Politics

Random entry RSS

  • Posted in:

    Icreland – the fundamental difference

    Ireland’s controlled and framed Constitutional Convention shows that democracy here is still a joke Article by Niall Crowley Three years ago a tiring joke was doing the rounds as to the difference between Iceland and Ireland. Ultimately it turned out to be no joke. Now to one letter and a half-year another difference has added itself – democracy. This one is not much of a joke either. The government’s proposals for a Constitutional Convention highlight the difference. It is going for a politically-controlled and tightly-framed review of our Constitution. The Icelandic government went for a people-led and popularly-framed review of their Constitution. The Act on a Constitutional Assembly, 2010, kick-started a process of Constitutional review in Iceland that was based on a framework of norms and values that were ‘crowd-sourced’ – that conducted by a Council of elected citizens, and that involved significant public scrutiny and participation. The first step in the process was a government-convened national meeting in November 2010 of 1500 randomly selected citizens. This was modelled on a civil-society deliberative assembly previously convened by the Canadian ‘Anthill’ group in 2009. Participants at the meeting were gathered in small discussion groups on a range of constitutional matters. They discussed and reached consensus on the values to govern how these matters should be addressed in the Constitutional review. This meeting ‘crowd-sourced’ values for the new Constitution. Elections were held for a 25-member Constitutional Assembly in November 2010. The Assembly had to have a minimum of 40% of women and of men. Any citizen could stand, and Ministers or members of the Parliament were not precluded. 522 people stood for election on the basis of required sponsorship by between 30 and 50 citizens. The turnout was low at 35.95%. Fifteen men and ten women were elected. Those elected included lawyers, political-science academics and journalists. They were largely recognisable public figures. Nevertheless the members were definitely chosen by the people on a non-partisan basis. The election was challenged and ruled invalid by the Supreme Court based on technical faults in the process of the election rather than its outcome. The government decided to appoint those elected to a Constitutional Council on the grounds that their popular mandate was legitimate. The Constitutional Council worked on a full-time basis for four months with the support of a legal council. It presented a draft Constitutional Bill to the Parliament in July 2011. This Bill will be subject to a referendum this year. The Constitutional Council used social media to engage the public in their work. The proceedings of the Council were upstreamed to the internet. All drafts prepared by the Council were available on their website. A semi-formal collective of individuals formed a Constitutional Analysis Support Team which analysed the drafts and which convened an open meeting of citizens to stress-test the final draft for gaps. The outcome of this process has not been radical. It does, however, reflect solid and significant progress towards a more equal, environmentally-sustainable and participative Iceland. The preamble to the draft Constitution states that “We who inhabit Iceland want to create a fair society where everyone is equal” and that Iceland rests on the “cornerstones of freedom, equality democracy and human rights”. A specific chapter makes provisions in relation to both human rights and nature. It includes a provision that “the utilisation of resources shall be guided by sustainable development and the public interest”. Public participation derives from three provisions. Ten per cent of the electorate can petition for a referendum to be held on legislation that has been passed by the Parliament; two per cent of the electorate may submit an item of business for debate in the Parliament; and ten per cent of the electorate may submit a legislative Bill for consideration by the Parliament. One letter, six months and a whole lot of democracy makes for a pretty fundamental difference. Apart altogether from the advantage shrewd policy-making has gained for Iceland economically, there is a whole democratic joke whose butt is not Iceland but Ireland.    

