Whistleblowers Testify in EU

Parliament
by Golem Xiv on NOVEMBER 17, 2016 in LATEST

Yesterday a very high-powered panel of international

banking whistleblowers met and told their stories in the
European parliament. The questions raised were
important. Among them was the Irish Whistleblower,
Jonathan Sugarman, who when UniCredit Ireland was
breaking the law in very serious ways reported it to the
Irish regulator.
He related how he was not only ignored by his bank, the
Irish regulator but also all the major political parties. He
then pointed out that the Irish regulator claims that it
always and it is the law after all informs the regulator
of the home country of banks which have subsidiaries in
Ireland, about any serious problems. In the case of
UniCredit that would mean the Italian Central bank would
have been told that Italys largest Bank was in serious
breach of Irish law in ways that could endanger the whole
banking system. The head of the Italian Central Bank at
the time was a certain Mr Mario Draghi. Mr Sugarman
suggested Mr Draghi should be asked point-blank of he did
or if he did not know. If he did not then the Irish regulator
was at least incompetent, and may have lied, misled and
perhaps even broken Irish laws. If he was told and did
know, then Mr Draghi has serious questions to answer
regarding his own dereliction of duty.
Surely not I hear you say. Well perhaps someone might
ask him? Or is he above the law?
http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2016/11/whistleblowers-testifyeu-parliament/

Jonathan Sugarman
November 17, 2016

A. Thank you.
B. MEP Ming Flanagan has just replied to my tweet of
your blog posting. I repeated your question Is Draghi
above the law?. Here is Flanagans response:
Luke Ming Flanagan (@lukeming) tweeted at 11:13 p.m.
on Thu, Nov 17, 2016:
Id ask him but, his bodyguard ,er I mean ECON chairman

@gualtierieurope [EU Commission President Gualtierie]

wont let it happen.

Follow

Luke 'Ming' Flanagan

Verified account

Luke 'Ming' Flanagan Retweeted Jonathan Sugarman

I'd ask him but, his

bodyguard ,er I mean ECON
chairman wont let it happen.
What Did Draghi Know About Potential Loss and
Abuses at Italy's Largest Bank
Apparently lax and/or incompetent regulation of systemically
important banks by bureaucrats, central bankers, and politicians may
not be just a recent American phenomenon.
As we read this, it could imperil the soundness of the financial system
in Europe as well, as is still apparently the case with The Banks in the
states, despite assurances to the contrary.
My understanding is that there was little to no coverage of this bank
whistleblower's testimony in the US, a video of which is included
below.
Golem XIV asks some very good questions in the article below, recently
posted on his blog here.

Whistleblowers Testify in EU Parliament

By Golem XIV on November 17, 2016 in latest
Yesterday a very high-powered panel of international banking
whistleblowers met and told their stories in the European parliament.
The questions raised were important. Among them was the Irish
Whistleblower, Jonathan Sugarman, who when UniCredit Ireland was
breaking the law in very serious ways reported it to the Irish regulator.
He related how he was not only ignored by his bank, the Irish

regulator but also all the major political parties. He then pointed out
that the Irish regulator claims that it always and it is the law after
all informs the regulator of the home country of banks which have
subsidiaries in Ireland, about any serious problems.
In the case of UniCredit that would mean the Italian Central bank
would have been told that Italys largest Bank was in serious breach of
Irish law in ways that could endanger the whole banking system. The
head of the Italian Central Bank at the time was a certain Mr Mario
Draghi.
Mr Sugarman suggested Mr Draghi should be asked point-blank of he
did or if he did not know. If he did not then the Irish regulator was at
least incompetent, and may have lied, misled and perhaps even
broken Irish laws. If he was told and did know, then Mr Draghi has
serious questions to answer regarding his own dereliction of duty.
Surely not I hear you say. Well perhaps someone might ask him? Or is
he above the law?
http://www.guengl.eu/news/article/whistleblower-protection-whatmust-be-done
Related: Studies Show Fed Stress Tests Merely 'a Placebo'

Rigged:
How Globalization and the Rules of
the Modern Economy Were
Structured to Make the Rich Richer
By Dean Baker
There has been an enormous upward redistribution of
income in the United States in the last four decades. In his
most recent book, Baker shows that this upward
redistribution was not the result of globalization and the
natural workings of the market. Rather it was the result of
conscious policies that were designed to put downward
pressure on the wages of ordinary workers while
protecting and enhancing the incomes of those at the top.
Baker explains how rules on trade, patents, copyrights,
corporate governance, and macroeconomic policy were
rigged to make income flow upward.

"With clarity, facts, and force, Dean

Baker explains how the U.S. economy is
rigged and how the privileged class
convinced majorities that this is just the
way things have to be. Baker then
thoroughly debunks such inevitability,
providing what amounts to a powerful
de-rigging manual to the growing
number of us who want a global
economy that works for everyone."
Jared Bernstein, Former Chief Economic Adviser to Vice
President Joe Biden

"This is an important and compelling

book about how the rules governing the
American economy have been rigged in
favor of those with the wealth and
political clout to rig them. Baker shows
why and how the nation's staggering
inequality has been the consequence of
staggeringly unequal political
influence."
Robert B. Reich, Former Secretary of Labor

"Dean Bakers timely book Rigged: How

Globalization and the Rules of the
Modern Economy Were Structured to
Make the Rich Richer is a must-read for
the many who believe the status quo is
unsustainable. In clear and compelling
terms, Baker makes the case for
rewriting the rules so that markets lead
to truly progressive outcomes."
Katrina vanden Heuvel, Editor and Publisher of the Nation

"The era in which all economic policy

discussion started from conservative

premises that lent themselves to

conservative solutions is coming to an
end. Conservatives have become
caricatures, warning of nonexistent
inflation and promoting tax cuts for the
rich as the solution to every problem.
We are poised for a new progressive era
of thinking and policy to deal with
festering problems, such as rising
inequality and slowing productivity
growth, that conservatives are
incapable of grasping, let alone dealing
with. This book represents fresh
thinking for a new progressive era. It
may be for the Left what George
Gilders Wealth and Poverty was for
the Right."
Bruce Bartlett, Former aide to Ron Paul and Jack Kemp (U.S.
Congress), Ronald Reagan (White House/OPD) and George H.W.
Bush (Treasury Dept/Economic Policy)

"Dean Bakers eye-opening Rigged tells

the true story of how American incomes
became so unequal. The rich and their
handmaidens in the economic
profession have told a selective story
about the fairness and efficiency of free
markets. The true story is that markets
are not free. Government, under the
influence of the rich and powerful, has
written the rules of the game to favor
distribution of income upward. Others
talk about this theme but no one as
comprehensively and insightfully as
Baker. He makes starkly clear that,

tragically, the U.S. is now a government

of the rich, for the rich, and by the rich."
Jeffrey Madrick, Editor of Challenge: The Magazine of Economic
Affairs

"High U.S. inequality is the product of

conscious policy choices, argues Dean
Baker in this excellent and provocative
book. He identifies five areas in which
the upward distribution induced by
policies should be reversed:
macroeconomics that focus on low
inflation only; asymmetric treatment of
privatized gains and socialized losses in
the finance industry; heavy protection
of patent rights at home and abroad;
protection of high-skill occupations from
foreign competition; and out-of-bounds
CEO pay. By identifying five clear areas
and giving concrete proposals for a
change, Bakers book should be seen as
a roadmap for future U.S. policymakers
who wish to bring income and wealth
inequality back to sustainable levels."
Branko Milanovic, Author of Global Inequality: A New Approach
for the Age of Globalization

"Baker's substantial and carefully

referenced book advances logical and
evidence-based trade and immigration
policy reforms aimed to lift up living
standards of all workers."
Teresa Ghilarducci, The New School for Social Research

"From Adam Smith on, clear-eyed

analysts have recognized that markets
can be distorted to favor those at the

top that, to use the language of

contemporary economics, corporations
and the wealthy can extract rents
from the rest of us. In this provocative
new book, Dean Baker shows that the
rents in the American economy are high
and rising. From patent laws that favor
incumbents over innovation to financial
and corporate rules that insulate
excessive earnings, Baker uncovers the
realities underneath the rationalizations
of our rent-driven economy. No less
important, he provides an agenda for
fixing it."
Jacob S. Hacker, Professor of Political Science, Yale University,
and co-author of Winner-Take-All Politics and American Amnesia

"Dean Baker has a gift possessed by few

economists, the ability and, perhaps
more importantly, the desire to lay
out economic principles in terms as
simple as they truly are. As Baker
reminds us, this stuff isn't complicated,
but those who have built the system to
keep themselves in and keep others out
are eager to convince that it is. Read
Rigged and you'll be able to see right
through them."
http://deanbaker.net/books/rigged.htm
In relation to Ireland and our central bank at the time, you
may find this interesting and worth trying to find more
information on:
At a recent Irish Economic Association discussion of house
prices, the Central Bank official in charge of financial
regulation (whose publications with the ultra-libertarian
Cato Institute strongly oppose any form of bank regulation

 a real case of an atheist being appointed an archbishop)

stopped the proceedings to announce that the view of the
Bank was that, as long as international markets were
happy to buy debt issued by Irish banks, there could be no
problem with their lending policies.
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/banking-on-veryshaky-foundations-1.960313
What is notable about that, is Ireland had an official in
charge of financial regulation, who was publishing in
Catoone of those most well known anti-regulatory think
tanks in the world.
I never did find out who that person was would be
interesting to discover more about that, as it sounds like
something which would highlight the serious degree of
regulatory capture in Ireland.
Well perhaps someone might ask him? Or is he above the
law?
Name a single bankster who has ever been charged with
Fraud & Counterfeiting
Permit me to issue and control a nations money, and I
care not who writes their laws.
Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Why the whole banking system is a scam

- Godfrey Bloom MEP
May 21, 2013
http://www.ukipmeps.org | Join UKIP:
http://ukip.datawareonline.co.uk/Join...
European Parliament, Strasbourg, 21 May 2013
Speaker: Godfrey Bloom MEP, UKIP (Yorkshire & Lincolnshire),
Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) group http://www.godfreybloommep.co.uk
Joint Debate: Banking union - single supervisory mechanism
1. Specific tasks for the European Central Bank concerning
policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit
institutions
Report: Marianne Thyssen (A7-0392/2012)

- Report on the proposal for a Council regulation conferring

specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning
policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit
institutions
[COM(2012)0511 - - 2012/0242(CNS)]
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs
2. European Banking Authority and prudential supervision of
credit institutions
Report: Sven Giegold (A7-0393/2012)
- Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No
1093/2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority
(European Banking Authority) as regards its interaction with
Council Regulation (EU) No.../... conferring specific tasks on the
European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the
prudential supervision of credit institutions
[COM(2012)0512 - C7-0289/2012 - 2012/0244(COD)]
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs
....................
Video: EbS (European Parliament)
..................................
EU Member States:
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany,
Denmark, Estonia, Spain, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary,
Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Sweden, United Kingdom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYzX3YZoMrs

Could it be that there is something in the Irish cultural

make up that allows thugs and criminals to run free
knowingly amongst the population and even be rewarded
for really bad behaviour ?
Is Ireland a country where 100 percent of the people either
lack a moral compass or fear the personal results of
stepping out of line to report the crimes of high officials ?.
It takes only a single Edward Snowdon among the
hundreds of thousands of NSA employees to have ripped
the face off of American exceptionalism. He alone made a
distinction about what was right and what was wrong and
acted morally. Only one army private, Chelsea Manning,
among thousands of members of the armed forces

exposed the moral corruption of American imperialism as

practised at street level and in private conversation in a
war zone. There were hundreds if not thousands of Irish
people covering up the crimes of the Catholic clergy who
abused children and others for years, generations even.
Journalists, other priests, nuns, police, prosecutors, Judges,
politicians, lay church people, bishops, cardinals, popes,
all knew some part of the crimes which were being
perpetrated continually.
The same categories of problems were being perpetrated
daily in the corrupted structures around the banking and
mortgaging industries and the political structure of the
Emerald Isle. Every citizen of Ireland who knows what
happened to cause the banking crisis years ago is a willing
Accomplice to the criminal acts which destroyed the
economy and did so much damage to the country and
harm to its people.
Jonathan Sugarman is certainly not the only person with
knowledge of this corruption but the regulator knew more
than he did. Official records have to exist that implicate
him and many others in a wide web of criminal activity
that has to be investigated and made public.
The essential survival of the country and its moral centre
are at stake. Every effort must be made to find and expose
those records.
To whistleblow effectively there has to be an audience for
the news that has a moral view on the matter and is
willing to take it to the issue say in voting or the like. The
facts exposed have to create the anger that moves
governments to act. The trouble is the audience is largely
disempowered except fleetingly with votes. The more they
hear the more they are growing sure the whole system is
corrupt. This gives rise to anger but it is not focused as the
original whistleblowers charges probably were. It becomes
a diffuse simmering and often unfocused anger. This anger
can cause real upheavals but where they lead is harder to
predict.
Whistleblowing works best in less corrupt societies where
moral claims and moral failures are taken seriously and
then acted upon. But are we in such a society any longer?
Is Europe as a whole?
To say for example now that regulators are captured, that

institutions are corrupt, that banks are run by thieves is

hardly to surprise many, But how can the many people
feeling this way express their rage that makes any
difference?
It is this failure to truly allow that rage to take constructive
and truly reformist routes that changes things that most
exposes the powers both left and right for their
uselessness. It is they that should be enforcing the law
and I include the European parliament in that.
Instead their failure to act or even be honest over their
helplessness ( as Varoufakis was) fuels the deadly
cynicism that makes the longing for brutal answers that at
least seem to tackle the problems so very seductive.
Z
Whistleblowers Testify in EU Parliament | Fliuch Off Irish
Water Ltd - November 18, 2016 []
http://www.fliuch.org/whistleblowers-testify-in-euparliament/
Whistleblowers Testify in EU Parliament Financial Survival
Network
http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2016/11/whistleblowers-testifyeu-parliament/
What Did Draghi Know About Potential Loss And Abuses At
Italy's Largest Bank? | ValuBit - November 19, 2016 []
Golem XIV asks some very good questions in the article
below, recently posted on his blog here. []
What Did Draghi Know About Potential Loss And Abuses At
Italy's Largest Bank? - - November 19, 2016 [] Golem
XIV asks some very good questions in the article below,
recently posted on his blog here. []
Z
What Did Draghi Know About Potential Loss And Abuses At
Italy's Largest Bank? | Timber Exec - November 19, 2016
[] Golem XIV asks some very good questions in the
article below, recently posted on his blog here. []
What Did Draghi Know About Potential Loss And Abuses At
Italy's Largest Bank? | | Investing Matters - November 19,
2016 [] Golem XIV asks some very good questions in the
article below, recently posted on his blog here. []

What Did Draghi Know About Potential Loss And Abuses At

Italy's Largest Bank? | Domainers Database - November
19, 2016 [] Golem XIV asks some very good questions in
the article below, recently posted on his blog here. []

WHAT DID DRAGHI KNOW

ABOUT POTENTIAL LOSS
AND ABUSES AT ITALY'S
LARGEST BANK?
19 Nov , 2016,
Via Jesse's Cafe Americain blog,
Apparently lax and/or incompetent regulation of systemically
important banks by bureaucrats, central bankers, and politicians
may not be just a recent American phenomenon.
As we read this, it could imperil the soundness of the financial system in
Europe as well, as is still apparently the case with The Banks in the
states, despite assurances to the contrary.
Golem XIV asks some very good questions in the article below, recently
posted on his blog here.

Whistleblowers Testify in EU Parliament

Yesterday a very high-powered panel of
international banking whistleblowers met and
told their stories in the European parliament.
The questions raised were important. Among
them was the Irish Whistleblower, Jonathan
Sugarman, who when UniCredit Ireland was
breaking the law in very serious ways
reported it to the Irish regulator.

He related how he was not only ignored by his

bank, the Irish regulator but also all the major
political parties. He then pointed out that the
Irish regulator claims that it always and it is
the law after all informs the regulator of
the home country of banks which have
subsidiaries in Ireland, about any serious
problems.
In the case of UniCredit that would mean the
Italian Central bank would have been told
that Italys largest Bank was in serious breach
of Irish law in ways that could endanger the
whole banking system. The head of the Italian
Central Bank at the time was a certain Mr Mario
Draghi.
Mr Sugarman suggested Mr Draghi should be
asked point-blank of he did or if he did not
know.
If he did not then the Irish regulator was at least
incompetent, and may have lied, misled and
perhaps even broken Irish laws.
If he was told and did know, then Mr Draghi has
serious questions to answer regarding his own
dereliction of duty.

Surely not I hear you say. Well perhaps

someone might ask him? Or is he above the
law?
http://www.guengl.eu/news/article/whistleblo
wer-protection-what-must-be-done
Related: Studies Show Fed Stress Tests Merely 'a Placebo'

A note on Deutsche Bank

by Golem Xiv on SEPTEMBER 20, 2016

Deutsche Bank, one of Europes behemoths, is in very

deep trouble having lost 90% 0f its share price value since
2007, has been falling sharply all this last year (48% loss
this year) and, with its $42 Trillion in Derivatives exposure
was singled out by the IMF, as the bank which ,
appears to be the most important net contributor to
systemic risks
Of course Deutsche agues the standard derivativesarent-a-problem line, that this 42 trillion all nets out and
their real exposure is a fraction of that vast figure. Which
is fine as long as you think that in the event of Deutsche
coming unstuck, 42 trillions-worth of derivatives contracts
can be held in abeyance for the time it would take for all
those contracts to be netted out. As Ive said before
netting out is akin to getting a rowing boat full of people to
all change places without the boat overturning.
And now Deutsche has been threatened by the US DoJ
with a $14 billion fine for its crimes for selling knowingly
over-valued RMBS (Residential Mortgage Backed
Securities) in the build up to the financial crash of 2007.
Deutsche cannot pay $14 billion without raising a great

deal of cash. Deutsche has put aside $5.5 billion for

paying fines. A mere 9 billion short. So could Deutsche go
down? Financially yes it could. But politically, I doubt it.
And its the tension between these two answers, between
the parlous financial state and the huge political
significance of Deutsche, that I find interesting.
Deutsche is Germanys only G-SIB (Global Systemically
Important Bank). Deutsche is Germanys financial flag
carrier. It stands at the centre of Germanys long held
desire to have Frankfurt eclipse London as Europes
financial centre. Although Germany also has Allianz as a
G-SII (Global systemically Important Insurer), without
Deutsche Bank Germany ceases to be a globally
significant financial nation (G-SFN OK I made that one
up). Without Deutsche Germany would not sit at the top
table of global finance. France would. France has three GSIBs. The balance between France and Germany within
Europe would shift. Maintaining that balance between
France and Germany, at the heart of Europe, has been
critical in European affairs since WWI.
Could Germany ever allow Deutsche Bank to go under?
Officially the global framework for G-SIFI resolution in
bankruptcy has been laid down by the FSB and agreed by
all. And interestingly, though they are touted as the result
of new thinking since the financial crisis, they are not. I
recently received an EU document marked Secret,
entitled Overview of Financial Stability Resolution Issues
and dated Feb 2008 which describes pretty much what the
FSB has now settled upon now. I mention this because
almost every word in it was completely ignored once the
crisis hit and each country viewed the imminent demise of
their major, flag-carrying banks. Which leads me to
wonder why I should believe it would be any different next
time? I think this question is particularly critical to
Germany because Deutsche is its only G-SIB. In the next
massive implosion of debts, France could afford to let one
of its G-SIBs go down and still have two seats at the top
table. England could do the same.
How will G_SIBs be wound down?
The not-so-new rules for how a G-SIB should be wound
down begin by stating that,
Resolution should be initiated when a firm is no longer

viable or likely to be no longer viable, and has no

reasonable prospect of becoming so.
But no one has wanted to state exactly what the trigger is,
for deciding that a bank is no longer viable. Except to say
the global regulators will leave it to national regulatory
authorities to decide. So Germany will decide when
Deutsche is no longer viable. Sure, thatll be grand.
Should an authority take the fatal stop of admitting one of
their G-SIBs is no longer viable then things are supposed
to move with wonderful efficiency. Resolution of netting
out is to be speedily concluded (in as little as two days!)
No sniggering please. And then as the gruesome business
of sorting the living from the dead parts of the bank gets
going the authorities must definitely NOT rely
on public solvency support and not create an
expectation that such support will be available;
Instead the dead parts will inflict losses first on share
holders and then on bond holders in the time honoured
order of unsecured first. And then those parts which are
not completely dead and might be cut away to live again
in a different body, are to be sold off by means of sale or
merger.
As a last resort and for the overarching purpose of
maintaining financial stability, some countries may decide
to have a power to place the firm under temporary public
ownership and control in order to continue critical
operations, while seeking to arrange a permanent solution
such as a sale or merger with a commercial private sector
purchaser.
So public bail outs are supposed to be strictly temporary.
No holding 80% of RBS for most of a decade. Really? But
thats not the point which is important for Deutsche Bank.
The important point is that in any sale of the viable parts
of Germanys only G-SIB, the brutal fact of the matter is
that there is no other German financial institution that
could afford to buy any of it. Commerzbank? Allianz?
Letting an insurer buy a bank? So imagine the situation for
Germany. They lose their seat at the top table and then
they watch as France, England, American or perhaps China
buy the crown of German financial might.
So I dont think it will ever happen. Or at least it will only
happen when Germany is truly out of any other options.

So if Deutsche is not going to be declared no longer

viable what are the alternatives?
One option is the UniCredit route. UniCredit was a trillion
euro bank. It was Italys flag carrier. It had bought
Bavarias banks and some of Austrias as well. And yet its
share price was always paltry. Just 7.6 Euros at the
market top in May 07. And since then it has been a
hollow and enfeebled giant. Lumbering and ineffectual. It
has been the laughing stock of European banks. But Italy
doesnt seem to mind. They seem content to let UniCredit
be the quintessential Zombie bank. Would Germany be as
sanguine to leave Deutsche to go the same way? This
would, I suggest, be almost as injurious to German pride
and industrial policy as letting Deutsche go down
completely.
But if Germany decided it could not face the financial
consequences of obeying the letter of the resolution law
nor leave the bank to be a bloated and useless zombie
then the alternatives bring in their train even greater
political upheavals. Imagine the German government
decides that not bailing out Deutsche just inflicts too much
damage on Germany potentially reducing Germany from
the front rank of globally significant nations to something
lesser. It becomes a matter of national pride if not of
survival.
So Germany ignores all the FSB rules and regulations and
bails Deutsche bringing it into government
ownership/protection call it what you like. In so doing it
demolishes the entirety of European policy regarding bail
outs, government debts and austerity. Where then all the
German insistence on fiscal discipline it has forced upon
Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy? The
Bundesbank, Berlin and the ECB would have no authority
at all. Every country would have a green light to do the
same for their flag carriers.
It would be the end the European experiment. Or the
European system would have to try to continue without
Germany. And that could only happen if all debts to
Germany were repudiated.
I realise all this is speculation. But Deutsche has lost 90%
of its value. Only RBS has lost more. Deutsche has 7000
legal cases against it. Frau Merkel is losing her grip, Brexit

rocked the complacent rulers of Euroland and Madame

Marine Le Pen would like to push France to do the same.
And on top of it all NOTHING has been fixed financially at
all. There is more debt more leverage, more and more
liquidity achieving less and less, interest rates are
negative, pensions are going nowhere, insurers are
grasping for risk even as they fear what it will do to them
when the next crisis hits and governments are all, every
one of them, preparing their armed forces for widespread
civil unrest.

Could Germany ever allow Deutsche Bank to go under?

Officially the global framework for G-SIFI resolution in
bankruptcy
An update was published in October 2014.
http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/2014/10/r_141015/
http://www.fsb.org/wpcontent/uploads/r_111104cc.pdf

Deutsche Bank May Be Top Contributor to Systemic Risk,

IMF Says
by Nicholas Comfort
June 30, 2016 3:27 AM EDT June 30, 2016 3:27 AM
EDT
Deutsche Bank AG, which runs Europes biggest
investment bank, may be the biggest contributor to
systemic risk among the largest lenders, according to the
International Monetary Fund.
Deutsche Bank appears to be the most important net
contributor to systemic risks among global systemically
important banks, or G-SIBs, the Washington-based IMF
said in a report Wednesday. HSBC Holdings Plc and Credit
Suisse Group AG are next in the ranking, according to the
IMF.
Global regulators have sought to avoid a repeat of the
taxpayer-funded bank bailouts of the 2008 financial crisis
by holding lenders to stricter capital requirements that
encourage them to become smaller and less complex.
Concern over Frankfurt-based Deutsche Banks financial
strength has weighed on the companys stock and make it
the worst-valued global lender.

The relative importance of Deutsche Bank underscores

the importance of risk management, intense supervision
of G-SIBs and the close monitoring of their cross-border
exposures, as well as rapidly completing capacity to
implement the new resolution regime, the IMF said in the
report.
Deutsche Bank currently exceeds its capital requirements
and is shrinking its balance sheet to comply with
regulations as they become stricter.
"In particular, Germany, France, the U.K. and the U.S. have
the highest degree of outward spillovers as measured by
the average percentage of capital loss of other banking
systems due to banking sector shock in the source
country," the IMF said.

Listening to Brexit
by Golem Xiv on JULY 9, 2016 in LATEST

I have been listening to Brexit and it has been unedifying.

My lasting impressions is that there was very little actual
listening going on. It was largely just an eruption of bile
and bigotry. The British body politic emptying itself from
both ends at once. Everyone offended by the actions of
the others, seemingly pleased with the smell of their
ownopinion.
I should declare my own position. I campaigned to stay in
Europe. I spoke at a couple of public meetings. I talked to
those who would listen. And over all my impressions is
that there was very little listening going on. There was
instead a barely restrained hostility. People may not
always have shouted over each other. No, no we are far
too democratic for that. No, we waited with rictus smiles
until the other side had paused for breath and then
shouted past them. Is shouting past better than shouting
over?
Each side seemed uninterested in finding out why the
other side felt as they felt. There were plenty of
assumptions about what people felt or thought or feared.
But no concern to get behind the shouting and try to
understand, what is it that you fear? Each side seemed
keen to paint the other as variously racist, or stupid or
right-wing. And of course there were some of all of those.

There were, it is quite true, noisome and emboldened

racists and closet Xenophobes who were gleefully paraded
and quoted by The Sun and The Guardian alike, though for
opposite purposes. On the other hand there has also been,
more recently, a revolting fungal efflorescence
of outraged condescension describing the moral and
educational deficiencies of those who voted to Leave.
Here is one recent example By Laurie Penny in The New
Statesman from 24 June, called I want my Country
Back. I shall quote from it extensively so that no one
thinks I am just picking only the bits that suit me. Please
read the whole thing to assure yourself I am not taking
things out of context.
Laurie Penny begins by describing the vote as a victory of,
prejudice, propaganda, naked xenophobia and callous
fear-mongering have won out over the common sense
Straight out of the gate, Ms Penny suggests that
Remain was guided by common sense, while Leave and
its voters were ruled by prejudice, naked xenophobia or
craven fear. They are also, she lets us know , very stupid.
Well done turkeys. Santas on his way.
Apparently the referendum was a painful catastrophe of
good people with common sense, being smothered by a
mob of stupid people. But what kind of stupid people?
Does the author have an inkling where this stupidity lurks?
Well, yes she does.
It was a referendum on the modern world, and yesterday
the frightened, parochial lizard-brain of Britain voted out,

The parochial are to blame. So not the urban

metropolitans who write for the New Statesmen and live,
as she tells us she does, in London? No not them. But
parochial people. People who, apparently, are governed by
their lizard-brain. An interesting sentence isnt it? Those
who voted out are painting with a metaphor suggesting
they are lizard-like. A lower form of life that has not got
the higher mammalian ability to care for others.
And this lizard-brained, lack of caring goes along with a
selfish concern with their own personal welfare.
Leave voters are finding they care less about immigration
now that their pension pots are under threat.
Such unattractive people. And the author is afraid of them.

Seems to be keen we should all be frightened of them and

their nasty plans for the future.
Im frightened that those who wanted their country back
will get their wish, and it will turn out to be a hostile,
inhospitable place for immigrants, ethnic minorities, queer
people
Us and them. Always a good rhetorical move. For
someone who seems to want to claim the caring highground for herself, as opposed to the lizard-brained lower
forms of them, she seems quite quick to resort to them
and us. No room here for different reasons, different
thinking, different world views. The author seems above
all to want to control how we see the debate. She wants to
have her description of who us and them are, what we
and they are like, what they think, why they think it,
and upon what nasty grounds they decided. And that is
what bothers me most.
This article is not simply a lament from one side of an
argument. It is a thinly veiled exercise in condescending
bigotry. The bigots eye view of all those who she lumps
together in her glib and condescending description of
parochial, lizard-brained, stupid people who are full of fear
and empty of concern except for their pensions. In short,
craven stupid lumpenproles.
But enough about them. What about her?
But the thing is I want my country back too.I want to
wake up tomorrow in a country where people are kind,
and tolerant, and decent to one another.
Which the Leave people dont want? She doesnt say that.
That would be inelegant. No she simply sets up the
dichotomy. Her readers can fill in the rest in private.
I want to go back to a Britain where hope conquers hate;
where crabbed, cowed racism and xenophobia dont win
the day; where people feel they have options and choices
in life.
Just a little reminder of the Leavers and the country they
are arranging for us hate-filled, crabbed, cowed racist
and xenophobic. Yes. Let those Leavers get in charge and
this is what well all get. Unlike the future if we let the
author and her friends in Remain be in charge which will
be one where we all have options and choices.
Options and choices. I have heard those words before. To

me they smell of Blaire and Cameron and the debt -fuelled

fictions of the last thirty years of Thatcher and sons.
That country, of course, is fictional.
No! Really?
But its no less so than the biscuit-tin, curtain-twitching,
tea-on-the-lawn-with-your-white-friends-from-the-RotaryClub fantasy Britain the other side have been plugging for
years,..
Ah, so the lizard brained cowards are allied with White,
small-town Tories? I think this is a reference to John
Majors cricket playing idyll. So our choices according to
Ms Penny is a Remain Britain filed with options and
choices or a Leave Britain, which is some pastiche of
small town suburban and rural England where stupid
working class people vote like turkeys for tea-on-the-lawnwhite people. I think Ms Penny might need to get out of
London a little more often and widely.
But Ms Penny is not stupid. She does eventually get round
to something approximating an insight.
This was not just a vote against Europe, but a vote against
Westminster and the entirety of mainstream politics.
Every political party campaigned hard for a Remain vote
but Britain still chose to Leave, even if were regretting it
this morning.
Now surely there is a realisation there, at odds with all
that preceded it. A glimmer of understanding beyond the
rhetoric and generalisations. Perhaps there were some
leave voters who voted because, on balance, they
thought doing so would do more to shake the hegemonic
certainties of neoliberal globalism that all the major
parties surrendered to a generation ago? All the same
parties that were then arguing for Remain. They could of
course be wrong. But they would have voted for very
different reason to those Ms Penny was so quick and so
confident to ascribe to them.
But she just cant seem to imagine the Leave voters
could be so thoughtful. No thoughtful is something she
seems to want to reserve for Remain people. Leave get
to be turkeys and cowards. Leave are not to be accorded
such thoughtfulness, because they live in places and lets
cut to the chase they live in the North I mean, dont
they! Or at least not in places where lovely people have

options and choices. And, from the description below, they

are evidently working class and quite possibly old! Ugh!
There are huge areas of post-industrial decline and
neglect where people are more furious than Cameron and
his ilk could possibly understand, areas where any kind of
antiestablishment rabble-rousing sounds like a clarion call.
In depressed mountain villages and knackered seaside
towns and burned-out former factory heartlands across
the country, ordinary people were promised that for once,
their vote would matter, that they could give the powers
that be a poke in the eye.
Yes! Now were getting to it. Theyre just a rabble. A rabble
roused from their depressed, knackered, burned out lives
in sea-side towns, former factory heart lands (thats
London chattering class code for the midlands and north).
Yep. The chattering class, when they get together and do
democracy, they do it with panache and style. When the
rest of us do it were just a knackered, depressed rabble.
I was born in London. Perhaps the city can secede.
I am sure this was said with a degree of flippancy. But to
the knackered rabble of the north it sounds like a glimpse
of a true desire. A little hint of the real us and them.
And then finally we get to some hint of analysis. And how
thread-bare it is.
British people are used to being lied to by incompetent
spivs in the name of protecting the economy.
Unarguably true so far.
Unfortunately, this time the spivs were dead right.more
damage has already been done to our economy, to our
prospects and to the job market than years of open
borders ever could have.
Said with such breath-taking brevity of thought. Whose
economy? The question so rarely asked. The stocks and
shares economy? That economy that the rest of us keep
bailing out and paying for with austerity? That economy?
The broken and dysfunctional economy? The economy of
choices based mostly on debt.
Is it not an option to wish to deal such an undead
monster a blow? Why so certain that the spivs are right? I
happen to think the spivs are wrong. And I say that not
because I am a depressed, craven xenophobe, but
because I have thought about it.

Dont get me wrong. Remember I argued for Remain. But I

dislike the bigoted generalizations and crude stereotyping
of the Leave voters. I met some of them and some of them
were thoughtful and considered, decent people. Who
voted according to a logic which Ms Penny is either
ignorant of or finds inconvenient to admit exists.
I agree with the author when she says,
the Conservatives have spent six years systematically
defunding the health service and cutting public spending
to the bone. Brexit will mean more of that, not less.
When I spoke for Remain I suggested it was not simply
about what people wanted to leave, but that they should
think hard about what they would be left with. In this case,
as Laurie Penny says, the choice they made has delivered
us all to a Tory government that can hope to do as it wants
free of any restrain at all. I agree with this. I think we are
now facing the battle our times. The fight for democracy
itself. But all this vote has done is bring the battle nearer.
It was upon us anyway. The outlines of the fight are
perhaps less easy to ignore thats all.
And this battle, THE battle of our time, will require a
courage and a faith in each other that we are squandering
with every word of this bilious brexit name-calling. Just
because the vote went against what I felt was better, what
Ms Penny is certain is better, does not mean, as she
concludes, that this nation must somehow re-find the,
capacity for tolerance, a new resilience, a way to
recover ourselves and remember our common humanity.
I personally resent the implication that simply because the
vote did not go as she decided it must, that
somehow common humanity is endangered. Common
humanity is not the exclusive preserve of Remain voters.
If you can bare it one last time.
I want my country back. I want my scrappy, tolerant,
forward-thinking, creative country,
I am all these things. So are my friends. We are all still
here. Living in the North. Some of us are even working
class!
the country of David Bowie, not Paul Daniels; the
country of Sadiq Khan, not Boris Johnson; the country of J
K Rowling, not Enid Blyton; the country not of Nigel
Farage, but Jo Cox.

Let me just get this out. You do not have to like Paul
Daniels if you dont like David Bowie. Ms Penny should
refrain from endlessly deciding what the range of choices
are and what you must be like if youre not like her. I dont
particularly like either Sadiq Khan or Boris Johnson. And I
wouldnt chose to read either JK Rowling or Enid Blyton. I
have completely other tastes, other concerns, other ideas.
Ms Penny might not realise it but there are other world
views not defined by her narrow views.
Britain, like everywhere else, has always had its cringing,
fearful side, its cruel delusions, its racist fringe
movements, its demagogues preying on the dispossessed.
True. It has also had its condescending, sanctimonious,
holier-than-thou, leave-it-to-your-betters pundits who get
themselves in a terrible state whenever they think the
great unwashed, working-class are in danger of interfering
in a decision their self-declared social betters feel should
definitely be left to them.
I am sure Ms Penny is well-intentioned and essentially
good-hearted. The problem is, at least in this article, she
comes across as feeling she, and those in her in-group, are
the only ones who are. Her article reeks of the assumption
that Remainers are well intentioned, whereas leavers
are either malign or simply stupid, selfish and craven.
I think we would do well to remind ourselves that not
every remain voter thinks as Ms Pennys does. And not
every Leave voter is as her stereotype. There are people
who thought there was no good choice in this referendum.
People who thought remaining in a Europe that is being
corrupted by corporate lackeys is only marginally better
than a Uk that is already very definitely corrupted by
corporate lackeys. People who thought all the arguments
over lost sovereignty were misdirection, distracting people
from the fact that far more of our sovereignty will begin
away by signing the CETA, TTIP and TISA trade deals than
was ever given to Europe.
None of our problems were on the ballot. None would have
been addressed let alone solved by the referendum no
matter which way it was decided.
All our battles are still before us. The real question,
perhaps the only question, is whether we descend into the

spite-filled bigotry of Us and Them or chose to actually

listen to and understand the realities of each others lives
and fears. And in so doing re-find all the things that people
tell us we have lost.
http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2016/07/listening-to-brexit/
THE PHANTOM MEDIA
In Buswells Hotel on Friday morning last we launched
Jonathan Sugarmans e-book, The Whistleblower.
For those of you who havent heard (and if you've been
tuned in to RTE, radio or television, you havent heard),
Jonathan is a whistleblower, a former Risk Manager with
Unicredit (Irl) who exposed the circus that was the IFSC in
2007, the clowns, the ringmaster and how they played by
their own rules.
For nine years he has been trying to get his story out,
trying to have those who crashed our banking system held
to account; for those nine years, and a few honourable
exceptions apart (Village magazine, Fintan OToole of the
Irish Times, Senator David Norris the most high-profile
examples) he has been ignored.
A couple of weeks ago, with the assistance of my group,
GUE/NGL, I brought Jonathan to Brussels to a
Whistleblower Protection conference at the European
Parliament, where he made a presentation on his
experiences with Unicredit in Ireland.
To say he made an impression is a bit of an
understatement Jonathans appearance and revelations
were reported in national newspapers in Greece, Spain,
Italy, and he was the focus of a report on Greek television.
From the Irish media, not a word.
Prior to todays event my office notified every major media
outlet in Ireland print, radio, TV. The Sun turned up, as
did Vincent Browne of TV3.
TONIGHT WITH VINCENT BROWNE
Vincent stayed through the launch, then did a one-0n-0ne
interview with Jonathan which will be shown on Monday
evening, followed by a panel discussion in which I will take
part.
This is the link to Jonathans e-book, on sale for just $3.99,
the proceeds from which (after the retail cut), go to
Jonathan:

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/685170
Below, Jonathans speech at the launch, in which he
touches on just a few of the issues he covers in his book.

The Whistleblower - Lifting The Lid On Ireland's

Banking Sector Just Before The Bust, an Ebook by
Jonathan Sugarman

Nine years ago Jonathan Sugarman walked into the office

of the then Financial Regulator at the Central Bank of
Ireland in Dublin and presented him with solid evidence of
serious regulatory wrong-doing by his (Jonathans) bank.
It should have prompted an immediate investigation of the
bank by the Regulator, resulting in major fines and
reprimands for the bank and the bankers concerned,
would have served as an object to all other banks likewise
engaged (and given developments since then such as the
Anglo tapes, we know of several), might have helped avert
the catastrophe that subsequently enveloped the entire
Irish banking system.
Instead, the only person to have suffered has been
Jonathan himself.
His complaints and his evidence totally ignored, his
position as Risk Manager leaving him open to prosecution
and severe penalties, Jonathan resigned.
Overnight he went from holding a highly-paid, challenging
dream position, to a living nightmare.
I've dealt with many whistleblowers over the past several
years and this I can say with absolute certainty its not

just a lonely place, its a frightening place, takes a real toll

on even the strongest of personalities.
Trying desperately to get his story into the open,
occasionally finding a sympathetic and willing ear in such
as the Village magazine in the media, in David Norris
among politicians, the last nine years havent just left
Jonathan destitute, broke, they have left him depressed,
broken.
It has truly taken its toll on his health, physical, mental
and emotional.
A couple of weeks ago, working with my office in Brussels,
in front of an audience of GUE/NGL MEPs and/or their staff,
in the European Parliament buildings, Jonathan finally got
to tell his story in public you can view that in an earlier
post on this page.
E-BOOK AVAILABLE ONLINE
Today, that story is available as en e-book, downloadable
from the link below. It outlines Jonathans personal
experience with his bank and the Financial Regulator but it
goes beyond that. Using his knowledge of the banking
sector generally, Jonathan doesnt just shine a light on
what was going on within his own bank, he exposes to full
public glare the shenanigans of many other banks within
the IFSC and elsewhere around that period. And it was
rotten, all of it.
Today I got to ask Mario Draghi, the President of the
European Central Bank, the following question on Jonathon
Sugarmans' experience as a risk assessor in Unicredit
bank. Mario Draghi has said that he would answer it in
writing! We'll see. He better. I'll be back for another shot at
him if not.
Question going to him this evening on the finest of writing
paper. Only the best for Mario. Here's the video of today's
encounter. Please share. You can bet RT won't.
My Question.....
In 2007 Jonathan Sugarman was Risk Manager of UniCredit
Bank in Ireland.
That summer Jonathan officially reported to the Regulator
in the Irish Central Bank a multi-billion Euro liquidity
breach amounting to TWENTY times the permissible
deviations.
There was no sanction by the Central Bank and the

breaches continued, forcing Sugarman to resign.

In February 2010 Irish Finance Minister Brian Lenihan
stated
The Financial Regulator maintains close communication
with the regulators of other member states.
In 2007 you were the Governor of Banca dItalia,,
UniCredit the biggest bank on your watch;
Can you please confirm whether you were informed by the
Central Bank of Ireland of these multi-billion Euro breaches
at UniCredit Dublin?
If so, can you explain why the bank has never been
sanctioned for those breaches of 2007?
Now that you have been made aware of this and the
failure of the Central Bank to sanction these breaches,
how will you redress the situation?
Jonathon Sugarman spoke out. What did the authorities
do. Tried to ignore him. Tried to marginalise him. Tomorrow
in the European Parliament I will be asking Mario Draghi
the following question. What did he know about potential
loss and abuses at Italy's largest bank? Please share. More
to come.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEvFQvoAt4

ENDA IN YOUR IVORY TOWER, THIS IS CALLED PEOPLE

POWER!
Tonight in the Dil, Joan Collins has a Bill being debated
and voted on, calling for a referendum to enshrine public
ownership of water in the Constitution. Its one of those

times when I wish I were back in Leinster House and I

dont think I need to tell any of ye what way Id be voting.
The news today that Fianna Fil are off the fence and are
going to support the Bill means that barring a last-minute
hitch, and with Sinn Fin and all the true Independents,
along with the smaller parties, also supporting it, its
almost certain to pass.
I'm delighted for Joan, one of the true representatives of
the people in the Dil this is reward for many years of
effort.
A BATTLE WON, THE WAR STILL GOES ON
Beyond the specifics of this Bill, however (and I believe the
referendum WILL enshrine the principle that water should
be in public ownership), this represents a huge win for
people power I believe we can all take massive hope
from this.
There are other battles to be fought out there against this
government, battles just as big and just as important as
the right to water. Theres the right to education and the
right to a proper health service just for starters; those
rights are being coldly and deliberately undermined by
this government (along with its predecessor) through
major cuts in funding, the implementation of their failed
austerity policies.
Before anyone starts the usual chant of But where will we
get the money to pay for proper education and a proper
health service, here is the answer this government can
simply stop destroying billions every year and use that
money constructively.
And they ARE destroying billions, the Anglo Irish
Bank/INBS Promissory Notes 31bn debt, the Michael
Noonan/Fine Gael/Labour legacy to generations of Irish
people.
THE PROMISSORY NOTE BILLIONS STILL BEING
DESTROYED
ELA, Promissory Notes and All That- The Fiscal Costs of
Anglo Irish Bank
http://www.karlwhelan.com/IrishEconomy/Whelan-PNotesSeptember2012.pdf
Rather than tell the ECB that this was a problem of its own

making, that these were billions the ECB allowed our

Central Bank to create to bail out two failed non-systemic
banks, because it feared contagion if ANY eurozone bank
failed, Noonan/Fine Gael/Labour took the Promissory Notes
and converted them to sovereign bonds.
Where we would have been borrowing 3.1bn every year
to take back out of circulation (to destroy, basically, or in
the more subtle words of former Central Bank Governor
Patrick Honahan, to extinguish), now were destroying
that 31bn at a slower rate - 1bn in 2014, 2bn in 2015,
over 1bn already in 2016, a total of 4bn within the last
two years.
This is what the Ballyhea Says No campaign has been
trying to highlight for over five years, a campaign which
like the water charge campaign can yet succeed.
It can be done, and will be done. Meanwhile, I would urge
everyone to keep the pressure up on this one; support
Joan, contact your local TD, make sure they all know how
you feel about it.
Enda in your ivory tower, THIS is called people power!
IT WAS ME, I DID IT!
Imagine walking into a Garda station with a bloodied knife,
telling the Inspector you had just murdered someone and
offering to bring them to the site of the crime what
reaction would expect?
Now alter the above to reflect the equivalent of murder in
the financial sector, a capital punishment crime if you'll
pardon the poor pun.
Just over nine years ago, 2007, a full year before the
disastrous blanket bank guarantee, Jonathan Sugarman
walked into the Irish Regulators office and told him Ive
been breaking your law, probably the most serious law in
banking; Ive been signing off every day for billions that
dont exist, Ive been signing off on statements verifying
that the bank for which I work Unicredit (Irl) is sound
when in fact it is dicing with disaster, breaking the liquidity
requirements by many multiples, and here is the
evidence.
Jonathan walked back out that door expecting that all hell
was about to break loose, that he and the bank would be

called before the Regulator with God knows what about to

be visited on him.
Nothing happened; it was as though he had never said a
word.
BANKING WHERE THE LAW IS MADE TO BE BROKEN
Jonathans problem was that he took his duties as Risk
Manager seriously; his further problem was that he took
the law even more seriously, the law governing liquidity
requirements for banks in particular, put in place to
protect depositors, shareholders and bondholders alike.
When he found the breach in compliance he acted, first by
going to his seniors in the bank, then to the Regulator.
Eventually, frustrated by the response and fearing that he
personally would be held to account if and when the truth
of what was happening emerged, he resigned.
Since then Jonathan Sugarman has battled to tell his story,
battled to have those whose tolerance and/or blithe
ignoring of what was happening around them led to the
collapse of the banking sector in Ireland and across the
globe, held to account.
SCARED AND SCARRED
He has suffered in that battle, suffered grievously, bears
deep emotional and mental scars. Its not easy being a
whistleblower. Its a lonely place, a scary place, a
debilitating place, and the bigger your story, the less
people are inclined to believe you, the more isolated you
become.
Jonathans is a big story. It takes us behind the scenes in
the IFSC in the years before the bust, into the inner
sanctum of one of the biggest banks in Europe, and it
reveals to us what was going, gives us an idea of just why
every Irish bank, and many others that were domiciled in
the IFSC, went down so fast and so spectacularly.
It also reveals in no uncertain fashion just how slack was
the Regulator within that system.
THE TRUTH WILL OUT
For several months my office has been working with
Jonathan to help get his story out; this week, at a
Whistleblower Protection event organised by the GUE/NGL
Group in the European Parliament, Jonathan finally got his
forum. This isnt the end of his story far from it. In fact
this is a new beginning of sorts as we now work with

Jonathan to bring this story back to where it began

Dublin.
To coincide with the conference Jonathan produced a
booklet outlining the full facts of his case, The
Whistleblower, copies of which went like hotcakes. He is
now working on an e-book, to make this available to a
wider public.
In the meantime, have a look at the video. Hes nervous,
and that will be obvious, but hes also certain. And hes
not going away.
https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=plu8QP-CHpQ

Explaining Bills of exchange,promissory

notes, banks, banking system, finacial
fraud, corporations
Apr 3, 2016
brainwashing politcs news religion belief maritime admiralty
law new world order 13 occult culture definitions etymology
language money currency economy promissory note bank note
inflated deflation economics system matrix grid net
government programming red pill illuminati committee of 300
agenda 21 hidden understanding modern day media
alternative source race human being consciousness change
shift fequency healing knowledge reptillians pleadians
mamillian cat dog free masons masonry lodges 33 degree
david wynn miller jordan maxwell david icke simon parks
business trade commerce rome roman symbology america
depression recession financial crisis shipping postmaster post
master port legal justice system jurisdiction common law
slavery rights freedoms bills of exchange stocks bonds
corporate america holder in due course lawyers judges payed
off authority congress senate district of columbia private
banking prisons population human growth development
community communism corporatism satanism mass rituals
ceremony harvesting souls school of life buddhism christianty
hinduism britian austrailia europe america canada south north
east west cult insider conditioning tv cellphone radio
harrasment chemtrails palestine syria libya afghanistan north
korea iran western influence world stage united nations one
world government end of the world new age communication
movement materials consumerism consumer society fat cats

rich 1% occupy wallstreet star wars aliens secret space

programs secret society intergalactic extra terrestrial spiritual
dimensions lizard people jin demons hallucinations illusion
possessions electronic microwaves underground bases cloning
human brain public opinion psionic physic psychosis
pyschopaths rulers shadow hypnosis mind control america
russia china banks bankers federal reserve fox rt aljazeera cnn
cbc silver value assests reverse speech double speak
strawman theory zietgeist saturn piracy ships port dock cargo
law of the sea citizens corporations country 2015 person cabal
2016 2017 2018 2019 mob mafia columbia birth certificate
fraud legislature member state civilian civil law villien villain
ownership own land lord property servant service job joberry
stealing senator liberty govern sovereign sovereignty subject
under alliegance loyalty kingdom king benefit right privilege
freedom labourer labor workforce peason common boss owner
manager master dictatorship parties 2020 2021 2022 2023
2024 2025 financial tyranny, corruption, slaves by debt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADMDTFExaXY

Irish Finance Minister admits promissory

notes arrangement was "totally illegal"
Feb 8, 2013
Michael Noonan: "Well, the legal people would say that the
existing promissory notes arrangement is totally contrary to..
Pat Kenny: "Illegal?"
Noonan: "Totally"
Context: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/...
Full interview available here with comments beginning around
nine minutes in
http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/r...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=76z7gIJQEaA

Businessman starts legal

action against 31bn in

promissory notes
Tim Healy
PUBLISHED
22/01/2013

1
22/1/2013David Hall, pictured arriving at the Four Courts for a High
Court action.Pic: Collins Courts

PROMISSORY notes amounting to more

than 31 billion in support for Irish financial
institutions were flawed and payment on
them cannot now be made, it has been
claimed in the High Court.
Businessman David Hall of College Grove, Castleknock,
Dublin, described as an employer and a person with
significant tax payments and obligations, is seeking to
prevent the State from making payments on foot of the
notes issued in favour of Irish Bank Resolution
Corporation (IBRC) the Educational Building Society and
Irish Nationwide.

In an affidavit Mr Hall a founder member of the New

Beginnings group of business people and lawyers said he
has, for some time, had grave reservations about the
manner and way the public finances of the country have
been run.
The Irish people, having never been consulted about this
and in circumstances where its representatives were
bypassed, were being asked to honour a deal made in
flagrant breach of the Constitution, he said. There was no
democratic legitimacy and it was in breach of the Treaty
on the Functioning of the EU, he claimed.
John Rogers SC, for Mr Hall, told the president of the
High Court Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns the promissory
notes were unlawful on various grounds, including that the
Dil had not specifically approved them as was required by
the Constitution.
Mr Rogers said the Minister for Finance ought to have
secured specific approval from the Dil for the promissory
notes.
Mr Rogers said the Government appeared to be relying on
a section in the The Credit Institutions Financial Support
Act, but he said that if the section permits the Minister to
make payments without a Dil vote, then we say the
section is unconstitutional.
Mr Rogers said spending was initiated by the Government
bringing a money message to the Dil signed by the

Taoiseach, and the Constitution provided for the Dil to be

the body that voted through the process.
He said the Constitution cant be set aside except by the
people.
There was, he said no emergency let out clause in the
Constitution.
He also said that without specifically naming figures and
seeking approval of Dil Eireann for them, the
Governments procedure on the promissory notes
represented a blank cheque which was not provided for
in the Constitution.
The defence rejects the charge that the promissory notes
were unlawful and is expected to present its case to Mr
Justice Kearns when the hearing resumes tomorrow.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/businessmanstarts-legal-action-against-31bn-in-promissory-notes29021394.html

Government hype around the deal on

the promissory note exposed as a cruel
hoax
Feb 13, 2013
In a statement on 13th Feb 2013, Richard Boyd Barrett TD,
People Before Profit/United Left Alliance, Finance spokesperson
and leading campaigner against the property tax, denounced
the Finance (Local Property Tax) Amendment Bill 2013 for
failing to offer any meaningful relief to the majority of
struggling families who will be subject to the new tax.
Deputy Boyd Barrett, who challenged the Taoiseach at leaders
questions this morning on the issue of the tax and the
government's failure to provide exemptions for the
unemployed, pensioners, other low income groups and those in
mortgage distress, said the bill exposed the government hype
around the deal on the promissory note as a cruel hoax -

offering nothing to hundreds of thousands of families being

crushed with debts and low incomes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmv4HVYySYk

Michael Noonan Laughs about Turning

Prom Notes Into Legal Debt
Feb 8, 2013
Michael Noonan laughs with Pat Kenny about turning those
illegal Anglo Promissory Notes into legal sovereign debt.
Previous to the "deal", there was no legal basis for this private
debt to be paid by people living in Ireland. The true nature of
this stitch up is now apparent, and these two folks, both paid
by you and me, think its kinda funny. Cute Hoorism at your
expense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x59Ksq0A6o

If he's now admitting that the Promissory Notes were 'illegal',

then he has committed a criminal offence since he came into
office, in paying them each year. He also admitted that this
deal is illegal when he said "it's a lot more legal than what you
did three years ago" - referring to a conversation with a banker.
EU .like many other oppressors of the Irish nation have put
handcuffs and chains on the Irish people it is an oppressive
contribution to the slavery of the Irish people and it's powerful abiliy
proven as a nation to succeed against all odds it is time to continue
to be successful and progressive and be blessed by the God of
prosperity who created the people of the land of SAINTS and
scholars , do not let the European Union stop us now , why don't the
credit union who offered 8billion to the Irish government who were
scared out of their pants to take the 8billion off the credit union for a
local housing investment for poor Irish families my suggestion is for
the credit union to privately build and give the houses to the poor
and the homeless surely no rotten schemes from the European
union.could stand in the way of the credit union like they stand in
the way of the Irish government for council house building projects I
say to the people find a way forward you are the government
ACCORDING to our constitution, its time to advance now move on
move up move out to all the homeless put a ten year ban on taking
homes off everyone and a law also to give back every poverty
stricken FAMILY the homes taken away and let them pay the
government what they can afford till this financial crisis is over and
prosper now and change the European union rules that stop
prosperity otherwise get out if they prevent prosperity, and another
thing I want the Irish to know this week how much do we owe the
European union and what are the interest rates we have to pay and

How long have we got to pay it if u pay less over a short time its the
same as paying double interest rates of ITS the same interest rate
over a long period it more reasonable as long as they are not the
same interest rates as the loan company Provident at 53 percent
per 100 loaned that's over two and a half billion to every billion so
what are we paying we ALL ALL should be told now please I'm surely
must know but we as a nation should be told so we CAN vote on
every issue , I want the Irish government to stop oppressing the
older people I. Health charges and to invest in hospital upgrade
projects all around and more local hospitals to the mile radius of the
people local to the new hospitals , get all the staff involved The work
associated to the hospitals and pay accordingly stop oppressing
handicap persons give them independence, an all the support take
AWAY oppressive financial charges away from their income and give
them a the weekly finance they need In everything, That they lack
nothing do all this and more and stop paying government personal
too much money now ,

As always this mans writing is well worth a read and share.

Keep buying the leprechauns

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Check out my business website: http://ciarantierney.com/

The horror of Syria: Irish people still don't connect

goings-on at Shannon with the "war on terror"

Sure, as long as they keep buying the leprechauns . .

.
In October 2016, a significant increase in the number of

US soldiers passing through Shannon Airport was noted

by activists who monitor activities at the airport on a daily
basis.
The increased activity has been linked to an onslaught
against the Iraqi city of Mosul and a marked growth in the
number of troops on the ground in both Syria and Iraq.
As Shannons role in the US-led war on terror enters its
16th year, its remarkable that their presence barely merits
a mention in the Irish media.
No Garda has ever searched a plane, despite concerns
that dangerous chemicals such as white phosphorous and
prisoners on their way to and from Guantanamo Bay in
Cuba may have been renditioned through Shannon.
We have to rely on the likes of Wikileaks and Trojan
investigative work by Shannonwatch peace activists, who
track the movement of military and chartered planes, if we
are to have any inkling of whats going on.

Marching for peace at Shannon Airport

Sure, as long as they keep buying the leprechauns

It can be disconcerting to fly out of Shannon on a quiet

midweek evening and find yourself surrounded by
hundreds of US soldiers in uniforms.
If you are flying to London on a Tuesday evening, for
example, you can sometimes feel like the only civilian in a
military zone.
When you look at the soldiers, you can guess whether
they are coming or going depending on the mood.
If they are on their way home, there is a celebratory air in
the terminal building as they queue up to buy leprechaun
hats or bottles of duty free Irish whiskey theyd be unlikely
come across in Syria or Iraq.
They queue to use the public phones and promise their
loved-ones, excitedly, that they will be home in just a few
hours.
If they are on their way to the Middle East, the mood can
be a lot more sombre. There is an eerie silence across the
terminal as they ponder on the long trips away from home.
Its 15 years now since former US President George W.
Bush asked neutral little Ireland to facilitate his troops in
their endless global war.
As we celebrate 100 years since the Easter Rising, its
incredible that the issue of Irelands complicity in war
crimes in places like Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan is rarely
heard on the national airwaves.
In July of this year, 85 people including almost a dozen
children lost their lives in a horrific air strike in northern
Syria.

The terrorists who carried out the attack were members

of the US military and could well have passed through
Shannon.
The attack wasnt even mentioned on RTE, the national
news station, the following day. It didnt merit a minute's
coverage on the main evening news.
And hardly anyone ever joins up the dots to link the
hundreds of US troops passing through Shannon and the
appalling atrocities carried out in far-off villages like
Tokhar.
Sure, as long as they keep buying the leprechauns

Earlier this month, a peace conference was organised at

Shannon to mark 15 years of the airports participation in
the war on terror.
The respected academics and former military men who
organise the monthly Shannonwatch protest at the airport
decided to mark the anniversary by inviting guest
speakers and encouraging debate.
So they decided to book a room.

A small number of TDs joined the Shannonwatch

15th anniversary demonstration this month

And then the hotel cancelled.

They booked another room in another hotel.
And the second hotel cancelled.
And then a third . . . In all, three hotels in the Shannon
region suddenly discovered they were double-booked
when they discovered the theme of the peace conference.
Sure, we cant criticise the Americans. They are good for
business, no matter what the morality of the presence of
so many coalition troops in a neutral civilian facility.
So the organisers were forced to hold the peace
conference in a tent just outside the perimeter of the
airport.
Amazingly, some people who travelled to the peace
conference found that the rooms they booked in the three
hotels were still available that weekend.
As it transpired, by a strange coincidence, only the rooms
the organisers had sought for the peace conference were
double-booked.
The fact that three bookings in three different hotels were
cancelled to me is an indication of success rather than
failure, and the fact that we were harassed by the
authorities here this weekend shows that we are making
an impact, said Dr Edward Horgan of Shannonwatch.
Dr Horgan said Irish people had to make a connection
between the US military aircraft which land at Shannon
and the bombings in Syria or Iraq which sometimes arent
even reported on our TV news channels.

He doesnt give up hope that the peace movement will

succeed, even though his small group has been protesting
every month for the past 15 years.
But, but . . . what about the Russians?
Peace activists in Ireland are often accused of being antiAmerican because they protest against attacks carried
out by the US military, but seem silent in the face of
horrific atrocities carried out by others.
In Syria, for example, the Russians have been linked to
war crimes, such as the bombing of hospitals in Aleppo,
which are every bit as bad as atrocities carried out by the
Americans in Mosul or Tokhar.
I put this point to Dr Horgan during the recent peace
conference.
He said that Veterans for Peace and Shannonwatch (he
represents both) condemn Russian and Syrian bombings
in Aleppo, just as they condemn US bombings in Mosul.

War-torn Aleppo: 2.5 million US soldiers have passed

through Shannon on their way to war over 15 years

From our perspective in Ireland, killing civilians is always

wrong, he said. But the main difference is the Russians

are not using Shannon Airport in their war in Syria, while

the US is using Shannon Airport several times a day at
present to refuel its aircraft.
He expressed fear that Ireland could become a target for
terrorists because of Shannons role in allowing troops,
munitions, and weapons to be transferred to the Middle
East for use in war crimes in civilian areas.
Its our responsibility as Irish citizens to stop Ireland's
very direct involvement in these war crimes being
committed by the United States. There is little we can do
to stop Russian bombing except to get our Irish
Government to use its influence within the UN to get a
ceasefire in Syria.
I am actually fearful. I didnt go to Dublin on Easter
Sunday for the 1916 commemorations because I was
afraid it might be a target. I wouldnt be surprised if
Shannon Airport did become a target. At the moment, it is
difficult for the terrorist groups to get to Ireland and thats
the only reason, I think, why weve avoided an attack so
far.
Shannon becomes a target
Since the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, when
the US military first began to use Shannon for refuelling, it
has been estimated that over 2.5 million armed US troops
have passed through the airport.
In July 2016, the Irish Government confirmed in the Dail
the Irish parliament that over 25,000 US troops had
passed through Shannon in the first six months of this
year.
Among the guest speakers during Shannonwatchs 15th

anniversary peace conference was US-born journalist

Robert Fantina of the World Beyond War organisation.

Calling for an end to Shannon Airport's collusion

in the US-led global "war on terror"

He said he was very surprised when he heard of the level

of US troop movements through Shannon.
By allowing US warplanes to land and refuel here, that
violates Irish neutrality. Preventing the planes from
refuelling here is not only good for Afghanistan or Ireland,
it also shows the world that Ireland wants peace and does
not support the US war machine, he said.
He said that all across the world there needed to be a
cultural change so that people could focus on peace time
economies rather than the economies of war. There are
strong vested interests in the arms industry who benefit
from perpetual wars.
People in Ireland might think its only a plane or two a
week passing through, but they need to realise that these
planes are bringing death and destruction to people just
like them. Men, women, and children who just want to go

to work or school, live ordinary lives, and raise their

families, are dying because planes are being allowed to
land here, said Fantina.
Additionally, because US war planes are allowed to land
here, Shannon becomes a target for organisations which
are opposed to US militarism. People need to understand
that the war on terror is really a war of terrorism. Any
place, including Shannon, which allows the US to perform
those operations is part of that killing.
Sure, as long as they keep buying the leprechaun
hats in the airport shops, well be grand !
And this week, in Tipperary, some insignificant little committee is set to
give the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, a "peace prize".
As if they were blissfully aware of all the atrocities his country has
carried out - and the innocent lives lost - in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and
Syria over the past 15 years.
The whole concept of a US leader flying in to pick up an award in the
current climate, days after another appalling attack on civilians in Iraq,
devalues the very notion of a "peace prize".
Who cares about villagers in Syria, when the slaughter of 85 of them
never even makes it onto our TV screens?
And, sure, isn't it a great way of putting a little Tipperary village on the
map?
Sure, it's great to be on such good terms with the Americans, even
those who cause endless pain to ordinary, innocent people across the
world. But I guess that's another story.

http://ciarantierney.blogspot.ie/2016/10/keep-buyingleprechauns.html

Ireland's Debt What You're Not Being

Told
Jan 9, 2015
Directed and edited by Marcus Howard. On December 23rd

2014 500 Million of Irish money was destroyed yet there was
hardly a mention on mainstream media. This was the sale of
the first bond in the new Promissory Note deal hatched by
Michael Noonan.
What started in 2009/10 Ireland was forced to put a noose
around the people of over 30 Billion so the Eurosystem could
lend to a busted bank to redeem speculators on secondary
markets according to Peter Mathews. In 2010 the then Fianna
Fil-Green Party coalition Government issued notes carrying
massive Central Bank funding of Anglo Irish Bank (25.3
Billion) and Irish Nationwide (5.3 Billion) even though those
banks were known to be insolvent yet that money was drawn
down from the EU's Emergency Liquidity Assistance Fund with
the full knowledge and approval of the ECB..The Central Bank
of Ireland printed 31 Billion to bail out the bondholders and to
bail out the Euro currency. This existed in the form of
Promissory Notes which were held in The Central Bank of
Ireland.
Michael Noonan rushed through legislation in 2013 which
turned the Promissory Notes into Promissory Bonds which
means The State and people of Ireland now own that debt.This
short-term gain for long-term expense is even admitted to be
illegal by Michael Noonan.Ireland has mortgaged it's children's
their children's futures for the next 40 years to bail out
bondholders. on international markets to venture
capitalists.Patrick Honohan, The Governor of The Central Bank
of Ireland has admitted the Promissory Note Bonds are being
"extinguished" and the first 500 Million happened on the 23rd
December 2014. So over the next 40 years the Irish people will
pay more than 70 Billion in interest and in principal. By
swamping the individual with debt you have taken away a
person's freedom. Numerous national and international
respected economist's like Constantin Gurgiev, Max Keiser,
William Black and Joseph Stiglitz have argued that Ireland
should have burned the bondholders.
What could be done about this? This 64 Billion odious debt is
the reason we can't fund adequately our schools and hospitals
the way they should be run. According to Stephen Donnelly "in
an ideal world we could get the Promissory Notes torn up or if
they were not sold onto the markets and allowed to hold them
at 0% interest forever and to let time bury them" . However
the first payment has already begun. Diarmuid O'Flynn of the
Ballyhea Bondholder Bailout protest group, a non-political

group who have been marching for over 200 weeks argues that
it is more important than ever for groups to unite and to bury
their petty differences to fight the bank debt: "We either have
to change the minds of those who are making those laws and if
we can't do that then we change those who are making the
laws".
This 500 Million is just the start.
Every year for the next 5 years, another 500 Miilion or 2.5
Billion (2014-2018)
Every year for the following 5 years 1000 Million or 5 Billion
(2019-2023)
Every year for the following 8 years 2000 Million or 16 Billion
(2024-2031)
In 2032 the final bond worth 1,500 Million or 1.5 Billion
We will be paying with interest until 2053.
In total that is 19 Bonds which is 25 Billion borrowed and
burned.
Facebook : Ballyhea Bondholder Bailout Protest
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ballyh...
Facebook: Marcus Howard Documentaries
https://www.facebook.com/marcushoward...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEXpvNQmqIg

Creative Commons License Public Domain.This video is to be

used for educational discussion. This video can be shared but
must be shown in it's entirety. Please share and help get the
message out if you agree with some of the arguments
discussed.
This video is for fair use for purposes like criticism, comment,
news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research and it
obeys Fair Use law.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act
1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and
research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that
might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or
personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Bank of England Governor

Demands G-20 Summit Impose
Bail-In Thievery Across the Board
Posted on September 5, 2013

4 Sept. (LPAC)Bank of England chairman Mark Carney,

speaking in his capacity as chairman of the Financial
Stability
Board (FSB), the global financial regulator, on Aug. 31
demanded
that all countries implement the banking rules the top
central
banks have decided on, including unrestricted bail-in.
Carney
praised the UK, U.S., Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland,
France,
Japan, and Australia as the countries which have already
abandoned sovereign bank regulations for the imperial
ones.
(Switzerland has published the most bluntly revealing
outline of
what they will do to bank depositors.)
Jurisdictions need to implement fully the internationally
agreed policies, Carney demanded, through additional
legislation and regulation; cross border co-operation
agreements
must be struck, and policies for gone-concern loss
absorbing
capacity should be developed. [Not a misprint: goneconcern
capital means Tier 2, or unsecured creditors capital, as
opposed
to stockholders equity and earnings; so, this means bailin.]

This was clearly aimed at the G20 meeting. Carney also

said
the threat of another general bank panic will persist
through the
end of 2014
https://laroucheirishbrigade.com/2013/09/05/bank-ofengland-governor-demands-g-20-summit-impose-bail-inthievery-across-the-board/

irish journalist shames ECB banker with

tough questions on irelands debt.
Mar 20, 2012
Troika (EU, ECB & IMF) representatives, and Barbara Nolan,
head of the European Commission representation in Ireland,
held a press conference on the latest bailout review this
afternoon.
Participants:
Klaus Masuch, head of EU Countries Division at the European
Central Bank
Istvan Szekely, director of economic and financial affairs at the
European Commission
Craig Beaumont, mission chief for Ireland at the IMF.
Barbara Nolan, head of the European Commission
representation in Ireland.
Early in the conference, Istvan Szekely said: "I'm impressed by
the depth of the discussion in Ireland and the understanding of
complex, economic financial-sector issues, which is revealed
by looking into the Irish place, looking into the discussion. But
also when I come from the airport with the taxi driver they are
often very very informed I must say, very very informed."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDXJPvZoxzg

Three Federal Studies Show

Feds Stress Tests of Big Banks
Are Just a Placebo

The Feds Stress Tests Are Like the Wizard of Oz: An Illusion to
Delude the Public

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: November 16, 2016

The only thing standing between the American people and another
apocalyptic financial collapse among by the biggest banks on Wall Street
is the Federal Reserves stress tests and capital requirements. After Wall
Street laid waste to the U.S. housing market and economy from 2008
through 2010, while propping itself back up with a feeding tube from the
taxpayers pocketbook, the Obama administration passed the Dodd-Frank
financial reform legislation in 2010. It wasnt so much legislation as it
was an illusory 2300 pages of rules that might someday get implemented
in a meaningful way if President Obama appointed tough cops to his
financial regulatory bodies which he decidedly did not do.
One of the promises in Dodd-Frank was that the Federal Reserve would
annually assess whether the biggest and most dangerous banks have
adequate capital to withstand a severe recession and whether the bank has
the proper risk-management programs in place to prevent it from
imploding and becoming a ward of the taxpayer.
Yesterday, the nonpartisan congressional watchdog, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), became the third Federal entity in the last
two years to indicate that the Fed is muffing the job of stress testing the
big Wall Street banks.
The GAO report notes:
the Federal Reserves organizational structure for the stress tests does
not include a formal process through which model development or risk
management at the aggregateor system-of-modelslevel is
implementedBy largely focusing the modeling principles on the
component models and not applying those principles to the system of
models, the Federal Reserve has limited its ability to manage the extent to
which model risk is introduced into the supervisory stress test models.
Another failing according to the GAO report is this:
The Federal Reserve also has not conducted analyses to determine if its
single severe supervisory scenario is sufficiently robust and reliable to
promote the resilience of the banking system against a range of potential
crises. Such analysesincluding performing sensitivity analysis
involving multiple scenarioscould help the Federal Reserve understand

the range of outcomes that might result from different scenarios and
explore trade-offs associated with reliance on a single severe supervisory
scenario.
Last year, the Federal Reserve was criticized in a report by its Office of
Inspector General over the models in its stress tests. But far more
alarming was a report issued just this past March by the Office of
Financial Research (OFR), which was also created under the Dodd-Frank
legislation.
The OFR report brought the illusory nature of the stress tests into sharp
focus. A careful reading of the report strongly suggests that the stress tests
are being used to simply comfort Congress and the public with the notion
that Wall Street banks are not going to rapidly morph again into an
exploding fireworks factory, when, in fact, there is no basis for that
confidence.
The OFR researchers who conducted the study, Jill Cetina, Mark Paddrik,
and Sriram Rajan, found that the Feds stress tests are measuring
counterparty risk for the trillions of dollars in derivatives held by the
largest banks on a bank by bank basis. The real problem, according to the
researchers, is the contagion that could spread rapidly if one big banks
counterparty was also a key counterparty to other systemically important
Wall Street banks. The researchers write:
A BHC [bank holding company] may be able to manage the failure of its
largest counterparty when other BHCs do not concurrently realize losses
from the same counterpartys failure. However, when a shared
counterparty fails, banks may experience additional stress. The financial
system is much more concentrated to (and firms risk management is less
prepared for) the failure of the systems largest counterparty. Thus, the
impact of a material counterpartys failure could affect the core banking
system in a manner that CCAR [one of the Feds stress tests] may not
fully capture. [Italic emphasis added.]
Its not that the Fed doesnt have real-world experience that a failure by a
major counterparty could rapidly spread contagion across Wall Street.
Thats exactly what happened when the large insurer, AIG, failed in 2008.
The U.S. government had to backstop AIG with $185 billion.
Approximately half of the bailout money was then quietly funneled to the
biggest banks on Wall Street to cover the counterparty guarantees on
derivatives that AIG was on the hook to pay but could not have paid
except for the taxpayer bailout.
The March 2016 OFR study also reached the stunning conclusion that
just six banks make up the core of the U.S. financial system. Thats six
banks out of a little more than 6,000 commercial banks. That dangerous
core includes: Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc., JPMorgan Chase Co., Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo &

Co. The researchers noted that while individual bank holding

companies direct losses have declined under the Feds stress tests,
counterparty credit risks to the banking system collectively have risen
and may suggest a greater systemic risk than is commonly understood.
This counterparty concentration risk was also called out in the seminal
report on the 2008 financial collapse by the Financial Crisis Inquiry
Commission. The final report found:
Large derivatives positions, and the resulting counterparty credit and
operational risks, were concentrated in a very few firms. Among U.S.
bank holding companies, the following institutions held enormous OTC
derivatives positions as of June 30, 2008: $94.5 trillion in notional
amount for JP Morgan, $37.7 trillion for Bank of America, $35.8 trillion
for Citigroup, $4.1trillion for Wachovia, and $3.9 trillion for HSBC.
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, which began to report their holdings
only after they became bank holding companies in 2008, held $45.9 and
$37 trillion, respectively, in notional amount of OTC derivatives in the
first quarter of 2009. In 2008, the current and potential exposure to
derivatives at the top five U.S. bank holding companies was on average
three times greater than the capital they had on hand to meet regulatory
requirements. The risk was even higher at the investment banks. Goldman
Sachs, just after it changed its charter, had derivatives exposure more than
10 times capital. These concentrations of positions in the hands of the
largest bank holding companies and investment banks posed risks for the
financial system because of their interconnections with other financial
institutions.
Despite the devastation unleashed on the U.S. by the Wall Street banks in
2008, the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, the
biggest Wall Street banks now hold many trillions of dollars more in
derivatives than they did in 2008. And, with the exception of Morgan
Stanley, those derivatives are held at the FDIC-insured, taxpayerbackstopped, commercial banking units of the behemoth Wall Street
banks.
A careful assessment of what the Fed has actually been doing with its
much ballyhooed annual release of stress test results strongly suggests it
is simply offering up a placebo for a malignant cancer eating away at the
very heart of the U.S. economy and the future of the struggling young
people of this nation.
Its important to remember that this is the same Federal Reserve that
secretly sluiced $16 trillion in cumulative, below-market-rate loans to the
behemoth banks (while millions of families were losing their jobs and
homes) and then fought a multi-year court battle attempting to keep the
public from learning about this unprecedented action. Thanks to Senator
Bernie Sanders and others, the public was finally afforded an accounting

of this non-Congressional authorized bailout in a report by the GAO. (See

Table 8 in the linked report to learn which banks got the lions share of
the $16 trillion.)
The pent up anger of the American people, evidenced in the outcome of
the November 8 election, has been brewing since the 2008 crash. Senator
Bernie Sanders, in a 2012 Senate floor speech below, talks about the
secret $16 trillion bailout by the Fed and puts his finger on the pulse of
Americans continuing anger at a system that is only working for the one
percent.

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Policies and
Processes for Managing Emergency Assistance
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf

Citigroup Has More Derivatives

than 4,701 U.S. Banks
Combined; After Blowing Itself
Up With Derivatives in 2008

Derivatives at Bank Holding Companies, March 31, 2016 (OCC

Report)

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: July 14, 2016

According to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as of
March 31, 2016, there were 6,122 FDIC insured financial institutions in
the United States. Of those 6,122 commercial banks and savings
associations, 4,701 did not hold any derivatives. To put that another way,
77 percent of all U.S. banks found zero reason to engage in high-risk
derivative trading.
Citigroup, however, the bank that spectacularly blew itself up with toxic
derivatives and subprime debt in 2008, became a 99-cent stock during the
crisis, and received the largest taxpayer bailout in U.S. financial history
despite being insolvent at the time, today holds more derivatives than
4,701 other banks combined which are backstopped by the taxpayer.
The total notional amount of derivatives sitting at Citigroups bank
holding company is $55.6 trillion according to the March 31, 2016 report
from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), one of the
regulators of national banks. (See chart above.) Out of Citigroups total
notional (face amount) exposure of $55.6 trillion in derivatives, $52
trillion of that is sitting at its insured depository institution, Citibank,
which is still decidedly too-big-to-fail and would require a taxpayer
bailout again in a collapse.
If you add in four other mega Wall Street banks (JPMorgan Chase,
Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley) to Citigroups

haul in derivatives, there is a staggering $231.4 trillion in derivatives or

93 percent of all derivatives in the entire FDIC banking universe of 6,122
banks and savings associations.
Didnt the Obama administration tell the public that allowing these
Frankenbanks to continue to gamble in derivatives while putting the U.S.
economy and taxpayers at risk was going to end under his Dodd-Frank
financial reform legislation passed in 2010? How could there have been
meaningful reform of Wall Street if Citigroup and these other four banks
are still holding a loaded gun to the taxpayers head?
Under the Push-Out Rule (Section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act), insured banks were not going to
be allowed to hold these derivatives when the rule was fully implemented
in July 2015. The mega banks would have to push-out the derivatives
to their uninsured affiliates so that the taxpayer wasnt on the hook for
future losses or bank implosions. But in December 2014, Citigroup was
able to slip language into the must-pass spending bill that effectively
repealed this critical Dodd-Frank provision and President Obama signed
the bill into law.
According to OCC data, prior to Citigroups massive bailout in 2008, it
held $41.3 trillion in notional derivatives as of March 31, 2008. Instead of
regulators forcing the unruly bank to pare back its exposures, its tally
today of $55.6 trillion shows it has been allowed to grow its derivative
risks by 35 percent.
According to the General Accountability Office, this is how much
Citigroup needed to remain afloat the last time it blew itself up: On
October 28, 2008, Citigroup received $25 billion in Troubled Asset Relief
Program (TARP) funds. Less than a month later, it was teetering again
and received another $20 billion. But its capital moorings were so shaky
that it simultaneously needed another $306 billion in government asset
guarantees. And all of this disclosed money spigot came on top of the
Federal Reserve secretly funneling to Citigroup over $2 trillion in
cumulative loans over more than two years at interest rates frequently
below 1 percent.
The official report on the financial crisis of 2008 from the Financial
Crisis Inquiry Commission explained the interconnected nature of the
derivatives crisis as follows:
Large derivatives positions, and the resulting counterparty credit and
operational risks, were concentrated in a very few firms. Among U.S.
bank holding companies, the following institutions held enormous OTC
derivatives positions as of June 30, 2008: $94.5 trillion in notional
amount for JP Morgan, $37.7 trillion for Bank of America, $35.8 trillion
for Citigroup, $4.1trillion for Wachovia, and $3.9 trillion for HSBC.
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, which began to report their holdings

only after they became bank holding companies in 2008, held $45.9 and
$37 trillion, respectively, in notional amount of OTC derivatives in the
first quarter of 2009. In 2008, the current and potential exposure to
derivatives at the top five U.S. bank holding companies was on average
three times greater than the capital they had on hand to meet regulatory
requirements. The risk was even higher at the investment banks. Goldman
Sachs, just after it changed its charter, had derivatives exposure more than
10 times capital. These concentrations of positions in the hands of the
largest bank holding companies and investment banks posed risks for the
financial system because of their interconnections with other financial
institutions.
The counterparties to this mass gluttony in derivatives by the mega Wall
Street banks included the two government sponsored enterprises, Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac, and the large insurer, AIG.
In May of this year we reported that the U.S. government is still quietly
paying out billions of dollars to Wall Street banks for derivatives held by
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, companies the government was forced to
place into conservatorship because of their massive losses during the
2008 crisis. In April of this year we reported the following about AIGs
derivative losses during the crisis:
AIG received a taxpayer backstop of $185 billion and had to be taken
over by the Federal government. But the bailout of AIG was in reality a
backdoor bailout of the biggest Wall Street banks and their foreign big
bank kin who had used AIG as a counterparty on their casino-like
derivative bets and for securities loans that AIG could not make good on.
It was eventually revealed that major Wall Street banks, foreign banks
and hedge funds received more than half of AIGs bailout money ($93.2
billion). Public pressure eventually forced AIG to release a chart of these
payments, but the chart showed just a narrow window of disbursements
from September to December 2008. How vast the full total of payments
were to the big banks is yet to see the light of day.
The banking crisis and economic collapse in 2008 was the largest
financial disaster in the United States since the Great Depression. To
understand that the Obama administration and the U.S. Congress have not
only failed to rein in the risks of a recurrence but have actually allowed
the risks to dramatically grow, is an indictment of our entire political
system and a siren call for the political revolution that Senator Bernie
Sanders has now surrendered to the Clinton Wing of the Democratic
Party otherwise known as the Wall Street Banksters.
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/07/citigroup-hasmore-derivatives-than-4701-u-s-banks-combined-afterblowing-itself-up-with-derivatives-in-2008/

Is Dodd-Frank Wall Street

Reform Legislation a Hoax?
.entry-meta
By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: July 15, 2016

President Obama Calls Surprise Meeting With Financial Stability

Oversight Council Members, March 7, 2016

The problem with stereotyping Republicans is that when they are

screaming from the rooftops about a legitimate fraud, Democrats dont
believe them even when the evidence is overpowering that they are
right.
For years now, Republicans have been screaming that the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that was signed into
law in 2010 by President Obama is a fraud on the public.
Few have examined Dodd-Franks failed promises as carefully as Wall
Street On Parade. The legislation promised to rein in derivatives it
didnt. It promised to end the future need for taxpayer bailouts of too-bigto-fail banks. It didnt. It promised to institute the Volcker Rule to prevent
banks from gambling with insured deposits. It didnt. It promised to
reform the practices of the ratings agencies that played a pivotal role in
the 2008 collapse. It didnt.
Dodd-Frank did two great things: it created the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB) which has played a major role in exposing and
disciplining companies that abuse consumers in areas like credit cards,
auto loans, student loans, and mortgages. Dodd-Frank also created the
Office of Financial Research in the U.S. Treasury Department which
has been sending out regular warnings that Wall Street is still a
dangerous, toxic brew of interconnectedness while putting a bright light
on how the Fed is mismanaging its stress tests of the mega Wall Street
banks.
But these two agencies which are valiantly working in the public interest
are no match for how Wall Street has been allowed by the Obama
administration to game the designed-to-be-gamed provisions of DoddFrank.

Take this mornings news from Bloomberg News. The so-called Volcker
Rule provisions of Dodd-Frank that barred the Wall Street banks holding
insured deposits from owning private-equity funds (where they could
inflate asset values with little push-back) and hedge funds (where they
could dump or hide their own losses) have been repeatedly pushed
forward and now are not set to go into effect until July of next year an
outrageous seven years after Dodd-Frank was signed into law.
Wall Street is clearly counting on their heavy funding of Hillary Clintons
campaign to put a friendly ear in the Oval Office, and at the Fed, Treasury
and SEC, so it can individually apply for permanent exceptions to these
and various other Dodd-Frank rules.
Under Dodd-Frank, the Wall Street banks were required to move their
derivatives to exchanges or central clearinghouses. As recently as March
7 of this year, President Obama held a press conference following his
meeting with the Financial Stability Oversight Council and stated the
following about derivatives: you have clearinghouses that account for
the vast majority of trades taking place.
When the President made this statement he was surrounded by every
major Wall Street bank regulator who knew that statement was patently
false. Not only is it false but the reality of what has actually happened
suggests a willingness to egregiously mislead the American people.
Below is a table from the most recent derivatives data published by the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), a regulator of national
banks. (The chief of the OCC, Thomas Curry, sat across the table from
President Obama on March 7 when the President made his false statement
to the American people.) The table shows that as of March 31, 2016, the
four banks that account for the vast majority of all derivatives in the U.S.
had moved a mere sliver of their derivatives to exchanges. Out of
JPMorgan Chases $52.9 trillion in derivatives, it had moved a mere 4.4
percent to exchanges while a stunning 95.6 percent remained in opaque
Over-the-Counter contracts private contracts between the bank and
counterparties whose terms are often off limits to regulators.
The amount of derivatives that still had not moved to exchanges at the
four banks ranged from a high of 95.6 at JPMorgan Chase to 94.3 percent
at Citibank, to 87.8 percent at Goldman Sachs Bank USA and 90.6
percent at Bank of America. (The total dollar amount of derivatives is
understated in this table since it shows the dollar amount at the insured
bank only, not the total held at the bank holding company level. As we
reported yesterday, Citigroup, at the bank holding company level, has
now eclipsed JPMorgan Chase in total derivatives, holding 35 percent
more than it did at the time it blew itself up in 2008.)
The mega Wall Street banks were also required under Dodd-Frank to
move their derivatives out of the FDIC-insured banks they owned and

onto the books of uninsured affiliates to prevent another forced bailout by

taxpayers. That didnt happen either and Citigroup was able to slip
language into the December 2014 spending bill to completely repeal that
provision of Dodd-Frank.
Reforming derivative practices on Wall Street was a critical component of
the Dodd-Frank legislation. Toxic derivative trades had resulted in the
largest failure in U.S. history of an insurance company during the 2008
crash. Large Wall Street banks had made the U.S. insurer, AIG, its
guarantor (counterparty) on derivatives called credit default swaps
effectively gambles by Wall Street banks that sectors and companies were
going to default on their debt. Because AIG did not have the funds to
make good on those bets, the U.S. government took over AIG with a $185
billion taxpayer backstop. It was later revealed that major Wall Street and
foreign banks and hedge funds received more than half of that bailout
money ($93.2 billion) for the derivatives bets they had made with AIG
and securities loan transactions. The firms were paid 100 cents on the
dollar even though AIG was using taxpayer money.
As correctly depicted in the recent movie, The Big Short, the two
largest rating agencies, Moodys and Standard and Poors, competed for
market share by doling out triple-A ratings on toxic bundles of subprime
debt. The ratings were paid for by the very Wall Street banks that were
issuing the debt. The ratings are still paid for by the Wall Street banks
an insane conflict of interest that Dodd-Frank failed to rein in. There is
also still a gold-plated revolving door between employees moving from
the ratings agencies to the Wall Street banks.
The official report from the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission on the
2008 financial collapse had this to say about the ratings agencies role in
the crash:
We conclude the failures of credit rating agencies were essential cogs in
the wheel of financial destruction. The three credit rating agencies were
key enablers of the financial meltdown. The mortgage-related securities
at the heart of the crisis could not have been marketed and sold without
their seal of approval. Investors relied on them, often blindly. In some
cases, they were obligated to use them, or regulatory capital standards
were hinged on them. This crisis could not have happened without the
rating agencies. Their ratings helped the market soar and their downgrades through 2007 and 2008 wreaked havoc across markets and firms.
In our report, you will read about the breakdowns at Moodys, examined
by the Commission as a case study. From 2000 to 2007, Moodys rated
nearly 45,000 mortgage-related securities as triple-A. This compares with
six private-sector companies in the United States that carried this coveted
rating in early 2010. In 2006 alone, Moodys put its triple-A stamp of
approval on 30 mortgage-related securities every working day. The

results were disastrous: 83% of the mortgage securities rated triple-A that
year ultimately were downgraded. You will also read about the forces at
work behind the breakdowns at Moodys, including the flawed computer
models, the pressure from financial firms that paid for the ratings, the
relentless drive for market share, the lack of resources to do the job
despite record profits, and the absence of meaningful public oversight.
And you will see that without the active participation of the rating
agencies, the market for mortgage-related securities could not have been
what it became.
There is no question that some corporate-funded Republicans can have a
seismic negative impact on reforming Wall Street. Just look at what Rob
Portman, a Republican from Ohio, has done to the Senates Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations. Under the former Chairmanship of
Senator Carl Levin, Democrat from Michigan, the Subcommittee turned
out unparalleled reports on financial crimes by Wall Street and foreign
banks with such meticulous detail and subpoenaed documents that
regulators and the Justice Department were forced to take action. Now the
Subcommittee, under the Chairmanship of Portman, has become a
corporate lapdog while portraying government as the problem. Portmans
two largest campaign donors between 2011 and 2016 are PACs,
executives, or employees of Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, according to
the Center for Responsive Politics.
But just because Republicans are often clueless about how to effectively
regulate Wall Street, it doesnt mean that theyre wrong about DoddFrank being an abject failure.
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/07/is-dodd-frank-wall-street-reformlegislation-a-hoax/

Proof That One Good Man or

Good Woman in Congress Can
Make a World of Difference

.entry-meta
By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: December 29, 2015
Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, has breathed new
life into bolstering Americans belief in our Democratic system of
government and the notion that one good man or good woman can make
a meaningful difference in Congress. Senator Warren was the driving
force behind the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
which has opened a robust two-way dialogue and redress system with the
American people regarding the financial crimes being inflicted on them
otherwise known as Wall Streets institutionalized wealth transfer system
while it is simultaneously under relentless assault by corporate attack
dogs masquerading as Republican members of Congress.
It was Senator Warren in 2013 that informed us that the so-called
Independent Foreclosure Reviews to settle the claims of 4 million
homeowners who had been illegally foreclosed on by the bailed out Wall
Street banks were a sham. The independent consultants had been hired
by the banks and paid by the banks, with the banks themselves allowed to
determine the number of victims.
Senator Warren was the pivotal person who put the high frequency
trading scam described in the Michael Lewis book, Flash Boys, into
laymans language. During a Senate hearing on June 18 of last year,
Warren explained:
High frequency trading reminds me a little of the scam in Office Space.
You know, you take just a little bit of money from every trade in the hope
that no one will complain. But taking a little bit of money from zillions of
trades adds up to billions of dollars in profits for these high frequency
traders and billions of dollars in losses for our retirement funds and our
mutual funds and everybody else in the market place. It also means a tilt
in the playing field for those who dont have the information or have the
access to the speed or big enough to play in this game.
Warren was also the driving force in introducing legislation that will
hopefully restore the Glass-Steagall Act and sanity to Wall Street. In
2013, together with Senators John McCain, Maria Cantwell and Angus
King, Warren introduced the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act,
explaining its critical importance as follows:
By separating traditional depository banks from riskier financial
institutions, explained Warren, the 1933 version of Glass-Steagall laid
the groundwork for half a century of financial stability. During that time,
we built a robust and thriving middle class. But throughout the 1980s
and 1990s, Congress and regulators chipped away at Glass-Steagalls
protections, encouraging growth of the megabanks and a sharp increase in
systemic risk. They finally finished the task in 1999 with the passage of
the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which eliminated Glass-Steagalls

protections altogether.
Thanks to Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont,
restoring the Glass-Steagall Act has become a hot button issue in the
ongoing Presidential debates, helping American voters differentiate
between the candidates. (For example, the sole Democratic Presidential
candidate who is not in favor of restoring the Glass-Steagall Act is Hillary
Clinton, who is heavily funded by executives of Wall Street firms and
their legal powerhouses.)

Senator Carl Levin

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat from Michigan, who retired at the end of
last year after serving 36 years in the U.S. Senate, exemplified the
meaning of public servant and embodied the highest ideals of
representative government of, by, and for the people. Senator Levin
chaired the Senates Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI),
which, under Levin, functioned as a feared investigative body, turning out
unparalleled reports on financial crimes by Wall Street and foreign banks
with such fine detail and subpoenaed documents that regulators were
forced to take action.
In just the last two years of his Chairmanship of the PSI, Senator Levin
took on high frequency trading, released a 396-page report on the Wall
Street mega banks ownership of a staggering amount of the nations
industrial commodities like oil, aluminum, copper, natural gas, and even
uranium. The investigative study called the scale of these bank holdings
unprecedented in U.S. history. In July of 2014, Senator Levin released
a report and conducted a hearing on a mind-boggling plot by financial
institutions to evade taxes. We reported the following at the time:
According to a copious report released last evening, heres what hedge
funds have been doing for more than a decade with the intimate
involvement of global banks: the hedge fund makes a deposit of cash into
an account at the bank which has been established so that the hedge fund
can engage in high frequency trading of stocks. The account is not in the
hedge funds name but in the banks name. The bank then deposits $9 for
every one dollar the hedge fund deposits into the same account. Some
times, the leverage reaches as high as 20 to 1.
The hedge fund proceeds to trade the hell out of the account, generating
tens of thousands of trades a day using their own high frequency trading

program and algorithms. Many of the trades last no more than minutes.
The bank charges the hedge fund fees for the trade executions and interest
on the money loaned.
Based on a written side agreement, preposterously called a basket
option, the hedge fund will collect all the profits made in the account in
the banks name after a year or longer and then characterize millions of
trades which were held for less than a year, many for just minutes, as
long-term capital gains (which by law require a holding period of a year
or longer). Long term capital gains are taxed at almost half the tax rate of
the top rate on short term gains.
There are so many banking crimes embedded in this story that its hard
to know where to begin. Lets start with the one most dangerous to the
safety and soundness of banks: extension of margin credit.
Under Federal law known as Regulation T, it is perceived wisdom on
Wall Street that a bank or broker-dealer cannot extend more than 50
percent margin on a stock account. But since the banks involved in these
basket options called these accounts their own proprietary trading
accounts, even though the hedge fund had full control over the trading
and ultimate ownership of profits, the banks were justified (in their
minds) with thumbing their nose at a bedrock of doing business on Wall
Street.
In 2013, Senator Levins PSI released a 307-page report on the obscene
derivatives trading in London by JPMorgan Chase, which infamously
became known as the London Whale debacle with a loss of over $6.2
billion in bank deposits, much of which were FDIC-insured. The
exhaustive report led to a $920 million settlement by JPMorgan Chase
with findings that it had violated both banking and securities laws.
To fully grasp why Carl Levin was so dedicated and determined as a
public servant, you need to hear this little story told in the Huffington
Post by MJ Rosenberg who previously worked as a staffer in Congress
for 20 years. Rosenberg had worked for Levin in the early 80s and was
asked by the Senator to have a photograph of himself and his cherished
older brother, Sander (Sandy), a long-tenured member of the House of
Representatives, framed by the Senate carpentry shop so he could hang it
on his office wall. When Rosenberg returned with the framed photograph
and reported that there had not been a charge, Levin handed him a check
and insisted that he return to the carpentry shop and pay for it. When the
carpentry shop reported that they had no cash register or means of
accepting payment, Levin quietly sent a payment to the U.S. Treasury
office.
When we first learned that Senator Levin was planning to retire, we were
filled with dread as to what would happen to the Senates Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations. Our fears were well-founded. A

corporate-friendly Republican is now in charge, Rob Portman of Ohio.

Rather than looking at the crimes committed by the mega corporations,
backstopped by their legions of lobbyists and armies of lawyers, Senator
Portman is focusing on corporations as victims of government abuse. The
sum total of his hearings this past year at the PSI has been two, one of
which focused on the Federal governments unfair taxation of
corporations.
As BloombergBusiness wrote at the time of the first hearing under
Portman in July:
A U.S. Senate investigative subcommittee, which has used its power for
more than a decade to scrutinize corporations and financial institutions
for wrongdoing, is shifting its focus to keeping tabs on the government.
The U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations is slated to
hold its first hearing under new leadership on Thursday with a dive into
the U.S. corporate tax code. That topic is in line with the priorities laid
out by the committees new chairman, Ohio Republican Rob Portman,
who says he views its role as primarily oversight of the federal
government, agencies and departments.
If youre considering skipping going out to vote in the 2016 Presidential
and Congressional elections, you might want to reflect on the meaningful
difference just one determined person can make in Washington. Below
we feature Senator Levins farewell address.

Personal Investing Lessons

from JPMorgans London Whale
Debacle
.entry-meta

By Pam Martens: March 22, 2013

One year ago this week, Ina Drew, head of the Chief Investment Office at
JPMorgan which oversaw the synthetic credit derivatives portfolio that
eventually blew up $6.2 billion of depositors money, told her traders
phones down, signaling that she was halting all trading in those
instruments. What Drew should have much earlier told her traders was:
unplug algorithms; plug in brains.
Despite a multitude of formulas for measuring risk, multiple layers of
oversight management, 28 members of a risk management team with
titles like Managing Director, Executive Director, and Vice President, it
somehow didnt occur to any of these folks that the number one criteria
for a trading investment is that you need to be able to get out of it.
London Whale was the nickname given to the JPMorgan trader, Bruno
Iksil, as a result of the outsized bets he was making on one particular
illiquid credit default swap index known as the 10-year Markit CDX
North America Investment Grade Index Series 9 or in trader lingo, the
IG9. Throughout the documents released by the Senates Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations are references to the traders needing to
defend our position.
What defend our position actually meant was: we need to get more
exposure to this losing trade to prop up the price of the losing trade so
that when we price the total position (mark to market) we wont have
even bigger losses to show our bosses. An unplug algorithms; plug in
brains analysis of this theory for managing depositors life savings is: we
will be taking on more risk in the position we cant get out of so that we
really, really cant get out of it.
One of the first, inviolate rules that a rookie stockbroker learns is cut
your losses short. Also expressed as dont get married to the trade.
The JPMorgan traders broke the most basic of all investment rules and
the easiest one to understand. The purpose of cutting losses short is to
defend the principal so that it will be there to participate in profitmaking trades in the future. Defend our position was an exercise of
defend our ego; refusing to admit that what the traders originally
thought was a brilliant trading strategy was now a position capable of
losing $415 million in just one day and $6.2 billion (that we know of) in
the aggregate. JPMorgan has stopped reporting losses on the position.
So what can the average American learn from this. One overarching
message is to understand what is and is not a liquid investment and how
to align ones liquidity needs with appropriate investments.
For example, lets say an individual has $25,000 to invest but will need it
in 3 years for a childs college tuition and cant afford to lose any of this

money. Appropriate investments would be a 3-year FDIC insured

Certificate of Deposit or a U.S. Treasury security maturing in 3 years. If
the individual has no other liquid funds for an emergency event, an
appropriate amount of the $25,000 should remain in a liquid, insured
money market account.
An investment strategy similar to what was done at JPMorgan would be
to take the full $25,000 and use it as a down payment on a home for
flipping in 3 years in an area of heavy foreclosures.
When JPMorgans Chairman and CEO, Jamie Dimon, testified before
Congress last year, he said that JPMorgan makes loans to some of the
biggest corporations in the world. As a result, it needs to maintain
liquidity because at any time a large corporation could ask for a huge
loan. Given that reality, what happened in the Chief Investment Office
makes even less sense.

JPMorgan's Risk Management Team for the Chief Investment Office.

Released by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations

Pam Martens, the Editor of Wall Street On Parade, managed the life
savings of average Americans for 21 years on Wall Street. Her personal
finance columns seek to help the public better understand the jargon,
complexities, and conflicts of Wall Street. The information that appears
on this site cannot, and does not, take into account your particular
investment goals, your unique financial situation or income needs and is
not intended to be recommendations appropriate for you. When it comes
to making your own investment decisions, you should always consult in
advance with your financial advisor and accountant.

At times, Wall Street On Parade links to news or opinion on other sites

which we believe to be in the public interest. These web sites may also
contain investment advice or investment advertising. We receive no
remuneration for these links, provide them purely in the public interest,
and are not endorsing or recommending any investment information that
may appear on the site.
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2013/03/personal-investinglessons-from-jpmorgans-london-whale-debacle/

JPMorgan Puts Jamie Dimon

Underlings In Charge of
Investigating Dimons Failures
In London Whale Episode
By Pam Martens: January 17, 2013

Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase

Wall Streets thoroughly discredited self-regulation that has blazed a trail

of corruption across much of the securities trading landscape of America,
has now given birth to a new brand of hubris self investigation and self
reporting.
Yesterday, JPMorgan released a report from its Board of Directors that
found [drum roll] that the Board was not culpable in the London Whale
episode, it just needed to tweak a few things going forward. London
Whale refers to the blowing up of $6.2 billion of insured deposits at
JPMorgans commercial bank through reckless trading in derivatives in

London.
Likewise, a 132-page Task Force report was released which found CEO
Jamie Dimon guilty of no greater sin than being too reliant on
information from below. The report said: As Chief Executive Officer,
Mr. Dimon could appropriately rely upon senior managers who directly
reported to him to escalate significant issues and concerns. However, he
could have better tested his reliance on what he was told.
Who was this Task Force that conducted this exhaustive study? Typically,
a Wall Street firm hires an outside law firm to conduct an internal review
after an episode such as this. JPMorgan hired underlings to Jamie Dimon
employees of the bank who owe their livelihoods, pensions and
continued employment to the good graces of Dimon and the Board.
Michael J. Cavanagh, co-head of the banks corporate and investment
banking unit, led the Task Force study. That major media repeated the
reports finding without noting its lack of credibility is symptomatic of a
Nation held hostage by power and money.
The Task Force report even noted that its facts and findings might not
stack up to the facts and findings of its regulators, writing:
This Report sets out the facts that the Task Force believes are most
relevant to understanding the causes of the losses. It reflects the Task
Forces view of the facts. Others (including regulators conducting their
own investigations) may have a different view of the facts, or may focus
on facts not described in this Report, and may also draw different
conclusions regarding the facts and issues. In addition, the Task Force
notes that its mandate did not include drawing any legal conclusions, and
accordingly, this Report does not purport to do so.
The most underreported part of this story has been the fact that the $6.2
billion in losses were gambles in high risk derivatives made by the Chief
Investment Office (CIO) with FDIC insured deposits held in the
commercial bank. This is a key reason the FBI and Senate continue to
investigate the matter, as we have previously reported.
The Task Force owned up to the reality of whose money JPMorgan was
using in its report, writing:
JPMorgans businesses take in more in deposits than they make in loans
and, as a result, the Firm has excess cash that must be invested to meet
future liquidity needs and provide a reasonable return. The primary
responsibility of CIO, working with JPMorgans Treasury, is to manage
this excess cash.
Jamie Dimon had previously reported this fact in one of his first
conference calls with analysts on the topic of the London Whale losses,
but corporate media failed to focus on this aspect, despite a meltdown
of Wall Street just four years prior because of reckless gambles inside
institutions housing insured deposits. Trillions in taxpayer funds were

needed to shore up the institutions and billions more in economic

stimulus, leaving the Nation crippled with debt.
The much smaller report from the Board of Directors raised the specter
that getting qualified people going forward to take the personal risk to
their reputations and fortunes and hours in the day to sit on the Risk
Policy Committee of JPMorgan that oversees the Chief Investment Office
may be an uphill slog. The Board report said:
In light of the increasing demands on the Risk Policy Committee and the
increasing complexity of those demands, service on the Committee will
probably require additional time from Committee members. The history
of the Audit Committee in terms of increasing responsibility and time
demands on its members likely serves as a harbinger for the Risk Policy
Committee. The Chairman of the Committee will necessarily take the
lead and commit the most time, but the other members of the Committee
should be prepared to shoulder some of the responsibilities in order to
mitigate the burdens on the Chairman.

Meet Your Newest Legislator:

Citigroup
By Pam Martens: December 16, 2014

Citigroup is the Wall Street mega bank that forced the repeal of the GlassSteagall Act in 1999; blew itself up as a result of the repeal in 2008; was
propped back up with the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of the
world even though it was insolvent and didnt qualify for a bailout; has
now written its own legislation to de-regulate itself; got the President of
the United States to lobby for its passage; and received an up vote from
both houses of Congress in less than a week.
And there is one more thing you should know at the outset about
Citigroup: it didnt just have a hand in bringing the country to its knees in
2008; it was a key participant in the 1929 collapse under the moniker

National City Bank. Both the U.S. Senates investigation of the collapse
of the financial system in 1929 and the Financial Crisis Inquiry
Commission (FCIC) that investigated the 2008 collapse cited this bank as
a key culprit.
The FCIC wrote:
we do not accept the view that regulators lacked the power to protect
the financial system. They had ample power in many arenas and they
chose not to use it. To give just three examples: the Securities and
Exchange Commission could have required more capital and halted risky
practices at the big investment banks. It did not. The Federal Reserve
Bank of New York and other regulators could have clamped down on
Citigroups excesses in the run-up to the crisis. They did not. Policy
makers and regulators could have stopped the runaway mortgage
securitization train. They did notToo often, they lacked the political
will in a political and ideological environment that constrained it as
well as the fortitude to critically challenge the institutions and the entire
system they were entrusted to oversee.
The words above from the FCIC also perfectly describe what just
happened in Congress and the Oval Office. Citigroup snuck its
deregulation legislation into the $1.1 trillion Cromnibus spending bill that
will keep the government running through next September. (Its called
Cromnibus because its part Continuing Resolution or CR and part
omnibus spending bill.) Just as the FCIC wrote about the reasons for the
financial collapse, Citigroup was able to pass this outrageous
deregulation legislation because the majority of Congress and the
President lacked the political will and the fortitude to critically
challenge the institutions and the entire system they were entrusted to
oversee.
What Citigroup has now done with the willing participation of Congress
and the President is to set the country up for the next financial collapse in
which it appears destined to play another starring role, seeing that the Fed
gave it a failing grade on its stress test this year. The legislation that was
just passed by Congress allows Citigroup and other Wall Street banks to
keep their riskiest assets interest rate swaps and other derivatives in
the banking unit that is backstopped with FDIC deposit insurance, which
is, in turn, backstopped by the U.S. taxpayer, thus ensuring another
bailout of Citigroup if it blows itself up once again from soured
derivative bets.
According to Bloomberg data, over the past five years when DoddFrank financial reform was supposed to be making these mega banks
safer Citigroup has increased the notional amount of derivatives on its
books by 69 percent. As of this past June, according to Bloomberg,
Citigroup had $62 trillion of open contracts, up from $37 trillion in June

2009. Thats trillion with a t.

How much might Citigroup need from the taxpayer if it blows up again?
According to the General Accountability Office, Citigroup received more
bailout assistance than any other bank in the last collapse. On October 28,
2008, Citigroup received $25 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program
(TARP) funds. Less than a month later it was back with hat in hand and
received another $20 billion. But its finances were so shaky that it
simultaneously needed another $306 billion in government asset
guarantees. And on top of all that, the New York Fed was secretly
funneling it over $2 trillion in emergency loans at interest rates frequently
below 1 percent.
This is how we described Citigroups 2008 meltdown in an article on
November 24, 2008:
Citigroups five-day death spiral last week was surreal. I know 20something newlyweds who have better financial backup plans than this
global banking giant. On Monday came the Town Hall meeting with
employees to announce the sacking of 52,000 workers. (Arent Town
Hall meetings supposed to instill confidence?) On Tuesday came the
announcement of Citigroup losing 53 per cent of an internal hedge funds
money in a month and bringing $17 billion of assets that had been hiding
out in the Cayman Islands back onto its balance sheet. Wednesday
brought the cheery news that a law firm was alleging that Citigroup
peddled something called the MAT Five Fund as safe and secure only
to watch it lose 80 per cent of its value. On Thursday, Saudi Prince Walid
bin Talal, from that visionary country that wont let women drive cars,
stepped forward to reassure us that Citigroup is undervalued and he was
buying more shares. Not having any Princes of our own, we tend to
associate them with fairytales. The next day the stock dropped another 20
percent with 1.02 billion shares changing hands. It closed at $3.77.
Altogether, the stock lost 60 per cent last week and 87 percent this year.
The companys market value has now fallen from more than $250 billion
in 2006 to $20.5 billion on Friday, November 21, 2008. Thats $4.5
billion less than Citigroup owes taxpayers from the U.S. Treasurys
bailout program.
Not everyone has caved under political pressure from Wall Street. Senator
Elizabeth Warren delivered three impassioned speeches on the Senate
floor last week, culminating in a Friday speech that many are calling an
historic battle cry to a complacent nation. Warren explained how
Citigroup pulled off its coup, stating:
Mr. President, Im back on the floor to talk about a dangerous provision
that was slipped into a must-pass spending bill at the last minute to
benefit Wall Street. This provision would repeal a rule called, and Im
quoting the title of the rule, Prohibition Against Federal Government

Bailouts of Swaps Entities.

Mr. President, in recent years, many Wall Street institutions have exerted
extraordinary influence in Washingtons corridors of power, but Citigroup
has risen above the others. Its grip over economic policymaking in the
executive branch is unprecedented. Consider a few examples:
Three of the last four Treasury Secretaries under Democratic presidents
have had close Citigroup ties. The fourth was offered the CEO position at
Citigroup, but turned it down.
The Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve system is a Citigroup alum.
The Undersecretary for International Affairs at Treasury is a Citigroup
alum.
The U.S. Trade Representative and the person nominated to be his
deputy who is currently an assistant secretary at Treasury are
Citigroup alums.
A recent chairman of the National Economic Council at the White
House was a Citigroup alum.
Another recent Chairman of the Office of Management and Budget went
to Citigroup immediately after leaving the White House.
Another recent Chairman of the Office of Management and Budget is
also a Citi alum but Im double counting here because now hes the
Secretary of the Treasury.
Thats a lot of powerful people, all from one bank. But they arent
Citigroups only source of power. Over the years, the company has spent
millions of dollars on lobbying Congress and funding the political
campaigns of its friends in the House and the Senate.
Citigroup has also spent millions trying to influence the political process
in ways that are far more subtle and hidden from public view. Last
year, I wrote Citigroup and other big banks a letter asking them to
disclose the amount of shareholder money they have been diverting to
think tanks to influence public policy. Citigroups response to my letter?
Stonewalling. A year has gone by, and Citigroup didnt even
acknowledge receiving the letter
Anticipating public outrage and potential voter backlash in 2016,
incoming Majority Leader Mitch McConnell inserted another provision
into the Cromnibus that allows individuals to give almost 10 times as
much money to political party committees as allowed under current law
ensuring that only the super rich continue to run Washington.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont was outraged, issuing a press release
that stated: Instead of cracking down on Wall Street CEOs whose greed
and illegal behavior plunged the country into a terrible recession, this bill
allows too-big-to-fail banks to make the same risky bets on derivatives
that led to the largest taxpayer bailout in history and nearly destroyed the
economy. Instead of cutting back on the ability of billionaires to buy

elections, this bill outrageously gives the wealthy even more power over
the political process.
If all of this is not enough to propel Americans into the streets in mass
protests, perhaps the history of how the coddled Citigroup handles the
money of its investors and shareholders will stir the pot. Below is just a
sampling:
December 11, 2008: SEC forces Citigroup and UBS to buy back $30
billion in auction rate securities that were improperly sold to investors
through misleading information.
February 11, 2009: Citigroup agrees to settle lawsuit brought by
WorldCom investors for $2.65 billion.
July 29, 2010: SEC settles with Citigroup for $75 million over its
misleading statements to investors that it had reduced its exposure to
subprime mortgages to $13 billion when in fact the exposure was over
$50 billion.
October 19, 2011: SEC agrees to settle with Citigroup for $285 million
over claims it misled investors in a $1 billion financial product.
Citigroup had selected approximately half the assets and was betting they
would decline in value.
February 9, 2012: Citigroup agrees to pay $2.2 billion as its portion of
the nationwide settlement of bank foreclosure fraud.
August 29, 2012: Citigroup agrees to settle a class action lawsuit for
$590 million over claims it withheld from shareholders knowledge that it
had far greater exposure to subprime debt than it was reporting.
July 1, 2013: Citigroup agrees to pay Fannie Mae $968 million for
selling it toxic mortgage loans.
September 25, 2013: Citigroup agrees to pay Freddie Mac $395 million
to settle claims it sold it toxic mortgages.
December 4, 2013: Citigroup admits to participating in the Yen Libor
financial derivatives cartel to the European Commission and accepts a
fine of $95 million.
July 14, 2014: The U.S. Department of Justice announces a $7 billion
settlement with Citigroup for selling toxic mortgages to investors.
Attorney General Eric Holder called the banks conduct egregious,
adding, As a result of their assurances that toxic financial products were
sound, Citigroup was able to expand its market share and increase
profits.

What Did Draghi Know About

Potential Loss And Abuses At
Italy's Largest Bank?

by Zero Hedge November 19, 2016

Apparently lax and/or incompetent regulation of systemically

important banks by bureaucrats, central bankers, and
politicians may not be just a recent American phenomenon.
As we read this, it could imperil the soundness of the financial
system in Europe as well, as is still apparently the case with The
Banks in the states, despite assurances to the contrary.
Golem XIV asks some very good questions in the article below,
recently posted on his blog here.
Whistleblowers Testify in EU Parliament
Yesterday a very high-powered panel of international banking
whistleblowers met and told their stories in the European
parliament. The questions raised were important. Among them was
the Irish Whistleblower, Jonathan Sugarman, who when UniCredit
Ireland was breaking the law in very serious ways reported it to the Irish
regulator.
He related how he was not only ignored by his bank, the Irish
regulator but also all the major political parties. He then pointed
out that the Irish regulator claims that it always and it is the law after
all informs the regulator of the home country of banks which have
subsidiaries in Ireland, about any serious problems.
In the case of UniCredit that would mean the Italian Central bank would
have been told that Italys largest Bank was in serious breach of
Irish law in ways that could endanger the whole banking system.
The head of the Italian Central Bank at the time was a certain Mr
Mario Draghi.
Mr Sugarman suggested Mr Draghi should be asked point-blank of
he did or if he did not know.
If he did not then the Irish regulator was at least incompetent, and
may have lied, misled and perhaps even broken Irish laws.
If he was told and did know, then Mr Draghi has serious questions
to answer regarding his own dereliction of duty.
Surely not I hear you say. Well perhaps someone might ask him? Or is
he above the law?
http://www.guengl.eu/news/article/whistleblower-protection-what-mustbe-done

Related: Studies Show Fed Stress Tests Merely a Placebo

Whistleblower
protection: What
must be done?
Event date: 15 Nov 16

European Parliament, ASP 1G2 15

November 2016, 9.00 - 12.30
Prominent whistleblowers,
journalists and experts will
participate, sharing experiences,
recommendations and discussing
how whistleblowers could be
protected, analysing at the same
time all political and legal aspects
and how to take this issue forward
at a European level. Among
others, we expect representatives
of the International Consortium of

Investigative Journalists, the

Dutch House of Whistleblowers
and Transparency International.
We expect also to have Julian
Assanges intervention.

You are cordially invited to the conference

Whistleblower protection- What must be
done? organised by the United Left Group
and the Nordic Green Left of the European
Parliament (GUE/NGL), to be held on Tuesday
15 November 2016 at the European
Parliament in Brussels (room ASP1G2 - Altiero
Spinelli building) from 09.00 to 12.30.
The conference aims at investigating how
the European Union could legally protect
whistleblowers, as well as in exploring the
viewpoints of different political groups in the
European Parliament (S&D, Greens and
GUE/NGL) on this issue.
09.00 - 09.30: Welcoming, coffee/tea
09.30 - 09.40: Opening by MEP Stelios
Kouloglou, GUE/NGL, Vice-Chair of the
Development Committee, Greece

09.40 - 10.00 Proposals on protection of

Whistleblowers
MEP Dennis de Jong, GUE/NGL, Member of
the ITCO Intergroup and
the Working Group for Whistleblowers, The
Netherlands.
Mr Gerrit de Wit, Dutch House of
Whistleblowers
10.00 - 11.10: Whistleblowers experiences
and reactions
Chair: MEP Fabio de Masi,
GUE/NGL, Vice-Chair of the Panama Papers
Committee of Inquiry, Germany
Jose Maria Mollinedo, Secretary-general of
GESTHA (Trade Union of technics of the
Ministry of Finance)
Eric Ben Artzi , whistleblower Deutsche Bank
(skype intervention)
Raphal Halet, whistleblower LuxLeaks
Rudolph Elmer, whistleblower Julius Baer
Bank
Jonathan Sugarman, whistleblower on
Unicredit (Irl) and other mostly foreign banks
working out of Ireland
11.15 - 12.00: What must be done from a
political point of view?
Chair: MEP Stelios Kouloglou,
GUE/NGL, Vice-Chair of the Development
Committee, Greece Ireland
MEP Emmanuel Maurel, Socialists and
Democrats, Member of the Panama Inquiry

Committee, France
MEP Sven Giegold, Greens/EFA, Coordinator
of the Economic and Monetary Affairs
Committee, Germany
Carl Dolan, Director of Transparency
international
Carlos Enrique Bayo Falcon, former chief
editor of Pblico
12.00-12.20: Open Discussion
12.2012.30: Closing Remarks - Stelios
Kouloglou
http://www.guengl.eu/news/article/whistleblowerprotection-what-must-be-done

Gene Kerrigan: Time to

say thanks to the 'sinister
fringe'
We should recognise and applaud the
public service carried out by the water
charge protesters

Gene Kerrigan Twitter

PUBLISHED
04/12/2016

1
By Tom Halliday

In recent days, many from the political and

social gentry have been agonising about
Irish Water. We've heard what TDs and
ministers have to say. Academics and other
experts, lowly columnists and startlingly
well-paid broadcasters have all had their
turn.
/

Even the Taoiseach has had a little public moan about it,
while he was in the USA to assure Apple that we don't
want a single cent of that 13bn it owes us.
Busiest of all have been the Fine Gael TDs, leaking gossip
about internal party rows resulting from their desire for
fairness.

Irish People Are Going To Pay For

The Next 40 Years

Bodger at 11:59 am December 5, 2016

Staying in tonight?
TV3s Tonight with Vincent Browne will
broadcast an interview Mr Browne has carried
out with Jonathan Sugarman at 11pm.
Mr Sugarman is a former executive at Unicredit
Bank Ireland in Dublins IFSC who resigned in
September 2007 after giving a detailed account
of enormous liquidity breaches at his bank a
year before the financial crash

Whistleblowers - Jonathan Sugarman 15

11 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuAQO-jkjwM

Everyone should watch this video. Government should be

ousted immediately and the fuckers this gentleman names
should be held accountable. Fuckers in European Union just as
corrupt. The people of Ireland should take a long hard look at
themselves for voting these fucking parasites into government
Oh Lord it's even worse than I thought. ..Time for Mick Wallace
to investigate he has a nose for these matters also able to see
bigger picture..
old corruption..new corruption
Regulations me bollix...
where can we get booklet?
Thank you for posting this.
This is shocking ... mind you i know I shouldnt be. They're
( Irish / German Government, Irish banks and European central
bank. unbelievable. exposes the irish Government and Most of
all Irish and European banks to a most corrupt practice. He
names many of the current and past government TD's ...
sickening. Why was this not exposed on RTE - TV3
unfuckingbelievable

AIR TO BREATHE AND SOVEREIGN MONEY TO USE

ARE THERE IN ABUNDANCE OF - OR?

If a future economically and socially sustainable Sweden here . The

concluding sentences of the article is: "In the long term must also
be revised banking system. The Riksbank may return to the task
alone pushing the country's money, while commercial banks will
return to manage the transactional economy. "= Commercial banks
lend what they have as deposits and equity - but not more than
that.
The current good economics as devastating system (included in
deal about it a little bit down in the following text) with Fractional
Reserve Lending relegated to where it belongs = dump.

If a future economically and socially sustainable Sweden

here . The concluding sentences of the article is: "In the
long term must also be revised banking system. The
Riksbank may return to the task alone pushing the
country's money, while commercial banks will return to
manage the transactional economy. "= Commercial banks
lend what they have as deposits and equity - but not more
than that.
The current good economics as devastating system
(included in deal about it a little bit down in the following
text) with Fractional Reserve Lending relegated to where it
belongs = dump.
For translation of this to English - "click" here .
If the content of the blog in this register .

Clearly Sweden is "broken" in many ways. The trasigare it

gets, the more eagerly become rulers to "fix". And the
more they fix the more it will tear . As normal intelligence
think perhaps they should see a pattern.
- End quote from here .
The global banking elite has taken the world hostage and
made each of us into their slaves.
We are stuck in a silent and implacable war against the

common man . An economic slavery so skillfully woven

around us that most of us are not even aware of it.
All our natural resources are extracted and traded by
multinationals - that have more rights than humans. We
have simply become slaves to these companies. Our
country and our planet raped and destroyed in the name
of money, greed and political control.
- End quote from here . Worth considering - or?

It is not possible to solve problems with the same thinking

that created the problems. It is impossible.
So you have to think differently - if problems in Sweden
and the world not to remain "eternal" - or?
About how to little by little decriminalize finanssytemet in
Sweden and the world in the following;
Speaking of Donald Trump's vault settings (video with
victory speech - and how he deceived the shirt of the
whole of the Western establishment here ) - Remember
that no one is there hen is by coincidence - for nothing in
the cosmic plan happens by chance - or?

I am among those who do not feel any great concern for

the presidential Trump's regime, rather, I have a number
of good hopes for a more peaceful world with fewer wars.
It has in fact throughout the postwar period has been one
of the oligarchs ruled the US that started almost all the
wars and major conflicts.
- End quote from Lars Berns blog post: "Trump ripped off
the shirt of the whole of the Western establishment" .

Donald Trump thinks differently about the climate issue ,

and not least of economics - and that will among other
things involve several million new jobs in the United
States. Is there any US president since John F. Kennedy's
time - who have thought differently about economics ?
Thinking and actions by the idea that there is a lack of
money is the root cause of all misery misery in the world and not least in Sweden - but is 100% lies and damned
poem. The lie should immediately relegated to where it
belongs = dump. About how it little by little can be done in
Sweden in the following.

Speaking of political leadership - so is it that money =

power - and that power is the overriding part of the date
of the financial sector. As virtually all politicians "dancing"
for how the financial sector acting.
But as long as there is life in us by ordinary people =
significantly more than 90% of citizens in Sweden and the
world - so there is hope of a different order - or?
The first goal is to free humanity from the current
economic oppression by the banks, by canceling all nonbusiness loans (Swedes are one of the most bank debtburdened nations in the world), and by giving
governments the right to create money. Governments thus
have the means and resources required to finance their
own activities without taxes.
It will be able to give everyone the opportunity to work for
the collective benefit of humanity and the planet - as an
alternative to the financial sector's profit motive. An
honest government work in the interests of citizens - then
people is the first step to allow to reach their potential as
intelligent and empathic beings .
What awaits Wi on?

Those who are in debt are not free - and it applies to

individuals and not least nations - or?
Banks power creates great crises : "The banks have, of
course, interest to give as much credit as possible. They
make money on the interest. But the expansionary
monetary amounts regularly leads to bubbles, which in
turn creates considerable damage to the real economy.
Central Bank / The Riksbank has no control over the
money supply. "// Yoshi Frey .
ON THE ECONOMICS-destructive banking system can turn
RIGHT
The following still applies - or?

Said by Bill Still :

The question that will provide qualified parliamentary
majority to the party that makes it to his for all time.
There are only two answers - two ways to solve this. It is
not gold - it's not silver. It's not about tying the currency to
some kind of underlying value. It involves two steps:
A: Prohibit governments to borrow money. As long as
governments borrow from banks, they sit in bankers'
pockets. The situation is the very definition of "plutkrati" rich man's dominion . None of the laws passed by
Parliament are worth anything - as long as the state is in
debt to the banking system. As the US Secretary of State
William Jennings Brown said back in 1896: "A reform
without reform of the monetary system is no reform."
The second thing we must do is to eliminate the ability of
banks to practically counterfeit money - and this problem
is the same all over the world - where all money is created

by private banks as debt on which interest is charged. In

the past, governments created money themselves - which
were all credited. This is what we must return to.
A: Prohibit governments to borrow money and instead give
them out themselves.
Two: Outlaw banks Fractional Reserve Lending ie force
them to always have 100% coverage for all loans.
Everything else is practically counterfeiting.
Let your elected officials know ...
It is time restore power to create money to the country's
people and its decision-making bodies.
Banks in Sweden engaged in the day to counterfeiting .
- End quote of the translation text on the video above.
I "harrowed" online since 2007 - and I have never
encountered someone or something that has brought the
evidence that the problem description and solution are
more than correct. Have you ?
M ao so requisitions Reichstag interest and repayment
freed money from the National Bank - to cover its budget
deficit with - because of the necessary investment in
infrastructure, social welfare and so on - instead of as now
raise taxes and borrow from bankers.
There is no risk of unwanted inflation and eroded the value
of money in this - as long as unemployment does not go
below three per cent. The Swedish unemployment rate is
currently about 6.5% + one or another hidden percent.
So what are they waiting by the people elected MPs on?
On the topic of how the current economic thinking and
behavior works = not working in date 1 hours and 19
minutes in this video

by Michael Tellinger - and how it can change to a

potentially possible and sustainable for the future and
exciting scenario for all.
Abundance of money but in the wrong hands
The Act (1988: 1385), the Sveriges Riksbank, as amended
January 1, 2015, Chapter 8, Section 1 :
"The National Bank may not extend credit to or purchase
debt instruments directly from the state, other public body
or institution of the European Union"
= There is no obstacle in the Riksbank Act, the Riksbank to
the requisition from the Reichstag build new money to the
state = citizens - the budget deficit due to the necessary
investment in infrastructure, social welfare and so on. This
alternative to the "eternal" tax = approx 45 billion in the
budget for the year 2016 .
ONLY Riksbank can build new SOVEREIGN MONEY = TRUE
CROWNS - OR?
Actually it is not a technical detail that all accounts must
be on the Riksbank to contain crowns. It is a central point
to stop at the bank fraud to "lend" their own debts to the
accounts.
- End quote from here .
Makes sense that it is what it is or completely insane?
The root cause of the refugee crisis and terrorism is above
all the war - and war can be stopped (it is no April Fool's
joke).

ALL ONGOING WAR IN THE WORLD CAN BE STOPPED FOR

GOOD IN MAXIMUM THREE MONTHS
The global oligarchs = the 13 finance families and their
accomplices - which controls = = vanstyr world economic
policy - since more than 100 years - has been at the top of
their agenda to endlessly peddle that there is lack of
money. There are those of course done well - because the
lack of money - (link to the painting Grindslanten by
August Malmstrm 1885 - which in a nutshell shows how
adults felfostrar children to the death devotedly fight for
money) - can probably be said to be the overriding and
global "religion" in the world to date. Both at the individual
level as at the national level and so on.
But all the principles are the exception - and the exception
to the lack of money is the money for the war. Historically,
there has never been any trouble with it - and even less is
it so in the present.
Why?
Well ... - follow the money trails hen hen they discover
that it is the same oligarchs who directly or indirectly
sponsoring the war - which manufactures arms and
ammunition to both sides in all wars - and earn Multum
with money on it.
All ongoing war would end within a maximum of three
months - if the oligarchs are not kept them going. For
example, the wars in the Middle East - which has
continuously been going on since the 1940s.
Will there be in the foreseeable future?
I'm half way 150 years life experiences - and comes with a
madman's insistence that as long as I breathe that
continues to peddle the lack of money is a pure bluff - that
should be relegated to where it belongs = dump. I have,
among other things, this blog post if I have namnat: "AIR

TO BREATHE AND SOVEREIGN MONEY TO USE ARE THERE

IN ABUNDANCE OF - OR?"
Sovereign Money = digital "printing press money" in the
appropriate amount - the Reichstag requisitions from the
Riksbank to their budget deficits - when there is a deficit in
the national budget - because of the necessary investment
in infrastructure, social welfare and so on. This alternative
to the "eternal" tax and fee increases .
There is no risk of unwanted inflation and eroded the value
of money in this - as long as unemployment does not go
below three per cent. The Swedish unemployment rate is
currently about 6.5% + one or another hidden percent.
Lack of money -tnket is simply the root cause of all the
world's misery misery - as I perceive it.
You can not solve a problem with the same thinking that
created the problem. It is impossible.
So time soon to let go of the worldwide "religion" lack of
money - or?
Where is the global oligarchs / Illuminati?
Everywhere! Their tentacles extend to all aspects of our
daily life. They control the banking system , media, news
agencies, the pharmaceutical industry, oil industry,
governments, stock market, mostly in the judiciary,
security services, armed forces and arms industry. They
affect science, textbooks, university, journalism and
Hollywood.
Inventor who invents something within , for example, free
energy or anything else that could be a threat to the
establishment bought out, threatened, or are murdered.
They are the owners of the largest mines, casinos and by
the CIA controls the whole drug scene, sex slavery, etc.,

etc.
- End quote from here .
Sense or completely mad?
But as long as there is life in us by ordinary people =
significantly more than 90% of the citizens of the countries
of the world - so there is hope of a different order - or?
Let's fast forward to the time of the French Revolution.
Around this time supported various groups of dark secret
organizations and the Anunnaki began to use the name
Illuminati - the illuminated. They are, however, not the
light, but quite dark. Today, the Illuminati of about 13
leading families, and this included the Rothschilds,
Rockefellers, and a number of European dark noble
families.
...
Since this period of history is dark, especially the
Illuminati, has dominated our world and since 1913, they
have used the US central bank as an important instrument
for this. The 13 Illuminati families owns the Federal
Reserve Bank. The dark has had a very evil agenda with
depopulation on Earth through a series of disasters, while
at the same time built underground bases where they
would retire and survive these disasters.
...
Although the Anunnaki dark minions, the Illuminati, and
others, have tried to both depopulate the earth and to
establish slave-like control of the remaining population,
they have not been successful. Their luck has turned.
...
The Galactic Federation of Light will soon be formally
introduced to the people on Earth by some light-oriented
major governments. This is where we currently stand in
the spring of 2015. When the Galactic Federation will also
launched our Ascended Masters back. This will include
Sananda, St. Germain, Buddha, Muhammad, Hilarion,
Mitreya and many more. We will also be introduced to our
cousins in the Inner Earth (Agartha) .

...
This will result in the cancellation of debt for individuals
and governments, as well as the establishment of a just
and humane society. Abundance for all will be created .
The dark leaders will be set aside and face a legal process,
but will have the chance to be reformed when the light is
always forgiving.
- End quote from a bit down in the text here .
Tale or truth?
The global oligarchs = the 13 Finance families - which
control = = vanstyr world economic policy for more than
100 years - imagine that they are wealthy - but that is a lie
and cursed poem. The hen unjustly Lace up ( people
legally speaking ) from someone or other's simply only
debts - no more and no less than that.
So the truth is that the global, end the oligarchs is the
"richest" of all people in the world - on debts to us by
ordinary people = significantly more than 90% of the
citizens of the countries of the world. Thats it - or?
A thought-provoking vision of the future? Let's make
everything for FREE! On the same theme one hour and 19
minutes in this video with Michael Tellinger .
Yes, it is both so simple and so difficult!
"The Death of Democracy" a public talk on the TTIP .
"What is TTIP and why Should we be angry about it?"
"Who are those responsible?"
"Do you think Wi have democracy in Sweden" - or?

"Why do our political leaders fail" .

"On why voters are angry" .
"Can you see that monetary system is a way to enslave
the people" - or?
"The richest percent own soon half the world's wealth"
Makes sense or completely insane - or?
"Are the banks to repay the billions they borrowed from
taxpayers in previous banking crises?"
YOU ARE WELCOME VISITORS BEST - "RESPECT LIFE"
The link goes to radio with me in 1994 - on the theme that
it is the abundance of everything for everyone on Earth
Terra's outer surface . If Wi of ordinary people =
significantly more than 90% of the citizens of all countries
- not see through the current global hoax = "religion" lack
of money - which is the overriding basic cause of all the
world's misery misery - then Wi never be able eliminate
oligarkernes handlebar = mismanagement of the world.
Thats it - or?
Health Party has on its agenda to change the current
grievance.
Hand on heart: "Do you have confidence in the Swedish
banking system?"
Economics / Sovereign Money = digital "printing press
money" in the appropriate amount is the tool to achieve
policy - and policy must therefore not be limited by
budgetary constraints.
Finally! ! !

Published April 2, 2015 in Business Week:

A radical plan formulated on behalf of the Prime Minister
of Iceland suggests that the country's commercial banks
from the right to create money for loans. Instead , the
central bank , and ultimately Parliament, alone conduct
monetary creation.
- End quote from here .
Record-low unemployment after that Iceland let the banks
fall
Island today reported an unemployment rate of over 4
percent and some analysts believe that the target of 2 per
cent is fully realistic.
This is in stark contrast to the rest of Europe where the
average unemployment rate is around 12 percent, and in
some countries (such as Spain and Greece) where more
than 25 percent of the population unemployed.
- Banks' liabilities are not public debt and never will be,
says Iceland's current Prime Minister Sigmundur D.
Gunnlaugsson to FP. And although the situation is better
here than in many other European countries is an
unemployment rate of over 4 percent something we do
not want.
When the Icelandic government refused to save the banks
and their customers got themselves take the hit of his
unsuccessful speculation - at almost 85 billion dollars.
That the Icelandic government did not use the Treasury (in
an economy with a GDP of only $ 14 billion) gave them the
opportunity to instead spend the bulk of their assets in a
broad program of support hen call "Welfare".

It is aimed in particular at helping individuals in trouble

when bank loans on the houses exceeded the crashed
husvrderingarna. The state spends annually 43 per cent
of "Welfare", a figure which, although it remained fairly
constant since before the crisis.
In addition to existing measures imposed Island recently a
further package of measures: around 7 percent of GDP will
now be allocated specifically to provide households easing
of their mortgages.
- End quote from here .
It will most likely continue to go well for Iceland - because
when Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933 - so the Dmark, the worst undervalued currency in Europe + to
Germany then had a sky-high unemployment and inflation.
Approximately 40% of the working population was
unemployed - if I'm right for me.
Later, the economy was driven by an extensive
refurbishment program, which is partly financed by
printing money. Inflation was however down by a fierce
state control of the economy and workers.
- End quote from Wikipedia under the headline: "Nazi
Germany's economy" .
M ao it was printing money, combined with the support of
big capital in Germany, England and the United States - as
did Hitler in about three years transformed an acute crisis
in Germany - a nation where everyone had work, inflation
was low - and the German D badges in three years was
the strongest currency in Europe - and remained so to the
end of the war.
But after the war ended in 1945 took the global oligarchs
= the 13 finance families of fully again - with, among
others Marshall Aid as a pretext = sedelpresseriet for

necessary infrastructure investments, social welfare, etc.

were stopped altogether - and that's the way it still is.
So, among other things, Hitler brought the proof that it is
entitled to use the opportunity for the government to
requisition the Sovereign Money = digital "printing press
money" in the appropriate amount from the Riksbank to
their budget deficits - when there is a deficit in the
national budget - because of the necessary investment in
infrastructure, social welfare and so on - without unwanted
inflation and eroded the value of money arises - if
unemployment is not below three per cent. The Swedish
unemployment rate is currently about 6.5% + one or
another hidden percent.
What could be easier than that, for any country, to orderly
fix low unemployment and balance the state budget?
Can a nation in general have a good national economy - if
first of all, not the majority of citizens it?
In other words expressed:
The central bank (= the Riksbank in Sweden) produces
any new money in a sovereign monetary system. But only
so much that inflation is kept stable. That is as much as
the economy grows. Most digital money circulates
endlessly indestructible symbol of a value and need not
newly produced. If the economy shrinks, the central bank
withdraw money.
- End quote from here .
A telling picture of how the banks which will work here

- And ditto for the state budget deficit through the

Riksbank regulated here

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?
fbid=10152576034832093&set=p.10152576034832093&t
ype=1&theater
Will Sweden country number two does the same as the
Island - or?
Woes eg Sweden after hanging up with the Reichstag not
exercised their constitutional right to requisition the
Sovereign Money = digital "printing press money" in the
appropriate amount from the Riksbank to its budget deficit
- because the necessary investment in infrastructure,
social welfare and so on.
Economics / Sovereign Money = digital "printing press
money" in the appropriate amount is the tool to achieve
policy - and policy must therefore not be limited by
budgetary constraints.
Politicians without Sovereign Money = digital "printing
press money" in the appropriate amount - simply has no
other "power" - than raising taxes, failing to make the
necessary infrastructure investments, sell off state =
public assets, borrow money at high interest rates with
repayment obligation, and not least to reduce the social
welfare and so on. This has now been irrefutably in
Sweden, in a terrifying society razing momentum since the
early 1990s. A graph crystal clear that the evidence is
here
http://212.247.9.120/loblog/?p=4610
This is because the real power - is the date of the 'market
in the form of commercial banks. Banks account for the
overriding most of the new production of money. So the
monetary power is not at all in the parliament - regardless
of the "mess" that holds the "joystick". It can be anyone including the math-savvy kids - work out with the bat.

The government has collectively come up with proposals

that means higher taxes of about 45 billion - which is
expected to feed through to 2016 - and not least the
continued erosion of social welfare. Makes sense or
completely insane in one of the world's richest countries?
The effect of this is, among other things that the citizens
of Sweden is unquestionably one of the most bank debtburdened nations in the world to date, + that the Swedish
government debt - about 140 000 per capita - is high .
Makes sense or completely insane in one of the world's
richest countries?
Recession = high unemployment - is simply that it flows
too little virgin money (money created by the commercial
banks out of the blue when lending = Fractional Reserve
Lending ) by our hands of ordinary people = significantly
more than 90% of the citizens. Far too much of this money
is put the financial sector seized. Thats it!
In the following bit of history - and above all how to NOW
afraid Sweden economically, socially, etc. with Sovereign
Money = newly electronic money = digital "printing press
money" in the appropriate amount - as requested by
Parliament from the Riksbank to the state - to cover the
budget deficit by - because of the necessary investment in
infrastructure, social welfare, etc. = new digital money
that is not connected with the requirement for payment or
reimbursement to the Riksbank.
An appealing image (click the image to get a larger view)
how it practically looks like this
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?
fbid=10152576034832093&set=p.10152576034832093&t
ype=3&theater
Banks create money out of air

Our four major banks engaged in a systematic fraud which

they deceive customers that they actually have money to
lend. Nothing could be more wrong. Banks have nothing,
no notes in the bank vault no silver or gold for that matter.
Everything is based on a huge scam that is so clever and
thought that few people see through the scam.
- End quote from Gefle Dagblad 2013 here .
Speaking of banks;
IF CURRENT BANKING SYSTEM IN SWEDEN since the 1970s
Imagine that you are paying for 100 kg of potatoes - but
the 100-kilogram bag is just less five kg = a good deal for
the seller (read banks) and a lousy deal for the buyer
(read the borrower). Would you protest?
Wi of ordinary people = significantly more than 90% of
citizens have been duped into believing that banks only
lend what they have as deposits and equity. But that is a
lie and cursed poem - because Fractional Reserve Lending
- which was approved by parliament in Sweden in the
1970s - gives banks the opportunity to lend "nothing" =
money newly produced as numbers on a screen at the
lending moment.
M ao as commercial banks lend out debt = money they do
not have as deposits and / or equity. Sense or completely
mad?
And not only that - but the banks also have a right to take
a high interest rate on these air money and full recovery
with real money = money after taxes will be over the
salary income. People Legally this is short, fraud and
swindling of the very worst kind. Not more and not less
than that. It is legal does not matter the less deceptive.
The result of this deception is that the citizens of Sweden
is one of the most bank debt-burdened nations in the

world. Those who are in debt are not free - and it applies
to both individuals and nations not least - or?
There are reasonably only one solution to this - and it is
that the state prohibits Fractional Reserve Lending - in
favor of the state itself takes over the necessary
construction of new money = Sovereign Money = digital
"printing press money" in the appropriate amount - the
Reichstag requisitions from the Riksbank to cover the
budget deficit with - because of the necessary investment
in infrastructure, social welfare and so on.
Is it?
Sure it does. Iceland has already "spoof" their old banking
system after the financial crisis in 2008 - and is about to
legislate that only the state to bear the construction of
new money .
A concrete example of how I have been hit by bank scam.
1989 I borrowed from Handelsbanken SEK 50 000 as a
inblanco loans - with an amortization of SEK 1 000 / year.
With interest and amortization as the Bank of me in 2016
received about 130 000 back - and the loan amount has
been reduced to 23 000 after 27 years. Once the loan
amount is zero SEK for 23 years - will Handelsbanken,
interest and amortization to have gotten back about 175
000 of the loan 50 000 SEK.
But that's only half the story - because at the moment so
lending Handelsbanken had only about 2 $ 500 as deposit
liabilities and shareholders' equity = 5% of the loan
amount. But thanks to the state-approved Fractional
Reserve Lending in the 1970s - as Handelsbanken was
able to fill out the loan to 47 500 SEK by "air money" =
money that was created at the time of the loan in 1989
from nowhere - by pushing a few buttons on the bank's
computer.

So the reality is that the bank only lent about 2 $ 500 of

deposits and equity - and going by me in the end to get
back some 175 000 of real money = money after taxes
will be over the salary income or otherwise.
175 000 2500 = 70 times more in refunds than what was
lent - the money that the bank had on deposit and equity
at the time of the loan. Tell a brilliant loan deal for
Handelsbanken and a rotten for me as borrowers - or?
How many more than I have gone on and goes daily on
commercial bank scam?
"Do you have confidence in the Swedish banking system?"

A Sweden with
growing inequality
and greed that
beacon

Monday, November 28, 2011

By Anders Larsson

Sometimes I get the feeling that politics is now the starting point for
those who govern Sweden really want to stimulate, not decrease,
inequality and increased inequality. One explanation could be an
ideological breakthrough ideas who see this as a way to "the best"
for everyone. Rifts assumed to pep people to progress. Those who
are after doing an "extra effort" and reach so the good life. Thus it
does not matter if the most wealthy get even more. It is perhaps
the thinking that makes the lack of willingness and ability to reverse
the trend.
The Lie We Live! (= One attraction, eight minutes short
and shocking video - with Swedish subtitles - about how
bad things are in the world to date. The same video with
French subtitles available here )
Therefore policy emphasizes.
Politics is like and it is only through politics that we can
reverse the trend away from increased inequality. Social
development should benefit the majority and not a
minority.
Directors survive forever but the workers need a policy that
want and have the power to change. In crises, it is the workers
who suffer most and therefore requires solidarity and we build
out jointly funded solutions instead of the path that we are now
rolling onto which increasingly will be paid from workers' own
pockets rather than through an extensive welfare system
financed taxes for viability. "We need to build a new and
more decent capitalism", writes Lfven and Hggstrm.
Marika Lindgren sbrink on the blog City have hard facts about
how greed and the growing gap looks like in Sweden in 2011.
During the bourgeois government of the period, the
poorest tenth of the population has become poorer 8.6
percent, equivalent to 567 per month. Meanwhile, the
richest decile increased its revenue by 13.2 percent
(excluding capital gains), or 4483 per month.
Possibly, but perhaps not likely, is an alarm clock on the
"Director language" may be better understood by the alliance
government and the business community than words that have

traditionally been filled by the concrete content of the labor

movement. "Solidarity", "justice" and "together" for example.
Maybe it will be in place information about Swedish companies
are now slipping down when countries are ranked industry
about how good they are on the social and environmental
responsibilities, what is known as Corporate Social
Responsibility, which may be one or the other think. Expressed
as the development counteracts good business might be an
alarm clock.
politics of fear
For over five years ago was Sigmar Gabriel a speech on
the failure of the German Social Democrats in elections in
2010. It is still one of the best speeches I read, and most
of it is also relevant to understanding today's social
democratic crisis (which never really gone over ).
But I remember that I was thinking of some lines. At one
point says, for example, Gabriel, almost in passing: "After
all, so many of us feel that life today is constantly
changing. There are only a few who think it is a smooth
development. Most people would prefer to have some kind
of solid ground. "
I had a hard time grasping that. I thought it was hard to
tell how true it was. Do people in general that life is
changing too fast? And are they against it?
Our time's credo is the willingness to change. Nostalgia is
something ugly. The future is always better. And speed is a
value in itself. My experience in politics is to fear to seem
backward-looking is very strong. But what if everyone
does not feel that way? Is there room in the publicity of
the story?
Anxiety and ps
People who measure things tell me that SD voters are
more concerned than others. It appears blue in the WHO's
measurements . As the table above, taken from the WHO,
showing that SD's voters are significantly more worried
about almost any personal factors that measure: Anxious

to get sick, to not get adequate pension, in order to

become victims of crime to miss money at the unexpected
expense. At several points, SD sympathizers also more
concerned about society in general, for example in terms
of crime, terrorism and deteriorating welfare.
Broad groups sympathize with SD today - it's not only
"losers". But some might be more afraid to fall than
others?
Already in 1986, wrote the sociologist Ulrich Beck his book
Risk Society. "The overall thesis of the book is that modern
society has gone from an industrial modernity where the
production of wealth was the overriding objective, a
reflexive risk modernity where the primary objective is to
manage risk and achieve security ", describes Wikipedia.
An important point is that today's dangers are created by
human, yet virtually unmanageable. Beck focused largely
on environmental risks, but there are many other
contemporary phenomena that fit into terrorism, social
unrest, financial instability. What Zygmunt Bauman mating
call "liquid fear" - something boundless, insidious, an everpresent threat. Not a hundred percent protection is
available.
So this was something that celebrity sociologists have
pointed out already 30 years ago. But, politically feels
their conclusions strange unmanaged. There is a vakkuum
here.
If we look again at the WHO's figures show, unsurprisingly,
that the SD: are considerably over-represented in terms of
concern for the number of refugees. It is a factor that can
never be removed from the analysis. But political attempts
at causal judgments are often so static. The SD
sympathizers are against immigration, says nothing about
why. "Immigration" may partly be the channeling another
concern, a concern which does not have an outlet
otherwise in today's political discourse.
When I discussed this with some familiar and said that I
thought it was difficult to judge how anxious people in

general, understood that I myself live a so sheltered life,

said a wise person about: but look at us. We are
privileged, but we are trusting? No. It was not one of us.
We were worried about the political developments, the
threat of climate change, the growing social unrest, etc.
It is of course not representative of much, but perhaps
says something about how the floating fear enters
everywhere. As a lack of confidence about the ability to
change in some. In others, as a search for alternative
political solutions where traditional not been found to
deliver. A new political landscape is in any case.
3 comments
Filed under Miscellaneous
DECEMBER 8, 2015 8:10
Amazing Grace - about tradition and authority
Last summer, Obama held a speech which rightly has
been called one of his best ever. It was at the memorial
service for Clementa Pinckney, pastor and state senator
who were killed in racially motivated mass shooting in
Pinckneys Church in Charleston.
It is, for many reasons, a wonderful speech. Radical and
personal. Learned and beautiful. Obama succeeds in
uniting several very difficult themes - America's racist
history, the need for social justice, the Church's place in
both American society as the African-American culture, the
importance of forgiveness. The wires are balanced and
intertwine so that they glow of concern and contemporary.
It is an extremely political speech, and existentially. At the
end begins suddenly Obama, to everyone's surprise,
singing Amazing Grace.
It is not a coincidence. A century of supporting themes of
grace (grace).
Of according to Christian tradition, grace is not earned.
Grace is not merited. It's not something we deserve.
Rather, grace is the free and benevolent favor of God, as
Manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of
blessings. Grace.

And a little later:

We do not earn grace. We're all sinners. We do not
deserve it. But God given it to us anyway.
I have thought about this speech now and then ever since
I first heard it, because the theme - even quite apart from
the Christian framing - feels so very strange in our time.
Nothing in the contemporary discourse about how grace or more secular sense of the word love, the raison d'tre,
value as a human being - is dedicated to all of us, whether
we deserve it or not. On the contrary, it's all about how we
will qualify us for the whole. It should not daltas with
people. Requirements should be, benefits shall be
conditional. It should be disputed, criticized and constantly
graded. A once called Robinson bullying television, today
the concept is to vote out their "Friends" standard. Etc.
Disciplines No is always directed downward.
Anyway - the grace, of course, what we all inwardly crave.
Just to be approved. Without having to perform.
The main character of the contemporary authoritarian
tendencies is SD's success. GAL / TAN is an untidy
acronym for a political dimension (as osnyggt) called
"green alternative, liberal" and "tradition, authority,
nationalism". Rather than the traditional rightvnsterskalan for economic values, it is the one that
defines the newer political landscape. All parties that have
emerged in recent decades placed more easily in the
GAL / TAN than the left-right scale that the older parties
defined. And of course SD dominates one end.
I personally find it hard to understand the desire for
tradition, authority, and nationalism, but I am convinced
that an effective strategy for limiting SD's future voting
rights must begin in just such an understanding. In many
ways it feels like a strange feature of the modern Swedish
history. It is not at all from there we will. But with a longer
perspective - perhaps it is rather the anti-authoritarian,
generous 1900s that is the historical parenthesis.

Possibly in accordance with GAL / TAN has been the

dominant political battle at the moment come to stand
between some kind of discipline right and an "all for all"
'Left. It is a fruitless conflict. I do not think one left that is
undemanding and do not understand the fundamental
physical limitations can win more than a small minority. It
is a profoundly inefficient strategy to counter authoritarian
tendencies. It convinces no outsider, but confirms only the
opponents dislike or fear. But it has proved difficult to
transfer the labor movement's traditional "do your duty,
demand your right" into a contemporary context. Most
attempts emphasizes either the requirements or the right
too much. This despite the fact that the compound really
is a labor movement of deep roots.
Another main theme in Obama's obituary is the
community, the hard-translatable term that stands both
for the society, communities and community. Obama
describes how Pinckney saw his mission as pastor and
elected as part of a whole - to work in the community. He
describes how the church in the African-American culture
has been both a religious gathering and a tool for social
and political change. He speaks incredibly beautiful about
"places where children are loved and fed and kept out of
harm's way, and Told That They are beautiful and smart and taught That They matter."
He simply tells participation. And perhaps it is precisely
involvement that is the connecting link of the labor
movement's formula "do your duty, demand your right."
Without participation, it is easy to turn into either one or
the other, easy to make demands on others, easy to
expect everything without their own effort.
But there is a force that is difficult to govern politically.
There is hardly anything that is discussed in greater today,
except (ironically) in a more political identity bottling, for
example in terms of various underprivileged groups in the
labor market. The use of the term, it is, however, to
reduce its real meaning.

And to talk with Obama: The grace we have all, even

though we do not deserve it. But the humanity Obama
discloses in its memory word is in no way undemanding. In
fact, the claims are immense. He expects us to achieve
social change. He expects us to change us when we were
wrong. He expects us to forgive.
Requirements can be formulated in various ways.
1 comment
Filed under Miscellaneous
DECEMBER 13, 2014 12:46
To accelerate away from reality
Politics these days is not easy to like, even for those who
basically think that politics is the finest available (second
family and cute animals). Playing hard to get is rarely a
wave of success in politics, but today's "hard to want"
style is even more hopeless. I am saddened by it, for most
of us can do better than this.
The other day I was on a work visit to an assisted living
group. There were communal corridors in a million
program area. Fluorescent lights and Christmas
decorations. Several of the units were in the top what was
patient satisfaction. A woman who worked there
mentioned that she was single and earned three children
on a underskterskeln. Shortly thereafter, we visited a
demented people. In the common room there was an
aquarium full of big, red fish. With some of the staff, we
had a long and quietly talks about death, memory and
how it is to work according to the residents' needs should
always be at the center.
I have been so difficult to get away from the feeling that it
is about the things the political debate should be about.
Like, how we think we should have it in old age? How
should the working conditions like for those who are
employed in the care of the elderly? What will the
consequences be for example the tax? Instead, I feel
ensnared in a debate that is all about tactics and
methane. Who is weak, who is strong, who is the
government capable and who was caught in an

unfavorable image. Who is best placed to point the finger

and who comes with the most scathing commentary.
Is it just a little bit interested in society, one knows that
there are enormous challenges. Large, difficult social
issues that no one really seems able to take in. For
example, the forecasts indicate that tens of thousands of
well-being of employees is calculated missing shortly, to
too few want to work in these professions. Which
presumably has to do with including wages, working
conditions and the minute search. It should concern us so
much deeper. The welfare takes care of the dearest we
have: our children, our parents, our close when they are
sick and weak.
In the budget that was voted down by the bourgeois
parties and the SD was among other things a billion bet on
more employees in elderly care, and increased
maintenance allowance for single people. I'm not saying
that it is a sufficient answer to anything, but it is certainly
a start. But so far, I have not once seen anyone ask the
question: what do the bourgeois? It is obvious that they
want to get back the government. But what do they do
with it? What are their projects?
2006 was a project. I liked it, of course not, but it should
not be denied that at the time, actually wanted to achieve
something. The ambitions slowed during the next term of
office, probably partly because the government was sitting
in the minority - and that it was becoming obvious that
most of the results they hoped to achieve were
conspicuous by their absence . The dramatic voice of the
drop between 2010 and 2014 shows that what was left of
the bourgeois project strongly condemned by the voters.
So far I have not noticed any more sincere selfexamination of the bourgeois parties because of this. It
amazes me a bit.
I hope anyway on a more clarification political discussion
until 22 March. It would be so nice if the public
conversation about politics someday could meet the socalled reality, rather than accelerate away from it. And

yes, I think it is particularly desirable for us who would like

to SD received fewer votes.
3 comments
Filed under Miscellaneous
JUNE 25, 2014 8:46
Simplified about surrogate motherhood
The issue of surrogate motherhood is by no means easy.
That's really the main reason why I will be provoked by the
Network Feminist no to surrogate motherhood nity article
in Aftonbladet. I provoked the slngiga tone,
overconfidence with which a number of commentators
otherwise I have respect for, dismisses an issue that
affects real people's lives and existence. There are
children in Sweden who were born through surrogacy. This
fact alone should make it impossible to talk about the
children who have come to this as a "being", which is
made in the article. I can not accept the view of human
beings.
I have deep respect for the objections one may have
against surrogacy. But the authors of the AB article
simplifies in a way that is not reasonable. They pretend to,
among other things, that from a feminist standpoint, of
course to land in that surrogacy is something
reprehensible. But it is not obvious. It is not a conclusion
that automatically follows from a feminist beliefs.
Furthermore, I do not think it keeps pretending that there
is no difference between altruistic and paid surrogacy,
which is made in the article. There is a world of difference.
The investigation is now working on the issue in Sweden
have to review whether the possibility of altruistic
surrogacy should be introduced. Money is not in the
picture.
It is not developed in the article, but what I know, there
are two ways to reason about man which equates a paid
with an altruistic surrogacy. The first is that it is difficult to
control it on paper altruistic option does not mean that the
money still be paid in secret. The second is that in all
societies, even wealthy as Sweden, there is unequal power
relations between people, which makes the issue of

voluntariness is more difficult than in theory. Both of these

arguments are important, and it is therefore eminently
reasonable that a government commission has been asked
to look at how confident you can be that discourage them
an altruistic surrogacy would be introduced. As to the
second objection, I have personally difficult to see that
there would be something specific to that surrogate
motherhood. This applies in that case all human
phenomena whatsoever. Drawn to its extreme would this
reasoning mean that no agreement between people at all
were concluded while not perfect equality reigns. It would
obviously be absurd. And one feels that it is okay that
people, despite social inequalities, for example, conclude
contracts, initiating friendships and have consensual sex
with each other, I have difficulty seeing how surrogacy
would be fundamentally different.
The passage that I have the most difficulty for the
Aftonbladet article is the final, which deals with children's
perspective. It holds a number of deeply problematic
formulations. Here it reads:
Another voice as well Jnsson [surrogacy advocate] that
many forget is the child. We believe that children have an
absolute and inviolable value. Therefore, children never be
reduced to being a means to satisfy adult desire, a product
around which agreement can be reached. There is no right
to have their own genetic children, much less be able to
buy them.
In the first sentence is meant therefore that the surrogate
advocates do not take into account the child's voice. I
think it is generally extremely difficult to talk about the
"best interests" in all matters relating to reproductive
technology. It requires requires a number of things about
what is good for children, which is not at all obvious. In
this case, it is understood that it could be problematic for
children to grow up with parents who brought them into
his own body. It is in many ways a dubious way of looking
at things, not least of all those who believe that fathers,
medfrldrar and adoptive parents play an important role
in their children's lives. Furthermore, it is an inescapable

fact that children conceived through various forms of

reproductive technology would not have existed if these
techniques had not been used. It is not in itself an
argument that all technologies should be allowed, but it
makes it difficult to tell what is "best" for the individual
children. There is no parallel reality where an existing child
born by a surrogate mother would rather have been born a
genetic parent.
In the third sentence says that children must never
become "a product around which agreement can be
reached". Does this mean that the authors are against all
adoptions, foster care arrangements, formal agreements
on custody following separation and all reproductive
technologies that require donated gametes? If so, I deeply
disagree with the authors. However, I suspect that they do
not mean this. But then they actually allowed to explain
how surrogacy distinguishes itself from all of the above
variants, or express themselves less sweeping.
Finally, it is said that there is a right to buy a child. Again,
taking into account the very real children who exists and
who have come to in this way, I do not understand how
one can choose to express themselves so. There are a
number of different reproductive technologies people
affected by infertility uses entailing a cost. These include
adoption and in vitro fertilization. It does not mean that
these people have bought a child. To have a child is an
impossibility. They have paid for a treatment or a
procedure that, at best, has given them a child.
Finally, to return to the difference between altruistic and
paid surrogacy: it is, as I said, a world of difference.
Personally, I believe that more areas of human activity
need to be covered by the market. There are many
aspects of human existence which in general should not
be subsumed in the logic of money. But I will not stand on
the view that the only way to carry someone else's child in
would be through work in an unequal power relationship. It
can also be something you do totally beyond the
normative image of the nuclear family. Something to do it
as an act of love for a loved one who would not otherwise

get a hotly-awaited children. Or something you choose to

do for a stranger to you do not mind being pregnant and
want to do something significant for a fellow human being.
I agree with the authors that the practice exists today,
that Swedes hiring surrogate mothers in poor countries
like India, is problematic, because inequality in the
relationship is so obvious. I think in itself is not that the
question is simple, either, but it's easier to see
complications compared with an altruistic surrogate
motherhood in Sweden.
Families can look so incredibly different. I find it odd that
influential sections of the feminist movement choose to
put so much emphasis on the biological aspect of family,
and thereto are talking about people as if they were
commodities. The aspect that makes the issue of
surrogate motherhood difficult is what it means for a
woman to bear a child and then relinquish it. There is no
obvious answer to it, but that's what the debate should be
about.

And so a small PS regarding this genetic children: apart

from all surrogate births are not genetically related to their
parents (at least not both parents), so I find it difficult for
the judgmental tone about the human yearning. Children
are never a right, it is quite obvious. However I do not
understand why to have an opinion about whether other
people want their offspring will be genetically related to
them or not. People yearn they yearn, there is nothing
more to it. Hopefully, most children, even those who come
to the traditional way, were born precisely because of their
parents' completely selfish longing. Who have children "for
the child's sake"? But above all: There is a common notion
that all those kids yearning people should adopt instead.
When you miss it becomes increasingly difficult to adopt
for all, and that some, such bgpar and single people of
both sexes, in practice, almost no opportunities to do so. It
is basically a positive development due to rising living
standards and fewer children are born "undesirable", as

well as demand from prospective adoptive parents is

increasing worldwide. So no, it's not just "adopting
instead".
9 comments
Filed under Sex
JUNE 16, 2014 8:46
Should we talk to each other?
It is somewhat strange that so much political energy
devoted to discussing who gets invited anywhere. Most
recently got a feminist conference Nordic Forum criticism
for the Norwegian Equality Solveig Horne was invited as a
speaker. Horne representing the Progress Party and has
previously made racist, homophobic and sexist
statements. Among other things, she said that women
bear a personal responsibility for the rape and that it is
mainly immigrant men who rape .
The controversy reflects a real conflict of objectives. What
platforms are primarily for internal discussion and which
are for external influences? Both are needed. Some rooms
will be your own, and there is definite need for separatist
communities. But should you change something you must
also speak with dissidents and people who are not already
convinced. Sometimes, these two need one another. And if
one is to interpret the public discussion feels like the latter
need more and more often remains in the background.
Nordic Forum is a follow up to the UN Conference on
Women in Beijing in 1995. NF's stated purpose according
to the website is to formulate concrete demands and
strategies to achieve an equal society. You want to identify
challenges and opportunities for the implementation of
the action plan adopted by the governments in Beijing in
1995, but which are clearly not been fully realized. To this
end, invited all the Nordic gender equality ministers in
order to receive the conference's final document, which
contains a number of political claims against
governments.
Against this background, it would have been deeply
ostrategiskt not to invite the Norwegian Gender Equality. It

would mean giving up on trying to increase gender

equality in Norway as long as there are problematic
batches of the Norwegian Government, or as long as the
holder of a specific post minister has said deeply
inappropriate things. Horne was not invited as FRP leader
or private person, but as its function as the ultimate
responsibility for equality policy in Norway.
A parallel is precisely the Beijing conference, where 189
countries were represented. Several of them have
certainly a more regressive policy of equality than Norway.
All is not even democracies. Does it mean that you should
not have tried to keep this conference and adopt a
supplement to the UN Women's Convention, the
conference resulted in? I do not think so.
In this particular context, I think you end up wrong if you
think that Horne should never have been invited. The goal
of the conference was social change, and should change,
one must speak with such governments or other people,
even if you do not like their political color.
Beyond this specific context, I think it's something
generally strange that so much in the public debate about
methane. There are of course many situations where it is
certainly inappropriate to invite some people. But I can not
help thinking that it is a loss to the discussion sometimes
takes over the discussion of the substantive issues. I think
we will further if we discuss the content of the various
feminist reforms, rather than to define which ones are
okay to invite a feminist conference.
9 comments
Filed under Sex
MAY 10, 2014 12:17
Provincial inequality
I read an article in Research and progress of inequality
developments in Sweden. It made me depressed.
Research and progress has interviewed virtually all leading
economists (and Tapio Salonen, who is a professor of
social work) that are up to inequality in Sweden. It is a

thorough article that in many ways presents developments

in a reasonable manner. It describes how inequality has
increased in Sweden since 1980, and that above all has
driven the development is to the top - the richest decile,
and, to an even greater extent, the wealthiest hundredth have benefited from. The poorest, by contrast, stood still
and stomped. Furthermore, it appears that although
inequality in Sweden is growing fastest in the OECD, as is
the internationally remains low.
All this is true. It makes me disheartened's article framing.
From the above empirical facts draw the interviewed
economists (and possibly also the author of the article),
namely a series of value-based conclusions that are not
supported in science. Furthermore, it appears that the
ongoing international economist discussion of inequality
has not had any impact on the Swedish researchers. What
is going on outside of Sweden is probably one of the
greatest revaluation of a politically charged issue that
economics seen. Of this marked naught in FoF article. It's
actually a little sad.
I will return to this, but first something about the valuesbased statements. The most obvious is that several of the
researchers want to downplay the increasing inequality
meaning: "The issue has been over dramatized in the
Swedish media in recent years," says Anders Bjrklund.
"There is no reason to jtteoro, I mean," said Daniel
Waldenstrom. It is of course the views you can have, but
that is not claims that are grounded in science.
The same mixture of ideology and science recurs several
times in the article. It is certainly true that the growing
inequality both in Sweden and internationally, largely
driven by a small group of the very richest. But to suggest
that other groups barely affected are not accurate.
Looking at decilernas income in Sweden since 1991, we
see that the richest tenth has gone from earning more
than three times as much as the poorest decile in 1991 to
five times today. The ninth decile has gone from earning
more than twice as much to earn more than three times
that of the bottom decile. The eighth decile has done

almost the same development, and so on.

To describe it as that it is only a small group of super-rich
of about 80 000 people pulled away from everyone else is
simply not true.
ON HOW THE MARKET SK = MONEY VANSTYR WORLD date
- and how it by return can be corrected!
"When a government is dependent upon bankers for
money, the bankers and not the leaders of the
government control the situation, since the hand that
gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no
motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without
decency . Their sole purpose is profit. "
- Said of Napoleon Bonaparte 1815th
You can not solve a problem with the same thinking that
created the problem . It is impossible.
MY DREAM
Jaana: OHT Should it be money? Maybe out there and
bikes here, but the question is whether it could work
without.
Joseph: Well ... - Jaana - with the help of digital technology,
it goes without perhaps, perhaps ... = example, a digital
account where the hen collect points for purchasing power
in terms of hours worked?
Jaana:'re still a form of money. How can hen thinking away
money, it might have been in some way anyway.
Joseph: Well ... - Jaana - but if "spending power" per hour
worked would be the same for example, a gardener, and
the prime minister - would in any case "revenue" to be
more evenly distributed across the population than it is

now.
Jaana: So there should be government ministers, and
politicians? Maybe you can go.
- End quote of a dialogue on Facebook here .
Plain language in the 1990s by Professor Gunnar Adler
Karlsson on the links between the financial sector, basic
income , unemployment, etc.

By the way - plainly 2012 by Sven Anr Palm

investigations.

According to Sven Anr it was then-police Anti Avsan who

held the murder weapon. He later became alderman and
judge of the District Court of Stockholm - and is now a
member of Parliament for the Conservatives.
Tale or truth?
More of such plain language by Ivan von Birchan - if eg the
Palme murder here - and on YouTube here .
From North Magazine Special 1992 - where Ivan von
Birchan says he's more than a month before the murder
knew that Olof Palme was the object of assassination
plans - and tried to get the security police to strengthen
surveillance of Olof Palme. Ivan von Birchan failed it demonstrably - and the night of the murder of Olof Palme
had no shelter of any bodyguards.

As a principle, there is no concern in Sweden or the world

at large - which basically is not created by the so-called

money market = - = non productive society debilitating
used by the big financial players .
M ao has financial and other policymakers - tricked us to
believe that there could be a shortage of Sovereign Money
= digital "printing press money" in the appropriate amount
in the state budget - the necessary investments in
infrastructure, social welfare and so on.
There is no risk of inflation and eroded the value of money
- in the state itself will construct new Sovereign Money =
digital "printing press money" in the appropriate amount
to the necessary investment in infrastructure, social
welfare and so on - as long as unemployment does not fall
below three percent. The Swedish unemployment rate is
currently about 6.5% + one or another hidden percent.
But everything that has a beginning has an end - and as
long as there is life in us by ordinary people = significantly
more than 90% of the citizens of all countries - so there is
hope - as I see it = There is always a different future in
sight! ! !
Among other things, because Wi of ordinary people are so
"infinitely" many more than the oligarchs are .
This I pointed out in an email to the Finance Minister
Magdalena Andersson June 15, 2015. It is published in a
comment below this . Then there was also e-mail to
members of the Riksdag 1 October 2015 and 15 February
2016. They are published here .
Rethinking global and ECONOMICS
For some Sovereign Money = digital "printing press
money" in the appropriate amount in circulation in society
= high unemployment (more than 3 per cent) = Recession
= totally unnecessary waste of social resources. Swedish

open unemployment is currently around 6.5% + one or

two per cent hidden.
Of State itself produced interest and repayment liberated
looking Money = binary "printing press money" in the
appropriate amount in sammhllsmaskineriet can be seen
that the oil in an engine. Too much oil and engine choke (=
super inflation and eroded the currency value). Too little oil
in the engine and the cutter (= high unemployment which is basically all countries in the world are suffering
from the date). Occasionally the oil in the engine and it
works like a charm (= low or no inflation at all, stable
currency value and automatically a natural unemployment
rate of about 3 percent).
The fastest and most effective way for governments to
increase the amount Sovereign Money = digital "printing
press money" in the appropriate amount in circulation =
lower unemployment in the community - is to raise
payments to pensioners, insured, unemployed and welfare
recipients.
Most of them live more than 20 years in Sweden over a
reasonable economic survival level - and therefore will
almost immediately spend capital improvements.
Three-percent increase in payments to pensioners,
insured, unemployed and welfare recipients can be
estimated to produce about one percent lower
unemployment within a year. Interest-free Sovereign
Money = digital "printing press money" in the appropriate
amount of finance that is produced by the Riksbank on
behalf of the Reichstag = interest-free Sovereign Money =
digital "printing press money" in the appropriate amount
that never needs to be repaid.
Crystal clear illustrated with appealing images here and
here .

There is NO risk of increased inflation or currency eroded

the value of this (clarification blnkare about it here and
here ) - so long as the State in question does not allow
unemployment to go for about three percent. The open
and hidden unemployment in Sweden is the date
approximately three times larger . Makes sense
economically or insanity?
The spirit of the Swedish constitution is that it is only the
state itself entitled to through the Riksbank requisition
Sovereign Money = digital "printing press money" in the
appropriate amount . However ... - thanks to the stateapproved Fractional Reserve Lending System in the 1970s
- it is the date rather than commercial banks, which are in
principle for all production of new money = State has in
principle no direct influence over how much money is
newly produced - or what they are used.
The banking system was further developed at the time of
the global banking league to his own advantage - of the
13 bankers families that have governed = vanstyrt world
since the 1800s. The leader of the gang's banker
Rothschild family .
The overriding majority of the production of new money
going in date to the giant and unproductive = community
debilitating economic pyramid financial sector - rather
than for investment in infrastructure, manufacturing
companies, housing, economic and social welfare for all ,
etc. Thanks to the web, you know many of date that it is
so.
In Sweden, Wi currently the reverse deflation and high
unemployment. For example, Russia has currently high
inflation and high unemployment. It is exactly the same
sick = the non-productive financial sector = socioconsuming sector has been "stolen" money - and there are
simply not sufficiently money over to us by ordinary
people = significantly more than 90% of the citizens.

Are there at all any easier, safer and faster way for states
to correct it - but to increase payments to seniors, health
insurance, unemployment and social Contri- tagare
- End quote from here .
About this, I sent August 30, 2014 an email to Stefan
Lfven. The email is published here . What then happened
is that the ceiling for unemployment insurance was raised
in September 2015 from 18 700 to the 25 025 crowns .
Pensions are increased from 1 January 2016 by
approximately 3.5% = approximately $ 500 / month for
me after tax. The first increase since I became senior
people in 2006.
Now it only remains to see if this year's pension increase
will persist - or to reductions in future will zero out the
year's increase.
It should not at least be interesting to see - if the
unemployment rate in the latter part of 2016 drops by one
or two percent - despite immigration during 2015-16 will
land at more than 200 000. In this case, I see it as my idea
- to increase consumer spending for the needy - lowers
unemployment. I keep my fingers crossed that this is so.
High unemployment - currently about 6.5% unemployed +
one or two per cent of hidden unemployment - is of course
a gigantic waste of a nation's resources = people who are
willing and able to work - but who can not find a job because there are no jobs to search.
TRUE TRUTHS ABOUT Wara OPPORTUNITIES date! ? !
It's time now. That we as a society and world abandons
the economic system we have created. The economic
system restricts our development and holds us back. The
resources are not there needs (people) are not where the
money is. Which not only inhumane without directly

stupid.
We, as humanity all the knowledge we need. Technology
has freed us. We have access to free energy if we want to.
There are countless services that are digitized and not
have to cost anything.
It's time that we let the idea that everything needs to be
sold and that we need money to survive . The limited
thought form keeps us in an antiquated paradigm - that
we would have left long ago, and it keeps people left in a
completely unnecessary suffering.
- End quote by Sanna Nova Emilia on Facebook here .
Speaking: "The limited thought form keeps us in an
antiquated paradigm - that we would have left long ago,
and it keeps people left in a completely unnecessary
suffering." - It is a fact that can not change anything with
the same thinking that created the problem. It is
impossible.
So therefore it is important to relegate the fear of thinking
again to where it belongs = dump. The Swedish subtitled
about 6 minutes short video: "Let's make everything for
FREE! An introduction to The Free World Charter. " - Can be
a good inspiration for daring to think again - as I see it and is well worth pondering more than once.
Those that successfully, one and all forgotten, blaming
immigration as the cause of the economic crisis in Sweden
- has been mostly wrong - because:
"... However, I am sure of one thing: It is not the fault of
immigration to the bull smelling people's home - as we
remember it - changed. It was not the Kurds who moved
industries to low-wage countries, it was not the
Palestinians who closed postal and bank offices and
moved government jobs to the cities, it was not the
Somalis who built volume retail areas emptied the city

centers, sold out pharmacies and privatized break the

country's railway maintenance.
It was not the Syrians who conducted the deterioration in
the health insurance system. And it was not actually
unaccompanied minors from Afghanistan that laid down
village schools and lowered the unemployment insurance.
Autumn 2016: Current of the documentary series "The rest
of Sweden 'on SVT
The documentary series tells Po Tidholm of a countryside
in change and meet the people who insist to stay there,
for good and for evil.
Premiere on SVT 1 September 27 at 21:00.
lectures
Contact publisher Anders Teglund to book Po Tidholm
lecturer:
anders@tegpublishing.se
Po Tidholm can provide the intelligence needed to
understand where the country is heading and what forces
in motion when large groups end up in the city's shadow.
Sweden can no longer be considered or treated as a unit
and it is important to see how the new landscape looks
like. Tidholm is inspiring and entertaining, despite the
reality of the descriptions darkness.
He says that it is, even if the truth is painful. Ever since
Sweden began to measure internal migration flows, cities
have grown and rural lost people, only to slowly slip into a
sad state of stagnation. The reasons are more complex
than one might think, and have shifted over time, but to
understand them is essential for anyone who wants to
maintain the democratic discourse, make investments or
reach people with the cultural expressions of all kinds.
Biography
Po Tidholm born in 1971 and grew up on a smallholding
outside Arbr in Hlsingland. He lived during the 1990s in

Stockholm, but since 2000, it moved to Hlsingland. He

began his journalism career at Sveriges Radio P3 where he
was host and reporter, including for programs at the time,
Flipper and Night Radio.
From 1993 he was a music critic for Dagens Nyheter and a
freelance journalist. He participates recurring in among
others Aftonbladet, Sonic Focus, classic car magazine and
others. He is also a columnist in Good morning, world!
Swedish Radio P1.
Tidholm has worked with the medium of television in the
Culture Nike SVT and as a general reporter on the report.
He was editor of Norrlndska Literature Society's Journal
Province 2000-2002.
Po Tidholm have in their work often returned to the North.
2012 came the book Norrland, where he collected a
selection of his essays and reportage. The book was highly
acclaimed and has become a standard work for anyone
who wants to understand the North. Tidholm toured in
2013 as a lecturer in most northern municipalities. Since
2014 he runs "Norrlandspodden" with journalist Sofia
Miriam Daughter.
He hosted the Summer in P1 on Swedish Radio in 1998
and returned as a program host in 2014.
ALL ONGOING WAR IN THE WORLD CAN BE STOPPED FOR
GOOD IN MAXIMUM THREE MONTHS
The global oligarchs = the 13 finance families and their
accomplices - which controls = = vanstyr world economic
policy - since more than 100 years - has been at the top of
their agenda to endlessly peddle that there is lack of
money. There are those of course done well - because the
lack of money - (link to the painting Grindslanten by
August Malmstrm 1885 - which in a nutshell shows how
adults felfostrar children to the death devotedly fight for
money) - can probably be said to be the overriding and
global "religion" in the world to date. Both at the individual
level as at the national level and so on.
But all the principles are the exception - and the exception

to the lack of money is the money for the war. Historically,

there has never been any trouble with it - and even less is
it so in the present.
Why?
Well ... - follow the money trails hen hen they discover
that it is the same oligarchs who directly or indirectly
sponsoring the war - which manufactures arms and
ammunition to both sides in all wars - and earn Multum
with money on it.
All ongoing war would end within a maximum of three
months - if the oligarchs are not kept them going. For
example, the wars in the Middle East - which has
continuously been going on since the 1940s.
Will there be in the foreseeable future?
I'm half way 150 years life experiences - and comes with a
madman's insistence that as long as I breathe that
continues to peddle the lack of money is a pure bluff - that
should be relegated to where it belongs = dump. I have,
among other things, this blog post if I have namnat: "AIR
TO BREATHE AND SOVEREIGN MONEY TO USE ARE THERE
IN ABUNDANCE OF - OR?"
Sovereign Money = digital "printing press money" in the
appropriate amount - the Reichstag requisitions from the
Riksbank to their budget deficits - when there is a deficit in
the national budget - because of the necessary investment
in infrastructure, social welfare and so on. This alternative
to the "eternal" tax and fee increases .
There is no risk of unwanted inflation and eroded the value
of money in this - as long as unemployment does not go
below three per cent. The Swedish unemployment rate is
currently about 6.5% + one or another hidden percent.

