NAMA Wine Lake is no more. And so goes another keen observer of government and establishment misdoings while the craven media continues to serve up its diet of bread and circuses. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
David Alan Tepper, Hedge Fund Manager (Íomhá: Nama Wine Lake)
A video and song by Mick Blake dedicated to David Tepper, the American hedge fund manager and founder of Appaloosa Management whose involvement in Ireland’s economic downfall has only reached wider public scrutiny in the last few months. And mainly down to his own boasting. Via Uathachas in Éirinn.
Éamon Gilmore – Calm The Rich, Con The Poor
One definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result each time. So take the words of Robin McAlpine in the Scotsman newspaper on the SNP’s policies for an independent Scotland and more importantly the example of Ireland’s calamitous slide into cowboy capitalism during the 1990s and 2000s.
“Currently, the SNP exists in a third-way fudge between two political philosophies. Critics have named this delusion “the myth of Scandimerica”, the belief that you can have Scandinavian social services with US-level taxes. Actually, there was no need since the delusion already had a name – the Arc of Prosperity.
The Arc of Prosperity was a knowing fantasy predicated on the belief that corrupt, housing-and-speculation-gone-mad Ireland was actually the other side of the coin of socially democratic Norway.
The opposite is the truth; economically and socially the politics of Ireland were diametrically opposed to Norway. The former followed unstable get-rich-quick doctrines with an unsustainable faith in short-term trickle-down. The latter emphasised productive growth, a balanced economy and long-term investment strategies where the equality and high standard of living these generate make higher taxes painless.
Let’s call these the neoliberal model and the European social model. There isn’t space here to detail their characteristics but very loosely one promotes progress-through-conflict (markets, competition, wealth-creators) and one promotes progress-through-mutuality (productivity, balanced economy, public services).
…they are more-or-less mutually exclusive. The things you do to increase real productivity work against short-term speculative gain. The things you do to encourage competition create unbalanced economies. The ideology of “wealth creators” is at odds with the ideal of a strong welfare state.”
Which begs the question, why are the three establishment parties of Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and Labour working so hard to revive a socio-economic model that has proven to be such an economic, social, cultural and environmental disaster for our island nation? What is driving the political, business and media elites in this country to recreate the Celtic Tiger economy and society of a decade ago when they – and we – are well aware of its superficial and ultimately corrosive nature? Are the political classes in Ireland so lacking in wit that like a dog returning to its vomit they must nose at the mess they have created in the hope of lapping it up again?
We Fight For Neither King Nor Kaiser (Íomhá: éirígí)
Or do they wish to replace a failed Celtic Tiger economy with another certain-to-fail Neo-Celtic Tiger economy that is little more than a self-perpetuating Ponzi Scheme for the top 1%? And where does that leave the other 99% of the population who have nothing for their labour but bitterness and resentment? What then of any concept of social or communal responsibility by the majority when a minority can simply act as if they exist above such things?
We have a choice in Ireland. We can become the Celtic Norway or Finland of western Europe with our social and cultural mores reflected in our economic structures. Or once again we can become the Wild West of Europe, where society and culture are dirty words, where concepts like responsibility are deemed to be an unnecessary restraint on our freedom to do our worse.
Local Property Tax form and booklet – no taxation without representation!
So the documentation for the latest state-sponsored extortion racket has arrived in the post under the guise of the Local Property Tax. However the information is entirely in the English language. I’m sorry, but where is the Irish language text? What happened to the regulations in force under the Official Languages Act of 2003? Where is the bilingual Irish and English documentation that has become the norm over the last decade? Even the website of the Property Services Regulatory Authority is in English only.
Is that legal?
Irish-speakers are tax-payers too. So, if for no other reason, when it comes to the Local Property Tax – no taxation without representation!
The Property Services Regulatory Authority – but where is the Irish?
Meanwhile, the next venue for the Pirates of Taxation? From the NAMA Wine Lake:
“Might the government reach into your deposit accounts for a levy?
…in the past week Labour’s chairman of the Oireachtas finance committee Ciaran Lynch and Fine Gael’s jobs minister, Richard Bruton have both indicated that a levy on sub-€100k could be on the cards despite the existence of the sub-€100k guarantee. There seems to be a feeling that the guarantee only applies if a bank is allowed to go bust, but if there was an intervention before the bank was actually liquidated then all depositors including those with sub-€100k deposits would face “levies” despite the existence of the deposit guarantee scheme. Minister Bruton said on radio today that Cyprus imposing a levy on sub-€100k deposits was “in the remit” of the Cypriot government. The experience of this Government taking €1.88bn from private pensions between 2011-2014 to fund the Jobs Initiative (mostly the reduction in VAT on certain services), would also make you ill-at-ease that the Government would regard as sacred the guarantee for sub-€100k depositors.”
Read the full article for the background to the story (and to understand why the sale of cash-boxes and home-safes in Ireland have risen significantly over the last two years).
Global Corruption Index 2012 – Ireland falls six places to number 25 (Image: The Guardian)
Back in February of this year I discussed the media independence rating for Ireland from Reporters Without Borders, the international organisation affiliated to the UN that advocates freedom of the press. According to their 2011 Press Freedom Index Ireland had dropped five places from its number 10 position on the global ranking to number 15. Now we have another international survey and another fall in standing for the country from previous high levels. Transparency International measures corruption around the world and its latest report places Ireland at number 25 in its 2012 ranking, a slip of six places from 2011, and just ahead of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
For those who believe that the EU-dictated austerity budgets in Ireland are just about economics think again. Greece has plummeted fourteen places in the survey to 94 because of the draconian effects of forced austerity. Italy has dropped a further three places to 72. Ireland is simply following the trend of the other battered countries of Europe in 2012. More inequality means more corruption not less.
We are reducing our island nation to a ghetto of the European Union.
Corruption Index 2012 from Transparency International with Ireland at position 25, down six places from 2011 (Image: The Guardian)
Binn Éadair, Lúghnasa, 2011 – Mother Nature Comments On The Green Party
As a Gaelic Republican I suppose my politics lie somewhere on the social-democratic centre-left. Sometimes my opinions veer towards the centre-ground, sometimes towards the far left. In the days of my (callow) youth I used to vote Fianna Fáil and Labour. Yes, that’s right, I was one of those fabled left-wing FF types. We did exist you know, until greed and corruption forced us to turn away from a party that we thought we knew (but perhaps never truly did). Fianna Fáil and Labour was the dream ticket for those like myself on the left of both, the desirable coalition with the proper balance of republicanism and socialism. Though never enough of both, if truth be told.
One detected early on that something was not quite right in the Fianna Fáil camp. A certain attitude or culture. A tendency to say one thing while doing the other. The generation of the party that spawned the Celtic Tiger scorned a belief in ideology or a core set of principles and eventually dumped their own to seize whatever seemed popular or advantageous at the time – however deplorable or ultimately destructive it may have been. They stole the clothes of Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats, and covered them with a thin veneer of mindless populism. Power, avarice and cronyism became the guiding principles of the party and its leadership. As for Labour I could never bring myself to be wholehearted in my support. There was something not quite right about them too. A certain holier-than-thou, faux-liberalism that I couldn’t stomach. Some of the biggest snobs I’ve met in my life were young Labour activists. No one can condescend quite like a Labour Party member.
