left tribune vii.2
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/2/2019 Left Tribune VII.2
1/20
T H E
L E F T T R I B U N EVol. VII, Issue 2 Produced by Labour Youth Apr. 12Interview:
Frances Byrne
of OPEN
Fiscal Treaty
Debate
Labour & the
question of
Abortionp 6-7p 3-4 p 16-17
LABOUR MEMBERS
FORUM ATTENDEDBY OVER 100 PARTY
MEMBERS INDUBLINOn the 18th o February, the rst
meeting o the Labour Members
Forum took place in Wynns Hotel
in Dublin, with the room packed
out with over 100 members.
Organised by grassroots
activists, it aimed to give a
platorm or discussion, debate
and the ormulation o concrete
proposals. The talks began with
John Douglas (Mandate), Orla
OConnor (National Womens
Council o Ireland) and Tom
Healy(ICTU) giving a descriptive
talk on where the country is now.
Tom Healy gave an interesting
talk on where the economy is
now, with the other two speakers
giving interesting accounts on
their specialist areas.
The aternoon session saw Dr.
Mary Murphy o NUI Maynooth,
Mags OBrien o SIPTU and
Michael Tat o UNITE speak.
Mary Murphy spoke rom a
social and equality perspective,
giving several good concrete
proposals, such as taxes on high
income earners, the ending o
subsidies on private services,
and an economic plan B based
on growth and investment. Mags
OBrien gave the Trade Union
perspective including proposing
new collective bargaining
legislation. Michael Tat gave a
talk on a plan B based upon the
twin track strategy o investment
in jobs, to increase the productiveareas o the economy creating
growth and converting spending
cuts into tax increases to x
the decit through increasing
domestic demand. Both sessions
were well received by all there.
The contribution o ideas and
discussion rom the foor ensured
the event was a orum or all.
Everyone who wanted to speak
was given the opportunity to do
so.
The ormulation
o concrete policy proposals by
the speakers was something
well received by all. Also the
opportunity to debate and
engage is something that all
members relish. The LabourMembers Forum will be
organising more events in the
uture. Debate and discussion is
something that gives the Labour
movement strength and the
Members Forum aims to provide
that space. The British Labour
Party has the Fabian Society
providing that space. Perhaps
now is the time or the Irish
Labour Party to have a similar
space?
By Paul HandDublin
-
8/2/2019 Left Tribune VII.2
2/20
Left Tribune2
In this Issue:
3
5
6
7
8
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
18
20
Interview: Frances ByrneShaping SocietyLegislate for the X Case
Respecting Womens ChoiceACA and Irelands SOPA10 Tings about #IrishSOPAVatican Relations
Budget 2012Labour Youth BranchesGeese, Golden Eggs & Euros
Constitutional ReformWill Fianna Fil take our Spot?Tird Level FundingDebate: Fiscal Stability reaty
Book Review: Strumpet CityEditorial: Universal Legal CareLyrics to the Red Flag
-
8/2/2019 Left Tribune VII.2
3/20
WHAT WILL LABOURS LEGACY
BE FOR SINGLE-PARENTFAMILIES?
First, to dispense with the
stereotypes: What do youthink are the most commonly
held misconceptions about
one-parent families?
For most people, i you say Lone
Parent, they picture a 17-year-
old. But actually, the truth is that
less than 3% o lone parents are
under 20. And just like all Irish
women, were becoming mothers
older; CSO gures show more
women becoming mothers orthe rst time in their late 20s or
early 30s. Its the same or single
mothers. And, o course, mothers
o any age dont get pregnant
by themselves, and most lone
parents were previously married
or in a long-term relationship.
And 14% o us are dads. So were
not a homogenous group.
The other stereotype is the
welare queen: young eckless
women getting pregnant or
social welare, to get a house,and somehow living on the pigs
back. The reality in the statistics
is that 58% o us have one child,
so were not having children to
get things; we over-populate
housing lists because we dont
get housing, and 10% o us live
in other peoples households,
which is another maniestation
o the housing problem; and
even during the boom, we were
among the poorest amilies.
There are 189,000 o us, o which
92,000 o us are in receipt o
weekly social welare benet.
O that 92,000, about hal are
working outside o the home in
paid employment, in spite o the
lack o childcare and so on.*
What are your main concerns
around the reforms that are
taking place at the moment?
We at OPEN have no problem
with reorm o the social welare
system; weve been looking or
reorm or 18 years, and our
ounding group, Doras Bu inCoolock, since 1986. The problem
we have is that we are in a reorm
programme which was designed
and put in place by the Fianna
Fil/ Green government, and
that this government brought
into eect in April 2011. That
programme outlined that an
age limit o 14 years or children
o parents in receipt o the One-
Parent Family Payment would
be phased in rom April 2011 to
2016 or all recipients. The only
concern we expressed about
this, because o the recession,
was that we wanted the age
limit introduced in the context
o a system that worked with
lone parents, so that they would
receive a letter when their child is
10 to say that this is happening in
our years time, and to work with
them towards that. Everyone
wants to see people lited out
o poverty, but in the context o
400,000 people on the dole, it
couldnt happen. And remember
that lone parents only stay on
the payment or an average o six
years anyway.
Then, in late November, there
was a headline in The Sunday
Times to say that the limit was to
be reduced to age 7. We laughed
out loud. Literally. We said, this
cant be; nothing has changed.
There are no new jobs, no new
acilities, no childcare strategy.
The Department o Social
Protection has a long, proud
history o consultation, but we
hadnt been consulted. That was
absolutely unprecedented. We
were absolutely stunned when
the budget was announced in
December, and we realised the
implications or our amilies.
Since the budget, the Oireachtas
Committee on Jobs, Social
Protection and Education has
published, with unanimous
support, a report on the Single
Working Age Payment. It is
saying that we cant have a
Single Working Age Payment or
anybody, including lone parents,
because there arent enough jobs;
education and training is already
fat out; and there isnt childcare
or an ater-school strategy.
But, because o what happened
already with the reduction in
the Earnings Disregard, and the
intention to keep reducing that
- combined with the reduction
to age 7 - by 2015, those two
together mean that lone parents
will have a Single Working Age
Payment.
This government andIm not saying this to question
the motives o anyone around
the Cabinet table but we will
end up with a scenario where
our amilies are singled out in
a deeply unair and misguided
way. The impact will eectively
be that lone parents on social
welare and not working will be
put onto Jobseekers Allowance.
Lone parents working part-
time and in receipt o a reduced
payment will be orced out o
work and onto social welare
exclusively. And all o this will
inevitably increase child poverty.
From our perspective, this will set
back the agenda or economic
independence, which lone
parents really want, by a decade.
Does the Labour Party want to
be part o the government that is
responsible or doing that?
3
We were absolutely
stunned when
the budget was
announced, and
we realised the
implications for our
families.
Social Policy:
@Labouryouth
Since the announcement o Budget 2012, lone parents have been raising concerns about aspects o the reorms to one-
parent amily supports and the cumulative eect o a range o cuts on their amilies. One-parent amilies were aected
by cuts in Rent Supplement, Fuel Allowance, Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance and cuts to Child Benet
or amilies with three or more children.
Measures specic to lone parents were a reduction in the Earnings Disregard element o the One-Parent Family
Payment, and cuts to the Qualied Child Increase and One-Parent Family Payment to lone parents participating inCommunity Employment Schemes. It was also proposed to limit eligibility or the One-Parent Family Payment to lone
parents with children aged 7 or under by 2015.
At the centre o the movement are OPEN, the national network o one-parent amilies, and the newly-ounded
S.P.A.R.K. campaign (Single Parents Acting or the Rights o our Kids). As their campaign heats up in advance o the
publication o the Social Welare Bill, Deirdre Hosord spoke to Frances Byrne, CEO o OPEN, to nd out more about her
concerns.
Continues on page 4.
By Deirdre HosfordDublin
-
8/2/2019 Left Tribune VII.2
4/20
ull-time employment is the
best way to lit someone out
o poverty, so any policy that
pushes lone parents o social
welare or out o part-time
employment and into ull-
time work is poverty-proo,
though jobs are thin on theground at the minute. What do
you think o this approach to
poverty-proofng?
