The Irish Children’s Rights Referendum…

On November 10th Ireland will hold another referendum. Referendums are getting nearly as popular as tribunals with the 2 Nice Treaty referenda, the Lisbon Treaty referenda,  the  ”ESM treaty” referendum and now a Children’s rights referendum. I had hoped to avoid blogging about the latter but the matter is too serious and the spin from the “yes” side to thick to ignore it any longer.

You see the proposed constitutional amendment (to articles 42.A.4.1 & 42A.4.2) is being proposed as means to better protect the rights of the children in cases of neglect, abuse, or a combination of these. This is to be achieved by giving the state more power to (forcibly) remove children from their parents custody. Even if this is against the wishes of both the parents AND the child. The state will be able to come and take children out of their homes and forcibly put them up for adoption. If they deem that there is enough reason to do so.

Article 42A.2.1: In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the state as the guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with the due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

Now who can find something wrong with that? Surely its all to the betterment of the rights of the child right? Wrong!

Let’s take a closer look at the parts I’ve highlighted; First of all there is the reference to “the state as the guardian of the common good”. Call me a cynic but I have so far seen very few states where this “common good” was an unequivocal and unilaterally accepted principle. Au contraire, “common good” is an as ambiguous principle as possible. So if we enshrine in the constitution that the state is  the guardian of this ambivalent condition than we basically give carte blanche to future governments to interpret that at will. Secondly there is the suggestion that the state “supply the place of the parents”. That is not only wrong but also biologically impossible. The definition of parents (according to Dictionary.com) is “a father or a mother”. The state is not only genderless, it is also an abstract entity. While the state can assume guardianship over children they can never be “parents”. Including that term in the proposed amendment is equal measures wrong and insulting. It is impossible for the state with even the best intentions to provide the quality of care for a child that a parent will provide. Lastly there is “”proportionate means as provided by law”. This is a change from the “appropriate means” term in the current constitution. What it means is that the state will not stop at this change in the constitution, the use of the term “proportionate” means they will have to enshrine these constitutional powers in law. This gives them increased powers to enforce these amendments on you.

What also offends me that there is clear mention of the increased powers of the state, the amendment makes no mention of the right of parents. Instead it actually erodes the rights of parents to raise their children in a responsible manner as they see fit. Instead it puts parents in a position where they are accountable to the state for how they raise their children. This is only an intellectual hop and a skip from the state deciding how many children parents are allowed to have or what religions are “preferential”. Lets just note that the Irish state’s record in this area is far from examplary. The reprehensible levels of child abuse that took place in Irish institutions in the previous decades took place after the state put the children in these institutions. Even now the country’s health care system, the HSE, let nearly 200 children die while they were in its care. And the Irish people are now supposed to give this same state more CONSTITUTIONAL powers on a promise that the system will be changed?! Sounds like a cart before the horse approach to me.

Several years ago I had a “experience” with the HSE’s department of child protection that did little to instill confidence in their abilities. At the time someone who lived locally and who I was pursuing for a substantial amount of money owed decided to get back to me by hurting it where it hurts most; my children. What happened is that they made an anonymous phone-call to the local childrens protection office accusing my wife and myself of neglecting our children. As it emerged later the extent of this “neglect” was laughable. Apparently our children sometimes attended school without the sufficient amount of pens, pencils, copybooks or not wearing a complete uniform. Hardly abuse but it was enough to put the HSE machine in motion. The first thing that we learned of it is when we received a letter making us aware of the anonymous complaint and notifying us that a child care worker would visit us for an inspection in two weeks time. Now if we had been abusive parent those two weeks would have given plenty of time to hide any and all signs of abuse and/or neglect. In our case we had done nothing wrong (anyone who knows us is aware that we ALWAYS put our children’s welfare first). and the letter caused so much upset that we were not willing to wait two weeks for any further clarification. What we did instead is contact the HSE and demand they send an inspector to our house ASAP! And preferably without any notice.