With the FF and Labour pigs wallowing in the trough during the hey-day of the Celtic Tiger I was left voteless, as it were. No question of supporting Fine Gael. For all sorts of reasons that was repugnant and remains so. Some might ask, why was the Fine Gael dog not as openly corrupt as its Fianna Fáil counterpart? The answer of course is that it didn’t need to be. The dog at the top of the dunghill does not need to worry over-much about the rivals fighting it out below. The so-called hard left (silly term) weren’t much better. Back in the day I had more than the odd clash with members of the Workers Party. Some were thoroughly honourable people, genuinely committed socialist republicans. However those at the top were less so, and increasingly less so as they took the reins of power and galloped the party off into near oblivion. Now days of course they sit atop the Labour Party, one time rivals infiltrated from within in classic Communist style (anyone remember the days of the Militant Tendency? The irony!). Of course these guys (and gals) had no more interest in Marx (or Trotsky) than they had in a hole in the wall. Well, except perhaps a hole-in-the-wall cash machine. Mercs and perks here we come. So no WP for me (though in fairness I’m not even sure what their politics are these days). As for the far distant outliers of leftwing politics in Ireland, the Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Party, et al. No thank you. The Socialist Party in particular left me stone cold and still does so. They have too much of the myopic internationalist about them, a party that would seem more comfortable on the streets of London than Dublin. I can’t but help think of the thoroughly disagreeable Kate Hoey when I see the opinions of some SP types (and she’s still at it!). There were indications of change but they have yet to appear (apparently).
For a while I found myself drifting towards the Greens until they showed their true colours. Teamhair was the start, Daingean Uí Chúis the last of it. Never again in my life will I vote Green. Never. These days I usually throw my number one to Sinn Féin (albeit with the odd sigh or two). I have a lot of issues with the party but there are precious little other choices. Truth be told there isn’t a political party out there that truly represents my views. But then again, doesn’t everyone say that? (unless you vote Fine Gael).
All of which rambling leads to nothing in particular 
Time Magazine – Enda Kenny – Ireland – On The Dole
Enough said…
John Bruton – 25 Years To Recovery?
I saw this delightful cover story from the Business and Finance magazine in my local (British-owned, British-stocked) shopping centre. John “F*****g Peace Process” Bruton, former Fine Gael leader and one-term Taoiseach, offering Ireland a 25 year journey to “anchor” it’s recovery. And it doesn’t get any better on the inside.
When Europeans scoff out the Romneys and Ryans of US politics they should perhaps look to their own elites for a political class that is just as distant from the genuine needs and experiences of the citizenry. Then again what should we expect from someone who was a career politician from the age of 22 and now acts as a political “advisor” and “consultant” to various business interests in Ireland and Europe?
Talking of which, another one-time Fine Gael politico and “expert” business commentator, Ivan Yates, who spent decades extolling the virtues of our wannabe Anglo-American free enterprise system and the bona fides of the Irish entrepreneurial (i.e. managerial) classes, has formerly declared bankruptcy – and his British residency! From the ever-watchful NAMA Wine Lake:
“On Friday last, 31st August 2012, well-known broadcaster and personality, the former Fine Gael minister Ivan Yates was declared bankrupt in Swansea County Court in Wales. This is the official record of his bankruptcy held by the UK’s Insolvency Service.
Ivan is described as a “Retired Businessman and Author of Apartment 25 Meridian Wharf, Trawler Road, Swansea, SA1 1LB” – that’s his new address by the way, not some new book that you might have overlooked!
The recent trend of financially-beleaguered Irish nationals having home addresses or dual homes addresses in Northern Ireland, England and elsewhere in the UK has not gone unnoticed. About 20 NAMA developers have already been declared bankrupt in the UK, though some of these would traditionally have been regarded as Northern Irish.
What does seem socially unjust is that wealthier individuals who can relocate from Ireland to the UK and who can shoulder the dislocation for a couple of years, can take advantage of the UK’s far more lenient bankruptcy regime which does not allow any creditor to be your gatekeeper if you are insolvent, and generally allows the emergence from bankruptcy in 12 months.”
One law for them and another law for the rest of us?
RTÉ vs. TG4
The Oirish Independent newspaper carries a report announcing “major reforms at RTÉ”, especially in relation to its, er, Irish language output (no sniggering!):
“A consolidation of the Irish language assets of RTE, with an amalgamation of Radio na Gaeltachta, TG4 and the Nuacht news service, is planned as part of the national broadcaster’s cost-cutting drive.
There is also the anomaly of the senior editors and producers in Radio na Gaeltachta and TG4 being paid at the same levels as their much busier counterparts in RTE TV in Dublin, an equality explained by the public-sector origins of RTE, which meant treating all its subsidiary sections or departments in the same way, and with the same pay levels.
But the feeling now is that this outdated structuring must be changed.”
TG4 originally began life as part of the RTÉ corporation (back when the Irish-language station was called TnaG) but it was made a separate public service broadcaster quite some time ago. However RTÉ stills provide a percentage of its programming, including its news service, an anomaly that should have been ended when the television station became statutorily independent. While it may seem sensible in the short term that the disparate news and current affairs teams for TG4, Raidió na Gaeltachta (RnaG) and RTÉ’s own Nuacht service are rolled into one there is a far more ambitious plan that should be implemented.
Several months ago I suggested that Irish language broadcasting in Ireland would be far better served if RnaG was split off from RTÉ and placed under the control of TG4, as its radio arm. As I said then:
“In the area of public service radio broadcasting in Irish TG4 is surely the logical organisation to turn to. Raidió na Gaeltachta (RnaG), for reasons which mystify most people, remains under the control of RTÉ. As an Irish language radio station its treatment in the RTÉ structure is simply abysmal. Underfunded, under-resourced, poorly ran and structured, it is the (deliberately) forgotten arm of the network.
RnaG must be liberated from the dead hand of Montrose and this can only come through an amalgamation with TG4. A single Irish language television and radio network, with a unified corporate structure and image, would provide the greatest value for money and service to viewers and listeners. What we have now is a mess, a national broadcaster that broadcasts almost exclusively in English controlling an Irish speaking radio station, when an Irish speaking TV station could do the job, and probably double the return in terms of investment and resources. The uniting of TG4 with RnaG would create a mutually supportive, symbiotic organisation with a cross-fertilization of audiences and programming.
It is time we faced up to the facts of where we really are in terms of Ireland’s media organisations. RTÉ is Ireland’s national English language public service broadcaster on television and radio. TG4, with RnaG, must become Ireland’s national Irish language public service broadcaster on television and radio. This is the only way forward that makes sound financial, organisational and broadcasting sense.”