Lack of money -tnket is simply the root cause of all the

world's misery misery - as I perceive it.
You can not solve a problem with the same thinking that
created the problem. It is impossible.
So time soon to let go of the worldwide "religion" lack of
money - or?
Where is the global oligarchs / Illuminati?
Everywhere! Their tentacles extend to all aspects of our
daily life. They control the banking system , media, news
agencies, the pharmaceutical industry, oil industry,
governments, stock market, mostly in the judiciary,
security services, armed forces and arms industry. They
affect science, textbooks, university, journalism and
Hollywood.
Inventor who invents something within , for example, free
energy or anything else that could be a threat to the
establishment bought out, threatened, or are murdered.
They are the owners of the largest mines, casinos and by
the CIA controls the whole drug scene, sex slavery, etc.,
etc.
- End quote from here .
Sense or completely mad?
But as long as there is life in us by ordinary people =
significantly more than 90% of the citizens of the countries
of the world - so there is hope of a different order - or?
Let's fast forward to the time of the French Revolution.
Around this time supported various groups of dark secret
organizations and the Anunnaki began to use the name
Illuminati - the illuminated. They are, however, not the
light, but quite dark. Today, the Illuminati of about 13

leading families, and this included the Rothschilds,

Rockefellers, and a number of European dark noble
families.
...
Since this period of history is dark, especially the
Illuminati, has dominated our world and since 1913, they
have used the US central bank as an important instrument
for this. The 13 Illuminati families owns the Federal
Reserve Bank. The dark has had a very evil agenda with
depopulation on Earth through a series of disasters, while
at the same time built underground bases where they
would retire and survive these disasters.
...
Although the Anunnaki dark minions, the Illuminati, and
others, have tried to both depopulate the earth and to
establish slave-like control of the remaining population,
they have not been successful. Their luck has turned.
...
The Galactic Federation of Light will soon be formally
introduced to the people on Earth by some light-oriented
major governments. This is where we currently stand in
the spring of 2015. When the Galactic Federation will also
launched our Ascended Masters back. This will include
Sananda, St. Germain, Buddha, Muhammad, Hilarion,
Mitreya and many more. We will also be introduced to our
cousins in the Inner Earth (Agartha) .
...
This will result in the cancellation of debt for individuals
and governments, as well as the establishment of a just
and humane society. Abundance for all will be created .
The dark leaders will be set aside and face a legal process,
but will have the chance to be reformed when the light is
always forgiving.
- End quote from a bit down in the text here .
Tale or truth?
The global oligarchs = the 13 Finance families - which
control = = vanstyr world economic policy for more than
100 years - imagine that they are wealthy - but that is a lie

and cursed poem. The hen unjustly Lace up ( people

legally speaking ) from someone or other's simply only
debts - no more and no less than that.
So the truth is that the global, end the oligarchs is the
"richest" of all people in the world - on debts to us by
ordinary people = significantly more than 90% of the
citizens of the countries of the world. Thats it - or?
A thought-provoking vision of the future? Let's make
everything for FREE! On the same theme one hour and 19
minutes in this video with Michael Tellinger .
Yes, it is both so simple and so difficult!
"The Death of Democracy" a public talk on the TTIP .
"What is TTIP and why Should we be angry about it?"
"Who are those responsible?"
"Do you think Wi have democracy in Sweden" - or?
"Why do our political leaders fail" .
"On why voters are angry" .
"Can you see that monetary system is a way to enslave
the people" - or?
"The richest percent own soon half the world's wealth"
Makes sense or completely insane - or?
"Are the banks to repay the billions they borrowed from
taxpayers in previous banking crises?"

YOU ARE WELCOME VISITORS BEST - "RESPECT LIFE"

The link goes to radio with me in 1994 - on the theme that
it is the abundance of everything for everyone on Earth
Terra's outer surface . If Wi of ordinary people =
significantly more than 90% of the citizens of all countries
- not see through the current global hoax = "religion" lack
of money - which is the overriding basic cause of all the
world's misery misery - then Wi never be able eliminate
oligarkernes handlebar = mismanagement of the world.
Thats it - or?
Health Party has on its agenda to change the current
grievance.
Hand on heart: "Do you have confidence in the Swedish
banking system?"
Economics / Sovereign Money = digital "printing press
money" in the appropriate amount is the tool to achieve
policy - and policy must therefore not be limited by
budgetary constraints.
Finally! ! !
Published April 2, 2015 in Business Week:
A radical plan formulated on behalf of the Prime Minister
of Iceland suggests that the country's commercial banks
from the right to create money for loans. Instead , the
central bank , and ultimately Parliament, alone conduct
monetary creation.
- End quote from here .
Record-low unemployment after that Iceland let the banks
fall
Island today reported an unemployment rate of over 4

percent and some analysts believe that the target of 2 per

cent is fully realistic.
This is in stark contrast to the rest of Europe where the
average unemployment rate is around 12 percent, and in
some countries (such as Spain and Greece) where more
than 25 percent of the population unemployed.
- Banks' liabilities are not public debt and never will be,
says Iceland's current Prime Minister Sigmundur D.
Gunnlaugsson to FP. And although the situation is better
here than in many other European countries is an
unemployment rate of over 4 percent something we do
not want.
When the Icelandic government refused to save the banks
and their customers got themselves take the hit of his
unsuccessful speculation - at almost 85 billion dollars.
That the Icelandic government did not use the Treasury (in
an economy with a GDP of only $ 14 billion) gave them the
opportunity to instead spend the bulk of their assets in a
broad program of support hen call "Welfare".
It is aimed in particular at helping individuals in trouble
when bank loans on the houses exceeded the crashed
husvrderingarna. The state spends annually 43 per cent
of "Welfare", a figure which, although it remained fairly
constant since before the crisis.
In addition to existing measures imposed Island recently a
further package of measures: around 7 percent of GDP will
now be allocated specifically to provide households easing
of their mortgages.

Record-low
unemployment

after that Iceland

let the banks fall
Island today reported an
unemployment rate of over 4
percent and some analysts believe
that the target of 2 per cent is fully
realistic. /react-text

This is in stark contrast to the rest of Europe

where the average unemployment rate is
around 12 percent, and in some countries
(such as Spain and Greece) where more than
25 percent of the population unemployed.
- Banks' liabilities are not public debt and
never will be, says Iceland's current Prime
Minister Sigmundur D. Gunnlaugsson to FP .
And although the situation is better here than
in many other European countries is an
unemployment rate of over 4 percent
something we do not want.
In contrast to other major banks in Europe
and the United States have been close to
bankruptcy, Iceland has not supported their
banks with public funds.
There was simply no such opportunities,
banks bankruptcies were large. It was in
2008 that the crisis became a fact after a
period of debt-based speculation that went
too far.

Refused bail out the banks

When the Icelandic government refused to

save the banks and their customers got
themselves take the hit of his unsuccessful
speculation - at almost 85 billion dollars.
That the Icelandic government did not use
the Treasury (in an economy with a GDP of
only $ 14 billion) gave them the opportunity
to instead spend the bulk of their assets in a
broad program of support is called "Welfare".
It is aimed in particular at helping individuals
in trouble when bank loans on the houses
exceeded the crashed husvrderingarna. The
state spends annually 43 per cent of
"Welfare", a figure which, although it
remained fairly constant since before the
crisis.

7 percent of GDP to household

mortgages

In addition to existing measures imposed

Island recently a further package of
measures: around 7 percent of GDP will now
be allocated specifically to provide
households easing of their mortgages.
However, SEB's Chief Economist Robert
Bergqvist do not agree with the analysis that
should help banks that have problems to go
bankrupt:
The link to how to deal with banks and
unemployment is not so easy to do, says
Robert Bergqvist to SVT. I have not seen
anything that supports the idea that one
should let the banks go bankrupt. Iceland is
not the goal yet, the crisis is not really over

and they have not really sorted out their

relations with other countries.

Ming Flanagan going on about

the question they want to ask
Draghi if he was aware of
UniCredit liquidity breach as
Bank of Italy governor.

Why the
Hell Does
Mario
Draghi
Want to
Leave the
ECB Now!?
By Patrick Smith
December 8, 2014

What would happen to Europes prospects for recovery

if Mario Draghi left his job as president of the
European Central Bank? Would Draghis plans to
implement an ambitious policy of monetary stimulus
get bulldozed by German inflation hawks and others
favoring continued austerity across the Continent?
Even a week ago there seemed little reason to ask such

questions. Not anymore. Draghi appears set to leave

Frankfurt and return to his native Italy the first chance
he gets.
This could be as soon as January, depending on a
variety of circumstances in Frankfurt and Rome,
according to well-placed sources who include a
prominent private investor and a senior journalist in
Rome. Draghi wants out, fed up and stymied by
Berlin, one of these sources wrote in a note just before
the weekend. In a subsequent message: I am hearing
from several [official] sources that he is entirely fed up
with the monetary politics he confronts.
Related: Germans Resist ECB Money-Printing
Move
Draghi, indeed, has been in an intensifying battle with
the austerian camp for months. Notable among his
adversaries is the hyper-hawkish Jens Weidman,
president of the Bundesbank, who seems never to miss
a chance to strike via public comment against Draghis
proposal to extend the ECBs asset-purchasing
program, launched earlier this year, to include
government bonds as well as asset-backed securities.
Whether Draghi remains the European Unions central
banker now appears to depend on the political future
of a man widely noted for his ambition. The issue now
is to engineer Draghis transition to the post of
president in Italy, as one of my sources tells meand
as all of them agree. He would leave the ECB only if
they [Draghis supporters] can get the transition from
Frankfurt to Rome in place.
Questions arise instantly.
Why would Mr. Whatever It Takes, who has
proven a determined and effective builder of
consensus in favor of a Keynesian recovery
strategy, walk off the field before the games
over?

It is indeed a little surprising that Draghi wants to step

down now. While his war with German-led austerians
has been a slog, Draghi has gradually shifted opinion in
his direction. As noted in this space last week, a victory
on the question of government-bond purchases now
appears in the offing.
Italian sources, moreover, dismiss the thought that
Draghi is succumbing to the Bundesbanks relentless
resistance in what amounts to a war of attrition.
Fatigue doesnt explain this, the editor in Rome says.
There are a lot of people in Germany whod be happy
if Draghi were no longer in Frankfurt, but I dont think
its a question of being tired.
Related: ECBs Draghi Concerned About Oil
Price on Eurozone Economy
Some observers in Italy reckon that Draghi thinks he
has done all he can at the ECB. But its some and some
on this point.
There are others here who say Italy now needs a
president who can reassure Europe as to the direction
of Italian reform policies, my journalist colleague in
Rome tells me. Draghi rates high in this respect.
Why would Draghi cash in a position of
considerable international influence to take up
the figurehead presidency of a mid-sized
European power?
Again, no simple answers. Contrary to appearances,
Draghi may have concluded recently that he wont
prevail against his austerian adversaries, some sources
suggest. It is more likely that, as everyone has already
concluded, he recognizes that there are no promising
alternatives to succeed Giorgio Napolitano, who is
expected to step down as president early next year.
Draghis a last resort for Italian politicians, in the
estimation of one informed source.
For his part, Draghi denies that he has any presidential

ambitionsor any plans to pack up in Frankfurt, for

that matter. But my sources advise that we assign these
assertions zero credibility. Draghi went home in midNovember to deliver a speech on ECB policy to
students at the University of Rome, and the occasion
was widely taken to be a toe in the water prior to a fulldress presidential candidacy.
What are the chances Draghi will find the postECB berth he wants in Italy?
More complications. Reflecting discontent over
cutbacks in funding for Italian universities and public
services, the university speech bombed, provoking
street protests, arrests, and a smattering of violence.
While the president is elected by deputies in the two
legislative chambers and heads of Italys regional
governments, that scene was damaging.
Related: Failure to Reform Threatens
Eurozone, ECBs Draghi Warns
He has to be sellable in a broader sense to the Italian
public, so the address to the University of Roma was
not a plus, a source writes in a note. He gave a
political speech, and the students gave him, shall we
say, a political reception.
Another factor evident here is Prime Minister Matteo
Renzi. One, sources say he appears to think he can
make more use of Draghi in Frankfurt than at home.
Two, there are indications he doesnt want a figure of
Draghis weight and international stature crowding
into his picture frame.
The weakness of other candidatesRomano Prodi, a
former prime minister, and Giuliano Amato, a former
interior minister and now a member of the
constitutional courtagain comes into play. Even with
the failed speech and Renzis probable resistance in
view, a source in Rome concludes, If Draghi opens the
door it wont be difficult to reach the needed

consensus. Hell get it if he wants it.

Related: As Deflation Looms, Its Europes
Moment of Truth
Does, he, truly?
It appears he does, although nobody has a map of
either Draghis heart or mind. In any case, well know
more soon. Presidents customarily deliver end-of-year
speeches, and Napolitano is expected to say more as to
when hell step down in the one due shortly.
The probability now is hell leave in the second half of
January, in which case the voting will start at the end
of January, the Roman editor says. Watch this space.
Draghis hat will be in or out in little more than a
month.
What if he goes for it? What of ECB policy
then?
This is another of Draghis considerations, according to
a source plugged into the Frankfurt institution. Tired
or not, he is hardly likely to walk away from what he
has so far achieved, and the indications given this
columnist are that ECB policy would be instantly
vulnerable to hard-line inflation hawks were he to drop
the guard abruptly.
Making sure that austerity Europe doesnt grab hold
of the ECB presidency, as this source puts it, could
thus have a lot to do with Draghis timingif not,
indeed, with the decision itself.
This last is reassuring. Europe needs big, ambitious
stimulus measures badly, and for the moment it
follows that Europe needs Draghi. For a lot of us
here, the Italian editor said by telephone the other
day, Draghi is much more useful in Frankfurt than he
would be here.
I second the thought. Mr. Whatever It Takes, youve
chosen a hell of a time for a career crisis, it must be
said. Best for the global economy altogether if you live

up to the expression you made famous when the chips

were down a couple of years back, please.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2014
/12/08/Why-Hell-Does-Mario-Draghi-WantLeave-ECB-Now
CRISIS IN THE GRAIN SECTOR
When is a crisis not a crisis? When it happens in Ireland
thats how I read the response to the impending disaster
in the grain-growing sector in Ireland, or more precisely
the ABSENCE of a response, from the European
Commission Agriculture & Rural Development department,
headed up by Phil Hogan.
And make no mistake about it, there IS a crisis, especially
west of the Shannon, with farmers unable to even get into
their fields to harvest what little there is, following a
summer of heavy rain.
Ive brought this up in the European Parliament before and
this week it was a late topic added to the AGRI committee
meeting, on which I'm a full member, as are Mairad
McGuinness and Matt Carthy.
We have been pushing for an emergency fund to assist the
farmers affected by this, just as emergency funds have
been used in many crises past and current in the EU.
Unfortunately, our appeal has fallen on deaf ears.
LET THEM EAT CHEESE
In the chamber to answer on behalf of the Commission
was Deputy Director-General Joost Korte. In his reply to our
questions he offered cold comfort: I've given the picture,
the expert view, how painful it is in some parts, how good
in others, and overall, without doing injustice to those who
are suffering, it is not possible at this point in to come up
with immediate measures.
Without doing injustice to those who are suffering? Is he
serious?
Joost went on to suggest that there is always the
possibility for farmers to cover themselves through
private insurance in Ireland? Youd have to wonder what
planet these guys are living on.
Ah but there is this little consolation These events

should inform us in future decision-making, in policy

design. So there ye are, all those grain farmers who are
going under can take that to their local bank manager and
all will be just fine.
SIZE MATTERS
In his time-slot Matt Carthy wondered if this came down to
size, that because it isnt French or Polish or German MEPs
asking on behalf of their grain-farmers most of whom, as
in Britain, have enjoyed a bumper season there is no
urgency within the Commission to act. Joost was having
none of it: I do not believe that there is no assistance
because Member States arent lobbying the Commission
makes up its own mind.
No Joost, this IS because Ireland is small, this IS because
just as in the euro crisis Ireland is expendable.
When Phil Hogan was promoted to Commissioner those in
Ireland who opposed were told they were unpatriotic. We
were told that he would be there for Ireland. Likewise
when Mairead McGuinness was elected Vice President of
the parliament we were told this would be of benefit to the
people she was elected to represent. For those farmers
affected by this crisis those promises are now appearing
very hollow indeed.
Competition is not for the powerful. They're above it!
The figures speak for themselves at both ends of the food
chain, millionaires are being created and fortunes
generated for individual and companies, so lucrative is the
sector that in many instances companies are de-limiting
their operation in order to hide their profits.
At input level Norbrook, the pharmaceutical company who
produce animal health products and Alltech the feed
ingredient company are just some of the companies who
make it onto Irelands rich list at this end of the food
chain. Keeping them company at the processing end are
the usual suspects, leading the pack is Larry Goodmans
APB group; others in this sector are Bert and Maurice Allen
of Slaney foods and the Keating family owners of Kepak.
At retail level the names of the Musgrave family who own
Supervalu and Centra also appear on the rich list, not to
be outdone Tesco for the first half of 2016 a year in which
farmers incomes have been decimated announced an

operating profit increase of 40%.

Yet in the middle, the farming sector upon which these
profits are created get nothing from the market place,
continually operating below the cost of production.
In this context the decision of the EU competition authority
to unconditionally clear the purchase by ABP of 50%
Slaney Foods copper fastens the view of many in the
farming industry that there is one rule for the farmer (in
fact an industry of regulation built upon their backs), and
different rules for other sectors in the food chain.
This decision will mean that ABP and Slaney will control
28.5% of the Cattle kill and upwards of 40% of the sheep
kill in Ireland. Equally important it will mean that 50% of
the Rendering capacity for the disposal of animal offal in
Ireland will be concentrated with one player.
This compares starkly with regulation for farmers in the
common Agricultural policy where it is stipulated that the
maximum market share that the newly introduced
producer groups can have influence over is limited to
15% lest they interfere with competition.
This decision coupled with the weak limp Commission
response where it sees no need for regulatory action in
relation to the dominant position of the retailers will
further erode the ability of farmers to generate a viable
living from the land. Ultimately it calls into question their
commitment to the small farmers which they continually
laude as the fabric of our rural communities.
VESTAGER, APPLE-TAX, IRELANDS CORPORATE TAX RATE,
SECTION 110
FUDGE IT, NOONANS BUDGET
I know its Budget week and almost the entire media focus
is on examining the entrails of that; I know also that in the
wider picture most of the focus is on Brexit and whats
happening there, the fluctuating fortunes of the pound and
so on.
Nevertheless there was another event this week that also
deserved coverage but has been totally ignored. Im
talking of the first appearance since the major Apple-Tax
ruling before a European Parliament committee by the
Commissioner responsible, Margrethe Vestager. Bear in
mind that this is a top EU official making the case that

Ireland is owed what she estimates to be 13bn in back

taxes by Apple, plus another 6bn in interest how much
of a difference would those billions make to our national
budget?
FUDGE IT, FINE GAEL LINE OF QUESTIONING
Of course theres a question mark over whether Ireland
will get all that money and Fine Gael MEP Brian Hayes
(they are almost alone in the European Parliament in
opposing the Vestager ruling) used the opportunity of the
Commissioners appearance at the ECON meeting to
challenge that aspect, wondering in fact if there was a
contradiction within the ruling in stating on the one hand
that Ireland was owed the money, then adding that the
countries who were denied their fair share of Apple taxes
through the Apple/Ireland sweetheart deal that she has
deemed illegal, might now want to get a slice of the
action.
Funny thing is, the Fine Gael MEPs were singing that same
song when they questioned Commissioner Vestager in the
Plenary session of Parliament last week in Strasbourg and
she gave them exactly the same answer this has nothing
to do with the actual ruling itself, which simply states that
Ireland and Apple had a deal that was in total
contravention of EU State Aid rules, that Apple owes these
back-taxes and that Ireland, where Apple is
headquartered, should have collected.
The question of whether other countries will have a legal
claim for some of that tax (it will not be all) will be for
others to decide, and that wont happen til after the full
ruling is released (dont hold your breath on that one
Apple and Ireland are fighting tooth and nail to have as
much of those documents redacted as possible).
Brian also asked Commissioner Vestager if she would
(kindly you know yourself) confirm the view expressed
by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development) that using their definition, Ireland isnt a tax
haven; hes still waiting for that confirmation as I write.
However, I can confirm for Brian that using the OECD
definition of birds, the robin is an animal.
CLEARING THE FUDGING FOG
I got to speak and the first issue I wanted to clear up once
and for all is this nonsense that Fine Gael and its

cheerleaders have been spouting since the ruling was

issued this is an attack by the European Commission on
Irelands Corporate Tax rate. I asked, and the answer could
not have been more clear not alone is this not an attack
but the Commissioner is actually duty-bound and, by
Treaty, legally bound to DEFEND Irelands right to set its
own Corporate Tax rate. And she does.
I also asked about the abuse of Section 110 by the vulture
funds in what should also be of interest to the European
Commission in the tax-evasion anti-competition area and
while there isnt a file open on it at present, she confirmed
that she is aware of it (in a slip of the tongue, I asked
about Section 10; in her reply, she spoke of Section
110).
I will be following up on this but anyway, for the moment,
have a look at the exchange.

APPLE-TAX, IRELANDS CORPORATE TAX RATE, SECTION

110
FUDGE IT, NOONANS BUDGET October 12th 2016
Looks like our Government like a bit of "back door entry" and Double
non taxation...I wonder what they get in return for turning a blind
eye to section 10

Last week we had the Apple-Tax ruling from Margrethe

Vestager, the European Commissioner for Competition, in
which she declared that because Apple and Ireland had an
illegal sweetheart deal that amounted to state aid, the
giant computer corporation now owed an estimated 13bn
in back-taxes, plus interest (estimated at 6bn).
Oh, how the feathers flew in the cosy global corporate
world and immediately, a ready army of high-powered
cheerleaders were paraded before our corporatelycontrolled media to scoff at Commissioner Vestager and
her decision.
One of those who crowed loudest was one Neelie Kroes,
and because she was Vestagers immediate predecessor
in the Commission, well, it caused a bit of a splash, didnt
it?
Neelie penned an article in The Guardian newspaper in
which she questioned Vestagers use of the State Aid
principle, accused her of overstepping the mark and called

for all this to be handled in the usual fashion instead,

behind luxurious closed doors in Brussels where the most
select of the high-powered industry lobbyists get to tell
the most select of the high-powered political elite in
Brussels exactly what they want done and how they
believe it can be done.
BIRDS OF A FEATHER
Of course Neelie was also protecting her own; shes still a
high-powered Dutch politician, still influential in the ruling
Peoples Party (think Fine Gael and you're already there),
and of course has her fingers in a number of corporate
pies.
Here according to The Guardian is a small list:
Neelie Kroes is:
Special envoy for StartDelta;
sits on the board of directors for Salesforce, a tech startup development project run by the Dutch government;
Serves as an advisor to Bank of America Merrill Lynch;
Sits on the public policy board of taxi-hailing business
Uber, a technology group headquartered in California
(Uber uses subsidiaries in the Netherlands to shield its
overseas income from United States taxes).
BAHAMA-RAMA
That in itself is enough to call into question any notion of
objective criticism by Neelie Kroes. But then came what
will now probably be known as the Bahama Papers,
revelations this week by a group called the International
Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ the group
who revealed the Panama Papers), and our Neelie gets a
prominent mention. Seems shes listed as a director of an
offshore company in the Bahamas.
Keeping good company there, thats for sure, described as
the Caribbean tax haven whose secrecy and tax
structures have attracted multinational companies and
criminals alike.
EU rules require that European commissioners declare all
their economic interests in the previous 10 years,
including governing, supervisory and advisory positions in
companies devoted to commercial and economic
activities.
Questioned by the ICIJ, the Guardian and Dutch
newspapers Trouw and Het Financieele Dagblad, Kroes

acknowledged that she did not disclose her connection to

this company in her declarations of personal financial
interests when she first became competition commissioner
in 2004 or in later declarations as she continued serving
as a high-level EU official.
BRIAN HAYES AND NEELIE
Among those who attacked Commissioner Vestager and
her Apple-Tax ruling last week was Fine Gael MEP Brian
Hayes that Guardian article by Neelie Kroes was part of
his artillery. Turns out it was firing blanks.
VIDEO:
Apologies that the attached video has so much text
Neelie isnt on video record with her statements so we
have to rely on newspaper headlines and reports. A bonus,
however, is the cut from Mick Blakes outstanding song,
The Giveaway. Because thats this government and all
previous governments since at least the 70s have been
doing, giving away this country to the multinationals

Two thirds of the money diverted to Irish

Water came from your motor tax
Feb 5, 2015
JOHN MCGUINNESS has said it was a mistake to not ensure
Irish Water comes under the remit of the Public Accounts
Committee.
The chairman of the committee said Ireland will regret the
decision to not allow the Comptroller and Auditor General
monitor the utility.
I think well learn to regret that in future years.
Representatives from the Department of the Environment
appeared before PAC today.
Fianna Fil TD Sen Fleming said he was absolutely shocked
that the Department could give Irish Water such large
subventions without service level agreements.
The semi-state body received a subvention of 439 million in
2014 and is expected to receive 399 million and 479 million
in 2015 and 2016 respectively.

The committee heard that two thirds of this money came from
motor tax payments. McGuinness said this is difficult to justify
at a time when local authorities are starved of money to fix
the potholes.
He said the committee had been on a financial mystery tour
regarding the utility, before reading out a text from a man who
told him potholes were no longer water holes but reservoirs.
Its just getting more bizarre as time goes on, Fleming added
on the motor tax issue.
He said if the HSE were to give out this amount of money
without service level agreements PAC would excoriate them.
sean f
Source: Oireachtas.ie
John McCarthy, Secretary General of the Department of
Environment, said Minister Alan Kelly will send an expectation
letter to Irish Water in relation to the funding.
He said that the utility is ultimately answerable to Kelly, the
Commission for Energy Regulation and the Oireachtas
Environment Committee, before which representatives will
appear in the coming weeks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGhdjNX50-8
Corporate criminality and theft. Fraudsters directing politicians to do
there biding, changing laws to protect themselves and there
masters the corporate gangsters. Anything that woman ruled on
befor should be looked at again as she has proved she is a lier and
not to be trusted by not declaring her interests. Politicians that

stand by her should be observed very closely as well.

What is the punishment for failure to disclose interests as per the
rules? Should she be taken to court to return her salary for that
whole period?
Great piece.Brian Hayes is a toad.George Soros leaks,a certain Mr.
Hayes was mentioned in despatches.

Today I got to ask Mario Draghi, the President of the

European Central Bank, the following question on Jonathon
Sugarmans' experience as a risk assessor in Unicredit
bank. Mario Draghi has said that he would answer it in
writing! We'll see. He better. I'll be back for another shot at
him if not.
Question going to him this evening on the finest of writing
paper. Only the best for Mario. Here's the video of today's
encounter. Please share. You can bet RT won't.
My Question.....
In 2007 Jonathan Sugarman was Risk Manager of UniCredit
Bank in Ireland.
That summer Jonathan officially reported to the Regulator
in the Irish Central Bank a multi-billion Euro liquidity
breach amounting to TWENTY times the permissible
deviations.
There was no sanction by the Central Bank and the
breaches continued, forcing Sugarman to resign.
In February 2010 Irish Finance Minister Brian Lenihan
stated
The Financial Regulator maintains close communication
with the regulators of other member states.
In 2007 you were the Governor of Banca dItalia,,
UniCredit the biggest bank on your watch;
Can you please confirm whether you were informed by the
Central Bank of Ireland of these multi-billion Euro breaches
at UniCredit Dublin?
If so, can you explain why the bank has never been
sanctioned for those breaches of 2007?
Now that you have been made aware of this and the
failure of the Central Bank to sanction these breaches,
how will you redress the situation?
Two thirds of the money diverted to Irish Water came from
your motor tax
Feb 5, 2015
JOHN MCGUINNESS has said it was a mistake to not ensure
Irish Water comes under the remit of the Public Accounts

Committee.
The chairman of the committee said Ireland will regret the
decision to not allow the Comptroller and Auditor General
monitor the utility.
I think well learn to regret that in future years.
Representatives from the Department of the Environment
appeared before PAC today.
Fianna Fil TD Sen Fleming said he was absolutely
shocked that the Department could give Irish Water such
large subventions without service level agreements.
The semi-state body received a subvention of 439 million
in 2014 and is expected to receive 399 million and 479
million in 2015 and 2016 respectively.
The committee heard that two thirds of this money came
from motor tax payments. McGuinness said this is difficult
to justify at a time when local authorities are starved of
money to fix the potholes.
He said the committee had been on a financial mystery
tour regarding the utility, before reading out a text from a
man who told him potholes were no longer water holes but
reservoirs.
Its just getting more bizarre as time goes on, Fleming
added on the motor tax issue.
He said if the HSE were to give out this amount of money
without service level agreements PAC would excoriate
them.
sean f
Source: Oireachtas.ie
John McCarthy, Secretary General of the Department of
Environment, said Minister Alan Kelly will send an
expectation letter to Irish Water in relation to the
funding.
He said that the utility is ultimately answerable to Kelly,
the Commission for Energy Regulation and the Oireachtas
Environment Committee, before which representatives will
appear in the coming weeks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGhdjNX50-8
Surprise that Motor Tax is to be used for Irish Water
Nov 2, 2015
Surprised was expressed by Sean Fleming and Martin
McGuinness of the Public Accounts Committee on the 5th
February 2015 when they learned that Motor Tax is to be

used to fund Irish Water.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FpU8D56fS0
Pat Kenny meltdown on Water Charges
Dec 1, 2016
Pat Kenny has a meltdown on the issue of Water Charges
with Sinn Fin's Eoin Broin TD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjBWdB0ppt8
Kenny.. Another establishment mouthpiece
He used to be a respectable broadcaster.
Establishment of Expert Commission on Domestic Public
Water Services
Published on Wednesday, 29 Jun 2016
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government, Mr Simon Coveney, T.D. has today (29 June
2016) announced the establishment of the Expert
Commission on the funding of domestic public water
services in Ireland. The terms of reference of the
Commission are outlined below.
The Expert Commission will have 8 independent members
and an independent secretariat will be provided by the
Institute of Public Administration. The Commission will be
chaired by former Senator, Mr Joe OToole, and the other
members are as follows:
Dr Xavier Leflaive of the Environmental Directorate of the
OECD;
Mr Peter Peacock, Chair of the Customer Forum for Water
Scotland and former Scottish Minister;
Mr Bill Emery, Chair of the Northern Ireland Utility
Regulator;
Mr Brendan OMahony, Chair of the National Federation of
Group Water Schemes;
Ms Sarah Hendry, academic lawyer specialising in water
and environmental law, University of Dundee, Scotland;
Dr. Andrew Kelly, founder and executive Director of
EnvEcon; and
Ms Gritta Nottelman, strategy consultant for Waternet, the
only water company in the Netherlands that is dedicated
to the entire water cycle.
These individuals (their biographies are attached) bring
with them a wealth of experience and skills which will be
essential in addressing this complex issue. "I have chosen
people who I consider to have the necessary professional

expertise in environmental matters, law, economics, the

customer perspective, the water sector and the regulatory
system, and I have included a mix of both national and
international experts," said the Minister.
The timelines associated with the Expert Commission and
the Oireachtas deliberations on this work are:
Commission to report and present its recommendations to
the Special Oireachtas Committee within five months of its
establishment i.e. by end November 2016;
Special Oireachtas Committee to deliberate the findings
and to report back to the Oireachtas within 3 months of
receiving the recommendations of the Expert Commission
i.e. by end February 2017; and
Oireachtas to consider and vote upon the
recommendations of the committee within a one month
period i.e. by end March 2017.
ENDS
Terms of Reference:
An Expert Commission will assess and make
recommendation upon the funding of domestic public
water services in Ireland and improvements in water
quality, taking into account:
The maintenance and investment needs of the public
water and waste water system on a short, medium and
long-term basis;
Proposals on how the national utility in State ownership
would be able to borrow to invest in water infrastructure;
The need to encourage water conservation, including
through reviewing information campaigns on water
conservation in other countries;
Irelands domestic and international environmental
standards and obligations;
The role of the Regulator; and
Submissions from all interested parties.
The Commission will be empowered to commission
relevant research and hear evidence to assist this work.
THE GOVERNMENT HAS retreated from the idea of simply
returning the money that was paid for water, because that
money has already been spent.
The government is at a standstill over how to fund Irish
Water after mass protests and a boycott of the charges
imposed for water usage.

A recent FactCheck by TheJournal.ie found that although

the claim that around 73% of those subject to water
charges did not pay them is unproven, the number is likely
to be quite close to that mark.
Speaking at a launch in Sligo last night, Minister for
Planning, Community and Local Government Simon
Coveney told Ocean FM:
All of that money [from water charges] has gone into
water infrastructure and fixing water infrastructure.
People who paid their water charges did the right thing,
and we should not make a fool of them in anyway by
simpling ignoring the fact that lots of people didnt pay
while they did pay.
So we have to find a solution that treats people who did
pay their water charges equally to those who didnt. The
work of the committee now needs to find a way of doing
that.
Kate OConnell (Fine Gael), a member of the water
committee spoke on RTs Today with Sean ORourke this
morning and said that she believed that the people who
have paid for water shouldnt be given their money back,
as that would make them feel like fools for paying in the
first place.
If I went out and I paid for a glass of wine, and I drank it
and I went back the next day and asked for my money
back, who would refund me?
She also said that water meterage was about finding out
where leaks are in order to fix them, not about measuring
how much each households use.
Senator Pdraig Cidigh, Chair of the Oireachtas
Committee on Water said earlier this morning:
I am looking for a solution. I dont have any history in this
area. I will hope the committee will have the openness and
focus, and from the ten or eleven members Ive met,
theyve shown a significant integrity and honesty and
openness.
The commission was to present its recommendations to
the Special Oireachtas Committee by end of November of
this year.
The Committee is to deliberate the findings and to report
back to the Oireachtas where a vote will be held on their
recommendations by end March 2017.

Be very aware of what they are trying to do here. The

main purpose now is to fragment the people and cause
further divide. They even hope to split the movement that
has grown against this commercial behemoth. That would
give them the power they need to keep driving their
privatisation agenda.
By stirring anger in those who paid, they hope to turn
them against supporting those who didn't pay to support
this robbery of yet another of our resources. By making it
about money, they want people angry because anger is
irrational and keeps people unfocused.
Any infighting of the public now will give them what they
want. We must not allow them and the media to build and
centre the conversation around who did or did not pay.
That is a distraction from the main issue of Irish Water and
the commercialisation of water for the market place that
will eventually be forced to open to competition in the
future.
This is where your attention should be focussed regardless
of who paid or not.
Minister Simon Coveney has retreated from the idea of
simply returning the money that was paid for water,
because that money has already been spent.
"All of that money has gone into water infrastructure and
fixing water infrastructure," he said in Sligo last night.
A member of the water committee Kate O'Connell agreed,
said that people who have paid for water shouldnt be
given their money back, as it would make them feel like
fools.
http://www.housing.gov.ie//establishment-expertcommission
Overdue water bills may be deducted from pay
Niamh Lyons
December 2 2016, 12:01am,
The Times
Attachment orders that would deduct outstanding water
charges from the salaries or social welfare benefits of nonpayers are being suggested by senior Fine Gael figures.
The issue of whether compliant Irish Water customers will
be repaid or if those who refuse to pay the utility fees will
be targeted is one of the key issues to be solved by the
new cross-party committee on water.

Yesterday a number of Fine Gael ministers said that those

who paid in good faith must not be disadvantaged.
Independent Alliance members have said that it would be
easier to simply repay those who complied with the law.
Legislation exists that allows the courts to make an order
for the recovery on unpaid debts above 500. During the
previous coalition
http://www.thetimes.co.uk//overdue-water-bills-may-bededu
Don't forget. Essential viewing tonight on Vincent Browne.
Jonathan Sugarman, Unicredit's Risk Manager who
resigned over corruption in his bank over subsequent lack
of regulation that caused the crash will be interviewed by
Vincent.
Should be riveting viewing folks. Set your remotes on stun.
Vincent speaks to Jonathan Sugarman who believes we are still
paying down debt we didn't create because of a lack of financial
regulation. That's Monday night at 11pm on TV3 Monday Dec 2nd
2016

Statement on The Pearse Surrender

Letter
Saturday, 03 December 2016

The following is a copy of a letter sent by the Provincial Minister to

the Irish Times on Nov 30th, only one line of which was quoted by
them in an article in the Irish Times today (03 December 2016).
They did not publish the letter itself. The main point of the
Provincial Ministers letter is to support the view that the Pearse
Surrender note, if at all possible, should be preserved in Ireland for
the Irish people.
November 30th 2016
The Pearse Surrender Letter
A chara,
In reference to various newspaper articles published recently about
the impending public auction, by James Adam & Sons,
Auctioneers, of the Pearse Surrender Letter, we the Capuchin
Friars of Ireland make the following statement.
The letter in question is a handwritten document by Patrick Pearse
and described by the said Auctioneers as the most significant Irish
document to be offered for sale. This document, once in the
possession Fr Columbus Murphy OFM Cap., who received it from
Patrick Pearse three days before his execution for delivery to the
commandant of the Four Courts garrison so as to facilitate his
surrender and the men under his command, was held in care as
part of the Orders heritage in connection with the 1916 Rising.
The Capuchin Order regrets to state that this document was later
alienated by persons unknown from the archives of the Order

without the authorization of its superiors and put up for sale. It was
sold in 2005 by the said Auctioneers on behalf of a person or
persons unknown for 700,000. We wish to state that we (The
Capuchin Order) did not sell nor benefit in any way from the sale of
this document. We are aware that it is now to be resold with an
estimated value of 1.5m. The Irish Capuchins regard this
document as a precious monument of the history of the Irish
People and worthy to be preserved as such for future generations.
Is mise,
___________________________
Fr Adrian Curran OFM Capuchin
Provincial Minister
http://www.capuchinfranciscans.ie/statement-on-the-pearsesurrender-letter/

HONOR MEANS HOLDING OUR NATURAL ORGANIC RESOURCES AND

STOP LETTING ALL GOVERNMENTS STEAL THEM , WE MUST EXIT THE
E,U AS THEY ARE CREAMING 350 MILLION A WEEK ON OUR MINERAL
WEALTH AND EVERYTHING ELSE , WE BE ALL MILLIONAIRES IF WE
GET OUT AND KEEP THE MONEY IN OUR OWN COUNTRY AND THEY
THROW US BACK SOME CRUMBS FROM IT ,IT IS ENOUGH TO MAKE
YOUR BLOOD BOIL!!

FOR GOD SAKE WAKE THE HELL UP PEOPLE

This is the Real map of Ireland that they do not show the people.
This shows all our Natural Gas and Oil and Gold belong to the people
and the Mineral wealth.

Fianna Fil indicates support for

charge on excessive use of water
Sunday, December 04, 2016

ianna Fil has indicated that those who use excessive

amounts of water should have to pay for it.
An expert commission has recommended that we pay for
our water infrastructure through general taxation - but
there should be charges for wasteful use.
A special Oireachtas committee will now decide if people
who didn't pay previous water charges will be prosecuted.
Fianna Fil's spokesman on Housing, Planning and Local
Government Barry Cowen, said: "So you have to ask
yourself, and the committee must ask itself: what's normal
use, what's excessive use, should we continue with
individual metering or should there be district metering,
which is a recommendation again of the committee, what
methods of conservation should be explored other than
the view of the previous Government that the only form of
conservation in town as far as they were concerned, was
the enforcement of water charges',".

http://www.irishexamine
r.com/breakingnews/irel
and/fianna-fail-indicatessupport-for-charge-onexcessive-use-of-water767077.html

Fine Gael TD - 'I forgot to

declare firms for two
years'
Philip Ryan Twitter
EMAIL
PUBLISHED
04/12/2015

Fine Gaels Deputy Tom Barry said it was an oversight

A Fine Gael TD did not declare three

companies he owns in the Dil's official
register of members' interests for two years,
the Irish Independent can reveal.
Cork East TD Tom Barry, who runs a successful farming
business in Mallow, established three companies in 2013 but only registered them with the Dil in recent weeks.
Mr Barry yesterday said his delay in declaring the
companies was an "oversight" and insisted no transactions
have gone through any of the firms since they were set-up.
"I'm moving from a sole trader to becoming a limited
company and genuinely forgot to register them," he told
the Irish Independent.
He said once he became aware of the oversight, he
contacted the Houses of the Oireachtas and declared the
companies.
Mr Barry registered the companies - Biogold Limited,
Biogold Properties Limited and Biogold Agri Limited with the Oireachtas in recent weeks.
The amendment to the register was listed in the State's
official records publication Iris Oifigiil on November 24
and the changes will be updated on the Oireachtas
website.

Members are permitted to update the register at any time

and Mr Barry has not broken any rules.
Accounts have not been filed for two of the companies,
while the most recent accounts lodged with the Companies
Registration Office by Biogold Limited, which were
audited by Deloitte & Touche, show no transactions for
2014.
Last year's Dil register of members' interest shows Mr
Barry is a director of a management company relating to
nine houses and apartments he owns in Cork.
He is also the owner of several agricultural sites and
employs a number of people.
Mr Barry is one of a number of TDs, senators and
councillors who have been contacted by RT Investigates
in recent weeks over the register of members' interest.
Fine Gael recently added a third candidate, former Labour
Party councillor Noel McCarthy, to run alongside Mr Barry
and the party's other sitting TD in the constituency David
Stanton in Cork East.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fine-gael-td-i-forgot-todeclare-firms-for-two-years-34258063.html

Overdue water bills

may be deducted
from pay
Niamh Lyons
December 2 2016, 12:01am,
The Times

Attachment orders that would deduct outstanding

water charges from the salaries or social welfare
benefits of non-payers are being suggested by
senior Fine Gael figures.
The issue of whether compliant Irish Water
customers will be repaid or if those who refuse to
pay the utility fees will be targeted is one of the key

issues to be solved by the new cross-party

committee on water.
Yesterday a number of Fine Gael ministers said that
those who paid in good faith must not be
disadvantaged. Independent Alliance members
have said that it would be easier to simply repay
those who complied with the law.
Legislation exists that allows the courts to make an
order for the recovery on unpaid debts above 500.
During the previous coalition

ENDA KENNY VICTORY FOR STANDING ROCK, AND SOON

VICTORY FOR THE WATER RIGHTS TO WATER OF IRELAND.
"Time to say thanks to the 'sinister fringe'
Gene Kerrigan in today's INDO
We should recognise and applaud the public service
carried out by the water charge protesters
In recent days, many from the political and social gentry
have been agonising about Irish Water. We've heard what
TDs and ministers have to say. Academics and other
experts, lowly columnists and startlingly well-paid
broadcasters have all had their turn.
Even the Taoiseach has had a little public moan about it,
while he was in the USA to assure Apple that we don't
want a single cent of that 13bn it owes us.
Busiest of all have been the Fine Gael TDs, leaking gossip
about internal party rows resulting from their desire for
fairness.
They tell us they believe that everyone should be treated

equally.
As a result, the right wing of Fine Gael believes those who
didn't pay the water charges should be chased to the ends
of the earth for the cash"
The other right wing of Fine Gael prefers to balance things
out by giving a refund to those who paid the charges.
But Fine Gael is forgetting something - they don't get to
decide how this plays out.
Labour's Alan Kelly has swaggered from one microphone
to the next, from Sean O'Rourke to Pat Kenny, from one
soft interview to another.
But what Alan says matters even less than it did when he
was Minister for Water Charges. On this issue, Alan is a
beaten docket.
I could google Fianna Fail, to find out its latest position on
water charges, but why bother? This column won't be
published for several hours, by which time FF will have
flipped its position on water charges at least once more.
It was for the charges, and against them, for postponing
them, for killing them, then in favour again, then against,
for, against, rinse and repeat.
Doesn't matter.
Fianna Fail may see itself as a puppet-master, pulling Enda
Kenny's strings - but FF won't decide what happens next
with water charges. You will.
When we see the Irish Water debacle in perspective it's
quite extraordinary.
Politicians and pundits have slagged off the water protests
as the work of a "sinister fringe" of subversive
conspirators.
And, like any mass movement, the water protest has some
loudmouths, and even the odd headbanger - much like
Fine Gael.
Some saw the hand of Sinn Fein behind the marches,
although its leaders wobbled at the start and said they
paid the charges.
The truth was SF played a constructive role in the
protests, but no one controlled those vast crowds.
Some saw the red hand of the small left-wing parties, and
they have indeed been active in the protests from the
beginning, openly and making a plausible case.
A handful of TDs, notably Catherine Murphy and Joan

Collins, saw immediately what was happening.

But it's long been clear that this was a genuine grassroots
phenomenon, far beyond the organising ability of any one
outfit. It was a coming together of socially concerned
people - mostly working class but across the social
spectrum - who understood what was happening and
weren't going to stand for it.
Here's what was happening.
First, the austerity regime wanted another revenue
stream.
FG and FF are interchangeable on the issue of draining
money from the citizenry. And many people were getting
browned off with that.
Because Irish Water had to be off-the-books, they couldn't
threaten to use Revenue to take the payments from our
income. So, they were vulnerable.
Second, FG/FF has a long-term view of privatising the
water supply, as other right-wing parties have done across
Europe.
The attempt by Irish Water to collect PPS numbers was
intended to build a valuable customer database that could
later be sold. It always denied it had a privatisation plan.
But it was there on the Irish Water website, incontestable,
in the data collection disclosures.
The data we gave Irish Water was to become a lucrative
asset, for an off-the-books company, and could be sold on
to any other company.
The small print noted that if the company was sold, the
data it collected from us "will be one of the transferred
assets".
And: "By submitting data to Irish Water, the customer
agrees to this transfer, storing or processing."
All of this was in solid blocks of hard-to-read text, grey on
white (I kid you not). Hardly had that web page been
accessed when it was taken down. Oh, that was a mistake,
Irish Water said.
You bet it was.
No party had the guts to put a water supply privatisation
plan before the people and seek a mandate - it was
something to be slipped through, piecemeal.
Privatisation would have had a damaging effect on the
citizens' interests for decades, while further enriching a

small group of the usual suspects. It wasn't FG politicians

who stopped that, it wasn't FF. Labour was up to its neck
in the plan. No civic group, no collection of academics, no
editorial writer stood in the way. It was the people from
the grassroots movement, denounced as sinister, sneered
at and disparaged, who did the nation some service.
What thanks did they get? They were dismissed as "the
pay-for-nothing brigade". People who for decades worked
and paid taxes, who bore the brunt of the crash, in lost
jobs and wage cuts, were sneered at and subjected to
highly politicised policing.
In December two years ago, tens of thousands protested
about the water charges. It was two weeks before
Christmas, mid-week, a working day, in freezing weather,
but the media declared the protest a failure because there
were only half the numbers who turned out on a sunny
Saturday in summer. Then, at the 2016 General Election a
majority of the TDs elected had an anti-water charges
mandate.
And last week, a feeble "report" by "experts" provided
some ass-covering material for the politicians, some of
whom remain reluctant to abandon their beloved
privatisation plan.
Yet other politicians nurse a longing for revenge against
those who dared set foot on the public stage, let alone
change public policy - people who didn't accept that their
role is to do the heavy lifting and keep their mouths shut.
The new buzz word is "populist". It's a political term that
once meant policies that benefited the many, as opposed
to policies that benefited the few. Today, it's a label
slapped on anything that's outside the centre-right
politico/media consensus.
So, the Ballyhea marchers, angered at having to bail out
bankers, or the water charge protesters, are declared
"populist" and lumped in with Brexit and with Trumpism,
movements fuelled by racism and bankrolled by
billionaires.
Over the past week, there have been attempts to set rural
people against urban, in the same way that some set
private workers against public.
We all pay for water, through general taxation. Those who
can't get water through public pipes deserve a subsidy.

Those who were bullied or conned into paying water

charges should get their money back.
A watchful public intervened in a pet project, a mad
scheme, and said no. The onus is on the same public to
keep an eye on the next steps.
The major parties smugly presided over the Celtic Bubble,
and when it burst they blamed us - they said we "partied",
we "went mad". Their austerity policies bled us dry; they
used the economic crisis to try to smuggle through a
privatisation plan they couldn't justify politically.
In the process, they've squandered hundreds of millions
on hi-tech water meters we never needed.
It's in our interests to watch carefully what these idiots do
next.

The village idiot just gave 1m of our money to an arts centre in NY.
This while Irish kids can't get treatment for CF, while thousands of
kids are homeless. Seriously folks we need rid of these parasites.
/react-text If this is true it is a national disgrace and a national
scandal. Answers are needed from Kenny and his cronies.

Two thirds of the money diverted to Irish Water came from

your motor tax
Feb 5, 2015

JOHN MCGUINNESS has said it was a mistake to not ensure

Irish Water comes under the remit of the Public Accounts
Committee.
The chairman of the committee said Ireland will regret the
decision to not allow the Comptroller and Auditor General
monitor the utility.
I think well learn to regret that in future years.
Representatives from the Department of the Environment
appeared before PAC today.Fianna Fil TD Sen Fleming
said he was absolutely shocked that the Department
could give Irish Water such large subventions without
service level agreements.The semi-state body received a
subvention of 439 million in 2014 and is expected to
receive 399 million and 479 million in 2015 and 2016
respectively.The committee heard that two thirds of this
money came from motor tax payments. McGuinness said
this is difficult to justify at a time when local authorities
are starved of money to fix the potholes.He said the
committee had been on a financial mystery tour
regarding the utility, before reading out a text from a man
who told him potholes were no longer water holes but
reservoirs.Its just getting more bizarre as time goes on,
Fleming added on the motor tax issue.
He said if the HSE were to give out this amount of money
without service level agreements PAC would excoriate
them.
sean f
Source: Oireachtas.ie
John McCarthy, Secretary General of the Department of
Environment, said Minister Alan Kelly will send an
expectation letter to Irish Water in relation to the
funding.
He said that the utility is ultimately answerable to Kelly,
the Commission for Energy Regulation and the Oireachtas
Environment Committee, before which representatives will
appear in the coming weeks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGhdjNX50-8
Surprise that Motor Tax is to be used for Irish Water
Nov 2, 2015
Surprised was expressed by Sean Fleming and Martin
McGuinness of the Public Accounts Committee on the 5th
February 2015 when they learned that Motor Tax is to be

used to fund Irish Water.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FpU8D56fS0
Pat Kenny meltdown on Water Charges
Dec 1, 2016
Pat Kenny has a meltdown on the issue of Water Charges
with Sinn Fin's Eoin Broin TD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjBWdB0ppt8
Kenny.. Another establishment mouthpiece
He used to be a respectable broadcaster.
CITIES AND WATER Financing / innovation in the European
water ... European Investment Bank Group The water ...
Better funding through EFSI European Investment Bank .

http://watercampus.nl/wpcontent/uploads/2015/12/Schmidt.pdf

Banking crises whistleblower

claims financial situation here
has gotten much worse since
the collapse

A BANKING crisis whistleblower has slammed

Irelands politicians for failing the public in the crash.
And he claims the financial situation here has gotten
much worse since the collapse in 2008.
Jonathan Sugarman, a former executive with Unicredit
Bank Ireland, resigned from his role in 2007 after
informing former Financial Regulator Patrick Neary that
he (Sugarman) was breaking the law by signing off on
billions of euro that didnt exist.
The ex-risk manager recently addressed the EU
Parliament where he said his concerns were ignored
by the Financial Regulator in 2007 and that there is
nothing being done to sanction the people responsible
for the collapse of Irish banks that led to the recession
here.

Same track: Ming' Flanagan

News Group Ltd

Sugarman claims he has met with a number of

politicians who are aware of his story including Fine
Gaels Richard Bruton and Labours Joan Burton.
Speaking to the Irish Sun at the launch of his book The
Whistleblower, Sugarman said former Finance Minister
Ruairi Quinn wanted him to speak in front of the Public
Accounts Committee but later changed his mind.
He said: Labour Partys Ruairi Quinn wanted me to
come in front of the Public Accounts Committee. Then
Quinn changed his mind and I dont know why. Of
course the politicians failed the country. I say this very
clearly in my book.
When Joan Burton looks at me in my eye and says to
me obviously youre a foreigner, you didnt know that in
Ireland there is no such thing as white collar crime.

Had I known you at the time I would have told you to

get another job. That is exactly what she said to me.
Sugarman says he received all kinds of threats when
he began telling his story to media across the globe
and has lost everything as a result of blowing the
whistle.
He said: I have lost everything. Ive been hospitalised.
Apart from selling my body Ive sold everything else.
And the only way Ill sell my body now is by the kilo.
Who would employ a banker who obeys the law in
Ireland? Name me one bank. I would do it all again
because I can walk through Dublin and hold my head
up high.
The former bank exec also claims Ireland has not
learned from its mistakes and our banking sector is
now much worse than it was before.
He said: In Irish law it says that if there is a failure, not
only are the executives to be held responsible but also
the regulator.
How many people in the regulators office have been
held accountable for the absolute collapse of Irish
banks? How many? None! This is fact. This is five
years in prison.
If I was taken seriously nine years ago of course
Ireland would be in a better position today. We wouldnt
have had to cough up all of these billions to bail out
other peoples banks. We are far from getting it right
now. Far from it. Given the emails Ive seen in the last

few days it has all gotten much worse.

Irish MEP Luke Ming Flanagan, who took Jonathan
Sugarman to the European Parliament early this year,
told the Irish Sun nothing has changed since the
banking collapse and Ireland is in major trouble in the
future.
He said: What has changed since the crisis is that we
are now at an additional 70bn plus in debt, thanks to
the decision to bail out the banks.
As for being on the right track we are on the same
track, just a hell of a lot further down the line. All our
banks are still in major trouble. In Europe, well, just
wait til the chickens come home to roost in Deutsche
Bank and Unicredit, to name but two of the big fish.

http://www.thesun.ie/irishsol/ho
mepage/news/7266465/Bankin
g-crises-whistleblower-claimsfinancial-situation-here-hasgotten-much-worse-since-thecollapse.html
Country Going Bank to Future today's Irish edition of the

Standing with giants at today's gathering.

The People of ire - Time for Truth

Oct 13, 2013

https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=ml5OosSwFOk

A Central Bank database

conceived after Anglo's demise
will finally be ready in 2018
The establishment of a central credit register was one the troikas
demands during Irelands bailout talks.
December 4, 16

A CENTRAL CREDIT database that will allow financial

institutions to access shared information about peoples
credit history will finally be running by the start of 2018
five years after it was first due to go live.
The aim of the credit register is to provide financial
institutions like banks with more information about the
credit history of a borrower, such as if they have large
amounts of unpaid debt.
The idea behind the initiative is to reduce the chance of a
return to the lending practises that were rampant before
the recession, when some banks granted loans while doing
minimal background checks on the borrowers.

The establishment of the register was one of the demands

the troika of the European Commission, European Central
Bank and International Monetary Fund made during
Irelands post-financial crisis bailout.
One of the first deadlines for the register would have seen
it operational as early as 2013. Meanwhile, a consultation
document published last year said it was then
expected that data will be received and processed in the
CCR (Central Credit Register) from mid-2016 onwards.

2018 start
The Central Bank, which is responsible for the
establishment of the register, has now confirmed to Fora
that financial institutions will be able to get useful data
from the register at the start of 2018.
Data will be submitted to the register between June and
December 2017. Subject to the quality of that data being
of satisfactory quality, enquiries by lenders will be 1
January 2018, it said.
During the intervening period, technical and operational
changes will be implemented by lenders and data quality
assurance testing will be carried out. Approximately 500
lenders will be registered with the CCR during this time.

It added: The period of time between 30 June 2017 and

31 December 2017 is to ensure that data submitted is of
sufficient quality to allow the CCR match personal and
credit information, and to be able to produce credit
reports.
It said that, when fully implemented, the register will
introduce credit reporting requirements on finance
providers including banks, credit unions and money
lenders.
Loans of 500 or more must be reported to the
CCR. Lenders must check the CCR when considering
credit applications for 2,000 or more, it said.
Delay
Several groups, such as the Law Reform Commission,
recommended as far back as 2009 that a central credit
register should be established. The legislation that would
allow for the establishment of the register was enacted
towards the end of 2013.
Fianna Fail finance spokesman Michael McGrath has
pushed for the introduction of a register for year and
previously said that the lack of one was a significant

factor in disastrous lending decisions by Irelands banks

and financial institutions in respect of individuals and
companies.

Michael McGrath
Source: Sam Boal/RollingNews.ie

CRIF Ireland Limited, a subsidiary of an Italian specialist

in credit information systems, has been appointed by the
Central Bank to build and operate the register.
Asked why the register had taken so long to establish, a
spokeswoman for the Central Bank said that the
organisation has carried out substantial work to research
and develop a robust CCR.
Amid other measures, she said that this included a
procurement process, continuously engagement with
representative industry groups, design of the CCR solution
and processes in conjunction with CRIF Ireland and
consultation with the Data Protection Commissioner.

Former Unicredit Ireland

executive lost everything
after blowing whistle
Jonathan Sugarman alleged unit of Italian bank breached
liquidity rules in 2007
Sat, Dec 3, 2016, 06:43

Joe Brennan

A UniCredit bank branch in Modena, Italy: Unicredit Bank Ireland was fined
315,000 in 2014 for contraventions of EU law. Photograph: Alessia
Pierdomenico/Bloomberg

A former Unicredit Bank Ireland executive says he has

been unable to find employment since resigning from
the lender in 2007 after reporting liquidity breaches at
the unit that year.
Ive lost everything, said Jonathan Sugarman, who
worked at the Italian banking giants Irish unit for a
period in 2007, at the launch on Friday of his eBook
The Whistleblower.
Mr Sugarman has repeatedly claimed, including most
recently before members of European Parliament last

month, that his alerts to superiors and the Central

Bank about the lenders repeated breaches of liquidity
requirements in 2007 went unheeded. He
subsequently resigned in September 2007.
U
U
U

Tracker rate overcharging story still full of holes

Banks to Britain: stagger Brexit over years or we
could leave
Ex-Custom House Capital chief disqualified for 14
years

The Central Bank declined to comment specifically on

the issue, while spokespeople for Unicredit didnt
respond to a request for comment.
When asked about the matter in the Dil in November
2010, then Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan said his
department had been informed by the Central Bank
that after it learned of the liquidity breach, it followed
up with the institution, which rectified the matter.
While Mr Lenihan did not refer to Unicredit by name,
The Irish Times has established that his comments
were in relation to Mr Sugarmans concerns.
The Central Bank of Ireland has confirmed that this
matter has now been fully investigated and the Central
Bank is satisfied that all liquidity risk management
requirements have been complied with and
appropriate steps necessary to prevent any recurrence
of this issue have now been taken by the institution
concerned, he said at the time.
However, the Central Bank subsequently fined
Unicredit Bank Ireland 315,000 in 2014 for
contraventions of EU law, including the fact that its
holdings of Italian and Spanish government bonds
between December 2011 and June 2012 breached
permitted limits.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/finan
cial-services/former-unicredit-ireland-

executive-lost-everything-after-blowingwhistle1.2891269#.WEL6RZGuHdN.twitter
Implementing the Risk Appetite Process
RAP in UK Banks A Proposed Model Ola
Omoyele
http://www.positiveriskmanagement.com
/Documents/Implementing%20the
%20Risk%20Appetite%20Process
%20RAP%20in%20UK%20Banks%20A
%20Proposed%20Model%20Ola
%20Omoyele.pdf
How We Can Predict The Next Financial
Crisis by Didier Sornette
Oct 20, 2016
The 2007-2008 financial crisis, you might think, was an
unpredictable one-time crash. But Didier Sornette and his
Financial Crisis Observatory have plotted a set of early warning
signs for unstable, growing systems, tracking the moment
when any bubble is about to pop. (And he's seeing it happen
again, right now.)
Didier Sornette studies whether it is possible to anticipate big
changes or predict crises in complex systems.
Why you should listen
While financial crashes, recessions, earthquakes and other
extreme events appear chaotic, Didier Sornette's research is
focused on finding out whether they are, in fact, predictable.
They may happen often as a surprise, he suggests, but they
don't come out of the blue: the most extreme risks (and gains)
are what he calls "dragon kings" that almost always result from

a visible drift toward a critical instability. In his hypothesis, this

instability has measurable technical and/or socio-economical
precursors. As he says: "Crises are not external shocks."
An expert on complex systems, Sornette is the chair of
entrepreneurial risk at the Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology, and director of the Financial Crisis Observatory, a
project to test the hypothesis that markets can be predictable,
especially during bubbles. He's the author of Why Stock
Markets Crash: Critical Events in Complex Financial Systems.
What others say
Didier Sornette has immersed his life in risk. Wall Street
Journal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?
list=PL3E1BE16D3A4039D4&v=NxN0Hx
6rJrE
European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on
prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment
firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 Text with
EEA relevance

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:32013R0575&from=EN

17 members states of the European Union that each use

the euro () as a common currency. Requirements known
as the euro convergence criteria (also known as the
Maastricht criteria) have to be met for inclusion in the
eurozone. These criteria are based on Article 121(1) of the
Treaty establishing the European Community (also known
as the Treaty of Rome) and are as follows:

http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/conre
p/cr201606.en.pdf?
a91977931874a7c6c63d80305b651394
ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION, LEGAL AND

POLITICAL TEXTS
Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) deepens the
economic integration of the Member States that have
adopted the single currency.
The global financial and economic crisis that began in
2008 had a profound impact on the European Union and
the euro area Member States economies. As a result,
important elements of the EUs economic governance
have been strengthened to allow EMU to function properly
in the long term.
This electronic publication provides extensive coverage of
the legal, political and technical texts that are relevant to
the functioning of EMU, such as legal acts relating to
institutional and external aspects of the euro, technical
and practical aspects of the introduction of the euro, EMUrelated statistical legislation and financial assistance
mechanisms.
The aim of the publication is to cover a large variety of key
provisions governing EMU in a handy electronic format.
You will find relevant extracts from:
the treaties and some protocols and acts of accession,
political texts (European Council conclusions, Ecofin
conclusions),
recent instruments adopted as a response to the
economic crisis, such as the Euro Plus Pact, revisions to
the Stability and Growth Pact (including the six-pack and
the[]
Excerpt From: Council of the European Union. Economic
and Monetary Union - Legal and political texts

IIEA Irish Presidency Conference Address by

Minister for Finance Michael Noonan T.D.
Economic Governance and Economic and
Monetary Union
node-document.tpl cccc
15.01.13
IIEA Irish Presidency Conference
Address by Minister for Finance Michael Noonan T.D.

Economic Governance and Economic and Monetary Union

Introduction
I am happy to be here for this session on economic governance
and economic and monetary union in the European Union and
look forward to the discussion and debate on this important
agenda.
This is an important discussion as we move into our
Presidency.
This is our 7th Presidency and it also marks the
40th anniversary of us joining the European Union then the
EEC.
Lead up to the crisis
I do not propose going into the detail of the history of the
development of economic and monetary union. However I
would like to draw some conclusions on what we can learn
from the past even the very recent past
The structure of EU Economic Governance was clear in the run
up to the crisis. The Eurozone central banks were independent
and responsible for monetary policy and the governments of
the member states were responsible for economic policy,
including fiscal policy.
It is clear that the construction of EMU had policy and practical
weaknesses
The Treaties established a loose framework seeking to ensure
national fiscal discipline and the ccoordination of economic
policy more generally for all members of the European Union.

It is not clear before the crisis if Eurozone governments

recognised that national economic policy had an impact on the
economies of other member states, fuelling feedback loops
which reacted back onto their own economies.
The Stability and Growth Pact was the main instrument for coordination of Member States national fiscal policies in EMU but
was not enforced consistently.
Furthermore the structure of economic governance was not
capable of preventing large fiscal and economic imbalances in
individual Member States.
Not only that but essential structural reforms were postponed
in a period of growth for many Member States
Essentially therefore there were weaknesses that needed to be
addressed.

Response of the EU to the Crisis

The EU has often been criticized for its slow response to the
crisis in terms of introducing improved economic governance
measures
I think it is important that I address this issue here today.
In terms of institutional reform, we have a European Union of
27 Member States. Nor can we cannot forget the role of the
European Parliament in the governance process of the Union.
Change has to be agreed it cannot be imposed and
implementation takes time.
If we see that reforms are needed we all want to have them
implemented swiftly so that there can be a big bang solution.
However, the changes that have been adopted have political

consequences for all Member States, not just for Ireland and
political and public agreement to them is essential.
There is a job to be done by all Ministers to convince their
citizens of the need for change for example to have external
oversight of their budget processes where none may have
existed previously.
These are important and for many countries difficult changes
and they need to be recognised as such.
So contrary to the criticisms of many, Europe is acting across a
number of fronts in response to the crisis.
We need to deliver on what has been committed to to break
the vicious cycle between banking and sovereign debt. Our
focus continues to be on delivering what was agreed by the
Heads of State and Government including those of 29 June,
2012.
These commitments were vital in giving certainty to the
markets and are important for the credibility of Europe as a
whole.
The EU response to the crisis in terms of economic governance
It is only when we look to the governance structures that were
in place before the crisis that we can see how much has been
achieved, particularly in the past 12 months.
The EU and its Member States have taken a series of important
decisions that will strengthen economic and budgetary
coordination for the EU as a whole and for the euro area in
particular. These reforms have been multifaceted in nature.
A significant package of financial services legislation has been

developed, some of which has been agreed and some which

remains to be implemented. When it is agreed, it will represent
a significant enhancement of the financial regulatory structure
at European level
Taking into account what is achieved by the Cyprus Presidency
we will seek to advance this agenda during our own Presidency
The financial sector reforms have been complemented by
financial sector supervisory institutions which are cross border
whereas previously we had national financial supervision
of cross border financial entities
We have seen the development of the EFSF and the ESM
structures.
There have been various important and targeted interventions
by the European Central Bank.

Reform of Stability & Growth Pact

The Stability and Growth Pact was reformed by measures
included in a set of five regulations and one directive adopted
in November 2011 which were known as the six pack.
This included reform of the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP)
for all Member States providing for shorter deadlines, greater
focus on debt and not just on deficits. There is also the
imposition of sanctions using reverse qualified majority voting
in the event of failure to comply with the requirements of the
EDP process. This means that a qualified majority vote is
required to reject a European Commission recommendation to
impose sanctions.
In addition to the six pack the European Commission
proposed two further regulations which are generally known as

the two pack. These draft regulations propose common

provisions for monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans
and ensuring the correction of the excessive deficits in Euro
area Member States and strengthening economic and
budgetary surveillance of Member States in the Euro area.
While there has been significant work on the two pack at the
Council and in the Parliament they have yet to be agreed.
Although, it is expected that this will happen under the Cyprus
Presidency before the end of the year, if not Ireland stands
ready to reach agreement as early as possible in the new year.
European Semester
We can see further changes in the European Semester process,
the Europe 2020 Programme, the Euro Plus Pact and regular
European summits
We intend to progress the European Semester process to a
successful conclusion as part of our Presidency and will provide
a comprehensive roadmap for the 2013 European Semester
process next month to the General Affairs Council.
Clearly the pressure on all of states to engage with reforms
arises from the unavoidable discipline of the markets. This
emphasis on market forces may be the subject of criticism on
occasions but an appropriate level of financial discipline is
always necessary.

Fiscal Stability Treaty

On the 31st May this year, the Irish people approved
ratification of the Fiscal Stability Treaty. In line with Treaty
requirements, provision has been made in the Fiscal
Responsibility Bill, 2012 for the implementation in national law
of the budgetary rule and the debt rule. The former requires
the budgetary position of general government to be in surplus

or in balance and this will be deemed to be the case if the

structural balance of general government is at our medium
term budgetary objective or the agreed adjustment path
towards it unless exceptional circumstances apply. The debt
rule requires the debt to GDP ratio in excess of 60 per cent to
be reduced towards 60 per cent by one twentieth each year.
Some aspects of the introduction of these measures involved
Treaty changes and for example the introduction of the reverse
QMV rule could only be introduced by a Treaty change.
A new Macroeconomic Surveillance Procedure has been added
which looks at other imbalances, recognising that debt is only a
part of a wider economic picture. This seeks to monitor and act
upon, asset bubbles, current account divergences (including
excessive surpluses), trends in employment and unit labour
costs.
The process of peer pressure where governments are now
more acutely aware of the conduct of others have an economic
impact on them.
Implications for Ireland of new rules for Stability and Growth
Pact and Fiscal Compact
I do not need to tell you of the difficulties that we have
experienced as a country in the last number of years.
However we have made and will continue to make substantial
progress in our financial affairs, in resolving difficulties with
financial institutions, improving our competitiveness and most
importantly in getting an environment where we can have
growth and investment which leads to growth in employment.
The message here today then is that challenges lie ahead but
they can be overcome.

As regards the economic governance measures we are part of

the wider Economic and Monetary Union and the rules are
designed for the Union as a whole and not exclusively for
Ireland.

It was in part weaknesses in the design of EMU which in part

led to unbalanced and unsustainable growth in Ireland and to
the difficulties that we are now experiencing.
Clearly the rules will require better discipline in the way we run
our affairs now and in the foreseeable future.
This is not a bad thing this form of discipline should enable us
to secure better value for money from public expenditure; it
should also allow us to challenge specific forms of expenditure
whereas in the past spending was often allocated to deal with
short term problems without considering longer term adverse
consequences
The rules along with financial sector regulatory rules and
other changes should assist in preventing future asset bubbles
arising in one or other Member State of the Union
For programme countries such as Ireland is for the moment,
we are engaged with this process and the current conditions go
further and are more intrusive than the provisions in these
rules
There is also a view that the further development of EMU
reduces our sovereignty, removes our decision making
processes in the Dail to decide on budgets and how the country
operates.
I do not agree with this view.

The deficit limits are decided jointly but what each Member
State spends and how they spend is a matter for them
individually. The decisions we make at national level still matter
and will continue to do so.
There is also a view that these rules entrench austerity and
prevent any stimulus in the economy
Fiscal discipline is not the same as austerity
There are no limits set on public expenditure only that it must
not be financed by excessive borrowing and debt
Excessive debt is by any definition undesirable as a greater
proportion of tax revenues get spent on debt servicing than on
public services or investment
The debt limits set out in the structural deficit operate over the
total economic cycle. This can allow for higher deficits in
slowdowns as long as they are balanced by lower deficits in
upturns or surpluses.

Banking Union the next big project

Perhaps the most high profile agenda here is the Banking
Union proposals. We need effective banking supervision at the
level of the Eurozone and the EU. We need deposit insurance
and a bank resolution scheme at a European level. We need
agreement on the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD IV).

I would like to comment for a minute on the underlying

elements of Banking Union. There are three key elements
Supervision
Resolution
Deposit Guarantee

Supervision
The Commission presented legislative proposals in September
for a single supervisory mechanism (SSM) conferring powers on
the ECB for the supervision of all banks in the euro area, with a
mechanism for non-euro countries to join on a voluntary basis.
The SSM along with the related amendment to the EBA
regulation constitutes the first element of the banking union.
An Ad-Hoc Working Group (AHWG) of senior officials has met
regularly since the proposal was published and good progress
has been made.
The European Council discussed the SSM at its October
meeting in the context of a report from President Van Rompuy
on work being carried out on the Future of Economic and
Monetary Union. It is important to gain momentum and it was
therefore welcome that the October European Council agreed
that the legislative framework for the Single Supervisory
Mechanism should be put in place by 1 January 2013.
Banking resolution
As regards bank resolution, the Commission published a
proposal on 06 June 2012. The framework provides for
comprehensive and effective arrangements to deal with failing
banks at national level, as well as more complete arrangements
to tackle cross-border banks. There are three distinct phases to
the framework, namely, preparatory and preventative
measures; early intervention and resolution tools. The
Commission characterises the overriding objective of the
framework as ensuring that institutions in difficulties can be
allowed to fail without risk to financial stability while avoiding
costs to taxpayers.
The proposal is currently being discussed at expert level in the
Council. This is a large and complex dossier and considerable

debate has taken place on the file. The European Parliament

has also been engaging with this agenda and the text of the
draft Directive.
Deposit Guarantee Scheme
Finally, as regards the Deposit Guarantee Scheme the current
proposal represents a recast of the existing directive. The aim
of the proposal is to enhance depositors confidence by a
higher level of coverage, faster payout and improved funding of
deposit guarantee schemes. We are fully in favour of robust
deposit guarantee schemes that promote greater confidence in
depositors and wider financial stability.
There has overall been a substantial degree of work under the
Cyprus Presidency on the Banking Union package. It is
expected that not all of the Banking Union package will be
completed before end 2012 and this will therefore be a priority
for our Presidency.
It is important for Ireland and for our debt sustainability that
this package of measures is agreed and introduced. It is of
course important also for the European Union as a whole.

Four Presidents paper

But this is one important element of a wider effort. The Four
Presidents paper of June entitled Towards a Genuine
Economic and Monetary Union has laid out four areas of
necessary progress more integration in our financial,
budgetary and economic policy frameworks and enhanced
democratic legitimacy and accountability.
This paper is correctly looking ahead more strategically to the
wider reforms that may be necessary for a more stable and
prosperous union.

President Von Rompuy presented an interim report to the

European Council last month on economic and monetary union
in which he brought forward ideas in relation to a European
fiscal capacity and to arrangements of a contractual nature
between Member States and the European institutions on
proposed reforms.
Others have floated ideas such as a possible European Budget
Commissioner or super commissioner. I am aware that there
has been some comment about these suggestions but they
are simply proposals and nothing has yet been agreed.
The December European Council is to be presented with a final
specific and time bound road map for EMU.
We are having this debate on EMU to have clearer and stronger
rules and institutions to deliver financial stability, sound fiscal
policy making and effective strategies across Europe for
growth, jobs and competitiveness.
It is clear that the debate on the further development of
Economic and Monetary Union has moved to a new and
important phase.
It will take time for these discussions to bear fruit. Nevertheless
we will play an active part in any work that comes out of the
report of the Council in December on EMU.

Enhancement of democratic legitimacy

Before I conclude I would like to comment on the proposals on
economic and monetary union on the enhancement of
democratic legitimacy as part of that process. As a
parliamentarian I believe that we need to strengthen our
institutions at European level that we ensure that they do not
become more remote from our citizens. In fact the opposite

must be the case.

In Ireland, we have direct experience of the risks of people
feeling disconnected from decision-making at a European
level. There is of course a tension between acting quickly and
decisively, and engaging in wide, open-ended consultation. But
democratic legitimacy and accountability cannot be an afterthought. They are part of our shared European values, but they
are also a crucial underpinning of the long-term stability of the
whole system. Any agreed changes require democratic debate
and agreement. The role of our own parliament and the
European Parliament is central to this debate.
The debate on the future of economic and monetary union is
underway and I will not pretend that there may be difficult
decisions ahead but it is my intention that Ireland will be at the
centre of the debate
I will be interested in the views of the panel on EMU and how it
might develop

How Irish concerns are

reported in the UK

Dublin is concerned about the Brexit issue.

The country fears economic and political
repercussions in the case UK leaves the
european community (collapse in exports and
GDP plummeting have been expected by
analysts). UK is effectively the most
important strategic partner for Ireland and
Irish citizens residing in Great Britain will
have the chance to express themselves in
the referendum of 23rd June.
In this piece published by the Telegraph

various representatives of the Irish people

speak up and have their say in order both
to ward off a danger and both to reinforce the
main thesis of the text which definitely
stands on an anti-Brexit plan. The various
personalities who take the talks come from
differents professional and social
backgrounds.
Between the factors that made this piece
worth to be published, timelyness is not a
relevant one. Despite the fact that we are
exposed to the campaign for the referendum,
we cannot identify here a single event that
made the publication urgent; it was instead a
series of events over time that created a
homogeneous story, that is the Irish
perspective on Brexit. So newsworthyness
factors here is mainly the fact that events
reported are geographically and culturally
close to British readership.
The headline gives immediately the angle
that the text will have: Brexit carries perils
and so irish people should aware their british
friends about that! The first paragraph
reinforces the headline too saying that irish
peopleare being urged to phone a friend
to tell them how to vote. So this passive form
and this unusual expression (at least for this
context) are messages that the author is
giving for how people should behave and act,
of course not being the first to say that, but
surely sharing the content.
There is plenty application of direct speech in

this text. Use of direct quotation implies that

the newspaper was a witness to events.
Usually these speakers from the irish society
(there are businessmans, journalists,
politicians, etc) are introduced with name
followed by post-modification which is
descriptive informations adding details;
through this technique the reader is
convinced of the authority and through the
words reported we get directly the spirit of
the message.
Parts of this direct speeches are also reported
is bold aside the text and this technique is
used to summarize the quotes but mainly to
emphasize the general thought that the
article wants to transmit, hence the irish
concerns about Brexit.
Approximately in the middle of the text
numbers are also used to let the readership
be aware about the size of the matter:
knowing the numbers we are convinced that
this external group could have a strong
voice in the referendum.
The only counterparts in the text is when it is
reported the position of the former Northern
Ireland minister Lord Robathan, that is the
only voice against the European Union;
however the text finishes with another quote
favourable to the Remain side of the
campaign, stating that Ireland got better with
the membership of EU and will always
promote his values.

Capuchins claim 1916

Pearse letter taken without
consent
Adams Auctioneers insists letters provenance
established in previous sale in 2005
Sat, Dec 3, 2016, 01:00

Mark Hilliard

Patrick Pearses letter of surrendered was written on April 30th, 1916, shortly
before he surrendered to Brigadier General William Lowe.

The Capuchin Franciscan Order has said a valuable

1916 Easter Rising surrender letter written by Patrick

Pearse, which is being put up for sale at an auction

next week, disappeared from its archive without
authorisation.
The 11-hour claim by the religious order was
immediately dismissed by Adams Auctioneers who said
it was completely erroneous and that the letters
provenance had been thoroughly established when it
was last sold in 2005.
Written by Pearse on April 30th ,1916, shortly before
he surrendered to Brigadier General William Lowe, the
letter of surrender will go under the hammer in Dublin
on Wednesday with a guide of between 1 million and
1.5 million.
Adams Auctioneers, which has repeatedly encouraged
the Government to buy the letter for the States
archives, has described the handwritten single-page as
the most significant Irish document to be offered for
sale.
However, in a letter to The Irish Times received
yesterday, Capuchin priest Fr Adrian Curran OFM,
who is the provincial minister for the order in Ireland,
raised question marks about what had happened to the
letter.
This document, once in the possession [of ] Fr
Columbus Murphy OFM Cap, who received it from
Patrick Pearse three days before his execution for
delivery to the commander of the Four Courts garrison
so as to facilitate his surrender and the men under his
command, was held in care as part of the Orders
heritage in connection with the 1916 Rising, he wrote.
The Capuchin Order regrets to state that this
document was later alienated by persons unknown
from the archives of the order without the
authorisation of its superiors and put up for sale, he
said, though he did not say when it was found to be
missing.

Never identified
Fr Curran said the document was sold for 700,000
and that the order did not benefit from its sale. The
seller at the time, who was not the individual to have
had original possession of the letter, has never been
identified.
Regarding the auction next week, the letter continued:
The Irish Capuchins regard this document as a
precious monument of the history of the Irish people
and worthy to be preserved as such for future
generations.
Questioned later by The Irish Times, Fr Curran
declined to comment on exactly what the Order
believes happened to the document other than what
was set out in their letter. However, the Capuchins will
make no attempt to prevent its sale.
Responding yesterday, Stuart Cole, a director at
Adams, rejected the claims saying the provenance of
the letter was well established and they were entirely
satisfied with the original vendor.
I think its completely erroneous. We are very happy
that the person who sold it back in 2005 was
completely within his rights to do so and was the
inheritor of that document, he said.
Referencing the 2005 sale catalogue, Mr Cole said the
letter was listed as being in the original possession of
Fr Columbus before being given to Fr Conrad as
provincial superior to the Capuchin Order and then
inherited by the vendor who has always retained
anonymity.

Private collection

Mr Cole said it was also listed by Seamus OBuachalla

in a collection of letters by Pearse as having been held
in private collection.
Its throwing mud, I just dont understand why, Mr

Cole said, adding that Adams had not received a copy

of any such claim.
He said the current vendor of the letter, also
anonymous, is not Irish and does not live in Ireland.
He had not contact with the letter prior to its sale in
2005. He had an interest in Irish history and had
purchased the artefact with the intention of securing its
place in the State.
Later, he decided to sell it following the success of the
2016 State commemoration programme, believing he
no longer needed to be its custodian.
Mr Cole said that, on the instructions of the owner, he
had attempted to secure its sale to various State
institutions without success.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irishnews/capuchins-claim-1916-pearse-lettertaken-without-consent-1.2891440
ou have to way off the reservation to find journalists with
more integrity than the usual well heeled and well paid
cowboys of the main stream media...
From 2013 no less.... Ask yourself why you are only
hearing about it now...
"Banks act with impunity. As we have seen since, the
upper echelons in banks can be confident they will never
be held responsible for anything. This does not necessarily
mean anything, but Unicredit Bank Irelands chairman, Dr
Brian Hillery, is an ex-member of the Irish parliament, and
is from FIANNA FAIL, the political party that was in power
at the time. Later on, after I handed in my resignation,
Hillery became a director of Central Bank of Ireland. I
wonder how can the Central Bank impartially investigate a
bank whose chairman now sits on the board of the Central
Bank?"
Wakey wakey...Amazing how no one in Fianna Fail have
ever questioned this cozy arrangement..
It's even more amazing why Fine Gael or Labour never

questioned it either...
Here is more details that surfaced too...
"Oh and it might be worth keeping in mind that Dr Hillery
was also Chairman of Independent Newspapers in Ireland.
Whose papers have not covered this story with any great
regularity shall we say."
What a small world! A Fianna Failer running a dodgy bank
and then joining the Central Bank under a Fianna Fail led
Government, who's job was to regulate said dodgy bank
was also a Chairman of INM! Just imagine that...
http://www.golemxiv.co.uk//jonathan-sugarman-versusunicr/
When politics and the private sector get too close, bad
things happen...

WATER COMMISSION REPORT

VINDICATES RIGHT2WATER
CAMPAIGN
Like
Tweet

1.1K

The publication of the report by the Expert Commission on water

has vindicated everything the Right2Water campaign has been
saying for almost three years. Water should be paid for through
general taxation which is the most socially equitable, economically
beneficial and environmentally sound.
Frustratingly, had an arrogant government and media listened to
our campaign and people in communities across this country, we
would not have wasted 1 billion on water meters and establishing
Irish Water as a commercial entity. Even Engineers Ireland warned
the government back in 2010 that bringing in water charges would
mean "spending 1bn of money we dont have on something we
dont need.
The key findings of the report include:
That Irish people already pay for their water through taxation and

L
L
L
L

L
L

L
L

L
L
L
L
L
L
L

that water funded through general taxation is not free but paid for
by the taxpayer.
Access to adequate clean water for living requirements should not
be determined by affordability.
A referendum is necessary to protect our public water system from
privatisation.
Ireland has one of the highest rates of water availability in the
world, with water availability per person four times higher than
France and fifty times higher than Israel.
The expert commission has not seen any evidence that Ireland
has particularly high levels of domestic water usage and Irish
people are at the lower end of the spectrum when it comes to
comparing water usage among other European countries.
Irish people use between 15-25 percent less water than the UK,
where water charges have been in place since 1989.
Water charges do not result in water conservation unless they
include education and information. Therefore, it can be established
that it is education and information which results in water
conservation, not the charges.
Commercial companies are not paying their water bills with almost
half refusing to pay. Ensuring a comprehensive commercial water
charges regime should reduce dependence on general taxation.
There are no abstraction charges for our natural spring water on
private companies like Britvic (Ballygowan) who pay nothing when
bottling our natural spring water for profit. This should be
addressed.
Metering should only be done on an optional basis.
Group schemes should have an allowance in order to create
equity.
There is a need for investment of 5.5bn in our infrastructure by
2021.
The water charges regime does not have political support or
popular acceptance.
Flat rate charges are regressive and do not address the issue of
conservation. Also, a water charge added to a property tax leads to
unfairness in the system.
The water charges regime was intended to reduce household
consumption of water by a mere 6%, yet the system leaks 41% of
all treated water. The best way to reduce waste is to fix the leaks.
While considerable weight must be given to the opinion of the
European Commission, the definitive interpretation of European
law is a matter for the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Borrowings?

Importantly, the Commission states that because the funding of

domestic water should come from general taxation in public
ownership, it will no longer achieve the off balance sheet
exercise. This will reduce or potentially eliminate the need for
borrowing which inevitably leads to debt and the servicing of that
debt by households diverting money directly into the financial
services sector instead of the water infrastructure.

Leakages
The report says that there are 7% of households using six times
more water than the average household, although Irish Water have
indicated that customer-side leaks contribute to this anomaly.
However, it is estimated that up to 97% of leaks do not come from
the household side of the infrastructure and the report states it
should be noted that water leaks waste not only water but also
energy and public money. Therefore, it makes sense to divert all
money from the domestic metering programme towards a district
metering programme as recommended in the report.

Water Charges
The Expert Commission has suggested that where water is used
at a level above what is necessary for normal domestic purposes,
that the user should pay for this through tariffs. The suggestion is
that an allowance is determined and this allowance could be
regularly reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted to reflect changes
in water use patterns in Ireland.
As stated earlier, the evidence provided shows that Irish people
are not profligate with their water and in fact use less water than
almost any other country in the Europe despite having more water
available to us.
There are also very serious concerns about any allowances being
eroded over time, like bin charges.
Therefore, continuing an expensive water metering programme
with the added costs of highly paid consultants, advertising,
postage, call centres and other costs, for no conservational benefit
would be an extraordinary waste of valuable resources, costing up
to 300m per year and returning potentially nothing.
The government and the Oireachtas sub-committee should accept
the will of the electorate two thirds of whom voted for parties and
individuals who promised abolition. This is now also backed up by
an Irish Times MRBI poll which also says two thirds of the
population want to scrap the charges.
With all of this in mind, it is essential that water charges are
abolished outright.

Funding?

L
L
L
L

In addressing the funding of water services, the Commission

suggests that the funding requirements which were to be allocated
through domestic water charges are now made through the
exchequer rather than by householders directly.
The current government and the previous government must take
responsibility for the leakages and deteriorated infrastructure that
Irish people currently have to rely on. In the last three Budgets
alone, tax cuts of 2.9 billion have been implemented. The
beneficiaries of those tax cuts are the top 20% of earners and also
employers. In ensuring our water system is fit for purpose, the
government should immediately:
Cease all cuts to progressive taxation.
Stop the metering programme and wasting money on the vanity
project that is Irish Water.
Increase taxation revenue by implementing the Fiscal
Framework Document set out by the Right2Water Trade Unions
in 2015 which could raise up to 10 billion. This would not only
fix and upgrade the water infrastructure, but could also address
our housing and homelessness crisis, along with our healthcare,
education and other underfunded public services.

Media Failure
It is felt that the majority of the Irish media failed in their duty to
facilitate an honest and democratic debate about the Irish
governments water policy.
While a number of trade unions, political representatives and
community groups were attempting to raise real and valid issues in
relation to water charges and their implications locally, nationally
and internationally, a compliant media refused to accept the

arguments put forward and even refused to allow a debate to

ensue.
Even now, faced with all of the evidence which shows that Ireland
is a water rich country and that Irish people do not waste water,
many media outlets refuse to accept the fact that water charges
are economically inefficient, theyre environmentally unsound and
socially destructive.
Furthermore, protesters were and continue to be demonised and
vilified for their stance on water charges, yet this report now
vindicates what they have said all along: that paying for water
through progressive general taxation is the fairest and most
equitable method possible.
As Maude Barlow, environmentalist and expert on water from the
Blue Planet Project and the Council of Canadians said, The Irish
system of paying for water and sanitation services through
progressive taxation and non-domestic user fees is an exemplary
model of fair, equitable and sustainable service delivery for the
entire world.

Its Groundhog Day and they`re playing

yesterdays tape AGAIN. Were back to the
same old politics the never changed politics
of spin and propaganda. The problem is
nobody is really buying it yet they just wont
give up.
Two-thirds of those who voted in the last
election voted for the abolishment of Irish
Water and water charges. And weve had
mass demonstrations, meetings, and the
biggest per capita movement for the
Right2Water to be enshrined in our
constitution. Its pretty simple really, the
majority of the people of Ireland SAY NO to
IRISH WATER, WATER PRIVATISATION, AND
WATER CHARGES! Now, its either democracy
exists in this country or all the talk about it
becomes one massive farce. Its really up to
Fianna Fail now whether they want to fulfill

their democratic mandate or dispense with

the idea that democracy is a principle which
they actually hold.
Just a reminder of Fianna Fails pre-election
position on Irish Water and water charges
text can be found on page 38 of their
manifesto

Another reminder:Fianna Fail announced the water

charges in 2009 in Bian Lenihans budget
statement. Which can be read HERE and heres an
image of the part on water charges. It also mentions
the rotten family home tax another measure brought
in to pay the bailout debt and to reduce taxes on the
richest in society:

Fianna Fail driven by an ideology had no problem in

bringing in neoliberal reforms and restructuring.
They were told, so the story goes, to bring in full
cost recovery and privatise and sell-off a whole
range of things. But of course this selling-off and
recovery didnt apply to those who created the
economic catastrophe we called the banking crash
where instead of full cost recovery we had the
bailout of the richest in society at the cost of the
rest this continues to this day as the governments
weve elected believe in socialism for the few but
neoliberalism for the rest of us. The Troika (IMF,
ECB, and the European Commission, all unelected
cheerleaders of the decimation of society in favour
of a market and of public slavery to debt) wanted
public services scrapped, privatisation of public
infrastructures and services, sell-off of state assets,
and tolls placed on everything. They also wanted to
drive down wages and conditions in order to make
the economy competitive. None of this has
changed. They still want to continue to do all of
these things. Its only us that can stop them.
An aside but I have to mention it as its never

mentioned anywhere really. The agenda of driving

down wages and conditions to make the economy
competitive can also be seen in the likes of the
cheering on of mass migration, the weakening of
the nation state, and the looking to open borders
by Peter Sutherland and other current and former
bankers and members of a international class of
neoliberals who seek to have the people of Europe
and elsewhere compete for less and less jobs and
therefore drive down wages and conditions, destroy
the welfare state, social solidarity, and pit people
and countries against one another. This is no
conspiracy its happening. Peter Sutherland and
others, Noonan, Simon Coveney, Denis Obrien, to
name a few discuss their politics and business in
closed meetings. Its no real secret in the age of the
internet when we have people outside of the
mainstream publications and media willing to
document it. Here is Simon Coveney and Peter
Sutherland out for a stroll at Bilderberg 2014 in
Copenhagen. Noonan attended shortly after being
elected in 2011 also who are they representing in
these settings? What business and politics is being
discussed and to whose benefit? These are
legitimate question for any citizen of Ireland to ask.
None of this is all that complicated but those

in power and the media wish to make it seem

that way. Weve been shafted time and time
again. But, I think, weve had enough!
Havent we had enough!? If you havent
joined in the movement for change its time
to start!
Ill leave it there for now. But, Ill restate the
title of this piece again only this time with an
addition THE IRISH PEOPLE [AND
DEMOCRACY] ARE [ AND IS] THE ONLY
EXPERT COMMISSION NEEDED ON IRISH
WATER AND WATER CHARGES.

Water meters are not the new

e-voting machines - they cost
us a lot more
To date, the State has spent 465 million on the water metering project.
December 5, 16

CAST YOUR MINDS back to 2002. Ireland was on the up

and appeared to have money to burn. And thats exactly
what we did.
The State spent over 55 million on e-voting machines
that year machines that were only ever used in three
constituencies at the 2002 general election Dublin
North, Dublin West, and Meath and the second
referendum on the Nice Treaty later that year.
The machines became a running joke to many and part of
Irelands vernacular language, with the ill-fated machines
getting many a mention in pub conversation.
This was mainly due to the deadened anger over the cost
not just of buying the machines, but also of storing them.
It was estimated that up to 4 million was spent storing
the machines in the decade after they were briefly

introduced.

This led to much ridicule, including from the Finance

Minister Michael Noonan, who suggested in 2012 that
they should be put in pubs as the machines were
valueless.
The government then tried to draw a line under the whole
issue and get rid of them.
E-voting machines for sale
In 2012, 7,500 of the e-voting machines were put up for
sale, with the then-Environment minister Phil Hogan
stating that millions had been wasted on the project. To
the surprise of many, the machines were bought by a
recycling company.
We would never be that stupid again, we said to ourselves.
Right?
Fast forward 14 years and we may have made the same
mistake. Although this time, it could be worse.
The bumpy road of introducing water charges began with
Hogans water charging plan.
The government read the mood of the people completely
wrong, with the minister (the same minister who called

out e-voting machines as a waste of money) at the time

stating that those that did not pay up would have their
water pressure turned down to a trickle.
This was not well received by members of the public.

Source: keith o brien/Twitter

The first protests against water charges were not on

OConnell Street they were in estates in Dublin and Cork

when locals refused to allow contractors to install water
meters in the pavement.
The installation of water meters was key to the
governments water services scheme. Originally, the entire
projected costs of the nationwide water metering
programme was 431.6 million. In 2014, the figure
jumped to 539 million.
This week, the expert commission published its report on
the future of public water services.
It found that the majority of people will not have to pay for
water, but states that those who use an excessive amount
will have to pay up.
Metering
The report mentions the extensive programme of metering
that has already been undertaken, with Irish Water stating
that 873,000 households have now had meters installed
out of a target of 1.4 million households.
In October, Minister for Housing, Planning and Local
Government Simon Coveney, he outlined that the budget
for water meters had grown yet again, this time by more
than 70 million to 614 million (including VAT).
He said domestic metering contracts were awarded in
2013 with the objective of installing 1,050,000 domestic
meters over a 3-year programme, which started in August
of that year.
To date, the cost of putting close to 880,000 meters in the
ground has cost the state 465 million.
The minister states this is a saving of 148 million, due to
170,000 meters included in the original programme not
proceeding, for a combination of health and safety
reasons, service complexity or other technical reasons.
Its more likely the ongoing protests had something to do
with it.

Worth the money?

While the installation of meters was primarily intended to
facilitate billing, the expert commission report states they
have proved useful in detecting leakages in the water
system and as means of collecting valuable data
concerning patterns of water usage (which could be used
to calculate what the average water usage is per person
and feed in to any charging scheme that may be
introduced in the future).
With the minister stating that there has been a row back
on the number of meters to be installed, does that mean it
is the end of the installation project?
Future metering of domestic premises will be considered
along with other investment needs based on cost benefit
assessment and policy considerations relating to the future
decisions on billing and charging, said Coveney.
The question of whether the metering programme should
be continued is outside the scope of the expert

commissions terms of reference, explains the report.

However it finds that submissions were made
that expressed concerns that the excessive cost of
installing water meters in every home may be substantially
higher than the environmental gains.

If it is decided that the metering programme should

proceed, consideration should be given to an approach
that is more in keeping with the recommended scheme
with a focus metering of buildings in the case of multi
occupancy or metering of households on request. Irish
Water should complete a comprehensive programme of
district metering to identify system-wide leakage and
manage the network, it states.
Whatever way you look at it, if water meters are brought
into use or whether they are scrapped, they may not end
up serving their intended purpose as was included in the
original water charging regime.
In 2002, we laughed (and grimaced) at the thought that
we had squandered nearly 60 million on machines we
left to rust in warehouses.
In 2016, after years of austerity, its a lot more difficult to
find the humour in the possibility that we just flushed
465 million down the toilet.

http://www.thejournal.ie/e-voting-machines-watermeters-3114507-Dec2016/
Eddie Hobbs: Largest act of larceny against Irish people
We dont own our natural resources under Article 10 of the
Constitution. It needs to be repealed, but is there anyone with
the bottle to take it on, asks Eddie Hobbs
Atlantic, narrated by the feral voice of Brendan Gleeson, is the
second in a remarkable series of evocative films by Risteard
ODomhnaill who, starting with The Pipe, charted the story of
Rossport tucked behind the dunes amid the sentinel cliffs of
Erris Head and Broadhaven Bay.
Pulling the camera lens high above the dramatic coastline and
its Corrib gas pipeline, Atlantic brings the audience the story of
the North Atlantic itself and the battle between local and
international corporations a struggle, at its heart, between
individuals and closely bound communities and those who are
lobbied, in national government and in Brussels.
The film, now screening to audiences throughout the country,
hits deep, interweaving the common issues between the
peoples of Newfoundland, Norway, and Ireland, and telling the
story of how each fared in the struggle to retain ownership and
control of natural resources, against the backdrop of the huge
decline in fishing stocks from industrialisation by massive
fleets and the tension between sonic booming from oil
explorers and the marine ecosystem.
It brings the wild, beautiful and bountiful Atlantic to the viewer
in a manner not achieved on film before, rekindling a sense of
stewardship, lost since Ireland chose to join the EEC and, it
appears, sacrificed its fishing grounds and coastal
communities, to protect its inland.
The territory of Ireland extends nearly half ways across the
North Atlantic. It is an area six times our land mass within
which we are entitled to fishing stocks in low digits and under
which weve given away the rights to hydrocarbons, ever since
Fianna Fil minister Ray Burke, unaccompanied by civil
servants in meetings with oil and gas explorers in 1987,
reversed the actions taken by Justin Keating in the 1970s.
The Labour minister had mimicked those of far-sighted
Norwegian politicians in their struggle against multinational
explorers. Atlantic revisits the clash between the peoples
rights to a fair share of rents from natural resources and
powerful business interests aligned against them by telling the
story of how Newfoundland stood up to the landlocked

Canadian capital of Ottawa and the big oil lobby to secure the
type of share Keating had once won.
Despite the fury surrounding the water debate, few in Ireland
still grasp how the Irish people are, uniquely in Europe,
alienated from their own natural resources in short, we dont
own them.
That means the fish in our seas, the hydrocarbons underneath,
the wind that blows across the land and the fresh water that
flows through it, are not owned by the Irish people.
In what is, arguably the largest act of larceny in our short
history, Devs 1937 Constitution, reversed the 1922
Constitution and passed ownership of all natural resources
from the ancient Irish people to the recently founded State
under Article 10, then made its trusteeship unchallengeable in
the courts.
The divide between the self-preservation of the State and its
privileges and the Irish people only comes into sharp focus
when there is an existential economic crisis, such as the last
one which we entered at a low debt of just 23% of GDP.
A fresh global economic crisis, the likelihood of which currently
is probably about one in seven, would catch Ireland, this time,
at debt levels four times higher, while governed by a minority
administration now holding all of its water in a single corporate
entity.
At a fundamental level, the decision facing Britain in June is
about whether the British people wish to regain the right to
eject all those who govern them every few years or to continue
to deposit many aspects of sovereignty to an unelected EU
Commission, a decision in many ways about what modern
citizenship means.
Stop anyone in the street today and ask them to describe how
EU government works or to identify its key leaders and youll
be met with blank stares but show a photo of two TDs dancing
on a Pajero outside Leinster House and theyll be identified in
an instant, one set unknown but with huge powers, the other
well known, but with none.
Until and unless the Irish people demand the return of all our
natural resources by overturning Article 10, we remain captive
not just to the uncomfortable trade-offs in the ongoing EU
existential struggle, but also to a State polity that will do just
about anything to preserve its privileges.
Irish viewers leaving Atlantic do so, invariably, angry but still
not grasping that theyve just watched a film, not about their
natural resources but those of the State. RT, who chose not to
broadcast the multi-award winning The Pipe, may yet decide
that Atlantic is safer fare, but will the state broadcaster then

commission a series of current affairs treatments about the

whale in the swimming pool, the alienation of the Irish people
from their natural resources? What do you think?
Eddie Hobbs is a financial advisor www.eddiehobbs.com
http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/eddie-hobbslargest-act-of-larceny-against-irish-people-402544.html
IRELAND The Law Reform Commission, ... The Law Reform
Commission Act 1975 section 4 subs. (2) (a) ... Larceny Act
1916, Ireland and Britains agreement
http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Programmes%20of%20Law
%20Reform/First%20Programme%20for%20Law%20Reform
%201976.pdf
Britain Larceny Act 1916
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1916/50/enacted/data.pdf
Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act,...
Text in the Irish language of the Convention drawn up on the
basis of Article K.3 of the ... Larceny Act, 1916. 6 & 7 Geo. 5 ...
(THEFT AND FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT,
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/50/enacted/en/pdf
Public order offences in Ireland - Citizens...
Nov 10, 2011 The law on public order offences in Ireland is
mainly set down in the ... and extortion offences which were
previously contained in the Larceny Act
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/crimin
al_offences/public_order_offenses_in_ireland.html
ONVENTION BASED ON ARTICLE K3 THE TREATY O EUROPEAN
POLICE OFFICE, EUROPOL CONVENTION
https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/economiccrime/organise
dcrime/projects/carpo/output_3__special_investigative_means/Europol_Convention.pdf
ACTS ADOPTED UNDER TITLE VI OF THE EU TREATY COUNCIL
DECISION of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police
Office (Europol)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:32009D0371&from=EN
The Great Water Grab- How the Coal Industry is Deepening the
Global Water Crisis'
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/p
ublications/climate/2016/The-Great-Water-Grab.pdf
Technical Report- Coal Water Methods & Results
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/br
iefings/climate/2016/Coal-Water/Technical-Report-Coal-WaterMethods-Results.pdf

New Act of the Lisbon Agreement Encompasses All

Geographical Indications, Allows Accession by Regional
Organizations
On May 20, 2015, a Diplomatic Conference, convened at the
seat of WIPO in Geneva by the Assembly of the Lisbon Union,
adopted a new Act of the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection
of Appellations of Origin and Their International Registration.
The new Act, to be known as the Geneva Act of the Lisbon
Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical
Indications, though technically a revision of the 1967
(Stockholm) Act of the Agreement, expands the scope of the
treaty to all geographical indications (i.e., beyond the subset
that appellations of origin constitute), opens membership to
intergovernmental organizations through which regional titles
of protection for geographical indications can be obtained
(e.g., the EU and OAPI) and contains a number of provisions
that purport to widen the membership of the Lisbon Agreement
and make it more attractive to users.
INTA was represented at the Diplomatic Conference by Bruno
Machado, INTAs Representative in Geneva, and by Constanze
Schulte, Partner, Hogan Lovells International LLP, member of
the Geographical Indications Subcommittee of the Related
Rights Committee of INTA (see the INTA Blog).
A Controversial Process
The adoption of the new Act was the outcome of a process of
review initiated by the Assembly of the Lisbon Union in
September 2008, when it decided to establish a Working Group
for exploring possible improvements to the procedures under
the Lisbon Agreement. The terms of reference of the Working
Group were subsequently expanded to include an overall
review of the Lisbon System with a view to making it more
attractive to users and potential new members, without
compromising its basic principles and objectives. The Working
Group was composed of members of the Lisbon Union. Other
WIPO Member States and interested organizations were invited
as observers. Similarly, at the Diplomatic Conference, only the
28 countries currently party to the Lisbon Agreement had the
right to vote. This was strongly criticized and objected to by a
number of WIPO members not party to the Lisbon Agreement
who underlined that, whereas the Geneva Act of the Lisbon
Agreement would have an impact on enterprises of all WIPO
members, the overwhelming majority of the latter were not put
in a position properly to defend their interests on a level
playing field. Although a genuine effort was made to conduct

business at the Conference in as flexible and inclusive a

manner as possible and to accommodate suggestions by nonmembers as long as they did not compromise the basic
principles of the Lisbon Agreement (crafted for sui generis
appellations of origin protection systems), there is no doubt
that the final outcome would not have been the same had all
members of WIPO been given equal rights at the Conference.
A Mixed Result
INTAs involvement in the process of revising the Lisbon
Agreement was guided by the hope that it could lead to an
inclusive and balanced registration system, open to all
protection systems, including trademark-based systems, and
providing for appropriate safeguards for prior rights.
Progress has been accomplished in that direction, notably with
respect to the following:

The introduction in the Agreement of a provision (Article

13) safeguarding other rights, in particular prior trademark
rights, subject, however, to any limited exception as may be
provided by the legislation of a Contracting Party (presumably
within the limits of Article 17 TRIPS) and leading to
coexistence;

The introduction of an obligation to provide an

opportunity for interested parties to request the refusal of an
international registration (Article 15);

The introduction in the Agreement of an article (Article

19) on the invalidation of the international registration (which
does not limit the grounds for invalidation);

The introduction in the Agreement (Article 5) of language

allowing holders of certification marks to apply for an
international registration under the new Act.
On the other hand, statements made, upon adoption of the
new Act, by a number of delegations of countries with
trademark-based protection systems, made it very clear that
the objective of an inclusive global system was not achieved
and that there remain in the new Act a number of provisions
that would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for countries
relying on trademarks in order to protect geographical
indications to join the Geneva Act.
This is particularly the case with respect to (1) Article 1 on the
content of protection; and (2) Article 12, which prevents a
Contracting Party from considering a registered appellation of
origin or geographical indication as having become generic as
long as it is protected in the Contracting Party of Origin; or of
the validity of the registered appellation of origin or
geographical indication for an indefinite period of time without
the need for renewal, or a requirement of use, or in spite of

conduct leading to acquiescence.

The Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement will be the subject of
a thorough analysis by the Geographical Indications
Subcommittee of INTAs Related Rights Committee, which will
make recommendations to the Board of Directors of the
Association as appropriate.
The Geneva Act was signed by 11 countries, including two nonmembers of the Lisbon Union (Mali and Romania), subject to
ratification. It will remain open for signature until May 20,
2016. Five instruments of ratification or accession are required
to cause its entry into force. As long as all parties to the 1958
or 1967 Act of the Lisbon Agreement have not become party to
the Geneva Act, the latest act to which they are mutually party
will govern the relations between parties to the Agreement.
Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of
items in the INTA Bulletin, readers are urged to check
independently on matters of specific concern or interest.
2015 International Trademark Association
EU_Referendum_to all Minister on EU Referendum
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac
hment_data/file/491181/EU_Referendum_PM_Minute.pdf
Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin
and their International Registration ... (Lisbon Union Jan 15th
2015 Illegal Treaty
http://www.studioconsulenzabrevetti.it/_upload/dwn/lisbon.pdf
ARTICLE 1 IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES? THE GENEVA ACT
OF THE LISBON AGREEMENT AND THE COMMON LAW
Article 1 Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin
and ... Article 1 of the 1958 Lisbon Agreement ... of Origin and
Their International Registration,
http://www.houstonlawreview.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/2-Gervais_Final.pdf
for the Adoption of a new Act of the Lisbon Agreement for the
Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International
Registration Geneva, May 2015
http://www.ecta.org/uploads/pressdoc/ECTA_press_release_Lisbon_FINAL.pdf
Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties obligates negotiators
to act in good faith and good faith itself is a underlying
principle of international law, and a principle of WTO law.
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume
%201155/volume-1155-I-18232-English.pdf
flexcit We have a plan. It is a roadmap, not only for leaving the
EU but also establishing something bigger and better. It is a
blueprint for a phased withdrawal that not only transforms
Britain,

http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf
Summary of the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of
Appellations of Origin and their International Registration
(1958)
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/registration/lisbon/summary_lis
bon.html
Lisbon Agreement
for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their
International Registration
of October 31, 1958,
http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/lisbon/en/legal_texts/lisb
on_agreement.pdf
European Council (a summit involving the leaders of all 28
Member States) will take place on the 18th and 19th, and the
UK is literally at the top of this agenda. In Brussels, at least,
there seems to be optimism about a deal,
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5072-2016INIT/en/pdf
EUROPEAN UNION CONSOLIDATED TREATIES CHARTER OF
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
http://europa.eu/pol/pdf/consolidated-treaties_en.pdf
NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/print-pdf.html?
pageTitle=Glossary+of+summaries&currentUrl=%2Fsummary
%2Fglossary%2Fnato.html
Treaty_on_European_union Articles 3, 4 8 and 21 of the Treaty
on European Union require the EU to contribute to free and
fair trade 1992
http://europa.eu/eu-law/decisionmaking/treaties/pdf/treaty_on_european_union/treaty_on_europ
ean_union_en.pdf
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/courtjustice/#case4
George Osborne says EU vote is 'once in a lifetime' chance BBC Newsnight
Jan 14, 2016
Evan Davis interviews Chancellor George Osborne about the
government's renegotiation with Europe before the UK's in/out
referendum on membership of the European Union.
SUBSCRIBE to get our latest videos http://bbc.in/1iouM30 *
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGQcJ1oW3RA
Port Wine Institute; ... Lisbon agreement for the protection of
appellations of origin and their international registration (1958)
http://www.ecta.org/IMG/pdf/Presentation_Ribeiro_de_Almeida2.pdf

Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin

and their International Registration (1958) ... NO REFUSAL =
protection The Lisbon Agreement Geographical IndicationsOverview of the Current Work at WIPO
http://yucita.org/uploads/etkinlikler/seminer3/uluslararasi/WIPO
_work-_Antalya.pdf
http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/LisbonAgreement_7011.
aspx
IRELAND REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION...
REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION AND ...
declared unconstitutional. Irish common law comprises ...
treaty. The Irish authorities state
http://www.oecd.org/investment/anti-bribery/antibriberyconvention/2495019.pdf
THE TREATY OF LISBON
This chapter presents the background and essential
provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. The objective is to provide a
historical context for the emergence of this latest fundamental
EU text from the ones which came before it. The specific
provisions (with article references) and their effects on
European Union policies are explained in more detail in the fact
sheets dealing with particular policies and issues.
Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and
the Treaty establishing the European Community (OJ C 306,
17.12.2007), entry into force on 1 December 2009.
HISTORY
The Lisbon Treaty started as a constitutional project at the end
of 2001 (European Council declaration on the future of the
European Union, or Laeken declaration), and was followed up
in 2002 and 2003 by the European Convention which drafted
the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (Constitutional
Treaty) (1.1.4). The process leading to the Lisbon Treaty is a
result of the negative outcome of two referenda on the
Constitutional Treaty in May and June 2005, in response to
which the European Council decided to have a two-year period
of reflection. Finally on the basis of the Berlin declaration of
March 2007, the European Council of 21 to 23 June 2007
adopted a detailed mandate for a subsequent
Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) under the Portuguese
Presidency. The IGC concluded its work in October 2007. The
Treaty was signed at the European Council of Lisbon on 13
December 2007 and it has been ratified by all Member States.
CONTENT

A. Objectives and legal principles

The Treaty establishing the European Community is renamed
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the
term Community is replaced by Union throughout the text.
The Union takes the place of the Community and is its legal
successor. The Lisbon Treaty does not create state-like Union
symbols like a flag or an anthem. Although the new text is
hence no longer a constitutional treaty by name, it preserves
most of its substantial achievements.
No additional exclusive competences are transferred to the
Union by the Lisbon Treaty. However, it changes the way the
Union exercises its existing powers and some new (shared)
powers by enhancing citizens participation and protection,
creating a new institutional set- up and modifying the decisionmaking processes for increased efficiency and transparency. A
higher level of parliamentary scrutiny and democratic
accountability is therefore attained.
Unlike the Constitutional Treaty the Lisbon Treaty contains no
article formally enshrining the supremacy of Union law over
national legislation, but a declaration was attached to the
Treaty
Fact Sheets on the European Union - 2016 1
to this effect (Declaration No 17), referring to an opinion of the
Council Legal Service which reiterates consistent case-law by
the Court.
The Lisbon Treaty for the first time clarifies the powers of the
Union. It distinguishes three types of competences: exclusive
competence, where the Union alone can legislate, and Member
States only implement; shared competence, where the
Member States can legislate and adopt legally binding
measures if the Union has not done so; supporting
competence, where the EU adopts measures to support or
complement Member States policies. Union competences can
now be handed back to the Member States in the course of a
treaty revision.
The Lisbon Treaty gives the EU full legal personality. Therefore,
the Union obtains the ability to sign international treaties in the
areas of its attributed powers or join an international
organisation. Member States may only sign international
agreements that are compatible with EU law.
The Treaty of Lisbon completes the absorption of the remaining
pillar three aspects of FSJ (police and judicial cooperation in
criminal matters) into pillar one. Its intergovernmental
structure ceases to exist by making the acts adopted in this
area subject to the ordinary legislative procedure (qualified

majority and codecision) and using the legal instruments of the

Community method (regulations, directives and decisions),
unless otherwise specified.
With the Treaty of Lisbon in force, the European Parliament is
able to propose amendments to the Treaties, as is already the
case for the Council, a Member State government or the
Commission. Normally, such an amendment would require the
convocation of a convention. It will, however, be possible to
revise the Treaties without convening an IGC, through
simplified revision procedures concerning the internal policies
and actions of the Union (Article 48(6) and 48(7) TEU). The
European Parliaments consent is required in order to decide
not to convene a convention if this is deemed to be justified by
the scope of the proposed amendments.
B. Enhanced democracy and better protection of fundamental
rights
The Treaty of Lisbon expresses the three fundamental
principles of democratic equality, representative democracy
and participatory democracy. Participatory democracy takes
the new form of a citizens initiative (2.1.5).
The Charter of Fundamental Rights is not incorporated directly
into the Lisbon Treaty but acquires a legally binding character
through Article 6(1) TEU, giving the Charter the same legal
value as the Treaties (1.1.6).
The EUs accession to the European Convention was opened
when the 14th protocol to the ECHR entered into force, on 1
June 2010. It allows not only states but also international
organisations to become signatories of the ECHR. Accession
still requires the ratification by all states that are parties to the
ECHR as well as the EU itself.
C. A new institutional set-up 1. The European Parliament
Pursuant to Article 14(2) TEU the EP now shall be composed of
representatives of the Unions citizens, not of representatives
of the peoples of the States (Article 189 TEC).
The EPs legislative powers have been increased through the
ordinary legislative procedure which replaced the former
codecision procedure. It now applies to more than 40 new
policy areas, raising the total number to 73. The assent
procedure continues to exist as consent and the consultation
procedure remains unchanged. The new budgetary procedure
creates full parity between Parliament and the Council for
approval of the annual budget. The multiannual financial
framework has to be agreed by Parliament (consent).
Fact Sheets on the European Union - 2016 2
The EP now elects the Commission President by a majority of

its members on a proposal from the European Council which is

obliged to select a candidate by qualified majority, taking into
account the outcome of the European elections. The EP
continues to approve the Commission as a college.
The maximum number of MEPs has been set at 751. The
maximum number of seats per Member State is decreased to
96, the minimum number increased to 6. Germany will keep its
99 MEPs until the next elections, thus raising the total number
of MEPs to 754. The difference of 18 seats between the 736
MEPs elected in June 2009 (on the basis of the Treaty of Nice)
and the number of seats provided for by the Treaty of Lisbon
was filled in December 2011.
2. The European Council
The Lisbon Treaty formally recognises the European Council as
an EU institution, responsible for providing the Union with the
impetus necessary for its development and for defining its
general political directions and priorities. The European
Council has no legislative functions. A long-term presidency
replaces the current system of six-month rotation. The
President is elected by a qualified majority of the European
Council for a renewable term of 30 months. This should
improve the continuity and coherence of its work. The
President also represents the Union externally, without
prejudice to the duties of the High Representative of the Union
for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (see below).
3. The High Representative (HR) for Foreign Affairs and
Security Policy
The HR is appointed by a qualified majority of the European
Council with the agreement of the President of the European
Commission. The HR is responsible for the EUs common
foreign and security policy and has the right to put forward
proposals. Besides chairing the Foreign Affairs Council she is
also Vice-President of the Commission and is assisted by the
European External Action Service, comprising staff from the
Council, the Commission and national diplomatic services.
4. The Council
Lisbon maintains the principle of double majority voting
(citizens and Member States). However, the current
arrangements shall remain in place until November 2014;
between 1 November 2014 and 31 March 2017 the new rules
shall apply but the use of existing voting weights can be
requested by any Member State.
Qualified majority is reached when 55% of members of the
Council, comprising at least 65% of the population, support a
proposal (Article 16(4) TEU). When the Council is not acting on
a proposal from the Commission or the High Representative,

the necessary majority of Member States increases to 72%

(Article 238(2) TFEU). To block legislation, at least four
countries have to vote against a proposal. A new scheme
inspired by the Ioannina compromise will allow 75% (55%
from 1 April 2017) of the Member States necessary for the
blocking minority to ask for reconsideration of a proposal
during a reasonable time period (Declaration 7)
The Council meets in public when it deliberates and votes on a
draft legislative act. To this end, each Council meeting is
divided into two parts dealing respectively with legislative acts
and non- legislative activities. The Council Presidency
continues to rotate on a six-month basis but there are 18month group presidencies of three Member States in order to
ensure better continuity of work. As an exception, the Foreign
Affairs Council is continuously chaired by the HR for Foreign
Affairs and Security Policy.
Fact Sheets on the European Union - 2016 3
5. The Commission
Since the President of the Commission will be chosen and
elected by taking into account the outcome of the European
elections, his or her political legitimacy will be increased. The
President is responsible for the internal organisation of the
college (appointment of commissioners, distribution of
portfolios, request to resign under particular circumstances).
6. The Court of Justice of the European Union
The jurisdiction of the Court is extended to all activities of the
Union with the exception of CFSP. The number of advocatesgeneral can be increased from eight to eleven. Specialised
courts can be set up with the consent of Parliament. Access to
the Court is facilitated for individuals. A European Public
Prosecutors Office should be set up in order to investigate,
prosecute and bring to judgment offences against the Unions
financial interests.
D. More efficient and democratic policy-making with new
policies and new competencies
Several so-called passerelle clauses allow a change from
unanimous decision-making to qualified majority voting and
from the consultation procedure to codecision (Article 31(3)
TEU, Articles 81, 153, 192, 312 and 333 TFEU, plus some
passerelle-type procedures concerning judicial cooperation in
criminal matters) (1.4.2). In areas where the Union has no
exclusive powers, at least nine Member States can establish
enhanced cooperation between themselves. Authorisation for
its use must be granted by the Council after obtaining the
consent of the European Parliament. In CFSP unanimity applies.
The Lisbon Treaty considerably strengthens the principle of

subsidiarity by involving the national parliaments in the

decision-making process (1.3.5). A certain number of new or
extended policies have been introduced in environment policy,
which now includes the fight against climate change, and
energy policy, which makes new references to solidarity and
the security and interconnectivity of supply. Furthermore,
intellectual property rights, sport, space, tourism, civil
protection and administrative cooperation are now the possible
subject of EU law- making.
In CSDP (6.1.2) the Lisbon Treaty introduces a mutual defence
clause which provides that all Member States are obliged to
provide help to a Member State under attack. A solidarity
clause provides that the Union and each of its members have
to provide assistance by all possible means to a Member State
affected by a human or natural catastrophe or by a terrorist
attack. A permanent structured cooperation is open to all
Member States who commit themselves to taking part in
European military equipment programmes and to providing
combat units that are available for immediate action. To
establish such cooperation, it is necessary to have a qualified
majority vote by the Council after consultation with the HR.
ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
See 1.1.4 for Parliaments contributions to the European
Convention and its implication in previous IGCs. With respect to
the 2007 IGC, leading to the signature of the Treaty of Lisbon,
the Parliament for the first time sent three representatives to
the conference under the Portuguese presidency. According to
Parliaments President, at his inaugural speech in February
2007, ensuring that the substance of the Constitutional Treaty,
including the chapter on values, becomes a legal and political
reality by the next European Parliament elections was one of
Parliaments highest priorities for the second half of its sixth
term.
Petr Novak 10/2015
Fact Sheets on the European Union - 2016 4
THE TREATY OF LISBON
policies and issues. LEGAL BASIS. Treaty of Lisbon amending
the Treaty on ... The Lisbon Treaty started as a ... against
climate change,
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ftu/pdf/en/FTU_1.1.5.pdf
Greece Demands Response To IMF Debt Default Leak
http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/04/imf-greece-wikileaks/
19 March 2016 IMF Teleconference on Greece WikiLeaks
release- April, 2nd 2016
IMF, European Union, Greece, debt relief, Troika, Brexit, Merkel,
Sarkozy Transcript of an Audio Recording of an internal IMF

meeting March, 19th 2016 https-//wikileaks.org/imf-internal20160319

http://www.valuewalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/IMFAnticipates-Greek-Disaster.pdf
Ukraine's #Poroshenko implicated 1:
Poroshenko-Petrodoc3
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2765538/Poroshe
nko-Petrodoc3.pdf
Poroshenko-Petrodoc1
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2765536/Poroshe
nko-Petrodoc1.pdf
Poroshenko-Petrodoc2
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2771394/Poroshe
nko-Petrodoc2.pdf
Saudi Crown Prince secret holdings 1:
Al-Saud-Mohammaddoc1
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2774386/AlSaud-Mohammaddoc1.pdf
Al-Saud-Mohammaddoc2
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2778730/AlSaud-Mohammaddoc2.pdf
Al-Saud-Mohammaddoc3
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2778731/AlSaud-Mohammaddoc3.pdf
PM David Cameron implicated via father in #PanamaPapers 1:
Cameron, director of Blairmore Holdings in 1989
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2780378/Camero
n-Iandoc1.pdf
Cameron, director of Blairmore Holdings in 1989 private
banking statement
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2780378/Camero
n-Iandoc1.pdf
President #Macri #PanamaPapers 1:
Fleg Trading directorship in 1998
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2771691/MacriMauriciodoc1.pdf
Macri-Mauriciodoc2 Macri's asset declaration 2008
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2782161/MacriMauriciodoc2.pdf
Macri-Mauriciodoc3 Macri's asset declaration 2009
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2782162/MacriMauriciodoc3.pdf
The Brexit Muddle
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/uncertaintyshaping-brexit-decision-by-mohamed-a--el-erian-2016-03
Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and Jose Luiz Rodriguez

Zapatero are understood to have privately criticised the Tory

leader after he sent a handwritten letter to the Czech president
Vaclay Klaus, who is refusing to sign the treaty. The letter was
seen as an attempt to influence the Czech Republic, the only
country not to have ratified the treaty. Senior British sources
familiar with thinking at the highest levels of the EU say that
the leaders of France, Germany
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/germany> and Spain
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldispain> all raised questions
about the Cameron letter.
It is understood that Cameron encouraged Klaus to delay the
ratification of the treaty by setting out Tory policy to hold a
referendum in Britain on the treaty if it has not been ratified by
all member states.
The sources have told the Guardian that:
* Sarkozy was overheard telling Gordon Brown that he was
incensed by Cameron's letter, which the French saw as an
attempt to wreck the Lisbon treaty.
Merkel was also said to be upset by Cameron's letter. The
German chancellor is understood to have echoed concerns of
senior figures in her CDU party, such as the former European
parliament president Hans Gert Poettering, that Cameron's
behaviour had been untrustworthy.
Zapatero who addressed the recent Labour party
conference and will have to negotiate directly with Cameron if
he wins the election because Spain holds the EU's rotating
presidency until July 2010 made clear to diplomats that he
regarded Cameron's letter as damaging and an attempt to
scupper the treaty.
The interventions by the EU leaders come as the Tories plan to
abandon their two-year campaign to hold a referendum on the
Lisbon_treaty. Senior Tories told the Guardian that Cameron will
set out his thinking in the coming weeks if, as expected, the
Czech president finally ratifies the treaty.
It is understood that Cameron will drop his pledge to hold a
referendum on the treaty on the grounds that it is impossible
to open a treaty that has entered EU law. A Tory government
would instead focus on repatriating social and employment
laws, in effect restoring the British opt-out from the social
chapter. This has been sprinkled around various EU treaties
since Tony Blair ended the opt-out in 1997, meaning that its
measures could only be restored to Britain with the agreement
of all member states.
Brown yesterday used his appearance at the summit, where he
held a series of formal and informal one-to-one
meetings with EU leaders, to launch a strong attack on the

Tories' approach to Europe. Speaking of the Tory decision to

abandon the main centre-right EPP grouping in the European
parliament in favour of a smaller group consisting mainly of
fringe parties from the hard right in eastern Europe, the prime
minister said: "The Conservative party are standing apart from
the mainstream in Europe.
"They are part of a very small group of minorities of 23
people apart from the Conservative party. They are standing on
the fringes of Europe. That is a huge mistake for British
interests."
A Tory spokeswoman said: "We have never concealed the fact
that we sent the letter ... David Cameron has made no secret
of its contents. It sets out his public opinion in a private letter."
David Cameron has seriously damaged his relations.with the
European leaders. Sending a letter to Czech leader Vaclay
Klaus encouraging him not to sign the Lisbon Treaty, as though
Cameron were already Prime Minister, he has offended
Sarkozy., Merkel and Zapatero. Within the Conservative Party
the Shadow Foreign Minister William Hague has arduously
pressured for an anti-EU stance, despite his assurances to you
that Tory policy toward Europe would be marked by continuity.
Cameron has attempted to straddle factions, fending off calls
for a national referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. But this letter is
proof positive of his tilt to the Tory right on Europe. The
European leaders understand that the letter signals his future
policy and are reacting accordingly. Cameron's presumptive
strike has accelerated the predicted Tory-European split from
post-election to pre-election. Whether this affects Merkel's
attitude on Blair and the EU presidency remains unclear, but
Cameron's high-handed behavior is precisely the sort of thing
that provokes her. See the Guardian report below:
Guardian
Europe leaders incensed by David Cameron's letter Sarkozy,
Merkel and Zapatero criticise Tories for attempt to delay treaty
Nicholas Watt
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/profileinicholaswatt> and Ian
Traynor <http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/iantraynor>
guardian.co.uk <http://vvww.guardian.co.uk> , Friday 30
October 2009 22.21 GMT Leaders of three of the most powerful
countries in Europe have strongly criticised David Cameron
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/poiitics/davidcameron> at the EU
summit over Conservative plans to scupper the Lisbon treaty.
A coalition of environmental, fishing and consumer groups
have filed a suit against the US Food and Drug Administration
over its approval of genetically engineered salmon, sold as
illegal consumption food without costumers consent labeling

2016-3-30
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/2016-3-30-dkt-1--pls-complaint_94703.pdf
Frankenfish, FDA sued over first GMO animal
Apr 1, 2016
The US Food and Drug Administration is being sued by a
coalition of environmental, fishing and consumer groups for its
approval of genetically engineered salmon the first such
animal to ever be sold for commercial consumption. For more
on this, RT Americas Anya Parampil is joined by one of the
lawyers filing the suit, Brettny Hardy of Earthjustice.
Find RT America in your area: http://rt.com/where-to-watch/
Or watch us online: http://rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air/
Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTAmerica
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_America
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaKty7ku2pk
UK, BRITAIN, Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and the Council on the use of Passenger Name
Record (PNR) data The best of both worlds- the United
Kingdoms special status in a reformed European Union
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac
hment_data/file/504220/The_best_of_both_worlds_the_UKs_spe
cial_status_in_a_reformed_EU_print_ready.pdf
RTE Stands for Rigging the election
EU to raise concerns over concentration of media ownership in
Ireland
http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/25785
Analysing the Media Coverage of the Irish General Election
https://medium.com/@beyourownreason/analysing-the-mediacoverage-of-the-irish-general-electione9425f6cf07f#.4hvpgeqpa
The Company's strategy is to increase its share of the global
rock-drilling ... Dublin 18. Ireland. Principal Bank: Allied Irish
Banks plc. Shannon. Co. Clare ... The Mincon Group has
delivered another strong performance in 2014 ... of trading in
Peru. ... exploration,
http://www.mincon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/MinconAnnual-Report-2014.pdf
Biased media, Election 2016.
http://www.villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2016/03/biasedmedia-election-2016/
Cork County Council will not investigate vote claims
Monday, March 07, 2016
http://www.irishexaminer.com/election2016/election2016news-and-analysis/cork-county-council-will-not-investigate-

vote-claims-385864.html
Maura Healy-Rae to take over father Danny's council seat
Monday, March 07, 2016
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/maurahealy-rae-to-take-over-father-dannys-council-seat-724076.html
Enda might Aswell stay in. there is no one else to run
government I grew up around enda Kenny the day he fot into
power he changed he was broken. Its not him who needs
changing its his advisors
His Advisors ! When a nan surrounds himself with Yes men &
cannot make a decision himself He is an idiot & a fool. His
advisors knew nothing of the feeling on the ground They
spent too much time in their Ivory Tower. Says a lot for the
other FG TDs who allowed Endas advisors to run the show
The Wonderly Wagon Show.
Polling-time error saw some islanders miss voting
http://www.rte.ie/news/election-2016/2016/0307/773214-clareisland-voting/
Concentration of Irish media ownership 'high risk'
http://m.rte.ie/news/2016/0306/772989-ireland-mediaownership/
Garda Union Urges Members To Vote Yes In Referendum
http://www.independent.ie
April 21, 2015.
(2) Baroness OLoan appalled at Garda referendum
intervention IrishTimes.com April 30 -2015.
(3) Ombudsman Reviews European Vote Investigation:
http://www.villagemagazine.ie
April 2, 2010.
(4) Vote Manipulation in Ireland in Run-up to Lisbon 2 :
http://WWW.youtube
Sep 22, 2009.
(5) Irish Referendum Count At Cork City Hall:
http://WWW.youtube
October 7, 2009: This short video exposes the complete lack
of supervision at one of the major vote counting centres for the
crucial rerun of the Irish EU Lisbon Treaty referendum of 2009.
It should be noted that the outcome of this referendum had
vital implications, not just for Ireland, but for the whole EU
integration project.
(6) Ballot Box Problems, Broken Laws Cast Doubt on Irish
Lisbon Referendum Result. corbettreport.com 8 October
2010.
(7) Lisbon Referendum in Ireland Was Rigged: The Tap Blog
Oct 5, 2009.
(8) Democracy is dead says UKIP leader, as Labour take

100% of postal votes surge in one area

http://www.express.co.uk
Dec 5, 2015.
(9) Farage claims perverse Labour win in Oldham
http://www.express.co.uk
Dec 5, 2015.
(10) Oldham by-election: Police could be called in to
investigate complaints about Labour victory.:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
Dec 4, 2015.
(11) Whitehall in denial over extent of UK election fraud, says
Eric Pickles.
http://www.the guardian August 13, 2015.
(12) Here is how the Election in the UK was rigged.
http://www.youtube
May 8 2015. For further information on the huge potential for
vote fraud in the UK, watch the interview between Ian R Crane
and Brian Gerrish, on Cranes website, The Crane Report. In it
both men discuss the extraordinary fact that the brother of a
very senior member of the British Tory Party, Peter Lilley, runs
the firm that controls the postal voting system in the UK. It
should be noted that Crane and another leading British anti-EU
activist, David Noakes, have both said the 2009 Irish Lisbon
referendum was definitely rigged. Indeed Noakes says he
believes that the first 2008 Irish Lisbon referendum was also
rigged by 20 per cent, and when that didnt work they rigged
the second one by 40 per cent.
(13) Petition: Rerun the Rigged 2015 UK election.
(14) SNP Election Landslide Proves Referendum Was Rigged,
Claims Russian Official
http://www.herald.scotland.com
May 10, 2015. This Russian election official wasnt being wise
with hindsight. Russian monitors at the Scottish referendum
stated at the time that the vote had been rigged; the election
result seven months later only served to add much more
weight to their allegations.
(15) Scotland Independence Vote Rigging Exposed:
http://www.youtube
19 Sep, 2014.
(16) One news item I was unable to locate on the internet, in
spite of a very exhaustive search, was a report that appeared
in most major Irish newspapers in 2008, in which the then Irish
Taoiseach (Prime Minister), Brian Cowen, was caught on a live
mike in the Irish Dail (parliament) referring to the leader of the
Fine Gael opposition party and his colleagues, as Freemason
fers. Quelle surprise, a short time after this episode, Cowen

was deposed as leader of the then governing Fianna Fail party

in a palace coup orchestrated with the help of the British
intelligence controlled Irish media. The man he referred to as a
Freemason fer, Enda Kenny, became Irish Taoiseach in 2011,
and following last Fridays Irish general election, it looks likely
that he may assume the same role in the next Irish Dail albeit
with a reduced number of parliamentary colleagues. Kennys
coalition government has not only legalised abortion and SSM
it has also imposed a Rothschild/Goldman Sachs regime of
draconian austerity, and has further exacerbated Irelands
massive immigration problem. Irish media reports about
Cowens Freemason fer outburst have clearly been very
comprehensively deleted from the internet. Indeed a few years
ago, when I searched for this intriguing item, I could find only
one reference to it, and that was in a local newspaper in New
Zealand (!). Even there however, the f word had been
expurgated not the expletive f-word I hasten to add the
freemason word!
How did the polls change in the run up to other recent
referendums?
History has shown us theyre not exactly a perfect science.
May 16th 2015,
May 16, 2015 - THE POLLS FOR the same-sex marriage
referendum have been showing .... After the recent poll results
in the UK general election, I am given to wonder if ..... Crazy
thought, maybe the polls are correct but the results are
rigged? .... I heard just the other day several debates on RTE,
where the Yes side
http://www.thejournal.ie/polls-referendum-ireland-changevaradkar-2105566-May2015/
RedC Poll for Youth Council shows 74% support Childrens
Referendum but concern at levels of understanding of
amendment
Friday, October 19, 2012
http://www.youth.ie/nyci/RedC-Poll-Youth-Council-shows-74support-Childrens-Referendum-concern-levels-understandingame
Your Guide to The Governance Code for Community, Voluntary
and Charitable Organisations
https://www.wheel.ie/sites/default/files/Guide%20to
%20Governance%20Code%20FINAL.pdf
Why Ireland scrapped their voting machines
Jul 3, 2012
Ireland decided this week to scrap their voting machines--like

the ones here stored in Dublin. They're selling them for scrap
metal, because they found they were too unreliable and too
easy to hack. They'd only used them once, back in 2002, but
that was enough. Unfortunately, America hasn't learned as
quickly as the Irish. It used to be in America that exit polls were
the gold standard to determine if there were shenanigans in an
election. For over a century we used them, and we got very,
very good at it. They almost never deviated by more than a
few tenths of a point from the actual electoral outcome, and
when they did, it was a sure sign of fraud.
Such a sure sign that exit polls were used successfully to
expose - and then overturn - fraudulent elections in Ukraine,
Serbia, and Georgia. Polling companies were really good at
this, and had great success in the election of 1998, when
voting machines only recorded 7 percent of the national vote.
But in the elections of 2000 and 2002, something odd began to
happen. It was called "red shift" because, in certain states
where there were a lot of voting machines being used,
Republican candidates did better in the vote the machines
reported than in the exit polls. In the election of 2004, New
York, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio led the charge with a red
shift toward George W. Bush of 276,000 votes in New York,
228,000 in Florida, 190,000 in Pennsylvania, 169,000 in Ohio.
It had started two years earlier, in 2002, when voting machines
began to appear everywhere across America because George
W. Bush signed into effect a law called the Help America Vote
Act or HAVA that gave billions of dollars to the states so they
could buy these machines from private corporations like
Diebold and ES&S. It was the high water point of the
privatization of our vote. For two centuries, our vote was
counted by volunteers and government workers overseen by
representatives of the political parties. That all changed
between 2000 and 2004 - now over 90 percent of our vote is
recorded or counted in secret on corporate machines, and
those corporations tell us who one our elections. Why is it
secret? Because, the voting machine companies say, they
have copyright and trademark "rights" to keep their software
and hardware secret from us.
Because the irish government and EU Rigged the irish Fiscal
treaty rEferendum as you will see in Video under here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV_ZerkPIMU
Reuters knew Irish referendum result before the count
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3DLYJS1fFU
Fraud and criminal misapplication of EU money affects all EU
citizens. In times of economic crisis and budgetary restriction,
it is more important than ever to investigate, prosecute and

bring to justice those who commit criminal offences affecting

the Union's financial interests. The Commission proposed a
regulation on the establishment of a European Prosecutor's
office based on Art. 86 TFEU.
What is the EPPO?
The EPPO will be an independent Union body with the authority
to investigate and prosecute EU-fraud and other crimes
affecting the Union's financial interests. The establishment of
the EPPO will bring about substantial change in the way the
Union's financial interests are protected. It will combine
European and national law-enforcement efforts in a unified,
seamless and efficient approach to counter EU-fraud.
Currently, only national authorities can investigate and
prosecute EU-fraud. Their competences stop at their national
borders. Existing Union-bodies (such as OLAF, Eurojust and
Europol) do not have and cannot be given the mandate to
conduct criminal investigations.
The EPPO will fill this institutional gap. It will have exclusive
and EU-wide jurisdiction to deal with suspicions of criminal
behaviour falling within its remit.
The structure of the EPPO
The EPPO will be a body of the Union with a decentralised
structure. The decentralised structure aims at involving and
integrating the national law enforcement authorities.
The EPPO will be headed by a European Public Prosecutor. Its
investigations will in principle be carried out by European
Delegated Prosecutors located in each Member State. The
number of these Delegated Prosecutors will be left for Member
States, but they should have at least one. The European
Delegated Prosecutors will be an integral part of the EPPO but
also continue to exercise their functions as national
prosecutors. When acting for the EPPO, they will be fully
independent from the national prosecution bodies.
This structure will lead to synergies between European and
national decision making. It will ensure best chances of the
EPPO being effective.
The main characteristics of the EPPO
The EPPO will be an efficient Union body pooling investigative
and prosecutorial resources of the Member States with clear
hierarchical lines to ensure swift decision making. It will have
uniform investigation powers throughout the Union based on
and integrated into the national law systems of the Member
States. There will be strong safeguards to guarantee the rights
of the persons involved in the EPPO's investigations as laid
down in national law, Union law and the Charter of
Fundamental Rights. Investigation measures that touch mostly

on fundamental rights as e.g. telephone interception, will need

a prior authorisation by a national Court. The EPPOs
investigations will be subject to judicial review by the national
courts. The EPPO will enable Member States and the Union to
work hand-in-hand for the protection of European taxpayers'
money.
The added value of the EPPO:

genuine European prosecution policy;

uniform, consistent and systematic approach while

linking in with MS' judicial systems;

investigates and procecutes all EU fraud cases;

continuity in complex and cross-border cases;

stronger deterrence and prevention effect.

The law applying to the EPPO's activities
The EPPO will mainly rely on national rules of investigation and
procedure, which will apply if the regulation does not provide
for more specific provisions. The regulation introduces
European rules where absolutely necessary to ensure the
efficiency and effectiveness of the EPPO's
investigations/prosecutions and in order to ensure a high level
of procedural safeguards for the suspected persons. In
particular:

the regulation lists the EPPO's investigative powers and

provides for general conditions of their application. The
Regulation also contains provisions defining homogeneous
procedural rights of the suspected person.

the regulation contains rules on the admissibility

evidence. The EPPO Regulation sets out that evidence
gathered lawfully in one Member State is admissible in the trial
courts of all Member States, provided the admission does not
adversely affect the fairness of the procedure or the rights of
defence as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
History
The Commission's proposal is the result of a long lasting
consultation process. Milestones on the way to the current
proposal of the establishment of an EPPO were:

the 'Corpus Juris' , a set of rules for a future European

Public Prosecutor, elaborated and presented by an expert
group in 2000;

the Green Paper on criminal-law protection of the

financial interests of the Community, presented by the
Commission in 2001;

the unratified Treaty establishing a Constitution for

Europe, 2004;

the Lisbon Treaty which offered the legal basis for the
establishment of the EPPO in Art. 86 TFEU, December 2009;


the Commission's communication on the protection of
the EU's financial interests by criminal law and by
administrative investigations, May 2011.
Links
For more information see press release (press release and
memo), legislative text, the Communication and Staff Working
Documents accompanying the proposal for the Regulation
(impact assessment (2 MB) and executive summary of the
impact assessment). The proposal on the establishment of the
EPPO is accompanied by a proposal to reform the Regulation
on Eurojust.
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/judicial-cooperation/publicprosecutor/index_en.htm
The Lisbon Treaty which offered the legal basis for the
establishment of the EPPO in Art. 86 TFEU, December 2009
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=OJ:C:2007:306:FULL&from=EN
Commission's communication on the protection of the EU's
financial interests by criminal law and by administrative
investigations, May 2011. An integrated policy to safeguard
taxpayers' money
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=COM:2011:0293:FIN:EN:PDF
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the
document Proposal for a Council Regulation on the
establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office
executive summary of the impact assessment
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:52013SC0275&from=EN
COUNCIL REGULATION on the establishment of the European
Public Prosecutor's Office 2013
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:52013PC0534&from=EN
GREEN PAPER on criminal-law protection of the financial
interests of the Community and the establishment of a
European Prosecutor; the unratified Treaty establishing a
Constitution for Europe, 2004, 2013
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:52001DC0715&from=EN
The Commission proposed a regulation on the establishment of
a European Prosecutor's office based on Art. 86 TFEU. 2013
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:52013PC0534&from=EN
Recognition of decisions between EU countries
Abstract

European Public Prosecutor's Office

Abstract
Mutual recognition of judicial decisions is a process by which a
decision usually taken by a judicial authority in one EU country
is recognised, and where necessary, enforced by other EU
countries as if it was a decision taken by the judicial authorities
of the latter countries.
This is a key concept in the sphere of judicial cooperation, as it
helps to overcome the difficulties stemming from the diversity
of judicial systems throughout the EU.
Traditional judicial cooperation can be defined as an inter-state
relation where one sovereign State makes a request to another
sovereign State, which then decides whether or not to comply
with it.
Those relations are organised through a variety of legal
instruments, agreed either on a bilateral basis or within the
framework of international organisations such as the UN or the
Council of Europe.
This system is both slow and complex. It no longer corresponds
to the reality of today's European area where people circulate
easily, with few or no controls.
Improved cooperation
To a free circulation of people shall correspond a free
circulation of judicial decisions. This is where the principle of
mutual recognition leads to a real change in the philosophy of
judicial cooperation. It means that each national judicial
authority must recognise decisions made by the judicial
authority of another EU country with a minimum of formalities,
and with very few exceptions.
Enhanced mutual recognition is to improve the efficiency of
cooperation between authorities. It is based on the mutual
confidence that EU countries have in each others' systems,
founded on the common respect of human rights and
fundamental freedoms as asserted in the Treaty of the
European Union.
Background
In October 1999, at the Tampere European Council, mutual
recognition was asserted to be the cornerstone of judicial
cooperation.
In order to implement this principle, a programme of measures
was adopted in January 2001. The implementation of this
programme is one of the major challenges for the creation of a
common area of justice.
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/recognitiondecision/index_en.htm
Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual

recognition of decisions in criminal matters

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:32001Y0115(02)&from=EN
A GENUINE EUROPEAN AREA OF JUSTICE
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/tam_en.htm#b
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/about/files/organisation_chart_en.pd
f
Judicial cooperation
Abstract
Building a fully-fledged freedom and security area calls for
progress in the creation of a single area of justice. A European
dimension is often present in criminal matters. To fight a
criminal organisation active in several EU countries, or to bring
to justice an offender who tries to hide in a different EU
country or also hear the testimony of a witness who is in a
different country, judicial cooperation is necessary.
Strengthen judicial cooperation
When they need to take specific steps or execute certain
decisions within the framework of criminal investigations or
proceedings, national authorities may count on the assistance
of criminal authorities in a different EU country.
Judicial cooperation in criminal matters is based on the
principle of mutual recognition of judgements and judicial
decisions by EU countries. It was introduced by the Maastricht
Treaty under Title V (provisions on a common foreign and
security policy).
The EU has worked in different areas in order to strengthen
judicial cooperation between the criminal justice authorities in
the EU countries.
Different forms of judicial cooperation
Mutual legal assistance is the traditional form of judicial
cooperation.
A judicial authority sends a letter of request ("letter rogatory")
to a foreign judicial authority to perform an action in its
territory. For example, legal assistance may be requested to
search a building or confiscate property.
This form of judicial cooperation is not exclusive to EU
members and may be slow and complex at times.
A more advanced form of judicial cooperation is the mutual
recognition of judgements and judicial decisions.
Using EU agencies
The EU has set up specific structures to facilitate mutual
assistance and support cooperation between judicial
authorities:

Eurojust: an EU body comprising experienced judges or

prosecutors who support and strengthen coordination and

cooperation between national authorities in relation to serious
crime;
European judicial network in criminal matters (EJN): a network
of magistrates and prosecutors who act as contact points in EU
countries to facilitate judicial cooperation.
Call for Proposals for Financial Assistance to Joint Investigation
Teams
(2016/3)
http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/doclibrary/JITs/JITs%20funding
%20application%20procedure/JITs%20Funding%20Latest
%20Call%20for%20Proposals/JITSFunding-Latest-Call-forproposals_EN.pdf
SCHUMAN DECLARATION
and the BIRTH OF EUROPE
SPEECH OF 9 MAY 1950
FULL TEXT
"It is no longer a question of vain words but of a bold act, a
constructive act. France has acted and the consequences of its
action can be immense. We hope they will be. France has acted
primarily for peace and to give peace a real chance.
For this it is necessary that Europe should exist. Five years,
almost to the day, after the unconditional surrender of
Germany, France is accomplishing the first decisive act for
European construction and is associating Germany with this.
Conditions in Europe are going to be entirely changed because
of it. This transformation will facilitate other action which has
been impossible until this day.
Europe will be born from this, a Europe which is solidly united
and constructed around a strong framework. It will be a Europe
where the standard of living will rise by grouping together
production and expanding markets, thus encouraging the
lowering of prices.
In this Europe, the Ruhr, the Saar and the French industrial
basins will work together for common goals and their progress
will be followed by observers from the United Nations. All
Europeans without distinction, whether from east or west, and
all the overseas territories, especially Africa, which awaits
development and prosperity from this old continent, will gain
benefits from their labour of peace.
World peace cannot be safeguarded if constructive efforts are
not made commensurate with the dangers that threaten it. An
organized and revitalized Europe can make a contribution to

civilization which is indispensable for maintaining such

peaceful relations. France has always held the cause of peace
as her main aim in taking upon herself the role for more than
twenty years of championing a united Europe. That European
task was not achieved and we had war.
Europe will not be made at once, nor according to a single
master plan of construction. It will be built by concrete
achievements, which create de facto dependence, mutual
interests and the desire for common action.
The gathering of the nations of Europe demands the
elimination of the age-old antagonism of France and Germany.
The first concern of any action undertaken must involve these
two countries.
With this objective in mind, the French government proposes to
direct its action on one limited but decisive point:
The French government proposes to place Franco-German
production of coal and steel under one common High Authority
in an organisation open to the participation of other countries
of Europe.
The pooling of coal and steel production will immediately
assure the establishment of common bases for economic
development as a first step for the European Federation. It will
change the destiny of regions that have long been devoted to
manufacturing munitions of war, of which they have been most
constantly the victims.
This merging of our interests in coal and steel production and
our joint action will make it plain that any war between France
and Germany becomes not only unthinkable but materially
impossible. The establishment of this powerful unity for
production, open to all countries willing to take part, and
eventually capable of providing all the member countries with
the basic elements of industrial production on the same terms,
will cast the real foundation for their economic unification.
This production would be offered to the world as a whole,
without distinction or exception, with the aim of raising living
standards and promoting peace as well as fulfilling one of
Europes essential tasks the development of the African
continent.
In this way, simply and speedily, the fusion of interests which is
vital for the establishment of a common economic system will
be realized. Thus the leaven will be introduced which will
permeate and build a wider and deeper community between
countries that had continually opposed each other in bloody
divisions.
By pooling basic industrial production and setting-up a new
High Authority whose decisions will be binding on France,

Germany and other member countries, these proposals will

bring to reality the first solid groundwork for a European
Federation vital to the preservation of world peace.
In order to further the realisation of the objectives it has thus
defined, the French Government is ready to open negotiations
on the following basis:
The High Authority would be charged with the mission of
assuring in the briefest delay the modernization of production
and the improvement of its quality; the supply of coal and steel
on identical terms to French and German markets and those of
other member countries; the development of common exports
to other countries; and the equalization of improvement in the
living conditions of workers in these industries.
In order to attain these goals starting from the very varied
conditions in which the production of the member countries are
situated, transitory measures should be instituted such as a
production and investment plan, compensating mechanisms
for the equalization of prices, and a restructuring fund to
facilitate the rationalisation of production. The movement of
coal and steel between member states will immediately be
freed of all customs duties and it will not be permitted for it to
be constrained by differential transport rates. Conditions will
be progressively created which will spontaneously assure the
most rational distribution of production at the highest level of
productivity.
In contrast to an international cartel which aims at dividing and
exploiting national markets by restrictive practices in order to
maintain high profit margins, the proposed organization will
assure the merger of markets and the expansion of production.
The principles and fundamental commitments defined above
will be the subject of a treaty signed between the states. The
negotiations necessary to define the measures to be applied
will be undertaken with the help of an arbitrator, designated by
common agreement. The latter will charged to ensure that the
agreements are in line with the principles and, in the case of
unresolvable differences, will determine the solution to be
adopted. The joint High Authority, responsible for the
functioning of the whole regime, will be composed of
independent personalities designated on an equal basis by the
governments. A President will be chosen by common accord of
the governments. His decisions will be binding on France,
Germany and the other member countries. Appropriate
measures will assure the means of appeal necessary against
the decisions of the High Authority. A representative of the
United Nations to the High Authority will be charged to make a
public report twice a year to the United Nations Organisation,

reporting on the functioning of the new body, in particular

about the safeguarding of its peaceful objectives.
The institution of the High Authority does not prejudice in any
way the ownership of enterprises. In the furtherance of its
mission, the joint High Authority will take into account the
powers conferred on the International Authority for the Ruhr
and the obligations of all types imposed on Germany as long as
they continue."
The Lisbon Treaty after the Irish No Vote: Ways out of the
Impasse
by Dr. Alexander Trk, School of Law, King's College London,
General Editor EU Tracker.
The Lisbon Treaty is an essential step towards a modern
structure of the European Union, which has been put to a halt
by a "No" of the Irish voters, a dilemma for the whole EU. The
article discusses ways out of the current deadlock.
The Lisbon Treaty of 2007 was presented to voters in the
European Union in terms of a 'Reform Treaty' stripped of the
more ambitious constitutional attributes of the failed
Constitutional Treaty of 2004. While it is doubtful that the
removal of certain 'constitutional' provisions relating to the
flag, the anthem, the motto ('united in diversity'!), and even
the primacy clause, was of great significance, it was hoped
that such a move would facilitate the ratification process in the
Member States. Moreover, in order to ensure a smooth
ratification, France and the Netherlands, whose citizens
rejected the Constitutional Treaty in a referendum, opted for
the parliamentary process of ratification to avoid difficulties
with their electorate.
All the same, in the only Member State, Ireland, which did put
the Lisbon Treaty to a referendum, it received a resounding
'No'. A report commissioned by the Irish government identified
as the main reasons for the rejection complaints by Irish voters
about a lack of information, worries about the loss of the 'Irish'
Commissioner, concerns about the impact of the Lisbon Treaty
on Irish corporation tax, on social standards, on the right to
life, family and education, as well as fears about Irish neutrality
and of being conscripted into a European army. The report also
made it clear while they had reservations about the Lisbon
Treaty, the Irish voters did not question membership in the
European Union as such.
While a search out of the impasse is underway, the situation in
which the EU finds itself is not without precedent in the history

of European integration. The historical antecedents therefore

provide a guide as to what the likely outcome is going to look
like. Following the rejection of the Maastricht Treaty by the
Danish voters in June 1992, the Danish parliament formulated
eight demands (by and large remarkably similar to those
raised by Irish voters), which it thought had to be met before
the Danish people could be asked to vote again. While the
governments of the other Member States were prepared to
adopt certain measures so that the Maastricht Treaty could be
passed in a second Danish referendum, any changes to the
Treaty which required the re-opening of the intergovernmental
negotiations were out of the question. The compromise, found
in the Edinburgh Agreement (1992), consisted of a direct
response to the Danish 'demands' in Part B of the Edinburgh
European Council conclusions 'Denmark and the Treaty on
European Union', while Part A addressed the 'other' demands
formulated by Denmark. The Edinburgh Agreement proved
sufficient to achieve a 'Yes' vote in the second Danish
referendum in May 1993, clearing the way for the entering into
force of the Maastricht Treaty.
Part B contained a Decision, which was not adopted by the
European Council, but by the 'Heads of State or Government,
meeting within the European Council', thereby raising
questions as to its legal status. All the same, the Decision was
regarded merely as clarification without amendment to the
Maastricht Treaty itself. The Decision contained re-assurances
on the status of EU citizenship; an acceptance that Denmark
would not participate in the third stage of EMU; a statement
that Denmark would not be included in the EU's defence policy
by noting that it was merely an observer to the Western
European Union (WEU) and did not partake in decisions and
actions of the EU relating to defence matters, while allowing
closer co-operation between the other Member States in this
area; an assurance of its full co-operation in Justice and Home
affairs; and the possibility for Denmark to inform other Member
States 'that it no longer wishes to avail itself of all or part of
this decision'. The Edinburgh Agreement also contained a
Declaration by the European Council which stated that the
Treaty on European Union did not prevent Member States from
imposing standards which were more stringent than those
adopted by the EC Treaty in the field of social policy,
environmental and consumer protection, as well as confirming
that the distribution of income and social welfare benefits were
matters for the Member States. A second Declaration by the
European Council noted that Denmark would not exercise its

Presidency rights in cases related to the EU's defence matters.

Three unilateral Declarations by Denmark which were
acknowledged by the other Member States conclude the
Edinburgh Agreement. The Declarations on Citizenship of the
Union and on Co-operation in the Fields of Justice and Home
Affairs complement the corresponding part in the Decision of
the European Council. The third Declaration stresses that for
Denmark the Decision of the European Council is compatible
with the TEU and its objectives, perhaps to reassure the other
Member States.
Part A addressed the other 'demands' formulated by Denmark,
notably on measures to combat unemployment, on greater
openness and transparency in the EU and the effective
application of the subsidiarity principle. Arguably, these issues
left a more lasting legacy in European Union law. The
Amsterdam Treaty, which followed the Maastricht Treaty,
included 'the promotion of a high level of employment' as
objective in Article 2 TEU and inserted a new title on
'Employment' in the EC Treaty. Moreover, the Amsterdam
Treaty also introduced the principle of openness in Article 1
TEU and Article 255 EC Treaty contained the new principle of
access to documents. Finally, the 'Protocol on Subsidiarity and
Proportionality' provided more details as to the application of
these principles.
The second example of how a 'No' vote in a referendum can be
overcome in a second referendum is supplied by Ireland itself,
in relation to the Nice Treaty. Following the rejection of the Nice
Treaty by the Irish electorate in June 2001, the Irish
government adopted a 'National Declaration' which was to be
associated with any Irish ratification of the Nice Treaty. The
declaration was intended to reassure Irish voters that the EU's
security and defence policy as laid down in the Nice Treaty
would not compromise the traditional military neutrality of
Ireland, mainly because any move towards a common
European defence would require Irish consent in the form of a
referendum. The European Council in its Seville Declaration in
June 2002 acknowledged the Irish position in that it confirmed
that the Nice Treaty would not affect Ireland's traditional policy
of military neutrality. This proved sufficient for the Irish
government to hold a second referendum in October 2002,
which approved the Nice Treaty.
While a renegotiation of the Lisbon Treaty was never a viable
option, the European Council in its December 2008 meeting

agreed in broad terms a plan to pave the way for a second

referendum in Ireland in the latter part of 2009, thereby
following the arrangements made for allowing a second
referendum on the Treaties of Maastricht and Nice outlined
above. Despite serious misgivings on the part of some Member
States, which considered a reduction of the size of the College
of Commissioners necessary for its effective functioning, the
European Council agreed that 'provided the Treaty of Lisbon
enters into force, a decision will be taken [...] to the effect that
the Commission shall continue to include one national of each
Member State'. It is not without irony that should the Irish
electorate reject the Lisbon Treaty a second time, the current
regime under the Nice Treaty which requires the reduction of
the Commission will have to be applied (see Article 4(2) of the
Protocol on Enlargement of the EU attached to the Nice Treaty).
The European Council also agreed to provide Ireland with legal
guarantees relating to taxation policy, the right to life,
education and the family, as well as Ireland's traditional policy
of neutrality. These guarantees will not be included in the
Lisbon Treaty itself, as this would re-open the re-ratification
process in the Member States which have already ratified the
Lisbon Treaty. It is rather envisaged (at least by French
President Sarkozy) to include these guarantees in a Protocol to
be attached to the next Accession Treaty, most likely with
Croatia. On workers' rights, the European Council, mainly due
to the objection of the United Kingdom to a legally binding
guarantee, will merely provide assurances restating the 'high
importance' of these issues. The details of these terms will
have to be agreed by the end of the Czech Presidency to allow
the referendum, to which the Irish government has already
agreed, to take place in the latter part of the year, probably
October 2009. It is said that the (second) referendum will then
also contain a vote on a ban on conscription to assuage fears
of the Irish electorate in this respect.
part of eu referendum in britain read it Consolidated ReaderFriendly Edition of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) as
amended by the Treaty of Lisbon (2007)
Tusks proposal (Section C, points 2-3) envisions that reasoned
opinions of national parliaments issued under Article 7.1 of
Protocol No. 2 of the Lisbon Treaty
http://www.eudemocrats.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents
/D-Reader_friendly_latest%20version.pdf
Bibliography
M. Cahill, 'Ireland's Constitutional Amendability and Europe's
Constitutional Ambition: the Lisbon Referendum in Context'

(2008) German Law Journal 1191-1218

C. Costello, 'Ireland's Nice Referenda' (2005) EUConst 357
P. Gjortler, 'Denmark: ratifying the Treaty on European Union:
an interim report' (1993) European Law Review 356-360
K. Hayward, '"If at first you don't succeed ..." The Second
Referendum on the Treaty of Nice 2002' (2003) Irish Political
Studies 120
G. Hogan, 'The Nice Treaty and the Irish Constitution' (2001)
European Public Law 565
D. Howarth, 'The Compromise on Denmark and the Treaty on
European Union: a Legal and Political Anlalysis' (1994)
Common Market Law Review 765-805
T. Worre, 'First No, Then Yes: The Danish Referendums on the
Maastricht Treaty 1992 and 1993' (1995) Journal of Common
Market Studies 235-257
Irelands Illegal Treaty of Lisbon
New cases of qualified majority voting (Council and European
Council)
https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/attach/126/126247_new_cases_of_q
mv.pd
29th Amendment
Judges' Remuneration
YES
1,393,877
79.74%
NO
354,134
20.26%
the irish people voted to reduce judges pay but this never
happened, why, because it was treason to begin with the FG,
LB, FF, SF Corrupt greedy Prats dEcided they only Need article
29 Not To Reduce judges Pay it was All misleading and False
This amendment was ACCEPTED,
http://electionsireland.org/.../referendum/refresult.cfm..., When
we Said No to Giving Oireacthas Powers and Running a
Kangaroo Court saying No to Garda Powers They Sneaked this
in and Passed this Referendum even though the People had
Spoken and Said No this Referendum how ever was defeated,
Referendum of 27 October 2011
30th Amendment
Houses of the Oireachtas Inquiries
YES
812,008
46.66%

NO
928,175
53.34%
This amendment was REJECTED
http://electionsireland.org/.../referendum/refresult.cfm..., But
They Passed This red tape through this Referendum 31 May
2012
30th Amendment: Fiscal Treaty [ACCEPTED]

Transcript of interview with Klaus Regling, Managing Director,

ESM Bloomberg TV, On the Move, 6 July 2016
Interviewers: Caroline Hyde and Guy Johnson
Bloomberg TV: The markets are very nervous. Theyre worried
about the spill-over effect from Brexit. You are on record as
saying that youre not one hundred percent convinced that this
Brexit happens. Are you still sure about that?
Klaus Regling: Indeed, a lot of uncertainty has been created.
Thats never good for the market. So we see a lot of volatility.
Im not a hundred percent certain that Brexit will happen, but I
consider it to be the most likely development. Because there
was a referendum, there was a clear result, it cannot be
ignored. At the same time, we all know that well, almost all
admit that the cost of a Brexit will be high, maybe thats
getting clearer. In the EU there is a lot of regret if the UK were
to leave. So if the United Kingdom, the population, has second
thoughts about it, may be a new government in the context of
a new election, changes its view, I think that would be
welcome. But its up to the people and the next government.
So in my view, at the moment, its the most likely to happen
but I dont think its a hundred percent certain.
Mr Regling, how worried are you that we see dominos fall in
the rest of the EU? If the UK does indeed leave the EU, could
we see less than 27 remain?
Its not very likely in my view. Of course, we know in several
member states of the EU there are voices, and sometimes
there are parties, that would like to follow that example, to
have a referendum to leave. But in all the other countries, very
clearly according to the polls, theres no majority view
supporting leaving. Therefore, I think this is not very likely to
happen, I dont expect it. I think its correct theres a lot of
noise around this, they have views around that, but one has to
keep the perspective that these are minority views.
Mr Regling, there seems to be a division within the EU as to the

appropriate response. More Europe, or less Europe. Which side

of the fence do you sit on?
Well, I think given that the British people voted for Brexit, this
is a moment where it makes sense to discuss what is the right
way forward. Because on the one hand, we know that many of
the problems Europe faces can be better dealt with if we act
together. On the other hand, we have to take note that in
many countries theres a feeling, theres a perception, which
we may or may not share, but theres a perception that the EU
gets involved in too many things. So there are two directions,
and there is a debate. I think it makes sense to have a debate
at least for a while and then move forward. In my view, it
would make sense to identify the key issues where we really
need more Europe. Like on the refugee crisis, on protecting the
Schengen agreement, therefore we need better border
protection. This is something only the EU can achieve acting
together. In monetary union, there are a few items that would
be very useful to make more robust and less vulnerable. We
can only achieve that by acting together.
But then there are some other areas where we dont
necessarily need action at the central, European level, it can
be also dealt with at the national or even at the regional level,
and I think
thats what people like sometimes, they want the action closer
to home, closer to where they are. So in my view, its good to
have a discussion. My personal view would be to have a
balanced approach, identify the few items where its really
unavoidable to have more Europe, but then also at the same
time, identify those areas where things can be dealt with at the
regional level. So it should be a balanced package in the end,
which I hope would then satisfy the people who are unhappy
but also helps Europe to move forward.
Is monetary policy delivering growth in Europe? Theres this
debate going around at the moment as to whether or not
actually we need a big fiscal push here in Europe. The
monetary policy has really maybe in some ways done more
harm than good. Now thats an open debate, but when you see
what is in front of you in terms of the ability of the EU to
generate growth, how is that achieved? You just talked about
structural reform, but we need to kick-start the economy to
allow that to take place. How do we make that happen?
Well, for me the starting point is a bit different from your view.
On average, growth in Europe is not bad. We know our
potential growth rate is low, mainly because of demographics.
Our GDP per capita growth is the same as in the United States.

People often ignore these differences in demographic trends,

differences in population growth. So when comparing Europe
with the US, were back where we have been over the last few
decades, except during the crisis. Its the same growth rate on
a per-capita basis. And its not bad. Our growth rate at the
moment in Europe on average is 1.5 percent. This is almost
twice the potential growth rate. So theres no acute growth
problem here. If we want to strengthen the potential growth
rate, then structural reforms are the answer. And it works.
Weve seen that in the countries that went through ESM
programmes in the last few years. In the context of the
programmes, these countries adopted more structural reforms
than anybody else. And we see the results. Ireland and Spain two of the countries that benefited from emergency financing
from my institutions, have now the highest growth rates in
Europe. In Ireland an amazing almost 8 percent, Spain more
than 3 percent. So what we know from economic history is that
countries that implement structural reforms have better
growth performance after a while. Unfortunately, not
immediately, thats why it is politically difficult to do this. But
after a while it always happens. We also see (this) confirmed in
Europe.
By the way, I think this will also happen in Greece. So if we
think about the longer-term issues in Europe, given our poor
demographics, we really need to think about structural
reforms. Monetary policy, I agree with you, has done a lot, and
it was particularly useful during the crisis. In the crisis, we also
had fiscal policies stepping in, in 2008 and 2009. As a result,
debt-to-GDP ratios in Europe have gone up by 30 percent of
GDP over the last six years. So there was a crisis response also
from the fiscal side. Now I think we have to relieve the macro
instruments and focus on structural reforms.
Should Germany allow more spending to be done by the likes
of Greece and Italy that are perhaps lagging behind the
original structural reforms, to be able to keep the youth
happier, to be able to promote growth and stop some of the
really negative effects that are happening within these
countries?
Well, the fiscal adjustment in Greece has basically happened.
Greece has reduced its fiscal deficit from 15 percent of GDP 6
years ago to around 2 or 3 percent now. So most of the fiscal
adjustment in Greece has actually happened. Looking forward,
were not asking for much more adjustment on the fiscal side
in Greece. We are looking for additional reforms like in tax
administration, on privatisation, on the banking sector. That is
the task ahead in Greece during the remaining two years of

this third Greek programme. So its no longer a fiscal issue

there.
2
We have seen considerable stress in the banking sector over
the last few days, particularly in Italy. Is this a force majeure
moment when the normal rules that apply to governments
ability to inject capital into their banks should be thrown out?
Should Italy be able to recapitalize its banking sector?
Well, I hope Italy finds a way to do that. But I dont think its
the moment to give up the framework that we created over the
last few years. Banking Union is a major achievement for
Monetary Union. The ECB has done a tremendous job to
develop the SSM [Single Supervisory Mechanism], to make it
operational. An important part of that is the BRRD [Bank
Recovery and Resolution Directive] and our state-aid rules. I
think all this is very important to make it possible to have a
common supervisor for the 130 systemically important banks
in the euro area, and to have a common framework. So its
very important to protect this framework. But the framework
also allows many ways out even in a situation like we see
today. I know that the Italian government is in dialogue with
the European Commission how to apply the framework to
these specific circumstances. Im confident they will find a way.
So I would not exaggerate the problem and I dont think its the
moment to give up a framework that was not easy to create
and which is in principle very useful.
So should it be private investors that bail out the Italian banks?
Well, that is part of our new system of course, that there has to
be mandatory bail-in before any public funds can be used. That
is very much part of Banking Union, the BRRD. But there are
many other ways around that. But indeed, that is part of the
system, yes.
Are you worried that this could become a systemic problem?
Could we see this, if it doesnt hold in its tracks now, could
Spanish banks, Portuguese banks, other banks be involved,
and start to sell off to the tune that were seeing the problems
in Italy?
It is true we see a particular weakness in the banking sector
since the referendum in the UK. It is a bit surprising because
theres not much of a direct link here. Theres an indirect link
because now the market perception is that interest rates will
remain lower for longer and most people believe that has a
negative impact on profitability. So that is the indirect link,
otherwise its not so easy to understand why banks have these
additional problems since the referendum. But I dont think at
all that we are in a systemic situation here, or crisis. All over

Europe, and worldwide actually, many steps have been taken

in the last few years to strengthen the banking system. Also in
Europe, we have done that. Banks have doubled their capital
since 2008. We have new regulations, the banking system is
stronger than it was before the Lehman crisis, and I think we
see the benefits of that now. Of course, there can be problems.
But I think we are much better able than in the past to deal
with them.
Mr Regling, Im going to let you put your salesman hat on now.
The ESM bail-out for Greece is absolutely huge. 200 billion
plus, youre selling this at super-long duration. There isnt
really a market for this kind of stuff at the moment. When you
look at whats happening in the fixed income space right now,
how are you going to sell this stuff? How are you going to
create a market? What do you think the opportunity is going to
be?
Well, the ESM has never had problems issuing bonds. And we
need to issue bonds in order to generate funds to provide loans
to the countries that need emergency financing. We did that in
the past for Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Cyprus, successfully.
These countries exited their programmes, they have strong
growth rates again. So Greece is the last remaining country
that needs emergency financing from us. And youre right,
they have received a lot. They will continue over the next two
years to receive potentially another 40 billion. Already today,
the EFSF and ESM, the two institutions that I manage, own
almost half of the total Greek public debt. The fact that we lend
very
3
long-term, 32 years on average for Greece, does not mean that
we also issue such long-term bonds. We have a diversified
funding strategy, investors around the world know that. We
issue bonds from one year up to 45 years maturity. We put that
all into one pot of money and provide it to the countries that
need financing. So we have no problem financing Greece and
will continue to do so over the next two years. Of course, they
in exchange continue to implement reforms and I am confident
that after another two years, Greece can join the other four
countries that have proven to be very successful coming out of
their programmes.
So you think Greece will be back to the bond market by 2018?
What youre saying is therefore that you do not think that
Greece will need a fourth programme?
I wouldnt be surprised if Greece even returns to the bond
market next year, in 2017. Because thats something we also
saw in the other countries, in Portugal, Ireland and Cyprus.

They dont wait until the last moment as long as they get
money from the ESM and then go to the bond market. They
begin to test the market well before the end of the programme,
with small amounts, and I think that makes sense. Because the
interest rate they will have to pay to markets will be a lot
higher than what they have to pay to us. We charge our own
funding costs, which are very low because our rating is good.
So at the moment its less than 0.8%. So that helps Greece to
regain debt sustainability, this cheap source of financing for
long-term big amounts. So when they go back to the market,
they have to pay more. It still makes sense and I think they
have to do that next year. But then, from 2018 on, mid-2018,
they should be able to refinance themselves in the markets.
Also because, by then, they will run a good primary surplus, so
all the financing they need is to replace maturing debt. There
will be no need for budgetary financing. I think all that will
help.
The Communist Party of Ireland expresses its solidarity with all
progressive forces in Britain, and in particular with the
Communist Party of Britain, in the forthcoming campaign for
Britain to withdraw from the European Union. In particular we
call on working people in the north-east of our country to vote
for leaving the EU.
A vote to leave can be a vote for a different way forward, a
vote against the deepening global militarisation of which the
EU is one of the driving forcesnot alone within the wider
European continent but around the world.
A vote to leave would also call into question the southern Irish
states continuing membership of the EU and reopen
opportunities for working-class struggle on the national level.
British Empire
We should not be distracted by the fact that very reactionary
and chauvinist forces, nostalgic for the days of the British
Empire, are also opposed to the European Union. We support
the demand for withdrawal not on some narrow nationalist
grounds but rather from a working-class internationalist
position. There is a need to break the unity of the European
monopolies, to break the unity of the European employers
network of control, by dividing them, which can only weaken
the whole. A withdrawal by Britain could well trigger a
response from working people in other member-states to

campaign also for withdrawal. It would break the fear that the
EU has so successfully propagated, that outside the EU lies
economic disaster.
The deal worked out between the British state and the EU
institutions is a further attack on the rights of workers
throughout Europe, especially migrant workers, the most
vulnerable section of the working class.
Democracy and Sovereignty
The struggle against the European Union is essentially a
struggle for democracy and sovereignty. It is an anti-imperialist
struggle, one that some formerly anti-EU forces in the northeast of our country have walked away from, retreating into an
idealised critical engagement with imperialism.
We reject the illusions being peddled in support of these
arguments. They undermine the potential for bringing unity to
our people on a progressive basis. It is wrong to present the
idea that the EU is a potential bulwark against attacks on
workers and environment rights. These are false arguments.
The EU and the treaties since the Maastricht Treaty of 1992
have been for institutionalising austerity, consolidating the
interests, influence and power of the big European monopolies
specifically but also monopoly capitalism in general.
The attacks on workers in all Ireland will continue, inside or
outside the European Union. Membership does not guarantee
protection from attacks on workers rights and conditionsfar
from it: all the central institutions are above democratic control
and are accountable to no-one, as designed by treaty.
The EU Central Bank, which is the central institution for
imposing EU economic and monetary policy, is run by and for
finance houses and big banks. The EU Commission is the
guardian of conformity with the fiscal, political and military
strategy of the EU. Attacks on workers, fiscal control and the
primacy of the market above all else are hot-wired into the
EU.
In the EU, progress is illegal
We do not accept that the EU is the source of, or has the
potential for, progressive social and economic change, either
at a transnational or the national level. EU laws, directives and

institutions are designed to prevent and block change at the

European and the national level. The Lisbon Treaty of 2009
consolidated the power and ideological influence of big
business over the policies and the institutions of the EU. It
enshrined the primacy of EU directives (i.e. laws) over national
laws, in effect making illegal any progressive alternative
economic or social policies. As far as the EU is concerned,
there will be no way back to any serious democracy at the
national level.
The anti-democratic nature of the EU and the absolute power
of European big business over it will be further consolidated
with the adoption of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP).
The Communist Party of Ireland calls for the broadest coalition
of progressive forces to campaign for British and also for Irish
withdrawal from the European Union. Statement ends.
Contact:
Eugene Mc Cartan, General Secretary, Communist Party of
Ireland, cpoi@eircom.net

THE IRISH PEOPLE SAID NO TO LISBON AND EU FORCED

ANOTHER VOTE DOWN OUR THROATS THEY WILL TRY THIS
WITH THE BRITISH PEOPLES IF THE VOTE EU REFERENDUM
OUT,

ALL IRISH MEDIA NEWS ARE LIAR'S AND THEIR DAILY NEWS IS
FULL OF CRAP , PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SPREAD THE WORD,
https://dionisopunk.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/tv-shit.gif

Ireland forced to adopt plan B following Brexit

Sunday, June 26, 2016
By Juno McEnroe
Political Correspondent
Irelands plan B following Brexit includes a series of trade
missions to other continents, boosting support for Irish
exporters as well as targeting new foreign direct investment.
Contingency plans drawn up by departments also include a
review now of plans for the budget as well as the monitoring of

borders, migrants and dealing with any loss of funding for the
North.
The Dil is expected to hear more of the emergency plans on
Monday in a debate on Brexit. The plans also look towards the
period in two years when Britain will leave and how this will
impact on the border region or what security issues the exit
will have.
Preparations for a potential Brexit have been ongoing for
months, said the Department of the Taoiseach, and were put in
motion yesterday after an emergency Cabinet meeting. Priority
issues identified include British-EU negotiations, British-Irish
relations, the North, trade, investment in Ireland and NorthSouth border impacts. The Department of Finance will review
the economic outlook, predicted in the summer economic
statement.
Enterprise Ireland will also provide supports to exporters,
including a dedicated helpline and support in looking at other
markets. This includes boosting Bord Bias marketing where
new investment might become available. Mr Kenny said the
Government had prepared to the greatest extent possible for
Brexit.
Other plans include authorities monitoring the potential impact
on enterprise and trade in border counties.
Support will also be given to Irish and British people on social
welfare payments in the two countries who are worried about
entitlements. Embassies in north America and elsewhere are
being told to reach out and explain Irelands situation.
In the lead-in to Britains exit, security and policing issues will
be addressed.
Preserving the arrangements of the common travel area
between Ireland and Britain will be a key priority during exit
negotiations, the department also stressed.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/ireland-forced-to-adoptplan-b-following-brexit-406894.html
Northern Ireland and the EU referendum First Report of Session
201617
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/
cmniaf/48/48.pdf
Ireland prepare Brexit contingency... meanwhile Brussels and
Cameron refuse to make Plan B
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/680168/ireland-brexit-eureferendum
The EU referendum and EU reform
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/lde
ucom/122/122.pdf
Ibec Says The UK referendum on EU membership

https://www.ibec.ie/IBEC/Press/PressPublicationsdoclib3.nsf/vPa
ges/Newsroom~new-ibec-report-sets-out-brexit-risks-10-042016/$file/The+UK+referendum+on+EU+membership++The+impact+of+a+possible+Brexit+on+Irish+business.pdf
Cabinet Committees Constitutional Reform Committee april
2016
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac
hment_data/file/515673/2016-0411_Cabinet_Committees_final_arp.pdf
EU and UK Environmental Policy Third Report of Session 2015
16
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/
cmenvaud/537/537.pdf
Written evidence submitted by the Institute for European
Environmental Policy
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.
svc/evidencedocument/environmental-auditcommittee/assessment-of-euuk-environmentalpolicy/written/25150.pdf
Brexit Implications of the UK Leaving the EU on Climate
Change and Energy Law
https://www.ukela.org/content/page/5639/Brexit%20Climate
%20Change%20and%20Energy%20WP.pdf
The Final Brexit Question
The known Plan A to remain or the unknown Plan B to leave
Michael Emerson No. 418 / February 2016
https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/WD418%20Final%20Brexit
%20Question_0.pdf
The Commission fully agrees with the comments about the
economic and political significance of the ongoing
negotiations, in particular the negotiations with the United
States on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
(TTIP
Mr Sen BARRETT T.D.
President of Dil Eireann, Houses of the Oireachtas, Ireland
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/3/2014/EN/32014-7557-EN-F1-1.Pdf
Merchant Shipping Act 19
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/12/pdfs/ukpga_1988
0012_en.pdf
REGULATION (EU) No 1380/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 December 2013 on
the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations
(EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing
Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004

and Council Decision 2004/585/EC

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=OJ:L:2013:354:0022:0061:EN:PDF
Sick of the EU Referendum? Watch Jonathan Pie's epic rant. You
won't regret it
https://www.facebook.com/EvolvePolitics/videos/17018326700
68673/
Merchant Shipping Act 19
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/12/pdfs/ukpga_1988
0012_en.pdf
REGULATION (EU) No 1380/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 December 2013 on
the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations
(EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing
Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004
and Council Decision 2004/585/EC
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=OJ:L:2013:354:0022:0061:EN:PDF
EU and BRITAIN HAVE BREACHED IRISH CONSTITUTION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF IRELAND AND COMMITED TREASON ACTS AND
BREACHED ARTICLE 28 BY LEAVING EU, NOW IRELAND MUST
GET A SAY IF THEY WANT TO STAY IN EU IT IS OUR RIGHT AND
WE DEMAND AN EXIT FROM EU NOW,
THE EU TREATIES WITH NOTES
Irish and British agreements
Fourth extended edition, 2016
Consolidated Readable Edition
as amended by the UK and Sinn Fein 1998 Treaty of Lisbon in
2009, with all amendments until 2016
http://en.euabc.com/upload/lisbon12616.pdf
Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) as amended by the
Treaty of Lisbon (2007)
http://en.euabc.com/upload/books/lisbon-treaty-3edition.pdf
CONSTITUTION OF OCTOBER 4, 1958
http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr//constiution_anglais
Please read urgently before they are Wiped from my Wall
download Info immediately Click on Right click on your Mouse,
and download on desktop , you really need to read these
DocsTHE EU TREATIES WITH NOTES
Irish and British agreements
Fourth extended edition, 2016
Consolidated Readable Edition
as amended by the UK and Sinn Fein 1998 Treaty of Lisbon in

2009, with all amendments until 2016

http://en.euabc.com/upload/lisbon12616.pdf
Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) as amended by the
Treaty of Lisbon (2007)
http://en.euabc.com/upload/books/lisbon-treaty-3edition.pdf
CONSTITUTION OF OCTOBER 4, 1958
http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseilconstitutionnel/root/bank_mm/anglais/constiution_anglais_oct2
009.p
Water Convention
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/water/pdf/watercon.p
df
Water Convention
The Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary
Watercourses and International Lakes (Water Convention) aims
to protect and ensure the quantity, quality and sustainable use
of transboundary water resources by facilitating cooperation. It
provides an intergovernmental platform for the day-to-day
development and advancement of transboundary cooperation.
Initially negotiated as a regional instrument, it turned into a
universally available legal framework for transboundary water
cooperation, following the entry into force of amendments in
February 2013, opening it to all UN Member States. It is
expected that countries outside the ECE region will be able to
join the Convention as of late 2015.
The UNECE-WHO/Europe Protocol on Water and Health aims to
protect human health and well being by better water
management and by preventing, controlling and reducing
water-related diseases. The Protocol provides a sound
framework for the translation into practice of the human right
to water and sanitation.
http://www.unece.org/env/water.html
Introduction
###meeting_plugin### ###meeting_plugin### CONTENT
ELEMENT, uid:6005/textpic [begin]
Image block: [begin]
Text: [begin]
About the UNECE Water Convention
The Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary
Watercourses and International Lakes (Water Convention) was
adopted in Helsinki in 1992 and entered into force in 1996.
Almost all countries sharing transboundary waters in the
region of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

(UNECE) are Parties to the Convention.

UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE The
Economic Commission for Europe Water Convention and the
United Nations Watercourses Convention
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/water/publications/W
AT_Comparing_two_UN_Conventions/ece_mp.wat_42_eng_web.
pdf
The Water Convention strengthens transboundary water
cooperation and measures for the ecologically-sound
management and protection of transboundary surface waters
and groundwaters. The Convention fosters the implementation
of integrated water resources management, in particular the
basin approach. The Conventions implementation contributes
to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and
other international commitments on water, environment and
sustainable development.
The Water Convention requires Parties to prevent, control and
reduce transboundary impact, use transboundary waters in a
reasonable and equitable way and ensure their sustainable
management. Parties bordering the same transboundary
waters have to cooperate by entering into specific agreements
and establishing joint bodies. As a framework agreement, the
Convention does not replace bilateral and multilateral
agreements for specific basins or aquifers; instead, it fosters
their establishment and implementation, as well as further
development. In 2003, the Water Convention was amended to
allow accession by countries outside the UNECE region. The
amendment entered into force on 6 February 2013, turning the
Water Convention into a legal framework for transboundary
water cooperation worldwide. It is expected that countries
outside the UNECE region will be able to join the Convention as
of late 2015.
Economic Commission for Europe
Executive Body for the Convention on Long-range
Transboundary Air Pollution
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/lrtap/ExecutiveBody/E
_ECE_EB_AIR_133.Add.1.pdf
Poor air quality and climate change are the two greatest
threats to human health in the pan-European region says new
UN report
08 June 2016
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/Media_Factsheet_-_GEO6_Assessment_for_the_pan-European_region_FINAL.pdf
Environment for Europe Ministerial Conference Batumi, Georgia
810 June 2016 Final report on the implementation of the
Astana Water Action- fostering progress towards improved

water management
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2016/ece/
ece.batumi.conf.2016.10.e.pdf

Noonan jokes: We should give

defunct e-voting machines to
pubs
Michael Noonan said that the unused e-voting machines, which have
cost the State 55 million over the past decade, are valueless.
Jan 11th 2012

MINISTER MICHAEL NOONAN has said that defunct e-

voting machines are valueless, and joked that they could

instead be used by Irish-themed pubs around the world.
Noonan also criticised the hubris of the Fianna Fil-led
government which spent 51 million on the machines a
decade ago.
The Minister for Finance was responding to a question
outside Leinster House this morning before the Dil
resumes for its first session of 2012. The Cabinet is due to
discuss what to do with the defunct machines when it
meets today.
Noonan said the e-voting machines had been a bad
decision by the government at the time.
Fianna Fil thought it wouldnt be fashionable to be, as
Bertie said, using the peann lauidhe [pencil] any more and
you needed to have a high tech machine, he said.
But when the high tech machine was checked out, it
didnt do the job that it was supposed to do, so the system
was flawed. Theyre valueless now.
He jokingly suggested: There may be a market for them in
Irish theme pubs across the world.
He was critical of the Fianna Fil-led government for
wasting money on the machines.
They were at the highest point of their climbing the
summit of hubris from which finally they collapsed, said
Noonan.
The e-voting machines have all been in storage since they
were purchased for 51 million in 2002. The State has
since spent just under an additional 4 million in storage
costs.
A small number of the 7,504 units were used on a trial
basis in the 2002 general election in the constituencies of
Dublin West, Dublin North and Meath. Most of them,
however, were never used.
The machines were due to be rolled out in further elections
but a report from the Commission on Electronic Voting
raised concerns about the security of peoples votes.

Minister for the Environment Phil Hogan last year

described the machines as a very wasteful use of
taxpayers money.
A STAND-OFF between residents in Ashbrook Estate in
Togher, County Cork and Irish Water is continuing today
as locals refuse to allow Irish Water workers install water
meters.
Garda attended the scene yesterday, when Campaign
Against Home and and Water Taxes held a demonstration,
halting works taking place.
View image on Twitter

Follow

keith o brien
Protesters confronting togher cork
12:50 PM - 22 Apr 2014

4 4 Retweets3 3 likes

Source: keith o brien/Twitter

View image on Twitter

Follow

keith o brien

Protester confronting Garda for not up holding his oath ,

and siding with a government agency
2:08 PM - 22 Apr 2014

17 17 Retweets6 6 likes

Source: keith o brien/Twitter

This morning, Irish Water has returned to the estate to

attempt to carry out their work today.
However, the protest is set to continue, with garda
arriving at the estate this morning also.
Speaking to TheJournal.ie, the chairman of the county
councils northern division, Fianna Fils Frank OFlynn
said that Irish Water should be installing new pipes rather
than new meters as there has been a serious problem with
the water supply in the Kildorrery area.
We were told that we would get funding last year to
upgrade the water supply by Minister Phil Hogan but Irish
Water have yet to release the funds, said OFlynn, who
said businesses, residents and farmers are facing into
another summer of uncertainty when it comes to their
water supply.
He added that there has been water outages in the area
recently and all the residents are looking for is a guarantee
of good quality water supply.
Garda told the residents they did not have the right to
block the work, however, speaking on RTs Today with
Sean ORourke radio programme, one protester John
Lonnergan said they would continue their protest, stating
that there was eight protesters there at present and over
twenty residents.
http://www.thejournal.ie/noonan-jokes-we-should-givee-voting-machines-to-irish-themed-pubs-325467Jan2012/

Cost of water meters

underestimated by 107
million
RTs This Week programme says the guide price provided to
Government was way off.
Nov 23rd 2014, 8:39 PM 38,593 Views 190 Comments
Share3574 Tweet107 Email29

Photo

Image: Shutterstock

/Photo Text content

THE PROJECTED COST of the nationwide water metering
programme jumped by 107 million over two months last
year, during which time contracts for the programme were
agreed.
The figures were revealed by RTs This Week programme
this afternoon and come from correspondence between
Bord Gis and the Department of Environment.
The programme reports that Ervia (the called Bord Gis)
advised the Government in May 2013 that the entire cost
of the metering programme would come to 431.6 million.
But then in July it was revealed by the Irish Independent
that the entire cost of the programme would in fact be
539 million. It means the Government was provided with

information on the cost that was underestimated by some

107 million.
The initial estimate provided to the department was
arrived upon following work carried out by Bord Gis
employees working alongside external consultants.
During the period between the cost estimate being
delivered to the Government and the final cost being
revealed, nationwide contracts for the installation of the
meters were agreed.
Survey work
The Government says that the reason for the increase
between May and July was because of ongoing survey
work which had not yet been completed.
But Fianna Fils Barry Cowen has described the
miscalculation as quite staggering.
It reinforces the fact that the Government has failed to
take control of the project from day one and raises further
questions about what will be the actual set-up costs for
this failing quango, he said.
Sinn Fins Barry Stanley has questioned the
Governments claim that the difference in cost was due to
survey work on the basis that this was not completed until
October 2013.
It seems strange that the figures reported in July could
accord exactly with figures produced in October when
survey work carried out by the local authorities was finally
completed, he argues.
http://www.thejournal.ie/water-meter-cost-estimation1795521-Nov2014/

Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local

Government
Water Meters Expenditure
All Written Answers on 20 Oct 2016

Barry Cowen Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail)

Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
137. To ask the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local
Government the total underspend on phase 1 of the water metering
programme to date; the estimated final underspend; if this
underspend can be or has been re-allocated to other capital
projects; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31451/16]

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine

Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Since 1 January 2014, Irish Water has statutory responsibility for all
aspects of water services planning, delivery and operation at
national, regional and local levels. This includes the domestic water
metering programme. The domestic metering contracts, awarded in
2013, had the objective of installing 1,050,000 domestic meters
over a 3 year programme, which started in August of that year,
supported by a budget of 614m including VAT. I understand from
Irish Water that the expected capital expenditure under the
programme will amount to 465m, which will deliver 880,000 meter
installations on completion. As such, savings of about 148m will
accrue on the capital metering programme. Up to 170,000 meters
included in the original programme will not be metered at this stage,
for a combination of health and safety reasons, service complexity
or other technical reasons.
Future metering of domestic premises will be considered along with
other investment needs based on cost benefit assessment and
policy considerations relating to the future decisions on billing and
charging. Decisions on such investments will be made under the
regulatory regime whereby the Commission for Energy Regulation
approves the Water Services Capital Investment Programmes.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2016-1020a.370
THAT AMOUNT WOULD've SORTED A FEW LEAKS...
This was mainly due to the deadened anger over the cost
not just of buying the machines, but also of storing
them. It was estimated that up to 4 million was spent
storing the machines in the decade after they were briefly
introduced.

873,000 water meters installed... how many houses build?

The report mentions the extensive programme of metering
that has already been undertaken, with Irish Water stating
that 873,000 households have now had meters installed
out of a target of 1.4 million households.

Tnaiste rattled as Mary Lou McDonald

confronts her over threatening water
charges letters
Oct 16, 2014
Joan Burton spins nonsense and untruths as she attempts to
defend the decision by her Department to authorise letters
threatening eviction to Rental Accommodation Scheme tenants
on the issue of payment of water charges

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nMmmPDYYMo
The Results Of the Nice and Fiscal Referendums are in These E
Voting Machines can be Easy ratified of Rigged referendums on both
counts

Reuters knew Irish referendum result

before the count
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3DLYJS1fFU
In 2002, we laughed (and grimaced) at the thought that
we had squandered nearly 60 million on machines we left
to rust in warehouses.
In 2016, after years of austerity, its a lot more difficult to
find the humour in the possibility that we just flushed
465 million down the toilet.
http://www.thejournal.ie/e-voting-machines-water-meters3114507-Dec2016/

Time to say thanks to the sinister fringe Gene Kerrigan

writes in the Independent

December 5, 16
Time to say thanks to the sinister fringe Gene Kerrigan writes in the
Independent. We should recognise and applaud the public service
carried out by the water charge protesters. In recent days, many from
the political and social gentry have been agonising about Irish Water.
Weve heard what TDs and ministers have to say. Academics and other
experts, lowly columnists and startlingly well-paid broadcasters have all
had their turn. Even the Taoiseach has had a little public moan about it,
while he was in the USA to assure Apple that we dont want a single cent
of that 13bn it owes us. Busiest of all have been the Fine Gael TDs,
leaking gossip about internal party rows resulting from their desire for
fairness. They tell us they believe that everyone should be treated
equally. As a result, the right wing of Fine Gael believes those who didnt
pay the water charges should be chased to the ends of the earth for the
cash. The other right wing of Fine Gael prefers to balance things out by
giving a refund to those who paid the charges. But Fine Gael is
forgetting something they dont get to decide how this plays out.
Labours Alan Kelly has swaggered from one microphone to the next,
from Sean ORourke to Pat Kenny, from one soft interview to another.
But what Alan says matters even less than it did when he was Minister
for Water Charges. On this issue, Alan is a beaten docket. I could google
Fianna Fail, to find out its latest position on water charges, but why
bother? This column wont be published for several hours, by which
time FF will have flipped its position on water charges at least once
more. It was for the charges, and against them, for postponing them, for
killing them, then in favour again, then against, for, against, rinse and
repeat. Doesnt matter. Fianna Fail may see itself as a puppet-master,
pulling Enda Kennys strings but FF wont decide what happens next
with water charges. You will. When we see the Irish Water debacle in
perspective its quite extraordinary. Politicians and pundits have slagged
off the water protests as the work of a sinister fringe of subversive
conspirators. And, like any mass movement, the water protest has some
loudmouths, and even the odd headbanger much like Fine Gael. Some
saw the hand of Sinn Fein behind the marches, although its leaders
wobbled at the start and said they paid the charges. The truth was SF
played a constructive role in the protests, but no one controlled those
vast crowds. Some saw the red hand of the small left-wing parties, and
they have indeed been active in the protests from the beginning, openly
and making a plausible case. A handful of TDs, notably Catherine
Murphy and Joan Collins, saw immediately what was happening. But
its long been clear that this was a genuine grassroots phenomenon, far
beyond the organising ability of any one outfit. It was a coming together
of socially concerned people mostly working class but across the social
spectrum who understood what was happening and werent going to
stand for it. Heres what was happening. First, the austerity regime

wanted another revenue stream. FG and FF are interchangeable on the

issue of draining money from the citizenry. And many people were
getting browned off with that. Because Irish Water had to be off-thebooks, they couldnt threaten to use Revenue to take the payments from
our income. So, they were vulnerable. Second, FG/FF has a long-term
view of privatising the water supply, as other right-wing parties have
done across Europe. The attempt by Irish Water to collect PPS numbers
was intended to build a valuable customer database that could later be
sold. It always denied it had a privatisation plan. But it was there on the
Irish Water website, incontestable, in the data collection disclosures.
The data we gave Irish Water was to become a lucrative asset, for an offthe-books company, and could be sold on to any other company. The
small print noted that if the company was sold, the data it collected from
us will be one of the transferred assets. And: By submitting data to
Irish Water, the customer agrees to this transfer, storing or processing.
All of this was in solid blocks of hard-to-read text, grey on white (I kid
you not). Hardly had that web page been accessed when it was taken
down. Oh, that was a mistake, Irish Water said. You bet it was. No party
had the guts to put a water supply privatisation plan before the people
and seek a mandate it was something to be slipped through,
piecemeal. Privatisation would have had a damaging effect on the
citizens interests for decades, while further enriching a small group of
the usual suspects. It wasnt FG politicians who stopped that, it wasnt
FF. Labour was up to its neck in the plan. No civic group, no collection
of academics, no editorial writer stood in the way. It was the people
from the grassroots movement, denounced as sinister, sneered at and
disparaged, who did the nation some service. What thanks did they get?
They were dismissed as the pay-for-nothing brigade. People who for
decades worked and paid taxes, who bore the brunt of the crash, in lost
jobs and wage cuts, were sneered at and subjected to highly politicised
policing. In December two years ago, tens of thousands protested about
the water charges. It was two weeks before Christmas, mid-week, a
working day, in freezing weather, but the media declared the protest a
failure because there were only half the numbers who turned out on a
sunny Saturday in summer. Then, at the 2016 General Election a
majority of the TDs elected had an anti-water charges mandate. And last
week, a feeble report by experts provided some ass-covering
material for the politicians, some of whom remain reluctant to abandon
their beloved privatisation plan. Yet other politicians nurse a longing for
revenge against those who dared set foot on the public stage, let alone
change public policy people who didnt accept that their role is to do
the heavy lifting and keep their mouths shut. The new buzz word is
populist. Its a political term that once meant policies that benefited
the many, as opposed to policies that benefited the few. Today, its a
label slapped on anything thats outside the centre-right politico/media
consensus. So, the Ballyhea marchers, angered at having to bail out
bankers, or the water charge protesters, are declared populist and

lumped in with Brexit and with Trumpism, movements fuelled by

racism and bankrolled by billionaires. Over the past week, there have
been attempts to set rural people against urban, in the same way that
some set private workers against public. We all pay for water, through
general taxation. Those who cant get water through public pipes
deserve a subsidy. Those who were bullied or conned into paying water
charges should get their money back. A watchful public intervened in a
pet project, a mad scheme, and said no. The onus is on the same public
to keep an eye on the next steps. The major parties smugly presided over
the Celtic Bubble, and when it burst they blamed us they said we
partied, we went mad. Their austerity policies bled us dry; they used
the economic crisis to try to smuggle through a privatisation plan they
couldnt justify politically. In the process, theyve squandered hundreds
of millions on hi-tech water meters we never needed. Its in our interests
to watch carefully what these idiots do next.
Theyre no water meters. They are Smart Meters, and they are
secondhand, and capable of much more than simply metering water.
What their capabilities are we have never been told. But they can be
read remotely by a person in a car not even close to them. They are to be
linked in to the Eircodes that 40 million was spent on. Why? Who
knows! Bought by John Tierney while he was Dublin City Manager,
under someones instructions. Who instructed Tierney to purchase
them, we have never been told, what money was used to pay for them,
we havent ever been told either.
This happened at least two years before the Bully Hogan ever blighted
out lives with the lies about water and IW. It was the reason Hogan
refused Siemens offer.
This is part of a long term plan to sell off our water. The planning
probably goes back as far as 1997, when it was obvious that people
werent going to pay direct charges, and werent going to be force into it
either.
An excuse was needed, a right time was also vital to force this on people.
A beaten, compliant, unquestioning public who took the austerity
measures to pay off a bankers private debt was the perfect time.
Reinforced by a very compliant MSM who pumped out lies about
conservation, and slandered anyone who dared question the reasons we
were supposed to accept.
But it didnt work out as planned. They miscalculated the mood of the
people and the rising power of social media. So they resorted to more
lies, threats, and even more bullying. They never, and still dont listen.
The rubbished, ignored, lied about, and slandered the people who
marched in their 10s of thousands. Turned a peoples police force on
them and arrested those who protested outside their homes.
And still the lies continue, the bullying, the slander. The arrogance of
our Elected Public Representatives is astounding. The unaccountability
for the wastage of BILLIONS of scarce resources is
unbelievable.Especially when there are people freezing to death on the

streets, kids who havent enough to eat, and parents despairing of

keeping a roof over their families heads. But account they will have to,
sooner or later. That there hasnt been whole scale riots on the streets,
has given them a very false sense of security. They shouldnt feel to
smug at all.
465 million flushed down the toilet for water meters outside every
home !
Political Class needs to be flushed out of the swamp
Water is a Life Essential . just like food, shelter, sanitation, healthcare,
education Not for Taxing!
hope Irish bring their brains to the Polling booths next time ..
460 million from Motor Tax used to fund Irish Water every year
most car tax paid by pre-2008 car owners. abused.
465 MILLION WASTED AND NO ONE ACCOUNTABLE
P.S. I hope people take this in because its the
truth.Unfortunately its the sheep that need convincing,
though I do think more and more people are waking up.

Thousands of households
will have to pay for water
on double
Paul Melia Twitter
EMAIL
PUBLISHED
02/04/2013

THOUSANDS of homeowners already

paying for their drinking water will be hit on
the double when water charges are
introduced.
/

Of the 170,000 households in a group water scheme, more

than 50,000 already paying up to 100 a year will also
have to pay a separate charge to Irish Water, the Irish

Independent has learned.

This is because wastewater from their toilets and kitchen
appliances, including washing machines, is discharged
into public sewer systems.
It is not yet clear what the extra charges will amount to but
it should lead to annual bills for water at least doubling.
Charges, which were due to be introduced next year but
may be delayed until 2015, are made up of two
components 'water in', or drinking water, and 'water
out', which is to cover the cost of treating wastewater.
These homes already pay for 'water in' by way of annual
fees to a private group water scheme. They will now be hit
for the 'water out' part when billing is introduced.
Up to six staff at the Commission for Energy Regulation
(CER) will begin working on a billing and payment
structure later this year. They will recommend the amount
each householder will have to pay, and the final decision
will then be taken by Government.
Irish Water, which will be responsible for billing 1.7
million households, said a "small" number of people on
group water schemes would get annual bills.
Figures from the Central Statistics Office (CSO) show that
53,979 households draw their drinking water from a group
water scheme but discharge into a public sewer.
"It is expected the charging policy will take account of
situations where a customer receives either their water
supply service or wastewater services from Irish Water,
but not both," a spokeswoman for Irish Water said.
"Those customers will not pay the same charges as people
who receive both water and wastewater services. A
customer may be a member of a group water scheme or
may have their own well but could be connected to the
public wastewater system.
"The details of how the charges will be structured to take
account of households who receive either a public water
supply or public wastewater service, but not both, have yet
to be finalised."
A spokesman for the Irish Federation of Group Water

Schemes said average bills paid by households varied but

that it was not be aware of any annual bills exceeding
100.
However, he questioned how their Irish Water bills would
be calculated.
"The bills from Irish Water will be water in, water out," he
said. "The bills from group water schemes are generally
water in, because many people have septic tanks and look
after those themselves.
"I wasn't aware so many households would be disposing
into public sewers. How are you going to divide that up?
How will they be charged for that?"
The amount of free water allocated to homes also varies
between group water schemes before charges arise, he
added.
Average water use per person in Ireland is almost 55,000
litres a year. In Monaghan, for example, each household
on a group scheme gets 140,000 free litres before charges
are applied.
The manager of one scheme in Co Galway said water usage
dropped by up to 40pc when metered water charges were
introduced.
Pat O'Looney, manager of the Loughrea Rural scheme,
said each 1,000 litres cost 1, and that average bills ran to
88 a year.
"The metering of the system has cut down on a lot of
waste," he said. "There was probably a 40pc reduction
when all the meters were installed.
"People have been paying for years in a lot of rural
Ireland."
http://www.independent.ie/irishnews/thousands-of-households-will-have-to-payfor-water-on-double-29167707.html
You would be paying double with IW and still you complain, a real head
scratcher?

Eliminated: After ten years and

55m, e-voting machines
finally disposed of
The government has finally got rid of the 7,500 voting machines that
were trialled once ten years ago and have been in storage ever since at
a cost to the State.
Jun 28th 2012,

THE GOVERNMENT HAS announced that the ill-fated evoting machines will be disposed of after Environment
Minister Phil Hogan signed a contract with a metal
recycling company to take the 7,500 machines off the
States hands.
Describing it as a sorry episode, Hogan said in a

statement this evening that the contract with Tullamorebased KMK Metals Recycling Limited will see the firm pay
just over 70,000 to the State for all the equipment,
gradually removing them from storage and disposing
them.
Removal of the equipment from the present storage
locations and transportation to the recovery facility by the
contractor will commence in the coming week and will be
completed by September, Hogan said.
The storage costs of the machines were 140,000 per
year for the past three years, and from next year we will
not incur those costs any longer.
E-voting machines were purchased by the State at a cost of
51 million back in 2002 but were only ever used in three
constituencies at the 2002 general election Dublin North
Dublin West and Meath and the second referendum on
the Nice Treaty later that year.
Since then storage of them has cost the State around 4
million and led to much ridicule including from the
Finance Minister Michael Noonan who suggested earlier
this year that they could be put in pubs as the machines
were valueless.
Former environment minister John Gormley announced
that the project was being officially abandoned three years
ago saying that the machines would be disposed of after a
report commissioned by the government criticised the
omission of a backup paper trail from the machines
mechanisms.
As well as the disposal of the e-voting machines
themselves, 12,842 ballot modules on which voting data is
saved, 154 programme reading units which read the
modules, 292 cases for the cartridges, 1,232 transport
trolleys, 2,142 hand trolleys, 4,787 metal tables, and 918
tray attachments are also being disposed of.
Over 60 per cent of the voting machines have been stored
at the Gormanstown Army Camp where there are no
ongoing rental costs. However the remaining machines are
stored at 13 local premises around the country.

The government says the removal of the machines from

storage and their disposal will be completed by September
and will ensure that there will be no storage costs incurred
in 2013.
I want to finally draw a line under the electronic voting
project and to see that the equipment is disposed of
properly, Hogan added.
http://www.thejournal.ie/e-voting-machines-disposed-phil-hoganenvironment-fiasco-503678-Jun2012/

Hogan: Water pressure will be

turned down to a trickle for
people who dont pay
We have a decision.
May 6th 2014

THE GOVERNMENT HAS confirmed that an average

household will pay 240 per year for water and that
those who dont pay will be faced with reduced water
pressure.
After weeks of wrangling, the coalition finally reached
agreement on water charges this morning. Labour had

been holding out until its coalition partners agreed to

scrap a mooted 50 standing charge to ensure the scheme
would be based on usage.
In details released this afternoon, Labour and Fine Gael
said that there will be a 30,000 litre free allowance per
household and that the average domestic water charge will
not exceed 240 per year.
The States subvention of Irish Water is conditional on the
maintenance of the 240 cap.
Speaking at a press conference, Minister Phil Hogan said
there will be a free allowance of 38,000 litres per child
under 18. He claimed that this will mean households will
effectively not pay for water for children.
Charges will also be capped for people with high water
usage due to certain medical conditions, such as those
receiving dialysis.
The Minister outlined that a person living alone will pay
138 per annum, less that 50 cent a day.
A family of four will pay 248 per year, or less than 70
cent a day.
For now, charges will be based on occupancy of a property
but could be refined in the future when metered data is
available.
People with disabilities, carers and the elderly are
expected to receive an allowance of 100 a year but this
has yet to be finalised.
The key points of the todays decision:
Each household will receive an annual free allowance of
30,000 litres of water (and a corresponding allowance for
waste water) per year;
U
Households will receive an additional free allowance of
38,000 litres for every child under 18;
There will be no standing charge for domestic customers;
Assessed charges will be based primarily on occupancy
(and will possibly be refined based on data from metered
usage);
U

Charges to be capped for people with high water usage due

to certain medical conditions conditions to be
determined by the Minister for Health;
Irish Water will take into account the quality of water for
example, those with boil water notices or restricted
services;
Water pressure will be turned down to a trickle for people
who dont pay.
The figures announced today will be fixed until the end of
2016 but the Minister believes the free allowances and the
affordability measures will continue into the future.
The government of the day, Im sure, will be mindful of
vulnerable groups.
However, Hogan warned that water pressure will be
turned down for people who dont pay.
Irish Water will spend 40 million this year and 100
million in 2015 and 2016 to fix leaks. Meanwhile,
customers first leaks will be fixed free of charge.
Irish Water will introduce a free first fix scheme that will
help households tackle customer-side leakage in a speedy
manner.
It will help people reduce their bills as well as overall
leakage in the water network, which is unacceptably high
at 40 per cent.
Commenting on the row between the coalition parties, he
said he would have been very surprised if there wasnt a
difference of views on water charges as its one of the
biggest decisions this government will ever make.
Irish Water will begin billing customers from October
2014, with bills expected to land in households in January
2015.
There will be a range of payment options, where customers
can make regular payments of 10 or more.
Installation of meters is likely to be completed ahead of
schedule by mid 2016 instead of the end of 2016. Over
200,000 metres have been installed to date.
According to Hogan, the government has honoured its
commitment to provide a generous free allowance, with

charging based on usage above this allowance.

The CER has commenced public consultation on the
structure of tariffs and will be closely examining Irish
Water costs, to ensure that only efficiently incurred
expenditure will be passed on to customers.
http://www.thejournal.ie/water-charges-3-1450138-May2014/

There will be no standing

charge for water, Howlin
confirms

The average yearly cost is still expected to be 240 but there will be
allowances for households with children.
May 6th 2014

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE MINISTER Brendan Howlin has

confirmed there will be no standing charge included in the
soon-to-be-introduced charges for household water use.
When the full scheme is presented today there will be no
standing charge which means that it will genuinely be a
conservation measure, Howlin said on his way into this
mornings Cabinet meeting.
People will be able to effect their bills on the basis of

water usage. There will be a decent allowance for every

household and a generous allowance for every child under
18.
There has been a divide within the Cabinet over the issue
in recent weeks, with Labour saying it had substantive
differences with Fine Gael on the charges.
Labour ministers have been speaking out in recently
against the idea of a fixed charge.
However the party leader, Tnaiste Eamon Gilmore, said
the coalition had made progress on the issue over the Bank
Holiday weekend.
Yesterday evening, Minister Phil Hogan also said an
agreement had been reached and that Cabinet will sign off
on the proposals at todays meeting. The average yearly
cost is still expected to be around 240.
There have been a lot of very constructive discussions
between the two parties and we expect to be able to
conclude the matter today, Taoiseach Enda Kenny said on
his way into this mornings meeting.
Asked whether he though the public would be happy with
what was agreed, Kenny said I suppose people are never
happy with any new charge but this is a case of where
youre spending 1.2 billion on production of water and 40
per cent is leaking away.
Ive often said that water is one natural resource that has
been very much abused in this country taps left running
needlessly for hours when they might not need to be So
the water metering programme is a conservation measure
in itself.
As youre aware weve already said that the average
metered charge will be around 60 per quarter it
doesnt have to be that if people are clear about the
conservation they can take by actually turning off the tap.
http://www.thejournal.ie/water-charges-cabinet-1449761-May2014/

Todays the day Irish Water

take over the network
Got a problem with water supply? You should bring it to Irish Water from
today.
Apr 29th 2014,

Image: PA Wire/Press Association Images

/Photo Text content

THERE HAVE BEEN rows about costs, consultants,
meters and logos, but today is the day that Irish Water
takes over the water network.
Previously, problems with water supply have been handled
by local authorities, but as of today, that will end.
Irish Water will take over the water network today,
meaning that issues with water supply, quality and waste
water should be reported to them.
Follow

Mun District of Bray

From tomorrow April 29th, for all updates or issues re
water supply, water quality or wastewater contact or call
1890 278 278
W

3:32 PM - 28 Apr 2014

3 3 Retweetslikes

Source: Bray Town Council/Twitter

Business accounts, surface water drainage and flood

management will remain the responsibility of local
authorities.
Customers with problems can call 1890 278 278 or visit
Irish Waters website.
http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-water-takes-over-the-network-today1437908-Apr2014/

Labour admits: We have

substantive differences with
Fine Gael over water charges
Work to be done
Apr 16th 2014

THERE A SUBSTANTIVE differences between the

coalition parties over some aspects of proposals to charge
for water provision, a spokesperson for Labour ministers
said this evening.
It follows this mornings Cabinet meeting where there was,
according to one minister, a robust exchange of views
over water charges after a memo was brought by the
Environment Minister Phil Hogan.
The memo detailed that the maximum government
subvention to the new semi-state utility company, Irish
Water, can be 537 million.
On that basis, the governments projected average annual
water charge for a household is 240 or 248 for a
household with two children, including a standing charge.
But this evening, the spokesperson for Labour ministers
said that todays Cabinet discussion was intensive and
that there are substantive differences between the two
parties in relation to the detail in the memo.
Labour concerns are particularly focussed on a persons
ability to pay and about how households who dont have a
meter will be charged initially given that is estimated that
some 75 per cent of them will not have a meter installed by

the time consumers start to face charges towards the end

of the year.
Were not satisfied with the answers weve been given so
far on those issues, the Labour spokesperson said.
They added that the party was not happy with how the
average annual charge is being calculated in the memo,
but declined to go into detail about how it is being
calculated.
The spokesperson stressed that it was important to get the
right decision when asked about voters knowing how
much they will have to pay before the local and European
elections on 23 May, but added that they would assume
the information will be made public before then.
Both government parties have stressed this evening that
no decision has been made and that negotiations are
ongoing with further discussions on the next Cabinet
meeting in a fortnight.
A spokesperson for Fine Gael ministers said: As the
Taoiseach said, the parties are united on the issues of
fairness and affordability.
The government has confirmed that the water memo was
discussed at a meeting of the Economic Management
Council comprising of the Taoiseach, Tnaiste, Finance
Minister and Public Expenditure Minister on Monday
night.
It was also confirmed that all ministers in Cabinet received
the memo last night.
Speaking on RTs Six One News this evening, Labour TD
Derek Nolan said he was not happy with the way details of
water charges were in the media before they had been
discussed at Cabinet, and said voters would be annoyed
by this.
http://www.thejournal.ie/labour-fine-gael-water-charges-1418946Apr2014/

Gilmore on water leak: I dont

blame anybody for it, I just

think its unhelpful

One Minister described this mornings Cabinet discussions about water
charges as robust while the Taoiseach declined to take questions on
his way into Dublin Castle this afternoon.
Apr 16th 2014

THE TNAISTE HAS said that it is never helpful when

issues that are to be considered by government are
trawled in the media in advance.
Speaking on his way into an event in Dublin Castle this
afternoon, Eamon Gilmore said it was important that the
right decision on water charges is made.
He was speaking in the aftermath of what were described
by one Minister as robust discussions at Cabinet this
morning after details of how much consumers can be
expected to pay for water were widely reported this
morning.
I think its never helpful that issues that have to be
considered by government are trawled in the media in
advance, Gilmore said today.
He added: I dont blame anybody for it, I just think its
unhelpful. But I think what is important is that we
concentrate on the decision and get the decision right and

were doing that and well be returning to it when we have

some more work done on it.
The Tanaiste said that there was still a degree of
prepartory work to be done in relation to charges,
including examining a persons ability to pay and what
happens in cases where households are not metered.
I think its important that we get the decision right. This
is obviously a very major decision that the government has
to make, he said.
The Taoiseach was not taking questions on his way into
Dublin Castle this afternoon having dealt with the issue
at Leaders Questions, according to a spokesperson.
Earlier, Childrens Minister Frances Fitzgerald said there
was strong exchanges between ministers this morning.
Clearly we had a very robust discussion, as we should
have, in relation to water charges. This affects every
household in the country, she said.
Fitzgerald added that both parties intend to get the issue
right.
The Minister was speaking at the launch of Better
Outcomes, Bright Futures, a national policy framework
for children and young people.
She described the document as a roadmap for Irish
children in the future that involves all government
departments.
Its the first time that all current government
commitments to children are laid out in details, she said.
http://www.thejournal.ie/eamon-gilmore-cabinet-rowwater-charges-1418441-Apr2014/

Labour minister brands fixed

water charges as ridiculous
Junior Minister Joe Costello said his party has a problem with Fine
Gaels water charges proposals.
Apr 19th 2014

THE COALITION RIFT over the implementation of water

charges has continued today with a Junior Minister calling
the prosed fixed charge ridiculous.
Labour Minister Joe Costello said that his party had a
problem with the memo presented to cabinet last week.
It stated that the governments projected average annual
water charge for a household is 240 or 248 for a
household with two children, including a standing charge,
leading to a heated exchange.
There was no detail ion relation to the issues that the
Labour Party had raised, he told RTs Saturday with
Claire Byrne, such as extra allowances for those with an
illness that requires the use of extra water.
The Minister of State for Trade and Development stressed
that the most desirable system of water charges would be
based on use above a free allowance.
We have to find out what the free allowance is going to
be, he said, it should be taken into account.
An actual specific amount is ridiculous at this point in
time.
The Minister also touched on Budget 2015, noting that

cutting down the deficit ratio and maintaining a stable

economy are the governments main objectives.
We would love to be able to cut taxes, we would love to be
able to increase wages, perhaps thats the way forward, he
said, but that these can only be addressed in the run-up to
the Budget.
http://www.thejournal.ie/labour-joe-costello-watercharges-coalition-rift-1423685-Apr2014/

FG and Labour have spent

months dodging questions:
Coalition slammed over water
farce
Enda Kenny confirmed the estimated average household payment for
water charges this morning, but he said nothing had been signed off on
at todays Cabinet meeting.
Apr 16th 2014

THE GOVERNMENTs BEING rounded upon by the

opposition over this mornings water charges
announcement.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny confirmed to the Dil this morning
that the annual bill for houses will be around 240, with a
standing charge of around 50.
But he admitted nothing had been signed off on
following the a Cabinet meeting on the issue this morning.
One Minister described this mornings discussions at the
Cabinet table as robust after details of how much
consumers can be expected to pay for water were widely
reported in the media this morning.
Heres what Fianna Fils environment spokesman,
Barry Cowen, has been saying:
This has descended into a complete farce. Fine Gael and

Labour have spent months dodging questions about just

how much people will be forced to pay for their water.
They have gone as far as to claim that theyve never even
discussed the issue at Cabinet.
Now we have to find out from media reports how many
showers we can have, how many times we can use our
washing machine and how many times we can brush our
teeth before we start clocking up charges.
[...] The Government needs to come clean about water
charges once and for all. Instead of leaking selectively to
the media, they need to communicate directly with
households about the charges they will face in just six
months time.
Sinn Fin leader Gerry Adams says the levy is unfair
and unjust. Heres what he had to say during Leaders
Questions
Taoiseach, yesterday I raised with you the issue of Water
Charges, which is causing deep concern to householders
across the state.
In your reply to me you said the Government had not
taken a decision; that various matters had to be taken into
consideration; and that there was a need to assess a whole
range of issues before any decisions could be made.
You then pulled together an unscheduled Cabinet meeting
and sent your spin doctors off to the media to give details
of the decision that you told the Dil you had not taken.
Taoiseach, this is but the latest in a whole series of major
decisions in which your Government has bypassed this
Dil in favour of governing by press release and media
spin.
On each occasion the Government has shown contempt for
the Oireachtas, for the Opposition and for the citizens who
your decisions will affect.
The fact that you called a special cabinet meeting to deal
with this issues is down to the manner in which the
Opposition here has pursued you.

It is clear that your desire was to kick to touch on this

issue. You govern by making it up as you go along.
What is very clear now is that there will indeed be a
standing charge as part of the Water Charge.
Paul Murphy of the Socialist Partys laying his
criticism at the door of the Labour Party
The lack of agreement between the government parties on
the water tax is a sign of the pressure that the Labour
Party in particular are under.
This is obviously because they are now aware from
canvassing of the anger against this water tax, and the
anger at the betrayals of the Labour Party in government.
It would suit the Labour Party to put the water tax out of
sight until after the elections.
This disagreement cannot be used as a smokescreen to
cynically hold back on the size of the tax people will face
until after the elections.
Campaign groups have also been critical of the estimated
charge. Heres the take from older peoples organisation
Active Retirement Ireland
This government already has a bad track record when it
comes to protecting the most vulnerable in society and the
lack of clarity around the upcoming water charges is
causing anxiety among older people, families with low
incomes and people with special needs.
We are calling on the Government to acknowledge ability
to pay as a measure when calculating water charges.
There is no way a widow living alone, or a family with no
breadwinner, should be paying the kind of figures weve
seen mooted in the press in recent weeks.
If the annual standing charge is assessed per household,
then it will disproportionately affect older people who live
alone, with only the Living Alone Allowance of 7.70 to
help them meet this extra cost.

http://www.thejournal.ie/wate

r-charges-coalition-1418557Apr2014/

IT IS STANDARD practice for parties in coalition to put

clear distance between themselves in the run-up to an
election to maximise their chances of winning votes.

In Britain, which increasingly seems to be in constant

election mode, the Conservatives and the Liberal
Democrats have been doing this for at least a year and will
be doing more of it ahead of a general election next year.
Here in Ireland it has been less pronounced but on local
election leaflets, on doorsteps, and elsewhere Labour and
Fine Gael have been putting distance between themselves
in recent weeks and months, and so it appears to be the
case with this water charges row.
While one Fine Gael source yesterday downplayed this
dispute as not a row but a disagreement of views
(whatever that means), Labour has been publicly at pains
to outline how unhappy it is about all this from the
Tnaiste describing the leak of details as unhelpful to his
spokesperson making a point of saying there
are substantive differences between the parties over the
policy at a briefing yesterday evening.
It became apparent from early yesterday morning that
Labour was deeply unhappy with the way in which details
about water charges had leaked out (no pun intended) into
the public domain in the form of various media reports.
Brendan Howlin pointed out there was no agreement on
his way into Cabinet yesterday morning and said
agreement twice in one sentence as if to underline that
there was no, er, agreement.
Well it certainly wasnt us, said one source when asked
who was responsible for the leak. No such definitiveness
from the Fine Gael side.

Robust

This wasnt an ideal way to start a Cabinet meeting where

there was, in the words of one minister, a robust
discussion. This is a polite, public way of saying that
things got a bit fierce. Ministers are said to have discussed
the issue for around 90 minutes and there was, both
parties agreed, no decision made.
At issue here is a memo, prepared by the Environment
Minister Phil Hogan, which details how the State can be
expected to put up maximum of 537 million in a

subvention for Irish Water with the new semi-state utility

tasked with coming up at least 50 per cent of the rest of its
funding in revenue, so that it can retain its semi-state
status.
The maximum subvention means that the average charge
facing a household will be around 240 or 248 in the
case of an family with two children, both including the
standing charge. These are details which emerged in the
media yesterday and were confirmed in the Dil by the
Taoiseach.
Fine Gael has in some senses honoured its commitment to
tell the voters how much they can be expected to pay in
water charges before they head to the polls on 23 May. But
Labour rightfully points out that an average is an average.
Its not the full picture, Labour junior minister Jan
OSullivan said this morning on RT.
She also bemoaned the fact that she, and other ministers
who sit at Cabinet, got the memo without time to read it.
This all feeds into the Labour position that the whole
process needs to slow down and that its not about the
quick decision but the right decision.
It has spent quite a lot of time in the last 24 hours talking
about how it wants to ensure that the most vulnerable are
shielded from the worse effects of water bills, raising
particular concerns about the detail in relation to peoples
ability to pay and the assessed charge for households that
wont have a meter i.e. the majority when charges come in.
All of this is good politics and all of it no doubt with one
eye on what is going to be a difficult election for the party
in a little over a months time.

Contrived

The party is clearly less committed than Fine Gael to the

full details of water charges being revealed before the
elections, a spokesperson saying only yesterday that they
would assume details will be out there before the polls
open.
But one cant help but feel this is all a little contrived. Its
been known for sometime that water charges are on the

way yet it is only now, with an election just weeks away

that the Cabinet is having robust exchanges on the issue
and Labour is highlighting its substantive differences
with Fine Gael.
We saw some evidence of the Labour need to assert its
authority in the recent gardagate controversy when the
party briefed that it had made a specific request for a
Cabinet sub-committee dealing with justice reform to be
set up.
This was later strongly denied by the Fine Gael side which
pointed out that the committee is headed by the
Taoiseach. But Labour maintains its position on this issue
and is clearly sticking to its guns on water.
As Labour might see it, if the party can go on doorsteps
and say that it stopped Fine Gael ramming through water
charges without proper consultation then it will hope that
voters remember this when they cast their vote.
But the politics of this dont matter to most people. What
matters for them is knowing how much they have to pay
and while there are sure to be some variations on the
average of 240 some will pay less and some will pay
more the figures that have been put out in recent days
will stick in the voters minds.
All of which means Labours grandstanding in recent days
is unlikely to have much impact.

TNAISTE EAMON GILMORE wishes that differences

between the coalition parties over water charges could
have been addressed months ago.
Speaking in the Dil this afternoon, Gilmore said that
there are still a number of issues that need to be
addressed after it emerged that there is a split between
Fine Gael and Labour over the introduction of water
charges and how much households will be billed.
There are still a number of issues that need to be
addressed. Frankly, I wish that they had been addressed
some months ago, but they do need to be addressed,
Gilmore told the Fianna Fil TD Willie ODea.
Gilmore said that he would like to see if the pace of
metering could be increased so that more houses can be
metered by the time charges come in given that it is
currently expected that three out of every four houses will
not be metered by later this year.
We need to have a fair way of dealing with that situation,
he said.
He said it was not acceptable to have charges based on a
crude decision on the type of house concerned. Gilmore
said there are also issues around ability to pay, the size of a

family, its needs and that familys water usage.

My own view is that we should see what we can do to
accelerate metering and as households are metered that
we should have a rebate system that if usage is lower that
the bill can be adjusted, he explained.
He pointed out that the estimated annual charge of 240
was a CSO figure and noted it is less than the 400 that
Fianna Fil had proposed, but added: In many ways there
is no such thing as an average household.
Sinn Fins Caomhghn Caolin raised Labours
infamous Every Little Hurts poster but Gilmore said the
opposition party dont give a curse about how the issue
will affect the people but only how it plays politically.
Caolin responded that Labour is under pressure
under water pressure and is facing an electorate on 23
May that has been abandoned.
Gilmore responded: I think theres one thing I cant be
accused of and that is making decisions that court
popularity

240, but nothing signed off

on yet
During a heated debate Michel Martin said the Government was
treating the public with absolute contempt.
Apr 16th 2014

TAOISEACH ENDA KENNY has said that nothing has

been signed off on following the Cabinet meeting on
water charges this morning.
Fianna Fil leader Michel Martin asked Kenny if a deal
was not reached because the Labour party angrily raised
the fact that a circular was released to the media before
they were fully consulted.
Kenny denied this was the case.
Martin said that the public are being treated with
absolute contempt by the Governments lack of
transparency regarding the cost of water meters and
standing charges.
He slammed the extravagant 180 million set-up of Irish
Water.
In a robust debate Kenny hit back: I take very little notice
of opportunist hypocrites of which you are the leader
before reading from a previous Fianna Fil four-year plan
which stated that the party would introduce water charges
at an annual cost of 400 per household.
Kenny confirmed that the Government expected the
annual bill for houses to be around 240, with a standing
charge of around 50.

Public Consultation

He said a two-week public consultation process on Irish

Water would begin tomorrow, during which allowances for
vulnerable groups would be looked at.
Kenny also noted that the Department of the Environment
and the CSO were engaged in intensive negotiations to
ensure the water charges are in line with Eurostat rules.
Martin replied that the public did not care about European
targets, rather what bill they will receive in the last
quarter of this year.

Restoring Order

The Ceann Comhairle had to ask for order to be restored

on a number of occasions, once stating:
Would you stay quiet for Gods sake and telling Kenny
Ill have to ask you to finish because theyre not listening
to you.
Kenny said that both Fine Gael and Labour were united
in ensuring that water charges were fair, equitable and as
affordable as possible.
He added that Irish Water had to be set up to deal with the
completely inferior infrastructure currently in place.
When Sinn Fin leader Gerry Adams criticised the
Governments handling of the issue, Kenny said that
Adams had welcomed the 980 annual household charge
in Northern Ireland with open arms.
http://www.thejournal.ie/dail-water-charges-debate-1418147Apr2014/

No agreement and no
agreement that well have an
agreement: Cabinet row over
water
Theres no agreement then.
Apr 16th 2014,

A SPLIT HAS emerged between the coalition parties over

the scale and nature of water charges after reports this
morning that families face an annual bill of around 250.
Several reports this morning indicate that households will
face bills of under 300 and a standing charge of around
50 with allowances made for those who need extra water
because of, for example, medical conditions.
Water charges are being discussed at this mornings
Cabinet meeting but a Labour source said the party is
particularly unhappy with the leaking of details this
morning and late last night.
Labour ministers are unhappy with the level of detail that
has emerged without any discussion at Cabinet level,
particularly by ministers who sit on the Economic
Management Council which is made up of the Taoiseach,
Tnaiste, Michael Noonan and Brendan Howlin.
Enda Kenny insisted yesterday in the Dil that there had
been no agreement on the scale of charges.
He also said there had been no agreement on the level of
government subvention to Irish Water, which will be in
the region of over 530 million, according to reports this
morning.

On his way into Cabinet this morning, Kenny said that the
memorandum on the issue, being brought by Environment
Minister Phil Hogan, will be discussed at Cabinet and
theres lots of things here to be talked about.
But Public Expenditure and Reform Minister Howlin
insisted there was no agreement on anything as yet.
Theres no agreement on the scale and nature of the
charges yet, he insisted.
Were going to have a discussion about that today and
theres no agreement that were going to have an
agreement.
Speaking on RTs Today with Sen ORourke a short time
ago, the Fianna Fil environment spokesperson Barry
Cowen said the latest developments showed the sort of
farcical nature that the water charges issue has been
handled.
Meanwhile, the Socialist Party TD Joe Higgins said
Howlins comments this morning are quite significant
given he was Environment Minister in 1996 when the
mass campaign of boycott resulted in water charges being
abolished.

THE IRISH PEOPLE will be told how much they have to

pay for water in good time the Taoiseach told the Dil
today without going into specifics.
The opposition grilled Enda Kenny on reports this week
that Irish Water will apply a standing charge of 100 on
households for water provision when charges are
introduced later this year.
Kenny insisted that Uisce ireann is not the government
and said the people will know in good time but he gave
no specific timetable.
The Taoiseach said there was no basis for the suggestion
of a standing charge of 100, as reported in the Irish
Independent this week, saying this had come from a draft
memo from Irish Water and that the government has not
signed off on anything.
The people will be informed in good time of the decision
of the government, Kenny said in response to questions
from the Fianna Fil leader Michel Martin.
Martin said that the government had been promising a
decision on water charges for months and said there was a
clearly strategy in government to keep the public in the
dark.
Sinn Fins Gerry Adams suggested that the establishment
of Irish was a prelude to privatisation of the water supply
in the State, but Kenny said that the government has
decided that this is not privatisation of water.
The Taoiseach said that there has been no decision on the
level of water charges, the level of government subvention
or any standing charge that households will have to pay.
He repeated that the government will make a decision on
this shortly.
http://www.thejournal.ie/water-charges-cabinet-row-1417816Apr2014/
Live victory announcement Major NEWS! Army Corps of Engineers
announces it will NOT grant final easement for Dakota access to
cross the Missouri River from Nodapl march in Santa Rosa,Ca Victory
announced right at the end December 5, 16

Forget about cherrypicking your Brexit,

Ireland PM Kenny warns UK
Dec 2, 2016
Forget about cherrypicking your Brexit, Ireland PM Kenny warns
UK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxWA2ZeKKaU

Ireland bailout: full

Irish government
statement
Read the full statement by the Irish
government on the IMF/EU bailout
Lisa O'Carroll
@lisaocarroll
Sunday 28 November 2010 21.07 GMT

The full statement is below. These are the main

points:
The bailout will total 85bn
There's to be a 5.8% blended interest rate
Ireland will not be not locked out of the bond
market
The 85bn is to be split as follows:
50bn to run the country, pay civil service etc.
35bn for the banks, with 17.5bn to come from
Irish reserves
3.44bn is coming from the UK, 393m from
Denmark and 598m from Sweden
10bn to be invested "immediately" in the banks
- showing that this bailout was this was really
about saving the banking system.

Government statement
Announcement of joint EU-IMF Programme for
Ireland

The Government today agreed in principle to the

provision of 85 billion of financial support to
Ireland by Member States of the European Union
through the European Financial Stability Fund
(EFSF) and the European Financial Stability
Mechanism; bilateral loans from the UK, Sweden
and Denmark; and the International Monetary
Fund's (IMF) Extended Fund Facility (EFF) on the
basis of specified conditions.
The State's contribution to the 85 billion facility
will be 17 billion, which will come from the
National Pension Reserve Fund (NPRF) and other
domestic cash resources. This means that the
extent of the external assistance will be reduced to
67 billion.
The purpose of the external financial support is to
return our economy to sustainable growth and to
ensure that we have a properly functioning healthy
banking system.
The external support will be broken down as
follows: 22 billion from the European Financial
Stability Mechanism (EFSM); 22 billion from the
International Monetary Fund (IMF); and 22
billion from the European Financial Stability Fund
(EFSF) and bilateral loans. The bilateral loans will
be subject to the same conditionality as provided
by the programme.
The facility will include up to 35 billion to support
the banking system; 10 billion for the immediate
recapitalisation and the remaining 25 billion will
be provided on a contingency basis. Up to 50
billion to cover the financing of the State. The
funds in the facility will be drawn down as
necessary, although the amount will depend on the
capital requirements of the financial system and
NTMA bond issuances during the programme
period.

If drawn down in total today, the combined annual

average interest rate would be of the order of 5.8%
per annum. The rate will vary according to the
timing of the drawdown and market conditions.
The assistance of our EU partners and the IMF has
been required because of the present high yields
on Irish bonds, which have curtailed the State's
ability to borrow. Without this external support, the
State would not be able to raise the funds required
to pay for key public services for our citizens and
to provide a functioning banking system to support
economic activity. This support is also needed to
safeguard financial stability in the euro area and
the EU as a whole.
Programme for Support
The Programme for Support has been agreed with
the EU Commission and the International Monetary
Fund, in liaison with the European Central Bank.
The Programme builds on the bank rescue policies
that have been implemented by the Irish
Government over the past two and a half years and
on the recently announced National Recovery Plan.
Details of the measures are set out in the
accompanying Notes for Editors.
The Programme lays out a detailed timetable for
the implementation of the measures contained in
the National Recovery Plan.
The conditions governing the Programme will be
set out in the Memorandum of Understanding and
the Government will work closely with the various
bodies to ensure that these conditions are met.
The funding will be provided in quarterly tranches
on the achievement of agreed quarterly targets.
The Programme has two parts the first part deals
with bank restructuring and reorganisation and the
second part deals with fiscal policy and structural
reform. The requirement for quarterly progress

reports covers both parts of the programme. When

the documentation on the Programme is finalised,
it will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Bank Restructuring and Reorganisation
The Programme for the Recovery of the Banking
System will be an intensification of the measures
already adopted by the Government. The
programme provides for a fundamental downsizing
and reorganisation of the banking sector so it is
proportionate to the size of the economy. It will be
capitalised to the highest international standards,
and in a position to return to normal market
sources of funding.
Fiscal Policy and Structural Reform
The Ecofin has acknowledged the EU Commission's
analysis that a further year may be required to
achieve the 3% deficit target. This analysis is
based on a more cautious growth outlook in 2011
and 2012 and the need to service the cost of
additional bank recapitalisations envisaged under
the programme. The Council has today extended
the time frame by 1 year to 2015.
The Programme endorses the Irish Government's
budgetary adjustment Plan of 15 billion over the
next four years, and the commitment for a
substantial 6 billion frontloading of this plan in
2011. The details of the Programme closely reflects
the key objectives set out in the National Recovery
Plan published last week. The adjustment will be
made up of 10 billion in expenditure savings and
5 billion in taxes.
The Programme endorses the structural reforms
contained in the Plan which will underpin a return
to sustainable economic growth over the coming
years.
The Government welcomes the support shown to
Ireland by our Eurozone partners and in particular

by the United Kingdom, Sweden and Denmark who

have expressed their willingness to offer bilateral
assistance. The Government also welcomes the
assistance of the IMF.
As part of the Programme, Ireland will discontinue
its financial assistance to the Loan Facility to
Greece. This commitment would have amounted to
approximately 1 billion up to the period to mid2013.
28th November 2010
Notes for Editors Programme Measures
Fiscal Measures in the Programme
Taxation
Lowering of personal income tax bands and credits
or equivalent measures
A reduction in pension tax relief and pension
related deductions
A reduction in general tax expenditures
Excise and other tax increases
A reduction in private pension tax reliefs
A reduction in general tax expenditures
Site Valuation Tax to fund local services
A reform of capital gains tax and acquisitions tax
An increase in the carbon tax
Programme Expenditure
Savings in Social Protection expenditure through
enhanced control measures, structural reform
measures, a fall in the live register and if
necessary, further rate reductions.
Increase the state pension age to 66 years in 2014,
67 in 2021 and 68 in 2028.
Nominal value of State pension will not be
increased over the period of the plan.
Public Service Costs
Reduction of public service costs through a
reduction in numbers and reform of work practices
as agreed in the Croke Park Agreement.

A reduction of existing public service pensions on a

progressive basis averaging over 4% will be
introduced.
New public service entrants will also see a 10% pay
reduction.
Reform of Pension entitlements for new entrants
to the public service
including a review of accelerated retirement for
certain categories of public servants and an
indexation of pensions to consumer prices.
1 Pensions will be based on career average
earnings.
2 New entrants' retirement age will also be linked
to the state pension retirement age.
Other
Other programme expenditure and reductions in
public capital investment
Structural fiscal reforms
a Fiscal Responsibility Law will be introduced
including a medium-term expenditure framework
with binding multi-annual ceilings on expenditure
in each area
Additional unplanned revenues must be allocated
to debt reduction.
The government will establish a budgetary
advisory council to provide an independent
assessment of the Government's budgetary
position and forecasts.
the voluntary 15 day rule for prompt payments is
extended to the health service executive, local
authorities and state agencies
measures to be put in place to cap the contribution
of the local government sector to general
government borrowing at an acceptable level.
Structural reforms in the Programme
Labour market adjustment
Minimum wage:

Reduce national minimum wage by 1.00 per hour

to foster job creation for categories at higher risk of
unemployment and to prevent distortions
associated with sectoral minimum wages
Enlarge the scope for the "inability to pay clause"
An independent review of the Registered
Employment Agreements and Employment
Regulation Orders. Terms of Reference to be agreed
with European Commission Services.
Reform of the unemployment benefit system to
incentivise early exit from unemployment.
Steps to tackle unemployment and poverty traps
including reducing replacement rates for
individuals receiving more than one type of benefit
(including housing allowance).
Streamline administration of unemployment
benefits, social assistance and active labour
market policies, to reduce the overlapping of
competencies among different departments;
Enhanced conditionality on work and training
availability;
Reform of activation policies:
improved job profiling and increased engagement;
a more effective monitoring of jobseekers'
activities with regular evidence-based reports;
the application of sanction mechanisms for
beneficiaries not complying with job-search
conditionality and recommendations for
participation in labour market programmes
Review of the personal debt regime:
New legislation to be prepared which will balance
the interests of both creditors and debtors.
Competition
Removal of restrictions to competition in sheltered
sectors including:
Legal profession:
establish an independent regulator;

implement the recommendations of the Legal

Costs Working Group and outstanding Competition
Authority recommendations.
Medical Profession:
eliminate restrictions on the number of GPs
qualifying, remove restrictions on GPs wishing to
treat public patients and restrictions on
advertising.
Pharmacy Profession:
ensure the recent elimination of the 50% mark-up
paid for medicines under the State's Drugs
Payments Scheme is enforced.
Enhanced competition in open markets
empower judges to impose fines and other
sanctions in competition cases in order to generate
more credible deterrence
require the competition authorities to list
restrictions in competition law which exclude
certain sectors from its scope and to identify
processes to address them.
Examination of the impact of eliminating the cap
on the size of retail premises
Bank Recapitalisation and Restructuring Measures
The Programme for the recovery of the banking
system will be an intensification of the measures
already adopted by the Government. The
programme provides for a recapitalisation,
fundamental downsizing, restructuring and
reorganisation of the banking sector. The outcome
will lead to a smaller banking system more
proportionate to the size of the economy,
capitalised to the highest international standards,
with renewed access to normal market sources of
funding and focused on strongly supporting the
recovery of the economy.
The proposed programme has been developed with
the assistance of, and is endorsed by, our

international partners.
The main elements of the programme are as
follows:Building on the results of the Central Bank of
Ireland's Prudential Capital Assessment Review
(PCAR) carried out earlier this year additional
capital requirements have been set.
The domestic banking system will benefit from a
substantial and immediate recapitalisation raising
Core Tier 1 capital ratios to at least 12%.
This action, along with early measures to support
deleveraging set out below will result in an
immediate injection of 10bn of fresh capital into
the banking system, above and beyond that
already committed.
Further recapitalisations will take place in the first
half of 2011 as necessary based on the results of a
detailed review and updating of the banks' capital
needs following a revised PCAR exercise
undertaken by the Central Bank of Ireland and
involving stringent stress testing.
A Prudential Liquidity Assessment Review (PLAR)
will be implemented by the Central Bank of Ireland
for the domestic banks to identify deleveraging
actions necessary to significantly reduce their
reliance on short term funding.
A substantial downsizing of the banking system will
be achieved through early and decisive actions
including: Banks will be required to run down non-core
assets, securitize and or sell portfolios or divisions
with credit enhancement provided by the State, if
needed.
The NAMA Scheme will be extended to remove
remaining vulnerable land and development loans
from Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Bank by end-

Q1 2011
This process will be carried out in a carefully
balanced and controlled manner with the benefit of
the substantial resources available to the banks for
their funding and capital needs.
Banks will be required to promptly and fully
provide for all nonperforming assets.
The restructuring of Anglo Irish Bank and Irish
Nationwide Building Society will be swiftly
completed and submitted for EU State aid
approval.
A significant strengthening of the regulation and
stability of the credit union sector will be carried
out by end-2011
A special legislative regime to resolve distressed
credit institutions will be introduced early in 2011.
Specific legislation to support immediate
restructuring actions is in preparation.
The credibility and implementation of the
programme is underpinned by the availability of a
very substantial capital pool comprised of both
national and international resources.
The programme builds on and complements the
broad set of actions taken by the Government over
the past two years to resolve the difficulties of the
banking sector including the provision of
guarantees, recapitalisation of the banks and
NAMA.
The primary objective of this far-reaching
programme is to rebuild international market
confidence in the Irish banking system to enable
the banks to revert to normal market funding in
due course and reduce progressively their reliance
on funding from the Eurosystem and guarantees
and other financial support from the Exchequer.
The programme provides a strong foundation for a
reformed and restructured banking system. The

programme is underpinned by the large

commitment of financial resources to recovery of
the banking system and the support and
endorsement of the programme by the IMF and the
EU.
This will be crucial to ensuring that the banks play
a full and vital role in underpinning economic
recovery and the achievement of the Government's
objectives detailed in the National Recovery Plan.
Confidence in the eurozone was further eroded this
morning as the cost of insuring government debt
rose sharply to record levels, and the euro hit a 10week low.
The financial markets continued to punish the
peripheral members of the eurozone, with Spain,
Italy, Portugal and Ireland all seeing their
borrowing costs increase. Spanish and Italian bond
yields showed the sharpest rises this morning, as
Ireland's 85bn (72bn) bailout failed to bolster
confidence.
The euro fell more than a cent against the dollar, to
$1.2982. And there were also worrying signs that
blue-chip companies are suffering from the
uncertainty, with the cost of insuring their debt
also rising.
The market reaction to the Irish rescue deal shows
that investors remain unconvinced the eurozone
debt crisis can be stabilised, analysts explained,
with many unwilling to buy European sovereign
debt.
"In speaking to clients and traders yesterday, it's
clear that there is extremely low appetite to take
fresh peripheral or financial exposure. There are an
increasing number of investors who will not touch
these assets at any price for now, given all the
uncertainty," said Jim Reid of Deutsche Bank.
"That's the worrying sign for those that think that a

lot of these problems are overstated. You can have

a well-articulated view on why xx or yy is solvent
but if the buyers have completely dried up because
of all the fear and uncertainty then micro analysis
becomes secondary," Reid added.
Spanish 10-year government bond yields the rate
of return demanded by investors rose by 19 basis
points to 5.63%, while Italian 10-year bonds were
up 13bp to 4.77%. The difference between the
Spanish, Italian and Belgian 10-year bonds and
their German equivalents all rose to their highest
since the launch of the euro.
The cost of Spanish and Italian government debt
remains much lower than that of worse-hit
economies however. Irish 10-year bond yields
stand at more than 9%, while yields on Greek 10year bonds are almost 12%.
The cost of insuring Spanish debt for five years,
using a credit default swap (CDS), rose by 22bp to
373bp, according to Markit data. This means it
would cost 373,000 to insure 10m of Spain's
debt.
Portuguese CDS also rose 22 points, to 560bp,
while Irish CDS gained 13bp to 625bp and Greek
CDS gained 18bp to 970bp.
The more stable members of the eurozone also
came under pressure Belgian CDS rose 13 points
to 195bp, French CDS were six points higher at
105bp, and even German CDS rose up six points
to 57bps.
At the corporate level, Markit's iTraxx Europe Index
of 125 companies with investment-grade ratings
showed a 6.5 basis-point rise in the cost of their
credit default swaps, to 120bps. That is its highest
level since July. Gavan Nolan, Markit analyst, said
this showed the "contagion spreading to
corporates".

Too big to bail?

An initially positive reaction to the weekend's Irish
bailout soured yesterday, with the FTSE 100 index
down by more than 100 points.
Russell Jones, global head of fixed-income strategy
at Westpac Banking Corp, said there were signs
that Italy and Belgium were being "sucked into the
mire". He warned that Italy a member of the G7
was a particular concern. "If Italy got dragged
down, all bets are off for the eurozone, frankly,"
Jones told Bloomberg TV.
Gary Jenkins of Evolution Securities added that
both Spain and Italy have an imminent need to
raise large amounts of debt: "Spain has a funding
requirement in excess of 150bn for 2011 and Italy
needs close to 340bn. With the market moving
rapidly on to Spain and Italy it is possible that too
big to fail becomes too big to bail."
Many analysts were focused too on what will
happen if bond yields keep rising, forcing EU
leaders to take action to fundamentally reshape
the eurozone.
Arturo de Frias, head of banks research at
Evolution Securities, said that the removal of
weaker economies from the euro might not be
viable: "German, French and UK banks have 1.2tn
exposure to European periphery economies. If all
these economies devalue by say 30% on their way
back to the peseta, lira, escudo, etc, these banks
would suffer 400bn of losses and these would be
final, definitive losses. There is absolutely no way
the German, French and UK governments will
accept 400bn additional definitive losses at their
banks."
He suggested that a fiscal union was a more likely
scenario: "A 'European Union bond' is needed in
order to save the euro (ie fiscal union is required to

save the monetary union)."

The UK's stock market was up initially today
despite the European debt fears, but had fallen
back by lunchtime.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/ireland-business-blog-withlisa-ocarroll/2010/nov/28/ireland-bailout-full-government-statement

Ireland bailout fails to

calm nervy markets
FTSE 100 down 2%; Dow loses 1%
Euro slides to two-month low against US
dollar
Cost of insuring Spanish and Portuguese
debt hits record high

Irish prime minister Brian Cowen speaking to the media in Dublin yesterday
after the EU approved the 85bn bailout.

Jill Treanor and Julia

Kollewe
Stocks fell on both sides of the Atlantic, the euro tumbled,
and the cost of borrowing for Ireland, Spain and Portugal
jumped today, as details of the republic's 85bn (72bn)
bailout failed to quell anxiety that the crisis in the eurozone
was deepening.

Amid speculation that the European authorities may be left

with little option but to embark on large-scale quantitative
easing to try to bolster sentiment, Ireland's borrowing
costs shot as high as 9.6% as the terms of its bailout by
the International Monetary Fund and European Union
were digested by investors.
"The bottom line is that the financial markets are
unimpressed, and that's the most generous description,"
Neil MacKinnon, global macro strategist at VTB Capital
told Associated Press. "The crisis rumbles on."
Only two shares in the FTSE 100, Barclays and HSBC,
ended the day in positive territory as the blue-chip index
closed below 5600 for the first time since 1 October, down
2% at 5550.
The Dow Jones industrial average fell 39.51 points to
11,052.49, and the euro slid to a new two-month low
against the dollar of $1.3065 amid concerns about the
long-term future of the decade-old single currency.
The cost of borrowing for the peripheral eurozone
countries stayed stubbornly high, with Portugual above 7%
and Spain above 5%, as speculation focused on the next
indebted country which might need financial help. Italy
endured its biggest one day rise in borrowing costs for a
decade.
The cost of insuring Portuguese debt against default rose
to a record high after Nouriel Roubini, economics
professor and chairman of Roubini Global Economics,
urged Lisbon to take international assistance. "Like it or
not, Portugal is reaching the critical point," Roubini told the
Portuguese newspaper Dirio Econmico. "Perhaps it

could be a good idea to ask for a bailout in a preventative

manner."
Ireland's bailout failed to dent fears of contagion across
the eurozone despite rallying cries by France's economy
minister Christine Lagarde and Germany's finance minister
Wolfgang Schuble, who both insisted Portugal would not
need help. Andrew Lim, head of financials research at
Matrix investment bank, said: "The Irish bailout doesn't
solve the euro problem We are looking at Portugal, then
Spain next."
The fragility in the markets led to speculation that
the European Central Bank will delay attempts to
begin withdrawing funds for banks at its meeting
on Thursday, even though the 35bn earmarked
for Ireland's banks was intended to wean them off
the ECB's life support.
Analysts said although the Ireland bailout had been
accompanied by plans for new ways to rescue
troubled eurozone countries after 2013, when the
current emergency schemes run out, investors had
been left confused. It was still not clear in what
circumstances bondholders would be expected to
share the losses of countries that were allowed to
reschedule their debt after 2013 in effect
defaulting.
"Given the lack of clarity about what constitutes
the appearance of insolvency, and what type of
restructuring might occur in such a case, markets
are likely to remain wary of holding government
debt issued by other troubled eurozone countries
like Portugal and Spain," said Ben May, European
economist at Capital Economics.
"With huge political frictions still clearly in place
within the region, fears of a future break-up of the
region look set to remain, placing further

downward pressure on the euro."

The bailout for Ireland is intended to ensure that
neither the country nor its banks will default on
their debt. The decision by the authorities to
ensure that the possibility of default was reduced
was initially welcomed. Gary Jenkins, head of fixed
income research at Evolution Securities, said: "This
is not the time to inject panic into the banking
sector."
Greece, the first eurozone country to be bailed out,
was today given until 2021 to repay its 110bn
loan from the IMF and EU, rather than 2015.
Greece's finance minister George
Papaconstantinou said: "We have a grace period of
four years and a repayment period of seven years.
"The decision is very important, it opens the way to
return to markets earlier than expected."
EU ministers tonight spelt out the terms of Ireland's
85bn international financial rescue package, and
revealed the Dublin government will have to raid
its national pension fund and other cash reserves
for 17.5bn as a condition of the deal to bail out its
banks and debt-laden economy.
The unexpected contribution from Ireland was
demanded at a hastily arranged meeting of the
eurozone's finance ministers, who were desperate
to secure a deal before the markets open
tomorrow.
The package from the EU and International
Monetary Fund includes 67.5bn of external loans.
10bn will go straight to the crippled banks, and
25bn is earmarked for bank support in the future.
The remaining 50bn will be used to shore up the
public finances and allow the government to keep
making welfare payments and cover other
expenses such as health and education.
The agreement was outlined after six hours of

parallel emergency meetings in Brussels of all 27

EU finance ministers and of the 16 countries using
the single currency. New proposals for a permanent
crisis mechanism to shore up the euro from 2013,
when the current schemes run out, were also
outlined.
The gravity of the situation was such that the
chancellor, George Osborne, attended the
eurozone meeting, even though the UK is not in
the single currency. The UK is to contribute an
estimated 7bn, some 3.8bn in a direct loan for
the banks.
Osborne said: "There is a loan going from Britain to
Ireland of just over 3bn. Of course, Britain is also
part of the EU and part of the IMF, so we stand
behind their loans as well. It is in Britain's national
interest. It is money we fully expect to get back,
and we think it will help Ireland get on a fully stable
path back to growth."
He also negotiated that the UK would not be part of
any future eurozone bailout schemes after 2013.
Within minutes of the announcement, Ireland's
embattled prime minster, Brian Cowen, was facing
questions about whether his country could afford
the interest on the loans, which will average 5.8%,
as the repayments will amount to 20% of annual
tax revenue. But he was unrepentant. "Can Ireland
do without this package? The answer to that is no,"
he told reporters last night.
"If we don't have this programme we would have to
go back to the market, which has prohibitive
rates," he said.
Ireland's borrowing costs have shot through 9%
and anxiety about the terms of Ireland's bail-out
package has reverberated through the eurozone.
There have been sharp rises in the borrowing costs
of Portugal and Spain, sparking fears that they too

will need assistance to avoid a break-up of the

eurozone.
Joan Burton, of the Irish Labour party, said that the
Europeans and IMF had "played better poker" than
Ireland. She claimed that the Irish government had
gambled away assets such as the pension reserve
fund in the discussions. "The EU and IMF have us
where they want us," she said.
EU leaders wanted to demonstrate to the markets
that they could contain the contagion in the
eurozone, and for the first time today called for the
financial markets to bear some of the losses in
future European sovereign debt crises.
Cowen made it clear that the authorities were
trying to stop another crisis that would have been
caused if bond holders had been forced to take
losses. Such a move, he said, could have
endangered the "entire financial system".
Dublin insisted the interest rates on the loans had
to be less than 6%, even though this is more than
the 5.2% paid by Greece when it was bailed out in
April. While agreeing the Irish deal, the leaders of
Germany, France, and the European Central Bank
issued demands that the private sector should
shoulder some of the losses in future bailouts after
2013.
This issue of creditor "haircuts", or investor losses,
has been highly contentious over the past month.
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, President
Nicolas Sarkozy of France, and the ECB chief, JeanClaude Trichet, conferred over the weekend on the
plan for a permanent euro rescue system.
According to German officials today, Berlin has
scaled back its demands after running into
resistance from the French and the ECB. The paper
tabled today, to be discussed at an EU summit next
month, rowed back from a blanket insistence on

creditor haircuts, instead saying the investor losses

should be treated on a case by case basis.

Cost of the bailout

The 85bn bailout is made up of 67.5bn from the
European Union, the International Monetary Fund, and the
states of Denmark, Sweden and the UK. Another 17.5bn
comes from Ireland's cash reserves and its national
pension reserve fund.
Of this, 35bn is set aside to shore up the Irish banking
system. 10bn will be used immediately, and the other
25bn is a contingency fund.
Of the 67.5bn, the IMF is putting up 22.5bn.
The two European stability funds are also putting in
22.5bn each. The UK contributes to one of these funds.
The UK's contribution is 3.8bn as a direct loan to the
Irish banks. The interest rate has yet to be announced, but
will be about 6%. The UK taxpayer will contribute about
the same amount again through its membership of the IMF
and EU bailout schemes.
The plan allows Ireland to delay the deadline set for
reducing its budget deficit to 3% of GDP until 2015, a year
longer than previously. The deficit is currently 32%.
The interest rate on all the loans, if they were all held for
the maximum term, averages 5.8%. The bailout offered to
Greece earlier this year averaged some 5.2%. The bond
market had been demanding 9% to lend cash to Ireland in
recent weeks.
The Irish government has said that interest payments on
its state debt will total more than 20% of tax revenues in
2014.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/nov/29/ireland-bailoutfails-to-excite-markets
The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland (Bank of
Ireland or the Bank)
Bank of Ireland is not required to generate additional capital
following the Central Bank of Irelands Balance Sheet Assessment
2 December 2013

The Central Bank of Irelands Balance Sheet Assessment

(BSA)/Asset Quality Review (AQR) confirms that Bank of
Ireland had adequate capital as at 30 June 2013 to meet
the requirements determined under the BSA and
consequently the Central Bank of Ireland does not
require Bank of Ireland to raise additional capital as a
result of the BSA. The Bank continues to expect to
maintain a buffer above a CET1 ratio of 10 per cent on a
Basel 3 transitional basis.
At the request of the EU/IMF, as Ireland exited the EU/IMF
programme of support, the Central Bank of Ireland has conducted
a BSA as at 30 June 2013 of the country's banks, including Bank of
Ireland. The BSA consists of an assessment by the Central Bank of
Ireland of risk classification and provisions against the Central
Bank of Ireland's conservative May 2013 Impairment Guidelines,
namely an Asset Quality Review (AQR) and a review of the
appropriateness of Risk Weighted Assets (RWA). Taking account
of this, the Central Bank of Ireland has estimated a proforma
PointinTime (PiT) capital assessment and capital ratios. The
assessment also includes a Data Integrity Verification (DIV)
element to ensure key data, data fields and processes are robust.
There were no findings or issues arising from the DIV that
materially impact the BSA.
The BSA represents a review under the Central Bank of Ireland's
Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP) and Full Risk
Assessment (FRA) and, as such, the result may be considered by
the Central Bank of Ireland in determining the Pillar 2 capital
requirements of the Bank. Given the proximity of the Capital
Requirements Directive and Capital Requirements Regulation
(CRD/CRR), together referred to as CRD IV, the PiT capital
assessment includes a proforma review of capital adequacy versus
these anticipated new standards.

The proforma PiT capital ratios and assessment by the Central

Bank of Ireland, as summarised on Schedule 1 attached, confirms
that Bank of Ireland had adequate capital as at 30 June 2013 to
cover the requirements determined under the BSA and,
consequently, the Central Bank of Ireland does not require Bank of
Ireland to raise additional capital as a result of the BSA.
The BSA results and PiT outcomes remain subject to ongoing
engagement between the Central Bank of Ireland and Bank of
Ireland and will inform the Bank's Internal Capital Adequacy
Assessment Process (ICAAP), capital planning, financial
statements and internal stress testing programmes. While the
outcome of this engagement cannot be anticipated with certainty
and actions taken following engagement with the Central Bank of
Ireland may adversely impact capital ratios, the Bank continues to
expect to maintain a buffer above a CET1 ratio of 10 per cent on a
Basel 3 transitional basis.
With respect to Asset Quality, the Banks Interim Management
Statement of 1 November 2013 stated The macroeconomic
environments in Ireland and the UK, the main markets in which
we do business with our customers, have remained broadly stable
to slightly improved from the first half of the year and our loan
portfolios are continuing to perform in line with our expectations.
The Group is continuing to meet all targets for the provision of
commercially appropriate restructuring arrangements to
cooperating customers who are having difficulty in meeting
contractual repayments. Total arrears in our Irish mortgage loan
books stabilized in the third quarter of 2013,
with the level of early arrears declining. The above continues to be
the Banks experience including that total arrears in the Irish
mortgage books fell in October 2013 and early arrears continued to
decline.
The European Central Bank (ECB) under the forthcoming Single
Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) will also conduct a Comprehensive
Assessment (CA) during 2014. The CA will include a balance sheet
and risk assessment and is expected to encompass the European
Banking Authority (EBA) and ECB EU wide stress test. The
Central Bank of Ireland has noted that while it is the intention that
the significant reviews and outputs of the Central Bank of Ireland's
BSA will be utilised in the SSM CA, it is currently not possible to
confirm whether this will be the case.

http://www.bankofireland.com/fs/doc/wysiwyg/boi-aqr-rns-final.pdf
Annual Performance Statement (Financial Regulation) 2015-2016
http://www.centralbank.ie/publications/Documents/Annual
%20Performance%20Statement%20(Financial%20Regulation)
%202015-2016.pdf

Paper. "Stabilising and Healing the Irish

Banking System ...
http://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2014/ireland/pdf/Schoe
nmaker_IrishBanking.pdf

SECURITY COUNCIL
7821ST MEETING (AM)
Security Council Strengthens Sanctions on Democratic
Republic of Korea, Unanimously Adopting Resolution 2321
(2016)
With Secretary-General Hailing Measures as Toughest
Ever, Some Warn against Military Build-up on Peninsula
The Security Council strengthened its sanctions regime
against the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea today,
condemning that countrys 9 September nuclear test in
the strongest terms.
Unanimously adopting resolution 2321 (2016) under
Article 41, Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the
15-member Council noted that the 9 September test had
been carried out in violation and flagrant disregard of
Security Council resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009),
2087 (2013, 2095 (2013) and 2270 (2016). It had also
challenged the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons.
Underlining that measures imposed by the resolution were
not intended to have adverse humanitarian consequences
for the countrys civilian population, the Council decided
that the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea should not
supply, sell or transfer coal, iron and iron ore, and that all
States should prohibit the procurement of those materials
from that country, with the exception of total coal exports

to all Member States not exceeding $53,495,894 or

1,000,866 metric tons, whichever was lower, between
today and 31 December; and $400,870,018 or 7,500,000
metric tons per year, whichever was lower, beginning on 1
January 2017. The text exempted transactions in iron and
iron ore intended exclusively for livelihood purposes.
By other terms of the resolution, the Council prohibited
Pyongyang from exporting copper, nickel, silver and zinc,
new helicopters and vessels, as well as statues. It decided
further that all Member States shall take steps to limit the
number of bank accounts held by diplomatic missions and
consular posts, as well as diplomats of the Democratic
Peoples Republic of Korea within their respective
territories. Member States should further close existing
representative offices, subsidiaries or bank accounts in the
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea within 90 days,
unless required for the delivery of humanitarian
assistance.
The Council decided further that all Member States shall
suspend scientific and technical cooperation with persons
or groups officially sponsored by, or representing, the
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea except for medical
exchanges. It added 11 individuals to the list of those
subject to a travel ban and asset freeze, as well as 10
entities to the list of entities subject to an asset freeze.
The Council also added 11 items to the list of nuclearand/or missile-usable items and three to the list of
chemical/biological weapons-usable items of which
Member States should prevent the supply, sale or transfer
to the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.
Concerned that the countrys nationals were working in
other States to earn hard currency for use in its nuclear
and ballistic missile programmes, the Council called upon
States to exercise vigilance over that practice. It also
reiterated its deep concern over the grave hardships
endured by the people of the Democratic Peoples
Republic of Korea, and condemned the countrys pursuit of
nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles at the expense of
its own peoples welfare.

Following the Councils adoption of the resolution,

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted that the text
contained the toughest and most comprehensive
sanctions regime ever imposed by the Council. He
cautioned, however, that since such measures should be
anchored in a comprehensive strategy for lasting peace
and security, emphasizing the importance of commitment
to a peaceful diplomatic and political solution. The
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea must reverse
course and move onto the path of denuclearization, he
emphasized, reiterating his call on the authorities in
Pyongyang to engage with the international community in
addressing the grave human rights situation in the country
and improving their peoples living conditions.
The Republic of Koreas representative described
Pyongyangs nuclear weapons programme as the most
serious threat to the non-proliferation regime, saying that,
by adopting the resolution, the international community
had made clear that it would never tolerate its pursuit of
that course. If the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea
acquired nuclear capabilities, the balance of the status
quo would be broken, he cautioned, and countries in the
region would have to consider how to restore that balance,
either by matching Pyongyangs capabilities or by coming
up with other ways to do so. Exerting non-military
pressure on the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea
was the right way to go, he said.
Japans representative strongly condemned Pyongyangs
repeated violations of Security Council resolutions. This
resolution does not impose sanctions for the sake of
sanctions, he emphasized, adding that they constituted a
tool to correct its course of action. Urging the Democratic
Peoples Republic of Korea to abandon its nuclear
ambitions and return to the negotiating table, he said that
sincere commitment and concrete steps towards
denuclearization would lead to resumed dialogue. For that
to happen, the international community had no option but
to increase the pressure, he said, pointing out that todays
resolution closed loopholes and introduced additional

measures, including drastic limitations on coal imports and

additional sectoral bans aimed at cutting revenues.
The representative of the United States, recognizing
Chinas efforts in working closely with her delegation in
negotiating the rigorous and important resolution, said
the text went after the Democratic Peoples Republic of
Koreas illicit schemes, including through restrictions on
hard currency and the export of monuments, and by
making it harder for Pyongyang to use its diplomats to
advance its nuclear programmes. However, the door
remained open to negotiations, she said, adding that the
United States and the Council would be ready to engage.
Chinas representative, while stressing the need to seek a
negotiated solution within the six-party framework, noted
that certain parties had increased their military presence
and scaled up military exercises on and around the Korean
Peninsula, thereby intensifying tensions. China strongly
opposed the deployment of anti-missile systems on the
Peninsula, he said, describing the current situation as
sensitive, complex and dire, and urging the parties
concerned to avoid actions that might exacerbate
tensions. He urged them to push forward in parallel
negotiations on denuclearization, and on a peace treaty,
within the framework of the six-party talks.
The Russian Federations representative underlined that
the situation in the Korean Peninsula should not provide a
pretext for enhancing military capacities, and that the
resolution could not be used to smother the economy of
the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea and to
exacerbate the countrys humanitarian situation.
Also speaking today were representatives of Spain, New
Zealand, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela, United Kingdom,
Egypt, Malaysia, France, Angola and Senegal.
The meeting began at 9:05 a.m. and ended at 10:25 a.m.
Action on Draft Resolution

The Council unanimously adopted resolution 2321 (2016).

BAN KI-MOON, Secretary-General of the United Nations,
said the Council had taken a strong action on one of the
most enduring and pressing peace and security challenges
of the present time: the nuclear and ballistic-missile
activities of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.
That country had conducted two nuclear tests and at least
25 launches using ballistic missile technology since
January, he recalled. It must be assumed that, with each
test or launch, it continued to make technological
advances in its pursuit of a military nuclear capability, he
cautioned.
Noting that todays resolution contained the toughest and
most comprehensive sanctions regime ever imposed by
the Council, he said targeted sanctions mattered, and the
latest round represented the clear and unified will of the
international community. However, sanctions were only as
effective as their implementation, and because some
States might lack the capacity to enforce them,
international capacity-building partnerships would be
needed. Since sanctions should be anchored in a
comprehensive strategy for lasting peace and security,
commitment to a peaceful, diplomatic and political
solution was also required, he emphasized.
The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea must reverse
its course and move onto the path of denuclearization, he
continued, stressing the importance of not forgetting the
countrys acute humanitarian needs. International
humanitarian assistance remained vital in safeguarding
the lives of millions in need, he said, reiterating his call on
the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea authorities to
engage with the international community in addressing
the grave human rights situation and improving their
peoples living conditions.
Statements
SAMANTHA POWER (United States) said the Council was
gathered because of dangerous choices made by the

Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, including its

having tested nuclear devices twice in 2016. That country
was determined to pose a potent threat to Member States
and to international peace and security, she warned.
While recognizing China for having worked closely with the
United States in negotiating todays rigorous and
important resolution, she acknowledged that the Council
had been divided on many issues lately, but the
unanimous adoption of new sanctions demonstrated its
will. The resolution went after the Democratic Peoples
Republic of Koreas illicit schemes and broke new ground
in three ways: restrictions on hard currency; on the export
of monuments; and making it harder for the country to use
diplomats in advancing its nuclear programmes.
An arms dealer with a diplomatic passport is still an arms
dealer, she continued, adding that the resolution also
imposed measures to restrict the flow of illicit materials
into the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. Noting
that the country had made a choice to carry out
systematic violations of the human rights of its own
people, she said it sought total control of organized social
life through such tactics as repression of the freedom of
expression. When Governments violated the human rights
of their own people, they demonstrated their disdain for
norms that ensured the security of the international
community. The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea
must respect and ensure the welfare and inherent dignity
of its people, as well as those of abducted Japanese
people, she said, emphasizing that defence of human
dignity was a basic demand. The door remained open to
negotiations, and the United States, as well as the Council,
would be ready to engage, she said.
KORO BESSHO (Japan), strongly condemning the repeated
violation of Security Council resolutions by the Democratic
Peoples Republic of Korea, urged that country to abide by
its international commitments. This resolution does not
impose sanctions for the sake of sanctions, he
emphasized, adding that it was a tool to correct its course
of action. In that regard, Japan urged the Democratic
Peoples Republic of Korea to abandon its nuclear

ambitions and to return to the negotiating table. Sincere

commitment and concrete steps towards denuclearization
would lead to resumed dialogue, he said, adding that, for
that change to happen, the international community had
no option but to increase the pressure. The resolution
closed loopholes and introduced additional measures, he
said, noting that drastic limitations on coal imports and
additional sectoral bans aimed at cutting revenues would
have an impact on nuclear and ballistic missile advances.
At the same time, sanctions were not meant to target
ordinary citizens, he stressed.
ROMN OYARZUN MARCHESI (Spain) said that, since
violations had continued since the adoption of resolution
2270 (2016), todays text contained significant additional
measures. The relevant Sanctions Committee, chaired by
Spain, had worked tirelessly to implement previously
adopted measures without exacerbating the humanitarian
situation in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, he
said, expressing trust that the latest resolution would also
ensure the same. Emphasizing that sanctions were not an
objective in themselves, he said it was up to the
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea to respect
international legality. Nothing would give more
satisfaction than the disappearance of the Sanctions
Committee as a result of that country beginning to comply
with international law, he added.
VLADIMIR SAFRONKOV (Russian Federation) said his
delegation supported the resolution in response to the fifth
nuclear test by the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.
Although that country had ignored the demands of the
international community, the resolution was not aimed at
ending the possibility of relaunching negotiations and
seeking a political solution, he said, emphasizing it could
not be used to smother the countrys economy or
exacerbate the humanitarian situation. Moreover, the
situation in the Korean Peninsula should not provide a
pretext for enhancing military capacities, he warned,
strongly condemning the deployment of anti-missile
systems there. The Russian Federation called upon all
parties to demonstrate restraint, not to exacerbate the

situation and to seek ways out of the crisis.

LIU JIEYI (China), recalling that the Democratic Peoples
Republic of Korea had conducted a nuclear test on 9
September, in defiance of objections by the international
community, said todays resolution reaffirmed the need to
safeguard commitments to seek a negotiated solution to
the issue within the six-party framework. While the
measures were not intended to have negative effects on
the humanitarian situation in the country, certain parties
had increased their military presence and scaled up
military exercises, intensifying tension on the Korean
Peninsula. Emphasizing Chinas opposition to the
deployment of anti-missile systems there, he described
the current situation as sensitive, complex and dire and
urged the parties to avoid actions that might exacerbate
tensions. The six-party talks should be relaunched as
soon as possible, he said, adding that the parties should
push forward in parallel negotiations on denuclearization
as well as a peace treaty, within the framework of the sixparty talks.
GERARD VAN BOHEMEN (New Zealand) recalled that the
Council had met many times over the course of 2016 to
discuss the Democratic Peoples Republic of Koreas
ongoing succession of nuclear and ballistic-missile tests.
Considering the seriousness of those developments, it was
appropriate that todays resolution provided for some of
the strongest United Nations sanctions ever imposed.
New Zealand had co-sponsored the text because of its
concern that the Democratic Peoples Republic of Koreas
dangerous and provocative behaviour arguably posed the
most significant threat to the Asia-Pacific regions security,
he emphasized. Also, New Zealands support of the
resolution reflected its commitment to the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Its coordinated and comprehensive
implementation by Member States was one of the
strongest signals the international community could send
the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea that its
continued proliferation activities and disregard for
international obligations would not be tolerated, and that
a change of course was urgently needed.

VOLODYMYR YELCHENKO (Ukraine) welcomed the

unanimous adoption of the resolution, adding that it was a
comprehensive and balanced document that strengthened
the existing regime and reinforced it. It confirmed the
Councils intention to avoid affecting the North Korean
people. Ukraine had always been committed to
multilateral action against weapons of mass destruction,
he stated, and todays vote reaffirmed the Councils firm
stance of responding to global proliferation. He expressed
hope that the resolution would contribute to
denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.
CRISTINA CARRIN (Uruguay) welcomed the resolutions
unanimous adoption which could be a deterrent to the
situation in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. He
reiterated his condemnation of nuclear tests and
continued provocation by that country which escalated
tension in the Korean Peninsula and was a violation of
international law, Security Council resolutions and a
serious threat to international peace and security.
Expressing his countrys commitment to strengthening the
Non-Proliferation Treaty as a cornerstone of the nonproliferation regime, he urged the Democratic Peoples
Republic of Korea to abandon existing nuclear
programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible way,
to go back to the Treaty, as well as the safeguards regime
of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Uruguay considered the implementation of sanctions a
tool by the Council to achieve a desired end, but should
not be seen as a punishment.
HENRY ALFREDO SUREZ MORENO (Venezuela), noting his
vote in favour of the resolution following the nuclear test,
stressed that the holding of other nuclear tests in 2016
had led to Security Council resolutions and has affected
the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The Security Council
must step up efforts in promoting dialogue between
parties to contribute to a negotiated solution. Its goal
should be denuclearization through a negotiated political
solution. He urged the Democratic Peoples Republic of
Korea to fulfil its obligations under relevant Security

Council resolutions and appealed to all parties to act in a

cautious way. As well, the Council had to ensure measures
of the resolution did not have a humanitarian impact on
the civilian population, he said, expressing concern at
restrictions imposed on basic goods could affect the
population. He reiterated his appeal to Member States
that had any influence on the issue to demonstrate the
will to find an acceptable solution for all parties, establish
a climate of trust, and relaunch the multiparty talks to
resolve the differences on the Korean Peninsula.
MATTHEW RYCROFT (United Kingdom) said that, until there
was genuine commitment on the part of the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea to change course, sanctions
would remain. Since the adoption of resolution 2270
(2016), the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had
continued on its course of provocations, which, in 2016,
had reached an unprecedented number. The agreed-upon
mechanism on coal exports denied the country one
quarter of its foreign income that could not be used for
further nuclearization. The resolution also contained a
condemnation of proliferation choices at the expense of
the welfare of the countrys people. The resolution was
not intended to have adverse humanitarian consequences
or to affect negatively the work of organizations working in
the humanitarian field. The Democratic People's Republic
of Korea had a clear choice: continue destabilizing
behaviour or to begin to build a new future for its people.
AMR ABDELLATIF ABOULATTA (Egypt) said the unanimous
adoption sent a strong signal that the latest behaviour of
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would not be
accepted. The latest nuclear test represented a violation
of Council resolutions and undermined the nonproliferation regime. It strengthened sanctions against the
country, but took into account the political process and
the importance of resumption of the six-party talks. The
sanctions should not have an adverse impact on the work
of embassies in Pyongyang. Egypt had always warned
against double standards in non-proliferation, he said,
noting that a single country in his region was not a
member of the non-proliferation regime, a situation which

was not unacceptable. He urged the Council to carry out

its responsibility in that respect.
RAMLAN BIN IBRAHIM (Malaysia) underscored the need for
a comprehensive solution that would serve the interests of
the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea and the
humanitarian needs of its people and urged that country
to return to the negotiating table and resume peaceful
dialogue under the six-party talks framework. The texts
focus on safeguarding humanitarian exemptions was a
crucial element, he said, noting that it would prevent
unintended consequences against the livelihoods and
humanitarian situation. In that regard, Security Council
resolution 2270 (2016) must not be a pretext to disrupt
diplomatic access and further impede the conduct of
diplomatic and humanitarian activities.
FRANOIS DELATTRE (France) described the Democratic
Peoples Republic of Koreas fifth nuclear test, conducted
last September, as a very grave violation of the nonproliferation regime. It was one of the main challenges
facing the Security Council and one of its major priorities.
Welcoming the unanimous adoption of resolution 2321
(2016), he said it was a decisive step in the enhancement
of sanctions against the Democratic Peoples Republic of
Korea. It sent a message about the international
communitys unity in punishing any unacceptable
questioning of the non-proliferation regime, and its goal
was a radical policy change in Pyongyang. We hope this
unity will exist on every occasion when the nonproliferation regime should be in question, he said. The
resolution represented a significant evolution in the nonproliferation regime, providing a strict framework with
regard to the export of coal and to the banning and
transfer of certain assets. It identified new tools and
enhanced constraints on the use of diplomatic means for
nuclear ends. While condemning the regimes logic in
using existing resources to fuel its nuclear programmes,
he emphasized that the sanctions were not an end in
themselves, and that it was now up to Pyongyang to
abandon them.

JULIO HELDER MOURA LUCAS (Angola) appealed to the

Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea to heed the
international communitys message by negotiating an end
to its nuclear programmes, concentrating its resources on
the social development of its people and denuclearizing
the Korean Peninsula. Becoming an international pariah
was detrimental to the countrys people, he added.
FOD SECK (Senegal) said that in strengthening the
sanctions on the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea,
the Council had demonstrated that it was united in its will
to make the authorities of that country give up their
nuclear programme, which violated the non-proliferation
regime. Emphasizing that sanctions were a means, and
not an end, he said the humanitarian aspect of the new
measures was quite telling, adding that their scope called
for technical assistance and for building the capacity to
facilitate effective implementation by the international
community. Emphasizing Senegals commitment to full
respect for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as well as
the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, he called for
the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones
throughout the world, including the Middle East, stressing
that only through total nuclear disarmament could that
goal be achieved.
OH JOON (Republic of Korea) said that the Democratic
Peoples Republic of Koreas nuclear weapons programme
had become the most serious threat to the nonproliferation regime. By adopting todays resolution, the
international community had made clear that it would
never tolerate its pursuit of that course, he said, adding
that the robust measures contained in the text reinforced
the sanctions regime. The Democratic Peoples Republic
of Korea had spent an estimated $200 million on its
nuclear and ballistic-missile programme in the course of
2016, which could have been used on food for its people,
he noted, adding that it was paying a heavy price for its
nuclear programme at the expense of its own people.
Describing Pyongyangs nuclear programme as
multifaceted, he said it was a non-proliferation issue that

posed the question as to whether the non-proliferation

regime could be maintained, whether the international
community could stand up to the challenge, or whether it
would let the issue go. The Democratic Peoples Republic
of Koreas nuclear programme was also an issue of
international security, he said, warning that, if the country
acquired nuclear capabilities, the balance of the status
quo would be broken. Other countries in the region must
consider how to restore that balance, either by matching
Pyongyangs capabilities or by coming up with other ways
by which to restore it. Applying pressure on the
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea through nonmilitary measures was the right way to go, he
emphasized.
Resolution
The full text of resolution 2321 (2016) reads as follows:
The Security Council,
Recalling its previous relevant resolutions, including
resolution 825 (1993), resolution 1540 (2004), resolution
1695 (2006), resolution 1718 (2006), resolution 1874
(2009), resolution 1887 (2009), resolution 2087 (2013),
resolution 2094 (2013), and resolution 2270 (2016), as
well as the statements of its President of 6 October 2006
(S/PRST/2006/41), 13 April 2009 (S/PRST/2009/7) and 16
April 2012 (S/PRST/2012/13),
Reaffirming that proliferation of nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery,
constitutes a threat to international peace and security,
Expressing its gravest concern at the nuclear test by the
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (the DPRK) on 9
September 2016 in violation of resolutions 1718 (2006),
1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013) and 2270 (2016),
and at the challenge such a test constitutes to the Treaty
on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (the NPT) and to
international efforts aimed at strengthening the global
regime of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the

danger it poses to peace and stability in the region and

beyond,
Underlining once again the importance that the DPRK
respond to other security and humanitarian concerns of
the international community,
Underlining also that measures imposed by this
resolution are not intended to have adverse humanitarian
consequences for the civilian population of the DPRK,
Expressing serious concern that the DPRK has continued
to violate relevant Security Council resolutions through
repeated launches and attempted launches of ballistic
missiles, and noting that all such ballistic missile activities
contribute to the DPRKs development of nuclear weapons
delivery systems and increase tension in the region and
beyond,
Expressing continued concern that the DPRK is abusing
the privileges and immunities accorded under the Vienna
Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations,
Expressing great concern that the DPRKs prohibited
arms sales have generated revenues that are diverted to
the pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles while
DPRK citizens have unmet needs,
Expressing its gravest concern that the DPRKs ongoing
nuclear- and ballistic missile-related activities have further
generated increased tension in the region and beyond,
and determining that there continues to exist a clear
threat to international peace and security,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United
Nations, and taking measures under its Article 41,
1. Condemns in the strongest terms the nuclear test
conducted by the DPRK on 9 September 2016 in violation
and flagrant disregard of the Security Councils
resolutions;

2. Reaffirms its decisions that the DPRK shall not

conduct any further launches that use ballistic missile
technology, nuclear tests, or any other provocation; shall
suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile
programme and in this context re-establish its pre-existing
commitments to a moratorium on missile launches; shall
abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear
programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible
manner, and immediately cease all related activities; and
shall abandon all other existing weapons of mass
destruction and ballistic missile programmes in a
complete, verifiable and irreversible manner;
3. Decides that the measures specified in paragraph
8(d) of resolution 1718 (2006) shall apply also to the
individuals and entities listed in Annex I and II of this
resolution and to any individuals or entities acting on their
behalf or at their direction, and to entities owned or
controlled by them, including through illicit means, and
decides further that the measures specified in paragraph
8(e) of resolution 1718 (2006) shall also apply to the
individuals listed in Annex I of this resolution and to
individuals acting on their behalf or at their direction;
4. Decides that the measures imposed in paragraph
8(a), 8(b) and 8(c) of resolution 1718 (2006) shall also
apply to the items, materials, equipment, goods and
technology listed in Annex III of this resolution;
5. Reaffirms the measures imposed in paragraph 8(a)(iii)
of resolution 1718 (2006) regarding luxury goods, and
clarifies that the term luxury goods includes also, but is
not limited to, the items specified in Annex IV of this
resolution;
6. Reaffirms paragraphs 14 through 16 of resolution
1874 (2009), and paragraph 8 of resolution 2087 (2013),
and decides that these paragraphs shall apply also with
respect to any items the supply, sale or transfer of which
is prohibited by this resolution;
7. Decides that the measures imposed in paragraphs

8(a), 8(b), and 8(c) of resolution 1718 (2006) shall also

apply to the items listed in a new conventional arms dualuse list to be adopted by the Committee, directs the
Committee to adopt this list within fifteen days and to
report to the Security Council to this effect, and further
decides that, if the Committee has not acted, then the
Security Council will complete action to adopt the list
within seven days of receiving that report, and directs the
Committee to update this list every 12 months;
8. Decides that paragraph 19 of resolution 2270 (2016)
shall apply with respect to all leasing, chartering or
provision of crew services to the DPRK without exception,
unless the Committee approves on a case-by-case basis in
advance;
9. Decides that paragraph 20 of resolution 2270 (2016)
shall apply to registering vessels in the DPRK, obtaining
authorization for a vessel to use the DPRK flag, and
owning, leasing, operating, providing any vessel
classification, certification or associated service, or
insuring any vessel flagged by the DPRK, without
exception, unless the Committee approves on a case-bycase basis in advance;
10. Clarifies that, for the purposes of implementing
paragraph 17 of resolution 2270 (2016), specialized
teaching and training which could contribute to the DPRKs
proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or the
development of nuclear weapons delivery systems
includes, but is not limited to advanced materials science,
advanced chemical engineering, advanced mechanical
engineering, advanced electrical engineering and
advanced industrial engineering;
11. Decides that all Member States shall suspend
scientific and technical cooperation involving persons or
groups officially sponsored by or representing the DPRK
except for medical exchanges unless:
(a) In the case of scientific or technical cooperation in the
fields of nuclear science and technology, aerospace and

aeronautical engineering and technology, or advanced

manufacturing production techniques and methods, the
Committee has determined on a case-by-case basis that a
particular activity will not contribute to the DPRKs
proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or ballistic missilerelated programmes; or
(b) In the case of all other scientific or technical
cooperation, the State engaging in scientific or technical
cooperation determines that the particular activity will not
contribute to the DPRKs proliferation sensitive nuclear
activities or ballistic missile-related programmes and
notifies the Committee in advance of such determination;
12. Decides that the Committee, if it has information
that provides reasonable grounds to believe the vessels
are or have been related to nuclear- or ballistic missilerelated programmes or activities prohibited by resolutions
1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013),
2270 (2016) or this resolution, may require any or all of
the following measures with respect to vessels it
designates pursuant to this paragraph: (a) the Flag State
of a designated vessel shall de-flag the vessel; (b) the Flag
State of a designated vessel shall direct the vessel to a
port identified by the Committee, in coordination with the
port State; (c) all Member States shall prohibit a
designated vessel from entering their ports, unless in case
of emergency, in case of return to the vessels port of
origination, or in case of direction by the Committee; (d) a
vessel designated by the Committee shall be subject to
the asset freeze imposed in paragraph 8(d) of resolution
1718 (2006);
13. Expresses concern that the personal luggage and
checked baggage of individuals entering into or departing
from the DPRK may be used to transport items the supply,
sale or transfer of which is prohibited by resolutions 1718
(2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013), 2270
(2016) or this resolution, and clarifies that such luggage
and baggage constitute cargo for the purposes of
implementing paragraph 18 of resolution 2270 (2016);

14. Calls upon all Member States to reduce the number

of staff at DPRK diplomatic missions and consular posts;
15. Decides that all Member States shall take steps to
restrict the entry into or transit through their territory of
members of the Government of the DPRK, officials of that
Government, and members of the DPRK armed forces, if
the State determines that such members or officials are
associated with the DPRKs nuclear or ballistic missile
programmes or other activities prohibited by resolutions
1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013),
2270 (2016) or this resolution;
16. Decides that all States shall take steps to limit the
number of bank accounts to one per DPRK diplomatic
mission and consular post, and one per accredited DPRK
diplomat and consular officer, at banks in their territory;
17. Recalls that, under the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations of 1961, a diplomatic agent shall not
in the receiving State practice for personal profit any
professional or commercial activity, and emphasizes
accordingly that DPRK diplomatic agents are prohibited in
the receiving State from such practice of professional or
commercial activity;
18. Decides that all Member States shall prohibit the
DPRK from using real property that it owns or leases in
their territory for any purpose other than diplomatic or
consular activities;
19. Recalls that a Member of the United Nations against
which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by
the Security Council may be suspended from the exercise
of the rights and privileges of membership by the General
Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security
Council, and that the exercise of these rights and
privileges may be restored by the Security Council;
20. Recalls that paragraph 18 of resolution 2270 (2016)
requires all States to inspect the cargo within or transiting
through their territory, including their airports, that has

originated in the DPRK, or that is destined for the DPRK, or

has been brokered or facilitated by the DPRK or its
nationals, or by individuals or entities acting on their
behalf or at their direction, or entities owned or controlled
by them, or by designated individuals or entities, or that is
being transported on DPRK flagged aircraft, emphasizes
that this measure requires States to inspect DPRK-flagged
aircraft when they land in or take off from their territory,
recalls also that paragraph 31 of resolution 2270 (2016)
requires all States to prevent the sale or supply, by their
nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels
or aircraft, of aviation fuel, to the territory of the DPRK,
and calls upon all States to exercise vigilance to ensure
that no more fuel is provided to DPRK-flagged civil
passenger aircraft than is necessary for the relevant flight,
including a standard margin for safety of flight;
21. Expresses concern that prohibited items may be
transported to and from the DPRK by rail and by road, and
underscores that the obligation in paragraph 18 of
resolution 2270 (2016) to inspect the cargo within or
transiting through their territory includes the cargo being
transported by rail and by road;
22. Decides that all Member States shall prohibit their
nationals, persons subject to their jurisdiction and entities
incorporated in their territory or subject to their
jurisdiction from providing insurance or re-insurance
services to vessels owned, controlled, or operated,
including through illicit means, by the DPRK unless the
Committee determines on a case-by-case basis that the
vessel is engaged in activities exclusively for livelihood
purposes which will not be used by DPRK individuals or
entities to generate revenue or exclusively for
humanitarian purposes;
23. Decides that all Member States shall prohibit their
nationals from procuring vessel and aircraft crewing
services from the DPRK;
24. Decides that all Member States shall de-register any
vessel that is owned, controlled, or operated by the DPRK,

and further decides that Member States shall not register

any such vessel that has been de-registered by another
Member State pursuant to this paragraph;
25. Notes that, for the purpose of implementing
resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094
(2013), 2270 (2016) and this resolution, the term transit
includes but is not limited to the travel of individuals
through a States international airport terminals en route
to a destination in another State, regardless of whether
such individuals pass through customs or passport control
at that airport;
26. Decides that paragraph 29 of resolution 2270 (2016)
shall be replaced by the following:
Decides that the DPRK shall not supply, sell or transfer,
directly or indirectly, from its territory or by its nationals or
using its flag vessels or aircraft, coal, iron, and iron ore,
and that all States shall prohibit the procurement of such
material from the DPRK by their nationals, or using their
flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in
the territory of the DPRK, and decides that this provision
shall not apply with respect to:
(a) Coal that the procuring State confirms on the basis of
credible information has originated outside the DPRK and
was transported through the DPRK solely for export from
the Port of Rajin (Rason), provided that the State notifies
the Committee in advance and such transactions are
unrelated to generating revenue for the DPRKs nuclear or
ballistic missile programmes or other activities prohibited
by resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013),
2094 (2013) or this resolution;
(b) Total exports to all Member States of coal originating in
the DPRK that in the aggregate do not exceed
$53,495,894 or 1,000,866 metric tons, whichever is lower,
between the date of adoption of this resolution and 31
December 2016, and total exports to all Member States of
coal originating in the DPRK that in the aggregate do not
exceed $400,870,018 or 7,500,000 metric tons per year,

whichever is lower, beginning January 1, 2017, provided

that the procurements (i) involve no individuals or entities
that are associated with the DPRKs nuclear or ballistic
missile programmes or other activities prohibited by
resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094
(2013), 2270 (2016) or this resolution, including
designated individuals or entities, or individuals or entities
acting on their behalf or at their direction, or entities
owned or controlled by them, directly or indirectly, or
individuals or entities assisting in the evasion of sanctions,
and (ii) are exclusively for livelihood purposes of DPRK
nationals and unrelated to generating revenue for the
DPRKs nuclear or ballistic missile programmes or other
activities prohibited by resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874
(2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013), 2270 (2016) or this
resolution, and decides that each Member State that
procures coal from the DPRK shall notify the Committee of
the aggregate amount of the volume of such procurement
for each month no later than 30 days after the conclusion
of that month on the form in Annex V to this resolution,
directs the Committee to make publicly available on its
website the volume of procurement of coal from the DPRK
reported by Member States and value calculated by the
Committee Secretary, as well as the amount reported for
each month and with the number of States that reported
for each month, directs the Committee to update this
information on a real-time basis as it receives
notifications, calls upon all States that import coal from
the DPRK to periodically review this website to ensure that
they do not exceed the mandatory aggregate annual limit,
directs the Committee Secretary to notify all Member
States when an aggregate value or volume of coal
procurements from the DPRK of 75% of the aggregate
yearly amount has been reached, also directs the
Committee Secretary to notify all Member States when an
aggregate value or volume of coal procurements from the
DPRK of 90% of the aggregate yearly amount has been
reached, further directs the Committee Secretary to notify
all Member States when an aggregate value or volume of
coal procurements from the DPRK of 95% of the aggregate
yearly amount has been reached and to inform them that
they must immediately cease procuring coal from the

DPRK for the year, and requests the Secretary General to

make the necessary arrangements to this effect and
provide additional resources in this regard; and
(c) Transactions in iron and iron ore that are determined to
be exclusively for livelihood purposes and unrelated to
generating revenue for the DPRKs nuclear or ballistic
missile programmes or other activities prohibited by
resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094
(2013), 2270 (2016) or this resolution.
27. Directs the Panel of Experts, following the end of
each month, to determine and transmit to the Committee,
in no more than 30 days, an estimate of the average
(mean) price in US dollars of coal exported from the DPRK
that month based on credible and factually accurate trade
data, and directs the Committee Secretary to use this
average price as the basis to calculate the value of the
procurement of coal from the DPRK each month based on
the volume reported by States for the purposes of
notifying all member states and making publicly available
DRPK export levels on the Committee website on a real
time basis as required in paragraph 26 of this resolution;
28. Decides that the DPRK shall not supply, sell or
transfer, directly or indirectly, from its territory or by its
nationals or using its flag vessels or aircraft, copper,
nickel, silver and zinc, and that all Member States shall
prohibit the procurement of such material from the DPRK
by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft,
and whether or not originating in the territory of the DPRK;
29. Decides that the DPRK shall not supply, sell or
transfer, directly or indirectly, from its territory or by its
nationals or using its flag vessels or aircraft, statues, and
that all States shall prohibit the procurement of such items
from the DPRK by their nationals, or using their flag
vessels or aircraft, whether or not originating in the
territory of the DPRK, unless the Committee approves on a
case-by-case basis in advance;
30. Decides that all Member States shall prevent the

direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the DPRK,

through their territories or by their nationals, or using their
flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in
their territories, of new helicopters and vessels, except as
approved in advance by the Committee on a case-by-case
basis;
31. Decides that Member States shall take the necessary
measures to close existing representative offices,
subsidiaries or banking accounts in the DPRK within 90
days, unless the Committee determines on a case-by-case
basis that such offices, subsidiaries or accounts are
required for the delivery of humanitarian assistance or the
activities of diplomatic missions in the DPRK or the
activities of the United Nations or its specialized agencies
or related organizations or any other purpose consistent
with the objectives of this resolution;
32. Decides that all Member States shall prohibit public
and private financial support from within their territories
or by persons or entities subject to their jurisdiction for
trade with the DPRK (including the granting of export
credits, guarantees or insurance to their nationals or
entities involved in such trade), except as approved in
advance by the Committee on a case-by-case basis;
33. Decides that, if a Member State determines that an
individual is working on behalf of or at the direction of a
DPRK bank or financial institution, then Member States
shall expel the individual from their territories for the
purpose of repatriation to the individuals state of
nationality, consistent with applicable national and
international law, unless the presence of the individual is
required for fulfilment of a judicial process or exclusively
for medical, safety or other humanitarian purposes, or the
Committee has determined on a case-by-case basis that
the expulsion of the individual would be contrary to the
objectives of resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087
(2013), 2094 (2013), 2270 (2016), or this resolution;
34. Expresses concern that DPRK nationals are sent to
work in other States for the purpose of earning hard

currency that the DPRK uses for its nuclear and ballistic
missile programmes, and calls upon States to exercise
vigilance over this practice;
35. Reiterates its concern that bulk cash may be used to
evade measures imposed by the Security Council, and
calls upon Member States to be alert to this risk;
36. Calls upon all Member States to report to the
Security Council within ninety days of the adoption of this
resolution, and thereafter upon request by the Committee,
on concrete measures they have taken in order to
implement effectively the provisions of this resolution,
requests the Panel of Experts established pursuant to
resolution 1874 (2009), in cooperation with other UN
sanctions monitoring groups, to continue its efforts to
assist Member States in preparing and submitting such
reports in a timely manner;
37. Reaffirms that Security Council resolution 1540
(2004) obligates all States to take and enforce effective
measures to establish domestic controls to prevent the
proliferation of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons
and their means of delivery, including by establishing
appropriate controls over related materials, and notes that
these obligations are complementary to the obligations in
resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094
(2013) and 2270 (2016) to prevent the direct or indirect
supply, sale or transfer to the DPRK of items, materials,
equipment, goods and technology which could contribute
to DPRKs nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related or other
weapons of mass destruction-related programmes;
38. Calls upon all Member States to redouble efforts to
implement in full the measures in resolutions 1718 (2006),
1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013) and 2270 (2016),
and to cooperate with each other in doing so, particularly
with respect to inspecting, detecting and seizing items the
transfer of which is prohibited by these resolutions;
39. Decides that the mandate of the Committee, as set
out in paragraph 12 of resolution 1718 (2006), shall apply

with respect to the measures imposed in this resolution

and further decides that the mandate of the Panel of
Experts, as specified in paragraph 26 of resolution 1874
(2009) and modified in paragraph 1 of resolution 2276
(2016), shall also apply with respect to the measures
imposed in this resolution;
40. Decides to authorize all Member States to, and that
all Member States shall, seize and dispose (such as
through destruction, rendering inoperable or unusable,
storage, or transferring to a State other than the
originating or destination States for disposal) of items the
supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by
resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094
(2013), 2270 (2016) or this resolution that are identified in
inspections, in a manner that is not inconsistent with their
obligations under applicable Security Council resolutions,
including resolution 1540 (2004), as well as any
obligations of parties to the NPT, the Convention on the
Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling
and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction of
29 April 1997, and the Convention on the Prohibition of the
Development, Production and Stockpiling of
Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on
Their Destruction of 10 April 1972;
41. Emphasizes the importance of all States, including
the DPRK, taking the necessary measures to ensure that
no claim shall lie at the instance of the DPRK, or of any
person or entity in the DPRK, or of persons or entities
designated for measures set forth in resolutions 1718
(2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013), 2270
(2016) or this resolution, or any person claiming through
or for the benefit of any such person or entity, in
connection with any contract or other transaction where
its performance was prevented by reason of the measures
imposed by this resolution or previous resolutions;
42. Requests the Secretary-General to provide additional
administrative and analytical support resources needed to
increase the capacity of the Panel of Experts established
pursuant to resolution 1874 (2009) and strengthen its

ability to analyse the DPRKs sanctions violation and

evasion activities, to include additional funding allocated
to the procurement of aerial imagery and analysis
services, access to relevant trade and international
security databases and other information sources, as well
as support the resulting increased activities of the
Committee by the Secretariat;
43. Requests the Panel of Experts to include findings and
recommendations in its midterm reports, beginning with
the midterm report due to be submitted to the Committee
by no later than 5 August 2017;
44. Directs the Committee, with the assistance of its
Panel of Experts, to hold special meetings on important
thematic and regional topics and Member States capacity
challenges, to identify, prioritize, and mobilize resources
to areas that would benefit from technical and capacity
building assistance to enable more effective
implementation by Member States;
45. Reiterates its deep concern at the grave hardship
that the people in the DPRK are subjected to, condemns
the DPRK for pursuing nuclear weapons and ballistic
missiles instead of the welfare of its people while people in
the DPRK have great unmet needs, and emphasizes the
necessity of the DPRK respecting and ensuring the welfare
and inherent dignity of people in the DPRK;
46. Reaffirms that the measures imposed by resolutions
1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013),
2270 (2016) and this resolution are not intended to have
adverse humanitarian consequences for the civilian
population of the DPRK or to affect negatively those
activities, including economic activities and cooperation,
that are not prohibited by resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874
(2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013), 2270 (2016) and this
resolution, and the work of international and nongovernmental organizations carrying out assistance and
relief activities in the DPRK for the benefit of the civilian
population of the DPRK, and decides that the Committee
may, on a case-by-case basis, exempt any activity from

the measures imposed by these resolutions if the

Committee determines that such an exemption is
necessary to facilitate the work of such organizations in
the DPRK or for any other purpose consistent with the
objectives of these resolutions;
47. Reaffirms its support to the Six Party Talks, calls for
their resumption, and reiterates its support for the
commitments set forth in the Joint Statement of 19
September 2005 issued by China, the DPRK, Japan, the
Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United
States, including that the goal of the Six-Party Talks is the
verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a
peaceful manner, that the United States and the DPRK
undertook to respect each others sovereignty and exist
peacefully together, and that the Six Parties undertook to
promote economic cooperation, and all other relevant
commitments;
48. Reiterates the importance of maintaining peace and
stability on the Korean Peninsula and in north-east Asia at
large, and expresses its commitment to a peaceful,
diplomatic and political solution to the situation and
welcomes efforts by Council members as well as other
States to facilitate a peaceful and comprehensive solution
through dialogue and stresses the importance of working
to reduce tensions in the Korean Peninsula and beyond;
49. Affirms that it shall keep the DPRKs actions under
continuous review and is prepared to strengthen, modify,
suspend or lift the measures as may be needed in light of
the DPRKs compliance, and, in this regard, expresses its
determination to take further significant measures in the
event of a further DPRK nuclear test or launch;
50. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
Annex I
Travel Ban/Asset Freeze (Individuals)
1. PAK CHUN IL

a. Description: Pak Chun Il has served as the DPRK

Ambassador to Egypt and provides support to KOMID.
b. AKA: n/a
c. Identifiers: DOB: 28 July 1954; Nationality: DPRK;
Passport: 563410091
2. KIM SONG CHOL
a. Description: Kim Song Chol is a KOMID official that has
conducted business in Sudan on behalf of KOMIDs
interests.
b. AKA: Kim Hak Song
c. Identifiers: DOB: 26 March 1968, alt. DOB: 15 October
1970; Nationality: DPRK; Passport: 381420565, alt.
Passport: 654120219
3. SON JONG HYOK
a. Description: Son Jong Hyok is a KOMID official that has
conducted business in Sudan on behalf of KOMIDs
interests.
b. AKA: Son Min
c. Identifiers: DOB: 20 May 1980; Nationality: DPRK
4. KIM SE GON
a. Description: Kim Se Gon works on behalf of the Ministry
of Atomic Energy Industry.
b. AKA: n/a
c. Identifiers: DOB: 13 November 1969; Passport:
PD472310104; Nationality: DPRK
5. RI WON HO

a. Description: Ri Won Ho is a DPRK Ministry of State

Security Official stationed in Syria supporting KOMID.
b. AKA: n/a
c. Identifiers: DOB: 17 July 1964; Passport: 381310014,
Nationality: DPRK
6. JO YONG CHOL
a. Description: Jo Yong Chol is a DPRK Ministry of State
Security Official stationed in Syria supporting KOMID.
b. AKA: Cho Yong Chol
c. Identifiers: DOB: 30 September 1973, Nationality: DPRK
7. KIM CHOL SAM
a. Description: Kim Chol Sam is a representative for
Daedong Credit Bank (DCB) who has been involved in
managing transactions on behalf of DCB Finance Limited.
As an overseas-based representative of DCB, it is
suspected that Kim Chol Sam has facilitated transactions
worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and likely
managed millions of dollars in DPRK related accounts with
potential links to nuclear/missile programmes.
b. AKA: n/a
c. Identifiers: DOB: 11 March 1971; Nationality: DPRK
8. KIM SOK CHOL
a. Description: Kim Sok Chol acted as the DPRK
Ambassador to Myanmar and he operates as a KOMID
facilitator. He was paid by KOMID for his assistance and
arranges meetings on behalf of KOMID, including a
meeting between KOMID and Myanmars defense related
persons to discuss financial matters.

b. AKA: n/a
c. Identifiers: DOB: 8 May 1955; Passport 472310082;
Nationality: DPRK
9. CHANG CHANG HA
a. Description: Chang Chang Ha is the President of the
Second Academy of Natural Sciences (SANS).
b. AKA: Jang Chang Ha
c. Identifiers: DOB: 10 January 1964; Nationality: DPRK
10. CHO CHUN RYONG
a. Description: Cho Chun Ryong is the Chairman of the
Second Economic Committee (SEC).
b. AKA: Jo Chun Ryong
c. Identifiers: DOB: 4 April 1960; Nationality: DPRK
11. SON MUN SAN
a. Description: Son Mun San is the Director-General of the
External Affairs Bureau of the General Bureau of Atomic
Energy (GBAE).
b. AKA: n/a
c. Identifiers: DOB: 23 January 1951; Nationality: DPRK
Annex II
Asset Freeze (Entities)
1. KOREA UNITED DEVELOPMENT BANK
a. Description: Korea United Development Bank operates
in the financial services industry of the DPRK economy.

b. Location: Pyongyang, North Korea; SWIFT/BIC:

KUDBKPPY
2. ILSIM INTERNATIONAL BANK
a. Description: Ilsim International Bank is affiliated with
the DPRK military and has a close relationship with Korea
Kwangson Banking Corporation (KKBC). Ilsim International
Bank has attempted to evade United Nations sanctions.
b. AKA: n/a
c. Location: Pyongyang, DPRK; SWIFT: ILSIKPPY
3. KOREA DAESONG BANK
a. Description: Daesong Bank is owned and controlled by
Office 39 of the Korea Workers Party.
b. AKA: Choson Taesong Unhaeng; AKA: Taesong Bank
c. Location: Segori-dong, Gyongheung St. Potonggang
District, Pyongyang, DPRK; SWIFT/BIC: KDBKKPPY
4. SINGWANG ECONOMICS AND TRADING GENERAL
CORPORATION
a. Description: Singwang Economics and Trading General
Corporation is a DPRK firm for trading in coal. DPRK
generates a significant share of the money for its nuclear
and ballistic missile programmes by mining natural
resources and selling those resources abroad.
b. AKA: n/a
c. Location: DPRK
5. KOREA FOREIGN TECHNICAL TRADE CENTER
a. Description: Korea Foreign Technical Trade Center is a
DPRK firm trading in coal. DPRK generates a significant
share of the funds needed to finance its nuclear and

ballistic missile programmes by mining natural resources

and selling those resources abroad.
b. AKA: n/a
c. Location: DPRK
6. KOREA PUGANG TRADING CORPORATION
a. Description: Korea Pugang Trading Corporation is
owned by the Korea Ryonbong General Corporation,
DPRKs defense conglomerate specializing in acquisition
for DPRK defense industries and support to Pyongyangs
military related sales.
b. AKA: n/a
c. Location: Rakwon-dong, Pothonggang District,
Pyongyang, DPRK
7. KOREA INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL JOINT VENTURE
COMPANY
a. Description: Korea International Chemical Joint Venture
Company is a subsidiary of Korea Ryonbong General
Corporation DPRKs defense conglomerate specializing
in acquisition for DPRK defense industries and support to
Pyongyangs military related sales and has engaged in
proliferation-related transactions.
b. AKA: Choson International Chemicals Joint Operation
Company; AKA: Chosun International Chemicals Joint
Operation Company; AKA: International Chemical Joint
Venture Company
c. Location: Hamhung, South Hamgyong Province, DPRK;
Location: Man gyongdae-kuyok, Pyongyang, DPRK;
Location: Mangyungdae-gu, Pyongyang, DPRK
8. DCB FINANCE LIMITED
a. Description: DCB Finance Limited is a front company for

Daedong Credit Bank (DCB), a listed entity.

b. AKA: n/a
c. Locations: Akara Building, 24 de Castro Street,
Wickhams Cay I, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands;
Dalian, China
9. KOREA TAESONG TRADING COMPANY
a. Description: Korea Taesong Trading Company has acted
on behalf of KOMID in dealings with Syria.
b. AKA: n/a
c. Location: Pyongyang, DPRK
10. KOREA DAESONG GENERAL TRADING CORPORATION
a. Description: Korea Daesong General Trading
Corporation is affiliated with Office 39 through minerals
(gold) exports, metals, machinery, agricultural products,
ginseng, jewelry, and light industry products.
b. AKA: Daesong Trading; Daesong Trading Company;
Korea Daesong Trading Company; Korea Daesong Trading
Corporation
c. Location: Pulgan Gori Dong 1, Potonggang District,
Pyongyang City, DPRK
Annex III
Items, Materials, Equipment, Goods and Technology
Nuclear- and/or Missile-usable Items
1. Isocyanates (TDI (Toluene di-isocyanate), MDI
(Methylene bis (phenyl isocyanate)), IPDI (Isophorone
diiosocyanate), HNMDI or HDI (Hexamethylene
diisocyanate), and DDI (dimeryl diisocyanate) and
production equipment.

2. Ammonium nitrate, chemically pure or in phase

stabilized version (PSAN).
3. Non-destructive test chambers with a 1m or more
critical internal dimension.
4. Turbo-pumps for liquid or hybrid rocket engines.
5. Polymeric Substances (Hydroxyl Terminated Poly-Ether
(HTPE), Hydroxyl Terminated Caprolactone Ether (HTCE),
Polypropylene glycol (PPG), Polydiethyleneglycol adipate
(PGA) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG)).
6. Inertial equipment for any application, particularly for
civilian aircraft, satellite, geophysical survey applications
and their associated test equipment.
7. Countermeasure Subsystems and Penetration Aids (e.g.
jammers, chaff, decoys) designed to saturate, confuse, or
evade missile defences.
8. Manganese metal Brazing Foils.
9. Hydroforming machines.
10. Thermal treatment furnaces Temperature >850C
and one dimension >1m.
11. Electrical Discharge Machines (EDMs).
12. Friction stir welding machines.
13. Modelling and design software related to the modelling
of aerodynamic and thermodynamic analysis of rocket or
unmanned aerial vehicle systems.
14. High-speed imaging cameras except those used in
medical imaging systems.
15. Truck chassis with 6 or more axles.

Chemical/Biological Weapons-usable Items

1. Floor-mounted fume hoods (walk-in style) with a
minimum nominal width of 2.5 meters.
2. Batch centrifuges with a rotor capacity of 4 L or
greater, usable with biological materials.
3. Fermenters with an internal volume of 10-20 L (.01-.02
cubic meters), usable with biological materials.Annex IV
Luxury Goods
(1) Rugs and tapestries (valued greater than $500)
(2) Tableware of porcelain or bone china (valued greater
than $100)

https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12603.doc.htm

Sanctions update; DPRK

30 November 2016
https://www.centralbank.ie/regulation/processes/Intfs/Page
s/WhatsNew.aspx?ListID=8df02db5-49e7-44a3-85b85dabc6430229&ListItemID=227
Daily Press Briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for
the Secretary-General
The following is a near-verbatim transcript of todays noon
briefing by Stphane Dujarric, Spokesman for the
Secretary-General.
**Humanitarian Appeal

In order to deliver urgent relief, protection and support to

nearly 93 million of the most vulnerable and marginalized
people in 2017, we launched earlier today an appeal for
$22.2 billion in funding the highest consolidated
humanitarian appeal ever launched. Emergency Relief
Coordinator Stephen OBrien, who launched the appeal in
Geneva, said that the scale of humanitarian crises today is
greater than at any time since the United Nations was
founded.
At the start of 2017, the plans presented collectively to
the international donor community today will support vital
humanitarian operations in 33 countries, including
conflicts in Syria, Yemen, South Sudan and Nigeria. Eighty
per cent of the needs stem from man-made conflicts,
many of which are not protracted and push up the
demand every year. At the same time, the impact of El
Nio-triggered droughts, floods and extreme weather is
pushing vulnerable communities to the brink of survival.
So far in 2016, international donors have generously
provided $11.4 billion to the current global appeal which,
over the year, has risen from $20.1 billion to $22.1 billion.
However, this represents only 52 per cent of the
requirements, and as humanitarian organizations
approach the end of this year with a funding gap of a
record $10.7 billion that the largest gap ever reported,
as well.
**Syria
Also on the humanitarian front, just an update on our
operations in Syria; on Friday, the UN received a Note
Verbale from the Government of Syria indicating that it
has approved the December convoy plan for deliveries to
hard-to-reach and besieged areas, including eastern
Aleppo. This will enable the UN to initiate convoy
preparations in coordination with the Syrian Arab Red
Crescent (SARC), including administrative procedures with
the authorities.
On 2 December, the UN conducted two inter-agency

missions to assess the humanitarian situation in the cotton

factory shelter in Jibreen and Hanano in east Aleppo.
Hanano is an area of eastern Aleppo which has been
retaken recently by the Government forces.
Neither the UN nor the Syrian Arab Red Crescent have had
access to the part of eastern Aleppo under continued
control by armed opposition groups. The UN and Syrian
Arab Red Crescent have only access to Government of
Syria controlled areas. The UN is continuing negotiations
to get access to people in need in eastern Aleppo in areas
still under control of armed groups.
Hostilities continued over the weekend; however, there
have been no reports of new displacement since 2
December. An estimated 31,500 people from east Aleppo
remain displaced within the entire city of Aleppo. The UN
and its partners are scaling up their humanitarian
response in the area and responding to the needs of the
newly displaced in all areas we are able to access.
**Yemen
The Special Envoy for Yemen, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed,
concluded today a visit to Kuwait, where he met with the
Emir of Kuwait, as well as the Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister for Foreign Affairs.
The Special Envoy provided a thorough update on the
developments that took place since the Yemeni parties left
Kuwait earlier this year in August. The Emir of Kuwait
reiterated his full support to the Special Envoy and to the
Yemeni peace process. And thats the update that I have.
**Central African Republic
And I did want to share with you one of our periodic
updates on investigations into allegations of sexual
exploitation and abuse against peacekeepers in the
Central African Republic.
The Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) has

concluded its investigative process on the allegations of

abuse and exploitation against Burundian and Gabonese
contingents deployed in Dekoa, in Kemo prefecture, in the
Central African Republic.
These allegations referred to incidents between 2014 and
2015. OIOS has conducted joint investigations with
Burundian and Gabonese national investigative officers.
The investigations started in April 2016, a few days after
the allegations were brought to the attention of the United
Nations, and have lasted for more than four months. The
investigators relied primarily on the testimony of possible
victims and witnesses, given the lack of medical, forensic
or any other physical evidence. This was due to the fact
that the majority of the allegations referred to incidents
that took place a year or more earlier. Everyone who
came forward with claims, both minors and adults, were
assisted by national and international partners of the
United Nations.
Overall, 139 possible victims were interviewed and their
accounts were investigated. By means of photo array
and/or other corroborating evidence, a total of 41 alleged
perpetrators 16 from Gabon and 25 from Burundi
were identified by 45 interviewees; eight persons were
unable to identify perpetrators through photo array or
other corroborating evidence, but were able to describe
some distinctive traits, 83 were not able to identify
perpetrators or provide corroborating evidence, and three
accounts were considered unreliable. A total of 25 minors
asserted they had been sexually abused. And a total of
eight paternity claims were filed, including six minors.
The UN has shared the OIOS report with both Member
States, that is Burundi and Gabon, including the names of
the identified alleged perpetrators, and has requested for
appropriate judicial actions to ensure criminal
accountability.
Responsibility for further investigations lies with Burundi
and Gabon. The UN has requested from the Burundian
and Gabonese authorities that they review the OIOS

findings and conduct the interviews of the alleged

perpetrators, who had all been rotated out from Central
African Republic before these allegations surfaced. The
UN has asked for a copy of the final national investigation
reports to be transmitted urgently.
The alleged perpetrators, if allegations against them are
substantiated, and, if warranted, their commanding
officers will not be accepted again for deployment in
peacekeeping operations.
The UN in the Central African Republic has strengthened
its prevention measures and reinforced its outreach
among communities and peacekeepers across the
country, especially in high-risk areas to improve
awareness and reporting on sexual exploitation and abuse
and other forms of misconduct. The Mission is also
regularly monitoring conditions and behaviour of the
mission personnel and has partnered with UN agencies
and implementing partners in Central African Republic that
provide psychosocial, medical and legal assistance to
victims of sexual exploitation and abuse.
The UN condemns, in the strongest terms, all acts of
sexual exploitation and abuse committed by peacekeepers
or any other UN personnel and will maintain follow up so
that perpetrators of these abhorrent acts are brought to
justice.
**Refugees
And a note from UNHCR (United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees): our colleagues there have
presented a paper to the European Union, calling for
far-reaching reform of Europes global refugee policies,
including its asylum system.
UNHCR says more strategic and targeted support needs to
be provided to countries of origin and that Europe needs
to invest more in the integration of arriving refugees,
including housing, employment and language training.

The paper, titled Better Protecting Refugees in the EU and

Globally, also calls on European countries to review
contingency preparations to respond to large refugee and
migrant arrivals and to put in place a more efficient and
better-managed asylum system.
**Uzbekistan
I was asked recently about elections in Uzbekistan and I
can tell you that the Secretary-General congratulates
Shavkat Mirziyoyev, the President-elect of Uzbekistan,
according to preliminary results announced by the Central
Election Commission today.
The Secretary-General notes the orderly conduct of early
presidential elections in Uzbekistan, which took place
following the recent death of the long-time President Islam
Karimov. The Secretary-General encourages all political
forces to work together to ensure a stable post-election
development of the country.
He assures the people of Uzbekistan of the continued
support of the United Nations, including through the
efforts of his Special Representative, Mr. Petko Draganov,
and the UN Country Team.
**World Soil Day
And today is [World Soil Day], and the Secretary-General
in a message issued today calls attention to the pressing
issues affecting soils, including climate change,
antimicrobial resistance, soil-borne diseases,
contamination, nutrition, and human health.
In a modern world with population growth and expanding
cities, more food is needed and we need healthy soils.
More online.
**Volunteer Day
On this International Volunteer Day, the Secretary-General
would like to extend his deepest gratitude to the

thousands of UN and community volunteers worldwide,

whose commitment and passion can act as inspiration to
us all.
We see this in action all over the world, most notably over
the past year as volunteers have provided shelter and
support to millions of refugees forced from their homes.
The Secretary General applauds their commitment to
building a future of peace, prosperity, and dignity for all.
**Hospitality Committee
A couple more mentions: On Saturday, the UN Hospitality
Committee hosted its annual gala where it expressed its
appreciation to the Secretary-General and Mrs. Ban for
their tireless leadership of the UN in the past decade.
This years Humanitarian Award recipient was Steven Tyler
of the band Aerosmith. He is a strong advocate of
prevention of violence against women and has established
Janies Fund, which is raising money to assist girls who
have been victimized by abuse and neglect. In its first
year, the Fund has supporters in 38 countries.
In his remarks, the Secretary-General also paid tribute to
Ambassador [Joseph] Verner Reed, who passed away
recently. The Secretary-General said that Ambassador
Reed was a dear friend and a great fixture in the
diplomatic community.
**Press Briefings
Tomorrow at 11 am, there will be a press briefing here by
Penny Abeywardena, the New York City Commissioner for
International Affairs. She will be launching the report on
the United Nations economic impact on the city of New
York, our host city, and she will be joined at this briefing by
Cristina Gallach, the Under-Secretary-General for Public
Information.
**Questions and Answers

Mr. Klein?
Question: Yes. Can you confirm that Mr. [Staffan] de
Mistura is meeting or has met today with the
Secretary-General? Because I happened to see a schedule
that had his name on it. And if so, is is there a plan for
him to speak to the press?
Spokesman: I don't think I mean, I looked at the SG's
schedule. I didn't see it on there, but I will look again.
Question: Okay. All right.
Spokesman: And I haven't seen Mr. de Mistura.
Question: All right. Well, maybe maybe
Spokesman: One of us is right and one of us is wrong, and
I have a feeling the one that's seated is probably right.
Let me check.
Question: No, no. I'm going to assume that you're right.
You would know the schedule better than me. My other
question is really a follow-up on the Commission of Inquiry
regarding the attack on the humanitarian convoy in Syria
what the status is.
Spokesman: Last I'd heard, they've still not received their
visas from the Syrian authorities. Luke?
Question: On the OCHA (Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs) appeal, you mentioned the record
gap between what was requested and what was received,
which is obviously not sustainable. How do you avoid a
larger shortfall next year as the request goes up?
Spokesman: We avoid a larger shortfall by solving the
underpinning political issues that have led to a lot of these
crises. As Mr. O'Brien said, a lot of these crises were, in
fact, man-made, whether we see Yemen or Syria, just to
take two, or Iraq. We need more consistent and more

funding to meet the needs of the world's most vulnerable.

We are I think the our colleagues at OCHA do a great
job in updating these appeals and adapting them as things
move along, but humanitarian aid is the Band-Aid. For a
lot of these crises, it's about resolving the underlying
issues.
Question: Can I follow up on that, before we shift?
Spokesman: Go ahead.
Question: I mean, I know it's you can look outside the
building and look at the crises and say they're the
problem, but I'm sure these persistent shortfalls cause
some sort of inward reflection. Is there a communications
problem in the urgency stressing the urgency? Are
countries just saying their budgets are tight? I wonder
what you guys see as any of the problems that might have
to do with what's happening here.
Spokesman: I don't one can always communicate
better, but we have crises that are very much in the public
eye: Syria, Iraq, Yemen. We have other crises that are
more forgotten, like Nigeria, the crises all over the Sahel. I
think there is a sustained and continued effort by the UN
to keep donors appraised [apprised]. And we very much
understand that we also live in a world where there are
other demands on national budgets, where we often see
national budgets contracting, that there are a lot of
competing demands. One second. Joe, you both of us
were right, in a sense. Mr. de Mistura is [Laughter] It's
the UN. [Laughter] Mr. de Mistura is here, but he is seeing
the Deputy Secretary-General. But I will check with him if
he's available to speak to you in one form or another.
Majeed and then Matthew.
Question: Well, Stphane, you you listed the the
countries of forgotten conflicts. I think it's fair to say that
Iraq is part of it, because just today, a kid in a refugee
camp near Erbil froze to death because of the lack of
blankets in those camps. And this is, of course, as you
mentioned, because of lack of funds, but also, one of the

reasons, according to humanitarians on the ground in Iraq,

is is lack of international attention. Why the
Secretary-General himself or Mr. O'Brien don't don't
focus more on Iraq, especially with the occupation in
Mosul?
Spokesman: I think we You know, I think, as seen from
those who are suffering, every crisis is important and
every crisis deserves attention, and we firmly believe that.
And that's why we try to bring attention to every crisis in
the world. We mention Iraq here almost on a daily basis.
We mention we try to mention Nigeria, the Sahel. We
try to mention every crisis. Everyone needs to help. The
reality is, unfortunately, is that, whether it's the
international community or the global media or whatever,
some pay attention to one crisis more over another. Our
job here is to make sure that no one is forgotten and no
one is left behind. Mr. Lee?
Question: Sure. I want to ask you about the the
announcement you made of the sexual abuse in the CAR.
My question is about the Burundian contingent. In around
mid-November, I'd asked, I guess looked back at it; it
was Farhan [Haq] that day, about specifically that number,
25 Burundians charged, because people inside the
building knew that that was the number: 25. They said
that there is strong evidence against them. So I'm
wondering, now can you explain how after that date DPKO
(Department of Peacekeeping Operations) wrote a letter to
Burundi saying we're going to take 800 more
peacekeepers; we're watching you closely. How is it
consistent to be watching you closely if 25 Burundian
peacekeepers committed rape, isn't that grounds to not
Spokesman: First of all, I think we're looking at
accusations., right? I think so that's everyone
deserves due process. We're talking about individuals,
right, who may have committed horrible crimes, and if
they did, they should face they should clearly face
justice. Following consultations with relevant offices
within the system, the Secretariat has decided to continue
with the deployment of Burundian troop battalion in the

Central African Republic. The deployment of the

Burundian troops will remain under close review based on
the evolving situation in Burundi and cooperation with the
UN. The conduct of Burundian troops in the Central
African Republic will also be closely monitored. Just to
give you an example, we reviewed the names of the new
incoming Burundian troops. Nine individuals, for various
reasons, were excluded at our request from the rotation.
If you look back at Security Council Resolution 2272 on
sexual abuse, it gives the UN the authority to bar troops
wholesale from a country. We will we've we're in the
middle of a process here. We the UN has concluded
what it is responsible for. We've concluded our
investigations, and I would stress that, during those
investigations, the national investigative officers from
Burundi and Gabon were also present. Once we get the
information back from those two countries to see what
they have done, the sort of investigations they've done,
the accountability they've done for each of these alleged
crimes, we'll then consider whether the various provisions
of 2272 apply. And at this point, we can't exclude any
option, but we do need to let the process play itself out.
Question: But I have two thanks. I have two follow-ups.
One is that is that the UN various parts of the UN
system have has have been critical of the judiciary
process in Burundi. For example, there are journalists
missing. There are cases and also, over the weekend,
basically, a new It seems that the the Arusha Accord
and the constitution are being overridden in terms of the
makeup between Hutu and Tutsi in the army. This has
been I was going to ask you that separately from this.
But, given the things that are going on, it seems I
understand due process, but from my understanding,
the I guess what I'm saying is this same number, 25, is
what I'd heard three weeks ago. And so it seems like
people in the system and from what I was told, there's,
in some instances, video evidence, cell phone video
evidence. So due process or not, it seems like, how
desperate is the UN for peacekeepers in CAR to continue
to work with this battalion that has problems at home

Spokesman: Whoa, whoa. We're not Matthew, all the

people that were accused, right, have been rotated out.
They're gone, right? We're talking the Burundian troops
that are coming in are different units; they're different
people. We've excluded people based on a review. It's
clear that no one who is accused while the process is
ongoing would be allowed back. And we expect the
Burundian military to do an investigation and to bring the
perpetrators to justice.
Question: But they can go to AMISOM (African Union
Mission in Somalia), right? Just one last question. For
example that's why I've asked you before, about
whether the UN is part of its financial support to AMISOM.
Has any human rights review [inaudible]?
Spokesman: The UN does not provide; the European
Union does. Abdelhamid?
Question: Thank you, Stphane. I have three short
questions. First, if you have any success in contacting Mr.
[Ali al] Zatari in Aleppo.
Spokesman: Yes, we're trying to get him to brief you by
phone, either tomorrow or Wednesday. And I know they
he's got a lot on his plate, but we definitely would like to
bring him into this room virtually.
Question: Thank you. We also asked you who
represented the United Nations in the funeral of Fidel
Castro, but we didn't get
Spokesman: My understanding is it's probably the
Resident Coordinator. There was but I will double check.
Question: And, lastly, there was a UN representative at
the Fatah seventh conference in Ramallah, in the opening
session, and do you have any feedback from the UN
representative about the outcome of the conference?
Spokesman: The outcome played itself out. I haven't
received any specific feedback yet, but as soon as I have

something, I will share it with you. Olga, then Anna?

Question: Thanks, Stphane. What information do you
have on the shelling of Russian field hospital in Aleppo
earlier today?
Spokesman: I will check. I haven't we have not been
given any information on that. But I will check.
Question: You haven't been given information from
whom?
Spokesman: I haven't seen the report I have not seen
any reporting back from the field on this news item.
Anna?
Question: Thank you, Stphane. I have two questions
based on two major issues that you mentioned in your
report. First is about humanitarian appeal. As you
mentioned yourself, roughly only 50 per cent was
collected from the last appeal, and the experts say there is
such an issue as a compassion fatigue amongst donors.
What UN is going to do about that? Are there any
incentives, or the programmes would be wrapped up?
What's going to happen? And if this does not happen
let's be optimistic, but the worst-case scenario what's
the plan B for this?
Spokesman: Well, two things. The incentive is the
incentive to help people and to help the most vulnerable.
That's the incentive.
Question: No, what I meant incentives for donors.
Spokesman: That should be the incentive for donors. I
don't know what else to answer. The plan B there is no
plan B. If these I mean, we've seen it we saw it in
over, what, two years ago or a little less maybe when,
because of lack of funds, WFP (World Food Programme)
had to cut back on food rations to Syrian refugees in
Jordan and Lebanon. That's plan B. And that's not a plan.
Yep?

Question: My second question, if you'll let me.

Spokesman: I thought that was two. Go ahead.
Question: No. Just a short question. You mentioned this
horrible tragedy with Central African Republic and the way
UN was handling it. As we all know, the best way to
handle crisis is to avoid it. Has the vetting and
recruitment of UN peacekeepers changed all across UN's
footprint since then? Thank you.
Spokesman: There is a continuous effort to increase
training, right? We are seeing it now with increased
training before deployment with continued refreshment
training while being deployed. It's about prevention. And
you're right. There are increased patrols in Dekoa in Kemo
prefecture to ensure that the non-fraternisation policies
are put in place, that the curfews are watched. It's done
by training of the trainers. It is done by senior military
and civilian leadership of the mission travelling around the
country, repeating the same message. The Deputy
Secretary-General was there not too long ago. He himself
personally delivered that same message. And so there is
a constant need and a constant effort, and there is
constant improvement on how we try to prevent these
things.
Question: So can we say it's become stricter than before?
Spokesman: I it has been a constant process of
improvement. Yes, in the back.
Question: Thank you, Stphane. Japanese Prime Minister
[Shinzo] Abe said he will go to Pearl Harbor later in the
month with US President Barack Obama, becoming the
first Japanese Prime Minister to visit the site. How would
Secretary-General react to it?
Spokesman: You know, what we can say, I think, is that
such commemoration, such as the commemoration of
Pearl Harbor, reminds us of the tremendous shared

sacrifice and the huge price of victory over fascism paid

through countless lost lives and devastating destruction.
The terrible long years of World War II were a time of
unspeakable atrocities of lost faith and lost humanity. The
United Nations was founded at the end of this terrible
conflict, this calamitous war that claimed the lives of
millions. Out of the tragedy emerged a common resolve
by the international community to come together and
create the UN in order to foster international peace and
security. As the UN Charter reminds us, the organisation's
main purpose is to save succeeding generations from the
scourge of war. Ms. Fasulo and then Oleg.
Question: Thank you, Steph. I have a question going back
to Aleppo. I gather the draft resolution under
consideration to date does not include groups viewed as
terrorist groups, such as ISIS and al-Nusra. So now going
back to Mr. de Mistura and his remarks, I guess it's about a
month ago, that he would escort 800 or 900 terrorists, I
gather al-Nusra, out of Aleppo, does he still stand by that?
And are there any plans to sort of move that along?
Spokesman: I think there's, unfortunately, been no
positive development on that front, on the various options
that Mr. de Mistura put forward. As I mentioned, our
colleagues our humanitarian colleagues are trying to
negotiate with the various armed opposition groups to try
to gain access into the parts of Eastern Aleppo that they
receive that they need to access. It is clear that we
would like to see all the guns fall silent, at least initially,
for a pause to enable us to get aid to all those Syrians who
need it, whether under Government control or not under
Government control, but we have not seen that.
Question: But has the UN actually been in communication
and discussions with [inaudible]?
Spokesman: As I said, the UN has continued negotiations
to get access to people in need in the parts of Eastern
Aleppo controlled by armed opposition groups. Oleg?
Question: Thank you, Stphane. There was a letter from

the Syrian authorities couple of days ago to the

Secretary-General, I guess, or the Security Council of the
UN saying that they're ready to provide safety to ensure
safety of the humanitarian personnel in the areas
controlled by the Syrian Government, which are that
they are obviously gaining more ground in the Eastern
Aleppo. Does this mean that the UN is preparing some
sort of operation in these areas which are?
Spokesman: Well, I think, as we've said, we have access
to those to the areas under Government control in
Aleppo. If we need security guarantees, we will try to get
them from the Government. But just a couple days ago,
they were able to get to assess the humanitarian
situation in Jibreen and Hanano in East Aleppo, which had
been recently retaken by the Government. The first step
is to assess the situation and then get whatever aid we
can to try to go in. And, as I mentioned also, on Friday we
received this note verbale from the Government of Syria,
which allowed us indicated they had approved the
December convoy plan. Now, the approval is one step.
Obviously, we would like see all of that come to fruition.
Mr. Lee?
Question: Sure. Wanted to ask you about, in South
Sudan, a couple of things. The US has just put out a
statement saying it's deeply concerned about tensions in
Equatoria, and the numbers they use are 1,900 homes
destroyed and 4,000 irregular ethnic militia introduced
into Equatoria by the Government side, Dinka side. So I
wanted to know, they say they're calling for a variety of
things. But I haven't what's the UN doing in terms of
this deployment and the homes and also what's the
what's the process for replacing Ms. [Ellen] Lj as SRSG
(Special Representative of the Secretary-General)? Is that
going to be done when the next Secretary-General comes
in, or has this process already begun?
Spokesman: The the replacement I don't have a time
for the replacement as of yet. My assumption is that it will
be done with the new Secretary-General. Moustapha
Soumar is the acting SRSG, but the obviously, the

process of recruitment has begun. I don't expect an

announcement before the end of the year. The situation in
Equatoria is one that we ourselves have been flagging for
quite some time and our as others are increasingly
concerned about the situation on the ground. Obviously,
these are areas of which we have limited access.
Question: Can I also just just I don't know if you have
this or not, but I've heard that the SPLA (Sudan Peoples
Liberation Army) border garrison at to the DRC
(Democratic Republic of the Congo) at Lasu has been
taken over, i.e., that they're fighting in different parts of
the country. Is there
Spokesman: I do not have any reports from there. Okay.
Yes, sir?
Question: When the SG is planning to go back to South
Korea, to move his business?
Spokesman: He plans to go back around mid-January.
Mid-January. Not I don't expect him to go back before
mid-January is the date he's indicated to us. Okay. Yes,
sir?
Question: Sure. Just to I wanted one question about
Bangladesh and then one follow-up on Jane Holl Lute. On
Bangladesh, there's been an in an interview, the home
minister, Khan Kamal, has denied there are forced
disappearances because he's being asked whether
opposition people are, in fact, being disappeared. And I
know that last week you'd said that the UN is still you
know, there's no connection between the use of these
emergency troops in South Sudan. So does the UN system
have any comment on what are are what even
journalists in Bangladesh are asking about as forced
disappearances? [Cross talk]
Spokesman: We've expressed our concern at some of the
violence that we've seen, especially against bloggers and
journalists. On Ms. Lute, you remind me that I should have
told you that she was, indeed, named by the President of

the United States to serve on the Board of Visitors of the

US Military Academy at West Point. It is an appointment
that she has cleared it is a nonpaying appointment, and
it is an appointment an honourary an honour she has
cleared with the leadership here and has been fully
transparent in throughout this process.
Question: Because the announcement my question
the reason it says it's a key administration post, and so
that was overall, I guess it was cleared on what basis?
Can you be a key administration post
Spokesman: I think it was it's basically I think that's
the language the US Government used for all these
appointments. What I'm saying, it is a nonpaying
appointment and one that she has cleared with her
superiors. Thank you.

Two Anglo
executives deny

misleading
Central Bank
over funding
Updated / June 24, 2013 22:06

Two former Anglo Irish Bank executives have

denied allegations that they participated in
misleading the Central Bank in 2008, shortly
before the bank guarantee was introduced.
One of the executives said he "deeply regrets
the language and tone" he used in phone
calls at the time.
John Bowe, the bank's then head of capital
markets, described the language used as
"both imprudent and inappropriate".
It has emerged that the Central Bank was
told by Anglo that 7 billion in funding would
be needed to stabilise it.
However, a senior Anglo executive said to a
colleague at the time that the true cost would
be higher.
The revelation came to light in a recording of
a phone call obtained by the Irish
Independent, which published a partial
transcript today.
Both of the executives involved - Mr Bowe
and then director of retail banking Peter
FitzGerald - have categorically denied
misleading the Central Bank.
Mr Bowe said he was not a member of the

executive management board of Anglo in

2008 and "therefore I was not a decision
maker in relation to either the bank's
requirement for funding or negotiations with
the Central Bank."
Mr Fitzgerald told RT News that he also
regretted the tone of his conversation with Mr
Bowe.
The conversation between two Anglo
executives happened in mid-September
2008, just days before the State guaranteed
all of the Irish banks.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny said this morning he
understands the "anger and rage" of people
listening to the Anglo tapes.
However, Mr Kenny said he did not want to
say anything to prejudice the banking
inquiry, which he said would be
comprehensive.
He said legislation to provide for an inquiry
would be passed by the summer recess and
the Government would then decide the best
way to proceed.
Noonan believed 'Anglo had a lot to
answer for'
Minister for Finance Michael Noonan said he
always believed that Anglo had a lot to
answer for.
He made the comment in Brussels after
speaking with MEPs about Ireland's EU
Presidency.
Asked about Anglo's initial demand of 7

billion from the State, even though its

negotiators knew they needed much more,
Mr Noonan said: I kind of worked out that
was happening.
I remember Brian Lenihan coming into the
Dil and saying to us 7 billion; then a couple
of weeks later it was a higher figure, and a
couple of weeks later it was a higher figure
again.
He told reporters he was not aware however
conversations had been recorded until he
saw the Irish Independent story.
Asked about an inquiry into the banking
collapse, Mr Noonan said legislation would be
passed before the summer recess so the
inquiry can be established immediately,
which is quite timely.
Shock at Anglo revelations
Speaking in Luxembourg, Tnaiste Eamon
Gilmore said he was "shocked" at the
revelations.
"I never really believed what we were told
about what happened prior to the previous
Fianna Fil government's decision to issue a
bank guarantee in 2008, that that story
actually stacked up," Mr Gilmore said.
"What we have seen and heard underlines
the necessity for there to be an inquiry into
what happened prior to the bank guarantee
about who said what to whom, about who
was influencing whom, about how very key
and damaging decisions from the point of
view of the country were made," the Tnaiste

added.
He said he hoped legislation to enable a
formal inquiry would be enacted before the
summer recess.
"We need to get to the bottom of how the
decisions were made and what was behind
them," said Mr Gilmore.
"Remember that these decisions have cost
the Irish taxpayers billions of euro, they have
resulted in the Irish people having to bear a
huge amount of pain over the past five years,
and they have resulted in the present
Government having to take very painful
decisions in order to clean up that mess," he
added.
Fianna Fil's Michael McGrath said the tapes
should be referred to garda and the Director
of Corporate Enforcement.
Speaking on RTs News at One, Mr McGrath
said he believed the tapes reveal that there
was a clear strategy at Anglo to set a trap for
the State, to lure it and the taxpayers into
bailing out the bank and to conceal the full
extent of the bank's financial problems at the
time.
Sinn Fin's Pearse Doherty said the
revelations were "shocking to the core", and
that people must be prosecuted for their
roles in collapsing the Irish economy.
Strategy discussed in recording
In the recording, Mr Bowe said in relation to
dealings with the authorities: "The strategy
here is you pull them in, you get them to

write a big cheque and they have to keep they have to support their money."
Mr Bowe said if the State saw the enormity of
the funding requirement for the bank up
front, it could decide the cost to taxpayers
was too high.
But he added: "If it doesn't look too big at the
outset - if it looks big, big enough to be
important, but not too big that it kind of
spoils everything, then, then I think you have
a chance."
Mr Bowe has told RT he categorically denied
the allegation that he was, directly or
indirectly, a participant in misleading the
Central Bank of Ireland in September 2008.
He said the talks with the Central Bank
focused on obtaining funding for Anglo to
allow it continue on an interim basis pending
a more stable market, when the bank would
be able to re-establish other funding sources
and repay the emergency finance.
He said: "We envisaged the relevant period of
time to be a number of months before the
bank would be able to access sufficient
alternative funding."
Mr Bowe also pointed out that the phone call
was three days after Lehman Brothers filed
for bankruptcy, and therefore took place
during a "period of severe and
unprecedented market dislocation".
In a statement to RT, Mr FitzGerald said he
was not a member of the bank's executive
management board in 2008 and was not

involved in discussions regarding Anglo's

funding position with the Central Bank.
He also stated he was never aware of any
strategy to mislead the authorities in relation
the Anglo's funding position.
During the conversation, Mr Bowe briefed Mr
FitzGerald on meetings with then financial
regulator Patrick Neary, and two other
Central Bank officials.
Mr Bowe indicated Anglo had been seeking
7 billion bridging financing from the Central
Bank.
He also said the Central Bank had been told
that Anglo had a substantial number of
depositors "all of whom would be very vocal"
if the bank got into "difficulties".
Solicitors acting for IBRC, which is in
liquidation, wrote to RT requesting that it
would not broadcast the recording of the
phone conversation between Mr Bowe and Mr
FitzGerald.
In the letter, the lawyers said that no person
was authorised to disclose the contents of
the recording.
Solicitors McCann FitzGerald said it was an
"internal" IBRC telephone conversation that
took place on 18 September 2008 and its
contents were "confidential".
http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/0624/458433-anglo-centralbank/

STATEMENT OF JOHN BOWE, 24 JUNE 2013

http://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/john-bowe-statement.pdf
UCD CENTRE FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH WORKING PAPER SERIES
2009 The Irish Credit Bubble Morgan Kelly, University College Dublin
https://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/wp09.32.pdf

"Financial Statistics Summary Chart Pack" (PDF). Central Bank of

Ireland. 12 March 2013
http://www.centralbank.ie/polstats/stats/summarychart/Documents/i
e_financial_statistics_summary_chart_pack.pdf
Eurostat retail trade up by 1.1% in euro area Up by 1.2% in EU28
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7758300/405122016-AP-EN.pdf/01e09925-4974-48fc-b3b7-d1ed07116faa

Recommendations of the Governing Council of the European Central

Bank on government guarantees for bank debt
The declaration of the euro area summit in Paris of 12 October 2008

http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/recommendations_on_guar
anteesen.pdf

Comptroller and Auditor General

(Amendment) Bill 2015 illegal patient data
http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates
%20Authoring/WebAttachments.nsf/
($vLookupByConstructedKey)/dail~20150528/$File/Daily%20Book
%20Writtens%20Unrevised.pdf?openelement

Comptroller and Auditor General

(Amendment) Bill 2015: First Stage
http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates
%20Authoring/WebAttachments.nsf/
($vLookupByConstructedKey)/dail~20150528/$File/Daily%20Book
%20Unrevised.pdf?openelement

Gilmore: Finance Minister out of his depth

10/09/2008

Finance Minister Brian Lenihan is utterly out of his

depth in his current role in charge of the nations
purse strings, Labour leader Eamon Gilmore claimed
today.
Speaking as the Government prepares for one of its
toughest ever Budgets next month, Mr Gilmore
insisted the Government has blown the boom.
He told TDs and senators: Brian Lenihan is indeed an
intelligent man, and he may have had a contribution
to make in the Department of Justice, but he is utterly
out of his depth in the Department of Finance. And,
with respect, this is no time for learning on the job.
Labours parliamentary party meeting in Clonmel will
review the current political climate and devise a
parliamentary strategy for the forthcoming Dil and
Seanad term.
He claimed the Government was falsely blaming
international factors outside of its control for the
economic downturn.
Let's be clear about it, the names behind Irelands
economic woes are not Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac.
They are Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen, Mr Gilmore
added.
Mr Gilmore said an average of 200 people have lost
their jobs every day for the past 12 months.
Referring to recent price rises, he claimed that milk
has gone up by 27%, bread by 16%, petrol by 14%
and diesel by 32%.
Irelands economy, once our national pride, and the
envy of the developed world has slid from rapid
growth to recession, said Mr Gilmore.
And our public finances have overturned a surplus of
2.3bn in 2006 into a deficit of 8.2bn in the first eight
months of this year.
The think-in will see the economic climate discussed
by ESRI economist Alan Barrett and Chambers Ireland
chief executive Ian Talbot.
Equality Authority chief executive Niall Crowley and
Age Action Ireland spokesman Eamon Timmons will

also speak on equality issues and the elderly.

Labours public representatives will also plan ahead for
the local and European elections.
Labour called on the Government to move to restimulate the construction sector and to stabilise the
property market.
Mr Gilmore called for a nationwide programme of
investment in skills and qualifications.
Competitiveness must be restored in the economy and
education spending must be ring-fenced, he added.
Hi-tech start-ups must also be encouraged with
research and innovation initiatives.
Mr Gilmore, who was elected leader a year ago, also
vowed to continue the modernisation of his party as a
national political force.
A wide-ranging report on Labours future will be
published before a special conference in Kilkenny on
November 29.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/gilmore-finance-minister-out-ofhis-depth-377040.html

Whistleblowing and Immunity

in Ireland

by Golem Xiv on SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 in LATEST

Immunity from Prosecution is an slightly odd concept but

nowhere is it so odd as it is in Ireland it would seem.
A Prosecution service (such as a Director of Public
Prosecution) will occassionally grant Immunity to someone
so they can testify against others without what they say
being used to implicate themselves in wrong-doing. The
idea is generally to use a small fish to catch a larger one.
The only other kind of immunity I know of is that granted
by those who are about to be testified against. It usually
involves something terminal such a car crash ( Karen
Silkwood , Michael Hastings, Paul White: All whistleblowers
all died in car crashes), being beaten to death in police
custody (Sergei Magnitsky) , unaccountably dropping
down dead (Alexander Perepilichnyy A Magnitsky case
Whistleblower) or a simple bullet to the head (Yves
Coulon Agip Affair). These are very effective but slightly
drastic and can attract unwanted attention,
The Irish it seems may have invented a third possibly
better kind. Its called the Immunity-so-you-dont-everhave-to-testify against anyone.
Back in 2008 Mr Matt Moran was the Chief Financial Officer
at Anglo Irish Bank. He was, therefore, intimately involved
in all aspects of the debacle that was and still is Anglo. His
various florrid opinions on the parlous state of Anglos
finances prior to its implosion, how the wealthy of Ireland
were removing their money from the bank and from
Ireland, and sending it abroad, his considered opinion of
Mr Sen Quinn (Irelands most notoious property tycoon
and sometime Anglo investor and customer) and how,
with just a bit of drink and a beer mat he could get 5
billion euros out of a British fund manager, are all
available to hear in the Anglo tapes or read exceprts from
here.
Mr Moran is in some ways the kind of witness for whom
immunity was invented he certainly would know who did
what and when.
No surprise then that the Irish DPP granted Mr Moran
immunity. But the Irish DPP appears to have taken a novel
approach. It turns out the Immunity was granted two years
ago though no one at the time was told. The information
only came to light when the Irish Times revealed it in

September 2013. Why it came to light then I shall come

back to.
But what is a little odd is that during that whole two years,
no prosecution starring Mr Moran has taken place. No date
set, as far as I know for any trial of former Anglo CEO and
Mr Morans boss, Mr David Drumm. The only trial with a
start date is that of
,,, former Anglo directors and executives Sen
FitzPatrick, Willie McAteer and Pat Whelan for providing
unlawful financial assistance to 16 individuals 10 longstanding customers of the bank and six members of Sen
Quinns family to buy shares in the bank is scheduled to
begin in January.
This would be a trial looking at illegal share manipulation
only. Unless the charges were widened, which I doubt will
happen, this trial would very carefully avoid looking at any
issues of reckless lending, materially misleading clients
and regulators as to the real value of assets, of securities
or the real nature of collateral accepted for loans granted
and most importantly, would avoid any issue lifting the lid
on improper dealings between the banks officers and the
government of the day such as may have happened in the
sale of Anglos Austrian subsidiary to Private Austrian bank
Valartis. In other words it would be a show trial.
So far all the Irish people have been given by way of
justice is a couple of Micky OMouse white-wash inquiries
which found nothing wrong. And bear in mind that as far
back as 2009 when Mr Lenihan the then finance Minister
was shedding crocodile tears and expressing his
frustration at the delays it was already being pointed
out,
that the scandals at the now-nationalised Anglo Irish
Bank emerged at the same time as crooked financier
Bernie Madoff was arrested in New York. Madoff has since
been jailed for 150 years while not one Irish prosecution
has reached the courts.
Funny that.
In the mean time Mr Moran long ago left Anglo and is now
handsomely employed at Lombard International Assurance
in Luxembourg.
Such a long absense of any prosecution not even so far
as we know any depostion from Mr Moran looks to me

rather like an immunity granted as a reward for NOT

testifying.
It is especially perplexing when you look at what Irish Law
says about Immunity. These quotes are taken from the law
regarding Immunity in relation to Cartels as laid down in
the Competition Acts of 1991 and 1996 . I have used this
document simply because it is available, I dont know
under what particular act Mr Morans Immunity was
granted, but I doubt it makes any difference because
generally Immunity is the same no matter which particular
law it was granted under. If I am wrong about this I would
be grateful for a lawyer to correct me.
In the section which details the requirements for being
considered for immunity Irish law says in pargraph 13 the
applicant must have terminated its participation in the
illegal activity. Mr Moran left Anglo and the bank iself is
no more, so presumably hes OK on that one.
Paragraph 15 looks more difficult:
15 The applicant must not have coerced another party
to participate in the illegal activity and must not have
acted as the instigator or have played the lead role in the
illegal activity. The applicant must be able to show this to
the satisfaction of the Authority.
So given that Mr Moran has been granted immunity are we
to take it that the DPP is quite confident, having looked in
to it in detail, that Mr Moran was not the instigator of any
illegal activity, didnt play a lead role in any and did not
coerce others? And all this while he was number two at
the bank? Wow!
That means Mr Drumm must have either acted alone or
coerced Mr Moran and all those below him. Ladies and
gentleman are we going to see the worlds first Rogue
CEO? Will we find Drumm was a KGB agent, spent time in
Cuba and was a loner with deep psychological problems? I
can hardly wait. Though I suspect I may have to.
But back to poor used, abused and thoroughly innocent Mr
Moran. Lets look at what Mr Moran would have been
required to provide in return for his immunity and a free
pass out of Ireland to pastures green in Luxembourg.
Section 16 says,
16 Throughout the course of the Authoritys investigation
and any subsequent prosecution, the applicant must

provide complete and timely co-operation. In particular,

the applicant must:
a) Reveal any and all offences in which it may have
been involved;
b) Provide full, frank and truthful disclosure of all the
evidence and information known or available to it or under
its control, including all documentary and other records,
wherever located, relating to the offences under
investigation with no misrepresentation of any material
facts; and
c) Co-operate fully, on a continuing basis, expeditiously
and at its own expense throughout the investigation and
with any ensuing prosecutions.
Let me remind you this is all from the Competition Acts
but as I said the detail of immunity is unlikely to be very
different in any other act. I just want you to be aware.
But taking this law as a likely indicator of the law under
which Mr Moran was dealt with, it would seem that the
DPP must already have details of all offences Mr Moran
was aware of, all the documents and records necessary to
detail and prove those offences and a full and frank
disclosure of everything he knew about what went on at
Anglo. Remember he was number two in the bank.
If the DPP does not have all this, then on what basis was
Mr Moran given immunity from the law? If the DPP does
have all this and must have had it all for several YEARS
already, then what kind of bumbling half wits or conniving
lick-spittles run the place that they still havent done a
thing with it all?
The whole idea of Immunity is to use a small fish to catch
a larger one. Mr Moran however was the number two at
Anglo. As the Chief Financial Officer he really only reported
to one man above him, the CEO, Mr David Drumm. Both of
them would have been technically answerable to the
board, but the dysfunction or rather non-functioning of
Anglos board is now common knowledge. Thus by
granting Immunity to Mr Moran the DPP has contrived to
put one of the two TOP architects of the entire Anglo
catastrophe forever beyond the reach of justice and the
law. (It remains to be seen if Mr Moran was granted partial
or complete Immunity. Partial means he cant be
prosecuted using his own testimony or evidence gained

because of it. But he could be prosectured if other

independently acquired evidence came to light. Complete
Immunity means just that. Both are common in the U.S.A
but have rarely been granted in Ireland.)
Whichever turns out to be the case for Mr Moran, what
remains unchanged is that, if he ever is called to testify,
most of those he could implicate will be junior to him. The
lovely Sean FitzPatrick is so far only on trail for share price
manipulation.
It is unusual, to say the least, to grant immunity to the
largest suspect in order to help secure evidence against
lesser suspects. Was there no one, not one person, lower
down the food chain at Anglo who would have gladly
accepted Immunity and testified against the two top
suspects? Personally I find that hard to believe.
Which brings us back to wondering why was Mr Moran
given immunity and why are we learning about it now?
A few weeks ago The Village Magazine wrote an open
letter to the Irish DPP saying if no case was brought
against UniCredit various other banks and a rogues gallery
of neer-do-well bankers then the Village would. I wonder if
the Village is going to make good on this threat? I do
sincerely hope so.
It is interesting however that it is after the threat was
made that we find out about Mr Moran and, as the web
site Public Inquiry notes, that the DDP, Claire Loftus
seems to have fired a warning shot at The Village, its
owner Michael Smith and the UniCredit whistleblower Mr
Sugarman.
In the preface to the DPP annual report Ms Loftus wrote,
I want to take this opportunity to say something generally
about the risks of pre-trial publicity interfering with the
right of an accused person to a fair trial.
The media and commentators have a high degree of
responsibility to ensure that not only do they not commit
a contempt of court by publishing or broadcasting
prejudicial material but also that such publicity is not the
cause of a trial being postponed for a long period, or even
indefinitely.
These risks increase as any trial date approaches.
As Public Inquiry then asked,
Could it be that her warning is aimed at the editor

of Village magazine, Michael Smith, who issued the

challenge to Ms. Loftus and her office in the
August/September issue?
A warning from the Irish DPP not to say or write anything
that might prejudice a future prosecution after so many
years when even Madoff has already been goaled seems
to be taking the piss. What are we all to wait for, the next
Ice Age?! I have seen glaciers melt and mountain ranges
erode faster than justice moves in ireland. It is even
slower than it is in England and THAT is saying something.
The Irish authorities seized two MILLION documents from
Anglo. They have had several very senior bankers trawling
through the debris making sense of it all sufficient to wind
it up. There are people who can piece together a great
deal of who did what and when including the involvement
of senior political figures. U.S. Vulture funds connected
with Elliott Associates have recently made it clear they
think such documents exist and have gone to court to be
allowed to find them.
Other documents relating the the infamous sale of Anglos
Austrian subsidiary to the private bank Valartis, using
money lent to Valartis by Anglo! which spirited away
hundreds of millions from any possible bail-in which would
confiscated those millions, and also protected the identity
of the owners of those millions from curious Irish eyes,
plus the connection of that sale to a knot of allegations of
high level corruption among the political elite of Austria
there are anwers to all these questions in the documents
at Anglo, at Dame Street and in the heads of the who
worked at Anglo. To give any of them immunity and then
never get round to making them testify is what?
An immunity from prosecution is given when a proscutor
wants to strike a deal with a witness so they can speak
freely and in so doing bring about larger prosecutions. But
if an immunity is given and no prosecution ever results
then what is it? What was it given for really?
I would argue is is a kind of silk gag. The person doesnt
have to say a word theyve been given immunity. They
are free to get on with life knowing they are not going to
face prosecution. It amounts to a seal on everything they
know.
The warning from the DPP about not prejudicing is a sad

joke. One that reveals what justice is about in Ireland.

Bear in mind one last thing. Mr Moran never stood up and
said, ask me, I know who the guilty people are, I know
what they did. Yet two years ago he was quietly given
immunity and he has said not a word, not a murmur of a
deposition since. Mr Jonathan Sugarman did stand up and
say, help me please I know of wrong doing at the bank
where I hold a senior position. He went to the regulator
and asked for help. He told them in a letter what his
conerns were. He got others to independently verify his
concerns.
He was ignored. He approached senior people in every
Irish political party. They ignored him took, no action and
some even tried to deny they had ever heard of him.
He was not offered Immunity. He was threatened with
prosecution if he revealed what he knew.
Compare Mr Morans and Mr Sugarmans treatment and
you tell me what being granted Immunity looks like its for.

Anglo executive given

immunity deal by the DPP
Matt Moran was Anglos chief financial officer when the

bank was nationalised

Tue, Sep 10, 2013, 05:00 Updated: Tue, Sep 10, 2013, 14:27

Simon Carswell

Anglo Irish Bank signage and lettering being removed from the Anglo Irish
Bank headquarters Office on St Stephens Green in Dublin.

A senior executive at Anglo Irish Bank at the time of the

banks collapse has been granted immunity from
prosecution arising from the criminal investigations into
the bank.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/angloexecutive-given-immunity-deal-by-the-dpp-1.1521627?
mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=http%3A%2F
%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law
%2Fanglo-executive-given-immunity-deal-by-the-dpp1.1521627
CARTEL IMMUNITY PROGRAMME Introduced 20th
December 2001
http://www.dppireland.ie/filestore/documents/cartelimmuni
typrogramme.pdf

AssociationforAccountancy&BusinessAffairs
WorkingforanOpenandDemocraticSociety
https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s71300/sikka1c.htm
The continuing unwinding of this story
is another example of the blanket control
of wealthy well-connected people

across every border of every state

for whom laws,
and even common decency
do not apply.
And it seems that there is nobody
powerful enough, numerous enough,
to police what they do,
what they plan to do, what they have done.
When one reads about the origins
of the French Revolution years ago,
one is astounded at the dysfunctions
which characterized almost every aspect
of that society:
of government, of morality,
of individual responsibility,
courts, border controls, interior and exterior,
privileges, taxation, contracts,
everything.
It is said that it had to blow up,
and it did.
I dont see that happening
in todays interconnected world.
And with the state of the media,
the courts, even the laws
which have gradually
loosed any restrictions
that might have made a difference,
all now controlled by the abusers of
what should be an impartial system,
and with highly organized
armed protectors of the abusers,
all knowing, through data mining
of all communications,
for pitys sake,
I see a very bleak future for the planet
and everything in it,
including the beauty
of truth, love, art, nature, life itself.
1984 would seem to have arrived
twenty-nine years late.
But it is here.
Michael Fish

The Irish need to sack their government and replace it

with a government with some cojones and at least some
commitment to the people it serves. (same applies to
most of the Western world.)
In this instance immunity from prosecution is a
euphemism for damage control a corner stone strategy
for the protection of establishment inner temples of all
hues and purpose.
On this issue the first step in my opinion would be to
challenge the validity of the immunity and the grounds on
which it was granted.
Just how f%^ing bad does it get among the economic
authorities of the EU?
Try....the natural rate of unemployment in Spainif
the economy were operating at full potentialis 23%.
(As in, the assumption required under the structural
deficit rules of the EU/Euro area, as applied to Spain.)
Yes, really, not 2.3%, twenty three percent.
See here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230421390
4579095481787193644.html
Intellectually f^&ing bankrupt tossers cum neo liberal
apologists.
(This utterly bogus natural rate of unemployment
stems in part from the required assumption in mainstream
macro modelling that all unemployment is purely a
voluntary preference for leisure.)
Irish Minister Michael Noonan was quoted talking about a
natural rate earlier this year. He hasnt enough between
the ears to have got this idea himself, so we can assume it
reflects advise hes getting from civil servants.
Any Irish Journos out there care to press our Minister about
what figure is implied by the EU Commissions
calculations for Ireland?