Next we contacted the primary school which our children attended to discuss this with the schools principal.Her relief when we spoke to her was immense. Apparently the HSE had contacted her when the complaint was initially made to verify the accusations. She had vehemently denied these and made clear to the HSE person that we actually took very good care of our children and that they were smart, and pleasant children. However this was not enough for the HSE, in spite of the fact that the allegations had now been refuted by a reputable 3rd party. She was instructed *not* to discuss the matter with us and that the HSE would investigate the matter further.

The inspectors visit was rather uneventful as it was obvious that the complaints was without both without any basis and made maliciously. However rather than dismiss the case we received a notifications several weeks later that the investigation was closed “due to lack of supporting evidence”.  As you can imagine this whole affair was a far from pleasant experience and we are far from happy with the way it was handled.

However considering all that I am of the opinion that if the HSE had, at the time, the powers that the proposed constitutional amendment would give them it would have gone far different. It would make it likely and legal for the HSE to remove children from parental custody while a case is investigated. And to do so without informing the parents of the exact details of the case. This is already common practice in the UK where even the family court cases are being held in “secret”.

There is also the case of “common good”. Take the example of recent large scale vaccination programs. Take the case of the H5N1 (avian flu) outbreak. In a panic measure a vaccine which had only had limited trials was pushed on the general public. Everyone was strongly “advised” to vaccinate not only themselves but more urgently their children. Based on our own research we decided that the risk of being injected with a largely untested vaccine was greater than the risk of contracting Avian flu. Looking back we were correct as several side effects have manifested while the number of actual infections with the virus have been minimal. Then there is the case of the mass vaccination of pre-teen girls with the human papillomavirus vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. Vaccination programs were organised through schools rather than voluntary through doctors practices and as nobody wants their children to develop cancer we allowed our two eldest daughters to receive the vaccine. As it now expires it not only can cause premature ovarian failure, it also only protects against 2 out of 5 possible strains of the cancer.

Anyway, my point is that increased power to the state would put them in a position to say that vaccinations are in the name of the common good (in fact they have already said so) and to force parents to either have their children vaccinated or to take the children into custody.  If you think that’s crazy thinking then I advise you to check Minister of Social Protection statement recently where she hinted that vaccinations could be tied to child benefit payments and or school admittance. Where I come from that’s called a “worrying development”…

Related articles

• What you should know about the Children’s Referendum
• Groups launch No campaign to Children’s Rights Referendum
• 10 Reasons to vote No in the Children’s Rights Referendum

Irish Startups 2012 – Infographic

Access Legal has put together a great infographic on the 2012 Irish startup scene.

Related articles

• The cost of starting a business. (greenhouseireland.com)

Maybe Irelands low corporate tax isn’t that important after all….

Tax is evil; there I said it. The organised extortion of money by the state sanctioned by a threat of violence or incarceration is something I principally object to. However I am realistic enough to understand that “we the citizens” need to make a small contribution towards the running of the state apparatus. A flat tax would be the most equitable way to do so and would allow for the abolition of all tax loopholes as well as so-called stealth taxes, sales tax, duties, excise and what more.

However I am digressing from the topic of this blogpost….

Irish corporate tax and specifically the low rate is a hot topic of conversation both in Ireland and across the EU. The debate mostly centers around whether Ireland should be allowed to hold on to this low rate which on the face of it has attracted such giants such as Google, Facebook, Linkedin, Dell, Microsoft, Apple and a whole raft of other big players to the country. Other EU countries rightfully seem to think that this low corporate tax rate (12.5% compared to for instance 28% in the UK) gives Ireland an unfair advantage. It turns out that they might be wrong…

During an exchange on Twitter with the fabulous @dhkirk yesterday it expired that even though the corporate tax rate is substantially lower than most other EU countries most of these multinationals only pay that tax rate on a small percentage of their revenue. See, @dhkirk was researching this to ascertain the validity of InvestNI’s statement that a lowering of the corporation tax in Northern Ireland would result in it being just as attractive to large corporates as the Irish Republic. You can read his blogpost here.