As an anti-poverty network,
OPEN is not happy with the
approach to poverty-proong
because the sad act is that the
current method is inormed by
unair assumptions and values,
which dont take account o
realities in the current context
o part-time work, low payand the diversity o amilies
and households. Its a blanket
approach, and the lesson is that
everything needs to be looked
at. We need poverty impact
assessments, which would be
much better. And we also need
strong poverty targets. Were
waiting or the government to
publish the latest ones.
The S.P.A.R.K. (Single Parents
Acting or the Rights oour Kids) campaign was
launched ater the Budget
2012 announcements. Does
this mark a decisive change
in the way that single parents
engage with the State and the
political system?
I the current government
doesnt have an underlying
negative attitude toward one-
parent amilies, then why is it
that lone parents in receipt o
One-Parent Family Payments
were singled out and thats
the only way to describe it in
Budget 2012? The conclusion we
have come to is that lone parents
live in communities where
voting levels are very low. I we
dont get these things reversed
and the age 7 limit stopped in
its tracks, the only good thing to
come out o this would be the
dawning realisation on those
lone parents that we need to be
much more active citizens, and
that starts with voting. Right
now, invitations are coming in
rom everywhere to come and
talk about the Social Welare Bill,
and were agreeing o course,
but were also asking or 5-10
minutes at the end to talk about
voting and the importance
o getting on the electoral
register. We think S.P.A.R.K. is a
maniestation o the realisation
that lone parents need to get
active. Like OPEN, S.P.A.R.K.
is grassroots and led by lone
parents. There isnt a lone parent
in the state on social welare or
not who thinks its a good ideato reduce the age to 7.
So where would you like the
social policy around one-
parent amilies to bring us in
the uture, and how do we get
there?
We need to prepare or the
moment when we have money
again. The rst thing we need to
establish now is a Cabinet sub-committee on childcare. There
needs to be political will around
this, so that well have a public
debate in Ireland about what age
is appropriate all else being
equal to have non-parental
care. Is it 1? 2? 3? And do we
thereore need to increase and
pay or paternity leave?
The early school year has been
one o the most successul thingsthe State has ever done, with
98% take-up. At OPEN, we think
that the system needs to be as
universal as it possibly can be so
that its not a stigmatising system,
and those with resources can
contribute through their taxes.
But we want to have a debate.
Thats at a minimum.
Education and training
also needs reorm, as does the
social welare system. Work must
pay. I were saying that there willalways be low-paid jobs, then
social welare has to kick in. The
same applies i you have to work
part-time or cant work ull-time.
Ultimately, its about us
deciding what kind o society we
want. OPEN recommends a move
away rom the current means-
testing and to put in its place
as much universal provision as
the country can aford, and aterthat, you pay according to your
ability to pay. Its 50% rights, 50%
responsibilities. And it needs to
be transparent. At the moment,
its piecemeal, and then we get
disasters like this Social Welare
Bill.
*Preliminary fndings rom Census
2011, published since this interview
was conducted, show that there
are now 215,300 amilies headed
by lone parents with children, 87per cent o which are headed by
lone mothers.
Right: Poster for OPENs 7
IS TOO YOUNG campaign.
Left Tribune4
-
8/2/2019 Left Tribune VII.2
5/20
Jobs, Reorm, Fairness. was
the rallying cry o the Labour
Party in 2011s General Election,
lest we orget. Each word was
careully chosen and assessed
or the impact it would have in
the consciousness o a damaged,
hurt, betrayed public. Jobs was
a no-brainer in the climate o
steadily-rising unemployment,
and Reorm was a dog-whistle
to an electorate that knew
something, somewhere, had
somehow gone wrong but
wasnt quite sure what needed
changing just that change was
badly needed. Fairness was
more controversial, probably
because it was trying so hard not
to be; it was what we said when
we wanted to say equality but
were told it wouldnt play well
with the electorate.
Behind the three buzzwords,
though, was quite a strong orm
o policy or, at least, a strong
promise to create progressive
social policy. However, the
constraints o coalition
government have impeded
much o what we had hoped
to achieve in terms o Labour
social policy, not least because
(contrary to the belie o some)
so much o social policy is bound
up with a relationship with the
Exchequer. A more progressive
and air taxation system would o
course have huge positive social
implications, as much through
the eeling o social solidarity
that it would create as through
the greater nances available or
spending on social projects. This,
due to the reality o coalition
politics, never transpired.
Some progress has been made.
Particularly welcomed by most
Labour supporters was Minister
Ruairi Quinns push to end the
patronage o schools by the
Catholic Church. While tinged
with bitterness over the increase
in point-o-entry costs or third-
level education that happened
almost alongside it, this element
o progress will hopeully
produce strong social dividends
in years to come. Similarly, the
introduction o candidate gender
quota legislation brings the
promise o a progression in the
number o women represented
at Dil level; the legislation is
controversial, and I believe it
is fawed, but it is perhaps a
step in the right direction and
will hopeully be ollowed up
with urther social policy tosupport emale candidacies.
That said, chipping away at
the unrepresentative nature o
the Dil composition is a much
bigger project; o those elected
in the General Election in 2011,
women only made up 15.06%,
but people under 35 only made
up 12.34%, and yet there is no
real call or young people to be
supported in entering politicallie.
Perhaps the greatest opportunity
available to Labour in government
to implement progressive social
policy will occur in the next year.
Having applied or, and received,
a one-year extension, Ireland
must now introduce shared
parental leave in line with an
EU directive. The advantageso this model rather than a
maternity leave model have been
discussed time and time again.
However, merely ollowing the
directives minimum standards
will be nowhere near enough to
overcome the huge challenges
aced by mothers and indeed
athers in the workplace. In
an excellent policy document
drated recently, Labour Youth
outlined ve steps that should
be considered or adoption by
the government. These included
extending adoption rights
to civil partners; introducing
statutory paid paternity leave
upon the birth or adoption o achild; reorming paid maternity
leave to make it transerable
between partners, at a ratio to
be determined by the couple;
introducing payment in respect
o parental leave; and extending
the period o paid paternity leave
over time. While there would be
a cost associated with many o
these measures, the societal
benet to be reaped would be
huge; countries such as Sweden
that already use a similar model
have noticed huge social benets
since its implementation.
As a nal note on social policy,
it is time to start asking hard
questions about what this
government will do on the
issues o reproductive rights and
marriage equality. Reproductive
rights will be covered by other
articles in this issue. On the
issue o marriage equality, the
government does appear to be
stalling. It is perhaps politically
convenient or expedient to kick
all decisions relating to same-
sex marriages down the road
to the nebulous Constitutional
Convention, but the act is that
we are not acting on issues which
attracted many votes to the
Labour Party in 2011. Enshrining
the marriage rights o same-sex
couples in the Constitution will
o course require a reerendum,
but many o the key issues
especially adoption rights or
civil partners, an issue or many
straight couples as well as gay
could be addressed using
legislation rather than waitingor constitutional change.
Labour needs to stop shying
away rom this and many other
issues o social policy that can
be addressed during our tenure
in government, and when those
issues require a loosening o the
purse-strings by our coalition
partners, we must get better at
making the arguments or this to
happen.
HOW IS LABOUR
SHAPING SOCIETY?
5facebook.com/Labouryouth
By Luke FieldUCC
-
8/2/2019 Left Tribune VII.2
6/20
Left Tribune6
It has been almost 20 years since
the landmark X-case in which
the Supreme Court ruled that a
14 year-old girl, who had allen
pregnant ater being raped,
could access an abortion on the
grounds that continuing the
pregnancy was o risk to her lie
rom threat o suicide. Despite
consistent lobbying by activists
and womens rights groups since
then, this ruling has not been
legislated upon. Such an actwhich would make it possible
or any woman whos lie is
endangered by her pregnancy to
seek an abortion in the Republic
o Ireland. In the murky legal
area that exists at the moment
between precedent and what is
written in law, doctors are highly
unlikely to chance perorming an
abortion or ear o the possible
consequences. This contributes
to the hopeless situation in
which 4000 Irish women a
year are travelling to the UK or
terminations.