When Irish people do what their

government wont
by Golem Xiv on AUGUST 15, 2013 in LATEST

It has been clear for some time now that the ideal of equality
before the law has been buried.
The US. Department of Justice made it clear a few months ago,
after it had declined to press criminal charges against a string of
banks (Citi, Wachovia and HSBC), that Too Big To Fail meant
while such institutions could be investigated and fined, they could
not ever be found criminally guilty, because that would endanger
their continued survival. Thus TBTF equals TBTP.
The list of G-SIFIs (Globally Systemically Important Financial
Institutions both banks and Insurers) is therefore a list of those
financial institutions that are now above the law. If it profits those
institutions, and those who own and run them, to disregard the law,
they can and will because all they face is a fine. A fine is just
another marginal cost of doing business. A tax. And a small,
discretionary one at that.
In Europe we have had no similarly outright admission by the State
that TBTF means TBTP. Instead the G-SIFI lists of banks and
insurers have been published without anyone in government caring
to make it clear that the State has taken it upon itself to raise the
golden financial class above the law.
Of course there is one loophole just a tiny one and one that is
easily ignored but one nevertheless. And that is that if no Public
Prosecutor will take a Bank to court then it is still possible for an
ordinary citizen to do so (Of course how easy or impossible it is
depends on the country). But In Ireland it is possible and one man,
Michael Smith, has decided to try.
Michael Smith is a former barrister and the owner and editor of The
Village magazine in Dubiln. He, like me and many others, has had
a long interest in the on-going case of the UniCredit whistleblower,
Jonathan Sugarman, AKA WhisteblowerIRL. It was Mr Smith who
accompanied Mr Sugarman when he went to to talk to the Irish
authorities about what he knew. It was at that meeting that Mr

Sugarman was told by the authorities that they might well

prosecute him if he told them about the crime over which he had
resigned from UniCredit, whereas they could not promise to
prosecute the bank.
For those of you who dont know, the crime in question is actually
very straightforward. Mr Sugarmans job as Risk Managere at
UniCredit, was to make sure the Bank was solvent at the end of
each day to check its liquidity. Mr Sugarman became alarmed
when he found, at the height of the Bubble, that UniCredit was in
breach of its requirements. Not by just a little but by huge sums,
and not on one rogue day but regularly. The Irish Law is very clear.
It was Mr Sugarmans job to tell his bank and the regulator of the
breach. This he did.
The bank told him to shut up. The regulator ignored him. Of the
very few concrete actions taken by the authorities perhaps the
most symbolic was that they removed from the Central banks web
site the document in which the law can be seen. You can however
still see the law for yourself, here in sections 9.4 and 10.
Sickened by this attitude Mr Smith, in consultation with Mr
Sugarman, has decided if the Irish DPP will not insitute an
investigation/prosecution against UniCredit Ireland and several
other Irish based banks such as Anglo, then The Village will.
In an open letter to the Irish DPP Mr SMith calls their bluff.
Essentially he asks is the Irish states legal aparatus whoring for
the banks or does it still have a single grain of honour left?
You can read the editorial here. The whole article is only available
in the latest print issue. You can read the two previous articles he
has written about the Sugarman/UniCredit affair here and here.
It comes to somthing when ordinary people have to uphold the
laws because their government refuse to. But that is where we are,
not just in Ireland but in all of our nations.
It remains to be seen what measures the banks and their friends in
government will be willing to take to close off from the people from
any hope of legal and peaceful redress.

I sincerely hope Mr Smith does file suit against Unicredit, Anglo

and the others. I hope people are able to support him. Perhaps we,
in other countries, can hope to do the same. Most fervently I hope
the government in Ireland and the Trioka in Bruselles do not close
down this hope of redress.

Twilight of Justice
by Golem Xiv on MARCH 26, 2013 in LATEST

Back in December of 2012, when it was proved in U.S. court that

billions of dollars of drug money had been laundered through
HSBC and yet somehow it was also found that HSBC was NOT
guilty of laundering and neither was anyone in the bank, there was
an outcry.
In America Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, when she
was grilling federal bank regulators at a Senate Banking
Committee hearing, said
No one individual went to trial, no individual was banned from
banking and there was no hearing to consider shutting down
HSBCs activities here in the United States.
Which did seem outrageous at the time given that, for example,
according to Senate and Justice department reports, HSBC had,
failed to monitor over $670 billion in wire transfers and over $9.4
billion in purchases of physical US dollars from HSBC Mexico from
at least 2006 to 2009.
And that,
HSBCs Mexico bank had a branch in the Cayman Islands that had
no offices or staff, but held 50,000 client accounts and $2.1 billion
in 2008.
Who in the bank knew about this? Evidence uncovered by
investigations into HSBCs activities revealed,
senior bank officials were complicit in the illegal activity.
The Question
No wonder then, that Senator Warren was driven to ask,
So what does it take? How many billions of dollars do you have
to launder for drug lords and how many economic sanctions do
you have to violate before someone will consider shutting down a
financial institution like this?
What indeed.
In the UK it was noted that during the time the laundering was
going on, the chief executive of HSBC in 2003 who then became
its chairman in 2006, was Lord Green, who is now the UK trade
minister. So obviously no great concern to get to any truth about
HSBC, in the hierarchy of the UK establishment.

Warrens question, What does it take? was finally answered by

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in March 2013, when he told the
U.S. Judiciary Committee that the Justice department had decided
not to pursue any criminal prosecution of HSBC because ,
I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions
becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute
them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if
you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on
the national economy, perhaps even the world economy,
The U.S. Justice Department felt it could not criminally prosecute
the bank because a criminal conviction would mean the bank
would lose its license to bank in the US which would kill it and a
whole range of other institutions, which the bank relies on to buy its
debts and its investment products would be prohibited from doing
so as soon as the bank was deemed to be criminal.
So the official answer to Senator Warrens question, according to
the mighty U.S. Justice Department, is that ,yes, HSBC had
laundered, but it was simply too big to prosecute. The bank and its
senior staff were and are untouchable. They could be fined but not
criminally prosecuted. The real answer to Senator Warrens
question, What does it take? is that she asked the wrong
question.
This isnt about lack of proof or the complexities of financial crimes
or showing who knew or proving actual intent. It is not about proof
or criminality at all. It is about there being a new category of
financial entity which our law makers and prosecutors have
decided for us, is above the law. They are called G-SIFIs, Globally,
Systemically Important Financial Institutions or G-SIBs, Globally
Systemically Important Banks.
I think we have not yet thought through the immense
consequences of the decision that has been made for us, that GSIFIs are above the law. But I think we need to make a start.
The List
We all know the HSBC isnt the only bank too large to prosecute.

There is in fact a list.

The list is decided upon by the FSB. It is updated every year.

The FBS (Financial Stability Board) is a new international body. It
is made of representatives from the central bank, financial
regulator and Treasury from each of the 25 member nations plus
representatives from:
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the ECB, the
European Commission, the IMF, OECD and World Bank, plus
representatives from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
(part of the BIS), the Committee on the Global Financial System
(another part of the BIS), the Committee on Payment and
Settlement Systems (another part of the BIS), the International
Association of Insurance Supervisors, the International Accounting
Standards Board, and the International Organization of Securities
Commissions.
Guess which institutions provide the membership for ALL of the
above international bodies? Yes, you got it the big banks. And
how many Central banks can you think of that are staffed or even
headed by people formerly from one of the Big Banks?
You tell me who is really staffs the FSB and whose world view and
interests the FSB actually represents?
Then consider, they are the ones who decided who is above the
law.
28 banks are officially above the law and WILL NOT be criminally
prosecuted no matter what they do. Remember thats not me
saying this. It is the U.S. Department of Justice saying it.
Not only 28 banks but all their senior executives, chairman/woman
and board members. It would be very difficult to find a senior
person in a bank to be criminally guilty but yet not find the
institution guilty. So we could compile a list of people who are now,
at least as concerns any financial and professional actions, also
above the law. They can do things you would go to goal for. How
does that feel?
Oh, by the way, this year, in April, we will see the announcement of
another list, this time of Globally Systemically Important Insurers

(G-SIIs). They too will be above the Law.

Assets Above the Law
When we say a bank is above the law, not only should we
remember that this means specific people are above the law (at
least in how they make money) but we should also remember that
this also means the assets in those banks are above the law. This
means if a banks does things which are illegal but lucrative such
as laundering money in order to get the use of those laundered
billions to then use them as, lets say, capital to underpin loans or
for speculating, for example, and by doing those illegal things it
makes out sized profits for its shareholders and staff, that money,
those profits are also above the law.
Since the bank and its senior staff are above the law and breaking
the law is profitable, a) no one has an interest to say no, b)
shareholders and staff will directly benefit from breaking the law.
They will make more money by participating in law breaking or by
investing in a bank which is law breaking. They will, in fact have an
interest making sure it continues.
Two questions. Whose wealth are we talking about and how
much?
Second question first. Is this a big problem?
There are many ways of measuring how much wealth we are
talking about as being above the law. Not all are publicly available
and not all banks quote things in the same way. So by necessity
the figures I have are not a perfect or even direct measure but they
are a good indicator of the scale of the assets which are essentially
above the law (they can be used for illegal purposes and the bank
will not be punished nor the profits severely harmed even if the
bank gets fined)
Here is the above list with the banks total assets. The figures are
mostly from the Bankers Almanac with a couple added from Wiki.
This give a good idea of how much wealth is above the law by
virtue of being in banks which are above the law.
Bank
Total Assets

Citi
$ 1.2 T
Deutsche
$2.8 T
HSBC
$1.2 T
JP Morgan Chase
$1.8 T
Barclays
$2.4 T
BNP Paribas
$2.5 T
Bank of America
$1.45 T
Bank of NY Mellon $1.4 T ( this is not Total Assets but Assets
under management)
Credit Suisse
$1.08 T
Goldman Sachs
$0.92 T
Mitsubishi IFJ FG
$1.9T
Morgan Stanley
$0.74T
RBS
$2.2T
UBS
$1.5T
Bank of China
$1.87T
BBVA
$0.77T
Group BPCE
$1.4T
Credit Agricole
$2.23T
ING Bank
$1.2T
Mizuho Bank
$0.91T
Nordea
$0.92T
Santander
$1.6T
Soc Gen.
$1.53T
Standard Chartered $0.599T
State Street
$2.01T ( Assets Under Management)
Sumitomo Mitsui
$1.68T
UniCredit
$1.2T
Wells Fargo
$1.16T
______________________
Total
$42.169T
I know these figures are only an indicator but when you get to $42
T I think the indication is clear.
What you will notice is that there are quite a number of banks not

on this G-SIFI list which are larger than some on it. What does this
mean? Two things I think. First some banks are on not because
they are the biggest but because they have vast assets under their
management. Other are there, such as Goldman, because they
are counter-party to vast swathes of other peoples derivatives. And
some are not on because their country does not have the clout to
have above a certain number of banks on the list.
What this last point tells us is that there are other banks that if it
came to it would be treated as too big to fail/prosecute but are not
on the list. A whole category of such banks are those which are not
globally systemically important but which are vital to the country
they are incorporated in or do business in. There are a number of
banks in Europe, not on the G-SIFI list but which their national
governments would never allow to go down or be criminally
prosecuted. These banks to are therefore, also above the law even
if theyre not on the list.
But for the moment lets just stick with our total of $42 Trillion and
change currently in banks which operate above the law (Yes I
know they can be fined but the fines are a wrist slap compared to
the money they make by breaking the law).
You might at this point object that these banks contain deposits
from all sorts of people, many of them ordinary. True. but the bulk
of that $42 trillion is not the savings of widows and orphans nor
charities and churches. It is the money of the top 1% or 10%.
In the UK, for example, 40% of the wealth is held by the top 10%.
While in the USA the top 10% hold between 81% and 94% of all
the wealth. Which means the bulk of the money in those banks,
available for use in illegal but lucrative schemes, belongs to the
wealthiest 10%. And they also happen to be the people who run
the banks, sit on the board of the FSB (there are no
representatives from anti crime NGOs for example and certainly
no one representing the 3.5 billion people in the world who earn
less than $2/day) and decide who and what is now above the law.
So very neat and tidy.

No dissent allowed
The concept of the G-SIFI also does violence to international law
and sovereignty. Lets imagine some small rogue country, one
which still believes in equality before the law, gets a rush of blood
to the Judiciary and they file criminal proceedings against a G-SIFI
for crimes committed in their country. Lets imagine the bank is
HSBC. Now the U.S Justice Department has already declared this
bank is too important to convict. Would the US stand by, would the
UK stand by, and allow some tin-pot country run by foreigners to
imperil what the US has already said MUST NOT be imperiled?
Would they allow it to happen? Or would they bring pressure to
bear? Would they find a way to stop a prosecution they felt could
imperil US interests and the stability of their economy? You decide
what they would not be willing to do.
Lets just say that somehow it happens anyway. We would then be
in a situation where countries would have to start to pull apart the
entire system of international entente. Fellow UN members would
have to start saying other countrys legal decisions and courts were
meaningless and would not be recognized. Imagine the fall out
from that.
One country would prosecute and provide evidence of criminal
conduct and the other countries would have to not only instruct
their own Judiciary to ignore it, but would have to say to its citizens
and its press you too must ignore what you might read or hear,
even if you can see it is the truth. Even though the evidence might
be crystal clear and indisputable, those hanging on to the G-SIFI
list and concept would have to insist everyone ignore the evidence
on pain of legal action for libel and defamation, and refuse to allow
the foreign evidence to be used as the basis of a court action.
Can you imagine the chaos? So we can conclude that no country
would be allowed to pursue a criminal case whose conclusions
might create such a disastrous mess. What would be left of
sovereignty?
It would be the reverse of what happens now. At the moment

courts and national regulators are used to shut the door to

prosecutions which might implicarte one of their banks, by either
simply refusing to investigate or going ahead and investigating
and saying that their banks involvement was not a crime. Thus
insulating their bank from any accusations in future. This has
happened in three European countries in cases I have become
aware of.
Sorry this has been such a long article. But the G-SIFI is here to
stay and is already corrupting our judicial system. That corruption
will only grow if we do not take notice of it now.

Senate Banking Committee Hearing Bank Money Laundering

Mar 7, 2013
http://warren.senate.gov
Senator Elizabeth Warren's Q&A at the March 7, 2013 Banking
Committee hearing entitled "Patterns of Abuse: Assessing Bank
Secrecy Act Compliance and Enforcement." Witnesses were:
David Cohen, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial
Intelligence, United States Department of the Treasury;
Thomas Curry, Comptroller, Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency; and Jerome H. Powell, Governor, Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cKTBy7_S_I

HSBC, too big to jail, is

the new poster child
for US two-tiered
justice system
Glenn Greenwald
DOJ officials unblinkingly insist that the
banking giant is too powerful and important
to subject to the rule of law

Assistant attorney general Lanny Breuer said taking away HSBC's US banking
licence could have cost thousands of jobs. Photograph: Richard Drew/AP
Wednesday 12 December 2012 10.14 GMT

The US is the world's largest prison state, imprisoning

more of its citizens than any nation on earth, both in
absolute numbers and proportionally. It imprisons people
for longer periods of time, more mercilessly, and for more
trivial transgressions than any nation in the west. This
sprawling penal state has been constructed over decades,
by both political parties, and it punishes the poor and
racial minorities at overwhelmingly disproportionate rates.
But not everyone is subjected to that system of penal
harshness. It all changes radically when the nation's most
powerful actors are caught breaking the law. With few
exceptions, they are gifted not merely with leniency, but
full-scale immunity from criminal punishment. Thus have
the most egregious crimes of the last decade been fully
shielded from prosecution when committed by those with
the greatest political and economic power: the construction

of a worldwide torture regime, spying on Americans'

communications without the warrants required by criminal
law by government agencies and the telecom industry, an
aggressive war launched on false pretenses, and massive,
systemic financial fraud in the banking and credit industry
that triggered the 2008 financial crisis.
This two-tiered justice system was the subject of my last
book, "With Liberty and Justice for Some", and what was
most striking to me as I traced the recent history of this
phenomenon is how explicit it has become. Obviously,
those with money and power always enjoyed substantial
advantages in the US justice system, but lip service was at
least always paid to the core precept of the rule of law: that
- regardless of power, position and prestige - all stand
equal before the blindness of Lady Justice.
It really is the case that this principle is now not only
routinely violated, as was always true, but explicitly
repudiated, right out in the open. It is commonplace to
hear US elites unblinkingly insisting that those who
become sufficiently important and influential are - and
should be - immunized from the system of criminal
punishment to which everyone else is subjected.
Worse, we are constantly told that immunizing
those with the greatest power is not for their good,
but for our good, for our collective good: because
it's better for all of us if society is free of the
disruptions that come from trying to punish the
most powerful, if we're free of the deprivations that
we would collectively experience if we lose their
extraordinary value and contributions by
prosecuting them.
This rationale was popularized in 1974 when

Gerald Ford explained why Richard Nixon - who

built his career as a "law-and-order" politician
demanding harsh punishments and unforgiving
prosecutions for ordinary criminals - would never
see the inside of a courtroom after being caught
committing multiple felonies; his pardon was for
the good not of Nixon, but of all of us. That was the
same reasoning hauled out to justify immunity for
officials of the National Security State who tortured
and telecom giants who illegally spied on
Americans (we need them to keep us safe and
can't disrupt them with prosecutions), as well as
the refusal to prosecute any Wall Street criminals
for their fraud (prosecutions for these financial
crimes would disrupt our collective economic
recovery).
A new episode unveiled on Tuesday is one of the
most vivid examples yet of this mentality. Over the
last year, federal investigators found that one of
the world's largest banks, HSBC, spent years
committing serious crimes, involving money
laundering for terrorists; "facilitat[ing] money
laundering by Mexican drug cartels"; and
"mov[ing] tainted money for Saudi banks tied to
terrorist groups". Those investigations uncovered
substantial evidence "that senior bank officials
were complicit in the illegal activity." As but one
example, "an HSBC executive at one point argued
that the bank should continue working with the
Saudi Al Rajhi bank, which has supported Al
Qaeda."
Needless to say, these are the kinds of crimes for
which ordinary and powerless people are
prosecuted and imprisoned with the greatest
aggression possible. If you're Muslim and your
conduct gets anywhere near helping a terrorist
group, even by accident, you're going to prison for

a long, long time. In fact, powerless, obscure, lowlevel employees are routinely sentenced to long
prison terms for engaging in relatively petty money
laundering schemes, unrelated to terrorism, and on
a scale that is a tiny fraction of what HSBC and its
senior officials are alleged to have done.
But not HSBC. On Tuesday, not only did the US
Justice Department announce that HSBC would not
be criminally prosecuted, but outright claimed that
the reason is that they are too important, too
instrumental to subject them to such disruptions.
In other words, shielding them from the system of
criminal sanction to which the rest of us are subject
is not for their good, but for our common good. We
should not be angry, but grateful, for the
extraordinary gift bestowed on the global banking
giant:
"US authorities defended their decision not to
prosecute HSBC for accepting the tainted money of
rogue states and drug lords on Tuesday, insisting
that a $1.9bn fine for a litany of offences was
preferable to the 'collateral consequences' of
taking the bank to court. . . .
"Announcing the record fine at a press conference
in New York, assistant attorney general Lanny
Breuer said that despite HSBC"s 'blatant failure' to
implement anti-money laundering controls and its
wilful flouting of US sanctions, the consequences of
a criminal prosecution would have been dire.
"Had the US authorities decided to press criminal
charges, HSBC would almost certainly have lost its
banking licence in the US, the future of the
institution would have been under threat and the
entire banking system would have been
destabilised.
"HSBC, Britain's biggest bank, said it was

'profoundly sorry' for what it called 'past mistakes'

that allowed terrorists and narcotics traffickers to
move billions around the financial system and
circumvent US banking laws. . . .
"As part of the deal, HSBC has undertaken a fiveyear agreement with the US department of justice
under which it will install an independent monitor
to assess reformed internal controls. The bank's
top executives will defer part of their bonuses for
the whole of the five-year period, while bonuses
have been clawed back from a number of former
and current executives, including those in the US
directly involved at the time.
"John Coffee, a professor of law at Columbia Law
School in New York, said the fine was consistent
with how US regulators have been treating bank
infractions in recent years. 'These days they rarely
sue individuals in any meaningful way when the
entity will settle. This is largely a function of
resource constraints, but also risk aversion, and a
willingness to take the course of least resistance,'
he said."
DOJ officials touted the $1.9 billion fine HSBC
would pay, the largest ever for such a case. As the
Guardian's Nils Pratley noted, "the sum represents
about four weeks' earnings given the bank's pretax profits of $21.9bn last year." Unsurprisingly,
"the steady upward progress of HSBC's share price
since the scandal exploded in July was unaffected
on Tuesday morning."
The New York Times Editors this morning announced: "It
is a dark day for the rule of law." There is, said the NYT
editors, "no doubt that the wrongdoing at HSBC was
serious and pervasive." But the bank is simply too big, too
powerful, too important to prosecute.
That's not merely a dark day for the rule of law. It's a

wholesale repudiation of it. The US government is

expressly saying that banking giants reside outside of above - the rule of law, that they will not be punished when
they get caught red-handed committing criminal offenses
for which ordinary people are imprisoned for decades.
Aside from the grotesque injustice, the signal it sends is as
clear as it is destructive: you are free to commit whatever
crimes you want without fear of prosecution. And
obviously, if the US government would not prosecute these
banks on the ground that they're too big and important, it
would - yet again, or rather still - never let them fail.
But this case is the opposite of an anomaly. That the most
powerful actors should be immunized from the rule of law not merely treated better, but fully immunized - is a
constant, widely affirmed precept in US justice. It's applied
to powerful political and private sector actors alike. Over
the past four years, the CIA and NSA have received the
same gift, as have top Executive Branch officials, as has
the telecom industry, as has most of the banking industry.
This is how I described it in "With Liberty and Justice for
Some":
"To hear our politicians and our press tell it, the conclusion
is inescapable: we're far better off when political and
financial elites - and they alone - are shielded from
criminal accountability.
"It has become a virtual consensus among the elites that
their members are so indispensable to the running of
American society that vesting them with immunity from
prosecution - even for the most egregious crimes - is not
only in their interest but in our interest, too. Prosecutions,

courtrooms, and prisons, it's hinted - and sometimes even

explicitly stated - are for the rabble, like the street-side
drug peddlers we occasionally glimpse from our car
windows, not for the political and financial leaders who
manage our nation and fuel our prosperity.
"It is simply too disruptive, distracting, and unjust, we are
told, to subject them to the burden of legal
consequences."
That is precisely the rationale explicitly invoked by DOJ
officials to justify their decision to protect HSBC from
criminal accountability. These are the same officials who
previously immunized Bush-era torturers and warrantless
eavesdroppers, telecom giants, and Wall Street
executives, even as they continue to persecute
whistleblowers at record rates and prosecute ordinary
citizens - particularly poor and minorities - with extreme
harshness even for trivial offenses. The administration that
now offers the excuse that HSBC is too big to prosecute is
the same one that quite consciously refused to attempt to
break up these banks in the aftermath of the "too-big-tofail" crisis of 2008, as former TARP overseer Neil
Barofsky, among others, has spent years arguing.
And, of course, these HSBC-protectors in the Obama DOJ
are the same officials responsible for maintaining and
expanding what NYT Editorial Page editor Andrew
Rosenthal has accurately described as "essentially a
separate justice system for Muslims," one in which "the
principle of due process is twisted and selectively applied,
if it is applied at all." What has been created is not so
much a "two-tiered justice system" as a multi-tiered one,

entirely dependent on the identity of the alleged offender

rather than the crimes of which they are accused.
Having different "justice systems" for citizens based on
their status, wealth, power and prestige is exactly what the
US founders argued most strenuously had to be avoided
(even as they themselves maintained exactly such a
system). But here we have in undeniable clarity not merely
proof of exactly how this system functions, but also the
rotted and fundamentally corrupt precept on which it's
based: that some actors are simply too important and too
powerful to punish criminally. As the Nobel Prize-winning
economist Joseph Stiglitz warned in 2010, exempting the
largest banks from criminal prosecution has meant that
lawlessness and "venality" is now "at a higher level" in the
US even than that which prevailed in the pervasively
corrupt and lawless privatizing era in Russia.
Having the US government act specially to protect the
most powerful factions, particularly banks, was a major
impetus that sent people into the streets protesting both as
part of the early Tea Party movement as well as the
Occupy movement. As well as it should: it is truly difficult
to imagine corruption and lawlessness more extreme than
having the government explicitly place the most powerful
factions above the rule of law even as it continues to
subject everyone else to disgracefully harsh "justice". If
this HSBC gift makes more manifest this radical
corruption, then it will at least have achieved some good.

UPDATE

By coincidence, on the very same day that the DOJ

announced that HSBC would not be indicted for its

multiple money-laundering felonies, the New York Times

published a story featuring the harrowing story of an
African-American single mother of three who was
sentenced to life imprisonment at the age of 27 for a minor
drug offense:
"Stephanie George and Judge Roger Vinson had quite
different opinions about the lockbox seized by the police
from her home in Pensacola. She insisted she had no idea
that a former boyfriend had hidden it in her attic. Judge
Vinson considered the lockbox, containing a half-kilogram
of cocaine, to be evidence of her guilt.
"But the defendant and the judge fully agreed about the
fairness of the sentence he imposed in federal court.
"'Even though you have been involved in drugs and drug
dealing,' Judge Vinson told Ms. George, 'your role has
basically been as a girlfriend and bag holder and money
holder but not actively involved in the drug dealing, so
certainly in my judgment it does not warrant a life
sentence.'
"Yet the judge had no other option on that morning 15
years ago. As her stunned family watched, Ms. George,
then 27, who had never been accused of violence, was
led from the courtroom to serve a sentence of life without
parole.
"'I remember my mom crying out and asking the Lord why,'
said Ms. George, now 42, in an interview at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Tallahassee. 'Sometimes I still
can't believe myself it could happen in America.'"
As the NYT notes - and read her whole story to get the full

flavor of it - this is commonplace for the poor and for

minorities in the US justice system. Contrast that deeply
oppressive, merciless punishment system with the fullscale immunity bestowed on HSBC - along with virtually
every powerful and rich lawbreaking faction in America
over the last decade - and that is the living, breathing twotiered US justice system. How this glaringly disparate, and
explicitly status-based, treatment under the criminal law
does not produce serious social unrest is mystifying.

https://www.theguardian.com/comm
entisfree/2012/dec/12/hsbcprosecution-fine-money-laundering
Sweetheart Settlement for HSBC
Bank on Drug Money Laundering
Charges
By Barry Grey
December 13, 2012

The US Justice Department on Tuesday announced a

settlement with the British-based HSBC bank regarding
charges of money laundering Mexican drug funds that allows
the bank to admit to wrongdoing and pay a fine without being
criminally charged.
In a lengthy front-page article Tuesday morning, before the
settlement was announced, the New York Times reported that
US authorities had decided, despite ample evidence that
HSBC had laundered billions of dollars for major drug cartels
in Mexico and Colombia, not to press criminal charges against

the bank or any of its executives because the bank was too
big to indict.
The Times article, citing government sources on internal
discussions between the Justice Department, the Treasury
and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, spelled out
the rationale that has guided the response of the Obama
administration to a host of bank scandals in the aftermath of
the Wall Street crash of September 2008. Not a single major
institution or leading bank executive has been prosecuted for
the pervasive fraud and swindling that led to the financial crisis
and triggered the global slumpand continues unabated
today.
The financial mafia that bestrides the American economy and
controls the political system is, in practice, above the law. The
government and the various financial regulatory agencies are
its protectors, making sure that no leading banker or institution
is held accountable for violations of the law and social crimes
against the people.
Under the agreement announced Tuesday in Brooklyn by New
York Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer and other
federal, state and local officials, HSBC, Europes biggest bank
and the third largest in the world, will forfeit $1.256 billion and
pay an additional $650 million in civil penalties. The bank
acknowledges having violated the Bank Secrecy Act in
laundering Mexican drug cartel money and having breached
other federal laws by ignoring US sanctions in financial
dealings with Cuba, Iran, Libya, Sudan and Burma.
Instead of being indicted, the bank enters into a five-year
deferred prosecution agreement, during which it is to be
monitored for compliance by an independent agency. This
quasi-probationary period is, however, little more than a
formality. It is highly unlikely that criminal charges will ever be

laid. Wall Street responded to the announcement of the

agreement by bidding up HSBC shares a half percentage
point.
The total fine of $1.9 billion is only 8.6 percent of the $22
billion profit the bank recorded in 2011, and is likely less than
the profits HSBC made over many years serving as the main
financial conduit for Mexican drug lords, including the Sialoa
Cartel.
At a press conference Tuesday, Assistant Attorney General
Breuer said HSBC was guilty of stunning failures of oversight
and worsethat led the bank to permit narcotics traffickers
and others to launder hundreds of millions of dollars through
HSBC subsidiaries, and to facilitate hundreds of millions more
in transactions with sanctioned countries.
US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Loretta Lynch
said, HSBCs blatant failure to implement proper anti-money
laundering controls facilitated the laundering of at least $881
million in drug proceeds through the US financial system. She
told reporters that Mexican drug cartels had moved hundreds
of thousands of dollars a day through HSBC facilities. The
banks Mexican operations shifted at least $7 billion from 2007
to 2009 into the United States.
A press release from the Justice Department said that HSBC
Bank USA failed to monitor over $670 billion in wire transfers
and over $9.4 billion in purchases of physical US dollars from
HSBC Mexico from at least 2006 to 2009.
Last July, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations released a report charging HSBC with
laundering Mexican drug money on a massive scale. The
report said that HSBCs Mexico bank had a branch in the
Cayman Islands that had no offices or staff, but held 50,000
client accounts and $2.1 billion in 2008.

It also denounced the banks US regulator, the Office of the

Comptroller of the Currency, for turning a blind eye to the
banks suspicious and incriminating activities. The Senate
subcommittee noted that in 2010, the regulatory agency
flagged $60 trillion in transactions and 17,000 accounts as
potentially suspicious, but failed to even fine HSBC.
It is likely that HSBC stepped up its drug money laundering
operations in response to the banking crisis that began in
earnest in 2007 and erupted in full force with the collapse of
Lehman Brothers in September of 2008. In 2007, the bank
began posting billions of dollars in losses at its American
consumer spending arm, forcing it to go begging to
shareholders for more capital.
There is evidence that at the height of the banking crisis, a
number of major banks depended on cash from drug-related
laundering operations to stay afloat. According to Antonio
Mara Costa, who then headed the United Nations office on
drugs and crime, the flow of crime syndicate money
represented the only liquid investment capital available to
banks at the height of the crisis. Inter-bank loans were funded
by money that originated from the drugs trade, he said.
There were signs that some banks were rescued that way.
In March of 2010, the US Justice Department reached a
similar settlement with Wachovia Bank, now part of Wells
Fargo, as that announced Tuesday with HSBC. Wachovia
admitted to having violated the Bank Secrecy Act by
laundering $378.4 billion for the Sinaloa Cartel between 2004
and 2007. Rather than being prosecuted, it was given a
deferred prosecution agreement under which it paid a fine of
$160 million, less than 2 percent of its profit for the previous
year.
By serving as financial conduits for the Mexican drug cartels,

these banks have played a critical role in the drug war that has
taken tens of thousands of lives in that country, not to mention
the social devastation wrought in the US and around the world
by the narcotics trade.
Martin Woods, a Wachovia whistleblower who had been
forced to resign, said at the time of the US settlement with the
bank: These are the proceeds of murder and misery in
Mexico, and of drugs sold around the world Its simple: if
you dont see the correlation between the money laundering
by banks and the 30,000 people killed in Mexico, youre
missing the point.

Still waiting for the

truth from the
regulator (Village
December 10)
by Village 9 April, 2013, 12:49 pm 0 Comments
UniCredit breached liquidity requirements in 2007.
Matthew Elderfield nods. The interconnectedness of
banking dysfunctionality.
Michael Smith
There is a general official view that Irelands ethical

delinquencies are in the past. Corrupt planning stopped

when the tribunals started; and bad bank-regulation
stopped with the demise of Pat Neary and the production
of two limited and innocuous reports by Patrick
Honohan and Klaus Regling. Inconveniently for a country
that has started to see regulation in black (then) and white
(now) terms, the general view does not reflect the reality.
Hold tight for a mind-boggling trip through the complexity
of banking dysfunctionality.
Liquidity is the short-term financing vital to ensure the
banks still do their core job of funding the economy.
Somehow Ireland went from having liquid banks to having
banks so illiquid that a bank guarantee was offered by the
government in September 2008. But there are staff in
every bank legally charged with ensuring banks do not
become illiquid. There is an intricate and comprehensive
system in place to ensure they cannot become illiquid,
bearing in mind their customer base. It involves
arrangements they must have in place if for some reason
they become illiquid e.g. they can ask another named
financial institution to lend them money short-term. Every
morning the banks have to produce a report showing how
they kept their liquidity up to the target the previous day.
The measure used for the target is the liquidity ratio.
In mid 2007 the financial regulator, Pat Neary following
a six-month dry-run introduced a new rule for the
liquidity ratio implementing the latest Basel banking
accord. It required that cash inflows equalled at least 90
per cent of cash outflows forecast over the relevant period.
This prudential system was, and is, central to how banking

is possible. The system was intended to be stringently

monitored by the financial regulator.
In fact Village has evidence that a failure of liquidity, that if
it as may well have been the case was typical to both
Irish banks and foreign-owned subsidiaries, shows
dysfunctionality on a scale that should have prompted the
financial regulator to advise the government to go out into
the markets and get funds for the banks immediately, was
ignored by the regulator. Nor did auditors pick up on it.
Indeed it is highly likely that liquidity problems were
dysfunctionally glossed over by auditors all over Dublins
financial world around this time. If such dysfunctionality
had not occurred and been ignored for so long after the
collapse of Northern Rock, Ireland could have dealt with
general bank liquidity in a structured and gradual way
and not purportedly needed the bank guarantee that has
finished up bankrupting the country and immiserating
much of the population.
The people behind this dysfunctionality should be made to
account for it. The new regulator, Matthew Elderfield,
should explain what went on on his predecessors watch
so we can see what happened. Instead it appears the
new regulator is being disingenuous.
In late July or early August 2007, an experienced
financial risk-manager, says he discovered his employer
bank the Irish subsidiary of the giant UniCredit Bank of
Italy had been dramatically breaching the liquidity ratio.
The risk-manager maintains he was specifically warned by
senior personnel at the Irish subsidiary not to report the
matter to the financial regulator in Ireland. On one

occasion he reported a ratio of only 70% to the regulator

(and obtained a receipt). In fact he says I was getting
75%, even 65%, not occasionally but day in, day
out. Banks are obliged by law to maintain all daily records
for at least five years so there must be written evidence of
this. At the time, I thought: Is it my fault? Then I asked
questions and I was told its a system error or a trader
forgot to book a deal or its complicated. Give it a bit
more time and youll understand. It will be fine. In any
event, even if taken at face value, such failures would
attract penalties under Sections 3.4 and 10 of the
regulators Requirements for Management of Liquidity
Risk, 2006, which seem to impose fairly strict liability.
Ascertaining the liquidity ratio is a complex task and
eventually the risk-manager turned to a consulting
company in London for help, affording it access to
UniCredits systems. That company a company which
continues to provide such services for some of Irelands
most well-known banks calculated the liquidity ratio at an
extraordinary 50% when a ratio of 89% would in normal
circumstances be deemed problematic. The risk-manager
resigned, in part fearful of the draconian penalties that
applied for breach of the law.
A simple call to UniCredits Milan-based parent could have
been expected to generate a transfer of many billions of
Euro within a few hours, so resolving the problem. But
that would have undermined the parent banks confidence
in its Celtic subsidiary, and perhaps jeopardised bonuses
against a background where the previous years final
accounts had anyway required substantial and

embarrassing revision to the tune of tens of millions of

Euro.
Around two weeks later the financial regulator came in on
a scheduled inspection. It appears all hell then broke loose
with the regulator effectively taking over the firm for two
weeks. During this period the arrangement with the expert
London consulting company was terminated, so it may
have proved difficult for the regulator to ascertain the
prevailing liquidity ratio. The risk-manager was warned by
his former employers that repeating his story to a third
party would constitute grounds for a claim of defamation
which we would not hesitate to pursue. Solicitors McCann
Fitzgerald wrote to him on their behalf advising that his
allegations were outrageous. They have claimed the
same to Village.
What is surprising is the reluctance of Irish authorities, and
indeed Irish politicians, government and opposition
alike, to make the running with this still unresolved issue.
The honourable exception is Senator David Norris who
outlined the events described above and pushed the issue
in the Seanad, though without naming the bank except
privately to the Minister.
The regulator
The new until-now poster-boy regulator, Matthew
Elderfield, has stated in response to questions from the
Sunday Business Post, and the Sddeutsche Zeitung, a
respected German newspaper, that our records do not
match the description of events given by Senator Norris;
nor did we receive what might be described as a
whistleblower letter. We can, however, confirm that an

overnight liquidity breach was reported by an institution

around the time in question. The matter was followed up
with the institution and rectified to the satisfaction of the
Financial Regulator at the time. For a poster boy this is in
fact remarkably disingenuous, though certainly true. The
regulators records presumably do not match Senator
Norriss because its agents didnt look hard enough or take
a proper record; and they did not receive a whistleblower
letter as the letter came from UniCredit itself which limited
its declaration to one overnight breach. Notably, nothing
the regulator said undermines the credibility of the riskmanager.
It is impossible that there could be a flagrant breach
without a systemic problem since the whole prudential
system is constructed with actuarial precision so it can
deal with every contingency. That is what makes it
prudential. In prudential circles a 1% breach is taken very
seriously. 20% or 40% is calamitous. Impossible even. It
is impossible that there would be an overnight move from
compliance (90%) to flagrant breach (70% or even 50%),
when the maximum deviation allowed from 90% is 1%.
Unless perhaps there was a single extraordinary event, an
unpredictable act of god. Anyone with any knowledge of
the dynamics of liquidity ratios, including particularly the
regulator, would know this. If there had indeed been such
an extraordinary event, there would seem to be no reason
why some intimation of the nature of the problem would
not have been provided by the regulator, when questioned
about the breach. In the absence of such an extraordinary
explanation, seeing a breach of 20% or even 40% would

necessarily alert the regulator to a systemic problem likely

to be sustained over a long period. It would appear almost
certain that the scale of the breach had evolved
incrementally and continued for some time. Not just
overnight. This would tend to corroborate the riskmanagers story.
Extraordinarily, the financial regulator did not then, and
Matthew Elderfield who has been in office since January
2010 still has failed to, interview the risk-manager about
the matter. This is despite the risk managers patently
abrupt departure (and that of the London consultants)
during this controversial episode and an accelerating
number of enquiries to the regulator about the matter. Nor
is it clear whether the regulator informed the Milan-based
parent of UniCredit or, crucially, the Italian and EU
regulatory authorities.
In June 2009 the regulator issued a revision of regulations
for liquidity ratios without making any reference at all to the
fact that the regulations had been revised to achieve
precisely this new effect in 2006. This served
deceptively to imply that the regulations had not been in
force at the time of the breaches by UniCredit (and by all
the other banks whose liquidity imploded illegally, though
without media recognition of the illegality, around the time
of the bank guarantee). The text of the 2006 document
[section 9.4] which specified that the new requirements
had taken effect on 1 July 2007 disappeared from the
2009 document.
The bank itself
The 2007 annual report of UniCredits Irish subsidiary is

signed as chairman by Professor Brian Hillery, one-time

FF TD for Dun Laoghaire, current chairman of
Independent Newspapers and Director of the Central
Bank. The auditors were KPMG who appear to have had
some difficulties with the accounts but to have swallowed
their pride. They as usual state concerning the
accounts that to the fullest extent permitted by law we do
not accept or assume responsibility to anyone other than
the company and the companys members as a body for
the audit. The report states that, in the light of pressures
in the marketplace, we have maintained strong liquidity
ratios since the middle of 2007. This must be highly
controversial since the new legislation came into effect in
the middle of 2007, and the risk-manager claims UniCredit
was still not compliant in September, occasioning his
resignation. Interestingly, UniCredit in Milan has
emphatically denied, to the Sddeutsche Zeitung and
more recently the Sunday Business Post, that it is the
bank to which Norris was referring in the Seanad. Perhaps
it simply didnt know.
Department of Finance/Central Bank
Finance Minister, Brian Lenihan, has stated that the
supervision of liquidity requirements for credit institutions
licensed and operating in ireland is primarily a matter for
the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator Breaches
of liquidity requirements may be subject to proceedings
under the Financial Regulators administrative sanctions
procedure or to prosecution. Elsewhere he has
emphasised that the Central Bank was subject to strict
confidentiality requirements unless the issue gives rise to

some broader financial stability issue which did not arise in

this instance. Nevertheless he acknowledged that the
Central Bank had been advised of an overnight breach
around this time but the institution rectified the position to
the satisfaction of the Central Bank. The Central Bank
required an external review of the liquidity reports
submitted to it but did not identify material issues outside
the single date highlighted. He claimed that appropriate
steps necessary to prevent any recurrence off this issue
have now been taken by the institution concerned.
Opposition politicians
A prominent member of one of the opposition parties
recently told the risk-manager, we cant afford the
consequence of revealing this story. We already have
enough to deal with when we come to power.
Joan Burton of the Labour Party was perhaps a little slow
to move but, under a little pressure, diligently raised the
matter with Brian Lenihan and met Patrick Honohan.
Burton had met Honohan previously about the German
bank, DEPFA, and been told that the regulators staff was
not trained to monitor IFSC activities and that by-andlarge, the IFSC had been treated as some off-shore entity
that did not warrant strict supervision as most of its entities
were subsidiaries of much larger overseas corporations,
and therefore someone elses head-ache. The Green
Party Senator Mark Dearey and its Chairman, Senator
Dan Boyle, wrote to the regulator but did not receive a
substantive reply. Sinn Fins Arthur Morgan did not reply
to correspondence from a senior academic friend of the
risk-manager. Fine Gaels then-Finance spokesperson,

Richard Bruton, who met the risk-manager in his solicitors

office, has sat on the file and his successor Michael
Noonan doesnt appear to know it exists. Former Fine
Gael Taoiseach John Bruton is the head of Dublins
International Financial Services Centre, which aims to
attract financial companies to set up there, and is touting
Irish the saleability of Irish banks to Gulf sovereign funds.
An inadequate regulatory culture is alive. Lack of interest
in the truth abounds. Figures just dont matter. The blind
wearing of the green jersey goes on.
The media
The Irish Times has been reluctant to pursue the story,
though Fintan OToole did an extensive spread on it.
Others in the newspaper were keen that the risk-manager
should go public before the paper would pursue it further.
No other media have covered the matter except the
Sunday Business Post, whose Kathleen Barrington has
given it considerable space.
The New York Times famously alleged as long ago as
2006 that the IFSC was the Wild West of banking.
Around that time it was reported that General Res Irish
subsidiary, Cologne Re, was seen as an ideal location for
a major fraud because Dublin did not report to anyone
and so avoided the North American problem of financial
regulation. The simple truth is that one of Irelands few
genuine policy successes has been attracting major USbased multinationals like Google and Microsoft on the
back of a 12.5% Corporation Tax rate. Irish banks then
assume a disproportionate importance to the world
economy because these corporations have an interest in

channelling profits through Ireland, so avoiding heavier tax

rates elsewhere where the profits may in fact have been
earned. This is one of the reasons Irish banking was a
flashpoint, certainly the European flashpoint following the
collapse of Lehmans. The clout of the multinationals
conduced to a lax regulatory rgime for banking. It also
partly explains the governments deference to the banks
(over the people) in policy terms including perhaps some
of the pressure the government was under to guarantee
the banks, lest a run threaten the billions of Euro in
multinational profits resting in Irish accounts. Light
regulation helped attract multinationals but it was a
gamble that, after a time and on a grand scale has
stopped paying off for Ireland. It stopped paying off
because it led uniquely to liquidity problems across the
ranges in a nations banks and so to guarantees that have
precipitated national insolvency. But the policy of light
regulation also risks major legal actions from those who
have been victims of the dodgy, sometimes illegal, laxity. It
is surprising in this context that the bailout was not linked
to higher standards. In late November the Financial Times
commented, An element of the bail-out should have been
specifically targeted at plugging the liquidity gap, if only to
signal an acknowledgement of how crucial a role it has
played in undermining the global system in Ireland, just
as it did during the big bank failures in the UK (Northern
Rock) and the US (Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns).
The reason the green jersey is in play apart from the
obvious embarrassment of mishandled liquidity issues
which were so central to our mishandling of the bank

guarantee is that if it can be shown that the regulator

systematically allowed breaches of liquidity ratios, indeed
still does not recognise those breaches, it could trigger
litigation against Ireland by the likes of HRE (Hypo Real
Estate).
HRE, was bailed out for 140bn in loans and guarantees
in September 2008 by the German government, after HRE
had hastily bought heedless to its underlying liquidity
problems IFSC-based DEPFA. DEPFAs directors then
included pillars of Irelands economic sector including
Francis Ruane, director of the ESRI, and Maurice
OConnell, former governor of the Central Bank.
If HRE had not bought DEPFA, so transferring the relevant
headquarters from Ireland to Germany, Ireland would have
been responsible for this colossal bailout. It is perhaps
reflective of the lack of seriousness of the debate here for
so long that this lucky escape from the consequences of
our lackadaisical regulation, was not more widely
recognised as far back as 2008. HRE is suing its former
chief executive Georg Funke for allegedly not briefing
them properly on the liquidity problems. HRE was, at the
beginning of 2010 reported to be considering suing the
entire former board of DEPFA too. Crucially its litigation
refers to faulty risk-management procedures and
numerous breaches of Irish banking regulatory law
before, as with UniCredit, the bank went to the regulator
who in the case of DEPFA settled with its relevant
subsidiary for a 250,000 fine without any public indication
of the number of breaches. It is implicit that the Irish
regulatory authorities may have been delinquent in

monitoring breaches in a firm that the German regulator

memorably described as a pigsty. An extensive German
parliamentary investigation into what was after all a bigger
bailout than that accorded to Ireland, found that the
German regulator had behaved competently within the
confines of the legislation which included that HRE, as a
holding company, entirely avoided the gaze attracted by
banks. An enraged German body politic believes Irelands
regulatory rgime did not help. And Ireland, perhaps
myopically, refused requests from Germany for a
contribution to the DEPFA bailout.
In a separate but analogous case Sachsen Landesbank
had to receive over 17bn in emergency funding from
Germany following liquidity difficulties with its Irish
subsidiary, Ormond Quay, and ultimately was taken over
by Landesbank Baden-Wrttemberg (LBBW Bank).
Unfortunately for Ireland the same smarting Germany,
more than any other country, is responsible for the penal
bailout interest-rate that may scuttle Ireland and will take
the determining stance on any renegotiation of the deal.
UniCredit
UniCredit is Italys largest bank, a major international
financial institution with strong roots in 22 European
countries and an international network represented in
approximately 50 markets, with 9578 branches and more
than 162,000 employees. In the Centre and East of
Europe, UniCredit operates the largest international
banking network with around 4,000 branches and outlets.
UniCredits Irish branch managed 27bn at the relevant
time. UniCredit is said to be Italian-conservative in much

of its ethic. It was in the news when its renowned head

Alessandro Profumo resigned in September 2010 arising
out of a feud with UniCredits main shareholders who have
been uncomfortable with the banks growing need to raise
capital, especially from Libya. The Libyan Investment
Authority, a sovereign-wealth fund, recently increased its
holding in UniCredit by 0.5% to 2.6%, while the Central
Bank of Libya holds an almost 5% stake in the bank.
UniCredit operates on its own and through a labyrinth of
subsidiaries.
UniCredits 96.35%-owned subsidiary, Bank Austria
Austrias largest bank has a twenty-five percent stake in
another Austrian bank, Medici, which is in big trouble. In
mid-December a complaint against Ms Sonja Kohn was
part of a fusillade of litigation filed in federal bankruptcy
court in Manhattan by Irving H Picard, the trustee trying to
recover $40bn in assets for victims who sustained cash
losses in the enormous Ponzi pyramid fraud perpetrated
by the worlds most famous fraudster, Bernie Madoff. The
trustee contends Bank Medici was nothing more than a
conduit set up for the sole purpose of funnelling money to
Mr Madoff. It is alleged Sonja Kohn knowingly raised
billions of dollars in cash to sustain Mr Madoffs fraud in
exchange for at least $62 million in secret kickbacks. Bank
Medici was 25-percent-owned by Bank Austria and the
trustee claims in his complaint that it was effectively a de
facto branch of that bank. The association with Bank
Austria gave Ms Kohn and Bank Medici an imprimatur of
legitimacy when recruiting investors, the trustee asserted.
Bank Austria, UniCredit, and its subsidiary Pioneer, are

all named as defendants in the trustees Madoff lawsuit

which cites their ties to Ms Kohn. UniCredit said in a
statement in mid-December that its policy was not to
comment on litigation but that it intended to vigorously
defend itself against the accusations made against it and
its Bank Austria unit.
As if all this were not intricate enough, according to
Roman prosecutors cited in the Austrian weekly
newspaper, Profil, in March 2010, banks in Austria
including the Austrian branch of Anglo-Irish banks, Anglo
Austria, but also Bank Austria the UniCredit subsidiary
cited in the Madoff proceedings were used to launder
about two-billion Euro for the Italian mafia between 2005
and 2007.
In 2008 Sen Fitzpatrick sold Anglo Austria to a private
Swiss Bank, Valartis, a bank which tells no secrets but has
4000 clients with funds of around 1.25bn.
Extraordinarily, FitzPatrick even funded a loan for Valartis
of 24 out of the 141m purchase price with the sale
completing the day after FitzPatricks resignation from
Anglo. It was a surprising move at a time when Anglo had
liquidity (i.e. cash) problems. Anglo Austria was a rich
source of scarce deposit cash, up to 600m according to
the Sunday Business Posts Kathleen Barrington a
cheaper alternative to the contrived and fast-evaporating
interbank borrowings that Anglo had come to depend on,
particularly welcome just around the time Anglo was
performing its balance-sheet contortions with Irish Life and
Permanent. It is an issue of real concen that some of
Irelands developers or even bankers may have ploughed

dodgy assets into this inscrutable repository away from the

gaze of NAMA, trustees in bankruptcy, the office of
corporate enforcement and the rest. In another twist the
UniCredit subsidiary, Pioneer Investments, which has an
office in Dublin, owns a large number of Anglo-Irish bank
bonds. Pioneers Dublin office seems to be a colourful
operation. Village was told of a meeting arranged for
employees of Pioneer in Dublin with the papal nuncio to
Ireland, at which it appeared that a hierarchy, entirely
unrelated to the separate hierarchy in the bank,
determined the sequence in which baciamani (kisses)
were performed around the ecclesiastical ring.
On a more prosaic level, Italian media reports last year
suggested Roman prosecutors suspected certain Italian
taxpayers of using the Vatican bank, the Instituto per le
Opere die Religione (Institute for Religious Works) as a
cover for tax fraud and embezzlement. According to the
well-respected Italian newspaper, La Repubblica,
investigators discerned years ago that the Vatican bank
administered several accounts at other banks including
UniCredit. According to press releases, bank
investigations revealed that from 2006 to 2008 illegal
transactions were carried out totalling about 180 million.
In September 2009, the former President of the Vatican
Bank, Angelo Caloia, resigned after 20 years in office.
The last big scandal concerning the Vatican Bank was in
1982 when Banco Ambrosiano, in which it was the major
shareholder, went bankrupt. Banco Ambrosiano was
implicated in multiple fraud and its head, Roberto Calvi,
was found hanging from Blackfriars Bridge in London,

fuelling one of the subplots in the movie Godfather III.

One thing is for certain in an age where the banking
system is so interdependent and so fragile: the silence of
national regulators about dodgy banking practices is
unsustainable and dangerous. European regulators and
their US counterparts need to know what is going on with
UniCredit in Dublin and elsewhere. Germany needed to
know how DEPFA was being regulated in Ireland. Irish
taxpayers need to know who has funds in the former Anglo
Austria, and we could all do with enlightenment about the
recurring dodginess of the papal bank. In a world where
money can be transferred instantaneously, banking
systems are all interconnected. It is hopeless for national
regulators to narrow their horizons to protect their own
banks. Matthew Elderfield is doing no favours to EU
banking regulators, or to the worlds banking and
economic system, in being disingenuous about liquidity
breaches at the elusive UniCredit.
A year on: Irish bankers remain immune from prosecution
By added on 10/11/2009
Irish finance Minister Brian Lenihan has expressed frustration that a year after
the emergence of banking scandals that rocked the nation's economy and left
taxpayers with a bill for billions of euros in bail- out funds, not a single banker
has been prosecuted.
He says: "I am as frustrated as every citizen in this country that we are not
seeing bankers in jail yet. A huge investigation is underway. Hundreds of
statements have been taken and there is cooperation with the UK authorities.
We need results."
He has been challenged by Labour Party leader Eamon Gilmore over the
delay in bringing a case against errant bankers.
Gilmore points out that the scandals at the now-nationalised Anglo Irish Bank

emerged at the same time as crooked financier Bernie Madoff was arrested in
New York. Madoff has since been jailed for 150 years while not one Irish
prosecution has reached the courts.
Anglo Irish, which is covered by a 359bn state guarantee, has also cost
taxpayers 3.4bn in recapitalisation, with further billions likely to be required.
In a series of raids on the bank as part of investigations by the Irish Fraud
Squad and the director of corporate enforcement, more than two million
documents have been seized.
Investigations are focussed on loans adding up to 109.6m to the bank's
former chairman Sean Fitzpatrick over an eight-year period. These loans were
not disclosed to shareholders.
They also cover the movement of 6.6bn in deposits between the bank and
Irish Life & Permanent, which were used to bolster Anglo Irish's financial
position.
A loan of 404m to a so-called golden circle of investors which was used to
buy shares in the bank to maintain its market price is also being looked into.
Two developments have prompted calls for investigations to be speeded up.
One is a report that Fitzpatrick, whose investments have been hit by the
downturn, has stopped paying interest on his once-secret loan as he can no
longer afford to meet the monthly bill of almost 359,000.
Second, the Serious Fraud Office in the UK has launched an investigation into
transactions that occurred at the London office of Anglo Irish before the bank
was nationalised earlier this year.
It is not clear at this stage which transactions are being looked into although
Lenihan has been briefed, according to his officials.
But the minister has rejected calls to intervene to fast-track the Irish
investigation so as to bring about prosecutions.
He says: "I cannot interfere in the prosecution process any more than I can
ring up a local police station and tell them what they should do
http://villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2013/04/still-waiting-for-thetruth-from-the-regulator/

JONATHAN SUGARMAN - A
BANKER SPEAKS OUT
Whistleblower.IRL@gmail.com
Sunday, 28 November 2010

In Sept. 2007, fourteen months before Ireland's

bank bailout, I resigned from my position as the
Risk Manager of UniCredit Bank Ireland. I did that
in order not to incriminate myself. I have spent the
last 4 years seeking justice. On Feb. 23rd., 2010, I
was fortunate to have Senator David Norris raise
the matter in Seanad Eireann (the Irish Senate),

and request a response from the Minister of

Finance, Mr. Brian Lenihan. Senator Norris
concluded by stating that:
"...there is ministerial responsibility in this matter.
This is a grossly serious matter which has been
reported to the Financial Regulator. A man has lost
his job as a result. He honourably resigned. The
degree of breach was 40 times the accepted margin.
This is a disaster. If we are not prepared to
face the issue and investigate it when it has
been laid before the House, there is
absolutely no hope for the financial system
or its reputation worldwide...How can the
Financial Regulator investigate himself? He
was in breach of his responsibility."
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2010/02/23/0
0012.asp
In Nov. 2011, Emma Alberici, Europe
correspondent for ABC TV, told my story as part of
her documentary 'Going Rogue' which featured Nick
Leeson and Sir John Vickers among other
interviewees. It is ironic that at a time when the
Irish tax-payer is bailing out un-secured bond
holders, my story which occurred in Dublin, is
deemed of interest to the Australian TV license
payer. Please click on 'play video' on the following
link:
http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2011/s336
7080.htm
VRT, Belgian state-TV, aired this interview with me on
March 6th., 2013. My Interview begins in minute 27:

Het verdriet van Europa: Zeepbellen blazen (The

sadness of Europe: Bursting bubbles)

http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/videozone
/programmas/hetverdrietvaneuropa/2.27204
VRT, Belgian state-TV, released extra footage of my

interview on March 8th., 2013. (in English):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKmr2u2P4OE

Open Letter to Deputy Joan

Burton
Dear Deputy J. Burton,
I am most grateful to you for raising this issue in the Dil
(Parliament) on Thursday last week (Nov. 25th 2010).
I welcomed your assistants invite to comment on the reply
you received from the Minister of Finance, Mr. Brian
Lenihan.
In view of the turbulent events of the last ten days, I firmly
believe that now, more than ever before, it is in the
publics interest to be made aware of this affair. I have
therefore decided to reply to your assistants request in
this open and public platform of the internet.
For the benefit of the readers, I have begun by quoting
your question in the Dil and the ministers reply to it.
Following that, I have parsed the ministers reply (orange
font) and inserted my comments (white font).
I trust that my comments will assist you in your quest to
reveal the facts of the matter. It is in all our interests that

the whole truth of this affair should come to light as soon

as possible.
Should I be of any further assistance to you, please contact
me so that we can arrange to meet again.
Yours sincerely,
Whistleblower.Irl@gmail.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DIL QUESTION
[http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2010/11/25/00090.asp]
NO 86
To ask the Minister for Finance if his attention has been drawn
to reports (details supplied) of major breaches of financial
regulations in respect of liquidity requirements by a significant
financial institution in the International Financial Services
Centre; the actions he has taken on foot of these reports; if he
has discussed these reports with the Financial Regulator, the
Central Bank Governor, the Office of the Director of Corporate
Enforcement or any other relevant authority; if a full
investigation has been carried out, or is ongoing, to ascertain the
veracity of these reports; if he envisages the introduction of new
legislation, regulations or enforcement measures to ensure that
breaches of this nature do not take place in the future; and if he
will make a statement on the matter.
Joan Burton.
For WRITTEN answer on Thursday, 25th November, 2010.
Ref No: 44557/10

Senator David Norris, Seanad Eireann Debate on

Financial Regulation, 23rd February,
2010; http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2010/02/2
3/00012.asp
Fintan O'Toole, Irish Times, 3rd April 2010;
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/20
10/0403/1224267604942.html
Martin Hesse, Sddeutsche Zeitung, 23rd April
2010;
Kathleen Barrington, Sunday Business Post, 16th
May 2010;
http://www.thepost.ie/story/eysncwauoj/
REPLY
Minister for Finance ( Mr Lenihan) :
The Deputy may
wish to note that the supervision and oversight of liquidity
requirements for credit institutions is a regulatory matter for the
Central Bank of Ireland. The Central Bank of Ireland is subject
to strict confidentiality requirements under the EU Supervisory
Directives and consequently does not share information on
specific regulatory issues with my Department unless the issue
gives rise, for example, to some broader financial stability issue
in respect of which the Minister should be informed.
These circumstances did not arise in this instance. However, in
response to the Deputys question my Department has been
informed by the Central Bank of Ireland that an overnight
liquidity breach was reported by an institution at the time
referred to in the reports enclosed with the Deputys question.

The Central Bank followed up on this liquidity breach with the

institution, which rectified the position to the satisfaction of the
Central Bank at the time. The Central Bank also required an
external review of liquidity reports submitted to it and the
related control environment. This review did not identify
material issues relating to breaches of the required liquidity
ratios, other than on the date highlighted by the institution.
The Central Bank imposes liquidity risk management
requirements on all credit institutions. These are set out in
Requirements for the Management of Liquidity Risk, which
are available to download from www.financialregulator.ie.
Compliance with these requirements is monitored by a
combination of on-site and off-site review and inspections. All
credit institutions are required to complete an annual internal
audit review and submit this report to the Central Bank on
compliance with the Requirements. In addition, Section 47 of
the Central Bank Act, 1989, provides that where a credit
institution's external auditor has reason to believe there are
material defects in the financial systems and controls or
accounting records of an institution or has reason to believe that
there are material inaccuracies in or omissions from any returns
of a financial nature submitted to the Central Bank, they are
required to notify the Central Bank without delay.
The Central Bank of Ireland has confirmed that this matter has
now been fully investigated and the Central Bank is satisfied
that all liquidity risk management requirements have been
complied with and appropriate steps necessary to prevent any
recurrence of this issue have now been taken by the institution
concerned.

MYCOMMENTSTOMINISTERLENIHANSREPLY
Minister for Finance ( Mr Lenihan) :
The Deputy may
wish to note that the supervision and oversight of liquidity
requirements for credit institutions is a regulatory matter
for the Central Bank of Ireland. The Central Bank of
Ireland is subject to strict confidentiality requirements
under the EU Supervisory Directives and consequently does
not share information on specific regulatory issues with my
Department unless the issue gives rise, for example, to some
broader financial stability issue in respect of which the
Minister should be informed.

Firstly,theMinisteriscorrectincitingconfidentiality
requirementsimposedontheactionstakenbythe
CentralBankofIreland.However,confidentiality
doesnotapplytothemannerinwhichtheCentral
BankfulfilsitspurposeunderIrishlaw.Theprompt
departureofGovernorNearyfromofficeisan
exampleofthat.
Secondly,accordingtotheRegulatorsown
regulation,amaterialityofabreachisdefinedas:
4.3Materiality
Creditinstitutionsmayapplyamaterialitytestto
cashflows.TheFinancialRegulatorproposesto
adoptamaterialitybenchmarkof1percentofthe
gapratioineachtimeband.
ThebreachreportedtotheRegulatorexceededthe
Regulatorsownbenchmarkby1900%(onethousand

andninehundredpercent),andamountedtobillions
ofEuro.GiventheStatesrecentrequestsforECB&
IMFfundingonaccountofliquiditydeficiencies
throughouttheentireIrishbankingsystem,canthe
Ministerconfirmthathisofficewasnotifiedofthis
breachatthetimethatitoccurred?CantheMinister
pleaseadvisetheHousewhatscaleofbreachwould
hedeemtobeofsignificancetobroaderfinancial
stability?
These circumstances did not arise in this instance.
IstheMinistersatisfiedthatbreachesofthismagnitude,which
amountedtobillionsofEurointhiscase,shouldnothavebeen
broughttotheimmediateattentionoftheMinister?Onwhat
basiswastheregulatorabletoascertainthatThese
circumstancesdidnotariseinthisinstance.?
InhisresponsetoSenatorsNorrisaddresstotheSeanadon23
Feb.thisyear,MinisterLenihanstatedthatTheFinancial
Regulatormaintainsclosecommunicationwiththeregulatorsof
othermemberstatesforthispurpose.Giventhisstatementand
theincomprehensiblemagnitudeofthebreachwhichwas
reportedtotheRegulatorinlateJulyorearlyAugust2007
accordingtoSenatorNorrisstatement,cantheMinisterconfirm
thattherelevantEuropeanregulatorwasindeednotifiedofthe
liquiditybreachattheoffendingbank?Nodoubt,itwouldhave
beenintheinterestofallpartiesconcernedtoensurethatboth
theparentcompanyanditscorrespondingregulatorwouldhave
beeninformedofthisbreach.

IftherelevantEuropeanregulatorwasnotifiedofthisbreach,
whatwashisresponse?Isthereanylegalimpedimentforthe
MinistertoinformtheHousewhatweretheconsequencesofthe

communicationwiththerelevantRegulator?

Ontheotherhand,if,incontrasttotheMinistersstatement
above,therelevantEuropeanregulatorwasnotnotifiedabout
thismajorbreachatthebankinquestion,cantheMinister
explainthereasonforbreakingwithhisstatedpolicy?

However, in response to the Deputys question my

Department has been informed by the Central Bank of
Ireland that an overnight liquidity breach was reported by
an institution at the time referred to in the reports enclosed
with the Deputys question. The Central Bank followed up
on this liquidity breach with the institution, which rectified
the position to the satisfaction of the Central Bank at the
time.
Whistleblower,whosepositionastheoffendingbanksRisk
ManagerhadbeenratifiedbythebanksboardofDirectors,
attendedtheofficeforatleastsixweeksafterhenotifiedthe
Regulatorofsaidbreach.Apartfortheacknowledgementofthe
letterhehandedtoRegulatorsofficeinforminghimofthe
breach,nofurthercommunicationwasreceivedfromthe
Regulatorsofficeduringthissixweeksperiod.CantheCentral
Bankadviseinwhatwayhehadfolloweduponthisliquidity
breach?

An elementary aspect of financial risk management is the

practice of daily liquidity forecasting. According to the
Regulators own directive it is essential that both the
qualitativeandquantitativeliquidityrequirementsaremeton
anongoingbasis.(Section1.4). DoestheMinisternotfindit

puzzling that a breach of such magnitude could occur over

night.InwhatwaywasTheRegulatorabletoascertainthatthis
breach was not the culmination of an unmonitored or un
reported deteriorating liquidity situation? How was the
Regulator able to confirm that the offending bank was
immediatelyabletorectifythesituation?

The Regulators liquidity management requirements also

stipulate that Each credit institution must have a
managementinformationsystemthatisadequatetomeasure,
monitor, control and report liquidity risk considering the
nature,sizeandcomplexityofthecreditinstitution.(Section
3.4) HowwastheCentralBankabletosatisfyitselfthatthe
flagrantbreachofwhichitwasnotifiedwasnotanindicationof
a continuous malfunctioning of the banks Management
InformationSystems(MIS)?

CantheMinistershedsomelightontheinvolvementofthe
LondonbasedITconsultancywhichwasbroughtintothebank
toreviewitsMISaccordingtoSenatorNorris?Asthereis
writtenproofofthiscompanysalarmingopinionofthisMIS
system,andgiventhatthiscompanywas,andhasbeen,putin
chargeofsimilarsystemsinIrishbanksthathavesincethen
beenguaranteed/nationalisedbythestate,istheMinisterofthe
opinionthatthisITcompanysimplygotitwronginthecaseof
thebankatwhichWhistleblowerworked?
The Central Bank also required an external review of
liquidity reports submitted to it and the related control
environment. This review did not identify material issues
relating to breaches of the required liquidity ratios, other
than on the date highlighted by the institution.
CantheMinisterpleaseinformtheHousewhocarriedoutthe

externalreview?Whatwerethefindingsoftheexternalreview?
AsSenatorNorrisstated,thesignificantliquiditybreaches
continuedonaregularbasisafterthe20%breachhadbeen
reportedtotheRegulator.SenatorNorrisalsomentionedhaving
metaseniorbankingexecutivewhoattestedtoWhistleblowers
accountofevents.Therefore,howdoestheMinisterexplainthe
absenceofanyfurtherfindingsbythisexternalreview?
The Central Bank imposes liquidity risk management
requirements on all credit institutions. These are set out in
Requirements for the Management of Liquidity Risk,
which are available to download from
www.financialregulator.ie.
Wehaveindeeddownloadedtherelevantdocumentsfromthe
Regulatorswebsite.

RequirementsfortheManagementofLiquidityRisk,
June2006:
http://www.centralbank.ie/regulation/industry
sectors/creditinstitutions/supervisory
disclosures/Documents/Requirements%20for
%20Management%20Liquidity%20Risk.pdf
Settlement Agreement between the Central Bank of Ireland
and Ulster Bank ... Regulatory Document) ... the
Management of Liquidity Risk (June 2009

https://www.centralbank.ie/publications/Documents/U
lster%20Bank%20Ireland%20Limited%20Final
%20Publicity%20Statement.pdf
RequirementsfortheManagementofLiquidityRisk,

June2009:
http://www.centralbank.ie/regulation/industrysectors/credit-institutions/Documents/Requirements
%20for%20management%20liquidity%20risk
%20June%202009%20Final.pdf
http://whistleblowerirl.blogspot.ie/2010/11/openletterto
deputyjoanburton.html

Verkauf der Anglo Irish Austria und

Geldwscheverdacht
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXIV/J/J_0
7340/fname_203668.pdf
CantheMinisterpleaseexplainwhytheliquidityrequirements
documentissuedinJune2009referstothealreadyexisting
liquidityregulationsasnewinsection1.3,despitethefactthat
theyhadalreadybeenpublishedin2006?Howdoesthe
Ministerexplainthefactthatthelegalbasis(section1)inthe
2009makesreferencetoCentralBankActsdatingasfarbackas
1942,butyetnowhereinthisentiredocumentistherea
referencetothe2006document?HowdoestheMinisterexplain
thedisappearanceofSection9.4Implementationfromthe
2009document?DidtheFinancialRegulatorretractthe2006
requirements?Ifso,whendidhedoso?

BothdocumentsincludeSection10Penalties.Thissection
statesthat:
...Inparticular,section58oftheCentralBankActof1971,
whichreferstoOffencesandpunishments,asamendedbythe
substitutionofsection9oftheCentralBankAct,1989,states

thataholderofalicencewhocommitsbyactoromissiona
breachofaconditiondulyimposedandwhichrelatestoa
licenceshallbeguiltyofanoffenceandshallbeliable
(i) onsummaryconviction,toafinenotexceeding1,000
or,atthediscretionofthecourt,toimprisonmentforaterm
notexceeding12months,ortoboth,or
(ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding
50,000or,atthediscretionofthecourt,toimprisonmentfor
atermnotexceeding5years,ortoboth,
....Section60ofthe1971Actcontainsanextensionofthe
offendingprovisions.Thisstates:Whereanoffenceunder
thisActiscommittedbyabodycorporateorbyaperson
purportingtoactonbehalfofabodycorporateoran
unincorporatedbodyofpersonsandisprovedtohavebeenso
committedwiththeconsentorapprovalof,ortohavebeen
facilitatedbyanywilfulneglectonthepartof,anydirector,
manager,secretary,memberofanycommitteeofmanagement
orothercontrollingauthorityofsuchbodyorofficialofsuch
body,suchpersonshallalsobeguiltyoftheoffence.

In Minister Lenihans response to Senator Norris which was

read out by Deputy Brady on 23 February 2010, Minister
LenihanstatedthatBreachesofliquidityrequirementsmaybe
subject to proceedings under the Financial Regulators
administrativesanctionsprocedureortoprosecution.

InviewofMinistersstatementintheSeanadandthe
regulationsandbankingactscitedbytheRegulator,canthe
Ministerexplainhowandwhywasitdeterminedthatno
administrativesanctionproceduresorprosecutionsweretobe

initiatedinthecaseofthebankwhereWhistleblowerhad
worked?

InviewofthewelldocumentedcollapseofHypoRealEstatein
GermanyduetothefailingofDepfaitsIrishsubsidiary,and
therepeatedcashinjectionsofIrishtaxpayersmoneybythe
MinistersgovernmentintoIrishbanksonaccountoftheir
failuretomeetliquidityrequirements,cantheMinisterinform
theHousehowmanycasesofadministrativesanctionsand/or
prosecutionshavebeeninitiatedagainstbanksandtheir
executivesinIreland?

CantheMinisterinformtheHousehowmanyincidentsof
liquiditybreacheshavebeenrecordedbytheRegulatorwhich
havenotresultedinsanctions?(Alawunenforcedisalaw
ignored.)CanMinisterstatehowmanyinstitutionsbreached
liquidityrequirementssincehecametooffice?whatwasthe
averagepercentageofthedeviationofthesebreachesfromthe
minimumthresholdrequiredbytheRegulator?Whatwasthe
averageamountofthesebreaches?CantheMinisterdescribe
whatfactorshaveinfluencedtheRegulatorsdecisionnotto
prosecute?

Compliance with these requirements is monitored by a

combination of on-site and off-site review and inspections.
AstheMinisterhasmadeinquirieswiththeCentralBankafter
receivingthisquestionlastweek,hewouldnodoubtbeableto
informtheHousewhentheonsiteandoffsitereviewsand
inspectionsweredonein2007atthebankinwhich
Whistleblowerworked.CantheMinisterpleaseinformthe

Houseofthedatesoftheseinspectionsandtheirsubsequent
findings?

All credit institutions are required to complete an annual

internal audit review and submit this report to the Central
Bank on compliance with the Requirements. In addition,
Section 47 of the Central Bank Act, 1989, provides that
where a credit institution's external auditor has reason to
believe there are material defects in the financial systems
and controls or accounting records of an institution or has
reason to believe that there are material inaccuracies in or
omissions from any returns of a financial nature submitted
to the Central Bank, they are required to notify the Central
Bank without delay.
CantheMinisterinformtheHouseif/whendidexternalauditors
actinaccordancewithSection47oftheCentralBankAct,1989
inrelationtoanyoftheIrishbanksthatwerecoveredbythe
stateguaranteewhichwasintroducedinSeptember2008?

InrelationtothebankatwhichWhistleblowerworked,howwas
theCentralBankabletoconfirmthatboththebanksinternal
auditors,anditsexternalauditors,havebeenconformingtothe
CentralBankActscitedabove?

The Central Bank of Ireland has confirmed that this matter

has now been fully investigated and the Central Bank is
satisfied that all liquidity risk management requirements
have been complied with and appropriate steps necessary to
prevent any recurrence of this issue have now been taken by
the institution concerned.

Giventheabovestatementthatthismatterhasnowbeenfully
investigatedandtheCentralBankissatisfiedetc,canthe
Ministerexplainwhythespecificandsevereallegationsraised
bySenatorNorrisninemonthsagohavenotbeenaddressedby
theMinisterattheDail(parliament),ortheSeanad(Senate)
sincethen?AtatimewhenIrelandhasbeenbattlingtodefend
itsbeleagueredreputationinthefinancialmarketstheworld
over,thissilencehasillservedthenationsbestinterests.

ItissomewhatpuzzlingthattheMinisterwasablesetasidetime
inhisextremelybusyscheduletowriteanarticlefortheEnglish
FinancialTimeslastThursday,anarticleinwhichhe
acknowledgedthedamagedonetoIrelandsreputationunder
thisgovernment,butyetatnopointintimeoverthelastnine
monthsdidhetroublehimselftosettherecordstraight
regardingthis1,900%breachofbankinglawwhichwas
recordedonthepagesoftheIrishSenate.

we should fire the whole gang. As you are surely aware we need to
dispose of all our parasitic law makers from the on high top down to
the janitors. Words cannot describe the useless individuals that
occupy our houses of government. Surely a 12 year old could
surpass the brain power or lack thereof of these useless political
demagogues whose only ambition is to be reelected. Fire em all and
start all over again.

Ireland Exits Bailout

Program, But Economy
Still On The Mend
December 15, 2013

Ireland was one of the countries hardest hit by

Europe's debt crisis. On Sunday, it passed a big
milestone when the nation became the first country to
formally exit the bailout program funded by the
International Monetary Fund and the European Union.
After three years of the bailout program, it isn't hard to
find signs of improvement in Ireland and of an
economy coming back from the dead.
"Don't get me wrong, it's been bad in a lot of ways, but
there's a silver lining in every cloud," says Conor
Mulhall, a 41-year-old father of three.
Mulhall used to be in construction management. After
the collapse of the Irish economy, he moved to
England. But recently, he moved back to Ireland to

take a job managing another business.

"It brings you to new stages in your life," Mulhall says.
"I'm now involved in the organic food business, so I
never would have been if the construction thing had
kept going, and there's a lot of people like me."
Mulhall is working at a food fair near Dublin's financial
district.
These days, people like him are beginning to find work
again. Ireland's unemployment rate has fallen from
more than 15 percent to 12.5 percent. The economy is
growing again, albeit slowly.
"We're still below where we were at the top of our
inflated boom, so we need 10 years of solid growth, but
we'll do it year by year," says Michael Noonan,
Ireland's finance minister.
Noonan says big foreign companies, including a lot of
U.S. tech firms like Google, are once again investing in
Ireland. The government can also borrow at a rate not
much higher than countries like England and Belgium.
Tourism and agriculture are rebounding as well.
Noonan says the exit from the European bailout
program is one more step forward. The program forced
the country to undergo steep budget cuts and tax
increases in exchange for loans.
"Leaving the program means we control our own
affairs," he says. "And an Irish government elected by
the Irish people can make all future decisions
concerning our country."
But there's little joy in Ireland over the exit, perhaps
because the country still has a long way to go. The
economic crisis was caused by a property bubble that
popped in 2008, and the severe budget cuts that
followed left the government with few resources to
help.
"If you walk around the main streets of our cities, there

are people sleeping in the streets because the homeless

shelters are all crowded," says Robin Hanan, who
directs the Irish branch of the European Anti-Poverty
Network. "A lot of people lost their jobs and their
houses."
Even though things are getting better, economist Colm
McCarthy of University College Dublin says the
recovery is tentative.
"It's very fragile, and the economy is very dependent on
external demand; it's a very small country," McCarthy
says. "It exports a lot of what's produced here, and a lot
of what's consumed is imported."
McCarthy says Ireland's fate is very much up to its
export markets mainly England, the United States
and continental Europe and none of them are
thriving. There are other problems as well.
For a long time, Ireland was able to draw foreign
investment because wages were so low. But now it has
to compete with countries like Spain and Greece,
where pay has also fallen. McCarthy says there's still an
army of former construction workers in Ireland, and
they're not likely to find work at Google.
Jimmy Burke came back to Ireland from Australia at
the height of the recession. He says jobs were scarce.
"So I got bar work when I came back," Burke says.
"People are always going to drink, but manufacturing
and stuff, there was no jobs left in that anymore."
He is now studying at the University of Limerick. Like
generations before him, he'll probably leave Ireland
once he graduates.
"If you go to Scandinavia or Canada, there [are] better
prospects to get more experience, rather than just a job
in the first place," he says.
Ireland needs to have a serious discussion about how
to address unemployment and other problems, says
Hanan of the European Anti-Poverty Network. If

nothing else, he says, the exit from the bailout program

will allow that to happen.
"Now we can have that debate openly with people who
might disagree with us, who might have other
priorities, without anyone saying, 'Well, sorry, you
can't do that because the people lending us the money
won't let us,' " Hanan says.
In that sense, he hopes Sunday's move could usher in
an era of real change in Ireland.
"Ireland's Economic Crisis The Good, the Bad and the
Ugly" Paper presented at Bank of Greece conference on
the Euro Crisis, Athens May 24, 2013

http://www.karlwhelan.com/Papers/
Whelan-IrelandPaper-June2013.pdf
International Comparisons of GDP
per Capital and per Hour, 1960
2011
http://www.bls.gov/ilc/intl_gdp_capit
a_gdp_hour.pdf
IRELAND ADDRESS BY MR BRIAN
COWEN T.D. MINISTER FOR
HEALTH AND CHILDREN IRELAND
http://www.un.org/popin/unpopcom/
32ndsess/gass/state/ireland.pdf
Barings Bank had survived all that more than two centuries had
thrown at it. The Industrial Revolution, World Wars, even the Great
Depression. Then along came one audacious 20-something called
Nick Leeson and the whole venerable, rock-solid British financial
institution came tumbling down.
I didnt know that the bank was going to collapse. I didnt know
what the capital base of the bank was. I wasnt really interested as

long as the money kept coming I knew the effect of my actions

would be dramatic. I didnt really understand they would be quite
as catastrophic as they were. NICK LEESON Rogue Trader
Trading futures in Singapore, Leeson blew more than a billion
dollars. Barings closed its doors and Leeson went to jail. All these
years on, with super-sophisticated systems monitoring the traders
and their every deal, what are the chances of it happening again? If
youd asked Nick Leeson in recent years he would have told you
extremely remote.
And yet just a couple of months ago, as Europe rocked and reeled in
a financial crisis thats also shaking the rest of the world, another
rogue trader was nabbed. Kweku Adoboli a trader at the giant
European bank UBS was arrested and accused of burning 2.3
billion dollars.
How could it possibly happen?
Europe Correspondent Emma Alberici has assembled a stellar cast
of famous and infamous financial luminaries to investigate if rogue
traders are really reckless loners or simply individuals pushed to
extremes by a reckless and unruly financial sector. What can their
behavior tell us about Wall St Investment Banking and the Global
Financial Crisis, the crises and collapses in Ireland, Iceland and
elsewhere.
Emma Alberici meets a former insider who speaking for the first
time - alleges major criminal activity in some of Europes top banks
and who says the regulators are asleep at the wheel.
We also hear from a trader-turned-neuro scientist whose research
reveals that testosterone is a major motivator of extreme financial
plays and levels of the hormone can make a millions dollars
difference to annual salaries and bonuses.
__________________________________

Transcript
ALBERICI: Theyre the bad boys of high finance, burning millions,
sometimes billions of dollars. But given the recklessness of banks,
and their central role in the economic crisis gripping Europe and
sending shockwaves around the world, are rogue traders maverick
loners, or just a product of a high rolling culture out of control?
So much of what happens on Wall Street is felt across the globe.
Investors take their lead from this financial hub, now people angry
about banks and bankers are doing the same. The Occupy

movement has spread to London, to Rome and here to downtown

Dublin.
Jonathan Sugarman isnt the kind of person you expect to meet at a
rally against economic inequality. After all he was a big city banker,
the very breed of 21st century capitalist whos brought thousands of
people onto the streets all over the world. But this insider is now as
appalled as anyone here about a system thats making the poor pay
for the mistakes of the rich.
JONATHAN SUGARMAN: You have hospital wards shutting down,
you have schools shutting down, you have public services that are
now being curtailed because theres no money. The moneys gone to
the banks. Your money, my money everyones money has gone to
the banks. What we need is for the regulation that exists to be
enforced.
ALBERICI: Jonathan Sugarman has never spoken publicly about his
experiences until now. In 2007 he became a very senior executive
at UniCredit, Italys biggest bank one of the top five banks in
Europe. He was the head of risk management in Ireland.
JONATHAN SUGARMAN: At the bank we have a license to operate
as a bank which is very much like a driving license. It says this is
the speed you can go, this is what you can do and you have to
operate within these limits and it was my job to make sure that that
was done every day.
ALBERICI: Jonathan Sugarman monitored the back office, the
people responsible for checking the trades and the traders out front.
He soon realised the numbers werent adding up. He suspected his
bank was breaching strict rules over how much cash and assets its
required to hold in reserve.
JONATHAN SUGARMAN: And I insisted that we notify the regulator
immediately which is precisely what we are required under the
terms of our license and under Irish law to do.
ALBERICI: How certain are you that UniCredit broke the law while
you were there?
JONATHAN SUGARMAN: A hundred per cent certain and to use the
Irish expression, to be sure, to be sure that is why I brought in this
London based IT company which had a very good reputation in
Dublin and the result was pretty horrific because whereas the
breach that Id reported to the regulator was a breach of twenty per
cent, whereas the permissible deviation was one per cent, they rang

me up one evening soon after they tied into our systems, linked into
our systems and said your breach is actually forty per cent.
ALBERICI: When he raised the alarm with his chief executive, the
response was dismissive. It was a systems error. The risk manager
was instructed to continue approving the deals. Jonathan Sugarman
was in the thick of a reckless banking culture that was on a collision
course with disaster.
JONATHAN SUGARMAN: Well on the days that the system threw up
these figures that I was told were incorrect we would sign to say oh
this is a system error and were confident that everythings all right,
and just carry on as we did before. Never notified anyone. So when
you think of the fact that when Nick Leeson brought down Barings
Bank, it collapsed over eight hundred million pounds, I was signing
over five billion every day that we didnt have.
NICK LEESON: Understanding the dictionary definition of the word
and the fact that I spent four and a half years in prison I am a
criminal. I always knew what I was doing was wrong and did I think
it was criminal from inception? Absolutely not.
ALBERICI: Its been sixteen years since Nick Leeson single-handedly
brought down Britains oldest bank, Barings. It was such a
spectacular, audacious outrageous act of financial skulduggery,
Hollywood made a movie about it.
NICK LEESON: I mean success was the thing that I always wanted
and you know conversely my biggest fear was to feel a failure and
the fear of failure was probably the one thing that I couldnt
countenance so putting my hand up and saying look theres this
error that I should have closed yesterday but I ran it into another
day and therefore made the problem even worse, was the thing that
I couldnt do.
ALBERICI: The bank was two hundred and thirty three years old. It
had survived wars and the Great Depression, yet it took just one
upstart twenty-five year old futures trader to knock it over.
NICK LEESON: Firstly I didnt know that the bank was going to
collapse. I didnt know what the capital base of the bank was and
wasnt really interested as long as the money kept coming and so
you know I knew the effect of my actions would be dramatic, I
didnt really understand they would be quite as catastrophic as they
were.
ALBERICI: Before Leeson became a trader for Barings in Singapore,

he was a back room bookkeeper in London. He knew how to work

the system, keeping his losses out of sight in a secret fund. He was
so good at covering his tracks, Barings thought he was making
them millions and sent him more and more money to play with. It
took the bank three years to wake up. By then it was way too late.
NICK LEESON: I didnt enjoy a moment of it .You know there was
always the fear that what was happening was going to be exposed
and that was always my greatest fear because that would have
highlighted my incompetence and negligence and failure to
everybody around me and that was the one thing that I didnt want
to happen.
ALBERICI: Did you ever stop in that time to think that actually
some one individual or bunch of individuals were actually losing that
money that you were hiding in that account? That that was
someone or some institutions money?
NICK LEESON: Um no I dont think you do.
ALBERICI: Nick Leeson was convicted of fraud and spent four years
in a Singaporean gaol. He was released in 1999 and returned to
make a new life for himself in Ireland.
NICK LEESON: When I first came back from Singapore in 1999 I
used to... I was regularly asked you know do you think this can
happen again and I know my answer was always no and the reason
why it was no was... I know how incompetent and negligent I was. I
know how incompetent and negligent the bank was. I know how
bad the auditors were. I know how bad the regulators were. I know
how bad the central bank was at the time and I just believed that if
you tried to build the probability of all that happening together at
the same time in the future, the possibilities were extremely
remote.
NEWS REPORT: [September 16, 2011] London police have arrested
a potential rogue trader who could have cost the Swiss Banking
Group UBS an estimated two billion dollars.
ALBERICI: The possibilities of it happening again were not so
remote at all. Just months ago, thirty-one year old Kweku Adoboli
became the latest trader accused of being a rogue. Based in London
at the giant Swiss Bank UBS, he was in charge of the Delta 1 desk
which traded complex financial products.
OLIVER METZNER: I dont think there are rogue traders without
rogue banks. That is to say, its only possible if the banks want it to

be possible.
ALBERICI: Despite the technological advances since Nick Leesons
days in Singapore, sophisticated systems monitoring traders and
their activities and claims by the banks themselves that theyre
vigilant, its alleged Kweku Adoboli did them blind. His so-called
rogue trading started in 2008 at the height of the global financial
crisis and around the same time the Swiss taxpayer was forking out
six billion dollars to rescue UBS from the brink of bankruptcy.
OLIVER METZNER: The crisis of 2007-2008 led to conferences and
debates where we said wed do this and that, and nothings been
done nothings been done.
ALBERICI: Oliver Metzner is one of the worlds most sought after
criminal defence lawyers. His client Jerome Kerviel is appealing a
conviction for rogue trading at French Bank, Socit Gnrale. Hes
said to have gambled away six and a half billion dollars the
biggest trading loss in history. Just like the UBS scandal, Kerviel was
working on the Delta 1 desk where he invented buyers and sellers
and created phantom deals to hide his losses.
OLIVER METZNER: Is it normal that banks bosses who lead their
banks to bankruptcy dont get punished for it? There are real
problems and indeed it is difficult for the average French person to
understand why sometimes we focus on a Jerome Kerviel a Nick
Leeson and not on the banks themselves.
ALBERICI: Here at the Palace of Justice in Paris, Jerome Kerviel
admitted that hed made big mistakes that almost brought down
one of Frances biggest banks. But he wasnt about to take all the
blame for what his legal team described as a rotten culture that
encouraged excessive risk taking, celebrating traders when the
markets were up, only to isolate them when their bets turned bad.
In this courtroom drama, calling Jerome Kerviel a rogue trader
allowed the bank to cast itself as the victim.
JEROME KERVIEL: I take my share of responsibility. I wish that the
others take theirs. Its the system, not me that set it up. Everyone
took advantage, and I dont want to take full blame. Everything was
checked and seen in the Socit Gnrale computer system.
ALBERICI: Like Nick Leeson, before becoming a player himself,
Jerome Kerviel spent years in the banks back office, recording
trades and monitoring the traders.
HUGUES LE BRET: Because he did spend a lot of time in control

teams so he did know very well the controls so he knew well how to
avoid the controls and to hide the position and to lie to people from
controls when they ask questions.
ALBERICI: Hugues Le Bret was an executive director at Socit
Gnrale when Jerome Kerviel was caught.
Was it the culture within the bank that inspired, encouraged
excessive risk taking?
HUGUES LE BRET: Thats what Kerviels saying. I dont think the
culture was to take excessive risks but I think the culture was to
make more and more money in this.....
ALBERICI: By taking more and more risk?
HUGUES LE BRET: By taking more positions, inventing new
products, developing new activities the activity of Kerviel was
quite new, it was invented a few years ago, a few years before, so
we certainly have in trading rooms, a greed culture.
ALBERICI: Greed?
HUGUES LE BRET: Greed, yeah where people want to make more
money, to have higher bonuses.
JOHN COATES: I think the biggest bonus I heard of in the banking
system was about.... I think it was close to two hundred million.
ALBERICI: For one years work?
JOHN COATES: Yeah.
ALBERICI: Theres very little in the way of reliable science behind
what money market traders do but science might help explain how
they behave.
JOHN COATES: During the dot com bubble I noticed the behaviour
of traders change, it changed very noticeably. Theyre normally
quite a prudent lot, you know yuppies with a family, but during the
dot com bubble a lot of them, both on the trading floor and all along
Wall Street became euphoric, delusional.... they had racing
thoughts, diminished need for sleep. They were taking far more risk
than they used to. The risk was... had terrible risk reward trade offs
and they seemed hornier than usual given the amount of
pornography on their computer screen back in the days when you
could have porn on your computer screens. I was only later to find

out that these were clinical symptoms of mania.

ALBERICI: John Coates spent twelve years on Wall Street, running
his own derivatives trading desks at Goldman Sacks and at
Deutsche Bank. He gave it all up to pursue a PhD at Cambridge. His
speciality? Neuro economics.
JOHN COATES: The other thing I noticed at the time was that
women were relatively immune to the behaviour I was seeing in the
traders so I was seeing this irrational exuberance. I thought it was
chemical. It wasnt really happening with women so there was sort
of an obvious candidate for what that chemical may be and thats
how I began doing research on testosterone.
ALBERICI: In the first study of its kind in the world, John Coates
took salvia samples in a dealing room, matching the change in a
traders natural steroids with their profit and loss profile. His
research took into account the risks they were taking and volatility
in the market.
JOHN COATES: What we found was that when the traders
testosterone levels were high in the morning, they made a lot more
money in the afternoon then they did on days when their
testosterone levels were low in the morning. And it was a very
powerful effect. This was huge. I mean this was, this effect if you
annualised it, would have added up to about a million pounds
difference in their pocket at the end of the year.
ALBERICI: It may be just one factor among many driving traders
but what we do know from recent and current crises, the culture of
risk within banks and by banks is a very powerful and very
destructive force and no one seemed to know when risk becomes
recklessness.
JOHN COATES: What turned out during the housing bubble was
that everybody was just taking huge risk. Everybody looked like a
hero and then when it blew up, everybody lost more money than
theyd made in the past five years but they didnt have to give back
their bonuses. If theyd been assessed over a five year period I
dont think they would have been taking as much risk as they were.
SIR JOHN VICKERS: If you do have a situation where people
believe theres no way the bank can go under - maybe because the
government taxpayers standing behind it - that encourages... its
almost a license... for all sorts of risk taking which ought to be
properly disciplined by the market place.

ALBERICI: In Britain Sir John Vickers has been trying to figure out
how to protect the wider community from the rack and ruin of
mischievous banking practices. Sir John is the warden of All Souls
College at Oxford University. He was the former Chief Economist at
the Bank of England and recently headed up an independent
government review that recommended separating prudent
traditional banking from the risky business of investment banking.
SIR JOHN VICKERS: The principles behind that in a way are to say
the simple deposit taking, lending to individuals and small
businesses through overdrafts and other ways, that happens in the
ring fenced bank. If people want to do the sophisticated stuff, the
complicated things, the international things, thats fine, thats up to
them - but weve got to have a structure where theres no way that
the taxpayer can be dragged into back stopping that if the risks go
bad.
ALBERICI: But over in Ireland whistleblowers like Jonathan
Sugarman dont have a lot of faith in regulators and their rules.
Why did you leave Uni Credit?
JONATHAN SUGARMAN: Because we were breaking the law and it
was my name on the reports day in, day out. So under the eyes of
the law, Im the person responsible to make sure that we kept
within our speed limit. And we went way beyond our speed limits on
several occasions and the law is very clear, I could face five years in
prison for doing that. And I just didnt want to go to prison.
ALBERICI: He rang the alarm that his bank was in serious breach of
liquidity rules but the reaction has been painfully slow and
inconclusive.
Theres been outrage in parliament.... but four years on, even after
Ireland was taken to the wall by aggressive, unsustainable banking,
the Irish Central Bank says its still looking into Sugarmans claims.
And what did the police, the financial regulator, what did they do?
JONATHAN SUGARMAN: Effectively nothing, nothing at all. That is
like walking into a police station with a knife with blood on it and
saying Ive just killed on someone and you expect the police to
say well wheres the body, wheres the person, what have you
done? And they just say, fine, just dont do it again. And that left
me dumbfounded.
ALBERICI: Even one of historys most reckless operators has been
astonished by the behaviour of banks. Nick Leeson questions their

willingness to learn from their mistakes.

NICK LEESON: Yeah I got myself back on the electoral roll in the
UK. The first mail I got was credit card companies offering me credit
cards. You know I have an injunction against me for a hundred
million, Id lost eight hundred and sixty million of an English banks
money and people were willing to offer me credit cards,
immediately on return. So it shows you straight away that the, you
know the controls and systems arent in place that they need.
ALBERICI: Leeson is no longer allowed to work in banking but he
found a way of taking money from international banks anyway. He
advises them on how to guard against the kind of behaviour he got
away with at Barings. You have to wonder if theyre listening.
NICK LEESON: The weakness is in those risk management
compliance and control areas. Always has been, still is and probably
always will be.
ALBERICI: While the rogue trader has reinvented himself as banking
consultant, the whistle blower is struggling.
JONATHAN SUGARMAN: It took me a while to pick myself up and
then when I started looking for other positions as a risk manager, I
found a lot of shut doors and it turned out that telling the truth
doesnt really pay.
ALBERICI: Over the past twelve months Jonathan Sugarman has
been writing an anonymous blog detailing his experiences at
UniCredit. This is the first time he has revealed his identity and as
he continues to look for work, he can only wonder if the bank that
one day takes him is playing fast and loose in a rogue system or
has a rogue trader lurking in its ranks.
JONATHAN SUGARMAN: I mean here we are in 2011 with the cost
of billions to UBF because a trader who had come from the back
office and was familiar with the systems knew how to get around
them. Because of his insider knowledge of the system, much like
Nick Leeson twenty years ago, he knew how to get around that and
that is what we the taxpayers pay the regulators, the policemen of
the banks to make sure cannot happen and does not happen. And
here we are twenty years later and its still happening.
ALBERICI: Remarkably the rogue traders didnt actually pocket any
of the money they punted on the markets. Its the rest of us who
are still paying the bill for their bad behaviour and for the selective
blindness of their bosses.

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2011/s3367080.htm

DataProtectionActs1988and2003:Informal
Consolidation
Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003: ... Penalties. ... a person
who holds or has held a licence under section 9 of the
Central Bank Act, 1971
https://www.dataprotection.ie/documents/legal/CompendiumAc
t.pdf
THE SOCIAL AND EMPLOYMENT SITUATION IN IRELAND
(UPDATE FEBRUARY 2013) EMPL DELEGATION TO IRELAND 1113 February 2013
Ireland received a 67.5 billion bailout by a consortium of the
... the Irish Presidency
http://legacy.iza.org/en/webcontent/publications/reports/report_
pdfs/iza_report_52.pdf

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision

Risk management policies for ... conjunction with the internal
models approach to market risk capital requirements ...
amendments made after the June 2006
http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d352.pdf
The Irish Government actively promotes ... Ireland has also
become an important research and development ... exit a
Troika bailout

http://www.state.gov/documents/orga
nization/227418.pdf

Implementation in UK & Ireland ... Alternative Investment

Management ... poses minimal additional liquidity risk to
the smooth implementation o

https://www.euroclear.com/dam/PDF
s/Settlement/EUI/FAQ.pdf
Central securities depositories: Council confirms agreement with EP

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedo
cs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofi
n/141199.pdf
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on improving securities
settlement in the European Union and on central securities depositories (CSDs) and
amending Directive 98/26/EC

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/d
oc/srv?l=EN&f=ST
%206828%202014%20INIT
Report adopted by the Committee on
Economic and Monetary Affairs of the
European Parliament
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/docu
ment/activities/cont/201302/2013021
4ATT61052/20130214ATT61052EN.p
df
Delegated and implementing acts
Adoption of a delegated act as well as
regulatory and implementing technical

standards for Regulation (EU) No 909/2014

on improving securities settlement in the EU
and on central securities depositories
11.11.2016

On 11 November 2016, the European Commission adopted a

delegated act, three regulatory technical standards and two
implementing technical standards to complement the obligations
defined under the Regulation on improving securities settlement in
the EU and on central securities depositories. The five regulatory
and implementing technical standards were developed by the
European Supervisory Authorities and have been endorsed by the
European Commission without modification. The Commission
developed the delegated act based on European Securities and
Market Authoritys technical advice.
COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) .../... of 11.11.2016
supplementing Regulation (EU) No 909/2014 of the European
Parliament and of the Council as regards the parameters for the
calculation of cash penalties for settlement fails
http://ec.europa.eu/finance/financial-markets/docs/csdr/20161111delegated-act-cash-penalties_en.pdf
European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory
technical standards on certain prudential requirements for central
securities depositories and designated credit institutions offering
banking-type ancillary services 11th November 2016
http://ec.europa.eu/finance/financial-markets/docs/csdr/20161111rts-prudential-requirements_en.pdf

BATS Chi-X Europe: UK & European Securities Markets

Moving to a T+2 Settlement Cycle, effective 6th October
2014 UPDATE
May 16, 2014 09:30:03
Dear BATS Chi-X Europe Participants
BATS Chi-X Europe (BATS) would like to remind Participants of upcoming
mandatory changes to the standard settlement cycle for markets traded on its
platform. Effective 6th October 2014, all trades conducted on BATS, in line
with other European Regulated Markets and Multilateral Trading Facilities, will
change the standard settlement cycle from T+3 to T+2, unless otherwise
stated.
Below is a summary of the countries BATS offers trading in and confirmation
of each market's move to a T+2 settlement cycle:
Country Segment
Central Securities Depositary (CSD)
Date to move to T+2
Austria
OEKD
6th October 2014
Belgium
Euroclear Belgium

6th October 2014

Denmark
VP Securities
6th October 2014
France
Euroclear France
6th October 2014
Finland
Euroclear Finland
6th October 2014
Germany
Clearstream Frankfurt
Already T+2
Ireland
Euroclear UK & I
6th October 2014
Italy
Monti Titoli
6th October 2014
Netherlands
Euroclear Nederland
6th October 2014
Norway
VPS
6th October 2014
Portugal
Interbolsa
6th October 2014
Spain
Iberclear
Q4 2015 (Equities)
Sweden
Euroclear Sweden
6th October 2014
Switzerland
SIX SIS
6th October 2014
United Kingdom
Euroclear UK & Ireland
6th October 2014
Depositary Receipts
Euroclear Bank
6th October 2014
Testing
There are no technical changes to the BATS trade feed to Central
Counterparties (CCPs) as a result of the settlement cycle change. However,
Participants wishing to simulate end to end testing through the BATS testing
platform should contact their CCP and the respective CSD to arrange a
testing window. The BATS test platform is available during normal business
hours http://www.batstrading.co.uk/support/hours/.

Best Practice Guidance on T+2 Settlement

The European Central Bank has established a T2S Task Force on T+2
settlement, which has been working across the T2S membership as well as
with other European member states to co-ordinate the move. The Task Force
has published a "Best Practice" paper, which can be viewed at the following
link:
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/t2s/governance/ag/html/taskforcet2/index.en.
html
Please contact BATS Post Trade EU, Trade Desk EU or your Account
Manager if you have any questions.All current and historical BATS Chi-X
Europe notices, including symbol universe updates, are available online at
www.batstrading.co.uk/alerts.
Trade Desk
BATS Chi-X Europe ... Making Markets Better
P: +44.207.012.8901
E: TradeDeskEU@bats.comwww.batstrading.co.uk
BATS Trading Limited is a Recognised Investment Exchange regulated by the
Financial Conduct Authority.
http://www.batstrading.co.uk/alerts/67937/release_notes/
REGULATION
OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
ON IMPROVING SECURITIES SETTLEMENT IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
AND ON CENTRAL SECURITIES DEPOSITORIES
AND AMENDING DIRECTIVES 98/26/EC AND 2014/65/EU
AND REGULATION
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=PE
%2049%202014%20REV%201

ESMA to the letter of the Chairmen of the HSG and the

T+2 TF (25 June 2014
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/t2s/progress/pdf/taskforcet2/esma_r
eply_to_hsg_letter_on_t2.pdf?65ea82d9f09441f7ba068b0087a55873
EU TEXTS ADOPTED PART X at the sitting of Tuesday 15 April 2014
United Diversity
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?
pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+20140415+SIT10+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

KKR Credit Advisors (Ireland), PILLAR THREE DISCLOSURE ...

was adopted by the EU on the 14 June 2006 and became
effective in Ireland on 1 ... Liquidity Risk .
http://www.kkr.com/_files/pdf/KKR%20CAI%20June
%202013%20Pillar%203%20Disclosure.pdf

An Overview of Risk Management at Canadian Banks ...

liquidity risk, and operational risk. ... In June 2004, the Basel
Committee
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/fsr0607-aaron.pdf
Going Concern Basis of Accounting and Reporting on Solvency
and Liquidity Risks Guidance for directors of companies that do
not apply The UK Corporate Governance Code april 2016
https://www.frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Publications/Accounting-andReporting-Policy/Guidance-on-the-Going-Concern-Basis-ofAccounting.pdf
Risk management ... Ireland, Belgium ... is not otherwise
able to comply with the capital and liquidity requirements of
CRD IV or the requirements set Dec 2014
http://i.dell.com/sites/doccontent/sharedcontent/solutions/en/Documents/Dell-Bank-International-LimitedPillar-3-Disclosures.pdf

Liquidity Risk Management 1. ... Directive 2006/48/EC). ...

CFA liquidity final.doc Author: Patrick PEARSON
http://ec.europa.eu/finance/bank/docs/calls/070306_call_for_tech_ad
vice_en.pdf

Functions of the Bank - Central Bank of

Cyprus

Functions of the Bank. 30 ANNUAL REPORT 2010 ... ital

Requirements and Large Exposures Directive, ... principles for
the sound management of liquidity risk.
http://www.centralbank.gov.cy/media/pdf/NPARE_FUNCTIONSOFTHE
BANK_10_.pdf

Bank International plc

Nomura Bank International plc ... Registration Document as
meeting the requirements imposed under Irish and EU law
pursuant to the ... Liquidity Risk
https://www.nomuranow.com/portal/site/login/engb/resources/upload/nbi-reg-doc-nov2015.pdf

Bill restricts Dil banking crisis probe

Monday, February 11, 2013

Any likely parliamentary inquiry into the banking crisis will

not have the power to investigate past governments

where the reputation of former office holders could be
directly adversely affected, according to a confidential
briefing for TDs.
Legislation being drawn up will make it unlikely any
banking probe will be able to scrutinise actions of former
ministers or taoisigh, such as Brian Cowen, and their
handling of the banking crisis and guarantee.
TDs and senators with the Oireachtas Public Accounts
Committee (PAC) were given the special confidential
briefing of the planned legislation, seen by the Irish
Examiner, a week ago.
"We were told that no findings of facts could be made
against previous office holders and only could be made
relating to future legislation. Theres a lot of confusion
over this as it would essentially mean any banking inquiry
is a sham," said one Government TD.
The briefing was given by officials with Public Expenditure
Brendan Howlins department, overseeing the drafting of
the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Bill
2012.
The laws will set out how the Oireachtas can conduct
future parliamentary inquiries and will pave the way for
the long-awaited parliamentary inquiry into the banking
crisis.
Documents handed to members with an overview of the
inquiries state: "The Dil has an implicit constitutional
power to conduct inquiries in order to hold the
Government responsible, even if this affects the
reputations of individual [but that] does not extend to
investigating the activities of past governments."
The briefing documents state legislation will underpin five
types of inquiries.
However, committees will only be able to examine past
office holders in government under two types of limited

inquiries.
One is a straightforward inquiry or reporting of events
which can only make findings about uncontested facts.
The other is where information on past events might help
shape a forward-looking issue, such as new legislation.
However, the document given to TDs specifically says the
second type of investigation "would not be permitted to
make findings which have a direct adverse effect on the
reputation of an individual".
Mr Howlins department pointed to restrictions set by the
2002 Abbeylara court judgement which ruled Oireachtas
inquiries do not have the power to make findings or
expressions of opinion against the good name of citizens.
Mr Howlins spokesw-oman said: "While such inquiries can
look into the activities of past governments, it is important
to note they cannot make findings having a direct adverse
affect on the reputation of individuals."
The other three types of inquiries relate to the removal of
certain office holders such as judges; inquiries on the
conduct of an Oireachtas member and findings of fact for
the purpose of holding the current Government to
account.
Mr Howlin wants to publish and introduce his legislation
before the summer.
This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner
Monday, February 11, 2013

http://www.irishexaminer.co
m/archives/2013/0211/world/
bill-restricts-dail-bankingcrisis-probe-222273.html

Irish Government to introduce legislation PREVENTING

further inquiries into the crisis - in Today's Irish Examiner.
We are now officially becoming the ULTIMATE Banana
Republic!
Re: Whistleblower. Something truly rotten in the banking
sector. Silence from our politicians!!!
My interview in today's magazine of Kathimerini - The NewYork Times affiliate in Greece

Please see the English translation below and the links beneath
that to the scans of the magazine article as it appears in
Greece's news-stands today.

The magazine section does not appear on-line, but here is a link
to the paper's website:
http://www.kathimerini.gr/

Hopefully, at least part of the interview will appear in

Kathimerini's on-line English edition:
http://www.ekathimerini.com/

The latest printed update in English about my story appeared

as the editorial article in the 2012 year-end edition of Ireland's
Village magazine:
http://www.villagemagazine.ie/index....hard-it-hurts/

THANK YOU to all of you who have helped me get this far ;-)

Jonathan

A bankers
confession
In September of 2007, fifteen months before the Irish
banks bailout, Jonathan Sugarman, Risk Manager at
UniCredit Bank Ireland, quits his position after finding
out that the bank does not meet the minimum liquidity
requirements demanded by the Central Bank of
Ireland. He has been seeking justice over the last five
years.
The story of the banker Jonathan Sugarman is not
widely known. Reading his blog
(whistleblowerirl.blogspot.com) one would think that it
resembles some of the economic thrillers recently
produced by Hollywood. A clerk discovers that his bank
does not follow the financial regulations of the state.
He makes the fact known to the authorities. Then he
quits his position. And then? It depends on the scene

writer. Will the bank pursue him? Does he turn to

suicide? Does the ex Golden Boy transform into a Don
Quixote who is out to save the world from bad banks?
But life is more imaginative than art. What really
happened is that a year after Jonathan Sugarman, 42
years old today, resigned from his job at UniCredit
Bank Ireland, citing the dubious integrity of his
employer, Irish banks needed a state guarantee.
Five years later, during which he has been virtually shut
out of banking, Sugarman still struggles with the
spectre of injustice that haunts him. He writes and
lectures. He tries to make the public wake up to a
financial and political system that is blind to personal
responsibility; that allows those who contributed to the
current economic and financial crisis to go unpunished.
We met him in Athens, during a visit that he made to
our country.
Do you believe that the Irish banks failed for similar reasons?
A year after my resignation, within a single night, Irelands
government had to guarantee all of its banks. Perhaps they did
not all face exactly the same problems, but finally they arrived
at the same point. Of course, I wonder where all the Risk
Managers of these banks are now?

Really, where are they?

They are at a silent moment in time.

And why is all this happening, in your opinion?

It is all part of the 'Big Lie' which we are all living through. No
one wants to be the first one to admit the problem. Even if we
leave aside the performance of any particular Risk Manager,
the banking system still has a set of other controls. These
include auditing companies that co-sign the the annual
financial reports and the regulating authorities, the central
banks.

So you say that it is not only the banks fault?

It simply cannot be that it is no banker's fault. There are people
who are responsible for signing that everything is complying
with the law. Every bank has at least one Risk Manager; every
bank has at least one chartered accountant; every bank has an
external auditing company. Every country has a central bank,
just as Ireland has the Central Bank of Ireland. Therefore, there
are specific people who are responsible for the fact that the
banks in Ireland needed to be re-capitalised, and these people
have a name and surname. We cannot say, It just happened!
or Daddy, the toy broke! Who broke it? I dont know, it broke
by itself!.

But why your story is not so well known?

It is a story that brings discomfort to many people in key
positions at various places.

Can I suppose then that the Central Bank of Ireland did not
ask you what had happened, even after the banks had
requested to be bailed-out?
No, in fact they did call me, twice. The first time, in the month of
May 2011. They invited anyone with information to come
forward and offered confidentiality to anyone who would. But
this meeting ended in a fiasco. Essentially, the confidentiality
clause referred only to my anonymity. As they clarified at the
meeting, they would be obliged to report everything that I tell
them to the state's public prosecution, which meant that
everything I might say could be used against me by the
authorities. Naturally, I refused to talk then. The second time
was in February, 2012. Even though there was no further clarity
by then regarding the confidentiality, I was prepared to share
some of what I knew. [At this second meeting] They [the
Central Bank officials] admitted that they had had sight of
further irregularities at the bank. But my initial enthusiasm over
this admission, soon proved to be misplaced. In June, 2012,
they declared the case closed. In August of 2012 they gave to
the press something that they claimed passed as minutes of
our meeting. However, that did not reflect what had really been
said.

And what are your relations with the bank today?

I have no relationship whatsoever with the bank. I demanded
damages for constructive dismissal. Their reply was that I
would receive nothing, and that I would have to face a legal
battle should I ever reveal any information to third persons. I
assure you that it is scary enough to be threatened by a trillion
Euro bank! They even used data from my personal life to claim
that I do not know what I am talking about because I am

psychologically disturbed!

So you have initiated court proceedings against the bank?

It was impossible, even for financial reasons, to privately initiate
legal proceedings against the bank. What is even more
important, is that before I could ever challenge a trillion euro
bank, the police has to first declare that a crime had occurred.
When the police itself claims that no crime has ever happened,
how can you prosecute the criminal? In order to prove that the
state authority itself has buried the evidence, I will have to
present my case to some European-wide authority. So I am
waiting for the creation of the famous pan-European Banking
Regulatory Authority to be created.

And are you eager to do something like this?

Eager I certainly am. Whether I will do it or not, I will decide
when time comes.

But even if you yourself have not been vindicated, do you

believe that after the eruption of the banking crisis, the
bankking system has been properly strengthened? Or
perhaps the effectiveness of the regulatory authorities?
No. While the banks and their managers do not get punished,
why should anything change? Soon we will have a new
regulatory framework for the banking market, the so called
Basel IV agreement. But as long as we do not intend to impose
the law, we can agree as many Basels as we want.

According to your experience, is it possible that the system

that you have been describing here could be changed for the
better by the appearance of more whistleblowers?
Yes. But, if I judge from my own case, I do not think that there
will be many more whistleblowers. There is no protection by
the state at all. I have been supported only by my friends, or by
people who simply heard about my story.

And has your value system changed through your

experience?
Now I have greater faith in humanity, and much less faith in the
established authorities, be they politicians, judges, or
functionaries. We, common people, take too seriously all those
people who do nothing to protect small investors or the small
tax payers. They only care for saving the banks.

You sound like a disappointed golden boy who has turned

against the capitalist system.
I am not going to enter into this discussion. Whether I am for
capitalism, socialism, or the Left, has nothing to do with the
discussion we are having now. Nineteenth century ideologies
cannot be used to face a twenty first century crisis. In Ireland at
this moment we have a socialist government that is safeguarding the monetary interests of the capitalist bondholders.
While in Austria it was the extreme Right wing party that
brought my case to the parliament. Do you see any ideology

here?

So you are against the financial system?

This is an interesting question if we wanted [this interview] to
be a philosophical discussion; but this question is not relevant
at the moment. We might barter a kilo of olive oil with a
television set, actually I have seen this with my own eyes and it
functions. However, at the end of the day, if you want a
smartphone, you cannot simply barter for it with olive oil.
Therefore, we must have a common 'currency'. We return then
to the starting point of this discussion. You either have rules
and abide by them, or you have no rules, and everybody does
whatever they want. If the latter is the case, then it would be
better if we all knew that.

So what might help create a sound financial system, in your

opinion?
To abide by the law.

Do you remember the day that you handed in your

resignation?
I almost did not sleep on the night before. Perhaps we have lost
the sense of what a billion Euro means by now, but up to that
day I used to sign for amounts like that; only in reality they did
not exist! I was sad, and at the same time I felt relieved that I
had stopped participating in a crime. The Managing Director
tried to make me change my mind, but I would not go back.

Also he faced huge pressure from the dealing room, so at the

end the story it became a case of Either me or them!

And how was your career after that?

A short while after I left, I started looking for a new job. But the
banking world is ultimately a small world. I was told that a
person with my C.V. would be unable to find a job at another
bank, having left UniCredit after just six months; and as a
whistleblower on top of that. I was trapped.

And how did the people who were close to you feel about all
this?
There are a few friends who have stood by me all this time. In
2007 no one could predict how things would turn out, and most
people did not believe me. Only after they heard [and saw] on
television that the banks had to be bailed out, did they
understand that I was not lying.

And how do you make your living today?

With a little help from my friends as the Beatles song goes
(laughs). I give consulting services to my friends, and I give
lectures. I have also been approached to write a book. Life will
show.

I imagine that you can not have the life that you had before.

 do not want to enter into details about my personal life and

the psychological hardships that I have endured. My financial
situation is difficult now. As I told you, I would not be here
today without my friends help. Today I am giving you this
interview and enjoying my coffee at the exceptional King
George Palace hotel, on Syntagma Square. A few years ago I
used to come to this hotel for my vacations. There are very few
places where I would be able to stay today... [probably] at a Bed
& Breakfast, at best.

So do you ever feel sorry for having been shut out of the
banking world?
I used to earn good money according by Irish standards. I had a
very beautiful home, a nice life. I had dinners at expensive
restaurants. I travelled a lot. But I would never trade my beliefs
for a life of luxury. Unfortunately, it seems these days that
many people are willing, if not even eager, to sacrifice their
childrens future for a fragile present of luxury. I cannot do that.

Is something haunting you now?

The laziness of the educated middle class is the thing haunting
me. Rich bankers see what is happening, and laugh all the way
to the bank, while the middle class works to serve their
interests. Risk Managers, lawyers, chartered accountants, all
these people pretend that they are working hard, while in truth
they are lazy - morally and intellectually. The same holds true
for the university professors of law and of economics. Where is
constructive criticism today? This laziness has become so
widespread, that very few can see it for what it is.

[Iceland President] Grimsson: IMF learned new lessons in

Iceland, Deutsche Welle, 31 Jan 2013. - See link.
Pity Ireland & Greece (and a few other countries, the USA
too perhaps?) were so keen to protect their corrupt
bankers & politicians and starve their own populations.
My favourite quote:
Q: For example, you did not rescue any banks...
A: No, indeed not. We let the banks fail. They were private
banks, and I've often asked the question why people
consider them to be the holy churches of modern
economy... Why shouldn't they be allowed to fail?

Grimsson: IMF learned

new lessons in Iceland
The global financial crisis brought Iceland to the brink
of collapse in 2008. Since then, the country has
recovered well by doing many things differently from
the rest of the world, President Olafur Grimsson tells
DW.

DW: A couple of years ago, Iceland was in a poor state

economically - in some regards even worse off than Greece.
Now, the country is in calmer waters again. How did you
bring about the change?
Olafur Grimsson: Of course, there are many reasons, but there

are perhaps two fundamental reasons why we're now back on

the road to recovery, with economic growth and relatively low
unemployment. The first dimension in our response was that
we realized early on that this wasn't just a financial or
economic crisis. It was also a profound political, social and
even judicial crisis.
To galvanize the nation to go through times of hardship and
difficulties there were a number of social and political reforms
so that people would see that there was an attempt to let
justice be done and to reform the decision-making
mechanism. I think that in many other parts of Europe the
crisis was long seen primarily as an economic and financial
problem
The other dimension was that we didn't follow the traditional
Western orthodoxies of how to deal with an economic crisis of
this magnitude.
For example, you did not rescue any banks...
No, indeed not. We let the banks fail. They were private banks,
and I've often asked the question why people consider them to
be the holy churches of modern economy. Why are they
different from telecommunications or railway companies or
many other companies? Why shouldn't they be allowed to fail?
If you send a signal to the bankers that they can take all the
risks they want to take, they will be rewarded financially in an
extraordinary way. But if they fail, the bill will always be sent
to taxpayers, ordinary people, fishermen, farmers, doctors,
teachers, nurses and so on. But in addition we introduced
currency control instruments. And we didn't introduce social
austerity measures as demanded by leaders in many different
parts of Europe for their own countries at the moment.
Three or four years ago, our policy measures were probably
opposed by most established governmental or financial
authorities in Europe. But the end result is that Iceland is now
on the road to a much stronger recovery than any other
European country that has faced a financial crisis in recent
years.

Reykjavik was home to Iceland's three failed banks Kaupthing,

Landsbanki und Glitnir

But Iceland stands out from the rest. The country is very
small and can make decisions on its currency all on its own
as it's not a eurozone member.
Well, of course it helped to be able to devaluate the krona.
That was one of the important elements as well. But the others
which I mentioned - trying to protect the welfare system,
engaging people through socio-political reforms, letting the
banks fail - they had nothing to do with having an independent
currency. Those are all measures that could have been
employed in the eurozone.
Do you think the German chancellor, the IMF chief and all
other crisis managers should try and emulate Iceland?
To some extent it's correct that the Icelandic experience
should be a wake-up call of sorts for others to reexamine their
positions and the kind of orthodoxy which has prevailed in the
past 30 years. But with respect to the IMF, it's an interesting
story, because when they came to Iceland it was a challenge for
them.
When the IMF program for Iceland was over about a year and
a half ago, we staged a farewell conference. The high IMF
officials were honest enough to recognize that they had
learned a lot from the Icelandic experience. We're now going
to examine and discuss the prevailing policy recommendations

the IMF stuck to in the Asian financial crisis in the previous

century. I think I can detect in some of the comments made by
IMF chief Lagarde in recent months that she has a different
perspective now than many other European leaders.
Do you believe German Chancellor Angela Merkel also has a
different stance on the matter now?
I have always followed the principle of not making any direct
comments on other countries, if only for the reason that I've
heard so many people making comments on my country people who were not really well-informed.
The only thing I can do is describe the Icelandic experience,
the methods we've employed and challenges we've faced, and
describe how we've recovered. And then other people will have
to make their own judgment whether they want to learn from
our experience. The small size of Iceland doesn't speak against
it, I think.
Iceland is a highly developed Western country, with all the
aspects of other European democracies and economies.
Despite the smallness, it offers at least interesting test cases
that people can use to review some of their prevailing policies
which are pushing Europe into extraordinary difficulties.
Does Iceland aspire to join the European Union and the
eurozone at all?
Of course, there's been a long-standing debate in my country
about this. Most of the time, an overwhelming majority of
citizens has been against joining the euro for the same reason
that Norway voted twice to stay away, and Greenland decided
to leave the European Union. There was a time when people
thought it would have been easier, had they been part of the
euro area. Now we know that's not the case.
If you look at the debates within Europe, or look at northern
Europe, all the countries there, Greenland, Iceland, the UK,
Norway, Denmark, Sweden - it's not until you come to Finland
that you find a euro country. Quite clearly, the northern part of
Europe has taken a different course, and most of them are
actually better off than the rest of Europe.
Interview: Andreas Becker, at the World Economic Forum in
Davos, Switzerland / hg

detail_toolbox
DW RECOMMENDS

Business opportunities boom in the Arctic

Interest in the economic potential of the Arctic is on the rise. Oil,
gas and polar shipping lanes were high on the agenda at the annual
Arctic Frontiers conference recently in Troms in Norway.
(29.01.2013)

Icelandic power export plans still a pipe dream

Iceland's leading role in geothermal power is world renowned. The

tiny country wants to sell more of its excess geothermal power and
expertise overseas, but the plans are particularly ambitious.
(07.01.2013)
http://www.dw.com/en/grimsson-imf-learned-new-lessons-iniceland/a-16565334

We thank the management of the King George Palace hotel for

hosting the interview.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7sR...it?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7sR...it?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7sR...it?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7sR...it?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7sR...it?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7sR...it?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7sR...it?usp=sharing
Recently you have given a few public lectures in Greece, on
the issue of the banking system. Why are you interested in
our country?
To be completely frank, it was the Greeks who showed interest

in me. Perhaps some people saw that I worked as a Risk

Manager, that my job was effectively to count the money held
by a bank. [These people] approached me because they did not
know anybody else who might publicly declare that this was his
job. In June 2011 somebody offered to translate my blog into
Greek, and since then I have had many contacts with Greeks
from all walks of life, concerned citizens and academics.

Can you please tell us in simple words what a Risk Managers

job is?
I will give you a simple image here. If the bank were a car, then
the Risk Manager would be the driver, and the Central Bank
would be the road police. A cars driver must not drive beyond
the speed limit. If the speed limit is 100 kilometres per hour,
and the driver goes at 120 kilometres per hour, then he gets a
fine. Similarly, a banks Risk Manager is responsible for keeping
minimum liquidity. In other words, he must ensure that some
amounts of money come in - deposits for example, and other
amounts of money go out - in the form of loans or other
banking products. In every country, the Central Bank defines
the minimum liquidity that banks must always keep. In Irelands
case, this minimum was 90%. If a bank were to go under this
[minimum] limit, then the bank is to be fined by law. In
addition, the Risk Manager and the Managing Director could be
sentenced to five years in prison.

When did you discover UniCredits liquidity problem?

In the first weeks that I was employed at the bank I already saw
a chaotic situation. Some days we operated within the law,
while on other days we went entirely off limits. Initially, the

Managing Director and other managers ignored my concerns.

They mentioned technical problems in our information systems
and that there was not a real problem with our liquidity. They
claimed that because I was new in the job, I could not
understand these problems. On the days that we were off
limits, we explained in our daily report that this had happened
because of technical problems, and of course we never
informed the Regulator, as we should have done. After
repeated breaches of the limit, I announced to the Managing
Director that I did not intend to pretend that I was blind, and
that we should send an official report to the Central Bank of
Ireland. This actually happened at the end of July, when I
personally delivered an official notification of a liquidity breach,
to the office of the Financial Regulator.

So did the bank face any sanctions?

There was no reaction whatsoever. And this happened when
we had gone as low as 20% below the required minimum
liquidity, while the law required us to immediately report a
breach of 1%! In other words, I confessed to the banks police
that I had broken the law, and they, instead of sending
immediately their officers to thoroughly investigate what was
happening in the bank, [the regulator] sent us a letter that
essentially told us that since you confirmed to us that the the
crime had stopped, we are satisfied!

So what did you do then?

Then I tried to find out what these technical problems were. A
banks information system is its Bible. A bank does not keep its
accounts on loose pieces of note paper. If we could not trust

the information systems results, then we would be unable to

know whether we really had sufficient liquidity, or not. As a
result, I called in a company that specialised in [banking]
information systems.

And what was the result of their checking?

They called me at my home one night, in September 2007, You
complained to us that you were anxious about your liquidity
falling to 70%, they told me. In fact, your liquidity is 50%!
Next morning I went to the Managing Director and handed in
my resignation letter.

But what was the cause of low liquidity?

I suspect that our activities were not being accounted for
correctly. Some days we accounted them correctly, on other
days we did not.

But if the cause really was a technical problem, and not some
fraud or some high risk transactions, then why did you not
solve the problem yourself, instead of resigning?
The existence of such a problem shows how amenable to fraud
is the whole system. Recent scandals with non-authorised deals
by traders in the London offices of the Swiss bank UBS, or in
Socit Gnrale in France, prove exactly this fact. If the bank
had failed next day, I would have been held responsible for it,
and according to the law I would go to prison for five years. Put
very simply, I did not want to go to prison.

But why do you believe that you were the only one to have
been afraid of this?
Banks act with impunity. As we have seen since, the higher
echelons know that they would never be held responsible for
anything. This does not necessarily mean anything, but the fact
is that UniCredit Irelands Chairman of the Board of Directors
was an ex member of parliament, of the same political party
that ruled the country at the time. Later on, after I handed in
my resignation, he became a member of the Board of Directors
of the Central Bank of Ireland. I wonder how can the Central
Bank impartially investigate a bank whose chairman now sits
on the Board of the Central Bank?

At the time, Ireland was called the Wild West of European

Union. Was this fair?
Ireland was a very attractive place for banks and multinational
corporations because of its extremely low tax rate, which was
10%. Banks could establish subsidiaries that would be
controlled (or rather, as it was later proved, would be not
controlled) by the Central Bank of Ireland. In theory, we all had
our 'daddy and mummy, who were the big European banks.
Whenever we run out of cash, we could phone our daddy in
Frankfurt, or our mummy in Rome, to send us some. Everything
looked perfect! Moreover, daddy and mommy had sent an
official letter to the Central Bank of Ireland when they created
their subsidiary, saying that they would take care of their child
should it ever misbehave. So, the Central Bank was not too
strict with us, children.

So why did your bank not pick up the phone to daddy and
mommy, when it was obvious that you were out of cash?
If the Managing Director had called his friend in Milan and told
him that he had run out of money, then the first question he
would have to answer would be, -Why? Dont you know how to
manage your bank? Obviously then no one was going to call
their 'parents' and tell them they had misbehaved. In theory, a
liquidity problem could be solved in five minutes. But how was
he going to justify that he arrived at a liquidity level below 70%
when the law demanded at least 90%? Obviously, if anyone
were to admit something like this, they would instantly lose
their bonus!

And what was the reaction of the parent company when you
resigned?
There was no reaction whatsoever. Three years later Senator
David Norris presented my issue in the Senate. Subsequently,
UniCredits Head-Quarters in Milan were contacted [by
journalists]. [UniCredit HQ] Told them they had nothing to do
with it all. They were either pretending, or they really did not
know what was going on. So, I wonder, Is it that your child in
Dublin did not tell you what really happened? Or, even worse,
did the Central Bank of Ireland not tell Banca dItalia - the
central bank of Italy, what had happened?

So your opinion is that the central bank of Italy knew about

this?

I cannot answer this question. If you want an answer, you might

ask Mario Draghi, who was then the Governor of Banca dItalia.
This is a very simple question: While you were Governor of
Italys central bank, did you know that the biggest bank in your
country did not know what its Irish child was doing? And if you
were not informed about it, how do you explain that?
[Irish] emigration 'at famine levels' as 200 leave country
each day - Today's Irish Independent
http://www.independent.ie//emigration-at-famine-levelsas-
This is after Ireland's Finance Minister, Michael Noonan,
said last January that young emigrants not driven away
by unemployment and that emigration in most young
peoples cases is being driven by a desire to see another
part of the world and live there.
http://www.thejournal.ie/noonan-young-emigrants-notdriven/
The Irish government and its socialist Labour party are
obviously giving Irish people much hope for the future.

The scale of the exodus is such that it dented Ireland's

baby boom, as so many young women were among those
who left.
Figures obtained by the Irish Independent show where
many of those emigrants went during the last year.
Some 87,000 people emigrated from Ireland in the year to
April 2012, three times as many as the annual exodus
during the boom years.
Almost 16,000 headed to Britain, according to figures
from the UK Department of Work and Pensions, which
show the nationality of new applicants for social insurance
numbers there.
The figure was around twice as many as headed across the
Irish Sea during the boom, and does not include children
and non-working spouses who moved with their families.
Australia remained a big draw, with the number of
permanent migrants from Ireland soaring by 33pc to
4,938 in a year.
Ireland was now among the top 10 source countries for
migration to Australia, the authorities there noted.

The number of Irish availing of temporary work permits

and working holiday visas in 2012 is not yet available, but
it's likely to be on a par with the previous year's tally of
21,753.
Some 4,564 Irish people received work visas for New
Zealand in the 2011/12 tax year, up nearly 40pc on four
years ago.
And the outflow looks set to continue as another 2,199
Irish citizens were granted work visas to New Zealand
between July 1 and December 1, 2012.
Edwina Shanahan of Dublin-based migration company
Visafirst said there was a huge amount of country-hopping
by Irish people in the Australia/ New Zealand region.
"So many are on temporary work visas or working holiday
visas that last for a year, so when that is up they look to go
to the other country if they can't find a way of staying
longer," she said.
On the other side of the world, Canada's booming
economy made it one of the hotspots of Irish emigration in
the past few years.
This will continue as a fresh round of visas is opened for
skilled tradespeople in the building sector.
Some 5,293 temporary work visas were issued to Irish
people last year, which was up 42pc on 2010, while
another 662 got permanent status.
The western towns of Calgary and Edmonton were
growing rapidly to challenge Toronto and Vancouver as
favoured destinations for Irish emigrants, said Vancouverbased relocation expert Ruairi Spillane, who is originally
from Killarney.
Construction
He said he'd been getting so many requests from Canadian
construction companies looking for Irish workers that he
quit his job last summer to set up moving2Canada.com.
"The mood is really positive in general. I love it here and
I'm pretty sure most Irish people enjoy their time, though
homesickness is an issue for many as it's a long way from
home," said Mr Spillane.

Some 17,143 Irish people and their families were granted

temporary work permits to the United States, while
another 1,533 obtained permanent resident status,
according to the US Office of Immigration Statistics for
2011 the most recent available.
Those figures were up from around 14,000 the previous
year.
Central Statistics Office figures show that 87,000 people
left Ireland in the 12 months to April 2012, including
46,500 Irish nationals.
Official figures also show the wave of emigration is taking
its toll on the Irish birth rate.
There were 1,200 fewer born in 2011 than the previous
year, as there were fewer women around to have babies.
Professor Michael Turner of the UCD Centre for Human
Reproduction said the fact that many women in their
twenties and thirties were leaving Ireland was having a
noticeable effect on the birth rate.

e all pay through motor tax already why don't people get that read
the legislation from the budget/ finance bill 96'97 road tax was
increased to pay for water
So those people that pump & treat there Own water will now have to
pay twice ? . Only in Ireland do we implement legislation in the
finance bill to pay for water and the want us to pay again . FF stand
up and honer your election promise and don't let Kenny ram this
through
Ah so it is now a tax not a charge so Revenue can collect it. Just like
the household charge became a local property tax

Business Podcast: The airline industry is facing some

tough times yet Ryanair can issue a profit warning while
their stock rises by 5%, the podcast explains all.
Listen here:
http://on.irishtimes.com/7cYhG36

Three bankers to be sentenced over Anglo conspiracy, I

Months Jail with tV and luxury in Private Jail,

Irish Times and our top story: Policing Authority dismayed

by Garda failures

The Cheek of An Australian

minister Coming into Ireland

Attcking Irish Citizens in
Ireland by Fucking Brits and
Australian Scum of 1916
commemoration Protest
against the filthy Scum bag
who attacked an Irish man in
His own native Country for
Freedom of speech, pity I
wasnt here I would have
Kicked the fucker in between
the legs an Outsider migrant
from Australia Fucking
cheeky Bastard attacks one
of Our own, Filthy bastard I
Curse The Fucker, I Hope he
Drops dead Insulting Irish
Freedom of 1916 Our history,
not brits, Or Australia or and
Other migrant country,
Ireland doesnt Want The

Filthy Traitors in Ireland,

The Mutinational Bastards
are jealous of The Irish
People including Australia ,
British Government,
We are Better than them,
The irish People not the
Government are no War
mongering filthy cheats or
Liars, These Filhy rat Bags,
committed High Felony
Treason against The Irish
citizens with the help of
Europe and US
Heres The proof Here,

Denis O'Brien claims Dil remarks

breached his rights to privacy
Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Denis OBrien has claimed remarks made in the Dil about

his personal banking affairs effectively determined a court
case he had initiated against RT.
The High Court has begun hearing his legal action against
a number of TDs and the Dil Committee on Procedure
and Privileges.
He claims his rights to privacy and access to the courts
were breached after his dealings with the IBRC were
disclosed during a Dil debate in May 2015.
By doing so, he believes the temporary injunction he had
been granted against the publication of such confidential
information became worthless.
The hearing is due to take up to eight days. Mr OBrien is
expected to give evidence on Thursday.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaki
ngnews/ireland/denis-obrien-claimsdail-remarks-breached-his-rights-toprivacy-766272.html
Teacher strike: Document hammered
out in the early hours set to go to
union committee
Tuesday, November 29, 2016

There are hopes that new proposals could bring about a

breakthrough in the secondary school teachers dispute.
A campaign of industrial action that closed hundreds of
schools was suspended earlier this month to facilitate new
talks, which ended in the early hours of this morning.
A document focusing on pay levels and working hours
flexibility has now been hammered out.
The ASTI will now put the deal to its 23-member standing
committee, and then to its 180-member central executive
committee.
Past proposals have previously fallen at one or other

committee stage.
One of the main sticking points for the ASTI has been the
restoration of pay for new teachers, which is due to be
done under the Lansdowne Road Agreement; teachers
want it to happen now.
Minister for Education Richard Bruton would not say what
kind of deal is on the table.
"These talks are continuing, and the best way to hopefully
ensure a good outcome is to respect the privacy of that
process," he said.

The Government has been accused of deciding not to put

contingency plans in place to keep schools open during
ASTI industrial action in order to bring the dispute "to a
head", writes Elaine Loughlin, Political reporter.
Both Fianna Fil leader Michal Martin and Sinn Fin
president Gerry Adams called on the Taoiseach to make it
clear that there will be a pathway to full pay restoration of
public sector workers.
While AAA-PBP Richard Boyd Barrett demanded a "proper
debate" in the Dil tomorrow on the teachers dispute
which he described as an "urgent crisis".

Speaking during Leaders Questions in the Dil this

afternoon, Mr Martin said: "I believe it was within the
capacity of management to keep schools open but my
suspicion is that the Department and the Government
decided to bring the dispute to a head and allow the
teachers to go out.
"That is my suspicion and that is why there was no will to
keep the schools open and to sort out the supervision and
substitution issue, particularly for the exam students."
Responding Enda Kenny said he did not accept that the
Government, the Minister and the Department were "lax"
in not dealing with the dispute.
"This has dragged on for quite some time but the one hour
not being worked results from a unilateral decision made
by the ASTI that has affected its own members to their
detriment.
The Taoiseach denied that the government had "locked"
teachers out of schools.
He said there was "money on the table" which could lead
to a "speedy conclusion" of the dispute over supervision
and substitution.
But Mr Martin said there has been failure to engage "early

and effectively" with secondary school teachers which has

led to the withdrawal of cover by ASTI members and strike
action over pay restoration.
"For some reason, the Government has not publicly
committed to a pathway towards equal pay for newly
qualified teachers, which would go a long way towards
dealing with that issue," Mr Martin told the Dil.
"We are now in a situation in which feelings are becoming
more entrenched and resolving the dispute could become
more difficult."
Mr Martin added that students are "the real victims" of this
industrial dispute.
"We know of the centrality of the leaving certificate and of
how difficult and challenging it is for any student in his or
her leaving certificate year. The absence of contingency
planning led to yesterday's closures. Teachers turned up,
but the gates were locked."
Secondary students across the country are heading back
to school today as the ASTI has suspended its industrial
action.
Last night the union accepted an invitation from the
Teachers' Conciliation Council to attend talks with the
Department of Education.
Those talks will be aimed at resolving the dispute over pay
and conditions.
Members will be available for teaching, supervision and
substitution duties for the duration of the discussions,
which are expected to continue until the end of November.
Education Minister Richard Bruton has welcomed the
decision.
Around 500 schools were closed on Monday and Tuesday
as school management said they could not open for health
and safety reasons without adequate cover for supervision
and substitution duties.
ASTI General Secretary Kieran Christie said they chose to
suspend the industrial action as a mark of good faith.

"The suspension of the industrial action has to be seen as

a constructive move on our partWe would expect
reciprocation and that the talks would bear fruit and
dividends for our members)," he said.

Around 400 schools will stay shut tomorrow as the row

between secondary teachers and the Government
continues.
200,000 students were affected by a day of strike today.

With ASTI teachers withdrawing from supervision duties

tomorrow many schools will again have to close.

These teachers at St Aidan's CBS in Whitehall in Dublin

think the dispute will continue for a while: "Unless the
Government starts acting maturely and engaging with the
process and talking to us and talking to our leadership, I
dont see an end in sight.
"Its very sad and its very demoralising."
Another said: Giving the lack of urgency in Government
seems to me that theyre quite happy to let it drag on, so
unfortunately I suspect it will.

here has been a breakthrough in the teachers' dispute.

The union involved, the ASTI, has accepted an invitation to
talks with the Teachers' Conciliation Council.
ASTI members will be available for teaching and
supervision and substitution duties tomorrow and for the
duration of the talks.
Teachers representatives say they now expect that all

second-level schools will be open tomorrow.

Around 500 schools were closed today due to the ASTI

action.
The disputes centre on pay scales for new entrants, and
for payment for supervision and substitution duties.

State bids to extend surveillance

powers
Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Government proposals to widen surveillance powers of

state agencies aim to extend a deeply flawed system, a
leading digital rights group has said.

Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald intends to bring in

changes to legislation to expand surveillance powers to
include the internet, emails, and encrypted online
communications.
Digital Rights Ireland said a Department of Justice
document proposed to allow for interception of over the
top services, such as webmail or Twitter direct messages,
on the basis of the justice ministers signature.
No judicial oversight would be required and the overall
authorisation, oversight, and complaint mechanisms
would be essentially untouched, it said.
The proposals aim to extend a deeply flawed system
without addressing the fundamental problems which make
the existing system in breach of international fundamental
rights standards.
It said surveillance based on political authorisation (rather
than judicial warrant) was undesirable, inconsistent with
case law and unnecessary.
Irish law already provides for bugging of buildings and

cars to be carried out on the basis of a judges decision

there is no reason why leading webmail should be
different.
DRI said that international human rights standards require
that particularly sensitive communications particularly
between journalists/source and lawyer/client should
receive special protection.
Irish interception law fails to do this at the moment and
would not do so under these proposals, it said.
DRI said oversight mechanisms were ineffective and
that the existing designated judge was a part-time job for
a high court judge, with no technical expertise or staff. It
said a Law Reform Commission review would come after
the laws were introduced, akin to putting the cart before
the horse.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/state-bids-to-extendsurveillance-powers-432768.html

Headline Debate on status of

treasonous republican ...
Offences Against the State Act
1939 or such as to constitute
treason under Article 39 of the
Constitution
Irelands OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT
1861. ... An Act to consolidate and amend the Statute
Law of England and Ireland relating to Offences against
the ... Petit treason. 9 ..
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1861/act/100/enacted/en
/print.html?printonload=true

Criminal-Law-Treason-Sedition-and-

Allied-Offences The Treason Act 1351

(a) ... of offences against public order
and they are not covered ... Northern
Ireland
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2016/08/No.072Codification-of-the-Criminal-LawTreason-Sedition-and-AlliedOffences.pdf
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100)
Document Generated: ... would have amounted to Petit
Treason, ... Offences Against the Person Act 1861 .
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/2425/100/enacted/data.pdf

Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Legislation.gov.uk

VICTORIIE REGIN2E. C A P. C. An Act to consolidate and

amend the Statute Law of England and Ireland relating to
Offences against the Person ... Ireland in which such
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1861/100/pdfs/ukpga_186
10100_en.pdf

TREASON ACT, 1939. AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE

PUNISHMENT OF TREASON AND CERTAIN ANCILLARY
OFFENCES. ... that treason shall consist only in levying
war against
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1939/act/10/enacted/en/print
.html?printonload=true

The Irish Court System - CPA Ireland

The Irish Court System ... treason, piracy and related

offences, ... The Special Criminal Court was set up under

the Offences against the State Act 1939
http://www.cpaireland.ie/docs/default-source/Students/StudySupport/F1-Business-Laws/the-irish-court-system.pdf?sfvrsn=0

The 1937 Constitution and the enactment of the Offences

Against the State Act 1939 ... Offences relating to
documents ... enactment of the Offences against 1939
Act 1998
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/hederman
%20report.pdf/Files/hederman%20report.pdf
mcguill_ lisbon_INFORMAL CONSOLIDATION OF LEGISLATION
OFFENCES ... as the Offences against the State Act, 1939. ... of
treason; the expression "seditious document
http://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/mcguill_lisbon_appendix5.pdf

Full Abolition of
Water Charges is
only acceptable
outcome Broin
28 November, 2016 - by Eoin Broin TD

Responding to the latest round of leaks to RT of the report of

the expert commission on the future of water services, Sinn
Fin spokesperson Eoin Broin TD has said the full abolition
of water charges is the only acceptable outcome to Sinn Fin.
Deputy Broin said:
For the third time in less than a week, a media outlet has
received advance notice of the contents of the report from the
expert group on the future of water charges. Despite

assurances from Minister Coveney that the report would go

directly to the special Oireachtas Committee on Water, the
reports contents have been again leaked to RT. This is deeply
disappointing and further undermines the work of the
Oireachtas Committee.
Sinn Fin will make our view of the report when we have had
the opportunity to read it in full. However, we have been very
clear on this issue from the start. Only the full abolition of
water charges is acceptable to Sinn Fin.
If the details of the RT report are correct, it confirms Sinn
Fins view that there is no legal impediment to paying for
water services from general taxation, a view backed up by
independent legal opinion.
However, people should be very weary of any proposal for a
reduced or modest charge, as once introduced, it can be
increased. Waivers can come and go, as we have seen with
domestic waste collection. Once a charge is introduced, we
know that, over time, it will increase; in the end, people will be
left paying the 500 originally proposed by Fianna Fil back in
2010.
The only acceptable solution to the Fine Gael-Fianna Fil water
debacle is to abolish domestic charges and to fund an
ambitious multi-million annual capital programme to upgrade
the crumbling water and sanitation system. This is what Sinn
Fin campaigned for during the general election and this is
what we will vote for in the Dil.

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/4260
4

Debate on status of treasonous

republican paper
Saturday, December 29, 2012
By Noel Baker

The government explored ways of refusing to grant the

Sinn Fin publication An Phoblacht official newspaper
status, and queried whether it was a treasonable
document.
An internal government document from Jul 15, 1982,
focuses on the application by An Phoblacht Republican
News for registration as a newspaper under the Post Office
Act 1908.
The letter, signed PC, begins by claiming there was a
prime facie case for the minister not having the power to
refuse the application but in the next paragraph draws
attention to section 10 of the of the Offences Against the

State Act 1939 and how there had been no prosecution

brought under that section.
Nonetheless the section makes it a criminal offence to
send through the post any document which is a
treasonable document or a seditious document.
It outlines how treason could be defined as inciting or
conspiring in an attempt by violent means to overthrow
the organs of government established by the Constitution.
It is a question of fact as to whether editions of the
newspaper in question habitually or even from time to
time contain material such as to render the edition a
treasonable or seditious document under section 10 of the
Offences Against the State Act 1939 or such as to
constitute treason under Article 39 of the Constitution.
I believe that a strong argument can be mounted to the
effect that the Ministers constitutional obligation not to
assist a treasonable activity is primary and that the
legislation concerned in so far as it might be seen to
compel him so to do would be unconstitutional but of
course only to an extent.
Initialised PC, the document concludes: I feel a letter
should be written by the Department in the clearest terms
stating in order to consider the application further they
require exact details of who the proprietor of the
newspaper is. This may also throw light upon the question
of the treasonable activities.
The file includes advice from the attorney general, Patrick
Connolly, saying An Phoblacht satisfies each of the
requirements set out in section 20(1) of the Post Office Act
1908 and this conclusion was unaffected by a
consideration of the contents of the publication.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/debate-on-status-oftreasonous-republican-paper-218081.html
The IN CAMERA Rule in Irish Family Law Cases ... Irish
Family Law Cases ... J. Restrictions on the Media other
than Defamation TCD Law School,
http://liamog.com/PDF
%20Downloads/In_Camera_Document_BobMC.pdf
REPORT OF THE LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP ON DEFAMATION
by ARTICLE 19 Global Campaign for Free Expression London
January 2004

https://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/analysis/ireland
-report-to-lag-on-def.pdf

Constitutional safeguards against antiavoidance legislation in the Republic of

Ireland
http://www.offshoreinvestment.com/media/
uploads/Haccius17.pdf

ECPRD_UK Parliamentary
sovereignty ... may be declared invalid
in ... removed British parliamentary
supremacy over Ireland for a short
period
Seminar organised by the legal
departments of the Belgian House of
Representatives and the Belgian Senate
within the framework and with the
collaboration of the European Centre
for Parliamentary Research and
Documentation
https://www.dekamer.be/kvvcr/pdf_sections/jurid
/ECPRD_UK.pdf
Key-Issues-From-the-Human-Rights-Act-to-a-Bill-of-Rights
There sometimes appears to be a tension between the
principles of the supremacy of Parliament and the ...
models for such a document, ... in Northern Ireland,
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/li
b/research/key_issues/Key-Issues-From-theHuman-Rights-Act-to-a-Bill-of-Rights.pdf
Human Rights Act to a Bill of Rights?
Proposals for a British Bill of Rights have come from across
the political spectrum. The various plans would have very
different consequences
The Human Rights Act (HRA) was introduced in 1998 to
bring rights home. Essentially, it allows UK nationals to
rely on rights contained in the European Convention on

Human Rights before the domestic courts.

The legislation has not been universally popular. Some
have branded it a criminals charter, following
suggestions that it had been abused by various litigants.
In 2006 Tony Blair complained that a judgment about a
group of Afghans who had hijacked a plane was an abuse
of common sense. The judgment was later upheld on
appeal.
Such cases have fed concern that the courts are becoming
more activist and involved in dealing with small p
political questions that would previously have been settled
by politicians and administrators. Some political gures
have criticised the way in which the courts have dealt with
an increase in public law (judicial review) and human
rights cases. There sometimes appears to be a tension
between the principles of the supremacy of
Parliament and the rule of law, exacerbated by extensive
commentary on the Act. This has resulted in friction in
policy areas such as asylum, immigration and counterterrorism.
Damaging myths about the HRA have taken root in the
popular imagination
The Conservatives have further argued that the current
legislation has created a culture of risk aversion among
public authorities. In 2006 a Government-sponsored
review
of the operation of the Act stated that it
had been bedevilled by misconceptions and had
sometimes been misapplied. The Government also
acknowledged that a series of damaging myths about the
Act had taken root in the popular imagination.
TOWARDS A NEW BILL OF RIGHTS?
In 2007 the Labour Government began to consult on
building on the Human Rights Act to create a Bill of Rights.
Other political parties have also called for a Bill of Rights.
There
are consequently various models for such a document,
each of which has a signi cantly different meaning.
BUILDING ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT?
Some have suggested that wider economic, social and
environmental rights could be added to a British Bill of
Rights, though it may be that all concerned would prefer

that decisions regarding taxation and resource

distribution remained matters for elected governments
rather than the courts.
Labour mooted the possibility of introducing speci c
duties or responsibilities that would sit alongside the
rights already guaranteed, such as the duty to obey the
law and pay taxes, though, as some fundamental rights
are absolute and not subject to good behaviour, it is not
clear whether such responsibilities could be given legal
effect in legislation.
REPLACING THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT?
Some have argued that the HRA does little
to protect historic constitutional rights and liberties, such
as the right to trial by jury or free speech. The
Conservatives have suggested a new Bill of Rights to
replace the HRA.
Exactly how this would operate in practice
in relation to the European Convention
on Human Rights is unclear, though the Conservatives
have indicated that they would seek a greater national
margin of appreciation in how the rights were applied in
a domestic context.
While it seems unlikely that the UK would opt out of the
European Convention on Human Rights, if the HRA were
repealed and the Convention rights were no longer
contained in UK law, aggrieved parties might once again
have to take their case to the Strasbourg court for
determination. Moreover, depending on the funding
available (through legal aid or otherwise), parties might
nd it less easy to bring rights-related proceedings.
There are also certain devolution issues which would need
to be overcome if the HRA were to be repealed. How would
a new Bill apply
in Northern Ireland, which has been working towards its
own rights framework? Would the Scotland Act 1998 need
to be amended, as currently the Scottish Parliament
cannot pass legislation which is incompatible with the
HRA?
A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK?
A Bill of Rights might also be brought forward together
with a new written constitution. This could entrench
constitutional legislation and allow the courts to rule

legislation unlawful. Gordon Brown raised the possibility

that such a document might be published in time for the
800th anniversary of the Magna Carta
in 2015. Creating such a new constitutional framework
would need to be achieved with political consensus in
order to be sustainable in the long term, but also perhaps
with public involvement. One criticism of the HRA has
been that the public has felt no ownership of the
legislation. There have been suggestions for a citizens
convention to formulate or debate proposals before they
are put to the country in a referendum.
Commentators and Non-Governmental Organisations
involved in the Bill of Rights debate (whatever their views
of the 1998 Act) look upon it as an opportunity to gain
public support for a new constitutional settlement. Most
recognise that while the HRA may
have had a substantial in uence on UK law, it has not
found popular support amongst the general public and has
been subject to sustained criticism by parts of the press.

Treason acts in
Ireland AGAINST
Europe

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more

extreme acts against one's nation or sovereign. Historically,
treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors,
such as the murder of a husband by his wife or that of a
master by his servant. Treason against the king was known as
high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petty
treason. A person who commits treason is known in law as a
traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason
as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government
overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent
nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason
to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if
no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor.
Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to
describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying)
their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group,
team, religion, social class, or other group to which they
belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and
disputed, as the person may not identify with the group, or
may otherwise disagree with the group members making the
charge. The term "race traitor" is often used by white
supremacists, or directed at people in inter-racial relationships
with regard to miscegenation.
At times, the term "traitor" has been used as a political
epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. In a
civil war or insurrection, the winners may deem the losers to

be traitors. Likewise the term "traitor" is used in heated

political discussiontypically as a slur against political
dissidents, or against officials in power who are perceived as
failing to act in the best interest of their constituents. In
certain cases, as with the German Dolchstolegende, the
accusation of treason towards a large group of people can be a
unifying political message. Treason is considered to be
different and on many occasions a separate charge from
'Treasonable Felony' in many parts of the world.
==History==
In English law, high treason was punishable by being hanged,
drawn and quartered (men) or burnt at the stake (women),
although beheading could be substituted by royal command
(usually for royalty and nobility). Those penalties were
abolished in 1814, 1790 and 1973 respectively. The penalty
was used by later monarchs against people who could
reasonably be called traitors, although most modern jurists
would call it excessive. Many of them would now just be
considered dissidents.
In William Shakespeare's play King Lear (c. 1600), when the
King learns that his daughter Regan has publicly dishonoured
him, he says "They could not, would not do 't; 'tis worse than
murder": a conventional attitude at that time. In Dante
Alighieri's Inferno, the ninth and lowest circle of Hell is
reserved for traitors; Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus,
suffers the worst torments of all: being constantly gnawed at
by one of Lucifer's own three mouths. His treachery is
considered so notorious that his name has long been
synonymous with traitor, a fate he shares with Benedict
Arnold, Vidkun Quisling, Marcus Junius Brutus (who too is
depicted in Dante's Inferno, suffering the same fate as Judas
along with Cassius Longinus). Indeed, the etymology of the
word traitor originates with Judas' handing over of Jesus to the
chief priests, captains of the temple and elders (Luke 22:52):
the word is derived from the Latin traditor which means "one
who delivers." Christian theology and political thinking until
after the Enlightenment considered treason and blasphemy as
synonymous, as it challenged both the state and the will of
God. Kings were considered chosen by God. and to betray
one's country was to do the work of Satan.
Many nations' laws mention various types of treason. "Crimes
Related to Insurrection" is the internal treason, and may
include a coup d'etat. "Crimes Related to Foreign Aggression"
is the treason of cooperating with foreign aggression positively

regardless of the national inside and outside. "Crimes Related

to inducement of Foreign Aggression" is the crime of
communicating with aliens secretly to cause foreign aggression
or menace. Depending on a country, conspiracy is added to
these. In Japan, the application of "Crimes Related to
Insurrection" was considered about Aum Shinrikyo cult which
caused religious terrorism.
==In individual jurisdictions==
===Australia=== Section 80.1 of the Criminal Code,
contained in the schedule of the Australian Criminal Code Act
1995, defines treason as follows:
A person is not guilty of treason under paragraphs (e), (f) or
(h) if their assistance or intended assistance is purely
humanitarian in nature.
The only permissible penalty for treason is life imprisonment.
Section 24AA of the Crimes Act 1914 creates the related
offence of treachery.
====New South Wales====
The Treason Act 1351, the Treason Act 1795 and the Treason
Act 1817 form part of the law of New South Wales. The
Treason Act 1795 and the Treason Act 1817 have been
repealed by Section 11 of the Crimes Act 1900, except in so
far as they relate to the compassing, imagining, inventing,
devising, or intending death or destruction, or any bodily harm
tending to death or destruction, maim, or wounding,
imprisonment, or restraint of the person of the heirs and
successors of King George III of the United Kingdom, and the
expressing, uttering, or declaring of such compassings,
imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of
them.
Section 12 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) creates an offence
which is derived from section 3 of the Treason Felony Act
1848:
Section 16 provides that nothing in Part 2 repeals or affects
anything enacted by the Treason Act 1351 (25 Edw.3 c. 2).
This section reproduces section 6 of the Treason Felony Act
1848.
====Victoria==== The offence of treason was created by
section 9A(1) of the Crimes Act 1958.
===Brazil=== According to Brazilian law, treason is the crime
of disloyalty by a citizen to the Federal Republic of Brazil,
applying to combatants of the Brazilian military forces. Treason

during wartime is the only crime for which a person can be

sentenced to death (see capital punishment in Brazil).
The only military person in the history of Brazil to be convicted
of treason was Carlos Lamarca, an army captain who deserted
to become the leader of a left-wing guerrilla against the
military dictatorship.
===Canada=== Section 46 of the Criminal Code has two
degrees of treason, called "high treason" and "treason."
However, both of these belong to the historical category of
high treason, as opposed to petty treason which does not exist
in Canadian law. Section 46 reads as follows:
High treason
(1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada, :(a) kills
or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm
tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or
imprisons or restrains her; :(b) levies war against Canada or
does any act preparatory thereto; or :(c) assists an enemy at
war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian
Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war
exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.
Treason
(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada, :(a) uses force
or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of
Canada or a province; :(b) without lawful authority,
communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other
than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch,
plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific
character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that
state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of
Canada; :(c) conspires with any person to commit high
treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a); :(d)
forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that
is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by
an overt act; or :(e) conspires with any person to do anything
mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do
anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that
intention by an overt act.
It is also illegal for a Canadian citizen or a person who owes
allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada to do any of the
above outside Canada.
The penalty for high treason is life imprisonment. The penalty
for treason is imprisonment up to a maximum of life, or up to
14 years for conduct under subsection (2)(b) or (e) in

peacetime.
===Finland=== Finnish law distinguishes between two types
of treasonable offences: maanpetos, treachery in war, and
valtiopetos, an attack against the constitutional order. The
terms maanpetos and valtiopetos are unofficially translated as
treason and high treason, respectively. Both are punishable by
imprisonment, and if aggravated, by life imprisonment.
Maanpetos consists in joining enemy armed forces, making
war against Finland, or serving or collaborating with the
enemy. Maanpetos proper can only be committed under
conditions of war or the threat of war. Espionage, disclosure of
a national secret, and certain other related offences are
separately defined under the same rubric in the Finnish
criminal code.
Valtiopetos consists in using violence or the threat of violence,
or unconstitutional means, to bring about the overthrow of the
Finnish constitution or to overthrow the president, cabinet or
parliament or to prevent them from performing their functions.
===France===
Article 411-1 of the French Penal Code defines treason as
follows:
The acts defined by articles 411-2 to 411-11 constitute treason
where they are committed by a French national or a soldier in
the service of France, and constitute espionage where they are
committed by any other person.
Article 411-2 prohibits "handing over troops belonging to the
French armed forces, or all or part of the national territory, to
a foreign power, to a foreign organisation or to an organisation
under foreign control, or to their agents". It is punishable by
life imprisonment and a fine of 750,000. Generally parole is
not available until 18 years of a life sentence have elapsed.
Articles 411-3 to 411-10 define various other crimes of
collaboration with the enemy, sabotage, and the like. These
are punishable with imprisonment for between thirty and
seven years. Article 411-11 make it a crime to incite any of the
above crimes.
Besides treason and espionage, there are many other crimes
dealing with national security, insurrection, terrorism and so
on. These are all to be found in Book IV of the code.
===Hong Kong=== Section 2 of the Crime Ordinance
provides that levying war against the HKSAR Government of
the People's Republic of China, conspiring to do so, instigating
a foreigner to invade Hong Kong, or assisting any public

enemy at war with the HKSAR Government, is treason,

punishable with life imprisonment.
===Germany=== German law differentiates between two
types of treason: "High treason" (Hochverrat) and "treason"
(Landesverrat). High treason, as defined in Section 81 of the
German criminal code is defined as a violent attempt against
the existence or the constitutional order of the Federal
Republic of Germany, carrying a penalty of life imprisonment
or a fixed term of at least ten years. In less serious cases, the
penalty is 110 years in prison. German criminal law also
criminalises high treason against a German state. Preparation
of either types of the crime is criminal and carries a penalty of
up to five years.
The other type of treason, Landesverrat is defined in Section
94. It is roughly equivalent to espionage; more precisely, it
consists in betraying a secret either directly to a foreign power,
or to anyone not allowed to know of it; in the later case,
treason is only committed if the aim of the crime was explicitly
to damage the Federal Republic or to favor a foreign power.
The crime carries a penalty of one to fifteen years in prison.
However, in especially severe cases, life imprisonment or any
term of at least of five years may be sentenced.
As for many crimes with substantial threats of punishment
active repentance is to be considered in mitigation under 83a
StGB (Section 83a, Criminal Code).
Notable cases involving Landesverrat are the Weltbhne trial
during the Weimar Republic and the Spiegel scandal of 1962.
On 30. July 2015, Germany's Public Prosecutor General Harald
Range initiated criminal investigation proceedings against the
German blog netzpolitik.org.
===Ireland===
Article 39 of the Constitution of Ireland (adopted in 1937)
states:
treason shall consist only in levying war against the State, or
assisting any State or person or inciting or conspiring with any
person to levy war against the State, or attempting by force of
arms or other violent means to overthrow the organs of
government established by the Constitution, or taking part or
being concerned in or inciting or conspiring with any person to
make or to take part or be concerned in any such attempt.
Following the enactment of the 1937 constitution, the Treason
Act 1939 provided for the imposition of the death penalty for

treason. The Criminal Justice Act 1990 abolished the death

penalty, setting the punishment for treason at life
imprisonment, with parole in not less than forty years. No
person has been charged under the Treason Act. Irish
republican legitimatists who refuse to recognise the legitimacy
of the Republic of Ireland have been charged with lesser
crimes under the Offences against the State Acts 19391998.
===Italy===
The Italian law defines various types of crimes that could be
generally described as treason (tradimento), although they are
so many and so precisely defined that no one of them is simply
called tradimento in the text of Codice Penale (Italian Criminal
Code). The treason-type crimes are grouped as "crimes
against the personhood of the State" (Crimini contro la
personalit dello Stato) in the Second Book, First Title, of the
Criminal Code.
Articles 241 to 274 detail crimes against the "international
personhood of the State" such as "attempt against wholeness,
independence and unity of the State" (art.241), "hostilities
against a foreign State bringing the Italian State in danger of
war" (art.244), "bribery of a citizen by a foreigner against the
national interests" (art.246), and "political or military
espionage" (art.257).
Articles 276 to 292 detail crimes against the "domestic
personhood of the State", ranging from "attempt on the
President of the Republic" (art.271), "attempt with purposes of
terrorism or of subversion" (art.280), "attempt against the
Constitution" (art.283), "armed insurrection against the power
of the State" (art.284), and "civil war" (art.286).
Further articles detail other crimes, especially those of
conspiracy, such as "political conspiracy through association"
(art.305), or "armed association: creating and participating"
(art.306).
The penalties for treason-type crimes, before 1948, included
death as maximum penalty, and, for some crimes, as the only
penalty possible. Nowadays the maximum penalty is life
imprisonment (ergastolo).
===Japan=== Japan does not technically have a law of
treason. Instead it has an offence against taking part in
foreign aggression against the Japanese state (gaikan zai;
literally "crime of foreign mischief"). The law applies equally to
Japanese and non-Japanese people, while treason in other
countries usually applies only to their own citizens. Technically
there are two laws, one for the crime of inviting foreign

mischief (Japan Criminal Code section 2 clause 81) and the

other for supporting foreign mischief once a foreign force has
invaded Japan. "Mischief" can be anything from invasion to
espionage. Before World War II, Japan had a crime similar to
the English crime of high treason (Taigyaku zai), which applied
to anyone who harmed the Japanese emperor or imperial
family. This law was abolished by the American Occupation
force after World War II.
===New Zealand=== New Zealand has treason laws that are
stipulated under the Crimes Act 1961. Section 73 of the
Crimes Act reads as follows:
Every one owing allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen in right
of New Zealand commits treason who, within or outside New
Zealand, :(a) Kills or wounds or does grievous bodily harm
to Her Majesty the Queen, or imprisons or restrains her; or :
(b) Levies war against New Zealand; or :(c) Assists an enemy
at war with New Zealand, or any armed forces against which
New Zealand forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not
a state of war exists between New Zealand and any other
country; or :(d) Incites or assists any person with force to
invade New Zealand; or :(e) Uses force for the purpose of
overthrowing the Government of New Zealand; or :(f)
Conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in this
section.
The penalty is life imprisonment, except for conspiracy, for
which the maximum sentence is 14 years imprisonment.
Treason was the last capital crime in New Zealand law, with
the death penalty not being revoked until 1989, years after it
was abolished for murder.
Very few people have been prosecuted for the act of treason in
New Zealand and none have been prosecuted in recent years.
===Russia=== Article 275 of the Criminal Code of Russia
defines treason as "espionage, disclosure of state secrets, or
any other assistance rendered to a foreign State, a foreign
organization, or their representatives in hostile activities to the
detriment of the external security of the Russian Federation,
committed by a citizen of the Russian Federation." The
sentence is imprisonment for 12 to 20 years. It is not a capital
offence, even though murder and some aggravated forms of
attempted murder are (although Russia currently has a
moratorium on the death penalty). Subsequent sections
provide for further offences against state security, such as
armed rebellion and forcible seizure of power.

===Sweden=== Sweden's treason laws have seen little

application in modern times. The most recent case was in
2001. Four teenagers (their names were not reported) were
convicted of treason after they assaulted King Carl XVI Gustaf
with a cream-cake. The ringleader was fined 100 days'
income; the others were fined 80 days' income.
===Switzerland=== There is no single crime of treason in
Swiss law; instead, multiple criminal prohibitions apply. Article
265 of the Swiss Criminal Code prohibits "high treason"
(Hochverrat/haute trahison) as follows:
Whoever commits an act with the objective of violently
changing the constitution of the Confederation or of a
canton,
removing the constitutional authorities of the state from
office or making them unable to exercise their authority,
separating Swiss territory from the Confederation or territory
from a canton, shall be punished with imprisonment of no less
than a year.
A separate crime is defined in article 267 as "diplomatic
treason" (Diplomatischer Landesverrat/Trahison
diplomatique):
1. Whoever makes known or accessible a secret, the
preservation of which is required in the interest of the
Confederation, to a foreign state or its agents, (...) shall be
punished with imprisonment of no less than a year.
2. Whoever makes known or accessible a secret, the
preservation of which is required in the interest of the
Confederation, to the public, shall be punished with
imprisonment of up to five years or a monetary penalty.
In 1950, in the context of the Cold War, the following
prohibition of "foreign enterprises against the security of
Switzerland" was introduced as article 266bis:
1 Whoever, with the purpose of inciting or supporting foreign
enterprises aimed against the security of Switzerland, enters
into contact with a foreign state or with foreign parties or
other foreign organizations or their agents, or makes or
disseminates untrue or tendentious claims (unwahre oder
entstellende Behauptungen / informations inexactes ou
tendancieuses), shall be punished with imprisonment of up to
five years or a monetary penalty.
2 In grave cases the judge may pronounce a sentence of
imprisonment of no less than a year.

The criminal code also prohibits, among other acts, the

suppression or falsification of legal documents or evidence
relevant to the international relations of Switzerland (art. 267,
imprisonment of no less than a year) and attacks against the
independence of Switzerland and incitement of a war against
Switzerland (art. 266, up to life imprisonment).
The Swiss military criminal code contains additional
prohibitions under the general title of "treason", which also
apply to civilians, or which in times of war civilians are also (or
may by executive decision be made) subject to. These include
espionage or transmission of secrets to a foreign power (art.
86); sabotage (art. 86a); "military treason", i.e., the
disruption of activities of military significance (art. 87); acting
as a franc-tireur (art. 88); disruption of military action by
disseminating untrue information (art. 89); military service
against Switzerland by Swiss nationals (art. 90); or giving aid
to the enemy (art. 91). The penalties for these crimes vary,
but include life imprisonment in some cases.
===Turkey=== Treason per se is not defined in the Turkish
Penal Code. However, the law defines crimes which are
traditionally included in the scope of treason, such as
cooperating with the enemy during wartime. Treason is
punishable by imprisonment up to life.
===United Kingdom===
The British law of treason is entirely statutory and has been so
since the Treason Act 1351 (25 Edw. 3 St. 5 c. 2). The Act is
written in Norman French, but is more commonly cited in its
English translation.
The Treason Act 1351 has since been amended several times,
and currently provides for four categories of treasonable
offences, namely:
* "when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord
the King, or of our lady his Queen or of their eldest son and
heir"; * "if a man do violate the King's companion, or the
King's eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the King's
eldest son and heir"; * "if a man do levy war against our lord
the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in
his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or
elsewhere"; and * "if a man slea the chancellor, treasurer, or
the King's justices of the one bench or the other, justices in
eyre, or justices of assise, and all other justices assigned to

hear and determine, being in their places, doing their offices".

Another Act, the Treason Act 1702 (1 Anne stat. 2 c. 21),
provides for a fifth category of treason, namely:
* "if any person or persons ... shall endeavour to deprive or
hinder any person who shall be the next in succession to the
crown ... from succeeding after the decease of her Majesty
(whom God long preserve) to the imperial crown of this realm
and the dominions and territories thereunto belonging".
By virtue of the Treason Act 1708, the law of treason in
Scotland is the same as the law in England, save that in
Scotland the slaying of the Lords of Session and Lords of
Justiciary and counterfeiting the Great Seal of Scotland remain
treason under sections 11 and 12 of the Treason Act 1708
respectively. Treason is a reserved matter about which the
Scottish Parliament is prohibited from legislating. Two acts of
the former Parliament of Ireland passed in 1537 and 1542
create further treasons which apply in Northern Ireland.
The penalty for treason was changed from death to a
maximum of imprisonment for life in 1998 under the Crime
And Disorder Act. Before 1998, the death penalty was
mandatory, subject to the royal prerogative of mercy. Since
the abolition of the death penalty for murder in 1965 an
execution for treason was unlikely to have been carried out.
Treason laws were used against Irish insurgents before Irish
independence. However, members of the Provisional IRA and
other militant republican groups were not prosecuted or
executed for treason for levying war against the British
government during the Troubles. They, along with members of
loyalist paramilitary groups, were jailed for murder, violent
crimes or terrorist offences. William Joyce ("Lord Haw-Haw")
was the last person to be put to death for treason, in 1946.
(On the following day Theodore Schurch was executed for
treachery, a similar crime, and was the last man to be
executed for a crime other than murder in the UK.)
As to who can commit treason, it depends on the ancient
notion of allegiance. As such, all British nationals (but not
other Commonwealth citizens) owe allegiance to the Queen in
right of the United Kingdom wherever they may be, as do
Commonwealth citizens and aliens present in the United
Kingdom at the time of the treasonable act (except diplomats
and foreign invading forces), those who hold a British passport

however obtained, and aliens who having lived in Britain and

gone abroad again have left behind family and belongings.
====International influence==== The Treason Act 1695
enacted, among other things, a rule that treason could be
proved only in a trial by the evidence of two witnesses to the
same offence. Nearly one hundred years later this rule was
incorporated into the U.S. Constitution, which requires two
witnesses to the same overt act. It also provided for a threeyear time limit on bringing prosecutions for treason (except for
assassinating the king), another rule which has been imitated
in some common law countries. The Sedition Act 1661 made it
treason to imprison, restrain or wound the king. Although this
law was abolished in the United Kingdom in 1998, it still
continues to apply in some Commonwealth countries.
===United States=== In the 1790s, opposition political
parties were new and not fully accepted. Government leaders
often considered their opponents to be some sort of traitors.
Historian Ron Chernow reports that Secretary of the Treasury
Alexander Hamilton and President George Washington
"regarded much of the criticism fired at their administration as
disloyal, even treasonous, in nature." When an undeclared
Quasi-War broke out with France in 1797-98, "Hamilton
increasingly mistook dissent for treason and engaged in
hyperbole." Furthermore, the Jeffersonian opposition party
behaved the same way. After 1801, with a peaceful transition
in the political party in power, the rhetoric of "treason" against
political opponents diminished. Vermont is the only U.S. state
to have abolished capital punishment for all crimes except
treason.
====Federal====
To avoid the abuses of the English law, treason was specifically
defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so
defined. Article III, section 3 reads as follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying
War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving
them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason
unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt
Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of
Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of
Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person
attainted.