I would also argue, in the interests of media plurality if nothing else, that a separate TG4-RnaG should have its own news and current affairs department, quiet separate from RTÉ’s, with a strong presence in the capital.
As for the rest of the newspaper report, the idea that TG4 or RnaG staff are on the same wages (and benefits) as the English broadcasters and staff in anglophone RTÉ is beyond risible.
A short but very sobering post from WorldByStorm over at the Cedar Lounge Revolution:
“Reading that the unemployment rate is still increasing and is currently just shy of 15 per cent, at 14.8 per cent…
…in 1986 it peaked at 17 per cent [ASF: an all-time high]. Disturbing to think we’re just two points less than that now.”
As WBS and others point out in the post, that first figure is in fact quite a misleading one (and conveniently so for the powers that be). The true level of unemployment in Ireland is far higher than 14.8%. That percentage does not include the thousands of unemployed citizens going through various (and optimistically named) back-to-work or training schemes. Nor, by definition, does it include the tens of thousands of unemployed citizens forced to emigrate and so no longer here to be counted (having become another form of statistic).
Taking into account the hidden or absentee unemployed it is certainly arguable that Ireland’s true levels of unemployment have already reached 16%, and rising. And there is no sign of that figure going down. On the contrary, given the doctrinaire adherence of both halves of the Fine Oibre coalition to the ideological beliefs that created the financial crisis in the first place one can only expect things to get worse. Indeed the desperation of the various factions that make up the Golden Circle to maintain their positions of status and privilege knows no bounds. As I wrote here several weeks ago on their new-found enthusiasm for the anti-democratic dictatorship of the Peoples Republic of China:
“The Irish political classes. What a work of man they are. Throughout the 19th century they clung parasite-like to the tail of Imperial Britain, accepting of any humiliation, any degradation, so long as they could line their own pockets, enriching themselves, their families and friends. It all began with Daniel O’Connell, the “Emancipator” himself. A revered figure of Irish Nationalism? The man who corrupted Irish nationalist politics irredeemably while pursuing more power and opportunities to acquire wealth and respectability for his class and “reform” of British colonial rule in Ireland – while not actually wishing to bring it to an end. The man who defended the British system of landlordism in Ireland, who served as an officer in the British Forces when the Irish people took up arms to free themselves in 1798 and 1803, who co-operated in the destruction of the Irish language and culture, who defended the virtual enslavement of Irish children in factories and businesses…
The list goes on and on.
Those political descendants who followed them are cut from the same tarnished cloth. Wrapped in the cover of the Green Flag they have pursued their own sectional interests while using the Irish people as their playthings, beasts of burden to be exploited when need be, wayward savage beasts with which to threaten when things did not go their own way. Corrupt and corruptible their sway ran throughout the 1800s and into the early 20th century until a revolutionary upheaval threw them to one side. But it was not to last. Slowly but surely they snaked their way back into power, the instigators of a civil war where they waded through Irish blood to retake the governance of the Irish people (and not for the first time). Eventually they found another foreign political class and institution to sell out to, a quasi-imperial teat to suckle upon. The European Union gave them a new home, a new source of corruption and sycophancy.
Yet that too wasn’t to last. Always looking for more, the next big make, they sought out international corporations, international finance, anything to fulfil their insatiable lust for more. And now to this.
The Dragon in the East rising above the horizon. But there will be no knights errant riding out to confront the all-devouring worm but greedy village elders ready to sacrifice their young to feed its insatiable hunger in the hope of stealing their own share of the dragon’s gold.”
So instead of that old cliché of the Golden Circle perhaps what we have instead at the highest levels of Irish society is in fact a virtual state-within-a-state. It may be outwardly divided amongst various sectional interests but the ultimate loyalty of all involved is to this Inner State and its continued existence. At any cost.
Great article over on the Cedar Lounge Revolution on the autocratic instincts of the European Union elites now being played out in Greece:
“One has to wonder at the logic of an EU approach which argues for austerity as a path to growth. But one has to wonder further at an EU approach which seems to push past austerity into something close to an imposed penury as a path to growth. One can accept the need for certain changes in the Greek economy from the status quo ante while simultaneously considering that what is being imposed is profoundly negative, and not simply for Greece but also for the contemporary European project.
On almost every metric, the democratic – given the imposition of a technocratic administration in Athens, the social – given the abysmal levels of austerity being imposed, the logical – given the deeply counter-productive nature of that austerity, the EU and ECB have failed that state.
When the potential outcomes of these failures are so significant as to fundamentally weaken a modern Europe advanced democracy and perhaps with worse ahead, then the sense that there’s something fundamentally wrong with the direction European leaders have taken is impossible to evade.”
Meanwhile Dole TV brings this all-to accurate satire of the upcoming referendum on the so-called Fiscal Compact Treaty:
The Mahon Tribunal has finally published its long-awaited report and like the lifting of the proverbial rock all sorts of nastiness has been uncovered lurking underneath. While the media focus will be on rump Fianna Fáil and An Taoiseach na Chófra, Bertie Ahern, don’t let this distract you from the other main conclusions of Mahon and co. It suits much of our still intact Post-Colonial Ascendancy, the members of the political establishment and their many willing helpers in the national media, to blur the truth by throwing up all sorts of drama to hide their own culpability in the “mafiaization” of the Irish state from the 1970s onward.
But look at the facts and figures, the long list of politicians investigated by the Tribunal in its search for the truth behind the repeated allegations of corrupt or suspect practices in local government in the 1980s and ’90s, specifically in the rezoning of land in Quarryvale, in west Dublin. In some ways the report is almost a who’s-who guide to notable people in Irish local and national politics at that time. Some of the names are startling. More so as it quickly becomes clear that this is not simply a tale of just one political party’s malfeasance but a tangled web of petty corruption that dragged in all the major political parties in Ireland – and in just one small region of the country.
One has to ask: if just one local authority in the media-cockpit that is Dublin was that bad, what was the rest of the country like? And what is it like now?
TheJournal.ie carries a list of local councillors named in the report, many of whom are well known figures, with details of their activities. It makes for sober reading:
“SEAN ARDAGH (FF)
The Tribunal was satisfied that, Ardagh had been considered an “important and valued supporter of the Quarryvale project from 1992 onwards”, and had received relatively modest political contributions from Frank Dunlop and developer Owen O’Callaghan.
It also noted that Ardagh had been “less than frank with the Tribunal as to the extent of his contact” with Dunlop and O’Callaghan…
CLLR MICK BILLANE (DL)
The Tribunal reported that – as a matter of probability – Cllr Billane had at some point met with and was lobbied by Dunlop and/or O’Callaghan.
Following a meeting in October 1997, O’Callaghan provided a charitable donation of IR£10,000 to Citywise, a registered charity which provided services to city centre youth. The Tribunal was satisfied that Billane had secured this contribution at the meeting, despite his testimony that he had no recollection of the meeting itself and only “vaguely” recalled his involvement in securing the charitable donation
CLLR CATHAL BLAND (FG)
Cllr Boland told the Tribunal that he had received a sum of IR£4,000 in cash from Dunlop by way of an election contribution from anonymous donors on 11 November 1992.
