Green Voice Autumn 2009

The newsletter of the Green Party / Comhaontas Glas Autumn 2009

greenvoice

Die GrünenA look back at history

P10

Public V PrivateThe jobs debateThe jobs debate

P7P7

comhaontas glas

Crunch time for the GreensA lot has happened in the third quarter of this year. The results of the Local and European Elections gave a powerful reminder of how difficult it is to be a party of government at this time. Long-standing Councillors with unblemished track records found themselves no longer on councils through no fault of their own.

Pummelled on national issues, local representatives could not escape the deep public despair as long queues formed at social welfare offices. There was little room for local issues like planning and parks and tidy towns and water quality, when angry voters, who have watched their jobs disappear and their futures become more uncertain, chose to express their desperation loudly and clearly.

An anti-government back lash was expected but the extent came as something of a shock to everybody.

As a Party that has relied on transfers and votes from those not content with the status quo, it has been more than a wake-up call. And every member knows that the next few months are crucial.

NAMA, Lisbon and the Budget are the three looming mountains facing the Greens in Government right now. And in between all that is the not so little matter of the renegotiation of the Programme for Government document.

The recent spate of members’ meetings has allowed Green Party representatives in Government to hear from our members exactly how the general public is feeling.

Political reform. Education. Job creation. The policies that the Party holds as big ticket items are being spread out on the table. And the stakes are high.

In recognition of the difficulties facing the unemployed, Barry Toomey profiles the Irish

By Nicola Cassidy jobs market over the past decades on page 7. He proclaims that only the private sector benefits the State. All comments are welcomed on his provocative article.

The Eclipse of the German Greens is featured on page 10, a reprint of an article that first appeared in the Green Voice in 2000, yet holds much more meaning for the Party now that we can directly relate to many of the same problems faced by the German Greens a decade ago.

Cllr Brian Meaney argues that the best place to be right now is firmly within Government in his opinion piece page 14. We also feature articles on Lisbon, NAMA, and look at the issue of fathers’ rights.

As the third quarter of the year ends and the last and final one begins, there’s a lot to look forward to and a lot to fear. By Christmas, the known unknowns should be known. And that’s something we can all be thankful for.

Lisbon TreatyLisbon TreatyCampaign reportCampaign report

P4

Green Party Leader John Gormley, Senator Deirdre de Burca and broadcaster Duncan Stewart at a recent Lisbon Treaty press conference.

Lisbon leaflet inside, please pass it on.

GreenVoice | Autumn 2009|

News iN Brief

News

greenvoicePublished by the Green Party,Published by the Green Party,

C/O The publication subcommittee C/O The publication subcommittee C/O The publication subcommittee C/O The publication subcommittee C/O The publication subcommittee C/O The publication subcommittee C/O The publication subcommittee C/O The publication subcommittee

16/17 Suffolk Street, Dublin 2. 16/17 Suffolk Street, Dublin 2. 16/17 Suffolk Street, Dublin 2. 16/17 Suffolk Street, Dublin 2. 16/17 Suffolk Street, Dublin 2. 16/17 Suffolk Street, Dublin 2. 16/17 Suffolk Street, Dublin 2. 16/17 Suffolk Street, Dublin 2.

EEDDiiTOTOrr: Nicola Cassidy: Nicola Cassidy

Sub-Sub-EDEDiiTOTOrr: Damian Connon: Damian Connon

DDESESiiGNEGNErr: Yvonne Loughrey: Yvonne Loughrey

DDDDDDDDiiiiiSTSTSTSTSTriburibuTTiiON: Alison Martin,ON: Alison Martin,

Ed Davitt and volunteersEd Davitt and volunteersEd Davitt and volunteersEd Davitt and volunteersEd Davitt and volunteersEd Davitt and volunteersEd Davitt and volunteersEd Davitt and volunteers

Please send all submissions to:Please send all submissions to:Please send all submissions to:Please send all submissions to:Please send all submissions to:

[email protected]@greenparty.ie

Tel: 01 618 4088Tel: 01 618 4088

www.greenparty.iewww.greenparty.ie

Zero carbon homesThe Department of environment has kickstarted the next generation of low carbon homes with a €20 million project. Under the ‘towards zero carbon homes’ scheme seven housing projects across the country will be constructed to achieve a minimum Building energy rating standard of A2. environment Minister John Gormley says the projects are just ‘one element of the overall approach to the greening of the social housing stock’. Under the project a standard three-bed home could expect energy bills of just €300 per annum.

Bye bye bulbsThe eU has implemented the first phase of its ban on incandescent lightbulbs. since september 1 all clear glass bulbs 100 watts or over, all frosted bulbs and all clear bulbs in energy classes f & G cannot be placed on the market.inspired by Green Party Leader John Gormley’s efforts to outlaw the bulbs here, the eU will gradually phase out all incandescent bulbs by 2012.

Calculate and contributeParents, families and neighbours of primary school children in ireland are being called on to help their local school compete in a competition to be in with a chance to win €500 for school equipment. Change.ie in partnership with An Taisce Green schoools challenges each school to get as many people as possible to calculate their carbon footprint on the school’s Group for Change on the Change.ie website. The winner will be the school with the highest number of members in its group.

New postcode systemCommunications Minister eamon ryan has announced the introduction of a new postal code system for ireland due to be in use by early 2011. As well as the delivery of faster and more accurate postal delivery, the new system will have other benefits such as aiding the emergency services and providing spatial data for policy planning. “A postal code system represents an excellent investment for any modern country and is essential for the development of the digital economy,” said Minister ryan.

Cllr Malcolm Noonan has made history Cllr Malcolm Noonan has made history by being elected the first Green Mayor of by being elected the first Green Mayor of Kilkenny. Malcolm, who holds a degree in Kilkenny. Malcolm, who holds a degree in rural development and has run a landscape rural development and has run a landscape gardening business in Kilkenny for the last gardening business in Kilkenny for the last 15 years, said he was deeply honoured 15 years, said he was deeply honoured to become the first Green Party Mayor, to become the first Green Party Mayor, particularly as 2009 celebrates the 400th particularly as 2009 celebrates the 400th anniversary of the granting of city status by anniversary of the granting of city status by King James. Cllr Noonan said he intends to King James. Cllr Noonan said he intends to focus on the theme of ‘diversity’ during his focus on the theme of ‘diversity’ during his time and plans to hold a series of Town Hall time and plans to hold a series of Town Hall meetings on various topics. “I would like to meetings on various topics. “I would like to look at cultural and social diversity and the look at cultural and social diversity and the many disparate communities that make up many disparate communities that make up

first Green Mayorfor Kilkenny City

the fabric of Kilkenny. We need to develop the the fabric of Kilkenny. We need to develop the city’s biodiversity, reflecting the great potential city’s biodiversity, reflecting the great potential for greening the city through projects like Tidy for greening the city through projects like Tidy Towns and allotments, community gardens Towns and allotments, community gardens and the 400 fruit tree project,” he said. and the 400 fruit tree project,” he said. “We should also look at political diversity “We should also look at political diversity and the diversity of public opinion – we and the diversity of public opinion – we have a responsibility to ensure that people have a responsibility to ensure that people and communities are central to the decision and communities are central to the decision making process.” making process.”

Green Party Leader John Gormley welcomed Green Party Leader John Gormley welcomed the election of Malcolm as Mayor saying, “I the election of Malcolm as Mayor saying, “I cannot think of anyone better to lead the city cannot think of anyone better to lead the city throughout the next year, particularly during throughout the next year, particularly during the city’s 400 year charter anniversary”.the city’s 400 year charter anniversary”.

Mayor of Kilkenny Malcolm Noonan pictured here with Deputy Leader Mary White TD. Photo: Pat MooreMayor of Kilkenny Malcolm Noonan pictured here with Deputy Leader Mary White TD. Photo: Pat Moore

GreenVoice | Autumn 2009 | News

The Programme for Government negotiated by the Green Party in 2007 mentioned it briefly – “arrangements for representation of environmental issues in Social Partnership will be considered ...” Now that the pillar has been established, I believe its formation may be the greatest legacy the Green Party will leave to the country.

