Left Tribune VII.2

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


8/20

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


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


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


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:


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


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


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


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

Left Tribune VII.2

Documents

Transcript of Left Tribune VII.2