The common perception is that the large corporates sluice all their European revenues into their Irish corporate entity through the use of licensing agreements allowing them to only pay Ireland’s 12.5% corporate tax rate on not just the Irish revenues but almost *all* revenues across Europe. It now turns out that this is only part of the chain. Apparently because of a quirk in Irish law, if the Irish subsidiary is controlled by managers elsewhere, like the Caribbean, then the profits can skip across the world tax-free. This (legal) construction is known as a “Double Irish Sandwich”.  Let’s try an example; ACME Inc has offices all over the world. It now register a corporate entity in Ireland. Let’s say it’s Called ACME Eire Ltd. Management of all patents and intellectual property regarding ACME Inc’s products is transferred to ACME Eire Ltd. At the same time ACME Inc. sets up a corporate entity in a tax haven (such as the Bermudas, Cayman Islands etc.) It then assigns the *ownership* of all patents and intellectual property regarding ACME Inc’s products to the corporate entity based in this tax haven. This construction than results in all ACME Inc. global companies globally are billed for us of these patents and intellectual property by ACME Eire Ltd. These fees paid to ACME Eire Ltd. can be as high as most of their revenue. ACME Eire Ltd. in return pays an “administrative fee” to the entity registered in a tax haven. ACME Eire Ltd. only pays the low Irish corporate tax rate over a fraction of its revenue. In the case of Google it reduced the companies taxable revenue in Ireland reduces its gross profit from €5.5bn to just €45m.

It appears that it means that it’s not Irelands low corporate tax rate which makes it an attractive location for multinational but rather their specific tax legislation allowing this construction. The NY Times has produced an excellent illustration of how this works. Click on the image for a detailed explanation.

Based on this it would appear that all the campaigning for Ireland to hold on to its low corporate tax rate as a change might scare away these large multi-nationals might not have been fully informed. Full disclosure requires that I admit that I have used this argument also. However I have always followed it by stating that Ireland should develop other means of being competitive than just being the cheapest tax country. Based on the information outlined above I would suggest that an increase in the corporate tax rate might not have such detrimental effects. But please remember that I am *not* a tax expert.

Following are some sources of supporting information:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0514/1224316065838.html

http://www.businessworld.ie/livenews.htm?a=2941771

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/ireland-business-blog-with-lisa-ocarroll/2011/mar/24/google-ireland-tax-reasons-bermuda

The Irish Fiscal Compact referendum.

Today is referendum day in Ireland when every Irish adult has the opportunity to vote for or against the ratification to the Fiscal Compact.

As I’m not an Irish citizen and my 16 years of paying tax here do not give me a right to vote I have to watch this one from the sidelines. However for those of you who do not know what this Fiscal Compact is I have put together a simple visual primer.

Enjoy:

Related articles

• Poll: How will you vote in the referendum on the EU Fiscal Compact treaty? (thejournal.ie)
• Paul Krugman Urges Irish Voters To Reject The Fiscal Pact Referendum (businessinsider.com)
• Eurozone crisis live: Ireland votes on EU fiscal treaty – The Guardian (guardian.co.uk)

Musical chairs EU style. Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and again..

Disclaimer: I am not an economist, finance expert or politician. Far from it. So you won’t see any statistics, graphs, academic references or even the slightest shred of evidence to back up my assertions and conclusions. What you will read however is my view of the current European (and global crisis) based on following a variety of news sources, discussions with people who are much smarter than I am, an ability to recognise bullshit and a healthy dose of scepticism.