Consecutive governments
have shirked the issue, even
twice bringing orward reerendato have the ruling overturned
outright; both o which the Irish
people rejected. The ABC vs
Ireland case in which three more
women brought similar cases to
the European Court o Human
Rights, threw light back on the
issue. C, a woman suering rom
a rare orm o cancer claimed
to have been orced to travel
to Britain to seek an abortion
because no doctor in Ireland
would provide one, despitethe act that according to the X
case ruling, it should have been
legally available on the grounds
that her lie was in danger i her
pregnancy continued.
We in the Labour Party
promised to legislate on the X
case i elected, and have thus
ar ailed to do so the matter
now resigned to a committee
o investigation lead by the
Minister or Health, Dr. James
Reilly, ollowing discussions with
Fine Gael. The committee o 14
experts, which is due to report
back to the Oireachtas with their
ndings within 6 months, will be
the ourth such committee set upto look into the abortion issue.
Abortion in the case o
risk to the mothers lie is a right
that is currently being wrongly
denied by the state i not
provided. Ireland was put in an
embarrassing position recently
ollowing the UN periodic review
in which several countries
criticised our abortion laws and
more recently in the European
Court o Human Rights ruling
on ABC which condemned theIrish government or ailing
to act upon the X Case ruling,
and stated that current law is
abhorrent to article 8 o the
European Convention on Human
Rights the right to respect or
private and amily lie.
With the prospect now o
a reerendum on abortion rights
in the wake o the Oireachtas
groups ndings, this issue is sure
to prove contentious. In a debate
so steeped in moral and religious
bias, it may be difcult to have an
articulate debate on the issue o
reproductive rights. Nonetheless,
it is a debate that is long overdue.
In the case o a womanslie being put at risk, the state has
a duty o care both legally and
morally to provide her with the
means to terminate a pregnancy
in a dignied and sensitive
manner. Taking the lonely trip
on the boat to England is
not the ideal situation either
psychologically or nancially or
a woman who is already dealing
with a traumatic situation,
and yet it is a lonely trip that is
made by about 10 or more Irishwomen every day. Worse still is
the growing trend o women and
young girls buying unregulated
abortiacients online or seeking
other DIY solutions. Women
should be supported by both
the state and the medical
system in such a case, even i it is
unpalatable or some.
Ireland needs to step out
o the conservative moral trench
it nds itsel in on this issue, and
the Labour Party needs to be the
one giving it the leg up.
20 YEARS SINCE X: ITS TIME TO
LEGISLATE
We believe that the issue of abortion in Ireland mustbe addressed politically, and no longer swept under
the carpet. We call upon the Government to:
A. Introduce immediate legislation to make provisionfor abortion in Ireland in cases where there is a substantialrisk to the life of the woman, including risk of suicide, asupheld by the 'X' case ruling.
B. Ensure that abortion is provided for in such cases.
C. Address the issue of abortion in the longer term,leading to the repeal of anti-abortion legislation and Article40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution (Anti-Choice amendment).
D. Ensure that any abortion provision in Ireland isaccessible to all women on an equitable basis.
Travelling abroadshould not be theonly choice
It's Time to Legislatefor the X-Case
Diferent campaignimages calling orabortion legislationin Ireland, includingLabour Youths owncollaberation withLabour Women andLabour Equality on
the 18th anniversayo the X cas.
By Audrey WalshUCC
-
8/2/2019 Left Tribune VII.2
7/20
@Labouryouth 7
LIFE-SAVING ABORTIONS ARENT
THE ONLY ABORTIONS WE
SHOULD BE LEGALISING
One o the most talked about
women in Irish society is
someone whose name we do
not know. X was a 14 year old
girl who ell pregnant ater being
raped and was prevented rom
travelling to the United Kingdomto terminate the pregnancy. This
injunction was overturned when
the Supreme Court ruled that
X could access an abortion on
the grounds that continuing the
pregnancy was o risk to her lie
rom threat o suicide.
In 2010, nearly two decades
later, three women, known as
A, B and C, challenged Irelands
still restrictive abortion laws at
the European Court o Human
Rights. The three women told
the court that the impossibility
o obtaining an abortion in
Ireland made the procedure
unnecessarily expensive and
traumatic. In particular, they
argued that Irelands restrictive
abortion laws stigmatised and
humiliated them and risked
damaging their health and, in the
case o C, her lie. The EuropeanCourt o Human Rights ruled in
avour o just one o the women,
C. C was in remission rom cancer
when she became pregnant and
could not obtain clear advice
about the risks to her lie and to
the oetus i she continued with
the pregnancy. The ECHR said
the Irish government had ailed
to legislate or abortion under
the X case thus violating the
rights o C who who had to travel
to the UK or an abortion. This
publically placed pressure on the
Irish government to legislate or
abortion under the conditions o
the 1992 X case.
It is evident that the X case
continues to shape abortion
discourse in Ireland, and beore
our most recent election the
Labour Party promised to
legislate or it. It is arguably a
landmark case and an aront tothe rights o Irish women that it
has not yet been legislated or, so
long ater its ndings. One cant
help but wonder, however, about
the true impact on womens
rights X case legislation would
have, given its very particular
application; the X case involves a
minor, a paedophile, a rape and a
misguided attorney general. We
as progressives need to ght orand protect a womans right to
abort an unplanned pregnancy
not just when it involves a rape,
a health risk, or a oetal deect,
but also where the pregnancy is
simply not wanted. Discourse on
abortion should stop ocusing on
saving womens lives and start
ocusing on the most common
reason or seeking an abortion a woman simply does not want to
go through with the pregnancy.
A was unmarried, unemployed
and living in poverty with an
alcohol addiction. A, at that time,
had our children, one disabled,
who had all been taken in to oster
care by the State. A, increasingly
worried about the risk o post-
natal depression and what risk
a th child could have on her
sobriety and regaining custody
o her children, borrowed money
rom a lender to travel alone to
the UK and visit a private clinic
or an abortion. B ound hersel
pregnant ater taking emergency
contraception and also borrowed
money to travel alone to the UK
or an abortion.
Abortion clinics advise Irish
women to travel with a riend yetboth o these women travelled
on their own: A travelled by
hersel without telling her amily
or social workers or missing a
contact visit with her children
and B did not list anybody as her
next o kin to ensure that her
amily would not nd out. Both
women had complications with
the procedures. A, on returning
back to Ireland began to bleedprousely or weeks thereater
but did not seek urther medical
advice. B began passing blood
clots and instead o visiting a
doctor in Ireland returned to
the UK or medical care as she
was uncertain o the legality o
abortion in Ireland. These cases
demonstrate both the emotional
and nancial distress that
travelling or abortions place
upon women. These women
did not eel that they could tell
anybody about their experiences
and both had borrowed money,
A at a very high interest, in
order to receive the abortions.
Their experiences also shed
light on the lack o correct legal
inormation held by doctors in
the UK; the doctor in the abortion
clinic advised B to tell her doctor
in Ireland that she had had amiscarriage. This not only caused
B emotional distress and implied
that she had done something
wrong but also lead her to spend
even more money on returning
to the UK or a ollow-up exam
ater she began passing blood
clots.
Its unclear the exact number o
Irish women who are travelling
abroad or abortions rom Ireland
each year. In 2009, a report
claimed that 4422 women had
given Irish addresses to abortion
clinics within the United
Kingdom. This gure does not
take in to account women who
give alse addresses nor does it
take in to account women who
are travelling to countries other
than the UK. This gure does
tell us that there is a demand
amongst many Irish women orabortive procedures. This is a
act that our public ofcials are
unwilling to admit to, including
ormer Attorney General Paul
Gallagher who deended
Ireland v ABC, claiming that the
protection o the oetus was
central to the proound moral
values embedded in Irish society.
The demand or abortive services
is clear to many other countries.Indeed, Ireland is one o the
only countries in the West in
which abortion procedures are
completely illegal. In act, most
abortion clinics, in places such as
the UK, Netherlands and France,
have webpages solely dedicated
to advising Irish women travelling
rom Ireland, linking to airlines,
accommodations and even
special package oers. We have
an estimate o how many women
travel abroad or abortions, but
what must the gure look like
or those who are orced to go
through with the unwanted
pregnancies due to lack o
nances? Any country in which
abortion is illegal will be home to
backstreet abortions. In 2010, the
Irish Medicine Board seized over
1200 abortive pills coming in to
Ireland rom oreign countries.This shows the desperate lengths
that women in Ireland will go
to in order to terminate their
unwanted pregnancies.