However, Congress has passed laws creating related offenses

that punish conduct that undermines the government or the
national security, such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and
Sedition Acts, or espionage and sedition in the 1917 Espionage
Act, which do not require the testimony of two witnesses and
have a much broader definition than Article Three treason.
Some of these laws are still in effect. Some well-known spies
have been convicted of espionage rather than treason.
The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only
restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits Congress
to create the offense, and restricts any punishment for treason
to only the convicted (the second paragraph). The crime is
prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore, the
United States Code at states "whoever, owing allegiance to the
United States, levies war against them or adheres to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States
or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or
shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under
this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of
holding any office under the United States." The requirement
of testimony of two witnesses was inherited from the British
Treason Act 1695.
====Historical cases==== One of American history's most
notorious traitors is Benedict Arnold, whose name is
considered synonymous with the definition of traitor due to his
collaboration with the British during the American
Revolutionary War. However, this occurred before the
Constitution was written. Arnold became a general in the
British Army, which protected him.
Since the Constitution came into effect, there have been fewer
than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer
convictions. Several men were convicted of treason in
connection with the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion but were
pardoned by President George Washington.
=====Burr trial=====
The most famous treason trial, that of Aaron Burr in 1807
resulted in acquittal. In 1807, on a charge of treason, Burr was
brought to trial before the United States Circuit Court at
Richmond, Virginia. The only physical evidence presented to
the grand jury was Wilkinson's so-called letter from Burr,
which proposed the idea of stealing land in the Louisiana
Purchase. The trial was presided over by Chief Justice of the
United States John Marshall, acting as a circuit judge. Since no
two witnesses testified Burr was acquitted, in spite of the full

force of the Jefferson administration's political influence thrown

against him. Immediately afterward, Burr was tried on a
misdemeanor charge and was again acquitted. Politically
motivated attempts to convict opponents of the Jeffersonian
Embargo Acts and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 all failed.
=====Civil War===== During the American Civil War,
treason trials were held in Indianapolis against Copperheads
for conspiring with the Confederacy against the United States.
After the war the question was whether the United States
government would make indictments for treason against
leaders of the Confederate States of America , as many people
demanded. Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president, was
indicted and held in prison for two years. The indictment was
dropped in 1869 when the political scene had changed and it
was possible he would be acquitted by a jury in Virginia. When
accepting Lee's surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia, at
Appomattox, in April 1865, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant assured all
Confederate soldiers and officers a blanket amnesty, provided
they returned to their homes and refrained from any further
acts of hostility, and subsequently other Union generals issued
similar terms of amnesty when accepting Confederate
surrenders. All Confederate officials received a blanket
amnesty issued by President Andrew Johnson as he left office
in 1869.
=====World War 2===== In 1949 Iva Toguri D'Aquino was
convicted of treason for wartime radio broadcasts (under the
name of "Tokyo Rose"), and sentenced to ten years, of which
she served six. As a result of prosecution witnesses having lied
on oath, she was pardoned in 1977.
In 1952 Tomoya Kawakita, a Japanese-American dual citizen
was convicted of treason and sentenced to death for having
worked as an interpreter at a Japanese POW camp and having
mistreated American prisoners. He was recognized by a former
prisoner at a department store in 1946 after having returned
to the United States. The sentence was later commuted to life
imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. He was released and
deported in 1963.
=====Cold War and after===== The Cold War saw frequent
talk linking treason with support for Communist-led causes.
The most memorable of these came from Senator Joseph
McCarthy, who used rhetoric about the Democrats as guilty of
"twenty years of treason." As chosen chair of the Senate
Permanent Investigations Subcommittee, McCarthy also
investigated various government agencies for Soviet spy rings

(see the Venona project); however, he acted as a political factfinder rather than a criminal prosecutor. The Cold War period
saw no prosecutions for explicit treason, but there were
convictions and even executions for conspiracy to commit
espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union, such as in the Julius
and Ethel Rosenberg case.
On October 11, 2006, the United States government charged
Adam Yahiye Gadahn for videos in which he appeared as a
spokesman for al-Qaeda and threatened attacks on American
soil. He was killed on January 19, 2015 in an unmanned
aircraft (drone) strike in Waziristan, Pakistan.
=====Treason against American states===== Most states
have treason provisions in their constitutions or statutes
similar to those in the U.S. Constitution. The Extradition Clause
specifically defines treason as an extraditable offense.
Thomas Jefferson in 1791 said that any Virginia official who
cooperated with the federal Bank of the United States
proposed by Alexander Hamilton was guilty of "treason"
against the state of Virginia and should be executed. The Bank
opened and no one was prosecuted.
Only three persons are known to have been prosecuted for
treason on the state level. Thomas Dorr was convicted for
treason against the state of Rhode Island for his part in the
Dorr Rebellion, but was eventually amnestied. John Brown was
convicted of treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia for
his part in the raid on Harpers Ferry, and was hanged. The
Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, was charged with treason
against Missouri, at first in front of a state military court, but
escaped to Illinois after his case was transferred to a civilian
court for trial on charges of treason, murder, robbery, and
other crimes. Smith was then later imprisoned for trial on
charges of treason against Illinois, but was murdered by a
lynch mob while in jail awaiting trial.
===Muslim countries=== Early in Islamic history, the only
form of treason was seen as the attempt to overthrow a just
government or waging war against the State. According to
Islamic tradition, the prescribed punishment ranged from
imprisonment to the severing of limbs and the death penalty
depending on the severity of the crime. However, even in
cases of treason the repentance of a person would have to be
taken into account.
Currently, the consensus among major Islamic schools is that
apostasy (leaving Islam) is considered treason and that the
penalty is death; this is supported not in the Quran but in the

Hadith. This confusion between apostasy and treason almost

certainly had its roots in the Ridda Wars, in which an army of
rebel traitors led by the self-proclaimed prophet Musaylima
attempted to destroy the caliphate of Abu Bakr.
In the 19th and early 20th century, the Iranian Cleric Sheikh
Fazlollah Noori opposed the Iranian Constitutional Revolution
by inciting insurrection against them through issuing Fatwahs
and publishing pamphlets arguing democracy will bring vice to
the country. The new government executed him for treason in
1909.
In Malaysia, it is treason to commit offences against the Yang
di-Pertuan Agong's person, waging, attempting to wage war or
abetting the waging of war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong,
a Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri. All these offences are
punishable by hanging, which derives from the English treason
acts (a former British colony, Malaysia's legal system is based
on English common law).
====Algeria====
In Algeria, treason is defined as the following: * attempts to
change the regime or actions aimed at incitement *
destruction of territory, sabotage to public and economic
utilities * participation in armed bands or in insurrectionary
movements
====Bahrain==== In Bahrain, plotting to topple the regime,
collaborating with a foreign hostile country and threatening the
life of the Emir are defined as treason and punishable by
death. The State Security Law of 1974 was used to crush
dissent that could be seen as treasonous, which was criticised
for permitting severe human rights violations in accordance
with Article One:
If there is serious evidence that a person has perpetrated acts,
delivered statements, exercised activities, or has been
involved in contacts inside or outside the country, which are of
a nature considered to be in violation of the internal or
external security of the country, the religious and national
interests of the State, its social or economic system; or
considered to be an act of sedition that affects or can possibly
affect the existing relations between the people and
Government, between the various institutions of the State,
between the classes of the people, or between those who work
in corporations propagating subversive propaganda or
disseminating atheistic principles; the Minister of Interior may
order the arrest of that person, committing him to one of

Bahrain's prisons, searching him, his residence and the place

of his work, and may take any measure which he deems
necessary for gathering evidence and completing
investigations.
The period of detention may not exceed three years. Searches
may only be made and the measures provided for in the first
paragraph may only be taken upon judicial writ.
====Palestinian territories====
In the areas controlled by the Palestinian National Authority, it
is treason to give assistance to Israeli troops without the
authorization of the Palestinian Authority or to sell land to Jews
(irrespective of nationality) and also non-Jewish Israeli citizens
under the Palestinian Land Laws, as part of the PA's general
policy of discouraging the expansion of Israeli settlements.
Both crimes are capital offences subject to the death penalty,
although the former provision has not often been enforced
since the beginning of effective security cooperation between
the Israel Defense Forces, Israel Police, and Palestinian
National Security Forces since the mid-2000s (decade) under
the leadership of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. Likewise, in the
Gaza Strip under the Hamas led government, any sort of
cooperation or assistance to Israeli forces during military
actions is also punishable by death.
==List of people convicted by country==
==Related offences== There are a number of other crimes
against the state short of treason: * Apostasy in Islam is
considered treason in Islamic belief. * Compounding treason is
dropping a prosecution for treason in exchange for money or
money's worth. * Defection, or leaving the country, is
regarded in some communist countries (especially during the
Cold War) as disloyal to the state. * Espionage or spying. *
Lse majest is insulting a head of state and is a crime in
some countries. * Misprision of treason is a crime consisting of
the concealment of treason. * Sedition is inciting civil unrest or
insurrection, or undermining the government. * Treachery, the
name of a number of derivative offences. * Treason felony, a
British offence tantamount to treason.
==See also== * Betrayal * Constructive treason
===Terms for traitors=== Different cultures have evolved a
variety of terms for "traitor" or collaborator, often based on
historical incidences of treason to that culture or of people
whose name has become a byword for treason.
*Quisling *Malinchism *Hanjian *Jash (term) *Mir Jafar

*Benedict Arnold *Judas

==References==
==Further reading== * Elaine Shannon and Ann Blackman,
The Spy Next Door : The Extraordinary Secret Life of Robert
Philip Hanssen, The Most Damaging FBI Agent in US History,
Little, Brown and Company, 2002, ISBN 0-316-71821-1 * BenYehuda, Nachman, "Betrayals and Treason. Violations of trust
and Loyalty." Westview Press, 2001, ISBN 0-8133-9776-6 *
Longaigh, Seosamh, "Emergency Law in Independent Ireland,
19221948", Four Courts Press, Dublin 2006 ISBN 1-85182922-9
==External links==
* [http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/spying.htm British
Treason Law] *
[http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations], Official site
https://what-is-this.net/en/define/treason
Statutory Review of Irish Defamation Law (08/11/2016)
The Department of Justice and Equality announced on 1 November that it
will review the impact of the defamation reforms introduced in 2009.
The objective of defamation law is to strike a balance between the
constitutional rights of a company or individual to a good reputation and
the right to freedom of expression. Achieving this balance has become
increasingly difficult with the explosion of digital media providing multiple
platforms for numerous parties to express their views and opinions, often
without the rigours imposed by traditional media outlets.
The Department's announcement takes place against a backdrop of
growing media criticism at the level of defamation awards in Ireland,
particularly when compared with those obtained in similar jurisdictions
such as the UK. However, it must be borne in mind that, in general, those
high profile Irish defamation awards relate to claims determined under the
law applicable prior to the enactment of the 2009 Act. These are not an
accurate reflection of the current system which now allows judges give
directions to a jury regarding the appropriate level of damages.
This review does not include the statutory offence of blasphemy as it will
be subject of a constitutional referendum pursuant to the Programme for
a Partnership Government.
Although the Department is seeking submissions as part of the public
consultation process by 31 December 2016 no commitment has yet been
given in relation to the publication of a revised Act which would further
reform Irish defamation law.
For further information please contact Mark O'Shaughnessy.
Date Published: 8 November 2016

Offences against the State Act 1939 and ... 39 of the

Offences against the State Act, ... Criminal Court
under part V of the Offences against
Patrick Holland v. Ireland, Communication No. 593/1994 ,
U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/58/D/593/1994 (1996).
Decision of the Human Rights Committee under the
Optional Protocol
to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- Fifty-eighth session concerning
Communication No. 593/1994 *
Submitted by: Patrick Holland
Victim: The author
State party: Ireland
Date of communication: 8 June 1994 (initial submission)
The Human Rights Committee, established under article
28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights,
Meeting on 25 October 1996,
Adopts the following:
Decision on admissibility
1. The author of the communication is Patrick Holland, an
Irish citizen, born on 12 March 1939, at the time of
submission of the communication serving a prison term in
Ireland. He claims to be a victim of a violation by Ireland of
articles 14 and 26 of the Covenant. Both the Covenant and
the Optional Protocol entered into force for Ireland on 8

March 1990.
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1 The author was arrested on 6 April 1989 under section
30 of the Offences against the State Act 1939 and charged
with possession of explosives for unlawful purposes. He
was tried on 27 June 1989 by a Special Criminal Court,
together with four co-defendants, found guilty and
sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. On appeal against
sentence, the Court of Appeal, on 21 May 1990, reduced
the sentence to seven years' imprisonment, considering
that the judgment of the Special Court might give the
impression that he was convicted of a more serious
charge, namely of possession of explosives for enabling
others to endanger life. The author was released from
prison on 27 September 1994.
2.2 At the trial before the Special Criminal Court, the
author pleaded guilty of the charge, allegedly because his
lawyer had told him that "in this court, they are going to
believe the police" and that his sentence would be heavier
if he would plead not guilty. In this context, the author
states that one of his co-accused who pleaded not-guilty
was indeed sentenced to a longer term of imprisonment.
2.3 The author submits that there was no evidence against
him, but that the police claimed that he had admitted to
them that he knew about the explosives in his house. No
tape recording of the author's alleged confession was
provided; he did not sign any confession.
2.4 The author explains that in April 1989, an
acquaintance of his, A.M., stayed with him in his house,
having come from England to inquire into the possibilities
of renting a restaurant or pub. On 3 April 1989, they were
joined by P.W., a friend of A.M., who had come to Dublin to
attend a court hearing. The author states that he did not
know P.W. before, but that he allowed him to stay at his
house. The author, who had his own printing business,
worked most of the time, only coming home to sleep or
eat. At lunchtime on 6 April 1989, the police raided his

house, and arrested him, A.M. and P.W. and a fourth

acquaintance, a former colleague, who was visiting the
author. Explosives were found in a black bag, but the
author denies having had knowledge of their presence.
The complaint
3.1 The author claims that the trial against him was unfair,
because the Special Criminal Court does not constitute an
independent and impartial tribunal, in violation of article
14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. In this connection, the
author explains that the Irish constitution permits the
establishment of "special courts" for the trial of offences in
cases where it is determined that the ordinary courts are
inadequate to secure the effective administration of
justice and the preservation of public peace and order. The
author points out that it is the Government who decides
which cases are to be brought before a special court. The
author quotes from section 39 of the Offences against the
State Act, which provides that members of special courts
are appointed and removed at will by the Government.
The remuneration, if any, is determined by the Ministry for
Finance. Members of special courts need not be members
of the judiciary; barristers and solicitors of at least seven
years standing and high ranking officers of the Defence
Forces may also be appointed.
3.2 The author contends that the special courts represent
a threat to the equality of treatment of those accused of
crimes, because the independence of the members of
such courts is not protected. In this context, the author
refers to the judgment in his case, which appeared to
sentence him for a more serious offence that for which he
had been charged.
3.3 The author further alleges that he was discriminated
against in the prison system because he "fought for his
rights" through the courts in order to have his proper
entitlement to parole established. He states that two of his
co-accused, who received the same sentence, were
moved to an open prison in 1992 and early 1993, whereas
the author was only moved to an open prison in the

beginning of 1994. The author points out that regular

weekend home visits are allowed from an open prison,
whereas he was unable to obtain permission to visit his
sister in hospital before she died on 22 December 1993;
he was granted parole from 22 to 27 December 1993,
after she had already died.
State party's submission and the author's comments
4.1 By submission of 5 December 1994, the State party
argues that the communication is inadmissible ratione
temporis, since the substance of the author's complaint
relates to his trial in the Special Criminal Court on 27 June
1989, that is before the entry into force of the Covenant
and its Optional Protocol for Ireland.
4.2 The State party further argues that the communication
is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
The State party notes that the essence of the author's
claim is that he did not receive a fair trial before an
independent and impartial tribunal and that he claims that
he was innocent of the offences with which he was
charged. However, the author withdrew his plea of not
guilty, leaving the trial court with no option but to accept
his acknowledgement and sentence him accordingly. The
State party submits that he might have been acquitted,
had he pleaded not guilty. It contests the author's
suggestion that persons tried in the Special Criminal
Courts are invariably convicted.
4.3 The State party further submits that the author failed
to request the judges of the Special Court to disqualify
themselves on the grounds that they were not
independent and impartial. In this connection, the State
party notes that the author, in fact, has not alleged any
bias against the judges of the court which tried him. His
argument seems to be that by virtue of the method of
appointment and dismissal of the members of the Court a
lack of independence and impartiality could arise, not that
it did.
4.4 The State party explains that the Special Court is

subject to control through judicial review by the High

Court. A person who alleges a breach of the constitution or
of natural justice can seek an order from the High Court
quashing a decision by the Special Criminal Court or
prohibiting it from acting contrary to the Constitution or to
the rules of natural justice. If the author would have had
reason to argue that he had not received a fair trial in the
Special Court, he could therefore have sought an order of
judicial review from the High Court, which he failed to do.
4.5 In this context, the State party refers to the Supreme
Court's decision in the Eccles case 1, where it was held
that the Government could not lawfully terminate the
appointment of individual members of the Special Court
for disagreeing with their decisions. The Court found that
whereas the express constitutional guarantees of judicial
independence did not apply to the Special Court, it
enjoyed a derived guarantee of independence in carrying
out its function.
4.6 The State party also argues that it would have been
open to the author to argue at the hearing of his appeal
that his conviction was defective by reason of lack of
independence of the judges. The State party notes that
the author, however, failed to appeal against his
conviction and made no allegation that the Special Court
was biased or lacked independence.
4.7 Further, the State party argues that the author has not
shown that he is personally a victim of the violation
alleged. The State party refers to the author's argument
that under the applicable legislation the independence of
the court cannot be guaranteed. The State party submits
that this is an argument of an actio popularis, since the
author does not argue that the judges who tried him did in
fact lack independence or that they were biased against
him, nor does he specify any shortcoming in the
proceedings. In this context, the State party refers to the
decision by the European Commission on Human Rights in
the Eccles case 2, which found that the Special Court was
independent within the meaning of article 6 of the
European Convention.

4.8 The State party explains that article 38 of the

Constitution provides that special courts may be
established by law for the trial of offences in cases where
it may be determined in accordance with such law that the
ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective
administration of justice and the preservation of public
peace and order. The Offences against the State Act,
1939, provides for the establishment of such special
courts, if the Government is satisfied that the ordinary
courts are inadequate to secure the effective
administration of justice and the preservation of public
peace and order and publishes a proclamation accordingly.
Any such Government proclamation may be annulled by
resolution of the Lower House of Parliament. A Special
Criminal Court was first established in 1939 and remained
in existence until 1962. In 1972, due to the situation
arising from the troubles in Northern Ireland, the Special
Criminal Court was re-established.
4.9 Section 39 of the Offences against the State Act
regulates the appointment of members to the Court. The
State party underlines that with few exceptions the
members of the Special Criminal Court since 1972 have
been judges of ordinary courts at the times of their
appointment, and that since 1986 the Court has been
comprised only of serving judges. No members of the
Defence Forces have been appointed to the Court since its
establishment in 1972.
4.10 Section 40 of the Act provides that the determination
of the Special Criminal Court is to be according to the
opinion of the majority and that individual opinions are not
to be disclosed. Pursuant to section 44 of the Act
convictions or sentences of a Special Criminal Court are
subject to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal in the
same way as convictions and sentences of the Central
Criminal Court. There are no rules of evidence applying to
the Special Criminal Court which do not apply to the
ordinary courts, apart for provisions permitting the taking
of evidence on commission in Northern Ireland.

4.11 Finally, the State party informs the Committee that

the Court before which the author was tried consisted of a
judge of the High Court, a judge of the Circuit Court and a
District Justice. The State party adds that it is not aware of
any challenge to the members' personal impartiality and
independence.
5.1 On 8 February 1995, the author provides his
comments on the State party's submission. He reiterates
that members of the Special Court can be dismissed at will
by the Government and that there is therefore no
guarantee for their independence and impartiality.
5.2 As to the State party's argument that his
communication is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of
domestic remedies because he withdrew his plea of not
guilty, the author explains that after he had pleaded not
guilty, his barrister asked the Court for a short recess. He
then came to see him and advised him to plead guilty,
since he was before the Special Criminal Court and a not
guilty plea would result in a 12 years' sentence.
Consequently, he pleaded guilty.
5.3 As regards the State party's argument that he failed to
ask the judges of the trial court to disqualify themselves,
that he failed to have the trial proceedings quashed by
judicial review and that he failed to appeal against his
conviction or to raise the alleged lack of independence of
the court as a ground of appeal, the author states that he
could not have done any of these things because his own
defence counsel had already told him to plead guilty and
he himself had not yet learned about United Nations
human rights treaties. The author recalls that as a layman
he was depending on his legal advisers, who let him down
and never raised these issues. In this connection, the
author states that he knows of a lot of people who stood
up and did not recognise the court and then were
sentenced for that alone.
Further submission from the State party
6.1 Upon request of the Committee, the State party, in a

further submission of 2 July 1996, comments on the

admissibility of the author's claim that he had been
discriminated against in the prison system, and explains
the legislation and practice surrounding the decision to
bring the author's case before the Special Criminal Court.
6.2 As regards the author's claim that he is a victim of
discrimination, the State party confirms that the two coaccused who were sentenced to six years' imprisonment
were moved to an open prison prior to the completion of
their sentences and that the author and one other coaccused remained in a closed institution until their
release. The State party explains further that the coaccused moved to an open prison received the standard
25% remission of their sentences and were released about
six months early. The third co-accused spent the duration
of his sentence in a high security facility and was released
36 days prior to his release date.
6.3 The State party explains that the author was
considered for a transfer to an open prison, but that, since
the author had friends and relatives in Dublin, and all the
open facilities were outside the Dublin area, it was decided
that it would be better if he stayed in a closed institution
in Dublin. The author was offered early release from 27
June 1994, that is three months prior to his release date.
However, he declined to leave prison as he had nowhere
to live. He was subsequently released on 22 September
1994, four days early.
6.4 The State party submits that transfers from a closed to
an open prison are benefits accorded certain prisoners on
the basis of their records, home addresses and other
relevant considerations, but that it is not a right to which
all prisoners are equally entitled. Reference is made to the
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the
Ashingdane case (14/1983/70/106).
6.5 It is further submitted that the author was not treated
differently from others, but that the decision to keep the
author in a closed institution in Dublin was taken, as were
the decisions to transfer two of his co-accused to an open

institution outside Dublin, by reference to their personal

and family circumstances and were intended to facilitate
communication between the detainees and persons close
to them. Moreover, it is submitted that, might the
Committee nevertheless find that the author was treated
differently, this treatment was based on reasonable and
objective criteria and did not amount to discrimination.
6.6 The State party argues that the communication is
inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol, for
being incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant.
Further, it is argued that the author's claim is inadmissible
for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since it was
open to the author to seek judicial review of the order
made by the minister of Justice to transfer him to
Whatefield Detention Centre in Dublin and not to an open
prison. It was also open to the author to institute
proceedings for alleged breach of constitutional rights,
since the Constitution in article 10.1 protects the right of
all citizens to be held equal before the law. It is submitted
that the author never availed himself of any of the
remedies open to him.
7.1 As regards the procedures of deciding whether a case
will be tried before a Special Criminal Court, the State
party explains that the Director of Public Prosecutions
decides in accordance with law whether a case will be
tried by the ordinary Criminal Courts or by the Special
Criminal Court under part V of the Offences against the
State Act. The Director is independent of the Government
and the police in the discharge of his functions. The
Offences against the State Act provides for certain
offences to be scheduled under that Act. Where a person
is charged with a scheduled offence, the Director of Public
Prosecutions, under section 47(1) of the Act, may have
that person brought before the Special Criminal Court to
be tried on such offence. The author was charged with
possession of explosive substances for an unlawful object,
a scheduled indictable offence in accordance with section
47(1) of the Act.
7.2 A panel of nine judges, appointed by the Government

and all being judges of the High Court, Circuit Court or

District Court, is available to hear cases in the Special
Criminal Court. The designation of members to hear a
case is exclusively a matter for the judges of the panel to
decide. The State party strongly refutes any suggestion
that the judges of the Special Criminal Court lack
independence or would have been biased against the
author.
7.3 The State party explains that the decision to charge
the author with the offence in question, as well as the
decision to refer the author's case to the Special Criminal
Court, was based on an assessment of the available
evidence that was made known to the Director of Public
Prosecutions by the Irish police.
7.4 The State party explains that the institution of the
Special Criminal Court can be challenged since it is subject
to constitutional scrutiny. It is also possible to challenge
the constitutionality of various aspects of the legislation
relating to the Special Criminal Court. Several such
challenges have been undertaken. The author however did
not attempt to initiate any proceedings in this respect.
7.5 The State party explains that it is also possible to
challenge the referral of a case to the Special Criminal
Court through judicial review of the Director of Public
Prosecutions' decision. However, the relevant case law all
relates to situations where the accused had been charged
with a non-scheduled offence and the Director decided
that he or she be tried before the Special Criminal Court.
In availing himself of this remedy, the author would have
had to show that the Director of Public Prosecutions had
acted with mala fides.
7.6 The State party reiterates that the communication
should be declared inadmissible.
Author's comments on the State party's submission
8.1 In his comments on the State party's submission, the
author emphasizes that his main complaint is that the

Special Criminal Court was illegal, because it was set up

without making an application under article 4, paragraph
3, of the Covenant. He contends that there is no escaping
a conviction before the Special Court and reiterates that
when he pleaded not guilty, his solicitor told him that his
sentence would be lower with a guilty plea, upon which he
changed his plea.
8.2 The author reiterates that he was not allowed to leave
prison in time to visit his dying sister in December 1993,
but that he was only given leave after she died, to attend
her funeral.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
9.1 Before considering any claim contained in a
communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in
accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide
whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol
to the Covenant.
9.2 The Committee has taken note of the State party's
argument that the communication is inadmissible ratione
temporis. The Committee refers to its prior jurisprudence
and reiterates that it is precluded from considering a
communication if the alleged violations occurred before
the entry into force of the Covenant for the State party
concerned, unless the alleged violations continue or have
continuing effects which in themselves constitute a
violation. The Committee notes that, although the author
was convicted and sentenced at first instance in June
1989, that is before the entry into force of the Covenant
for Ireland, his appeal was dismissed on 21 May 1990, that
is after the entry into force of the Covenant for Ireland,
and his imprisonment lasted until August 1994. In the
circumstances, the Committee is not precluded ratione
temporis from considering the author's communication.
9.3 As regards the author's claim that he did not receive a
fair trial because he was tried before a Special Criminal
Court, which was established in violation of article 14 of
the Covenant, the Committee notes that the author

pleaded guilty to the charge against him, that he failed to

appeal his conviction, and that he never raised any
objections with regard to the impartiality and
independence of the Special Court. In this context, the
Committee notes that the author was represented by legal
counsel throughout and that it appears from the file that
he made use of his right to petition the High Court with
regard to other issues but did not raise the aforesaid issue.
In the circumstances, the Committee finds that the author
has failed to fulfil the requirement of article 5, paragraph
2(b), of the Optional Protocol, to exhaust available
domestic remedies.
9.4 As regards the author's claim that he was
discriminated against because he was not transferred to
an open prison at the same time as his co-accused, the
Committee notes that the State party has argued, and the
author has not denied, that it would have been open to
the author to seek judicial review of this decision. In the
circumstances, the Committee considers that this claim is
also inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the
Optional Protocol, for non-exhaustion of domestic
remedies.
10. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:
(a) that the communication is inadmissible;
(b) that this decision shall be communicated to the State
party and to the author.
[Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text
being the original version.]

http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/htm
l/IDEC5935.htm
IRELANDTimeline
IRELAND 1937 - 1949. ... President of Ireland elected
under the 1937 constitution. ... the Offences Against
the State Act making treason

1937December 29 The new constitution written by

Eamon de Valera comes into effect. The Irish Free State is
officially renamed Eire in Gaelic and in English simply,
Ireland. The charter abolishes the Oath of Allegiance to
the Crown, replaces the office of Governor General with a
President, makes Gaelic the first official language,
recognizes the special position of the Roman Catholic
Church as the guardian of the faith professed by the great
majority of the citizens.(also recognizes the Church of
Ireland, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Methodist
Church in Ireland, the Religious Society of Friends in
Ireland, as well as the Jewish Congregations and the other
religious denominations existing in Ireland), prohibits the
state from granting divorce and claims the whole island of
Ireland and surrounding waters as the national territory.
A Presidential Commission headed by Frank Fahy is
appointed to exercise the functions of the office until an
election can be held to fill the office.
1938January De Valera and British Prime Minister Neville
Chamberlain begin talks to end the Economic War. De
Valera supports Chamberlains policy of appeasement
during his tenure as President of the 13th (and last)
Assembly of the League of Nations.
February 9
General election in Northern
Ireland:UNIONISTS 39, NATIONALISTS 8, LABOUR 2,
INDEPENDENTS 1
March 31 Frank Ryan,leader of the Connolly Column of the
International Brigades is captured and imprisoned by
Italian fascists at Calaceite, Spain.
April 25 The Anglo-Irish Accords are signed. The British
Admiralty transfers its rights and property at Berehaven
and the harbor defenses at Berehaven, Cobh and Lough
Swilly to the Government of Ireland. The Irish Government
agrees to pay Great Britain 10,000,000 in final
settlement of claims for land annuities. Both governments
agree to end the retaliatory duties imposed on each others
products after the suspension of land annuity payments by
the Irish Government in 1932.
June 15 Frank Ryan, leader of the Connolly Column of
the International Brigades, is tried, convicted and
sentenced to death for war crimes by a Nationalist courtmartial in Burgos, Spain.

June 17 General election: A single party, Prime Minister

de Valeras Fianna Fail, wins a majority of the total votes
cast for the only time in the history of Dail elections to
gain an absolute majority in the chamber.
PARTY - % OF VOTE CAST - SEATS WON
FIANNA FAIL - 51.9 - 77
FINE GAEL - 33.3 - 45
LABOUR - 10.0 - 9
INDEPENDENTS - - 5
FARMERS - - 2
June 25 Douglas Hyde is sworn in as the first President
of Ireland elected under the 1937 constitution.
July 11
The British garrison turns the fortification on
Spike Island at the entrance to Cobh harbor over to Irish
troops and withdraws.
July 18
Douglas "Wrong Way" Corrigan lands in Dublin
28 hours 13 minutes after departing Floyd Bennett Field;
Brooklyn, New York in the 1929 Curtiss Robin he bought off
a scrap heap for $310. Civil aviation authorities had
denied permission for the transatlantic crossing. Corrigan
told authorities he was heading to Long Beach, California
and claimed he was the victim of a faulty compass. His
first words after landing were, I just got in from New York.
Where am I?
July 25
A court in Northern Ireland sentences a Belfast
woman to a year in prison for possessing, Irish
Republican Army documents, purportedly showing the
strength and placement of Belfast police units and
locations of arms storage lockers. September
British engineers and artillerymen install additional gun
emplacements purchased in England at the entrance to
Cork harbor.
Anti-aircraft guns are placed near the flying boat base at
Foynes and the countrys principle electric generating
plants. The Government of Northern Ireland orders
500,000 gasmasks from Great Britain.
November
Two members of the Irish Republican Army
are killed in an explosion at a cottage in County Donegal
shortly after a series of attacks on British customs posts
on the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
December 22 Northern Ireland arrests 34 persons
implicated in a plot against members of the Government

and detains them without trial under provisions of the

Defence of the Realm Act.
During the Year
Eires imports total 41,404,903 a
decline of 2,703,429 (16.3%) from the preceding year.
The United Kingdom supplies 50% of Eire's imports, the
United States 11.3%.Eire's exports total 23,828,720 an
increase of 1,637,540 (13.3%) from the preceding year.
The United Kingdom buys 93% of Eire's exports, Germany
4%.
1939January 16
The Irish Republican Army begins a
bombing campaign against Great Britain with seven major
explosions; two in London, three in Manchester and one
each in Birmingham and Alnwick.
April Prime Minister de Valera declares his governments
intention to remain neutral in the event of war in Europe.
De Valera speaking before the Dail Eireann, I have stated
in this house and I have stated in the country, that the aim
of government policy is to keep this country out of war,
and nobody, either here or elsewhere, has any right to
assume anything else.
May 30 The Government of Ireland introduces the
Treason Act to deal with a revival of Irish Republican Army
militancy.
June 14 The Government of Ireland introduces the
Offences Against the State Act making treason or its
concealment a capital crime and permitting the detention
of persons attempting to overthrow the state.
June 30 The population of Ireland (Eire) numbers
2,934,000 a decline of 31,864 (1.1%) since the 1936
census.
August 25An Irish Republican Army bombing kills 5 people
and injures 70 in Coventry, England.
August
Charles Bewley is dismissed from his position as
the Irish Free States minister to Germany. Bewley decides
to stay on in Berlin where he spends the war years writing
propaganda articles for the Nazis and flooding the German
Foreign Office with information on leading Irish diplomats
and politicians, including de Valera. He eventually applies
for work with the Sicherheitsdienst, the security service of
the SS, but is turned down.
September 2 The First Amendment of the Constitution
Act extends, to conflicts in which the State is not a

participant the provision for a state of emergency to

secure the public safety and preservation of the State in
time of war or armed rebellion.
September 3 Britain and France declare war on
Germany. Ireland (Eire) remains neutral but its citizens are
allowed to join the British Armed Forces or take jobs in
British factories.
The Irish Government prohibits recruiting on its territory
by British forces but 43,000 Irish citizens enlist in the
British ranks.
Censors force the Irish press and radio to refer to the war
as, The Emergency. Allied airmen forced down over
Ireland and sailors picked up at sea by Irish ships are
repatriated while Axis flyers and sailors are interned.
Northern Ireland enters the war by virtue of its status as
an integral part of the United Kingdom. The British
Government ignores appeals by the Government of
Northern Ireland to apply conscription laws in the province
several times during the course of the conflict.
Westminster ignores Stormonts calls for fear of arousing
Nationalist opposition. Northern Ireland provides 38,000
men to the British Armed Forces during World War II.
September 9 The Dail Eireann grants the Irish
Government emergency powers to control transactions in
gold, securities and foreign exchange.
September 16 The Irish Government establishes a
Ministry of Supplies under Sean Lemass. The supply of
petroleum products, coal and gas averages less than 20%
of the prewar norm, textiles 22%, and tea 25%. The British
Government imposes restrictions on trade with Ireland in
an effort to meet its own needs and to ensure that Irish
neutrality does not seriously hamper the Allied war effort.
September
Great Britain appoints its first diplomatic
representative to Ireland. John Maffey, a veteran of the
Indian civil service, is appointed High Commissioner for
Ireland.
October 1 The Government of Ireland announces that it
has uncovered evidence of an Irish Republican Army plot
to seize control of Northern Ireland. IRA leader Sean
Russell is accused of collecting money and arms to carry
out conspiracy during a visit to the United States.
October 22
A bomb is set off outside Dublins Mountjoy

Prison in an attempt to facilitate the escape of political

prisoners. December 1
Justice Gavan Duffy of the Dublin High Court rules
provisions of the Offences Against the State Act allowing
detention of prisoners without arraignment
unconstitutional. The Government releases 70 people held
under the Act but appeals Justice Duffys ruling to the
Supreme Court. December 15
Two men (one an admitted Irish Republican Army member)
are convicted of a planting a bomb that killed 5 people in
Coventry and sentenced to death by a court in
Birmingham, England.
December 23 Irish Republican Army gunmen seize
1,098,099 rounds of small arms ammunition during a raid
on the army depot at Phoenix Park, Dublin. Four of them
are captured after firing on a sentry during the get away
attempt. Police recover 851,000 of the rounds from caches
scattered between Dublin and the northern border by
years end.
December 25 Sixty suspected Irish Republican Army held
in custody at a jail in Derry, Northern Ireland overpower
guards and take control of the prison for several hours.
December
Northern Ireland bans circulation of
Republican Congress, Wolfe Tone Weekly, Irish Freedom,
An Phoblacht (The Republic) and Sentry. The prohibited
newspapers continue to be published in Ireland (Eire).
During the Year
Prime Minister de Valera declines a
request from the former Chief Rabbi of Ireland Isaac
Herzog to allow Christian doctors and dentists of Jewish
descent to enter Ireland and practice there. De Valera also
refuses a request from the Vatican to admit a number of
Jewish doctors temporarily. Only 60 to 7O Jews are
admitted to Ireland as refugees during the entire period of
Nazi persecution. The Minister of Justice recommends
against such admissions for economic reasons and for fear
of arousing an anti-Semitic backlash among the countrys
large number of unemployed citizens. Irelands principle
industries are: grain milling 10,770,420, brewing,
7,923,446, tobacco products 7,676,129, dairy products
6,950,028 and bakery goods 5,232,572.Irelands
standing army numbers 724 officers and 7,262 men. The
ranks of Northern Irelands Royal Ulster Constabulary are

increased to 12,000.
1940January 3 The Dail Eireann amends the Emergency
Powers and Offences Against the State Acts to allow
internment of native born Irish citizens suspected of illegal
anti-government activities. The measures are approved by
a vote of 82 to 9.
February 7
Peter Barnes and James McCormack, the
two Irish Republican Army members convicted of
perpetrating a bombing that killed 5 people in Coventry on
August 25, 1939, are hung in Birmingham, England.
February 9
The Supreme Court of Ireland validates the
Emergency Powers and Offences Against the State Acts as
amended. Justice Minister Gerald Boland orders the first
raid in a series that leads to the internment of 500
suspected Irish Republican Army members and the
imprisonment of 600 others during the Emergency.
February 11
Street fighting between Unionists and
Nationalists erupts in Belfast after police charge a
Republican crowd protesting the execution of two Irish
Republican Army members in Birmingham, England.
February The Irish Republican Army formulates Plan
Kathleen in an effort to win German support. Their German
contacts conclude that the IRA is too disorganized to be of
use to the Reich.
February Joseph Cardinal MacRory, the Roman Catholic
Primate, and the bishops of Ireland issue a pastoral letter
condemning the activities of the Irish Republican Army
and declare membership in the organization a sin.
February 25
Six Irish Republican Army members jailed
in Dublin launch a hunger strike aimed at forcing the
Government to declare them prisoners of war.
February 29
A strike by Dublins 2,200 municipal
employees leaves the capital without the services of
firemen, public health workers and street sweepers for the
next 18 days. March 22
The Irish Republican Army issues a manifesto declaring
that the bombing campaign in Great Britain will continue
until the last British soldier has withdrawn from Ireland
and the British Government agrees to recognize them as
Irelands only legitimate government.
March 22 The Irish Republican Army marks the
anniversary of the 1916 Easter Uprising with a march by

400 armed members through Belfast. The parade is

staged in defiance of Northern Irelands ban on Easter
Week demonstrations.
March 24 Irish Nationalists clash with police in Derry,
Northern Ireland after a bomb damages a nearby railroad
bridge.
April 16 - 19
Irish Republican Army hunger strikers end
their attempt to force Dublin jailers to treat them as
prisoners of war after the deaths of two of their comrades.
April 25 A powerful bomb explodes near the
headquarters of the Garda Siochana detective squad. The
lower yard of Dublin Castle is wrecked and the entire city
feels the blast.
May 7
Two motorcycle detectives carrying mail to the
British High Commission are fired on and seriously
wounded by six gunmen in the center of Dublin.
May 12 Flying Officer Donald Garland RAF of Ballinacor,
County Wicklow leads an attack by five Fairey Battle
bombers on the bridges over the Albert Canal in Belgium
being used by the invading German army. They meet an
inferno of anti-aircraft fire, but the mission is
accomplished, due to the expert leadership of Flying
Officer Garland. F/O Garland is killed in action and
posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross.
May 22 Dublin police uncover evidence of fifth column
activities during a raid on the home of Stephen Held. Mr.
Held, Mrs. Iseult Stuart a prominent socialite and a
number of Irish Republican Army members are arrested for
participating in the conspiracy.
May 24 Seventy six alleged Irish Republican Army
members are arrested and interned without trial by the
Royal Ulster Constabulary.
May 27 Prime Minister de Valera appoints a National
Defense Council. The council includes 3 members of his
Fianna Fail party, 3 from Fine Gael and 2 from Labour.
May 27 Ireland mobilizes its standing army and
reserves. The Government calls for additional volunteers
for active duty and to serve with local defense units.
May The Government bans private motoring on Irelands
roadways.
June 1
Captain Harold Ervine-Andrews company of the
East Lancashire Regiment is heavily outnumbered and

under intense German fire near Dunkirk. When the enemy

attacked at dawn and crossed the Canal de Bergues,
Captain Ervine-Andrews, with volunteers from his
company, rushed to a barn and from the roof shot 11 of
the enemy with a rifle and many more with a Bren gun.
When the barn was shattered and alight, he sent the
wounded to the rear and led the remaining eight men
back, wading for over a mile in water up to their chins.
Captain Ervine-Andrews a native of Keadu, County Cavan
is awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions.
June 6
Parliament grants the Government additional
emergency powers including the right to execute
saboteurs. The measure passes by unanimous vote in both
houses.
June 7
Dublin police charge Stephen Held with
possession of a parachute, secret code books, a radio
transmitter and military information and receiving $20,000
in United States currency for the use of the Irish
Republican Army.
June 25 The British Food Ministry agrees to double its
imports of Irish bacon and purchase the entire surplus of
Irish cheese.
June The British Government proposes the establishment
of a joint defense committee to include representatives of
Ireland, Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
July 1
Forty alleged members of the Irish Republican
Army are arrested by Belfast police and interned without
trial.
July 14
The Spanish Government releases Frank Ryan,
leader of the Connolly Column of the International Brigade,
from a Burgos Prison where he is serving a 30 year
sentence, into the custody of German intelligence officers
who believe his IRA connections will make him useful to
the war effort. Ryan is taken to Germany where he meets
fellow republicans Francis Stuart and Sean Russell. Russell
and Ryan are then sent to Ireland on a U-Boat but Russell
dies on route and Ryan is brought back to Germany.
July 22
Three hundred alleged members of the Irish
Republican Army are arrested by the Royal Ulster
Constabulary and interned without trial.
July 25
Irish journalist and diplomat Sean Lester
succeeds Joseph Avenol of France as Secretary General of

the League of Nations. Lester remains in Geneva

throughout the Second World War.
July 28
Eighteen alleged members of the Irish
Republican Army are arrested by the Royal Ulster
Constabulary and interned without trial.
July The Government of Northern Ireland rejects Prime
Minister de Valeras demand that it agree to end the
partition and adopt Dublins neutrality policy as condition
of participation in the tri-partite defense council proposed
by Great Britain. August 3
Imperial Airways resumes trans-Atlantic airmail service
between Great Britain and the United States via Foynes,
Ireland.
August 9 The Government bans strikes and lockouts in
Northern Ireland.
August 16The Emergency Powers (Amendment) Act is
further altered. The right to appeal verdicts of the military
tribunal is removed.
August 20A German aircraft crashes on a hillside in
County Kerry. Six crewmen are interned and a clearly
marked air map showing the routes to Foynes is recovered
from the wreckage.
August 26German aircraft drop bombs on four County
Wexford villages. Three women are killed when one of the
bombs hits a creamery in Campile. The Irish Government
lodges a formal protest with the German legation in
Dublin.
September 6 Two Irish Republican Army gunmen
convicted of killing two detectives during an August 17th
raid on their Dublin hideout are executed.
September 13 The first air raid on Northern Ireland is
launched by lone German aircraft.
September 15 The Irish Government appoints 8 regional
commissioners to assume power in case their districts are
cutoff from Dublin during an invasion.
September 15 Irelands standing army numbers 12,000,
the ready reserve 15,000 and the Local Defence Force
another 100,000 men. Irish forces have only 3 air
squadrons, 2 motor torpedo boats and no tanks or heavy
artillery. October
The Government of Northern Ireland merges the Royal
Ulster Constabulary with the Home Guard. General Sir

Hubert Gough appeals to Winston Churchill on behalf of a

committee of prominent Irishmen asking the Prime
Minister to repeal the merger decree. General Gough
declares that the Constabulary has, incurred the odium
attached to a political police force of the type familiar on
the Continent of Europe and clashes on the border may
result from the activities of this large force directed by
local civilian or police officials without regard to
consideration of British policy as to external affairs or to
British military arrangements designed to conform to the
requirements of that policy. November 5
Prime Minister Churchill declares in a speech to the House
of Commons that the Royal Navys anti-submarine warfare
program has been severely hampered by the loss of treaty
ports in Ireland.
November 5
Captain Edward Fegen RN, commanding
HMS Jervis Bay, is escorting 37 merchantmen in the
Atlantic , when they are attacked by the German pocket
battleship Admiral Scheer. Captain Fegen immediately
engaged the enemy head-on, thus giving the ships of the
convoy time to scatter. Out-gunned and on fire Jervis Bay
maintained the unequal fight for three hours, although the
captain's right arm was shattered and his bridge was shot
from under him. He went down with his ship but it was due
to him that 31 ships of the convoy escaped. Captain Fegen
is awarded the Victoria Cross posthumously.
November 7
Prime Minister de Valera rejects British
appeals to reopen the treaty ports to the Royal Navy in a
speech to the Dail Eireann.
December 8
The Roman Catholic bishop of Down and
Connor denounces the Royal Ulster Constabularys the
wholesale arrests of alleged Irish Republican Army
members and their internment without trial. December 25
Prime Minister de Valera declares that Irelands supply of
food and raw materials is being quickly exhausted and
appeals for aid in obtaining food and arms during a
Christmas broadcast to the United States. December 27
Great Britain restricts re-export to Ireland of cattle feed,
fertilizer, tobacco, oranges, lemons and certain tools
imported under convoy.
During the Year
The Government of Northern Ireland
offers a 2 bounty for every new acre of land ploughed

and planted for food production.

Ireland's cost of living index climbs to 119 (June 1939 =
base 100).
1941
January 1 3 German bombs fall on Dublin and
the surrounding counties of Carlow, Kildare, Louth, Meath,
Wexford and Wicklow.
January 1 Great Britain declares Irish exports liable to
seizure on the high seas unless they are covered by a
British navicert. The policy already applies to the products
of other neutral countries.
January 5 The executive council of Northern Irelands
Unionist Party attacks Irish neutrality as, deliberately
prejudicing Britains prospects of success in a struggle
which means as much for one country as the other.
January 28
Ireland imposes strict censorship on of
press messages to places outside its territory.
January 31
Irelands Prime Minister is authorized to
establish courts-martial for civilians, should the necessity
arise. February 1
The Irish Government bans signposts.
March 19 A German agent parachutes into Ireland and is
immediately arrested by the Garda Siochana.
March
Irish Defense Minister Frank Aiken travels to the
United States hoping to purchase enough arms to equip
200,000 men. The Americans declare that they have no
arms to spare except for countries actively engaged in
fighting the Axis but authorize the purchase or charter of
two merchant ships to deliver food for the civilian
population.
March
Ireland accepts a gift from the American Red
Cross of $500,000 worth of food and relief supplies.
March 16 The Royal Ulster Constabulary arrests four men
at a suspected Irish Republican Army arms cache
discovered in a Belfast factory.
April 7
German air raids on Belfast kill 740 people,
injure 1,511 and damage 56,000 homes. Prime Minister de
Valera orders all Dublin fire brigades save one to assist in
putting out the Belfast fires.
April Irish Defense Minister Frank Aiken, speaking in
Washington, charges Great Britain with violating its
agreement to supply Ireland with a fair share of goods
received from overseas via convoy.

April 21 Northern Irelands Minister of Public Safety

declares Belfast and 8 other districts, defence areas.
May 4
German air raids on Belfast resume.
May 22 Prime Minister Churchill tells the House of
Commons that the Government is considering extending
conscription to Northern Ireland.
May 25 Joseph Cardinal MacRory, Roman Catholic
Primate of Ireland, denounces extension of conscription to
Northern Ireland.
May 26 Prime Minister de Valera calls a special session
of the Dail Eireann to discuss British plans to institute
conscription in Northern Ireland. The leaders of all the
parties denounce the proposal.
May 27 Prime Minister Churchill announces that
proposals to institute conscription in Northern Ireland have
been dropped. Northern Ireland Prime Minister John
Andrews declares the Dail Eireanns discussion of the
matter, unwarrantable interference.
May 30 German bombs fall on Dublins North Strand
killing 34 people and wounding 90.
June 19 The German consul expresses regret and
promises to pay reparations for the May 30th bombing of
Dublin.
June The Communist Party of Ireland dissolves following
the German invasion of the Soviet Union.
July 11
British Home Security Minister Herbert Morrison
announces the arrest of Cahir Healy a Nationalist member
of the Northern Ireland Parliament.
July 17
John Dillon, leader of the official opposition Fine
Gael Party, urges the Irish Government to reopen the
Treaty Ports to the British Royal Navy.
September 3 A Dublin court sentences 9 Cork men to 3
to 5 years in prison for membership in the Irish Republican
Army.
September 16 Sixteen Irish soldiers are killed while
testing mines in the Glen of Imaal, County Wicklow.
September 18 Sean McCaughey is convicted of
kidnapping former Irish Republican Army chief of staff
Stephen Hayes on June 30th. Hayes claims he was courtmartialed and tortured by the IRA.
October 5 Prime Minister de Valera publicly praises British
respect for Irish neutrality, despite the temptations and

urgings of certain propagandists.

November 25 Captain James Jackman of Dublin leads his
machinegun company of Northumberland Fusiliers to the
relief of the tank assault on El Duda ridge at Tobruk, Libya
which was being slowed down by fierce enemy fire from
anti-tank guns. Captain Jackman is awarded the Victoria
Cross for his actions and is killed in action the next day.
November
Irelands (Eire) population numbers
2,897,700 an increase of 53,700 (1.8%) since the previous
census in 1938. December 14
Prime Minister de Valera, speaking in Cork, declares that
the United States entry into the war will not change
Irelands neutrality policy.
December
Great Britain supplies Ireland with antiaircraft, artillery and limited quantities of small arms and
ammunition.
During the Year
The Minefield section of the Irish
Marine and Coastwatching Service is established to
supervise mine laying at the entrances to the harbors of
Cork and Waterford.
The British Royal Navy lays minefields off the southern
coast of Ireland.
American construction workers arrive in Northern Ireland
to build on new bases.
The Government closes the primary school on the Gaelic
speaking Great Blasket Island off County Kerry. The class is
down to 6 pupils.
Irish Shipping Ltd. is established to provide neutral
shipping to facilitate the importation of wheat. The
venture has little impact on the shortages and 20 Irish
ships are sunk with the loss of 138 lives during the
Emergency.
Emigrants from Ireland to Great Britain number 31,800
men and 3,272 women.
An outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease kills 40,000 cattle.
Irelands cost of living index rises to 131 (June 1939 =
base 100). Irelands imports decline by 37% to
29,544,000. Irelands exports decline by 3.5% to
31,848,000. Foodstuffs account for 28,000,000 worth of
exports.
1942January Prime Minister de Valera admits that
Ireland is receiving additional arms, bit by bit but does

not reveal their source.

January 12
Prime Minister de Valera denies reports
that negotiations are under way to allow the use of Irish
ports and airfields by British forces. He further declares
that any arms delivered to Ireland are received with the
understanding that they will be used to, defend our
territory against any aggressor.
January 26
The first of 300,000 American troops
stationed in Northern Ireland during the war arrive at
Derry. Prime Minister de Valera responds with declaration
that the United States has recognized a, Quisling
government and taken a lease on Irish soil which
threatens Irelands neutrality.
January 28
Patrick Maxwell, a Nationalist member of
the Northern Ireland parliament, declares, there is
nothing we can do to physically throw the American troops
out of Northern Ireland, or we would do so.
January 28
The Labour Party moves that traditional
rules of evidence be restored in trials by Irish courtsmartial. Prime Minister de Valera opposes the motion and
declares the extraordinary measures justified in light of
Irish Republican Army terrorism against jury members and
witnesses. Justice Minister Gerald Boland and deputy
opposition leader James Dillion charge that the IRA is
working with German agents dropped into Ireland by
parachute. Dillion further charges that de Valera is
concealing the true nature of the conspiracy that makes it
necessary to grant such drastic powers to the courts.
January Ireland grants permission for Pan American
Airways to use the flying boat base at Foynes during
clipper runs between the United States and Great Britain.
February 5
The United States Naval Operations Base
at Derry, Northern Ireland is commissioned.
February 10
James Dillon, deputy opposition leader in
the Dail Eireann, urges support for the United States in the
war against the Axis. Dillion declares that Ireland had won
it independence with American support and that its
survival depends on continuing the, Irish-American
alliance in a speech to the annual convention of the Fine
Gael party. February 19
James Dillon resigns his seat in the Dail Eireann and from
Fine Gael to protest the partys continuing support of the

neutrality policy.
February 3
Prime Minister de Valera declares that the
chance of invasion is increasing and calls for the defense
force to be increased to 500,000 men.
February 18
The United States command in Northern
Ireland places Ireland (Eire) off limits to visits by American
forces.
February 18
A German agent arrested after parachuting
into Ireland escapes from Dublins Mountjoy Prison.
February 18
The Irish Government extends press
censorship to cover all dispatches to foreign newspapers
and press agencies.
February 26
A Dublin court sentences 3 men to death
for the slaying of another in an Irish Republican Army
purge. Two of the sentences are later commuted to life in
prison.
February 28
German spy Guenther Schuetz escapes
from prison.
March
Irish government spokesman Sean MacEntee
declares that a series of Irish Republican Army attacks on
British military camps in Northern Ireland was designed to
provoke a British attack on Ireland (Eire) which it hoped
would increase its support there.
April 3
The Irish Republican Arm attacks the Royal
Ulster Constabulary barracks in Dungannon.
April 5
The Irish Republican Army marks the
anniversary of the 1916 Easter Uprising by setting off
incendiary bombs in a Belfast theater used by British and
American troops and attacks a Royal Ulster Constabulary
barracks in Belfast.
April 30 Escaped German spy Guenther Schuetz is
recaptured at the home of Caitlin Brugha, widow of
executed Republican leader Cathal Brugha.
March 19 A dining car attendant on the Dublin-Belfast
train is convicted of acting as a messenger in an Irish
Republican Army plot to gather intelligence on the
strength of British and American forces in Northern
Ireland.
May 19 Coal shortages force restrictions on the use of
electricity.
June 22 Captain Charles Blair pilots a Pan American
Airways clipper on the first non stop commercial flight

from Foynes, Ireland to New York with 16 passengers

including Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham. Fog prevented
a planned refueling stop at Botwood, Newfoundland.
A Belfast judge sentences James Walsh to 2 months at
hard labor for urging a crowd in a Nationalist
neighborhood to attack two American soldiers.
June An order to ration clothing goes into effect.
American Export Airlines begins using the Foynes flying
boat base during flights between the United States and
Great Britain.
July 15
RAF Wing Commander Brendan Finucane of
Dublin is shot down and killed off the French coast.
Finucane shotdown at least 32 enemy aircraft and was the
top Irish fighter Ace of World War II.
July 30
Six Irish Republican Army gunmen convicted in
the Easter Sunday murder of a Belfast policeman are
sentenced to be hanged. Nationalists riot after the
sentences are pronounced in part because no Catholics
served on the jury.
August 30The Governor of Northern Ireland, the Duke of
Abercorn, commutes the death sentences of 5 of the 6 IRA
gunmen convicted in the Easter Sunday killing of a Belfast
policeman. The sixth, Thomas Williams, admitted to firing
the fatal shot.
August 31An Irish Republican Army manifesto declares the
presence of American troops in Northern Ireland an act of
aggression and threatens to use, whatever means
necessary to force their withdrawal.
September 1 The United States command places Belfast
off limits to American soldiers for 48 hours.
September 2 Demonstrators protesting the execution by
Northern Ireland of IRA gunman Thomas Williams for killing
a policeman force a one hour halt to business activity in
Dublin.
September 3 The Royal Ulster Constabulary raids
hundreds of homes in Nationalist districts of Belfast and
arrests 56 men on suspicion of Irish Republican Army
membership.
October 2 HMS Curaao sinks off Donegal after a collision
with RMS Queen Mary. The Curacao cuts across the Queen
Marys bow in chase of a reported German U-boat and is
sliced in two. The accident leaves 338 of the Curacao's

crew dead. Escort destroyers pick up 108 survivors from

the water. The Queen Mary which is carrying 15,000
American troops follows orders and does not stop. October
11
The number of persons interned in Northern Ireland for
alleged membership in the Irish Republican Army reaches
500.
October 12
The Royal Ulster Constabulary announces
the arrest of Hugh McAteer, the alleged chief of staff of the
Irish Republican Army. McAteer is later convicted of
treason and sentenced to 15 years in prison.
October Belfast police impose an 8:30 p.m. to 6 a.m.
curfew on industrial areas in response to Irish Republican
Army bombings.
November 4
The Central Bank of Ireland is established
in Dublin to replace the Currency Commission.
November 7
Eamon Donnelly, former leader of Fianna
Fail, is elected to the Northern Ireland parliament as a
Nationalist. Donnelly refuses to take his seat and
announces plans to united Northern Ireland Nationalists
with political parties in Ireland (Eire) as part of a campaign
to end the partition.
December 21 Belfast police lift the evening curfew
imposed on industrial areas in response to Irish Republican
Army bombings.
During the Year
The former Chief Rabbi of Ireland
Isaac Herzog warns Prime Minister de Valera that Jews are
being systematically exterminated in German prison
camps. De Valera and the Irish ministers in Berlin, Vichy,
and at the Vatican attempt to rescue a large group of
German Jews held at Vittel, France and groups of Italian,
Dutch, Hungarian, and Slovakian Jews without success.
Bread rationing begins despite increases in wheat harvest
after introduction of compulsory tillage policy.
Irelands cost of living index climbs to 144 (June 1939 =
base 100). The value of Irish imports increases by
5,085,064 (17.2%) to 34,630,064.
The value of Irish exports increases by 817,307 (2.6%) to
32,665,307.
1943January 15
Hugh McAteer, Irish Republican Army
chief of staff, escapes from a Belfast prison with 3
associates after serving 2 months of a 15 year sentence. A

3,000 reward is posted for his capture.

March 7 The Roman Catholic Bishop of Down and Connor
protests a series of raids on Nationalist homes by police in
Northern Ireland. The constabulary claims it was searching
for Irish Republican Army arms caches and hideouts.
March 11 Northern Ireland Attorney General James
McDermott announces the seizure of documents revealing
plans by the IRA to assassinate policemen and disrupt war
industries, transportation and civil defense measures.
March 21 Twenty one internees escape from a Derry,
Northern Ireland prison. Eighteen of them are captured the
next day by Irish (Eire) authorities and interned at the
Curragh Camp.
April 1
Ireland (Eire) introduces electricity rationing.
April 20 A Belfast court sentences two men to 10 years
imprisonment and a flogging for possession of arms and
ammunition.
April 24 Fugitive IRA commander in chief Hugh McAteer
appears with several armed associates at memorial
service for Irish revolutionaries killed in the 1916 Easter
Uprising held in a theater in a Nationalist district of
Belfast. McAteer reads a statement denouncing the
American presence in Northern Ireland as an, invasion of
our rights and warns that they will be targeted in, a
resumption of hostilities between the Irish Republic and
Great Britain.
May 10 A mine explodes in Ballymanus Bay, County
Donegal killing 19 men.
May 29 The Royal Ulster Constabulary arrests James
Steele an adjutant to fugitive Irish Republican Army
commander Hugh McAteer.
May Irelands cost of living index rises to 159 (June 1939
= base 100). The Irish ship Irish Oak is sunk in the Atlantic
by a submarine in broad daylight despite clear neutral
markings.
The Japanese Consulate in Dublin is raised to the status of
a Consulate General.
June 5
Ireland (Eire) introduces butter rationing; stricter
rationing of tea, gasoline and clothing and price controls
on clothing.
June 16 Prime Minister de Valera announces plans for
the formation of a popular organization to complete the

restoration of Gaelic as the national language and

describes the use of English in Ireland as a badge of
conquest during a speech in Waterford.
June 23 General election: Prime Minister de Valeras
Fianna Fail Party loses its majority. William Cosgraves Fine
Gael Party, loses 13 seats. Micheal Donnellans Farmers
Party wins 14 seats. James Dillion who resigned from the
outgoing Dail and the Fine Gael Party to protest Irish
neutrality is elected to a new seat as an independent.
Distribution of seats in the new Dail Erieann
PARTY - % OF VOTE CAST - SEATS WON - NET GAIN OR
LOSS
FIANNA FAIL - 41.8 - 67 - -10
FINE GAEL - 23.1 - 32 - -13
LABOUR - 15.7 - 17 - +6
FARMERS - 9.0 - 14 - +12
INDEPENDENTS - - 8 - +3
June 28 Martin OSullivan becomes the first member of
the Labour party to be elected Lord Mayor of Dublin.
July 1
The Dail Erieann reelects Prime Minister Eamon
de Valera by a vote of 67 to 37 with 33 abstentions
including all Farmer and Labour Party members. De Valera
forms a minority Fianna Fail cabinet which governs with
the support of the Farmers party.
July The Irish Government refuses to release 3 Irish
Republican Army members who conduct a 49 day hunger
strike at the Curragh internment camp.
July 9
Justice Minister Gerald Boland tells the Dail
Eireann that the Irish Republican Army has harbored a
German agent who parachuted into the country with
invasion plans for the past 18 months.
August
Lockheed Corporation announces plans to
construct a large aircraft assembly plant and overhaul
base for the U.S. 8th Air Force in Northern Ireland.
September 6 The Dublin Corporation petitions the
Government to replace John Hughes statue of Queen
Victoria in front of Leinster House (Parliament) with a
statue of Lord Edward Fitzgerald.
September 11 Irish censors ban the London Sunday
Dispatch which has a circulation of 70,000 in Ireland (Eire)
after it publishes two articles critical of Irish neutrality and
de Valeras administration.

November 16 Prime Minister de Valera tells the Dail

Eireann that Ireland has never forgotten the generosity of
the United States but cannot be expected to show its
gratitude, in the blood of her people. He insists that the
policy of neutrality must be maintained despite the
possibility of retaliation after the war.
November 20 Police in Northern Ireland recapture fugitive
Irish Republican Army commander in chief Hugh McAteer.
December
The Irish ship Kerlogue docks at Cobh with
164 German survivors of a naval battle picked up in the
Bay of Biscay.
During the Year
Joe Sheridan, chef at the Foynes
transatlantic flying boat terminal, invents Irish coffee.
Penalties for violations of the Northern Ireland Special
Powers Act are increased and single magistrates acting on
their own are allowed to try less severe offences.
The value of Irish imports declines by 8,470,064 (24.5%)
to 26,160,000.
The value of Irish exports declines by 5,185,307 (15.9%)
to 27,480,000.
1944February 21
David Gray, the United States Minister
to Ireland, demands the expulsion of German and
Japanese diplomats from the country in a note delivered to
Prime Minister de Valera. Gray refers to the upcoming
invasion of Europe declaring that, not only the success of
the operations but the lives of thousands of United Nations
soldiers are at stake and further notes the possession of
a radio transmitter by the German legation in Dublin.
February Chief of staff Hugh McAteer and 30 other Irish
Republican Army prisoners begin a hunger strike to protest
the refusal of Belfast jailers to separate them from nonpolitical criminals, provide better food and allow them to
wear civilian clothing.
March 7 Prime Minister de Valera rejects American
demands for the expulsion of Axis diplomats from Ireland
and insists that his government must protect the countrys
neutrality and democratic way of life at all cost. De
Valeras reply further notes that Irish sentiments in regard
to Britain had softened during the war, precisely because
Britain has not attempted to violate our neutrality.
March 11 The U.S. State Department announces
cancellation of an agreement to transfer the cargo ship

Wolverine to Ireland. The Department notes the sinking of

two other American ships operating under the Irish flag by
Axis submarines and Irelands failure to protest these
violations of its neutrality.
March 13 The British Government bans travel between
Great Britain and both Ireland (Eire) and Northern Ireland.
Telephone and air links between Great Britain and Ireland
(Eire) are severed. The border between Eire and Northern
Ireland remains open but travelers on the Dublin to Belfast
train are subjected to closer inspection of identification
and baggage.
Canadian Prime Minster MacKenzie King rejects de Valeras
request that he intervene to secure withdrawal of the
American note demanding the expulsion of Axis diplomats
from Ireland. King tells the Canadian House of Commons
that he is in complete sympathy with the American
position. The Australian High Commissioner in London
rejects a request by Irish officials for Australian assistance
in securing withdrawal of the American note demanding
expulsion of Axis diplomats from Ireland.
March 14 One hundred Irish Republican Army members
held in a Derry, Northern Ireland jail begin a hunger strike
in support of Hugh McAteers demands for special
treatment.
March 15 Professor Savory Unionist MP for Belfast
addresses Winston Churchill during the House of
Commons questions period asking if the Government
intends to continue risking the lives of British sailors to
deliver shipments of fuel, tea and other commodities to
Ireland. The Prime Minister declines to answer.
March 22 Northern Ireland Home Security Minister William
Lowry declares that the Government will not intervene to
prevent the death of Irish Republican Army hunger
strikers.
March 28 Irish Republican Army chief of staff Hugh
McAteer and 2 other prisoners end their hunger strike.
April 19 The U.S. State Department releases President
Roosevelts reply rejecting Prime Minister de Valeras
appeal to the belligerents to spare Rome as the campaign
in Italy progresses. The President declares that the
Germans occupying the city are making full military use of
it and are completely responsible for its fate.

April Richard Mulcahy succeeds William Cosgrave as

leader of the Fine Gael Party.
May 6
The U.S. State Department bars trade with 38
Irish firms and individuals accused of pro-Axis activity.
May 30 General election Prime Minister de Valeras
Fianna Fail Party regains a majority in the Dail
Eireann.PARTY
% OF VOTE CAST - SEATS WON - NET GAIN OR LOSS
FIANNA FAIL - 48.9 - 76 - +9
FINE GAEL - 20.5 - 30 - -2
FARMERS - 10.8 - 11 - -3
LABOUR - 8.7 - 8 - -9
INDEPENDENTS - - 9 - +1
NATIONAL LABOUR - 2.7 - 4 - +4
June 6
Cornelius Ryan covers the D-Day invasion as a
correspondent for the London Daily Telegraph.
June 7
Great Britain halts coal deliveries to Ireland
(Eire). The Government restricts generation of electricity
to 1/5th of 1941 levels and Dublins trolleys cease
operation.
June 9
The Dail Eireann reelects Eamon de Valera as
Prime Minister by a vote of 81 to 37.
June 10 Frank Ryan, former leader of the Connolly
Column of the International Brigade, dies in Dresden,
Germany.
August 21Passenger ships resume sailings between
Ireland and Great Britain.
September 19 Flight Lieutenant David Lord of Cork is
flying supplies to the British 1st Airborne Division at
Arnhem when his Dakota is hit twice by intense enemy
anti-aircraft fire and has one engine burning. He manages
to drop his supplies, but at the end of the run find that
there are two containers remaining. Although he knows
that one of his wings might collapse at any moment he
nevertheless makes a second run to drop the last supplies,
then orders his crew to bale out. A few seconds late the
Dakota crashes in flames killing its pilot. Lieutenant Lord is
awarded the Victoria Cross posthumously.
September
Telephone and airline service between
Great Britain and Ireland is restored.
Restrictions on use of electricity are lifted thanks to high
levels in the Shannon Hydroelectric plants reservoir.

October 2
Dublins street cars return to operation.
November 14 The U.S. State Department announces that
Ireland has turned down demands for assurances from
neutral countries that they will refuse asylum requests
from war criminals. The Department does not release the
text of Irelands reply but notes that it is the only country
to respond negatively. The British Undersecretary for
Dominion Affairs, Paul Emrys-Evans, informs members of
parliament that the Irish Governments response to the
American request is that it can offer no assurance which
would preclude it from granting asylum if justice, charity,
honor or other national interests should so require.
November 30 General Eoin ODuffy leader of the Blue
Shirts dies in Dublin at age 52 and is given a state funeral.
During the Year
The Roman Catholic Archbishop of
Dublin John MacQuaid bans Catholics from attending
Trinity College without the permission of their bishop.
1945March 21 Lieutenant Claude Raymond, Corps of
Royal Engineers is second-in-command of a
reconnaissance patrol at Talaku, Burma when they are
fired on by a strongly entrenched enemy detachment and
the Lieutenant at once leads his men towards the position.
He is first wounded in the shoulder and then in the head,
but continues leading his men forward, when he is hit a
third time, his wrist being shattered. He still carries on into
the enemy defenses where he is largely responsible for
capturing the position. In spite of the gravity of his
wounds, he refuses medical aid until all the other
wounded have received attention. He dies the next day.
Lieutenant Raymond is awarded the Victoria Cross
posthumously.
April 12 The Dail Eireann adjourns for two days of
mourning following the announcement of President
Roosevelts death.
April 30 Prime Minister de Valera visits the German
legation in Dublin and signs a book of condolences
memorializing the death of Hitler.
May 8
Nationalists scuffle with Trinity College students
displaying the Union Jack during a V-E Day celebration.
May 13 Churchill takes one last jab at Irish neutrality
during victory broadcast, the approaches which the

southern Irish ports and airfields could so easily have

guarded were closed by the hostile aircraft and U-boats.
This indeed was a deadly moment in our life, and if it had
not been for the loyalty and friendship of Northern Ireland,
we should have been forced to come to close quarters
with Mr. de Valera, or perish from the earth. However, with
a restraint and poise to which, I venture to say, history will
find few parallels, His Majestys Government never laid a
violent hand upon them, though at times it would have
been quite easy and quite natural, and we left the de
Valera Government to frolic with the German and later
with the Japanese representatives to their hearts
content.
May 17 De Valera replies to Churchill in a broadcast over
Radio Eireann. The speech does much to restore his
domestic popularity in the wake of the furor over his visit
to the Germans. Allowances can be made for Mr.
Churchills statement, however unworthy, in the first flush
of victory. No such excuse could be found for me in this
quieter atmosphere. There are, however, some things it is
essential to say. I shall try to say them as dispassionately
as I can. Mr. Churchill makes it clear that, in certain
circumstances, he would have violated our neutrality and
that he would justify his actions by Britains necessity. It
seems strange to me that Mr. Churchill does not see that
this, if accepted, would become a moral code and that
when this necessity became sufficiently great, other
peoples rights were not to count... That is precisely why
we had this disastrous succession of wars - World War
No.1 and World War No.2 - and shall it be World War No.3?
Mr. Churchill is proud of Britains stand alone, after France
had fallen and before America entered the war. Could he
not find in his heart the generosity to acknowledge that
there is a small nation that stood alone not for one year or
two, but for several hundred years against aggression;
that endured spoliations, famine, massacres, in endless
succession; that was clubbed many times into
insensibility, but each time on returning to consciousness
took up the fight anew; a small nation that could never be
got to accept defeat and has never surrendered her soul?
June 24 Sean T. O'Kelly succeeds Douglas Hyde as
President of Ireland.

July Irish Republican Army chief of staff Sean MacCool is

arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate John
Gantley, superintendent of the Garda Siochana.
July 4
Prime Minister de Valera announces the arrest
and internment of former IRA chief of staff Hugh McAteer.
McAteer who was released from Northern Ireland prison at
the end of the European War is accused recruiting 40 IRA
followers from among the 400 internees released by the
Ireland from the Curragh camp and plotting with them to
overthrow the Irish Government.
July 11
Prime Minister de Valera asserts that Ireland is a
republic in reply to a question from the opposition in the
Dail Eireann.
July 17
Prime Minister de Valera reiterates his previous
assertion and declares Ireland an independent republic,
associated as a matter of our external policy with the
states of the British Commonwealth. De Valera refuses
opposition member James Dillions request for further
clarification of Eires status saying that the material
necessary for a conclusive answer is unavailable.
July 19
Prime Minister de Valera replies to James Dillons
criticism of his condolence call on the German consulate
following the death of Hitler by declaring that he had
merely followed universally established practice and that
no question of approval or disapproval was involved.
July 31
Leading Seaman James Joseph Magennis, a
diver in the midget submarine XE.3, attaches limpet mines
to the Japanese cruiser Takao in Johore Straits off
Singapore under particularly difficult circumstances.
During this time his breathing apparatus was leaking and
he returned to the submarine after completion of his task
very exhausted. On withdrawing, his commander found
that one of the limpet carriers which is being jettisoned,
will not release itself and Magennis immediately
volunteers to free it. Seaman Magennis is the only native
of Northern Ireland awarded the Victoria Cross for services
during World War II. The working class Catholic son of
West Belfasts Falls Road is finally honored with a
memorial in his native city in 1999.
July Prime Minister de Valera intimates that an
arrangement could be made to settle the 230,000,000
exchange balance accumulated by Ireland during the war

if Great Britain would agree to end the partition.

July August About 200 German military personnel
interned in Ireland are repatriated to Germany.
September
Ten German spies held in a County Sligo jail
are released. Eight of them choose to remain in Ireland.
October The first shipment of Irish relief aid to Europe,
mostly draught horses and cattle, arrives in Rotterdam.
November 11 The Government bans an Armistice Day
parade by members of the British Legion. The veterans
make their way to Dublins War Memorial Park separately,
wearing their medals under cover and carrying their flags
furled. The ceremony is followed by a memorial service at
Saint Patricks Cathedral. November
General Sir Hubert Gough, president of the
Commonwealth Irish Association, presents a memorial to
British Prime Minister Atlee requesting that unemployment
benefits be extended to ex-service members and civilian
war workers who have returned to Ireland (Eire).
Irish Airways resumes the Dublin-London service
suspended in 1939.
During the Year
Samuel Beckett is awarded the Croix
de Guerre by the French Republic for his Resistance work.
Charles Bewley, the former Irish Minister to Germany who
stayed on in Berlin to work for the Nazis after his dismissal
in 1939, is briefly interned by the Allies. Bewley settles in
Italy after his release and writes short stories and a
biography of Herman Goering.
1946April 18 The last Secretary General of the League of
Nations, Sean Lester of Ireland, signs a contract
transferring the Leagues assets to the United Nations
Organization.
April Aer Rianta and British Overseas Airways Corporation
form a joint venture to provide air service linking Ireland
with Great Britain and Europe.
May 12 Irelands (Eire) population numbers 2,953,452
an increase of 55,752 (1.9%) since the 1941 census.
May An Irish Republican Army hunger striker dies during
internment. Prime Minister de Valera declares that the
Government will not be coerced by hunger strikes or other
means into releasing men engaged in attempting to
overthrow it.
June Dublin is chosen to host the North Atlantic office of

the International Civil Aviation Organization.

July 6
Sean MacBride founds Clann na Poblachta to
challenge the conservative economic and welfare policies
of Fianna Fail.
July 25
The Dail Eireann authorizes the Government to
seek membership in the United Nations. The Soviet Union
blocks Irelands application with a veto in the Security
Council. July
Bread rationing is introduced in Northern Ireland.
Deliverymen refuse to cooperate with the regulations and
British troops are called in to distribute bread.
October Prime Minister de Valera makes a public reversal
of his earlier statements regarding Irelands status in
relation to the British Commonwealth. De Valera remarks
that certain symbols of the Commonwealth have been
recognized by Irish law and accepted by the people. His
statement is made in reply to critics of President OKellys
functioning as representative of the Crown.
November 23 Bakery workers begin a week long strike in
Northern Ireland. The British Army deploys cooks from
England to replace the strikers.
During the Year
A Royal Navy minesweeping flotilla
based at Cobh removes or destroys 4,000 mines laid in
Irish waters during the war.
Prime Minister de Valera overrides Justice Minister Gerald
Bolands rejection of a London based Jewish charitys
proposal to house 100 Jewish children from Poland in
Clonyn Castle, County Meath.
David Fleming an Irish Republican Army prisoner in
Northern Ireland stages 77 and 45 day hunger strikes. He
is released at the end of the second strike, sent to Ireland
(Eire) and barred from reentering Northern Ireland for 8
years.
1947January 30
James Larkin, founder of the Irish
General and Transport Workers Union, dies in Dublin at
age 71 leaving 4.50 and a few personal belongings.
March 15 Coal shortages force Irish railways to shutdown
passenger service and limit freight runs to priority
commodities such as food and fuel.
March
The Northern Ireland Bill introduced in the
British House of Commons expands Northern Irelands
legislative prerogatives to include the power to establish a

health service to complement the National Health Service

of Great Britain. Geoffrey Bing leads a group of about 200
MPs who call for rejection of the measure, until such time
as, in the opinion of this House, the Parliament of Northern
Ireland so administers the Government of Ireland Act,
1920, as to provide democratic liberty and equality for the
people of Northern Ireland.
April 7
Great Britain agrees to furnish Ireland (Eire) with
11,000 tons of coal per week to keep Dublins city
gasworks and other essential businesses operating.
Ireland imported 50,000 tons of British coal per week prior
to the war.
April 12 Eight German spies who elected to remain in
Ireland at the end of the Second World War are rearrested
and briefly held in Mountjoy prison, Dublin. One, Dr.
Goertz, commits suicide while in custody.
May 31 Labour MP Geoffrey Bing continues his
campaign to defeat the Northern Ireland Bill. He describes
Northern Ireland in a New Statesman article as, not a
Fascist State of the Nazi type, but an organized denial of
democracy on the American model and goes on to
compare the methods used in America to disenfranchise
Blacks with those used in Northern Ireland to
disenfranchise Nationalists.
July 13
The British House of Commons passes the
Northern Ireland Bill after Labour MPs desert the
opposition on second reading.
July Prime Minister de Valera denies Russian charges that
Ireland is unfit for membership in the United Nations
because it held Axis sympathies and attacks Russian
territorial acquisitions.
During the Year
Irelands export earnings are 1/3 of
the amount spent on imports. The trade deficit with the
United States and Canada reaches a 7 to 1 ratio. 1948
February 4
General election: Prime Minister de Valeras
Fianna Fail remains the largest party in the Dail Eireann.
PARTY - % OF VOTES CAST - SEATS WON - NET GAIN OR
LOSS
FIANNA FAIL - 41.9 - 68 - -8
FINE GAEL - 19.8 - 31 - +1
LABOUR - 8.7 - 14 - +6
CLANN na POBLACHTA - 13.3 - 10 - +10

FARMERS - 5.5 - 7 - -4
NATIONAL LABOUR - 2.6 - 5 - +1
INDEPENDENTS - - 12 - +3 February 18
The Dail Eireanns opposition parties
combine to elect John Costello of the Fine Gael Party as
prime minister.
April 16 Ireland joins the Organization for European
Economic Development.
September
Prime Minister Costello announces that
Ireland will repeal the External Relations Act of 1936 and
end the Crowns role in appointing diplomatic
representatives and concluding trade agreements.
November 17 The Costello government introduces the
Republic of Ireland Bill in the Dail Eireann.
November 25 Great Britain, Canada and South Africa
agree to continue trade preferences and reciprocal
citizenship rights after Ireland severs its links with the
Commonwealth.
December 14 The British Government turns down a
request from the Government of Northern Ireland to
change Northern Ireland's name to Ulster. The
Dominions Office notes that this would entail changing the
full name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland.
December 21 President Sean T. OKelly signs the Republic
of Ireland Act ending the countrys link with the British
Commonwealth. December 21
Sir Gilbert Laithwaite, the British High Commissioner to
Ireland, writes that, Northern Ireland is not Ulster and the
designation is false and dangerous.
During the Year
The remains of William Butler Yeats
are returned from France and reburied at Drumcliff,
County Sligo.
1949April 18 The Republic of Ireland Act becomes
effective at midnight on Easter Monday.
May 5
The Council of Europe is established with the
Republic of Ireland as a founding member.
June 2
The Ireland Act passed by the British parliament
declares that the Republic of Ireland is not part of the
British dominions, but that it is not to be regarded as a
foreign country, and that Northern Ireland will not cease to
be a part of the United Kingdom without the consent of

the Northern Ireland parliament.

July 12
Douglas Hyde, Gaelic League founder and first
President of Ireland, dies in Dublin at age 89

ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS

COMMITTEE. ... By virtue of Article
29.6 of the Constitution of Ireland, ...
Under the Offences Against the State
Act 1939
UNITED NATIONS CCPR
International covenant
on civil and
political rights
Distr.
GENERAL
CCPR/C/IRL/Q/3/Add.1
24 June 2008
Original: ENGLISH
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION
REPLIES TO THE LIST OF ISSUES (CCPR/C/IRL/Q/3)
TO BETAKEN UP IN CONNECTION WITH THE
CONSIDERATION
OF THE THIRD PERIODIC REPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
IRELAND
(CCPR/C/IRL/Q/3)*
[23 June 2008]
Constitutional and Legal Framework within which the
Covenant and the Optional Protocol are Implemented
(Article 2).
Issue 1

1.
As the Committee will be aware, Ireland has a dualist
legal system and consequently international agreements
to which Ireland becomes a party are not automatically
incorporated into domestic law. By virtue of Article 29.6 of
the Constitution of Ireland, the text of an international
agreement can only be expressly incorporated into the
domestic law of the State as determined by the
Legislature. Where a measure to implement an
international agreement would require a change to the
Constitution this in turn requires a referendum to be put to
the electorate. With every international agreement
consideration must be given to the position under
domestic law and whether the obligations of the State
under the agreement are already provided for under the
domestic legal framework. Where national law does not
cover the requirements of the international agreement the
necessary means to secure compliance must be
considered.
2.
Many of the fundamental human rights contained
within the Covenant are already part of the domestic law
of Ireland by virtue of provisions in the Constitution of
Ireland, including those areas of human rights law which
have been developed by the Irish Supreme Court and High
Court through the doctrine of unenumerated personal
rights under Article 40.3 of the Constitution. Certain rights
are also protected by legislation and the common law.
Ireland, in conformity with its obligations to the Covenant,
has chosen to implement its obligations under the
Covenant using these mechanisms rather than by direct
incorporation.
3.
As the protections in the Covenant are effectively
part of Irish law by means other than incorporation, as
described above, the Covenant itself is rarely called on by
persons seeking to vindicate their rights before the Courts.
However, litigants may raise the Covenant in proceedings
and there are a number of instances of this, but the Courts
require parties to establish their rights by reference to the
applicable provisions in domestic law. By way of
illustration, in Greendale Developments Ltd (in liquidation)
v McQuaid [2000] 2 IR 514 and in Bula Ltd v Tara Mines

(no 6) [2000] 4IR 412, reference was made in the

proceedings to Article 14.1 of the Covenant, but it was the
Constitution, and in particular Article 40.3 of the
Constitution, which was relied on by the Court in those
cases.
4.
In cases before the High Court involving reviews of
applications for refugee status, there are a number of
instances where the Covenant is referred to, as it features
in the consideration at earlier stages of the process.
Please see examples from written determinations of the
High Court which cite the Covenant at Annex A.
Issue 2
Article 10 paragraph 2
5.
As set out in its Third Periodic Report, Ireland
continues to make progress towards full implementation of
the principles in Article 10(2), with a high percentage of
the daily average of unconvicted prisoners accommodated
at a designated remand facility. For the present and
pending the completion of the current extensive building
programme, the continuing pressure on prison
accommodation as a whole, considerations of redundancy,
and the preference for proximity to home on the part of
many unconvicted prisoners prevents the provision of fully
separate arrangements throughout the system.
6.
Nevertheless, the intention remains that each
committal prison would have a separate area for
unconvicted prisoners and, as can be seen from the
material provided in the Third Periodic Report, and in the
response to Issue 11 below, substantial investment is
being made in extending and improving prison
accommodation facilities into the future.
7.
Irelands reservation to Article 10.2 will be kept under
review in the light of the expansion of prison spaces.
Article 14

8.
Ireland reserved the right under Article 14 of the
Covenant to have minor offences against military law
dealt with summarily in accordance with current
procedures, which, may not, in all respects, conform to the
requirements of Article 14 of the Covenant.
9.
The Defence (Amendment) Act 2007 was designed to
ensure that the conduct of military trials is fully
compatible with Article 14 of the Covenant. The
provisions of the Act stipulate that a commanding officer is
no longer able to award a custodial punishment for any
offence under military law that may be dealt with
summarily by him or her (described in the Act as
disciplinary and not criminal offences). An accused person
has an absolute right to elect for Court-Martial and to
appeal any determination by a commanding or authorised
officer to a Court-Martial. The Court-Martial system has
been amended to remove any doubt as to its
independence or impartiality. Prior to the
commencement of the remaining provisions of the
Defence (Amendment) Act 2007, which will make those
provisions operational, it is necessary to put the following
in place by way of secondary legislation (ie Ministerial
Order):

new Courts-Martial Rules

revised Rules of Procedure for Courts-Martial

revised Courts-Martial Legal Aid Regulations

amendments to six existing Defence Force

Regulations to reflect the provisions of the Act
10. Work on all of these is at an advanced stage and it is
expected that this will be completed in the very near
future, so allowing the Act to be fully commenced. Once
the Act is commenced, Ireland will then be in a position to
withdraw its reservation under Article 14. Every effort will
be made to have the necessary steps taken so that the
reservation can be removed before the examination of the
Report on 14 and 15 July.

Article 19 paragraph 2
11. The question of the maintenance of this reservation
is under active consideration in the context of the new
Broadcasting Bill currently before the Oireachtas and it is
hoped to withdraw the reservation at least in part when
the Bill is enacted.
Article 20 paragraph 1
12. Ireland has no plans to withdraw the reservation to
Article 20 paragraph 1 at this time.
Issue 3
13. Where developments with regard to the
recommendations contained in the Committees previous
concluding observations relate to an issue raised by the
Committee in the current list of issues, this information is
included under the specific issue. Information on
developments regarding other recommendations is
attached as Annex B.
Non-Discrimination and Equal Rights of Women and Men
(Articles 2, 3, 26).
Issue 4
14. Cosc, the National Office for the Prevention of
Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence, was
established in June 2007 as an executive office of the
Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform with a
cross-government mandate. Cosc's key responsibility is to
ensure the delivery of a well co-ordinated "whole of
Government" response to domestic, sexual and genderbased violence and it carries out this responsibility by
facilitating action for the protection of victims as well as
the prevention of these crimes and the provision of
services for those affected.

15. To that end, early priorities for Cosc include the

implementation of a Priority Research Programme which
will lay a foundation for effective strategies to address
domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. In particular,
the programme includes a mapping project in relation to
services provided by both State and non-State
organisations to those affected by domestic, sexual and
gender-based violence. This initiative will help to identify
gaps in the provision of services for the protection of
women from violence and should form a solid basis for the
actions needed to address those gaps.
16. In recent years considerable resources have been
devoted to public education at both national and local
level. This work is a major priority for Cosc and its Priority
Research Programme includes a project which entails
conducting a general population attitudinal survey on
domestic abuse. The survey should provide the basis for
the effective implementation of public awareness raising
activities provided for in Coscs Communications Plan for
2008 and 2009. Preparatory work on the survey is well
advanced and it is expected to complete the survey by
September 2008.
17. The Health Service Executive (HSE) currently funds
16 Rape Crisis Centres, 20 Refuges and 25 Support
Services all providing services to victims of domestic or
sexual violence. In 2007, 4.5 million was allocated from
the Department of Health and Children to HSE for Violence
against Women services.
18. Additional funding of 1.5 million was allocated to the
implementation of the recommendations of the Review of
Sexual Assault Treatment Service. The HSE is currently
implementing these recommendations which include
standardisation of existing units and provision of
additional units where appropriate.
19. For recent years there are no available figures on
crimes of domestic and sexual violence based specifically
on gender. One of the priorities for Cosc under its
research programme is to examine data collection

systems and procedures to address data deficits in this

area.
Issue 5
20. The recommendations of the All-Party Oireachtas
Committee on the Constitution in relation to the role of
women will be considered in the context of any general
proposals to implement those recommendations.
21. Arising from the recommendations of the National
Plan for Women (2002) and a commitment in Irelands
social partnership agreements, a National Womens
Strategy has been developed and was launched by the
Taoiseach (Prime Minister) on 18 April 2007.
22. The National Womens Strategy addresses the issues
that remain to be addressed on the road to full equality
between women and men in Ireland, over the period 2007
to 2016. The Strategy, which contains 20 key objectives
and over 200 actions, aims to:

Equalise socio-economic opportunity for women

Ensure their well-being
Engage women as equal and active citizens.

23. A funding package of 58.64 million has been set

aside in the National Development Plan 2007 2013 to
implement the Strategy. This funding is in addition to the
68 million set aside for positive actions under the
Equality for Women Measure, which is also in the National
Development Plan.
24. Implementation of the Strategy is being overseen by
the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in
collaboration with an Inter-Departmental Committee which
meets twice yearly. This Committee will also report to a
cross-sectoral monitoring committee, which will also
include key State Agencies and the Social Partners, under
the chairmanship of the Minister of State with
responsibility for Equality, Disability and Mental Health.

Issue 6
25. The Government has committed, in the Agreed
Programme for Government, to legislating for civil
partnerships as early as possible in the lifetime of the
Government. The Heads of a Civil Partnership Bill, which
will provide a registration mechanism for same-sex
couples who choose to register their relationship and for
the consequences of registration, has been drafted and is
expected to go to Government on 24 June 2008 for
approval to draft the Bill. In addition to providing for civil
partnership registration for same-sex couples, the Heads
of Bill establish a 'Redress scheme' for long term
cohabitants and provide for legal recognition of
agreements between cohabitants regulating their financial
affairs. The redress scheme is intended to give protection
to a vulnerable party at the end of a long-term oppositesex or same-sex relationship.
26. The Government are aware of the need to look at
changing the law on birth registration to allow a transgendered person to obtain a birth certificate in their new
gender and this is under consideration. This matter is
complex and requires careful examination both of the
rights of trans-gendered persons and others, such as
family members, who might be affected by such a change.
Detailed consideration of the matter will be required when
litigation currently before the Supreme Court is
adjudicated upon.
Counter Terrorism Measures and Respect of Covenant
Guarantees
Issue 7
27. The primary purpose of the introduction of the
Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 was to give
effect in Irish law to the various international instruments
aimed at counteracting terrorism, particularly in the

changed circumstances which characterise the

international environment since September 2001.
28. Ireland's legislation has not adopted the approach of
defining terrorism per se. In keeping with the approach
adopted over the years in Irish law the criminalisation of
terrorism has focused on the various offences involved
and Irish legislation attributes a special character to these
offences where they are carried out in the context of
terrorist or terrorist-linked activity. The definitions of
"terrorist activity" and "terrorist-linked activity" and the
offences for the purposes of these definitions are clearly
set out in the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act
2005. The offences which are set out in the Act are
offences under Irish law.
29. The Offences Against the State Acts 1939-1998
derogate from the general law in providing for the
possibility of detention in custody for a period of up to 72
hours prior to being charged in connection with the
commission of certain offences. Judicial intervention in
such a case is required after the first 48 hours detention.
Section 30 of the 1939 Act, as amended by the 1998 Act,
applies to offences under the Offences against the State
Acts 1939 to 1998 and scheduled offences, and includes
offences involving firearms, explosives, or membership of
an unlawful organisation.
30. The Government is completely opposed to the
practice of so-called extraordinary renditions. The
Government has made it clear that any person with
credible information that Irish airports have been used for
any alleged unlawful purpose should immediately report
their concerns to the Garda Sochna (National Police
Service), which would have responsibility for investigating
such matters. On the basis of such reporting or any other
information, where the Garda Sochna reasonably
suspects that an offence is being committed, statutory
powers of entry and arrest are available, subject to
international law.
31. Where complaints of alleged unlawful activity

concerning the use of Irish airports have been made to the

Garda Sochna, investigations have ensued and, where
appropriate, files have been submitted to the Director of
Public Prosecutions. In all these cases, no further action
was found to be warranted, owing to a lack of any
evidence of any unlawful activity.
32. In this context, it is considered that all reasonable,
appropriate and sufficient measures have been and are
being taken to ensure that Irish airports are not being
used for any unlawful activity.
33. The assurances the Government has received from
the US authorities are specific that prisoners have not
been transferred through Irish territory, nor would they be,
without our permission. These assurances have been
confirmed at the highest level. The assurances are of a
clear and categoric nature, relating to facts and
circumstances within the full control of the US Government
and are the result of inter-agency consultation. The
Government are completely satisfied that it is entitled in
international law to rely on the assurances repeatedly
given by the US Government.
34. The matter of the establishment of a parliamentary
inquiry into extraordinary renditions has been extensively
debated in the Houses of the Oireachtas, where both
Houses have passed motions supporting the
Governments policy in this area. Indeed the Senate,
Seanad ireann, has on three separate occasions voted
not to institute a specific inquiry. No evidence has ever
been produced, nor any concrete allegation made, at any
point that any person has ever been subject to
extraordinary rendition through Ireland.
Derogation (Article 4)
Issue 8
35. Ireland does not have any derogation under Article 4.
Any derogation that might in the future be made would be
formulated in accordance with Irelands obligations under

the Covenant.
Right to Life (Article 6)
Issue 9
36. Following the 2002 Referendum, and on the
recommendation of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on
the Constitution, the Government established the Crisis
Pregnancy Agency (CPA) as part of a strategy to combat
crisis pregnancies. The mandate of the Agency is to
achieve a reduction in the number of crisis pregnancies by
the provision of education, advice and contraceptive
services; to achieve a reduction in the number of women
with crisis pregnancies who opt for abortion by offering
services and supports which make other options more
attractive; and the provision of counselling and medical
services and other health services after crisis pregnancy.
37. The Agencys first Strategy was published in
November 2003 and covered the period 2004 2006. In
brief, the Strategy highlighted the actions necessary to
prevent crisis pregnancies, to support those with crisis
pregnancies and to provide counselling and medical
services to women after a crisis pregnancy. On 19
November 2007 the Agency published a second strategy,
setting out its objectives for the period 2007 2011.
38. Since its establishment the Agency has worked very
effectively, focusing on all aspects of crisis pregnancy and
ensuring the development of high-quality services and
supports.
39. The Agency works to achieve its objectives
principally through its communications programmes, its
research programme and its funding programme. It also
works to contribute to and inform policy development and
service delivery by Government Departments and other
State and non-governmental organisations. The total
amount of revenue funding made available to the Agency
for 2008 is 8.959 million.

40. Counselling services provided by the Agency, which

are free to women experiencing a crisis pregnancy.
Information on safe and reputable abortion services in
other jurisdictions is available from a number of
counselling services, for those who opt for abortion
following non directive counselling.
41. Figures produced by the Agency in June 2008 show
that the number of Irish women seeking abortions abroad
has fallen for the sixth successive year. The Agency
attributes this to the wider availability of non-directive
pregnancy counselling, greater use of contraception and
improved relationships and sexuality education in schools
and in the home.
Prohibition of Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment, and Prohibition of Slavery, Security of the
Person and the Right not to be subjected to Arbitrary
Detention, and Treatment of Detainees (Articles 7, 8, 9,
10)
Issue 10
42. The Commission is statutorily independent in the
exercise of its functions. Furthermore neither a member
nor a former member of the Garda Sochna can be a
member of the Commission. A similar prohibition exists in
the case of current members of the Oireachtas. The
Commission is chaired by a High Court judge and its
members are of high calibre.
43. The Commission is well resourced with almost 100
staff. This is five times the staffing complement of its
predecessor the Garda Sochna Complaints Board.
Included in that staffing complement is an independent
investigative capacity with considerable professional
expertise.
44. The Ombudsman Commission is empowered directly
to investigate all complaints, and must directly investigate

complaints concerning the death of, or serious harm to, a

person in Garda custody. Designated officers of the
Ombudsman Commission have Garda powers of
investigation for that purpose. The Ombudsman
Commission can also refer complaints to the Garda
Commissioner for investigation, with or without
supervision. It also has the power to investigate of its own
motion, without a complaint having to be made, and
where it is desirable in the public interest, any matter that
appears to it to indicate that a member of the Garda
Sochna may have committed an offence, or behaved in a
manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings. The
Minister may also request the Ombudsman to investigate
any such case, where he considers it desirable in the
public interest to do so.
45. In the first year of operation (from 9 May 2007), a
total of 2,905 complaints were made by members of the
public. Of these, 746 were deemed inadmissible. 294
referrals were made by the Garda Commissioner relating
to incidents where the Commissioner was of the view that
the conduct of a garda might have resulted in the death of
or serious harm to a person. Of these referrals, 6 related
to deaths in or following Garda custody or following Garda
contact, and 11 related to deaths arising from road traffic
incidents.
46. The Ombudsman Commission acknowledges that a
backlog of complaints and investigations has accumulated
and cites a number of factors as having contributed to
this, mainly staffing vacancies and lack of appropriate IT
systems. However, additional investigators have taken up
posts since January 2008 and a fully developed case
management has recently been introduced.
47. The Garda Sochna Ombudsman Commission
opened its doors on 9 May, 2007. As a consequence it is
not possible to compare its 2007 figures with directly
comparable 2006 figures. However, in general, the
number of complaints being received by the new body
exceeds the number which were received in 2006 under
the old complaints regime, which was operated by the

Garda Sochna Complaints Board. However, it is

generally recognised that the public had lost confidence in
the old regime and this was one of the reasons for the
establishment of the new regime.
48. The requirement to conduct audio-visual recording of
interviews is set-out in Criminal Justice Act 1984
(Electronic Recording of Interviews) Regulations 1997. The
Regulations specify that interviews of detained persons
under the appropriate legislation must be electronically
recorded with any exceptions only as provided for in the
Regulations. The Garda Sochna has indicated that
interviews are electronically recorded in approximately
98% of cases and the reason why the balance are not
recorded is accounted for by the interviewee objecting to
the recording taking place or the equipment being already
in use/ the room is not available.
49. In Irish law judges have no role in the investigation of
complaints of ill-treatment in Garda custody. This is a
matter for the appropriate statutory body, as set out in
paragraphs 158 to 160 in the Third Periodic Report.
50. As regards cases before the courts, where a police
officer is charged with an offence arising from alleged illtreatment, it is a matter for the presiding judge and,
where appropriate, the jury to consider the evidence. The
Courts are, subject only to the Constitution and the law,
completely independent in the exercise of their judicial
functions.
51. There are no plans to modify current statutory
provisions governing access by a person in police custody
to his or her lawyer.
52. The Garda Sochna is under a statutory obligation to
notify a detained person of his or her entitlement to
consult a lawyer, and to notify the lawyer, at the request
of the detained person of his or her detention (section 5 of
the Criminal Justice Act 1984). Regulation 11 of the
Criminal Justice (Treatment of Persons in Custody in Garda
Sochna Stations) Regulations 1987 provides that an

arrested person shall have reasonable access to a lawyer

of his or her choice and be able to communicate with him
privately. Such consultations may take place in the sight
of but out of hearing of a member of the Garda Sochna.
53. Garda interviews with detained persons are required
by statute to be recorded by electronic means subject to
certain limited exceptions (Criminal Justice Act 1984
(Electronic recording of interviews) Regulations 1997).
The audio-visual recording of interviews together with the
detained person's entitlement to reasonable access to his
or her lawyer safeguard the interests of the detained
person.
Issue 11
54. The Prisons Bill 2006 was enacted on 31 March 2007.
55. The Prisons Act 2007 provides a legislative basis for
the drafting of new prison rules and in that context the
Prison Rules 2007 came into affect on 1 October 2007.
The Prison Rules provide a modern regulatory framework
for the governance of our prisons and reflect the
provisions of the European Prison Rules and modern best
practice in the area. They constitute the first major
revision of prison regulation in this State since 1947.
56. The Act also provides for the construction of major
prison projects and one such project for the construction
of a new prison in North County Dublin is currently
progressing through the required legislative phases with a
view to construction commencing later this year and being
completed in 2011/12 approximately.
57. In the last 12 years the Government and the Irish
Prison Service have provided in the region of 1,200
additional prison spaces.
58. The Irish Prison Service is committed to providing
safe and secure custody to all offenders committed to its
care and regularly approves transfers out of affected
prisons to other locations in order to prevent unacceptable

occupancy levels. The Irish Prison Service has no control

over the number of people committed to prison and must
take everyone committed by the Courts. The total number
of prisoners in custody on 9 May 2008 was 3,542
compared with a bed capacity of 3,597. This represents
an occupancy level of 98%. The prison system is, of
course, subject to peaks and troughs and numbers can be
particularly high when the courts are at their busiest.
59. Approximately 75% of prisoners in custody now have
24-hour access to in-cell sanitation, thanks to substantial
investment in the prison estate in recent years. The state
recognises the necessity to further modernise and expand
the prison estate and that is why the Government has
embarked on an ambitious prison-building programme,
which will result in the replacement of nearly 40% of the
entire prison estate and the ending of 'slopping out'. In
this context, the following developments have taken place
or are planned in the near future:

Work has been completed on the provision of a new

purpose-built 44-bed accommodation unit in Shelton
Abbey.

The provision of a new 60-bed accommodation block

has been completed in Loughan House.

The new C Block in Portlaoise Prison will provide 138

spaces. It is expected that these cells will be available in
2008.

The new remand wing in Castlerea Prison will provide

an extra 64 spaces. It is expected that this additional
capacity will be available in mid 2008.

A new wing under construction in Wheatfield Prison

will increase capacity by 144 spaces. It is expected that
these spaces will be available in 2009.
60. In the longer term the Irish Prison Service is
constructing major new prison complexes in North County
Dublin and Munster, anticipated to provide 1400 and 440

additional spaces, respectively. The new facilities will offer

significant improvements in the areas of work-training,
education and medical services as well as providing in-cell
sanitation facilities in predominantly single cell
accommodation.
61. In Ireland there are a number of alternative sanctions
to detention. A list is contained in Annex C.
Issue 12
62. Aside from legislative developments, other strategies
have been put in place to assist the process of dealing
with this reprehensible form of criminal activity.
63. The Anti-Human Trafficking Unit has recently been
established in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law
Reform. The Unit will work to ensure that the State
response to trafficking in human beings is coordinated,
comprehensive and holistic. A key element of this
strategy will be the development of a National Action Plan
to Prevent and Tackle Trafficking in Human Beings to be
approved by the High Level Group for submission to the
Minister. The Plan will have a strong focus on preventing
trafficking becoming a major issue in Ireland. It is being
developed under four main headings: Protection of
Victims, Child Trafficking, Prevention and awareness
raising and Prosecution of Traffickers. The objective is to
have the plan drafted and ready for submission to the
Minister by the end of 2008 with a view to publication
when approved by the Minister and Government as soon
as possible thereafter.
64. An Interdepartmental High Level Group has been
established to recommend the most appropriate and
effective responses to trafficking in human beings to the
Minister. The Group comprises of representatives from
various Government Departments. The group had its first
meeting in March 2008 and it was agreed that the best
way to proceed would be to engage with NGOs and
representatives of the High Level Group in the manner of

roundtable discussions, to be held on a quarterly basis

initially. The first roundtable discussion was held on 14
May, 2008. In addition, 5 interdisciplinary Working Groups
are being established to progress matters and, in turn,
report to the High Level Group. They will deal with: Child
Trafficking, Labour Exploitation Issues, Development of a
National Referral Mechanism, Awareness Raising and
Training and Sexual Exploitation issues.
65. All of these developments will ensure that the State
will have the necessary mechanisms in place to deal with
victims of human trafficking if and when they are
encountered.
66. Section 10 of the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking)
Act 2008 gives the judge the power to exclude persons
from court proceedings, other than officers of the Court
and persons directly concerned in the proceedings, to
prevent publicity in circumstances where publicity
surrounding a case might place the alleged victims of
trafficking and their families at risk. Section 11
guarantees the anonymity of alleged victims unless
waived by the judge. Section 12 amends section 12 of the
Criminal Evidence Act 1992 to make it possible, for
instance, for an alleged victim to give evidence through a
live video link from either within the State or abroad.
67. Section 124 of the Immigration, Residence and
Protection Bill 2008 provides for a period of recovery and
reflection of 45 days in the State for alleged victims of
trafficking and also, in circumstances where the person
trafficked wishes to assist the Garda in any investigation
or prosecution in relation to the alleged trafficking, a
further six months period of residence, renewable, to
enable him or her to do so.
68. An administrative framework will be introduced to
provide for a period of recovery and reflection in Ireland
prior to the enactment of the provisions of the
Immigration, Residency and Protection Bill.

Issue 13
69. Resources allocated to the Garda and the Courts
have increased substantially in recent years, in line with
an increase of approximately 50% across the Justice and
Equality sector generally since 2003.
70. Notwithstanding the increase in funding, however,
and bearing in mind the many demands on these services,
the Irish authorities remain satisfied that the maximum
period provided for is necessitated by practical resource
and operational considerations.
71. Ireland currently does not have any specifically
dedicated facilitates for detaining such persons. Persons
held on immigration related matters (whether asylum
seekers or others) are, as far as practicable, detained in
institutions away from convicted prisoners where the
regime is not of a high security nature. Restrictions are
kept to a minimum, consistent with order and control. Our
prisons are governed by the statutory obligations laid
down in the provisions of the Prison Rules 2007 which
reflect the European Prison Rules and modern best
practice internationally.
Imprisonment for Failure to fulfil a Contractual Obligation
(Article 11)
Issue 14
72. Ireland does not have legislation providing for
criminal sanctions or imprisonment for failure to fulfil a
contractual obligation. Imprisonment for non-payment of
debt was abolished in Ireland by the Debtors (Ireland) Act
1872. However, refusal to fulfil a contractual obligation or
pay a contractual debt may amount to civil contempt of
court, for which imprisonment may be imposed.
73. Contract law is a civil matter and the primary
remedies available to a complainant, through the Courts,
would be enforced performance of the contract or

damages. Where a person refuses to obey a court order

relating to providing a remedy for contractual default to
another person/organisation, imprisonment may be one of
a number of remedies ultimately for non-compliance. The
imprisonment of such defaulters is very much a last
resort. The person will, generally, have been given every
opportunity to fulfil the contract or to discharge the debt.
74. The number of persons in custody in Ireland for nonpayment of debt on 23 May, 2008 was 8 out of a total
prison population of 3,574 which represents 0.22% of the
prison population.
75. The Law Reform Commission in its Report on
Contempt in 1994 considered that the case for abolition of
the sanction (of imprisonment) had not been established
in regard to civil contempt. The Commission felt that the
powers of the court in this regard were coercive more than
punitive. It is an appropriate remedy only where the
desired result cannot be achieved by other means and the
defendants active cooperation is a vital ingredient.
76. There are no proposals in the current Government
Legislative Programme to reform the law in regard to civil
contempt in how it might be applied to default of
contractual obligations or failure to pay a civil debt.
77. A person can be committed to prison for civil
contempt for failure to comply with an order of the Court
to discharge a debt by instalments. Instalment orders
involve a statutory procedure to require the examination
of a debtors means by a court which will then consider
fixing a periodic instalment to be paid to discharge the
debt taking into account the income and outgoings of the
person concerned. If the person against whom the order
is made fails to meet periodic payments an application
may be made for arrest and committal to prison but this
requires a further hearing by the judge under Section 18
of the Enforcement of Court Orders Act 1926, as amended
by Section 6 of the Enforcement of Court Orders Act 1940.
The judge may not order an arrest and imprisonment
unless satisfied that the failure to pay was due to wilful

refusal or culpable neglect. The judge may treat the

hearing for imprisonment as an application to vary the
instalment order and instead of ordering imprisonment
may adjust the payments under the instalment order to
meet the debtors changed circumstances.
78. It should not be presumed that all persons failing to
meet their debts do so because of poor financial
circumstances. Imprisonment is only used in cases where
the Courts are satisfied that a person has the ability to
discharge a debt, but has not done so. In many cases,
when a person committed for failure to pay a debt or fine
is faced with the reality of imprisonment, they do, in fact,
make payment.
Expulsion of Aliens and the right to Fair Trial (Articles 13,
14)
Issue 15
79. Following the General election in May 2007, the
Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2007 was not
restored to the business of the Irish Parliament. In January
2008 a revised Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill
2008, incorporating much of the substance of the 2007
Bill, was published. That Bill is currently before the Irish
Parliament. In this regard, it should be noted that the
provisions below may be subject to further amendment
arising from the legislative process before Parliament.
80. Section 4 of the Bill states that all foreign nationals
present in Ireland must be here lawfully in accordance
with a permission given, or deemed to be given, to them.
A foreign national may become unlawfully present in
circumstances where (a) the permission given to them has
expired, has not been renewed, or has been revoked or (b)
they entered Ireland in such a way as to avoid the
immigration process, thus never acquiring permission to
be in Ireland. A foreign national who lawfully enters Ireland
will be aware of the expiration date of any entry or
residence permission given to him or her, or will otherwise

receive notice of any proposed non-renewal or revocation

of a permission.
81. In circumstances where a foreign national is lawfully
resident in Ireland and it is proposed to interfere with that
lawful residence by the non-renewal or revocation of a
permission processes are in place which allow the foreign
national to make representation. Sections 39 to 45 outline
processes for non-renewal, or, as the case may be,
revocation of residence permission. These sections also
set out the circumstances in which a review of a decision
not to renew can be sought or a representation can be
made against a proposal to revoke permission. For
example, Section 45 provides that in cases where the
Minister proposes to revoke residence permission, the
person affected has 15 days to make representations as to
why this should not be done. It is only after the exhaustion
of these processes that a persons presence in Ireland will
become unlawful.
82. In accordance with Section 23 persons who apply for
protection are allowed entry to Ireland for the purpose of
examining their claim. All persons seeking protection will
be granted permission to remain for so long as it takes to
assess their claim and any appeals that might arise.
83. A person who is unlawfully in Ireland is under an
obligation to remove themselves from Ireland. Failure to
do so may result in him or her being removed. A person
detained for this purpose may only be detained for as long
as is necessary for the purpose of effecting removal and
cannot be detained for more than 8 weeks. A person so
detained would have available to him or her the
constitutional remedy of a habeas corpus and also the
right to challenge his or her removal by way of judicial
review. In all cases it should be noted that Section 53 of
the Bill contains an absolute prohibition on Refoulement,
no person may be removed from Ireland if doing so would
place them in danger.
84. Section 56 introduces an alternative to detention,
allowing a foreign national to remain at liberty subject to

conditions. Section 58 provides that persons under 18 will

not normally be detained for purposes of removal.
Issue 16
85. In January 2003 the Supreme Court ruled in the case
of D.L. and A.O. and others Vs the Minister for Justice
[2003] 1 I.R.1, that the foreign national parent of an Irish
born child did not have an automatic entitlement to
remain in Ireland with the child. At that time there was
significant numbers of applications for residency in Ireland
on foot of parentage of an Irish born child.
86. The Houses of the Oireachtas subsequently proposed
an amendment to the Constitution which was approved by
the people by way of referendum. The amendment
inserted a new provision into the Constitution at Article 9.2
which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution,
a person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its
islands and seas, who does not have, at the time of the
birth of that person, at least one parent who is an Irish
citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen is not entitled to
Irish citizenship or nationality, unless provided for by law.
This section shall not apply to persons born before the
date of the enactment of this section.
87. The effect of this amendment was to qualify Article 2
of the Constitution, which provides for the entitlement to
citizenship of every person born in Ireland.
88. The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004
provides for the necessary amendments to the Irish
Nationality and Citizenship Acts 1956 to 2001 so as to give
effect to the amendment to the Constitution.
89. In order to address the situation of the parents of a
child born on the island of Ireland on or before the 31
December 2004 (when the Act came into force) an

administrative arrangement was put in place in early

2005, which processed these applications for residency on
a case by- case basis. Of a total of 17,917 applications,
16,984 were granted permission to reside in Ireland.
Issue 17
90. The need for the retention of the Special Criminal
Court arises on two grounds. On the one part, there
remains a credible paramilitary threat to public order and
peace in Ireland from dissident republican organisations.
This is confirmed on a consistent basis by the Garda
Sochna and has also been confirmed repeatedly in the
reports of the International Monitoring Committee
established by the Irish and British Governments to
monitor and assess paramilitary activity in Northern
Ireland.
91. On the second part, the threat posed by organised
crime provides further justification for the maintenance of
the Special Criminal Court. There have been instances in
criminal trials of the threat of intimidation of and
interference with juries by criminal gangs and their
members.
92. Under the Offences Against the State Act 1939, the
Government may establish such additional number of
special criminal courts as it thinks fit. It did so in
December 2004, although no additional judges have been
appointed to date. In circumstances where a threat exists
which is directed against the State itself and has the
possible effect of undermining the legitimacy of the rule of
law, the Government considers it appropriate that it
should have at its disposal a mechanism to deal swiftly
with such a threat in a manner that upholds the integrity
of the administration of justice. The ability to establish
additional special criminal courts is also important in
ensuring the right of the individual before the law not to
be faced with an unavoidably lengthy delay before coming
to trial.

93. It is considered that the present circumstances

warrant the retention of the Special Criminal Court.
However, its operation is kept under continual review by
the Government.
Issue 18
94. Funding for Civil Legal Aid Scheme has been
increased substantially in recent years with a view to
keeping waiting times to a minimum (funding has
increased from 18.388m in 2004 to 26.988m in 2008,
an increase of 47%).
95. The scheme applies a means test which takes into
account living costs so as to ensure that persons of
modest means qualify for assistance under the scheme. A
study has been commissioned to analyse actual eligibility
levels of the civil legal aid scheme and the indications
from this exercise are that a substantial proportion of the
population qualifies for civil legal aid.
Freedom of Religion (Article 18)
Issue 19
96. This issue was considered by the All-Party Oireachtas
Committee on the Constitution in its Fourth Report - The
Courts and the Judiciary (published 1999). The majority
view of the Committee was that a judge should have a
choice between a religious and non-religious declaration.
The Committee stated that because the majority of
people in Ireland hold religious beliefs, it would not be
desirable to delete the references to God from the
declaration. Accordingly, the Committee recommended a
choice of declaration. A Referendum would be required to
amend the Constitutional provision in question and no
such measure has been actively considered to date.
Notwithstanding this, the issue remains the subject of
review.

Rights of Minorities (Articles 26, 27)

Issue 20
97. The Report of the High Level Group on Traveller
Issues was approved by the Government in March 2006.
Important recommendations which have been followed
through at Departmental level include the publication of
the Report and Recommendations for a Traveller Education
Strategy, in November 2006, and the commencement of
work on an All-Ireland Traveller Health Study in 2008.
98. A key aspect of the approach recommended by the
High Level Group is developing effective coordination of
actions among agencies operating under the 34 County
and City Development Boards (CDB), coupled with
effective consultation with Travellers and their
representatives. Since 2006, Traveller Interagency Groups
have been established under each CDB to coordinate the
efforts of state agencies and other stakeholders. This
approach has:

Established a dedicated local coordination

mechanism

Established a focus for developing best practices in

service delivery

Established a more broad based forum to facilitate

engagement with local Traveller representatives
(previously accommodation was the primary focus)

Highlighted employment as an area where tangible

progress can be made by public bodies

Shown that all stakeholders can play a significant role

in improving outcomes locally.
99. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform
is monitoring progress and supporting the dissemination of
good practices in implementing the interagency approach.
It is clear that, while there are variations in the
performance of the various Interagency Groups, this
approach can add significant value to social inclusion
measures for Travellers and lead to more productive

working relationships between all stakeholders.

100. In addition to the High Level Group, which focussed
particularly on the effective functioning of state agencies,
a National Traveller Monitoring and Advisory Committee
(NTMAC) was established in March 2007. This committee
replaced the Traveller Monitoring Committee which
reported on implementation of the 1995 Task Force
Report. The NTMAC provides a broadly based and inclusive
forum for dialogue between the relevant social partners,
and its establishment followed on a commitment in the
national partnership agreement Towards 2016 to give
concentrated attention to achieving greater progress for
Travellers. The NTMAC, which includes four national
Traveller organisations along with a number of prominent
individual Traveller representatives, has a specific remit to
advise on policy in relation to the Traveller Community. It
is due to make its first advisory report in 2009. This will be
an essential input to the ongoing process of improving and
refining the effective delivery of supports and services to
the Traveller Community.
101. Through the National Action Plan for Social Inclusion
2007-2016 and the Activation Programme for People of
Working Age, the disadvantages and discriminations
against members of the Traveller community are being
addressed in a realistic way in conjunction with input and
participation from the Traveller community.
Health
102. Travellers poor health status has long been a cause
for concern. Significant investment has been made in
Traveller Health Services with 12 million of development
funding being allocated by the Department since 1997 in
addition to ongoing funding, of over 12 million.
Structures have been put in place to ensure the effective
delivery of services. Traveller Health units operate in each
HSE area and work in partnership with local traveller
organisations while at central policy level the Traveller
Health Advisory Committee which comprises
representatives of the Department, the HSE, Travellers

and representatives of Traveller organisations advise the

Minister on policy in relation to Traveller health.
All-Ireland Traveller Health Study
103. Work began on the All-Ireland Traveller Health Study
in July 2007. This study will investigate the health needs
of all Travellers living on the island, North and South and is
jointly funded by the Department of Health and Children
and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public
Safety (DHSSPS) in Northern Ireland. The Study will cost
1.395 million with additional fieldwork costs of 0.3
million being covered by the HSE and the DHSSPS. The
study is expected to take 3 years to complete. The Study
will include a census of the traveller population, examine
the health status of Travellers, assess the impact of the
health services currently being provided and identify the
factors which influence mortality and health status. The
Study will take 3 years to complete and will provide a
framework for future policy development and practice in
relation to Travellers.
Accommodation
104. Ireland has ensured, through legislation, the active
participation of Travellers in formulating and implementing
policies for the provision of accommodation of Traveller
families both at national level and locally in every local
authority throughout the country. This participative and
co-operative approach is set out in the Housing (Traveller
Accommodation) Act of 1998. Under the Act, the National
Traveller Accommodation Consultative Committee (NTACC)
was established to advise the Minister/Department in
relation to Traveller accommodation policy or on any
related matter referred to it by the Minister.
105. The national committee is mirrored at local level by
the Local Traveller Accommodation Consultative
Committee (LTACC) and provides a forum for:

Advice on the preparation and implementation of

traveler accommodation programmes


Advice on the management and maintenance of
traveller accommodation, and

To provide liaison between Travellers and the local

authorities.
106. Traveller representative organisations are valued
stakeholders and, and through their enthusiastic
participation in national and local fora, have contributed
significantly to the development and implementation of
Traveller accommodation policy here.
107. Local authorities reported that on 30 November
2007, there were 8,099 Traveller families living in Ireland.
This figure included 5,436 families living in
accommodation provided by local authorities or with local
authority assistance, and 594 families living on
unauthorised sites. (Please refer to paragraph 611 of the
Third Periodic Report for further information).
108. Further to information provided in paragraph 616 of
the Third Periodic Report, it should be noted that 35
million was spent on Traveller-specific accommodation in
2007, and the budget for such accommodation has been
increased to 40 million in 2008.
Participation in Political and Public Life
109. Registration as Electors: Irish electoral law enables
members of the Traveller Community to be registered as
electors, even where they have a nomadic lifestyle.
110. Guidelines for Registration Authorities, issued by the
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local
Government, who prepare and maintain the register of
electors, recommend that as far as possible, the names of
all members of the travelling community who are eligible
to vote are included in the Register. While it can
sometimes be difficult to ascertain the place of ordinary
residence, registration authorities are advised that those
members of the travelling community who regularly
occupy the same site for considerable periods of the year
should be registered and, in this regard should liaise with

all other relevant bodies to ensure that as many eligible

members of the Traveller Community as possible are
included in the Register.
111. Right to stand as candidates: Under electoral law,
every Irish citizen and every person ordinarily resident in
Ireland, over 18 years, who is not subject to any of the
disqualifications specified in law, is eligible for election to
a local authority. To be eligible for election to the national
parliament, a person must be 21 years of age.
The selection of candidates to stand for election is a
matter for each political party and the question of actively
promoting such activity rests with them.
112. In this regard it is worth noting the report of The
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
(ODIHR) which sent an Election Assessment Mission to
Ireland to observe the electoral process, in the context of
the General Election 2007. The ODIHR met with
representatives of traveller organisations who had carried
out election information and awareness activities prior to
the Election. This included voter education initiatives, to
target, in particular, the relatively high number of illiterate
voters in their community and to encourage broader
participation. Candidate forums were also organised to
raise awareness of the issues most important to travellers.
113. ODIHR representatives were informed by the
representatives of the Traveller Community that no
Travellers ran as candidates in the 2007 General Election
and no Travellers had ever been represented in the Dil
(House of Representatives) or in the Seanad. However, a
member of the Traveller Community did run in the Seanad
elections in 2007 and members of the Traveller
Community are more active in local elections in Ireland
and the current Mayor of Tuam is a Traveller.
Representatives of the Traveller Community reported that
they did not have any complaints about specific incidents
of racist or intolerant discourse during the election
campaign.

Education
114. The Report and Recommendations for a Traveller
Education Strategy was launched in 2006 and covers all
aspects of Traveller Education from pre-school right
through to further and higher education within a lifelong
learning context. The Report contains many
recommendations across the education spectrum for
parents, pre-school, primary, post primary, further
education, higher education and other areas.
115. Within the Department of Education and Science an
Implementation Group was established to progress /
implement recommendations of the Report.
Integration and Inclusion
116. The core principle of the report is one of inclusion
with an emphasis on equality and diversity and the
adoption of an intercultural approach. This is in line with
the Governments recommendations in the National Action
Plan Against Racism (NAPAR) (2005) which recommends
that, inter alia, Ireland

Develop a more inclusive and intercultural school

practice and environment through the whole school
planning process, admissions policies, codes of behaviour
and whole school evaluation

Accommodate cultural diversity within the curricula

Enhance access and education service delivery to

Travellers

Strengthen the participation of key stakeholders in

the development of an intercultural approach to
education.
Educational Need versus Traveller Identity
117. The principle of individual educational need rather
than Traveller identity will be used as the criterion to
provide additional resources to all children, including
Traveller children. The Report and Recommendations for a
Traveller Education Strategy has outlined current provision

and has made a number of recommendations However,

the findings of the Inspectorate report Survey of Traveller
Education Provision in Irish Schools (2006) found that the
majority of Traveller children in primary and post-primary
school are not achieving at a level equal to their peers in
the settled community. In view of this a cautious approach
will be adopted on the implementation of some of the
recommendations. The Resource Teacher for Travellers
provision at primary level will be considered in the context
of the review of the general allocation of resources for
special needs which will take place in 2008.
Key Features of successful implementation
118. Integrated provision will be provided where Travellers
participate on an equal basis with other service users, but
recognising that, in some cases, positive affirmative action
may also be needed as a short term measure to enable
Travellers to gain the skills and competence to enable
them to participate equally in mainstream education,
training or employment. A phased transition from
segregated provision to integrated provision will be
managed sensitively incorporating best practice and
taking account of the needs of students, staff and parents.
Next Steps
119. Education is a vital element in supporting greater
Traveller participation and empowerment in our society.
120. The link between education, training and enterprise
is perhaps the most vital in helping to increase the range
of life choices that are available to Travellers. As noted
above, the key to success will be improvements in
progression rates for Travellers to the end of Junior Cycle,
on to Senior Cycle and from Senior Travelling Training
Centres (STTCs) into further studies, training or
employment. Progression into Higher Education also needs
to improve. Therefore the implementation plan for
Traveller education has to be viewed in the overall context
of the Governments commitment to improving outcomes
for Travellers through sustained interagency cooperation
and positive engagement with Travellers and other

stakeholders.
121. A lifelong learning approach is needed where young
Travellers attend pre-school progressing through primary
and post-primary education to the end of senior cycle with
ongoing progression to further and or higher education. At
the same time adult Travellers need to be encouraged and
motivated to return to education and to progress up the
National Framework of Qualifications. Through their
successful involvement in education adult Travellers will
gain the knowledge, skills and confidence to act as
mentors to younger members of their community and to
become involved not only in their community but also in
the mainstream community and economy.
122. In summary, the aim of the Department of Education
and Science for Traveller education is to enable Travellers
to participate in an equal manner with other service users
through integrated educational mainstream provision. In
addition, the Department also recognises that for some
adults seeking second chance education the need for
short term positive affirmative actions to facilitate them in
gaining the skills and competences to transfer on and
progress into mainstream education, training or
employment may be required.
Employment
123. The Traveller Interagency Groups established in
2006, following the Report of the High Level Group, have
produced a number of programmes to facilitate Traveller
access to employment. The focus has been on providing
direct work experience and employment opportunities
within public bodies. This had involved outreach
programmes to canvass the Traveller Community for job
applicants, the development of appropriate training,
(supported by FS the National Training Authority) and the
provision of mentoring support during training and in the
workplace. Examples of the successful initiatives to date
include,

South Dublin County Council provided more than 40

positions (almost 30 are permanent full time positions).

Also, summer work experience programmes for Traveller
students can lead to opportunities for more formal work
placements on condition that second level education is
completed.

Clare County Council has worked with FS and other

local agencies to promote Traveller enterprises and
employment. This has led to at least 16 full time or part
time positions for local Travellers, including five employed
by the County Council. In addition, two Travellers are
employed as Education Support Workers, based in a
secondary school in Ennis to promote increased
educational attainment.

The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform

has supported initiatives in Dublin City which have led to
the registration of 15 companies, 3 sole traders, with
further registrations planned. This has supported up to
100 full and part time jobs and relevant training/licence
qualifications for Travellers.

The Department of Finance initiated a Traveller

Internship Programme in the Civil Service (2006 -2007)
which provided work experience for 23 Travellers in
Government Departments and Offices. Some of the
participants have gone on to permanent employment or
third level education.
124. In 2005, FS commenced the development of an
initiative to expand employment prospects for Travellers.
Four areas (Dublin, Cork, Clare and Galway) were selected
and an interagency approach was put in place including a
National Monitoring Group on Traveller Issues. Local
Steering Groups were also established.
125. The outcome of the pilot resulted in 200 Travellers
securing Employment, Training or establishing Enterprises
in the four areas. An independent evaluation of the pilot
recommended expansion into other regions, and, in 2007
additional funding was sourced to expand into Counties
Roscommon, Kerry, Navan and Laois.
126. The focus in future will be to continue the roll out of
the initiative countrywide and to mainstream those

aspects which were successful in the pilot areas.

127. It should be noted that under the Special Initiative,
the FS Supported Employment Programme, which was
developed for People With Disabilities (PWD) is being
expanded to include Travellers in two pilot areas Navan
and Kerry. It will be useful to look at the results of these
two pilots at the end of this year and how the programme
can be adopted for Traveller clients. The range of
supports include (a) needs assessment (b) job sourcing (c)
in-work supports to ensure sustainability of employment
and (d) aftercare and mentoring aimed at supporting
career development and independence.
128. The re-established Monitoring Committee (NTMAC) is
examining a range of policy issues including employment
and training for Travellers. Both employers and unions are
represented on the NTMAC as are the Traveller
representative organisations and the public service. There
is a clear commitment to engage with the issues and
come up with workable practical long-term solutions.
129. There is scope for further development of similar
initiatives. This will require the continued development of
an Interagency Approach, and good working relationships
with Traveller representatives. At national level the input
of the National Traveller Monitoring and Advisory
Committee will be of particular importance.
Issue 21
130. The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment
(NCCA) has provided each teacher in primary and postprimary with a copy of Guidelines on Intercultural
Education. Opportunities to explore different cultures are
promoted throughout these Guidelines. With the arrival of
newcomer students the opportunities for teachers and
their pupils to welcome and respect difference - be that
language, culture or religion - has become a reality.
Students can experience globalisation at a local level.

Language
131. The presence of students whose mother tongue is not
English has been a major new challenge for schools and
for the Department of Education and Science in recent
years. In 2007/2008 in the post-primary sector there were
almost 21,000 students from 160 other nationalities
enrolled. They make up almost 7% of the students
population. Almost 10% of the primary population consists
of newcomer students. Many of these newcomers do not
speak English in the home.
132. Considerable resources have been allocated to the
teaching of English to newcomer students. Schools with
pupils for whom English is not their first language are
entitled to language support. In 2001/2002 there were 262
English language support teachers. In 2007/2008 there are
almost 2,000 such teachers in the primary and postprimary schools. The main emphasis has been to ensure
that students are enabled to speak English as soon as
possible and become integrated into an inclusive
education system. Support materials have been made
available to assist the mainstream teachers and also the
English language support teachers.
133. The students in post primary can present for Leaving
Certificate examination, which the students take at
approximately 17-18 years, in Arabic, French, German,
Hebrew Studies, Italian, Spanish, Japanese and Russian. In
addition, there is provision for the so-called non-curricular
languages in the Leaving Certificate examination. These
are the official languages of EU Member States which do
not appear as part of the normal school curriculum, but
which students may opt to be examined in if they fulfil
certain criteria, e.g. be from a member State of the EU and
speak the language as a mother tongue. In 2007, these
official exams were offered in Latvian, Lithuanian,
Romanian, Modern Greek, Finnish, Polish, Estonian,
Slovakian, Swedish, Czech, Bulgarian, Hungarian,
Portuguese, Danish and Dutch.
134. The Department also funds mother-tongue classes

organised by immigrant communities for their children on

a limited basis. Immigrant groups can apply to the
Department for funding towards the promotion and
maintenance of their language and culture. Such support
may take place on school premises, by local agreement,
outside of school hours (usually at weekends). In addition,
some international countries, such as Poland, also provide
their young nationals with opportunities to maintain their
mother tongue and culture in out of mainstream school
settings.
135. The Department of Education and Science supports
the promotion of mother tongue language and culture on a
limited basis. Immigrant groups can apply to the
Department for funding towards the promotion and
maintenance of their language and culture. Such support
may take place on school premises, by local agreement,
outside of school hours (usually at weekends).
Religion
136. Education legislation requires that the diversity of
educational provision in the State is taken account of, and
the right of parents to send their children to a school of
their choice is respected.
137. Under Section 30 of the Education Act 1998, no
student can be required to attend instruction in any
subject which is contrary to the conscience of the parent
of the student. The Rules for National Schools also provide,
where the parents or guardians so wish, for the withdrawal
of pupils from religious instruction.
138. Section 15 of the Education Act 1998 requires boards
of management of schools to uphold and be accountable
to the Patron for upholding the characteristic spirit of the
school including the moral, religious, social, educational
and spiritual values which inform the ethos of the school.
139. At primary level, the Department of Education and
Science recognises the rights of the different church
authorities to design curricula in religious education and to

supervise their teaching and implementation. This right is

enshrined in the Education Act 1998. Consequently,
although religious education is part of the Curriculum for
Primary Schools and schools are obliged to allocate 30
minutes per day for religious instruction, the content of
the religion programme is determined by the Patron of the
school.
140. The Revised Curriculum for Primary Schools espouses
the importance of tolerance towards the practice, culture
and life-style of a range of religious convictions and states
explicitly that the beliefs and sensibilities of every child
are to be respected.
141. In second level schools, a programme of religious
instruction approved by the Patron may be offered, or
alternatively, the school may use the curriculum in
Religious Education which has been designed as an
examinable subject by the National Council for Curriculum
and Assessment. The NCCA syllabuses are concerned with
understanding religion as a phenomenon in the world and
are designed to be studied by students of all religious
faiths and of none. At Junior Cycle, the NCCA syllabus in
Religious Education was introduced in September 2000 for
first examination in the Junior Certificate in 2003. At
Senior Cycle, a new NCCA syllabus in Religious Education
at Higher and Ordinary levels was introduced for first
examination in 2005.
Culture
142. To assist schools to cater for different cultures and
diversity there are a number of resources available to
schools. All teachers in primary and post primary were
provided with a copy of the National Council for
Curriculum and Assessment's Guidelines on Intercultural
Education. There are two versions of the document. One
for primary and one for post-primary. This resource
provides teachers with guidelines and resources on how to
address culture from many aspects and across the
curriculum. In December 2007 there was a Toolkit for
Diversity in the Primary School launched. This was done in

collaboration by Integrate Ireland Language and Training

in Dublin and by the Southern Education and Library Board
in Armagh, Northern Ireland. It again provides teachers in
all 32 counties with opportunities and resources to cater
for the diverse cultural needs of the students in their class
and in their schools.
143. Children of minorities celebrate about their culture
through a range of intercultural events organised at a local
and national level which have been organised by members
of ethnic-led organisations, local government, partnerships
and non-governmental organisations. Funding streams
have been made available by a range of governmental
bodies, including the Office of the Minister for Integration,
to support the organisation, planning and delivery of these
activities.
Dissemination of Information relating to the Covenant and
the Optional Protocol (Article 2)
Issue 22
144. The Government endeavours to make the text of all
the international human rights instruments to which it is a
party freely available. The text of all the main human
rights conventions ratified by Ireland and the national
reports submitted to the United Nations on the
implementation of these conventions are available on the
Department of Foreign Affairs website
(http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/Political
%20Division/iccprfinalpdf.pdf). The Universal Declaration
of Human Rights has been printed in both national
languages and has been widely distributed.
145. The reports submitted by Ireland under the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are
coordinated by a designated focal point, the Human Rights
Unit of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
146. In the process of drafting of Irelands human rights
reports, all Government Departments are fully involved.

147. The initial drafting process for all of Irelands human

rights reports is coordinated by an inter-departmental
committee.
148. The draft reports are circulated on a confidential
basis to NGOs and other interested bodies including trade
unions, academics, religious representatives and
representatives of minority communities. The Irish Human
Rights Commission and the Ombudsman for Childrens
office is also invited to consult on the reports. A full list of
those organisations and individual invited to consult on
Irelands human rights reports is listed in Appendix D.
149. The representatives are invited to submit comments
in writing and attend a consultation meeting on the report.
This provides an opportunity for NGOs to present or
amplify their written submissions. This consultation
serves numerous purposes. It is to ensure the report is an
accurate reflection of the current status of the relevant
human rights obligations; to pinpoint key concerns of the
NGO sector and to afford them a meaningful opportunity
to present to government officials their ideas on how
Ireland could achieve a fuller implementation of the
relevant convention and to explore the implementation of
the convention in question from an alternative
perspective. It also provides an opportunity to brief NGOs
and other interested parties on the reporting and
examination process itself, so that they may participate
fully in the process.
150. Following this consultation process an annex to the
report is prepared reflecting concerns raised by NGOs and
the report is updated, where required, with information
requested by NGOs and other groups. The report is then
submitted to the Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights and published on the website of the
Department of Foreign Affairs (www.dfa.ie).
Annex A

Issue 1
High Court Decisions in which direct reference is made to
the Covenant

J. H. and Anor -v- Minister for Justice Equality and Law

Reform [2007] IEHC 277 27/07/2007

Moyosola v Refugee Applications Commissioner and

Ors [2005] IEHC 21823/06/2005

Pasic v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform

and Anor [2005] IEHC 45 23/02/2005

*M (SO) v Refugee Applications Commissioner and

others [2005] IEHC 218

*Dongo v Refugee Applications Commissioner and

another [2004] IEHC 366

*Gritto and others v Minister for Justice, Equality and

Law Reform [2004] IEHC 119

*Muresan v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law

Reform and others [2003] IEHC 655_02

I v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and

Anor [2007] IEHC 165 26/09/2007
Annex B
Issue 3
Information on how the Ireland has addressed the
recommendations contained in the Committees previous
concluding observations.
Paragraph 29(a) of the previous Concluding Observations
1.
In paragraph 29(a) of the previous concluding
observations, the Committee recommended that Ireland
withdraw the remaining reservations to the Covenant.
2.

Information on this matter is provided under Issue 2.

Paragraph 29(b) of the previous Concluding Observations

3.
In paragraph 29(b) of the previous concluding
observations, the Committee recommended that Ireland
reform constitutional provisions requiring judges to make a
declaration with religious references (Article 18).
4.
Information on this matter is provided under Issue
19.
Paragraph 29(c) of the previous Concluding Observations
5.
In paragraph 29(c) of the previous concluding
observations, the Committee recommended that Ireland
provide for prompt review of detention on mental health
grounds, i.e. within a few days (Article 9).
6.
The Mental Health Act 2001 provides a modern
framework within which people who have a mental
disorder and require treatment or protection can be cared
for and treated. It puts in place mechanisms by which the
standards, care and treatment in mental health services
can be monitored, inspected and regulated.
7.
The Act provides for the establishment of Mental
Health Tribunals under the auspices of the Mental Health
Commission. A Mental Health Tribunal is an independent
legal entity and its function is to revoke or affirm
admission or renewal orders, thus ensuring the protection
of rights of patients.
8.
Each Tribunal comprises a legal member, a
consultant psychiatrist and a lay person, and they conduct
a review of each decision by a consultant psychiatrist to
detain a patient on an involuntary basis or to extend the
duration of such detention (the latter as a consequence of
a renewal order at 3, 6 and 12 month periods). The review
of a detention is independent, automatic and must be
completed within 21 days of the detention/extension order
being signed. The Tribunal arranges for an independent
assessment of the detained patient by a consultant
psychiatrist; patients have the right to attend the tribunal
hearing and be represented by a legal representative, who

is appointed by the Mental Health Commission.

Paragraph 29(d) of the previous Concluding Observations
9.
In paragraph 29(d) of the previous concluding
observations, the Committee recommended that Ireland
repeal or reform discriminatory aspects of legislation
requiring the registration of alien husbands of Irish women
citizens, which is not required of alien wives of Irish male
citizens (Articles 3 and 26).
10. In paragraph 119 of Irelands Third Periodic Report, it
was noted that under the Immigration Act 2004, this
situation no longer pertains.
Paragraph 29(e) of the previous Concluding Observations
11. In paragraph 29(e) of the previous concluding
observations, the Committee recommended that Ireland
ensure the full and equal enjoyment of Covenant rights by
persons with disabilities, without discrimination, in
accordance with Article 26.
Office for Disability and Mental Health
12. In January 2008, the Government announced the
establishment of the Office for Disability and Mental
Health to support the Minister for Disability and Mental
Health in exercising his responsibilities across four
Government Departments: Health and Children; Education
and Science; Enterprise, Trade and Employment; and
Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
13. The new Office brings together responsibility for a
range of different policy areas and State services which
directly impact on the lives of people with a disability and
people with mental health issues. The Office will aim to
bring about improvements in the manner in which services
respond to the needs of people with disabilities and
mental health issues.
14. Very substantial progress has been made in recent

years in the areas of disability and mental health, but

much remains to be done. In particular, there is a need to
improve co-ordination and communication across different
Government Departments and agencies in their delivery of
services to this client group. This will be the main focus
for the new Office in the coming months.
National Disability Strategy
15. The National Disability Strategy supports and
reinforces the equal participation in society of people with
disabilities and comprises five elements:

Disability Act 2005

Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs

Act 2004;

Sectoral Plans published in 2006 by six Government

Departments;

Citizens Information Act 2007

A Multi-Annual Investment Programme for disability

support services of 900m for the period 2006-2009.
Health Disability Sectoral Plan
16. The Health Disability Sectoral Plan sets out the
actions which the Department of Health and Children, the
Health Service Executive and 27 statutory bodies will take
to meet their obligations under the Disability Act 2005. It
represents a commitment at all levels of the health service
to access and equity of service for people with disabilities.
17. The development of the Health Disability Sectoral
Plan has provided an important opportunity to ensure that
the needs of people with disabilities are considered in all
health policy planning and service delivery processes.
18. The Health Sectoral Plan is the first step in a complex
process to establish a baseline for access to health
services and for service delivery.
Part 2 of the Disability Act 2005 Independent
Assessment of Need

19. Part 2 of the Disability Act 2005 provides people with

disabilities with an entitlement to:

An independent assessment of health and education

needs;

A statement of the services (Service Statement)

which it is proposed to provide;

Pursue a complaint through the Health Service

Executive (HSE) complaints process if necessary;

Make an appeal to the independent Disability Appeals

Officer.
20. Part 2 of the Disability Act 2005 commenced for
children aged under 5 years with effect from 1 June 2007.
This prioritisation reflects the importance of intervention
early in life, which can have a significant impact on the
disabling effects of a condition or impairment.
21. The independent assessment of need is initially
undertaken without regard to cost or capacity constraints.
This report will state the nature, if any, of the disability,
the health and educational requirements arising, and a
statement of the requisite services considered
appropriate. It must be stressed that this process is
conducted without regard to the cost of or capacity to
provide any of the services identified.
22. The next phase of the process involves the
preparation of a Service Statement particular to the
individual, following the independent assessment of need
process. This is prepared by a Liaison Officer (case
manager). The Statement details the services to be
provided and a timeframe for their delivery. The crucial
difference here is that this report must take cognisance of
resource availability, as well as eligibility considerations
and the practicality of providing service(s).
23. Part 2 of the Act will be commenced in respect of
children aged 5-18 in tandem with the implementation of
the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs
(EPSEN) Act 2004. The Department of Education and

Science has informed the Department that it is envisaged

that all sections of the EPSEN Act will be implemented
over a five year timeframe that commenced on 1 October
2005. The National Council for Special Education (NCSE)
submitted its Implementation Report to the Minister for
Education and Science in October 2006, which sets out its
views and recommendations on a plan for the
implementation of the EPSEN Act 2004.
24. Part 2 of the Disability Act will be extended to adults
as soon as possible but no later than 2011.
25. A Cross Sectoral team comprising of the Department
of Health and Children, Department of Education and
Science, the HSE and the NCSE, was established and
meets on a regular basis and continues to address issues
arising in relation to the implementation of both Acts.
26. The Office of the Disability Appeals Officer has been
established.
27. Significant work has taken place in the HSE including
the creation of Assessment Officer and Liaison Officer
(case managers) posts in each Local Health Office areas.
28. A system of complaints is also in place in the HSE to
deal with complaints under the Act.
29. At the end of March 2008, 1,836 applications for
assessment of need have been received and are being /
have been processed by the HSE.
Funding of Health Services for People with Disabilities
30. Multi-Annual Investment Programme 2006 2009:
The Government has prioritised investment in services for
people with disabilities in recent years. Over 2.5 billion is
spent annually by the health services on disability
programmes (residential, day care, respite, assessment
and rehabilitation services), mental health programmes,
domiciliary care and respite care grants and other
allowances.

31. While the need to enhance further capacity is a

continuing challenge, it is important to acknowledge the
very significant existing level of expenditure on health
services for people with disabilities.
32. The National Disability Strategy provides for an
Investment Programme of 900m capital and revenue
funding for the period 2006 to 2009 to build capacity in
priority areas of support services for people with
disabilities. These include new residential, respite and day
services and new community-based mental health
facilities. This programme also provided for additional
staff for each year of the multi-annual investment
programme. These staff will build additional capacity in
the system.
33. The multi-annual investment programme also
provides for additional funding to enhance education
services for people with a disability.
34. Additional funding for the health service in respect of
the National Disability Strategy Multi-Annual Investment
Programme was as follows

2006 75m
2007 75m
2008 50m

35. This funding has and will provide:

New residential places, new respite places and new

day place for people with an intellectual disability

New residential places and extra hours of personal

assistance/support for people with physical and sensory
disabilities.

Support the implementation of the Disability Act

36. It is also intended to transfer persons with intellectual
disability/autism from psychiatric hospitals and other
inappropriate placements.

Annex C
Issue 11
Alternative Sanctions to Detention:
1.
Fines
A majority of offences are punishable by a fine unless
fixed by law or unless there is a provision to the contrary.
Consideration of the offenders means and proportionality
regarding the gravity of the offence are factors in deciding
the amount of the fine.
2.
Dismissal and Conditional Discharge
Under the amended Probation of Offenders Act 1907, a
court may make two types of order. Firstly, an offender
may be dismissed where he/she is charged and the charge
is proved, but the nature of the offence or extenuating
circumstances deem a dismissal to be the most
appropriate response. The second type of order is to
discharge the offender conditionally. An offender will
enter into a recognisance to be of good behaviour for a
period not exceeding three years.
3.
Compensation Order
Where a charge is dismissed or conditionally discharged, a
court may order an offender to pay damages for injury,
compensation for loss and costs of the proceedings in
acknowledgement of the harm caused by the offence.
4.
Probation Order
When a recognisance contains conditions relating to the
supervision of an offender, that order is referred to as a
probation order. An offender may be made the subject of
a probation order under the Probation of Offenders Act
1907 for a period of up to three years. The order may
contain any conditions which the court considers
necessary to prevent the repetition of the same offence or
the commission of other offences.

Deferment of Sentence/Adjourned Supervision: Deferred

sentencing/adjourned supervision is a common judicial
practice. During the deferment the offender may be
required to remain under the supervision of the Probation
Service. A court may decide to defer sentencing for a
period of time usually not exceeding one year to allow the
offender address offending related issues.
5.
Supervision Order
Persons convicted of certain offences under the Misuse of
Drugs Act 1977 and 1984 may enter a recognisance to be
supervised, undergo medical or other treatment or attend
a course of education, instruction or training. The order is
for a specified period, typically one year. The Drug
Treatment Court, which originally operated on a pilot basis
in the North inner city of Dublin, has been placed on a
permanent footing and extended to the Dublin 7 area.
The Court uses a multi-disciplinary approach and involves
a range of Government Departments and agencies
charged with dealing with various aspects of the problem
of drug misuse. There are plans to extend the concept to
the rest of the Dublin Metropolitan District Court area on a
phased basis and discussions with other agencies are
ongoing in this regard.
6.
Community Service Order
The Community Service Order (CSO) was introduced under
the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act 1983. It is
intended as an alternative to custody for offenders aged
16 years and over, where in the opinion of the court the
offence merits a custodial sentence. An offender is
required to perform unpaid work for a specified number of
hours the minimum is 40 hours and the maximum 240
hours.
7.
Suspended Sentence
Under the Criminal Justice Act, 2006 (Section 99), a court
may suspend wholly or partly a sentence of imprisonment
imposed, subject to the person entering into a
recognisance. As with the probation order, the court may
impose conditions as it considers appropriate. Where the
sentence is part suspended, the person may be placed

under the supervision of the Probation Service for the

purpose of rehabilitation and protection of the public, or to
undergo a course of treatment or programme approved by
the court.
8.
Sex Offender Supervision
Under Part 5 of the Sex Offenders Act, 2001, the court
may, on sentencing a sex offender, include in that
sentence a period of post release supervision by the
Probation Service. Again, the court may impose
conditions for securing that supervision.

HE WEARS A DIFFERENT FACE FOR ALL OCASIONS ALSO SAYS

DIFFERENT POEMS. WHAT A SPOOFER HE IS. HE DOESENT SPEAK OR
REPRESENT ME FOR ANYTHING AT ALL EVEN ALL THOSE ANTI
COMMUNITY BILLS HE SIGNED.

Higgins was a hobbit traitor among them.

Hobbit is Not Speaking on Behalf of me i Don't like This Evil
Columbia Dictator He Was A Dictator, Evil, and Corrupt so Higgins
does not Speak On Behalf of The Irish People thats his Words not
Yours or Mine
Yes but what do you think about what he says about Castro and how
it totally contradicts what the media are saying?

http://www.thejournal.ie/water-commission-report-poll3107949-Nov2016/

Delegated Legislation and Article 15.2. ...

Separation of Powers in the Irish
Constitution, ... Section of Act found
unconstitutional under Article 15.2
Delegated Legislation and Article 15.2
Posted by bollinsl on 14 June 2011
Paper submitted to TCD
The impact of Article 15.2 on the power of a Minister to
make delegated legislation.
Leo Bollins
14 June 2011
CONTENTS
Introduction.. 3
Administrative power or legislative power?.. 5
The principles and policies test. 5
Comments on Article 15.2.. 11
Summary.. 13
Appendix 1: References. 14
Appendix 2: List of Cases. 15
Exhibit A Check List. 17
Exhibit B: Extracts from the Constitution of Ireland.. 19
Exhibit C: Extracts from the Provisional Collection of Taxes
Act 1927 20

Exhibit D: Extract from the European Communities

Amendment Acts 1972 2009 22
Exhibit E: Extract from the Programme for Government
2011.. 24
Introduction
Article 6.1 of the 1937 Constitution establishes the
separation of powers principle:
All powers of government: legislative, executive, and
judicial, derive from the people
Article 15.2 states that only the Oireachtas can make laws
for the State:
The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the
State is hereby vested in the Oireachtas: no other
legislative authority has power to make laws for the
State.
However, in practical terms, the legislature would not
have the time to legislate for every detail. The courts have
accepted that it may be necessary to delegate certain
limited legislative functions. [Kelly 2003, p 235]
The Cityview test states that the parent act must contain
principles and policies while the delegated legislation
may only fill in the details. However, the courts have taken
a pragmatic approach in practice by not being too
stringent when applying the test.
Nevertheless, the powers of a Minister to make delegated
legislation are severely limited by Article 15.2 as
interpreted by the courts.
The Constitution Review Group is of the opinion that the
Article makes it difficult to fill in gaps left in an Act or to
deal with specific details which were not anticipated. [CRG
p 39]

There are provisions for parliamentary scrutiny and

annulment of statutory instruments implementing EU law
(see exhibit D).
A suggested checklist of questions to be asked when
considering if a delegated legislation proposal is valid is
included in Exhibit A, and the major issues are discussed
below.
Definition of delegated legislation
Delegated legislation may be defined as legislation made
by a body authorised to do so by the Oireachtas, in this
case by the executive (members of the Government
(Cabinet Ministers)).
The Statutory Instruments Act 1947 includes this
definition:
the expression statutory instrument means an order,
regulation, rule, scheme or bye-law made in exercise of a
power conferred by statute.
Another form of delegated legislation is the set of financial
resolutions proposed by the Minister for Finance following
his Budget speech and passed by the Dil hours later.
These amendments to Acts of the Oireachtas in relation to
taxation are effective for four months unless they are
confirmed by an Act of the Oireachtas.
See Exhibit C: Extracts from the Provisional Collection of
Taxes Act 1927.
Administrative power or legislative power?
The first question that arises is whether the power in
question is legislative power delegated or administrative
power assigned.
The former is questionable under Article 15.2, the latter is
permissible constitutionally as the Constitution does not
assign administrative power to the Oireachtas.

In Re Article 26 and the Health Amendment (No. 2) Bill

2004 the Supreme Court held that power given to the CEO
of a Health Board to remit nursing home charges was not
a delegation of legislative power but merely an
administrative function.
The court did not precisely define the difference between
legislative and administrative powers, but Doyle [Doyle
2008 p313 [11-08]] said that
the distinction surely turns on the power to lay down
generally binding rules.
In this case the CEOs discretion covered certain cases
only, and as an administrative power it would not fall foul
of Article 15.2.
The principles and policies test
The idea is that principles and policies should be dealt
with by primary legislation of the Oireachtas while details
may be handled by secondary legislation.
This test is easy to state but difficult to apply.
In Cityview Press v An Comhairle Oilina [1980] IR 381 the
Supreme Court had to consider whether levies imposed on
a designated industry were an unauthorised delegation of
parliamentary power or merely giving effect to principles
and policies contained in the statute itself, that is the law
is contained in the statute and the Minister or subordinate
body is only filling in the details.
The court found that there was no unauthorised delegation
of authority because:
The Act contains clear declarations of policies and aims
and establishes machinery for the carrying out of those
policies and the achievement of those aims
This is doing no more than adding the final detail bringing

into operation the general law which is laid down by the

section
In addition the Oireachtas has taken care to ensure that a
levy order made under this section will continue to be
under the supervision of either house of the legislature
itself. A levy order may be annulled by either House of
the legislature. [OHiggins, CJ] [Doyle 2008, p314]
However, it is suggested that this test is not applied with
stringent rigour. David Gwynn Morgan says [Morgan 1997,
p 239], writing about the judgment,
And yet there is nothing here, or in the Act itself which
tells us anything about the principles to be used in fixing
the amount of the levy
Morgan goes on to quote Professor Casey (Casey,
Constitutional Law inIreland, p181):
If provisions of such vagueness can pass muster it is not
easy to imagine what would not.
McDaid v Sheehy [1991] was a case where the High Court
did find provisions of an act (Imposition of Duties Act
1957) unconstitutional having applied the principles and
policies test. However, this was overturned on appeal on
the grounds that the delegated legislation was granted
retrospective validity because it was referenced in the
Finance Act 1976, and the principles and policies text
should not apply. [Doyle 2008, p314, [11-13].
The Laurentiu v Minister for Justice [1999] case was the
only case where legislation (s 5(1)(e) of the Aliens Act
1935) was struck down because it failed the principles and
policies test. Keane J (with whom Hamilton CJ concurred)
found that
The Oireachtas of Saorstt ireann did not legislate for
deportation. It merely permitted the Minister for Justice to
legislate for deportation.

Keane J also found that the parliamentary control

procedure (annulment resolution of either House) could
save an enactment which was otherwise clearly in breach
of Article 15.2. [Doyle 2008, p 317, [11-17]]
In the High Court Leontjawa v DPP and Chang [2004]
Finlay Geoghean J held that the Aliens Order 1946 made
under S 5(1)(h) of the Aliens Act 1935 fell foul of the
principles and policies test for much the same reasons as
stated by Keane J in Laurentiu.
However on appeal this was overturned by the Supreme
Court on the grounds that the policy enunciated in 5(1)(h)
was clear.
Thus it seems that the courts apply the principles and
policies test in a restrictive way,
and draw the false inference that if the primary
legislation deals with some matters of policies and
principles then all the primary legislation deals with all
matters of principle and policy. [Doyle 2008, p 318, [1123]]
Henry VIII Clauses: Non delegation & Ultra Vires doctrines
The Oireachtas cannot delegate power to amend
legislation.
In East Donegal Co-operative Ltd v Attorney General
[1970] the Supreme Court following on from the
presumption that all post 1937 acts are constitutional,
held that where two or more interpretations of a statutory
provision are open, and where only one is constitutional,
the court ought to adopt the constitutional reading. This
will limit the scope of the provision and increase the
likelihood that the public authority will have acted ultra
vires. [Doyle 2008, p321]
In Cooke v Walsh [1984] the Supreme Court found that
regulations made by the Minister for Health providing that
health services would not be available to persons injured

in a car crash unless they can establish that they are not
entitled to compensation or damages from a third person
were ultra vires the Health Act 1970, as the legislative
could not have delegated such power. [Doyle 2008, p322]
OHiggins CJ reasoned that
This is, in reality, an attempt to amend the two sections
by ministerial regulation instead if by appropriate
legislation. In my view the National Parliament could not
and did not intend to give such a power to the Minister for
Health when it enacted section 72 of the Health Act 1970.
The effect of this case and Harvey v Minister for Social
Welfare [1990] is that the Supreme Court has outlawed
the so called Henry VIII clauses. That is a Minister may not
amend primary legislation by using delegated legislation,
and may not act inconsistent with primary legislation.
[Doyle 2008, p 324, [11-34 11-36]]
Effect of EU Membership
Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 (see
Exhibit D) grants legal status to Community law
withinIreland, and is protected by Article 29.4.
Section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 enables
a Minister to make regulations to implement Community
law.
Section 3 is clearly a Henry VIII clause as it allows a
Minister of State to amend primary legislation by
regulation, and would be unconstitutional except for
Article 29.4.
This was decided by the Supreme Court in Meagher v
Minister for Agriculture [1994] where the applicant had
been prosecuted under regulations that amended primary
legislation. [Doyle 2008, p393]
Finlay CJ delivering the judgement of the court said

The court is accordingly satisfied that the power to make

regulations in the form in which it is contained in section
3(2) of the Act is necessitated by the obligations of the
State of the Communities and now of theUnionand is
therefore virtue of Article 29.4 subsections 3, 4 and 5
immune from constitutional challenge.
While the constitutionality of S 3 of the Act was upheld, it
does not mean that this is appropriate in all cases.
In the context of the regulations at issue Denham J
formulated her approach in terms of the Cityview case:
Where there is in fact no choice on a policy or a principle
the matter is appropriate for delegated legislation. If the
directive or the Minister envisaged a choice then it would
require legislation by the Oireachtas
In Maher v Minister for Agriculture [2001] the Supreme
Court found that even though there was some choice open
to the Minister, the principles and policies were to be
found in European Law and consequently the making of
the regulation was not an impermissible use of the
Oireachtas legislative power. [Doyle 2008, p396]
In Browne v Attorney General [2003] the Supreme Court
found that S 3 of the European Communities Act 1972
could not be used to make regulations creating an
indictable offence. However, Browne was reversed by the
European Communities (Amendment) Act 1997 and
indictable offences may be created now. [Doyle 2008,
p399]
Comments on Article 15.2
The Constitution Review Group (CRG) felt that Article
15.2.1 as interpreted in the Cityview Press Ltd v AnCO
[1980] case severely restricts the power of Ministers to
make statutory instruments or subordinate legislation, by
subjecting the delegated legislation to the principles and
policies test. Subsequent cases have taken both a broad
and narrow interpretation of this test. [CRG 1996, p39]

The CRG felt that

the effect of the test was to make it difficult to make
secondary legislation to fill gaps left by a Act of the
Oireachtas or to deal with specific details which may not
have been anticipated when the Act was passed for
example with matters such as rapidly developing
technology or matters of detail affecting different areas in
different ways.
The CRG spoke of the attractions of subordinate legislation
in view of the complex, intricate and ever changing
situations which confront both the legislature and the
executive in the modern state.
The CRG noted that
The court referred to the practice of making secondary
legislation subject to annulment by either House of
Parliament but while this was a measure of control the two
Houses of the Oireachtas are not the Oireachtas as such.
The CRG said that consideration should be given to
amending Article 15.2.1 to extend the limits of what the
Government or a Minister (and no others) may legislate
using a statutory instrument beyond the Ctyview test, to
include matters of substance in the parent Act. However,
safeguards should be included to maintain the supremacy
of the Oireachtas, such as a requirement that a positive
resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas must be
passed before the secondary legislation comes into force.
There was some concern that such a procedure by
bypassing the normal legislative process would undermine
the power of the President to refer a bill to the Supreme
Court under Article 26 of the Constitution.
Article 15.2.2 provides for the Constitution to
accommodate an agreedIreland. This subsection could
also be used to delegate certain limited rule or law making
powers to local authorities. [CRG 1008, p42]

Summary
The power of a Minister to make delegated legislation is
limited by Article 15.2.
Delegated legislation must pass the principles and policies
(Cityview) test.
However, the courts have allowed certain flexibility in the
application of the Cityview test, preferring to accept the
presumption of constitutionality of the parent Act (if post
1937) and reply on the ultra vires doctrine.
Henry VIII clauses are invalid, except where necessitated
by EU membership.
Appendix 1: References
[Byrne 2009] Byrne and McCutcheon on the Irish Legal
System,BloomsburyProfessional, 2009
[CRG 1996] Constitution Review Group, Report of the
Constitution Review Group, 1997
[Donovan 2010] Donovan, Dorothy, The Irish Legal
System, Round Hall, 2010
[Doyle 2008] Doyle,Oran, Constitutional Law: Text, Cases
and Materials, Clarus Press Limited, 2008
[Kelly 2003], Kelly J.M., The Irish Constitution, Fourth
Edition, Tottel Publishing Ltd., 2006
[Morgan 1997], Morgan, David Gwynn, Separation of
Powers in the Irish Constitution, Round Hall Sweet and
Maxwell, 1997
Appendix 2: List of Cases

Browne v Attorney General [2003]

The Supreme Court found that s 3 of the European
Communities Act 1972 could not be used to make
regulations creating an indictable offence.
Cityview Press v An Comhairle Oilina [1980] IR 381
Supreme Court the test as to whether delegated power
is constitutional or not is whether the power is no more
than merely giving effect to principles and policies which
are contained in the parent Act
[Donovan 2010, p26]
Also parliamentary scrutiny
[Doyle 2008, p313-314]
Laurentiu v Minister for Justice [1999]
This is the only case where legislation has actually struck
down as a breach of Article 15.2.1.
Leontjawa v DPP and Chang [2004]
Finlay Geoghegan J held that s 5(1)(h) fell foul of the
principles and policies test for much the same reasons as
stated by Keane J in Laurentiu.
McDaid v Sheehy [1991]
Section of Act found unconstitutional under Article 15.2
and principles and policies test but overturned by the
Supreme Court because retrospective validity by reference
granted to section of Act.
Meagher v Minister for Agriculture [1994]
Supreme Court held that it was constitutional for a
Minister to amend primary legislation by regulation where
it was necessitated by membership of the European

Community, nowUnion.
Re Article 26 and the Health Amendment (No. 2) Bill 2004
The Supreme Court held that power given to the CEO of a
Health Board to remit nursing home charges was not a
delegation of legislative power but merely an
administrative function [Doyle 2008, P 313, [11-07 1108]]
Exhibit A Check List
Check list to determine if a proposal (delegated
legislation) is valid in terms of Article 15.2
The following series of questions could be asked in relation
to delegated legislation to determine if it falls foul of
Article 15.2. The questions need not necessarily be asked
in this order.
1)
Is the proposal delegated legislative power or
assigned administrative power?
If administrative power it is presumed to be valid (at least
under this article 15.2)
If it is delegated legislative power then further
consideration is necessary go to 2
2)
Is the proposal necessitated by EU membership with
little discretion given to the State?
Yes
i.
Apply
principles and policies test (using EU law to source
principles and policies) if yes
Use European Communities Act 1972 2007 to make SI
Or use other relevant Act to make SI
ii.
If no go to 3
No go to 3
3)
Does the proposal satisfy the principles and policies
(Cityview) test?

Yes go to 4
No invalid (only if there are no principles or policies in
the parent Act)
4)
Does the proposal use a Henry VIII clause in the
parent Act? (Power to amend a law)
Yes invalid
No go to 5
5)
Is the proposal ultra vires the parent act? (if the act is
post 1937 it is presumed constitutional, and if more than
one reading of the Act is possible use the constitutional
reading)
Yes invalid
No go to 6
6)
Is the relevant section in the parent Act
unconstitutional?
Yes invalid
No go to 7
7)
Is the proposal male fides?
Yes invalid
No go to 8
8)
Is the proposal coming from a subordinate legislature
in accordance with law? (Article 15.1.2 but no cases or
statute law so far)
Yes valid
No go to 9
9)
Is the proposal (or the effect if implemented)
unconstitutional?
Yes invalid
No valid
Exhibit B: Extracts from the Constitution of Ireland
Article 6.1
All powers of government, legislative, executive and
judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it

is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal,

to decide all questions of national policy, according to the
requirements of the common good.
Article 15.2.1
The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State
is hereby vested in the Oireachtas: no other legislative
authority has power to make laws for the State.
Article 15.2.2
Provision may be made however, by law for the creation r
recognition of subordinate legislatures and for the powers
and functions of these legislatures.
Exhibit C: Extracts from the Provisional Collection of Taxes
Act 1927
Resolutions of the Dil relating to tax and amending Acts
of the Oireachtas to have statutory effect for up to four
months.
Extract from the Act follows.
Certain resolutions to have statutory effect.
2.Whenever a resolution (in this Act referred to as a
resolution under this Act) is passed by the Committee on
Finance resolving
(a) that a new tax specified in the resolution be imposed,
or
(b) that a specified permanent tax in force immediately
before the end of the previous financial year be increased,
reduced, or otherwise varied, or be abolished, or
(c) that a specified temporary tax in force immediately
before the end of the previous financial year be renewed
(whether at the same or a different rate and whether with
or without modification) as from the date of its normal

expiration or from an earlier date or be discontinued on a

date prior to the date of its normal expiration,
and the resolution contains a declaration that it is
expedient in the public interest that the resolution should
have statutory effect under the provisions of this Act, the
resolution shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have
statutory effect as if contained in an Act of the Oireachtas.
Duration of statutory effect of resolution.
4.(1) A resolution under this Act shall cease to have
statutory effect in or upon the happening of whichever of
the following events first occurs, that is to say:
(a) if the resolution is not agreed to, with or without
modification, by Dil Eireann within the next ten days on
which Dil Eireann sits after the resolution is passed by
the Committee on Finance;
(b) if Dil Eireann disagrees with the resolution;
(c) if a Bill containing provisions to the same effect (with
or without modification) as the resolution is not read a
second time by Dil Eireann within the next twenty days
on which Dil Eireann sits after the resolution is agreed to
by Dil Eireann;
(d) if those provisions of the said Bill are rejected by Dil
Eireann during the passage of the Bill through the
Oireachtas;
(e) the coming into operation of an Act of the Oireachtas
containing provisions to the same effect (with or without
modification) as the resolution;
(f) the dissolution of Dil Eireann before any such Act as
aforesaid is passed by the Oireachtas;
(g) the expiration of a period of four months from the
date on which the resolution is expressed to take effect or,
where no such date is expressed, from the passing of the

resolution by the Committee on Finance.

(2) When a resolution under this Act is agreed to by Dil
ireann with modifications, the resolution shall have
statutory effect under this Act with and subject to such
modifications.
Exhibit D: Extract from the European Communities
Amendment Acts 1972 2009
Annulment procedures are included.
General provision.
(1)

2.

From the 1st day of January, 1973, the treaties governing

the European Communities and the existing and future
acts adopted by the institutions of those Communities and
by bodies competent under the said treaties shall be
binding on the State and shall be part of the domestic law
thereof under the conditions laid down in those treaties.
(2)
Without prejudice to subsection (1) of this section, from
the coming into force of the EEA Agreement, the
provisions of that Agreement and the acts to be adopted
by institutions established by that Agreement which,
pursuant to the treaties governing the European
Communities, will be binding on the State and an integral
part of the legal order of those Communities, shall have
the force of law in the State on the conditions laid down in
those treaties and in that Agreement.
Power to make regulations.
3.
(1)
A Minister of State may make regulations for enabling
section 2 of this Act to have full effect.
(2)
Regulations under this section may contain such
incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions as

appear to the Minister making the regulations to be

necessary for the purposes of the regulations (including
provisions repealing, amending or applying, with or
without modification, other law, exclusive of this Act).
(3)
Regulations under this section shall not create an
indictable offence.
(3)
Regulations under this section may

(a)
make provision for offences under the regulations to be
prosecuted on indictment, where the Minister of the
Government making the regulations considers it necessary
for the purpose of giving full effect to

(i)
a provision of the treaties governing the European
Communities, or

(ii)
an act, or provision of an act, adopted by an institution of
the European Communities or any other body competent
under those treaties,

and

(b)
make such provision as that Minister of the Government
considers necessary for the purpose of ensuring that
penalties in respect of an offence prosecuted in that
manner are effective and proportionate, and have a
deterrent effect, having regard to the acts or omissions of
which the offence consists, provided that the maximum
fine (if any) shall not be greater than 500,000 and the
maximum term of imprisonment (if any) shall not be
greater than 3 years.
(4)
Regulations under this section may be made before the
1st day of January, 1973, but regulations so made shall
not come into operation before that day.
Annulment of an SI which applied EU law and creates an
indictable offence
3.A Every regulation to which subsection (3)
(inserted by section 2(a) of the European Communities Act
2007) of section 3 of this Act applies shall be laid before
each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is
made and, if a resolution annulling the regulation is
passed by either such House withinthe next 21 days on
which that House sits after the regulation is laid before it,
the regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without
prejudice to the validity of anything previously done
thereunder.
Annulment of and SI which applied EU law
4.
(1)
(a)

Regulations under this Act shall have statutory effect

(b)
If the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the
European Communities Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs
Joint Committee on European Affairs (1995 amendment)
recommends to the Houses of the Oireachtas that any
regulations under this Act be annulled and a resolution
annulling the regulations is passed by both such Houses
within one year after the regulations are made, the
regulations shall be annulled accordingly and shall cease
to have statutory effect, but without prejudice to the
validity of anything previously done thereunder.
Exhibit E: Extract from the Programme for Government
2011
http://www.finegael.ie/upload/ProgrammeforGovernmentFi
nal.pdf
Transposing EU Legislative Measures
The situation can no longer be tolerated where Irish
Ministers enact EU legislation by statutory instrument. The
checks and balances of parliamentary democracy are bypassed. The parliamentary treatment accorded homeproduced draft legislation must be extended to draft
legislation initiated within the EU institutions.
The Regulatory Impact Assessments prepared for Ministers
on all EU Directives and significant Regulations will be
forwarded automatically to the relevant sectoral
Oireachtas Committees. These Committees should advise
the Minister and the Joint Committee on European Affairs
as to whether the transposition should take place by
Statutory Instrument or by primary legislation. Where
primary legislation is recommended the full Oireachtas
plenary process should be followed.

https://eparl.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/delegatedlegislation-and-article-15-2/

Nick Keogh. They should be giving you a bonus for

your revelations rather than the hammering. The
Garda need more troopers like you.
You won't have read about this in the mainstream
media but garda whistleblower Nick Keogh
(pictured) recently won a water safety award for
saving the life of a woman who was drowning in
the River Shannon. Nick has been gravely
punished by garda management because of his
revelations that certain officers are colluding with
heroin dealers.
He has been on extended stress leave since. Please
join me in congratulating Nick on winning his
award. Our broken police force needs courageous,
decent and honest officers like him. It is a scandal
that he has been pushed out of his duties for

exposing corruption and wrongdoing.

You are so brave in saving a life and standing up
for what you believe is wrong. Hope all works out
for you
Yes we are hitting them where it hurts. You see
the guards attempt to embarrass us by dragging us
through the courts on simple childish charges,
and the corrupt judges then make us into right
ould criminals, so between the guards and the
district court judges they make us look bad in our
communities, and the local papers aid and abet
them with their scandalous one sided reporting,
so now we are taking the guards to court so people
will now be whispering about the guards being in
court on criminal charges not childish ones. No
respect anymore for the criminal guards, we are
on the march, we will force the guards to do the
job they signed up to or they will be harassed and
intimidated out of their corrupt cushy little
numbers. Yes they over stepped themselves, but
we will fight fire with fire. Now Wayne Nash of
Athlone has served four guards with summonses
one of who is a superintendent namely Pat
Murray, he stands accused of assault and theft,
nice one for a superintendent, so does
superintendent Pat Murray lead by example, well
it looks like that, because Wayne has summonses
for at least two more guards in Athlone. And then
you had the drug dealing guards, and the revenue
avoiding car dealing guards i Athlone, yes i would
say Pat Murray did a real good job, he has earned
an assistant garda commissioner position but will
have do with having to resign instead. Oh yes old
saying monkey see monkey do.And then we have
Colm Grenham and Joe Doocey jasus where they
will stop no one knows. The guards and the
district court judges will not be having a very

pleasant Xmas, they will be having sleepless

nights worrying who's home the demonstrations
will hit first, Oh yes 2017 is going to be the year of
protesting outside the homes of the the corrupt,
yes no warning in advance, so no high court
injunctions to contend with, we will pop up
anywhere anytime, let their children, their
neighbours and wives know the type of corrupt
treacherous bastards that these guys are, And
sure if nothing else we can enjoy ourselves on our
days out.
I have issued four summonses on four members
of athlone garda the four garda members are to
appear at the sitting of athlone district court on
Wednesday the 14 of December to answer the
charges garda Darren Murphy did assault Wayne
Nash contrary to section 2 of the non fatal
offences against the person act 1997 evidence cctv
and witness. Garda nohilly and garda dempsey did
without lawfully authority or reasonable excuse
willfully prevented and interrupted my free
movement and passage invaded my personal
privacy in a public place harassment and false
imprisonment at athlone town council which is an
offence contrary to section 10 and 15 of the non
fatal offences against the person act 1997 and pat
Murray did on the 25 Feb of this year outside
athlone town council a public place assault Wayne
Nash contrary to section 2 0f the non fatal
offences against the person act 1997 and theft of
my mobile fone which is an offence contrary to
section 4 of the theft and fraud offences act 2001
evidence cctv and no pat my fone is not a firearm
or a weapon this is what pat Murray told gsoc pat
u should have gone to specs avers the camera
never lies so there u go folks support would be
appreciated on the day if u can I'm not here to run

down or discredit any member of an garda but I

was wronged by these so called garda and some
body needs to be held accountable and that
member's of an garda are not above the law if they
break the law they should be held to account and
not forgetting about garda Keane and garda
teehan who did give a false testimony against me
in athlone court on the 24 October in order to gain
an unlawful criminal conviction offence
interfering with the administration of justice and
attempting to pervert the course of justice your
summonses willSoon be in the post

Eoin Dubsky v The Government of Ireland,

The Minister for ...

Article 15 establishes the National Parliament ... the

relevant national judicial powers stated that ... allowed
Ireland to commit an unconstitutional act,
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2685243_code.
..
Third List of Amendments / Seanad Report Stage /
Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential
Tenancies Bill 2016 Senators Alice-Marie Higgins, Colette
Kelleher, Lynn Ruane
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/amendments/2016/b9
216s-sr3.pdf
Fourth List of Amendments / Dil Committee Stage /
Courts Bill 2016 Deputies Richard Boyd Barrett, Gino
Kenny, Brd Smith
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/amendments/2016/b8
616d-dsc4.pdf
A Guide to Disability Law and Policy in Ireland Inclusion ...
entitlements/downloads/children_with_disabilities.pdf ...
Service would have legal powers
http://www.inclusionireland.ie/sites/default/files/documents
/information_pack-final.pdf

Its hard to believe that this can happen in Ireland

Itis a bloody disgrace;'(my brother is helping a
man he works with do shoe boxes4 the homeless
again this yr4 any1 interested?you can just do
your own+give2 1r2 even all you need is a shoe
box+put essentianls in hat scarf gloves socks jocks
toothpaste brush plasters something
nice(chocolate sweets surprise)+makesure u put
an xmas card+write a little something too COULD
BE T ONLY1 they get....its like that thing
smile@some1 2day some1 u think might need it
costs nothing but CAN mean the world...its sooo
sad what we are still living in+putting up with

going into2017;-(...sadtimes Eire

Declare this the desaster it so clearly is enda kenny if you
have any humanity left shame on you. ......
I would tell you and anyone else that disbelieve
what I say is research the 1937 constitution and
then you will get a shock of what you vote for in
this country don't answer me back until you do
that remember facts don't change mind's people
do
Should not be happening

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php
?
fbid=10153831493632504&set=a.1015
0870432192504.384370.600887503&
type=3&theater

NOTES ON JUDGE
HARDING-CLARKS
REPORT ON THE
SYMPHYSIOTOMY
PAYMENT SCHEME.
November 24, 2016

Judge Maureen Harding-Clarks report on the muchcriticised Symphysiotomy Payment Scheme was
published two days ago. It is 275 pages long 133 of
commentary from the judge, 142 of extracts from
medical literature and hospital records. Judge HardingClark was in an important position. She assessed
applications from almost 600 women who believed that

they had been subject to symphysiotomy. She oversaw

searches of hospital records, and medical tests
designed to verify their claims, and she allocated
redress payments accordingly; 50,000 euro to those
who could show they had had a symphysiotomy,
100,000 euro to those who could link that
symphysiotomy to ongoing health consequences, and
so on. Her report does more than describe the
functioning of that role. It situates the scheme she
oversaw in the context of an extensive defence of the
uniquely Irish practice of non-emergency
symphysiotomy. It is not the independent report
survivors of symphysiotomy are entitled to under
human rights law. The media have read it as
diminishing SOSs claim that the non-emergency
substitution of symphysiotomy for Caesarean section
without consent, as practiced in Ireland, violated many
womens human rights. However, this coverage has
been insufficiently critical of this report. Here are just
some of the reports problematic features:
Lifelong Injury: The judge repeatedly stresses that
she did not find that symphysiotomy as a matter of
near certainty created lifelong suffering. Near
certainty, is not, of course, the ordinary civil standard
applied to causation in personal injuries. The report
does not show that symphysiotomy was a benign
operation. Over 35% of successful applicants to the
scheme were able to demonstrate that they suffered
significant disability which, on the balance of
probabilities were caused by a symphysiotomy, and
which had lasted more than three years. The judge
emphasises that these were not the kinds of injuries

(difficulty walking, incontinence) which were typically

associated with symphysiotomy in the media;
nevertheless, the disabilities listed in her report are
distressing and significant. While the judge stresses
that she was generous in helping women over the
line, all of these women were able to prove their injury
either with original medical records (by no means easy
to get after decades), or by medical examination
conducted under the direction of the scheme. The
remaining 65% were able to satisfy the judge that they
had undergone symphysiotomy, and all of them will
have suffered significant pain, and perhaps disabilities
which lasted less than three years.
In any event, the judges focus on lifelong disability
diminishes the experience of the operation itself.
Indeed, it is striking that the report only discusses the
performance of a symphysiotomy in the clinical
language of scalpels and sinews. Womens first person
testimony of the operation, by contrast, emphasises
fear, pain far beyond the normal expectations of
labour, distress and powerlessness. Although the
majority
of
the
55
applicants
who
had
symphysiotomies before labour began did not suffer
significant disability, all of them laboured through a
damaged pubic joint. Prevalence of life-long injury is
not the only measure of the harm done by
symphysiotomy.
Unfounded Claims and Difficult Activists.
Much has been made of the judges finding that 185
applicants to the scheme could not make out their
claims. The report devotes a chapter to these women. It
also spends considerable time on applicants who,

whether or not they succeeded in proving

symphysiotomy, could not satisfy the scheme that they
had suffered significant disability Of course, we dont as
yet know who these women were or how they would
describe their experience of the scheme. We should not
forget that 399 women received awards, and that many
women died before the scheme came into operation.
That a large number of claims failed should not deter
us from examining whether successful applicants have
been properly treated, by the scheme or by the state.
However, there are also serious shortcomings in how
the report presents the issue of unsuccessful claims.
First, in some cases, the judges perception that claims
were inaccurate affected the schemes procedure. For
example, the judge finds evidence of a lack of candour
by women, or of inaccurate diagnoses by doctors, in
the recent medical reports of radiographers and GPs
furnished to the scheme and explains that this
problem was so significant that it justified her
insistence on preferring contemporaneous records of
symptoms to more recent ones. To the same effect, the
judge suggests that solicitors or campaigners assisted
women to prepare statements to the scheme according
to templates which made repeated use of similar lurid
or harrowing motifs and adjusted womens symptoms
to fit media reports. She contrasts these applications
with those which women prepared personally.
However, while the judge provides anecdotes, she does
not number the problematic complaints, rank them in
terms of seriousness, or give a sense of how
widespread these issues were.
Second, the language the judge uses to describe

unsuccessful applicants is entirely inappropriate in a

report of this kind. At worst they are chastised for
buying into conspiracy theories, for unreasonable
reactions, for their anger and disappointment. At best,
they are patronised as suggestive personalities
amenable to emotional contagion and subject to
acquired
group
memory
developed
through
involvement in campaigning organisations; or elderly
women sent into turmoil, not by their experience of
symphysiotomy or by the governments attitude to it,
but by irresponsible media reports. The judge says:
it is very probable that the combination of a
traumatic birth experience and exposure to other
womens stories has created a self convincing
confabulation of personal history. Another
inference is that the possibility of financial
payment has influenced suggestible women and
their family members into self- serving adoption
and embracing of the experiences described by
others or in the media and created psychosomatic
conditions.
The tone and length of this discussion sits uneasily with
the judges insistence that a compassionate and
generous approach was taken to assessing claims
which suffered from these perceived flaws. Most
disturbingly, the report alleges, without explanation,
that several prominent campaigners for justice for
women subjected to symphysiotomy who have been
active in representing themselves as victims to the
media, as well as several of the 28 women still
pursuing personal injuries litigation in respect of their
symphysiotomies, were found not to have undergone
the operation at all. The most well-known campaigning

organisation; SOS, denies that any of its prominent

members were unsuccessful applicants to the scheme.
The judge gives an impression of suspicion of
campaigning organisations and their lawyers. This
attitude is underscored by this section on womens
correspondence with the judge: happy women
concerned with family rather than campaigning, who
are spending money on spoiling themselves, rather
than on the amelioration of pain and disability.
I was ultimately glad that most exaggerated
accounts were ignored and compassion was
applied to these women who perhaps were
influenced by others to make the statements. This
led to some of the more pleasurable moments as
judicial assessor when I read the warm letters and
notes from the women who wrote to me after they
received their awards to tell me that they were
certainly intent on spoiling themselves a little.
Several very happy applicants rang to tell me how
they were going to spend their money. One lady
was buying a special hat. One applicant lifted my
heart when she told me that she had never had
any money in her savings account. Now she looked
at her bank account every morning, for the sheer
pleasure of seeing the amount of money in the
account in her own name. One delightful applicant
invited me to tea at her house and one wrote a
poem of appreciation. Most women who wrote, told
me that it gave them huge pleasure to be able to
help their children or their grandchildren with their
awards
The reports approach undermines human rights
campaigners, group organising, and social justice
lawyering in one fell swoop, perhaps forgetting that
without the work of these organisations the redress

scheme however flawed would not have been set

up at all, and many women would not have been able
to access it.
Reproduction, Birth and Womens Bodies. The
pro-natalist tone of the report is striking. For example,
the judge repeatedly explains that even though many
applicants to the scheme complained of difficulty and
pain in sexual intercourse for a year after the
operation, most women who received awards under
the scheme went on to have multiple further
pregnancies; the first within 12-18 months of the
symphysiotomy. Thus a young womans damaged sex
life, leading to more babies, equates to a good
recovery. Of course, this is less evidence of the
acceptability of symphysiotomy than of the general
unavailability of contraception in Ireland until the
1970s. This analysis suggests that the healthy female
body is one that holds up to repeated childbirth,
whether that childbirth was chosen or not. This
impression is solidified by later references to voluntary
infertility; a medical term which works to pathologise
women who managed not to have more babies.
Indeed, the report strives to normalise a model of
reproductive life rooted in womens suffering. For
example, it notes the difficulties in distinguishing
between injuries caused by symphysiotomy (which may
deserve redress), and the presumptively acceptable
injuries caused by having a dozen children, difficult
forceps births, or one or more protracted, exhausting
labours (which never can). Later, the report
patronises women who applied to the scheme and
were found not to have undergone symphysiotomy,

attributing their memories to confabulation. The judge

suggests they mistook other traumatic birth
experiences
for
symphysiotomy.
Here
the
wrongfulness of symphysiotomy is clearly being
assessed against a backdrop of normalised suffering
and obstetric violence. Arguably these mistaken
applications demonstrate a deeper problem in the
history of childbirth in Ireland, which the
exceptionalisation and defence of symphysiotomy only
serve to mask. Finally, the report mentions that some
women who underwent symphysiotomy were
extremely grateful to have a lovely healthy baby. This
is one of several examples of places in the report
where the judge fudges the elementary difference
between symphysiotomy as a last-resort, emergency,
life-saving procedure, and symphysiotomy as an
elective procedure, substituted for C-section. A Csection might also have given the same women the
same healthy baby.
Testimony Direct quotation from womens
testimony only appears in the context of discussing and
contradicting unsuccessful applicants submissions;
representing their statements as part of a clumsily
orchestrated attempt to mislead the scheme. A long list
of fragments, for example, appears at pages 100-101 of
the report. There is no detailed discussion of
successful applicants testimony. By contrast, the report
contains over 100 pages of direct quotation, often
lengthy, from documents and statements made by
doctors who performed symphysiotomies.
Religion: Like the High Court and Court of Appeal in
Kearney and Farrell the judge finds that there were

medical as well as religious justifications for the Irish

practice of symphysiotomy. In one breath the report
says that there was no evidence of a religious as
opposed to an obstetric reason for performing
symphysiotomy, and explains that its development in
Ireland was connected to a unique need to avoid
potentially
dangerous
repeat
C-sections
in
circumstances where contraception was not available
and sterilisation was not performed. There is a
stubborn refusal here to recognise that religion is as
much a matter of structural power as individual
religious belief. Religion was present in the
development of symphysiotomy even where its
proponents did not use religious language This was
because contraception was not available and
sterilisation was not performed because medical
practice and the law of the land reflected religious
mores. The report suggests that contraception was not
countenanced by women in a country where the
majority happily embraced Catholicism, so that
symphysiotomy developed in response to womens
spiritual needs. This analysis, of course, forgets that
women were not given the choice, as a matter of law, to
control their fertility and that there is ample evidence
that those women who could do so used contraception
illegally, whether it sat easily with their consciences or
not. The expectation that women should have
repeated pregnancies, and should be willing to suffer
for them, at the hands of expert men, was a matter of
vernacular religion which cannot be reduced to happy
preference. The Irish practice of non-emergency
symphysiotomy was, therefore, a response to a

particular set of state and religious structures which

facilitated harmful medical practice. There was not the
same reliance on symphysiotomy in the same types of
case in any other country, precisely because that set of
state and religious structures did not exist. And
precisely because it existed in Ireland, certain Catholic
doctors had an outlet to develop and legitimate that
practice. As the Court of Appeal recently confirmed,
non-emergency symphysiotomy was championed by
only one school of obstetric thought in Ireland, and
acceptance of practice varied from doctor and doctor
and from hospital to hospital: it is doubtful whether it
would have achieved any purchase without the driving
engine of institutional Catholicism.
Human Rights Violations: The judge finds that
symphysiotomy as practiced in Ireland was not a
deliberate act of torture. She makes this finding
(sweeping across hundreds of cases) on the basis that
symphysiotomy was used to improve maternal
outcomes rather than with any intention to inflict pain.
Doctors did their best. Like the Walsh report and the
Farrell and Kearney cases, this report finds that the
development of symphysiotomy in Ireland was, at
certain times, within the (generous) bounds of
documented acceptable medical practice, albeit some
doctors strayed beyond those bounds in practice. For
the judge, that is enough to show that important legal
claims can be laid to rest. Here she shows a stunning
narrowness of legal imagination. Contemporary human
rights scholarship recognises that obstetric violence is a
real and complex human rights issue. Even if a medical
practice can be therapeutically justified in principle, we

must consider how it is employed in the context of

pregnancy and labour. In the case of symphysiotomy,
consent is the crucial issue. It has not been possible to
canvas consent in High Court cases, for procedural
reasons relating to evidence and lapse of time. Neither
does the redress scheme seek to address the issue of
lack of consent. The Walsh report, although flawed,
accepted that medical culture in Ireland at the time was
such that womens informed consent to obstetric
procedures was not always sought. Judge HardingClarks report directly contradicts this finding she
simply states that she does not believe that women
were not told that a symphysiotomy would be
performed on them. From a human rights perspective,
this observation is useless.
In the forced sterilisation case of VC v. Slovakia the
European Court of Human Rights held that the Article 3
prohibition against inhuman and degrading treatment
can be violated where an accepted therapeutic practice
is paternalistically imposed on a patient without
adequate consent. It was irrelevant that the medical
staff in that case did not act in bad faith, or with the
intention of ill-treating the patient it was enough that
they disregarded her autonomy. And even had she not
suffered physical pain, mental distress is sufficient to
prove inhuman and degrading treatment. In view of the
violation, the state was also obliged under Article 3, to
carry out an effective investigation. The court further
found a violation of the Article 8 right to private life,
because of the impact of the surgery on the womans
reproductive life. In the right case, where it is proven
that doctors chose a particular medical practice for

discriminatory reasons, they might also find a violation

of the Article 14 right to freedom from discrimination.
The standard of informed consent is higher than mere
knowledge. Both VC and the CEDAW Committee in AS
v. Hungary, stress, for example, that obtaining the
patients signature is not enough. Consent must be
voluntary and informed, and in non-emergency
circumstances the patient must be given enough time
to consider the treatment, weigh her options and
refuse. Special care must be taken with patients who
are vulnerable; such as women in labour. Protection of
consent goes beyond simply being given the name of
the procedure about to be performed on you, or having
it explained after it has already been performed.
Conclusion. It is a mistake to think of the story of
symphysiotomy as one about bad doctors. It is a story
about bad systems of knowledge, and bad cultures,
which corner women, induce compliance, deny their
autonomy and thereby wound them. Those cases are
extraordinarily difficult to litigate because the
assumptions which drive the old system persist in
judicial reasoning and are exacerbated by an
adversarial framing. Outside the courtroom, we can
find the same problems. What is striking about this
report is that it uses constructs from those systems and
cultures valorising reproduction however painful,
stoking a suspicion of women who claim their human
rights, privileging medical literature over first person
testimony to silence protest. It deserves closer, and
more critical reading and discussion.
THE SURGICAL SYMPHYSIOTOMY EX GRATIA
PAYMENT SCHEME REPORT TO MINISTER FOR

HEALTH SIMON HARRIS TD of JUDGE MAUREEN

HARDING CLARK 19th OCTOBER 2016
http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/TheSurgical-Symphysiotomy-Ex-Gratia-Payment-SchemeReport.pdf
Final-Final-walsh-Report-on-Symphysiotomy The
scheme draws on Professor Oonagh Walshs final Report
on Symphysiotomy in Ireland 1944 -1984 (the Walsh
Report)

http://health.gov.ie/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/Final-Finalwalsh-Report-on-Symphysiotomy1.pdf
Ireland, Symphysiotomy and the UNHRC
July 21, 2014 by

Mirad Enright is a lecturer at Kent Law School and is completing a

PhD at University College Cork which examines the legal treatment
of questions in Muslim divorce practice in the UK and the United
States from the perspective of a multiculturalist feminism.