Boland said was not lobbied by Dunlop in relation to the Quarryvale project and had had no concerns about taking the money from him, even though he knew he was a lobbyist, because he had always found Dunlop to be upright and had considered him “a pillar of society.”
Boland said that he absented himself from the 17 December vote because he had been approached by another party asking him to vote against the plan and offered £500 for doing so. He said that did not accept the money, but still he felt he had been compromised by the incident…
CLLR PETER BRADY (FG)
On 30 March 1998, the Tribunal Counsel noted an interview with Alan Dukes TD, in which Dukes alleged that Cllr Peter Brady, had told him that Cllr Brian Fleming had been offered £100,000 if he (Fleming) could ‘deliver’ the Fine Gael vote to secure the rezoning of the Quarryvale lands”.
On the issue of the conflict between Cllr Brady and Alan Dukes, the Tribunal found in favour of Dukes evidence. As such, it concluded that at some point between 1995 and 1998, Brady did relay to Dukes that Fleming had been offered IR£100,000 to deliver the Fine Gael vote in support of Quarryvale.
LIAM T COSGRAVE (FG)
The Tribunal was satisfied that Dunlop gave IR£2,000 to Cllr Cosgrave around May or June 1991, and concluded that the payment was “in all probability” solicited by Cosgave in the course of being lobbied by Mr Dunlop in the period leading up to the Quarryvale rezoning vote.
The Tribunal said that it believed that at the time at which Cosgrave was solicited and accepted the election contribution, he was aware of Dunlop’s ongoing role in relation to Quarryvale – and described his conduct as “improper”.
The Tribunal accepted Dunlop’s account of having met Cosgrave at Newtownpark Avenue in Blackrock on 11 November 1992, and that on this date he had given cash donations of IR£2,000 (later returned) and IR£4,000 respectively to Cllrs Pat Rabbitte and Cathal Boland.
MICHAEL J COSGRAVE (FG)
Tribunal satisfied that M J Cosgrave solicited and received payment of IR£1,000 during the time of his January 1993 Seanad Election campaign…
The Tribunal described Cosgrave’s request for money and his acceptance of it “compromised his required disinterested performance of his duties as an elected representative, and was improper”.
LIAM CREAVEN (FF)
Creaven acknowledged having been lobbied by Dunlop, stating that he had been lobbied both for and against rezoning.
In response to the Tribunal’s inquiries as to whether or not he had received any payments in relation to Quarryvale, he said that he had received a “hamper” from the parties involved in the Quarryvale Shopping Centre.
JIM DALY (FF)
The Tribunal was satisfied that Cllr Daly was lobbied by Dunlop in relation to Quarryvale and that it was “probable” that Daly requested an election contribution, given the imminence of the local election. However, it noted that – whether or not Daly had solicited the contribution – he had accepted it in the knowledge that Dunlop was a lobbyist for Quarryvale.
PAT DUNNE (FF)
The Tribunal was satisfied that Dunne solicited money from Dunlop for the 1991 local election campaign…
It accepted Dunlop’s evidence that he had given Dunne a sum of IR£15,000, and was satisfied that this payment was corrupt.
MARY ELLIOTT (FG)
Elliott said she had not attended any public meetings in connection with the re-zoning of Quarryvale other than Council meetings, but acknowledged that she had been “lobbied by local organisations”…
She said that she never received any payment or donations from parties involved in the project and, while admitting that she had dined in the company of Dunlop and O’Callaghan…
JIM FAHEY (FF)
The Tribunal was satisfied that Fahey solicited a payment of IR£2,000, and that such solicitation and acceptance of funds had been improper.
TONY FOX (FF)
Cllr Tony Fox was identified by Dunlop as a recipient of £2,000 in cash during the local election campaign.
CYRIL GALLAGHER (FF)
Despite Dunlop’s testimony that there had been no express link between a IR£1,000 payment to Cllr Cyril Gallagher and Quarryvale, the Tribunal was satisfied that Gallagher had been ware of Dunlop’s role as a lobbyist for the project.
SEAN GILBRIDE (FF)
The Tribunal said it was satisfied that the “primary purpose” of Cllr Sean Gilbride’s decision to take a leave of absence from his teacher’s post and place himself on O’Callaghan’s payroll was “to enable Gilbride devote himself on a near full time basis to promoting the Quarryvale project for Mr O’Callaghan”.
It described as “incredible” the suggestion that the political ambitions of an elected councillor could be properly served by that councillor placing himself on the payroll of a developer at a time when that same developer was promoting the rezoning of lands…
RICHARD GREENE (IND)
The Tribunal was satisfied that a cash donation of IR£500 received by Greene had been given to him by O’Callaghan via Dunlop, and the developer’s “generosity to Cllr Greene was not unconnected to his zoning ambitions for Quarryvale”.
TOM HAND (FG)
The Tribunal was satisfied that Dunlop paid Cllr Hand IR£20,000 in cash in two tranches of £10,000 each specifically in return for his support on Quarryvale, and that the payment was corrupt.
FINBARR HANRAHAN (FF)
The Tribunal was satisfied that, during the course of the 1992 general election, Dunlop in all probability paid Cllr Fibarr Hanrahan either IR£2,000 or IR£2,500, with the principle reason for the payment being to secure his support for Quarryvale. It concluded that such a payment was “improper”.
JACK LARKIN (FF)
The Tribunal concluded that a payment of IR£1,000 to Cllr Jim Larkin during a period around the 1991 Local Elections had been made. It was satisfied that a request for the money had probably been made by Larkin after he had been lobbied to support Quarryvale…
DONAL LYDON (FF)
The Tribunal rejected Cllr Donal Lydon’s evidence that he did not solicit a payment of IR£1,000 in or about May 1991, and concluded that such a payment had indeed been made between 16 May 1991 and 6 June 1991.
MARIAN MCGEENIS (FF)
The Tribunal noted Cllr Marian McGennis’ “significant role” in relation to the Quarryvale rezoning proposal over the course of 1991 to 1993, and also noted that – in her initial dealings with the Tribunal – she had not been forthcoming about the extent of her involvement with Dunlop and O’Callaghan.
The report was satisfied that McGeenis solicited a IR£1,400 cheque from Dunlop in July 1991, and that over a period of two months had been the recipient of a total of IR£6,500 from individuals closely associated with the Quarryvale issue.
COLM MCGRATH (FF)
The Tribunal was satisfied that McGrath solicited a payment of IR£10,000 that was “in all probability” requested on the basis of the assistance he was giving O’Callaghan.
It added that further payments of IR£10,700 and IR£20,000 could neither be described as political donations or “loans”, as had been suggested, and that such payments were corrupt.