Environmental groups have been given access to the areas where serious policy decisions are made - including seats on National Economic and Social Council (NESC) and social partnership discussions. Environmental groups now also have influence in all local authorities. Following the incorporation of the environmental pillar into social partnership, the new Strategic Policy Committees being set up by local authorities for the 2009 - 2014 period will include environmental representatives appointed by the environmental pillar.

Representatives will also be needed for County Development Boards and the Integrated Local Partnership Companies around the country. In all, nearly 300 environmental representatives will be taking part in local government, providing the environmental perspective in policy and planning decisions. It is hoped that a national forum for environmental discussion will emerge from this network.

The environmental perspective differs from

the other social partners. Environmental groups understand what sustainability really means; it is our shared responsibility to balance our environmental health, socio-economic, and future needs.

Any plan for national recovery must be economically, socially and environmentally sustainable. There can be no going back to the business-as-usual economic model based on ever increasing levels of consumption and pollution, fuelled by unsustainable levels of financial and ecological debt. Infinite growth is not possible on a finite planet.

It’s a challenging time to be joining social partnership but the environmental pillar is confident that our fresh eyes and fresh ideas can help tackle our immediate economic problems in a way that addresses rather than exacerbates the even greater environmental challenges that lie ahead. We need to redesign our economy for the 21st century, not justre-boot it for another cycle of boom and bust.

New way of lifeWe will work with the other social partners to incorporate the three essential and inter-related strands of sustainable development into all aspects of the workings of social partnership. Until now, social partnership has focused on the socio-economic interests of the present generation and has largely neglected the need for a healthy environment and for providing a healthy and stable planet for future generations.

Bringing the environment into policy development at a national level will help to address some of our most serious environmental, economic and social issues such as climate change, the loss of public

benefits provided by our terrestrial and marine environments, and a declining quality of life. This will be echoed at local authority level through a network of hundreds of environmental representatives.

The Environmental Pillar is made up of environmental groups who operate at a national level. They range from large established organisations such as BirdWatch Ireland and An Taisce, to smaller but influential groups such as Feasta, the Foundation for Economics of Sustainability. The pillar’s main areas of interest include climate change, biodiversity, planning, water, waste, transport and the socio-economics of a sustainable future.

The Environmental Pillar of Social Partnership are looking for hundreds of volunteers to represent the environment on Strategic Planning Committees on all local authorities. To take part you should be a member of an environmental NGO and be willing to attend around four meetings per year. Details of the work, time commitment and terms of reference are available at their website www.environmentalpillar.ie.

In June, the Government published its Civil Partnership Bill which will enable gay and lesbian couples to enter legally recognised unions and protect those in co-habiting relationships.Green Party justice spokesperson Ciarán Cuffe TD said the Bill will be of ‘huge practical benefit’ to gay and lesbian couples in Ireland. “This marks a significant step forward for the equality agenda in this country and is a key legislative priority for the Green Party in Government,” he said.

Civil Partnerships Bill published“Once the Bill goes through the Oireachtas and becomes law, many people in loving relationships will have the option to have their commitment recognised by the State. It represents real and substantial progress.”Deputy Cuffe also acknowleged that the Bill would not satisfy everybody. “We recognise that the Bill is not marriage equality and will not satisfy everybody but we believe that legislating now for civil partnerships provides the best means of recognising and protecting same-sex relationships,” he said.

social Partnership progress IEN Communications Officer Danny walsh updates on environmental progress

Green Party Leader John Gormley with environmental pillar representatives.

John Gormley with GLEN Chairperson Kieran Rose and Roderic O'Gorman


In July, Green Party members met in Dublin to discuss the second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Like the meeting to decide the Party’s position in the first referendum campaign in January 2008, speakers from both sides of the debate were given equal time to express their views. When scheduled speakers were finished, individual members were given the opportunity to offer their views to the meeting.

The previous vote failed to reach a two-thirds majority in favour in the Treaty by just a few votes. Both sides had a lot to play for.

There were those who wanted to play an active role in the campaign and canvass under the Green Party banner. They cited the issues of climate change, the charter of fundamental human rights and energy security as positive reasons to vote Yes. Those who had fundamental problems with supporting the Treaty indicated that if a No verdict was not reached, the best option was to retain the Party’s previous position which allowed members to canvass in any way they chose.

Around six pm, Green Party Chairman Dan Boyle emerged from the counting room in the Hilton Hotel to announce the result. Out of a valid poll of 321, some 214 members had voted Yes to supporting the Lisbon Treaty, while 107 had voted no. There were two spoilt votes. A two-thirds majority had been reached by just one vote.

The parliamentary party, which had advocated a Yes vote noted that for the first time in its history the Party would be campaigning for a Yes in a European referendum. Party Leader John Gormley was quick to thank those who had come to debate the issue.

Lisbon

Yes campaign steps up

“I place a very great value on the diversity of opinion within our membership and I appreciate and understand the views of those who spoke and voted against the Lisbon Treaty," he said. "The Greens are the most democratic political party in Ireland, and of this we can all be proud.”

European Affairs Spokesperson Senator Deirdre de Burca aded that although the result showed that a proportion of the Party’s membership was still concerned at the shortcomings of the European Union and the Treaty itself: “a considerable majority of members recognise the EU's considerable achievements and the important international role it must and will play over the coming years in the areas of climate change, energy security and human rights”.

Speaking at the press launch of the Party’s campaign in support of the Treaty, John Gormley said Ireland had much to gain by endorsing the Lisbon Treaty.

“The Irish government worked hard to address voters’ concerns and got the support of other EU governments," he said. "We have secured important guarantees on taxation, defence and foreign policy, certain social issues and defence and foreign policy.”

As part of the campaign, the Party has launched two posters indicating the importance of the Treaty in fighting climate change and the protection of women’s rights. Environmentalists Duncan Stewart, Ian Lumley and John Gibbons have also supported the Party's efforst in promoting a Yes vote.

Here, two members offer their views on the special convention held to debate the Lisbon Treaty in July. Voters go the polls on Friday 2 October.

Special convention was flawed

The Special Convention on 18 July to decide the Party’s policy in the Lisbon Referendum was widely hailed as another shining example of democracy at work. In my opinion, the meeting was seriously flawed in a number of critical areas.

The notice of the Convention that was emailed to members by the National Executive Committee (NEC) on 11 July did not contain the wording of the motion or motions to be decided. When I queried this I was assured by the Chairman that the motions would be circulated before the Convention. This did not happen.

At the Convention the actual motions were projected on a screen only after a request from the floor. Then, following a phone call to the Attorney General’s office, it was confirmed that the Constitutional Amendment at issue was in fact the 28th Amendment.

Members who just happened to be in the vicinity of the hotel lobby were given bundles of ballot papers and biros and asked to cross out 29th and write in 28th. This was a very unprofessional way in which to conduct a ballot although I am told that all ballots were initialed when given out to voters and these were checked during the count.

This first fiasco could have been avoided if constitutional procedures had been adhered to and the motions circulated to members in advance. Article 7.6 of the Green Party Constitution 2008 says: “Special Conventions shall consider only the issue or issues for which they were called, which shall be set out in documentation circulated in advance by the NEC, subject to Rules and Procedures.”

Another consequence of not circulating the motions in advance is that the vast majority of speakers chose to debate the details of the Lisbon Treaty or the associated negotiated assurances / guarantees. The actual matter at issue was not the Lisbon Treaty per se but rather to select the best option for the Green Party in this particular campaign, at this particular point in time. I believe that there were three equally valid options:

1. Support the “Yes” campaign

2. Support the “No” campaign

By Nicola Cassidy

campaign

Senator Deirdre de Burca and Green Party Leader John Gormley at the special Lisbon convention in July

Tony McDermott is a former Councillor on South Dublin County Council

GreenVoice | Autumn 2009 |

Yes vote ‘unsurprising’

The decision to vote Yes to the Lisbon Treaty is unsurprising when you consider that six of our seven founding principles are covered one way or another in the Treaty's opening three articles.

Some of these are well known such as the statements regarding conservation of the environment and the need to contribute to ‘the sustainable development of the earth’ (Art 2.5). Others, such as Article 2.1 which commits the Treaty to promote peace or Article 3 which is concerned almost wholly with the principle of subsidiarity did not draw as much attention from the Yes side at the recent convention.

The principle of subsidiarity is the European Union’s way of expressing the Green’s third founding principle that: ‘All political social and economic decisions should be taken at the lowest possible level.’

