution; secure an effective implementation of the duty on public bodies to have regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, promote equality and protect human rights; and implement equality budgeting at national level and in the work of public-sector bodies. Income equality should be advanced. The gender pay gap should be reduced, basic social welfare levels increased, and the poverty and deprivation levels experienced by lone parents addressed. Increased funding should be provided to respond adequately to issues such as: domestic and sexual violence against women; comprehensive and affordable early years and after school care infrastructure; independent living for people with disabilities and closure of congregated settings for people with intellectual disabilities; adequate culturally appropriate accommodation for Travellers; an end to direct provision for asylum seekers, and regularisation for undocumented workers. Cultural rights, global justice and issues of rural decline should be included as new action areas. Commitments should include: a national culture policy that advances cultural rights, positions community arts at the heart of cultural policy, and enables those experiencing poverty and inequality to be both consumers and producers of arts and culture; a review of foreign policy to enable it to better contribute to global justice and increased aid budgets; and an investment plan to reverse rural decline. Water, the driving issue behind this initiative, could yet prove its Achilles heel. The Policy Principles usefully seek investment in water and sanitation systems and protection against privatization. There are issues that will divide, however, in making a commitment to ensuring a limited resource that is subject to ever increasing demand is available ‘free at the point of use’. Basic needs must be met in this way but unlimited usage on these lines is problematic. •

Posted in:

Opinion

Choppy financial waters ahead

by Village 9 July, 2015

By Constantin Gurdgiev Three recent events, distinct as they may appear, point to a singular shared risk faced by the Irish economy, a risk that is only now being addressed in our policy papers and in the mainstream media. First, over the course of May, European financial markets have posted surprising rises in Government and corporate bond-yields amidst falling liquidity, widening spreads and increased volatility. Second, both the IMF and the Irish Government have recognised a simple fact: once interest rates revert back to their ‘normal’ path, things will get testing for the Irish economy. And third, the Irish Government has quietly admitted that the fabled arrears solutions to our household debt crisis are not working. Deep below the lazy gaze of Irish analysts, these risks are connected to the very same source: the massive debt overhang that sits on the back of our struggling economy. Take the first set of news. The problem of spiking yields and blowing up trading platforms in the European bond markets was so pronounced in May, that the ECB had to rush in with a bold promise to accelerate its quantitative-easing purchases of Government paper to avoid an even bigger squeeze during the summer. All in, between January and the end of May, euro-area government-bond yields rose by some 6 basis points, the cost of non-financial corporate borrowings rose by around 9 basis points, and banks’ bond yields were up 1 basis point. This is against a background of declining interbank rates (3-month Euribor is down 10 basis points) and massive buying up of bonds by the ECB. In one recent survey completed by Euromoney before the May bond-market meltdown almost 9 out of 10 institutional investors expressed deep concerns over evaporating market liquidity (higher costs of , and longer time to complete, trades) in the sovereign-bond markets. In another survey, completed late in the first quarter (1Q) 