Power is cautious. It covers itself. It bases itself in anothers

pain and prevents all recognition that there is another by
lopped circles that ensure its own solipsism. Elaine Scarry,
The Body in Pain
Ireland was examined by the UN Human Rights Committee under
the ICCPR last week. The states response to the Committees follow
up questions has been published online. These written answers
supplement the oral presentations made by the Minister for Justice
and civil servants at the hearings in Geneva. This document is
useful as a time capsule of the governments position on redress for
institutional abuse of women and children, because it contains
several pages of defence of the official position on reparations for
survivors of symphysiotomy. Symphysiotomy is a childbirth
operation, which involves breaking a womans pelvis, usually before
or during labour. It was revived in Ireland in the 1940s by a small
group of conservative Catholic doctors, working in state-run or
state-supervised hospitals, as an alternative to Caesarean section
and was performed in hospitals all over Ireland into the 1980s. (If
you need a reminder of the violence and abuse which characterised
its practice in Ireland, see here.) On July 1, the Government
published Judge Yvonne Murphys Independent Review of Issues
Relating to Symphysiotomy (the Murphy Report) which outlines a
possible redress scheme for survivors. The scheme draws on
Professor Oonagh Walshs final Report on Symphysiotomy in Ireland
1944 -1984 (the Walsh Report) published on the same date. It is

important to stress that the fine print of the symphysiotomy redress

scheme has not yet been made public. The States written response
to the Committee, unfortunately, has introduced yet more ambiguity
into an already murky public discussion. Hundreds of women who
are members of Survivors of Symphysiotomy, disappointed by the
governments approach to redress, have begun High Court litigation
against the hospitals which performed their symphysiotomies, and
against the State (invoking the law of negligence and the principles
established in OKeeffe v. Ireland at the ECHR).
It seems fair to conclude that the State either does not understand
the concept of effective remedy under Article 2.3 of the ICCPR, or
is not interested in meeting that obligation. The treatment of
survivors of symphysiotomy is part of an embedded pattern. Less
than 48 hours after its examination before the ICCPR, the
government announced an inquiry into abuses in state-run and
state-supervised institutions focusing on the Mother and Baby
Homes, which bears all the hallmarks of this governments dogged
disregard for survivors interests. My point here isnt to suggest
that Article 2.3 ICCPR provides the only, or most important, or most
effective lens through which we might look at the governments
approach to symphysiotomy. But it does usefully show up the
states determined approach to managing an important set of
political claims about gender, religion and power out of public
existence.
As Sir Nigel Rodley, stressed in his concluding comments (video),
the right to an effective remedy encompasses accountability
measures as well as material provision. In its General Comment 31
the Committee explained the concept of effective remedy, and
provided guidance on the shape which investigation and reparation
should take. In applying the principles in this document to the
proposed symphysiotomy redress scheme, it is important to bear in
mind that Rodley spoke of some symphysiotomies on Tuesday in
terms of violation of Article 7 of the ICCPR: the prohibition against
torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, including forced
subjection to medical experimentation. (The Minister for Justice
admitted at the hearing that many symphysiotomies were
performed without womens consent, and the written response to
the Committee retains this admission, while attempting to suggest,
against the testimony of women, that many symphysiotomies were
life-saving emergency surgeries, while others were elective.) That
being the case, the State must also take account of the Basic
Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation
for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law
and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law. (the Van
Boven Principles)
Investigation
The right: The state has a positive obligation to exercise due

diligence to prevent, punish, investigate or redress the harm caused

by such acts by private persons or entities. A failure by a State
Party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself
give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. Cessation of an
ongoing violation is an essential element of the right to an effective
remedy. The Committee has said that [a]dministrative
mechanisms are particularly required to give effect to the general
obligation to investigate allegations of violations promptly,
thoroughly and effectively through independent and impartial
bodies. National human rights institutions, endowed with
appropriate powers, can contribute to this end. There is an
inalienable right, under international law, to know the truth about
human rights violations. Moreover, as the UNCAT has observed in
respect of the comfort women abused by the Japanese
military, repeated denial of victims experiences by those in public
office may have the effect of re-traumatizing victims. Similarly, in
its 2008 observations on Japan, the UNHRC criticised politicians
efforts to refute the claims of comfort women and deny the injuries
done to them.

Mario Draghi: ECBs focus on growth

Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Francesco Canepa

Stalling recovery would be the greatest risk facing the

eurozones economy, the head of the ECB has said,

underscoring, before an important policy decision next

week, the ECBs focus on supporting growth.

The ECB is due to decide next week on whether to extend

beyond March its 1.74trn bond-buying programme, the
centre piece of its much-criticised stimulus policy, some
say has created bond and property price bubbles and
should be wound down.
Mario Draghis comments, in response to a question from
an EU parliamentary committee about the risks to
financial stability from ultra-easy monetary policy, suggest
the ECB remains firmly focused on stimulating growth.
Right now the greatest risk comes from impaired growth,
Mr Draghi said. The greatest risk comes from the
possibility the recovery doesnt firm up and stalls.
The ECB has pushed its benchmark interest rate below
zero, bought 80bn of bonds a month and given free loans
to banks and lowered borrowing costs to bring eurozone
inflation back to its target of almost 2%.
Inflation is picking up, having reached 0.5% in October,
and is expected to exceed 1% next year.
But Mr Draghi said ECB rate-setters would look for ways to
preserve very substantial stimulus when they meet on
December 8 and assess different options for their bondbuying programme.

At our monetary policy meeting in December well assess

the various options that would allow the Governing Council
to preserve the very substantial degree of monetary
accommodation necessary to secure the sustained
convergence of inflation towards [target], Mr Draghi said.
After more than a year and a half of aggressive bondbuying, the ECB owns over a quarter of the debt of
countries such as Germany and faces the threat of running
out of paper to buy that fits the many constraints of its
scheme.
Mr Draghi said the programme could be adjusted. Sources
have told Reuters the ECB might buy fewer bonds from
countries where scarcity is starting to emerge or buy more
of each bond issue.
We are in a position to address this problem, he said.
The programme is sufficiently flexible that can be
revisited.
Confirming a Reuters story from last week, Mr Draghi said
the ECB was upgrading its securities-lending
programme.
Last weeks CSO data on the Irish labour market for the
third quarter of the year was stronger than expected.
The new head of Guaranteed Irish has said she intends to
bring the brand firmly into the 21st Century and expand
its membership base, adding its relevance has never been
greater.

The non-profit membership-driven organisation which

has promoted Irish-made product for more than 30 years
yesterday named veteran tourism marketing executive
Brid OConnell as its new executive director.
As part of Guaranteed Irishs recent rebranding, the
organisation moved to accept members conducting a
significant part of their business in Ireland, as well as
indigenous firms and Ms OConnell intends to build upon
that.
In the wake of a tumultuous year for international
relations and recent political developments in our closest
neighbouring countries, its now more important than ever
before to support businesses that are truly contributing to
Irelands economic development, she said
My ambitions are to expand the membership base of
Guaranteed Irish and bring this much-loved Irish brand
firmly into the 21st Century with a big focus on digital
communications.
Our member companies wear their Irishness and Irish
links as a badge of honour at global level.
Being based in Ireland gives them a competitive edge. To
ensure the best companies continue to operate here, we
need to maintain and grow awareness of the benefits of
doing business in Ireland.
Thats what Guaranteed Irish is all about.
Discount department store chain Guineys returned to

profit last year, despite management calling the period a

challenging time.

Newly filed accounts for the well-known retailer, which has

10 outlets spread across Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Castlebar,
Tralee, Mullingar, Waterford, and Clonmel show it
generated pre-tax profits of 116,662 in the 12 months to
the end of last January.
This was a turnaround from a pre-tax loss of 236,837 for
the preceding year.
The opening of a new store in Kilkenny also helped boost
revenues by 7% to 21.58m in the latest year.
In the directors report section of the new accounts,
Guineys management said they see the key significant
risk and uncertainty facing the business being the
increased competition from other retailers.
Regarding the last financial year, management said the
period had been a challenging year, due to economic
conditions.
However, the Dublin-based companys balance sheet
remains strong with accumulated profits amounting to
11.8m, contributing to shareholder funds totalling
11.86m. The shareholder funds included 2m in cash.
Last years profit takes account of operating lease rentals
of 909,165 and non-cash depreciation costs of 625,933.
The accounts also show during 2015, the numbers

employed by the company increased from 163 to 197 with

staff costs decreasing from 4.6m to 3.9m.
A breakdown of the staff shows 182 are sales staff, five in
administration and 10 in management.
The companys directors, Michael Guiney, Suzanne
Guiney, and Gretta Guiney, shared 158,328 in
remuneration down from 172,707 shared out in 2015.
The business paid 66,247 in dividends to shareholders
during the year. This was more than halved from the
previous year.
The expansion of the firm in recent years is underlined
with the value of its fixed assets increasing from 6.4m to
7.7m.
Guineys first opened in doors in 1971 and now has two
stores in Dublin on North Earl St and Talbot St.
The company was solely Dublin-based until 1992, when a
branch opened in Cork.
This was followed by new stores in Tralee, Waterford, and
Limerick, and then Castlebar in 2008, while the companys
online store was launched in 2012.
In 2013, Guineys opened a store in Clonmel, followed by
Mullingar. Most recently, the company opened its doors in
Kilkenny in 2015.
The firm recorded post-tax profits of 62,625 last year,
after paying out 54,037 in corporation tax.
Saudi Arabia pulled out of planned talks with non-Opec
nations including Russia as disagreements about how to
share the burden of supply cuts stood in the way of a deal
to boost prices just days before a make-or-break meeting
in Vienna.

In late European trade, Brent crude fell 1.8% to $48.13 a

barrel. Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
(Opec) officials were scheduled to meet with nonmembers including Russia on Monday before a ministerial
meeting in Vienna two days later.
Instead, the group called another internal meeting to try
to resolve its own differences, particularly the question of
whether Iran and Iraq are willing to cut production, said
two delegates, asking not to be identified because the
talks are sensitive.
Saudi Arabia wants an Opec deal in place before
conversations with other producers, one delegate said.
The setback suggests that Saudi Arabia remains split from
its two biggest Middle Eastern rivals at Opec. Iran insists it
should be allowed to restore output to pre-sanctions
levels, while it remains unclear if Iraq is still disputing the
Opec supply estimates that would provide the basis for
any cuts.
With less than a week until the crucial ministerial meeting,
the refusal of just one major producer to participate could
scuttle the whole agreement reached in September in
Algiers.
The whole Algerian deal wasnt clear from beginning and
their approach was leave it to later, said Abdulsamad alAwadhi, a former Opec official for Kuwait who is now an
independent analyst in London. Two months after the

initial accord, Opec leaders are confused and the groups

founding members cant solve differences, but they want
to have a deal with non-Opec. This a tough call.
In September Opec agreed the outline of its first
production curbs since the global financial crisis in 2008.
Since then, the group has spent two months trying to
agree how to share the cuts, which would bring its
production to a range of 32.5m to 33m barrels per day.
Opec estimates it pumped 33.6m barrels a day last month.
Technical experts from member countries met in Vienna
this week to finalise details of the cuts.
After two days of meetings, the talks concluded without
resolving the issue of Iran and Iraq. Ministers from Saudi
Arabia and Iran will not arrive in Vienna until Tuesday,
leaving little time for them to hold talks before the big
meeting.
Capital Economics in London said it expects some facesaving deal but for it to have little material impact on
supply.
Earnings rose by an extremely modest 0.2% in the latest
quarter, as the job vacancy rate remained unchanged
despite signs of militancy by public sector unions.

The CSO figures for the three months to the end of

September also show that weekly earnings across all parts
of the economy ticked higher by 1.2% from a year earlier.

In the public sector, wages were up 1% from a year

earlier, running behind an increase of 1.8% in the private
sector, analysts said.
Overall wage growth remains subdued despite a
significant tightening in the labour market in recent
quarters, suggesting that there is plenty of slack left in the
Irish labour market, said David McNamara, an economist
at Davy Stockbrokers. Unadjusted weekly earnings rose in
11 of the 13 areas of the economy.
At 5.7%, construction workers had the largest increase in
earnings in the year, while earnings in two other areas
professional and technical activities, and accommodation
and food services both rose 4.9%, the CSO said.
Earnings in the areas of information and communication
and education fell 0.9% in the year.
An unchanged job vacancy rate of 1% in the year suggests
there is no weakening in the supply of labour. Numbers
employed in the public sector have risen to 383,200, an
increase in the year of 1.8% from 376,300.
Neil McDonnell, new CEO of business group Isme, said the
figures showed there was no justification in public sector
unions seeking restoration of pay.
Private sector wage expectations are necessarily more
modest, he said.
The boom in infant formula exports to China last year
contributed to pre-tax profits at Limerick based Wyeth
Nutritionals more than doubling to $165m (155m).

Last year, Ireland became the second largest exporter of

infant formula to China, exporting 13,100 tonnes in the
first half of the year alone.
Now, new accounts filed by Wyeth Nutritionals Ltd show
that its profits soared as revenues increased by 11% to
$584m.
Along with Abbott, Danone, and Kerry Group, the Nestlowned Wyeth Nutritionals is one of the main formula
companies based here.
The directors report for Wyeth state that the increase in
revenues was driven by increased demand in the greater
China area.
The China market is expected to grow even more for the
Irish-based players following Chinas decision last year to
abandon its controversial one-child policy.
The market is set to grow by 10% to 15%, with 1.5m-2m
more babies born each year in China.
The plant at Limerick is licensed to produce infant
nutritional products from more than 50m gallons of milk
each year.
The accounts show that the firm last year recorded
operating profits of $203.7m, up 62% from 2014.
It had an operating margin of 35%.
Staff numbers at the plant in Askeaton increased from 603
to 617, while staff costs dipped from 84.44m to 83.88m.
Pay to directors last year also fell, from 660,000 to

552,000.
After paying out a dividend of $112m in 2014, no dividend
was paid last year.
Shareholder funds stood at $1.2bn, including $357m in
accumulated profits.
It spent $12.4m on research and development in the year.
The Governments Ireland Strategic Investment Fund (ISIF)
has invested 30m for a stake in Finance Ireland
Investment, a lender which primarily focuses on SMEs, in a
bid to boost lending for businesses.

It is the first time that the fund has taken a stake in a nonbank lender.
Set up 14 years ago by Billy Kane, who once headed up
Permanent TSB, Finance Ireland also advances loans to the
agriculture, motor, and commercial property firms, and to
borrowers.
It said that it is on course to provide over 300m in new
lending in 2016, but expects that the new funding will lead
to a substantial amount of new loans becoming available
in years to come.
A spokesman said that the cost of its current lending to
SMEs was at 5.5%, and up to 8%.
Any new competition in the loans market will be welcomed
by Irish SMEs.
Central Bank surveys consistently show that Irish SMEs

pay among the highest rates for their loans in the

eurozone.
This is despite ECB monetary easing having led to large
falls in key funding rates to record low levels.
This significant investment by ISIF underpins our very
ambitious growth plans for the coming years, Mr Kane
said.
Our mission is to create a major non-bank lender in the
Irish financial landscape, offering customers a real
alternative to the traditional banking sector, and we are
well on the way to achieving that.
ISIF was attracted by the opportunity to support an
established and experienced management team to
expand its non-bank platform and in particular grow its
SME and agri-leasing businesses, said Eugene
OCallaghan, ISIF director.
This investment complements the products provided by
other non-bank platforms in the SME sector that ISIF has
supported.
Finance Ireland and Rabobank already work with ISIF with
its MilkFlex Fund, which provides low-cost loans to Glanbia
Co-Op Society.
It said that MilkFlex was the first fund of its kind to offer
Irish farmers access to flexible, low-interest loans.
For its existing loans to SMEs, the lender said it requires a
business plan outlining an overview of the business,
management, markets, and historic and forecast financial
information.
It said it aims to make a decision in five business days on
loan applications.
Analysts have hailed a trading update from Origin
Enterprises as showing the international agri-services firm
was on course to achieve their price targets for 2017.

The shares nonetheless eased to 6.20 yesterday, leaving

Origin down almost 18% since the start of 2016.
Releasing the trading statement that covers the three
months to the end of October, the company said it had
an encouraging start to the year.
Revenues rose by 11% to 333.6m from the same quarter
a year ago, but acquisitions accounted for about twothirds of the uplift. Underlying revenues rose by 1.3%
when the dampening effects of currency translation costs
were taken into account.
Origin has a presence in the UK, Poland, Ukraine, and
Romania.
Although sector sentiment remains subdued reflecting
the current pressures on farm incomes, there has been an
encouraging start to trading in the seasonally quiet first
quarter, it said.
There was a solid foundation for the seasonally more
important second half of the financial year, it said.
Merrion Capital analyst Darren McKinley raised his price
target to 6.75. Cathal Kenny at Davy Stockbrokers said
that excluding its mostly Polish-focused grain marketing
activities, underlying revenues rose by 7.2%. The broker
has an outperform call on the shares.
Jason Molins at Goodbody Stockbrokers said it was
encouraged, but was unlikely to make material
changes to its forecast right now.

The pressure facing retailers over the Long Black Friday

weekend following the plunge in sterling since the Brexit
vote could ease significantly as the euro faces the first of
its own looming tests next week, according to analysts.

New political pressures on the euro could also help Irish

SMEs exporting across the Irish Sea, as new figures
showed the UK was so far weathering the fallout from its
Brexit decision.
The upbeat UK figures come at a time when traders are
trying to assess the outcome of next weekends Italian
referendum, which could spark a political crisis in Rome.
The turnaround in the fortunes of sterling has been
marked in the last two and a half weeks. Though trading
slightly lower yesterday at 85.1p, the UK currency has
nonetheless clawed back about half of all of its worst
losses sustained against the euro since the shock Brexit
vote in late June.
The rebound will likely ease fears over retailers in the
Republic leaking sales to the North and to UK online
retailers during this cyber-spending weekend and ahead of
the Christmas spending splurge. Sterling has surged
against the euro from a post-Brexit low of 91p on October
11.
At 91p, the exchange rate also threatened to wipe out

plans of Irish exporting SMEs because of the headwinds

they face from a weak sterling. Since then, an English high
court ruling and emollient comments from prime minister
Theresa May, as well as better news for the UK economy,
has helped boost sterling.
British retail sales grew at their fastest rate in more than a
year, according to a Confederation of British Industry
survey published yesterday, as shoppers there have
shown little sign of retrenching spending since Junes vote
to leave the EU, despite a sharp fall in sterling that looks
set to push up prices early next year.
Separately, official figures showed UK firms brushed off
the uncertainty over Brexit in the three months after the
referendum and increased their investment, helping to
drive solid growth in the economy.
There are now also political worries bearing down on the
euro, including the possibility of a no vote in the Italian
referendum, which would raise fears that elections in the
Netherlands, France, and Germany next year would lead to
Brexit-like populist rejections of establishment politics.
David Lamb, head of dealing at Fexco, said that since
Octobers nadir that political factors were boosting sterling
and weighing on the euro. Sterling could rise to 83p
against the euro by the end of the year, but a move to
80p would need a fresh catalyst and that could be the
Italian referendum, Mr Lamb said, adding that the Brexit
issues surrounding sterling will not evaporate anytime
soon.
I think sterling can recover a bit more [and] 83p by yearend is not impossible, he said.
Sterling was trading as high as 69p against the euro this
time last year, and was at 76p on the eve of the Brexit
vote in June.
Philip OSullivan, chief economist at Investec Ireland,
which has one of the largest currency treasury desks in
Ireland, said that sterling at 85p against the euro spells
much better news for Irish exporters.
Consumer spending in the UK has been a positive
surprise for the UK economy there, but sterling still faces
significant Brexit-related risks, he said.
Pre-tax losses at CityJet last year plummeted by 66% to
10m, in what the airlines directors are calling a

turnaround year for the company.

The decrease in losses at CityJet came despite its

revenues having dropped by 8% from 179.8m to 165m.
The directors said they were delighted.
The turnaround came from efficiency gains and by
focusing on on chartered flight, as well as cutting costs,
the airline said.
It was sold by Air France to Germanys Intro Aviation, in
2014.
This week, the airline narrowly avoided a pilots strike
when Unite deferred plans after agreeing to talks at the
Workplace Relations Commission.
On the 2015 accounts, executive chairman Pat Byrne said
yesterday: These results clearly illustrate the improving
trading position of CityJet as we continue to reshape the
business into a profitable and sustainable aviation
operator.
Revenues this year were 30% higher than 2015, he said.
In 2015, we sowed the seeds of this restructuring,
ordering new aircraft, acquiring an airline in Finland and
securing long-term wet-lease business to de-risk us from
the volatility of the air transport markets, Mr Byrne said.
Cityjet made 14m of last years total 165m revenues in
Ireland. The companys largest market is France, where it
had 53m of its sales.

Staff costs in the year totalled 34m, while directors were

paid 1.58m, including a 478,000 payment for loss of
office during the year.
Former CEO Christine Ourmieres resigned in March 2015.
Two other directors resigned in March 2016.
Mr Byrne said: We have taken delivery of eight new
CRJ900 jets, which we operate for Scandinavian Airlines,
with four more CRJ900s arriving next March. We also took
delivery of the first three new Superjet SSJ100s, from an
order of 15, which we are we very successfully placing in
the charter and wet-lease markets.
He said half of its 26-airline fleet was providing so-called
wet-lease services for other airlines.
It plans to take delivery of nine more aircraft next year.
Clearly this is a growing business, with more growth to
come. The 2015 results show that the trajectory we are on
is delivering results, Mr Byrne said.
CityJet employs over 900 staff, with bases at Amsterdam,
Dublin, London, Stockholm, Paris, and Helsinki.
Four aircraft are based in Paris operating services for Air
France.
Eight planes are based in Stockholm and Helsinki
operating on behalf of SAS.
meets a couple whose idea of a happy new home is a
currently uninhabitable who dismissed the idea of a
turnkey home and opted instead for a 450-year-old castle
which they plan to renovate.

Youve got your turnkey property where new owners can

walk in and just switch on the kettle... Or for similar money
you could become the proud, and hardworking owner of a
castle.
Liz and Gordon Jones opted for the 450-year-old option.
But any kettles boiled at Sigginstown Castle in
Tacumshane in County Wexford, might be over an open
fire.
Its a bit of a work in progress, if youre an optimist, and
more of a crumbling moneypit, if youre not.
The property consists of three buildings which were built in
different eras: a tower built circa 1550; an attached house
built in the 17th or 18th century; and the remains of two
walls which were once probably part of an agricultural
building.
So the tiaras and velvet robes might have to stay in
storage a bit longer.
Liz and Gordon are Americans of Irish and Scottish
ancestry who have a passion for all things mediaeval.

Their two children are off at college in the US, so they

figured it was the perfect time to go castle-shopping
with help from professional castle-hunter, Bena Stutchbury
who was involved in bringing Kilcoe Castle to Jeremy Irons
attention.
Bena finds properties for anyone looking for castles or
similar buildings that may or may not be on the open
market.
She doesnt have a formal rating for the properties she
sources, but describes Sigginstown Castle as a
humdinger and really special.

The Jones dont just want to renovate a castle as a home,

they also want to create a place for living history and
community events.
Liz, a global programme manager providing technical
services and training, explains: Our family has
participated in medieval re-enactment for the last 30
years.
We have always dreamed of having a venue to teach
traditional and historical skills, and learn more ourselves.
We would like to see the building used for community
activities and workshops at various stages of
construction.
That might be a worthy ambition, but the couple seem to
be grounded in reality too: We were especially attracted
to the attached house, as we realised that spiral staircases
in keeps are tough as you get older.
And Gordon is adamant that proper plumbing is installed
there is a garderobe, but we will use that for ducts and
wiring rather than its original intention.
A polite enquiry as to whether the couple are billionaires is
met with shrieks of laughter: Definitely not billionaires or
millionaires probably not even thousandaires, says

Gordon.
Since we are not fabulously wealthy, our challenge will be
to balance creativity, cost and conservation. Gordon does
not want to eat cat food in his old age due to this project!
notes Liz.
Gordon, an emergency medical technician with a local
ambulance company in Connecticut, also worked as a
professional draughtsman for many years, so hopefully it
will be just the latter skills hell need for this project.

He is also a professional musician, singing church music,

classical and opera, as well as playing American and Irish
folk music on guitar.
Liz isnt afraid of a challenge either she took up the
fiddle two years ago to learn Irish trad music, having not
touched it since age 15.
The couple want to renovate the property, which is listed
as a historical monument, to a habitable condition.
And they want to get the community involved as much as
possible.
They explain: We are sponsoring a student design
competition. We hope to get students to submit design
ideas for the property.
We hope to involve the winner in the project going
forward if that is feasible.

The design should conserve the tower in a state

contemporary with its 1550 construction it will be a
crudely liveable space but with few, if any, modern
amenities.
However, the Jones want to live in the attached house
while minimising the impact on the historical fabric.

We are mediaeval buffs but we also want to live in the

21st century so we will need plumbing and flush toilets
etc, said Gordon.
The Jones new home has no roof, windows or doors, but
it does have parapets, a watchtower, garderobes, a
portcullis and a machicolation (an opening in the
battlements, through which stones or other material, such
as boiling water or oil, could be dropped on attackers).
They have been busy clearing some of the weeds from the
site this week and hope to draft in family and friends as
well as experts.
They have found some bits of broken pottery and some
early 17th century cobbles but are not expecting or hoping
to find some archeological treasures.
Pizza delivery firm Dominos Pizza plans to increase its
presence across the UK to 1,600 stores after seeing a
strong performance from new outlets and a positive
market outlook, it has said.

Outside the UK, Dominos has also identified opportunities

for 400 stores, excluding its German joint venture, up from
around 100 at the end of 2016. The firm, which expects to
have 950 UK stores operating by the end of 2016, had
previously been targeting 1,200.
Our continued strong ecommerce performance and our
collaboration with our dedicated franchisees, enable us to
increase our UK presence significantly, said chief
executive David Wild.
Internationally, our progress in Switzerland and new
collaborations in the Nordic region are exciting
opportunities for the business, Mr Wild said.
Shares in the firm, down almost 3% so far this year, were
up 3% at one stage yesterday. Dominos, which hosted an
event for financial analysts yesterday, said it was
continuing to trade well and profit guidance for 2016 was
unchanged.
Analysts are on average forecasting a pre-tax profit of
84.3m (98.7m), up from 73.2m made in 2015.
The firm said re-phasing of supply-chain projects mean
that full-year capital expenditure will be around 20m, less
than the 33m indicated at the half year.
Dominos said it remains committed to the return of
surplus cash to shareholders through buybacks, but had
paused the process in recent weeks because of a technical
issue it is resolving.

A huge downward revision by the UK government of its

bailed-out banks has once again put a spotlight on the
over-valuation of AIB and other banks here on the States
books.

In an assessment prepared as part of its budget this week,

the British government has said it faces an almost 27bn
(31bn) loss from rescuing failed banks during the 20072009 financial crisis after a slump in the lenders value
since Britains vote to leave EU.
Shares in RBS the owner of Ulster Bank and Lloyds
have fallen by about a fifth since the June 23 vote to leave
the EU.
Their valuations have also been rocked by the slide in
bank shares across Europe this year, which has hit hard
the stockmarket-listed Irish banks too.
The Office for Budget Responsibility, Britains independent
budget watchdog, said it has increased its forecast for
potential UK taxpayer losses by more than 9bn since
March.
Britain spent more than 136.6bn rescuing lenders,
including RBS, Lloyds and Northern Rock. However, it has
so far only managed to recoup just over half of that
money.
Shares in Bank of Ireland, in which the Government here
has a stake of just under 14%, have slid 22% since the
June 23 vote. The banks value is down by over a third to

7bn from 11bn at the start of the year.

Such a sharp slide will have a some sort of read-through
for the valuation of AIB, which is all but owned outright by
the Government.
Last month, the Irish Examiner reported the Government
was likely to slash its current 12.2bn valuation of AIB on
the States books by billions, to reflect the rocky-times
European bank shares have faced this year.
The Government, through the Ireland Strategic Investment
Fund, last revalued Bank of Ireland at the end of June, but
left unchanged an earlier valuation for AIB, at 12.2bn.
The agency is expected to announce its new bank
valuations in the coming weeks.
Alan McQuaid, chief economist at Merrion Capital, said
yesterday that bank valuations across Europe face even
choppier waters if Italys prime minister Matteo Renzi
loses his December 4 referendum.
The vote is designed to usher in reforms in the country
and Mr Renzi may resign if a no vote prevails.
Italy is home to some of the weakest banks in the
eurozone and its politics could have a disproportionate
effect in rocking European bank shares, amid fears the
perceived Brexit-style revolt against establishment
politicians will spread.
Following the Brexit vote, there are more political hurdles
for bank valuations in 2017 from the Dutch, French and
German elections. Mr McQuaid said however, that 2018
could be a good year for stockmarkets and a good time to
sell a bank, if those new political minefields were
avoided.
Cantor Fitzgerald Ireland bank analyst Stephen Hall said
the valuation of over 12bn for AIB on the Governments
books was very high. That valuation implies AIB is
trading at a large premium to Bank of Ireland, Mr Hall said,
adding that a yes vote in the Italian referendum could,
however, lead to a re-rating of all European bank shares.
Finance Minister Michael Noonan last week launched a
contract for the appointment of advisers who will explore
the potential for selling AIB in the coming years.
Luxury spending is set to benefit if US president-elect
Donald Trump succeeds in lowering US taxes, spurring rich

consumers to buy more, according to the chief executive

of French cognac maker Remy Cointreau.

Affluent households should continue to benefit from these

tax decisions, chief executive Valerie Chapoulaud-Floquet
said about the Remy Martin owners first-half results.
The decrease in the tax rate should continue to stretch
the market, she said.
As part of his campaign, Mr Trump proposed tax cuts
worth $6.2 trillion (5.8tn) over the next decade with the
top 1% of American earners receiving almost half of the
total benefit and boosting spending power, according to
an analysis by the Tax Policy Center.
He also promoted a plan to lower the basic US corporate
tax to 15% from 35%. The French spirits company has
been focusing more on the most expensive spirits,
epitomised by a six-litre bottle of Louis XIII cognac that
sells for 75,500.
The distiller has high hopes in the US for that blend, which
is made up of 40-to-100 year-old cognacs and is the
companys priciest offering, Ms Chapoulaud-Floquet said.
The US has yet to reach its full potential for spirits growth,
according to Remy Cointreau. Still, Ms Chapoulaud-Floquet
raised the possibility that the US may increase import
taxes. That could harm Remys business, especially
because cognac cannot be made anywhere outside of the

designated production area in France.

Lets be pragmatic, lets see what happens, she said.
Are American whiskies going to benefit from nationalism?
Maybe. Will Barbadian rum be treated differently? I dont
know. In the luxury world, for the time being, whats being
said is that what could happen will be favourable. Now, if I
were a tequila producer, I might be a little bit afraid, for
sure.
Remy shares gained 1% yesterday and have now risen
14% this year.
Lufthansa chief executive Carsten Spohr said Europes
third-largest airline must hold its nerve and face down
striking pilots if its to deliver meaningful savings and
survive as a force in aviation.

Taking on the pilots is not about being tough, but about

the future of Lufthansa, Mr Spohr said in Berlin on the eve
of a second day of walkouts by cockpit crew. If the
company caves in to pay demands it has no chance of
survival he said.
Lufthansa has already canceled almost 1,900 flights,
wiping out 40% of the timetable and disrupting travel for
more than 215,000 people.
Scrapped services will top 2,600 by the end of a third day
of action today, taking the number of passengers
impacted to 315,000. Lufthansa has said each day of

strikes has so far cost about 10m, with Fridays action set
to cost half that.
A long-running spat over wages, working conditions and
the expansion of Lufthansas low-cost Eurowings arm has
reached new levels of bitterness after Mr Spohr sought to
block the strike. When a Frankfurt labour court dismissed
the case and an appeal failed, the Vereinigung Cockpit
union retaliated by extending the protest by two more
days.
The union is seeking a 20% raise for 2012 through 2017,
or 3.7% a year. Lufthansa has offered 2.5%, or 0.38%
annually, through 2018.

Robust growth in employment continued, despite the

challenge to the economy of the uncertainty of Brexit and
despite the sharp fall of sterling this year.
Employment rose by 13,500, or 0.7%, in the quarter, for a
year-on-year gain of 57,500, or 2.9%, the same as in
quarter two.
The jobs growth was spread right across the economy,
with strong increases in the hospitality sector,
construction, and industry.
Employment has now risen for 16 consecutive quarters,
and is at its highest level since the end of 2008.
Meanwhile, Irelands jobless rate is down to 7.5%. This
compares to 9.2% a year ago and the peak of 15% in
2012.

Unemployment decreased by 25,000 in the past year to

178,000.
The strength of the labour market should soothe some
concerns about the Irish economy, which have raised their
heads as the growth of domestic spending weakened over
the course of this year.
Business investment declined in the first half of the year,
while retail spending has lost momentum since early
summer, with sales actually declining in the third quarter.
The pace of growth in new car sales has also eased, since
earlier in the year.
Activity indices for the manufacturing and service sectors
have fallen back since mid-year, in the aftermath of the
vote for Brexit in the UK and the further slump in sterling.
Tax receipts have lost some of the buoyancy evident
earlier in the year. Consumer confidence has also come off
its highs in recent months.
Some sectors of the economy, though, are seeing
increased growth, most notably construction.
Survey indicators for the sector point to strengthening
activity, with a pick-up, also, in house prices and mortgage
lending in the last two quarters.
While most data suggests that the Irish economy has lost
some of its momentum, the labour market figures indicate
that it is performing quite well.
CSO data shows that GDP grew by 4% in the first half of
2016, a slower pace than in recent years, but still a strong
performance.
Most forecasters expect that GDP growth will average 4%
in 2016 and 3.5% next year. While the uncertainty around
Brexit remains a headwind for the Irish economy, there
have been favourable developments recently, in terms of
the near-term growth prospects for the economy.
Global growth has picked up momentum in recent months,
with better data from the US, eurozone, the UK, and
Japanese economies.
The UK economy, in particular, has held up much better
than expected, following the vote for Brexit. Meantime,
the latest indicators suggest that growth is accelerating in
our two other main export markets, the US and the
eurozone.
More, expansionary fiscal policies are also coming to the

fore, most notably in the US, where a Donald Trump

presidency is expected to deliver a near-term fillip to the
economy via tax cuts and spending increases.
Meanwhile, the euro has lost considerable ground against
the dollar and sterling in the past month.
In particular, the euros recent fall from 90p to 85p against
sterling will offer some relief to hard-pressed Irish
exporters to the UK, who have had to deal with a sharp
decline in the pound this year.
Rising political risks in Europe could weigh on the euro in
the coming year, helping to put a floor under sterling,
despite the ongoing uncertainty surrounding Brexit.
There is also some speculation about a possible
transitional deal between the UK and EU, in the
forthcoming exit negotiations.
The UK could retain at least partial access to the single
market, but give some ground on immigration, thereby
avoiding a hard Brexit.
That would be good news for Ireland.
Thus, while one should not be complacent about the risks
facing the Irish economy in 2017 and beyond, there are
still reasonable grounds for optimism that it will be able to
withstand these challenges.
Oliver Mangan is chief economist at AIB

First fine of 4.5m for overcharging

tracker mortgage customers
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Eamon Quinn

The Central Bank has fined Springboard Mortgages a

unit of Permanent TSB Group 4.5m for overcharging
customers for their tracker mortgages.

The sanction involves 220 mortgage accounts and has

been imposed for breaches under the Central Banks
Consumer Protection Codes.
The move is the first such sanction imposed on any lender
following the start of the Central Bank probe into tracker
rates and is something of a declaration of intent by the
regulator because the fine is relatively large in terms of
the number of accounts involved.
It suggests that when the Central Bank completes its
investigation that the separate fine for Permanent TSB,
which involves 1,152 customers, and fines for other banks
which are found to have breached the codes, will be
substantial.
The probe into the trackers will extend into next year. The
full amounts to be paid by the lenders under restitution
schemes to wronged customers will not be known for
some time.
Some other banks involved in the Central Bank
investigation have put aside tens of millions of euros to
cover potential fines and any restitution costs.
Other lenders involved in the Central Bank investigation
include AIB, Ulster Bank, Bank of Ireland, and KBC Bank.

In the Springboard case, the Central Bank said the lender

was involved in three suspected contraventions of its old
consumer code and two suspected contraventions of its
most recent code, updated four years ago.
That update meant the regulator was given greater
powers to increase fines. It said Springboard admitted
breaking the consumer codes and had agreed to the
4.5m penalty.
The Central Bank had widened its investigation into other
lenders following the probe into Permanent TSB.
In July last year, three senior managers at Permanent TSB
publicly apologised for the failures of the bank in not
informing customers about their mortgage rights.
Permanent TSB revealed at the time some customers had
either lost their homes or investment property because of
the actions by the bank.
The bank said it had found no evidence the failures were
as a result of a deliberate policy or that customers were
mis-sold products.
It said its failures included not informing the customer fully
and not applying the correct mortgage rates.
The group said that 1,372 customers were affected across
Permanent TSB and its Springboard unit because the bank
had wrongly informed them about their rights under their
contracts when they had requested changes to their
mortgages between 2006 and 2011.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/first-fine-of-45m-forovercharging-tracker-mortgage-customers-432781.html?
utm_source=link&utm_medium=click&utm_campaign=nextandprev

Process to repay 100m to Anglo

clients approved
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Ann OLoughlin

The special liquidators of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation

have secured court orders approving a process to govern
their planned repayment of an estimated 100m in
overcharged interest by the former Anglo Irish Bank.

The orders were sought arising from a High Court finding

of 2011 that the bank had overcharged a businessman,
John Morrissey, of Palmerston Rd, Ranelagh, some
143,676 interest on an overall sum of some 31.6m
allegedly owed to it.
The High Court found the overcharging arose from the
banks misinterpretation of the terms and conditions of
loan interest which were common to the vast majority of
its commercial loans.
The liquidators took legal advice following that judgment,
and were advised borrowers who were overcharged
interest were entitled to have claims corresponding to the
overcharged amount admitted in the banks special
liquidation.
It set up a remediation team to deal with the matter and it
has found 6,435 borrowers with 15,571 accounts were
affected. Based on the teams work to date, it is estimated
the potential total refund could be about 100m, Kieran
Wallace, joint special liquidator, said in court documents.
In those circumstances, Michael Collins, counsel for Mr
Wallace, applied at the Commercial Court yesterday to Mr
Justice Brian McGovern to approve directions for the
remediation process.
Those directions included approval for various
assumptions the court was told will have to be made given
existing data limitations, including assumptions where the

likely refund sums are sufficiently low such as not to merit

time and money being spent on the individual examination
of files
http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/process-to-repay-100m-toanglo-clients-approved-432779.html?
utm_source=link&utm_medium=click&utm_campaign=nextandprev

Like many others, I have been thinking about and

discussing Miller (R (Miller) v Secretary of State for
Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768)
with colleagues today. This is the decision from the
High Court that the Government cannot trigger Article
50 in order to begin the process of withdrawal from the
EU without getting Parliamentary authorisation first.
Put very shortly (and without wanting to get too far into
the details of the reasoning per se), this is because the
Court found that, as a constitutional statute and one
that created domestic rights and anchored EU rights,
the European Communities Act 1972 could not be
turned to naught by the Executive. The prerogative
power had been constrained by this Act, and it was not
within the royal prerogative to make even international
treaty decisions (such as withdrawing from the EU) that
would disturb this domestic statute. In other words,
parliamentary authorisation is required before Article
50 is triggered and the formal process of leaving the EU
can begin.
There are already, and will in the coming days, be lots
of analyses on the reasoning per se from a
constitutional law perspective (see, for example, the
reflections of Paul Daly, Kenneth Armstrong and
Aileen McHarg). My purpose here is to offer a few
reflections more broadly on the implications of the
judgment, especially for those more interested in its

practical meaning for Brexit than in its (unquestioned)

broad constitutional significance per se.
This will be appealed to the UK Supreme Court.
Although
many lawyers are expressing confidence that the
Supreme Court will follow the High Court in finding that
parliamentary authorisation is required, there are
some important things to take note of., and especially
that the Supreme Court will likely find itself dealing with
some more complex devolution-related issues that are
on appeal after the Brexit decision in Northern Ireland
last week. This does not reduce the likelihood that the
Court would find parliamentary authorisation is
required, but it may have some implications for the
mode of reasoning.
Todays decision approaches the question of the royal
prerogative, Article 50 and Brexit in very broad terms;
simply put, this is a big decision making big statements
about big questions of constitutional law. Courts
almost always have the capacity to narrow down their
enquiry; to construct questions as being discrete and
particular, and one might imagine that the Supreme
Court might decide to take a more minimalist
approach to the questions this case raises. In truth, I
think this is unlikely for the simple reasons that the
case really does raise questions of wide and deep
constitutional significance, but some trimming of the
ways in which general constitutional principles are
outlined might be expected. This may not change the
outcome per se.
The Court made it very clear that parliamentary
authorisation is required, but did not determine what

the form of authorisation would be. One might

interpret it as a simple vote to authorise the triggering
of Article 50, but the more likely outcome is that a Bill
to trigger Article 50 will be expected and then voted on
by the Parliament.
In either case, the level of detail will be a matter of
political
decision-making, contestation, conflict and
compromise. One might expect that in order to
authorise Article 50 being triggered, Parliament would
expect a number of things to be relatively clearly
determined in advance. These might include big and
complex questions about the status of Northern
Ireland and Scotland, implications on human rights in
Northern Ireland (where particular questions arise vis-vis the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement), questions
about the border, and the status of EU citizens living in
the UK. It might also involve some seemingly smaller,
but very significant, questions about things like
continuity in research and development funding, key
regulatory tasks currently undertaken by EU agencies
and so on. Of course, the more detailed the proposition
put to Parliament the more the requirement of
parliamentary authorisation will delay the triggering of
Article 50. I cannot foresee a situation in which,
realistically speaking, this is completed in much less
than 12 months if the Supreme Court upholds the
outcome of this case.
This may well introduce some real complications into
the
Brexit strategies of the UK. In order to give Parliament
some indication of what it might be authorising if it

authorises Article 50 being triggered the UK will,

presumably, need to have some kind of relatively
concrete (although of course not binding) discussions
with the European Union itself in order to get a sense
of a possible exit deal. In other words, the fairly rigid
proposition that there will be no firm negotiation until
Article 50 has been triggered should, for reasons of
practicality and pragmatism, be relaxed by those who
hold it within the European Union itself.
That said, whatever Parliament authorises will have to
be
somewhat speculative: the final shape and detail of any
Brexit deal that might be agreed will be the subject of
extensive negotiation and, depending on its content,
might require unanimity by the other member states
and, in some cases (and very much depending on the
content and effects of the deal) that may even require
national referenda in some member states. In other
words, there is a real possibility that the UK might exit
the EU without a deal and in authorising the triggering
of Article 50, Parliament will need to take that into
account. This will not be a situation in which absolute
certainty is likely to be possible.
The Court today foundand it is widely agreed in any
case
that the Brexit referendum was merely advisory. It does
not require the UK to leave the EU. Some have latched
onto this to try to suggest that Parliament might
indefinitely block or veto Brexit. While this is a technical
legal possibility I consider (and I suspect most agree)
that it is highly unlikely and would almost certainly be
considered utterly illegitimate. This is not to say that

Parliament might not try to require a referendum on

the proposed Brexit deal (if any); this is a different
matter.
A key premise of todays judgment is that an invocation
of
Article 50 is irrevocable and will lead to withdrawal
from the EU. This was conceded by all parties for the
purposes of getting to the big constitutional questions
of domestic relevance. However, as a matter of EU law
this is not by any means clearly the case; there is
certainly a possibility that an Article 50 notice might be
withdrawn and a state might change its mind about
leaving the EU. Ultimately, whether an Article 50 notice
can be revoked is a matter of EU law and might be
referred to the CJEU to decide. However, even if there
were such a reference the Court might decide it cannot
be decided in abstract terms (i.e. it might say that
Article 50 means what it means within a member
states constitutional system and that might vary across
the member states) and, effectively, decide not to
decide. The latter point was brought to me in
conversation by Alison Young.
There is, in my view, only a slim possibility that this will
trigger an early election in the Spring. An election at
that point, and pre Parliamentary authorisation for
triggering Article 50, would be perceived as a proxy
Brexit2 and there seems to be little if any government
desire for this. Authorisation will, as I said at 4 above,
almost certainly take a substantial amount of time
anything up to a year, in my viewand so I would be
very surprised if there an election in 2017. Post
authorisation, however, there might be a case for an

election that would give the new government a strong

mandate in terms of negotiating the exit and any
possible Brexit Deal, and I would not be overly
surprised to see a general election being called for the
spring of 2018.
For people in Birmingham, we will have a
roundtable/Q&A on the case next Tuesday in Lecture
Theatre 1 of Birmingham Law School at 6pm. Plans are
still being finalised but speakers confirmed so far are
me, Adrian Hunt, Natasa Mavronicola and Ben
Warwick. More TBC; all are welcome.
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/summaryr-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND

QUEENS BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
McCords (Raymond) Application [2016] NIQB 85

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY RAYMOND McCORD

FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 50 OF THE TREATY OF
THE
EUROPEAN UNION
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BY
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)

STEVEN AGNEW
COLUM EASTWOOD
DAVID FORD
JOHN ODOWD
DESSIE DONNELLY
DAWN PURVIS
MONICA WILSON
THE COMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
THE HUMAN RIGHTS CONSORTIUM

AND
(1) HER MAJESTYS GOVERNMENT
(2) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
NORTHERN IRELAND
(3) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXITING THE
EUROPEAN UNION
Respondents
________
MAGUIRE J
Introduction
[1]
The court has before it two applications for judicial
review which substantially relate to the same subject
matter the intention of the Government, following the
result of the referendum held in the United Kingdom on 23
June 2016 and in the light of the result, where a majority
of those who voted, voted in favour of the United Kingdom
leaving the EU to use the Royal Prerogative to invoke
Article 50 TEU to trigger the process by which withdrawal
from the EU is effected.
[2]
The first application has been made by Raymond
McCord, who is a man of 62 years of age. He describes
himself as a British and European citizen and as a resident
of Northern Ireland. He has, as his Order 53 relates, acted
as a victims campaigner following the murder of his son,
Raymond, by Loyalist paramilitaries on 9 November 1997.
[3]
The second application has been made by multiple
applicants and will be referred to herein as Agnew and
Others. The majority of the applicants are politicians,
including several who are members of the Northern
Ireland Assembly. In addition, there are applicants who
have close associations with the voluntary and community
sector in Northern Ireland. This group of applicants also
includes concerned human rights organisations: the
Committee on the Administration of Justice (an
independent human rights organisation with a cross
community membership in Northern Ireland) and the

Human Rights Consortium (a charity with over 160

member organisations from across all communities in
Northern Ireland).
[4]
The intended respondents are variously described
in the Order 53 Statements. In essence, the applications
are directed at Her Majestys Government for the United
Kingdom. A number of Secretaries of State are expressly
referred to: in particular, the Secretary of State for Exiting
the European Union and the Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland.
[5]
As, in the view of the court, the applications raised
devolution issues for the purpose of Order 120 of the Rules
of the Court of Judicature, the court served devolution
notices on the Attorney General, the Attorney General for
Northern Ireland and others. In response, the Attorney
General for Northern Ireland entered an appearance and
has provided to the court written and oral representations
in respect of the devolution issues.
[6]
The applications for judicial review have been
considered together. Because of their urgency, the court
has dealt with them under an expedited timetable. The
hearing before the court has taken the form of a rolled up
hearing so that the court technically has before it both the
issue of leave to apply for judicial review and the issue of
appropriate relief in the event that leave to apply for
judicial review is granted.
[7]
Mr Ronan Lavery QC and Mr Conan Fegan BL
appeared for Mr McCord. Mr David Scoffield QC and Mr
Christopher McCrudden BL and Mr Gordon Anthony BL
appeared for the applicants in Agnew and Others. Mr Tony
McGleenan QC and Mr Paul McLaughlin BL appeared for
the intended respondents in each case. As already noted,
the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, Mr John Larkin
QC and Miss Leona Gillen, entered an appearance and
made written and oral submissions. The court is grateful
to all counsel for their submissions and for their assistance
in enabling the proceedings to be brought to hearing
quickly.

Case Management
[8]
Apart from the issue of the urgency of these
applications, a matter which the court has had to consider
is the relationship these proceedings should bear to
similar proceedings which, at the time these applications
were brought, were already underway in the jurisdiction of
England and Wales. The English proceedings, R (Miller)
and others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European
Union, also is concerned with the means by which Article
50 TEU is to be triggered and the question of the
displacement of prerogative executive power by statute.
In that litigation, at centre stage is the question of
whether the statutory provisions which have the intention
of providing for EU law in the United Kingdom limit the
operation of prerogative power, the archetypal example
being the European Communities Act 1972. While this
issue also has been raised in the challenges before this
court, this court also has before it a range of specifically
Northern Irish constitutional provisions which are said to
have the same or a similar impact on the means of
triggering Article 50.
[9]
In view of the overlap between the respective
challenges the court, on the application of the intended
respondents, sought to avoid these proceedings simply
duplicating those in England and Wales. Accordingly the
court has stayed the consideration of the central issues
which the English courts will deal with. Instead, these
proceedings have sought to concentrate on the impact of
Northern Ireland constitutional provisions in respect of
notice under Article 50 and it is with this subject that this
judgment is concerned. With the co-operation of the
parties, the grounds of challenge which will be dealt with
in Millar and others (in particular, grounds 3(b) and (c) in
McCord and ground 4(2)(a)(i) in Agnew and others) have
been held over pending the outcome of the English
litigation.
The background to the applications
[10]
It is unnecessary to go into great detail about the
background to these challenges. It will suffice to say that

the issue of withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the

EU has, for some time, been a feature of the political
agenda. It was not, however, until relatively recently that
the Government at Westminster determined that there
should be a referendum held on the question of whether
the United Kingdom should remain a member of the EU.
The Governments intention to hold a referendum on EU
membership was announced in January 2013.
[11]
In 2015 the European Union Referendum Act was
passed. This made provision for such a referendum.
Section 1(4) set out the question which was to appear on
the ballot paper as follows:
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the
European Union or leave the European Union?
The alternative answers to the above question appearing
on the ballot papers were (as per Section 1(5)):
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union.
[12]
The 2015 Act also provided for the publication of a
report which contained a statement in relation to the
outcome of negotiations relating to the United Kingdoms
request for reforms to address concerns over the United
Kingdoms membership of the EU and the opinion of the
Government of the United Kingdom on what had been
agreed (see Section 6(1)). Other information also had to
be published (see Section 7).
[13]
Part VII of the Political Parties, Elections and
Referendums Act 2000 applied to the referendum (see:
Section 3 of the 2015 Act). This defined the term
referendum as a referendum or other poll held, in
pursuance of any provision made by or under an Act of
Parliament, on one or more questions specified in or in
accordance with any such provision.
[14]
The referendum took place on 23 June 2016. Its
result was that 51.89% of the valid votes were cast in the
United Kingdom in favour of leaving the European Union

while 48.11% were in favour of remaining. In Northern

Ireland, 55.8% of the valid votes were in favour of
remaining in the European Union, while 44.2% were in
favour of leaving.
[15]
On 24 June 2016, in a public statement, the Prime
Minister (David Cameron MP) accepted the result of the
referendum and indicated that it would be for a new Prime
Minister to decide when to trigger Article 50 TEU.
[16]
Pre-action correspondence between each of the
applicants and the Crown Solicitors Office began in July
2016. In the McCord case the initial letter of claim was
dated 27 July 2016 and was responded to on 5 August
2016. In the case of Agnew and others the initial
correspondence was dated 22 July 2016 and this also was
responded to on 5 August 2016. In both cases, the
contention was advanced that Article 50 could not be
triggered by the use of prerogative power and that
legislation (or other mandate from Parliament) was
required for this purpose. In each case, the Governments
response was that Parliaments express authorisation was
not needed to commence the Article 50 process.
[17]
On 11 August 2016 the McCord application for
leave to apply for judicial review was filed. This was
followed up within days on 19 August 2016 by the
application for judicial review in the name of Stephen
Agnew and others being filed.
The grounds of judicial review
[18]
There are substantial areas of commonality
between the two applications. But there are also some
areas of material difference. Each Order 53 statement has
been the subject of amendments since originally being
filed. In the course of the provision of skeleton arguments
to the court and in the development of the arguments
orally, a clearer picture of the main grounds of challenge
has emerged. It appears to the court that the following
broad description can be provided in relation to the
grounds of challenge.

[19]

The principal grounds are:

(a)
The contention that the prerogative power cannot
be exercised for the purpose of notification in accordance
with Article 50(2) TEU and the allied contention that this is
because it has been displaced by the Northern Ireland Act
1998 read along with the Belfast Agreement and the
British-Irish Agreement and other constitutional provisions.
In these circumstances it is contended that an Act of
Parliament is required to trigger Article 50(2), though in
the case of McCord this argument is taken a step further,
as appears hereafter. This issue will be referred to
hereafter as Issue 1.
(b)
The contention that if an Act of Parliament is
required, there is a requirement for a Legislative Consent
Motion to be granted by the Northern Ireland Assembly
before such legislation could be passed authorising
notification in accordance with Article 50(2) TEU. This
issue will be referred to hereafter as Issue 2.
(c)
The contention that there are a variety of public
law restraints on any exercise of prerogative power in any
event. These include issues about the requirement to take
all relevant considerations into account and not to give
excessive weight to the referendum result. This issue will
be referred to hereafter as Issue 3.
(d)
The contention that there has been a failure by the
Northern Ireland Office to comply, prior to notification
being given under Article 50, with the terms of section 75
of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and with the terms of its
own equality scheme. This issue will hereafter be referred
to as Issue 4.
(e)
The contention in the McCord case that Article 50
TEU cannot be triggered without the consent of the people
of Northern Ireland. Moreover it is asserted that the Good
Friday Agreement has created a substantive legitimate
expectation that there would be no change in the
constitutional status of Northern Ireland without the
consent of the people of Northern Ireland. This issue will
be referred to hereafter as Issue 5.

Article 50 TEU
[20]
The above is the key provision which is at the
centre of these proceedings. This provision, dealing with
withdrawal of a Member State from the EU, appeared for
the first time in 2008 following the negotiation of the
Lisbon Treaty. Until that time, there had been no express
provision, the court has been told, dealing with this
subject. In the absence of same, the matter fell to be
regulated by the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties.
[21]
The terms of Article 50, are largely selfexplanatory, and the court will therefore record the
provision in full below:
Article 50
1.
Any Member State may decide to withdraw from
the Union in accordance with its own constitutional
requirements.
2.
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall
notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of
the guidelines provided by the European Council, the
Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with
that State, setting out the arrangements for its
withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future
relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be
negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty
on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be
concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by
a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the
European Parliament.
3.
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in
question from the date of entry into force of the
withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the
notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the
European Council, in agreement with the Member State
concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4.
For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the
member of the European Council or of the Council
representing the withdrawing Member State shall not
participate in the discussions of the European Council or
Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with
Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union.
5.
If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks
to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure
referred to in Article 49.
[22]
These judicial review applications are concerned
with notification of intention by a Member State which
decides to withdraw, here the United Kingdom. This
involves the European Council being advised of that
intention. This, in the scheme of the provision, initiates a
process by which there is a negotiation with a view to an
agreement being concluded with the withdrawing State.
This agreement will set out the arrangements for
withdrawal, taking account of the framework for the
withdrawing States further relationship with the Union.
The agreement will be between the withdrawing State and
the Council. The consent of the European Parliament has
to be obtained in respect of it prior to it being concluded.
There is then a timetable which comes into operation in
accordance with Article 50(3). This stipulates when the
Treaties shall cease to apply to the withdrawing State.
This may be (a) from the date of entry into force of the
withdrawal agreement, or (b) failing that, two years after
the notification unless the European Council, in agreement
with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to
extend the period.
[23]
It appears to the court that a feature of the
arrangements is that once notification by the withdrawing
State is given, save for some exceptional circumstance,
which is not expressly provided for in the provisions, the
parties, the withdrawing State and the Union are on a set
course which leads to the Treaties ceasing to apply to the
withdrawing State.

[24]
The reference in Article 50(1) to withdrawal being
in accordance with its own constitutional requirements
appears to be a reference to the withdrawing States own
constitutional requirements and not a reference to the
requirements of EU law. This was the view of the Court of
Appeal in England and Wales in Shindler v Chancellor of
the Duchy of Lancaster [2016] EWCA Civ. 469 (see, in
particular paragraph [16]) and the contrary has not been
argued in this court.
Salient features of the Northern Ireland constitutional
landscape
[25]
It is necessary in these cases to provide some
contextual information about how the constitutional
arrangements in Northern Ireland operate after the advent
of the Good Friday Agreement. It is also necessary to cite
in this judgment a substantial number of legal and other
provisions which relate to the operation of the
governmental institutions in Northern Ireland. This is of
importance because it is contended for the purpose of
Issue 1 that statutory provisions, and other materials
which aid their interpretation, represent a corpus of law
which has the effect of excluding the use of prerogative
power for the purpose of triggering Article 50(2). In order
to assess this argument, the precise terms of many of the
provisions being relied on by the applicants will need to be
set out.
The Good Friday Agreement
[26]
The Good Friday Agreement, officially referred to
as the Belfast Agreement, was the product of extensive
multi-party negotiations. It was published in April 1998 in
a command paper presented to Parliament. It contained a
range of elements but, most importantly, it provided for
the establishment of democratic institutions in Northern
Ireland (Strand 1); the establishment of a North/South
Ministerial Council (Strand 2); and the operation of a
British Irish Council and British-Irish Intergovernmental
Conference (Strand 3).

[27]
In the Declaration of Support, with which the
Agreement begins, the participants in the multi-party
negotiations dedicate themselves to the achievement of
reconciliation, tolerance and mutual trust and to the
protection and vindication of human rights (paragraph 2).
Likewise the participants commit themselves to
partnership, equality and mutual respect (paragraph 3).
At paragraph 5 it is stated that:
It is accepted that all of the institutional and
constitutional arrangements - an Assembly in Northern
Ireland, a North/South Ministerial Council, implementation
bodies, a British-Irish Council and a British-Irish
Intergovernmental Conference and any amendments to
British Acts of Parliament and the Constitution of Ireland are interlocking and interdependent and that in particular
the functioning of the Assembly and the North/South
Council are so closely inter-related that the success of
each depends on that of the other.
[28]
Under the heading Constitutional Issues the
Agreement referred to a new British-Irish Agreement
replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement. In such a new
Agreement, there would be recognition of the legitimacy
of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of
people in Northern Ireland with regard to its status i.e.
whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with
Great Britain or a sovereign United Ireland. The
Agreement would also affirm that, if in the future, the
people of the island of Ireland, exercise their right of selfdetermination to bring about a United Ireland, it will be
a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce
and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to
give effect to that wish. Effect to the above was given in
British legislation: of which see below Section 1 of the
Northern Ireland Act 1998. Changes to the Irish
Constitution were also to be made.
[29]
As regards Strand 1 provision was made for a
democratically elected Assembly in Northern Ireland. This
was to be capable of exercising executive and legislative
powers, subject to safeguards which included
arrangements to ensure that all sections of the community

could participate and work together successfully in the

operation of the new institutions and arrangements to
ensure that key decisions were taken on a crosscommunity basis. Special provision was to be made for
parallel consent to be achieved on some issues and
weighed majorities on some other issues.
[30]
The operation of the Assembly was provided for at
paragraphs 6-13 of Strand 1. In respect of executive
authority, this was to be discharged on behalf of the
Assembly by a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and
up to ten Ministers with departmental responsibilities. The
former were to be jointly elected into office by the
Assembly whereas the Ministers would be allocated to
parties on the basis of the dHondt system by reference to
the number of seats each party had in the Assembly. The
First Minister and Deputy First Minister, inter alia, had the
duty of co-ordinating the work of the Executive
Committee. All Ministers, including the First Minister and
Deputy First Minister, were obliged to affirm the terms of a
Pledge of Office.
[31]
The Assembly was, in accordance with paragraphs
26-29, to be given authority to pass primary legislation for
Northern Ireland in devolved areas.
[32]
The first mention of the EU in Strand 1 is
paragraph 31 where it is stated that:
Terms will be agreed between appropriate Assembly
representatives and the Government of the United
Kingdom to ensure effective coordination and input by
Ministers to national policy-making, including on EU
issues.
[33]
A continuing role for Secretary of State was
provided for at paragraph 32 where it was stated that
he/she was to be responsible for non-devolved matters;
was to represent Northern Ireland interests in the United
Kingdom Cabinet; and was to lay legislation before
Westminster on reserved matters.
[34]

Various functions of the Westminster Parliament

were set out at paragraph 33. These should be viewed

against the backdrop that Parliaments powers to legislate
for Northern Ireland would remain unaffected.
Westminster, in particular, was to legislate for nondevolved issues and was to ensure that the United
Kingdoms international obligations were met in respect of
Northern Ireland. Westminster was also to be the forum for
parliamentary scrutiny of the responsibilities of the
Secretary of State.
[35]
Strand 2 of the Agreement dealt with the
North/South Ministerial Council. It was intended to bring
together those with executive responsibilities in Northern
Ireland and the Irish Government. The object was to
develop consultation, co-operation and action within the
island of Ireland on matters of mutual interest within
the competence of the Administrations. The Council was
to meet in different formats: plenary, specific sectoral
formats and an appropriate format to consider institutional
or cross-sectoral matters, including in relation to the EU,
and to resolve disagreement. What was envisaged was
the exchange of information and discussion and
consultation with a view to co-operation on matters of
mutual interest within the competence of both
Administrations, north and south. Best endeavours were
to be used to reach agreements on the adoption of
common policies in areas where there was a mutual crossborder and all island benefit within the competence of
both Administrations. It was also provided that the
Ministerial Council could take decisions by agreement on
policies and action on an all island and cross-border level.
Each side, however, was to remain accountable to the
Assembly and Oireachtas respectively. Provision was to be
made for appropriate mechanisms for co-operation in each
separate jurisdiction and for co-operation which would
take place through agreed implementation bodies on a
cross-border or all island level. Such implementation
bodies were to have a clear operational remit and would
implement on an all island and cross-border basis policies
agreed in the Council. The Council was to be supported by
a standing joint secretariat. At paragraph 17 of this section
of the Agreement, reference was made to the Council

considering the European Union dimension of relevant

matters including the implementation of EU policies and
programmes and proposals under consideration in the EU
framework. Arrangements were to be made to ensure that
the views of the Council were taken into account and
represented appropriately at relevant EU meetings.
[36]
In an annex to this section of the Agreement the
following areas for north-south co-operation and
implementation are stated as ones which may be
considered:
1. Agriculture - animal and plant health.
2. Education - teacher qualifications and exchanges.
3. Transport - strategic transport planning.
4. Environment - environmental protection, pollution,
water quality, and waste management.
5. Waterways - inland waterways.
6. Social Security/Social Welfare - entitlements of crossborder workers and fraud control.
7. Tourism - promotion, marketing, research, and product
development.
8. Relevant EU Programmes such as SPPR, INTERREG,
Leader II and their successors.
9. Inland Fisheries.
10. Aquaculture and marine matters.
11. Health: accident and emergency services and other
related cross border issues.
12. Urban and rural development.
Others to be considered by the shadow North/ South
Council.
[37]
Strand 3 of the Agreement relates to the BritishIrish Council. Its object was to promote the harmonious
and mutually beneficial development of the totality of
relationships among the peoples of these islands.
Membership was to comprise of representatives of the
British and Irish Governments, devolved institutions in
Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, when established
and, if appropriate, elsewhere in the United Kingdom
together with representatives of the Isle of Man and the
Channel Islands. As with the North/South Council, the
British/Irish Council was to operate in different formats and

was to endeavour to reach agreement by co-operation on

matters of mutual interest within the competence of the
relevant administrations. Suitable issues for early
discussion could, it was noted, include transport links,
agricultural issues, environmental issues, cultural issues,
health issues, educational issues and approaches to EU
issues.
[38]
The British/Irish Council was normally to operate
by consensus.
[39]
A further institution provided for in Strand 3 was
the new British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference
dealing with the totality of relationships. This was to
subsume earlier similar institutions. Its object was to
promote bilateral co-operation at all levels in matters of
mutual interest within the competence of both
Governments. All decisions were to be made by
agreement between both Governments without any
derogation from the sovereignty of either Government.
There were to be regular meetings of the conference
concerned with non-devolved Northern Ireland matters.
Provision was made for members of the Northern Ireland
Executive being involved in meetings of the Conference
and in reviews of the working of the machinery and
institutions which had been established.
[40]
Apart from the establishment of the institutions
already referred to, the Good Friday Agreement also
referred to proposals in specific subject areas, which it is
not necessary to summarise here. There are substantial
sections of the Agreement dealing with Rights, Safeguards
and Equality of Opportunity featuring the incorporation of
the European Convention on Human Rights into Northern
Ireland law; a statutory obligation on public authorities in
Northern Ireland to carry out their functions with due
regard to the need to promote equality of opportunities;
the establishment of a Human Rights Commission and
other initiatives. Equally important topics which were
afforded attention in the agreement included such matters
as security, decommissioning of arms, policing and justice,
and prisoners.

[41]
As a result of the Good Friday Agreement a new
British-Irish Agreement was established dated the same
date as the Agreement itself. It does not require specific
discussion for the purpose of this judgment.
The Northern Ireland Act 1998
[42]
The Northern Ireland Act 1998 was enacted to
implement the Good Friday Agreement. Its long title
states that it is an Act to make provision for the
Government of Northern Ireland for the purpose of
implementing the Agreement reached at multi-party talks
on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3883.
[43]
The 1998 Act, while not setting out all of the
constitutional provisions applicable to Northern Ireland,
has been described as in effect a constitution (see Lord
Bingham in Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern
Ireland and Others [2002] NI 390 at 398 paragraph [11]).
In Lord Binghams view, in accordance with the above, its
provisions should, consistently with the language used,
be interpreted generously and purposively, bearing in
mind the values which the constitutional provisions are
intended to embody (ibid). This was also the view of Lord
Hoffman in the same case. At paragraph [25] in his
speech, he noted that the Act was passed to give effect to
the Belfast Agreement concluded on Good Friday 1998.
As he put it: This Agreement was the product of multiparty negotiations to devise constitutional arrangements
for a fresh start in Northern Ireland. The Act was a
constitution for Northern Ireland framed to create a
continuing form of Government against the background
and history of the territory and the principles agreed in
Belfast.
[44]
No party before the court contested these
descriptions and the court will proceed on the basis that it
is correct to approach issues of the interpretation of the
1998 Act in the way described.
[45]
The language used in the Act, nonetheless,
remains important and it is therefore necessary to set out
some of the key provisions below.

[46]
The court begins with Section 1 of the Act which
deals with the status of Northern Ireland. It reads:
(1)
It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its
entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not
cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the
people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the
purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1.
(2)
But if the wish expressed by a majority in such a
poll is that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the
United Kingdom and form part of a United Ireland, the
Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament such
proposals to give effect to that wish as may be agreed
between Her Majestys Government in the United Kingdom
and the Government of Ireland.
The detailed provisions relating to a poll for the purposes
of Section 1 are found at Schedule 1 to the Act.
[47]
Section 4 of the Act deals with transferred,
excepted and reserved matters. A transferred matter is
any matter which is not either an excepted or reserved
matter. It is therefore a residual category. Excepted
matters are matters falling within a description specified
in Schedule 2 whereas reserved matters are any matter
falling within a description specified in Schedule 3.
[48]
Schedule 2 paragraph 3 is relevant to these
applications. It provides a description of certain excepted
matters as follows:
International relations, including relations with territories
outside the United Kingdom, the European Communities
(and their institutions) and other international
organisations but not
(c)
observing and implementing international
obligations, obligations under the Human Rights
Convention and obligations under Community law.
[49]
Section 5 of the Act deals with Acts of the Northern
Ireland Assembly. The starting point is that subject to

Sections 6 to 8, the Assembly may make laws, to be

known as Acts. However, a notable provision is found at
Section 5(6) of the Act. It states:
(6)
This section does not affect the power of the
Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for
Northern Ireland
[50]
Section 6 relates to the subject of legislative
competence. Under Section 6(1) a provision of an Act is
not law if it is outside the legislative competence of the
Assembly. Section 6(2) explains that a provision is outside
that competence if any of the following paragraphs apply.
There are then stated six outside competence paragraphs
including:
[If the provision] deals with an excepted matter and is
not ancillary to other provisions (whether in the Act or
previously enacted) dealing with reserved or transferred
matters.

[If the provision] is incompatible with Community law.

[51]
Section 7 entrenches certain enactments from
modification by an Act of the Assembly or subordinate
legislation made, confirmed or approved by a Minister or
Northern Ireland department. Of relevance to this case is:
(a)

The European Communities Act 1972.

[52]
Section 7(2) goes on to say that sub-section (1)
does not prevent an Act of the Assembly or subordinate
legislation modifying certain particular provisions in the
European Communities Act 1972. These provisions are of a
minor nature.
[53]
Section 8 of the Act refers to the Secretary of
States consent being required in relation to Bill which
contains
(a)
a provision which deals with an excepted matter
and is ancillary to other provisions dealing with reserved
or transferred matters; or

(b)

a provision which deals with a reserved matter.

[54]
Under Section 11, the Attorney General for
Northern Ireland may refer to the Supreme Court a
question of whether a provision of a Bill would be within
the legislative competence of the Assembly.
[55]
Section 12 relates to the particular situation where
a reference has been made to the Supreme Court under
Section 11 but where the Supreme Court has referred, for
a preliminary ruling, a matter arising to the European
Court of Justice.
[56]
The next provision which the court draws attention
to is Section 24. Section 24(1) establishes that:
A Minister or Northern Ireland Department has no power
to make, confirm or approve any subordinate legislation,
or to do any act, so far as the legislation or act
(b)

Is incompatible with European Union law.

[57]
Section 27 deals with quotas for the purpose of
international obligations. It provides:
(1)
A Minister of the Crown may make an order
containing provision such as is specified in subsection
(2)
where
(a)
An international obligation or an obligation under
Community law is an obligation to achieve a result defined
by reference to a quantity (whether expressed as an
amount, proportion or ratio or otherwise); and
(b)
the quantity relates to the United Kingdom (or to
an area including the United Kingdom or to an area
consisting of a part of the United Kingdom which is or
includes the whole or part of Northern Ireland).
(2)
The provision referred to in subsection (1) is
provision for the achievement by a Minister or Northern
Ireland department (in the exercise of his or its functions)
of so much of the result to be achieved under the
international obligation or obligation under Community law

as is specified in the order.

[58]
Part V of the Act is that part dealing with the
North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish
Council. Of particular interest is Section 55 which is
concerned with the subject of implementation bodies.
Such a body is a body for implementing, on the basis
mentioned in paragraph 11 of Strand 2 of the Belfast
Agreement, policies agreed in the North-South Ministerial
Council (see Section 55(3)). Paragraph 11 deals with
policies agreed in the Council for implementation on an
all-island and cross border basis
[59]
Section 98 is an interpretation provision. It
contains a definition of community law for the purpose
of the Act. It means:
(a)
all rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and
restrictions created or arising by or under the Community
Treaties; and
(b)
all remedies and procedures provided for by or
under those Treaties.
The North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies)
(Northern Ireland) Order 1999
[60]
Under the proposals for the North/South Ministerial
Council the prospect of implementation bodies coming
into existence was plainly recognised. Those bodies could
be on a cross border or all island basis. A further
Agreement was made between the United Kingdom and
the Government of Ireland in respect of this matter on 8
March 1999. This agreement provided for the
establishment of implementation bodies and the above
Order was made by the Secretary of State legally to
provide for them.
[61]
The Order envisages and establishes a number of
such bodies. The body of most relevance to these
proceedings is called the Special EU Programmes Body.
Its functions were provided for at Part 4 of Annex 1 of the
Agreement. It was described in the following way:

A body with the following functions:

Until the conclusion of the current Community Initiatives
the central secretariat, monitoring, research,
evaluation, technical assistance and development roles
currently exercised jointly in respect of INTERREG and
PEACE by the Department of Finance and the Department
of Finance and Personnel.
administration of certain sectoral sub-programmes
under INTERREG and PEACE (interest rate subsidy and
cross border co-operation between public bodies)
In relation to post 1999 Structural Funds
advising North/South Ministerial Council and the two
Departments of Finance on negotiation with the EU
Commission of post 1999 Community Initiatives and of
Common Chapter
preparing for the approval of the two administrations
in the Council and in close consultation with the two
Departments of Finance and other relevant Departments,
detailed programme proposals under the new Community
Initiatives (likely to be INTERREG III, LEADER III and
EQUAL, and possibly a successor to PEACE)
central secretariat, monitoring, research, evaluation
technical assistance and development roles in respect of
these initiatives
grant making and other managerial functions in
respect of INTERREG III and of north/south elements of
programmes under other initiatives, within the framework
of the relevant overall policies of North and South
respectively, and subject to the expenditure allocations
and specific programme parameters agreed between the
two administrations and with the EU Commission;
monitoring and promoting implementation of the
Common Chapter, which would have a budgetary
allocation

[62]
The above functions were to be exercised in
accordance with Part 4 of Annex 2 which dealt with the
current Community Initiatives and also post-1999
structural funds.
[63]
The court does not doubt that the intention of both
governments was that the approach taken would apply to
future equivalent or substitute Community Initiatives.
That this is so can be seen from the terms of letters
exchanged between the respective governments
subsequently. For an example, see the Schedule to the
North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies)
(Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007.
[64]
There is nothing, however, in any of the
instruments which entrenches the arrangements in
respect of Implementation Bodies. The instruments can be
viewed as being consistent with the existence of an
implicit assumption that membership of the EU, on the
part of both countries, would continue.
Issue 1
[65]
The central issue in these applications relates to
the legal authority upon which Notice is to be given by the
United Kingdom Government to the European Council for
the purpose of Article 50(2) TEU. As the opening sentence
of Article 50(2) indicates:
A member state which decides to withdraw shall notify
the European Council of its intention.
This notice triggers the arrangements provided for in the
remainder of Article 50.
[66]
It is the governments view that notification is
properly to be viewed as an executive action taken under
prerogative power. However, the applicants dispute this.
They argue that prerogative power cannot be used to
effect notification because that power has been displaced
by statute. In these circumstances, they submit,
notification must be effected by a process which involves
authority for this action being given by Act of Parliament.

The issue, therefore, it can be said, is concerned with the

legal underpinning of any such notification. The reason
why the applicants say that prerogative power cannot be
deployed for this purpose is that it has been displaced by
reason of the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 when
interpreted, as they say they must be, in the light of the
Good Friday Agreement and consequential arrangements.
[67]
It is implicit in the applicants argument that were
it not for the displacement of the prerogative in the way
described, the use of the prerogative for present purposes
would be unobjectionable. That this is correct is
consistent with a range of legal authorities such as Council
of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service
[1984] 3 WLR 1174 and Blackburn v Attorney General
[1971] 2 AER 1380. The court will therefore regard this
position as an appropriate starting point.
[68]
Those before the court all accepted that there are
circumstances in which prerogative power must give way
to statutory power so that only the latter can be lawfully
used for a particular purpose. The argument before the
court was not about the principle of law involved but about
how the principle is to operate in this case.
[69]
It seems to the court that two central questions
arise. Firstly, the court must seek to ascertain what test is
to be applied when determining the issue. Secondly, the
court must then apply the test to the alleged displacing
provisions.
[70]
As regards the test to be applied, the court
inevitably must consider the approaches to this issue
which can be discerned from the cases in which this
principle of law has been discussed. In this regard the
court has been directed by the parties to the key
authorities in this area, beginning with the reminder from
the Case of Proclamations (1611) 12 Co Rep 74 that the
King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the
land allows him.
[71]
The most significant of the cases cited to the court
is that of Attorney General v De Keysers Royal Hotels Ltd

[1920] AC 508. As a senior judge later remarked the

relevant principles upon which the courts have to
determine whether prerogative power has been fettered
by statute were exhaustively considered by the House of
Lords in De Keyser (see Roskill LJ, as he then was, in
Laker Airways Limited v Department of Trade [1997] 1 QB
643 at 719(e)). De Keyser concerned the taking over of a
hotel for housing administrative staff of the flying Corps
during the First World War. An issue subsequently arose
as to the payment of compensation for the use of the
hotel. This depended on whether the takingover had
been under statute or by reason of prerogative power. The
House of Lords decided that the taking-over was under
statutory power with the result that compensation was
payable. While the statutory scheme existed, the
prerogative had been superseded.
[72]
It is worthwhile to set out below the key passages
in the speeches of their Lordships in De Keyser. Lord
Dunedin stated at page 526:
The prerogative is defined by a learned constitutional
writer as the residue of discretionary or arbitrary
authority which at any given time is legally left in the
hands of the Crown. In as much as the Crown is a party
to every Act of Parliament it is logical enough to consider
that when the Act deals with something which before the
Act could be effected by the prerogative, and specially
empowers the Crown to do the same thing, but subject to
conditions, the Crown assents to that, and by that Act, to
the prerogative being curtailed.
Lord Atkinson at page 539 stated:
It is quite obvious that it would be useless and
meaningless for the legislature to impose restrictions and
limitations upon, and attach conditions to, the exercise by
the Crown of the powers conferred by a statute, if the
Crown were free at its pleasure to disregard these
provisions, and by virtue of its prerogative do the very
thing the statutes empowered it to do. One cannot in the
construction of a statute attribute to the legislature (in the
absence of compelling words) an intention so absurd. It

was suggested that when a statute is passed empowering

the Crown to do a certain thing which it might heretofore
have done by virtue of the prerogative, the prerogative is
merged in the statute. I confess I do not think the word
merge is happily chosen. I should prefer to say that
when such a statute, expressing the will and intention of
the King and of the three estates of the realm is passed, it
abridges the royal prerogative while it is enforced to this
extent: that the Crown can only do the particular thing
under and in accordance with the statutory provisions, and
that its prerogative power to do that thing is in abeyance.
Whichever mode of expression be used, the result
intended to be indicated is, I think, the same namely,
that after the statute has been passed, and while it is
enforced, the thing it empowers the Crown to do can
thenceforth only be done by and under the statute, and
subject to all the limitations, restrictions and conditions by
it imposed, however unrestricted the royal prerogative
may theretofore have been.
Lord Moulton, dealing with the same issue, at page 554
asked:
What effect has this course of legislation upon the royal
prerogative? I do not think it can be said to have
abrogated that prerogative in any way, but it has given
the Crown statutory powers which render the exercise of
that prerogative unnecessary, because the statutory
powers that have been conferred upon it are wider and
more comprehensive than those of the prerogative itself.
But it has done more than this. It has indicated
un-mistakenly that it is the intention of the nation that the
powers of the Crown in these respects should be exercised
in the equitable manner set forth in the statute, so that
the burden shall not fall on the individual but shall be
borne by the community this being so, when powers
covered by this statute are exercised by the Crown it must
be presumed that they are so exercised under the statute
and therefore subject to the equitable provision for
compensation which is to be found in it.
At page 561 Lord Sumner said:

I do not think that the precise extent of the prerogative

need now be dealt with. The legislature, by appropriate
enactment, can deal with such a subject matter as that
now in question in such a way as to abate such portions of
the prerogative as apply to it. It seems also to be obvious
that enactments may have this effect, provided they
directly deal with the subject matter, even though they
enact a modus operandi for securing the desired result,
which is not the same as that of the prerogative there is
no object in dealing by statute with the same subject
matter as is already dealt with by the prerogative, unless
it be either to limit or at least vary its existence, or to
provide an additional mode of attaining the same object.
Finally, Lord Parmoor at page 576 stated that:
The principles of construction to be applied in deciding
whether the royal prerogative has been taken away or
abridged are well ascertained. It may be taken by or
abridged by express words [or] by necessary implication
I am further of opinion that where a matter has been
directly regulated by statute there is a necessary
implication that the statutory regulation must be obeyed,
and that as far as such regulation is inconsistent with the
claim of a royal prerogative right, such right can no longer
be enforced.
He also stated at page 575:
The constitutional principle is that when the power of the
executive to interfere with the property or liberty of
subjects has been placed under Parliamentary control and
directly regulated by statute, the executive no longer
derive its authority from the Royal Prerogative of the
Crown but from Parliament .
[73]
The issue of the prerogative giving way to statute
law arose before the Court of Appeal in England and Wales
in the case of Laker Airways in 1977.
[74]
This was a case of some little complexity but it
essentially involved a consideration of the relationship

between a statutory scheme under the Civil Aviation Act

1971 which expressly dealt with the granting of a licence
by the UK authorities under the Act to the plaintiff airline
and a treaty based arrangement involving the United
States of America and the United Kingdom for, inter alia,
the granting of a designation under which an airline could
operate on a transatlantic route. The plaintiff airline, prior
to a change of United Kingdom Government policy, had
been enjoying the benefit of a statutory licence and was
on the way to achieving designation under the Bermuda
Agreement of 1946. But this, on the change of policy,
soon changed. The United Kingdom government, by
issuing guidance, sought successfully to induce a
revocation of the statutory licence but the court later held
this to be unlawful. Notwithstanding this the government
sought then to rely on the non-designation of the airline
under the Bermuda arrangements which were based on
prerogative power. The court held that reliance on the
prerogative power was defeated by the existence of the
statutory right.
[75]
The principles informing where the line between
the prerogative and statute should be drawn were not,
however, the subject of extensive consideration. As
already noted, Roskill LJ (as he then was) considered that
there had been exhaustive consideration of the issue of
principle in De Keyser. In the case before him he applied
the opinions in De Keyser. Lord Denning focussed more
broadly on the wider issues of abuse of power disclosed by
the case and said little about the issue now under
discussion. Lawton LJ took the view that by necessary
implication the Act should be construed so as to prevent
the government from rendering licences useless by the
withdrawal of designation when the Secretary of State
could not procure the authority lawfully to revoke them
nor lawfully do so himself: see page 728 (c)-(d). An aspect
of the matter commented upon by Lawton LJ was that
there was nothing in the Act which curbed the use of the
prerogative in the sphere of international relations but, in
his view, the provisions of the Act regulated all aspects of
the revocation of licences with the consequence already
described.

[76]
The next case involving the line to be drawn
between statute and prerogative power is that of R v
Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Fire
Brigades Union and others [1995] 2 AC 513. This case
concerned schemes for criminal injury compensation.
Parliament in 1988 had legislated for a new statutory
scheme in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 but this scheme
was not commenced. Instead, the Secretary of State
decided to introduce a fresh scheme in its place using
prerogative power. This latter scheme brought in a series
of tariff provisions under which compensation was to be
calculated as against the more generous compensation
arrangements contained in the 1988 Act. The issue which
arose was whether it was lawfully open to the Secretary of
State to use prerogative power in this way while, albeit not
commenced, the scheme under the 1988 Act remained on
the statute book. The Court of Appeal held that the
Secretary of States use of the prerogative power to
establish the tariff scheme was unlawful and by a majority
of 3/2 the House of Lords agreed. In the Court of Appeal
Sir Thomas Bingham MR stated at page 522 (e)-(f):
The leading cases to which our attention was properly
drawn, Attorney General v De Keysers Hotel Limited and
the Laker Airways case did not concern statutory
provisions not brought into force and so provide no direct
answer to this question. It must therefore be approached
as an issue of principle. Again, as it seems to me, the
Secretary of States argument gives too little weight to the
overriding legislative role of Parliament. It has approved
detailed provisions governing the form which, underpinned
by statute, the scheme should take. Sections 108-117 and
Schedule 6 and 7 are not a discussion paper but a
blueprint approved in the most solemn form for which our
constitution provides. It was, of course, open to the
Secretary of State to invite Parliament to repeal the
provisions [h]e could have sought enactment of
provisions giving effect to the tariff scheme in substitution
for the 1988 provisions; or if the 1988 provisions were
simply repealed he could have exercised his prerogative
powers to introduce the tariff scheme, the field then being
once more unoccupied by statute. What in my judgment

he could not lawfully do, so long as the 1988 provisions

stood un-repealed as an enduring statement of
Parliaments will, was to exercise prerogative powers to
introduce a scheme radically different from that
Parliament had approved.
[77]
In the House of Lords, in a passage often later
cited, Lord Browne-Wilkinson at page 553 (d)-(g) said:
My Lords, it would be most surprising if, at the present
day, prerogative powers could be validly exercised by the
executive so as to frustrate the will of Parliament
expressed in a statute and, to an extent, to pre-empt the
decision of Parliament whether or not to continue with the
statutory scheme even though the old scheme had been
abandoned. It is not for the executive, as the Lord
Advocate accepted, to state as it did in the White Paper
(paragraph 38) that the provisions of the Act of 1988 will
accordingly be repealed when a suitable legislative
opportunity occurs. It is for Parliament, not the
executive, to repeal legislation. The constitutional history
of this country is the history of the prerogative powers of
the Crown being made subject to the overriding powers of
the democratically elected legislature as the sovereign
body. The prerogative powers of the Crown remain in
existence to the extent that Parliament has not expressly
or by implication extinguished them. But under the
principle in Attorney General v De Keysers Royal Hotel
Limited if Parliament has conferred on the executive
statutory power to do a particular act, that act can only
thereafter be done under the statutory powers so
conferred: any pre-existing prerogative powers to do the
same act is pro tanto excluded.
[78]
A further case to which the court was referred was
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte
Northumbria Police Authority [1989] QB 26. The subject
matter of this case was the supply of equipment to police
forces. A circular made by the Secretary of State under
prerogative powers had provided that riot control
equipment could be made available to police forces,
irrespective of the approach taken by police authorities.
This was challenged by the Northumbria Police Authority
on the basis that it had to approve any provision of

equipment in accordance with the terms of the Police Act

1964, save in a situation of grave emergency. A Divisional
Court dismissed the Police Authoritys judicial review, a
decision later upheld by the Court of Appeal.
[79]
At pages 44-45 Croom-Johnston LJ explained the
position as follows:
It is clear that the Crown cannot act under the
prerogative if to do so would be incompatible with statute.
What was said here is that the Secretary of States
proposal under the circular would be inconsistent with the
powers expressly or impliedly conferred on the Police
Authority by Section 4 of the 1964 Act. The Divisional
Court rejected the submission for reasons with which I
wholly agree; namely that Section 4 did not expressly
grant a monopoly, and that granted the possibility of an
authority which declines to provide equipment required by
the Chief Constable there is every reason not to imply a
Parliamentary intent to create one.
Purchase LJ at page 63 said:
It is well established that the courts will intervene to
prevent executive action under prerogative powers in
violation of property or other rights of the individual where
this is inconsistent with the statutory provisions providing
for the same executive action. Where the executive action
is directed towards the benefit of protection of the
individual, it is unlikely that its use will attract the
intervention of the courts. In my judgment, before the
courts will hold that such executive action is contrary to
legislation, express and unequivocal terms must be found
in the statute which deprive the individual from receiving
the benefit of protection intended by the exercise of
prerogative power. In the present case the Secretary of
State contended that if he does not have the power to
make equipment available to police forces under the Act,
he must have this power under the royal prerogative for
the purpose of promoting the efficiency of the police. In
order to dispute this the police authority had to contend
that the combined effects of Section 4(1) and 41 is to
prevent the Secretary of State from supplying equipment

unless it is requested by the police authority. These

sections have already been considered in this judgment.
Even if I am not justified in holding that these sections
afford positive statutory authority for the supply of
equipment, they must fall short of an express and
unequivocal inhibition sufficient to abridge the prerogative
powers, otherwise available to the Secretary of State, to
do all that is reasonably necessary to preserve the peace
of the realm.
[80]
Finally, in the case of R (Alvi) v Secretary of State
for the Home Department (Joint Council for the Welfare of
Immigrants Intervening) [2012] 1 WLR 2208, in the
context of considering an issue of whether a form of Home
Office guidance should have been dealt with under
Immigration Rules, Lord Hope, as background to his
consideration, noted the general position in respect of the
operation of prerogative powers as follows:
The exercise of a prerogative power may however be
suspended, or abrogated, by an Act of Parliament:
Attorney General v De Keysers Royal Hotel Limited per
Lord Atkinson. So a statute which operates in the field of
prerogative may exclude the possibility of exercising
prerogative powers. Where a complete and exhaustive
code is to be found in the statute, any powers under the
prerogative which would otherwise have applied are
excluded entirely Any exercise of a prerogative power
in a manner, or for purpose, which is inconsistent with the
statute will be an abuse of power
The submission of the parties on the appropriate test
[81]
Both Mr Scoffield for the applicant in Agnew and
others and Mr McGleenan for the respondents were in
general agreement that there was no single and universal
test which could be said to apply in this area, having
regard to the authorities, which would precisely delineate
the point of which prerogative power must give way to
statute. Inevitably much would depend on the
circumstances.
[82]

Counsels postures on this issue tended to reflect

their respective clients interest in this case. Accordingly,

Mr Scoffield argued for a broad and flexible approach to
the test to be applied. There was, he argued, no need to
establish an intention on the part of the legislature, or
even a conscious choice, to limit the prerogative. Nor was
there any requirement that the restriction of the
prerogative power be formal or express. It was enough,
counsel argued, that statutory power operates in the
context of the prerogative and was inconsistent with it.
On the other hand, Mr McGleenan placed emphasis on the
need for a narrow approach to this issue. In his
submission, the correct approach should recognise that
only in limited circumstances should a recognised
prerogative power cease to be available to the executive.
This may occur where, in his formulation:
Parliament has intended that it should cease to be
available either by expressly legislating to this effect or
where this result arose by way of necessary implication
from statute.

The courts view

[83]
It is the courts view that the test which should be
applied will reflect a series of factors and cannot be
reduced to a single bright line rule which governs every
case. The fact that there is no express language found in
the statute specifically limiting the operation of the
prerogative will be highly relevant, as an obvious way of
setting aside or limiting prerogative power would be for
the statute concerned to expressly say so. It also seems
to the court that there is support in the authorities for the
view that, absent express provision being made,
abridgment of the prerogative by a statute or statutory
scheme must arise by necessary implication. In this
context the court accepts that the approach to this term
found in R (Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd) v Special
Commissioner of Income Tax [2002] 2 WLR 1299 at
paragraph [45] is an appropriate one. Lord Hobhouse
stated that:

It is accepted that the statute does not contain any

express words that abrogate the tax payers common law
right to rely on legal professional privilege. The question
therefore becomes whether there is a necessary
implication to that effect. A necessary implication is not
the same as a reasonable implication as was pointed out
by Lord Hutton in B (A Minor) v Director of Public
Prosecutions [2000] 2 AC 428, 481. A necessary
implication is one which necessarily follows from the
express provisions of the statute construed in their
context. It distinguishes between what it would have been
sensible or reasonable for Parliament to have included or
what Parliament would, if it had thought about it, probably
have included and what it is clear that the express
language of the statute shows that the statute must have
included. A necessary implication is a matter of express
language and logic not interpretation.
[84]
Other factors to be considered, it appears to the
court, include:

That the statute must occupy the specific ground

hitherto occupied by the prerogative. The statute, in other
words, must empower the doing of the very thing which
the prerogative has dealt with up to the point of statutory
intervention.

That the intervention by the statute must be direct in

its effect on the subject matter in question and not the
result of a side wind.

That the juxta position of the parallel sources of

authority must be such as it can be said that the use of
the prerogative power would be incompatible or
inconsistent with the relevant statutory provision.
[85]
What the court must do now is to apply the
approach outlined above to the provisions in the Northern
Ireland Act 1998 read against its constitutional
background in order to conclude whether the effect of
these in this case displaces prerogative power in relation
to the function of notification for the purpose of Article
50(2) of TEU.

[86]
On this issue the applicants case has been put
both in general ways and by reference to specific
provisions.
[87]
In respect of the former, it has been suggested
that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 has been inextricably
interwoven with the United Kingdoms continued
membership of the EU and this outworking of the model
of democracy should be viewed as protected from
change on the facts of this case.
[88]
It is also submitted that Parliament has not
authorised any action under Article 50 and that to allow
Article 50 to be triggered without an Act of Parliament
authorising it would automatically result in the removal or
abrogation of rights currently enjoyed by United Kingdom
citizens. To achieve such a result, therefore, requires the
legislative sanction of Parliament.
[89]
Additionally, it was asserted that notification under
Article 50 involved, in effect, the beginning of a far
reaching process of amending the 1998 Act which would
cut across domestic, EU and international dimensions.
This would upset the delicate constitutional balance
established as a result the Good Friday Agreement and the
1998 Act.
[90]
Put another way, the operation of EU law should
be viewed as a building block of Northern Irelands
constitutional protections and continued membership is a
necessary element of the North-South and East-West
structures and the relationships which form the kernel of
the constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland in
modern times. This was illustrated especially in respect of
cross border activities over a wide range of subject
matters and, if these were interfered with by the
triggering of Article 50, this would have momentous
consequences for the rights granted to individuals and for
society as a whole. Among the consequences for society
would be the weakening of constitutional protections, such
as those under the European Convention on Human
Rights, by the removal of the underpinning provided for it

in EU law.
[91]
In respect of reliance on specific provisions the
court was shown a large number of provisions which, it
was contended, detailed the direct damage which
notification would have to Northern Irelands constitutional
framework. This damage was the greater because of the
interlocking nature of the major elements in the
arrangements.
[92]

Particular emphasis was placed on the following:

(i)
The loss of EU law as a limit to the Assemblys
power to legislate and as a constraint on the use of
executive power (section 6(2)(b) and Section 24(1)(b)).
(ii)
The loss of EU law in connection with the operation
of the North/South Council and the implementation bodies
established in connection with it. The main example in
this area was in connection with the operation of the
Special EU Programmes Body whose remit has been
referred to earlier in this judgment. Part of the day to day
functioning of this body involved on-going consideration of
issues of EU law and its administration in both parts of
Ireland. It was contended that the nature of this body was
a good example of the requirement that there should not
be change to the position of Northern Ireland as part of
the EU.
[93]
The applicants accepted (at least in the Agnew
and others case) it could not be said any of the specific
provisions referred to expressly superseded the
prerogative but, it was submitted, the territory dealt with
in many of the provisions of the 1998 Act demonstrated an
undermining of prerogative power in a manner fatal to its
continued use.
[94]
The retort of the intended respondents to the
applicants claims above was in broad terms that there
was nothing in the provisions relied upon by the applicants
that either expressly or by necessary implication had the
effect of curtailing the ability of the executive to use
prerogative power for the purpose of Article 50(2).

[95]
In this regard, the intended respondents pointed
out that the terms of the EU Referendum Act did not
specify what steps the Government was required to take in
the event of a vote in favour of leaving the EU. The
matter, it was suggested, was left to the executive to
decide and no case could be made that it was any part of
the statutory intention, as now claimed, that there would
have to be a further Act of Parliament before Article 50(2)
could be triggered.
[96]
Nor, it was contended, could it be said that any of
the provisions of the 1998 Act or its contextual
surroundings could properly be viewed as having this
effect. The Act was not directed at this issue. There were
statutory provisions in other areas where a clear intention
to replace prerogative power by an exercise of statutory
power could be plainly identified, for examples the
European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 sections 5, and
the European Union Act 2011 section 2, but nothing
remotely similar arose in the present case. In this regard,
the words of Lloyd J (as he then was) were quoted from his
judgment in R v Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Rees-Mogg [1994] 2 WLR
115 at page 124, where he said:
When Parliament wishes to fetter the Crowns treatymaking power in relation to community law, it does so in
express terms, such as one finds in section 6 of the 1978
Act [European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978].
[97]
The most which could be said in this area,
according to the intended respondents, was that the Good
Friday Agreement and the provisions made subsequently
in the 1998 Act were written against the context then
prevailing, including the United Kingdoms membership of
the EU. The provisions made were a recognition of a day
to day feature of government but it was no part of the
arrangements made that any guarantee was being offered
or provided about possible departure by the United
Kingdom or Ireland from the EU at some date in the future.
On the contrary, there was a working assumption that
both states were likely to remain in the EU, but at that

stage, no-one had in mind that at a later date one or other

might (by a vote of the people in a referendum) decide to
leave.
[98]
The language found in the provisions quoted by
the applicants reflected, in the intended respondents
submission, no more than that EU law and policy was an
aspect of governance which affected the functioning of the
various governmental bodies and agencies within their
respective jurisdictions.
[99]
The Attorney General supported the arguments of
the intended respondents. As he put it: the triggering of
Article 50(2) will amend not even a comma or full stop of
the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Moreover, the provisions
cited by the applicants said nothing about the exercise by
the Government of the prerogative in respect of
international affairs, including the making of treaties.
[100] The limits to the competence of the Assembly and
Executive found in the 1998 Act were simply a function of
the substantive content of EU at a given point in time as
given effect to by legislation. Triggering Article 50(2) had
no direct impact on this situation. Citizens in the United
Kingdom would continue to enjoy whatever rights
Parliament provided for from time to time, whether their
origin derived from the EU or another source.
[101] Moreover, there was nothing in any of the
agreements preceding the 1998 Act which involved any
guarantee of continued membership of the EC or which
stipulated any requirement about how leaving the EU, if
that became a policy goal, would be effected.
The Courts Assessment
[102] While the court has had opened to it a wide range
of provisions relating to the 1998 Act, and the agreements
which preceded it, the court cannot identify any particular
provision which expressly has sought to limit or alter the
prerogative power of the executive in the context of
notification under Article 50(2). In the courts view, Mr
Scoffields concession on this point is properly made.

[103] The issue therefore becomes, in accordance with

the test the court favours, whether the prerogative has
become unavailable by reason of any necessary
implication arising out of any the statutory provisions read
in the light of their status and background.
[104] There are two aspects to the courts consideration
which it believes have to be kept firmly in mind. First of all
there is the need to keep focus on the subject matter of
the prerogative power which is in question. This is the
power to notify for the purpose of withdrawal from the EU
in accordance with Article 50(2). Secondly, the alleged
displacing provisions have to be read in context. This is
important because the meaning of the provisions cannot
be divorced from their surroundings.
[105] In the present case, it seems to the court that
there is a distinction to be drawn between what occurs
upon the triggering of Article 50(2) and what may occur
thereafter. As the Attorney General for Northern Ireland
put it, the actual notification does not in itself alter the law
of the United Kingdom. Rather, it is the beginning of a
process which ultimately will probably lead to changes in
United Kingdom law. On the day after the notice has been
given, the law will in fact be the same as it was the day
before it was given. The rights of individual citizens will
not have changed though it is, of course, true that in due
course the body of EU law as it applies in the United
Kingdom will, very likely, become the subject of change.
But at the point when this occurs the process necessarily
will be one controlled by parliamentary legislation, as this
is the mechanism for changing the law in the United
Kingdom.
[106] At this point in the analysis the context of the
various statutory or other provisions must be considered.
In this connection, the court has difficulty in affording such
provisions any role concerned with displacing prerogative
power for the purpose here at issue. What the various
provisions here at issue are concerned with is not the
limitation of prerogative powers but the operation of the
new institutions in circumstances where an on-going

reality of life, in accordance with the then existing law,

was membership of the EU. The devolved institutions, to a
greater or lesser extent, within the area transferred to
them will be administering EU provisions and considering
the future development of EU law in relevant subject
areas. The same will be true of North/South and East/West
institutions and implementation bodies, again all within
the limits of their respective jurisdictions. It would be
strange if it were otherwise. This sort of activity is
consonant with the terms of the Good Friday Agreement
and the 1998 Act. The roles referred to in the Agreement
involve such matters as the input by Northern Ireland
Ministers to national policy making in the area of EU
issues; the consideration of the EU dimension in the
North/South Council; and approaches to EU issues in the
British/Irish Council (see paragraphs [32], [35] and [37]
supra). The same pattern emerges from a consideration
of relevant portions of the 1998 Act. The role of the
devolved institutions is in the area of observing and
implementing obligations under community law
(Schedule 2 paragraph (3)(c)); providing a means for
certain community law obligations to be given effect in
Northern Ireland (section 27(1) and (2)); and enabling
implementation bodies to carry out certain functions in
respect of community law initiatives. But it is a different
matter to portray the position as being one in which it is
accurate to say that a cornerstone of the new institutions,
without which the various edifices would crumble, is
continued membership of the EU. The devolved
institutions and the various North/South and East/West
bodies do not as their raison detre critically focus on EU
law. Their concerns and functions are much wider than
this. This is not to say that the United Kingdom leaving
the EU will not have effects at all but it is to say at the
least it is an over-statement to suggest, as the applicants
do, that a constitutional bulwark, central to the 1998 Act
arrangements, would be breached by notification. This
would be to elevate this issue over and beyond its true
contextual position.
[107] It is therefore, in the courts opinion, inapt for the
applicants to talk in terms of notification changing the

rights of individuals or of the operation of institutions

becoming transformed by reason of the invocation of
Article 50(2). This simply will not happen by reason of the
step of notification per se. The reality is, at this time, it
remains to be seen what actual effect the process of
change subsequent to notification will produce. In the
meantime, sections 6 and 24 of the 1998 Act will continue
to apply; the North/South and East/West institutions will
continue to operate; and the work of implementation
bodies will go on. While the wind of change may be about
to blow the precise direction in which it will blow cannot
yet be determined so there is a level of uncertainty, as is
evident from discussion about, for example, how Northern
Irelands land boundary with Ireland will be affected by
actual withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the EU.
[108] The court is not persuaded, for the purpose with
which this judicial review is concerned, prerogative power
has been chased from the field or that statutory power (in
the form of the 1998 Act) has displaced it in accordance
with the test described above. Rather, it is the courts
view the prerogative power is still operative and can be
used for the purpose of the executive giving notification
for the purpose of Article 50. This, however, is said
without prejudice to the issues which have been stayed
and which are under consideration in the English courts.
Issue 2
[109] As the court has held that the intended
respondents are entitled to proceed to notify under Article
50(2) using prerogative power and that an Act of
Parliament is legally unnecessary for this purpose, the
second issue, strictly, does not arise for consideration.
[110] However, the court will consider it, in case it is
wrong in its conclusions in respect of Issue 1 and an Act of
Parliament is required for pulling the Article 50 trigger.
[111] In respect of Issue 2, the case which is made on
behalf of the applicants in Agnew and others, where the
issue is pleaded (unlike in the case of McCord where it is
not pleaded but appears in this applicants skeleton

argument), is that in the event of an Act of Parliament

being required for Article 50(2) purposes, there is an
obligation on the intended respondents to seek and
receive the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly to
such legislation by obtaining from it the passage of a
Legislative Consent Motion authorising such legislation.
[112] It is argued by the applicants that the failure to
seek and procure such a consent would be in breach of a
constitutional convention whereby the consent of the
Northern Ireland Assembly will be obtained for
Westminster legislation affecting the devolved powers of
the Assembly (see paragraph 4(2)(b) of the Order 53
Statement in Agnew and others). The matter is explained
further at paragraph 46 et seq of the Agnew and others
skeleton argument. This reads:
As regards devolution, a constitutional convention has
evolved, and is now clearly established, whereby
Westminster legislates with regard to transferred matters
only with the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
This derives from two sources. The first source is the
practice which evolved between 1921 and 1970, in which
a constitutional convention to similar effect evolved at
Westminster vis a vis the Parliament of Northern Ireland
The second source is the practice that has evolved more
generally in the United Kingdom between Westminster and
the devolved legislatures, not only in Northern Ireland but
also in Scotland and Wales. Sometimes called the Sewel
Convention after the Scottish Office Minister in the House
of Lords who set out the terms of the convention during
the second reading debate on the Scotland Billthere are
also written commitments to this effect in, for instance,
the Memorandum of Understanding and Supplementary
Agreements between the United Kingdom Government,
the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the
Northern Ireland Executive Committeeparagraph 14 of
which states: the UK Government will proceed in
accordance with the convention that the UK Parliament
would not normally legislate with regards to devolved
matters except with the agreement of the devolved
legislature. The devolved administrations will be
responsible for seeking such agreement as may be

required for this purpose on an approach from the UK

Government.
[113] The approach of the intended respondents to Issue
2 has not been to deny the existence of a convention in
the terms described but to submit that it has no
application on the facts of this case. Moreover, and in any
event, they submit that such a convention is not legally
enforceable and is, in reality, a matter of politics not law.
[114] The crucial legal provision, they contend, is
section 5 (6) of the 1998 Act whose terms have been set
out earlier in this judgment. Under this provision the
Westminster Parliament is free to make laws for Northern
Ireland and this is unaffected by the onset of devolution
under the 1998 Act. In other words, it is contended that,
as a matter of law, the Parliament of the United Kingdom
can pass any law in relation to Northern Ireland and is
uninhibited by the need to obtain a Legislative Consent
Motion.
[115] In any event, the intended respondents say, any
Act of Parliament of the nature envisaged, to trigger
Article 50(2), does not fall within the terms of the
convention. This is because such an Act would constitute
legislation on an excepted matter for the purpose of the
scheme of devolution whereas the convention is about
obtaining the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly to
Westminster legislation which falls into the devolved
category.
[116] Finally, the intended respondents point out that
the terms of the convention clearly envisage that there
would be occasions where, notwithstanding the
convention, Parliament may choose to legislate for
Northern Ireland without seeking consent despite the fact
that the legislation may be in respect of a transferred
matter. The use of the word normally in the formulation
of the convention enables such to occur and any debate
about the propriety of such a step, it is submitted, should
be reserved to the world of political debate.
[117]

On this issue, the Attorney General for Northern

Ireland strongly supported the submissions of the intended

respondents. In his view the subject matter of any
legislation at Westminster to trigger Article 50(2) would be
an excepted matter for the purpose of the 1998 Act so
that the convention would not apply to it. The Attorney
General for Northern Ireland drew attention to
inconsistencies in the way in which the convention had
been stated in some of the publications in this area,
especially in respect of what constituted devolved
matters. In his submission, the correct view of the
conventions intersection with devolved powers was that
found at paragraph 14 of the Memorandum of
Understanding and Supplementary Agreements between
the United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Ministers,
the Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Executive.
The terms of this have already been referred to in the
quotation taken from the applicants skeleton argument in
Agnew and others as referred to above (see paragraph
[111] supra). This formulation, he noted, was also
consistent with the terms of the Sewel convention, a point
also relied on by the applicants, as the above quotation
shows. In fact the Sewel Convention, in the terms in which
it has been referred to above, has now been recognised by
statute law in Scotland: see section 2 of the Scotland Act
2016. In effect the test for the application of the
convention in Northern Ireland, the Attorney General for
Northern Ireland submitted, was whether the United
Kingdom Parliament was legislating for Northern Ireland
with regard to devolved matters. In the Attorney
General for Northern Irelands view there existed a linkage
between this expression and the legislative scheme of
devolution found in the 1998 Act. Hence when the scheme
of legislative competence was applied, any Act of
Parliament which had the object of giving notification for
the purpose of Article 50(2) would not be legislation with
regard to devolved matters. The alternative formulation
which the Attorney General for Northern Ireland did not
support but drew attention to was that found in two
documents from different sources: the first was Devolution
Guidance Note 8 and the second was Standing Order 42A
of the Northern Ireland Assemblys Standing Orders. In
both sources the terms of the convention appear to have

been widened to include legislation which dealt with

change to the legislative competence of the Assembly and
legislation which changed the executive functions of a
Minister or any Department. It was the Attorney Generals
view that the Assemblys Standing Order may have had its
textual origin in the Guidance Note which appears to have
been published before the latest version of the
Memorandum which4 is dated 2013. Interestingly when
the Guidance Note is studied it can be seen that in that
part of it referred to as General the narrower view of the
convention is referred to whereas the wider view appears
in a later section of it entitled Long Term legislative
plans. Another matter raised by the Attorney General
related to the terms in which the convention was written,
particularly the use of the word normally in the usual
formulation of the convention. This, in his opinion, was
significant and rendered the convention unenforceable in
practice. In this regard, he drew the courts attention to
how a similarly worded provision in the Ministerial Code
was interpreted by both the High Court and the Court of
Appeal in the Northern Ireland constitutional case of Re De
Bruns and anothers Application [2001] NIQB 3 (High
Court) and [2001] NI 442 (Court of Appeal). In that case,
at both levels, it was held that the use of the word
normally in the relevant formulation in the Code made it
clear that the normative step was not to be regarded as
obligatory.
[118] On the issue of the width of the convention the
Attorney General for Northern Ireland provided the court
with a note he had received from the Lord Advocate,
Scotlands senior law officer, in respect of his written
submission. This note took issue with the Attorney
General for Northern Irelands view of the scope of the
Legislative Consent convention in Scotland. From this
note it is clear that the Lord Advocates view of the
convention in Scotland is supportive of the wider
interpretation referred to above which he viewed as the
correct interpretation in line with provisions relating to
legislative competence in the Scotland Act; Devolution
Guidance Note 10 (which relates to Scotland); and the
Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament.

The Courts Assessment

[119] For the purpose of this judgment the court will
assume that a convention exists in Northern Ireland along
the lines of the narrower of the two views expressed
above. This is consistent with the passage quoted from
the skeleton argument of the applicants in Agnew and
others as set out above. It is also consistent with what
these applicants have described as the sources of the
convention. The first of these was said to be practice in
the operation of devolved government under the
Government of Ireland Act 1920. While the matter was
never free from difficulty, it was often said during that
period, which stretched to the early 1970s, there was in
operation a convention that Westminster would not
legislate for Northern Ireland within the transferred field
without the consent of the Government of Northern Ireland
(see, for example, Calvert, Constitutional Law in Northern
Ireland (1968) at pages 89 et seq and Hadfield, The
Constitution of Northern Ireland (1989) page 80 et seq).
The practice in question, however, did not go beyond that
just described. The second source referred to by the
applicants the Sewel convention was confined in a
similar way, as has already been referred to. Neither of
these sources can be associated with what has been
described above as the wider view, bringing into the scope
of the convention legislation for the purposes already
described. In these circumstances, the court would be
slow to presume the existence of an alleged convention
which has been broadened in the manner described, is
contested and does not reflect consistent practice and
usage. The main question for the court is whether that
convention which the court will assume does exist is in
play on the facts of this case.
[120] This requires the court to decide whether such
legislation as the United Kingdom Parliament may pass for
the purpose of giving notice under Article 50(2) comes
within the scope of the above convention, as it applies in
Northern Ireland. The appropriate test, having regard to
the position of the applicants and the intended
respondents and the Attorney General for Northern
Ireland, is whether the Westminster legislation at issue is

with regards to devolved matters.

[121] In the courts view, the answer to the above
question lies in a consideration of the scheme for the
distribution of legislative competence found in the 1998
Act. When this legislation is examined, it is the courts
view that applying Schedule 2 to the 1998 Act, the better
view is that any legislation for the purpose of notification
under Article 50(2) would be legislation relating to an
excepted matter i.e it would be legislation concerning
relations with the European Communities and their
institutions. It would not, in the courts view, be legislation
with regards to devolved matters, even if one was to
adopt a broad approach to the meaning of this phrase.
Accordingly, the convention has no application to the
scenario with which Issue 2 is concerned.
[122] Even if the court was wrong in its view above, the
court has great difficulty in seeing how this convention
could, in any event, be viewed as enforceable via legal
proceedings given its status as a convention, where such a
status is associated with unenforceability in a court of law,
the use of the word normally in the provision, the
essentially political nature of the decision which would
then be at issue, and the clear terms of section 5(6) of the
1998 Act. The situation may, of course, be different in
Scotland, a matter this court will leave for the Scottish
courts to decide.
Issue 3
[123] This issue arises in the context of how the
intended respondents should go about exercising
prerogative power for the purpose of notifying under
Article 50(2). It therefore assumes that the court will not
find in favour of the applicants on Issue 1.
[124] The theme of this ground is that the intended
respondents are obliged to exercise prerogative power in
accordance with the principles of public law.
[125] A number of particular grounds of challenge are
made. Firstly, it is claimed that the prerogative may only

be exercised in a way which is not inconsistent with

Northern Irelands unique constitutional place in the
United Kingdom. Secondly, it is asserted that the
prerogative may only be exercised after properly having
taken into account and having enquired into all relevant
alternatives to the entirety of the United Kingdom exiting
the EU. Thirdly, it is submitted that the prerogative may
lawfully be exercised only if the Government has not given
excessive weight to the result of the referendum held on
23 June 2016. Fourthly, it is put forward that the
prerogative must be exercised in a manner which upholds
EU law for so long as it remains effective in the United
Kingdom. Fifthly, it is claimed that the prerogative must
be exercised in a manner which respects obligations of the
United Kingdom such as those arising under the BritishIrish Agreement.
[126] The intended respondents have offered various
responses to the above grounds. They point to a level of
overlap between some of the matters raised and Issue 1.
Further, they allege that some of the grounds put forward
are really challenges to the decision to withdraw from the
EU rather than challenges which concern the mechanism
of Article 50(2), which is the focus of this judicial review
challenge. Some of the challenges made, it is also
contended, are in the abstract and are not based on
evidence. Finally, it is objected that the substance of the
challenge enters into forbidden territory and is not
justiciable.
The courts assessment
[127] It seems to the court that there is a substantial
area of overlap between some of the grounds put forward
under this issue and those which have been dealt with at
Issue 1 above. In this regard the matters referred to at
one and five in the list referred to above appear to
duplicate the argument at Issue 1 which the court has
already ruled on. But even if this wrong or if there is a
remainder left over, the court confesses to having some
difficulty in appreciating how grounds of the broad nature
of these grounds are to be assessed by it. Much of what
underlies the propositions which have been put forward

appear to the court to depend on assessments within

government which are wide ranging and multi-factoral and
beyond the abilities of the court to assess.
[128] For example, the second argument made refers to
the extent of the enquiries which it is alleged the
Government should carry out into possible alternatives to
withdrawal from the EU and how these should be taken
into account. The court has little or no evidence about
these matters. But even if it did have such evidence, it is
difficult to see how, given the context in which these
matters have arisen, the court would set about carrying
out its own assessment of them.
[129] Much the same can be said regarding allegations
about the weight to be given by the Government to the
referendum result. The obvious answer to the ground
referring to this issue is that the weight to be given to this
factor is a political judgment for the government of the
day and that on grounds of lack of expertise the court has
no standing in respect of it.
[130] The fourth issue raised above appears to assert an
abstract proposition without any evidential sub-stratum.
[131] The court has grave doubts about the justiciability
of much of the ground covered under this heading. While
the time has long gone when it could be said that the
manner in which prerogative power is used is beyond the
power of the court to inquire into, there still remain some
exercises of prerogative power which are viewed as
inappropriate for judicial review because of their subject
matter. The landmark judgment in Council of Civil Service
Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1984] 3 WLR 1174
says as much. A passage in the speech of Lord Roskill in
which he refers to a list of instances of the use of
prerogative power which could not be the subject of
judicial review should not be overlooked. He said:
Many examples were given during the argument of
prerogative powers which as at present advised I do not
think could properly be made the subject of judicial review.
Prerogative powers such as those relating to the making of

treaties, the defence of the realm, the prerogative of

mercy, the grant of honours, the dissolution of Parliament
and the appointment of ministers as well as others are
not, I think, susceptible to judicial review because their
nature and subject matter are such as not to be amenable
to the judicial process. The courts are not the place
wherein to determine whether a treaty should be
concluded or the armed forces disposed in a particular
manner or Parliament dissolved on one date rather than
another (see page 1203).
[132] This has been the approach to be taken on this
issue since CCSU. While there have been particular
prerogative powers which have since been held subject to
judicial review or particular contexts in which judicial
review of a particular aspect of the prerogative, for
example, in respect of foreign affairs, has occurred, a
reason for viewing a matter as non-justiciable has been
where high policy has been involved. In R v Secretary of
State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex p Everett
[1989] 1 AER 656, a case in which a prerogative power (to
issue passports) was viewed as being open to judicial
review, Taylor LJ nonetheless noted at page 660):
At the top of the scale of executive functions under the
prerogative are matters of high policymaking treaties,
making law, dissolving Parliament, mobilising the armed
forces. Clearly those matters, and no doubt a number of
others, are not justiciable.
[133] In the courts view, it is difficult to avoid the
conclusion that a decision concerning notification under
Article 50(2) made at the most senior level in United
Kingdom politics, giving notice of withdrawal from the EU
by the United Kingdom following a national referendum, is
other than one of high policy. Accordingly, it seems to fit
well into the category of prerogative decisions which
remain unsuitable for judicial review, referred to by Lord
Diplock, in CCSU:
Such decisions will generally involve the application of
government policy. The reasons for the decision maker
taking one course rather than another do not normally

involve questions to which, if disputed, the judicial process

is adapted to provide the right answer, by which I mean
that the kind of evidence that is admissible under judicial
procedures and the way in which it has to be adduced
tend to exclude from the attention of the court competing
policy considerations which, if the executive discretion is
to be wisely exercised, needs to be weighed against one
and other a balancing exercise which judges by their
upbringing and experience are ill-equipped to perform
(see [1984] 3 WLR at page 1027).
[134] For the reasons the court has already given, such
a decision does not lend itself to the process of judicial
review and remains an example of the sort of decision
which properly should be viewed as non-justiciable.
[135] In reaching this conclusion the court wishes to
indicate that it has considered cases such as Youssef v
Foreign Secretary [2016] 2 WLR 509, R (Sandiford) v
Foreign Secretary [2014] 1 WLR 2697 and R (Bancoult) v
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
[2009] 1 AC 453, but, in the courts estimation, none of
those cases reach the heights of the high level policy
which underpins the present case.
[136] In the light of the various factors set out above,
the court does not consider that any of the arguments
advanced under this issue are well made and it rejects
them as grounds of challenge.
Issue 4
[137] This is a discrete issue. In respect of it, the
applicants contend that before a notification is provided
under Article 50(2) a necessary preliminary step in the
process is that the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) must
comply with section 75 of the 1998 Act and its own
equality scheme.
[138] Section 75 provides, in its material part, as
follows:
(1) A public authority shall in carrying out its functions in

relation to Northern Ireland have due regard to the need to

promote equality of opportunity:
(a)
Between persons of different religious belief,
political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual
orientation;
(b)

Between men and women generally;

(c)
Between persons with a disability and persons
without; and
(d)
Between persons with dependants and persons
without.
(2) Without prejudice to its obligations under subsection
(1), a public authority shall in carrying out its functions
relating to Northern Ireland have regard to the desirability
of promoting good relations between persons of different
religious belief, political opinion or racial group.
[139] The detail of the argument is that the NIO is a
public authority for the purpose of the 1998 Act as
demonstrated by its inclusion in the Northern Ireland Act
1998 (Designation of Public Authorities) Order 2000 and
must, for the purpose of Schedule 9 of the 1998 Act
assess the impact on equality of opportunity of policies
adopted in the exercise of its functions. There is, it is said,
no statement from the NIO indicating that its obligations
have been taken into account in relation to any advice the
Secretary of State has given or might be minded to give in
the context of the triggering of Article 50(2). There is
therefore a prima facie case of breach of section 75 and of
the NIOs Equality Scheme in respect of consultation,
screening and the production of an equality impact
assessment.
[140] The intended respondents have sought to meet
this issue in a variety of ways.
[141] The following particular points were made as
alternatives to each other:
(i)

It was submitted that section 75 was not engaged

on the facts of this case. The means by which it is said to

enter the case is in respect of alleged advice given to Her
Majestys Government by the Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland, either in the past or to be given in the
future in relation to the subject of triggering Article 50(2).
However, the Secretary of State is not a designated public
authority for the purpose of section 75, a point clear from
the list of public authorities to which section 75 applies.
This has also been recognised by the courts as is shown
by the case of Re Murphys Application [2001] NI 425 at
435 where Kerr J (as he then was) stated:
Only those bodies and agencies specified in s75 (3) of the
Act are to be public bodies for the purpose of the section.
The fact that the Secretary of State was performing a
function that, in other circumstances, might have been
carried out by the Assembly, could not bring him within
the provision. In this context it is worthy of note that s76
(7) provides that a public authority shall include a Minister
of the Crown. If it had been intended that the Secretary of
State should be subject to section 75, that could have
readily been made clear, as it has been in s.76 (see page
435).
In these circumstances Parliament must be viewed as
having deliberately excluded the Secretary of State from
the reach of section 75.
(ii)
Consistently with (i) above, the NIO are not
involved in performing any duty in relation to Northern
Ireland which is relevant for present purposes. But even if
this was wrong, any complaint with regard to a failure to
act consistently with its own Equality Scheme should be
dealt with by means of the tailor-made provisions of
Schedule 9 to the 1998 Act (which refers to the subject of
Enforcement of Duties and from paragraph 10 deals with
complaints of a failure by a public authority to comply with
an approved equality scheme). This was the view which,
subject to exceptions, was taken by the Court of Appeal in
Northern Ireland in Re Neills Application [2006] NI 278:
see, paragraph [26] for the view of Girvan J (as he then
was) at first instance and paragraph [28] for the view of
Kerr LCJ (as he then was) speaking for the Court of Appeal.

Notably, he said:
It would be anomalous if a scrutinising process could be
undertaken parallel to that for which the [Equality]
Commission has the express statutory remit. We have
concluded that this was not the intention of Parliament.
The structure of the statutory provisions is instructive in
this context. The juxtaposition of ss75 and 76 with
contrasting enforcing mechanisms for the respective
obligations contained in those provisions strongly favour
the conclusion that Parliament intended that, in the main
at least, the consequence of a failure to comply with s.75
would be political, whereas the sanction of legal liability
would be appropriate to breaches of the duty contained in
s.76.
This is not a case, argue the intended respondents, where
the court should permit the complaint put forward by the
applicants to be litigated by way of judicial review.
(iii)
Another reason why this issue should be rejected
by the court is the stage at which this issue is being
raised, i.e. prior to notification of the intention to withdraw
from the EU. On this aspect, it was argued that the
Government is only at the outset of a process which has a
long way to go. At this stage the outcome of the process
is unclear with the consequence that there would not be
sufficient information on which to base any impact
assessment for the purpose of section 75. In short, no
sensible assessment could be made at this stage. Support
for rejecting a claim of this sort for this reason could, it
was submitted, be found in such cases as R (Nash) v
Barnet LBC (Capita plc and others, interested parties)
[2013] LGR 515 at [80]; R (Bailey) v Brent LBC [2012] LGR
530 at paragraph [104]; and R (Fawcett Society) v
Chancellor of the Exchequer [2010] EWHC 3522 Admin at
paragraph [15].
[142] In a short submission the Attorney General for
Northern Ireland supported the intended respondents
position. In his written submission he put the matter thus:
section 75 does not have any application with respect

to the giving of notification by the Prime Minister, by the

United Kingdom government collectively, or by the Foreign
Secretary. Secondly, section 75 does not have any
application with respect to the content of cabinet
discussions engaged in by the Secretary of State. Thirdly,
while section 75 applies to any policy that the Northern
Ireland Office would propose to adopt, it does not apply to
interim advice.

The courts assessment

[143] The court agrees with the submissions of the
intended respondents and the Attorney-General for
Northern Ireland and would reject the applicants
arguments on this issue.
[144] Its primary reason for doing so is that it seems to
the court that the nature of the impugned decision viz the
notification of an intention on the part of the United
Kingdom as a Member State of the EU to withdraw from it
cannot properly be regarded as the carrying out a function
relating to Northern Ireland. In contrast, it seems to the
court that the function being carried out is a function
relating to the United Kingdom in its capacity as a Member
State of the European Union. It is a function being carried
out by the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for
Exiting the European Union or, perhaps, the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, and is not a function being
carried out by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
or by the Northern Ireland Office. Consequently, in the
courts view, section 75 has no purchase on this issue and
is not engaged.
[145] If the court is wrong about this issue and section
75 is engaged on the facts of this case, the court is of the
view that the claim now being advanced of breach of
section 75 is premature. This is because the point at
which consultation, screening and impact assessment may
be viewed as being required is yet to occur. There is

strength in the intended respondents point that the

invocation of Article 50(2) represents the start of a lengthy
process which lies ahead and that it would be much too
early to seek to subject the process to the sort of analysis
referred to. The simple fact is that the effects which would
have to be considered are far from clear at this stage.
[146] While the court need not decide the point, given
the conclusions it has already reached, it would be minded
to adopt the posture taken by the Court of Appeal in Neill,
which would mean that if this argument is to be addressed
the forum in which it should be addressed is by the use of
the procedure set out in Schedule 9 of the Northern
Ireland Act 1998. Recent cases on this issue in this court
have followed the general approach of the Court of Appeal
in the Neill case: see Re BMAs Application [2012] NIQB 90
and Re McCotters Application [2014] NIQB 7.
Issue 5
[147] This issue arises from an amended amended Order
53 Statement in the McCord case and involves
submissions which go considerably wider than those
already discussed. Expressly it is contended that as a
matter of law Article 50 cannot be triggered without the
consent of the people of Northern Ireland. This, it is
asserted, is because the Northern Ireland people are said
to have a legitimate expectation that there would be no
change in the constitution of Northern Ireland without their
consent. Withdrawal from the EU would, the argument
contends, be such a change.
[148] Mr Lavery QC for Mr McCord submitted that the
requirement for the consent of the people of Northern
Ireland derived from the terms of the Good Friday
Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and that
these sources attenuated the operation of the doctrine of
parliamentary sovereignty.
[149] In support of this argument reference was made to
authorities which recognise the importance of the Good
Friday Agreement and the 1998 Act such as Robinson
which is referred to above at paragraph [43]. Such

authorities should be interpreted as introducing a federal

structure governing the relationship between the
constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Attention was
also drawn to a number of statements from senior Judges
in the United Kingdom which cast doubt on the authority
of the traditional view of parliamentary sovereignty. Such
opinions had been expressed both in court (see, for
example, the views of Lord Steyn and Lord Hope in R
(Jackson and others) v Attorney General [2005] 1 AC 262
at paragraphs [100][112] and [104][107]) and out of
court (see, for example, Lady Hale, The Supreme Court in
the Constitution, Legal Wales 2012). In addition, reference
was made to a number of academic articles and to a
number of Canadian constitutional cases. In the former
category, the court read with interest the work of Mark
Elliot entitled The Principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty
in Legal, Constitutional and Political Perspective, which is
found at Chapter 2 of The Changing Constitution, 8th
Edition edited by Jowell, Oliver and OCinneide. In the
latter category, the court considered three Canadian
constitutional cases: Reference Re Secession of Quebec
[1998] 2 R.C. 217; Reference Re Senate Reform [2014] 1
S.C.R. 704 and Reference Re Supreme Court Act [2014] I.
S. C. R. 433.
[150] The intended respondents urged the court to
reject Mr Laverys submissions which, it was claimed, went
well beyond the immediate issue of the legal underpinning
for notification pursuant to Article 50(2).
[151]

The following specific submissions were made:

(a)
The status of Northern Ireland which formed the
subject matter of provision in the Good Friday Agreement
and the later section 1 of the 1998 Act was concerned with
the question only of whether Northern Ireland was either
to remain in the United Kingdom or join a united Ireland.
This is express in the relevant passages. There was, in
contrast, no reference anywhere to the need for the
consent of the people of Northern Ireland to any particular
change in the arrangements for government. Nor could
any such restriction be implied.

(b)
The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament
was preserved in the new constitutional arrangements for
Northern Ireland, as is clear from the terms of section 5 (6)
of the 1998 Act. It followed that there was no legal
impediment of the sort contended for to the ability of the
United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union.
(c)
No domestic authority had been cited by the
applicant to support the contention that it is now the case
that the consent of the people of Northern Ireland was
required for the purpose of withdrawing from the EU. The
constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom
Parliament and a devolved area had recently been the
subject of extensive discussion by the Supreme Court in
the case of Axa General Insurance Ltd and others v HM
Advocate and others [2012] 1 AC 868 and there had been
no suggestion that the devolved arrangements entailed
any such requirement or had the effect of limiting the
power of the United Kingdom legislature.
(d)
In the face of the existing and well recognised
constitutional provisions in respect of devolution there was
an absence of material which could establish a legitimate
expectation of the sort now contended for.
(e)
The doctrine of legitimate expectation was not
appropriate, in any event, to a situation where what was
being alleged was a commitment or promise to the
population or a section of the population at large. A
statement at a macro-level, especially in the realm of
politics, was not enforceable by the court: see, for
examples, the judgment of Richards LJ in R (Wheeler) v
Office of the Prime Minister and another [2008] EWHC
1409 (Admin) at paragraph [44] and R v Secretary of State
for Education and Employment [2000] 1 WLR 1115 per
Laws LJ at pages 1130-113.
(f)
There could be no basis for suggesting the
Government does not remain committed to the peace
process.
The courts assessment

[152] The court is not aware of any specific provision in

the Good Friday Agreement or in the 1998 Act which
confirms the existence of the limitation which the
applicant contends for and which establishes a norm that
any change to the constitutional arrangements for the
government of Northern Ireland and, in particular,
withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the EU, can only
be effected with the consent of the people of Northern
Ireland. Nor can the court identify material which would
cause it to imply any such limitation. This is not, in the
courts estimation, surprising as if such a limitation exists,
it would be reasonable to have expected this to have been
highlighted in the run up to the referendum held in June of
this year. The proposition for which the applicant
contends would, it seems, have the most unusual result of
requiring a second referendum on the issue of EU
membership to be held in Northern Ireland within a short
time of the people of Northern Ireland having gone to the
polls in respect of the same issue in a national referendum
where the national outcome was in favour of withdrawal.
[153] While it is correct that section 1 of the 1998 Act
does deal with the question of the constitutional status of
Northern Ireland it is of no benefit to the applicant in
respect of the question now under consideration as it is
clear that this section (and the relevant portion of the
Good Friday Agreement) is considering the issue only in
the particular context of whether Northern Ireland should
remain as part of the United Kingdom or unite with Ireland.
The very fact that the issue is dealt with in this way, it
seems to the court, makes it unlikely that the applicants
wider view as to the meaning of these provisions can be
correct.
[154] It further seems to the court that in this area it is
difficult to see how the court can overlook the importance
of the terms in which the 1998 Act are cast or to deviate
from what to date has been plain, namely that the United
Kingdom Parliament has retained to itself the ability to
legislate for Northern Ireland (see section 5(6)) without the
need to resort to any special procedure, save in so far as
that might be required for the purpose of section 1 of the
1998 Act (a matter about which the court need not dilate

upon).
[155] In the courts view, any suggestion that a
legitimate expectation can overwhelm the structure of the
legislative scheme is not viable.
[156] The court acknowledges that on the issue of the
doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty (in the Diceyan
sense that Parliament can make or unmake any law
whatsoever and that no-one can override or set aside the
legislation of Parliament) there are differing views about
the extent to which the doctrine may be reconciled with,
in particular, the rule of law, but this does not mean that a
first level judge is free to disregard the doctrine or sweep
it away. If that task is to be undertaken it will fall to the
highest court to do so in an appropriate case, as Lord
Steyn in Jackson recognised. Finally, while the academic
writings and Canadian cases demonstrated that there was
no lack of possible approaches to constitutional
development this, in itself, is not a reason why
constitutional orthodoxy must be set aside.
[157] Essentially, for the reasons advanced by the
intended respondents the court rejects the applicants
submissions in this area.
Conclusion
[158] As the hearing has been a rolled up hearing the
court indicates that in respect of Issues 1, 2, 3 and 4 it is
prepared to grant leave but not in respect of Issue 5. In
respect of all issues the court dismisses the applications.
http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial
%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2016/%5B2016%5D
%20NIQB%2085/j_j_MAG10076Final.htm

OSCOLA and the supplement for citing international materials, which

you will need to consult in conjunction with OSCOLA Ireland, from the
Oxford Law
http://legalcitation.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/OSCOLA-Ireland2016.pdf

CONSTITUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF EAST

TIMOR

PART I
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
Section 1
(The Republic)
1.
The Democratic Republic of East Timor is a
democratic, sovereign, independent and unitary State
based on the rule of law, the will of the people and the
respect for the dignity of the human person.
2.
November 28th 1975 is the Day of Proclamation of
Independence of the Democratic Republic of East Timor.
Section 2
(Sovereignty and constitutionality)
1.
Sovereignty rests with the people, who shall exercise
it in the manner and form laid down in the Constitution.
2.
The State shall be subject to the Constitution and to
the law.
3.
The validity of the laws and other actions of the State
depend upon their compliance with the Constitution.
4.
The State shall recognise customary laws of East
Timor, subject to the Constitution and to any legislation
dealing specifically with customary law.
Section 3
(Citizenship)
1.
There shall be original citizenship and acquired
citizenship in the Democratic Republic of East Timor.
2.
The following citizens shall be considered original
citizens of East Timor, as long as they are born in the
national territory:

a)

Children of parents born in East Timor;

b)

Children of a father or mother born in East Timor;

c)
Children of incognito parents, stateless parents or
parents of unknown nationality;
d)
Children of a foreign father or mother who, being
over seventeen years old, declare their will to become
East Timorese nationals.
3.
The following citizens shall be considered original
citizens of East Timor, even if they are born in a foreign
country:
a)
Children of an East Timorese father or mother living
overseas;
b)
Children of an East Timorese father or mother serving
the State outside the country;
4.
Acquisition, loss and reacquisition of citizenship, as
well as its registration and proof, shall be regulated by law.
Section 4
(Territory)
1.
The territory of the Democratic Republic of East
Timor comprises the land surface, the maritime zone and
the air space demarcated by the national boundaries that
historically comprise the eastern part of Timor Island, the
enclave of Oecussi, the island of Ataro and the islet of
Jaco.
2.
The extent and limits of territorial waters and the
exclusive economic zone, and the rights of East Timor to
the adjacent seabed and continental shelf shall be laid
down in the law.
3.
The State shall not alienate any part of the East
Timorese territory or the rights of sovereignty over the

land, without prejudice to rectification of borders.

Section 5
(Decentralisation)
1.
On matters of territorial organisation, the State shall
respect the principle of decentralisation of public
administration.
2.
The law shall determine and establish the
characteristics of the different territorial levels and the
administrative competencies of the respective organs.
3.
Oecussi Ambeno and Ataro shall enjoy special
administrative and economic treatment.
Section 6
(Objectives of the State)
The fundamental objectives of the State shall be:
a)
To defend and guarantee the sovereignty of the
country;
b)
To guarantee and promote fundamental rights and
freedoms of the citizens and the respect for the principles
of the democratic State based on the rule of law;
c)
To defend and guarantee political democracy and
participation of the people in the resolution of national
problems;
d)
To guarantee the development of the economy and
the progress of science and technology;
e)
To promote the building of a society based on social
justice, by establishing material and spiritual welfare of
the citizens;
f)
To protect the environment and to preserve natural
resources;

g)
To assert and value the personality and the cultural
heritage of the East Timorese people;
h)
To promote the establishment and the development
of relations of friendship and co-operation among all
Peoples and States;
i)
To promote the harmonious and integrated
development of the sectors and regions and the fair
distribution of the national product;
j)
To promote an effective equality of opportunities
between women and men.
Section 7
(Universal Suffrage and multi-party system)
1.
The people shall exercise the political power through
universal, free, equal, direct, secret and periodic suffrage
and through other forms laid down in the Constitution.
2.
The State shall value the contribution of political
parties for the organised expression of the popular will and
for the democratic participation of the citizen in the
governance of the country.
Section 8
(International Relations)
1.
On matters of international relations, the Democratic
Republic of East Timor shall govern itself by the principles
of national independence, the right of the Peoples to selfdetermination and independence, the protection of human
rights, the mutual respect for sovereignty, territorial
integrity and equality among States and the noninterference in domestic affairs of other States.
2.
The Democratic Republic of East Timor shall establish
relations of friendship and co-operation with all other
peoples, aiming at the peaceful settlement of conflicts, the
general, simultaneous and controlled disarmament, the

establishment of a system of collective security and

establishment of a new international economic order
capable of ensuring peace and justice in the relations
among peoples.
3.
The Democratic Republic of East Timor shall maintain
privileged ties with the countries whose official language
is Portuguese.
4.
The Democratic Republic of East Timor shall maintain
special ties of friendship and co-operation with its
neighbouring countries and the countries of the region.
Section 9
(International law)
1.
The legal system of East Timor shall adopt the
general or customary principles of international law.
2.
Rules provided for in international conventions,
treaties and agreements shall apply in the internal legal
system of East Timor following their approval, ratification
or accession by the respective competent organs and after
publication in the official gazette.
3.
All rules that are contrary to the provisions of
international conventions, treaties and agreements
applied in the internal legal system of East Timor shall be
invalid.
Section 10
(Solidarity)
1.
The Democratic Republic of East Timor shall extend
its solidarity to the struggle of the peoples for national
liberation.
2.
The Democratic Republic of East Timor shall grant
political asylum, in accordance with the law, to foreigners
persecuted as a result of their struggle for national and
social liberation, defence of human rights, democracy and
peace.

Section 11
(Valorisation of Resistance)
1.
The Democratic Republic of East Timor acknowledges
and values the secular resistance of the Maubere People
against foreign domination and the contribution of all
those who fought for national independence.
2.
The State acknowledges and values the participation
of the Church in the process of national liberation of East
Timor.
3.
The State shall ensure special protection to wardisabled, orphans and other dependants of those who
dedicated their lives to the struggle for independence and
national sovereignty, and shall protect all those who
participated in the resistance against the foreign
occupation, in accordance with the law.
4.
The law shall define the mechanisms for rendering
tribute to the national heroes.
Section 12
(Relationship between the State and religious
denominations)
1.

There shall be no official religion of the State.

2.
The State shall respect the different religious
denominations, which are free in their organisation and in
the exercise of their own activities, to take place in due
observance of the Constitution and the law.
3.
The State shall promote the cooperation with the
different religious denominations that contribute to the
well-being of the people of East Timor.
4.
The religious denominations have the right to
possess and to acquire assets for the achievement of their
objectives.

Section 13
(Official languages and national languages)
1.
Tetum and Portuguese shall be the official languages
in the Democratic Republic of East Timor.
2.
Tetum and the other national languages should be
valued and developed by the State.
Section 14
(National symbols)
1.
The national symbols of the Democratic Republic of
East Timor shall be the flag, the emblem and the national
anthem.
2.
The emblem and the national anthem shall be
approved by law.
Section 15
(National Flag)
1.
The National Flag is rectangular and is formed by two
isosceles triangles, the bases of which are overlapping.
One triangle is black and its height is equal to one-third of
the length overlapped to the yellow triangle, whose height
is equal to half the length of the Flag. In the centre of the
black triangle there is a white star of five ends, meaning
the light that guides. The white star has one of its ends
turned towards the upper right end of the flag. The
remaining part of the flag is purple-red.
2.

The colours mean:

Golden-yellow the wealth of the country;

Black the obscurantism that needs to be overcome;
Purple-red the struggle for national liberation;
White peace.
PART II

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, DUTIES, FREEDOMS AND

GUARANTEES
TITLE I
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Section 16
(Universality and Equality)
1.
All citizens are equal before the law, shall exercise
the same rights and shall be subject to the same duties.
2.
No one shall be discriminated against on grounds of
colour, race, marital status, gender, ethnical origin, social
or economic status, political or ideological convictions,
religion, education and physical or mental condition.
Section 17
(Equality between women and men)
Women and men shall have the same rights and duties in
all areas of political, economic, social, cultural and family
life.
Section 18
Child protection
1.
Children shall be entitled to special protection by the
family, the community and the State, particularly against
all forms of abandonment, discrimination, violence,
oppression, sexual abuse and exploitation.
2.
Children shall enjoy all rights that are universally
recognised, as well as all those that are enshrined in
international conventions normally ratified or approved by
the State.
3.
Every child born in or outside the wedlock shall enjoy
the same rights and social protection.

Section 19
(Youth)
1.
The State shall promote and encourage youth
initiatives towards the consolidation of national unity,
reconstruction, defence and development of the country.
2.
The State shall promote education, health and
vocational training for the youth as may be practicable.
Section 20
(Old Age)
1.
Every old age citizen has the right to special
protection by the State.
2.
The old age policy entails measures of economic,
social and cultural nature designed to provide the elderly
with opportunities for personal achievement through
active and
signifying participation in the community.
Section 21
(Disabled citizen)
1.
A disabled citizen shall enjoy the same rights and
shall be subject to the same duties as all other citizens,
except for the rights and duties which he or she is unable
to exercise or fulfil due to his or her disability.
3.
The State shall promote the protection of disabled
citizens as may be practicable and in accordance with the
law.
Section 22
(East Timorese citizens overseas)
East Timorese citizens who are or live overseas shall enjoy
protection by the State for the exercise of their rights and
shall be subject to duties not incompatible with their
absence from the country.

Section 23
(Interpretation of fundamental rights)
Fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution shall not
exclude any other rights provided for by the law and shall
be interpreted in accordance with the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
Section 24
(Restrictive laws)
1.
Restriction of rights, freedoms and guarantees can
only be imposed by law in order to safeguard other
constitutionally protected rights or interests and in cases
clearly provided for by the Constitution.
2.
Laws restricting rights, freedoms and guarantees
have necessarily a general and abstract nature and may
not reduce the extent and scope of the essential contents
of constitutional provisions and shall not have a
retroactive effect.
Section 25
(State of exception)
1.
Suspension of the exercise of fundamental rights,
freedoms and guarantees shall only take place if a state of
siege or a state of emergency has been declared as
provided for by the Constitution.
2.
A state of siege or a state of emergency shall only be
declared in case of effective or impending aggression by a
foreign force, of serious disturbance or threat of serious
disturbance to the democratic constitutional order, or of
public disaster.
3.
A declaration of a state of siege or a state of
emergency shall be substantiated, specifying rights,
freedoms and guarantees the exercise of which is to be
suspended.

4.
A suspension shall not last for more than thirty days,
without prejudice of possible justified renewal, when
strictly necessary, for equal periods of time.
5.
In no case shall a declaration of a state of siege
affect the right to life, physical integrity, citizenship, nonretroactivity of the criminal law, defence in a criminal case
and freedom of conscience and religion.
6.
Authorities shall restore constitutional normality as
soon as possible.
Section 26
(Access to courts)
1.
Access to courts is guaranteed to all for the defence
of their legally protected rights and interests.
2.
Justice shall not be denied for insufficient economic
means.
Section 27
(Ombudsman)
1.
The Ombudsman shall be an independent organ in
charge to examine and seek to satisfy citizens complaints
against public bodies, certify the conformity of the acts
with the law, prevent and initiate whole process to remedy
injustice.
2.
Citizens may present complaints concerning acts or
omissions on the part of public bodies to the Ombudsman,
who shall undertake a review, without power of decision,
and shall forward recommendations to the competent
organs as deemed necessary.
3.
The Ombudsman shall be appointed by the National
Parliament through absolute majority votes of its members
for a term of office of four years.
4.
The activity the Ombudsman shall be independent
from any means of grace and legal remedies as laid down

in the Constitution and the law.

5.
Administrative organs and public servants shall have
the duty to collaborate with the Ombudsman.
Section 28
(Right to resistance and self-defence)
1.
Every citizen has the right to disobey and to resist
illegal orders or orders that affect their fundamental
rights, freedoms and guarantees.
2.
The right to self-defence is guaranteed to all, in
accordance with the law.
TITLE II
PERSONAL RIGHTS, FREEDOMS AND GUARANTEES
Section 29
(Right to life)
1.

Human life is inviolable.

2.
The State shall recognise and guarantee the right to
life.
3.
There shall be no death penalty in the Democratic
Republic of East Timor.
Section 30
(Right to personal freedom, security and integrity)
1.
Every one has the right to personal freedom, security
and integrity.
2.
No one shall be arrested or detained, except under
the terms clearly provided for by applicable law, and the
order of arrest or detention should always be presented
for consideration by the competent judge within the legal
timeframe.

3.
Every individual who loses his or her freedom shall be
immediately informed, in a clear and precise manner, of
the reasons for his or her arrest or detention as well as of
his or her rights, and allowed to contact a lawyer, directly
or through a relative or a trusted person.
4.
No one shall be subjected to torture and cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment.
Section 31
(Application of criminal law)
1.
No one shall be subjected to trial, except in
accordance with the law.
2.
No one shall be tried and convicted for an act that
does not qualify in the law as a criminal offence at the
moment it was committed, nor endure security measures
the provisions of which are not clearly established in
previous law.
3.
Penalties or security measures not clearly provided
for by law at the moment the criminal offence was
committed shall not be enforced.
4.
No one shall be tried and convicted for the same
criminal offence more than once.
5.
Criminal law shall not be enforced retroactively,
except if the new law is in favour of the accused.
6.
Anyone who has been unjustly convicted has the
right to a fair compensation in accordance with the law.
Section 32
(Limits on sentences and security measures)
1.
There shall be no life imprisonment nor sentences or
security measures lasting for unlimited or indefinite period
of time in the Democratic Republic of East Timor.
2.

In case of danger as a result of mental illness,

security measures may be successively extended by

judicial decision.
3.

Criminal liability is not transmissible.

4.
Persons who are subjected, on conviction, to a
sentence or a security measure involving loss of freedom
remain entitled to their fundamental rights, subject to the
limitations that necessarily derive from that conviction and
from the requirements for its enforcement.
Section 33
(Habeas corpus)
1.
Everyone who illegally loses his or her freedom has
the right to apply for habeas corpus.
2.
An application for habeas corpus shall be made by
the detainee or by any other person in the exercise of his
or her civil rights, in accordance with the law.
3.
The court shall rule on the application for habeas
corpus within 8 days at a hearing in the presence of both
parties.
Section 34
(Guarantees in criminal proceedings)
1.
Everyone charged with an offence is presumed
innocent until convicted.
2.
An accused person has the right to select, and be
assisted by, a lawyer at all stages of the proceedings and
the law shall determine the circumstances for which the
presence of the lawyer is mandatory.
3.
Every individual is guaranteed the inviolable right of
hearing and defence in criminal proceedings.
4.
Evidence is of no effect if obtained by torture,
coercion, infringement of the physical or moral integrity of
the individual, or wrongful interference with private life,

the home, correspondence or other forms of

communication.
Section 35
(Extradition and expulsion)
1.
Extradition shall only take place following a court
decision.
2.

Extradition on political grounds is prohibited.

3.
Extradition in respect of offences punishable, under
the law of the requesting State, by death penalty or life
imprisonment or whenever there are grounds to assume
that the person to be extradited may be subjected to
torture and inhuman, degrading and cruel treatment, shall
not be permitted.
4.
An East Timorese national shall not be expelled or
expatriated from the national territory.
Section 36
(Right to honour and privacy)
Every individual has the right to honour, good record
and reputation, protection of his or her public image and
privacy of his or her personal and family life.
Section 37
(Inviolability of home and correspondence)
1.
Any person's home and the privacy of his or her
correspondence and other means of private
communication are inviolable, except in cases provided for
by law as a result of criminal proceedings.
2.
A person's home shall not be entered against his or
her will, except under the written order of a competent
judicial authority and in the cases and manner prescribed
by law.
3.

Entry into any person's home at night against his or

her will is clearly prohibited, except in case of serious

threat to life or physical integrity of somebody inside the
home.
Section 38
(Protection of personal data)
1.
Every citizen has the right to access personal data
stored in a computer system or entered into mechanical or
manual records regarding him or her, and he or she may
require correction and up-date thereof and has the right to
know their purpose.
2.
The law shall determine the concept of personal data,
as well as the conditions applicable to the processing
thereof.
3.
The processing of personal data on private life,
political and philosophical convictions, religious faith,
party or trade union membership and ethnical origin,
without the consent of the interested person, is prohibited.
Section 39
(Family, marriage and maternity)
1.
The State shall protect the family as the societys
basic unit and a condition for the harmonious
development of the individual.
2.
Every one has the right to establish and live in a
family.
3.
Marriage shall be based upon free consent by the
parties and on terms of full equality of rights between
spouses, in accordance with the law.
4.
Maternity shall be dignified and protected, and
special protection shall be guaranteed to all women during
pregnancy and after delivery and working women shall
have the right to be exempted from the workplace for an
adequate period before and after delivery, without loss of
remuneration or any other benefits, in accordance with

the law.
Section 40
(Freedom of speech and information)
1.
Every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and
the right to inform and be informed impartially.
2.
The exercise of freedom of speech and information
shall not be limited by any sort of censorship.
3.
The exercise of rights and freedoms referred to in this
Section shall be regulated by law based on the imperative
of respect for the Constitution and the dignity of the
human person.
Section 41
(Freedom of the press and mass media)
1.
Freedom of the press and other mass media is
guaranteed.
2.
Freedom of the press shall comprise, namely, the
freedom of speech and creativity for journalists, the
access to information sources, editorial freedom,
protection of independence and professional
confidentiality, and the right to create newspapers,
publications and other means of broadcasting.
3.

The monopoly on the mass media shall be prohibited.

4.
The State shall guarantee the freedom and
independence of the public mass media from political and
economic powers.
5.
The State shall guarantee the existence of a public
radio and television service that is impartial in order to,
inter-alia, protect and disseminate the culture and the
traditional values of the Democratic Republic of East Timor
and guarantee opportunities for the expression of different
lines of opinion.

6.
Radio and television stations shall operate only under
a licence, in accordance with the law.
Section 42
(Freedom to assemble and demonstrate)
1.
Every citizen is guaranteed the freedom to assemble
peacefully and unarmed, without a need for prior
authorisation.
2.
Everyone is recognised the right to demonstrate in
accordance with the law.
Section 43
(Freedom of association)
1.
Every citizen shall enjoy freedom of association
provided that the association is not intended to promote
violence and is in accordance with the law.
2.
No one shall be compelled to join an association or to
remain in it against his or her will.
3.
The establishment of armed, military or paramilitary
associations, including organisations of a racist or
xenophobic nature or that promote terrorism, shall be
prohibited.
Section 44
(Freedom of movement)
1.
Every citizen has the right to move freely and to
settle anywhere in the national territory.
2.
Every citizen is guaranteed the right to emigrate
freely and to return to the country.
Section 45
(Freedom of conscience, religion and worship)
1.
Every person is guaranteed the freedom of
conscience, religion and worship and the religious
denominations are separated from the State.

2.
No one shall be persecuted or discriminated against
on the basis of his or her religious convictions.
3.
The right to be a conscientious objector shall be
guaranteed in accordance with the law.
4.
Freedom to teach any religion in the framework of
the respective religious denomination is guaranteed.
Section 46
(Right to political participation)
1.
Every citizen has the right to participate in the
political life and in the public affairs of the country, either
directly or through democratically elected representatives.
2.
Every citizen has the right to establish and to
participate in political parties.
3.
The State shall value the contribution of the political
parties to the organised expression of the will of the
people and to the democratic participation of the citizen in
the governance of the country.
4.
The establishment and organisation of political
parties shall be regulated by law.
Section 47
(Right to vote)
1.
Every citizen over the age of seventeen has the right
to vote and to be elected.
2.
The exercise of the right to vote is personal and
constitutes a civic duty.
Section 48
(Right to petition)
Every citizen has the right to submit, individually or jointly
with others, petitions, complaints and claims to organs of

sovereignty or any authority for the purpose of defending

his or her rights, the Constitution, the law or general
interests.
Section 49
(Defence of Sovereignty)
1.
Every citizen has the right and the duty to contribute
towards the defence of independence, sovereignty and
territorial integrity of the country.
2.
Serving in the army shall take place in accordance
with the law.
TITLE III
ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES
Section 50
(Right to work)
1.
Every citizen, regardless of gender, has the right and
the duty to work and to choose freely his or her
profession.
2.
The worker has the right to labour safety and
hygiene, remuneration, rest and vacation.
3.
Dismissal without just cause or on political, religious
and ideological grounds is prohibited.
4.
Compulsory work, without prejudice to the cases
provided for under penal legislation, is prohibited.
5.
The State shall promote the establishment of cooperatives of production and shall lend support to
household businesses as sources of employment.
Section 51
(Right to strike and prohibition of lock-out)

1.
Every worker has the right to resort to strike, the
exercise of which shall be regulated by law.
2.
The law shall determine the conditions under which
services are provided, during a strike, that are necessary
for the safety and maintenance of equipment and
facilities, as well as minimum services that are necessary
to meet essential social needs.
3.

Lock-out is prohibited.

Section 52
(Trade union freedom)
1.
Every worker has the right to form or join trade
unions and professional associations in defence of his or
her rights and interests.
2.
Trade union freedom is sub-divided, namely, into
freedom of establishment, freedom of membership and
freedom of organisation and internal regulation.
3.
Trade unions and trade union associations shall be
independent of the State and the employers.
Section 53
(Consumer rights)
1.
Consumers have the right to goods and services of
good quality, to truthful information and protection of their
health, safety and economic interests, and to reparation
for damages.
2.
Advertising shall be regulated by law, and all forms of
concealed, indirect or misleading advertising are
prohibited.
Section 54
(Right to private property)
1.
Every individual has the right to private property and
can transfer it during his or her lifetime or on death, in

accordance with the law.

2.
Private property should not be used to the detriment
of its social purpose.
3.
Requisitioning and expropriation of property for
public purposes shall only take place following
compensation in accordance with the law.
4.
Only national citizens have the right to ownership of
land.
Section 55
(Obligations of the Taxpayer)
Every citizen with a certified income has the duty to pay
tax in order to contribute to public revenues.
Section 56
(Social security and assistance)
1.
Every citizen is entitled to social assistance and
security in accordance with the law.
2.
The State shall promote, in accordance with its
national resources, the establishment of a social security
system.
3.
The State shall support and supervise the activity
and functioning of institutions of social solidarity and other
non-profit institutions of recognised public interest, in
accordance with the law.
Section 57
(Health)
1.
The State shall recognise the right of every citizen to
health and medical care.
2.
The State shall promote the establishment of a
national health service that is universal and general. The
national health service shall be free of charge in

accordance with the possibilities of the State and in

conformity with the law.
3.
The national health service shall have, as much as
possible, a decentralised participatory management.
Section 58
(Housing)
Everyone has the right to a house, both for himself or
herself and for his or her family, of adequate size that
meets satisfactory standards of hygiene and comfort and
preserves personal intimacy and family privacy.
Section 59
(Education and culture)
1.
The State shall recognise and guarantee that every
citizen has the right to education and culture, and it is
incumbent upon it to promote the establishment of a
public system of universal and compulsory basic education
that is free of charge in accordance with its possibilities
and in conformity with the law.
2.
Everyone has the right to equal opportunities for
education and vocational training.
3.
The State shall recognise and supervise private and
co-operative education.
4.
The State should ensure the access of every citizen,
in accordance to their abilities, to the highest levels of
education, scientific research and artistic creativity.
5.
Everyone has the right to cultural enjoyment and
creativity and the duty to preserve, protect and value
cultural heritage.
Section 60
(Intellectual Property)
The State shall guarantee and protect the creation,

production and commercialisation of literary, scientific and

artistic work, including the legal protection of copyrights.
Section 61
(Environment)
1.
Everyone has the right to a humane, healthy, and
ecologically balanced environment and the duty to protect
it and improve it for the benefit of the future generations.
2.
The State shall recognise the need to preserve and
rationalise natural resources.
3.
The State should promote, in accordance with its
capacities, actions aimed at protecting the environment
and safeguarding the sustainable development of the
economy.
PART III
ORGANIZATION OF POLITICAL POWER
TITLE I
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Section 62
(Source and exercise of political power)
Political power belongs to the people and is exercised in
accordance with the terms of the Constitution.
Section 63
(Participation by citizens in political life)
1.
Direct and active participation by men and women in
political life is a requirement of, and a fundamental
instrument for consolidating, the democratic system.
2.
The law shall promote equality in the exercise of civil
and political rights and non-discrimination on the basis of
gender for access to political positions.

Section 64
(Principle of Renewal)
No one shall hold any political office for life, or for
indefinite periods of time.
Section 65
(Elections)
1.
Elected organs of sovereignty and of local
government shall be chosen by free, direct, secret,
personal and regular universal suffrage.
2.
Registration of voters shall be compulsory and
officially initiated, single and universal, to be up-dated for
each election.
3.
Electoral campaigns shall be governed in accordance
with the following principles:
a)
Freedom to canvass;
b)
Equality of opportunity and treatment for all
candidacies;
c)
Impartiality towards candidacies on the part of public
bodies;
d)
Transparency and supervision of electoral expenses.
4. Conversion of the votes into mandates shall observe the
principle of proportional representation;
5.

The electoral process shall be regulated by law.

Article 66
(Referendum)
1.
Voters who are registered in the national territory
may be called upon to express their opinions in a
referendum on issues of relevant national interest.
2.
A referendum shall be called by the President of the
Republic, following a proposal by one third, and
deliberation approved by a two thirds majority, of the

Members of the National Parliament, or following a wellfounded proposal by the Government.

3.
Matters falling under the exclusive competence of
the Parliament, the Government and the Courts as defined
by the Constitution shall not be the subject of a
referendum.
4.

The process of a referendum shall be defined by law.

Section 67
(Organs of Sovereignty)
The organs of sovereignty shall comprise the President of
the Republic, the National Parliament, the Government
and the Courts.
Section 68
(Incompatibilities)
1.
The holding of the offices of President of the
Republic, Speaker of the National Parliament, President of
the Supreme Court of Justice, President of the High
Administrative, Tax and Audit Court, Attorney-General and
member of Government shall be incompatible with one
another.
2.

The law shall define other incompatibilities.

Section 69
(Principle of separation of powers)
Organs of sovereignty, in their reciprocal relationship and
exercise of their functions, shall observe the principle of
separation and interdependence of powers established in
the Constitution.
Section 70
(Political parties and the right of opposition)
1.
Political parties shall participate in organs of political
power in accordance with their democratic representation

based on direct and universal suffrage.

2.
The right of political parties to democratic opposition,
as well as the right to be informed regularly and directly
on the progress of the main issues of public interest, shall
be recognised.
Section 71
(Administrative organisations)
1.
The central government should be represented at the
different administrative levels of the country.
2.
Oecussi Ambeno shall be governed by a special
administrative policy and economic regime.
3.

Ataro shall enjoy an appropriate economic status.

4.
The political and administrative organisation of the
territory of the Democratic Republic of East Timor shall be
defined by law.
Article 72
(Local government)
1.
Local government is constituted by corporate bodies
vested with representative organs, with the objective of
organising the participation by citizens in solving the
problems of their own community and promoting local
development without prejudice to the participation by the
State.
2.
The organisation, competence, functioning and
composition of the organs of local government shall be
defined by law.
Section 73
(Publication of legislation and decisions)
1.
Legislation and decisions shall be published by the
organs of sovereignty in the official gazette.
2.
Failure to publish any of the legislation or decisions

specified in item 1 above or decisions of a general nature

taken by the organs of sovereignty or local government
shall render them null and void.
3.
The form of publication of other legislation and
decisions, and the consequences of the failure to do so,
shall be determined by law.
TITLE II
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
CHAPTER I
STATUS, ELECTION AND APPOINTMENT
Section 74
(Definition)
1.
The President of the Republic is the Head of State
and the symbol and guarantor of national independence
and unity of the State and of the smooth functioning of
democratic institutions.
2.
The President of the Republic is the Supreme
Commander of the Defence Force.
Section 75
(Eligibility)
1.
To stand as presidential candidates, East Timorese
citizens should meet cumulatively the following
requirements:
a)

original citizenship;

b)

at least 35 (Thirty -five) years of age;

c)

to be in possession of his or her full faculties;

d)
to be proposed by a minimum of five thousand
voters.

2.
The President of the Republic has a term of office of 5
years and shall cease his or her functions with the
swearing-in of the new President-elect.
3.
The President of the Republic's term of office may be
renewed only once.
Section 76
(Election)
1.
The President of the Republic shall be elected by
universal, free, direct, secret, and personal suffrage.
2.
The election of the President of the Republic shall be
conducted through the system based on the majority of
valid expressed votes, excluding blank votes.
3.
Where no candidate gets more than half of the votes,
a second round shall take place on the 30th day following
the first voting.
4.
Only the two candidates obtaining the highest
number of votes shall be eligible to stand in a run-off
election, provided they have not withdrawn their
candidacies.
Section 77
(Inauguration and swearing-in)
1.
The President of the Republic shall be sworn in by the
Speaker of the National Parliament and shall be
inaugurated in public ceremony before the members of
the National Parliament and the representatives of the
other organs of sovereignty.
2.
The inauguration shall take place on the last day of
the term of office of the outgoing President or, in case of
election due to vacancy, on the eighth day following the
publication of the electoral results.
3.
At the swearing-in ceremony, the President of the
Republic shall take the following oath:

I swear on my honour to respect and enforce the

Constitution and the laws and dedicate all my energies to
the defence and consolidation of independence and
national unity.
Section 78
(Incompatibilities)
The President of the Republic shall not hold any other
political position or public office at the national level, and
under no circumstances shall he or she undertake private
assignments.
Section 79
(Criminal liability and Constitutional Obligations)
1.
The President of the Republic shall enjoy immunity in
the exercise of his or her functions.
2.
The President of the Republic shall be answerable
before the Supreme Court of Justice for crimes committed
in the exercise of his or her functions and for clear
violation of his or her constitutional obligations.
3.
It is the incumbent upon the National Parliament to
initiate the criminal proceedings, following a proposal
made by one-fifth, and deliberation approved by a twothird majority, of its Members.
4.
The Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice shall
issue a judgement within a maximum of 30 days.
5. Conviction shall result in forfeiture of office and
disqualification from re-election.
6. For crimes not committed in the exercise of his or her
functions, the President of the Republic shall also be
answerable before the Supreme Court of Justice, and
forfeiture of office shall only occur in case of sentence to
prison.

7. In the cases provided for under the previous item,

immunity shall be withdrawn at the initiative of the
National Parliament in accordance with provisions of item
2 of this Section.
Section 80
(Absence)
1.
The President of the Republic shall not be absent
from the national territory without the previous consent of
the National Parliament or of its Standing Committee, if
Parliament is in recession.
2.
Failure to observe provision of item 1 above shall
imply forfeiture of the office, as provided for by the
previous Section.
3.
The President of the Republic's private visits not
exceeding fifteen days shall not require the consent of the
National Parliament. Nonetheless, the President of the
Republic should notify the National Parliament of such
visits in advance.
Section 81
(Resignation of Office)
1.
The President of the Republic may resign from office
by message addressed to the National Parliament.
2.
Resignation shall take effect once the message is
made known to the National Parliament without prejudice
to its subsequent publication in the official gazette.
3.
Where the President of the Republic resigns from
office, he or she shall not be eligible to stand for
presidential elections immediately after resignation nor in
the regular elections to be held after five years.
Section 82
(Death, resignation or permanent disability)
1.

In case of death, resignation or permanent disability

of the President of the Republic, his or her functions shall

be taken over on an interim basis by the Speaker of the
National Parliament, who shall be sworn in by the Speaker
a.i. of the National Parliament before the Members of the
National Parliament and representatives of the organs of
sovereignty.
2.
Permanent disability shall be declared by the
Supreme Court of Justice, which shall also have the
responsibility to confirm the death of the President of the
Republic and the vacancy of office resulting therefrom.
3.
The election of a new President of the Republic in
case of death, resignation or permanent disability should
take place within the subsequent ninety days, after
certification or declaration of death, resignation or
permanent disability.
4.
The President of the Republic shall be elected for a
new term of office.
5.
In case of refusal by the President-elect to take office
or in case of his or her death or permanent disability, the
provisions of this Section shall apply.
Section 83
(Exceptional Cases)
1.
Where death, resignation or permanent disability
occur in the imminence of exceptional situations of war or
protracted emergency, or of an insurmountable difficulty
of a technical or material nature, to be defined by law,
preventing the holding of a presidential election by
universal suffrage as provided for by Section 76, the new
President of the Republic shall be elected by the
Parliament from among its members within the ninety
subsequent days.
2.
In the cases referred to in the previous item, the
President-elect shall serve for the remainder of the
interrupted term and he or she can run for the new

election.
Section 84
(Replacement and interim office)
1.
During temporary impediment of the President of the
Republic, the presidential functions shall be taken over by
the Speaker of National Parliament or, in case of
impediment of the latter, by his or her replacement.
2.
The parliamentary mandate of the Speaker of the
National Parliament or of his or her replacement shall be
automatically suspended over the period of time in which
he or she holds the office of President of the Republic on
an interim basis.
3.
The parliamentary functions of the replacing or
interim President of the Republic shall be temporarily
taken over in accordance with the Rules of Procedures of
the National Parliament.
CHAPTER II
COMPETENCIES
Section 85
(Competencies)
It is exclusively incumbent upon the President of the
Republic:
a)
To promulgate statutes and order the publication of
resolutions by the National Parliament approving
agreements and ratifying international treaties and
conventions;
b)
Exercise competencies inherent to the functions of
Supreme Commander of the Defence Force;
c)
To exercise the right of veto regarding any statutes
within 30 days from the date of their receipt;

d)
To appoint and swear in the Prime Minister
designated by the party or alliance of parties with the
highest number of members after consultation with
political parties sitting in the National Parliament;
e)
To request the Supreme Court of Justice to undertake
preventive appraisal and abstract review of the
constitutionality of the rules, as well as verification of
unconstitutionality by omission.
f)
To submit relevant issues of national interest to a
referendum as laid down in Section 66;
g)
To declare the state of siege or the state of
emergency following authorisation of the National
Parliament, after consultation with the Council of State,
the Government and the Supreme Council of Defence and
Security;
h)
To declare war and make peace following a
Government proposal, after consultation with the Council
of State and the Supreme Council of Defence and Security
under authorisation of the National Parliament;
i)
To grant pardons and commute sentences after
consultation with the Government;
j)
To award honorary titles, decorations and merits in
accordance with the law.
Section 86
(Competencies with regard to other organs)
It is incumbent upon the President of the Republic, with
regard to other organs:
a)
To chair the Supreme Council of Defence and
Security;
b)

To chair the Council of State;

c)
To set dates for presidential and legislative elections
in accordance with the Law;
d)
To request the convening of extraordinary sessions of
the National Parliament, whenever imperative reasons of
national interest so justify;
e)
To address messages to the National Parliament and
the country;
f)
To dissolve the National Parliament in case of a
serious institutional crisis preventing the formation of a
government or the approval of the State Budget and
lasting more than sixty days, after consultation with
political parties sitting in the Parliament and with the
Council of State, on pain of rendering the dissolution null
and void, taking into consideration provisions of Section
100;
g)
To dismiss the Government and remove the Prime
Minister from office after the National Parliament has
rejected his or her programme for two consecutive times.
h)
To appoint, swear in and remove Government
Members from office, following a proposal by the PrimeMinister, in accordance with item 2, Section 106;
i)
To appoint two members for the Supreme Council of
Defence and Security;
j)
To appoint the President of the Supreme Court of
Justice and swear in the President of the High
Administrative, Tax and Audit Court;
k)
To appoint the Attorney-General for a term of four
years;
l)
To appoint and dismiss the Deputy Attorney-Generals
in accordance with item 6, Section 133;
m)

To appoint and dismiss, following proposal by the

Government, the General Chief of Staff of the Defence

Force, the Deputy General Chief of Staff of the Defence
Force, and the Chiefs of Staff of the Defence Force, after
consultation with the General Chief of Staff regarding the
latter two cases;
n)

To appoint five Members for the Council of State;

o)
To appoint one member for the Superior Council the
Judiciary and for the Superior Council for the Public
Prosecution.
Section 87
(Competencies with regard to International Relations)
It is incumbent upon the President the Republic, in the
field of international relations:
a)
To declare war in case of effective or imminent
aggression and make peace, following proposal by the
Government, after consultation with the Supreme Council
for Defence and Security and following authorisation of
the National Parliament or of its Standing Committee.
b)
To appoint and dismiss ambassadors, permanent
representatives and special envoys, following proposal by
the Government;
c)
To receive credential letters and accredit foreign
diplomatic representatives;
d)
Conduct, in consultation with the Government, any
negotiation process towards the completion of
international agreements in the field of defence and
security.
Section 88
(Promulgation and veto)
1.
Within thirty days after receiving any statute from
the National Parliament for the purpose of its promulgation
as law, the President of the Republic shall either

promulgate the statute or exercise the right of veto, in

which case he or she, based on substantive grounds, shall
send a message to the National Parliament requesting a
new appraisal of the statute.
2.
If, within ninety days, the National Parliament
confirms its vote by an absolute majority of its Members in
full exercise of their functions, the President of the
Republic shall promulgate the statute within eight days
after receiving it.
3.
However, a majority of two-thirds of the Members
present shall be required to ratify statutes on matters
provided for in Section 95 where that majority exceeds an
absolute majority of the Members in full exercise of their
functions.
4.
Within forty days after receiving any statute from the
Government for the purpose of its promulgation as law,
the President of the Republic shall either promulgate the
instrument or exercise the right of veto, by way of a
written communication to the Government containing the
reasons for the veto.
Section 89
Powers of an interim President of the Republic
An interim President of the Republic does not have any of
the powers specified in following items f), g), h), i), j), k),
l), m), n) and o) of Section 86.
CHAPTER III
COUNCIL OF STATE
Section 90
(Council of State)
1.
The Council of State is the political advisory body of
the President of the Republic and shall be headed by him
or herself.

2.

The Council of State shall comprise:

a)
Former Presidents of the Republic who were not
removed from office;
b)

The Speaker of the National Parliament;

c)

The Prime Minister;

d)
Five citizens elected by the National Parliament in
accordance with the principle of proportional
representation and for the period corresponding to the
legislative term, provided that they are not members of
the organs of sovereignty.
e)
Five citizens designated by the President of the
Republic for the period corresponding to the term of office
of the President, provided that they are not members of
the organs of sovereignty.
Section 91
(Competence, organisation and functioning of the Council
of State)
1. It is incumbent upon the Council of State:
a)
Express its opinion on the dissolution of the National
Parliament;
b)
Express its opinion on the dismissal of the
Government;
c)
Express its opinion on the declaration of war and the
making of peace;
d)
Express its opinion on any other cases set out in the
Constitution and advise the President of the Republic in
the exercise of his or her functions, as requested by the
President;

e)

To prepare and approve its Rules of Procedures;

2.
The meetings of the Council of State shall not be
open to the public.
3.
The organisation and functioning of the Council of
State shall be established by law.
TITLE III
NATIONAL PARLIAMENT
CHAPTER I
STATUS AND ELECTION
Section 92
(Definition)
The National Parliament is the organ of sovereignty of the
Democratic Republic of East Timor that represents all
Timorese citizens and is vested with legislative, fiscal and
political decision powers.
Section 93
(Election and composition)
1.
The National Parliament shall be elected by universal,
free, direct, equal, secret and personal suffrage.
2.
The National Parliament shall be made up of a
minimum of fifty-two and a maximum of sixty-five
Members.
3.
The law shall establish the rules relating to
constituencies, eligibility conditions, nominations and
electoral procedures.
4.
Members of the National Parliament shall have a term
of office of five years.

Section 94
(Immunities)
1.
The Members of National Parliament shall not be held
liable for civil, criminal or disciplinary proceedings in
regard to votes and opinions expressed by them while
performing their functions.
2.
Parliamentary immunities may be withdrawn in
accordance with the Rules of Procedures of the National
Parliament.
CHAPTER II
COMPETENCE
Section 95
(Competence of the National Parliament)
1.
It is incumbent upon the National Parliament to make
laws on basic issues of the countrys domestic and foreign
policy.
2.
It is exclusively incumbent upon the National
Parliament to make laws on:
a)
The borders of the Democratic Republic of East
Timor, in accordance with Section 4;
b)
The limits of the territorial waters, of the exclusive
economic area and of the rights of East Timor to the
adjacent sea bed;
c)
National symbols, in accordance with item 2 of
Section 14;
d)

Citizenship;

e)

Rights, freedoms and guarantees;

f)

The status and capacity of people, family law and

descent law;
g)

Territorial division;

h)

The electoral law and the referendum system;

i)

Political parties and associations;

j)

The status of Members of the National Parliament;

k)

The status of office holders in the organs of State;

l)

The bases for the education system;

m)

The bases for the health and social security system;

n)
The suspension of constitutional guarantees and the
declaration of the state of siege and the state of
emergency;
o)

The Defence and Security policy;

p)

The tax policy;

q)

The budget system.