OLIVIA MITCHELL (FG)
The Tribunal said it was satisfied that Cllr Mitchell received a sum of IR£500 in cash from Dunlop at the time of the 1992 General Election.
TOM MORRISSEY (FG)
The Tribunal confirmed that Cllr Tom Morrissey had remained “staunchly opposed” to the rezoning of Quarryvale as a town centre at all times.
The Tribunal was also satisfied that there had been no improper motivation from any party in relation to Morrissey’s firm producing diaries for Dunlop’s firm at a cost of IR£377.52…
ANN ORMONDE (FF)
According to the report, Cllr Ann Ormonde received in total at least IR£1,650 from Dunlop between the period January 1993 to 1998 – in the knowledge that he was a lobbyist in circumstances in which she herself was involved.
GUSS O’CONNELL (IND)
The report noted that the absence of Cllr Guss O’Connell’s from the County Council on 17 December 1992, the date on which votes on a motion relating to Quarryvale were cast, had been beneficial to O’Callaghan.
However, it was not satisfied that this situation had been “orchestrated”…
JOHN O’HALLORAN (LAB/IND)
The Tribunal’s report noted that Cllr John OHalloran “had not been, in general, frank with the Tribunal” in the manner in which he responded to requests for information in relation to payments made by Dunlop and O’Callaghan.
In 1993, O’Halloran received an IR£5,000 cheque from O’Callaghan/Riga – and the Tribunal pointed out that, just weeks later, he was one of five signatories to a letter to the Minister for Finance in which tax designation was sought for Quarryvale.
O’Halloran also received a payment of IR£250 in or around the time that he signed a motion on Quarryvale, and that he did on occasion receive small payments of IR£500 over the course of the making of the Development Plan 1991 – 1993.
The Tribunal was satisfied that O’Halloran solicited a payment of IR£2,500 in 1996 from Dunlop…
PAT RABBITTE (DL)
The Tribunal accepted Dunlop’s evidence that Cllr Pat Rabbitte had been listed as a recipient of IR£3,000 in cash in 1992, and that that sum had later been returned to him by means of a cheque.
THERESE RIDGE (FG)
The report described Cllr Therese Ridge as not merely a staunch supporter of the Quarryvale campaign but also a person who “actively engaged” in providing advice in relation to the strategy generally, and specifically in relation to motions relevant to Quarryvale”.
The report added that she was “handsomely rewarded” for her efforts – both in the form of cash donations totalling IR£1,000 and by Dunlop taking care of printing and other costs associated with her election campaigns.
COLM TYNDALL (PD)
The Tribunal was satisfied Tyndal had been lobbied by O’Callghan in relation to the Quarryvale rezoning proposal – and that Tyndal (on behalf of his company Marine & General Insurance Ltd) had likewise lobbied O’Callaghan for his company to be appointed insurance broker to companies associated with O’Callaghan.
The report concluded that Tyndal had exploited his position as an elected councillor in circumstances which benefited a company with which he was closely associated…
Tyndal testified that he could not confirm whether he received a donation of IR£500 from O’Callaghan in 1999…
GV WRIGHT (FF)
In relation to a payment of IR£10,000 by Dunlop and O’Callaghan to Cllr GV Wright in November 1992, the Tribunal said it was satisfied that the motivation for such a payment was to “ensure Wright’s ongoing support for the Quarryvale project.”
Reading through the report, the all too familiar names, businesses and organisations that crop up again and again and again, one is reminded of a variation of that old curse: a plague on all your houses.
An Taoiseach na nOirish, Enda “Paddy Wants To Know” Kenny, strikes again. A man who personifies everything that is “Oirland”, a pathetic Anglo-American wannabe nation. So stick your Ireland, I’ll take Éire.
Veteran Irish journalist Vincent Brown takes on the Troika bagman, Klaus Masuch, at the EU-ECB-IMF Press Conference in Dublin with some questions the Frankfurt Eurocrat would clearly prefer not to answer (like, why are the people of Ireland paying for the financial chicanery of German, French and British banks and lending houses?). Apparently Barbara Nolan, Director of the European Commission Representation in Ireland (god, they love their fancy titles don’t they?), would prefer if those questions weren’t asked either and judging from the reactions around Brown it would seem that much of the so-called Irish media would agree.
Irish journalists challenging the establishment consensus? Don’t be silly. They are the establishment!
Though the figures are still being compiled it seems that 2010-2011 saw around 150,000 people emigrate from Ireland, roughly 80,000 of who were Irish citizens. 2012 is expected to see a further 75,000 go of whom at least 40,000 or more are expected be Irish (in fact, given recent revelations and claims, the figures are probably going to be far higher). Britain, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Canada are the main destinations for our new Diaspora. And the reasons for this flood of people from Ireland? Mass unemployment, social welfare cuts, economic stagnation (or rather, depression), and EU and IMF dictated austerity programs.
So, with no work at home (and what little work there is only available overseas) what is the EU-IMF’s latest plan for the good citizens of Ireland? Well according to the Irish Times it is this:
“Two separate analyses by the EU Commission and the International Monetary Fund published before Christmas have disclosed details of proposed measures for the 2013 budget, which is unprecedented for Ireland. A total of €3.5 billion in savings are planned; €1.25 billion in new taxes and €2.25 billion in cuts.
The analysis has also criticised aspects of Government policy, including its decision to make larger than expected reductions in the capital budget as well as the lack of punitive sanctions for unemployed people who refuse to seek work.
The EU Commission, in an implicit criticism, stressed that “financial sanctions for unco-operative unemployed” was still very rare in Ireland.”
If it is all but impossible to find employment at home and social welfare payments are to be soon subject to punitive reductions or termination, what choice will there be but for even greater numbers of Irish citizens to leave the country to seek employment elsewhere? And what will we call this new policy of the supranational European state? Economic ethnic cleansing? Or will we simply become a trading colony for others, with Irish people reduced to the role of house-servants, waiters and cleaners?
Meanwhile, in Germany, the side-benefits of the citizens of Ireland paying off the debts of German banks and finance houses continue:
“German unemployment fell more than forecast in December as exports of cars and machinery boomed and one of the mildest winters on record helped support jobs in construction.
The number of people out of work fell a seasonally adjusted 22,000 to 2.89 million, the Federal Labour Agency said today.
With the exception of a 6,000 drop in October, German unemployment has now fallen in every month since June 2009. The average jobless total in unadjusted terms for 2011 squeezed below the 3 million mark at 2.97 million, the lowest since 1991…”
Which makes one wonder, at what point will the people of Ireland make a stand and say enough is enough? Or have we, like the citizens of some petty Third World dictatorship, been reduced to the level of sycophants and thralls, our thinking made infantile by the political and media elites which rule over us?
Lecturer and author Niamh Hourigan discusses TG4, the Irish language television channel, in the Irish Times with some interesting, if debatable, points:
“Although fully independent of RTÉ since 2007, the national broadcaster continues to play a significant role in TG4 through the provision of news and other programming. When my book Escaping the Global Village , which dealt with the campaign to establish the broadcaster was published in 2003, it was already clear it had become a force for innovation on the Irish media landscape. The service had transformed the image of Irish television and introduced new programme formats and work practices which were quickly copied by other broadcasters.