2015 by Bank of America-Merrill Lynch, 61% of large fund managers said that European and US stocks and bonds are currently overvalued – the largest proportion since the survey began back in 2003. In the US the current consensus expectation is that the Federal Reserve will start hiking rates in 3Q 2015. In Europe, the same is expected around Q3 2016. And recently, both estimates have been adjusted closer, despite mixed macroeconomic data coming from the economies on the ground. If the process of rates normalisation coincides with continued liquidity problems in the bondmarkets, we may witness both evaporation of demand for new government debt issues and a simultaneous increase in the cost of funding for banks, companies and the Governments alike. Which brings us to the second point – the role of interest rates in this economy. In its recent Stability Programme Update (SPU) filed with the EU Commission, the Department of Finance provided a handy estimate of the impact of a 1% rise in the ECB key rate. The estimates – done by the ESRI – show that in 2017 a rise in the ECB rate to 1% from the current 0.05% will likely cost this economy 2.1% of our GDP in 2017, rising to 2.4% in 2018 and 2019. By 2020, the effect could amount to losses of around 2.5% of GDP. This increase would bring ECB rates to just over 1/3rd of the historical pre-crisis-period average – hardly a major ‘normalisation’ of the rates. Which means that such a hike will be just the start of a rather protracted journey that is likely to see rates rising closer to 3-3.5 percent. But here is a kicker, the ESRI exercise does not account fully for the realities on the ground. In addition to the ECB rate itself, several other factors matter when we consider the impact of interest-rate normalisation on the real economy. Take for example the cost of funds in the interbank markets. Average 12 months Euribor – the prime rate at which highest-rated euro-area banks borrow from each other – averaged 3.29% for the period 2003-2007. Today the rate sits at 0.18%. This means rates normalisation will squeeze banks’ profits. If the euro area, on average, were to hike loans in line with ECB increases, while maintaining current 12-month average lending margins, the rate charged on corporate year-and-over loans in excess of €1 million would jump from the current 2.17% to 3.37%. It turns out that due to our dysfunctional banking system, Irish retail rates carry a heftier premium than euro-area average rates, as illustrated in Chart 1. This of course simply amplifies the impact of any change in the ECB base rate on Ireland’s economy. The reason for this is the pesky issue of Irish banks’ profitability – a matter that is distinct from the average euro-area banking-sector performance due to the massive non-performing-loan burden and the legacy of losses carried by our banking institutions. According to the latest IMF assessment published in late April, the Irish banking system is the second worst-performing in the euro area after the Greek when it comes to current levels of non-performing loans. In today’s terms, this means that the average lending margin charged by the banks in excess of ECB policy rate is 3.4% for house purchase loans, 5.63% for loans of under €1m to Irish companies with a fix of one year and over, and 4.0% for loans of over €1m to the same companies. This means that a hike in the ECB rate to 1% will imply a rise in the interest rates charged by the banks ranging from 0.84% for households loans, to 0.92% for smaller corporate loans and to 1.22% for corporate loans in excess of €1m. Chart 2 highlights what we can expect in terms of rate movements in response to the ECB hiking its base rate from the current 0.05% to 1%. No one – not the ESRI, not the Central Bank, not any other state body – knows what effect such increases may have on mortgage arrears, but it is safe to say that households