Main concernsThere was a rigorous debate in the Hilton Hotel on the Treaty and those arguing against campaigning for the Treaty made some persuasive and passionate pleas. I had no doubt, while listening to them, that they were sincere in their concerns.

The three main concerns seem to have been: 1) That Ireland’s democracy would be

threatened by the enlarging of the European bureaucratic body

2) That the strengthening of military alliances within the Union would lead to increased tensions in the area and lead to increased arms sales to the detriment of places, such as Darfur, where innocent people are currently the victims of war

3) That a neo-conservative agenda would be promoted as per Article 2.3 which states that the Union ‘shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy...’

Though these concerns are genuine it should be pointed out that these, along with other objections to the treaty I have heard are based on an interpretation of the Articles rather than a direct reading of them. Nowhere, for example, does the treaty state that its objectives are to threaten democracy, promote war or escalate international tensions. We should bear in mind that the Treaty is not an epic poem and is therefore not open to interpretation.

Lisbon

3. Allow members to campaign according to their own conviction - as decided at the previous Lisbon Special Convention in January 2008.

Neutral positionArticle 6.1 of our constitution states that: “Decisions, whether at meetings or conventions, shall where possible be made by consensus.” And 6.1.1; that when “all reasonable efforts to achieve consensus have failed… the decision may be made by vote.”

However, the NEC made no effort to seek consensus but instead chose to omit option three and to present only the two motions that were adversarial by nature. A proposal to maintain the status quo (ie: to allow members to campaign according to their convictions) stood a good chance, in my opinion, of achieving consensus.

It was neutral to members’ individual positions on the actual Lisbon Treaty. It would have avoided an open and explicit difference of opinion held by a significant body of members – inevitably leaving bitterness in its wake. It would differentiate the Green Party from other political parties - a priority goal and a difficult one to achieve. It would have facilitated a debate on what was tactically and strategically in the best interests of the Green Party following the recent drubbing in the European and Local elections.

And, critically, presenting that option would be consistent with our constitution. If it did go to a vote it would have required only a simple majority. A two-thirds majority arises only “where the choice to be made is a decision between two options” (Article 6.1.2)

I believe that the wrong question was addressed on the afternoon of 18 July. A facilitated debate for half an hour on our Party’s role in the up-coming referendum campaign, followed by a continuation of the discussions from the morning sessions would have been a more constructive use of the energy of the almost 400 members that attended. And this would also have been more constitutionally democratic.

Financial systemOne compelling ‘No’ argument is that to endorse this treaty is to endorse a failed financial system that has dragged the world, as well as Europe, into recession. We need to make a distinction between what is free market economy and what is neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism has failed, in my view and the evidence we see all around us today would seem to verify this.

But the free market economy has not failed. It is responsible for the comfortable and secure lifestyle that we in the western world enjoy. Neo-liberalism is free market without checks and balances. It is the system that allowed for unwarranted risks to be taken by unqualified people with other people’s money. If we introduce proper regulation, as the Treaty intends to do, then the likelihood is that the machinery of market economics will slowly crank back to life and carry with it jobs, and sustainable economic development on its rising tide.

I would ask those considering rejecting the Treaty what exactly are they trying to preserve. Can any thinking person really be happy with the current status quo? The tone and content of the Treaty is progressive and ambitious. Ireland can use this legislation, once the Treaty is passed to put together an initiative to develop ourselves as the major hub of wind, wave and other alternative energy sources.

With a proper cohesive strategy, such as is contained in the new ‘Smart Economy’ document, we can set about building a future instead of haggling over whose fault the past was. The Green Party is in prime position to lead this charge and should do so not because it will re-establish us as a political force but because it is our moral responsibility as subscribers to the seven founding principles to do so.

Trevor Sargent erecting posters in Dublin North for the Lisbon campaign

'Environmentalists for Europe' at Trinity Point in Dublin

Owen Dwyer is a Green Party member in Dublin South

GreenVoice | Autumn 2009| Government

The first mention of NAMA (that’s National Assets Management Agency, if you haven’t being paying attention until now) in the supplementary budget of April this year, was ultimately overshadowed by the Finance Minister’s long list of cutbacks and belt-tightening.

Those glued to their TVs trying to establish exactly what the new budget meant for their pockets and purses may not have understood the enormity of what had been announced. For Green Party members however, the establishment of an agency to absorb toxic bank debts and ease the burdens of bankrupt developers was not an easy move to swallow; afterall, it was greedy lending and bad planning decisions that had put the economy in this position in the first place.

During the boom years Green representatives had stood on the sidelines pointing out the hazards of failing to provide schools and shops and adequate water services to thousands of mushrooming, overpriced properties.

At the meeting to decide the Party’s position on the Lisbon Treaty in July it became clear that a members’ debate was needed. In follow-up, the Party’s Economics and Social Policy Group organised a seminar with UCD

economics professor Karl Whelan and Trinity academic Constantin Gurdgiev, both of whom oppose NAMA. There followed a meeting with Alan Ahearne, special advisor to the Minister for Finance and Brenadan McDonagh, Chief Executive designate of the Agency.

As the weeks passed and NAMA rose higher on the media’s agenda, words like ‘haircut’, ‘toxic’ and ‘impaired’ took on a whole new meaning. Complex economic arguments were played out on daily news shows and concern was raised at the price the assets agency would pay for bad loans.

In the lead-up to the publication of the draft legislation to establish NAMA, Party members called for a special convention to debate the issue. Once legitimate motions from five constituency groups were submitted, a meeting was organised in Athlone on 12 September.

The day prior to the publication of the legislation, Eamon Ryan announced a number of changes that the Greens had secured to improve the legislation. These included a windfall tax of 80% to prevent future property speculation and guaranteed lending for small businesses. The changes were welcomed at the members’ meeting.

The 150 members in attendance discussed various options to fix the banks and get the

economy back on track. Former election candidates Gary Fitzgerald and James Nix presented an alternative to NAMA, while others expressed views ranging from nationalisation to letting the market decide the banks' fate.

Three consensors synthesised the discussions and compiled a range of options to use in a preferendum in the afternoon. Members rated the options according to their preference..

In a subsequent letter to members Party Leader John Gormley described the meeting as ‘constructive,’ saying: “It’s fair to say the meeting approached the issue with great caution and concern and of course expressed uncertainty about the adoption of NAMA. Even in its reconfigured form it can by no means be taken for granted that people in the party will find it acceptable.

“There was general disquiet expressed about giving bank shareholders a free lunch,” he said. “Likewise, many expressed the view that NAMA would only be worthwhile, if it actually got credit flowing in the country. Again and again the view was expressed that there could be no return to the days of over-zoning and the property bubble.”

Reiterating the changes that the Party had secured on the legislation, John Gormley reported that the issue was a work in progress and said that the Greens would be seeking further changes to the legislation in the coming days and weeks.

The road to NAMABy Nicola Cassidy

The preferendum process works in the following way:

1) The chair defines the question2) The appointed consensors describe the

process and voting procedure 3) The debate starts with a gathering of

ideas4) The consensors draw up a draft list of

options to represent the spectrum of ideas 5) The debate resumes, with participants amending the draft list

6) The final list, once agreed, becomes the ballot paper, and the vote is called

The theoryWith 140 participants in the room on the day, there could have been up to 140 draft options. Consensors summarise this broad picture into a limited number of options. In the vote, the participants identify that option which best

Consensus decision-making is still in its infancy; every time we use it, we learn a little more; and certainly parts of the NAMA members’ meeting could be refined in any future debate. But, we rejected the old adversarial political process and used in its stead, a more inclusive methodology, and this is something we can all be proud of.

Further details on consensus voting can be found on www.deborda.org

Preferendum and how it worksrepresents the consensus of all. Only positive proposals were accepted. ‘No to nama’, for example, was not an idea/option. But increased regulation, limits to government spending, property valuations etc., were all acceptable. During the debate considerable changes were made leading to a final list of six.

The vote141 votes were cast. There were no invalid votes. Of these 141 votes, 126 were full votes and 15 were partial. With 141 votes, the maximum possible score for any one option is 141 first preferences, i.e., (141 x 6 =) 846 points. The success of an option can be measured by its “consensus coefficient”, which is its total number of points divided by

this maximum of 846. So the best possible result is a consensus coefficient of 1, and the worst result would be 0.