A critical point was reached in 1999 when the station changed its name from TnaG to TG4, positioning itself as the fourth major television service in Ireland. The schedule was also revamped, with more primetime slots devoted to English-language programming, and with less popular Irish language programmes being positioned around these sure-fire audience winners. Sixteen years on from its initial launch, it was inevitable the pace of innovation would slow as the service moved to maturity. Yet the resoundingly positive public response to the TG4 general election debate between the three party leaders last February illustrated how firmly the station has established itself as a player.”
Most of this is true and Hourigan later examines the station’s positive impact on children’s’ programming in Ireland (despite facing tough competition from English language rivals, principally of course the cheap British and American imports broadcast on RTÉ). However her claim that it would be difficult for TG4 to compete in the area of current affairs programming with RTÉ’s Primtime or TV3’s Vincent Brown Tonight is less convincing. What difficulties exist in this area are largely due to budgetary restraints more than anything else and it is arguable that a Dublin-based news studio for TG4 would have a positive impact on its overall news and current affairs output. Dublin is the nation’s capital and the de facto centre for most national politics (and most news stories); the lack of a Dublin-based centre for TG4 is a severe handicap to its growth and development. Another liability is its reliance on RTÉ for its news programming. Contracting out to RTÉ has detracted from the station’s independence and the plurality of views in the national media and this can only be rectified by the network establishing a completely separate news and current affairs division.
Niamh Hourigan then tackles the thorny, and frequently misunderstood, issue of bilingualism.
“Fulfilling its public service remit to broadcast programmes in the Irish language will always be a hugely complex task for TG4 because attitudes to the language are so complex.
The tensions were very evident during the recent controversy about the exclusive broadcasting of a Leinster-Munster Pro 12 League rugby game on TG4. Former Irish rugby international Neil Francis was publicly critical, saying: “I have no idea what commentators or the analysts are saying, and I have no idea whether they are any good or not – and I suspect 99.5 per cent of the people who had to watch the match on the channel didn’t either.”
The key source of the tension here was the exclusive rights of TG4 to the game. Here in another form was compulsion – Irish citizens being forced to grapple with the Irish language – and it was clear a considerable proportion of them didn’t like it.”
This is a highly tendentious and somewhat partisan argument (and it is by no means clear that the proportion who objected was “considerable” – vocal maybe, and with ready access to the English language media establishment in the country but by no means a majority). TG4 is an Irish language television network in Ireland, the same way that TV3 is an English language network in Ireland (and in this case, a British owned one to boot). Indeed, with the creation of TG4 we have seen RTÉ, Ireland’s national public service broadcaster, all but abandon Irish language programming on its TV channels. Yet no arguments are made that the 42% of the population that identify themselves as fluent or partial Irish speakers should be catered for on these TV stations through bilingual programming. Are RTÉ and TV3 suddenly going to be “forced” to provide 42% of their output in Irish? Hardly.
Yet it is seen as quiet acceptable that an Irish language channel – the only Irish language channel – should be pressurised into accommodating English speaking viewers – who are already catered for with three English language TV channels (not to mention dozens of international English language broadcasters freely available on a wide range of platforms). This is yet another argument for positive discrimination in favour of English speakers when negative discrimination against Irish speakers is widespread and institutionalised throughout the state.
TG4 is an Irish speaking TV station for an Irish speaking audience, the exact same way that RTÉ and TV3 are English speaking TV stations for an English speaking audience. To argue that it must also become (as it has to some extent) a bilingual channel, when no such restrictions are placed on those channels which broadcast exclusively in English, is simply unfair and unbalanced. Or worse.
If anything TG4, nearly two decades on, should be moving away from bilingualism and the broadcasting of English language programming. It should be concentrating on producing indigenous programming (which its rivals have largely abandoned except for a steady diet of cheap, trash television) and the use of subtitling and dubbing for non-Irish language shows and movies. It should make standard the use of dual language audio channels (as is common in many bilingual nations) and expand its online presence. The separation from RTÉ should be completed by ending the supply of programming from the “national” broadcaster and instead the production of all domestic programming should be in-house or from the independent sector (a very positive and productive source as it is. In fact, as has been frequently stated, there would be no viable independent television production in Ireland without TG4!).
Though it is regarded as sacrosanct by many, the present headquarters of TG4 in Baile na hAbhann, in the west of Ireland should be reviewed. At the very least a studio complex, even a relatively modest one, should be created in Dublin and the news and current affairs department must be located there. In the area of public service radio broadcasting in Irish TG4 is surely the logical organisation to turn to. Raidió na Gaeltachta (RnaG), for reasons which mystify most people, remains under the control of RTÉ. As an Irish language radio station its treatment in the RTÉ structure is simply abysmal. Underfunded, undersourced, poorly ran and structured, it is the (deliberately) forgotten arm of the network.
RnaG must be liberated from the dead hand of Montrose and this can only come through an amalgamation with TG4. A single Irish language television and radio network, with a unified corporate structure and image, would provide the greatest value for money and service to viewers and listeners. What we have now is a mess, a national broadcaster that broadcasts almost exclusively in English controlling an Irish speaking radio station, when an Irish speaking TV station could do the job, and probably double the return in terms of investment and resources. The uniting of TG4 with RnaG would create a mutually supportive, symbiotic organisation with a cross-fertilization of audiences and programming.
It is time we faced up to the facts of where we really are in terms of Ireland’s media organisations. RTÉ is Ireland’s national English language public service broadcaster on television and radio. TG4, with RnaG, must become Ireland’s national Irish language public service broadcaster on television and radio. This is the only way forward that makes sound financial, organisational and broadcasting sense.
Of course, if we were really sensible, and really concerned about more bang for our tax-paying buck, we would leave English language broadcasting in Ireland entirely to the private sector (with suitable regulations to ensure Irish ownership of the media and guaranteed levels of quality and news, documentary and drama output). Pubic service broadcasting would then be entirely through the Irish language and RTÉ would be a monolingual Irish broadcaster. The freeing up of advertising revenue in English would create a secure income stream for the independent English language broadcasters who would no longer have to appeal to the lowest common denominator in terms of TV output in order to ensure their survival (an especially sensible move as broadcasters outside of Ireland have now come to dominate our domestic market through services on cable, satellite and the internet). Such a move might well spell a renaissance for English language broadcasting, on TV and radio, in Ireland.
Likewise, for Irish language broadcasting the full weight, depth of experience and resources of RTÉ would transform its fortunes. With two television channels (RTÉ 1 and 2) and three radio channels (Radio 1, 2FM and RnaG) the scope for growth and development would be enormous (the current, entirely wasteful provision of half-hearted digital TV and radio channels could be dropped). The revenue lost by broadcasting in Irish alone, including restrictions on carrying only Irish language advertising, would be partially replaced by rolling the budget and assets of TG4 back into the RTÉ structure.