Take one look at the current situation: Greece has had one bailout and is looking at a 2nd bailout, Ireland has had one bailout, Portugal is being bailed out and Spain will quite likely follow shortly. In each of the bailed out countries a series of austerity measures is being applied. Services are being cut, taxes are being increased, levies are being introduced etc. In short for the citizens of these countries the cost of living increases drastically. The main cause of the increase of cost of living is an increase in charges by the state for services provided to its citizens. Services that in principle should be funded by the already paid income taxes, sales taxes and social taxes. However the revenue from those sources has been squandered. Instead what we get now are higher & more taxes and fewer services. Private citizens and the private sector are being dealt hammer-blow after hammer-blow. Government deficits have grown to astronomical proportions but even bigger amounts of money are being used to rescue the banks. To what benefit one might ask?

That is indeed the biggest question in this whole twisted tale. Qui Bono? Will this period of austerity caused by fewer services, higher & more taxes and rapidly rising prices bring us to an eventual recovery? The answer is: probably. But another consideration is how long will this take? Will is take 5, 10 or even 25 years? My estimation is that it will most likely be 25 years or more before we see any actual benefits and economic stability if we keep walking down the austerity road.  There is of course a different option. Forget about the “burning the bondholders” argument. Most bondholders have already been repaid. What we can do is restructure the loans, because that’s what they are, that have been forced upon us by the IMF/ECB. We can demand a longer running period, a lower interest rate or even a reduction in the capital. Because that is where the real truth is hidden, neither Ireland, not Greece, not Portugal will ever be able to pay of the loans forced upon them. The EU & the IMF are well aware of this and what we are witnessing is not an attempt to rescue the economies of these countries as it is wholesale asset stripping.

When the shit hit the fan in the world of global finance back in 2007/2008 and it became clear that banks all over the world would just fail overnight the people at the top of the financial foodchain decided that they could never let this happen. So these chose a devious and callous option. In the case of the EU this meant that governments would be strong-armed into accepting loans of an astronomical size and at sometimes punitive intrest rates simply to hand this money to the banks thereby ensuring the continued existence of the financial system. The fact that these loans could never and would never be repaid was not an issue for the (private) banking sector. It was for the IMF/ECB though. Hence they included clauses in the “bail-out agreements” that would hand control of the bailed out countries economic & financial policies over to them. The EU/ECB would dictate internal politics….

What we are witnessing now is wholesale assets stripping on a scale not witnessed since the Soviet armies occupied a large part of Western Europe at the end of WWI. At the direction of the EU bureaucrats formerly sovereign countries are being told to sell of state assets in order to fund loan repayments to the ECB/IMF. The fact that the sale of the these assets will quite possibly leave the country in economic ruination with no state-owned industry or other assets and still insurmountable foreign debts to repay does not seem to matter. It is a case of “get it while you can”. For example Greece has been strong-armed in selling 10% of the state-owned Telecoms company to Deutsche Telekom.  It is no surprise that this is a German company. I expect more chunks to be sold of and also “suggestions” that Ireland sell off Aer Lingus, ESB, Coilte (oh wait that’s already happening) and more. Visions of the Soviets dismantling factories and shipping them lock, stock and barrel to the motherland come to mind. None of this is happening to the benefit of the individual countries or it’s citizens!

So what can be done? There is really only one option; stop playing ball. We need to step out of the EU to regain economic sovereignty and use this renewed independence to dictate the rules of the game. We need to state how much we are paying back, over what time-frame and at what rate. Nothing else will do. This will be a painful step to take as it will bring cause a period of economic hardship but this period will be significantly shorter than the one that will be caused by playing along with the ECB/IMF and whatsmore we will emerge out of this as a healthy economy.

It’s really a simple & straightforward solution but I do not think that any of the governments of the respective countries has the balls or willingness to implement it.

 

/end rant

Today the Queen is visiting Ireland, I am dedicating this post to her…

Why we shouldn’t get rid of parish-pump politics.