In our exercise, the highest score was 657 points, a consensus coefficient of 0.78. If consensus voting were the norm, the conference would first have decided just what level of consensus coefficient was required before a decision could be declared.

The outcomeOption Points Consensus coefficientNama with Green Party suggested modifications 657 0.78Scheme based on Sweden in the early 1990s 563 0.67Let the market totally decide banks' fate 411 0.49Original Nama proposal 387 0.46Totally nationalise the banks 383 0.45Create a 'good bank' 369 0.43

Peter emerson who devised the theory used, explains

GreenVoice | Autumn 2009 | Government

halt the decline in private sector employment it has no choice but to curtail public sector jobs.

IncentivesIf government cannot create jobs that result in net gains to the public finances what can they do? Well they can create an environment and offer incentives to the private sector. This is the strategy that has been pursued - with mixed results - since the 1960s.

In the 60s and 70s Ireland was sold as a low labour cost location and grants were offered to various multinationals (mainly US-based) to establish manufacturing operations here. In retrospect this proved to be a very beneficial policy - not just because of the jobs created but because it gave us a foothold in the so called ‘high-tech’ industries - electronics, computing and pharmaceuticals - that would have taken at least half a century to achieve otherwise.

Of course this transformation did not come cheap. Millions of pounds were spent in grants to help these companies set up operations here, but the overall the return on investment has been highly positive.

With EEC membership came huge improvements in farm incomes and a general rise in living standards overall. Inevitably this led to increases in wages so that by the heady days of the 1990s employers were devising all

Loss of public sector jobis a gain to the state

kinds of incentives to retain key workers such as bonuses and share options.

Wage inflationThe government did nothing to address wage inflation other than aiding these schemes by making it easier for workers to own shares in the companies that employed them. Perceiving industrial unrest as a greater threat to the economy than wage inflation, the Government sponsored a series of national wage agreements between the ‘social partners’ - the Government, employers and trade unions. These allowed for agreed, phased wage increases over the period of the agreement (typically 18 months).

Although these increases were negotiated on behalf of the unionised workforce they were generally applied to the workforce at large, even in companies where there was no union representation. Inevitably the wage inflation induced by increased prosperity and exacerbated by the national wage agreements resulted in a loss of international competitiveness.

An early and significant casualty was the clothing industry: in 1965 it employed 23,000 but by 2004 that figure had dropped to only 5,600. Unfortunately this impacted not only on employment but on our balance of trade: today virtually all the clothing we buy is

Continued on page 13

Dun Laoghaire member Barry Toomey argues that only the private sector contributes financially to the economy

In the current economic climate we hear a great deal of clamour about ‘job creation’, with many groups asserting that the Government should be doing more. Let me therefore, once and for all, explode the myth that governments can actually create jobs. Certainly they can do so in the public sector, and have done so with reckless abandon in the last five years. However all these jobs represent a net cost to the economy which is now unsustainable and will need to be reduced via the McCarthy report or some other method.

The only jobs that make a net contribution to the economy generally and to government finances are those in the private sector. Before the private sector worker gets paid at all a portion of his pay has already been given to the Government in the form of PAYE and PRSI. His employer will also have made a PRSI contribution on his behalf. Once he has been paid it is likely that a substantial portion of his take-home pay will be subsequently spent in the local economy, helping to support local employment and further contributing to government coffers via indirect taxes, e.g. VAT and excise duties.

The public sector employee cannot be said to make the same net contribution to the economy. True, he or she pays both direct and indirect taxes, but this merely results in the government taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another.

When a private sector job is lost through redundancy not only does the State lose that net contribution, it now incurs a further cost in the form of benefits which must be paid to the unemployed worker. The loss of a public sector job - unpalatable as it may seem - results in a net gain to the state as the salary, benefits and other costs associated with employing that worker are now replaced by the aforementioned, much lower benefits.

This is the situation in which the Government now finds itself; powerless to

The rate of unemployment has risen sharply in Ireland in the past year.

GreenVoice | Autumn 2009| Local Elections

In my piece for the Spring edition of the Green Voice I said: “There is great risk and a lot at stake. The groundswell of public anger and frustration at politics in general may expand to encompass both government parties although to date the polls suggest that the electorate is making a distinction.”

The last point was influenced both by our continuing steady showing in the polls and the feedback from canvassers around the country. The first part turned out to be all too accurate a prediction. We were punished and pulverised for collaboration with the enemy - just like WWII collaborators. The results were far beyond my worst expectations and I am not sure I have fully absorbed the shock even now.

I have been amazed by the resilience of so many candidates who gave so much in their campaigns for so little return. I expected that there would be much more distress, if not grief, at such a dreadful collective outcome. Maybe there was and I was not made aware of it?

Over the past three months I have been at a number of meetings with unsuccessful candidates and I have been struck by the determination to continue in the face of painful rebuffs by their local voters and by the electorate at large. It is a measure of the kind of people who put themselves forward as Green candidates. The motivation is so much larger than getting elected for its own sake. The work must be done whether we are in office or not.

Another possible explanation is the solidarity between Greens at all levels – local group, staff, family, internationally. We are part of something bigger and it helps to sustain us. Maybe I am deluding myself and there are many who were devastated and remain so? Please let me know if this is the case and I’ll revise my views.

Personally I received many messages of gratitude for the support offered from head office. That was very gratifying and helped to reduce the sting of failure.

To apply a more critical lens I have to say that I, particularly, and we the campaign team were naïve to the extent that we never gave full advance consideration to a wipe-out of the

scale which occurred. Perhaps it would have made no difference? What could we have done differently?

Very little, I believe. Concentrating resources in a few electoral areas may now seem attractive in retrospect but discouraging local groups from standing candidates would not have worked, quite apart from being contradictory for us as Greens with our focus on local democracy.

An omission from Gerry Murphy’s otherwise excellent report on the elections is an examination of our successes. How did anyone get elected in this environment? Perhaps he was being modest and did not want to bask in the limelight of getting three elected in his own constituency - including two newcomers? The successes should be studied further. It has been said that some of them were due to candidates deliberately down-playing the Green card. I think there is some validity in this. To the extent that this is true it needs evaluation to see how it might apply to the next election.

Steven Agnew’s great achievement in the Northern Ireland Euro constituency gives an indication of how we might have done in more ‘normal’ circumstances. The economic meltdown is worse south of the border and the blame for it is put squarely on Fianna Fail’s shoulders. We were seen as providing a crutch and, if anything, that perception is now reinforced.

In my view the contamination with which we are tarred with will not recede until there is a change of government. This will colour and cloud any forthcoming election. Escaping the charge of collaboration and being accomplices will be the primary challenge for us and may be an insurmountable one. It distracts from and over-rides all other considerations.

Issues at largeSadly and very seriously in this context there is little or no possibility of a focus on the larger issues of climate change and its implications for all forms of life as we know them. December will be dominated by the budget rather than by

the Copenhagen negotiations.In spite of heroic efforts by our

communications and press staff during the campaigns the tide of public and media interest was and still is running against us. We get plenty of coverage but it is all in the frame of whether we will bring down the government or what crumbs we can extract because of the arithmetic. A focus on Green issues for their own sake is still rare, diluted and often trivialising. Achieving a sense of difference or maintaining our distinctiveness in the current political crisis is therefore an almost impossible task.

It has been said many times since June that we did everything we could in the campaign. There has been no other substantive answer to the ‘what could we have done differently’ question. Of course there is scope for improvement and Gerry’s report has offered recommendations in this regard. I don’t want to hide behind the ‘unique circumstances’ defence, but it does apply.

I was fortunate to work with an extremely committed and talented team of people from September to July last. The integrity and creativity of those involved impressed me greatly. And the sense of solidarity and support was the best of any context I have worked in. This applies to the candidates also. There was creativity, commitment and hard work in abundance and it is very hard to see that go so unrewarded.