There are many reasons that a
pregnancy may be unwanted,
but the state has no place
judging these on their merits. I
we accept that a oetus is not a
lie, than the x-case doesnt go ar
enough. I we think that it is a lie,
then rape, incest or the threat o
maternal suicide are no reasons
to end it. I a woman in Ireland
does not want to go through
with a pregnancy she must be
able to terminate that pregnancy
without the psychological,
emotional and nancial burden
o travelling alone to a oreign
country.
There is a demand
amongst many Irish
women for abortive
procedures... this
is a fact that our
public ofcials are
unwilling to admit to.
nnaN Gleabhin
Dublin
-
8/2/2019 Left Tribune VII.2
8/20
In recent months there has been
a lot o debate about the Internet
and copyright. Unortunately,
Labour hasnt come out very well
in this debate. On one hand we
have huge companies who own
copyright and want to exploitmusic and lms to their ullest
extent and on the other we
have users who want air and
reasonable access to things they
have bought.
Let me start by saying
that I do accept the need or
artists to be compensated or
their work. The problem is that it
is trivially easy to copy things on
the Internet and there is no real
technical way to stop this: The
internet was, ater all, inventedas a network that could survive
partial destruction by a nuclear
attack.
I strongly believe the major
reason or people downloading
illegally is that rstly they want
to see i they like the band or
TV show, and secondly that
they cant get it at a air price
without outrageous licensing
conditions in other sources. I
these companies made it easieror people to legally buy their
content they wouldnt have this
problem.
In America, in the 90s, there
was a big scare over people
taping songs of the radio and
record companies clamed that
this would destroy the industry.
It was legalised and nothing
happened. Today we have the
ability to communicate to one
billion people in our pockets. Wehave seen this with the twitter
documentation o o the Arab
spring. The internet has a lot o
potential and is being and can be
hugely benecial to society.
Then we come to Irish SOPA,
a statutory instrument which
grants the courts sweeping
powers to demand that sites
be blocked that are accused
o copyright inringement, to
bring Ireland in to line with EU
law. However, there is a class osites which allow users to upload
content which this law doesnt
adequately protect.
Websites like YouTube,
Flickr and Twitter let users
upload anything they like. This
has caused a revolution o
creativity on the web and has
allowed people to set up their
own businesses. There are also
a lot o new small and medium
enterprises, some o which are
based in Ireland, which also letusers upload content. Under this
SI, a rights holder can go straight
to court and get an injunction
against Internet Service Providers
to block a website, without
the website owner even being
inormed.
In such a case, why would
an ISP even ght the injunction
on behal o a website that gives
them no direct income? The
SI creates the unique situation
where the deendant isnt the
one who will sufer rom an
injunction against them. Those
who will sufer, website owners,
hosts, business, etc., wont have
a voice in the courtroom their
right to a air trial being rather
skilully undermined by the
Instrument.
Aside rom business, this has
massive implications or satire,
journalism and art. It also could
have a hugely detrimental
efect on political activity. Mostdamningly though, at a time
when music and lm industry
associations are blatantly making
up statistics to cover or their
complete lack o investment
in new ormats, and getting
increasingly irrational and
unreasonable in their clamour
to tighten licenses or digital
products, the government has
yet to see a problem in the way
these commercial interests are
conducting their business.
Minister Sherlock has said he
would like to see both sides
sit down around the table to
discuss the uture o the industry
well, on one side there are
large commercial interests,
and on the other side there
are millions o Irish consumers
and citizens. Governments
desperately need to realise that
THEY are the ones who should be
representing citizens, and talking
to commercial interests rom thatpoint o view, and shouldnt have
much patience or companies
who are trying to make it harder
to download their products or
ree, whilst not simultaneously
putting any efort downloading
their products legally.
Then we have ACTA, the Anti-
Countereiting Trade Agreement,
which emerged a ew years ago,
which aims to enorce American
style copyright laws across the
world. Countereiting and trade
are two very important issues.
Countereiting making a
substandard product and selling
it of as a well-known brand
is really bad. Cars that werent
made saely and drugs that
dont work shouldnt be on the
market and denitely shouldnt
be on the streets. ACTA doesnt
deal with countereiting. Trade is
where two countries sell things
to each other in exchange or
other things or currency. Tradeis a very important aspect o lie,
and is the central ocus o many
treaties. ACTA doesnt really deal
with trade, except to make it
more complicated. ACTA deals
with patenets and copyright, or
rather, ACTA redenes copyright
to the extent that a new orm o
property right will criminalise
much o what we regard as
legitimate behaviour.
Legitimate behaviour like getting
seeds and medication to thirdworld countries; ACTA extends
patents to goods going through
countries even i the goods are
out o patent in the source and
destination countries. Such
trade is thereore policed nay,
prevented by countries who
have no stake in it or grievance
by it.
It will enshrine into law the
concept that one illegal
download equals one lost sale,which will put unrealistic and
unair costs on sites. Perhaps
the most damaging part is that
it demands criminal sanctions or
commercial scale inringement.
This is dened in such a vague
way that it could mean bloggers
who use a copyright image could
be criminalised.
A horriying aspect o ACTA,
however, is the way we ound
out about it. We, the public,
knew nothing until a copy o
the treaty was leaked. Usually
trade agreements are negotiated
in secret, but ACTA isnt a usual
trade agreement, it provides or
undamental changes to law and
policy.
Indeed, or a treaty that will
dramatically change laws in
countries that signed up to it, is it
not odd that its not being debated
publicly, or even by parliaments
in signatory countries? Comparethe secret negotiation o ACTA
to the open access NGOs have to
Left Tribune8
DISSECTING ACTA AND IRELANDS
SOPA
Jobs, Enterprise & Innovation:
10 Things you might not know about #SOPAIrelandOn January 26th, Labour Youth got creative in attempting to spread the campaign to oppose the Statutory Instrument on ISP injunctions.,releasing one thing you might not know about #SOPAIreland an hour or ten hours. Here are ten things you might not know about theInstrument...
1. It will breach the European Convention on Human Rights i companies are ound to sel-censor out o ear o injunction.
2. It gives Judges the ability to destroy accused indigenous businesses without hearing their deence.
3. The ECJ have ruled against provisions now ound in #SOPAIreland, and the Commission warned about their blocking
growth in the Irish Economy.
4. ThIt will push the price o internet connection up or Irish businesses and customers.
By DeclanMeenagh
Dublin
-
8/2/2019 Left Tribune VII.2
9/20
There has been much criticismo the move by the coalition
government to move the
ambassador to the Holy See
to Dublin, and the closure o
the dedicated embassy to the
Vatican in Rome. Recently in
Cork, local Fianna Fil councillor
OFlynn claimed that the closure
was to satisy the godlessness o
the Labour Party, to which he was
thoroughly and comprehensively
rebuked by our own Cllr Michael
OConnell. It would almostbe amusing i it werent such
an insult, considering the
numerous people o all aiths
within the party, and the values
we hold that can be considered
Christian among others. Zealous
statements on the matter have
also come rom the backbenchers
o our coalition partner, with TDs
vying with each other to prove
their Catholic credentials in an
attempt to gain the upper hand
on this issue. The press too hasbeen a battleground, with the
Letters to the Editor section o
the Irish Times continuing to
play host on occasion to radicals
on both sides o the problem. I
one can draw a conclusion rom
any o this, it may very well be
that we are incapable o having
a calm and reasoned debate on
this issue, and quite rightly so
perhaps.
Ater all, the Catholic Churchhas been an institution
undamentally linked to what
it means to be Irish since the
ailure o the secular-pluralist
rebels o 1798. Irish nationalism,
a driving orce even today, was
increasingly linked to Catholicism
by both nationalists themselves
and the British once the Anglican
church was disestablished here.
It has been argued that the
Church usurped the role o the
monarchy once such a vacuumwas created ater the Treaty.
Hospitals, schools, care o the
poor, these roles were ullled by
the Church where there were no
other groups or societies to do
so. For that reason, the radicals
arguing that we must spend ar
more money than we need to in
order to have an embassy can be
understood, i not agreed with.