Other reforms could include the dropping of the ineffective and increasingly irrelevant TV licence fee (for which An Post charges an astonishing 20 million euros a year to administer yet which fails to collect millions of euros each year from people or businesses that refuse to pay or otherwise dodge payment). Like some other nations, in the age of multiplatform devices, where a licence for a “television set” is simply an anachronism, direct state funding, overseen by a fully independent body, is the only sensible way forward. A budget of 170 million euros a year would provide an entirely adequate public service broadcasting network for Ireland. And all through the medium of the Irish language.
That is the logical, cost-effective way forward. So don’t expect it to happen. Ever.
Another entry for my “Only In Ireland” series, this time thanks to Fine Gael’s Brian Hayes TD, with an entirely delusional piece given pride of place in the equally delusional FG Sunday Independent under the headline of the year, “A rising tide will lift all our boats!”:
“In 1959, on taking power at a bleak time in Irish history, Fianna Fail Taoiseach Sean Lemass noted that he believed “national progress of any kind depends largely on an upsurge of patriotism. . . diverted towards constructive purposes”.
We live, in terms of national morale at least, in a similarly dark age.
But similar challenges can sometimes require slightly different responses. In our case whilst the giddy optimism of the final years of the Celtic Tiger may have turned out to be a mirage, the antidote to that exaggerated optimism will not be provided by the current overdose of pessimism.
This Government faces many challenges but one of the most critical ones of all is to generate an upsurge of spontaneous optimism, or what John Maynard Keynes famously called ‘animal spirits’, which was the most positive feature of the Tiger.”
Surely most rational people now believe that the main features that formed the “animal spirits” of the Celtic Tiger era were greed, selfishness, corruption and vice? Are these the qualities a senior politician in this state should express admiration for? And the irony of a Fine Gael minister quoting a Fianna Fáil Taoiseach? How meaningless the so-called “Civil War” divisions of our two-party system, and ever more so since the latter decades of the 20th century. The Fine Fáil establishment remains the same, whatever representative of it is in power. However, Hayes in not finished in his homily to cliché just yet.
“…now that we have had our period of mourning and denial, it is time to begin the process of national resurgence by embracing a new policy of what I would call realistic optimism.
For realistic optimism to work, the first thing this Government must do is to actually fulfil the promises made to the electorate.”
Hmmm. Really? Like, say, the promises in the Fine Gael election manifesto to oppose any iniquitous forms of taxation such as a “flat rate” charge?
“Honesty requires us to admit that in areas such as banking reform and the debt crisis we continue to depend on what happens in Europe. But the mandate for widespread political and public sector reform is entirely within our control.
After eight months in government we have already come up with more than 200 concrete proposals in our public sector reform plan with specific timelines. And from procurement to reducing the size of the public service by 12 per cent over five years, much of what the Government wants to do goes well beyond the Croke Park agreement.
It has to if we are going to get out of this mess.”
So banking reform, reform of the institutions that contributed in the most direct manner to the moral bankruptcy of Irish society and ultimately the loss of Ireland’s national sovereignty, is dependent on “what happens in Europe”? What on earth does that mean? Who in “Europe” would gainsay the reform of Irish domestic laws and regulations governing the operation of financial and banking organisations? Or by “Europe” does Brian Hayes actually mean “the Markets”? Read on:
“A recent IBM survey showed Ireland is still the top location in the world for Foreign Direct Investment in terms of value whilst when it comes to the critical Information Technology sector, expansion in this area is so rapid that many companies are finding it difficult to fill their vacancies.
Earlier this year the World Bank ranked Ireland as the No 1 location in the eurozone for ease of doing business while the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom also ranked Ireland as No 1 in Europe for economic freedom.”
Ahh. So the Heritage Foundation gives Ireland its seal of approval for “economic freedom”? And who are they, you might ask, these lovers of Ireland (indeed, theselovers of the Celtic Tiger when it was at its most rampant)? The Heritage Foundation is a right-wing, American thinktank (motto “Leadership for America”) whose notable past adherents included one President Ronald Reagan (yes, that’s right, “Trickle Down” Ron!) and George Bush Jr. The organisation claims the dubious credit for the tax and revenue “reforms” that were implemented by Reagan, Bush Sr and Clinton in the 1980s and ‘90s (you know, the ones that all but destroyed the public services in the US, gutted the middle classes, and created a huge, impoverished underclass) as well as the ideology of the 21st century “War on Terror”. It most recent notable activities include the creation of the “Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom” (I kid you not), to mark the former British Prime Minister’s status as a patron of the organisation, as well as a new lobby group in Washington to push for even further cuts in taxes, and budgets for federal agencies (what Conservative America calls “big government” and what we in Ireland call public services like health, education, social welfare, et al).
So, an entirely suitable body for the Minister of State at the Department of Finance and the Department of Public Sector Reform to wag his tail over. Ah… “Finance”? “Public Sector Reform”? Now we get it. Good one, Brian.
Related articles
Ah, elitism, ‘tis the bane of Irish society. Ever since the days of the Liberator there have always been those who thought they were the natural masters of the Irish people. No, not the nasty ol’ Brits but rather those who did well under the Brits, thank you very much. That’s the same ones who hijacked the Irish Revolution in 1921. The same ones who turned Ireland red with blood in order to establish their puppet Free State. The same ones who sacrificed our children to feed their position and status. And it seems things haven’t changed. From the Irish Times:
“HERMAN VAN Rompuy’s idea to use provisions already in the Lisbon Treaty to amend and toughen the treaty’s budget supervision protocol has immediate appeal. And not least for Ireland where treaty change has been, well, awkward. Faced at tomorrow’s summit with Franco-German demands for treaty changes to lay the basis for fiscal union, the European council’s president has reminded leaders of legal mechanisms in Lisbon that allow the amendment by the Council, acting unanimously, of the treaty’s budget control implementation procedures.
Using this procedure should in theory both achieve his and their purpose, while obviating the need for cumbersome ratifications in 27 capitals, dramatically shortening the process, and, crucially, reassuring markets.
From an Irish perspective, however, the Van Rompuy approach has clear advantages. But there is an unseemly quality to repeated declarations by Irish ministers that this State does not want to be forced into another referendum. Badly burned over Nice and Lisbon by an electorate that would not be taken for granted, the repetition of the “no referendum” mantra sounds rather too like determination to avoid democratic accountability and, once again, defeat.