Gerry concludes his report with a call to ‘re-visioning’. I would like to echo this. In brief I cannot see a way to improve our fortunes in the current crisis. Keeping the ship of State from crashing onto the rocks takes precedence over any party’s agenda. Whether we are still in government in the New Year or not (and I believe it is still possible that we may be - even if there has been an election) we should engage in an exercise of radical re-visioning of the party’s raison d’être and ways of organising. There are innovative large group methods which are designed precisely to enable an organisation to re-invent itself. We should use one of them.Email Phil at [email protected]

Local elections disappointPhil Kearney, former National Campaign Manager reflects on the Local Elections

Yinka Dixon and George Enyoazu at the launch held with the Party's 'New Irish' candidates

Ciarán Cuffe, Deirdre de Burca and John Gormley promoting the Party's nuisance noise legislation.

GreenVoice | Autumn 2009 | Local Elections

New kids on the blockwexford Town Councillor Danny forde and wicklow Town Councillor Pat Kavanagh describe their first few weeks as a Green representative

Danny FordeThe first proper Council meeting was everything I expected, except for the parts which were clunky or top heavy. There was a lot of chat about nothing. It seemed everyone wanted to have their

five minutes to speak on very minor motions, such as speedbumps in a cul de sac.

I ended up having to defend our Ministers quite a bit. There’s a feeling of ‘Ministers don’t make decisions for us – we are local Government and we will rule ourselves’.I feel that Greens are always going to have to defend themselves, whether in Government or out – I think the criticisms will ease off in the next few weeks - people are coming to terms with some of the problems we have

My first motion will hopefully go forward next month – I’m proposing a carbon reduction plan for the town and will request the borough engineer to write up a plan identifying ways to reduce our carbon footprint and areas where we can develop renewable energy projects. I’m thinking of hydro projects or possibly community based heating systems.

Pat KavanaghI wasn’t at all happy with the pact system worked out with Fine Gael and the other Councillors. They managed to carve up all the committees between themselves – this was all arranged beforehand and it’s

a very unfair system. Some Councillors are on three or four committees,

where all the main decisions get made.I’ve found the staff on the Council very helpful –

keeping people in the loop, calling back and reporting back.

I haven’t put in any motion yet but I’m working on various projects such as a Special Amenity Area Order for a local beach and recognition of the old parochial hall.

I’m the first Green Councillor on Wicklow Town Council and I’ve been very well received by local people. I’ve had a genuinely warm welcome – I think people see me as being on their side.

To find out more about our Green Party councillors go to www.greenparty.ie/en/people

Local election results

ClareCllr Brian Meaney, Clare County Council & ennis Town Council

CorkCllr Liam Burke, Youghal Town CouncilCllr isabelle sutton, Kinsale Town Council

DublinCllr frank snowe, Balbriggan Town Council

KildareCllr shane fitzgerald, Leixlip Town Council

LouthCllr Marianne Butler, Dundalk Town CouncilCllr Mark Dearey, Louth County Council & Dundalk Town CouncilCllr Mary Kavanagh, Ardee Town Council

MonaghanCllr Vincent P Martin, Carrickmacross Town CouncilCllr Kristina Jankaitiene, Carrickmacross Town

WexfordCllr Niamh fitzgibbon, New ross Town CouncilCllr Danny forde, wexford Borough Counci

WicklowCllr Pat Kavanagh, wicklow Town CouncilCllr Ciaran O'Brien, Bray Town Council


Local group report

Feature

In 1999, Daniel Mittler wrote in The Ecologist about the experience of the German Greens after a year in Government. An edited version was republished in the Green Voice in January 2000. In light of this Party's recent experiences Mittler's article raises many interesting points and is republished here

On September 27th 1998, contrary to most predictions, the German Green Party, Die Grünen gained 6.7 percent of the vote in the country's general election. This made them the third strongest party in the German Parliament, and delivered them what they had been working towards for two decades: power, as a member of the new governing coalition of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder.

One year later, the German Greens faced a paradox. While all opinion polls declared the German Foreign Minister, leading Green Joschka Fischer, to be the best-liked politician in Germany, the Greens, as a party, had become exceedingly unpopular.

In a string of local, regional and European elections they consistently lost 30-60 per cent of their vote. The party, engaged in increasingly fierce internal battles, could only agree on one thing. Both the pragmatic Fischer and a group of party left-wingers declared that “the extent of our unpopularity endangers the very survival of the Green Party."

What lessons can the Green movement as a whole draw from this unenviable predicament? What did Die Grünen achieve in their first year in office? And how can their setbacks be explained?

A surprising rise to power Germany's Greens have come a long way since their colourful and chaotic beginnings 30 years ago. Starting off as an 'antiparty party', they slowly evolved into a pragmatic political force. From 1985 onwards, Greens regularly found themselves part of regional governments. There, they were forced to grow accustomed to the painful art of political compromise. At national level, however, the Party maintained many radical policy commitments. These included an immediate end to the use of nuclear power and opposition to armed intervention in foreign conflicts.

As the Greens had not been doing well in elections throughout 1998, their hopes for achieving success were slight. Yet Joschka Fischer argued that this election was the last chance for his generation (the first generation of Green politicians) to have any lasting impact on Germany. All energies were channelled into campaigning while ignoring the task of preparing a strategy for possible coalition. The Greens mobilised their core supporters and the campaign was a great success. Some critics would argue that their place in the new government had less to do with their own efforts than with the East Germans' overwhelming rejection of Chancellor Kohl's Christian Democrats. The Social Democrats (SPD) made massive gains in East Germany and thus ensured a majority for the eventual 'Red-Green coalition'.

When it came to negotiating a common government programme, they faced a buoyant

and self-confident Social Democratic Party (which won 40.9% of the vote). The Greens had simply not prepared sufficiently for the eventuality of sharing power - a mistake for which they were to pay a heavy price. Nor did they have a clear negotiating agenda. Instead of setting out a few key policy demands they bargained on each issue in isolation. The result was that they lost ground in almost all policy areas.

Fischer secured his dream job as Foreign Minister, but this meant that he wasn't as heavily involved with negotiating most of the new government's agenda as he could have been. While individual policy issues were being fought over, Fischer jetted off to Washington, Paris and London to reassure Germany's key partners that the Foreign Ministry was 'safe' in his hands.

There were some significant defeats for the Greens in these negotiations, especially over genetically modified foods where business as usual, including a massive State-sponsored research programme, was agreed. But there were also some apparent victories. Nuclear power was to he phased out "as quickly as practicable". Waste policy was to be revolutionised to achieve a "true recycling economy' and eco-tax reform was included in the programme. There was an emphasis on sustainable transport and for the first time, railway investment was to equal the spending commitments on roads.

The curse of Kosovo But the mood of cautious optimism and enthusiasm engendered by the Greens first foray into national government was not to last. In March 1999, the war in Kosovo erupted and for the first time since the Second World War German troops were involved in military operations abroad. Joschka Fischer believed that ‘humanitarian intervention’ was justified, but an increasing number of Greens found themselves in opposition to their Foreign Minister.

Die Grünen's Congress that year passed a motion which, while not endorsing NATO policy, also failed to directly oppose it. The internal splits grew bitter and deep, which did nothing to help the Greens' public image

The eclipse of the German Greens

Die Grünen rediscover their campaigning edge

GreenVoice | Autumn 2009 | Feature

as public opinion was staunchly in favour of intervening in Kosovo. By the time the war ended, much of the Green enthusiasm for sharing power had dissolved.

The promise dissolves Perhaps Kosovo would not have been

as devastating had the party been able to point to successes in other fields. But hopes in this field were also crushed. The agreed environmental tax reform was watered down beyond recognition. Big business was granted an 80 per cent reduction in the tax even though they got all the benefits of the reduced indirect labour costs which the tax finances. The result was an increase in the State subsidy to business and a failure to deliver any real environmental benefits.

The nuclear issue looked even worse. The ‘as soon as practicable’ clause of the coalition agreement came to mean ‘whenever the nuclear industry sees fit’. Proposals at the time ensured that nuclear power stations would be shut down within 25-35 years or when most reached the end of their natural lives anyway.

Things were little better in transport area. The first budget failed to implement commitments to invest as much in rail as in the roads programme. All key road developments were set to go ahead while airports were still hailed as ‘job machines’ and supported in their expansion plans. Germany also failed to promote a promised aviation fuel tax during its EU presidency.

Reason and responses to failure The Greens, of course, were not entirely responsible for these failures. They were a minority party in a coalition government. Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who delighted in being called the ‘Comrade of the Bosses’, had ‘reliably applied heavy brakes when it comes to environmental policy’. He quite openly sought to appease big business, and honoured none of the deals that he cut with his Green Ministers.