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Just fix it

    Remove corruption and developer-centredness from planning and local government Article by Catherine Murphy Of all the boom-era faults we should be determined to fix, planning and development law and local government design should rank amongst the most urgent. It virtually goes without saying that the present economic difficulties in which we find ourselves are,  largely, a direct consequence of the permissive and reckless relationship that existed between  banks,  the property developing elite and some elected officials – particularly those at local level. Too often  it is solely the Department of Finance that is examined for clues as to the nature of our recent economic collapse. And,  while not proposing in any way to mitigate the responsibility of those responsible for developing and implementing inflationary policies where the property boom is concerned,  it’s clear  that in order to have a property boom you must first have land zoned for development and planning permission granted; responsibility for that lies across the river at the Department of the Environment and amongst Local Authorities. An external investigative process was initiated by the then Minister for the Environment John Gormley TD in 2010, in order to probe alleged planning irregularities identified in Carlow, Dublin City, Cork City, Cork County, Galway and Meath. However, as opposed to continuing and pursuing this type of inquiry, newly appointed Minister for the Environment,  Phil Hogan TD, unfortunately took the opposite approach. Almost immediately upon assuming office in March 2011 Minister Hogan cancelled the external investigative process  – a disappointing turn of events given that we know the process was well-advanced by the time the Fianna Fáil-Green Party government fell in January 2011. Several planning consultancies had prepared tender proposals and the independent panel of planners to oversee the investigation had been agreed upon. As has been noted by contributors to this publication and others, this decision by Minister Hogan  is widely seen as a massive retrograde step. A view supported by several developments this year alone. The publication of the Mahon Report and An Taisce’s State of the Nation Report , not to mention the conviction of former Fine Gael councillor Fred Forsey for taking corrupt payments, should have set alarm bells ringing in the Minister’s office, but unfortunately the decision to wind up the investigations was not reversed.  A state of affairs confirmed in the Dáil on 3rd May of this year by Minister for Planning, Jan O’Sullivan TD, who confirmed her predecessor Willie Penrose TD had made a policy decision in favour of internal as opposed to external inquiries in the interests of making a saving to the exchequer. The result of those internal reviews, released on 12th June,  is that there was a finding of no prima facie evidence of corruption in the planning process in the seven local authorities under review. Unfortunately, we do not have the benefit of an independent investigation to reassure us of that conclusion. We do, however, have the benefit of several examples where external authorities have investigated isolated instances of alleged corruption and malpractice in our planning system. If we look at one of the complaints that was subject to the original investigation (and investigated by aforementioned internal review) relating to Cork City Council, we can see that the Office of the Ombudsman, conducting a limited survey of nine city and county councils in response to alleged irregularities in Cork, concluded that,  “different local authorities, including Cork City Council, are adopting  different practices and procedures and taking different interpretations of the legislation and guidelines”, and that this, “suggests that there are difficulties of a systemic nature which may need to be dealt with on a systemic basis.” Such a conclusion is alarming, although in the specific Cork example it’s important to note that the Internal Planning Review stated that the matter was resolved to the Ombudsman’s satisfaction. Nevertheless, if a limited investigation of nine authorities can result in a conclusion such as the Ombudsman’s, surely it is incumbent upon the current government to restore confidence in the system they govern by initiating a fully independent inquiry. It goes without saying that the Mahon Tribunal is the most exhaustive and comprehensive example of an independent external investigation into planning irregularities conducted to date, albeit far too costly for the taxpayer and far too protracted in its deliberations. Its conclusions scarcely need re-stating – damning, as it was, of the planning system in Dublin and of several elected officials and local authority staff, and scathing in its assessment of corruption which it found had had a malign effect on virtually every level of Irish political representation. If there was a chance that even some of the activities which Mahon uncovered were happening in other local authorities, then to my mind, for continued public confidence in our planning system, the argument for fully independent investigations of other councils where irregularities have been already identified is a strong one. Admittedly, Mahon’s remit was exceptionally broad; I make no case for an investigation of Mahon’s duration and certainly not its cost – however we can be reasonably sure that an internal Departmental investigation would not have resulted in the same information coming to light. The final example which came to prominence recently is that of former Fine Gael councillor Fred Forsey. Mr Forsey’s conviction for accepting corrupt payments came about in large part because a third party with detailed knowledge of the misdeeds decided to speak out. We would most likely never have known of the extent of planning corruption committed by Mr Forsey in Dungarvan if there were not a source with such knowledge available. If it’s also the case, as has recently been alleged, that senior members of Fine Gael were in fact aware of improprieties surrounding Mr Forsey in 2007, then the case for impartial and independent investigations into planning irregularities becomes virtually impossible to ignore for any politician concerned about the credibility of our planning authorities. And yet, the Government has not budged. Beyond the immediate political sensitivity of commissioning

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Tax wealth

    Campaigners should unite to demand fairness in the tax system Article by Patrick Nulty Sinead Pentony has done us all some service. In the last Village, she highlighted the fact that Ireland’s overall tax-to-GDP ratio is third lowest in the EU at 28 per cent. The burden of adjustment since the recession began has been carried by spending cuts, rather than changes to our tax system. There is ever-increasing acceptance that we will need to enter into a new funding programme when the IMF-EU deal runs out. This is further evidence of a giant policy-failure. Those who advocate the policy of “cut first, grow later” must now make themselves accountable. Will they admit that their austerity policy has failed, and that if it hasn’t worked so far, it is unlikely to somehow miraculously start delivering now? Recent CSO and ESRI figures have shown that low- and middle-income earners have borne the brunt of fiscal adjustments and that Ireland is becoming a radically more unfair society as austerity deepens. The first step in a major effort to tilt the balance would be the introduction to Ireland of a wealth tax.  A wealth tax is a tax which is levied on the wealth held by a person or entity. The tax rate is typically a percentage of the taxpayer’s calculated net worth, and varies in proportion to that worth. The Fine Gael-Labour coalition government introduced a wealth tax in 1975. We taxed annually at a rate of one per cent the net market value of the taxable wealth of individuals, discretionary trusts and non-private trading. When Fine Gael and Labour lost office in 1977  Fianna Fáil abolished this tax. It was a tax that Labour had pushed hard to introduce, and wealth taxes would have been once been part of mainstream social-democratic thinking in Europe. In many countries, wealth taxes have been another casualty of the neo-liberal consensus and euro-wide decline of social-democratic politics. However, France, Norway and Switzerland continue to levy wealth taxes, while Luxembourg applies a form of wealth tax on companies. In France, the tax is worth €4.4 billion a year. In tiny Luxembourg it is worth €8 billion. According to the Minister for Finance, a wealth tax applied along the French model would raise €500 million a year.  Over a five-year period it could be worth up to €2.5 billion, which would remove the need for many cutbacks.  It should also be noted that there would be benefits in other tax areas. It would provide the Revenue Commissioners with a new audit-base to ensure compliance in areas like income tax and capital taxes. I recently submitted a series of questions to the Minister for Finance on wealth-tax proposals. In a written response to me, he wrote: The Government does not propose at this time to introduce a wealth tax. There is a clamour now calling for growth measures. The new mantra is “not just cuts, but growth too”. The problem is the cuts are killing the opportunities for growth. The cuts in the capital budget alone in budget 2012 cost 10,000 jobs, according to the Department of Finance. The increasing volume of research relating to inequality in Ireland shows that such cuts generate structural inequality and will damage our economic growth in the long run. Unless we respond to the continuing crisis with measures on the revenue side which can help drive investment in the economy, we will be ignoring opportunities to confront the crisis. In the absence of political will, it may very well be left up to citizens to demand a wealth tax that is both economically prudent and socially fair. This campaign in Ireland would be following in the footsteps of the tax-justice movement elsewhere. Groups such as Community Platform and Reclaiming our Future have led the charge on this issue. They need now to be joined by other forces, including public representatives, to build a movement which will have to be listened to.   Patrick Nulty is Labour TD for Dublin West and former secretary of the Poor Can’t Pay campaign  

    Loading

    Read more