However, the same historical act
is also why the abuses detailedat horrible length in the various
reports were possible. The Church
played such a undamental role
in Irish society that it usurped
many unctions o the state,
which either was unwilling or
unable to take on those unctions
themselves. Control o education
by the Catholic Church enabled
these abuses, and the inuence
o the Church generally allowed
their continuation. This insult
to every reasonable Irish citizenhas and will continue to create
much anger. Coupled with the
nature o the Vatican as a state,
an extremely rich enclave in Italy
that was eectively created by
Mussolini, and the damage done
by the Church with regard to the
AIDS epidemic in Arica, the other
sort o radical advocating ending
diplomatic relations with the
Vatican can also be understood,
and again, i not agreed with.
However, none o the approaches
proposed by those who want to
reopen the embassy, or those
who want to end relations, are
realistic or reasonable.
In the ormer case, it is simple
economic reality we must
contend with. The Vatican,
although providing us with
megaphone diplomacy
on issues like international
poverty and peacekeeping,does not provide us with what
we really need at the moment:
investment, jobs, and economic
opportunity. Those ideas must
take precedent when it comes
to deciding which embassies
we close, and which embassies
remain open. Furthermore, the
option o closing our embassies
in key developing countries
is not an alternative either,
particularly i we are to remain
the enthusiasts o humanitarianaid and development that we
are today. Lastly, the expense o
reopening the embassy would
be considerable in its own
right, and an absurd suggestion
considering we already have a
building in Rome or diplomatic
activity in the orm o the
Italian embassy. Indulging the
Vaticans absurd position on joint
embassies at large expense is not
reasonable in any sense o the
word.
On the other side o the coin,
ending diplomatic relations
would be an extreme move.
While the number o people who
claim no religious afliation have
increased signicantly since the
last census, the act o the matter
is that most Irish people continue
to claim Catholicism as their
religious viewpoint, no matter
how serious they are about it.
Furthermore, many o our newIrish rom Eastern Europe are
Catholics as well. It would be
extremely disrespectul to them
to snub the leader o their church
in such a way while other, more
productive options are available.
The approach o our government
has been quite correct on this
issue, and indeed, is the only
mature one in sight. Coupled with
principled republican reorms in
areas like patronage o schools
at every level, and appropriatechild protection legislation as
outlined by the Taoiseach during
his speech on the Cloyne Report,
this government could achieve
something never beore seen
in Ireland. We must not waver
on these issues, we must stand
resolutely in avour o a reasoned
approach to relations with
every country, and in avour o a
pluralist Ireland.
9
A MATURE AND REPUBLICAN
APPROACH TO DIPLOMATIC
RELATIONS WITH THE VATICAN
@Labouryouth
International Affairs:the World Intellectual Copyright
Organisation (WIPO), which was
where international copyright
issues were dealt with beore
those behind ACTA decided
it was too open, having given
concessions or libraries and
blind people.
Tere are systems called digitalrights management or DRMwhich are designed to preventpeople rom copying things theyhave bought like books and music.Under ACA, breaking DRM inany orm is illegal and providinginormation about breakingDRM is also a crime. In the past,companies which have used thistechnology have shut down leavingusers unable to access content
they have legally bought. Tereis no exception in ACA to accessthis content, even issue is that iyou need to break DRM to accesscontent, or example i you have adisability, or want to translate orannotate something. Tis, despitethe act that youve paid money orthe product.
In all ACA is a terrible treaty, andis indicative o the huge corporateinterests at work here. While I
hope the ECJ completely rejectsACA, it is likely there will bemore treaties trying to orce theseunjust laws into the EU and acrossthe world. We need to be on ourguard and ready to fght back asnew threats to ree speech anddemocracy emerge.
5. The messages to companies like Google, Twitter and LinkedIn, is that Irish law might change at any moment to hurt their
investment here (and yet, we still wont charge them reasonable tax rates in the same vein...)
6. At the time o initial publication, Sen Sherlocks own website was breaking copyright with several very obvious microsot
sotware symbols. Had the SI been in place, Irish ISPs couldve been taken to court by Microsot to block Sherlocks website.
7. It wont just attack illegal downloading, it will also have massive implications or Youtube and Facebook - who are already
rolling out a country-by-country censorship program.
8. It wont stop people rom le-sharing, and yet it will cost us a lot o our reedoms.
9. While EMI Ireland will use it to make up or their own commercial ailings, smaller companies wont risk the legal costs.
10. Its not or the greater good; acts like it across the world are being pushed by and or about 15 large multinationals.
By Eoghan BoyceDublin
-
8/2/2019 Left Tribune VII.2
10/20
You are not responsible or the
crisis. This was the reassuring
message Enda Kenny sent to
the Irish people on December
4th, 2011, two days beore the
presentation o the coalitions
rst budget. One might have had
high hopes, as it seemed that theprevious government had never
really considered that they had
in act created the crisis, not the
people who were ooting the bill.
But now that our Labour Party
were in government, one might
have hoped that they would
ensure a dierent way o thinking
and had no designs on making
the working people o Ireland
pay or an economic collapse
that was in no way their ault.
However, this statement was
ultimately o little signicance.
There is little point in
acknowledging that the Irish
people are not responsible or
the crisis when you continue to
punish them or it. The coalitions
budget was an aront to the most
basic Labour Party principles
o equality, airness and social
justice. It was a disproportionate
attack on working people whilst
the higher earners and topechelons o Irish society escaped
essentially unscathed.
How was this the case? Firstly,
arguably the most controversial
measure in the budget, or Labour
Party members at least, was a 2%
VAT hike. This sort o measure is
traditionally abhorred by those
on the let as crude and unjust,
because o VATs inherent nature
as a regressive tax: someone in
receipt o welare payments will
contribute the same amount o
VAT rom a given purchase as
the very top earners. There canbe no doubt in the mind o any
progressive that increasing it is
unair.
I not notorious or these reasons,
it was this measure that incurred
the opposition o newly elected
Labour TD Patrick Nulty, who
resigned rom the Parliamentary
Party in the act o daring deying
the party whip.
Then, o course, there is theinamous Household Charge.
In the spirit o the anti-austerity
Poplar Town Council o 1921,
its better to break the law
than break the poor, and it
is unsurprising that the let
supports non-payment. It has
been suggested in many quarters
that those who oppose the
charge are hypocrites or reusing
to support a property tax. This is
not a property tax, but a poverty
tax. A property tax should betargeted primarily at mansions
and extravagant homes: not
every household equally.
A point o the budget which
will be particularly close to the
hearts o Labour Youth members
is the increase o the third-level
student contribution. It is the
universal belie o the let-wing
that education is a right, but
under the last government, and
now this coalition, it has become
an expensive commodity. At
a time when costs are rising
and rising or working amilies,education with a 3,000 price tag
sounds more like a privilege than
a right.
These are just the headline
issues in a budget that was
disproportionately targeted at
lower earners. People earning
17,000 a year will still pay the
same proportion o their income
in Universal Social Charge as
those who earn 100,000 a year.
When rising infation is taken into account, those receiving child
benet will be acing substantial
cuts in real terms. Based on ERSI
infation projections or amilies
on social protection, this could
range rom real cuts o 10% to
57% depending on how many
children the amily have. For
part-time workers, the gains
made by the raising o the USC
threshold could be wiped out
by the replacement o the Five-
Day Rule with a Six-day Rule.For those working two days a
week, they will lose 12.53 in
Jobseekers Benet, eliminating
any potential gains these workers
would have made rom a reduced
Universal Social Charge burden.
There can be no doubt that a
disproportionately large share o
the burden is being placed on the
shoulders o low earners in order
to pay or the ill-destined debts
o speculators and incompetent
banks. Yet we are told that we
are where we are and that these
tough policies are necessary in
order to restore scal stability, butstability comes rom economic
growth, and austerity does not
give you growth.
Despite what the government
seem to be saying, there are
progressive, airer alternatives
to the current strategy. Enda
Kenny told the nation that or
some certainty or the year
ahead, were leaving income
tax untouched. This is nullied
by the cuts and taxes imposedbelow the surace, wiping out
the gains made by headline rates.