3.

It is also incumbent on the National Parliament:

a)
To ratify the appointment of the President of the
Supreme Court of Justice and of the High Administrative,
Tax and Audit Court;
b)
To deliberate on progress reports submitted by the
Government;
c)
To elect one member for the Superior Council for the
Judiciary and the Superior Council of the Public
Persecution;
d)
To deliberate on the State Plan and Budget and the
execution report thereof;

e)

To monitor the execution of the State budget;

f)
To approve and denounce agreements and ratify
international treaties and conventions;
g)

To grant amnesty;

h)
To give consent to trips by the President of the
Republic in accordance with Section 80;
i)
To approve revisions of the Constitution by a majority
of two thirds of the Members of Parliament;
j)
To authorise and confirm the declaration of the state
of siege or the state of emergency;
k)
To propose to the President of the Republic the
submission to referendum of issues of national interest.
4.

It is also incumbent upon the National Parliament:

a)

To elect its Speaker and other members of the Chair;

b)

To elect five members for the Council of State;

c)

To prepare and approve its Rules of Procedure;

d)
To set up the Standing Committee and establish the
other parliamentary Committees.
Section 96
(Legislative authorisation)
1.
The National Parliament may authorise the
Government to make laws on the following matters:
a)
Definition of crimes, sentences, security measures
and respective prerequisites;
b)

Definition of civil and criminal procedure;

c)
Organisation of the Judiciary and status of
magistrates;
d)
General rules and regulations for the public service,
the status of the civil servants and the responsibility of the
State;
e)
General bases for the organisation of public
administration;
f)

Monetary system;

g)

Banking and financial system;

h)
Definition of the bases for a policy on environment
protection and sustainable development;
i)
General rules and regulations for radio and television
broadcasting and other mass media;
j)

Civic or military service;

k)
General rules and regulations for requisition and
expropriation for public purposes;
l)
Means and ways of intervention, expropriation,
nationalisation and privatisation of means of production
and soils on grounds of public interest, as well as criteria
for the establishment of compensations.
2.
Laws on legislative authorisation shall define the
subject, sense, scope and duration of the authorisation,
which may be renewed.
3.
Laws on legislative authorisation shall not be used
more than once and shall lapse with the dismissal of the
Government, with the end of the legislative term or with
the dissolution of the National Parliament.
Section 97
(Legislative initiative )

1.

The power to initiate laws lies with:

a)

The Members of Parliament;

b)

The parliamentary groups;

c)

The Government.

2.
There shall be no submission of bills, draft legislation
or amendments involving, in any given fiscal year, any
increase in State expenditure or any reduction in State
revenues provided for in the Budget or Rectifying Budgets.
3.
Bills and draft legislation that have been rejected
shall not be re-introduced in the same legislative session
in which they have been tabled.
4.
Bills and draft legislation that have not been voted on
shall not need to be re-introduced in the ensuing
legislative session, except in case of end of the legislative
term.
5.
Draft legislation shall lapse with the dismissal of the
Government.
Section 99
(Parliamentary appraisal of statutes)
1.
Statutes other than those approved under the
exclusive legislative powers of the Government may be
submitted to the National Parliament for appraisal, for
purposes of terminating their validity or for amendment,
following a petition of one-fifth of the Members of
Parliament and within thirty days following their
publication. This timeframe shall exclude the days when
the functioning of the National Parliament is suspended.
2.
The National Parliament may suspend, in part or in
full, the force of a statute until it is appraised.
3.
The suspension shall lapse after the National
Parliament has held 10 plenary meetings without taking a

final decision.
4.
Where termination of validity is approved, the statute
shall cease to be in force from the date of the publication
of the resolution in the Official Gazette, and it shall not be
published again in the same legislative session.
5.
The process shall lapse if, after a statute has been
submitted for appraisal, the National Parliament takes no
decision on it, or, having decided to make amendments, it
does not approve a law to that effect before the
corresponding legislative session ends, provided 15
plenary meetings have been held.
CHAPTER III
ORGANISATION AND FUNCTIONING
Section 100
(Legislative term)
1.
The legislative term shall comprise five legislative
sessions, and each legislative session shall have the
duration of one year.
2.
The regular period of functioning of the National
Parliament shall be defined by the Rules of Procedure.
3.
The National Parliament convenes on a regular basis
following notice by its Speaker.
4.
The National Parliament convenes on an
extraordinary basis whenever so deliberated by the
Standing Committee, at the request of one third of
Members or following notice of the President of the
Republic with a view to addressing specific issues.
5.
In case of dissolution, the elected National Parliament
shall commence a new legislative term, the length of
which shall be increased by the time needed to complete
the legislative session in progress at the date of the
election.

Section 101
(Dissolution)
1.
The National Parliament shall not be dissolved during
the 6 months immediately following its election, during
the last half-year of the term of office of the President of
the Republic or during a state of siege or a state of
emergency, on pain of rendering the act of dissolution null
and void.
2. The dissolution of the National Parliament does not
affect the continuance in office of its Members until the
first meeting of the National Parliament after the ensuing
election.
Section 102
(Attendance by Members of the Government)
1.
Members of the Government have the right to attend
plenary sessions of the National Parliament and may take
the floor as provided for in the rules of procedures.
2.
Sittings shall be fixed at which members of the
Government shall be present to answer questions from
Members of Parliament in accordance with the Rules of
Procedure.
3.
The National Parliament or its Committees may
request members of the Governments to take part in their
proceedings.
CHAPTER IV
STANDING COMMITTEE
Section 103
(Standing Committee)
1.
The Standing Committee shall sit when the National
Parliament is dissolved or in recession and in the other

cases provided for in the Constitution;

2.
The Standing Committee shall be presided over by
the Speaker of the National Parliament and shall be
comprised of Deputy Speakers and Parliament Members
designated by the parties sitting in the Parliament in
accordance with their respective representation.
3.

It is incumbent upon the Standing Committee:

a)
To follow-up the activities of the Government and the
Public Administration;
b)
To co-ordinate the activities of the Committees of the
National Parliament;
c)
To take steps for the convening of Parliament
whenever deemed necessary;
d)
To prepare and organise sessions of the National
Parliament;
e)
To give its consent regarding trips by the President of
the Republic in accordance with Section 80;
f)
To lead relations between the National Parliament
and similar parliaments and institutions of other countries;
g)
To authorise the declaration of the state of siege or
the state of emergency.
TITLE IV
GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER I
DEFINITION AND STRUCTURE
Section 104
(Definio)

The Government is the organ of sovereignty responsible

for conducting and executing the general policy of the
country and is the supreme organ of Public Administration.
Section 105
(Composition)
1.
The Government shall comprise the Prime Minister,
the Ministers and the Secretaries of State.
2.
The Government may include one or more Deputy
Prime Ministers and Deputy Ministers.
3.
The number, titles and competencies of ministries
and secretariats of State shall be laid down in a
Government statute.
Section 106
(Council of Ministers)
1.
The Council of Ministers shall comprise the Prime
Minister, the Deputy Prime Ministers, if any, and the
Ministers.
2.
The Council of Ministers shall be convened and
chaired by the Prime Minister.
3.
The Deputy Ministers, if any, and the Secretaries of
State may be required to attend meetings of the Council of
Ministers, without a right to vote.
CHAPTER II
FORMATION AND RESPONSIBILITY
Section 107
(Appointment)
1.
The Prime Minister shall be designated by the
political party or alliance of political parties with the
highest number of votes and shall be appointed by the

President of the Republic, after consultation with the

political parties sitting in the National Parliament.
2.
The remaining members of the Government shall be
appointed by the President of the Republic following
proposal by the Prime Minister.
Section 108
(Responsibility of the Government)
The Government shall be accountable to the President of
the Republic and to the National Parliament for conducting
and executing the domestic and foreign policy in
accordance with the Constitution and the law.

Section 109
(The Programme of the Government)
1.
Once appointed, the Government should develop its
programme, which should include the objectives and tasks
proposed, the actions to be taken and the main political
guidelines to be followed in the fields of government
activity.
2.
Once approved by the Council of Ministers, the Prime
Minister shall, within a maximum of 30 days after
appointment of the Government, submit the Programme of
Government to the National Parliament for consideration.
Section 110
(Consideration of the Programme of Government by the
National Parliament)
1.
The Programme of the Government shall be
submitted to the National Parliament for consideration.
Where the National Parliament is not in session, its
convening for this purpose shall be mandatory.
2.
Debate on the programme of the Government shall
not exceed five days and, prior to its closing, any
parliamentary group may propose its rejection or the
Government may request the approval of a vote of

confidence.
3.
Rejection of the programme of the Government shall
require an absolute majority of the Members in full
exercise of their functions.
Section 111
(Request for vote of confidence)
The Government may request the National Parliament to
take a vote of confidence on a statement of general policy
or on any relevant matter of national interest.
Section 112
(Vote of no confidence)
1.
The National Parliament may, following proposal by
one-quarter of the Members in full exercise of their
functions, pass a vote of no confidence on the
Government with respect to the implementation of its
programme or any relevant matter of national interest.
2.
Where a vote of no confidence is not passed, its
signatories shall not move another vote of no confidence
during the same legislative session.
Section 113
(Dismissal of the Government)
1.

The dismissal of the Government shall occur when:

a)

A new legislative term begins;

b)
The President of the Republic accepts the resignation
of the Prime Minister;
c)
The Prime Minister dies or is suffering from a
permanent physical disability;
d)
Its programme is rejected for the second consecutive
time;

e)

A vote of confidence is not passed;

f)
A vote of no confidence is passed by an absolute
majority of the Members in full exercise of their functions;
2.
The President of the Republic shall only dismiss the
Prime Minister in accordance with the cases provided for in
the previous item and when it is deemed necessary to
ensure the regular functioning of the democratic
institutions, after consultation with the Council of State.
Section 114
(Criminal liability of the members of Government)
1.
Where a member of the Government is charged with
a criminal offence punishable with a sentence of
imprisonment for more than two years, he or she shall be
suspended from his or her functions so that the
proceedings can be pursued.
2.
Where a member of the Government is charged with
a criminal offence punishable with a sentence of
imprisonment for a maximum of two years, the National
Parliament shall decide whether or not that member of the
Government shall be suspended so that the proceedings
can be pursued.
Section 115
(Immunities for members of the Government)
No member of the Government may be detained or
imprisoned without the permission of the National
Parliament , except for a felonious crime punishable with a
maximum sentence of imprisonment for more than two
years and in flagrante delicto.
CHAPTER III
COMPETENCIES

Section 116
(Competence of the Government)
1.

It is incumbent upon the Government:

a)
To define and implement the general policy of the
country, following its approval by the National Parliament;
b)
To guarantee the exercise of the fundamental rights
and freedoms of the citizens;
c)

To ensure public order and social discipline;

d)
To prepare the State Plan and the State Budget and
execute them following their approval by the National
Parliament;
e)

To regulate economic and social sector activities;

f)
To prepare and negotiate treaties and agreements
and enter into, approve, accede and denounce
international agreements which do not fall under the
competence of the National Parliament or of the President
of the Republic;
g)
To define and implement the foreign policy of the
country;
h)
To ensure the representation of the Democratic
Republic of East Timor in the international relations;
i)

To lead the social and economic sectors of the State;

j)

To lead the labour and social security policy;

k)
To guarantee the defence and consolidation of the
public domain and the property of the State;
l)
To lead and co-ordinate the activities of the ministries
as well as the activities of the remaining institutions
answerable to the Council of Ministers;

m) To promote the development of the co-operative

sector and the support for household production;
n)

To support private enterprise initiatives;

o)
To take actions and make all the arrangements
necessary to promote economic and social development
and to meet the needs of the Timorese people;
p)
To exercise any other competencies as provided by
the Constitution and the law.
2.
It is also incumbent upon the Government in relation
with other organs :
a)
To submit bills and draft resolutions to the National
Parliament;
b)
To propose to the President of the Republic the
declaration of war or the making of peace;
c)
To propose to the President of the Republic the
declaration of the state of siege or the state of
emergency;
d)
To propose to the President of the Republic the
submission to referendum of relevant issues of national
interest;
e)
To propose to the President of the Republic the
appointment of ambassadors, permanent representatives
and special envoys;
3.
The Government has exclusive legislative powers on
matters concerning its own organisation and functioning,
as well as on the direct and indirect management of the
State.
Section 117
(Competencies of the Council of Ministers)

It is incumbent upon the Council of Ministers:

a)
To define the general guidelines of the government
policy as well as those for its implementation;
b)
To deliberate on a request for a vote of confidence
from the National Parliament;
c)

To approve bills and draft resolutions;

d)
To approve statutes, as well as international
agreements that are not required to be submitted to the
National Parliament;
e)
To approve actions by the Government that involve
an increase or decrease in public revenues or
expenditures;
f)

To approve plans.

Section 118
(Competencies of members of the Government)
1.

It is incumbent upon the Prime Minister:

a)

To be the Head of Government;

b)

To chair the Council of Ministers;

c)
To lead and guide the general policy of the
Government and co-ordinate the activities of all Ministers,
without prejudice to the direct responsibility of each
Minister for his or her respective governmental
department.
d)
To keep the President of the Republic informed on
matters of domestic and foreign policy of the Government;
e)
To perform other duties conferred by the Constitution
and the law.
2.

It is incumbent upon the Ministers:

a)
To implement the policy defined for their respective
Ministries;
b)
To ensure relations between the Government and the
other organs of the State in the area of responsibility of
their respective Ministries.
3. Government statutes shall be signed by the Prime
Minister and the Ministers in charge of the respective
subject matter.
TITLE V
COURTS
CHAPTER I
COURTS AND THE JUDICIARY
Section 119
(Jurisdiction)
1.
Courts are organs of sovereignty with competencies
to administer justice in the name of the people.
2.
In performing their functions, the courts shall be
entitled to the assistance of other authorities.
3.
Court decisions shall be binding and shall prevail over
the decisions of any other authority.
Section 120
(Independence)
Courts are independent and subject only to the
Constitution and the law.
Section 121
Review of unconstitutionality
The courts shall not apply rules that contravene the

Constitution or the principles contained therein.

Section 121
(Judges)
1.
Jurisdiction lies exclusively with the judges installed
in accordance with the law.
2.
In performing their functions, judges are independent
and owe obedience only to the Constitution, the law and
to their own conscience.
3.
Judges have security of tenure and, unless otherwise
provided for by law, may not be transferred, suspended,
retired or removed from office.
4.
To guarantee their independence, judges may not be
held liable for their judgements and decisions, except in
the circumstances provided for by law.
5.
The law shall regulate the judicial organisation and
the status of the judges of the courts of law.
Section 123
(Exclusiveness)
Judges in office may not perform any other functions,
whether public or private, other than teaching or legal
research, in accordance with the law.
Section 124
Categories of courts
1.
There shall be the following categories of courts in
the Democratic Republic of East Timor:
a)
The Supreme Court of Justice and other courts of law;
b)
The High Administrative, Tax and Audit Court and
other administrative courts of first instance;
c)
Military Courts.
2.
Courts of exception shall be prohibited and there
shall be no special courts to judge certain categories of
criminal offence.
3.
There may be Maritime Courts and Arbitration Courts.
4.
The law shall determine the establishment,
organisation and functioning of the courts provided for in
the preceding items.
5.
The law may institutionalise means and ways for the

non-jurisdictional resolution of disputes.

Section 125
(Supreme Court of Justice)
1.
The Supreme Court of Justice is the highest court of
law and the guarantor of a uniform enforcement of the
law, and has jurisdiction throughout the national territory.
2.
It is also incumbent on the Supreme Court of Justice
to administer justice on matters of legal, constitutional
and electoral nature.
3.
The President of the Supreme Court of Justice shall be
appointed by the President of the Republic from among
judges of the Supreme Court of Justice fora term of office
of four years.
Section 126
(Functioning and Composition)
1.

The Supreme Court of Justice shall operate:

a)
In sections, like a court of first instance, in the cases
provided for in the law;
b)
In plenary, like a court of second and single instance,
in the cases expressly provided for in the law;
2. The Supreme Court of Justice shall consist of career
judges, magistrates of the Public Prosecution or jurists of
recognised merit in number to be established by law, as
follows:
a)

One elected by the National Parliament;

b)
And all the others designated by the Superior Council
for the Judiciary.
Section 127
(Electoral and Constitutional Competence)

1.
It is incumbent upon the Supreme Court of Justice, on
legal and constitutional matters:
a)
To review and declare the unconstitutionality and
illegality of normative and legislative acts by the organs of
the State;
b)
To provide an anticipatory verification of the legality
and constitutionality of the statutes and referenda;
c)

To verify cases of unconstitutionality by omission;

d)
To rule, as a venue of appeal, on the suppression of
norms considered unconstitutional by the courts of
instance;
e)
To verify the legality regarding the establishment of
political parties and their coalitions and order their
registration or dissolution, in accordance with the
Constitution and the law;
f)
To exercise all other competencies provided for by
the Constitution or the law.
2.
It is incumbent upon the Supreme Court of Justice, in
the specific field of elections:
a)
To verify the legal requirements for candidates for the
office of President of the Republic;
b)
To certify at last instance the regularity and validity
of the acts of the electoral process, in accordance with the
respective law;
c)
To validate and proclaim the results of the electoral
process;
Section 128
(Eligibility)
1.

Only career judges or magistrates of the Public

Prosecution or jurists of recognised merit of East Timorese

nationality may become members of the Supreme Court of
Justice.
2.
In addition to the requirements referred to in the
preceding item, the law may define other requirements.
Section 129
(Superior Council for the Judiciary )
1.
The Superior Council for the Judiciary is the organ of
management and discipline of the judges of the courts
and it is incumbent upon it to appoint, assign, transfer and
promotr the judges.
2.
The Superior Council for the Judiciary shall be
presided over by the President of the Supreme Court of
Justice and shall have the following members:
a)

One designated by the President of the Republic;

b)

One elected by the National Parliament;

c)

One designated by the Government;

d)
One elected by the judges of the courts of law from
among their peers;
3.
The law shall regulate the competence, organisation
and functioning of the Superior Council for the Judiciary.
Section 130
(High Administrative, Tax and Audit Court)
1.
The High Administrative, Tax and Audit Court is the
highest body in the hierarchy of the administrative, tax
and audit courts, without prejudice to the competence of
the Supreme Court of Justice.
2.
The President of the High Administrative, Tax and
Audit Court is elected from among and by respective

judges for a term of office of four years.

3.
It is incumbent upon the High Administrative, Tax and
Audit Court as a single instance to monitor the lawfulness
of public expenditure and to audit State accounts.
1.
It is incumbent upon the High Administrative, Tax and
Audit Court and the administrative and tax courts of first
instance:
a)
To judge actions aiming at resolving disputes arising
from legal, fiscal and administrative relations;
b)
To judge contentious appeals against decisions made
by State organs, their respective office holders and
agents;
c)
To perform all the other functions as established by
law.
Section 131
(Military Courts)
1.
It is incumbent upon military courts to judge in first
instance crimes of military nature.
2.
The competence, organisation, composition and
functioning of military courts shall be established by law.
Section 132
(Court Hearings)
Court hearings shall be public, unless the court hearing a
matter rules otherwise through a well-founded order to
safeguard personal dignity or public morality and national
security, or guarantee its own smooth operation.
CHAPTER II
PUBLIC PROSECUTORS
Section 133

(Functions and Status)

1.
Public Prosecutors have the responsibility for
representing the State, taking criminal action, ensuring
the defence of the underage, absentees and the disabled,
defending the democratic legality, and promoting the
enforcement of the law.
2.
Public Prosecutors shall be a body of judicial officers,
hierarchically graded, and shall be accountable to the
Attorney-General.
3.
In performing their duties, Public Prosecutors shall be
subject to legality, objectivity and impartiality criteria, and
obedience to the directives and orders as established by
law.
4.
Public Prosecutors shall be governed by their own
statutes, and shall only be suspended, retired or dismissed
under the circumstances provided for in the law.
5.
It is incumbent upon the Office of the AttorneyGeneral to appoint, assign, transfer and promote public
prosecutors and exercise disciplinary actions.
Section 134
(Office of the Attorney-General)
1.
The Office of the Attorney-General is the highest
authority in public prosecution, and its composition and
competencies shall be defined by law.
2.
The Office of the Attorney-General shall be headed
by the Attorney-General, who, in his or her absence or
inability to act, shall be replaced in accordance with the
law.
3.
The Attorney-General shall be appointed by the
President of the Republic for a term of office of six years,
in accordance with the terms established by law.
4.

The Attorney-General shall be accountable to the

Head of State and shall submit annual reports to the

National Parliament.
5.
The Attorney-General shall request the Supreme
Court of Justice to make a generally binding declaration of
unconstitutionality of any law ruled unconstitutional in
three concrete cases.
6.
Deputy Attorney-Generals shall be appointed,
dismissed or removed from office by the President of the
Republic after consultation with the Superior Council for
the Public Prosecution.
Section 135
(Superior Council for the Public Prosecution)
1.
The Superior Council for the Public Prosecution is an
integral part of the office of the Attorney-General.
2.
The Superior Council for the Public Prosecution shall
be headed by the Attorney-General and shall comprise the
following members:
a)

One designated by the President of the Republic;

b)

One elected by the National Parliament;

c)

One designated by the Government;

d)
One elected by the magistrates of the Public
Prosecution from among their peers.
3. The law shall regulate the competence, organisation
and functioning of the Superior Council for the Public
Prosecution.
CHAPTER III
LAWYERS
Section 136
(Lawyers)

1.
Legal and judicial aid is of social interest, and lawyers
and defenders shall be governed by this principle.
2.
The primary role of lawyers and defenders is to
contribute to the good administration of justice and the
safeguard of the rights and legitimate interests of the
citizens.
3.

The activity of lawyers shall be regulated by law.

Section 137
(Guarantees in the activity of lawyers)
1.
The State shall, in accordance with the law,
guarantee the inviolability of documents related to legal
proceedings. No search, seizure, listing or other judicial
measures shall be permitted without the presence of the
competent magistrate and, whenever possible, of the
lawyer concerned.
2.
Lawyers have the right to contact their clients
personally with guarantees of confidentiality, especially
where the clients are under detention or arrest in military
or civil prison centres.
TITLE VI
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Section 138
(Public Administration general principles)
1.
Public Administration shall aim at meeting public
interest, in the respect for the legitimate rights and
interests of citizens and constitutional institutions.
2.
The Public Administration shall be structured to
prevent excessive bureaucracy, provide more accessible
services to the people and ensure the contribution of
individuals interested in its efficient management.

3.
The law shall establish the rights and guarantees of
the citizens, namely against acts likely to affect their
legitimate rights and interests.
PART IV
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ORGANISATION
TITLE I
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Section 139
(Economic organisation)
The economic organisation of East Timor shall be based on
the combination of community forms with free initiative
and business management, as well as on the co-existence
of the public sector, the private sector and the cooperative and social sector of ownership of means of
production.
Section 140
(Natural resources)
1.
The resources of the soil, the subsoil, the territorial
waters, the continental shelf and the exclusive economic
zone, which are essential to the economy, shall be owned
by the State and shall be used in a fair and equitable
manner in accordance with national interests.
2.
The conditions for the exploitation of the natural
resources referred to in item 1 above should lend
themselves to the establishment of mandatory financial
reserves, in accordance with the law.
3.
The exploitation of the natural resources shall
preserve the ecological balance and prevent destruction of
ecosystems.
Section 141

(Investments)
The State shall promote national investment and establish
conditions to attract foreign investment, taking into
consideration the national interests, in accordance with
the law.
Section 142
(Land)
Ownership, use and development of land as one of the
factors for economic production shall be regulated by law.
TITLE II
FINANCIAL AND TAX SYSTEM
Section 143
(Financial system)
The structure of the financial system shall be determined
by the law in such a way as to guarantee that savings are
encouraged and built up with security and that the
financial resources necessary for economic and social
development are provided.
Section 144
(Central Bank)
1.
The State shall establish a national central bank
jointly responsible for the definition and implementation of
the monetary and financial policy.
2.
The Central Bank functions and its relationship with
the National Parliament and the Government shall be
established by law.
3.
The Central Bank shall have exclusive competence
for issuing the national currency.
Section 145
(Tax System)

1.
The State shall establish a tax system aimed at
meeting the financial requirements of the State and the
fair distribution of national income and wealth.
2.
Taxes shall be established by law, which shall
determine the incidence, tax benefits and the guarantees
of taxpayers.
Section 146
(State Budget)
1.
The State Budget shall be prepared by the
Government and approved by the National Parliament.
2.
The Budget law shall provide, based on efficiency and
effectiveness, a breakdown of the revenues and
expenditures of the State, as well as preclude the
existence of secret appropriations and funds.
3.
The execution of the Budget shall be monitored by
the High Administrative, Tax and Audit Court and by the
National Parliament.

PART V
NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
Section 147
(Defence Force)
1.
The East Timor defence force, FALINTIL-ETDF,
composed exclusively by national citizens, has the
responsibility of providing military defence for the
Democratic Republic of East Timor and shall have a single
system of organisation for the whole national territory.
2.
FALINTIL-ETDF shall guarantee national
independence, territorial integrity and the freedom and
security of the populations against any aggression or
external threat, in respect for the constitutional order.

3.
FALINTIL-ETDF shall be non-partisan and shall owe
obedience to the competent organs of sovereignty in
accordance with the Constitution and the laws, and shall
not intervene in political matters.
Section 148
(Police and security forces)
1.
The police shall defend the democratic legality and
guarantee the internal security of the citizens, and shall
be strictly non-partisan.
2.
Prevention of crime shall be undertaken with due
respect for human rights.
3.
The law shall determine the rules and regulations for
the police and other security forces.
Section 149
(Superior Council for Defence and Security)
1.
The Superior Council for Defence and Security is the
consultative organ of the President of the Republic on
matters relating to defence and sovereignty.
2.
The Superior Council for Defence and Security shall
be headed by the President of the Republic and shall
include civilian and military entities, the number of civilian
entities being higher than the number of military entities.
3.
The composition, organisation and functioning of the
Superior Council for Defence and Security shall be defined
by law.
PART VI
GUARANTEE AND REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION
TITLE I
GUARANTEE OF THE CONSTITUTION
Section 150

(Anticipatory review of constitutionality)

1.
The President of the Republic may request the
Supreme Court of Justice to undertake an anticipatory
review of the constitutionality of any statute submitted to
him or her for promulgation.
2.
The preventive review of the constitutionality may be
requested within twenty days from the date on which the
statute is received, and the Supreme Court of Justice shall
hand down its ruling within twenty-five days, a time limit
that may be reduced by the President of the Republic for
reasons of emergency.
3.
If the Supreme Court of Justice rules that the statute
is unconstitutional, the President of the Republic shall
submit a copy of the ruling to the Government or the
National Parliament and request the reformulation of the
statute in accordance with the decision of the Supreme
Court of Justice.
4.
The veto for unconstitutionality of a statute from the
National Parliament that has been submitted for
promulgation can be circumvented under section 88, with
the necessary adaptations.
Section 151
(Abstract review of constitutionality)
Declaration of unconstitutionality may be requested by:
a)

The President of the Republic;

b)

The Speaker of the National Parliament;

c)
The Attorney-General, based on the refusal by the
courts, in three concrete cases, to apply a statute deemed
unconstitutional;
d)

The Prime Minister;

e)

One fifth of the Members of the National Parliament;

f)

The Ombudsman.

Section 152
(Unconstitutionality by omission)
The President of the Republic, the Attorney-General and
the Ombudsman may request the Supreme Court of
Justice to review the unconstitutionality by omission of any
legislative measures deemed necessary to enable the
implementation of the constitutional provisions.
Section 153
(Appeals on constitutionality)
1.
The Supreme Court of Justice has jurisdiction to hear
appeals against any of the following court decisions:
a)
Decisions refusing to apply a legal rule on the
grounds of unconstitutionality;
b)
Decisions applying a legal rule the constitutionality of
which was challenged during the proceedings.
2.
An appeal under paragraph (1) (b) may be brought
only by the party who raised the question of
unconstitutionality.
3.
The regime for filing appeals shall be regulated by
law.
Section 154
(Decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice)
Decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice shall not be
appealable and shall be published in the official gazette.
They shall have a general binding effect on processes of
abstract and concrete monitoring, when dealing with
unconstitutionality.
TITLE II
CONSTITUTONAL REVISION

Section 155
(Initiative and time of revision)
1.
It is incumbent upon Members of Parliament and the
Parliamentary Groups to initiate constitutional revision.
2.
The National Parliament may revise the Constitution
after six years have elapsed since the last date on which a
law revising the Constitution was published.
3.
The period of six years for the first constitutional
review shall commence on the day the present
Constitution enters into force.
4.
The National Parliament, regardless of any
timeframe, may take on powers to revise the Constitution
by a majority of four-fifths of the Members of Parliament in
full exercise of their functions.
5.
Proposals for revision should be submitted to the
National Parliament one hundred and twenty days prior to
the date of commencement of debate.
6.
After submission of a proposal for constitutional
revision under the terms of item 5 above, any other
proposal shall be submitted within 30 days.
Section 156
(Approval and promulgation)
1.
Amendments to the Constitution shall be approved
by a majority of two-thirds of the Members of Parliament
in full exercise of their functions.
2.
The new text of the Constitution shall be published
together with the revision law.
3.
The President of the Republic shall not refuse to
promulgate a revision law.
Section 157

(Limits on matters of revision)

1. Laws revising the Constitution shall respect:
a)

National independence and the unity of the State;

b)

The rights, freedoms and guarantees of citizens;

c)

The republican form of government;

d)

The separation of powers;

e)

The independence of the courts;

f)
The multi-party system and the right of democratic
opposition;
g)
The free, universal, direct, secret and regular
suffrage of the office holders of the organs of sovereignty,
as well as the system of proportional representation;
h)

The inexistence of an official religion of the State

i)
The principle of administrative deconcentration and
decentralisation;
j)

The National Flag.

k)

The date of proclamation of national independence.

2. Paragraphs c), h) and j) may be reviewed through a

national referendum, in accordance with the law.
Section 158
(Limits on time of revision)
No action may be taken to revise the Constitution during a
state of siege or a state of emergency.
PART VII
FINAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Section 159
(Treaties, agreements and alliances)
1.
Confirmation, accession and ratification of bilateral
and multilateral conventions, treaties, agreements or
alliances that took place before the entry into force of the
present Constitution shall be decided upon by the
respective competent bodies on a case-by-case basis.
Section 160
(Working Languages)
Indonesian and English shall be working languages within
civil service side by side with official languages as long as
deemed necessary.
Section 161
(Serious Crimes)
Acts committed between the 25th of April 1974 and the
31st of December 1999 that can be considered crimes
against humanity shall be liable to criminal proceedings
with the
national or international courts.
Section 162
(Illegal appropriation of assets )
Illegal appropriation of mobile and fixed assets that took
place before the entry into force of the present
Constitution is considered crime and shall be resolved as
provided for in the Constitution and the law.
Section 163
(Reconciliation)
It is incumbent upon the Commission for Reception, Truth
and Reconciliation to discharge functions conferred to it by
UNTAET Regulation No. 2001/10.
The competencies, mandate and objectives of the
Commission shall be redefined by the Parliament

whenever necessary.
Section 164
(Transitional judicial organisation)
1.
The collective judicial instance existing in East Timor,
integrated by national and international judges with
competencies to judge serious crimes committed between
the 1st of January and the 25th of October 1999, shall
remain operational for the time deemed strictly necessary
to conclude the cases under investigation.
2.
The judicial organisation existing in East Timor on the
day the present Constitution enters into force shall remain
operational until such a time as the new judicial system is
established and starts its functions.
Section 165
(Transitional competence of the Supreme Court of Justice)
1.
After the Supreme Court of Justice starts its functions
and before the establishment of courts as laid down in
Section 129, the respective competence shall be exercised
by the Supreme Court of Justice and other courts of
justice.
2.
Until such a time as the Supreme Court of Justice is
established and starts its functions all powers conferred to
it by the Constitution shall be exercised by the highest
judicial instance of the judicial organisation existing in
East Timor.
Section 166
(Previous Law)
Laws and regulations in force in East Timor shall continue
to be applicable to all matters except to the extent that
they are inconsistent with the Constitution or the
principles contained therein.
Section 167
(Transformation of the Constitutional Assembly)

1.
The Constitutional Assembly shall be transformed
into a National Parliament with the approval of the
Constitution of the Republic.
2.
In its first term of office, the National Parliament shall
be comprised of eighty-eight members on an exceptional
basis.
Section 168
(Presidential Election of 2002)
The President Elected under UNTAET Regulation No.
2002/01 shall take on the competencies and fulfil the
mandate provide for in the Constitution.
Section 169
(Entry into force of the Constitution)
The Constitution of the Democratic Republic of East Timor
shall enter into force on the 20th of May of 2002.

THE-STORY-OF-PARLIAMENT History
of Parliament 1045 ... by the abolition of
the monarchy and the House of Lords.
Oliver Cromwell, ... supremacy of
Parliament.
https://www.parliament.uk/documents
/commons-informationoffice/Publications-2015/THE-STORYOF-PARLIAMENT-web.pdf
An Irish homeless man has died after
sleeping out in sub zero temperatures
An Irish man has died after sleeping

rough on Thursday last week.

A body of a man was found outside Tesco in the
Longwalk Shopping Centre in Dundalk at approximately
12pm on Friday. The man has been named locally as
Paul Gorman.
The previous night, temperatures dropped below zero
and it's believed this is the cause of his death. As a
result Garda are not treating it as suspicious.
According to The Dundalk Democrat, Paul, who was
49-years-old, leaves behind a wife and three children.
Michelle Ryan, from the Dundalk Simon Community
has released the following statement on the tragedy:
This death is a tragic event. It's heartbreaking. To die
alone and on the streets - what could make for a
sadder Christmas.
Our thoughts are with Pauls family and his many
friends both within and without the homeless
community. He will not be forgotten.
She further stresses the need for a change in our
current homeless crisis:
As a homeless service we have experienced a 20 per
cent uptake on 2015. The beds in our hostel are full
night after night.
"And as we head into a rough winter our resources are
stretched to the limit to meet the demand for shelter,
the need for support and the desire to ensure that no
one is left out in the freezing night air.
"We would therefore appeal to those with influence,
those in power, to those whose voices are louder than
our own: please ensure that everyone who needs a

place to stay, and anyone who needs emergency

accommodation, gets it.
https://www.joe.ie/news/irish-homeless-man-died-sleeping-sub-zerotemperatures/568952

Can Ireland Legislate Contrary to European

Community

Can Ireland Legislate Contrary to European Community ...

The Irish Parliament, the ... but to the extent only of
such repugnancy, be invalid

http://www.tcd.ie/iiis/docu
ments/discussion/pdfs/iiisd
p237.pdf

an Ireland Legislate Contrary to European Community ...

The Irish Parliament, the ... but to the extent only of such
repugnancy, be invalid
December 2007
Can Ireland Legislate Contrary to European Community
Law?
William Phelan
Department of Political Science, TCD
IIIS Discussion Paper No. 237
Can Ireland Legislate Contrary to European Community
Law?
William Phelan
Disclaimer
Any opinions expressed here are those of the author(s)
and not those of the IIIS. All works posted here are owned
and copyrighted by the author(s).
Papers may only be downloaded for personal use only.

Can Ireland Legislate Contrary to European Community

Law?
William Phelan
Department of Political Science, Trinity College Dublin
wtphelan@gmail.com
Abstract
This paper considers whether Ireland can unilaterally
legislate contrary to European Community law, and
achieve the application of that legislation in Irish courts
not withstanding the European Community law doctrines
of supremacy and direct effect. It argues that the
scholarship on the relationship between Irish law and
European Community law, together with decisions of Irish
courts, indicate that Ireland could legislate contrary to
European Community law by amending the European
Communities Act. More broadly, for member states of the
European Union which like Ireland derive the
application of European law in the national legal order
from national legislation, it is not so much the
'constitutional' claims of European Community law that
prevent the member states from legislating contrary to
European Community law but rather the fact that the
member states persistently refrain from legislating to limit
the effect of Community law in the national jurisdictions
which gives European Community law its 'constitutional'
character.
Can Ireland legislate contrary to European Community
law?
Can Ireland legislate contrary to European Community
law?1 More precisely, can Irish political institutions pass
statutory or constitutional legislation explicitly contrary to
European Community law and have that legislation
applied in Irish courts? European Community laws
doctrines of supremacy and direct effect claim that
national courts must apply directly effective European
Community obligations regardless of any provision of
domestic law. Are there nevertheless circumstances where
Irish courts would permit Irish political institutions to
legislate contrary to European Community law and
achieve the enforcement of that legislation in Irish courts,
notwithstanding Community law doctrines or decisions of
the European Court of Justice? Despite the rejection of the

Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe in referenda

by the electorates in France and the Netherlands, it seems
likely that European governments will agree a further, and
perhaps similar, European treaty in the near future. Now
would therefore seem to be an appropriate moment for a
consideration of the jurisprudence and scholarship on this
important question of the relationship of European
Community law and Irish law.
Understanding the limits of European Community law in
the national legal orders is also an important step towards
understanding of European Community law as a
constitution.2 Many scholars of the law and politics of
European integration emphasise that the feature which
most importantly distinguishes European Community law
from other international legal systems is that the EU
member states cannot legislate
1 I would like to particularly thank Gerard Hogan and
Diarmuid Rossa Phelan for very helpful discussions of the
topic of this paper. Thanks also to Des Ryan for helpful
comments and to Elizabeth Gleeson for advice on sources.
The responsibility for the contents is, of course, my own.
2 E Stein, 'Toward Supremacy of Treaty - Constitution by
Judicial Fiat in the European Economic Community' (1965)
48 Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 3-28
2
contrary to their European treaty commitments.3 If this
claim does not hold, then new ways of explaining the
effectiveness of European Community law as a
constitution will need to be investigated.
The possibility of national courts applying national
legislation contrary to European Community law is only
one of several possible limitations on the effectiveness of
European Community law in the national legal orders of
the member states. Other possible limitations include the
non-application of European Community law in the
national legal order where European Community law
obligations conflict with national constitutional law
fundamental rights; the non-application of European
Community law where its law obligations exceed the scope
of the competences delegated to the European institutions
by the European treaties; and the non-application of
European Community law in the national legal order

following a unilateral national decision to relinquish

membership of the European Union. The specific question
that this paper addresses is whether Ireland can legislate
contrary to European Community law in part, while
remaining a member of the European Union and
continuing to enforce other European obligations in
national courts.
Of course, the application of national legislation contrary
to Community law might lead to a dispute between Ireland
and the European institutions, or Ireland and the other
member states, just as the decision of a national court not
to apply directly effective Community law on the grounds
that a Community law obligation was contrary to
fundamental rights protected by the national legal order
might also lead to a dispute. A full consideration of the
various ways in which such disputes be might be resolved
would merit a separate discussion. This paper addresses
only the question of
3 See, for example, JHH Weiler, 'The Transformation of
Europe' (1991) 100 Yale Law Journal 2403-2483 especially
2413-2415; A Stone Sweet, The Judicial Construction of
Europe (Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York 2004)
especially 25 on the EU member states' lack of unilateral
legislative options vis--vis their own courts.
3
whether the Irish courts would permit Irish political
institutions to legislate contrary to European Community
law and receive the enforcement of that legislation in Irish
courts, notwithstanding the European Community law
doctrines of supremacy and direct effect or decisions of
the European Court of Justice.
This paper will develop its answer to this question through
a wider discussion of the relationship of Irish law with both
public international law and European Community law,
based on a review of court decisions and legal scholarship.
Basic legal arrangements and jurisprudence are discussed
to allow those less familiar with the Irish legal order to
more easily follow the argument.
The fundamental basis of the Irish legal order is the Irish
Constitution, Bunreacht na hireann, enacted by the Irish
people on 1 July 1937. The Irish Constitution creates a
parliamentary system of government. The Irish Parliament,

the Oireachtas, is comprised of the President of Ireland,

and two legislative chambers. The House of
Representatives, Dil ireann comprises the directly
elected lower house, to which the Irish government is
responsible. The Senate, Seanad ireann comprises the
upper house, with modest powers of legislative delay,
whose members are either indirectly elected by members
of the Dil and local authorities, or appointed by the
Taoiseach, the Irish prime minister.
The Irish Constitution provides, inter alia, for Irelands
inalienable right to self- determination,4 that Ireland is a
sovereign state,5 for popular sovereignty as the
4 See Art 1 of the Irish Constitution (IC): The Irish nation
hereby affirms its inalienable, indefeasible, and sovereign
right to choose its own form of Government, to determine
its relations with other nations, and to develop its life,
political, economic and cultural, in accordance with its own
genius and traditions.
5 Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state.
Art 5 IC. 4
fundamental basis of government,6 that the Oireachtas
has exclusive power of making laws for the State,7 and for
the invalidity of laws enacted contrary to the
Constitution.8 Amendments to the Irish Constitution are
initiated by the Dil, enacted by the Oireachtas, and
submitted for the decision of the Irish people in a
referendum.9
When Ireland joined the European Communities, it passed
statutory legislation and amended the Irish Constitution in
order to give effect to the European treaties in the Irish
legal order. This was accomplished by an Act of the
Oireachtas, the European Communities Act 1972, and the
Third Amendment to the Irish Constitution (enacted 8
June, 1972).
Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act states:
From 1 January 1973, the treaties governing the European
Communities and the existing and future acts adopted by
the institutions of those Communities and by the bodies
competent under the said treaties shall be binding on the
State and shall be part of the domestic law thereof under
the conditions laid down in those treaties.

The wording of Section 2(1) of the European Communities

Act reflects Art 29.6 of the Irish Constitution: No
international agreement shall be part of the domestic law
of the State save as may be determined by the
Oireachtas..
The Third Amendment inserted what was then Article
29.4.3 (the predecessor of what is now Article 29.4.10) of
the Irish Constitution stating:
6 All powers of government, legislative, executive and
judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it
is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal,
to decide all questions of national policy, according to the
requirements of the common good. Art 6.1 IC.
7 The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the
State is hereby vested in the Oireachtas: no other
legislative body has power to make laws for the State. Art
15.2.1 IC.
8 Every law enacted by the Oireachtas which is in any
respect repugnant to this Constitution or to any provision
thereof, shall, but to the extent only of such repugnancy,
be invalid. Art 15.4 IC.
9 See especially Article 46.2 IC: Every proposal for an
amendment of this Constitution shall be initiated in Dil
ireann as a Bill, and shall upon having been passed or
deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the
Oireachtas, be submitted by Referendum to the decision of
the people in accordance with the law for the time being in
force relating to the Referendum.
5
The State may become a member of the European Coal
and Steel Community ..., the European Economic
Community..., and the European Atomic Energy
Community...
No provision of this Constitution invalidates law enacted,
acts done or measures adopted by the State necessitated
by the obligations of membership of the Communities, or
prevents laws enacted or acts done or measures adopted
by the Communities or the institutions thereof, from
having the force of law in the State.10
Since Ireland joined the European Union, Irish courts have
regularly applied European Community law obligations in
place of contrary Irish law and the obligation to disapply

national law to give effect to Community obligations is

clearly accepted. Costello J stated the position in Pigs and
Bacon Commission v McCarren:
The effect of [Section 2 of the European Communities Act
1972] is that Community law takes legal effect in the Irish
legal system in the manner in which Community law itself
provides. Thus, if according to Community law a provision
of the Treaty is directly enforceable so that rights are
conferred on individuals which national courts must
enforce, an Irish court must give effect to such a rule. And
if, according to Community law, the provisions of
Community law take precedence over a provision of
national law in conflict with it an Irish court must give
effect to this rule. That Community law enjoys precedence
over a conflicting national law has been made clear in a
number of decisions of the European Court and most
recently in Case 106/77, Amministrazione delle Finanze
dello Stato v Simmenthal.11
Similarly, in Murphy v Bord Telecom ireann,12 the
European Court of Justice found, on the basis of a
preliminary reference under Article 177 (now 234) of the
Treaty, that Irish law did not provide for equal pay for
equal work for men and women. Disapplying Irish law in
line with the ECJs opinion, Keane J stated:
10 With further amendments to the Irish Constitution to
accommodate various subsequent European treaties, the
numbering and text of the original 29.4.3 has changed
accordingly. Between 1973- 93, this was Art 29.4.3; 19939, Art 29.4.6; 1999-2002, Art 29.4.7 and currently (as of
June 2007) 29.4.10. See G Hogan and G Whyte, J M Kelly:
The Irish Constitution (LexisNexis, Dublin 2003) 514
footnote 101.
The current provision (as of June 2007) 29.4.10 states:
No provision of this Constitution invalidates law enacted,
acts done or measures adopted by the obligations of
membership of the European Union or of the Communities,
or prevents law enacted, acts done or measures adopted b
the European Union or by the Communities or by
institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the
Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the
force of law in the State.
11 [1978] JISEL 109. 12 [1989] ILRM 53.

6
The interpretation of those sections [of the Irish law in
question], in accordance with the canons of construction
normally applied in Irish courts, has in the present case
yielded a result which is in conflict with Article 119 of the
Treaty as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the EC.
Where such a conflict exists, national law must yield
primacy to community law...
Seamus Henchy, a judge of the Supreme Court of Ireland,
writing in a 1977 article on the Irish Constitution and the
E.E.C., stated baldly:
Because Community law is part of domestic law, it is the
duty of the courts set up under the Constitution to
implement it; but it is the exclusive function of the
European Court to interpret and determine conclusively
the validity of the Treaties and of acts put forward as
Community law; and where there a conflict is found
between national law and Community law, it is an absolute
imperative that the Community law shall prevail.13
Irish judges have held European Community law
obligations to qualify or limit provisions of the Irish
Constitution if necessary to ensure the supremacy of
Community law. In Campus Oil Ltd v Minister for Industry
& Energy,14 the question arose whether it would be
possible to appeal to the Supreme Court, which under
Article 34 of the Irish Constitution has appellate
jurisdiction from all decisions of the High Court and other
courts, against a decision of the High Court to seek a
preliminary reference from the European Court of Justice,
using the preliminary reference procedure. The Supreme
Court held that seeking a preliminary reference was not a
decision within the meaning of Article 34, but Walsh J
added that:
However, even if the reference of questions to the Court of
Justice were a decision within the meaning of Article 34 of
the Constitution, I would hold that, by virtue of the
provision of Article 29.4.3o of the Constitution, the right to
appeal to this Court from such a decision must yield to the
primacy of Article 177 of the Treaty. That Article, as a part
of Irish law, qualifies Article 34 of the Constitution in the
matter in question.15
Irish courts have considered the compatibility of Irish law

with European Community law obligations in a wide range

of issue-areas. The consensus of scholarly
13 S Henchy, 'The Irish Constitution and the E.E.C.' (1977)
(1) Dublin University Law Journal 20-25 23.
14 [1983] IR 82.
15 [1983] IR 82, 87.
7
opinion is that the Irish courts willingly acknowledge the
supremacy and direct effect of European law, and are
willing to disapply substantive provisions of national law to
give effect to EU obligations in Ireland.16
In the ordinary course of events, as shown by Pigs and
Bacon Commission, national laws which are contrary to
Community law obligations will not be applied by Irish
judges. The concern of this paper, however, is with the
availability in Irish law of mechanisms for elected Irish
politicians to legislate contrary to directly effective
European Community law and thus avoid the application
of part of EC law (what J.H.H. Weiler would term selective
exit from EU obligations17) in the national legal order.
This paper addresses the question by answering three
questions on the relationship of Community and national
law in Ireland: Do Irish courts recognise an Irish law
obligation to apply treaty obligations in place of contrary
Irish law (Pacta sunt servanda)? Do Irish courts recognise
a direct Community law obligation to apply Community
law and disapply contrary Irish law? And, do Irish courts
recognise an Irish law obligation to apply Community law
in place of Irish legislation expressly contrary to
Community law? The paper then concludes with brief
comments on the relationship
16 The following references are typical, as are the
frequent references to a possible exception in the Grogan
case (considered below). F Murphy, 'Community Law in
Irish Courts 1973-1981' (1982) 7 European Law Review
331-345 342: The first general conclusion that may be
drawn from these cases is that the Community legal order
with its attendant doctrine of supremacy has been
accepted almost without question in the Irish legal order..
Hogan and Whyte, J M Kelly: The Irish Constitution 533:
Save for one isolated and inconclusive instance dealing
with abortion [Walsh J in Society for the Protection of

Unborn Children (Ire) Ltd v Grogan [1989] IR 713] the Irish

courts have unhesitatingly acknowledged the supremacy
of Community law.. DR Phelan and A Whelan, 'National
constitutional law and European integration: FIDE Report'
(1997) 6 Irish Journal of European Law 24-64 44: Despite
the remarks of McCarthy and Walsh JJ in Grogan, the Irish
courts are normally content to take the European
Communities Act and Article 29.4.5o of the Constitution at
[sic] according primacy in domestic law to Community law
as interpreted by the Court of Justice. There is a large
volume of cases to this effect. The courts sometimes take
an over-deferential attitude to the Government when it
implements Community law, at unnecessary cost to Irish
constitutional norms....
17 JHH Weiler, 'Alternatives to withdrawal from an
International Organization: The case of the European
Economic Community' (1985) 20 (2-3) Israel Law Review
282-298; Weiler, 'The Transformation of Europe' 2403.
8
of European and national law in the national legal orders
of the member states in general, and on the significance
of any subsequent European treaty which would unlike
the existing European treaties, but like the proposed
Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe make
explicit provision for the supremacy and direct effect of
European Community law.
Do Irish courts recognise a Irish law obligation to apply
treaty obligations in place of contrary Irish law (Pacta
Sunt Servanda)?
Article 29.6 of the Irish Constitution states: No
international agreement shall be part of the domestic law
of the State save as may be determined by the
Oireachtas.
As a result of Art 29.6, the Irish legal order adopts a
dualist approach to international treaty obligations:
international law is only effective in domestic law as a
result of domestic legislation.
Michael Forde summarises as follows:
Dualism, which is the political-legal tradition in Britain
and in Ireland, may be described as a doctrine of legal
insularity. ... Dualism distinguishes sharply between
international law and municipal law, and holds that

international legal standards become part of national law

only when they are incorporated by legislation into the
states legal system. The fact that a state becomes bound
by a particular treaty has no significance for its own laws;
for the treatys standards to become part of state law
requires that legislation be enacted that contains the
treaty provisions.18
Irish courts therefore do not apply international treaty
obligations in domestic law in the absence of domestic
legislation incorporating treaty obligations.19 Domestic
18 M Forde, Constitutional Law (Second edn, First Law,
Dublin 2004) 235.
19 See for example Phelan and Whelan, 'National
constitutional law and European integration: FIDE Report'
26; CR Symmons, 'Irlande Ireland' in PM Eisemann (ed)
L'Intgration du droit international et communautaire dans
lordre juridique nationale: tude de la practique en
Europe (Kluwer Law International, The Hague 1996) 317363 330; G Hogan, 'EU Law and National Constitutions
Questionnaire for FIDE 2002: The Irish Constitution and
the European Union' in MT Andens (ed) FIDE XX
Congress: Vol 2 Reports and Conclusions (British Institute
of International and Comparative Law, London 2002) 369386 368.
9
legislation incorporating treaty provisions can be
challenged for unconstitutionality before Irish courts.20
Two decisions of the Supreme Court of Ireland
demonstrate the dualist approach of the Irish legal order.
In In re Laighlis,21 Irish internment legislation was
challenged as contrary to the European Convention on
Human Rights which Ireland had ratified in 1953. The
Supreme Court found:
The insuperable obstacle to importing the provisions of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms into the domestic law of Ireland if
they be at variance with that law is that the the sole and
exclusive power of making laws for the State is hereby
invested in the Oireachtas; no other legislative authority
has power to make laws for the state. Moreover, Article
19, the Article dealing with international relations,
provides at s 6 that no international agreement shall be

part of the domestic law of the State save as may be

determined by the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas has not
determined that the Convention of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms is to be part of the domestic law of
the State, and accordingly this Court cannot give effect to
the Constitution if it be contrary to domestic law or
purports to grant rights or impose obligations additional to
those of domestic law. No argument can prevail against
the express command of s 6 of Article 29 ... before judges
whose declared duty is to uphold the Constitution and the
laws.22
In the 1999 case of Doyle v Commissioner of An Garda
Sochna23, where the plaintiff attempted to invoke
provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights,
to which Ireland was a signatory but which Ireland had not
made part of domestic law. Barrington J wrote in
judgment:
20 The obligations contained in the international
convention then have the status in Irish law of the
incorporating measure a status inferior to the
Constitution. It is therefore possible for the implementing
measure to be challenged for unconstitutionality before
the Irish courts. The courts also appear to be willing to
review the constitutionality of the States accession and
adherence to international agreements even if they are
not incorporated into Irish law, if they undermine the
constitutional order ... In both case, the finding of
unconstitutionality, and thus of the invalidity of the States
adherence as a matter of Irish law, could result in an
inconsistency between the States domestic and
international obligations ... Phelan and Whelan, 'National
constitutional law and European integration: FIDE Report'
26.
21 [1960] IR 93. For a more extensive discussion of the
Irish case law, see Hogan and Whyte, J M Kelly: The Irish
Constitution 548, footnote 220.
22 [1960] IR 93, 124. 23 [1999] 1 IR 249.
10
Ireland is a signatory of the European Convention on
Human Rights and accepts the right of individual petition.
But Ireland takes the dualistic approach to its international
obligations and the European Convention on Human

Rights is not part of the domestic law of Ireland. (See In re

Laighlis [1960] IR 93). The Convention may overlap
with certain provisions of Irish constitutional law and it
may be helpful to an Irish court to look at the Convention
when it is attempting to identify unspecified rights
guaranteed by Article 40.3 of the Constitution.
Alternatively the Convention may, in certain
circumstances, influence Irish law through European
Community law. But the Convention is not part of Irish
domestic law and the Irish court has no part in its
enforcement. 24
As well as providing for Irelands dualist relationship with
international law, Irelands Constitution also recognises
the influence of generally recognised principles of
international law. Article 29.3 provides that Ireland
accepts the generally recognised principles of
international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with
other States.
Article 29.3 has been used to apply generally recognised
principles of international law and customary international
law in Irish courts.25 However, it does not incorporate the
international law obligation pacta sunt servanda in Irish
law.26
In conclusion, Irish courts do not recognise a Irish law
obligation to apply treaty obligations in place of contrary
Irish law. On the contrary, Irish courts recognise that the
Oireachtas possesses the right to legislate contrary to
Irelands treaty obligations in whole or part if the
legislature makes its intentions clear.
In the event of an explicit attempt by the Oireachtas to
remove the application of a part of Community law in
Ireland, Irish courts would not enforce Community law
obligations on the basis of a general Irish law principle of
pacta sunt servanda.
24 [1999] 1 IR 249, 268.
25 Forde, Constitutional Law 237-241; J Casey,
Constitutional Law in Ireland (Third edn, Round Hall Sweet
& Maxwell, Dublin 2000) 190-195; Symmons, 'Irlande
Ireland' 350-356.
26 Even in relation to the generally recognized principles
of international law which are covered by Article 29.3, Irish
courts have held that such principles cannot be part of

Irish municipal law if they are contrary to Irish statute law

- see Casey, Constitutional Law in Ireland 193-194.
11
Do Irish courts recognise a direct Community law
obligation to apply European Community law and disapply
contrary national law?
The European Court of Justice claims that European
Community law itself determines the place of European
Community law obligations in the national legal order and
that national judges have a European Community law
obligation to apply European Community law in place of
contrary national law. According to European Community
law, this European Community law obligation on national
judges is direct and unmediated by national statutes and
constitutional provisions27. Irish judges, however, have
repeatedly disagreed with the ECJs claims about the basis
of supremacy and direct effect of European Community
law in the Irish legal order. Rather, Irish judges conceive of
the supremacy and direct effect of European Community
law in the Irish legal order as derivative of the European
Communities Act and the provisions of the Irish
Constitution which introduce European Community law
into the Irish legal order.
Barrington J, in Crotty v An Taoiseach28 in the High Court,
makes clear that Community law is effective in the Irish
legal order only because of Irish legislation in the form of
the European Communities Act:
These acts [the Third Amendment and the deposit of the
instrument of ratification] may have been sufficient to
make Ireland a member of the European Community in
international law as from 1 January 1973. ... But these acts
were not sufficient in themselves to make Ireland an
effective member of the Community. To make Ireland an
effective member as of 1 January 1973 it was necessary to
make the Treaty part of the domestic law of Ireland. To
achieve this it was necessary to pass an Act of the
Oireachtas pursuant to the provisions of Article 29.6
making the Treaty of Rome part of the domestic law of
Ireland and giving the institutions of the Community a
status in Irish domestic law. Had the Oireachtas not
passed the European Communities Act 1972 Ireland
27 The classic reference is Case 106/77 Amministrazione

delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal Spa [1978] ECR

629.
28 [1987] IR 713, [1987] ILRM 400.
12
might still have been a member of the Community in
international law but it would have been in breach of its
obligations in international law under the Treaty of Rome
and under the Treaty of Accession. This however would not
have been a matter in relation to which the domestic
courts of this country would have had any competence
because the Treaty would not have been part of the
domestic law. The immunity from constitutional challenge
conferred by the second sentence of the Third
Amendment on laws enacted, acts done, or measures
adopted by the Community or its institutions would
therefore have been meaningless as these laws, acts or
measures would not have been part of the domestic law of
this country. To make them part of the domestic law of this
country the European Communities Act 1972 was
necessary.29
Barrington Js judgment in Crotty shows the limited,
contingent and derivative basis of European Community
law supremacy in Irish law: To make EC law part of the
domestic law of Ireland the European Communities Act
1972 was necessary. The views of the European Court of
Justice on supremacy and direct effect notwithstanding,
and unlike the relationship between federal and state law
in a true federal state, European Community law in Ireland
depends on Irish legal provisions which enable its effect in
the domestic legal order.
Irish judges have explicitly recognised the possibility of
deviations between European Community obligations and
the obligations imposed by Irish constitutional law, and
stated that in such circumstances their duty would be to
the Irish Constitution. This possibility occurred in litigation
culminating in the Society for the Protection of Unborn
Children (Ire) Ltd v Grogan30 decision of the Supreme
Court of Ireland over whether an Irish constitutional
amendment restricting access to abortion, enacted by the
Irish people subsequent to the Third Amendment which
provided the immunity from constitutional scrutiny of

European Community obligations in Ireland, could restrict

the availability of information about abortion facilities
outside Ireland which might otherwise have benefited from
the freedom to provide services across borders under
Community law.
29 [1987] IR 713, 757.
30 [1989] IR 753, [1990] ILRM 350.
13
McCarthy J stated in Grogan:
The sole authority for the construction of the Constitution
lies in the Irish courts, the final authority being this Court.
Article 29.4.3 [the Third Amendment, preventing
constitutional challenges to EC law in the Irish legal order]
may exclude from constitutional invalidation some
provision of the Treaty of Rome the enforcement of which
is necessitated by the obligations of membership of the
European Communities; it may be that in enacting the
Eighth Amendment to the Constitution [relating to
abortion] as explained by this Court in the Open Door
Counselling case, the People of Ireland did so in breach of
the Treaty to which Ireland had acceded in 1973.31
McCarthys statement acknowledges the possibility of
domestic constitutional change qualifying the domestic
legislation which receives Community law into national
law, and a clear statement that it is the Irish Supreme
Court not the European Court of Justice that has the
sole authority to determine the resolution of possible
conflicts between different provisions of the Irish
Constitution.
Walsh Js statement (Hederman J concurring) in Grogan
makes the same argument more explicitly, including the
fact that the ECJs response to a preliminary reference
under then Art 177 of the European treaties may not be
decisive where such a decision conflicts with the Irish
Constitution:
It has been sought to be argued in the present case that
the effect of the amendment of Article 29 of the
Constitution [the Third Amendment], which was necessary
to permit our adhesion to the treaties of the European
Communities, is to qualify all rights including fundamental
rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Eighth
Amendment of the Constitution is subsequent in time, by

several years, to the amendment of Article 29. That fact

may give rise to the consideration of the question of
whether or not the Eighth Amendment itself qualifies the
amendment to Article 29. Be that as it may, any answer to
the reference received from the European Court of Justice
will have to be considered in the light of our own
constitutional provisions. In the last analysis only this
Court can decide finally what are the effects of the
interaction of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution
and the Third Amendment of the Constitution.... it cannot
be one of the objectives of the European Communities
that a member state should be obliged to permit activities
31 [1989] IR 753, 770.
14
which are clearly designed to set at nought the
constitutional guarantees for the protection within the
State of a fundamental human right.32
Note that at issue in Grogan was the possibility that an
Irish constitutional amendment subsequent in time to the
amendment providing immunity from the Irish constitution
for European obligations would have limited the immunity
provided by that amendment. As such, Grogan raised the
question on an implied restriction of Community laws
basis in Irish law. Grogan did not raise the issue of an
express restriction of Community laws basis in Irish law.
There are other examples of Irish judges making clear
statements about the limited basis of Community law in
Irish law, and the limited role of the ECJ in interpreting
national law compatibility with Community law. T.F.
OHiggins, Chief Justice of Ireland 1974-1986 and
subsequently Judge of the European Court of Justice, and
so, one may assume, not unaware of the claims of
Community law, wrote after his retirement from the ECJ:
Should a question arise as to whether a particular
measure is so necessitated [this is the test for immunity
under the Third Amendment to the Constitution] it would
seem to me to be one exclusively for the
32 [1989] IR 753, 769. Walsh had earlier mentioned such a
possibility in B Walsh, 'Reflections on the Effects of
Membership of the European Communities in Irish Law' in
F Capotorti (ed) Du droit international au droit de
lintgration : Liber amicorum Pierre Pescatore (Nomos,

Baden-Baden 1987) 805-820 .Hogan and Whyte suggest

that the later case of Society for the Protection of Unborn
Children (Ireland) Limited v Grogan and Others (No 5)
[1998] 4 IR 343 indicates that it is unlikely that Walsh Js
statement in Grogan [1990] ILRM 350 would nowadays be
followed - see Hogan and Whyte, J M Kelly: The Irish
Constitution 535. It should be noted that Grogan (No 5)
merely straightforwardly applies Community law in the
Irish legal order. There is no explicit rejection of Walsh Js
earlier statement and it is not clear from the judgment
that the questions of whether the Irish courts could reach
a decision on the relationship of the Third Amendment and
other provisions of the Irish Constitution at variance with
an opinion of the European Court of Justice or whether
Ireland could be obliged by the European Union to permit
activities which are clearly designed to set at nought the
constitutional guarantees for the protection within the
State of a fundamental human right were before the
court. In the hypothetical circumstance that European
Community law required Irish courts to apply a Community
law obligation which removed all restrictions on the
provision of abortion services within Ireland or to apply a
Community law obligation which restricted freedom of
speech or freedom of worship, it is submitted that Grogan
(No 5) could not be relied upon to settle the issue in
favour of the application of the European Community law
obligation. In this respect, see also Fennelly and Collins:
The Irish Supreme Court cannot, in the final analysis,
renounce its own exclusive power to interpret the
Constitution, including 29.4.5, nor the obligation which the
Constitution imposes to protect the individual rights
guaranteed in it. [Fennelly and Collins write in French
translation by the author] N Fennelly and AM Collins,
'Irlande' in J Rideau (ed) Les tats membres de lUnion
europenne: Adaptations - Mutations - Rsistances
(L.G.D.J., Paris 1997) 263-300 299.
15
High Court under the provisions of Article 34.3.2 of the
Constitution. I cannot see on what basis jurisdiction to
decide what is, essentially, a question as to the validity of
a law having regard to the Constitution can be conferred
on or exercised by any other court.33

Again, the implication is that the domestic law basis for

the operation of Community law in Ireland is Irish law,
here Irish constitutional law, as interpreted by the
Supreme Court of Ireland, and not by the European Court
of Justice.
Clear statements of the limited and contingent
relationship between Community law obligations and Irish
legal provisions which make European law effective in
national law are less common than the pervasive reliance
on those national acts of reception in adjudicating
European Community law questions in Irish Courts, or on
Irish case law, such as Crotty, which in turn relied on those
national acts of reception. Every time an Irish judge states
that they are applying directly effective Community law
because of the European Communities Act and the Third
Amendment to the Irish Constitution, they derive the basis
of European law from a national legal source which has
both the potential for incompatibility with European
Community law and can be unilaterally changed by the
Oireachtas, or, in the case of an amendment to the Irish
Constitution, by the Oireachtas together with the Irish
people.
This conclusion is supported by other Irish court
judgments such as Teresa Tate v Minister for Social Welfare
Ireland, and the Attorney General,34 in which Carroll J
stated: This section [section 2 of the European
Communities Act] is the conduit pipe through which
community law became part of domestic law.35
From the perspective of European Community law, directly
effective European Community law requires no conduit
pipe to become part of domestic law. From the
33 TF O'Higgins, 'The Constitution and the Communities Scope for Stress?' in J O'Reilly (ed) Human Rights and
Constitutional Law: Essays in Honour of Brian Walsh
(Round Hall Press, Blackrock, Co. Dublin 1992) 227-242
229.
34 [1995] 1 IR 418.
35 [1995] 1 IR 418, 437.
16
perspective of the Irish courts, however, it is Irish law
which provides for directly effective Community law
obligations to be part of domestic law.

The case cited earlier in this paper, Pigs and Bacon

Commission, is also an example: The effect of [Section 2
of the European Communities Act 1972] is that
Community law takes legal effect in the Irish legal system
in the manner in which Community law itself provides.
In its own conception, of course, the manner in which
Community law itself provides rejects any derivation from
Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.36
A recent case in the High Court, Hugh Kearns and Irish
Bartering Services Limited v European Commission,37
shows the Irish judges step-by-step reasoning for the
application of Community law supremacy in the Irish legal
order, first from the European Communities Act enabled
by the amendments to Art 29 of the Irish Constitution and
only then from Community law itself:
The provisions of Chapter 9 of the Copyright and Related
Rights Act, 2000, which provides remedies in the domestic
jurisdiction of this Member State for Copyright
infringements, cannot in my judgment limit, exclude or
take precedence over the primary law provisions of
Articles 288 part 2 and 235 of the E.C. Treaty. By Section 2
of the European Communities Act, 1972, as amended by
the European Communities (Amendment) Acts, 1973-2003
as enabled by the several Acts amending Article 29 of the
Constitution, it is provided that:The treaties governing the European Communities...shall
be binding on the State and shall be part of the domestic
law thereof under the conditions laid down in those
treaties.
Part II of the Schedule of the Third Amendment of the
Constitution Act, 1972 provides, inter alia that:36 There are differing views as to whether the reliance by
national courts on national legislative provisions to receive
directly effective EC law into the national legal order is
itself contrary to EC law even where such national
provisions give full effect to the obligations of EC law. See,
for example, G Hogan and A Whelan, Ireland and the
European Union: Constitutional and Statutory Texts and
Commentary (Sweet & Maxwell, London 1995); DR Phelan,
Revolt or Revolution: The Constitutional Boundaries of the
European Community (Round Hall Sweet & Maxwell,
Dublin 1997) 52-57.

37 [2006] 2 IR 1.
17
No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted,
acts done or measures adopted by the State necessitated
by the obligations of membership of the Communities or
prevent laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by
the Communities, or institutions thereof from having the
force of law in the State.
In the event of any conflict between E.C. law, particularly
directly effective law, and National Law, even National
Constitutional Law, the effect of Article 10 [formerly 5] and
Article 249 [formerly 189] of the E.C. Treaty is that
domestic law must give way to the E.C. Law provisions.
This is clearly established by the European Court of Justice
in a series of well known cases ...38
The most detailed studies of the relationship between Irish
law and European Community law concur that the
jurisprudence of Irish courts demonstrates that Ireland,
while facilitating legal outcomes compatible with
Community law, does not recognise a direct Community
law obligation to comply with Community law, but rather
derives that obligation from Irish legal sources.
As Diarmuid Rossa Phelan writes in his study of the
relationship of Community law and Irish law, Revolt or
Revolution:
The incompatibility of national courts relying on national
law and jurisdiction for the enforcement of a European
Community law right is one element of the state of
constitutional disobedience that exists in national law and
national courts, the other being the limits to the
recognition of European Community law in national law,
the difference between the national law perception of
European Community law and European Community laws
self perception, the possibility of unilateral denouncement
and withdrawal, and the limits on amendment to
incorporate European Community laws claims.39
Hogan and Whelan, in Ireland and the European Union,
also emphasise the exclusively national legal basis of
Community law in Irish law:
Later adherents [to the EEC] such as Ireland ...
acknowledge expressly or by implication ... many of the
incidents of the constitutional claims of the Communities

as expressed by the European Court of Justice ... They do

not really accept the basis of these claims, however, in so
far as these constitutional provisions and other acts of
reception are still considered, as a matter of national law,
to be necessary for Community constitutional law to have
force in the national legal order and legal
38 [2006] 2 IR 1, 8.
39 Phelan, Revolt or Revolution: The Constitutional
Boundaries of the European Community 57.
18
space. ... The fundamental difference in perspective
between Community law and national law is obscured in a
number of Member States, including Ireland, by what
Rawlings has called, in the United Kingdom context, the
principle of the mirror image ... While Community law is
operative in the United Kingdom legal order, as in that of
Ireland, only by virtue of relevant incorporating provisions
of the European Communities Acts (section 2(1) in the
Irish case, as supplemented by the terms of Article 29.4.35 of the Constitution), it is sought by that act of
incorporation to grant to Community law the effect in the
national legal order which it itself requires. Thus the daily
interaction of national and Community law, operating on
fundamentally different premises, should be conflictfree. ... The problem with this attempted solution is that
the mirror may be flawed.40
In short, Irish courts do not recognise a direct Community
law obligation to apply Community law and disapply
contrary national law. Like the legal orders of many other
EU member states, Irish courts derive the application of
European Community law in the national legal order from
national law.41 If the Oireachtas, or the Oireachtas and
the Irish people together, decided to explicitly amend the
Irish law provisions which give application to the
obligations of the European treaties in the Irish legal order,
Irish courts would require an Irish law argument for the
continued effectiveness of Community law in the Irish
legal order. A direct Community law argument alone would
not suffice.
Do Irish courts recognise an Irish law obligation to apply
Community law in place of Irish legislation expressly
contrary to Community law?

If the Irish courts derive the effectiveness of European

Community law from Irish law, and there is no Irish law
obligation to apply treaty obligations in the absence
40 Hogan and Whelan, Ireland and the European Union:
Constitutional and Statutory Texts and Commentary 8-9,
11-12. Cf. R Rawlings, 'Legal Politics: The United Kingdom
and Ratification of the Treaty on European Union: Part 1'
(1994) Public Law 254-278
41 TC Hartley, The Foundations of European Community
law: and introduction to the constitutional and
administrative law of the European Community (Fifth edn,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York 2003) 244, 243268; P Craig and G De Brca, EU Law: Text, Cases and
Materials (Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York 2003)
315; K Alter, 'Explaining National Court Acceptance of
European Court Jurisprudence: A Critical Evaluation of
Theories of Legal Integration' in AM Slaughter, A Stone
Sweet and J Weiler (eds) The European Courts and
National Courts Doctrine and Jurisprudence: Legal Change
in its Social Context (Hart Publishing, Oxford 1998) 227252 231.
19
of Irish legislation giving execution to such treaty
obligations, is there an Irish law reason to apply
Community law if Ireland legislated to remove or restrict
the Irish law basis for the effectiveness of European
Community law obligations?
Irish courts apply Community law obligations in Ireland on
the basis of the European Communities Act in conjunction
with Article 29.4.10 of the Irish Constitution (the provision
originally introduced by the Third Amendment to the Irish
Constitution, subsequently altered by later amendments
to the Constitution consequent on the ratification of later
European treaties). As a result, there are two possible
scenarios whereby Ireland might attempt to legislate
expressly contrary to Community obligations. First, the
Oireachtas might expressly legislate contrary to
Community law obligations by explicitly amending the
European Communities Act; second, the Oireachtas, in
conjunction with a referendum of the Irish people, might
adopt a constitutional amendment explicitly contrary to
Community law obligations.

In the first scenario, the Irish courts, whose current

jurisprudence relates to the application of Community law
in Ireland on the basis of the European Communities Act
together with Art 29.4.10 of the Irish Constitution would
have to consider whether its jurisprudence would provide
for the application of Community law in Ireland through Art
29.4.10 alone, which is to say, without the support of the
European Communities Act.
Ireland has never enacted a law attempting to expressly
legislate contrary to European treaty commitments by
amending the European Communities Act, so there are no
authoritative Irish court decisions directly relating to this
scenario. Nor are there national court decisions which
mention, as part of their reasoning in relation to other
circumstances, the hypothetical situation of Irish laws
expressly designed to derogate from European treaty
obligations by amending the European Communities Act.
As
20
such, an answer to this question relies on the
interpretation of the Community law jurisprudence of Irish
courts and on the legal scholarship on the relationship of
Community law and Irish law. It is particularly important to
be precise about the constitutional meaning of Art 29.4.10
of the Irish Constitution.
Article 29.4.10 states:
No provision of this Constitution invalidates law enacted,
acts done or measures adopted by the obligations of
membership of the European Union or of the Communities,
or prevents law enacted, acts done or measures adopted
by the European Union or by the Communities or by
institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the
Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the
force of law in the State.
James Casey describes the difficulties which directly
effective European Community law would have created for
the Irish Constitution if such a provision had not been
inserted into the Irish Constitution:
Thus a regulation promulgated in Brussels immediately
becomes part of Irish domestic law, and may be relied
upon in any relevant proceedings before an Irish court.
This would have been quite incompatible with Article 15s

vesting of the sole and exclusive power of making laws for

the State in the Oireachtas, and its trenchant declaration
that no other legislative authority has such power. But
Article 29.4.3 was effective to remove any difficulty on
that score. ...
Constitutional barriers having been removed by Article
29.4.3 , the Oireachtas passed the European Communities
Act 1972. The key provision is ...:
From the 1st day of January, 1973, the treaties governing
the European Communities and the existing and future
acts adopted by the institution of those Communities shall
be binding on the State and shall be part of the domestic
law thereof under the conditions laid down in those
treaties.
This is plainly effective to incorporate into Irish domestic
law not only the Treaties but all existing and future
regulations, directives, etc., as well as judgments of the
Court of Justice.42
It is possible to create a relatively extensive list of
provisions of the Irish Constitution which might have been
incompatible with Irelands membership of the
42 Casey, Constitutional Law in Ireland 205-206. 21
European Communities and the supremacy and direct
effect of European Community law in the absence of such
an immunity clause.43
The relevant question is whether Article 29.4.10 of the
Irish Constitution is permissive, allowing the otherwise
unconstitutional delegation of competences to be
exercised by the European institutions, or whether it
contains an Irish law requirement of pacta sunt servanda
in relation to the obligations of the European treaties.
The text of the amendment itself, with its negative
instruction, together with much scholarly opinion, supports
the view that the Third Amendment only if the word
only can be suitably applied to such a sweeping provision
prevents the operation of European Community law in
Ireland from being challenged as being contrary to the
provisions of the Irish Constitution. The Third Amendment
does not itself introduce European Community law into the
Irish legal order or require its application. That is the sense
of James Caseys description above, where constitutional

barriers having been removed by the Third Amendment,

the European Communities Act is effective to incorporate
[treaty provisions, secondary legislation of the European
institutions and judgments of the European Court of
Justice] into Irish domestic law.
43 Phelan, Revolt or Revolution: The Constitutional
Boundaries of the European Community 329-332.
Discussion at the time suggests that the approach taken
by Irish authorities was to envisage that European law
would become effective in the Irish legal order through a
statute, with a constitutional amendment required to
prevent such a statute being held unconstitutional by Irish
courts see J Temple Lang, 'Application of the Law of the
European Communities in the Republic of Ireland' Die
Erweiterung der europischen Gemeinschaften (Klner
Schriften zum Europarecht, Heymanns, Kln 1972) 47-64 .
For other discussions of the constitutionality of Irelands
membership of the EEC prior to Irelands accession, see J
Temple Lang, 'A Constitutional Aspect of Economic
Integration: Ireland and the European Common Market'
(1963) 12 (2) International and Comparative Law Quarterly
552-581; J Temple Lang, The Common Market and
Common Law: Legal Aspects of Foreign Investment and
Economic Integration in the European Community, with
Ireland as a Prototype (University of Chicago, Chicago and
London 1966); J Temple Lang, 'The Republic of Ireland and
the EEC - The Constitutional Position: II' in ME Bathurstand
others (eds) Legal Problems of an Enlarged European
Community (Stevens, London 1972) 17-23 ; J Lynch, 'The
Republic of Ireland and the EEC - The Constitutional
Position: I' in ME Bathurstand others (eds) Legal Problems
of an Enlarged European Community (Stevens, London
1972) 13-16 .
22
As Diarmuid Rossa Phelan writes in Revolt or Revolution:
Overall, the provision [the Third Amendment] constitutes
a bar to constitutional challenges to European Community
law rules and Irish implementing measures. It is not
enabling. It does not make European Community law rules
part of domestic law.44
By it is not enabling D.R. Phelan means that the Third
Amendment does not by itself enable Community law in

Ireland in the sense of directly introducing Community law

into the Irish legal order. The Third Amendment does,
however, as the passage of Kearns cited above states,
enable the European Communities Act by preventing that
Act from being held contrary to the Irish Constitution.
D.R. Phelan and Whelan write, similarly, in the 1996 FIDE
Report on Irish Constitutional law and European
integration:
These constitutional provisions are phrased either in
permissive terms ... or in negative terms... Thus, while
they might enable the State to apply Community law
without obstacle, they do not oblige it to do so. Within the
dualist paradigm of the Constitution of Ireland, a further
act of domestic incorporation was necessary in Irish law to
give the force of law to Community law. This Act benefits
from the constitutional immunity contained in Article
29.4.5o of the Constitution. This was the European
Communities Act, 1972.45
This view is also supported by Barrington Js judgment in
Crotty in the High Court, where it is the European
Communities Act which provides the competence for the
domestic courts of Ireland to apply European Community
law, while the Third Amendment provides only immunity
from constitutional challenge:
These acts [the Third Amendment] may have been
sufficient to make Ireland a member of the European
Community in international law as from 1 January 1973. ...
But these acts were not sufficient in themselves to make
Ireland an effective member of the Community. To make
Ireland an effective member as of 1 January 1973 it was
necessary to make the Treaty part of the domestic law of
Ireland. To achieve this it
44 Phelan, Revolt or Revolution: The Constitutional
Boundaries of the European Community
338-339.
45 Phelan and Whelan, 'National constitutional law and
European integration: FIDE Report' 28.
23
was necessary to pass an Act of the Oireachtas pursuant
to the provisions of Article 29.6 making the Treaty of Rome
part of the domestic law of Ireland and giving the
institutions of the Community a status in Irish domestic

law. Had the Oireachtas not passed the European

Communities Act 1972 Ireland might still have been a
member of the Community in international law but it
would have been in breach of its obligations in
international law under the Treaty of Rome and under the
Treaty of Accession. This however would not have been a
matter in relation to which the domestic courts of this
country would have had any competence because the
Treaty would not have been part of the domestic law. The
immunity from constitutional challenge conferred by the
second sentence of the Third Amendment on laws
enacted, acts done, or measures adopted by the
Community or its institutions would therefore have been
meaningless as these laws, acts or measures would not
have been part of the domestic law of this country. To
make them part of the domestic law of this country the
European Communities Act 1972 was necessary.
... It is these matters alone which are given immunity from
constitutional challenge by the second sentence of the
Third Amendment. But such of these matters as are acts
of the institutions of the Communities derive their status
in domestic law from the European Communities Act,
1972. If the second sentence of the Third Amendment is
the canopy over their heads, the Act of 1972 is the perch
on which they stand.46
Note particularly that Crotty states that Community law
enters the Irish legal order subject to Article 29.6 of the
Irish Constitution, by which Irish legislation is needed for
the application of treaty obligations in Ireland. According
to Crotty, it is the European Communities Act and not the
Third Amendment to the Irish Constitution which gives the
Irish courts their competence to apply European
Community law.
The meaning given to the Third Amendment by the Irish
court in Crotty is vital for the contemporary application of
Community law in Ireland. Without it, the application of
Community law in Ireland would be unconstitutional. The
Irish courts have not, however, included pacta sunt
servanda in relation to the European treaties in their
understanding of Third Amendment. The latter concept is
separate from the significant role the court has
acknowledged to the Third Amendment and is not

necessarily implied by the courts jurisprudence.

46 [1987] IR 713, 757, 758.
24
In the recent High Court case of YNR v MN,47 a case
related to divorce, the court did discuss the reasoning
behind the application of a Community regulation in
Ireland, mentioning the Third Amendment (now Art
29.4.10), without referring to the European Communities
Act.
In YNR v MN, however, the argument was advanced by a
party to the case that another provision of the Irish
Constitution related to divorce, Art 41.3.2, would restrict
the application of the provision of the Constitution
originally introduced by the Third Amendment. In response
to this argument, the court said that Art 29.4.10 provided
constitutional protection to Community regulations and
that there was no hierarchy of constitutional rights in play
in the case which would render that constitutional
protection inoperative. The court did not state that directly
effective regulations were applicable in Ireland through
the effect of Art 29.4.10 in the absence of the European
Communities Act. It addressed only that part of the
reasoning for the application of Community law in Ireland
implicated by the argument presented to the court, which
related to an aspect of the content of Art 29.4.10 the bar
Art 29.4.10 provides against judicial review of Community
acts for compatibility with other provisions of the Irish
Constitution which is both widely accepted and entirely
consistent with the view that Ireland can legislate contrary
to Community law by amending the European
Communities Act. The argument that Art 29.4.10 provides
protection for Community law from other provisions of the
Irish Constitution is not evidence that Art 29.4.10 provides
an Irish law obligation of pacta sunt servanda for directly
effective Community law
Many Irish legal scholars agree that Ireland could legislate
contrary to European Community law obligations by
amending the European Communities Act.
47 [2005] 4 IR 552.
25
Diarmuid Rossa Phelan states:
The legislation [the European Communities Act] has the

same problems vis--vis subsequent legislation as the

European Community [sic] Act in the United Kingdom. If a
subsequent statute enacted by the democratically elected
Oireachtas specifically derogated from a European
Community rule, could this 1972 Act be invoked against it?
There is no existing doctrine to say that it could. There is
nothing in Irish law to weaken the effectiveness of a
statute saying European Community law shall not be part
of the domestic law of this state. Or European community
law shall not be part of the domestic law of this state so
far as it conflicts with fundamental rights protected by the
constitution. European Community law has a similar
status in the Irish hierarchy of norms as a statute, the
status being conferred by a statute which benefits from a
jurisdictional immunity of debated extent. European
Community law does not have a status superior to
constitutional law, rather the interaction of the 1972 Act
and Article 29.4 generally preserves its application.48
Such a statute could equally remove the effect of any
Community law obligation.
Hogan and Whelan, commenting on D.R. Phelans Revolt
or Revolution, also allow for the possibility of Irish
legislation explicitly contrary to Community law:
Phelan makes three remarks about section 2 of the
European Communities Act, 1972 ... First, this Act cannot
prevent its later repeal by another Act of the Oireachtas;
this, of course, is true (save in the extreme case that the
legislative power of the Oireachtas under Article 15 of the
Constitution is seen as being among the provisions of the
Constitution disabled from preventing Community law
having the force of law in the State), but it is in practical
terms not very important. It is implicit in the continued
autonomous subsistence of a legal order which
accommodates itself to the existence and claims of
another (rather than accepting those claims in their own
terms) that the possibility persists of abandoning that
accommodation; until that occurs, however, the
accommodation, if well conceived in the terms of the
accommodating legal order, should proceed smoothly. ...
One assumes here, as has been done in the United
Kingdom, that the Community law requirement of primacy
which is introduced into Irish law by section 2 of the

1972 Act will be found, in domestic terms, to

48 Phelan, Revolt or Revolution: The Constitutional
Boundaries of the European Community 333-334, also
352.
26
exclude implicit amendment by an inconsistent later
statute of the 1972 Act or of Community law introduced
into domestic law by its terms.49
(The claim that the possibility of legislating contrary to
Community law is in practical terms not very important
depends of course on the composition of the Oireachtas.)
In a particularly relevant article written at the time of
Irelands accession to the Communities, John Temple Lang
addressed the constitutional meaning of the Third
Amendment to the Irish Constitution. He started from the
position that the amendment to the Constitution itself only
provided for constitutional immunity, and did not confer
any other special status on Community law:
Under Article 29.6 of the Irish Constitution, the reception
of Community law into Irish law can be effected only by an
Act of the Irish legislature. The proposed amendment to
the Constitution validates any Community measure which
would be otherwise inconsistent with the Constitution, but
it does not confer any special status in any other respect
on either Community measures or national measures
adopted to implement Community obligations.50
Temple Lang then considered the question whether
national legislation contrary to directly effective
Community legal obligations, subsequent to Irelands
membership of the Community, would be valid in Irish law,
even if a breach of Irelands European treaty
commitments:
It follows that, even as amended, the Irish Constitution will
not give an express answer to the question: if the Irish
legislature in the future passed an Act inconsistent with
the Act enacting the Treaty, which Act would prevail? ...
The question may be academic ... because a deliberate
breach of the Treaty would be a repudiation of Irelands
commitments in the EEC. ... Since Irish law does not bind
the
49 Hogan and Whelan, Ireland and the European Union:
Constitutional and Statutory Texts and Commentary 13-14,

15.
50 J Temple Lang, 'Legal and Constitutional Implications
for Ireland of Adhesion to the EEC Treaty' (1972) 9
Common Market Law Review 167-178 171. For Temple
Langs consideration of this issue several prior to Irelands
accession to the EEC membership, naturally without
reference to the text of the amendment to the Irish
Constitution as actually adopted, see Temple Lang, The
Common Market and Common Law: Legal Aspects of
Foreign Investment and Economic Integration in the
European Community, with Ireland as a Prototype 55-66;
Temple Lang, 'Application of the Law of the European
Communities in the Republic of Ireland'
27
legislature to enact even a treaty which is binding on
Ireland in international law, it would be logical to say that
the legislature has power under Irish law to repeal or
amend the Act enacting the treaty in question, even where
the repeal or amendment is in breach of Irelands
international law obligations. This is the position in
England ...51
Temple Lang proposed three arguments by which Irish
legislation explicitly contrary to Community obligations
might be contrary to Irish law.
First, such legislation would be contrary to Irelands treaty
obligations and therefore barred by Art 29.3 of the Irish
Constitution (Ireland accepts the generally recognised
principles of international law ...).
Second,
If Irelands entry into the Communities was important
enough to necessitate a referendum and a special
amendment to the Constitution, and if the people
approved the amendment, it would follow that the Irish
legislature should honour the obligations of the State
under those Treaties, once undertaken. This suggests that
the legislature might not have power under the
Constitution (as amended) to act in breach of the
Treaties.52
Third, by analogy with the transfer of powers from the
United Kingdom to the legislatures of former subject
territories upon independence, Temple Lang suggested
that powers transferred jointly with other States are

irrevocably assigned and not delegated.

Temple Langs proposals reveal the difficulty, even for an
observer highly sympathetic to the European institutions,
of finding Irish law reasons why Irish legislation expressly
inconsistent with the Act enacting the Treaty would not
prevail over directly effective Community law obligations
in the Irish courts.
Irish courts have consistently rejected Temple Langs first
argument, that Art 29.3 of the Irish Constitution
incorporates pacta sunt servanda in the Irish legal order.
51 Temple Lang, 'Legal and Constitutional Implications for
Ireland of Adhesion to the EEC Treaty' 171-172.
52 Temple Lang, 'Legal and Constitutional Implications for
Ireland of Adhesion to the EEC Treaty' 173.
28
Temple Langs second proposal, a reference to the
importance of the referendum, may reveal a lack of
confidence about what the text of the Third Amendment
specifically provides. All provisions of the Irish Constitution
are important. Surely it could not be argued that an
amendment which provided constitutional immunity for
the application of European Community law in the Irish
legal order but which did not, as Temple Lang put it,
confer any other special status was unimportant. The
obligations that derive from Irish constitutional provisions
depend on their specific meaning. A basic element in
establishing the specific meaning of constitutional and
other legal provisions involves distinguishing whether the
matter regulated is permitted or, alternatively, required.
Ireland could have amended its Constitution to require
that European law would prevail over subsequent
legislation inconsistent with the Act enacting the Treaty,
but it did not do so, as Temple Langs discussion of the
amendment itself conceded.
It is worth noting, in this regard, that the Irish government
at the time originally proposed a constitutional
amendment which would have protected from
constitutional challenge measures which were consequent
on Irelands membership of the European Union. When
the proposed amendment was criticised as too broad, the
amendment was revised to protect only measures
necessitated by the obligations of membership.53 Irish

courts have maintained a restrictive view concerning the

scope of measures necessitated by the obligations of
membership which benefit from the Third Amendments
protection from constitutional challenge. In Crotty, the
courts found that ratifying the Single European Act was
not necessitated by Irelands obligations of membership of
the EU, with the result that a further constitutional
amendment and thus a referendum was required for
Ireland to ratify the Single European Act and
53 Temple Lang, 'Legal and Constitutional Implications for
Ireland of Adhesion to the EEC Treaty' 169-170.
29
subsequent European treaties.54 Some, like former
Taoiseach John Bruton, have criticised the unnecessarily
restrictive wording of the Third Amendment and the
interpretation given to it by the Irish courts, particularly
for the result that subsequent European treaties require
the approval of the Irish people in a referendum.55
Despite such criticism, however, it is the text of the Third
Amendment itself, and not some general importance to
be attributed to an amendment relating to Irelands
membership of the European Union, which guides Irish
court decisions.
As for Temple Langs third argument, a sceptic might find
the inability of the United Kingdom to reassert powers
granted to other territories now independent, an argument
based above all on the impracticality of a unilateral repeal
of, for example, the Canada Act 1982 by the UK
Parliament, to be a dubious analogy for whether Ireland
(or the United Kingdom, or Canada, for that matter) could
revoke powers delegated to an international organisation
in order to reassert them within their own territory.56
54 For a discussion and references, see Hogan and
Whelan, Ireland and the European Union: Constitutional
and Statutory Texts and Commentary 25-49.
55 The origin of this difficulty is in the unnecessarily
restrictive wording in the unnecessarily restrictive wording
of the original constitutional amendment to authorize
Irelands original accession to the European Union (then
the European Community), and from the subsequent
interpretation of this by the Supreme Court in the Crotty
case. There is a strong argument for revising this provision

of the Constitution. The Irish people, of course, should be

required to be consulted, in referendum, before Ireland
would agree to a binding Treaty commitment to a new
area of activity, or to a qualitative change in the nature of
activity within the European Union. Referenda should not,
however, be required, to approve E.U. Treaties which just
incrementally develop clear commitments already given.
The Government and the Oireachtas must be given a
greater freedom than they now have to ratify E.U. Treaties
that do no more than incrementally develop existing
commitments. Houses of the Oireachtas Joint Committee
on European Affairs, The Future of the European Union
(2002): section 2.17-2.18. Available at
http://europa.eu/constitution/futurum/documents/press/pr
010202_en.pdf.
56 One might add here that there is also reason to doubt
Temple Langs view of the UK law perspective on
parliamentary legislation which infringed on the
independence of former British territories. To take one
example, in a contemporaneous article, considering the
possible application of a similar argument in relation to the
UKs membership of the EEC, Trindade stated ... there is
no evidence whatsoever that an Act of the United
Kingdom Parliament will be declared invalid by the British
courts if the statute is enacted contrary to section 4 of the
Statute of Westminster 1931 or the various Independence
Acts. We can be fairly certain that the courts in the former
dominions or in the independent countries of the
Commonwealth would not give such a statute any effect in
their respective territories, but that is not the same thing
as saying that the courts in the United Kingdom would
declare such an Act of Parliament as invalid or of no effect.
On the contrary, it seems that the courts in the
30
Temple Lang concedes that his view is superficially
incompatible with the dualist Article 29.6 of the Irish
Constitution, which does not provide an exception to the
power of the Oireachtas to determine the application of
international agreements in national law in relation to
powers transferred jointly with other states; and allows
that the view that the Oireachtas has the power to
legislate contrary to international obligations, including

the power to legislate contrary to Community law

obligations after Ireland has joined the Community, is the
traditional one,57 and, if correct, could result in conflicts
between Irish law and directly effective Community law.
58
Based on the most detailed scholarship on the relationship
of Irish and European Community law, there is therefore
considerable scholarly support for the view that Ireland
could explicitly legislate contrary to directly effective
European Community law obligations by amending the
European Communities Act. Such legislation would be
contrary to Irelands international obligations under the
European Treaties, but Irelands courts would give effect to
the Irish legislation and not to Irelands obligations under
the European treaties.
United Kingdom would be bound to say that the statute
was a valid Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. FA
Trindade, 'Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Primacy of
European Community Law' (1972) 35 Modern Law Review
375ff 388. Certainly recent judgments do not indicate that
English courts accepts such a view in relation to
Community law (See, for example, Thoburn v Sunderland
City Council [2003] QB 151). It is perhaps fair to state that
Temple Langs argument is based more on the claim that
these principles are logical as legal principles in any
country than any direct derivation from English law
Temple Lang, The Common Market and Common Law:
Legal Aspects of Foreign Investment and Economic
Integration in the European Community, with Ireland as a
Prototype 58. In his 1966 book, Temple Lang concedes
that both the Dils unilateral repeal, in 1921, of the Act of
Union passed by the Irish Parliament in 1800, despite the
fact that the British and Irish Parliaments had separately
enacted the Act of Union, and the legislation, in the 1930s,
of the Irish Free State Parliament contrary to the AngloIrish treaty, also separately enacted by both parties, pose
difficulties for the view he is advancing Temple Lang, The
Common Market and Common Law: Legal Aspects of
Foreign Investment and Economic Integration in the
European Community, with Ireland as a Prototype 57, 60
(footnote 93).
57 If the traditional view that the Irish legislature has

power under Irish law to enact legislation even in breach

of Irelands treaty obligations is correct, conflicts between
Irish law and directly applicable rules of Community law
could arise. Temple Lang, 'Legal and Constitutional
Implications for Ireland of Adhesion to the EEC Treaty' 174.
Also: The view that the Irish Parliament cannot
constitutionally enact legislation inconsistent with a
binding treaty has no direct authority to support it.
Temple Lang, The Common Market and Common Law:
Legal Aspects of Foreign Investment and Economic
Integration in the European Community, with Ireland as a
Prototype 65.
58 Temple Lang, 'Legal and Constitutional Implications for
Ireland of Adhesion to the EEC Treaty' 173.
31
One thorough discussion of the relationship between Irish
and European Community does offer an alternative
conclusion on Irelands ability to legislate contrary to
Community law by amending the European Communities
Act. Hogan and Whelan, after fair-mindedly considering
the possibility that an explicit subsequent statute would
indeed permit the national legislator to abandon
adherence to Community law (see above: this of course is
true ...), do briefly consider an alternative understanding:
One might add, in any event, that the second clause of
Article 29.4.5 may indeed, on another construction give
constitutional force to Community law, once incorporated;
this task of incorporation being left to ordinary legislation
because of the frequency with which it must occur, very
often for relatively unremarkable amendments...59
With the greatest respect for these distinguished scholars,
and with recognition of the tentative manner in which this
argument is introduced, it is submitted that this
construction is difficult to reconcile with the text of either
the Third Amendment itself or Section 2 of the European
Communities Act. This view would also not seem to be
compatible with the discussions of Temple Lang and others
of the limited meaning of the Third Amendment, nor with
prominent judgments of Irish courts, such as Barrington Js
statement in Crotty that the introduction of European law
in the Irish legal order is subject to Art 29.6 of the
Constitution or Costello Js statement in Pigs and Bacon

Commission which attributes the effect of European

Community law in Ireland directly to Section 2 of the
European Communities Act. Hogan and Whelan provide no
court decisions in support of the possible construction that
what is now Art 29.4.10 gives force to Community law in
Ireland rather than merely permitting the European
Communities Act to do so. The alternative interpretation,
that the European Communities Act gives force to
European Community law in the Irish legal order,
59 Hogan and Whelan, Ireland and the European Union:
Constitutional and Statutory Texts and Commentary 15.
32
while the Third Amendment protects the European
Communities Act from claims of lack of constitutionality,
relies, on the other hand, on a straightforward reading of
both the statute and the constitutional amendment.60 61
60 Only a few other authors explicitly discuss whether
Ireland could legislate contrary to European Community
law and none with thoroughness comparable to DR
Phelan, Hogan and Whelan, or Temple Lang. Dennis Morris,
in the course of arguing that the United Kingdom
Parliament cannot legislate contrary to Community law,
states briefly that Irish judges would not accept that the
Oireachtas can legislate contrary to Community law,
because the Oireachtas, not being sovereign, is subject to
the Irish Constitution and the Irish relationship with the
European Communities is constitutionally sanctioned - see
D Morris, 'The Road to Brussels - Two Routes Compared'
(1988) 9 Statute Law Review 33-61 54. It is certainly the
case that the Oireachtas, not being sovereign, could be
made subject to an Irish constitutional obligation
preventing it from legislating contrary to Community law,
but it is submitted here that the Third Amendment to the
Irish Constitution did not contain that obligation. JeanPierre Puissochet, considering whether European
Community law in Ireland could be suspended or repealed
by Irish legislation, argues that the Irish judge would be in
a good position to assure the supremacy of European law.
However, Puissochets argument is based largely on the
view that Art 29.3 of the Irish Constitution may contain the
obligation pacta sunt servanda, which is not correct see
J-P Puissochet, L'largissement des Communauts

europennes; prsentation et commentaire du trait et

des actes relatifs l'adhsion du Royaume-Uni, du
Danemark et de l'Irlande. (ditions techniques et
conomiques, Paris 1974) 129, also 127. Brian Walsh,
writing soon after the time of Irelands joining the
European Communities, gave a conference talk in
Luxembourg indicating his view that Irish judges would not
permit the Irish legislature to legislate contrary to
European Community law: If this national law expressly
stipulated that it must prevail over Community law, it is
true that the judges would find themselves in a difficult
situation. It would be possible for them to declare that
article 2 of the 1972 law had the effect of preventing the
legislator from promulgating such a law, as long as article
two itself was not expressly abrogated, an abrogation
which could result, in effect, of a declaration by the
legislator that Ireland was leaving the Community. If
judges decided that article 2 of the 1972 law prevents the
national legislator from promulgating such a law, one
could say that the judicial decision was incorrect in that it
created an illegitimate obstacle to legitimate legislative
power. On the other side, one could say that the
constitutional amendment specified that no article of the
Constitution could prevent the direct application of the
treaties. It is evidently impossible to speculate on the
result of such a scenario. My opinion is that the decision
would maintain the fundamental law, which is to say the
treaties and our law of 1972 in consequence of the
application of this law see B Walsh, 'Perspectives du
Droit Communautaire en Irelande' La jurisprudence
europenne aprs vingt ans dexprience communautaire
(Klner Schriften zum Europarecht, Heymanns, Kln 1976)
27-33 31 [Walsh writes in French translation by the
author]. While Walsh is correct that the Third Amendment
does specify that no article of the Constitution could
prevent the direct application of the treaties, the
Amendment does not itself require the application of
Community law in Ireland, as the discussions of Temple
Lang and others emphasise. There must also be
considerable doubt that Irish law requires that the Irish
courts take upon themselves the role of expelling Ireland
from the European Community in the event of a decision

by the Oireachtas to selectively remove the application of

part of European Community law in Ireland by an express
amendment to Art 2 of the 1972 Act.
61 Many other scholars of the relationship of Community
and Irish law do not explicitly consider the question of
whether the Oireachtas can legislate contrary to
Community law. Their understandings of the reasons for
the application of Community law may nevertheless,
depending on meaning they attribute to the Third
Amendment to the Irish Constitution, support, or fail to
support, that possibility. It is fair to summarise that there
is considerable, but not unanimous, support for the view
that directly effective European Community law enters the
Irish legal order not on account of the Third Amendment,
but via the European Communities Act, 1972, subject to
Article 29.6 of the Irish Constitution. Caseys discussion of
Article 29.4.3 does not support the view that it gives
constitutional force to Community law in Ireland, see
Casey, Constitutional Law in Ireland 208-214. Fordes
discussion of European Community law does not consider
the interaction of 29.4.3 and the European Communities
Act in detail. Forde writes In 1972 the Constitution was
amended, incorporating what is 29.4.3, authorizing the
State to become part of these Communities and giving
legal precedence to measures adopted by them or
33
enacted in order to comply with the obligations of
membership Forde, Constitutional Law 252 and indicates
that the European Communities Act was passed in order
to give full effect in Irish law to the EC Treaties and
measures adopted by the EC institutions, citing
Barrington J in Crotty Forde, Constitutional Law 258, a view
compatible with the immunity view of 29.4.3. However,
later Forde writes Provided that they are necessitated by
obligations of membership, Article 29.4.10 of the
Constitution grants the EC regime precedence over Irish
law and even over the Constitution itself. On the
immunity view of 29.4.3, it is rather the European
Communities Act which makes EC law part of the domestic
law of Ireland, and 29.4.3 grants EC law, as introduced by
the European Communities Act, precedence over Irish law
and even over the Constitution itself (though some might

also claim that the immunity was not total in relation to all
aspects of the Irish Constitution). Carolan, in a discussion
of the View of Ireland on Supremacy, agrees that Irish
law requires an Irish law basis for Community laws
effectiveness in Ireland (Thus, from the Irish perspective,
European Union law is supreme because Irish domestic
law, and in particular Irish constitutional law, has been
amended to provide for the supremacy of European Union
law. B Carolan, EU law for Irish Students (Gill & Macmillan,
Dublin 2004) 99), but locates that Irish law basis in what is
now 29.4.10 of the Irish Constitution. Carolans short
discussion contains no consideration of the more limited
immunity clause view of 29.4.10 or indeed any mention
whatsoever of the European Communities Act. McMahon
and Murphy do not consider directly the case of legislating
to amend the European Communities Act but their
approach is compatible with the view that it is the
European Communities Act, and not the Third
Amendment, which introduces Community law into the
Irish legal order: The effect of this article [Art 29.6 of the
Irish Constitution, specifying Irelands dualist approach to
international law] is, briefly, as follows: international
treaties are not part of domestic Irish law until they are
received, or brought home, by an Act of the Oireachtas. A
separate reception process is necessary before treaties
create national, as opposed to international, obligations.
Thus Ireland, like England, subscribed to the dualist view
in relation to this matter. It could be argued that the Third
Amendment to the Constitution, mentioned above, might
have overridden this requirement in relation to Community
matters, but it was felt that a statute clearly complying
with the requirements of Article 29.6 would be a more
desirable method of dealing with the problem in order to
dispel any doubts on the matter. ... Provisions of the
Treaties establishing the European Communities and acts
of the Community institutions which are considered to be
directly applicable by the European Court have full legal
effect in Ireland by virtue of the European Communities
Act, 1972, and require no specific legislative response to
achieve this effect. BME McMahon and F Murphy,
European Community Law in Ireland (Butterworth
(Ireland), Dublin 1989) 272, 276; Similarly, BME McMahon,

'EEC Membership and the Irish Legal System' (1984) 3

Irish Studies 57-78 60-61, 68; Similarly, F Murphy, 'The
European Community and the Irish Legal System' in D
Coombes (ed) Ireland and the European Communities: Ten
Years of Membership (Gill & Macmillan, Dublin 1983) 29-42
30 "[Secondly,] the Community Treaties and the Accession
Treaty had to be approved by the Oireachtas in
accordance with article 29 paragraph 6 of the Constitution
..." . Henchys understanding is that the European
Communities Act makes Community law effective in
Ireland, while the Third Amendment prevents the
European Communities Act from being held
unconstitutional: As far as Ireland is concerned, the
Oireachtas has enacted by s. 2 of the European
Communities Act, 1972, that not alone the Treaties
governing the European Communities but also the existing
and future acts adopted by the institutions of those
Communities, shall be binding on the State and shall be
part of the domestic law under the conditions laid down in
the Treaties. Unless that provision is held not to have been
necessitated by Irelands membership of the E.E.C, the
Third Amendment would preclude it from being held
repugnant to the Constitution. Henchy, 'The Irish
Constitution and the E.E.C.' 22-23. Robinsons view is that
it is the European Communities Act, in line with Art 29.6 of
the Irish Constitution, rather than the Third Amendment or
the direct obligations of Community law, which allows Irish
judges to apply Community law: Section 2 [of the
European Communities Act 1972] provides that these
treaties, and the existing and future acts adopted by the
institutions of the Communities, shall be binding on the
State and shall be part of the domestic law thereof under
the conditions laid down in those treaties. This section
was necessary in order to render Community Law part of
the domestic law of the State. The Third Amendment of
the Constitution Act 1972 had amended the 1937
Constitution to enable this to be done, but it was still
necessary for the Irish Parliament, the Oireachtas, to pass
legislation in this way because of the provisions of Article
29 of the Constitution. Article 29, section 6, provides: No
international agreement shall be part of the domestic law
of the State save as may be determined by the

Oireachtas. It is doubtful, therefore, whether Irish courts

would have been willing to recognise and enforce
Community law in the Irish courts without such
implementation by the Oireachtas, despite the fact that
certain provisions of the Treaties and Regulations under
Article 189 would be regarded as self-executing. MT
Robinson, 'The Irish European Communities Act 1972'
(1973) X Common Market Law Review 352-354 352 [Italics
in original]. Fennelly and Collins
34
In summary then, the application of European Community
law in Ireland is derivative of an Irish statute, the
European Communities Act, which is not subject to implied
amendment or repeal by subsequent Irish statutes, but
remains potentially subject to explicit amendment or
repeal by subsequent Irish statutes. Irish courts do not
adopt the view that the Third Amendment provides for
constitutional immunity only, and that the European
Communities Act is necessary for the application of
Community law in Ireland in line with the dualist
conception of the Irish Constitution. Taking account of its
dualist understanding of international treaties, Ireland
equally legislated, under the forms of the European
Communities Acts, laws seeking to give full effect to
article 29.4.3 of the Constitution Fennelly and Collins,
'Irlande' 268, This amendment [The Third Amendment to
the Constitution] is the indispensable condition for the
validity and acceptance of Community law in Ireland.
Some points are worthy of note. The most radical aspect
of this constitutional provision is that, under the single
reservation that suitable legislation of application is
adopted, it deprives the Constitution itself of all efficacy in
relation with European Community law. [Here a footnote
refers to a later discussion of limitations in this regard,
including the Grogan litigation]. This latter result depends
essentially on the observation of the criteria of necessity,
widely discussed in court decisions. The amendment has
been described as equivalent to a astonishingly wide
immunity clause and as indicating that Community law
has been received on its own very demanding terms in
Irish law [cf. Hogan and Whelan, Ireland and the
European Union: Constitutional and Statutory Texts and

Commentary 7]. All the same, it does not itself confer on

the treaties or the rules derived from it the force of law in
the State. A strict attachment to the dualist concept in
relation to international treaties resulted in the adoption of
a number of European Communities Acts by the
Oireachtas between 1972 and 1995. Fennelly and Collins,
'Irlande' 269. [Fennelly and Collins write in French
translation by the author]. It is difficult to draw clear
conclusions from Fergus Ryans brief discussion of the
supremacy of Community law. On the one hand, Ryan
states that the rule in Art 29.6 of the Constitution does not
apply to the laws and institutions of the European Union,
FW Ryan, Constitutional Law (Round Hall Sweet & Maxwell,
Dublin 2002) 37. (This claim would appear to be contrary
to Barrington Js judgment in Crotty, not to mention the
text of the European Communities Act itself, although it is
certainly true that the laws of the European Union do not
require incorporation one-by-one by specific acts of the
Oireachtas in the normal dualist manner). On the other
hand, Ryan states that the direct effect of European law is
permitted by the Third Amendment to the Irish
Constitution, but further facilitated by the European
Communities Act 1972, which latter automatically makes
Community law part of Irish law Ryan, Constitutional Law
40. The latter understanding would be compatible with the
right of the Oireachtas to legislate contrary to Community
law by amending the European Communities Act. Byrne
and McCutcheons discussion of the implementation of
European Community law in Ireland does not contain a full
discussion of the division of labour between the Third
Amendment and the European Communities Act, but
clearly leans toward a claim that Third Amendment
directly introduces Community law into the Irish legal
order. They write both that the Third Amendment permits
the laws established by the European institutions to have
priority over Irish law and that the Third Amendment
makes Community law part of the domestic law of
Ireland, see R Byrne and JP McCutcheon, The Irish Legal
System (Butterworth (Ireland), Dublin 2001) 642. As for
the European Communities Act, Byrne and McCutcheon
claim that In some respects, it might be said that s 2 of
the 1972 Act merely repeats in another form what is

already explicitly contained in Article 29.4.7 of the

Constitution. Nonetheless, it does provide an explicit
statement that the Treaties and the acts of the Community
institutions are part of the domestic law of the State. and
that The combination of Article 29.4.7 of the Constitution
and the European Communities Act 1972 has given effect
in general terms to the Treaties of the European
Community and Union. [with the consequence that no
domestic implementing measures are required for
Community Regulations] Byrne and McCutcheon, The Irish
Legal System 643, 665. David Gwynn Morgan writes EEC
law is part of Irish law. This result was brought about by
the European Communities Act, 1972 and Art 29.4.3 which
was an amendment added to the Constitution in 1972 ... In
most cases, domestic Irish courts have jurisdiction over
actions involving EEC law. However, without more, there
would be a danger that the domestic court systems of
each of the member states would give varying
interpretations of EEC law. To meet this difficulty the EEC
Treaty (which is part of Irish law, by virtue of the 1972
amendment) includes an article (Art 177) which provides
as follows: ... DG Morgan, Constitutional Law of Ireland
(Second Edition edn, Round Hall Press, Blackrock, Co.
Dublin 1990) 195- 196.
35
apply Irish legislation enacted posterior to European
Community law where such laws are contrary to European
Community law, unless such Irish legislation were to
explicitly amend the scope of the European Communities
Act by which European Community law receives
application in the Irish legal order.
As for the second scenario, if the Oireachtas and the Irish
people enacted a constitutional provision explicitly
contrary to Community law obligations, the Irish courts,
whose current jurisprudence relates to the application of
Community law in Ireland on the basis of the European
Communities Act together with Art 29.4.10 of the Irish
Constitution, would have to consider whether Irish
jurisprudence would provide for the application of
Community law in Ireland where the Irish constitutional
legislator had explicitly attempted to deprive it of effect.
The jurisprudence of Irish courts on the relationship of

Community and Irish law provides no reason to believe

that Irish courts would apply Community law in the place
of an expressly contrary Irish constitutional amendment.
Irish courts derive the effect of Community law obligations
in Ireland from Irish law. All Irish law, including previously
enacted Irish constitutional law and statute law, can be
changed by constitutional amendment.62 On that basis,
Ireland could legislate contrary to Community law by an
explicit constitutional amendment.
62 It has been argued that there could be possible
limitations on amendment of the Irish constitution in
relation to Irish constitutional law natural law rights. See
Phelan, Revolt or Revolution: The Constitutional
Boundaries of the European Community 358-367 for a
discussion of possible limits to the amendment of the Irish
Constitution derived from natural law. The more common
view, supported by Re Article 26 and the Information
(Termination of Pregnancies) Bill 1995 [1995] 1 IR 1, is that
the Irish peoples power to amend the Constitution is not
restricted by fundamental natural law rights. See Hogan
and Whyte, J M Kelly: The Irish Constitution 2096-2097,
see also the comparative discussion in R O'Connell,
'Guardians of the Constitution: Unconstitutional
Constitutional Norms' (1999) 4 Journal of Civil Liberties 4875. Whether or not there are limits on amendment of the
Irish Constitution derived from natural law rights does not,
however, affect the argument advanced here. There is no
reason to believe that the application of Community law in
Ireland might fall into the limited category of fundamental
natural law rights.
36
(As we have seen, there is considerable evidence from
court decisions and scholarly opinion that Irish courts
would give effect to Irish legislation contrary to
Community law which amended the European
Communities Act. The recourse to a constitutional
amendment, on that view, would not be ineffective, but it
would be excessive to the requirement of legislating
contrary to Community law.)
Even scholars who view the effect of Community law in
Ireland as deriving from the Irish Constitution, rather than
the European Communities Act, accept that the possibility

that an Irish constitutional amendment could disapply

Community law in Ireland.63
Conclusion
In conclusion, there is no Irish law obligation to apply
treaty obligations in place of contrary Irish law. Irish courts
do not recognise a direct Community law obligation to
apply Community law in place of contrary Irish law. There
is no Irish constitutional law obligation to apply
Community law in the absence of the European
Communities Act as enabled by provisions of the Irish
Constitution. As a result, Ireland could legislate contrary to
Community law. Such legislation could be made either by
63 For example, Carolan, in his brief discussion of
European law supremacy in Irish law: Thus, from the Irish
perspective, European Union law is supreme because Irish
domestic law, and in particular Irish constitutional law, has
been amended to provide for the supremacy of European
Union law. This arguably contrasts with the perspective of
the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The
court view seems to be that by reason of accession to the
European Union, Ireland irrevocably surrendered a
measure of national sovereignty over certain limited
areas. The tension between European Union and national
views of the supremacy of European Union law could arise
if Ireland amended its constitution to provide for the
supremacy of national law in one of the areas covered by
European Union law. That is, if Ireland took: a subsequent
unilateral act incompatible with the concept of the
European Union. [Carolan quotes Costa] From the
viewpoint of the Court of Justice, amending the Irish
Constitution would not affect the supremacy of European
Union law. It is not clear that Ireland would have the same
view of the matter. However, until such time as European
Union and Irish law seriously clash over a concrete issue,
this tension is unlikely to boil over into a real issue.
Carolan, EU law for Irish Students 99. Also Forde: Whether
this clause [29.4.10] precludes amending the Constitution,
in order to establish a somewhat different relationship
between the State and the EC/EU, is debatable: it would
appear to be subject to Article 46, which permits [a]ny
provision of the Constitution to be amended in a
referendum carried out in the manner stated here. Forde,

Constitutional Law 262. Fergus Ryan allows that, if Walsh J

in Grogan is correct, constitutional amendments
subsequent in time to amendments allowing the
ratification of European treaties might prevail over
European law Ryan, Constitutional Law 39.
37
express legislation to amend the European Communities
Act or by an express constitutional amendment. Irish
courts would enforce such legislation notwithstanding the
European Community law doctrines of supremacy and
direct effect or decisions of the European Court of
Justice.64
This final section briefly considers whether the right of
Irish political institutions to legislate contrary to European
Community law, as has been argued here, would be
affected should the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for
Europe or a subsequent treaty similar in substance to
the latter be ratified by all the member states and come
into force in Ireland, and makes some related observations
about the constitution of the European Union.
Unlike previous European treaties, the Treaty Establishing
a Constitution for Europe contained a provision explicitly
providing for the supremacy of European Community law
over national law: The Constitution and law adopted by
the institutions of the Union in exercising competences
conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the
Member States.65
Despite this provision, if the Treaty Establishing a
Constitution for Europe were to come into force, Irish
political institutions would retain their current right to
legislate
64 Cf. TC Hartley, Constitutional Problems of the European
Union (Hart, Oxford, Portland, Or. 1999) 176-177. The
position in the United Kingdom is well-known, but
analogous circumstances are applicable in other member
states. Zahle writes, for example, about the possibility of
the national parliament expressly legislating contrary to
certain European Community obligations in Denmark,
where like Ireland a national constitutional amendment
permits delegation by statute of unusual authority to the
European institutions: Further, since the accession was
effected by statute, it can be changed by subsequent

statute law. The subsequent statute may first of all result

in a general amendment of the Accession Act whereby the
national legal basis for the cooperation with the EU would
disappear. Secondly, there may be problems in connection
with a specific statute that in particular area makes
provisions in conflict with Community law. If the legislature
has unequivocally revoked the EUs powers to regulate the
area in question it is undoubtedly possible to legislate in
conflict with Community law. But even in a situation where
such unequivocal revocation has not been laid down by
statute, but where some regulation has been adopted
which is acknowledged and intended as a breach of the
existing Community law, a Danish authority must give
priority to Danish law over Community law. H Zahle,
'Danish Report' FIDE Berichte fr den 17 Kongress Berlin:
National Constitutional Law vis--vis European Integration
(Nomos, Baden-Baden 1996) 60-69 66.
65 Art I-6 Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. 38
contrary to European Community law and receive the
application of that legislation by the Irish courts. Because
the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe would
remain a treaty, the effectiveness of its obligations in the
Irish legal order would continue to be derivative of the
Irish legal provisions, both statutory and constitutional, to
provide for its force in the Irish legal order. As such, Irish
political institutions would retain the right to unilaterally
amend or repeal the Irish legal provisions in question.
There is no reason why a provision of the treaty itself
would alter the basis of the relationship between the two
orders. Article 29.6 of the Irish Constitution does not
provide an exception to the dualist relationship between
Irish law and treaty obligations for treaties which claim
explicit primacy over national law, just as it does not
provide any exception for the treaty obligations as
determined through a system of preliminary references to
an international court.
A very similar question has already been considered in
relation to an earlier proposal for a European treaty which
contained a provision explicitly providing for the
supremacy (or primacy) of European Community law. In
1984, the European Parliament voted to support the Draft

Treaty establishing the European Union, commonly

associated with Altiero Spinelli.66 The Draft Treaty
establishing the European Union contained an explicit
statement of the primacy of European Community law
similar to that in the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for
Europe.
In particular, Article 42 of the Draft Treaty stated:
The law of the Union shall be directly applicable in the
Member States. It shall take precedence over national law.
Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the
Commission, the implementation of the law shall be the
responsibility of the authorities of the Member States. An
organic law shall lay down the procedures in accordance
with which the
66 European Parliament, Draft Treaty establishing the
European Union (European Parliament Directorate-General
for Information and Public Relations, Luxembourg 1984).
39
Commission shall ensure the implementation of the law.
National courts shall apply the law of the Union.
The Draft Treaty establishing the European Union never
came into effect, but its contents were discussed by the
scholars of European integration. For our purposes, John
Temple Langs analysis of the Draft Treaty in the Irish
context is particularly relevant.
Temple Lang noted that Oireachtas legislation would be
necessary to make the Draft Treaty part of Irish law:
An amendment to the constitution on the lines of the 1972
amendment would make it possible for Ireland to join the
European Union, but would not make Ireland a member.
Ratification of the new Treaty could take place only after
the amendment to the constitution had been signed by
the President and so passed into law. Ratification of any
treaty is an act of the Government under Article 28 of the
constitution and no treaty (even one expressly mentioned
in an amendment to the constitution) becomes part of the
domestic law of the Irish State except by an act of the
Oireachtas. After the constitution had been amended,
therefore, it would be necessary for the new Treaty to be
enacted into law by an act similar to the European
Communities Act 1972.67
Temple Lang then notes that the position of European

Community law in the Irish legal order under the Draft

Treaty would depend on the Irish implementing legislation.
If that Irish legislation were unchanged, the relationship
between Irish law and European Community law would
also be unchanged by the Draft Treaty.
Ratification by Ireland of the new Treaty setting up the
European Union would be possible only after an Act
essentially similar to the European Communities Act 1972
had been adopted. (Some drafting improvements could be
imagined.)
The rules of Irish law concerning the supremacy of
Community law, and the effects of rules of Community law
which are not directly applicable, would be the same
under the new Treaty as in the case of the Community
Treaties [here Temple Lang refers to his 1972 article,
Legal and Constitutional Implications for Ireland of
Adhesion to the EEC Treaty, pages 171-176, already
discussed above], unless the
67 J Temple Lang, 'The Draft Treaty establishing the
European Union and the Member States: Ireland' in R
Bieber, J-P Jacqu and JHH Weiler (eds) An Ever Closer
Union: A critical analysis of the Draft Treaty establishing
the European Union (Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities, Luxembourg 1985) 241-259 248.
40
constitutional amendment or the implementing legislation
were differently drafted. There is no reason to think that
they would be.68
The reference by Temple Lang to his 1972 article concedes
the traditional view that Ireland would be able to legislate
contrary to Community law, even after the coming into
force of the Draft Treaty establishing the European Union
with its explicit claim of the supremacy of national law,
unless the Irish courts accepted one of Temple Langs
three contrary arguments described above. For the
reasons advanced above, these three arguments are
unpersuasive.
Temple Lang was prescient in expecting that Irish
legislation to implement a proposed European treaty
containing an explicit provision on the supremacy of
European law would be likely to replicate the legislation
used to implement prior European treaties. The Irish

governments proposed constitutional legislation the

Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2005
to implement the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for
Europe replicates the structure established by the Third
Amendment, with immunity from constitutional review
provided for laws enacted etc. that are necessitated by
obligations of membership of the European Union.69
On that basis, the relationship of European Community law
and the Irish legal order would remain unchanged, just as
the relationship of European Community law and the Irish
legal order was unchanged in this respect by the passage
of earlier statute legislation and constitutional
amendments, consequent on earlier European treaties,
which replicated the language of the European
Communities Act 1972 and the Third Amendment to the
Irish Constitution. The acts of the European institutions
would
68 Temple Lang, 'The Draft Treaty establishing the
European Union and the Member States: Ireland' 248
69Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill [No.
15 of 2005] available at
http://www.europeanconstitution.ie/constitution/TextofBill.
pdf.
41
continue to derive their status in Irish domestic law from
the European Communities Act.
Although under the current Irish legal provisions which
provide for the effect of European law in the Irish legal
order, the Oireachtas retains the right to legislate contrary
to European Community law, it should be emphasised
however that the relationship between European
Community law and Irish law could be changed. Such a
change could be achieved by enacting new amendments
to the Irish Constitution which, unlike the Third
Amendment, would provide that Irish legislation giving the
force of law to European Community law in Ireland could
not be repealed or amended by the Oireachtas. A
constitutional amendment of this sort could also be used
to remove other limits on the application of European
Community law in Ireland, such as the requirement of the
current provision that obligations be necessitated by
(rather than, for example, consequent on) membership of

the European Union in order to benefit from the immunity

provided by Art 29.4.10, or, as John Bruton has proposed,
to allow the ratification of European treaties without the
requirement for a referendum. Such a constitutional
amendment could be voted by the Oireachtas and put to
the vote of the Irish people at any time, whether in
conjunction with a new European treaty or not.
Even then, the application of Community law in Ireland
would depend on provisions of the Irish Constitution,
rather than directly on European Community law. It would
not be straightforward to amend the Irish Constitution so
as to prevent subsequent amendments to the Irish
Constitution withdrawing such application of Community
law in the Irish legal order as earlier amendments had
granted.
This discussion of the relationship of Irish law and
European Community law prompts some brief wider
thoughts concerning the relationship of national law and
European Community law in general. The existing
literature on Community laws
42
relationship with national law tends to focus on the
limitations often related to human rights or the control of
the scope of competences delegated to the European
institution which national judges claim apply to the
delegation of national competences to EU authorities. But
these limitations are just the most visible subset of a
much wider problem. To understand national laws
relationship to Community law as the acceptance of
Community law supremacy with lingering or latent proviso
in relation to fundamental human rights (or control of
competences etc) would be to assume that a static
position fully represents a potentially dynamic
relationship.
National legal orders, as sovereign jurisdictions, claim to
control the application of all law, including all forms of law
derived from treaties, within their territorial jurisdictions,
even where national courts have accepted the
supremacy and direct effect of Community law. Given that
national parliaments have passed national laws which
provide full execution to the obligations of the European
treaties, under those circumstances the only limits on the

effectiveness of Community law which may be potentially

litigated in the national jurisdiction may relate to human
rights (or control of competences, etc) where national
constitutional jurisprudence requires such limits on laws
giving execution to treaties (even where, as in Ireland,
laws giving full execution to the European treaties find a
constitutional authorisation for greater delegation of
authority than would otherwise be constitutionally
permitted). In other words, current national legislation and
jurisprudence preserves a status quo which provides that
directly effective Community law obligations receive
automatic application in the national legal orders.
However, the national legal orders claim to control the
application of all law in their territorial jurisdiction includes
the power to unilaterally supplement existing limits on
Community law in the national legal order with new and
further limits by national
43
statutory or constitutional change. The latent proviso for
the application of European obligations in the national
legal order does not consist of narrowly-targeted
qualifications related to human rights or the control of
competences delegated to the European institutions, but
rather comprises the broadest possible claim implied by
omnipotent law-making power of the sovereign
jurisdictions of the member states. In the jurisdictions of
EU member states, such as Ireland, it is not so much the
constitutional claims of European Community law that
prevent the member states from legislating contrary to
Community law but rather the fact that the member states
persistently refrain from legislating to limit the effect of
Community law in the national jurisdictions which gives
European Community law its constitutional character.
12,432 Words.
44
Bibliography
K Alter, 'Explaining National Court Acceptance of European
Court Jurisprudence: A Critical Evaluation of Theories of
Legal Integration' in AM Slaughter, A Stone Sweet and J
Weiler (eds) The European Courts and National Courts
Doctrine and Jurisprudence: Legal Change in its Social
Context (Hart Publishing, Oxford 1998) 227-252

R Byrne and JP McCutcheon, The Irish Legal System

(Butterworth (Ireland), Dublin 2001)
B Carolan, EU law for Irish Students (Gill & Macmillan,
Dublin 2004)
J Casey, Constitutional Law in Ireland (Third edn, Round
Hall Sweet & Maxwell,
Dublin 2000)
P Craig and G De Brca, EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials
(Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York 2003)
European Parliament, Draft Treaty establishing the
European Union (European Parliament Directorate-General
for Information and Public Relations, Luxembourg 1984)
N Fennelly and AM Collins, 'Irlande' in J Rideau (ed) Les
tats membres de lUnion europenne: Adaptations Mutations - Rsistances (L.G.D.J., Paris 1997) 263- 300
M Forde, Constitutional Law (Second edn, First Law, Dublin
2004)
TC Hartley, Constitutional Problems of the European Union
(Hart, Oxford, Portland,
Or. 1999)
TC Hartley, The Foundations of European Community law:
and introduction to the constitutional and administrative
law of the European Community (Fifth edn, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, New York 2003)
S Henchy, 'The Irish Constitution and the E.E.C.' (1977) (1)
Dublin University Law Journal 20-25
G Hogan, 'EU Law and National Constitutions
Questionnaire for FIDE 2002: The Irish Constitution and
the European Union' in MT Andens (ed) FIDE XX
Congress: Vol 2 Reports and Conclusions (British Institute
of International and Comparative Law, London 2002) 369386
G Hogan and A Whelan, Ireland and the European Union:
Constitutional and Statutory Texts and Commentary
(Sweet & Maxwell, London 1995)
G Hogan and G Whyte, J M Kelly: The Irish Constitution
(LexisNexis, Dublin 2003) Houses of the Oireachtas Joint
Committee on European Affairs, The Future of the
European Union (2002)
J Lynch, 'The Republic of Ireland and the EEC - The
Constitutional Position: I' in ME Bathurstand others (eds)
Legal Problems of an Enlarged European Community

(Stevens, London 1972) 13-16

BME McMahon, 'EEC Membership and the Irish Legal
System' (1984) 3 Irish Studies 57-78
45
BME McMahon and F Murphy, European Community Law in
Ireland (Butterworth (Ireland), Dublin 1989)
DG Morgan, Constitutional Law of Ireland (Second Edition
edn, Round Hall Press, Blackrock, Co. Dublin 1990)
D Morris, 'The Road to Brussels - Two Routes Compared'
(1988) 9 Statute Law Review 33-61
F Murphy, 'Community Law in Irish Courts 1973-1981'
(1982) 7 European Law Review 331-345
F Murphy, 'The European Community and the Irish Legal
System' in D Coombes (ed) Ireland and the European
Communities: Ten Years of Membership (Gill & Macmillan,
Dublin 1983) 29-42
R O'Connell, 'Guardians of the Constitution:
Unconstitutional Constitutional Norms' (1999) 4 Journal of
Civil Liberties 48-75
TF O'Higgins, 'The Constitution and the Communities Scope for Stress?' in J O'Reilly (ed) Human Rights and
Constitutional Law: Essays in Honour of Brian Walsh
(Round Hall Press, Blackrock, Co. Dublin 1992) 227-242
DR Phelan, Revolt or Revolution: The Constitutional
Boundaries of the European Community (Round Hall Sweet
& Maxwell, Dublin 1997)
DR Phelan and A Whelan, 'National constitutional law and
European integration: FIDE Report' (1997) 6 Irish Journal of
European Law 24-64
J-P Puissochet, L'largissement des Communauts
europennes; prsentation et commentaire du trait et
des actes relatifs l'adhsion du Royaume-Uni, du
Danemark et de l'Irlande. (ditions techniques et
conomiques, Paris 1974)
R Rawlings, 'Legal Politics: The United Kingdom and
Ratification of the Treaty on European Union: Part 1' (1994)
Public Law 254-278
MT Robinson, 'The Irish European Communities Act 1972'
(1973) X Common Market Law Review 352-354
FW Ryan, Constitutional Law (Round Hall Sweet & Maxwell,
Dublin 2002)
E Stein, 'Toward Supremacy of Treaty - Constitution by

Judicial Fiat in the European

Economic Community' (1965) 48 Rivista di Diritto
Internazionale 3-28
A Stone Sweet, The Judicial Construction of Europe (Oxford
University Press, Oxford, New York 2004)
CR Symmons, 'Irlande Ireland' in PM Eisemann (ed)
L'Intgration du droit international et communautaire dans
lordre juridique nationale: tude de la practique en
Europe (Kluwer Law International, The Hague 1996) 317363
J Temple Lang, 'A Constitutional Aspect of Economic
Integration: Ireland and the European Common Market'
(1963) 12 (2) International and Comparative Law Quarterly
552-581
J Temple Lang, The Common Market and Common Law:
Legal Aspects of Foreign Investment and Economic
Integration in the European Community, with Ireland as a
Prototype (University of Chicago, Chicago and London
1966)
46
J Temple Lang, 'Application of the Law of the European
Communities in the Republic of Ireland' in Die Erweiterung
der europischen Gemeinschaften (Klner Schriften zum
Europarecht, Heymanns, Kln 1972) 47-64
J Temple Lang, 'Legal and Constitutional Implications for
Ireland of Adhesion to the EEC Treaty' (1972) 9 Common
Market Law Review 167-178
J Temple Lang, 'The Republic of Ireland and the EEC - The
Constitutional Position: II' in ME Bathurstand others (eds)
Legal Problems of an Enlarged European Community
(Stevens, London 1972) 17-23
J Temple Lang, 'The Draft Treaty establishing the European
Union and the Member States: Ireland' in R Bieber, J-P
Jacqu and JHH Weiler (eds) An Ever Closer Union: A
critical analysis of the Draft Treaty establishing the
European Union (Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities, Luxembourg 1985) 241-259
FA Trindade, 'Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Primacy
of European Community Law' (1972) 35 Modern Law
Review 375ff
B Walsh, 'Perspectives du Droit Communautaire en
Irelande' in La jurisprudence europenne aprs vingt ans

dexprience communautaire (Klner Schriften zum

Europarecht, Heymanns, Kln 1976) 27-33
B Walsh, 'Reflections on the Effects of Membership of the
European Communities in Irish Law' in F Capotorti (ed) Du
droit international au droit de lintgration : Liber
amicorum Pierre Pescatore (Nomos, Baden-Baden 1987)
805-820
JHH Weiler, 'Alternatives to withdrawal from an
International Organization: The case of the European
Economic Community' (1985) 20 (2-3) Israel Law Review
282- 298
JHH Weiler, 'The Transformation of Europe' (1991) 100 Yale
Law Journal 2403-2483
H Zahle, 'Danish Report' in FIDE Berichte fr den 17
Kongress Berlin: National Constitutional Law vis--vis
European Integration (Nomos, Baden-Baden 1996) 60-69
47
Institute for
International Integration Studies The Sutherland Centre,
Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland

Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by authority of the same . . .. No statutes have been passed under
the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911-1949

http://www.francisbennion.
com/pdfs/nonfb/1969/1969-001-nfb-isthe-parliament-act-ultravires.pdf
Terms of Reference set for independent
investigator to review allegations made in
connection with Banking Inquiry
investigation

The terms of reference have been set for the investigation by

Mr Senan Allen SC into allegations made by a member of staff
under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.
22nd July 2015
Mr Allen has been appointed to conduct an independent review of
the issues raised in a report made by a member of staff of the
Investigation Team, particularly in relation to allegations of
irregularity and that false information was provided to the Banking
Inquiry Committee. It also alleges that investigators assisted
participants to obtain favourable treatment and that conflicts of
interest were not dealt with appropriately. Further, it alleges that
information or documents were leaked to a named journalist.
Under the terms of reference of his investigation, Mr Allen is
required to consider the allegations made by the staff member in
the context of the legislation underpinning the Banking Inquiry, as
well as its Terms of Reference, the time limit on its work and any
other relevant factors.
It is expected that Mr Allens report will be presented to the Acting
Clerk of Dil ireann by the end of August and will include
recommendations identifying any further action that should be
taken by the Houses of the Oireachtas Service.

GAA president open to

association dropping use of
Irish flag and anthem
Gaelic games to be introduced to schools in Emirates with
4,000 Irish teachers in UAE
Sen Moran

In the context of an agreed Ireland, the GAA would consider curbing the
widespread use of the Irish flag and national anthem. Photograph: Cathal

GAA president Aogn Fearghail has said that he is

open to the idea of dropping the widespread use of the
Irish flag and anthem in the context of what he called
an agreed Ireland.
He volunteered the view when asked whether it was
time to consider relaxing the rules in this respect for
overseas units, many of whose members are not Irish
a view originally floated by former GAA director
general Liam Mulvihill.
Well, itd be time to look at it in our own island too in
terms of an agreed Ireland, which everybody in Ireland
and everybody in the GAA looks at. You certainly
cannot look at these issues in advance of an agreement,
thats for sure. The flag and the anthem means a lot to
the GAA and will continue to do so, but who knows in
the future? In the future, if there are different
agreements in place for the whole of Ireland, of course
the GAA would be inclusive in that.
Further questioned on what type of agreements he had
in mind, he replied that circumstances were changing.

Changing world

There could be further agreements politically at home.

There is a massively changing world at home. Brexit is

going to affect the GAA the same as its going to affect
everyone else and it does cause concerns. In the future
if there are new agreements and new arrangements
wed be open-minded about things like flags and
anthems but not in advance of agreements.
He pointed out that there had already been moves by
the GAAs European Board to underline the
importance of the games as opposed to their cultural
provenance.
I would say in terms of overseas, Europe GAA have
changed their name; theyve rebranded. Theyre now
Gaelic Games of Europe and I think thats an inclusive
title that they have chosen deliberately to include their
camogie and their football and have changed their
logo.
He added that the Irish brand probably causes more
difficulty at home and commended overseas units for
their inclusiveness. We have to learn from our
international units that we should never have closed
minds about things that we always thought were
precious and sacred. They may well be that but we have
to have open minds as to where this could go.

Schools in the Emirates

On a more practical front, Fearghail said that the

GAA, working through the embassies of Ireland and
the UAE, had cleared the way for Gaelic games to be
introduced to schools in the Emirates.
A lot of children are of ex-pat Irish but a lot arent.
They find the games exciting. Were now getting into
the schools here, which is a huge thing. There are
almost 4,000 between Dubai and Abu Dhabi. There are
4,000 young Irish teaching in schools. They really
value them as excellent teachers. It is a difficult role.
We have now worked through the embassies again,

particularly the UAE embassy in Ireland and we have

now established that we can have Gaelic games in the
schools.
That will be interesting and it might follow the same
model as in Canada. Its now in Canada on the official
curriculum in Ontario province and they enjoy it. They
find that it suits the Canadian style. It gives all body
strength, upper and lower, its safe. It has progressed
the game enormously over there. All that has to be
welcome.
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/gaa-president-opento-association-dropping-use-of-irish-flag-and-anthem-1.2885324

GAA president open to

association dropping use of
Irish flag and anthem
Gaelic games to be introduced to schools in Emirates with
4,000 Irish teachers in UAE
PLEASE NORTHERN IRELAND AND BRITAIN AND CANADA , THEY
WANT TO USE LOGO EU FLAG INSTEAD NO WAY
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/gaa-president-opento-association-dropping-use-of-irish-flag-and-anthem-1.2885324

Fool Me Once Coveney Shame on You, Fool

me Twice Coveney Shame on Me

Anti Austerity Alliance calls for water

protesters to 'polish their boots', saying

massive protests loom

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

The Anti Austerity Alliance has called for water charges to

be abolished - completely.
An expert report on the future of water is due out this
week. It is expected to recommend that the State absorb
the cost of household water use.
AAA TD Mick Barry (pictured) said that if the charges do
not go, they are ready to take action.
"We need to have the abolition of the water charges, not
their amendment," he said.
"Why keep a water charges regime in place at all, if only a
tiny minority are going to pay them? This is clearly all
about keeping a foot in the door (and) establishing a basic
principle in order to increase the price and the scope at a
later date.
"The Anti Austerity Alliance would be asking people to get
their marching boots polished up over the Christmas
period, because I think there may be a need for massive
protests on the street in the New Year."
BRACE yourself Bridget, there be stormy seas ahead. Next

week, the long-awaited report from the Water Commission

is to be delivered to the Dil and government.

Protesters march through Dublin city during a

demonstration last September against water charges.
Picture: Sam Boal/Rollingnews.ie
The Commissions job has been to design a future for how
we as a country will fund our water network.
Politically, however, the commissions job is incredibly
complicated, given the disparate make-up of the present
Dil.
On one hand, it must deliver a model which prevents
Ireland from falling foul of stiff European rules, on the
other realising the considerable political opposition to any
return to water charges.
Some have said the commission must deliver a
mechanism which will get Fianna Fil off its abolitionist
perch while allowing Fine Gael re-establish its commitment
to water charges.
Having been the greatest political cock-up in living
memory, the introduction of water charges represents the
single greatest challenge to the stability of this minority
government, other than Shane Ross and Enda Kennys
rocky relationship.
In truth, the fate of water charges remains an uncertain
one, and the chances of this government falling over the

issue remains a very clear and present danger.

Housing Minister Simon Coveney is the man who has
responsibility for managing this issue. And beyond the
direct fate of water, he knows his chances of becoming the
next Fine Gael leader are riding on this.

Simon Coveney
I understand Coveney anticipates that what is most likely
to emerge is a system of charges whereby a generous
allowance per person will apply, with usage above that
allowance having to be paid for.
The allowance would be determined by the United Nations
figures of what western adults and children require each
day in terms of water usage.
It is believed that waivers would apply to the vulnerable,
the elderly and the sick.
Bottom line, the system proposed will have to be
sufficiently different from what went before to allow Fianna
Fil to be able to claim they killed off charges as we knew
them.
While this is the expectation, delivering this is a whole
other matter. Given this will be the fourth fresh start for
water charges and Irish Water, its success is by no means
guaranteed.
Firstly, there is no guarantee this will wash with Fianna
Fil, as it has yet to demonstrate that it fully knows what

its stance on water charges is.

While Michel Martin has been very strong in his public
commentary about wanting nothing short of the abolition
of charges, others in his party, like Michael McGrath, have
advocated the type of regime detailed above.

Michel Martin
Barry Cowens belated openness to a return of charges, as
shown by his interview with Mary Wilson on RT earlier
this week, was illustrative of the divergence of opinion.
In light of the Confidence and Supply deal between Fine
Gael and Fianna Fil, which is underpinning the minority
Coalition, Coveney and Cowen will be in very regular
contact in the coming weeks and months to ensure
agreement can be reached.
But, it will ultimately be for Martin and Enda Kenny to
decide the final shape of a new water charges regime, and
that could prove problematic.
We know that the sides came very close to agreeing a
settlement on charges during the talks which led to the
governments formation, only for Fianna Fil to back away
from the deal, opting instead for the commission option
and the nine-month suspension.
Looking ahead, Fine Gael and Fianna Fil will have a
majority between them on this new 20-man Oireachtas
Committee, which will consider the Water Commissions

report.
Should they agree, then whatever emerges as the new
arrangement will ultimately become the law of the land.
The selection of Independent Senator Pdraig Cidigh,
who was a Fianna Fil pick to be a Taoiseachs nominee to
the Seanad, was a clear example of how the two parties
can work together.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny confirmed how Cidigh came to
be selected as chair in the Dil, in response to Sinn Fin
president, Gerry Adams.

Enda Kenny
As this was a deliberative process between the two
parties and part of the Confidence and Supply
arrangement..., it is obviously necessary to have
somebody who is competent, objective and capable of
chairing deliberations, on a complex issue such as this, as
chairman of the Oireachtas committee, he said.
An Seanadir Cidigh is an outstanding person, a
businessman who is used to seeing clearly through
complex issues and making decisions. I am sure he will
fulfil his remit in this regard in a very clear, objective and
fulfilling way. In that sense, the minister and his opposite
number in the Fianna Fil party discussed who would be
appropriate to chair the committee, Kenny told Adams.
The opposition cried foul. On Thursday, the Dil was

suspended amid complaints from Sinn Fins Eoin Broin

and AAA-PBP TD, Mick Barry.
Mr Barry opposed Government attempts to sneak
through a motion to impose a hand-picked chairperson on
the water committee.
He said: This is an attempt at a stitch-up by Fianna Fil
and the government to sneak through a motion on the
chair of the water committee. It is an attempt to impose a
hand-picked chairperson.
There is no doubt the opposition to water charges in the
Dil is considerable and such venom is undoubtedly likely
to dominate the airwaves in the wake of the reports
publication next week.
Bottom line is that if Fine Gael and Fianna Fil can agree a
compromise then the opposition from Sinn Fin and the
other hard left TDs may be noisy but irrelevant when the
time to vote comes.
Coveney and the government are hopeful that the past
five months or so will not be in vain and that the expertled commission report will give sufficient political cover to
enable them to finally put the thorny issue of water
charges to bed.
But, the stakes are high and the chances of an election as
early as next March or April remain considerable.
In the context of poor relations between Fine Gael and the
Independent Alliance, this weak minority government
hasnt got much chance of being able to withstand a major
crisis on water charges.

Two state groups to fix water allowance

The exact allowance cut-off point for water charges when
they potentially kick in next year is set to be decided by
two more independent State groups, effectively pushing
political fallout further from Government TDs.

An independent group will recommend the move in a

report published tomorrow, in addition to a referendum to
ensure the public ownership of water services, and
equity for rural households on pre-charges water
schemes.
The Government earlier this year set up the independent
commission on water charges to examine whether charges
should return or be scrapped entirely. The review will be
published tomorrow before being sent to a new 20-person
cross-party Oireachtas committee which will be given until
March to examine the plans, which will then face Dil and
Seanad votes.
Details of the reports recommendations were last night
revealed by RT.
While it has been claimed the moves will ensure that the
vast majority of people will not see a return of the
controversial fees because of State-funded allowances, the
report will crucially fail to explain at what point these
allowances will run out.
As reported by the Irish Examiner on Monday, the
commissions report is expected to say that charges
which were frozen last spring during Fine Gael and Fianna
Fils Government formation talks should not return for
the majority of households.
Instead, their water services will be funded by a new taxfunded system, which will see allowances significantly

higher than those put in place in the original water

charges system.
Concessions will also be put in place for the elderly,
people with disabilities, and those who are unemployed.
However, for an as-yet- unexplained number of people
who use more than the allowance provided, charges will
resume.
The level of charges these people will face, the exact cutoff point of the allowances, and the estimated number of
people due to be affected by the move have not been
outlined in the commission report.
Instead, it is due to recommend that the allowance cut-off
point be decided by two more groups the Energy
Regulator and a public water forum while the
Oireachtas committee examines the findings between now
and March.
In addition, the commissions report is expected to say
that a referendum ensuring the public ownership of water
services should be considered, and it has called for
equity for urban households in the new system and rural
households on pre-existing water schemes.
A spokesperson for Environment Minister Simon Coveney
declined to comment on the report yesterday, other than
to confirm it will be published tomorrow, while his Fianna
Fil counterpart Barry Cowen said his party wants to give
the Oireachtas committee space to conduct its work.
However, Sinn Fin TD Eoin Broin and AAA TD Paul
Murphy both criticised the reports details, saying they will
only support a complete removal of fees and that a
referendum should not be used as cover for the return of
any charges.
A new report by the expert commission looking at the
future funding of water has recommended that the vast
majority of people will not pay for water, write Daniel
McConnell and Juno McEnroe for the Irish Examiner.
Among the main recommendations are the funding of
water services for normal domestic and personal use
should be out of taxation.
The report recommends that special provision should be
made for those with special medical or other needs.

It also states that the volume of water necessary to meet

the normal domestic and personal needs of citizens should
be independently assessed through an open and
transparent process.
Under the proposed arrangement, the national water
utility will provide sufficient water to all citizens to cover
their domestic and personal needs, and the cost of that
water will be recovered from the State, which will be a
customer of the utility, based on tariffs approved by CER
following consultation.
What is proposed does not therefore amount to the
provision of a free allowance of water, the report states.
As revealed in the Irish Examiner on Monday, excessive or
wasteful use of water should be paid for directly by the
user at tariffs determined by CER.
Excessive or wasteful use of water will be discouraged by
charging for such use and therefore is consistent with the
polluter pays principle', the report adds.

View image on Twitter

Follow

Juno McEnroe
Water report recommends funding for normal usage
should come from taxation. Method must be decided
though. Exemptions proposed.
4:55 PM - 29 Nov 2016

2 2 Retweets1 1 like
The report also states that through directly billing the
Exchequer for the cost of the agreed allowance for normal
domestic and personal use, funds for covering the costs of
water production and for further investment in
infrastructure will be provided.
Additional mechanisms should be considered to ensure
that the necessary finance is guaranteed, he added.
In respect of metering, if it is decided to proceed with the
metering programme, consideration should be given to an
approach that is more aligned with the proposals in this
report, with a focus on metering of buildings in the case of
multi-occupancy or metering of households on request.
The report states that Irish Water should complete a
comprehensive programme of district metering to identify
system-wide leakage and manage the network. The Expert
Commission has recommended that Irish Water renew its
efforts to develop a positive engagement with consumers
and put in place further initiatives to engage consumers in
a positive and proactive way at the national, regional, and
local level.
Irish Water should also commit to the provision of
extensive open-access data, for research purposes and so
that consumers can easily monitor and manage
consumption.

An EPA administered research budget on water

management and conservation is necessary and should be
put in place, the report states.
It is recommended that a much more proactive approach
be taken to promoting domestic water conservation
measures in Ireland.

The report states that Irish Water can play a key role in
this regard not only through educational and information
campaigns but also through providing advice and access
to water conserving devices.
Further measures should also be considered, such as a
requirement that new domestic buildings incorporate
water conserving fittings and an extension of the Building
Energy Rating (BER) Scheme to incorporate water
conservation, it adds.
The Expert Commission recommended that this be
reviewed when the allowances for consumers on public
supplies are determined and that equity for group
schemes and private wells be maintained through
additional subsidy or other means.
The necessary measures should be put in place to give

effect to the commitment that those who have paid their

water bills to date will be treated no less favourably than
those who have not.
Although the current set of charges were introduced by
Labour's Alan Kelly, the party says the findings are exactly
what it hoped for.
Its housing spokesperson Jan O'Sullivan said: "I put in
submission to the Commission on behalf of the Labour
party, and I clearly said there should be an allocation for
households and that only those who waste water should
have to pay extra."
Sinn Fin said it is disappointed details of the report have
been leaked before TDs have got sight of it.
The party's housing spokesman Eoin O Broin says the job
of the group was very narrow.
"It didn't include anything about water poverty, it didn't
include anything about the management and delivery
mechanisms of water and sanitation services - and it had
a very light line around information about conservation",
he said.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny told the Dil that because of the
leaks, the report will be released this evening.
"Because of the situation that applies here, the minister
for housing has informed me that this report will be
published early this evening - and it will go straight
directly to the specific committee set up in the Oireachtas
to deal with it".
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/antiausterity-alliance-calls-for-water-protesters-to-polish-theirboots-saying-massive-protests-loom-766239.html

I have sent Coveney another email after

today's nEUs of EU threats again...email is
below.
"A chara,
I see in the newspapers again today the
EUNFORCER is coming out saying we have
to abide by their bidding.
I know the EU is founded upon capitalist
principles. Capitalism is founded upon
consumerism. Their are no capitalist rights,
there are however consumer rights.
I have written to you previously stating I and
others know our rights as consumers.
I have said in those correspondences that
HFSA is not safe in our water and the onus
will be fully on the Irish Government more
so than Irish Water to prove the safety there
of.
I will have a year of receipts from bottled
water in January.
I would actually pay for the "water service" if
it were if a Dutch or Italian standard. Less

bleach and no HFSA, phosphates,

aluminium etc.
HFSA is not safe for babies. Even the
American Dental Association concur on that.
The HRB has not researched HFSA safety
here with regards bottle fed babies. They
should really as 83% are bottle fed. That's
50,000 babies affected in 2014 alone. One
year.
Cancer is a heavy burden upon the state too.
HFSA and THMs are both highly
carcinogenic. Might be cheaper in the long
run to remove those unnecessary chemicals
before the Irish governments of today and
past and IW get pulled out in the open about
this.
Negligence is one thing. Failure to act is
catastrophic. If you fail to prepare you are
prepared to fail. I am prepared for court. My
consumer rights are protected.
I will have a year of receipts in January. 468
for a year it will be. I cannot be expected to
land out another 2-300 a year to pay IW for
water that is not safe.
IW and the government will have to prove in
a court of law beyond reasonable doubt that
Irish Water has a safe product.
Best change the 1964 fluoridation act
promptly and get the EPA to come up with a
solution to clean the water without chlorines
like THM.
Regards,
Rita Cahill
November 29, 16

Last week I sent a plethora of emails to

Medical Journals, The Food Safety
Authorities in Ireland and the EU,
University Research Faculties and all
asunder under the Medical group umbrella,
breastfeeding support groups, infant
formula producers and more... I have
started to get responses... Below is the email
I sent to all above mentioned and more...
Following is the most satisfactory response I
have gotten... More will follow...
EMAIL SENT
"To whom it may concern,
could you tell me is hydrofluorisilic acid safe
for babies? I know this fluoride substance is
added to help children's teeth, but babies
don't have teeth.
83% of babies are bottle fed in Ireland are all
bottle fed after 6 months. Some babies don't
even get breast milk. This means babies are
fed hydrofluorisilic acid in their bottles.
There was 62,000 babies born in 2014. That
means potentially 50,000 babies were bottle
fed this fluoride substance in their bottles.
Can this be safe for a developing infant?
Could you please assure me it is."
RESPONSE FROM THE "IRISH EXPERT ON
FLUORIDES AND HEALTH"
Dear Mr Smith,
Your query has been brought to the
attention of the Expert Body and it is
preparing a response which will be sent to
you as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,

Etain Kett
Secretariat
Irish Expert Body on Fluorides and Health
RESPONSE FROM MEDICAL RESEARCH
BOARD
"Dear Mr Smith
My name is Marie Sutton. I work with the
Health Research Board and I am one of the
authors who participated in producing the
evidence review on Health Effects of Water
Fluoridation.
Thank you for your email (sent 28th
September) with your enquiry regarding
hydrofluorisilicic acid and its safety when it
is added to water for the purpose of
community water fluoridation especially in
relation to babies who are bottle fed.
This topic was not covered in our review as it
was outside the remit of the question posed
by the Department of Health who requested
the review. However we will search for some
evidence-based and reliable information for
you on this subject which will hopefully
address this question and help with your
enquiry.
Again thank you for contacting us and we
will be in touch in the near future.
Marie Sutton"
THE FIRST IS THE USUAL YOU EXPECT...
BUT THE LATTER SHOWS THEY HAVE
NOT STUDIED THE SAFETY ASPECTS
THOROUGHLY AND WILL BE HELD IN
NEGLIGENCE IF THEY DON'T ACT...
QUICK.

YES, SUCCESS IS NOT FAR...

IT SEEMS THEY DIDN'T FACTOR BABIES
INTO THEIR SAFETY RESEARCH.
Well done. it breaks my heart to think of the
babies being poisoned. Also it is a violation
of the right to bodily integrity. The judge
who let this through knew it at the time but
still compromised our constitution and
national health. It must stop at once. I call
on the water workers to refuse to do this any
more.
Seems some one may not like this post and it
was removed. "FG Kate O'Connell how are
you doing?" Still poisoning babies. Best
rethink there.
Nothing to do with fluoride.
We are all going to take the time to watch the
game this evening?
Now. No excuses sing this evening LOUD
AND PROUD.
Sinne Fianna Fil
A t f gheall ag irinn,
buion dr slua
Thar toinn do rinig chugainn,
F mhid bheith saor.
Sean tr r sinsir feasta
N fhagfar f'n tiorn n f'n tril
Anocht a tham sa bhearna bhaoil,
Le gean ar Ghaeil chun bis n saoil
Le guna screach f lmhach na bpilar
Seo libh canadh Amhrn na bhFiann.
It's only the chorus of the whole song that we
sing as our anthem. Very short no excuses.
Bout time we learned it. I have printed off a

copy that I am going to carry in my wallet.

You can copy the lyrics and put them onto
your phone. Have them ready then to sing.
If you can't learn it as gaelige. Here it is in
English.
Soldiers are we
whose lives are pledged to Ireland;
Some have come
from a land beyond the wave.
Sworn to be free,
No more our ancient sire land
Shall shelter the despot or the slave.
Tonight we man the gap of danger
In Erin's cause, come woe or weal
'Mid cannons' roar and rifles peal,
We'll chant a soldier's song.
The report of the Government-established
independent commission on the future of
water charges is to be published this week
and represents the greatest threat to the
confidence and supply deal between Fine
Gael and Fianna Fil.
There is considerable unease within
Government ahead of the reports
publication, with some ministers fearing the
issue could lead to the demise of the
Coalition.
It is understood that the proposals from the
commission must be politically sailable
and deliver a mechanism which will allow
Fianna Fil move away from its position of
seeking to fully abolish water charges.
Housing Minister Simon Coveney is
expecting that the regime will propose a

X
X
X

system of charges which will allow Ireland

comply with strict European regulations and
to avoid being subject to fines.
In this light, the Irish Examiner has learned
that:
A system of water charges for domestic
customers is to be proposed, but only after
very generous allowances are used up;
Waivers will need to exist for the vulnerable,
the elderly, and the disabled;
The Government has no contingency funding
to pay for any extension of the suspension of
water charges and face a black hole should
charges fail to return.
Led by Kevin Duffy, the water commission
report will be delivered to the clerk of the
Dil while also being presented to
Government.
The commission report will immediately be
considered by a new 20-person cross-party
Oireachtas committee, which will report to
Government by the end of March next year.
Should Fine Gael secure Fianna Fil
agreement between themselves, the parties
have a majority on the committee.
The key to this is to allow Fianna Fil
change its stance on water charges, said a
senior Cabinet minister. That is the goal of
this exercise. Hopefully what comes will be
politically sailable and allows us comply
with Europe and bring certainty to the
issue.

As it stands, Mr Coveney faces an uphill battle to try and

reintroduce a water charges regime, with over 90 of the
158 TDs in the Dil opposed to imposing water charges on
homeowners.
The Dil was adjourned for 20 minutes in a heated row
about the appointment of the chair for the special
committee on water charges last Thursday.
Independent senator Pdraig Cidigh was later
confirmed as chairman after a 92 to 39 vote and a
suspension of the Dil.
The committee was established to deal with the report,
due next week, on the future of water services and
charges.
AAA-PBP TD Mick Barry accused the Government of
attempting a stitch-up by appointing Mr Cidigh as
chairman of the committee of 20 TDs and senators who
will deal with the report of the expert commission
established to make recommendations for a sustainable
model for water services.
Meanwhile, new figures reveal that at the end of
September, a tot

Irish Water, the private company remains in

place.
The water bills remain in place, but will now
be paid by the government not you. This
means you can't boycott the bills!
A small percentage of the population will be
chased for "wasting" water, most people
won't be worried as they don't have to pay.
Classic "divide & conquer"tactics.
Slowly, but surely, charges will be
introduced to all of the citizens and then;
Check Mate!
The Privatization of OUR Water

This is what you should be paying for, if you

pay.

I phoned consumer rights today. They were

confounded by my knowledge of consumer
rights and the law. IW doesn't have a toe to
stand on. It will be on its knees if my day in
court comes (for non payment). Consumer
rights and sale and supply of goods 1980.....
no contract, product is not fit for purpose or
of merchantable quality (poisonous water
with HFSA, THMs, phosphates and more
does not meet either of those). Then IW are
contravening 2 further laws. 1997 non fatal
offences 12.1 poisoning, I never consented to
HFSA being added to my water. And now
they have started contravening 1994 public
order 17. extortion since they started with
their threats for financial consequences for
non payment. Bring on the court cases. Let
all know about these laws. Hold onto your
receipts for bottled water as proof you don't
cook or drink Irish tap water

Fluoride not a poisonous substance ay?

It's an element contained in the makeup of
SARIN gas.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin
Everyone pays for water.someone should have
edcuated the members of this commission on gov
taxes beforehand

Water report recommends

funding for normal usage
should come from taxation.
Method must be decided

though. Exemptions proposed.

Laid out defined in others black and white

pictures. Do you care about your
compatriots water enough to help others?
Petitioning and spreading awareness.
50 years the water has been poisoned with
HFSA.

People need to be told what it is, what it

does...
Why it's put into the water....
Why it is not done in other countries...
Who and what parties in Ireland still
supports this practice.
I would appreciate any help with writing
info on pieces of cardboard and talking with
people.
I got over 150 signatures last week.
If you haven't signed the petition....
Get your ass over and sign it.
Sorry diplomacy is not my forte.
I just say it as it is.
You want something done.
Don't be Hmmming F1.
It's not fluoride....
It's hydrofluorisilic acid ex pee ala doh
shuss.
Manual petitioning and educating people for
water free from HydroFluoriSilic Acid. They
want us to pay for THAT, well no we won't.
ON THE CIVIL DEBT LAW....
FF and Green parties will blame FG and
Labour for the Civil Debt law. Just as FG and
Labour are blaming FF and Green parties for
the HSE crises.
Don't vote for FF, FG, LAB, Green. They
don't believe in democracy, we seen that
with the Lisbon Treaty. Those 4 parties were
the parties to give it the ok. Even though
YOU all voted NO TWICE.
The Civil Debt law is an example of
dirigisme....dirigisme is when the state

controls of economics and social matters.

"An inherent aspect of fascist economies was
economic dirigisme,[4] meaning an
economy where the government exerts
strong directive influence over investment,
as opposed to having a merely regulatory
role."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_o
f_fascism
This Civil Debt Law is anti-capitalist. All
"democracy" is capitalist. This is fascist.
We have consumer rights, which are
fundamental in capitalism.
The water is not safe to drink or cook with,
shit it's bad enough having to wash in the 5
times the EU limit of chlorines, HFSA and
more.
The water is unfit for purpose and not of
merchantable quality. HFSA is dangerous
I/we do not need it in our water, $o we dont
have to pay, that i$ how capitali$m works.
START HOLDING ONTO ALL YOUR
RECEIPTS FROM WHEN YOU BUY
BOTTLED WATER. WE SPEND 6+ EURO IN
OUR HOUSEHOLD. THATS 300+ EURO A
YEAR.
I AM NOT GOING TO PAY ANOTHER 2-3
HUNDRED MORE. CAPITALIST
CONSUMER RIGHTS WILL PREVAIL.
Maybe if the water was of a Dutch
standard.....people might pay.
But its not!
A NEW WATER TAX MEANS THAT WE ARE PAYING YET

AGAIN FOR OUR WATER REGARDLESS OF SCAM

ALLOWANCES!

Households will no longer face the burden of

water charges and will only have to pay bills
if they engage in "wasteful usage", according
to the Independent Water Commission.
The commission's draft report recommends
that the State becomes a "customer" of Irish
Water and that families' supply is paid for
through general taxation. However, the
commission says that the Government
should consider the introduction of a "water
tax" in order to keep the public utility afloat.
"The question of whether there should be a
dedicated taxwould be a matter of
budgetary policy and outside the scope of
this report, but is worthy of further
consideration," the report states.
On the issue of ownership, the commission
says there is "overwhelming support" for
retaining Irish Water as a public utility. And
it says there is "considerable merit" in the
staging of a referendum to ensure it cannot
be privatised in the future.
The decision by the commission to
recommend against the re-introduction of a
charging regime for all households will be
seized upon by the anti-water charges
movement. It also means that Fine Gael will
be forced to significantly row back on its
previous policy that charges should remain
in place.
But the authors of the report insist its

central proposal - whereby households only

pay if they use water above a certain limit does not amount to "a free allowance".
The report states: "Rather, the water utility
will provide water to all citizens and the cost
of that water will be recovered from the
State."
Two options are outlined in the draft report
for determining what equates to "normal
usage", beyond which households will be
billed.
The first option would see the water
required for everyday activities such as
washing and cooking being calculated
following a detailed analysis.
The second option would essentially involve
dividing the amount of water used every day
by the population in order to determine the
normal usage rate.
The report states that the final level of
allowance should be set following a
consultation involving the Commission for
Energy Regulation and the Public Water
forum.
But charges for commercial customers
should remain in place, the report states.
Special provision should be made for those
with special needs, the reports says.
It adds that there should be an exceptional
waiver scheme administered by the
Department of Social Protection.
It is recommended that the funding model
for investment may have to be
"fundamentally" reassessed given the

ongoing need to pay for infrastructure.

In relation to the hundreds of thousands of
households who have paid, the commission
recommends that "necessary measures"
should be introduced to ensure those who
have paid to date "will be treated no less
favourably than those who have not."
However, the commission - led by Kevin
Duffy - does not state whether this should
involve refunds or the introduction of tax
credits.
Those on group water schemes and
households using private wells are also
specifically mentioned. It is stated that these
schemes have proven effective in reducing
consumption and addressing leakage and
that such groups should be assisted through
"greater subsidy or other means".
In relation to metering, the commission
states that meters have been "highly
effective" in detecting leakages.
But the commission says that metering will
not be "technically feasible" in the likes of
apartments and that it is "reasonable and
fair" to assume that such households do not
consume water in an excessive fashion.
It is also recommended that Irish Water
"renew its efforts to develop a positive
engagement with consumers" on the back of
a series of PR disasters in recent years.
The final report is due to be sent tomorrow
to the 20-person Oireachtas committee,
which will sit for up to three months. The
Dil will then vote in the spring in relation to

the options put forward.

Funded by General taxation and a
referendum to enshrine the FACT that it
cannot be sold off to vulture funds same as
all the NAMA apartments and commercial
properties.
Housing, healthcare and water (in any order
you choose) were the three biggest issues
around which the last election was fought.
Six months into 'new politics' and the Fine
Gael-Independent Alliance charade, and
things have only got worse on all three
fronts. We have more homeless people than
any other time in living memory, we have
more people on hospital trolleys and waiting
for medical procedures than ever before,
and people are still being asked to throw
good money after bad on a failed billing
service that can't even pay its own way,
much less fix they system it was allegedly
created to maintain and upgrade. FF may
think they're playing a smart game by
allowing these and other FG debacles
rumble on, but facilitating FG in office
makes them equally responsible for the
mess.
Firstly, this report isn't due until tomorrow,
but we're getting hints of the possible out
come to soften the impacted of the conniving
deeds of this governments and Fianna Fil in
their attempts to enforce water charges.
Secondly both Enda Kenny and Micheal
Martin need to realise that this political
quango Iris water is a financial quagmire

that the big boys in Europe have already

rejected its capabilities of survival without
government funding and that money taken
from hard pressed Taxpayers through
political exploration.
Therefore as of now both parties should take
note that any suggestions of a household
limit will be strongly rejected as that was a
previous intent to shaft ordinary decent
people who've already paid for water
through Motor taxation. Disabled people
lost proper home care the ordinary people
were taxed beyond survival whilst
government enrich themselves and their
cronies. Time for politicians like Kenny and
Martin learned that enough is enough.
Discussing the Water Charges this morning on Tipp FM.
Paddy Healy

Public Notice CONSTITUENCY

COMMISSION
A Constituency Commission has
been established under section 5
of the Electoral Act 1997 to report
in relation to the constituencies
for (a) the election of members to
the Dil

http://www.constituency
commission.ie/docs/Cons
tituency-Commission-Public-Notice.pdf

Electoral (Amendment) (Dil

Constituencies) Act 2013

http://www.irishstatuteb
ook.ie/eli/2013/act/7/en
acted/en/pdf
Back in 2009, Mayor Ted Clugston was actively opposing
the policy, which pledges to give any person who spends

ten days on the street a home. Today, he has come to

realize that not only does the policy work for the people,
but it works for the govenrnment, too.
"This is the cheapest and the most humane way to treat
people," he told CBC.
Louise Bradley, President and CEO of the Mental Health
Commission of Canada, helped conduct a study that
supported Clugston's claim. The study cost $110 million
and looked at 2,000 people over five different cities, but
its results were invaluable.
What they found was that when homeless people were
told to "get clean" or find other ways to get their lives
together before applying for housing, they inevitably fell
back into cycles of drug use and poverty. That landed
them back in emergency rooms, hospitals, detention
centers and shelters all things that cost tax money.

Jesus Con, don't be giving the

snotty nosed little pipsqueak
ideas
Health Minister Simon Harris has written to the
health ministers in England, Scotland, Canada

and Australia asking them to work together in a

bid to reduce the cost of cystic fibrosis drug
Orkambi.
The health services in these countries have all
been considering access to Orkambi for people
with CF.
They have been in talks with the pharmaceutical
company which makes it, Vertex, to reduce the
cost of the 160,000 per patient per year
medication.
Harris said: "Securing access to treatments for
patients at an affordable price remains the key
priority. However, we cannot have a situation
whereby exorbitant prices make it effectively
impossible to access a new treatment like
Orkambi."

New water tax to replace

hated bills
Niall O'Connor and Paul Melia
PUBLISHED
29/11/2016

1
Households will no longer face water charges and will have to pay
bills only if they use the resource in a "wasteful" manner. Stock
Image

Households will no longer face water

charges and will have to pay bills only if they
use the resource in a "wasteful" manner.
The report recommends that families' supply is paid for
through general taxation.
It wants the volume of water considered 'necessary' to
meet domestic and personal needs to be assessed in an
independent and transparent process.
Only what is considered 'wasteful usage' of water will be
paid for by the user.
Some findings of the draft report of the Independent
Water Commission will be seized on by the anti-water
charges movement as support for the long and sometimes

bitter campaign that it waged.

However, the commission says the Government should
consider introducing a "water tax" to keep Irish Water
afloat.
"The question of whether there should be a dedicated
tax . . . would be a matter of budgetary policy and outside
the scope of this report, but is worthy of further
consideration," the report says.
On the issue of ownership, the commission finds that there
is "overwhelming support" for retaining Irish Water as a
public utility. And it finds "considerable merit" in holding
a referendum to ensure the utility cannot be privatised in
the future.
The final report is due to be sent to the 20-person
Oireachtas committee tomorrow.

http://www.independent.ie/irishnews/new-water-tax-to-replace-hated-bills35252950.html

Households will not pay

for water - except for
'wasteful usage'
Niall O'Connor and Paul Melia
PUBLISHED
29/11/2016

1
Households will no longer face the burden of water charges and
will only have to pay bills if they engage in 'wasteful usage'.

Households will no longer face the burden of

water charges and will only have to pay bills
if they engage in "wasteful usage", according
to the Independent Water Commission.
The commission's draft report recommends that the State
becomes a "customer" of Irish Water and that families'
supply is paid for through general taxation. However, the
commission says that the Government should consider the
introduction of a "water tax" in order to keep the public
utility afloat.
"The question of whether there should be a dedicated tax
would be a matter of budgetary policy and outside the
scope of this report, but is worthy of further
consideration," the report states.
On the issue of ownership, the commission says there is
"overwhelming support" for retaining Irish Water as a
public utility. And it says there is "considerable merit" in
the staging of a referendum to ensure it cannot be
privatised in the future.
The decision by the commission to recommend against the

re-introduction of a charging regime for all households

will be seized upon by the anti-water charges movement. It
also means that Fine Gael will be forced to significantly
row back on its previous policy that charges should remain
in place.
But the authors of the report insist its central proposal whereby households only pay if they use water above a
certain limit - does not amount to "a free allowance".
The report states: "Rather, the water utility will provide
water to all citizens and the cost of that water will be
recovered from the State."
Two options are outlined in the draft report for
determining what equates to "normal usage", beyond
which households will be billed.
The first option would see the water required for everyday
activities such as washing and cooking being calculated
following a detailed analysis.
The second option would essentially involve dividing the
amount of water used every day by the population in order
to determine the normal usage rate.
The report states that the final level of allowance should be
set following a consultation involving the Commission for
Energy Regulation and the Public Water forum.
But charges for commercial customers should remain in
place, the report states.
Special provision should be made for those with special
needs, the reports says.
It adds that there should be an exceptional waiver scheme
administered by the Department of Social Protection.
It is recommended that the funding model for investment
may have to be "fundamentally" reassessed given the
ongoing need to pay for infrastructure.
In relation to the hundreds of thousands of households
who have paid, the commission recommends that
"necessary measures" should be introduced to ensure
those who have paid to date "will be treated no less
favourably than those who have not."
However, the commission - led by Kevin Duffy - does not

state whether this should involve refunds or the

introduction of tax credits.
Those on group water schemes and households using
private wells are also specifically mentioned. It is stated
that these schemes have proven effective in reducing
consumption and addressing leakage and that such groups
should be assisted through "greater subsidy or other
means".
In relation to metering, the commission states that meters
have been "highly effective" in detecting leakages.
But the commission says that metering will not be
"technically feasible" in the likes of apartments and that it
is "reasonable and fair" to assume that such households do
not consume water in an excessive fashion.
It is also recommended that Irish Water "renew its efforts
to develop a positive engagement with consumers" on the
back of a series of PR disasters in recent years.
The final report is due to be sent tomorrow to the 20person Oireachtas committee, which will sit for up to three
months. The Dil will then vote in the spring in relation to
the options put forward.
http://www.independent.ie/irishnews/politics/households-will-not-pay-for-water-exceptfor-wasteful-usage-35252821.html

Gerry Adams calls water

charges an 'ongoing farce'
and a 'comedy of errors'
Kevin Doyle Twitter
EMAIL
PUBLISHED
22/11/2016

1
Sinn Fin leader Gerry Adams. Photo: Steve Humphreys

Sinn Fin has called for the appointment of

Independent senator Padraig O'Ceidigh as
chair of a new committee on water charges
to be put to a Dil vote.
Mr O'Ceidighs appointment was agreed following talks
between Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, but Sinn Fein has now
accused Minister Simon Coveney of stepping entirely
beyond his remit in announcing the move.
Gerry Adams described the situation as an ongoing farce
and a comedy of errors.
The Commission on Water Charges is due to report back
to the Oireachtas at the end of the month, when a 20
member all-party committee will try to reach a consensus
on the issue.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny dismissed Sinn Fin's concern
about the appointment of the chairperson, saying Mr
Adams had once promised to pay his own charges.
Then when you heard the sound of marching feet out in

Tallaght you reversed engines, he said.

The Taoiseach added that Mr O'Ceidighs selection came
on foot of the confidence and supply arrangement between
Fine Gael and Fianna Fail.
Im quite sure that he will fulfil his remit in this regard in
a fair, clear and objective way, he told the Dil.
He said Fine Gael had always maintained a clear position
that people should pay for water but said they sat down
with Fianna Fail in order to make this government work.
Mr Adams said the deal was all about getting Fianna Fail
off the hook on this issue and getting you back into
power.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/gerry-adams-callswater-charges-an-ongoing-farce-and-a-comedy-of-errors35236057.html

Water charges will not be

coming back', claims
Fianna Fil leader
Niall O'Connor Twitter
EMAIL
PUBLISHED
19/11/2016

1
Michel Martin Photo: Colin O'Riordan

Michel Martin has claimed that water

charges will not be re-introduced - just days
before an independent commission
produces its long-awaited report on the
prospect of a charging regime.
/

Michel Martin has claimed that water charges will not be

re-introduced - just days before an independent
commission produces its long-awaited report on the
prospect of a charging regime.
In an interview with the Irish Independent, the Fianna
Fil leader said the previous regime "came into disrepute"
and his party remained opposed to any return of charges.
He said that a government would not have been formed
had it not been for Fianna Fil's decision to push for the

suspension of charges.
Mr Martin also rejected suggestions that he had fuelled
confusion surrounding his party's stance on the issue - a
view held privately by many of his own TDs.
But the decision to predict, just days before the
commission produces its report, that charges will not
return will open Mr Martin up to criticism.
"We said before the election we were against water
charges. We didn't want water charges. We wanted to
abolish water charges," the Cork South Central TD said.
"We got them suspended. I don't think they are coming
back, that's my honest position. I don't think this
particular regime is coming back. I don't think it's coming
back, no," he added.
The report itself is due to be examined by a 20-member
Oireachtas committee - one of the largest committees in
the history of the State.
It is expected that the chairperson of the committee, which
will sit for around three months, will be a non-party TD.
The committee will be made up of five Government TDs,
four Fianna Fil TDs, two Sinn Fin TDs, and five
members of smaller parties or Independents.
Members of the commission are due to be paid 3,000
each, while chairman Kevin Duffy is being paid 7,500.
Mr Duffy is also the chairman of the Public Sector Pay
Commission.
The composition of the committee has been the subject of
tensions in recent days.
Fine Gael is strongly of the view that a charging regime
should return. Fianna Fil, however, has taken the
opposite opinion. According to Fianna Fil's submission to
the commission, a tax credit should be considered to
compensate those who have paid their bills.
Mr Martin warned that a decision will have to be taken as
to whether a better approach would be to pursue those
who have not paid their bills.
"My view is that when the law of the land is passed, we
have an obligation to obey the law of the land," he said.

"There is either two options, you either go down the route

of recouping, or tax credits, for those who have paid or we
go after those who haven't paid. (It's) one or the other, but
it has to be one," he added.
The Fianna Fil leader said he did not believe charges
would produce a significant revenue base to fund
infrastructure.
Mr Martin told this newspaper: "The last charging regime
was losing money, so let's call a spade a spade.
"It is not huge money in terms of the kind of things we are
talking about here."
He insisted that his party will engage constructively on
issues such as conservation once the commission
publishes its recommendations.
He indicated that if the commission does recommend that
charges come back, Fianna Fil may reject the proposals.
He said: "We are not bound by the recommendations. We
are not going to be bound by them in advance. But we will
engage constructively at committee level."
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/water/water-charges-will-notbe-coming-back-claims-fianna-fil-leader-35228169.html

Firms face water bill

hikes under 'harmonised'
system
Paul Melia Twitter
EMAIL
PUBLISHED
31/10/2016

1
Thousands of small and medium-sized businesses face hikes in
their water bills. (Stock photo)

Thousands of small and medium-sized

businesses face hikes in their water bills
when the regulator introduces a
"harmonised" system of charges in just over
a year.
Some 190,000 SMEs and large users will be hit with a
billing review in 2018, but any increases are likely to be
phased in over a period of years, the Irish Independent has
learned.
The move comes because more than 500 separate tariffs
are currently in place, and the Commission for Energy
Regulation (CER) wants to introduce a streamlined system
where a national charge applies.
Some companies will pay more, and others less when the
review is finalised, sources said.
"It's going to be a challenging project and sensitive," one
said. "This is hugely complex. It would be highly unusual
to have so many tariff structures for customers in a
country the size of Ireland. We're looking at a system

which is more simple and transparent."