 

There has been much mention of the term “parish-pump politics” or parochialism in the last week since the publication of the Moriarty report. I wrote on my opinion on this report earlier this week. PoliticsDairy.com give a very plain description: “local politics concerning only minor or local issues”. However the popular (critical) definition refers to the type of politician who gets elected on to the national government on a record of achievement in local issues. It’s the type of politician who you go to when you need the streetlights outside your house fixed, when you’ve been on the waiting list for the local hospital for ages, the guys who gets a grant for the local school etc. Basically he’s the “go-to guy” in your constituency if you need anything done.

However this style of politics is coming under an increasing amount of criticism. Most of this has come recently after the release of the finding of judge Moriarty alleging that Deputy Michael Lowry was guilty of corruption while being minister of communications while the 2nd Irish mobile phone license was awarded. Now this is *not* parish-pump politics, it’s corruption plain and simple. Where parish-pump politics come into play is by the tolerance of Lowry’s action by a core of local supporters who basically state that he’s a great guy because of all the things he has done for his constituents. Never mind that he might have enriched himself a bit along the way. All this is causing huge amounts of anger and emotion at both sides of the divide and is followed by the usual knee-jerk reactions. I’ll try to create some clarity by breaking my position down in a few points:

1. If the national government and all its departments & services were working correctly and to their full capacity there would be no need for someone fast-track the repairs for your road, your surgery at the hospital, your planning application and whatnot. By creating or maintaining an unequal or faulty system of government and services the Irish government has created an environment where this type of backroom favouritism can flourish. It allows people to achieve Godfather like status in their community by “getting things done”. Fix the system and you will eradicate the corruptness.
2. In an equitable & functioning system of government there is a place for the healthy form of parish-pump politics. The presence of a “person of power” in your community who will “kick ass” when things are not being done the way they should is a welcome thing. We should not eradicate parish-pump politics we just need to fix it.
3. “Parish-pump politics should stay in the parish” ; we should stop rewarding people for their achievements at a local (constituency) level by giving them a place in the national government. There are very distinct differences between politics at a local level and politics at a national & international level. The former is very much an operational affair. It’s about getting things done, finances and services. National & International politics operate on a much higher level. It’s about making laws, economic and financial planning, it’s about the county’s place in the world and more of that “abstract thinking stuff”. Sending really efficient & competent local politicians to the Leinster house is wrong for two reasons. Firstly it presents them with a list of task and requires a level of thinking that they are unused and/or unqualified for. Secondly it gives them less time to do what they’re good at: dealing with local matters. Would you send a really good brain-surgeon to run a hospital? Probably not. He/she might not be very qualified at the various (non-medical) tasks required to run the hospital efficiently and secondly you would need to find another shit-hot brain-surgeon to replace the one that you just promoted.

So how do we fix the current system that is clearly faulty and creating an environment primed for corruption. We need a two-tier government. Create a level of local government at county or constituency level and let that be run by the kings & queens of parish-pump politics and parochialism. Make them directly elected so that the most efficient of them gets elected. A local government with more powers will also place more responsibility at local level and will allow the people of their country to hold an elected representative directly responsible.

Next get rid of the current mickey mouse electoral system for national elections, introduce a proper list system and make the party whip illegal. That way we ensure that the houses of government are full of the smartest people with no other agenda than what is the best for the country. And that’s irrespective of what side of the political divide they are from. Removing the party whip will also allow for discourse and internal criticism within the parties making sure that party leaders are constantly kept in check.

Really it’s time for grown up politics in Ireland….

State of the nation..

People who know me personally or those who follow me on Twitter know that I have very outspoken views on politics and how this country should be run. Because my rants are more often than not squeezed into 140 characters I think it is time to flesh them out a bit and put them in some kind of structure. hence a blog-post. Now I expect this to be a long one so I will split it up in several parts to keep it digestible. Please also don’t critisize me for lack of nuances or detail. If I start including those the post will go on for 500+ pages and I will never get any real work done. What I want to get across is a growing frustration with the fact that we are going through momentous times but that a large percentage of people (particularly the ones currently in government) don’t seem to realise that we need to get it righ this time.