This certainly does not provide
any certainty. Nonetheless,
progressive increases in income
tax are in act one o the most
responsible and necessary
steps we can take. Firstly, a
heavy progressive or graduated
income tax ensures that, unlike
VAT hikes or child benet cuts,
income taxation is proportional
to how much an individualearns and we can thus ensure
it is air. Secondly, it is not the
working class who should have
to bear urther taxation, but the
wealthy. It is a basic progressive
principle that those who can
aord to contribute more should
do so. Our taxation system is not
progressive enough. We need
at least a third rate to target
higher earners, or example,
those earning over 100,000 a
year. Increases in income tax onhigher earners, wealth taxes, and
increases in the capital gains and
acquisitions taxes could raise up
to 770 million. Online gambling
taxes, the abolition o group
relie which allows capitalists
to transer losses to protable
companies, abolition o legacy
property relies and reductions
in mortgage interest relie or
landlords would raise just under
1.3 billion.
WORKING PEOPLE SUFFERING UNDER
BUDGET 2012
Finance & the Economy:
Left Tribune10
By Rory ONeillDeputy Editor
-
8/2/2019 Left Tribune VII.2
11/20
facebook.com/Labouryouth 11
most signicant and worthwhilesaving we could make is tocease paying the promissorynotes. 2.6 billion is scheduledto be paid to unguaranteedbondholders alone in 2012.Combined with the progressive
measures outlined above,ceasing all payments to just theunguaranteed bondholderswould be o even more value tothe exchequer than this harshausterity budget was.
I economic history has provenone thing, it is that austerity doesnot work. As i we needed urtherproo, we learned recently thatIreland slumped back in torecession in the nal quarter o2011. This can come as no surpriseto anyone. When the governmentcontinues a ailed strategy odefating and taking money outo the economy at a time when it
is already struggling to grow, theend result is almost inevitable.Labour in opposition stoodagainst it, Labour in governmentshould not implement it.
It is a worrying indicator o the
balance o power in the coalitionwhen Budget 2012 is describedby those in the party as a Labourbudget. Why is Labour happy toput their name to a budget thatsucked 1.4 billion out o theeconomy in spending cuts? Is thisthe best we can do? I this is reallyas much progress as the partycan make in government in co-operation with Fine Gael; i ourstandards have sunk so low thatwe are satised with this budget,then this is a worrying omenor what is to come. A urtherdegeneration and blurring o thevalues, principles and policiesclaimed by the Labour Party
seems to be imminent.
The economy will not get anybetter i we ollow this strategy.The Labour Party thus has twochoices: It can shield itsel withTroika commitments and the
Programme or Government, andcontinue down the same path; orit can demand a change in policyrom the government. I Labouris to claim any credibility as aparty t to represent workingpeople, then it must insiston an alternative plan that isprogressive and air.
This is not a debate over whetherto enter government or not,because never is it so clear thatLabour has opted to stay on themargins than when we haveentered government. The party sprinciples get pushed to thewayside. Will the centenary year
mark another year o steppingback? So ar, that is exactly whathas happened. Labour may be ingovernment and participating ina coalition, but the values thatthe party claims to represent social justice, equality and
progress are not being assertedor implemented. There is nosocial justice or airness in howthis government is attackingworking people to pay or a crisisthat they did not create. Thus ar,Labour have ailed in allowingthis regressive campaign oausterity to go ahead, despitewarning against it in opposition.A radical shit in the partysattitude towards governmentis necessary i it is to avoid adamning rejection by the peopleat the next election.
Labour DCU
Chair: David HelionSecretary: Steven CondonEmail: [email protected]
DIT Labour
Chair: Luke ORourke
Secretary: Lyndsey CopelandEmail: [email protected]
Labour NUI GalwayNoel Browne Branch
Chair: anna Mac DonnchadaSecretary: Cian MoranEmail: [email protected]. ie
NUIM Labour Youth
Chair: Eleanor McKennaSecretary: Ruaidhri BolandEmail: [email protected]
UCC Labour
Jim Kemmy Branch
Chair: Dean DukeSecretary: Siobhn de PaorEmail: [email protected]
UCD Labour
Charlie Donnelly BranchChair: Conor QuirkeSecretary: Lisa ConnellEmail: [email protected]
Trinity Labour
Chair: Angelina CoxSecretary: Miriam HenningEmail: [email protected]
Labour Youth College Branches:
-
8/2/2019 Left Tribune VII.2
12/20
Studying economics is something
o a mixed blessing. On one
hand youre the guy that your
riends turn to when someone
on the news says something like
credit deault swap or double-
dip recession. However on the
other hand you are cursed to
orever go through lie looking
over peoples shoulders and
giving them unsolicited advised
about how they, in your humble
opinion, SHOULD be conductingtheir nancial aairs. The most
simple everyday events become
the perect testing ground or
economic theory, or maybe I
have just read a ew too many
Freakonomics books.
The economist inside me
couldnt even do something as
simple as watch the recent lm
Puss in Boots (yeah, what o
it?) without ignoring the plot
and substituting my own set o
what i? questions in its place.For anyone who hasnt seen
the lm it concerns the titular
character involved in a plot to
recover the abled Goose that
has the ability to lay golden
eggs. Upon recovering the goose
the characters are treated to an
ever increasing supply o golden
eggs. I am sure that everyone in
the cinema was thinking how
cool it would be i this goose
really existed. Everyone, that is,
except me. I was sitting therethinking to mysel that i this
goose were real, or the good
o humanity we would have to
kill the goose. Gold is valuable
because it is scarce. Any rst
year economist can prove to you
that this is the case using basic
supply and demand diagrams. I
a magic goose was messing withthis delicate equilibrium then a
lot o people would lose a lot o
money, so or the sake o keeping
the status quo, the goose would
have to die. Sorry kids. (Ed:
Couldnt we just store the eggs
on a gold mountain under the
terms o the CAP?)
Beore sentencing the
goose to his ate, somewhere in
my train o thought I thought,
what would be the implications
or Ireland i we had access to agolden goose? Maybe not a literal
one, but a device that could solve
much o our economic woes.
The act o the matter is there is
such a thing as a golden goose.
In act Britain has one. This goose
is pampered, it isnt even asked
to lay eggs very oten but just
its very presence is enough to
ensure the condence and well-
being o investors. The goose in
question is called the Bank o
England.In terms o its debt
position, Italy and Britain are
about even with each other.
But as ar as the bond markets
are concerned, they are worlds
apart. At the time o writing this
piece the yield on a 10 year UK
bond was about 2.13% while
Italys yield on a 10 year bond
was 5.62%. Is this because crack
international investors eel that
suddenly Italy has lost its edge
while Britain has not? The simpleanswer is no. The reason is that
Britain has access to a lender o
last resort and Italy does not.
Put simply, investors know that
i worst comes to worst then in
Britain the Bank o England will
step in and make the money
that the British government
needs available. More accurately,they will simply print money
to pay o their debts. This is
the point in my story when any
economics student worth their
salt will say but that will lead
to high infation/devaluation o
the currency and they would be
100% right.
But, and this is the
important part, the loss that
those holding UK bonds would
receive rom taking payment in a
now devalued currency is ar lessthan they would receive i the
Brits were to deault (obviously)
or even i they could only aord to
pay o a percentage o their debt,
as the Greeks are doing. Trust
me, creditors preer this. And
here is the best part o Britains
position, to quote rom a paper
by Douglas Diamond and Philip
Dybvig, the credible promise
to provide the [money] means
that the promise will not need
to be ullled. While Diamondand Dybvid were talking about
government backed insurance to
prevent bank runs, the principal
is the same. Simply having a
golden goose is enough to ease
the ears o creditors, one need
never actually command to the
goose to lay as the act alone that
she could do so i it were required
is good enough.
So whats the problem
then? Britain has a central bank,
so does Italy and so does Ireland.So whats the dierence? Well,
the dierence is that Italy and
Ireland have the same central
bank, the ECB. I the ECB has to act
as a lender o last resort and print
money (or at least promise that it
would) then that would devalue
the Euro not just in Ireland, Italy
and our other bad neighbours in
Portugal, Spain and Greece but
also in Germany and France and
all o the other Eurozone states.