Posted in:

News

Greywash

by Village 9 July, 2015

By Seamus Maye What do you get when you merge two failed quangos? Last year the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority merged and became the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC). To put the intended role of the CCPC into perspective, it should be pointed out that the Authority has estimated that competition law infringements are costing €4bn per year, which amounts to €2,400 for every household in the State. A properly functioning Authority could have obviated the need to commit a €2,000 pay increase to civil servants simply by increasing purchasing power by an equivalent amount. This would have the effect of improving the balance of payments, improving competitiveness and increasing living standards. Are things going to change with the new CCPC? Two weeks ago, some forty-six years after the State first drove a coach and horses through our Constitution by allowing Roadstone to merge with Irish Cement, a CCPC investigation was announced in front-page news by the traditionally CRH-friendly Sunday Business Post. There are two fundamental questions arising from the headline. Does CRH plc warrant investigation and is the CCPC capable of carrying out the type of investigation that will be required? The first question is easily answered. CRH has continually attracted attention for all the wrong reasons over several decades and is currently sheltering from a hail of accusations of criminal breaches of competition law. The 1969 merger created Ireland’s biggest company but at the expense of the public and its many SME competitors in Ireland. The merger allowed the new Cement Roadstone Holdings to integrate both vertically and horizontally thus allowing it to gouge artificially high prices for cement and explosives on the one hand whilst using its market power to evict all before it through the use of margin squeeze, banking embargos and other predatory tactics. Back in 1988, ‘Prime Time’s precursor ‘Today Tonight’ did an excellent expose on CRH’s dirty tricks and uncovered prima facie evidence of cartels in several of its markets, together with a host of predatory practices. CRH’s then senior executive Declan Doyle denied the practices on air and CRH was taken to the High Court by two courageous families, the O’Regans from Cork and the Quirkes from Kerry, amid allegations of defamation. CRH came up with a then record settlement on the steps of the High Court. Despite the RTé revelations, the State took no action. And RTé’s hands have been well and truly tied since then. In 1994, there was what should have been a defining moment: the European Commission fined 42 European cement-makers ECU250m. The Commission found that Irish Cement played a lead role in fixing prices and dividing European cement markets. At a cartel meeting in January 1983, the Chairman noted that: “Our Irish colleagues have described the threats to their domestic market and have asked for my help”. At a later cartel meeting in March 1984, the Irish Cement delegate Diarmuid Quirke noted of the Irish situation: “As the country which had started these discussions, Ireland had a duty to request that they be continued as they had been extremely useful in calming the situation in Ireland”, i.e. in blocking cement imports into Ireland. Despite incontrovertible evidence of CRH’s cartel activities, no action was taken against CRH even though the State was one the biggest users of cement and other construction materials. The Examiner of Restrictive Practices turned a blind eye to complaints and the Competition Authority was always awash with complaints after it was set up in 1991. In 1999, a Sunday Independent investigation confirmed that CRH operated a web of secretly-controlled downstream companies and named four. There were, indeed are, several more. The British-based Mergers and Monopolies Commission once described secretly owned subsidiaries as: “fighting-companies, that is to say a company which is a member of a group, but whose ownership is concealed from the public; the fighting-company can then be used to attack a competitor’s customers by offering them favourable terms and conditions”. In fairness to economist Pat Massey who was the Director of Competition Enforcement, he immediately sought funding from Government to instigate an investigation into CRH and the building materials sector but promptly resigned his position in February 2000 when the required funding was not forthcoming. In December 2001, John Fingleton, then Chairman of the Competition Authority, stated that: “There was no enforcement of Competition Law in Ireland at all until 1996” and “Small concrete producers became proxies for the consumer”. However, in May 2002, Dr Fingleton wrote that the Competition Authority would not be investigating the sector but “will continue to monitor the cement sector generally”. In 2004, Pat Rabbitte asked that a market study be conducted into the sector. Dr Fingleton responded that there was no funding available until the following year. Again there was no follow through and no study. The stream of complaints continued. The takeovers continued. Kilsaran bought Tracy Enterprises amid a flurry of objections. Whistleblower Barry Goode’s evidence given in 2011 appears to have been binned. Other potential whistleblowers have been discouraged by the Authority. The Authority stood idly by when CRH, Readymix and Kilsaran mounted the latest predatory assault which involved a sustained campaign of below-cost selling that wiped out minority shareholder value in Readymix [Cemex]. In April 2011, gardaí from the Bureau of Fraud Investigation attached to the Authority informed the Goode family that: “there isn’t a hope of the Authority investigating this behaviour (concrete and cement cartel) because of who you are up against and what’s at stake”. In October 2011, the Authority told the Goode family and their solicitor: “that if the Authority were to carry out any investigation, the Authority was only going to investigate small companies similar to their own and stated they would not go after the major companies (CRH and Cemex)”. In March 2012, Hudson Brothers submitted a detailed complaint to the Authority about the latest round of predation but this too was trashed. Cemex then bought out the minority shareholders in Cemex Ireland

Posted in:

News

62% What we did and why

by Village 9 July, 2015

By Grainne Healy On May 22nd when the Irish people voted an overwhelming 62% Yes to marriage equality for LGBT citizens they gave an emphatic ‘Yes’ to equality. Ireland now joins 20 other countries where marriage equality has been introduced and is the first to do so by popular vote. This referendum was all about belonging – Irish lesbian and gay citizens had to ask the Irish people if they too can belong to Ireland and belong in Ireland. In their deep generosity the Irish people have said ‘Yes’, yes, we belong. The result of 62% Yes means that, having been branded and isolated for decades, all lesbian and gay persons knows now that they too belong in Ireland, as full, equal citizens. To the Irish people who voted Yes, including readers of Village Magazine, you have done something that should make you forever proud. Do not forget that moment, that moment when you were at your best self, when you chose to make a mark for an Ireland that could be a better and fairer place. For those who did not vote with us, I hope that as lesbian and gay couples marry, you will see that we seek only to add to the happiness and the security of the diverse national family. That over 1.2 million people voted for equality tells a lot about Irish people. For some years now there has been a narrative that Irish people are tired of equality – tired of conversations about those who are not treated equally by society. What this huge vote tells us is that this simply is not true. It tells us that Irish people care deeply about equality. They care deeply about the lives lived by minority groups and have shown the world this in voting so loudly for marriage equality for same-sex couples. The campaign for civil marriage equality – Yes Equality was a coming together of ICCL, GLEN and Marriage Equality. For about 100 days Brian Sheehan of GLEN and myself took on the roles of Co-Directors of the Yes Equality campaign. At the campaign launch I spoke of the campaign as a people’s campaign – a call coming strongly from the people at the Constitutional Convention in 2013 when 79% called for the Government to hold a referendum to allow for marriage equality. And then going back to the people in the referendum. It was also a people’s campaign as it sought to mobilise civil society to lead that campaign, unlike previous referendum campaigns led largely by political parties or politicians. The mobilisation of civil society has been inspiring – volunteers travelled around Ireland on the Yes Bus – 11,000 kilometres, stopping at 80 locations across 26 counties in 29 days. Each stop was a support to the 60 local Yes Equality teams who were working away canvassing and having conversations, each stop was an opportunity to see the Yes Equality campaign in action in local communities across Ireland, each stop was a further request to Ireland to just say Yes! There are other statistics which convey the scale and the output of the campaign by staff and volunteers and by Irish civil society – the Facebook page was viewed 2,000 times a day throughout the campaign; Yes Equality Twitter had 5.7 million impressions in the final month of the campaign and #MarRef had a reach of 11.1. And then there was the Yes Equality shop! The shop team began their work because the postal system would not allow them to get materials to supporters fast enough. The team in Yes Equality in St Stephen’s Green shopping centre made a huge contribution to the campaign. Financially, no doubt, but also as a space for information for citizens, for campaign materials – some of the statistics tell the scale of the success: 6,300 t-shirts, 800 hi viz vests, 2,300 tote bags and 500,000+ Tá and Yes badges. The iconic badges will be the cherished object of the campaign in years to come, and they tell just some of the story of the efforts and supports of Irish people mobilising for equality. Has Ireland been changed by the campaign for civil marriage equality Yes Equality? I believe it has. I believe it leaves a model of civil society mobilisation that can be replicated and shows that contrary to the anti-equality narratives which were around in recent times – equality is alive and well and lives in the hearts and minds of Irish people. •

Posted in:

Up their own ileum

by admin 9 July, 2015

By Michael Smith In 2013, I wrote in Village that Denis O’Brien, Ireland’s most powerful media owner was exercising an extraordinarily chilling effect on journalism and journalists after grossly negative findings against him in the Moriarty Tribunal. I detailed his litigious “promiscuity”: how a large number of Ireland’s best-known journalists including Eamon Dunphy, Sam Smyth, Elaine Byrne as well as Transparency International had been threatened by Denis O’Brien and were not keen to comment on his affairs after that. Anne Harris, then editor of the Sunday Independent, claimed that 17 journalists have received legal letters from Denis O’Brien in the previous ten years. In 2013 O’Brien had obtained an injunction stopping the Sunday Times publishing confidential details of his business relationship with cash-short Paddy McKillen. In 2014 he was to be awarded €150,000 by the High Court after the Irish Mail questioned his philanthropy. The late and distinguished Paul Drury had written that O’Brien “kept popping up” on RTÉ news to promote his image “set to be tarnished by a pending report of the Moriarty tribunal”. It was, Drury wrote, an “ingenious feint”. Unfortunately for the Mail, this view of the facts did not hold up. In May this year O’Brien successfully obtained an injunction stopping RTÉ from broadcasting a report relating to his private and confidential banking affairs with Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC) which he claimed breached his privacy rights and would cause him incalculable commercial damage. RTÉ had opposed the injunction on grounds including the right to freedom of expression and public interest. It also argued the courts should be slow to interfere with legitimate journalistic judgment. Binchy J in the High Court resolved the matter – reasonably it seems to me – on the basis the “court must take account of the fact that very little, if any, connection has at this stage been established between the public interest in alleged failure of corporate governance at IBRC and Mr O’Brien’s personal dealings with IBRC”. It seems to me that Mr O’Brien takes good legal cases and threatens others that are not so good. This does not mean he will win every case anyone is brave enough to defend against him. For example, the most notable thing about O’Brien, apart from the fact he is Ireland’s richest man, is that he made two payments to then Minister Lowry, in 1996 and 1999, totalling approximately £500,000, and supported a loan of Stg£420,000 given to Lowry in 1999. The Moriarty tribunal found that the payments from O’Brien were “demonstrably referable to the acts and conduct of Mr Lowry”, acts which benefited Esat Digifone. In 2013, O’Brien informed Village that “I take very serious objection to the use of the word ‘corruption’ in the context of my involvement in the licence process. This Moriarty Tribunal (very deliberately) made no reference whatsoever of corruption in any aspect relating to me when it came to publishing its report”. However, I concluded in the 2013 article that it was “not clear that the payments to Lowry were not indeed susceptible to a finding that they were towards the corruption end of the impropriety continuum”. So…you can say Denis O’Brien behaved “towards the corruption end of the impropriety continuum”. What you cannot do is say he is feigning philanthropy, for he is a generous man. Or print leaked documents about his banking affairs, since no-one expects their private banking affairs to appear in the media – unless presumably there is some impropriety or scandal, which had not been shown in the case O’Brien won in May. The media tend to see it otherwise. But the media have form in cowardice. For years they have also largely abjured reportage on the affairs of Dermot Desmond who was hammered in the Glackin report and implicated in the unsavoury funding of former Taoiseach Charles Haughey in the Moriarty Tribunal, but who had ratcheted up a large number of defamation successes over the years. And all the media failed to report the thrust of the “Ansbacher dossier” in which a conservative Department of Enterprise “authorised officer” documented an apparent conspiracy to keep the identities of a large number of powerful people associated with unethical or illegal offshore accounts, out of the light of investigation or the glare of publicity. That issue was obfuscated on the issue of the naming in the Dáil last year by Mary Lou McDonald of six mostly well-known alleged depositors in Ansbacher accounts. Village uniquely published the dossier but did not name these people. All other media failed in their responsibility to report and explicate the serious allegations of conspiracy, and certainly did not print the dossier. To this day they still substitute for publication and investigation a denigration of Mary Lou McDonald’s availing of parliamentary privilege. Ms McDonald was right to use the privilege but it would have been better if she had focused on the apparent conspiracy not the headline names. RTÉ, of course, has form: in 2013 it largely ignored the Lowry Tapes, in which Lowry admitted to having paid €250,000 additional to what he told the Moriarty Tribunal, to land agent Kevin Phelan, leaving it to the privately-owned TV3 to broadcast them. Elaine Byrne who originally broke the Tapes story reckons RTÉ in total devoted only “20 minutes, incidental” coverage to the tapes before she gave them to the Vincent Browne show. Defending RTé David Nally, Managing Editor, RTÉ Current Affairs, contended that the Lowry Tape “got the coverage it deserved” and “does not advance the story significantly beyond the findings of the Moriarty Tribunal”, even though the tape seems to show that Lowry perjured himself and raises questions as to where his company got the covered-up €250,000 to pay Kevin Phelan. And of course RTÉ caved in and paid out surprisingly readily, when members of the Iona Institute threatened it with defamation actions after Panti Bliss called members “homophobes” on Brendan O’Connor’s ‘Saturday Night Show’. Taking these messages (and these and other payouts) for received wisdom, noting

Posted in:

The politics of disillusionment

by Village 9 July, 2015

By Ronan Burtenshaw Since it emerged in mid-2014 the water charges movement has grown to become Ireland’s largest social movement. Beginning with small-scale, self-organised resistance to meter installations in Cork and Dublin, the campaign progressed with the formation of Right2Water to a kind of mass politics unseen in Ireland in decades. It successes include five protests of over 50,000 in Dublin in six months, at times daily events in communities across the island, and the generation of an atmosphere that has led to the revelation of a number of scandals that have occupied hours of airtime and pages of print. Through all of this little attention has been paid to one of the most interesting aspects of the movement. While the media focused on the more established public performers in the trade unions and left-wing political parties, smaller, newer organisations were co-ordinating resistance across the country and growing steadily more influential. The movement is approaching a crossroads as the consequences of non-payment become clear and as a general election demands crystallisation of agendas. Village looks at four of these organisations, asking where they came from and where they are going. Dublin Says No derives its name from the Ballyhea Says No group from county Cork who have been marching against the bank bailout since March 2011. The ‘Says No’ name has become a motif of the resistance to austerity in Ireland with hundreds of groups around the country adopting it in local campaigns of resistance. The Dublin version began in February 2013 after a number of activists were unhappy marching behind trade-union leaders they saw as “sellouts” in a demonstration against the debt burden. One hundred non-aligned protestors marched in their own demonstration that Easter Sunday, and a march of differing composition and size has been held every Sunday since. Dublin Says No’s strength as a political organisation was built on Facebook, where it has 17,000 likes on a page that regularly sees its images, videos and status updates mocking politicians reach hundreds of thousands by shares. The page positions the group against “the corrupt political system”, while its banner says it is opposed to “the property tax and austerity”. However, it is in the water charges movement that Dublin Says No has become really significant, organising a January protest without institutional support that drew 50,000 to Dublin’s city centre and pioneered the now-popular tactic of marching from numerous points and converging on O’Connell Street. Before this Dublin Says No had been involved in a series of smaller protests, such as an attempted ‘lockout’ of politicians from the Dáil and occupations of buildings like Dublin’s Civic Offices. But itsmost famous and controversial activity has been confronting politicians in the street, usually with the question “how has austerity affected you?”. These confrontations have drawn condemnation from politicians, who regard them as harassment, and have even reached the national headlines on occasion, such as when Dublin Says No activist Derek Byrne called President Michael D Higgins a “midget parasite”. Byrne says that his videos are important because they “show people putting it up to politicians”. “You look at the opposition in the Dáil, getting involved in ridiculous debates, not changing anything, and people get frustrated. Dublin Says No are actually holding people in power to account”. Activist Bernie Hughes, who is one of the few affiliated with Dublin Says No to have previously been involved with organised Left politics, says the strong language the group uses represents the “vernacular” of many working-class communities and is part of its appeal. “There is an enormous anger out there at Ireland’s politicians and what you see with Dublin Says No is ordinary people finding a way to express it”. Byrne says the group deliberately has “no structure”, with whoever joins the discussions on the page or attends protests becoming Dublin Says No, much like the modus operandi of Anonymous. “It’s for people who are fed up with the corruption in Irish politics and don’t have faith in the political parties to sort it out. A lot of people want to change things themselves”. Byrne says its politics are “left-wing” but contrasts them with the Socialist Party and Socialist Workers Party, who he says preach “revolution” but “when they get to the streets it’s a case of turn up, have a few speeches and go home”. Despite this Dublin Says No has been drawn into co-operation with political parties and trade unions such as Unite and Mandate through the umbrella Right2Water campaign. They will support its march in Dublin city centre on June 20th. Communities Against Water Charges (CAWC) describes itself as a “loose network of activists based in Dublin North-East”. It emerged after the area became a heartland of the resistance to water-meter installations in mid-to-late 2014. Taking advice from Dr Paul O’Connell, now lecturing in law at the University of the School of Oriental and African Studies in London but originally from Dublin North East himself, a group of local activists convened a meeting in Kilbarrack in November to form the group. Formed by residents of working-class Dublin suburbs lincluding Coolock, Darndale, Edenmore and Donaghmede, the first focus of the group, according to activist Cat Inglis, was to “counter the media narrative that everyone protesting water meters was a ‘layabout’ or ‘scum’. We wanted to have the community’s voice heard”. The anti-metering campaign in the area began when Raheny resident Donna Thompson blocked Irish Water from an installation in May. She put out a call on Facebook which was responded to by activists from Dublin Says No and Edenmore. Later in the summer, when Irish Water tried to install in Edenmore itself, the activist base was already built up to resist it. Residents from Dublin North-East continued to prevent water-meter installations throughout the summer, at first organising to stop Irish Water vans by standing in front of them, but escalating to embrace sophisticated operations involving cars of activists driving around suburbs blocking off access from main roads. Inglis points out that some of