The Greens were, then, victims of Schroeder's politics of special interests. But they also failed to lobby the Chancellor effectively. At least until September 1999, Joschka Fischer disappeared from internal politics keeping to his international brief. He failed to spearhead Green demands within the Cabinet and so deprived the Greens of their main weapon – his popularity and political weight.

Constant internal disagreements within the party similarly damaged their ability to communicate policy demands. Bizarrely, the Greens also failed to make it clear that environmental policy was a central policy

area. As Naturschutzbund (Nature Protection League), an NGO said: “Environmental policy within the Greens now has the same status as in the other parties. It is a specialist policy field dealt with by experts.”

That the German Greens appeared to some to be losing sight of their very raison d'être was given further credence by the formation of a group of MPs and other prominent party post-holders who called themselves the 'New Greens'. Their aim was to position the Greens as a liberal, low-tax party of the 'New Centre' - the ecological version of Tony Blair's New Labour.

What this would mean for environmental policy had been set out by a group of experts within the party. Their document called for active cooperation with corporations; voluntary codes to improve industry's environmental performance; accepting economic globalisation; focusing environmental policy on the development of 'sustainable high-tech industries'; and realising the export potential of 'green technologies’. If the New Greens had their way, the distinctiveness of the Green Party would have been annihilated. As the then Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin observed: "The New Greens eliminate our traditional support base without offering a new one.”

Successes There were undoubtedly some successes. The Coalition Government started a 100,000 roofs programme to support solar and photovoltaic energy. It increased the amount of subsidies paid for conversions to organic agriculture from €85 to €100 per hectare. A high-speed railway line between Nuremberg and Erfurt, which would have obliterated an important nature reserve, was halted. A comprehensive bill dealing with electronic waste was in the pipeline. They also persuaded the Social Democrats to attempt to place the protection of animals as one of Germany's key policy objectives enshrined in the constitution.Without the Greens in government, most of these policies would almost certainly not have happened. For many German Greens though, the setbacks outweighed the successes.

Lessons So what lessons can be drawn? Firstly, they had no clear strategy for taking power. They faced an overwhelmingly strong and unreliable coalition partner. They were unlucky that Kosovo erupted when it did and they made things worse for themselves by not containing their internal arguments.

There are clear lessons here. Green parties with any hope of winning power must always have a set of key policy demands ready. They must make it clear that there is a 'minimum price' for joining government. Meaningful ecological tax reform and a comprehensive investment in public transport could become basic non-negotiable policies. Once in power a Green Party should ensure that its most prominent members bargain with coalition partners and that environmental aspects of policies get most of the Greens attention. Any Green Party that is only a moderator between environmental polluters and other interests is bound to lose its support base.

Even more sobering are the lessons for the Green movement at large. Once in power, Green Parties become subjected to massive lobbying by the economic powers that be. This was particularly visible in Germany, as Schröder did not hide his subservience to big business. Green Parties can only stand up to these powerful players if voter pressure calls for it. The Green movement in Germany soon learned this message. After trying to lobby the government quietly, the NGOs returned to direct action and public protests.

This was by no means the end for Germany's Greens. Their first year in power was not taken as a sign that they were unfit to govern, or that Green Parties in general could never break the mould.

But the failures and problems of Die Grünen served as a salutary warning to Green Parties the world over of what can happen when power comes too fast, too soon, to politicians with too little real idea of how to use it.

Daniel Mittler is a Political Advisor with Greenpeace International, based in Berlin. He wrote this article, originally published in The Ecologist, Vol. 29, No 8, December 1999, while researching German and Scottish sustainability policies at University College, London.

If you would like to comment, send an email to [email protected]

The eclipse of the German Greens

This article first appeared in the Ecologist in 1999

GreenVoice | Autumn 2009| Policy

rachel Ní Thuathail looks at a support centre for fathers in Galway

‘Families, Fathers and Friends’ is a charity which has evolved from, and addresses, an individual’s experiences of facing inequality in family law and the prejudice in general from the society.

The charity deals with instances of verbal, psychological, emotional and physical abuse perpetrated against men in familial settings, persistent breaches of court orders instigated by their former partners and failure of courts to acknowledge decent fathers in their treatment as equal parents.

The charity opened its office in Galway in June 2005. For the first time in Ireland a dedicated place for fathers was made available to help deal with their emotional and psychological needs while providing support and advice on matters of family law in professional surroundings.

Essentially the charity aims to highlight men’s ‘problems and promote awareness of the duties, obligations and rights of fathers in the 21st century and to create a level playing field in the family courts in Ireland’.

The charity’s founding members (Sam) Sohail Butt, Roger Griffin, Seamus Langan and friends are still the mainstay in the everyday running of the service. Due to the ever increasing workload, volunteers have been sought to help promote awareness of the services on offer and take part in fundraising activities and facilitation training.

The need for the centre’s existence is continuously demonstrated by the calls received from other larger European member states such as the UK and Germany. Calls are also being received from Irish citizens working and residing in the United States. These trends are an indicator for the need and importance of similar services when dealing with the issues of men’s mental health and their general well being.

Through educational workshops the charity endeavours to overcome the stereotype of an Irish male when being considered as a parent. It hopes to remove any bias practiced against fathers and establish greater fairness by making it necessary for family courts to look at the roles played by both parents within a family. It also seeks help from the media in the fairer portrayal and propagation of decent but sadly, forgotten fathers.

It acknowledges and is actively seeking the setting up of dedicated family courts as recommended by the law reform commission almost twenty years ago and also by the recently submitted report to the government by Dr Carol Coulter.

‘Families, Fathers and Friends’ believe its objectives can be achieved in a number of ways. The charity advocates educating fathers and their extended families by way of workshops, public meetings, and lectures and one to one discussions, about their rights, the legal process and what action they can expect from state bodies. It also offers ongoing emotional support to fathers during what can be a difficult and traumatic experience.

WelfareThe charity seeks for the family courts to

acknowledge and practice the principle of ‘Paramount welfare of the child’ when dealing with issues of custody, access and guardianship and to consider one’s capacity as a parent and not gender or prevailing social mores. This aim also places an onus on fathers to stand over their responsibilities and obligations as decent dads and to fulfil their moral, social and legal obligations towards their children.

In line with this objective, Sam Butt, one of the directors of the charity made oral and written submissions to the Third Programme of Law Reform outlining changes needed in the Irish Family Law. The submission has been taken on in its entirety and will form a major part of the report being prepared by the Law Reform Commission for submission to the Government in the final quarter of this year when recommending changes in family law and its enactment.

A focus on fathers’ rightsParty positionelizabeth Davidson, Chair of the Equality Group, outlines the Party’s work on the rights of single fathers

The Green Partv’s Equality group proposed a motion at Convention 2008 calling for a central register of guardianship orders to be created. At present there is no such register and single fathers face an uphill battle to gain access to their children.

Children born to unmarried parents inherit no legal right to have access to their fathers. The Equality Group consulted with a number of groups including the Unmarried and Separated Fathers of Ireland who have highlighted this problem for many years. The Green Party is committed to changing this situation and we welcome the recent proposals from the Law Reform Commission to address these matters. However we would like speedier action on the matter and are committed to working towards this.

For the unmarried father, who has no legal rights whatsoever, the courts procedure can be delayed if the mother objects and it can be a costly and traumatic affair. Access by a legally acknowledged father can be made impossible by an unco-operative mother.

We are of the opinion that these issues should be dealt with in the context of the rights and well-being of the child and his/her rights to a family which includes not only his/her natural parents but also grandparents and extended families. Extended families can provide significant emotional support in the development of children and access to them should not be automatically denied.

Clear laws and operational guidelines for judges in family courts are needed to move away from the current situation where children are made bargaining tools for maintenance and suffer emotionally as a result.

‘families, fathers and friends’ can be contacted on lo-call 1890 55 44 33, [email protected] and further details can be found on www.fathers.ie.

GreenVoice | Autumn 2009 | Locals

imported from low-wage economies, mainly in the Far East.

Following the Treaty of Accession 2003, eight countries (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia), plus the Mediterranean islands of Malta and Cyprus, joined the EU on 1 May 2004 and for the first time in our history we saw migration of workers to Ireland from the lower-wage Eastern European countries.