As ar as the infation-phobicGermans are concerned that
is something which cannot be
allowed to happen, not now and
not ever. Since Angela Merkel
and her colleagues seem to be
the ones with their hands on
the purse strings its their way
that prevails even i the ECB is
supposed to be an independent
organisation. In reality the ECB
does what its told or at the very
least it is not nave enough to
think it could cross the Germans
an expect the Euro to survive.
Any hope Ireland ever had o
having its own golden goose
to solve all our problems was
ended a long time ago by some
Germans with their hunting rifes.
So the problem is that the ECB is
simply not t or purpose. It is its
job to guarantee the stability o
the Eurozone and thanks to the
ideological stand point o the
biggest bully in the yard that is
simply not possible.
Uncertainty about the
solvency o sovereign debt
will continue to hang overEurope like a dark cloud and in
many ways countries like Italy
could see themselves become
the victims o sel-ullling
prophecies where by the ear o
a deault pushes up yields which
in turn increases the ear o a
deault which pushes up yields
and so on. By giving in to the
Germans the ECB is playing with
re. Merkel and her minions are
counting on all other countriesplaying their part. But what i
they dont? What i someone
decides their debt is too much to
bear and that a sovereign deault
is the better option, I mean look
at the swing in the ortunes o
Iceland since their deault. I one
country goes, it will be the end
or the Euro. I you imagine the
Eurozone countries like a row
o dominos, once the rst one is
knocked they are all going to go
and rom Frankurt to Faro that is
going to be an economic disaster
or more reasons than I, or indeed
any economist ar more qualied
and experienced could even
begin to contemplate.
So why cant we all be like
those kids in the cinema thinking
how cool it would be to have a
golden goose o our own? Why
cant we have a cute and cuddly
riend who could melt the heart
o even the most anxious oinvestors? While the potential
infationary consequences
are dyer the ar more serious
consequences o a Eurozone
ailure are what need to be
placed opposite in the weighing
scales. Keeping in mind that the
ECB need not actually ever use
its lender o last resort acility,
I know which option I would
advocate.
THE GOOSE THAT LAID THE GOLDEN
EGG
Economists pray on geese as they would any other helpless being.
Left Tribune12
By Dara TurnbullNUIG
-
8/2/2019 Left Tribune VII.2
13/20
13
At the last party conerence in
Galway, in April o 2010, Eamon
Gilmore put orward his vision
or One Ireland and proposed
a undamental review o
our constitution, calling it a
constitution written in 1930s
or the 1930s and proclaiming
that i we are to truly learn
rom the experience o the last
ten years, then we need to look
again, in a considered way, atthe undamental rules that bind
us together. Furthermore, he
proposed that such a review
would be made in a convention
o Irish citizens, who would come
together rom all strands o
Irish lie with the aim o having
a new constitution by 2016.
Our constitution belongs to
the people, not just to political
institutions. So, this must be a
peoples process. I remember
sitting behind him among theother members o Labour Youth
and hearing these words, and
being so delighted, inspired
and proud. Finally, a political
party was talking about the
undamental reorm so badly
needed in Irelands political
system. What was more, it was
our party. Almost exactly two
years on and in the rst genuine
conerence since this last one,
where do we now stand with
such a bold proposal?Beore considering the progress o
constitutional reorm, we should
remember that the constitution
is only a piece o paper outside
o its wider context and that or
Ireland to be genuinely radically
changed requires a much wider
programme: or example, local
government reorm; changes
to party unding; changes to the
whip system; greater access to
government; a new and diferent
type o social partnership;public service reorm and other
alterations directed towards
our wider political culture or
example the implementation o
the suggestions contained in the
Mahon Tribunal.
In many o these areas it is too
early to pass a great deal o
judgment on the government,
other than impressing upon
it the urgency o substantive
change. The current bill
linking party unding to equal
gender representation is to be
welcomed, but without urther
progress in the many other areas
where change is necessary it
will amount to little more than
a supercial improvement,
ailing to tackle the deeper roots
o the rot in Irelands political
culture (which themselves have
added to the problem o gender
imbalance in politics).
In some areas it has to be said
that the signs have been rather
more discouraging. For example,
there has been pretty much no
acceptance by the government,
or indeed the governing parties
more generally, o the need to
reorm the party whip system
in the Oireachtas. This is a big
error. Our current, exceptionally
authoritarian, whip system
undermines the power o
individual TDs and restricts
internal debate to the extent
that party members now nd
more reliable accounts o their
representatives opinions in
the Pheonix than they do at
constituency council meetings or
in the mainstream public sphere.
Whip reorm would not
mean abolishing the system
completely and turning the
Oireachtas into the US Congress,
as has been lazily suggested by
some. Rather it would make us
more akin to the current system
in Westminster, where the three-line whip is only used in a small
number o votes, and crucially
has the potential to undermine
a leaders stature where it is used
too oten. Most importantly, the
unnatural and unprecedented
majority currently held by the
government would make such
a change much more politically
easible than it is likely to be or a
long time ater the next election.
Regardless o other issues,
however, the current proposalsor constitutional reorm stand
out not only because o their
signicance in and o themselves,
but because they provided a
good case study into the attitude
which the government has
with respect to implementing
genuine political change.
Bearing this in mind, it must be
said that the signs are not at all
encouraging. In terms o the
two most essential aspects o
the governments proposals or
the orthcoming constitutional
convention, which are its scope
and its composition; there
are major and possibly atal
problems.
Firstly, consider the eight issues
which the convention will be
asked to consider:
1. Review o the Dil
electoral system
2. Reducing the Presidential
term to ve years and aligning
it with the local and European
elections
3. Giving citizens the right
to vote at Irish embassies in
Presidential elections
4. Provision or same-sex
marriage
5. Amending the clause
on the role o women in the
home and encouraging greater
participation o women in public
lie
6. Increasing the
participation o women in politics
7. Removing blasphemy
rom our Constitution
8. Reducing the voting age
to 17.
Firstly, youll notice that by
replacing present participles
with verbs most o these issues
or consideration are actually
instructions or implementation.
While all o these proposals are
welcome, they are not exactly
revolutionary. Three o theproposals amount to getting
rid o socially conservative
anachronisms, three o them are
breathtakingly supercial types
o electoral window-dressing,
and another is unlikely to do
much more than is already being
considered in current legislation.
Only the proposal on reorm o
the Dil electoral system in any
way has the potential to bring
about a substantive change to
our political or legal culture, andthat is likely to be undermined
by the conventions composition,
which will be discussed shortly.
It seems the convention will not
even consider giving emigrants
the vote in anything except
presidential elections. The uture
o the Seanad will not even be
discussed. Instead the plan is to
put its abolition to the people
without the option o reorm.
This is in spite o the extensive
possibilities which an upper
chamber could ofer in increasing
the representativeness and
responsiveness o the Irish
political system. Possibilities
the Seanad has oten outlined,
but which the Dil has never
considered. Even the remit which
was to be given to the convention
under the programme or
government or other relevant
constitutional amendments that
may be recommended by the
Convention has been removed.
Now compare these proposals
to the tasks which the Icelandic
Constitutional Assembly
summoned in 2010 was asked to
consider:
1. The organisation o
the legislative and executive
branches and the limits o their
powers
2. The role and position o
the President o the Republic
3. The independence o the
judiciary and their supervision o
other holders o governmental
powers
4. Provisions on elections
and electoral districts
5. Public participation in the
democratic process, including
the timing and organisation
o a reerendum, including a
reerendum on a legislative bill
or a constitutional act
6. Transer o sovereign
powers to international
organisations and the conduct ooreign afairs
7. Environmental matters,
including the ownership and
utilisation o natural resources.
The contrast is rankly
humiliating. As is the simple act
that, in the wake o a national
catastrophe o the kind we have
experienced since 2008, we are
not going to consider a seventy
year-old constitution in anything
other than a very selective
manner.Contrast with Iceland and its
recent national assemblies and
orums is equally embarrassing
when one considers the
composition o the convention.
The convention will apparently
consist o 100 members; a
chairperson, 66 members o
the public and 33 politicians
(members o the Oireachtas
and ew representatives o the
IS LABOUR DRAGGING ITS HEELS
ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM?
@Labouryouth
Political Reform:
Continues on page 14.