There are several levels on which we “the people” are in the shit at the moment. We have a global economical & financial system that is in an advanced state of collapse. We have politicians in our own country, on European level and in charge of the most powerful nations in the world who pander to the populist vote and who have abandoned principle, honor and integrity. The catholic church, still a mainstay in  much of the western world, is losing followers faster than a middle-aged man loses his hair.

On a national level we have a crumbling public infra-structure, a failing health care system, a underfunded educational system ( the majority of primary schools are owned by the Catholic church), violent crime which is beyond the Gardai’s (Irish police) control. We have a economy which is circling the drain and we are governed by a bunch of incompetents who have less understanding of macro-economics than my 10 year old.

So where does this leave us? In my opinion we are going through a metamorphosis; all mainstays & supports in our society are gone. The faith in religion is gone (pardon the pun), financial security (banks, pensions etc.) is gone. Not only are most banks in dire straits, the actual system of banking and the financial industry seems to have been built on smoke & mirrors. The government has failed at all it most basic tasks, it is unable to stabilise the economy, it cannot keep it’s citizens safe, it cannot provide a sustainable living environment for most of it’s citizens, it disrespects democratic vote (hello Lisbon treaty referendum) and it uses tax payers money to bail out their cronies while cutting back on provisions for the lower classes of society (NAMA, health care cutbacks etc.). I can see a realisation dawning where people see that they cannot depend on the nanny-state they so craved. We will have to go back to a system where we will have to do things ourselves. We need a system build on direct rule and direct action. Strip the government back to a bare minimum (public safety, defence, public services etc)  and let the private sector take care of the rest. Issues like trade & economic development should not be handled by civil servants. A civil servant operating in a free market environment is asking for trouble. Services and the provision of them should be based on supply & demand. A bloated government apparatus will only be staffed by people whose only interested is to secure their own jobs rather than serve the people who they represent.  Free market economics will prevent such waste.

Look at the current hot issues in Ireland; the global economic & financial crisis has been aggravated by the overdependence on the (now collapsing) property & construction industry. We have no indigenous industrial base to speak of as the IDA has for decades squandered money away by paying foreign owned multi-nationals to set up base here. As soon as the cost-base increases these companies flee to cheaper shores (something recent developments have clearly illustrated). The government is now in a blind panic throwing money around using expenditure as a measurement of effectiveness. Again it is “form over function”. Several of the largest banks are on the verge of collapse and what does the Irish government propose? A state owned body that will buy all the toxic debts of the banks so that said banks can put the results of their blatant mismanagement behind them and continue like nothing has happened.  The bill for this adventure will be footed by the tax-payer who is already being crippled by increased taxation and reduced spending by the government. To put it bluntly, the people who have the least fault will have to bail out the institutions that are at the root of this disaster. And what would the result off all this sacrifice be? The survival of the same mindset that has brought us here. We would be much better off to let failing banks collapse and to build a new, healthier financial system on the ruins of the current one. This might mean 5-10 years of struggle but if is greatly preferable over 25-50 years of un-imaginable amounts of debt having to be paid of by the taxpayer. That will be you, your children and quite likely your grandchildren.

But lets not blame everything on the state. We have become a society of pussies who expect to be compensated for or protected against every form of discomfort. A large swathe of society prefers to sit on their sofa, stuffing their faces with low-fat crisps watching such mindbogglingly tripe as X-factor, “UK’s got talent” or”next top model” while the global economy slides headfirst into a quagmire. They will moan and groan as they call Joe Duffy but really they are more concerned with the rental cost if a bouncy castle than the effect the current crisis has on our economic competitiveness, our GDP or the tax burden on future generations. They will take legal actions against the owner of a shop if they slip on an icy patch on the way out but they won’t shovel snow from the doorstep of their elderly neighbour. People like myself who blog & tweet slip into the assumption that everyone is as engaged and switched on as we are. WRONG!

Part 2 of this post will follow shortly…