Yet, the fear of rejection notwithstanding, the legal requirement to hold a referendum on changes in our relationship with the EU is by no means absolute. In signing up to the Treaty of Rome we incorporated in our Constitution a provision (article 29) recognising the constitutionality of future “laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State necessitated by the obligations of membership of the Communities”. Those words, the Supreme Court recognised in the Crotty case (1987), “must be construed as an authorisation . . . not only to join the Communities as they stood in 1973, but also to join in amendments of the Treaties so long as such amendments do not alter the essential scope or objectives of the Communities”. In such circumstances – and a consolidation of monetary union discipline would certainly seem to be covered – a referendum is not legally required as such changes would be deemed consistent with the Constitution…
In reality, the commitment to hold referendums on EU treaties is now as much a political as a legal obligation, a hook politicians have impaled themselves on, and are understandably keen to get off. Whatever one’s views on “plebiscitary” democracy, and there are strong arguments against, an overzealous resort to referendums is clearly neither a constitutional necessity nor consistent with efficient management of the State’s affairs.”
On the other hand an overzealous resort to referenda is clearly a democratic necessity. One that has served the peoples of Iceland, Norway and Switzerland rather well, in good times and bad. But hey, this is the same newspaper that was calling for Irish democrats to be put up against a wall and shot in 1916. And 1919. 1920. 1921. 1922. 1923.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose!
Despite the intensity of the British establishment’s campaign against the proposed independence referendum in Scotland, with it’s focus on First Minster Alex Salmond in particular, the numbers are slowly slipping away for the British Unionist cause. According to the Scotsman newspaper:
“SUPPORT for Scottish independence has risen to its highest level for six years, with almost a third of Scots now backing separation from the rest of the UK, according to a new survey.
The results of the annual Scottish Social Attitudes Survey (SSA), presented today, show 32 per cent are now in favour of independence, up from 23 per cent last year to a level of support not seen since 2005.
The poll also found support for all decisions being made in Scotland has leaped 15 points to 43 per cent, while 29 per cent backed control over everything apart from defence and foreign affairs being passed to Scotland – the option often referred to as “devolution max”.
Meanwhile, the survey found the price of independence is just £500 – with 65 per cent in favour if everyone was a few hundred pounds better off as a result.
The results of the survey appear to be a major show of confidence in the SNP since the party was returned to power with an historic majority this year.
While the survey shows more Scots still oppose independence than support it, it also provided a blow to the unionist parties by suggesting that the Calman reforms for more devolution, including boosting income tax powers, currently in the Scotland Bill, are not enough for most Scots.”
Meanwhile the London-based British Nationalist parties are attempting to spin the unwelcome news, news that has clearly taken them by surprise given the ferocity of the orchestrated anti-SNP drive in the British press. This is not the agreed narrative. Yet the modern SNP have repeatedly proved themselves adept at writing their own narrative. Something they are doing again, as reported in the Independent:
“An independent Scotland would shift much of its attention away from the UK to become a member of the Scandinavian circle of countries, with its own army, navy and air force modelled on its Nordic neighbours, according to detailed plans being drawn up by the SNP.
Senior SNP strategists are compiling a “prospectus for independence” which they hope to use to sell the idea of separation to Scots ahead of the referendum in 2014 or 2015.
The document is not due to be published in full for another year but SNP insiders have disclosed key extracts.
They reveal that SNP leaders want an independent Scotland to look north and east in Europe for partnerships, trade and key defence relationships, rather than continuing to focus on western Europe and the Commonwealth, as the UK does now.
Senior Nationalists, including Alex Salmond, have made several trips to Scandinavia over the last couple of years, meeting ministers and officials in an attempt to pave the way for greater co-operation if Scotland becomes independent, particularly on energy. Indeed, initial plans have already been drawn up for an electricity super-grid between Scotland and Norway.”
With British nationalist politicians and journalists promoting the opinion of a handful of tame “constitutional experts” that an independent Scotland would need to apply for membership of the European Union as a “successor state”, the SNP’s policy of an alliance with the Scandinavian block of nations (and the non-EU Norway) is an interesting – and perhaps particularly astute – one. Which raises an interesting question for those of us here: where is Ireland in all this?
If the arguments for joining a Scandinavian arc of prosperity are great, the economic, environmental, security, cultural and historic reasons for closer ties between the two surviving Gaelic nations at the edge of north-western Europe are surely even greater. Maybe Enda Kenny, instead of kowtowing in the halls of Brussels, Berlin and Paris would be better employed reaching out the hand of friendship and co-operation in Edinburgh? Perhaps a “Celtic” and “Scandinavian” block of nations, working closely together, would do more to off-set the powers of Middle Europe and the former “Great Powers” than any amount of glad-handing and treaty tinkering?
And one final point. If an independent Scotland was required to apply (reapply?) for membership of the European Union where does that leave the former, so-called “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”? What are the international implications for the new sovereign national entity to be known as the “United Kingdom of England and Wales, and Northern Ireland”? Will it, per force, have to reapply for EU membership too? One cannot imagine so, or Berlin and Paris running the risk of losing the “UK” from the European fold altogether (simply think about the opportunity given to the Euro-sceptic cries for a referendum created by the scenario above). Similarly would a Reunited Ireland, in essence a new state, need to reapply for European Union membership? Did a Reunited Germany?
The claims that a pro-independence Scotland would find itself cast out from the EU are dubious to say the least. The reality is simply this: in the European Union it is the bureaucrats and politicians who decide what the rules are, not lawyers and academics.
Good news on the jobs front from RTÉ:
“180 new jobs have been announced by Version 1, an IT consulting and outsourced managed services company. Most of the jobs will be in Dublin.
The firm is hiring graduates and senior technology consultants with Microsoft, Oracle and Java qualifications. The jobs will be filled over the next three years, with 45 jobs to be filled over the next three months.
The company created another 100 jobs last year and already employs 265 staff in Dublin, Cork and Belfast.”
Ireland’s true levels of unemployment have been masked for the last two years by the thousands of Irish citizens being forced out of the country every month in search of employment overseas (who in turn, of course, are sometimes accused of displacing local people from jobs in the nations they are emigrating to – this is called a free market, apparently). So even the smallest of crumbs are welcome. Only problem is, these particular crumbs may be going, um, elsewhere. The full story from BreakingNews:
“However, Version 1 is looking abroad to fill vacancies in its expansion plan, because it says it cannot get enough graduates here.
Managing director Justin Keatinge said the Government should make it easier to recruit from abroad.
“We’re trying to bring people from all over the world…to fill these vacancies, and it’s very difficult,” he said.
“We would encourage the Government to come up with a fast-track, hi-tech work permit system where within a week you could get a work permit for a person coming from Argentina, for example.”"
There are not enough Irish graduates with the required IT knowledge or skills to fulfil these jobs? With 450,000 people on the dole? 450,000 people seeking employment? They can’t find 180 qualified people over the next three years? I know at least three Irish citizens currently rotting away on the dole or in low-paid, non-specialist employment who could wallpaper the inside of their houses with the amount of IT qualifications they have.
Perhaps instead of defaulting to overseas recruitment Irish-based companies should be reinvesting back into the Irish education system, in co-operation with the many public bodies out there who specialise in these areas, to create the types of graduates they want or need? Or is it just simpler to buy off-the-shelf staff from anywhere but Ireland?
Business with a social conscience? Bah!