By Neil WarnerDublin
-
8/2/2019 Left Tribune VII.2
14/20
Such a strong representation
seems very disproportionate to
say the least, not least considering
the act that interest groups will
be not be included among the
membership. In the proposals
or the convention it is stated that
as the Convention is intended tobe a orum mainly or ordinary
citizens, the Government is o the
view that interest groups should
not be members o it. Why does
this not apply to members o
the Oireachtas as well then?
The interest and experience
o this third o politicians is
likely to massively overshadow
and undermine the intended
deliberative and citizen-based
nature o the convention. What
is more, politicians, as products
o the current political system,
are likely to be inherently biased
against changing it, and may eventake criticisms o it personally
(Ed: a group o Labour politicians
took it quite personally when
Labour Youth suggested they
not be involved). This is likely to
be the case, in particular, when
it comes to electoral reorm.
It would likely be relevant in
many other important matters
o democracy and institutional
reorm, were they not barred
rom consideration. It is also
not as i politicians involvement
is not present elsewhere in the
process, since the conventions
proposals will have to beconsidered by the minister and
the government beore being
put to the Oireachtas.
Finally, aside rom submissions
that can be made, there does
not so ar seem to be any detail
on genuine or extensive public
consultation or debate that
might be made with respect to
the convention.
What do we have, then, rom
Eamon Gilmores speech two
years ago? Was it simply empty
rhetoric? This is not a peoples
process, nor is it anything like
a new constitution or even a
undamental review o it.
It seems terribly clear that thus
ar that we as a country really
havent learned the lesson o the
last ten years. It seems terribly
clear that we as a party havent
either.
Left Tribune14
Opinion:FIANNA FIL... TAKING LABOURS
SPACE?
For decades in Irish Politics
the political landscape was
dominated by old civil wardivisions, anti-treaty Fianna Fil
on one side, pro-treaty Fine Gael
on the other. Ireland being such
a small country with such a small
population (compared with
others) coupled with the erocity
and viciousness o the war
produced deep scars resulting
in Irish politics being almost
solely driven by tribal loyalties
and diering opinions on the
national question rather than
social issues.Since independence, successive
Governments have been either
Fianna Fil or Fine Gael, with
the odd coalition thrown in to
the melting pot. By the 1960s
an entrenched political class
rom both parties had emerged.
Jobs or the boys, nods, winks
and handshakes over a quick
18 holes became the order o
the day or many years. Amid all
o this, despite not being large
enough to orm a government,Labour stood out, separate rom
this stagnant environment o 2
parties created by old divisions.
Labour was concerned about
social issues, it was concerned
with reorm, it was concerned
about the quality o lie the
Irish people had. Labour knew
independence should and had
to mean more than simply
changing ag and painting the
post boxes green.
Yet or much o the 20th Century,
independence didnt do much
to improve the lives o the Irish
people. Not until the economic
boom o the 90s did the majority
o Irelands citizens experience
any reasonable improvement intheir standard o living.
Throughout all this time, behind
the scenes, as I have already
briey mentioned, a culture o
cronyism and corruption was
being intricately inltrated into
all aspects o political lie; a
cancer that spread and spread
until the country was riddled
with it. By the recent past, this
cancer was so bad, the always
active Irish people had had
enough, and no amount o spinrom party spokespersons would
convince them otherwise.
Hence, in the 2011 general
election, the playing eld was
the most level it had been in
decades. Labour had always
had difculty convincing the
Irish electorate that they were
a creditable third alternative to
Fianna Fil and Fine Gael, but not
now. The Irish people were more
interested in, and more criticalo, politics than theyd ever been:
they wanted reorm, a new kind
o politics more in sync with the
noble aspirations o a democratic
system; they wanted to know
who was asking or their votes
and what they were about. Fine
Gael produced a 5-point plan,
(Jobs, Public Sector, Budget,
Health, New Politics), and i were
being pedantic, thats just a
collection o words rather than
a plausible plan to rescue Ireland
rom economic depression but
it got peoples attention, and
how. With all o Fine Gaels guns
blazing how did Labour respond
to this golden opportunity to
wow the electorate? Thats right!a 145 point maniesto. Yawn. For
some reason we also thought
it would be an amazing idea to
run the national campaign like
U.S. Presidential election, with
the inamous slogan Gilmore
or Taoiseach. I say we out o
politeness to whoever did make
the actual decision. Someone
orgot to mention that the
people were tired o Presidential
politics, just in time or Labour to
start dabbling in it.Now to the titular point o this
article: Ater the election, Labour
loudly proclaimed its best ever
electoral perormance in the
history o the party (orgetting
the combined eort o our
predecessors in 1992), beore
going into government with Fine
Gael. I the Labour leadership was
honest with itsel, and objective
or just one minute, it would see
that the 2011 general election
campaign was only a disaster.The act that we won as many
seats as we did was mainly due to
unprecedented circumstances:
people were majorly angry;
their only realistic choice was
between Fine Gael or Labour,
and in airness to all involved
they chose the Blueshirts. Rather
than looking at what really
happened in that campaign, the
party has patted itsel on the
back and seemingly prepared
or a cushy spot government.
Labour could have perormed ar
better than we did; a cursory look
to 2010 poll numbers shows that
we had the potential to compete
with Fine Gael or rst place. In
my experience as a member,the current environment in
the Labour Party is not as ar
removed o the archaic political
culture that dominated Ireland
or most o the past century as
other members like to think.
Wheres the new reorm and
transparent politics we were
promised? Wheres the new
blood and resh approach within
the party itsel? We see the same
aces, the same attitudes, with
ew new ideas, and no incentiveto truly reorm the country and
the party. Why? Because, with 37
(now 38) seats, we seem to think
were doing everything right.
This brings me nally to Fianna
Fil yes, Fianna Fil. The two
most dirtiest and unelectable
words in Irish politics today, or
are they? In any any political
party there are those who do
not agree with the direction
the party is going, or how the
leadership conducts its businesson their behal. Many o these
people spend most o their lives
trying to reorm the party they
have pledged themselves to. As
we have seen, there has been
little change in the last decade
in how Irish political parties and
politicians conduct themselves,
and the main reason is will.
Lets take a look at Fianna Fils
present situation: deposed,
decimated and disgraced.
However, because o the sheer
By Craig WhiteSligo
-
8/2/2019 Left Tribune VII.2
15/20
facebook.com/Labouryouth 15
committed by the leadership and
the unprecedented public nature
o their disgrace, Fianna Fil now
have no option but to put their
hands up and realise that their
kind o politics will no longer be
tolerated, and, i the party is to
survive, can never be repeated.At the present time every
other political party believes
they have a moral and ethical
superiority simply because they
are not Fianna Fil. There is a
danger o becoming so cosy
and comortable in this blanket
o complacency that we orget
to look objectively at our ownshortcomings. This is the present
position the Labour Party nds
itsel in, and unless there is serious
action taken by its members, its
going to nd the next election
rather uncomortable and can
kiss goodbye to the possibility
o ever leading the government.
Fianna Fil may not have a lot ostrengths right now, but what
they do have is the will and
determination to truly change.
There is a very strong possibility
that they become the transparent
and progressive political party
that Labour wish to be, while
sadly we stray rom that wish
with each day that passes.
Third level education policy is a
traditional strength o the LabourParty, and our contribution to
the creation o a highly educated
populace can be applauded.
Our last term in government
saw us introduce airness to the
third level scene, the idea that
people shouldnt have to pay
to do the courses they have the
brainpower to do, to maximise
the intellectual power o the
country. Now, with the onset
o the economic crisis, we have
entered government to nd thatachievement in tatters, the result
o a Fianna Fil government
taking its traditional role o
economic madness, destructive
short-termism and inherent
corruption.
The model we created in the good
times is no longer sustainable,
that much is clear. Considering
our coalition partners position,
the Programme or Government
and the emigration risk, we
cannot raise signicant taxes to
und ree ees or the oreseeable
uture. This leaves us in a
signicant dilemma, in which
the very undamental principles
o our party are at stake. Our
principles, our country, our partys
uture itsel hang in the balance
as we look or an equitable
solution to the unding issue.
Funding has also dominated the
student movements discourseto the point o obsession,
something that has weakened
the movement as a whole and
has created a trap that this party
has allen into (or the moment).
The unding options that seem
to dominate discourse do not
ofer much hope either. The
candidates or the USI Pre