Ireland's political and cultural magazine
Since the last edition of Village, in August, the global economy has teetered. From its foundation in 2004, Village has been one of the few local publications that systematically criticised the thrust of the direction of the economy and society. If it did not necessarily predict the at least temporary rout of capitalism then surely it would not have been surprised by it. The new Village takes up where the previous one was suspended.
Posted in:
Leader
Well, Village was hardly likely to come down solidly on one side of this complex debate, where the Yes Campaign has the overriding advantage of a loaded bailout gun to the head of the burgeoning Nos, but the Nos are on the side of the anti-austerity, pro-social-Europe angels. In general – economically – Village considers we have had enough economic austerity though, for the good of our souls as well as for the environment and long-term economic sustainability, we cannot revert to the profligacy of yore. Right now we need counter-cyclical, Keynesian pump-priming, primarily to create an infrastructure that might defer, and protect against, climate change; and to create jobs and inflate our degraded quality of life. For the moment also we need a stable currency and that probably necessitates staying close to Mother Euro. In general – politically – Village is well-disposed to the European project. But the EU became too economics-centred with the Single European Act and Maastricht Treaties (Lisbon, by comparison, was merely house-keeping) and clearly provided for a currency prematurely, before the fiscal and political union that should have preceded it. Beyond this, the EU is not enough a force for fairness, quality of life and sustainability, though in relative international terms it is a champion of them. Nor are we impressed with the Left’s attempt to make the referendum on Europe a deviant vote on new types of Irish taxes, such as the household charge. So what does all this import? Terrence McDonough is clearly unassailably correct when he despairingly notes in this issue of Village (p.27): “This is a dangerous experiment, completely without historical precedent. Take a country at the bottom of a depression. Force it to run budget cuts and tax increases year after year after year. Force this same policy on its neighbours and trading partners. Run this into the foreseeable future and hope it results in stability, confidence and recovery. This is emphatically not the safe option”. It is a recipe for permanent austerity and recession. McDonough then convincingly knocks five typical, positive, pro-Treaty arguments forensically on the head and concludes that the real appeal of the Yes lobby is to fear. But even here he considers that if we vote No either the EU or the IMF will stump up the second bailout we surely, Yes or No, will require. Otherwise, he believes, we can increase taxes to close the deficit, restructure the debt and issue innovative debt instruments. In either event there is no big problem, he says. Lucinda Creighton, the Minister for European Affairs essentially argues (p.26) the case McDonough so concisely undermines, but believes, more or less compellingly, that “in order to create future growth we must stabilise the present” including, implicitly, by not prejudicing the new bailout. As to stability, Village believes that it is not certain how our partners in Europe, and the EU and IMF, would react to a No vote including how they would feel about funding our second bailout. Since Europe, led perhaps by a new government in France, seems to be concerting against a German fetish for austerity, a No vote may leave Ireland in the vanguard. Who knows? In general – ethically – Village takes the radical stance that Ireland, as a fairly well-regarded, small, neutral and non-colonial power has been well positioned for the last generation to speak the truth and take the ethical stance in international affairs. Of course it squandered this position as it became a short-termist and greedy capitalistic lackey to the multinationals and an unseeing agent of US realpolitik. But it is not too late to speak the truth. So… Ireland should vote No, take the consequences, argue robustly as a modern and ethical state for the truth: essentially that the markets and capitalism have largely outlasted their usefulness, certainly as goals in themselves; and that the future lies with sustainability, quality of life and equality. However, in terms of immediate, short-term economic self-interest citizens should note that in Voting No the country would be taking a risk in dangerous geopolitical circumstances. We have already seen that faceless international bureaucrats taking their cue from the leaders of economically-ascendant countries, whose disposition may not be benevolent, can put the screws on us to the point of devastation. So: Vote No for ethics and probably for the long-term interest of the country; or Vote Yes to avoid any possibility of a short-term internationally-contrived blight on the country.
Posted in:
Leader
Among all the column inches given to the abortion debate in Ireland in recent months, the most bizarre opinion is that a pregnant woman whose life is at risk will get all the support and care that she requires within this State. More than 5,000 women called the Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA)’s helpline in 2011 and hundreds of women attended our pregnancy-counselling sessions or post-abortion care services. Among these were women with serious medical concerns and women in need of life-saving abortions. None of these women had abortions in Ireland. Indeed, the IFPA is not aware of any lawful abortion that has been carried out within the State. Nor is the Government: in argument before the European Court of Human Rights in the A, B and C v Ireland case, the State could not point to a single lawful life-saving abortion that had been carried out. Pregnant women, even those who are seriously ill, travel to the UK to access abortion services. What the Court described as “a striking discordance between the theoretical right to a lawful abortion in Ireland and the reality of its practical implementation” is the lived reality of many women. It is no comfort to women who are denied life-saving services here and obliged to travel to another state to avail of them that Ireland has a low rate of maternal mortality. Other states that have comparable maternal mortality rates and equally good or better maternity services have similar rates of abortion to Ireland. But they do provide lawful abortion. No other country in Europe makes the distinction that is made in Irish law, permitting abortion to save a woman’s life, but not to preserve her health. From the perspective of a medical services provider, there is no bright line between life and health. The serious risk posed to pregnant women’s health—for example by heart and vascular diseases, pulmonary diseases, kidney diseases, oncological, neurological, gynaecological, obstetric and genetic conditions – may become a risk to life in particular circumstances. Pregnancy may exacerbate the risk to women of pre-existing conditions e.g. epilepsy, diabetes, cardiac disease, auto-immune conditions, severe mental illness. Best medical practice is to intervene when a serious health-risk presents, rather than wait for a situation to deteriorate. But women living in Ireland whose pregnancy causes risks to their health must leave the state to access such interventions. Women who make this journey do so without medical files detailing their medical history or proper referral by their doctor. A doctor would not expect any patient to access any other medical treatment in this way, particularly in the case of a patient with a life-threatening illness or possible future complications. The government has established an expert group to recommend a series of options to implement the A, B and C judgment. Ms C in the A, B and C case found she was pregnant while she was receiving treatment for cancer. The Court found that Ireland had violated the rights of Ms C. Addressing the violation of Ms C’s rights is the least complicated aspect of the expert group’s task. Clare Daly’s Medical Treatment Bill 2012 has demonstrated this. The more complicated task is to address the other issues raised by the judgment, specifically when a woman’s health and well-being are at issue. Ms A and Ms B argued that their well-being was at risk if they continued with the pregnancies. Not only did the Court accept that all three women had experienced stigma and isolation, and that the necessity to travel to the UK caused them significant psychological, financial and physical hardship, the Court also found that there had been an interference with the rights of Ms A and Ms B under the European Convention on Human Rights. Only a considered disregard for the Convention would limit the Government’s response to the judgment to the finding of a violation of the Convention in the case of Ms C, and ignore the health and well-being of women in the situation of Ms A and Ms B. While we await the Government’s response, women in all circumstances continue to travel to the UK to avail of abortion services. Niall Behan is CEO of the Irish Family Planning Association
Pádraig Ó Ríordáin, a partner with Arthur Cox solicitors, is recent governments’ go-to lawyer for finance and now aviation. After a seven-month search by Fine Gael’s scrupulous Minister for Transport, Leo Varadkar, the appointment, over the becalmed Christmas period, of high-flyer Pádraig Ó Ríordáin to the role of chairman of the Dublin Airport Authority (DAA) generated some turbulence.
Posted in:
[Editorial, April, 2012] As Mahon finally grinds to a somewhat disappointing report, it is time to recognise that corruption, even more than its cousin greed, did for Ireland in our time.