This had the effect, perhaps unforeseen, but certainly welcomed by Government, of stemming wage inflation to some extent, particularly in the hospitality industry. At the other end of the scale it created a supply of skilled and semi-skilled workers which helped to sustain the construction boom then raging

Job lossesBetween 1993 and 2005 the Government enacted a raft of employee-protection legislation, most of which had laudable aims but which also placed increasing administrative and financial burdens on employers.

Large companies have historically operated and partially funded pension schemes for their employees, but changes introduced in the Pensions (Amendment) Act, 2002 place an obligation on all employers to ensure their employees have access to a pension scheme approved by the Pensions Board. Even if the

employer makes no financial contributions he has the administrative burden of setting up the scheme, deducting contributions from the employee’s earnings and remitting them to the pension provider. This is in addition to his existing obligations to deduct PRSI and PAYE and make the necessary returns.

The net effect of this is to make it increasingly expensive, particularly for small companies, to take on additional employees. Small wonder then that most companies try to survive with the minimum number of employees and that long working hours - particularly for the professional classes - are an accepted way of life.

In summary, the effect of most government action or inaction has been to create disincentives to job creation rather than the reverse. Tinkering around the edges with incentive schemes (even to the extent of the €1 billion proposed by ICTU) will do little to alleviate the current unemployment. The combination of an international recessions and our own lack of competitiveness can only be resolved over time and with really bold actions.

Some bold initiatives that the government might consider:

1. Abolish all employer PRSI contributions2. Create a National Pension Scheme run by

the Pensions Board which all employees will be eligible to join and relieve employers of all

obligations in relation to employee pensions, other than making the necessary deductions and remittances. If possible this should be funded on an actuarial basis but since we can fund public service pensions without this requirement we should be able to do the same for everyone else. This will also remove the temptation for large organisations to raid the pension fund (as has happened in other jurisdictions) when times are tough.

3. Remove the obligation to fund maternity or paternity leave from the employer. The employer should still be obliged to grant the leave but it should be funded entirely by the State.

4. Allow rebates of Corporation Tax based on the number of people employed in the organisation. This might result in the Intels of this world paying little or no Corporation Tax but so what? Even at the higher rate of 12.5% their tax liability is only €125 million which is insignificant compared to their overall contribution to the economy. The overall take from Corporation tax in 2008 was just over € 5 billion. By a curious co-incidence the OECD estimates that unemployment will cost the taxpayer € 6.4 billion in the current year.

5. Conduct a review of all current employment legislation with a view to reducing the cost of compliance to employers.

Comments on this article can be emailed to [email protected]

Continued from page 7

Congratulations to Steven Agnew on this fantastic results in the European Elections. Securing almost 16,000 first preference votes, Steven managed to treble the Green

Party’s vote in Northern Ireland.Like his southern counterparts, Steven

chose the message ‘A Green New Deal’ and produced a video to demonstrate what changes a Green Party MEP could bring. He focused on job creation in the high-tech green industries saying ‘a vote for me is a vote for an energy independent Northern Ireland’. Well done to all involved.

Against all odds

John Gormley helping Steven to demonstrate 'A Green New Deal'.

Bloomin' marvellous

David Healy, Trevor Sargent, Duncan Stewart and Joe Corr pictured at the Bloomsday Festival held in thePhoenix Park.

GreenVoice | Autumn 2009| Opinion

Being in Government right now is the most fantastic place the Green Party can be. The question should be, is it a place Fianna Fail want to be?

I know the Green party is prepared to implement required changes regardless of the political consequences or our popularity ratings in the opinion polls. We were never popular and we are less so now. Taking account of the common good for current and future generations is never a politically rewarding exercise - just ask Alan Dukes.

We as a small, policy-orientated political party should use our position to shove our political partners down the route this state has failed to take in the past. We should not be afraid to shove.

The opinion that our political goose is cooked thanks to the experience of the Local Elections shows that as a smaller mass we cannot absorb the impact. The experience of a general election may be the same, so let’s do what we can before the possibility of our political oblivion is realised.

The authority and mandate of this Government to introduce the measures required to correct national finances and the banking sector may be open to question. However, the political posturing and opportunistic tabloid positions taken by political parties and opinion makers over the last number of weeks is an indication of the

debate that would take place during a general election campaign.

It is now clear to me that a general election would solve nothing, lead to more confusion, false promises and the general appeasement of various interest groups due to the parochial and clientelist nature of the Irish political process. The focus, media and otherwise should not be on whether the Greens walk from government but on Fianna Fail shirking doing what is right.

There is a feeling in the Greens that we are losing substantial ground by not being able to pander to the ‘born againsts’. We shouldn’t worry about this. The ‘born againsts’ have found new best friends in groups like the People before Profit whatchamacallit and Joe Horrified Higgins. They are happy because they will never be in a position to implement anything only bemoan those that are and do a bit of protesting to fill the time between finding new reasons to be horrified. At the moment it’s Lisbon - in a few weeks time it will be something else.

The redrafting of the proposals on NAMA are only part of the demands that we should seek from our government partners. The NAMA Legislation only deals with consequence of the Wild West that was, or perhaps still is the Irish banking sector.

The lawlessness of this Wild West, presided over by our senior government partner, was made worse by the Dodge City planning and zoning decisions around the country. We possibly have the opportunity to set it right. I don’t conceive that we will be thanked for it by the electorate. If the majority party of government fail to grasp the nettle bouquet we offer them, then it is they that will

make the decision about the future of this government and this country. We should be prepared to take the hard decisions securing the future of this country and any party that fails to do so should not be in government.

The membership of the Green party and its core voters are extremely interested in how the Irish economy and financial institutions developed into such a mess and what is required to correct this mess. It has to be recognised that among our core voters there is and always has been a generally negative view of the financial and banking sector.

Green economists in Ireland such as Richard Douthwaite have argued that ‘a radical restructuring of the way money is created will be required to get us out of our problems’ and predicted that the end of the Celtic Tiger would not be pretty.

Worryingly Douthwaite argues that the boom to bust cycle will become a lot more frequent and predicting stability of any duration in property values will be very difficult. The problem causing this, Douthwaite argues, is one that we in the Greens have been crowing about for years; peak oil! Can we influence the asset management legislation to consider this?

All of this discussion would be irrelevant to the Greens if we were sitting white knuckled and craw thumping on the opposition benches. For the first time in our political history we are not irrelevant and we would be foolish if we allowed that opportunity slip. The ‘all things to all people approach’ of Fine Gael and Labour will solve nothing. Fianna Fail must support the Greens in Government. Comments on this article can be emailed to [email protected]

Being in Government is the best place to be right now

Belching out the Devil by Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas is a comedian and political activist who used to love to drink Coca Cola. One of his happiest memories is of his grandmother buying him the drink and a sticky bun

as a treat on their jaunts together.His contempt for the corporation was well documented by Channel Four’s Dispatches programme in 2007. Belching Out the Devil is a good beginner’s guide for anyone who has any interest or misgivings about the Coca-Cola

Corporation. Benefiting from child labour in El Salvador, depriving Indian indigenous communities of vital drinking water, suppressing competition in Mexico and supporting bottling companies in Colombia that are violently anti-union are just some of the charges that Thomas levels against Coca Cola. He includes company responses to the questions he raises. Closer to home, Thomas mentions the “Kick Coke Off the Campus” campaign waged by the Trinity and UCD students and his final chapter covering the closure of the Drogheda plant in 2007 underlines the old saying ‘What affects one affects us all’.

He concludes that the students who campaigned against Coca Cola have got the right attitude. If you don’t like what they do – don’t buy any of their drinks. Since this book was published Thomas has updated his website with the news bulletin that Coca Cola has invested £30 million in the “Innocent” drinks company who produce smoothies and healthy juices. He questions the take over of the ‘apparently ethical’ company by the corporation. For more information and to buy the book visit www.markthomasinfo.com

reviewed by fionnghuala Ni Neill

rreviewseviews

Cllr Brian Meaneyoffers his views on the current positioning of the Greens

GreenVoice | Autumn 2009 | Letters & reviews

Letters

ireland’s economic Crash: A radical Agenda for Change by Kieran Allen (The Liffey Press) This is an excellent book even if one does not share

the author’s (Marxist) analysis. It traces the collapse of the Tiger economy, the failure of neo-liberalism and (as the author sees it) of capitalism itself, and ends with some alternative proposals.Covering such issues as transfer pricing, the

madness of international “casino capitalism,” the squandering of the boom in Ireland, the scapegoating of the public service, the undermining of workers’ rights, and outlining the ability of the wealthy to undermine state regulation, this is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand the recent economic crisis. Allen proposes nine alternative steps: (1) stop the bail outs of the banks (create a “good” state bank and socialise credit); (2) create a major public works programme; (3) take back Ireland’s natural resources; (4) redistribute wealth; (5) remove the corporate

ethos from the public sector; (6) develop a real knowledge society; (7) guarantee the right to work; (8) protect pensions, and (9) institute heavy economic regulation.The unremitting cynicism however becomes a bit wearing. The author seldom challenges the work-income connection (we could institute basic income rather than public works). Selfless technocrats of the kind needed to administer a planned economy are perhaps somewhat scarce. And global warming is not mentioned.

reviewed by Paul O’Brien

Principles of gender and regional balance In the meetings of the National Women’s Council of Ireland I have attended as a Green Party delegate, it has been made painfully clear that the Green Party has been almost alone in the forefront of establishing quotas and encouraging women to stand for office [NEC quotas – to be or not to be, Green Voice Spring 2009]

During one seminar on quotas held earlier this year, I heard women in other political parties speak with frustration that even when they had achieved a level of significance, they did not feel part of the significant decision-making process.

I recall a discussion on the Green Party’s Constitutional Review Committee in 1996 and 1997 about the continued use of quotas, particularly as the NEC was heavily dominated by women. However, it remained, as a guarantee for men, as well as women.

At that point being closer to a movement, than a political party, more women were willing to take on committee work, on a voluntary basis. We are no longer in that position and now as a legitimate political party, the positions previously filled by female (as well as male) volunteers, are paid positions, chosen by a panel (which I trust is gender balanced).

In my various capacities on various bodies and working groups at a European level – all groups have voiced the importance of gender balance, and enshrined it in their observable behaviour.

I spoke on a panel in Krakow several years ago, and women told me of how things were better for them under the Communist system. As soon as the market economy moved in, the women were relegated to lesser positions and lesser money than they had previously. We must not allow ourselves, as a country, to

slip back into that mould for women of kinder, kuchen and kirke. Maintaining the concept of gender balance constitutionally is just as much an insurance policy for men, as for women.

As for regional representation, I feel it should remain. However, I am not opposed to a severe overhauling of the NEC, not just in its composition; but in its remit.

I think, however, at this delicate time, when there is a significant amount of dissatisfaction and disillusionment with ‘the Party’ if not outright discontent and disappointment, any movement which would be interpreted as Dublin-based, if not Dublin-favoured could lead to a two-party system at best, or an entire breakaway of those constituency groups who as it is, feel under-represented.

In summary, there is no harm to maintain Green principles in action, even when it is viewed as no longer necessary. Remember, beyond the Pale, is a deeper shade of Green.Dr Lucille ryan O’shea, Co. Mayo

Back to BasicsFollowing the battering we got on the doorsteps and in the ballot box at the last elections in June, it is vital for the future of the party that we get back to basics. We should emphasise our environmental fundamentals and have a bottom line that, if not achieved, we would be prepared to leave government. For me, and a lot of my Green party colleagues, these basic tenets would be encapsulated in climate change and peak oil. If we do not come to terms with mitigating climate change and addressing peak oil in the very near future, the world will be in a perilous state, both ecologically and economically, in a short space of time.

Copenhagen is fast approaching in December. With the economic recession worldwide, it is getting less attention than it

should. This is a golden opportunity for the Green party to make a stand on the issue. We should set clear targets that Ireland will work to achieve as part of the EU efforts in Copenhagen.

A carbon reduction of 40% on 1990 levels by 2020 is the current scientific advice for an interim target by developed countries. Given our overspend in the Celtic Tiger era, we will need a higher target (perhaps over 50%) to achieve this 2020 level.

The Greens must push hard in government for this 40% - 50% target to be agreed in Ireland. If we fail on achieving this (or a substantial part of it) we must be prepared to bring down the Government.

In Budget 2010, we must press for a sizeable carbon tax to back up our need to address both climate change and peak oil. At this time, it will be extremely unpopular with the majority of the electorate, but will be appreciated by the core Green support in the country. It will show us as being brave on the issue and sticking to our principles. We should try and maximise a budget that will assist development of renewable energy. We must try and wean people off using fossil fuels to enable our society to move to a post-carbon world, when oil supplies will reduce dramatically.

If we are seen to do the right thing by the environment, our core support and potential green voters will come out and give us a vote. eric Conroy, Dublin

‘for Life’ group soughtAny Green Party members interested in forming a ‘For Life’ group? The term ‘pro-life’ is in use but our aims would be much the same.Donal O Conchuir, Dublin 9Interested members can email Donal at [email protected]

Letters can be sent to [email protected]

GreenVoice | Autumn 2009| Europe

Sunday, 7 June, was a bittersweet evening. As I sat in Whelans dejectedly mulling the likely outcome of the elections in Ireland, the phone calls and texts started to arrive from Brussels. Early results and exit polls were indicating a very different result for Green parties across the EU in the European parliament elections.Once the dust had settled, it was clear that the result had exceeded all expectations (and even the most optimistic tipsters in our office sweepstakes): 46 Greens had been elected across the EU, 10 more than in the previous legislature. Combined with the EFA, our regionalist allies in the European Parliament, this brought the group up to a total of 53, from 43 in the previous legislature. The

team includes experienced and familiar faces but also a lot of new recruits, including the youngest Member of the European Parliament, Danish Green Emilie Turunen who is just 25 years old.

With two independent MEPs also joining, including the Swedish Pirate Party's member, that brings the group to a total of 55, making it the fourth largest political group and the only political group to numerically increase in size. Unfortunately, the elections also saw the centre-right reinforce its majority in the European Parliament.

The group set straight to work and has already succeeded in its first goal: delaying the appointment of the next Commission President, with a view to ensuring that candidates other than the unsatisfactory and uninspiring incumbent José Manuel Barroso emerge. The outcome of this decision will set the political tone for the five year term of the European Parliament and Commission, which is why the Greens/EFA group wants to try and ensure a more progressive candidate

Green Group set to workis chosen (visit www.stop-barroso.eu for more information).

While the political priorities of the group have not yet been finalised, some reliables will figure high on the agenda: environment, climate and energy, public health and consumer protection, social protection, civil liberties and human rights. The group has secured the chairmanship of the European Parliament Committee on Development and the Sub-committee on Human Rights, with a number of vice-chairmanships also reflecting the likely priorities of the group.

The new European Parliament has yet to gets its teeth into any legislative or budgetary work but there is a spring in the step of the new Greens/EFA group, as it starts out on its five year term. For more information on the European Greens visit www.greens-efa.org

Richard More O’Ferrall is a climate change campaigner working for the Greens in the European Parliament

Im proposing an advert for members to sign up a friend!

Also should we run a competition to send in photographs and the bst photograph will be uploaded to get growing and green party website.

they will also win a hamper pack of goodies... t-shirt mug some seeds for next year... let me know what you think .

Campaign tell a

friend

We are always looking for active people who will share their interests, skills and time with the Green Party. If you think a friend of yours would like to join the Green Party, please give them the inclosed membership form.

The Greens are the only political party to refuse donations from businesses

and we are therefore reliant on fundraising and donations from members.

Please consider setting up a standing order or making a donation to the

Party, to help us get more Greens elected.

Membership form.

www.greenparty.ie/donate

It is Party policy to communicate by email wherever possible. Providing an

email address cuts down on printing and postage costs. Please be assured

that we will not spam your email account.

Our Principles

Green Party 16/17 Suffolk St.Dublin 2Tel: 01 6790012

Our four core pillars are peace, democracy, protection of the environment and our natural resources and social justice.

Thorntons recycling, Unit s3B Henry roadParkwest Business Park, Dublin 12Tel: + 353 1 623 5133 fax: + 353 1 623 5131email: [email protected]

web: www.thorntons-recycling.ie

richard More O'ferrall reports from inside the European Parliament

Green Voice Autumn 2009

Documents

Transcript of Green Voice Autumn 2009