Non-domestic customers currently pay their water bills
based on the charges which applied and were levied by
local authorities in 2013.
The 'average' cost for 1,000 litres of drinking water, and to
dispose of 1,000 litres of wastewater, stands at 2.37.
However, businesses in Kildare pay a combined charge of
just 1.59 - the cheapest in the country. By contrast, those
in Wicklow pay 3.04 - the most expensive.
The situation is further complicated by different 'standing'
and other charges applied. In addition, many large users
enjoy discounts, and may have entered into contracts with
local authorities which cannot be broken.
Disposal
Irish Water is currently taking control of the non-domestic
sector from local authorities, and this project is expected
to finish early next year.
It is also collating data on where these customers are
located, the amount of water they use and amounts paid.
Among the options being considered in the design of the
new tariff system include a geographical basis for
charging. This could involve lower charges in areas where
the cost of treatment and disposal of wastewater are
cheaper. However, sources said anything other than a
national charge was "unlikely".
Other issues include the imposition of a standing charge,
different rates depending on usage and different charges
for different sectors of the economy.
The CER will begin a public consultation on the new
system early next year, which will run for 12 months. A
final decision will be announced in early 2018, which will
include an outline of when the new charges will take effect.
New firms could be subject to the new tariff system
automatically, but no decision has been reached.
"Irish Water will make proposals on what way they think
the non-domestic tariff system will work going forward," a
source said. "It will include the costs of providing water,
but also how do we get people paying now to a simple,

more transparent system.

"It isn't going to be a big bang. They won't see tariffs go up
20pc or down 10pc. We have asked for a plan to transfer
people across over time - and it could be a considerable
period of time - to the new tariffs.
"Now we have a single water utility model, it would be
fairly standard to have a simple and equitable tariff
regime."
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/water/irish-water-crisis/firmsface-water-bill-hikes-under-harmonised-system-35174944.html

Michel Martin: Sinn

Fin 'play-acting on water
charges' and we won't
support motion to abolish
Cormac McQuinn Political Correspondent
PUBLISHED
19/09/2016

1
Fianna Fil leader Michel Martin. Picture: Arthur Carron

FIANNA Fil won't be supporting Sinn

Fin's Dil motion to abolish water charges,
Michel Martin has said, describing the rival
party's move as "play-acting".
He said: "No motion can scrap water charges. Only a
money Bill can scrap water charges.
Mr Martin was speaking at the beginning of his party
think-in in Co Carlow.
He pointed our that only governments can propose money
Bills for a Dil vote. Sinn Fin's opposition motion will be
debated in the Dil on September 28.
I think Sinn Fin are play-acting in relation their
particular motion. Motions on their own cannot get rid of
charges. Only legislation can, Mr Martin added.
An Expert Commission is currently examining the future
of funding water services under the terms of Fianna Fils
confidence and supply agreement facilitating the
minority Fine Gael government.
Fianna Fils submission to that commission has called for

the abolition of charges.

However, Mr Martin confirmed his party will vote against
Sinn Fins motion to be debated in the Dil next week.
We're not into optics, we're into action, he said when
asked about the contradiction in its policy and their plan
to oppose the Sinn Fin motion.
Mr Martin added: We're the only party that's effected an
outcome on water - ie. the ending of the water charges
regime.
That has now happened because of our decision in
entering into the agreement with Fine Gael to ensure that
that would happen.
Water charges are suspended until after the Expert
Commission reports and TDs debate the groups findings.
Mr Martin said its unlikely that water charges will
return at that point.
The only way water charges can be re-introduced is via
legislation by the Dil and that is unlikely given the
configuration of parties within the Dil, he said.

THOUSANDS of water meters installed by

Irish Water would remain in place and be

left to rust if charges were abolished, Sinn

Fin has admitted.
The partys finance spokesperson Pearse Doherty said his
party is not proposing to dig the meters up and put them
on display.
He said they would remain installed and serve as a
reminder of the flawed policies of Fianna Fil and Fine
Gael.
Its their fault, we cant bring that money back, Mr
Doherty said.
Mr Doherty also outlined plans to refund householders
who have already paid their bills.
But he signalled that this refund would not be paid until
January 1, 2018. In the meantime, householders who have
paid a combined 162m in charges will be asked to
register for a refund.
The Donegal TD hit out at Fianna Fail and Fine Gael who
he said are responsible for meters being installed which
will now turn to rust.
But asked what Sinn Fin proposes to do in relation to the
metering programme, Mr Doherty replied:
They will join the voting machines and other disastrous
policies...We are not proposing to dig them up and put
them on display.
Mr Doherty said that under Sinn Fins plans, 130m that
has not been spent on water meters will go towards
improving infrastructure.
Domestic water charges will also be made free for
everybody on water schemes, the party says.
The issue of water charges was raised at Sinn Fins prebudget submission in Dublin City today.
The party says its proposals would raise 1bn in net taxes
to fund spending in the likes of childcare ,health and
education.
Key tax proposals include a series of measures aimed at
tackling gold plated pensions, a new 7 per cent higher
rate of tax on incomes of 100,000 and above and the

abolition of property tax.

The partys pre-budget document also proposes to take
workers earning less than 19,572 out of the USC net and
increasing tax credits for the self-employed.
A second home tax would be brought in and set at 400,
while capital acquisition tax would be increased by 3pc to
36pc.
A betting pf 3pc would be brought in by Sinn Fin, while
the party also proposes to scrap the 9pc special VAT rate
for hotels but leave it in place for restaurants. And stamp
duty would also be increased by the party if in
government.
The party also claims it would raise over 101m through a
volumetric sugary sweetened drinks tax at a rate of
24.64 per hectolitre.
Other measures announced include reducing TDs salaries
to 75,000 and senators salaries to 60,000.
Maternity benefit would rise and there would be a 111m
subsidised childcare scheme for children aged six monthsthree years at a cost.
Responding to suggestions that the childcare scheme is
very similar to Childrens Minister Katherine Zappones
proposed version, Sinn Fin deputy Mary Lou McDonald
said there has been various and mixed messages coming
from Cabinet.
But she signalled her party would be prepared to support
the Governments plan if it had merit and is fair.
In terms of housing, Sinn Fin says it will roll out a 491m
social housing programme.
And it says it will build 7,066 additional homes than the
number pledged by the coalition.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/water/irish-water-crisis/michelmartin-sinn-fin-playacting-on-water-charges-and-we-wont-supportmotion-to-abolish-35060947.html

EU water charges must

return - even after review
John Downing Twitter
BIO
PUBLISHED
08/10/2016

1
The EU Environment Commissioner Karmenu Vella

The EU has sent a strong signal to the

Government's Expert Water Commission
that it must include some form of water
charges in its recommendations.
/

The Commission was set up under the Government deal

between Fine Gael and Fianna Fil to examine the vexed
issue and is due to report next month.
The parties are opposed on the issue, with Fine Gael
insisting charges are required to invest in water and
sewerage services, while Fianna Fil wants them abolished
at least until services are brought up to an acceptable
standard.
A response from the Brussels' executive on the Expert
Commission signals a big battle which will emerge shortly

as the Dil must again debate the report

recommendations.
The EU's Environment Commissioner, Karmenu Vella, in
his first comment on the workings of the Expert
Commission, has said he expects "a robust water-funding"
regime which respects EU rules.
Mr Vella has already said that Ireland's EU exemption to
water charges had automatically expired when charges
were first imposed in 2015, and the country was now
bound by the Water Framework Directive (WFD) which
makes charges mandatory.
In reply to questions to Dublin Fine Gael MEP Brian
Hayes, the Environment Commissioner acknowledged that
the Government had informed him about the review work
of the Expert Water Commission set up after charges were
suspended.
"The Commission reiterated to the Irish authorities its
view on the requirements of the Water Framework
Directive (WFD) and the need for Ireland to establish a
robust funding system that secures the long-term quality
of water and water services, especially that investment in
water is clearly acknowledged as necessary by the Irish
authorities themselves," he said.
"It is now for the Expert Water Commission to get on with
its task of assessing the funding of domestic public water
services in Ireland and to make recommendations to the
Irish parliament on water pricing policy which comply
with WFD requirements and allow Ireland to be able to
finance the necessary improvements in water quality and
infrastructure," Mr Vella added.
Mr Hayes welcomed the statement and said the European
Commission had stuck to its line that Ireland must adhere
to water charges in line with the Water Framework
Directive.
"For the Commission, a water pricing policy means that
there has to be some kind of a water charge based on
consumption," the Dublin MEP said.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/water/eu-water-charges-mustreturn-even-after-review-35113696.html

Clerks of Dil & Seanad take delivery of report on

Expert Commission on water
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/op/Nov16/Busi
ness/op241116.pdf
Irish Congress of Trade Unions Submission to the
Expert Water Commission September 2016
http://www.ictu.ie/download/pdf/congress_submissi
on_to_the_expert_water_commission.pdf
Water Report, March 2012
The Future of the Irish Water Sector. A copy of the
document can be obtained
http://www.ictu.ie/download/pdf/water_report_web.pdf

dublin_wastewater EX POST EVALUATION OF INVESTMENT PROJECTS COFINANCED BY THE EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND (ERDF) OR
COHESION FUND (CF) IN THE PERIOD 1994-1999 DUBLIN WASTE WATER
TREATMENT
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/projects/dublin_
wastewater.pdf

TAOISEACH Enda Kenny said that under

Fianna Fil's water policy "everybody could
leave their taps on" and the taxpayer would
be expected to foot the bill.
Mr Kenny hit out at the rival party's policy of abolishing
water charges, calling it a return to "populism" for Fianna
Fil.

Fianna Fail leader Micheal Martin. Photo: Gerry Mooney

In a briefing to reporters he reiterated that Fine Gael

supports a single utlity to provide water services,
conservation measures through metering, and a "fair and
affordable contribution" from households.
An Expert Commission is currently examining the future
of funding water services.
Fianna Fil has made a submission calling for charges to
be scrapped.
Mr Kenny said that under these circumstances water
would have to be funded by the central exchequer.
"It would mean that effectively that everybody could leave
their taps on and the public would be expected to pay for
whatever the outcome would be," he added.
In other issues covered Mr Kenny said that the Citizenz'
Assembly to discuss the Eighth Amendment will meet for
the first time on Saturday October 15.
Chaired by Supreme Court judge Mary Laffoy, it will
examine the law that bans abortion, giving equal status to
the lief of a mother and an unborn child.
Mr Kenny says he looks forward to receiving its
conclusions.

On Brexit, Mr Kenny said he believes the British

government will trigger Article 50 - the beginning of their
process of leaving the EU - early next year, but that it's a
matter for the Prime Minister Theresa May.
He reiterated that the Budget here will have to be Brexitproofed.
Mr Kenny was asked about Finance Minister Michael
Noonan's hospitalisation for cullulitis last week.
He said that Mr Noonan has assured him of his fitness to
work and that he trusts him to tell him if he is not able to
work for health reasons.
He said Mr Noonan is to meet his British counterpart
Philip Hammond tomorrow to discuss Brexit.
Mr Kenny said that the north inner city taskforce - set up
to support the area amid the spate of gangland killings this
year - is "an issue that I've taken very much to heart."
He said he's had several meetings with the commintiy and
said their resilience is "quite incredible".
"The area's been given a bad name by a small percentage
of people," he said,
Mr Kenny said he's against the legalisation of drugs but is
in favour of medically supervised injection centres.
Firstly, this report isn't due until tomorrow, but we're
getting hints of the possible out come to soften the
impacted of the conniving deeds of this governments and
Fianna Fil in their attempts to enforce water charges.
Secondly both Enda Kenny and Micheal Martin need to
realise that this political quango Iris water is a financial
quagmire that the big boys in Europe have already rejected
its capabilities of survival without government funding
and that money taken from hard pressed Taxpayers
through political exploration.
Therefore as of now both parties should take note that any
suggestions of a household limit will be strongly rejected
as that was a previous intent to shaft ordinary decent
people who've already paid for water through Motor
taxation. Disabled people lost proper home care the

ordinary people were taxed beyond survival whilst

government enrich themselves and their cronies. Time for
politicians like Kenny and Martin learned that enough is
enough.
The only way of stopping the privatisation of our water is
to leave the EU,
The only referendum being offered is one to put Irish
Water, the commercial utility, into the constitution as a
public utility and that in itself is a red herring because it
does not stop the opening of the market for water as a
resource because any commercial utility regardless of who
owns it will cause a commodification of that resource and
thus force our Government to open the market to third
parties.
Housing, healthcare and water (in any order you choose)
were the three biggest issues around which the last
election was fought. Six months into 'new politics' and the
Fine Gael-Independent Alliance charade, and things have
only got worse on all three fronts. We have more homeless
people than any other time in living memory, we have
more people on hospital trolleys and waiting for medical
procedures than ever before, and people are still being
asked to throw good money after bad on a failed billing
service that can't even pay its own way, much less fix they
system it was allegedly created to maintain and upgrade.
FF may think they're playing a smart game by allowing
these and other FG debacles rumble on, but facilitating FG
in office makes them equally responsible for the mess.

The Government has sought nominees to

form an Expert Commission to make
recommendations on the long-term funding
model for delivering water services.
A key part of the Programme for Government, the
Commission is expected to complete its work five months
after being established, and its report will be considered by

a special Oireachtas committee before a Dil vote.

Both national and international experts are required, and
parties have been invited to make nominations. The
commission will require "professional expertise" in
funding and financing of large -scale infrastructure
investment and maintenance programmes, economic
regulation, water resources management and
environmental law.
Infrastructure
Nominations should be submitted by this Friday. Among
the issues to be addressed are funding the network over
the longer-term, proposals on how Irish Water will be able
to borrow to invest in infrastructure and how conservation
can be encouraged.
The Cabinet yesterday approved legislation to suspend
water charges for nine months, taking effect from July 1, in
line with the Fine Gael/Fianna Fil minority government
deal.
Meanwhile, the Chair of the Public Water Forum has said
the Government "failed drastically" in putting across a
proper debate on Irish Water.
Dr Tom Collins said policymakers and Irish Water failed
in their message and the entire discussion had been poorly
handled.
Speaking to the Irish Independent Dr Collins said the
public would have been more open to the discussion
around Irish Water had it focused on resource
conservation.
"We have failed, I think policymakers have failed
drastically to present to the public the issue of water in a
wider debate than merely water charges , the issue has to
be seen in a much wider way," he said.
He said he believed the country needs a national authority
around water but stressed if that was to involve a cost it
must be affordable, saying citizens had a right to the
supply "regardless of their capacity to pay for it".

Ritas short story

November 29, 16

Ok, let me explain with a simple story.

A man goes into a shop for the week's food. The
bill comes to 40 euro. He looks in his wallet
and has 10 euro in cash, as he left most of his cash
at home. He puts the 10 euro on the counter. He
also finds a 10 euro voucher that someone
gave him to spend in that shop. He still needs 20
euro more. He takes out his chequebook, but
remembers his account is low as payday is close,
so he can only write a cheque for 10 euro. He
needs to pay 10 euro more, so he puts the
balance on the credit card. He goes home with the
food, and still has several hundred quid as cash at
home.
If he comes away arguing that 40 euro was too
much for the food, I will listen to his argument,
comparing prices to other shops and countries.
But if he says it is too expensive because he paid
for it 4 TIMES, he is the most stupid person on the
planet, because he doesn't realise that COUNTING
the times he paid makes no sense, ADDING the
total amounts makes sense.
The international norm for supplying drinking
water to households is about 1000 per household,
regardless of whether it comes from per-use or
from taxation. A 160 euro part-contribution
doesn't count as paying ONCE, and more than our
friend above could argue that he had already paid
his 40 euro food bill with the tenner. Neither does
10% of your 400 euro motor tax count as paying
once. Show me the maths, don't just count the
pieces.
To continue our story: Our friend starts to fall ill
(like our water infrastructure is leaking), and one
opinion is that he has not been having enough
food. He needs to increase his food spending to 50

euro per week. He thinks 40 is appropriate

because he is used to it, but he has no frame of
reference to say that 40 was too low, and he
doesn't want to hear otherwise. He has paid 4
TIMES, and now he is expected to pay 5 TIMES.
He decides to investigate and comes up with an
uncomfortable truth. His next door neighbour has
been growing his own veg and meat for the last
decades, has not been using the shop, but has also
been paying the same 40 euro weekly, and it has
been paid against our friends account every week
for decades, and his neighbour never complained.
It seems the actual cost of food was always 80
euro, and he was only ever paying a flat amount,
shared with his neighbour who never used the
service. This "extra" tenner is actually the first
time he has ever had to pay anything that is
actually associated with the amount he eats.
He is horrified! Food is a human right, and so his
neighbour should continue to pay for him, and
should not receive any benefit for paying privately
for growing his own food.
The shop continues to provide food, with no
demand for anyone to pay based on what they eat.
Many people who would normally have no issue
with paying for food decide to stop paying because
their neighbours aren't paying. Our friend uses
this to ease his conscience. If others are paying,
then I must be right.
In the meantime, the neighbour, who has paid for
our 'hero's food all along, decides "to hell with
this, I've paid for years and never complained.
Now this guy is causing a racket because he has
contribute a tiny proportion directly. I'm looking

at options to re-coup my 40 euro, back-dated, and

my conscience is squeaky clean".
He only part of the above story that is incorrect, is
that our friend is not in fact the most stupid
person on the planet. He has company, plenty of
it.
NO means No Fine Gael Not now not ever will I
pay for your bad management of our taxes.
Let the ministers pay from their massive
expenses and huge salaries - pension pots &
rented properties they have. Yea a greedy lot
running the country
with respect, Firstly if your car is leaking fuel you
fix it, hence saving yourself money. In 1997
Brendan Howlin took a percentage or levy off our
high Motor-Tax to pay for water. The Gov
established this quango Irish water who in return
went on a rampage installing meters to charge for
water. The took around 800m of Motor-Tax
contributions to fund Irish water as they wanted
to show profit before repairing leaks and
replacing damage pipes. That all down to a lack of
accountability.
You can see what is happening here. The
government is going to move this to general
taxation - this now brings Revenue into the game
and like LPT can now be deducted at source.
Then the commercial entity that is IW is dead.
Revenue cannot collect monies for a state utility
company.
MCT? Dead.
Privatisation? Dead.
IW? Dead.
Abtran in Cork? 2,500 on the dole, all thanks to
blueshirt arrogance.

I'm only making it the point that you can't have it

both ways, it's either tax or it's a private charge.
2.5bn Kenny & Co have blown on Irish Water to
date .. he just doesn't care - it wasn't his money in
the first place - it was ours.
pay for wasteful water usage .
aim.:: to fool people into getting metered
state to become a customer of irish water
aim : to privatise irish water, the tail wags the dog
irish water to remain
aim : to continue wastage of taxes and feed
cronies
why isnt the subject of putting irish water firmly
in the nations control not a topic for the
referendum commission
Slovenia another member of the eu has just
protected water for its citizens in its constitution .
WHY HASN'T F/FAIL AND FINEGAEL DONE
THIS?
AIM: pRIVATISATION
I'm not buying it, just as I don't buy the claim that
the Vartry tunnel will collapse or that we will all
have lead poisoning due to old and dilapidated
pipes. One thing the Victorians did well was build
infrastructure. Just like the canals, the grand
houses, lighthouses and railroads they were built
to last and last they will with a bit of maintenance.
Dont' need to be rebuilt, that's just a red herring.
They could come up with any number from 500m
to 5 trillion to back up their rationale for
continued existence. But I wouldn't believe a word
of any of it. There is plenty of money to fund water
infrastructure, and if not (which I doubt) they
have 1.5bn a year profit as bank shareholders as

well as a corporate tax regime that yields a tiny

fraction of the 12.5% corporation tax that should
be paid. They could do something about that but
prefer not to, because Paddy is a much easier
target. They could have negotiated a deal to
eliminate the 2,000 million a year we pay on
bank debt that is not ours, that would fund a lot of
houses, water infrastructure or whatever - but
they didn't even ask for it. They don't want
13,000m from Apple which they could claim as
being part of the EU ruling we must follow, but
they don't. So no, I'm not buying any of this and
I'm not paying a 3rd time for what I already paid
for.
The last election gave numerous TD's a mandate
to abolish Irish Water and water charges They
have tried to slither out of it. The main purpose of
the commission is to get people registered by
promising them they will be "exempt" if people
accept that the quango has a contract with them
then Irish Water high five in their spanking new
offices
The commission is a stitch up and was so ever
before it was even appointed
Will not pay for water at all , end of.
Once their is a charge in place no matter how
small it will increase every year, just like the car
tax when Fianna Fail reduced it to 5 instead of
abolishing it at the time and now look what
motorist are paying. We are not fools any more
Enda.
Waste full of Taxpayer money by Irish water for
all the perks and bad decisions they are still
making
Once "Irish Water" get their foot in the door,
there'll be no stopping them.
We must not allow ourselves to have the wool
pulled over our eyes by putting "modified" water

charges to us in soft focus.

They will stop at nothing to get these "water
charges" in place - by hook or be crook.
We have to show them that we are not stupid.
A great victory for the taxpaying worker FG wont
burden him anymore .OK the USC will remain in
place and Councils will charge the full rate on the
household charge .Then the real payees will be
Children through no increase in Childrens
allowances ,Pensioners ,unemployed Invalids ,all
recipients of state benefits ,Investment in roads
,schools services anything that can be cut will be
cut and anything that can be cancelled will be
cancelled .A great victory for popular ism but like
FF doing away with rates in the 70s to win an
election again they played that card and only in
the future will the people look back and ask what
were they thinking .
You know what's wasteful - spending over 300m
on consultants, spending nearly 1bn on meters
despite being offered them free from Siemens,
spending 87m on a "conservation" grant, hiring
hundreds of workers in Abtran to pester people,
spending hundreds of thousands on ads telling us
water doesn't fall from the sky, wasting thousands
of hours of Garda time protecting meter installers
and stewarding multiple marches, millions on
posting out bills, laughing yoga classes, bonuses,
company cars, 2million for a "Golden
Handshake" to John Tierney, the cost of the
"Independent Water Commission" and the"20person Oireachtas committee", When the people
that approved all of the above wasteful spending
repay the costs and we have a referendum to
enshrine ownership to the Irish citizens, then I'll
pay. Anything less than that and I will never, ever
pay one penny voluntarily.

It's very easy to understand really, we underinvest in water infrastructure, or the health
service, as examples, so that we can allow
companies such as Apple, Google, Starbucks,
Cerberus and Kelloggs, to pay SFA in taxes. We
also get the "squeezed middle" to hand over nearly
half their wages in taxes which are used to fund
the multiple pensions of former politicians, the
high wages and allowances of current politicians
and to repay the bankers tax. The more money the
"squeezed middle" hand over, the more money is
put aside for pay restoration , enquiries and
committees. There is no money left for investment
in water or houses or health but the taxpayers are
asking themselves why the hell we should
continue paying out while others benefit so I, for
one, refuse to pay again for something I already
pay for.
The end

RAFT REPORT - European Parliament

DRAFT REPORT on the environmental ...
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/studies/doc/2012_unconventio
nal_gas_in_europe.pdf. ... Stresses that prevailing expert
opinion

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_
2014/documents/envi/pr/892/892948/892948en.
pdf

The Impact of Irish Water on Local Authorities

While statutory responsibility for water services will
pass to Irish ... has produced an annual report on ...
understanding of the impact of Irish Water

http://www.engineersirelandcork.ie/downloads/8
.%20Katherine%20Walshe%2020-3-13.pdf
Irish Water: Phase 1 Report ... organisational form for
water services delivery in Ireland, ... which will absorb
the National Pension Reserve Commission.

http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/mig
rated-

files/en/Publications/Environment/Water/FileDo
wnLoad,29194,en.pdf

Report reveals
Irish Water
consultancy
overspend
Updated / Jan. 12, 2014

A confidential report obtained by RT's This

Week shows the Government expected Irish
Water would be established using Bord
Gis' "existing operational capacity" in the
specific areas of IT, asset management,
customer billing systems, and other key
functions.
The unpublished 20-page report, which was

drawn up in September 2012, sets out how

Irish Water would be implemented over the
following five years as a subsidiary of the
Bord Gis Group.
However, it makes no reference to any use of
external consultants to create or operate key
IT or other systems.
It went on to declare the current
Government's "determination" that the use of
such existing capacities in the State sector
was a central element of any new functions
being taken on by public bodies.
Irish Water boss John Tierney last week
revealed the agency has spent 50m on
consultants during the agency's set up
phase.
Lucrative contracts were awarded to
consultants including IBM, Accenture, and
Oracle, it emerged.
The unpublished report marked
confidential was drawn up by the Irish Water
Consultancy Group, the inter-agency group set up by the
Government, which included the Department of
Environment, Bord Gis, and local authority employee
unions.

The IWCG also had a remit to report on

progress directly to the Minister for the
Environment Phil Hogan.
The report, which is a roadmap for the
implementation of Irish Water, was created
just six months after the Government
decided to create Irish Water as a subsidiary
of Bord Gis.

The report sets out how the Government

anticipated at that time that Bord Gis "will
support the establishment and operation of
Irish Water through leveraging existing
operational capacity in areas such as asset
management, capital programme delivery,
networks management, customer service and
billing, finance, IT".
"The Bord Gis Group has ... specific skills
from its own experience of transformation,
customer relations, network management,
metering and utility operation that can be
deployed to assist in the successful
establishment and operation of Irish Water,"
according to the report.
"The approach also reflects the Government's
determination to use capacity and
competencies that exist in the State sector in
undertaking new functions," the report
states.
However according to tender documents
published on the European tendering
system, the Official Journal of the European
Union, the services that Irish Water has
acquired from external consultants includes
asset management services, customer
services, and other IT functions.
The tenders were advertised by Bord Gis
just months after the Government's decision
to place Irish Water under their remit and the
contracts were awarded in late 2012 and
early 2013, with Irish Water saying that these
mostly went to the major companies that it

has named - IBM, Accenture and Oracle.

Mr Hogan has said the money spent would be
examined by the Commission for Energy
Regulation when it assesses Irish Water's
submission on water prices shortly.
Meanwhile, the Oireachtas Environment
Committee said it will quiz Irish Water over
the amount spent on consultants when they
appear before the committee on Tuesday.
Chairman of the committee Michael McCarthy
said Irish Water will have to explain the
spending of 50m.
Speaking on the This Week programme, Mr McCarthy said
the meeting between representatives of Irish Water and
the Oireachtas Environment Committee next Tuesday
should show accountability and transparency.
"I think it's reasonable to assume that given the fact that
Bord Gis were very much the midwife of Uisce ireann
that the resources and capacity that they had would, in so
far as practicable, facilitate the creation of Irish Water
Central Government Funding of Irish Water ... over the
delivery and operation of water services from local ...
sewage/waste water. 2 Irish Water: Phase 1 Report,
http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/annualreports/2014/r
eport/en/11%20central%20government%20funding%20of
%20irish%20water.pdf

Central Government Funding of Irish Water

The Government decided in December 2011 to establish a
public water utility to take over the delivery and operation

of water services from local authorities.1 An independent

assessment of the planned transfer concluded that a
public utility could achieve greater efficiencies and
economies of scale than alternative delivery models and
would reduce, and ultimately eliminate, the burden on the
Exchequer of continuing to fund water services.2 The
assessment stated that a key factor in evaluating the
merits of the utility was the possibility that its borrowings
would be outside the general government debt.
In 2013, Irish Water was established as a commercial
semi-state company and as a subsidiary of Ervia (formerly
Bord Gis ireann). Under Irish Waters shareholding
structure, Ervia holds one A share with full voting rights
but no economic rights, while the Minister for the
Environment, Community and Local Government and the
Minister for Finance each hold one B share with full
economic rights but no voting rights.
With effect from 1 January 2014, responsibility for the
provision of water services transferred from 34 local
authorities to Irish Water. Following the transfer, each local
authority provides services to Irish Water under an
individual service level agreement.3
The primary governance arrangements for Irish Water are
set out in the Water Services Acts 2007-2014, and the
companys memorandum and articles of association. The
Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies also
applies to Irish Water. In September 2013, the Department
of the Environment, Community and Local Government
agreed a memorandum of understanding with Irish Water
dealing with its establishment and development. A
separate memorandum of understanding was agreed in
July 2013 in relation to the metering programme.4
The Water Services (No. 2) Act 2013 provides that the
Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) will be the
economic regulator of the public water and wastewater
sector. CERs role includes protecting the interests of
water customers, ensuring water services are delivered in
a safe, secure and sustainable manner and that Irish
Water operates in an economic and efficient manner.
CERs responsibilities include reviewing plans submitted
by Irish Water for water charges, by reference to the costs
likely to be incurred by Irish Water and its investment

plans. CER can then either approve the water charges plan
(with or without modification) or reject it.
Funding was provided to Irish Water from a number of
central government sources during 2014, and some
payments are expected to continue for a number of years.
Because of the significant changes in funding and
accounting involved, this report was compiled to provide
an overview of that funding, and of the controls being
applied.
132 Report on the Accounts of the Public Services 2014
Transfer of Assets and Liabilities
11.7 The Water Services (No. 2) Act 2013 provided for the
transfer of assets and liabilities of local authorities to Irish
Water on date(s) specified by the Minister for the
Environment, Community and Local Government. The
Minister has made a number of orders in relation to the
transfers. From 2014, the capital commitments previously
funded by the Department of the Environment,
Community and Local Government under the Water
Services Investment Programme became the responsibility
of Irish Water.
Value of Infrastructure
11.8 To date, Ministerial Orders have transferred all
underground assets and 634 treatment plants. The
process of identification and transfer of assets is
continuing.
11.9 The physical water-related assets in local authority
accounts at the end of 2013 had a net book value of 11.4
billion. This included some surface water drainage assets
(road drains) which are not transferring to Irish Water.
Local authorities are required to submit annual financial
statements to the Department of the Environment,
Community and Local Government by 31 March of the
year following the year of account. The Department was
asked to provide information in relation to the net book
value of each local authoritys water services assets at the
end of 2014 from these financial statements or, from
audited financial statements, if available. The Department
was not in a position to provide this information. Annex A
sets out details of the net book value of each local
authoritys water services assets at the end of 2013. The
residual amounts at the end of 2014 are shown for those

local authorities where audits of financial statements have

been completed.
11.10 Irish Waters financial statements value the
property, plant and equipment transferred from local
authorities at 128 million. These assets have been
recognised by Irish Water at fair value in accordance with
international financial reporting standards. Irish Waters
financial statements set out the basis for the valuation as
follows.
Fair value is the price that would be received to sell an
asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction
between market participants at the measurement date
determined using discounted cash flows, market values, or
replacement values.

CERdecisionsprescribetheelementsonwhichIrishWatersreg
ulatedrevenues are based. Those revenues determine the
profitability of the Irish Water business. As the value of
Irish Waters assets is derived from expected economic
returns in the future, this regulatory regime is critical to
valuing the transferred assets.

Thevalueattributedtoopeningproperty,plantandequipmenti
sbasedonthe future return provided for in the regulatory
regime - which consists mostly of liabilities linked to the
opening assets assumed by Irish Water, for which the
regulator has allowed a future return.
1 SI No. 112 of 2015
2 The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government, the Minister for Communications, Energy and
Natural Resources, the Minister for Finance and the
Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.
Financial Assets
11.11 Financial assets to be transferred to Irish Water
mainly comprise unallocated development levies collected
by local authorities. The Water Services (No. 2) Act 2013
provides for development levies received by local
authorities for the purpose of investment in water services
to be transferred to Irish Water. A Ministerial Order
provided for the transfer from the local authorities to Irish
Water of development levies received or due to be
received.1 Due diligence work is underway to determine

the amounts to be transferred. Amounts have been agreed

with some local authorities and Irish Water is engaging
with the remaining local authorities.
Water Services Related Loans
11.12 Most local authorities had borrowed funds to invest
in water services. Such loans were not transferred to Irish
Water. The Local Government Fund provided local
authorities with 47 million in respect of the service cost
of those loans in 2014.
11.13 The Water Services Act 2014 provided that
payments of up to 460 million may be made to local
authorities from the Central Fund of the Exchequer for the
purpose of repaying water related loans outstanding with
the Housing Finance Agency.
11.14 At July 2015, Housing Finance Agency water related
loans held by local authorities were in the process of being
repaid (427 million including interest). The redemption of
these loans will be reflected by local authorities in their
2015 accounts.
11.15 A further 140 million in water related loans from
commercial lenders are held by local authorities. The
servicing of these loans is being funded by the
Department of the Environment, Community and Local
Government.
Central Government Funding of Irish Water
11.16 Irish Water is funded by a combination of

centralgovernmentgrants(intheformofanoperatingsubventi
on),capital
contributions and loans
receiptsfromdomesticandnon-domesticcustomers
commercialborrowings.
11.17 The Water Services (No.2) Act 2013 provides that
the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government may make grants to Irish Water from moneys
provided by the Oireachtas and that the Minister for
Finance may make advances to Irish Water from the
Central Fund, subject to such conditions as may be
determined. The Act also provides that Irish Water may
borrow up to 2 billion subject to the approval of relevant
Ministers.2
11.18 In 2013 and 2014, Irish Water received a total of

1.2 billion in grants, loans and capital contributions from

central government. Further funding of 1.4 billion is
anticipated in 2015 and 2016 (see Figure 11.1).
133 Central Government Funding of Irish Water
134 Report on the Accounts of the Public Services 2014
Figure 11.1 Central Government Funding of Irish Water,
2013 to 2016
Estimated
2015
2016
Grants and capital contributions
Local Government Fund subventions
Vote for Environment, Community and Local Government
Central Fund capital contributions
Loans
Convertible loan
Central Fund loans
National Pensions Reserve Fund/Ireland Strategic
Investment Fundb
Actual
2013 2014
m m m m
439 399 479
1 407a
1 846
54
96 250c 50c 150d
250 104

58

184
399
663
246
58
Total 251 950
645
721
1 General purpose grants were replaced by local
property tax allocations in 2015.
2 Section 6 (2CA) of the Local Government Reform Act

2014 provides for payments from the Local Government

Fund to Irish Water.
Local Government Fund Subvention
11.19 The Local Government Fund provides local
authorities with general purpose grants for funding day-today activities. Up to 2013, the funded activities included
water services but the water-related element of the grants
was not specified. The total general purpose grants paid to
local authorities in 2014 decreased by 360 million
compared to 2013, mainly due to the transfer of
responsibility for water services to Irish Water.1
11.20 In 2014, Irish Water received a subvention of 439
million from the Local Government
Fund.2 The amount was determined by reference to
resources which would have been allocated from the Local
Government Fund to public water services under previous
funding arrangements. The conditions attached to the
funding required that Irish Water would provide the
Department with
copies of the budgets agreed between Irish Water and
local authorities for 2014
bi-monthly expenditure reports and estimated
expenditure to year end bimonthlycashflowreportswithprojectionstoyearend
confirmation(atthetimeofeachreport)that
all expenditure had been properly accounted for and was
in line with budget
all procurement was in accordance with public
procurement rules and that the (Department of Public
Expenditure and Reforms) Public Spending Code had been
followed.
Source: Notes:
Department of the Environment, Community and Local
Government
a 222 million of this amount relates to capital spending
to be incurred in 2015.
b National Pensions Reserve Fund loans were transferred
to the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund with effect from
22 December 2014 pursuant to the National Treasury
Management Agency (Amendment) Act 2014.
c The aggregate 300 million facility provided in 2013 and
2014 was refinanced and replaced by a new 300 million

facility in September 2015.

d Anticipated additional loan facility.
135 Central Government Funding of Irish Water
11.21 From 2015, the Local Government Fund subvention,
which is to be paid quarterly in arrears, funds the following
in relation to domestic customers
product subsidy a volume-based payment such that
the amounts charged to domestic customers per 1,000
litres do not exceed those set out in the Water Services
Act 2014
capping cost the cost of purchasing water in order for
the maximum annual charges per household set out in the
Water Services Act 2014 to apply
childallowances
thecostofpurchasinganallowanceof21,000litresforeach
child under eighteen years of age.
11.22 Requests from Irish Water to the Department for
drawdown of funding are required to identify the amounts
attributable to each category. The actual amount of
funding provided will be dependent on the actual volume
of water, the number of households and the number of
children. However, the funding to be provided is not to be
greater than the approved amounts for each year (i.e.
399 million for 2015 and 479 million for 2016).
11.23 In 2015, just over half (211 million) of the
maximum 399 million subvention is expected to be in
respect of the product subsidy, around a third (128
million) in respect of the capping cost and the remaining
15% (60 million) in respect of a child allowance.
11.24 The estimated 2015 subvention was calculated on a
customer database of 1.5 million households. An analysis
of Irish Waters domestic customers as at 31 August 2015
is shown in Figure 11.2.
Figure 11.2 Irish Water household registrations at 31
August 2015
Customers of Irish Water
Registered with Irish Water Unregistered
Total Irish Water customer base
Households with own/group water supply and own
wastewater treatment
Registered with Irish Water Unregistered (estimated) Total

Source: Department of the Environment, Community and

Local Government
Number of households
1,099,545 422,455 1,522,000
284,327
101,857
1,908,184
1 A capital contribution is an irrevocable, non-refundable
and unconditional payment from a shareholder to the
company in which it holds shares.
136 Report on the Accounts of the Public Services 2014
Loans from National Pensions Reserve Fund
11.25 When proposals to establish a water utility were
initially developed, the National Pensions Reserve Fund
(NPRF) agreed (in 2010) to provide a loan facility to the
proposed utility to fund metering installation, subject to
certain pre-conditions including the establishment of a
regulatory regime.
11.26 As the Irish Water programme developed, a need
emerged for funding for establishment costs prior to the
introduction of domestic charges. Discussions were
progressed with the NPRF on the basis of funding both the
metering programme and establishment costs.
11.27 In July 2013, Irish Water entered into a 250 million
bridging loan facility with the NPRF. In November 2014, the
facility was increased to 300 million. The 300 million
facility was fully drawn down and was repayable on 2
September 2015. Under the terms of the NPRF facility,
interest and commitment fees were capitalised. The rate
of interest payable on each tranche was 2% over the
Euribor rate at the drawdown date. The Minister for
Finance provided a guarantee to the NPRF in respect of
the loan. This is recognised in the Finance Accounts. Irish
Water agreed to pay the Exchequer a guarantee fee of 2%
per annum of the drawn facility. The total guarantee fee to
be paid is 10.3 million, and the final instalment is
payable in October 2015.
11.28 The 300 million guaranteed facility was repaid on
maturity date and refinanced with a 300 million
unguaranteed Ireland Strategic Investment Fund (ISIF)
facility at 1.9%.

11.29 It is anticipated that an additional loan facility for

150 million at 2.4% will be provided by ISIF in 2015.
Central Fund Capital Contributions and Loans
11.30 The Exchequer is also providing capital
contributions and loans to Irish Water.1
11.31 Prior to the establishment of Irish Water, local
authorities were responsible for the delivery of water
services capital infrastructure for which the Department
provided funding under the Water Services Investment
Programme (WSIP). The total cost of the programme from
2007 to 2013 was 2.9 billion including expenditure of
241 million in 2013 (see Figure 11.3). The WSIP included
some funding for projects and infrastructure on activities
not transferred to Irish Water such as river basin
management plans and water sector reform programme
projects. The Rural Water Programme provided some
funding for smaller water and sewerage schemes.
137 Central Government Funding of Irish Water
Figure 11.3 Water services investment, 2007 to 2015
m
600 500 400 300 200 100 Convertible loan
Capital contribution
WSIP
2007 2008 2009
2010 2011
2012 2013 2014
2015a
Source: Department of the Environment, Community and
Local Government
Note: a A capital contribution of 222 million was paid in
2014 in relation to 2015 capital investment.
Capital Contributions
11.32 The total Exchequer capital contribution in 2014
was 407 million. Of this, 185 million was based on the
level of capital funding provided to the water sector in
2013 (when taken together with a convertible loan of 54
million see below). The remaining 222 million, which
was provided in December 2014, was calculated as the
gap between Irish Waters projected available funding for
2015 capital investment (from operating cash flow and
projected debt drawdowns) and its total funding

requirement, based on financial assumptions on costs and

revenues. A further capital contribution of 184 million is
reflected in the Irish Water funding model for 2016.
Loans
11.33 In 2014, Irish Water was provided with a 54 million
convertible loan note at a rate of return of 2.5% per
annum. The loan is convertible into equity at the
discretion of the Minister for Finance and is an unsecured
obligation of Irish Water.
11.34 In addition, exchequer loans have been approved to
provide working capital in the light of the timing difference
between costs arising and revenue being received from
water charges in the early years of operation. The
amounts notified to Irish Water for this purpose are 96
million for 2015 and 58 million for 2016.
Millions
1 Local authorities will be compensated through the Local
Government Fund for this loss of revenue.
2 Eurostat is the statistical office of the European Union.
Its task is to provide statistics that enable reliable
comparisons between countries and regions.
Allowed Revenue
11.35 When approving the level of water charges, CER
determines the efficient level of costs (including
depreciation and return on capital employed) that Irish
Water incurs in carrying out its activities. The total amount
to be recovered is known as the allowed revenue. This is
recovered through a mixture of charges to customers
(which are approved by the CER) and subvention from
Government.
11.36 In September 2014, CER approved allowed revenue
of 2.1 billion (in present value terms) for Irish Water for
the period 1 October 2014 to 31 December 2016, an 8.2%
reduction on Irish Waters proposed cost recovery of 2.3
billion for the period.
11.37 As a result of the Water Services Act 2014, Irish
Water made certain changes to the approved water
charges plan. A revised water charges plan was approved
by CER in March 2015. The Water Services Act 2014
exempted Irish Water from commercial rates on water
infrastructure.1 This had the effect of reducing its annual
costs by some 59 million. This resulted in a revised total

allowed revenue of 2 billion for the period October 2014

to December 2016, representing a reduction of 8.5% on
Irish Waters proposed cost recovery.
Water Conservation Grant
11.38 Measures in relation to water services announced by
the Government in November 2014 include an annual
100 water conservation grant which is payable in respect
of all primary residences to households who registered
with Irish Water by 30 June 2015. The grant is being
administered by the Department of Social Protection, on
behalf of the Department of the Environment, Community
and Local Government. The water conservation grant is
expected to be operational by September 2015. The
Environment, Community and Local Government vote
estimate for 2015 includes a provision of 130 million for
the water conservation grant. The funding provision is
based on an estimate of up to 1.3 million households
potentially applying for the grant.
Market Classification of Irish Water
11.39 A significant component in the strategy to establish
Irish Water is that it would be classified as a market
corporation under Eurostat rules, with operating funding
(other than any government subvention) and third party
debt excluded from the general government balance
calculation.2 Such classification would allow Irish Water to
borrow for investment from commercial lenders, in a
manner similar to other commercial state bodies, without
impacting on the general government balance or debt.
11.40 A Eurostat ruling on the market classification of Irish
Water was received in July 2015. This stated that, on the
basis of available information, Eurostat considers that Irish
Water should be classified within the government sector.
The CSO is engaging with Eurostat to clarify interpretation
issues relating to the ruling. The classification ruling will
be reviewed again in 2016 as part of the European Unions
excessive deficit procedure process, using the most up-todate data.
138 Report on the Accounts of the Public Services 2014
139 Central Government Funding of Irish Water
Conclusion
11.41 The most significant element of central government
funding of Irish Water is a subvention from the Local

Government Fund. The 2014 subvention of 439 million

was based on the amount previously provided to local
authorities for the provision of water services which have
transferred to Irish Water. The audit of the 2014 Local
Government Fund is examining whether the conditions
attached to that funding were met.
11.42 The total subvention from the Local Government
Fund in 2015 and 2016 is expected not to exceed 878
million. The calculation of the actual amount of the
subvention in each year will be complex as it will depend
on the actual volume of water used by Irish Waters
domestic customers, the number of customer households
and the number of children in respect of whom a water
allowance is due. The payment of the subvention will be
examined as part of the audit of the Local Government
Fund from 2015.
140 Report on the Accounts of the Public Services 2014
Annex A Net book value of local authority water services
assets, 2013 to 2014
Local Authority County Councils
Carlow
Cavan
Clare
Cork
Donegal
Fingal
Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Galway
Kerry
Kildare Kilkenny
Laois
Leitrim Limerick Longford
Louth
Mayo
Meath Monaghan North Tipperary Offaly Roscommon Sligo
South Dublin South Tipperary Waterford Westmeath
Wexford Wicklow
City Councils
Net book value at 31 December 2013
m
123.1 144.8 407.5 829.5 342.6 778.8 282.3 222.8 471.2
420.0 128.0
77.3 107.5 277.6 126.6 161.5 566.0 318.0 122.6 163.7

219.7 203.9 269.8 635.4 247.3 170.1 248.9 232.0 191.4

Net book value at 31 December 2014
m
n/a n/a n/a 109.9 85.7 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
n/a 456.6 n/a n/a
n/a
Cork
Dublin 2,000.0 Galway 150.4 Limerick 263.7 Waterford
139.2 Total 11,403.2
Source: Department of the Environment, Community and
Local Government Note: n/a The Department was not in a
position to provide this information.

Here is the proof that the Expert Water Commission never

recommended the ending of water metering. They didn't
take the water meters into account because it wasn't part
of their terms of reference.
In fact they recommend that IW complete full water meter
installations "to identify system-wide leakage and
managing the network"
Adams condemns Irish Water debacle
January 13, 2014

Gerry Adams TD.

Sinn Fin President Gerry Adams TD has called on the Irish
government to make Irish Water compliant with the
Freedom of Information Act and to move speedily to
ensure that all relevant information about the
establishment of Irish Water is accessible and available to
the public.
The debacle around Irish Water is symptomatic of the
failures of the Fine Gael and Labour government the Sinn
Fin Louth and East Meath TD said.
Both parties came to power condemning the bad politics
of Fianna Fil and promising greater transparency and
openness and accountability in government.
Instead there has been a litany of broken promises and uturns and the guillotine has seen significant use in the Dil
as the government has sought to stifle debate and push
through its legislation.
In government Fine Gael and Labour abolished water
charges. In opposition they rejected water charges but
now in government again they are reintroducing them. It is
also worth noting that Fianna Fil agreed to impose water
charges under an EU-IMF arrangement but is now opposed
to them.
From the very beginning of the project, Irish water has
wasted good money after bad. It has received 500m from
the Pension Reserve Fund to install water meters.

This was followed by over 200m in the recent budget

only to be followed by a further allocation from the local
government fund.
Then, this week Irish Water admitted that the company
has spent 50m of public money on private consultants.
People across the state are angry at this huge outlay of
public money. Such public anger is understandable
considering the level of experience regarding water supply
that already exists in the 34 local councils.
Rather than spend this enormous amount of money on
private consultants, Irish Water should have given this
work to local authority staff. This would have been an
immediate saving to the taxpayer.
We learned on Sunday, through a confidential report
obtained by RT's This Week programme that the
Government expected Irish Water would be established
using Bord Gis's "existing operational capacity" in the
specific areas of IT, asset management, customer billing
systems, and other key functions.
However, according to tender documents published on
the European tendering system, the Official Journal of the
European Union, the services that Irish Water has acquired
from external consultants includes asset management
services, customer services, and other IT functions the
very services the report said should be deployed by Bord
Gais.
So, major questions now need to be asked regarding the
payment of 50 million of public money on private
consultants.
Sinn Fin intends raising this issue in the Dil when it
returns on Wednesday.
Concluding Gerry Adams said: Water charges are an
integral part of the governments austerity strategy. They
are an unacceptable additional stealth charge on

households. The installation of water meters, their cost

and the water charges that will follow will add significantly
to the burden on families.
This regressive tax coupled with the others already
imposed by this government are crippling households and
families.
Sinn Fin is fundamentally opposed to the introduction of
water charges, to the privatisation of water and sewerage
service provision.
In the north Sinn Fin has prevented the introduction of
water charges and the privatisation of the water services
and will continue to do so.

Unicredit and the trouble with

Dublins Cayman-on-the-Liffey
February 10th, 2013
In September 2007, a year before Irelands banks went
belly up, Jonathan Sugarman, a risk manager at Unicredit
Bank Ireland, alerted his bosses and regulators at the
Central Bank of Ireland to the fact that Unicredit was in
massive breach of liquidity requirements. The law was
clear: liquidity cover was allowed to fall to 89 per cent but
any lower and a report had to be filed with the regulator
and the bank faced a hefty fine. Sugarman identified that
Unicredit was operating with cover of just 70 per cent,
twenty times less than allowed. But his superiors at the
bank and the regulators were intensely relaxed about the
law-breaking. After six weeks of being stonewalled,
Sugarman decided he had no choice other than to resign,
as he did not wish to incriminate himself. Now a
whistleblower, he has spent five years seeking to raise
awareness of the failures of both the Irish central bank
and Unicredit. He was interviewed by Kathimerini, a Greek
affiliate of the New York Times.
Recently you have given a few public lectures in Greece, on
the issue of the banking system. Why are you interested in

our country?
To be completely frank, it was the Greeks who showed interest
in me. Perhaps some people saw that I worked as a risk
manager, that my job was effectively to count the money held
by a bank. [These people] approached me because they did
not know anybody else who might publicly declare that this
was his job. In June 2011 somebody offered to translate my
blog into Greek, and since then I have had many contacts with
Greeks from all walks of life, concerned citizens and
academics.
Can you please tell us in simple words what a risk managers
job is?
I will give you a simple image here. If the bank were a car,
then the risk manager would be the driver, and the Central
Bank would be the road police. A cars driver is not supposed
to drive beyond the speed limit. If the speed limit is 100
kilometres per hour, and the driver goes at 120 kilometres per
hour, then he risks a fine. Similarly, a banks risk manager is
responsible for keeping minimum liquidity. In other words, he
must ensure that some amounts of money come in deposits
for example, and other amounts of money go out in the form
of loans or other banking products. In every country, the
Central Bank defines the minimum liquidity that banks must
always keep. In Irelands case, this minimum was 90 per cent.
If a bank were to go under this [minimum] limit, then the bank
is to be fined by law. In addition, the risk manager and the
managing director could be sentenced to five years in prison.
When did you discover Unicredit Bank Irelands liquidity
problem?
In the first weeks that I was employed at the bank I already
saw a chaotic situation. Some days we operated within the
law, while on other days we went entirely off limits. Initially, the
managing director and other managers ignored my concerns.
They mentioned technical problems in our information
systems and that there was not a real problem with our
liquidity. They claimed that because I was new in the job, I
could not understand these problems. On the days that we
were off limits, we explained in our daily report that this had
happened because of technical problems, and of course we
never informed the Regulator, as we should have done. After

repeated breaches of the limit, I announced to the managing

Director that I did not intend to pretend that I was blind, and
that we should send an official report to the Central Bank of
Ireland. This actually happened at the end of July, when I
personally delivered an official notification of a liquidity breach,
to the office of the financial regulator.
So did the bank face any sanctions?
There was no reaction whatsoever. And this happened when
we had gone as low as 20 per cent below the required
minimum liquidity, while Irish law required us to immediately
report a breach of 1 per cent! In other words, I confessed to
the banks police that I had broken the law, and they, instead
of sending immediately their officers to thoroughly investigate
what was happening in the bank, [the regulator] sent us a
letter that essentially told us that since you confirmed to us
that the the crime had stopped, we are satisfied!
So what did you do then?
Then I tried to find out what these technical problems were. A
banks information system is its Bible. A bank does not keep
its accounts on loose pieces of note paper. If we could not
trust the information systems results, then we would be
unable to know whether we really had sufficient liquidity, or
not. As a result, I called in a company that specialised in
[banking] information systems.
And what was the result of their checking?
They called me at my home one night, in September 2007,
and said You complained to us that you were anxious about
your liquidity falling to 70 per cent, they told me. In fact, your
liquidity is 50 per cent! The next morning I went to the
managing director and handed in my resignation letter.
But what was the cause of low liquidity?
I suspect that our activities were not being accounted for
correctly. Some days we accounted them correctly, on other
days we did not.
But if the cause really was a technical problem, and not some
fraud or some high risk transactions, then why did you not
solve the problem yourself, instead of resigning?
The existence of such a problem shows how amenable to
fraud is the whole system. Recent scandals with nonauthorised deals by traders in the London offices of the Swiss

bank UBS, or in Socit Gnrale in France, prove exactly

this fact. If the bank had failed next day, I would have been
held responsible for it, and according to the law I would go to
prison for five years. Put very simply, I did not want to go to
prison.
Why do you believe that you were the only one to have been
afraid of this?

Banks act with impunity. As we have seen since, the upper

echelons in banks can be confident they will never be held
responsible for anything. This does not necessarily mean
anything, but Unicredit Bank Irelands chairman, Dr Brian
Hillery (pictured left), is an ex-member of the Irish parliament,
and is from Fianna Fil, the political party that was in power at
the time. Later on, after I handed in my resignation, Hillery
became a director of Central Bank of Ireland. I wonder how
can the Central Bank impartially investigate a bank whose
chairman now sits on the board of the Central Bank?
At the time, Ireland was labelled the Wild West of European
Finance by the New York Times. Was this fair?
Ireland was a very attractive place for banks and multinational
corporations because of its extremely low tax rate, which was
10 per cent. Banks could establish subsidiaries that would be
controlled (or rather, as it was later proved, would be not
controlled) by the Central Bank of Ireland. In theory, we all had
our daddy and mummy, who were the big European or US
banks. Whenever we run out of cash, we could phone our
daddy in Frankfurt, or our mummy in Rome, to send us some.
Everything looked perfect! Moreover, daddy and mummy had
sent an official letter to the Central Bank of Ireland when they

created their subsidiary, saying that they would take care of

their child should it ever misbehave. So, the Central Bank was
not too strict with us, children.
So why did your bank not pick up the phone to daddy and
mummy, when it was obvious that you were out of cash?
If the managing director had called his friend in Milan and told
him that he had run out of money, then the first question he
would have to answer would be Why? Dont you know how to
manage your bank? Obviously then no one was going to call
their parents and tell them they had misbehaved. In theory, a
liquidity problem could be solved in five minutes. But how was
he going to justify that he arrived at a liquidity level below 70
per cent when the law demanded at least 90 per cent?
Obviously, if anyone were to admit something like this, they
would instantly lose their bonus!
And what was the reaction of the parent company when you
resigned?
There was no reaction whatsoever. Three years later Senator
David Norris presented my issue in the Senate. Subsequently,
Unicredits headquarters in Milan were contacted [by
journalists]. [Unicredit headquarters] Told them they had
nothing to do with it all. Either they were pretending, or they
really did not know what was going on. So, I wonder Is it that
your child in Dublin did not tell you what really happened? Or,
even worse, did the Central Bank of Ireland not tell Banca
dItalia the central bank of Italy, what had happened?
So is your opinion that the central bank of Italy knew about
this?
I cannot answer this question. If you want an answer, you
might ask Mario Draghi, who at the time was governor of the
Banca dItalia. This is a very simple question: While you were
Governor of Italys central bank, did you know that the biggest
bank in your country did not know what its Irish child was
doing? And if you were not informed about it, how do you
explain that?
Do you believe that the Irish banks failed for similar reasons?
A year after my resignation, within a single night, Irelands
government had to guarantee all of its banks. Perhaps they
did not all face exactly the same problems, but finally they
arrived at the same point. Of course, I wonder where all the

risk managers of these banks are now?

Really, where are they?
They are at a silent moment in time.
And why is all this happening, in your opinion?
It is all part of the big lie which we are all living through. No
one wants to be the first one to admit the problem. Even if we
leave aside the performance of any particular risk manager,
the banking system still has a set of other controls. These
include auditing companies that co-sign the the annual
financial reports and the regulating authorities, the central
banks.
So you say that it is not only the banks fault?
It simply cannot be that it is no bankers fault. There are
people who are responsible for signing that everything
complies with the law. Every bank has at least one risk
manager; every bank has at least one chartered accountant;
every bank has an external auditing company. Every country
has a central bank, just as Ireland has the Central Bank of
Ireland. Therefore, there are specific people who are
responsible for the fact that the banks in Ireland needed to be
re-capitalised, and these people have a name and surname.
We cannot say, It just happened! or Daddy, the toy broke!
Who broke it? I dont know, it broke by itself!
But why isnt your story better known?
It is a story that brings discomfort to many people in key
positions at various places.
Can I suppose then that the Central Bank of Ireland did not
ask you what had happened, even after the banks had
requested to be bailed-out?
No, in fact they did call me, twice. The first time, in the month

of May 2011. They invited anyone with information to come

forward and offered confidentiality to anyone who would. But
this meeting was a fiasco. Essentially, the confidentiality
clause referred only to my anonymity. As they clarified at the
meeting, they would be obliged to report everything that I told
them to the states public prosecution, which meant that
everything I might say could be used against me by the
authorities. Naturally, I refused to talk then. The second time
was in February, 2012. Even though there was no further
clarity by then regarding the confidentiality, I was prepared to
share some of what I knew. At this second meeting the Central
Bank officials admitted that they had had sight of further
irregularities at the bank. But my initial enthusiasm over this
admission, soon proved to be misplaced. In June, 2012, they
declared the case closed. In August of 2012 they gave to the
press something that they claimed passed as minutes of our
meeting. However, it bore no reflection to what had been said.
And what are your relations with the bank today?
I have no relationship whatsoever with the bank. I demanded
damages for constructive dismissal. Their reply was that I
would receive nothing, and that I would have to face a legal
battle should I ever reveal any information to third persons. I
assure you that it is scary enough to be threatened by a trillion
Euro bank! They even used data from my personal life to
allege that I cannot know what I am talking about because I
am psychologically disturbed!
So you have initiated court proceedings against the bank?
It was impossible, even for financial reasons, to initiate private
legal proceedings against the bank. What is even more
important, is that before I could ever challenge a trillion euro
bank, the police must first declare that a crime had occurred.
When the police claim no crime happened, how can you
prosecute the criminal? In order to prove that the state
authority itself has buried the evidence, I will have to present
my case to some European-wide authority. So I am waiting for
the European Banking Authority to find some teeth.
And are you eager to do something like this?
Eager I certainly am. Whether I will do it or not, I will decide
when the time comes.
But even if you yourself have not been vindicated, do you

believe that in the wake of the banking crisis, the banking

system has been properly strengthened? Or perhaps the
effectiveness of the regulatory authorities?
No. While the banks and their managers do not get punished,
why should anything change? Soon we will have a new
regulatory framework for the banking market, the so called
Basel III agreement. But as long as we do not intend to
impose the law, we can agree as many Basels as we want.
According to your experience, is it possible that the system
that you have been describing here could be changed for the
better by the appearance of more whistleblowers?
Yes. But, if I judge from my own case, I do not think that there
will be many more whistleblowers. There is no protection by
the state at all. I have been supported only by my friends, or
by people who simply heard about my story.
And has your value system changed through your
experience?
Now I have greater faith in humanity, and much less faith in
the established authorities, be they politicians, judges, or
functionaries. We, common people, take too seriously all
those people who do nothing to protect small investors or the
small tax payers. They only care for saving the banks.
You sound like a disappointed golden boy who has turned
against a capitalist system that once fed him.
I am not going to enter into this discussion. Whether I am for
capitalism, socialism, or the Left, has nothing to do with the
discussion we are having now. Nineteenth century ideologies
cannot be used to face a twenty-first century crisis. In Ireland
at this moment we have a socialist government that is safeguarding the monetary interests of the capitalist bondholders.
While in Austria, it was the extreme Right wing party that
brought my case to the parliament. Do you see any ideology
here?
So you are against the financial system?
This is an interesting question if we wanted [this interview] to
be a philosophical discussion; but this question is not relevant
at the moment. We might barter a kilo of olive oil with a
television set, actually I have seen this with my own eyes and
it functions. However, at the end of the day, if you want a
smartphone, you cannot simply barter for it with olive oil.

Therefore, we must have a common currency. We return

then to the starting point of this discussion. You either have
rules and abide by them, or you have no rules, and everybody
does whatever they want. If the latter is the case, then it would
be better if we all knew that.
So what might help create a sound financial system, in your
opinion?
To abide by the law. And enforce the law when it is broken.
Do you remember the day that you handed in your
resignation?
I hardly slept the night before. Perhaps we have lost the sense
of what a billion Euro means by now, but up to that day I used
to sign for amounts like that; only in reality they did not exist! I
was sad, and at the same time I felt relieved that I had
stopped participating in a crime. The managing director tried
to make me change my mind, but I would not go back. Also he
faced huge pressure from the dealing room, so at the end the
story it became a case of Either me or them.
And how was your career after that?
A short while after I left, I started looking for a new job. But the
banking world is ultimately a small world. I was told that a
person with my C.V. would be unable to find a job at another
bank, having left Unicredit after just six months; and as a
whistleblower on top of that. I was trapped.
And how did the people who were close to you feel about all
this?
There are a few friends who have stood by me all this time. In
2007 no one could predict how things would turn out, and
most people did not believe me. Only after they heard [and
saw] on television that the banks had to be bailed out, did they
understand that I was not lying.
And how do you make your living today?
With a little help from my friends as the Beatles song goes
(laughs). I give consulting services to my friends, and I give
lectures. I have also been approached to write a book. Life will
show.
I imagine that you can not have the life that you had before.
do not want to enter into details about my personal life and
the psychological hardships that I have endured. My financial
situation is difficult now. As I told you, I would not be here

today without my friends help. Today I am giving you this

interview and enjoying my coffee at the exceptional King
George Palace hotel, on Syntagma Square. A few years ago I
used to come to this hotel for my vacations. There are very
few places where I would be able to stay today [probably] at
a Bed & Breakfast, at best.
Do you ever regret having been shut out of the world of
banking?
I used to earn good money according by Irish standards. I had
a beautiful home, a nice life. I had dinners at expensive
restaurants. I travelled a lot. But I would never trade my beliefs
for a life of luxury. Unfortunately, it seems these days that
many people are willing, if not even eager, to sacrifice their
childrens future for a fragile present of luxury. I cannot do that.
Is something haunting you now?
The laziness of the educated middle class is the thing
haunting me. Rich bankers see what is happening, and laugh
all the way to the bank, while the middle class works to serve
their interests. Risk managers, lawyers, chartered
accountants, all these people pretend that they are working
hard, while in truth they are lazy morally and intellectually.
The same holds true for the university professors of law and of
economics. Where is constructive criticism today? This
laziness has become so widespread, that very few can see it
for what it is.
Kathimerini thanked the management of the King George
Palace hotel for hosting the interview. You can read more
about Sugarmans campaign in Villages Blowing the
whistle so hard it hurts. Sugarmans website is at
WhistleblowerIrl.blogpost.com
The European Banking Authority (EBA) is an independent EU Authority which
works to ensure effective and consistent prudential regulation and supervision
across the European banking sector. Its overall objectives are to maintain
financial stability in the EU and to safeguard the integrity, efficiency and
orderly functioning of the banking sector.
The main task of the EBA is to contribute to the creation of the European
Single Rulebook in banking whose objective is to provide a single set of
harmonised prudential rules for financial institutions throughout the EU. The
Authority also plays an important role in promoting convergence of
supervisory practices and is mandated to assess risks and vulnerabilities in
the EU banking sector.

The EBA was established on 1 January 2011 as part of the European System
of Financial Supervision (ESFS) and took over all existing responsibilities and
tasks of the Committee of European Banking Supervisors.

The European Banking Authority (EBA) is an independent

EU Authority established on 1 January 2011 by Regulation
https://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/1601485/Va
cancy+notice.pdf
European Banking Authority ... Authority was set up
on 1 January 2011.
http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/EBA_2011/
EBA_2011_EN.PDF
The Committee of European Banking ... 1 Constituted as
the European Banking Authority since 1 January 2011. ...
to review its Requirements for the Management
https://www.centralbank.ie/regulation/poldocs/dispapers/D
ocuments/Liquidity%20paper%20%207%20October
%20%2011.pdf
EUROPEAN UNION THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT THE
COUNCIL ... (European Banking Authority), ... 2 Opinion
of 22 January 2010 .
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=PE
%2040%202010%20INIT

Follow

Jonathan Sugarman

Care to comment ? ?
wrote THE book abt t collps of
Nice one Ian. Given what I have been told by some
of the great and the good based in Dublin there
are no surprises here. Regulations were routinely
ignored in the relentless pursuit of money. Some
of the wide-boy property developers got their
fingers burnt but the real culprits are unscathed

and still operate out of their Ansbacher (Cayman

Island) accounts and are tax exiles many in UK
where they have registered to vote and pay utility
accounts BUT continue to operate out of Dublin.
One I know maintains a UK based mistress and
spends 100K+ on holidays with her every year
and pays no tax in any jurisdiction. I would be
very surprised in more than 5, or possibly 10, of
the top 100 in the Rich List is clean from a tax
residency, revenue perspective. The scale of
corruption is extensive and includes all sectors
CAs, lawyers, civil servants and more. It is a
grubby little secret and worse than Italy. It is one
of the better kept secrets. Processes have been
well established that are designed to maintain the
status quo. The prospects of change/reform are
virtually nil.

Expert commission
says most should

not pay for water

Updated / Nov. 29,

The commission recommends that excessive or wasteful

use be paid for by the householder

This is the actual article body

The report by the expert commission on

water said that under its recommendations
the vast majority of householders will not
have to pay for water.
In its 63-page report published this evening,
the commission recommends that normal
household usage should be paid for by the
State in the form of general taxation.
It says that the choosing a dedicated tax or
an adjustment to existing taxes to fund this
would be a matter of budgetary policy.
The commission recommends that excessive
or wasteful use be paid for by the
householder.

In terms of what qualifies as normal usage for

households, the report recommends that the
Energy Regulator and a public water forum
should be part of a transparent process to
assess this.
It says this is not a free allowance as it would
be paid for by the state.
The commission also proposes that the
regulator should determine the charge for
those who use more than the normal
requirement.
Special provision should be given to those
with special medical or other needs, it says.
In exceptional circumstances, the
commission states that people should be able
to apply for a waiver regarding excessive
usage.
The report also says that those who have
paid their bill to date should be treated no
less favourably than those who have not.
It also recommends that a suitable
constitutional provision on the public
ownership of water should be fully addressed
by the special Oireachtas committee that will
look at the report.
It says that while the expert commission
cannot purport to offer an authoritative
opinion on European law but states it is
satisfied that its recommendations would
comply with the EU directive on water.
In relation to those not served by public
water supplies, the report says equity must

be maintained and when allowances for

consumers on public supplies are determined
this must be examined.
It finds equity should be maintained through
additional subsidy "or other means" for group
schemes and private wells.
The eight-member commission was set up
last June. It was chaired by Kevin Duffy. The
group met formally on ten occasions from
July to November, and met with or received
submissions from 70 groups.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1129/835318water-charges/
Report on the Funding of Domestic Public Water
Services in Ireland The report by the expert
commission on water said that under its
recommendations the vast majority of
householders will not have to pay for water.
November 2016
http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/com
mittees/futurefundingofdomesticwaterservices/R
eport-of-Expert-Commission-on-Domestic-PublicWater-Services.pdf
Report on the Funding of Domestic Public Water Services
in Ireland
November 2016
EXPERT COMMISSION ON DOMESTIC PUBLIC WATER
SERVICES
Contents
Summary of
Recommendations ...............................................................
............................. 1
1.
Introduction .........................................................................
......................................... 4
2.

Background .........................................................................
.......................................... 6
3. Public
Consultation.........................................................................
............................. 18
4. Discussion and
Analysis ...............................................................................
................ 22
5.
Recommendations ...............................................................
....................................... 31
6.
Conclusions .........................................................................
........................................ 41
Works
Cited ....................................................................................
.................................... 42
Appendix..............................................................................
............................................... 45
A1. 2014 Policy
Direction...............................................................................
.................. 45 A2. September 2014 Water Charges
Plan ........................................................................ 46 A3.
November 2014 Revised Water Charges
Plan ............................................................ 48 A4. Sources
of Potable
Water ...................................................................................
....... 49 A5. Irish Water Treatment
Plants ..................................................................................
.. 50 A6. Leakage Comparisons Ireland and the
UK ............................................................... 51 A7. EPA
Remedial Action List Sites and Priority Areas for Waster
Water Enforcement .... 52 A8. Consumption Data from Irish
Water Consumption Research Project ......................... 53
A9. Comparison of European Tariff
Systems .................................................................... 54
A10. Combined Volumetric Charges for Non-Domestic
Customers .................................. 56 A11. Financing of
Water Infrastructure Costs in Various
Countries .................................. 57 A12. List of
Consultations ......................................................................
.......................... 58 A13. Drivers of Household

Consumption in
Ireland ......................................................... 60 A14. Letter
from European Commission Directorate General
Environment .................. 61
Summary of Recommendations
The detailed recommendations of the Expert Commission
are set out in Chapter 5 of this report. The principal
recommendations can be summarised as follows:
Public Ownership
As part of the overall approach to settling the issues
addressed in this report, the Expert Commission
recommends that the adoption of a suitable constitutional
provision on public ownership of water services be more
fully addressed by the Special Oireachtas Committee, as
part of its deliberations.
Funding Domestic Water and Wastewater Services
The funding of water services for normal domestic and
personal use should be out of taxation. The question of
whether there should be a dedicated tax, a broadly-based
fiscal instrument, or an adjustment to existing taxes to
fund this requirement would be a matter of budgetary
policy.
Special provision should be made for those with special
medical or other needs.
The volume of water necessary to meet the normal
domestic and personal needs of
citizens should be independently assessed through an
open and transparent process.
Under the proposed arrangement, the national water
utility will provide sufficient water to all citizens to cover
their domestic and personal needs, and the cost of that
water will be recovered from the State, which will be a
customer of the utility, based on tariffs approved by CER
following consultation. What is proposed does not
therefore amount to the provision of a free allowance of
water.
Excessive or wasteful use of water should be paid for
directly by the user at tariffs determined by CER.
Excessive or wasteful use of water will be discouraged by
charging for such use and therefore is consistent with the
polluter pays principle.
Funding Operations, Maintenance and Investment

 Through directly billing the Exchequer for the cost of the

agreed allowance for normal domestic and personal use,
funds for covering the costs of water production and for
further investment in infrastructure will be provided.
Additional mechanisms should be considered to ensure
that the necessary finance is guaranteed.
1
Metering
While benefits have accrued from the metering
programme already undertaken in detecting leaks and
monitoring patterns of water usage, the question of
whether to continue the metering programme in one of
policy and is outside the Expert Commissions terms of
reference. If it is decided to proceed with the metering
programme, consideration should be given to an approach
that is more aligned with the proposals in this report, with
a focus on metering of buildings in the case of multioccupancy or metering of households on request.
Irish Water should complete a comprehensive
programme of district metering to identify system-wide
leakage and manage the network.
Public Engagement and Transparency
The consumers voice must be put at the heart of
discussion and decision-making on the delivery of water
services in Ireland. The Expert Commission recommends
that over time the role of the Public Water Forum be
further developed.
The Expert Commission recommends that Irish Water
renew its efforts to develop a positive engagement with
consumers and put in place further initiatives to engage
consumers in a positive and proactive way at the national,
regional, and local level.
Irish Water should commit to the provision of extensive
open-access data, for research purposes and so that
consumers can easily monitor and manage consumption.
An EPA administered research budget on water
management and conservation is necessary and should be
put in place.
Role of Regulators
The regulators are essential to hold Irish Water to
account for compliance with drinking water quality,
environmental requirements, and ever-improving levels of

service and efficiency.

Economic regulation, with adequate expertise, will be
required to ensure that the appropriate capital
expenditure investments are made and that operating
expenditure costs are driven down over time. The Expert
Commission recommends that the Commission for Energy
Regulation and the Public Water Forum continue to be
adequately resourced with the tools and expertise to drive
efficiency targets in the sector.
2
Conservation Measures
It is recommended that a much more proactive approach
be taken to promoting domestic water conservation
measures in Ireland. Irish Water can play a key role in this
regard not only through educational and information
campaigns but also through providing advice and access
to water conserving devices.
Further measures should also be considered, such as a
requirement that new domestic buildings incorporate
water conserving fittings and an extension of the Building
Energy Rating (BER) Scheme to incorporate water
conservation.
Equity and Fairness
Equity with the proposed arrangements for consumers on
public supplies must be maintained for those who are not
served by public water supplies. The Expert Commission
recommends that this be reviewed when the allowances
for consumers on public supplies are determined and that
equity for group schemes and private wells be maintained
through additional subsidy or other means.
The necessary measures should be put in place to give
effect to the commitment that those who have paid their
water bills to date will be treated no less favourably than
those who have not.
3
1. Introduction
1.1 A new system of charging for domestic water services
was introduced in Ireland in 2014. Following a number of
amendments to the original scheme of charges and
following talks for the formation of a new government in
May 2016,
Assess and make recommendation on the funding of

domestic public water services in Ireland and

improvements in water quality, taking into account:
The maintenance and investment needs of the public
water and waste water system on a short, medium and
long-term basis;
Proposals on how the national utility in State ownership
would be able to borrow to invest in water infrastructure;
The need to encourage water conservation, including
through reviewing information campaigns on water
conservation in other countries;
Irelands domestic and international environmental
standards and obligations;
The role of the Regulator; and
Submissions from all interested parties.
Members of the Expert Commission
1.2 The Expert Commission was chaired by Mr Kevin Duffy,
former Chairman of the Labour Court. The other members
of the Expert Commission were:
Dr Bill Emery, Chair of the Northern Ireland Utility
Regulator;
Dr Sarah Hendry, academic lawyer specialising in water
and environmental law,
University of Dundee, Scotland;
Dr Andrew Kelly, CEO of EnvEcon Decision Support;
Dr Xavier Leflaive, Water Team leader, OECD
Environment Directorate;
Ms Gritta Nottelman, strategy consultant for Waternet,
The Netherlands;
Mr Brendan OMahony, Chair of the National Federation
of Group Water
Schemes; and
Mr Peter Peacock, Chair of the Customer Forum for Water
Scotland and former
Scottish Minister
1.3 The Expert Commission formally met on 10 occasions
in the period from July to November 2016.
the Minister for
the Environment, Community and Local Government on
29 June 2016 announced
the establishment of the Expert Commission on the
funding of domestic public water
services in Ireland. The terms of reference of the Expert

Commission were to:

4
1.4 The Expert Commission invited submissions from
interested parties. The Expert Commission also had
presentations from a number of bodies and interested
parties. The total number of parties with whom the Expert
Commission met or from whom submissions were received
was 70.
1.5 Secretarial and research support was provided by the
Institute of Public Administration.
1.6 This report, for submission to the Special Oireachtas
Committee, is set out as follows:
Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4
Chapter 5 Chapter 6
sets out some relevant background to water services,
water infrastructure and funding of services in Ireland.
summarises the main points arising from the consultations
submitted to the Expert Commission as part of the
consultation process.
provides a discussion and analysis of key issues relating to
funding of domestic water services in Ireland.
sets out the recommendations of the Expert Commission.
provides a brief summary and conclusions.
5
2. Background
2.1 In this chapter, we briefly set out some background to
the issue of funding domestic water services in Ireland,
starting with the timeline of key decisions on the issue.
2.1 Water Charging in Ireland: Timeline of Key Decisions
2.1.1 The circumstances that led to the suspension of
water charges and the establishment of the Expert
Commission have developed over an extended period of
time. Before discussing the issues in more detail, it is
helpful to summarise some of the key stages and
decisions that led up to that suspension:
A charge for domestic water services existed prior to
1978 as part of domestic rates and again in 1983 as part
of a local service levy.
1997: the Government abolished domestic water and
sewerage charges for publicly supplied services and these
services were now funded through taxation.
2010: as part of the EU/IMF Programme of Financial

Support for Ireland, the Memorandum of Understanding

referred to the commitment that the government will
have undertaken an independent assessment of transfer
of responsibility for water services provision from local
authorities to a water utility, and prepare proposals for
implementation, as appropriate with a view to start
charging in 2012/2013.
2011: the Programme for Government included the
commitment to establish Irish Water and to implement
charges based on usage above an allowance funded by
taxation.
2013: the Water Services (No. 2) Act 2013 set out the
statutory position regarding water charges. Under this Act,
a Water Charges Plan was prepared and submitted by
Irish Water to the Commission for Energy Regulation
(CER). It specifies the manner and method by which
charges shall be calculated. The CER is responsible for
approving the Water Charges Plan. Both Irish Water and
the CER can be subject to the policy direction of the
Minister.
July 2014: the Minister for the Environment, Community
and Local Government issued a policy direction to the
Commission for Energy Regulation (CER). This direction
included policy principles with respect to the proposed
domestic water charges regime. More details of the policy
direction can be found in Appendix 1.
September 2014: the CER decided on the water charges
tariffs (taking account of the Ministerial Policy Direction)
that came into effect on 1 October 2014. The main
aspects of the charging regime were: a free household
allowance of 30,000 litres; free allowance for each child;
exemptions for certain medical conditions; charges for
usage above the allowance; and households without a
meter would
6
be charged on an assessed basis, using occupancy as the
criteria for assessment. More details of the Charging Plan
are listed in Appendix 2.
November 2014: a revised charging regime was
announced in November 2014, involving capped charges
and a lower subsidised charge per litre of water. Key
elements of the revised regime were set out in the Water

Services Act 2014 and reflected in a revised Water

Charges Plan published in March 2015. The main details of
the revised charging regime (now suspended), which
commenced on 1 January 2015, are provided in Appendix
3.
May 2016: Agreement to suspend water charges and
establish an Expert Commission as a part of the
Confidence and Supply arrangement agreed with Fianna
Fil to facilitate the formation of a Fine Gael led minority
government.
2.1.2 For those on private wells, group water schemes,
and septic tanks, water charges have been in place for
many years, thus raising issues of equity with users on
public supplies where no direct charges applied. A system
of subsidies was introduced for the group water sector to
cover the domestic use of water under these
arrangements. According to a 2011 report by Engineers
Ireland and The Irish Academy of Engineers, 22% of all
users of water services are served by group schemes or
private wells, and the waste water of 29% of households is
treated through septic tanks (see Appendix 4).
2.2 Water Infrastructure in Ireland and the Need for
Investment
2.2.1 The water network infrastructure in Ireland is
fragmented for the size of the population. Ireland has a
large number of public and private supplies for a relatively
small population compared to other EU countries. The EPA
has noted that Ireland has 973 public water supplies in
comparison to Scotlands 290 supplies for a similar
population size. Managing Irelands water supplies is
complex due to the number and variation in types of
supply geographical location, size, treatment processes,
management, consumers, ownership issues, distribution
networks and a historical lack of investment (EPA
2014:2). The maps provided in Appendix 5 reflect the
fragmented network of treatment plants and wastewater
treatment plants (as of 2011).
2.2.2 One the key challenges in producing and treating
water in Ireland relates to the condition of the water
infrastructure. The average age of Irish water mains is 6585 years (compared to a European average of 36 years),
and some date back to the 19th century (Irish Water,

2015). Many are in need of major repairs or replacement.

Failing to address these infrastructural issues leads to
problems, a number of which have been experienced in
Ireland in recent years.
7
2.2.3 There is also a high level of unaccounted for water
(UAW) in Ireland. As of 2011, the average leakage rate
was 41%. Only 6 of the 34 water authorities had leakage
rates below 30%, and 5 water authorities had leakage
rates near or above 50% (PWC, 2011). A comparison of
leakage rates in Ireland and UK is provided in Appendix 6.
It should be noted that water leaks waste not only water
but also energy and public money.
2.2.4 The costs that can arise from not investing in
infrastructure in a timely manner can be significant. For
example, EPA funded research into the costs of a specific
incident (the outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in Galway City
in 2007) provides evidence that investment in safe
drinking water supplies and water treatment benefits both
public health and the wider economy. In the case of the
Galway outbreak, the research indicated that costs of 17
million could have been avoided had appropriate
treatment been in place before the outbreak occurred
(Morris et al, 2007: viii).
2.2.5 Compliance with the EU Drinking Water Directive has
presented challenges. According to the EPA at the
beginning of 2015, 23,000 people were on boil water
notices, and at least 180,000 properties were at risk of not
meeting the EU guideline on the maximum levels of lead
in drinking water. The numbers on boil water notices had
reduced to just 6,000 by the latter end of 2015.1
2.2.6 The EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive
requires that sewage from towns and cities is treated
before being released into the environment. The EPA
continues to report ongoing cases of untreated sewage
being discharged, and a significant number of treatment
plants that are not meeting mandatory EU standards. The
European Commission is taking infringement action
against Ireland following an assessment that urban waste
water is not adequately treated in 38 specific locations
around the country.
2.2.7 According to the EPA, Irelands natural waters are a

long way from achieving the good status required under

the EU Water Framework Directive. Preliminary results
from the implementation of the first round of river basins
management plans indicate that there has been no overall
improvement in water quality in the period 2009 to 2015.2
2.2.8 The EPA identifies public water supplies in need of
remedial action, which are included on the Remedial
Action List (RAL). As of October 2016, 117 of the 962
public water supplies are on the Remedial Action List.
These supplies collectively provide
1 Information provided to the Expert Commission by the
EPA in October 2016. 2 Information provided to the Expert
Commission by the EPA in October 2016.
8
water to 850,000 consumers.3 The maps at Appendix 7
show the location of sites on the RAL and the priority areas
for wastewater enforcement.
2.2.9 The Joint Oireachtas Committee on Environment,
Transport, Culture and the Gaeltacht issued a
comprehensive report (June 2012) on the subject of Water
Provision in Ireland. The Committee set their review
against the background of the need to further invest in
water infrastructure, noting that a recurrent investment
of 600 million annually would be necessary (2012:19).
2.2.10 There is general agreement that this deficit in
water infrastructure needs to be addressed, not least
given the social, environmental, and economic costs of
failing to do so. Based on current projections, the
minimum total capital expenditure required for the period
2014 to 2021 is 5.5 billion, with the likelihood that
significant ongoing investment will be required in later
years. This proposed capital expenditure will be subject to
CER approval (Irish Water, 2015). The Expert Commission
recognises the need for ongoing investment in
infrastructure.
2.3 Valuing Water: Water Availability, Consumption and
Conservation in Ireland
Water Availability
2.3.1 There is a high level of water availability in Ireland.
Research shows that Ireland has one of the highest rates
of water availability in the world actual renewable water
resources are about 13,000 m3 per capita per annum. By

comparison, Frances actual renewable water resources

are 3,371 m3, while Israels are just 255 m3 per capita per
annum (Zhao and Crosbie, 2012). The vast majority (over
80%) of drinking water in Ireland is abstracted from
surface water.
2.3.2 However, just because there are high levels of water
availability does not mean that issues of local water
scarcity do not arise. OECD (2010) notes that scarcity is
not a mere physical phenomenon. Dry areas may not be
water scarce if use remains within the limits of local
availability. Conversely, wet areas may be stressed if use
approaches the limits of availability (2010:65).
2.3.3 As noted earlier, there is a serious problem of water
leakage in Ireland, and there is a serious issue of lack of
spare capacity in some cities. Consequently, although
there is a high rate of water availability in Ireland,
inadequate infrastructure means that there are serious
pressures on the supply and treatment of water.
3 Information provided to the Expert Commission by the
EPA in October 2016.
9
Water Consumption
2.3.4 Accurate data on domestic water consumption in
Ireland has only become available recently, following the
introduction of domestic water meters. In the Irish Water
Charging Plan submission to CER, consumption data was
provided based on the Irish Water Consumption Research
Project, which stated the following with regard to
consumption data:
The key findings from the IWCRP Phase 1 are as follows:
Average usage when outliers are excluded is 111 litres per
person per day, when weighted against the 2011 CSO
census data; Average usage when outliers are included is
123 litres per person per day, when weighted against the
2011 CSO census data; Assuming a linear model the
incremental consumption of the marginal occupant is 57.2
litres per person per day, which equates to 20.886 m3 per
annum; and average consumption, assessed on a per
person per day basis, appears lower than that assumed in
recent Government announcements, which is based on
145 litres per person per day (2014:6).
The full table of consumption data from this report is

provided in Appendix 8.
2.3.5 Irish Water presented consumption data to the
Expert Commission based on metered consumption to
date, which indicated that domestic consumption is
relatively low in Ireland with average consumption of 123
litres per capita (compared, for example, to 140 litres per
capita in the UK). This metered data also indicated that
7% of households are using six times more water than the
average household, although Irish Water indicated this
level of consumption is likely to decline as customer-side
leaks are fixed.
2.3.6 While comparison of domestic consumption with
other European countries is difficult due to differing
methods of measurement and because the data can be
out of date, this most recent consumption data suggests
that Ireland is at the lower end of the spectrum of EU
countries with regard to domestic consumption.
Water Conservation
2.3.7 In terms of conserving scarce water resources,
charging for water has been proposed as an effective
method for promoting conservation among users. The
extent to which demand for water is responsive to price
has been discussed in many research reports. The overall
conclusion is that demand responds to price in
combination with other policy signals, such as education,
information, etc.
10
2.3.8 In Ireland, the reduced domestic consumption due to
charges was originally projected to be 6%, but Irish Water
subsequently indicated that this estimate would have to
be modified downwards in the light of the introduction of a
cap on charges.
2.3.9 Many independent reviews and reports have referred
to the value and significance of education and promoting
water conservation measures. The Joint Oireachtas
Committee that reviewed water provision in Ireland (2011)
recommended that a grant scheme should be established
to incentivise water conservation (2011:10). While it can
be debated whether public money should be spent to
subsidise water saving devices, active promotion of water
conservation devices (e.g. low-flow showers or rainwater
harvesting systems) should be encouraged.

2.4 Pricing Water Services

2.4.1 Water is essential for human life. It is expensive to
produce water for consumption, to treat wastewater, and
to renew infrastructure. Therefore, water services must be
paid for through taxation, tariffs, or some combination of
both.
Pricing Strategies for Water Services
2.4.2 There are differing views on water pricing and how
cost recovery can be efficiently and equitably achieved.
For example, there are those who regard water services as
an economic good that should be fully priced with full cost
recovery, and those who regard water services as a right
that should be free to all at the point of delivery.
2.4.3 Putting a price on water services is generally
considered to serve four main objectives:
Generate finance to cover investment and operation and
maintenance costs;
Allocate water efficiently among competing uses;
Manage demand, support conservation, and discourage
depletion of water
resources; and
Ensure adequate and equitable access to affordable
water and water-related
services.
2.4.4 In the European Commissions July 2000
Communication, Pricing policies for enhancing the
sustainability of water resources, the Commission stated
that efficient water pricing policies have a demonstrable
impact on the water demand of different uses. As a result
of changes in water demand, efficient water pricing
reduces the pressure on water resources. It did recognise
the sensitivity of pricing issues for a wide range of
stakeholders and Member States but said that this
sensitivity should not be used as a reason for misreading
the Commission's message as an advocacy for a pricing
alone policy.
11
2.4.5 Until the recent introduction of a tariff structure for
domestic consumption, Ireland was unique in Europe in
not having any direct charge on users of domestic water.
However, as noted above, not having a specific charge for
water does not mean that water does not have to be paid

for by the citizen.

Tariff Structures
2.4.6 Reflecting the general categories of tariff structures
available, OECD (2010) notes that domestic water pricing
typically derives from various combinations of the
following components:
A one-time connection fee, to gain access to the service.
A recurrent fixed charge (sometimes known as a standing
charge or flat fee) that
can be uniform across customers or linked to some
customer characteristic (e.g. size of supply pipe or meter
flow capacity; property value; number of water- using
appliances). The fixed charge does not reflect
consumption.
If a metering system is in place, a volumetric rate, which,
when multiplied by the volume of water consumed in a
charging period, gives rise to the volumetric charge for
that period. The rate can be the same for any level of
consumption; or it can increase in steps with volumes
consumed (increasing block tariffs IBT); or it can
decrease in steps with volumes consumed (decreasing
block tariffs).
In some circumstances, a minimum charge is paid for
each period, regardless of consumption.
Appendix 9 reports tariff structures for water supply and
sanitation services in several OECD countries in Tables 1
and 2, respectively.
2.4.7 In seeking to determine the best type of tariff
structure, a number of different research papers and
independent reviews have identified a range of criteria.
For example, the report of the Independent Review of
Charging for Household Water and Sewerage Services in
England and Wales in 2009 (commonly referred to as the
Walker Report) used the following principles: water
efficiency incentive; cost-related; polluter pays; affordable;
fair to companies (there are a number of private
companies involved in water provision in England and
Wales); simple and transparent; administratively feasible;
and intergenerational equity.
2.4.8 Having reviewed the various systems, the Walker
Report concluded that charging by use of water should be
the preferred charging method and recommends that the

basis of charging for water should continue to move away

from the current mixed system towards a charging system
based primarily on the volume of water used (2009:69).
2.4.9 In 2012, the Joint Oireachtas Committee on
Environment, Transport, Culture and the Gaeltacht that
reviewed water provision in Ireland recommended that a
single national charging system for domestic water be
adopted stating that given that it is
12
government policy to introduce metering...that a single
national tariff be introduced, that a just and fair waiver
system that takes account of household income, medical
needs, family size etc. should be introduced, that
consumers must have a strong voice, and that bills must
be clear and transparent (2012:96).
2.4.10 In the charging plan submitted to the CER, Irish
Water assessed three tariff structures: flat, volumetric, and
two-part (fixed and volumetric) against five principles:
equity and non-discrimination; cost reflective; efficient
use; cost recovery; stable; and easy to understand. Irish
Water (2014) proposed a system of uniform volumetric
charging, combined with a fixed charge.
Types of Household Tariff Structures in Use in Europe
2.4.11 Appendix 9 provides a summary of the household
tariff structures for drinking water and wastewater in
various European countries (OECD, 2010). Table 1 provides
a summary of the household tariff structures for drinking
water, and Table 2 provides a summary of domestic
wastewater charges structures.
2.4.12 A constant volumetric charge with a fixed charge is
the most common and is utilised in 12 of the 20 countries.
Increasing block tariffs are also fairly common (7
countries), as are charging systems based on constant
volumetric rates with no fixed charge (6 countries). Only 3
countries incorporate a flat fee tariff structure: Czech
Republic, Sweden, and England & Wales. However, the
Czech Republic, Sweden, and England & Wales also utilise
other tariff structures, as some tariffs are determined and
managed locally rather than nationally. In total, 6
countries have more than one tariff structure in use within
the country. The other 14 countries utilise the same tariff
structure for the entire country, although there may still

be some variation in tariff levels regionally.

2.4.13 Water use is the most common way sewerage and
sewage treatment charges are determined (water in =
water out). 10 countries use the same tariff structure for
wastewater and drinking water, and 8 countries have
separate charges for sewerage and sewage treatment.
Only one country (Denmark) has the same fee for drinking
water and wastewater connections.
13
Affordability and Equity
2.4.14 Whatever the basis for charging or the type of tariff
structure in use, there is general agreement that effective
affordability measures must be put in place for low-income
households. It is also important that affordability measures
are well-targeted at those who are most in need of
support. Affordability is measured by comparing the bills
for water and sanitation services with the ability to pay
(typically based on disposable household income, share of
income that should be spent on paying for water, or some
other metric).
2.4.15 Most typically, affordability is measured by
reference to the share of household disposable income
that is spent on water charges. According to OECD figures,
on average these charges account for between 0.2% and
1% of disposable income, but the picture is more
contrasted when one considers the lowest decile of the
population (OECD, 2010: 77).
2.4.16 Based on the charging regime that was in place in
Ireland, the Expert Commission has been supplied with the
following figures on affordability (based on Central
Statistics Office figures for average disposable incomes):
Affordability Assessment of Irish Water Charges
Mean Household
41750 199
0.5%
Median Household
Household in Lowest Income Decile
34351
199
199
0.6% 2.4%
Net disposable income in 2014
Average water bill per household in 2014

Water bill as % of net disposable income

Water bill (net of WCF) as % of net disposable income
8435
0.2%
Source: the Department of Housing, Planning, Community
and Local Government
0.3% 1.2%
14
2.4.17 In Ireland an Interdepartmental Group was
established in 2013 to consider affordability measures
with respect to water charges. The Inter-Departmental
Group considered options such as maximising support to
vulnerable households with a small universal allowance,
social tariffs (with or without Government subvention), a
social protection scheme, or using existing redistribution
schemes (tax and social protection). The Group concluded
that the approach to affordability measures could not be
developed in isolation either from the design of water
charges (including assessed charges), the determination
of the level of State funding or the proposed free
allowance.
2.4.18 A number of affordability measures were introduced
during 2014, including a free allowance and provision for
tax and social welfare supports. As previously outlined, the
overall charging regime was revised in November 2014,
including the introduction of a Water Conservation Grant
for all eligible households. The Water Conservation Grant
replaced the tax rebate and social protection measures
that were previously announced and was proposed as a
more straightforward means of addressing water issues for
all households on equal terms thereby reducing
households outlay on water services.
Non-Domestic Charges for Water
2.4.19 Although the Expert Commission has been asked
specifically to consider funding of water services for the
domestic sector, it is also relevant to briefly consider
charging in the non-domestic sector, not least in the
context of how charges are apportioned between users.
2.4.20 In the non-domestic sector, different local
authorities have traditionally charged different rates, and
these have been inherited by Irish Water pending the
setting of a new national tariff structure by CER, which is

scheduled to be in place by 2018. A summary of the

variation in volumetric rates for non-domestic customers
across the local authorities is provided in Appendix 10.
2.4.21 Similarly, connection charges have in the past been
charged by local authorities, again at different rates and
collected as part of development levies. CER proposes to
introduce a national connection charging policy by 2018.
2.4.22 There have also been problems noted with the
collection rate for non-domestic charges, and according to
Boyle (2012) service indicator data for Irish local
authorities shows that some local authorities have
experienced significant difficulties with collecting water
charges from the non-domestic sector, and noting that
the collection rate for commercial water charges was
much worse than for other charges
15
with almost half of water charges being unpaid across all
local authorities. (2012:22)
2.4.23 Irish Water have indicated that in proposing to CER
the enduring tariff framework for non-domestic customers
they would, as data is migrated from the Local Authorities,
build up a consumption profile for non-domestic customers
which will assist in determining the appropriate proportion
of total costs to be recouped from the non- domestic
sector. However, care is required to ensure that the
competitiveness of commercial entities is not adversely
affected in this process.
2.4.24 It is also worth noting that, in Ireland, there is no
comprehensive system of abstraction charges for water,
and this matter should be addressed.
Financing Infrastructure
2.4.25 The approach to financing water infrastructure
depends on the particular model adopted, including, for
example, the mix of central, local, or user charges and the
mix of public and private finance. Appendix 11 provides
some examples of how water infrastructure costs are
financed in selected OECD countries (OECD, 2012). In all
of the countries listed, at least 50% of operating and
maintenance costs are covered by water users and
municipalities. Investment for infrastructural development
tends to be primarily funded by central government,
rather than directly by water users or municipalities.

France is a notable exception, where investment costs are

shared 50-50 between the government and water
users/municipalities. Ireland's estimated operation and
maintenance costs for 2015 are included in this table. It is
important to note that Ireland's reported operating and
maintenance costs do not include debt and service
depreciation, which is consistent with standard accounting
practices.
2.4.26 As referenced earlier in the report, there has been
historic underinvestment in water infrastructure in Ireland.
The Expert Commission has noted there is an investment
target of 5.5 billion to 2021 to bring water services to an
acceptable level, and it is quite likely that significant
ongoing investment will be required beyond 2021. A total
capital requirement of 13 billion has been identified by
Irish Water (2015) as the minimum to meet good
infrastructure and service standards.
2.4.27 The PWC report (2011) that recommended the
establishment of a single utility for water services
envisaged that Irish Water would become self-financing,
perhaps as early as 2018, and could potentially achieve a
borrowing capacity of 2.9 billion by 2030, stating also
that a key factor in evaluating the merits of the new
operating model is the possibility that the borrowings of
Irish Water could be outside the General Government
Balance (2011: 18). Indeed, it was recognised that a
significant
16
component of the strategy to establish Irish Water was
that Irish Water would be classified as a market
corporation under Eurostat rules. However, the Eurostat
decision in July 2015 that Irish Water is a non-market
entity controlled by government and should therefore be
classified within the government sector, clearly impacted
on that strategy, including the strategy for borrowing to
fund infrastructure.
2.4.28 The Expert Commission has also been informed
that NewEra (New Economy and Recovery Authority) has
prepared a report for Government on funding options for
Irish Water, examining matters such as the financial cost
of external borrowing versus the provision of funds from
central government sources. This was not available to the

Expert Commission at the time of reporting but of course

is essential to a complete and accurate assessment of
financing options.
17
3. Public Consultation 3.1 Public Consultation Process
3.1.1 As a part of the information gathering work, the
Expert Commission invited interested parties to make
submissions in writing on the future funding of domestic
water and wastewater services and improvement in water
quality. The Expert Commission requested that
submissions be concise and focus on solutions. The Expert
Commission also requested that submissions refer to its
terms of reference.
3.1.2 Overall, the public consultation proved to be a
valuable process which enabled the Expert Commission to
obtain the views of a broad range of groups, political
parties, and individuals. These views have been taken into
consideration in our analysis of the existing funding
system and in the development of recommendations for a
new model for domestic water services funding.
3.1.3 The total number of parties with whom the Expert
Commission met or from whom submissions were received
was 70. A list of these parties is included in Appendix 12.
Below we summarise some of the most common themes
to emerge from the submissions.
3.2 Public Ownership
3.2.1 The most commonly expressed message related to
the concern about the potential privatisation of Irish
Water. Many submissions did not express opposition to
water charges per se, but rather expressed concerns that
water charges, and metering of domestic households,
could eventually lead to privatisation. This was sometimes
set in the context of wider concerns about privatisation of
public services, and the commodification of water. The
most commonly expressed preferred method for
confirming Irish Water in public ownership was by a
constitutional amendment, and many submissions made
clear that a plebiscite, as provided for in legislation, did
not provide the necessary level of guarantee.
3.3 Funding
3.3.1 Many submissions expressed support for a system
based on paying for what you use or paying for

excessive use so long as appropriate social protection

and affordability measures were introduced and public
ownership of Irish Water is guaranteed. Some took the
position that there should be a generous allowance. Some
submissions emphasised that pricing was a key tool for
conservation of water.
18
There was also the view that pricing of water for domestic
consumption was essential to comply with the EU Water
Framework Directive.
3.3.2 Others took the view that water was a human right
that should not be paid for directly through charges but
instead through general taxation. There was also concern
that the establishment of the charging regime had been
rushed and should not have happened until leakage and
other infrastructural deficits had been addressed.
3.3.3 There were concerns about how unpaid water
charges would be managed (including concerns that water
could be shut off), the possible introduction of water
poverty, and other affordability issues. The previous
system of tariffs was generally viewed as being regressive,
while general taxation as a means of paying for water is
viewed as more progressive. Some also expressed
frustration that they had paid water charges while others
had not and noted that this was inequitable.
3.4 Institutional Arrangements
3.4.1 There was support for a central body that manages
water systems, increases the efficiency of water services,
oversees the maintenance and investment in
infrastructure, etc. and recognition that the previous
distributed water management model was dysfunctional
and unsustainable. However, there was also a view that
the reputation of Irish Water was irreparably damaged,
that there had been excessive spending on consultancy
and public relations, and that a new or different type of
body could achieve more public support. The regulatory
role of the CER is generally supported, although the exact
role of the regulator could be clarified.
3.5 Conservation
3.5.1 There were also proposals that conservation policies
be more emphasised and targeted. Suggestions included
tax rebates or grants for households that purchase

efficient water fixtures, expanded education and outreach

programmes, implementation of new building standards,
public campaigns on care of septic tanks, etc. There are
concerns that excessive water leaks are a waste of energy
and public money and an environmental concern.
3.5.2 Regarding metering, some submissions note that
meters are important for managing the system, for
locating and repairing leaks, and in aiding water
conservation. However, other submissions expressed
concern that the excessive cost of installing water meters
in every home may be substantially higher than the
environmental
19
gains and that meters may primarily be a means of
preparing Irish Water for privatisation.
3.6 Infrastructure and Legal Issues
3.6.1 There was general consensus about the need for
significant investment in infrastructure, which is
acknowledged to be weak and already leading to serious
problems for consumers and the environment. There was
also consensus that the Irish Water investment plans seem
reasonable and necessary to meet the standards required
by the various EU directives. However, there was concern
about becoming reliant on the private sector for that
investment.
3.6.2 There was concern about the ongoing lack of clarity
about Irelands EU obligations, including legal obligations
under Article 9 of the Water Framework Directive, and
different interpretations of the legal obligations were put
forward. Some submissions note that it is difficult to
propose viable alternatives to the current system if the
legal obligations are uncertain.
3.6.3 There was a concern that the share of revenue for
funding water services and infrastructure that was
supposed to come from domestic users is substantially
greater than the revenue from non-domestic users,
despite non-domestic users being associated with higher
levels of pollution.
3.7 Other Issues
3.7.1 While not necessarily all directly related to the terms
of reference, many submissions expressed frustration
about a number of other issues including: a lack of public

involvement in decision-making processes, the lack of

easily accessible information and transparency from Irish
Water, the lack of clarity on the improvements that are
being made to water infrastructure, the lack of clarity on
why water meters are useful and/or needed, the lack of
consistency in water charging policy between different
types of users including domestic and non-domestic users
and urban vs rural users (it was pointed out many rural
households have been paying for water through
maintaining personal wells or through group water
schemes), issues with unmetered dwellings (including
apartments), and the disconnect between policy aims and
outcomes (e.g. Water Conservation Grant does not
promote conservation).
20
3.7.2 There was also the view that the decision to
introduce water charges was imposed as part of the EUIMF programme of financial support to Ireland and not as a
natural part of the domestic socio-political process. Many
submissions also expressed frustration that there has
been little consistency in policy direction on water charges
over several decades, which has resulted in a lack of trust
in government decisions on this issue. As such, there was
concern that any proposed new policy directions will not
be seen as credible or reflecting the views of Irish citizens.
There was also some mistrust of the independence of the
Expert Commission, including concern that the
establishment of the Expert Commission is merely a boxticking exercise for already settled government policy. In
this context, some expressed the view that the terms of
reference of the Expert Commission had already precluded
certain outcomes.
21
4. Discussion and Analysis
4.1 Many of the independent studies and reviews of
methods for funding domestic water services refer to key
criteria that can be used to assess the feasibility of the
different approaches. In summary, according to these
criteria, the ideal funding model should:
Provide adequate and secure funding for the operational
and capital costs of supplying and treating water;
Be affordable and not place an undue financial burden on

those who can least afford to pay;

Help to support the conservation of water and support a
clean environment;
Be practical in terms of its implementation; and
Ensure optimal allocation and usage of water.
4.2 In Ireland up until the introduction of water charges for
domestic consumers, households were paying for water
through their taxes and still continue to subsidise the
production and treatment of water through the general
taxation system. The difficulty was clearly that insufficient
funds were available or made available to address the
infrastructural deficit in a planned and systematic way.
4.3 However, when assessing the optimal method for
funding domestic water services, it is also important to
consider country-specific factors and context, including
the relevant weighting that should be attached to these
various criteria. In the following section we discuss what
we consider to be some of these relevant contextual and
background issues in Ireland, in the light of the evidence
available to the Expert Commission and taking account of
the consultation process.
4.1 Water Availability, Conservation and Consumption in
Ireland
4.1.1 As noted in Chapter 2, the issue of water scarcity
and the need for water conservation is complex. Ireland
has abundant renewable water resources leading to a high
level of water availability when compared to many other
countries. Local water scarcity occurs nonetheless,
especially in selected urban environments, driven by high
levels of leakage and growth in water demand.
4.1.2 The Expert Commission has not seen any evidence
that Ireland has particularly high levels of domestic water
consumption. While it is important to be cautious about
the different methods used for collection of domestic
consumption data internationally, the domestic
consumption figures for Ireland compare favourably with
other
22
developed countries and do not show evidence of
extensive excessive or wasteful water consumption by
households in Ireland. While the Expert Commission
understands that it will not be possible to definitively

assess levels and patterns of domestic consumption until

a number of years of metered data have been collected,
we have not been presented with any particular evidence
to suggest that the consumption data collected by Irish
Water to date is in any way anomalous or that it is not
indicative of real consumption trends.
4.1.3 However, water has to be treated before being
consumed, and wastewater has to be treated before being
discharged. Compared to many other countries, Ireland
has a relatively fragmented distribution network, and the
majority of this infrastructure is in serious need of upgrade
and investment. When this is combined with changing
environmental conditions, changing patterns of land use
and habitation, and population growth particularly in
major urban centres, the challenge of providing clean
drinking water and proper treatment of sewage becomes
much more acute.
4.1.4 The Expert Commission has noted the evidence of
ongoing incidences of contamination of the drinking water
supply in certain parts of the country, the lack of adequate
contingency supplies of water in cities, and ongoing
problems with untreated sewage entering the rivers, lakes,
and sea. The Expert Commission has also noted that the
level of leakage is high in Ireland and that this is largely
due to the poor state of the infrastructure.
4.1.5 While renewable sources of water may be plentiful in
Ireland and average domestic consumption is not
excessive, the infrastructural deficit is leading to problems
and currently represents an unacceptable level of risk to
the population. If this infrastructural deficit is left
unaddressed, this will undoubtedly lead to further and
more serious problems in the future. The evidence of the
need for major ongoing investment in improving water
infrastructure in Ireland is overwhelming.
4.2 Funding Infrastructure
4.2.1 The decision by Eurostat in 2015 that Irish Water did
not qualify to be classified as a market corporation and
that funding must, therefore, remain on the government
balance sheet has compromised the potential for Irish
Water to borrow on the market on the basis anticipated in
the PWC report (2011). Yet, one of the main reasons why
such off balance sheet funding was suggested was that

historically funding of water infrastructure had been

compromised by the uncertain and cyclical nature of on
balance sheet government funding.
4.2.2 With regard to the funding of water services by
different categories of users and the appropriate allocation
of costs amongst users, it was not within the Expert
23
Commissions terms of reference to consider charges
outside the domestic sector. However, the Expert
Commission has noted that charges for non-domestic
customers have been retained on the same basis as those
charged by the local authorities as at 31 December 2013.
The level of these charges varies considerably between
local authorities, but it is envisaged by CER that a more
coherent range of national non-domestic tariffs will be in
place by 2018. Similarly, the system for determining the
level of connection fees to the water network is complex,
and the charges vary between local authorities. It is
understood that proposals are also being developed to
replace the current charging arrangements.
4.2.3 In the context of overall funding of water services in
Ireland, it is appropriate that a coherent set of tariff and
funding structures are in place. The Expert Commission
supports the move to a more harmonised and realistic
structure of charging for the non-domestic sector that
takes account of the costs of water production and
treatment for different categories of users. Water bills to
commercial users should be collected more systematically.
This is relevant to the overall funding situation of Irish
Water because until such a coherent structure of charging
is in place it is not possible to clearly establish how costs
will be allocated between different categories of users or
to clearly establish the revenue stream that will be
available to Irish Water.
4.2.4 With regard to funding more generally, the Expert
Commission notes that unlike a number of other EU
countries, there has not been a strong tradition in Ireland
of levying local charges for public services. For example,
water charges are set in the context of local charges
levied by municipalities or local councils in a number of
other EU countries. By contrast, in Ireland there has
traditionally been a higher reliance on central funding for

local services, and this was also the case with water up to
the transfer of responsibility for water to Irish Water and
the introduction of usage-based charges. This is relevant
in the context of efforts to introduce user charges for
services that have traditionally been funded from central
exchequer funds, as is the case with water.
4.3 Policy and Legislative Environment
4.3.1 Section 2(1) of the Water Services Act 2014
provides:
(a)
A bill providing or allowing for the alienation of any
share or shares in Irish Water to
a person other than a Minister of the Government shall
not be initiated by or on
behalf of a Minister of the Government in either House of
the Oireachtas unless
A Resolution of each such House is passed approving a
proposal to provide or
allow for such alienation,
24
(c)
4.3.2
(b)
A proposal to provide or allow for such alienation is
submitted by Plebiscite
for the decision of the People, and
A majority of votes cast in such Plebiscite shall have been
cast in favour of
the proposal.
There was no evidence available to the Expert
Commission that any party is in favour
of privatisation of Irish Water now or in the future.
However, in the course of our
deliberations, including through the process of
consultation, it also became clear to
the Expert Commission that the issue of Irish Water
staying in public ownership
remains critical for many stakeholders and that the
aforementioned provision in the
Water Services Act was not sufficient to allay concerns
about possible future
privatisation. It is also clear that this issue has

contributed to the creation of a

climate of uncertainty and mistrust and represents a
barrier to making progress.
4.3.3 The Expert Commission is also cognisant of the
overall water policy environment and, in particular, the
obligations imposed on Ireland as a member state of the
EU arising from a variety of regulation and directives,
including the Water Framework Directive. Ireland also
faces serious challenges in meeting its obligations under
the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and the
Drinking Water Directive, and the consequences of noncompliance are material.
International Law and the Human Right to Water
4.3.4
4.3.5
4.3.6
A number of submissions received by the Expert
Commission advanced the
proposition that there is right to access clean water
enshrined in international law.
While the existence of such a right can readily be
acknowledged, its nature and
scope is less easily delineated.
The UNs position is that drinking water should be safe
and sufficiently available to
everyone, in line with the human rights principles of nondiscrimination and equality,
participation, accountability, access to information, and
transparency (General
Comment 15, UN Committee on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, 2002). The
literature is focused on developing countries, for those
with no or inadequate
supply. Deficiencies in providing these services in
developed countries are most
likely to emanate in rural and in small-scale supplies.
There is no specific convention on the human right to
water, but other UN human
rights conventions make mention of water in the
International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), and the
specialist Convention on the

Rights of the Child (1990) and Convention on the

Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women (1981), linked to adequate
standards of living and to
other specific human rights, such as housing and health.
The human right to water
25
and the primary responsibility of the State to protect it
have been recognized by
both the UN General Assembly (e.g. UNGA, 2010) and the
UN Human Rights Council
(e.g. UN HRC 2010). Since then, there have been several
resolutions on water and
sanitation, and both rights were recognised in the
Outcome document from the UN
Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio in 2012
(UN, 2012). The rights to
water and sanitation substantially underpin Goal 6 in the
new 2030 Sustainable
Development Goals (UN General Assembly, 2015) and the
right to water is now
widely accepted as a customary right in international law.
At a European level, the Council of Europe, which is
broader than the EU and
responsible for the (European) Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms, recommended in 2001 that
members adopt the European
Charter on Water Resources (Council of Europe 2001).
Article 2 provides for
equitable and reasonable use with special regard to vital
human needs; Article 5
states [e]veryone has the right to a sufficient quantity of
water for his or her basic
needs. The European Citizens Initiative Water is a
Human Right (European
Commission, 2014) obtained 1,884,790 signatures and
led to a debate in the
European Parliament, and a vote in favour of the
Commission bringing proposals to
recognise the human right to water and sanitation.
4.3.7

The UNs first special rapporteur for water and sanitation

has reported extensively
on operationalising the rights to water and sanitation.
Whatever institution or legal
entity is used to deliver the service, the responsibility to
provide the service remains
with the state. However, the right does not mean that
water services can or should
always be delivered without a charge, except perhaps for
the indigent poor: "The
human rights framework does not, however, rule out
tariffs and user contributions
for water and sanitation provision. Water and sanitation
do not necessarily have to
be available free of charge. The human rights framework
recognizes that revenues
have to be raised in order to ensure universal access to
services" (UNGA HRC, 2015,
para.6).
4.3.8
4.4 Affordability
4.4.1 The data on the affordability of water charges
presented in Chapter 2 confirms that when domestic user
charges for water are being introduced, putting in place
appropriate affordability measures is critical to ensure that
no one is deprived of the basic requirements for water and
that water charges do not represent a disproportionate
outlay of disposable income. If account is taken of the
Water Conservation Grant, the percentage outlay on water
for households in Ireland compare favourably with other
OECD countries. This data also confirms other
26
international studies that show that such charges
represent a more significant burden for the lowest income
decile.
4.4.2 This confirms the need for the design of welltargeted affordability measures. While the Expert
Commission acknowledges the efforts made to address
this issue, given the way in which the charging system has
evolved in Ireland, we are not convinced that the
affordability measures that have been introduced to date,
such as the Water Conservation Grant, are well-targeted.

At the same time, affordability measures also need to be

feasible. While certain approaches proposed may score
highly in terms of targeting those most in need, they may
not be practically or administratively feasible. More
generally, issues of affordability and income equality in
society are typically dealt with through the systems of
taxation and social welfare. The Expert Commission notes
that within OECD countries Ireland is regarded as having a
relatively progressive system of general taxation.
4.5 Trust, Public Engagement, and Governance
4.5.1 It is clear that there is a lack of trust among
significant sections of the Irish public with regard to the
regime of water charges that has been introduced to date.
This would seem to have arisen for a number of reasons,
as outlined in Section 3.7.
4.5.2 While the Expert Commission is not empowered by
its terms of reference to make any recommendations with
regard to the institutional arrangements that are currently
in place, it seems clear that a centralised public utility
clearly established in public ownership has the potential to
achieve economies of scale, improve and standardise the
operation and maintenance of water treatment plants, and
address the serious water infrastructure deficits that now
exist in Ireland. Indeed, the Expert Commission has been
impressed by some of the progress made to date,
including the upgrading and installation of new
wastewater and water treatment plants and progress
made in addressing customer-side leakage.
4.5.3 Establishing a robust governance model for Irish
Water is essential, not least to re- establish trust and to
ensure meaningful engagement of citizens in the
discussion on the development of water services. The
Figure 1 below provides an overview of the current model
of governance and accountability for Irish Water.
4.5.4 To date, the focus has been mainly on the economic
and environmental aspects of regulation, but the Expert
Commission considers that insufficient attention has been
paid to social governance and the engagement of civil
society. In this context, the Public Water Forum was
established under the Water Services Act 2014 as an
independent consumer consultative forum. The primary
purpose of the Forum is to represent the interest of the

public and water consumers. The Expert Commission

27
believes that the role of the Forum could be further
developed so that it provides civil society with a broadlybased and trusted means of influencing the plans and
activities of both Irish Water and CER.
4.5.5 Due attention must also be paid to the institutional
governance structure appropriate to a regulated utility
such as Irish Water that is guaranteed in public ownership,
which may be different to the model originally envisaged
and currently established.
Figure 1. Overview of Governance and Accountability for
Irish Water
Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local
Government
Suppliers
Funding
Sources (inc. lenders)
GWS
GWS
GWS
Independent Consumer Consultative Forum (Public Water
Forum)
Environmental and Drinking Water Quality Regulator (EPA)
End Users
Source: Adapted from Figure 39 (p70) in PWC (2011)
28
4.6 Efficiency
4.6.1 In a situation where Irish Water is effectively
operating as a monopoly provider, it is essential to ensure
ever-improving efficiency in its operation so that the
overall costs of water services are minimised. The UK
Walker Report notes that it is essential that incentives in
the system as a whole are designed to minimise the total
costs of providing water and sewerage services (2009:
120). The role of the regulator is critical in this regard. A
key part of the remit of the CER is to ensure that water
services are provided economically and efficiently in the
interests of the citizen and taxpayer. In its engagement
with the CER as part of this review, the Expert Commission
was informed of the challenging efficiency targets that
have already been set for Irish Water. The Expert

Commission was reassured by the steps being taken to

ensure the ever-improving efficiency of the utility in the
provision of water services but recognises that there is still
significant progress to be made and many challenges to
be met.
4.6.2 It is of utmost importance that all consumers and
taxpayers can be reassured of the ongoing focus on the
efficient provision of water services and that consumers
are centrally involved in supporting the drive to everimproving efficiency. In this regard, the Expert Commission
recognises the important role already being played by the
Public Water Forum in representing the voices of
consumers and considers that this is a role that can be
further developed, not just to rebuild trust in the system
but also to promote ever-improving efficiency.
4.7 Options for Funding Domestic Water Services
4.7.1 The Expert Commission does not propose here to restate all of the arguments for and against the various tariff
options for funding domestic water services. In summary,
a number of those options are assessed as being weak
when measured against the key criteria referred to earlier,
namely:
Conservation and environmental sustainability;
Affordability and fairness;
Financial sustainability;
Economic efficiency, so that water is allocated to the
highest value uses; and
Administrative feasibility.
4.7.2 Flat rate charges, where a standard rate is applied
regardless of use, while simple to apply, are generally
regressive and do not address the issue of conservation.
Similarly, assessing a water charge by reference to
another proxy charge such as property tax (as has
happened in certain parts of UK), while also relatively easy
to apply, can lead to unfairness in the system and does
not accurately reflect usage.
29
4.7.3 Traditionally water services in Ireland have been paid
for through general taxation. This system has the merit of
simplicity and is progressive to the extent that the
taxation system is progressive and is complemented by
social welfare supports. However, it does not address the

issue of water conservation, and funding for water

infrastructure could be crowded out by demands from
other parts of the system. It should also be emphasised
that water funded through general taxation is not free but
paid for by the taxpayer.
4.7.4 A number of independent reviews, both in Ireland
and internationally, have come to the conclusion that a
volumetric charging system based on metering, supported
by a well-targeted affordability system, represents the
approach that is most in line with best practice and best
meets the criteria described above. The original charging
plan approved by the CER was also generally consistent
with established practice in a number of other
jurisdictions.
4.7.5 However, it is also clear that the charging framework
put in place in Ireland has not been able to deliver
enduring political support nor did it attract a sufficient
degree of popular acceptance. This is clear, for example,
from the subsequent modifications to the charging system
within a very short period of time. The process culminated
in the suspension of water charges (by which time a
significant proportion of consumers had already paid some
or all of their water bills) and the establishment of the
Expert Commission. These successive modifications, taken
together with other factors, have undermined confidence
in the system and have led to increased doubt and
uncertainty around the basis and legitimacy of the
charging regime.
4.7.6 The Expert Commission is of the view that in now
determining the best method of funding domestic water
services in Ireland, in addition to the generally agreed
criteria referred to above, due account must also be taken
of the background and context to water charging in
Ireland, including the issue of acceptability. In this context,
when considering the options for funding various local
services, including water services, the Indecon Report on
Local Government Financing (2005) noted that making
recommendations which are correct in principle but which
are not capable of being implemented does a disservice to
the need to reform the system of local government
funding (185)...Changes also have to take account of
political constraints and the overall acceptability of

options to the community. (2005:176)

4.7.7 The Expert Commission similarly believes that
making recommendations that meet the standard criteria
and that may theoretically align with best practice but do
not take account of the relevant background and context
in Ireland including the criterion of acceptability would
not be useful.
30
5. Recommendations
5.1 After reviewing the background evidence from Ireland
and other countries, taking account of the consultations,
the analysis provided in Chapter 4, and the necessity for
public acceptability, the following are the
recommendations of the Expert Commission:
5.1 Public Ownership
5.1.1 Despite the safeguards put in place to date, the
issue of the utility, Irish Water, continuing in public
ownership remains a concern for many. This is creating an
obstacle to making progress on important issues, such as
addressing the serious infrastructural deficit. It is implicit
in the Expert Commissions terms of reference that the
utility will remain in state ownership, and the terms of
reference mandate the Expert Commission make its
recommendations on that basis.
5.1.2 It is also abundantly clear from our consultations and
engagement with stakeholders that there is overwhelming
support, including amongst political parties, for retaining
Irish Water in public ownership. Nevertheless, as part of
the overall approach to settling the issues addressed in
this report, further measures are required to alleviate the
concerns of those who believe that the eventual
privatisation of Irish Water remains a possibility.
5.1.3 A number of submissions received by the Expert
Commission urged that the alienation of Irish Water out of
public ownership be made constitutionally impermissible.
While the precise legal mechanism by which clarity and
certainty on this question can be achieved is properly a
matter for the Irish Government and legislature, the
Expert Commission sees considerable merit in that
approach.
5.1.4 Accordingly, the Expert Commission recommends
that the adoption of a suitable constitutional provision on

public ownership of water services be more fully

addressed by the Special Oireachtas Committee in its
deliberations on this report.
5.2 The Funding of Domestic Water and Wastewater
Services
5.2.1 Having considered various options and the
background to the current situation, the Expert
Commission has reached the conclusion that the optimal
arrangement that should now be put in place is one that
involves the funding of water services, for normal
domestic and personal use, as a charge against taxation.
The system should
31
be predicated on an acceptance that access to adequate
clean water for living requirements should not be
determined by affordability.
5.2.2 A distinction must, however, be made between a
right to water for normal domestic and personal purposes
and wasteful usage. The former can reasonably be
regarded as a public service that should be funded out of
taxation and which the State should provide for all
citizens. Where water is used at a level above those
normal requirements, that principle is no longer applicable
and the user should pay for this use through tariffs.
Based on those principles, it is recommended that:
5.2.3 Each household that is connected to the public water
supply receives an allowance of water and a
corresponding allowance of wastewater that corresponds
to the accepted level of usage required for domestic and
personal needs without any direct charge being levied.
This allowance should be related to the number of persons
resident in the household and adjusted for special
conditions.
5.2.4 The Expert Commission is cognisant of the
difficulties in determining normal usage. The Expert
Commission believes at least two options can be
considered:
(1) The allowance could be computed to cover all of the
normal domestic and personal usage for which water is
typically required. As referenced in Appendix 13, the
standard uses for domestic water consumption relate to
personal washing, toilet flushing, drinking, cooking,

clothes washing, dishwashing, waste disposal, and house

cleaning. A more detailed analysis should be carried out to
establish the precise levels of allowance to be made
available, based on analysis of consumption patterns for
different occupancy households.
(2) An alternative approach that could be considered is to
determine the level of water required for normal domestic
and personal needs by reference to current household
usage. On this model, an allowance could be set at a level
that corresponds to the actual consumption of a significant
proportion of water users (for example, for illustrative
purposes, 90% of users or, for example, 150% of average
domestic consumption). The allowance could be regularly
reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted to reflect changes in
water use patterns in Ireland (typically more efficient
water uses).
5.2.5 Whatever the method, the Expert Commission
recommends that the level of allowance be set as a result
of an open and transparent process that includes the CER
and the Public Water Forum, with the level of the
allowance adjusted to reflect the marginal water
consumption in multi-occupancy households.
32
5.2.6 This volume of water should be financed by the
State out of taxation. Usage above this allowance should
be paid for directly by the user to the water utility at a
rate to be determined by the CER.
5.2.7 Despite the fact that under these proposals a vast
majority of consumers will not have to pay direct charges
for water, exceptional cases may arise. The special
exemptions already in place for households catering for
medical or other conditions that require high water usage
should be maintained. Other exceptional circumstances
may arise for households where consumption above the
normal could be justified. In such cases, although they
should be very limited, an exceptional waiver option by
application (for example, to the Department of Social
Protection) should be put in place.
5.2.8 This proposed arrangement would ensure that the
normal domestic and personal water requirements of all
citizens are provided for by the State through taxation
rather than by tariffs levied on individual households.

Excessive or wasteful use of water will be discouraged by

applying a tariff for such use and therefore is consistent
with the polluter pays principle.
5.2.9 What is proposed here does not amount to the
provision of a free allowance of water nor does it involve
additional direct subsidies by the State to the water utility.
Rather, the water utility will provide sufficient water to all
citizens to cover their domestic and personal needs, and
the costs of providing that water will be recovered from
the State, which will be a customer of Irish Water, based
on tariffs approved by CER.
Cost of the Proposals
5.2.10 The implementation of the recommendations
contained in this report should not result in any significant
change in the funding available to Irish Water in respect to
its operational costs. Rather, it is intended that the
budgeted income of the utility would be maintained with
that responsibility for paying tariffs in respect of the
normal domestic and personal needs of users being met
by the exchequer rather than by householders directly.
5.2.11 Data furnished to the Expert Commission by the
Department of Housing, Planning Community and Local
Government in August 2016 indicates that the operational
costs of providing water services by Irish Water in each of
the years 2014 and 2015 is provided in the table below.
5.2.12 These costs were to be met by a combination of
subventions from the exchequer and income from
domestic and non-domestic tariffs and connection charges
(in the
33
case of non-domestic users). A breakdown of the sources
of income to Irish Water is also contained in the table
below.
Irish Water Operating Costs and Revenue Components
2014-2015 (m)
2014 2015 779 794
Domestic Tariff
Non-Domestic Tariff
Connection 67 37 Subvention 439 399
Total 687 851
Source: Department of Housing, Planning, Community and
Local Government * Estimates for additional years were

not available to the Expert Commission.

5.2.13 The subvention provided by Government includes
payments to Irish Water for the purchase of water to give
effect to child allowances and the cap imposed on
domestic charges (amounting to 189m in 2015). Apart
from those charges, there is no breakdown of the
remaining elements of the subvention as between
domestic and non-domestic services.
5.2.14 Up to the introduction of domestic water charges in
2015 the entire cost of domestic water services was met
by the exchequer out of taxation. The understanding of
the Expert Commission is that the introduction of domestic
tariffs was not intended to reduce the level of exchequer
subvention. Rather, domestic tariffs were intended to
provide an additional stream of income for the financing of
water services.
5.2.15 Since the suspension of domestic water charges
the full cost of providing water services to domestic users
has reverted to the exchequer. Consequently, the
additional on-going cost to the exchequer of these
recommendations should, at most, correspond, to the
amount which was to have been collected from domestic
tariffs prior to their suspension. There will, however, be
some income from domestic users in respect of excessive
or wasteful usage.
5.2.16 There will, however be a continuing need to closely
monitor the operational expenditure of Irish Water and to
achieve savings from greater efficiencies across the
organisation.
Operating Costs* (m)
Revenue Components* (m)
No charges 232 181 183
34
5.2.17 The recommended funding model, if implemented,
will place the main burden of financing the operational
costs of providing domestic water services on the
exchequer to be paid for through taxation. The question of
whether there should be a dedicated tax, a broadly-based
fiscal instrument, or an adjustment to existing taxes to
fund this requirement would be a matter of budgetary
policy and outside the scope of this report, but is worthy of
further consideration.

5.2.18 The Expert Commission has also noted the

arrangement whereby Irish Water has entered into Service
Level Agreements (SLAs) with local authorities for the
provision of water services. The rationale for concluding
these agreements is that they promote stability in the
delivery of the services to which they relate the first
such SLAs running for a period of 12 years. While
understanding the need for transitional arrangements, the
Expert Commission is concerned that these SLAs could
become a barrier in the drive towards ever-improving
efficiency, and we recommend that these arrangements
be reviewed in the context of the CERs remit in ensuring a
cost- efficient water service.
5.3 The Funding of Operations, Maintenance and
Investment
5.3.1 As a regulated industry, the independent economic
regulator is required to independently approve a price
determination for water that also provides for the
investment requirements to meet national objectives and
international obligations, with an appropriate efficiency
target incorporated in this determination.
5.3.2 Under the arrangement proposed above, it is
envisaged that the state-owned utility, Irish Water, should
levy a charge against the State (which under this proposal
becomes a customer of Irish Water) for the total volume of
drinking and waste water comprising the allowance to
households. The charge should be based on tariffs
approved by the Commission for Energy Regulation,
working with the other regulators, after public consultation
and engagement with the Public Water Forum.
5.3.3 Based on this regulatory settlement and by Irish
Water billing the Exchequer for the cost of the allowance,
funds for covering the costs of water production and for
further investment in infrastructure will be provided.
Additional mechanisms should be considered to ensure
that the necessary finance to meet the regulatory
settlement is guaranteed. This could include making
specific provisions for ring fenced funding in legislation, a
requirement for Government to report to the Oireachtas
on any variation between budgetary provision and the
regulatory settlement, and review by the Comptroller and
Auditor General. Additionally, the

35
State is obliged to meet its obligations under European
law, as underpinned by the various directives on water
and wastewater.
5.3.4 The Expert Commission also recognises that a
comprehensive and standardised model for charging
commercial users still has to be put in place. Once this is
achieved, the revenue stream available to Irish Water from
this source will become clear.
5.3.5 There will be a need for ongoing borrowing to fund
infrastructural development. When available, the NewEra
report on investment options will provide greater clarity on
the most advantageous approach to borrowing for such
infrastructural development and the optimal sources of
borrowing. However, given our earlier recommendation to
guarantee Irish Water in public ownership and the
proposed funding model, the Expert Commission is of the
opinion that the Irish Government, Irish Water, and its
parent company Ervia may need to fundamentally reassess the funding model for investment, since a number
of the assumptions that were originally made (e.g. Irish
Water would be treated off the General Government
Balance Sheet) are no longer valid.
5.4 Metering
5.4.1 An extensive programme of metering has already
been undertaken. It is estimated by Irish Water that
873,000 households have now had meters installed out of
a target of 1.4 million households. While the installation of
meters was primarily intended to facilitate billing, they
have proved to be highly effective in detecting leakages in
the water system and a means of collecting valuable data
concerning patterns of water usage. The question of
whether, in light of the recommendation in this report, the
metering programme should be continued is one of policy
and is outside the scope of the Expert Commissions terms
of reference. If it is decided that the metering programme
should proceed, consideration should be given to an
approach that is more in keeping with the recommended
scheme with a focus metering of buildings in the case of
multi occupancy or metering of households on request.
Irish Water should complete a comprehensive programme
of district metering to identify system-wide leakage and

manage the network.

5.4.2 Clearly, measurement by meter is the optimal
approach to managing consumption to promote water
conservation and for managing the system of water
distribution more generally, and as indicated above, an
extensive metering programme is already in place in
Ireland. However, it is recognised that metering may be
challenging with some multi-occupancy buildings, such as
apartment blocks and flats. For households that cannot be
metered for technical reasons, under the proposed new
arrangement it is reasonable and fair to assume that such
households do not consume water
36
above the level of allowance to be funded by the
exchequer, not least because excessive or wasteful usage
is less likely in households without individual gardens or
opportunities for outdoor use of water. However, the
Expert Commission recommends that ongoing analysis
and study be carried out to establish whether
consumption patterns in unmetered households reflect
usage in excess of the average metered household. For
example, district meters and other new technologies have
been shown to be helpful in disaggregating consumption
data. Where a pattern of excessive use is identified in nonmetered households, some adjustment to the currently
proposed arrangement may have to be considered.
5.4.3 The approach proposed above is consistent with the
principle of funding domestic water through taxation and
also respects the need to monitor consumption levels in
Ireland on an ongoing basis so as to maintain consumption
levels within the norms of other water-conserving EU
countries. The allowance to households should be
periodically reviewed in an open and transparent way as
further consumption data is gathered and with a view to
ensure that consumption levels are maintained at levels
that are aligned with best practice in water conservation.
5.5 Public Engagement and Transparency
5.5.1 Given the background to the current situation in
Ireland, the consumers voice must be put at the heart of
discussion and decision-making on the delivery of water
services in Ireland. In this regard, the Expert Commission
recognises and supports the role of the Public Water

Forum in representing the interests of consumers. The

Expert Commission recommends that over time this role
be further developed and that the Public Water Forum
could have a more direct role in such matters as
discussing the acceptable level of water use in the
allowance to households, agreeing future performance
measures for Irish Water as they relate to consumer
experiences of services standards and delivery; agreeing
the consumer engagement and educational and research
priorities of Irish Water; helping to ensure that the
investment priorities of Irish Water meet consumer service
expectations; an annual performance review with Irish
Water of the standards of service delivery to consumers;
and addressing issues related to consumer compensation
for service failures. As noted earlier, based on our
consultations, the role of the Forum is currently not
sufficiently understood, and this needs to be addressed.
5.5.2 The Expert Commission recommends that Irish Water
renew its efforts to develop a positive engagement with
consumers and put in place further initiatives to engage
consumers in a positive and proactive way at the national,
regional, and local level. For example, as a national utility
in public ownership, Irish Water could be given a
37
direct role in promoting and supporting the provision of
water conservation measures to domestic consumers (see
Section 6 below).
5.5.3 As a further measure to promote transparency and
openness, Irish Water should commit to the provision of
extensive open-access data, for research purposes and so
that consumers can easily monitor and manage
consumption. An EPA administered research budget on
water management and conservation is necessary and
should be put in place.
5.6 The Role of Regulators
5.6.1 The Expert Commission believes that the regulators
will continue to have an important role in ensuring that
the obligations of Irish Water with regard to efficiency and
quality of water services are met.
5.6.2 Economic regulation, with adequate expertise, will
be required to ensure that the appropriate capital
expenditure investments are made and that operating

expenditure costs are driven down over time. The Expert

Commission recognises that significant further progress
has to be made in ensuring the efficient operation of Irish
Water. The Commission for Energy Regulation,
complemented by the Public Water Forum, will continue to
play a key role in driving these efficiencies. The Expert
Commission recommends that the Commission for Energy
Regulation and the Public Water Forum continue to be
adequately resourced with the tools and expertise to drive
efficiency targets in the sector.
5.6.3 The Environmental Protection Agency also plays an
important role as the drinking water and environmental
regulator and should continue to play a key challenge
role to ensure that Ireland meets its requirements under
various EU legislation.
5.6.4 The Expert Commission considers that even in public
ownership, water users and taxpayers will benefit if Irish
Water is overseen by strong and effective regulators. We
believe that both economic and quality regulators are
needed to hold Irish Water to account for the services it
delivers to consumers and its compliance with both
drinking water quality and environmental obligations. We
consider that the regulators should be responsible for
holding Irish Water to account for the timely delivery of its
improvement programmes. The Expert Commission would
expect that the Commission for Energy Regulation will
establish challenging trajectories for the ever improving
efficiency of Irish Water and its progress towards
excellence in asset management and hold the utility to
account to deliver on these programmes.
5.6.5 We see a strong and continuing role for the Public
Water Forum to work with all parties, including Irish Water
to help ensure success. Finally we see the need for an
38
open and transparent and inclusive process to be
established to ensure that properly costed and deliverable
medium term plans are developed by Irish Water that
meet the needs of water users, the State, and all other
stakeholders.
5.7 Conservation Measures
5.7.1 It is recommended that a much more proactive
approach be taken to promoting domestic water

conservation measures in Ireland. Irish Water can play a

key role in this regard not only through educational and
information campaigns but also through providing advice
and access to water conserving devices. There are many
domestic conservation devices now available such as rain
harvesting systems and shower, tap and cistern fittings.
5.7.2 Further measures should also be considered, such as
a requirement that new domestic buildings incorporate
water conserving fittings and an extension of the Building
Energy Rating (BER) Scheme to incorporate water
conservation.
5.8 Equity and Fairness
5.8.1 The Expert Commission believes that this overall
package of measures, when taken together, represents a
fair and equitable approach to addressing the funding of
domestic water services in Ireland.
5.8.2 The Expert Commission also notes that the Group
Water Schemes and private wells have proved effective,
not least in reducing consumption of water and addressing
leakage. Equity with the proposed arrangements for
consumers on public supplies must be maintained for
those who are not served by public water supplies. The
Expert Commission recommends that this be reviewed
when the allowances for consumers on public supplies are
determined and that equity for group schemes and private
wells be maintained through additional subsidy or other
means.
5.8.3 The Expert Commission also notes that under the
Confidence and Supply Agreement for Government, it is
asserted those who have paid their water bills to date will
be treated no less favourably than those who have not.
The Expert Commission considers it important that the
necessary measures to make good on this commitment be
put in place.
5.9 Compliance with European Law
5.9.1 In the submissions to the Expert Commission,
several parties referred to the States obligation under
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework
for Community action in the
39
field of water policy (the Water Framework Directive).

Different views were expressed as to the nature of the

obligations imposed on Member States of the European
Union by this Directive in relation to charging for water
services. It was also asserted by some parties that Ireland
retains an effective derogation from the requirement of
Article 9.1 of the Directive by operation of paragraph 4 of
that Article.
5.9.2 In a communication sent to the Expert Commission,
the European Commission made a number of points in
relation to the obligations of Member States under
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council establishing a framework for Community
action in the field of water policy.
5.9.3 This letter was received on 24 November 2016. It
restated similar points to those already made to the
Expert Commission. For the assistance of the Oireachtas
Committee, a copy of the Commissions letter is included
in Appendix 14 of this report.
5.9.4 While considerable weight must be given to the
opinion of the European Commission, the definitive
interpretation of European law is a matter for the Court of
Justice of the European Union.
5.9.5 The recommendations in this report provide for the
recovery by Irish water of the cost of providing services to
households thus ensuring proper funding of the water
utility. Furthermore, the approach recommended provides
incentives for domestic users to use water resources
efficiently and respects the polluter pays principle.
Charges are being retained in respect of excessive or
wasteful use of water.
5.9.6 While the Expert Commission cannot purport to offer
an authoritative opining on questions of European Law, it
is satisfied that it can cogently be argued that its
recommendations will achieve the objective pursued by
Article 9 of the Directive.
40
6. Conclusions
6.1 As stated at the outset of this report, the background
to the introduction of water charges in Ireland is complex.
The charging regime introduced was subject to several
changes over a short period of time and has been the
subject of controversy. As evidenced by the consultation

process, there are many strongly held views on all sides of

the debate. While these views are clearly genuinely felt,
these are also frequently irreconcilable. In reaching its
conclusions the Expert Commission has sought to take
account of the key policy objectives to be achieved and to
balance these with fairness.
6.2 Ultimately we believe that the recommendations in
this report, if taken as a package, represent a fair and
balanced outcome to this complex issue and
understand and efficient.
6.3 In addition, we hope that this report will assist the
Special Oireachtas Committee in their deliberations and
help to:
Make the true cost of water supply and sanitation more
transparent;
Promote an informed public debate on the allocation of
costs between taxpayers
and water users;
Create a relationship between Irish Water and the Irish
Government that secures
necessary funding for water infrastructure; and
Discourages the profligate use of water.
6.4
services in Ireland, provide an affordable and equitable
approach for individual
potentially provide
a basis for assuring stable and predictable funding for the
delivery of improved water
consumers, support ongoing conservation of water by
targeting excess use, and has
the merit of being simple to
Finally, we suggest that once this report and these
recommendations have been
considered by the Special Oireachtas Committee, the new
model be put in place as
soon as possible and maintained unless and until there is
strong evidence and a
consensus that the arrangements warrant review due to
circumstances that cannot
be envisaged at the present time. This is to provide much
the needed stability and
predictability that is essential to addressing the urgent

infrastructural deficit.
41
Works Cited
Boyle, R. (2012, December). Using fees and charges: Cost
recovery in local government. Institute of Public
Administration (IPA).
CER. (2014). Key findings: Water Consumption Research
Project. Memorandum to CER from Irish Water.
Commission on Energy Regulation (CER).
CER. (2016). Quarter 4 2015 Consumption Monitoring
Report. Information Note to CER from Irish Water.
Commission for Energy Regulation (CER).
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms. Council of Europe (Rome,
4.XI.1950); in force, 3 September 1953 ETS No.005.
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women, 18 December 1979, in
force 3 September 1981. United Nations Treaty Series, vol.
1249, 13.
Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary
Watercourses and International Lakes (Helsinki
Convention), 17 March 1992, in force 6 Oct 1996. United
Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1936, 269.
Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989,
in force 2 September 1990. United Nations Treaty Series,
vol. 1577, 3.
Council of Europe. (2001). Council of Europe Committee of
Ministers Recommendation (2001)14 of the Committee of
Ministers to member states on the European Charter on
Water Resources. Retrieved from
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=231615
Engineers Ireland and The Irish Academy of Engineers.
(2011). Water: Delivering Ireland's water services for the
21st century. Engineers Ireland and The Irish Academy of
Engineers.
EPA. (2014). Drinking Water Report. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
European Commission. (2000). Communication from the
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and
the Economic and Social Committee - Pricing policies for
enhancing the sustainability of water resources
COM/2000/0477 final. Retrieved from http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?
uri=celex:52000DC0477
European Commission. (2014). Communication from the
Commission on the European Citizen's Initiative "Water
and sanitation are a human right! Water is a public good,
not a commodity!" COM (2014) 177 final.
42
Indecon International Economic Consultants and the
Institute of Local Government Studies at University of
Birmingham. (2005). Indecon Review of Local Government
Financing, Commissioned by the Minister for the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
Inter-Departmental Working Group. (2013, December).
Report of the Inter-Departmental Working Group on
affordability measures.
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural
Rights, 16 December 1966, in force 3 January 1976. (n.d.).
United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 993, 3.
Irish Water. (2014). Domestic Tariff Design Principles and
Proposal. Irish Water submission to the CER.
Irish Water. (2014). Irish Water Charges Plan: Supporting
Information. Irish Water Submission to the CER.
Irish Water. (2015). Irish Water business plan: Transforming
water services in Ireland to 2021. Ervia.
Joint Committee on Environment, Transport, Culture and
the Gaeltacht. (2012, June). Report on Water Provision.
Houses of the Oireachtas.
Morris, D., Chyzheuskaya, A., O'Donovan, D.,
Raghavendra, S., Predergast, M., & Cormican, M. (2007).
Economic assessment of the waterborne outbreak of
Cryptosporidium hominis in Galway. EPA Research Report.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
OECD. (2010). Pricing water resources and water and
sanitation services. OECD Publishing. OECD. (2012). A
framework for financing water resource management.
OECD Studies on
Water. OECD Publishing.
PWC. (2011). Irish Water Phase 1 Report. Price Waterhouse
Coopers (PWC).
UN. (2012). The United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (Rio+20) Outcome
Document: The Future We Want. A/CONF.216/L.1.

UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

(2002). General Comment 15: The Right to Water. U.N.
Doc. E/C.12/2002/11.
UN General Assembly - Human Rights Council. (2015).
Report of the special rapporteaur on the human right to
safe drinking water and sanitation. A/HRC/30/39.
UN General Assembly. (2010). Resolution A/RES/64/292
2010. Geneva: UN.
43
UN General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our World: the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/70/L.1.
UN Human Rights Council. (2010). Resolution
A/HRC/15/l.14.
Walker, A. (2009). The independent review of charging for
household water and sewerage services. Crown Copyright.
Zhao, Y. Q., & Crosbie, D. (2012). Water pricing in Ireland:
A techno-economic and political assessment. International
Journal of Environmental Studies, 69 (3), 427-442.
44
Appendix
A1. 2014 Policy Direction
In July 2014, the Minister for the Environment, Community
and Local Government issued a policy direction to the
Commission for Energy Regulation (CER). This document
included the following policy principles with respect to
domestic water charges:
An annual free allowance of 30,000 litres of water supply
per household
A free allowance be provided to cover the normal
consumption of both water
supplied and wastewater treated per child in primary
residencies in the State
Capped charges for people with high water usage due to
certain medical conditions
Unmetered charges based primarily on occupancy
In addition to the policy direction, the Government
introduced the following affordability supports for
households at the time domestic water charges
commenced in October 2014:

Household Benefits Package and Fuel Allowance recipients

were to receive a 100 Water Support payment per year
o Household Benefits Package available to everyone
aged over 70, those between 66 and 70 receiving a State
pension, and those under 66 in receipt of certain State
benefits or below a certain income level
Water Charges Income Tax Relief
o At the standard rate of 20%
o Available up to a maximum of 500 per household per
year
o Worth up to 100 per household per annum when
claimed in the following
year
o Individuals cannot claim both the Water Support
payment and the tax relief
in respect of the same water charges
The Exceptional Needs Payment system would continue to
be available to people
experiencing severe financial difficulties
Source: Department of Housing, Planning, Community and
Local Government
45
A2. September 2014 Water Charges Plan
In September 2014, the CER decided on and confirmed the
water charges tariffs (taking account of the Ministerial
Policy Direction) that came into effect on 01 October 2014.
The main aspects of the charging regime were:
For households fitted with a meter, charges were based
on usage above a free allowance. Each household would
receive a free allowance of 30,000 litres of water (and a
corresponding amount of wastewater treated) a year.
Households would receive a free allowance to cover a
childs normal consumption of water supplied and
wastewater treated so that charges only apply to adults in
households. The CER determined an allowance of 21,000
litres per child, the figure based on the evidence emerging
from metered consumption data.
The domestic metered tariffs were 2.44 per cubic meter
of water supplied and 2.44 per cubic meter of
wastewater.
Households without a meter would be charged on an
assessed basis, using occupancy as the criteria for

assessment.
The following unmetered tariffs (per year) applied:
No. of adult occupants
123456
Water charge 87.84 139.08 190.32 241.56 292.80
344.04
Wastewater Combined charge charge
87.84 $175.68 139.08 278.16 190.32 380.64
241.56 483.12 292.80 585.60 344.04 688.08
In addition:
To help customers transition from assessed charges to
metered charges, there was provision for retrospective
adjustment of charges (including a rebate) where
assessed charges were above a reasonable threshold by
comparison to the subsequent metered usage.
Domestic water charges were to be fixed until the end of
2016.
Customers with a medical condition that required
increased water consumption would have their charges
capped at the relevant assessed charge. Customers were
to self-declare their eligibility for this provision by
contacting Irish Water. Irish Water could selectively audit
an individuals circumstances, including requiring
supporting evidence to be provided by a customers
medical practitioner. In addition, Irish
46
Water would have been able to investigate instances of
high usage to determine if there was other water use (e.g.
that of a business) or leakage at the property.
Assessed charges were to be based primarily on
occupancy and possibly refined based on data from
metered usage to ensure that they were as close a proxy
for metered usage as possible (the assessed tariffs
equated to the total metered price charge on the basis of
average usage minus the free allowance).
For social reasons (to avoid disproportionate impacts on
smaller occupancy households) and environmental
reasons, no standing charge would apply to domestic
water customers.
Where water was declared unfit for human consumption
for more than 24 hours (i.e. a boil water notice or drinking
water restriction notice), a 100% discount would apply to

the water supply portion of a customers bill for every day

that the restriction lasted.
Source: Department of Housing, Planning, Community and
Local Government
47
A3. November 2014 Revised Water Charges Plan
A new charging regime was announced in November 2014,
involving capped charges and a lower subsidised charge
per litre of water (3.70 per 1,000 litres almost 25% less
than previously proposed). Key elements of the regime
were set out in the Water Services Act 2014 and reflected
in a revised Water Charges Plan published in March 2015.
The main details of the revised charging regime (now
suspended), which commenced on 1 January 2015, were:
Capped annual charges are set - the capped charges are
160 for single adult households and 260 for all other
households until end 2018, with specific legislative
provision made to allow for capped charges to continue
beyond 2018.
For the purpose of metered bills, the charge for water
in/out is reduced to 3.70 per 1,000 litres.
Households with either a water supply only or sewage
only service will pay 50% of these rates.
Metered usage can lead to lower charges than the
relevant capped charge households pay lower charges
than the capped amount if their usage is lower than the
capped charge equivalent amount of usage
(approximately 40% of metered households have been
paying lower than the capped charge amount).
The child allowance remains at 21,000 litres per annum
and applies to all persons resident in the dwelling aged
under 18 (irrespective of whether the child qualifies for
Child Benefit).
Dwellings that are not permanently occupied pay a
minimum of 125 per year (62.50 per service) up to a
cap of 260.
All eligible households (i.e. principal private residences)
are entitled to receive a Water Conservation Grant of 100
per year households (both Irish Water customers and
non-customers) are eligible to receive the grant if they
register certain details with Irish Water. The Water
Conservation Grant replaced the tax rebate and social

protection measures that were previously announced.

Domestic water charges payment is not connected to the
Water Conservation Grant a household that is a
customer of Irish Water and that has registered with the
utility can receive the grant, regardless of whether it has
paid its water charges.
Source: Department of Housing, Planning, Community and
Local Government
48
A4. Sources of Potable Water
49
A5. Irish Water Treatment Plants
50
A6. Leakage Comparisons Ireland and the UK
51
A7. EPA Remedial Action List Sites and Priority Areas for
Waster Water Enforcement
52
A8. Consumption Data from Irish Water Consumption
Research Project
Household Water Usage by Occupancy (2014 estimates)
No. of occupants
123456
Litres per person
Litres per household
Per day 181 119 99 88 82 78
Per year 66,228 43,557 36,000 32,222 29,954 28,443
Per day 181 239 296 353 410 468
Per year 66,288 87,114 108,000 128,886 149,772 170,658
Source: Commission for Energy Regulation
(2014: 9)
53
A9. Comparison of European Tariff Systems
54
Table 1. Household Tariff Structures for Drinking Water in
European Countries
55
Table 2. Domestic Wastewater Charge Structures in
European Countries
A10. Combined Volumetric Charges for Non-Domestic
Customers
56

Combined (Water Supply and Wastewater Service)

Volumetric Unit Rate (/m3) for Non-Domestic Customers
by Local Authority Area Source: Department of Housing,
Planning, Community and Local Government submission to
the Expert Commission
A11. Financing of Water Infrastructure Costs in Various
Countries
Financing of Water Infrastructure in Various Countries
(Estimated %)
Investment for Water Sector Development
Water Users & Government Municipalities
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Government 50
Source: Estimates for Spain, France, Canada, Japan, and
USA are from Table 2.2 (p45) in OECD (2012). Estimates
for Ireland are 2015 estimates provided by the
Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local
Government.
Water Users & Municipalities
Spain
France
Canada
Japan
USA 70 30 50 50 Ireland 52 48
70 30 50 50 75 25
0 50-70 0
50 100 50-30 100
100 0
57
A12. List of Consultations
Below is a list of the parties with whom the Expert
Commission met or from whom submissions were
received.
Anti-Austerity Alliance People Before Profit Apartment
Owners Network
Athlone Municipal District
Blue Planet Project
Commission for Energy Regulation
Community Group Ballyphenane / South Parish Says No
Dundalk Right2Water
Engineers Ireland
Environmental Pillar

Environmental Protection Agency

EurEau
European Commission Directorate General Environment
European Water Movement
Fine Fil
Fine Gael
Green Budget Europe
Green Party
Gurranabraher Meter Watch
IBEC
IMPACT
Irish Academy of Engineering
Irish Congress of Trade Unions
Irish Water
Labour Party
Law Society of Ireland
Mayfield Has Had Enough
National Federation of Group Water Schemes
Public Water Forum
Publicpolicy.ie
Right2Water
River Shannon Protection Alliance
Sinn Fin
Sustainable Water Networks (SWAN)
58
Adrian Conway Aengus Melia
Allen Morgan
Edmond J. Stack Emma Kennedy Eoin Ward Gerry Breen
Ide Cussen
Joe Smith
John Blake Dillon John Burke
John Doyle
John S. Holmes Linda Roddy
Mark Egan
Michael Byrne Michael Dunbar Michel Kelliher Mike Norris
Noreen M. Murphy Paul Twomey Philip O'Neill
Roger Connolly Roger Timlin Ronan Furlong Sara Glennane
Seamus Ward
Sean Connolly Shane P.
Therese Keenan
Alistair Smith
Andrew Cross

Brendan Kelly
Danny O'Connor
Declan O'Connor
Eamonn Grennan
Joe Dalton
59
A13. Drivers of Household Consumption in Ireland
60
A14. Letter from European Commission Directorate
General Environment

The European Commission should withdraw its patronage of Watec

Dear Mr. Juncker, President, European Commission
Dear Mr. Vella, Commissioner, Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

http://bdsitalia.org/images/stories/pdfs/letter-ec.pdf
RTE, shows the Government expected Irish ... The
report sets out how Irish Water ... Bord Gais criticizes
the Governments

A comprehensive,fact-laden and intriguedrenched update on the Irish Water timeline we

posted back in January.
The original timeline, which began life as a
response to some legals from you know who
and focused on the Siteserv deal, is now
expanded to 8,154 words and include the muchbungled events of the last 10 months.
If you only read one exhaustive account of how
not to set up a utility company today make sure
you consider this one.
November 15, 2006: Construction services
company Siteserv, which provides fencing and
scaffolding, raises almost 10.5million from its
flotation on Dublins IEX market and the
Alternative Investment Market (AIM) in London.

Its share price jumped 36 per cent from 0.55c to

close its first day of trading at 0.75c. The
companys market capitalisation was
approximately 51 million. Siteserv was
founded in 2004 by chief executive, Brian
Harvey. It has also received backing from Niall
McFadden of Boundary Capital. Siteserv
acquired Donohue Scaffolding in early 2006. It
also owns Rent-A-Fence which provides
temporary fencing and barriers to the
construction and event management sector.
December 1, 2006: Siteserv announces the
acquisition of Holgate Fencing (Ireland) in a
cash and shares deal worth up to 19million
its first acquisition as a listed company. Holgate
is described as a leading supplier and installer
of motorway/road crash barriers and
environmental acoustic barriers to the Irish
market.
December 6, 2006: Goodbody Stockbrokers
names Siteserv as one of three small stocks
which it predicts will be leading contenders to
deliver value in 2007.
December 22, 2006: Siteserv buys formwork and
scaffolding provider Easy Access for 20million.
January 5, 2007: Siteserv leads the Dublin
market with shares in the scaffolding and
fencing firm soaring almost 18pc in early deals.
January 12, 2007: Siteserv appoints Kevin Gallen
as chief financial officer and company secretary.
January 22, 2007: Siteserv posts interim pre-tax
profits that rose more than 500% to
2.55million for the six months to October, 31,

2006. It said its revenues grew more than 600%

to 16.28million.
July 16, 2007: Siteserv posts pre-tax profits of
5.3million for the year ended April 30, 2007,
up from 600,000 in 2006.
August 12, 2007: It emerges that Siteservs board
has agreed that the resignation of Kevin Gallen,
as chief financial officer and company secretary
should be accepted with immediate effect.
Siteservs share price drops back down to the
flotation price of 0.58. Its reported this is due to
nervousness surrounding the construction
sector.
September 6, 2007: Siteserv buys Sierra
Communications, a provider of services to the
power, telecommunications and civil
engineering markets in Ireland, for 46million.
Its customers include NTL, ESB and Sky. Deal
involves 41.4 in cash and 4.6 in shares.
September 7, 2007: Its reported the acquisition
will be financed mainly through additional
borrowings of 42.9million. Siteserv also
announces it had agreed banking facilities of
115million.
September 14, 2007: It emerges that former chief
financial officer of Independent News and
Media, Colm Nolan, is Siteservs new chief
financial officer.
October 16, 2007: Competition Authority formally
approves Siteservs purchase of Sierra.
November 27, 2007: Siteserv acquires Roankabin
Holdings, which provides Portakabins to the

education and healthcare sectors in Ireland. Its

reported Niall McFadden agreed to buy
Roankabin for 4.9million in cash, plus 1million
in shares, while another 2million will be paid to
its owners over the next three years if financial
targets are met.
December 7, 2007: Siteserv posts a 97% increase
in operating profit to 6.3million for the six
months to the end of October reportedly due
to its recent acquisitions. Revenue rose 118% to
35.5million.
February 5, 2008: Siteserv enters British building
market by acquiring a leading UK construction
support services group, called Deborah Services
Ltd., in a 64million deal.
July 15, 2008: Siteserve defies the downturn in
construction to report a 131% rise in pre-tax
profit for its latest year to April 30, 2008. The
group made 12.25million before tax, compared
with 5.3million the previous year.
November 11, 2008: Chair of Siteserv Hugh
Cooney is appointed the new chair of Enterprise
Ireland. Its reported he donated 1,000 to
Fianna Fils former Taoiseach Brian Cowens
campaign before the previous general election.
January 30, 2009: Sitservs revenue trebles to
128million, for the six months to the end of
October, up from 35.5million for the same
period last year. Operating profit rose from
6.3m to 13.2m.
July 24, 2009, Irish Independent: Siteservs fullyear profits fell 24%, with pre-tax profits falling
to 9.3million in the 12 months to April.

July 26, 2009: Its reported Siteservs net debt is

149million.
October 2, 2009: Its reported that Boundary
Capital chair and majority shareholder Niall
McFadden who owns 6.7% of Siteserv has
quit Boundary, which he founded, as he battles
to repay loans to State-owned Anglo Irish Bank.
He still owns 45% of Boundarys shares and is a
guarantor of the companys debt obligations to
Anglo. Boundarys 38.6m debt facility with
Anglo Irish expired on June 30.
December 15, 2009: Its reported that Siteserv
subsidiary, Sierra Communications, has been
chosen as the preferred bidder for a 50million,
three-year Bord Gis contract to provide boiler
installation and servicing services to Bord Gis.
RT reports that Siteserv says Bord Gis and
Sierra will go into contract negotiations while a
further announcement will be made in first
three months of 2010.
December 17, 2009: Profits before tax dropped by
66% at Siteserv, for its first half, or six months
to October 31, as its revenue fell by 36%.
January 12, 2010: A subsidiary of Siteserv,
EventServ which is a Dublin-based events
services company announces that it plans to
double its existing staff from 50 to 100 over the
next six months. EventServ is a supplier of
staging, seating, crowd control, at festivals,
exhibitions and events, including a Bank of
Ireland extraordinary general meeting.
February 7, 2010: Sisk awards a 250,000 deal to
Siteservs Roankabin to build project offices for

the 130million Mater Hospital redevelopment

in Dublin. The three-storey, 10,000sq ft building
will accommodate the Sisk and Mater Campus
Hospital Development teams for three years.
April 7, 2010: Subsidiary of Siteserv, Sierra
Communications, announces new contract with
Bord Gis will result in up to 90 new jobs. Its
reported the contract which will provide for
the installation, maintenance and testing of
domestic boilers is worth 60 over three
years.
July 22, 2010: Siteserv reports a sharp fall in
profits for the year to the end of April in what it
called difficult market conditions. The company
said profits before tax and once-off items were
700,000, down from 9.3million a year earlier.
Revenue slumped from 228.6million to
151.4million. Siteserv said it had reduced its
net debt by EUR4.4million and negotiated a new
banking agreement to provide it with greater
flexibility.
December 3, 2010: As part of the EU-IMF bailout,
in a letter of intent, Memorandum of Economic
and Financial Policies, and Technical
Memorandum of Understanding, the then Fianna
Fil/Greens government says that by the fourth
quarter of 2011, the government will carry out
an independent assessment of transfer of
responsibility for water services provision from
local authorities to a water utility, and prepare
proposals for implementation, as appropriate
with a view to start charging in 2012/2013.
December 16, 2010: Its reported that Siteservs
net debt as of the end of October amounted

to 148.8million, up from 144.5million at the

same stage last year.
February 6, 2010: County Wicklow VEC awards a
500,000 contract to Siteserv subsidiary
RoanKabin to build a two-storey building at
Coliste Bhrde secondary school in Carnew. The
deal is the companys third contract with the
school in three years.
February, 2011: In Fine Gaels election campaign
manifesto, the party states: As in Scotland we
will establish a single state-owned commercial
water company Irish Water to rationalise the
water functions of 34 local authorities.
Exchequer funding will gradually be replaced by
new charges linked to water consumption above
a free allowance. Fine Gael is subsequently
elected into Government with Labour.
March 22, 2011: The final report of the Moriarty
Tribunal is published. The Tribunal concluded
that Denis OBrien made payment to then Fine
Gael Communications Minister Michael Lowry of
147,000 and 300,000 in the 1990s. It also
found Mr OBrien supported a loan for Mr Lowry
which amounted to a benefit equivalent of
420,000 in December 1999. Mr OBrien won
the competition for the States second mobile
phone licence in 1995 and the tribunal claimed
Mr Lowry secured the winning of the licence
for OBrien.
While no adverse finding was made against the
current Enviornment Minister Phil Hogan, two
chapters in the report also show that the
tribunal did not appear to accept the account
given by Phil Hogan in relation to two events,

namely the circumstances surrounding a

donation for a Fine Gael golf event and a lunch
meeting involving Denis OBrien.
The tribunal found Mr OBrien actively courted
Fine Gael with a view to increasing his profile
with the party and that Esat Digifones
marketing director, who was also a Fine Gael
supporter, Sarah Carey, was instrumental in
proposing events Mr OBrien sponsored, such as
fundraising lunches in Carlow/Kilkenny, Dublin
Central, Meath, Wicklow, Dublin West,
Westmeath, Dublin South East, Dublin North
Central, Dublin South West, Limerick East and
Dublin Central and several golf classics. Mr
OBrien gave testimony that he never made a
political donation for the purpose of securing
the licence.
Mr OBriens largest donation was IR5,000 for
the Wicklow by-election in June 1995, for which
Mr Hogan was the director of elections.
In relation to this donation, Mr Hogan told the
tribunal that it arose from an enquiry made to
him by Ms Carey as to whether Mr OBrien or
Esat could be of assistance to the party
prompting Mr Hogan to mention to her the
Wicklow by-election fundraising lunch.
But Ms Carey told the tribunal it was her
understanding that Mr OBrien had spoken to Mr
Hogan himself and then agreed to make the
donation.
The tribunal sided with Ms Careys account of
events.
A second donation of IR4,000 was made to the
Fine Gael Golf Classic in October 1995. Mr
Hogan was chair of the events organising

committee.
Ms Carey told the tribunal Mr OBrien
specifically instructed there be no advertising
at the gold classic. She wrote a letter to Mr
Hogan saying: I understand Denis has
requested that there are no references made to
his contribution at the event.
The tribunal found that bank drafts used for the
Wicklow and golf classic payments were
indicative of a desire for secrecy over the
donations.
Before the golf classic, auctioneer Mark
FitzGerald, son of former Taoiseach Garret
FitzGerald, said he got a phone call from Mr
OBrien asking him to come to a meeting at
Lloyds Brasserie in Dublin.
Mr FitzGerald told the tribunal that he was
surprised that, when he arrived, Mr OBrien was
sitting with the late TD Jim Mitchell and Mr
Hogan. He has said that when he arrived he was
asked by Mr OBrien if hed heard anything
about the mobile phone licence competition,
which was then nearing conclusion.
Before he died, the late Mr Jim Mitchell told his
solicitor that he had no memory of any such
meeting.
Mr Hogan told the tribunal the meeting, as
described by Mr FitzGerald, did not take place
and if it did, he couldnt recall it. He said he had
no recollection of any meeting.
The tribunal sided with Mr FitzGeralds version
of events, finding that it was difficult in the
extreme to conceive of any reason why Mr
FitzGerald would give false evidence.
June 1, 2011: Environment Minister Phil Hogan

announces that water meters are to be rolled

out to more than one million homes from early
2012 and that the new water services company
will be called Irish Water. He said international
experience and that of Irish group water
schemes had shown metering and charges
would reduce consumption an impact positively
on the 1billion the State spends every year on
water services.
July 19, 2011: Its reported that a report on the
setting up of Irish Water carried out by
PricewaterhouseCoopers and McCann Fitzgerald
is to be delivered to the Department of the
Environment in September. Its also reported
that Bord na Mna has expressed its
willingness and desire to take on the role of
Irish Water.
July 29, 2011: Its reported Siteservs revenue
grew by 11% and remained profitable in its
2011 financial year, despite difficult market
conditions. It reported revenue of 168.5million
in the year to April 30, 2011, up from
151.4million a year earlier.
September 8, 2011: Minister of State Fergus
ODowd said an announcement on the
establishment of the NewERA project (Economic
Recovery Authority) is imminent. NewERA will
have three areas of focus broadband, energy
and Irish Water. NewERA will be funded by
2billion raised from the sale of State assets,
while it will also receive funding from the
National Pension Fund.
December 16, 2011: Its reported that Siteservs
revenues to the six months to the end of

October grew by 9% to 92million. Its pre-tax

profits rose to 1.1m, from 500,000, compared
to the same period the previous year while
operating profits rose by 4% to 4.8m from
4.6million. Key contracts agreed during the six
months included a contract with RT, AA Ireland
and Bord Gis. It also launched a big customer
call centre for BSkyB, Bord Gis and AA Ireland.
But, the Irish Independent reports (on
December 17, 2011) that Goodbody
Stockbrokers analyst David OBrien warned that
until Siteservs 150million debt pile was
reduced, investors were likely to remain on the
sidelines.
January 15, 2012: Its reported that Davy, the
Dublin stockbroker, and KMPG are seeking a
new owner for Siteserv and it will be sold at a
significant discount to its bank debt of
150millon. A bidding process is understood to
be under way and that hundreds of
shareholders in the stock which is now trading
at almost zero are unlikely to receive any
payment from the sale.
January 16, 2012: Siteserv says it is exploring a
number of strategic and corporate options for
discussion with Irish Bank Resolution
Corporation, formerly Anglo.
January 16, 2012: Phil Hogan says the roll out of
water meters will created 2,000 new jobs during
the three-year metering installation period. Its
also reported that PwC has argued against
embedding Irish Water into an existing semiState agency, saying any perceived or real
cross-subsidisation could pose issues for the

regulators.
January 22, 2012: Its reported that their are
divisions between the Coalition partners about
the setting up of Irish Water with senior Fine
Gael members preferring the creation of a new
company as outlined by the PwC report while
a growing number of Labour backbenchers and
senior TDs would prefer to embed the new
utility into an existing State agency, such as
Bord Gis, Bord na Mna, the ESB, or the
National Roads Authority. Its reported that the
unease in Labour is prompted by concerns
among representatives of the 3,600 staff
working in the local authority water sector. Its
reported that they feel that workers moving
from 34 city and county councils into the new
public utility would fare better if their terms and
conditions were linked with those of a state
agency. Its also reported that Phil Hogan
announced a further six-week consultancy
period.
January 24, 2012: Minister of State Fergus
ODowd tells the Joint Committee on
Environment, Transport, Culture and the
Gaeltacht that nobody will be charged for water
until the beginning of 2014. He said there will
be a, as yet undetermined, free allowance of
water for householders, and after that
householders will be charged. He also said the
Government will establish a regulator for the
water sector.
February 24, 2012: Its reported Bord Gis has bid
for the task of establishing Irish Water and
claimed it can save 120m in start-up costs.

March 9, 2012: The Irish Times reports that

Government sources have claimed that the
Coalition is leaning more towards Bord na Mna.
March 11, 2012: Its reported that a group,
involving Denis OBrien, is the front runner to
buy Siteserv and that it tabled a bid of 50m for
the company. Its also reported that IBRC,
former Anglo, is expected to write off some of
the 150million that Siteserv owes Anglo.
Several trade buyers and private equity groups
have also shown an interest in Siteserv.
March 16, 2012: Its reported Denis OBrien has
bought Siteserv for 45.4million in cash, with
the Siteserv board agreeing to the sale of its
business to Millington, an Isle-of-Man-based
acquisition vehicle controlled by Mr OBrien
which was established in 2011. The deal is
subject to shareholder approval. Its reported
that Siteservs directors say they consider the
deal to be fair and reasonable as far as
shareholders are concerned. Sitserv says as
part of the disposal plan, IBRC has agreed to
accept payment of an amount which is less that
the full amount owed by Siteserv to it.
March 17, 2012: Its reported that IBRC has
agreed to write off 100m of the roughly 150m
debt it is owed by Siteserv, and that the bulk of
the 45.4m being paid by Mr OBrien will be
used to satisfy the outstanding debt obligation,
leaving the business to be acquired on a debtfree basis. Its also reported that Siteserv
estimates that it will be left with just under
5million in cash which will be distributed to
shareholders, with them expected to get 3.92c

for every share they own in the group. The

groups chief executive, Brian Harvey, will
remain with the business, as will group finance
director Niall Devereux. Mr Harvey will receive
nearly 800,000 for his 20.2 million shares.
March 17, 2012: Its reported that the sale
represents a 70% haircut on the 150m in
outstanding debt IBRC is owed by Siteserv.
Without this agreement, the proposed disposal
would not be capable of implementation and it
is likely that shareholders would not have
realised any return on their investment, said
Siteserv. Shareholders including chief executive
Brian Harvey, Chris Neate and John Neal, will
receive 4.96 million, or 3.92 per share,
representing a premium of 96 per cent on the
previous Thursdays closing share price, or a
premium of 26.9 per cent based on the average
price of Siteserv over 12 months. This is
surprising as its generally believed with
insolvent companies, equity is normally wiped.
March 29, 2012: Minister for Social Protection
Joan Burton warns her government colleagues
to review how they interact with businessman
Denis OBrien, after he featured alongside
Taoiseach Enda Kenny at the New York Stock
Exchange.
April 1, 2012: Its reported Australian hedge fund
Anchorage Capital offered a higher price (52m)
for Siteserv than Denis OBriens 45m but that
elements of the offer were considered less
attractive then the OBrien bid. Its reported
that ten companies were involved in the initial
bidding process with some underbidders

unhappy with the sale process. Its also reported

that the hedge fund would have required more
extensive due diligence of the entire Siteserv
group, which is made up of several companies.
April 1, 2012: Its reported that the government
now believes that Bord Gis Networks, rather
than Bord na Mona or an independent new
company, should run the new water
infrastructure.
April 2, 2012: Its reported French company
Altrad claimed it was denied the opportunity to
make an offer for Siteserv saying it had been
prepared to offer 60 million for the Irish firm
but that it was effectively denied the
opportunity because its representative was told
the Irish group was not for sale. Ray Neilson, a
senior manager with Altrad, told the Irish Times
that he had emailed Mr Harvey four times
between last year and shortly before the deal
was agreed with Mr OBrien but that he was told
the firm was not for sale. Siteserv rejects the
claims.
April 3, 2012: Its reported that law firm Arthur
Cox acted for Siteserv and Millington in the deal.
The report states that the law firm referred the
matter to an internal committee that deals with
conflict of interest issues before it gave it the
go-ahead to act for both sides.
April 15, 2012: Its reported that Denis OBrien
owed Anglo Irish Bank 833.8million on foot of
personal and corporate loans just after the
lender was nationalised in 2009, making him its
then sixth largest borrower. Between 2009 and
2012, he reduced his borrowings to under

500m. Its reported his dealings with Anglo go

back to when he founded 98FM and that his
relationship with the bank continued as he bid
for Irelands second mobile phone business.
April 17, 2012: It emerges that Irish Water is to
be a part of Bord Gis with the installation of
water meters beginning in October and that Phil
Hogan expects the programme to install water
meters in more than one million Irish
households would be 90-95 per cent complete
by the end of 2014.
April 17, 2012: Phil Hogan insists Irish Water will
not be sold off to the private sector. Its also
reported that the Government will first finance
the installation of water meters with a
450million loan from the National Pension
Reserve Fund.
April 18, 2012: Its reported that Bord Gis chief
executive John Mullins is to quit the company in
December. Mr Mullins is reported to have close
links with Fine Gael and was one of many
businessmen to accompany Enda Kenny on a
recent trip to China. In relation to the decision
to award the tender for Irish Water to Bord Gis
rather than Bord na Mna, Phil Hogan said that
the outside assessors,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, had made the
decision based on a long list of criteria. Its also
reported that he said 150-200 contracts would
be awarded around the country to carry out
installation of water meters for bundles of 5,000
to 6,000 households.
April 22, 2012: Its reported that Environment
Minister Phil Hogan snubbed an offer by

Siemens to finance water meters that could

have saved over 350m.According to the
Sunday Independent Siemens offered to foot the
810m-plus cost of installing meters in 1.3
million Irish homes back in 2010, but Mr Hogan
didnt pursue the option when he took over at
the Department of the Environment. Its
reported that Siemens proposed funding the
fitting of water metersthrough an investment
to be paid back through savings made in the
multibillion-euro cost of providing water services
once the meters were installed. Its reported
that Mr Kruckow made the offer publicly in 2010
and sought discussions with the then Finance
Minister, the late Brian Lenihan. Its reported
that Phil Hogans predecessor John Gormley was
enthusiastic about the Siemens offer at the
time but it wasnt progressed once Mr Hogan
became Environment Minister. The Sunday
Independent reported that, when asked why it
hadnt pursued the Siemens offer, the
Department of the Environment didnt supply an
explanation, but said it had chosen the Irish
Water option after 12 months of discussions
with stakeholders as the optimal organisational
form for water services delivery in Ireland.
May 23, 2012: Its reported the Competition
Authority approves the sale of Siteserv to Denis
OBriens company Millington, with Siteserv
saying the proposed disposal was classified by
the Irish Competition Authority as a media
merger.
June 22, 2012: Its reported that Bord Gis has
hired former government press secretary

Eoghan Neachtain to be public affairs

manager with Bord Gis. Mr Neachtain
previously served as spokesman for Bertie
Ahern, Brian Cowen and Enda Kenny. He is also
a former ESB corporate affairs manager.
July 29, 2012: Michael McNicholas, of NTR, says
the water company Celtic Anglian Water (CAW)
which NTR has a shareholding is interested
in installing water meters to Irish households.
(Mr McNicholas is later appointed CEO of Bord
Gis ireann and becomes a board member of
Irish Water).
September 24, 2012: Irish Water says it will take
two and half to three years to fully install water
meters in Ireland. Earlier in 2012, Phil Hogan
said work would be complete by the end of
2014.
September 25, 2012: Its reported that Bord Gis
has yet to seek tenders for the provision of
meters or for their installation. John Mullins told
RT radio the procurement notice for the water
meters would go out to European tender next
month.
October 6, 2012: Siteservs Chief Financial Officer
Niall Deverux leaves Sitserv to become the chief
financial officer of Topaz. Devereux had been
appointed CFO of Siteserv in May 2009.
October 18, 2012: Siteserv hires AIBs managing
director of corporate finance Alan Doherty to be
the companys chief financial officer.
October 21, 2012: Its reported that it will be
another four years before water meters are fully
installed in Ireland, according to a 900-page

blueprint which maps out Irish Waters plans

and which was seen by the Sunday
Independent. This means it will be late 2016
before water meters are installed in every home
with a public water supply at least two years
later than the Environment Minister Phil Hogan
originally said it would take. Its also reported
that Bord Gais will advertise for senior
management positions, including managing
director and human resources director, in Irish
Water next month.
October 28, 2012: Its reported that the new head
of Irish Water will be appointed directly by the
board of Bord Gis rather than by ministerial
appointment.
January 11, 2013: The Government publishes the
Water Services Bill 2013 which will allow for the
introduction of water charges from January 1,
2014.
January 29, 2013: Bord Gis announces that
Dublin City Manager John Tierney, from
Terryglass, Co. Tipperary, is to be the managing
director of Irish Water, starting in April. Its
reported that, over his 35 years in local
government, hes worked in nine different local
authorities across the country, including Galway
County Council, Kilkenny County Council,
Limerick City Council, Limerick County Council,
South Tipperary County Council and North
Tipperary County Council. His full salary is to be
200,000 with no bonuses or allowances on top
of this, Irish Water said.
February 25, 2013: Its reported that 400 jobs
installing water meters will be given to

graduates, the unemployed or staff of small

businesses. Its also reported that Irish Water is
tendering for companies to provide 1.05 million
meters and boundary boxes (which house the
meters), along with contractors to run the
metering programme and a customer call
centre. The contracts are expected to be
awarded in May.
March 17, 2013: Its reported that former AIB
chief Colm Doherty is a director of Siteserv.
April 18, 2013: Its announced that NTRs Michael
McNicholas is to become Bord Giss new group
chief executive.
May 12, 2013: Its reported that Siteserv is one of
nine bidders on the shortlist for the contract to
roll-out water meters in Ireland, and that
theyve until May 27 to make their final offer.
May 24, 2013: Its reported Cork-based Abtran
wins Irish Waters call centre contract, creating
400 jobs. Its reported that Abtran has been
operating Revenues property tax helpline and
that earlier in May it had to suspend a worker
suspected of attempting credit card fraud.
Abtrans other clients include insurer Aviva,
energy company, Electric Ireland, and TV and
broadband provider Sky. It also has State
contracts with the National Transport Authority,
the Revenue Commissioners and Eflow, the
National Roads Authoritys electronic tolling
service.
June 7, 2013: Managing director of Water John
Tierney says the first domestic water meters will
be installed next month with a national roll-out
beginning in September. He said the new semi-

State body hoped to have 100,000 water

meters installed by the end of the year.
July 17, 2013: Its reported that assistant
secretary for water at the Department of the
Environment Mark Griffin the official behind
the establishment of Irish Water, has been
named as the new secretary general at the
Department of Communications, Energy and
Natural Resources. Hell take up the new
position in September.
July 24, 2013: Irish Water announces that it will
have eight regional offices in Dublin,
Mullingar, Castlebar, Cavan town, Donegal
town, Kilkenny city, Limerick city and Mallow.
July 27, 2013: The three regional contractors
appointed to manage the installation of meters
across six regions are GMC/Sierra Ltd, J Murphy
& Sons Ltd, and Coffey Northumbrian Ltd.
August 2, 2013: Its reported that Irish Water said
that each contractor GMC/Sierra, Coffey
Northumbrian and J Murphy & Sons would be
responsible for hiring local staff and would
receive meters in batches of 5,000. Not until the
5,000 meters were installed in line with the
contract would a further batch be issued. The
three regional contractors will install between
125,000 and 375,000 meters each over a threeyear period. Each meter costs 500 to install,
meaning contracts are worth at least 62m
each. The total cost of the metering contract is
539m, excluding VAT. The country has been
divided into eight regions or 125,000
households each, and six of the eight regional

contracts have already been awarded.

GMC/Sierra won three in the north west, Dublin
City and Midlands; Coffey Northumbrian will
install the meters in the north east; while J
Murphy & Sons will work in the west and south
west. Its reported the final two contracts will be
awarded in the next two weeks.
August 9, 2013: The first water meter is installed
at a home in Rockfield Grove, Maynooth, Co.
Kildare.
November 7, 2013: Siteservs Sierra is close to
securing $30m worth of state contracts in Papua
New Guinea, where Mr OBriens Digicel is the
largest mobile operator.
November 13, 2013: Its reported that Public
Expenditure Minister Brendan Howlin has
promised to include Irish Water under the
Freedom of Information Act.
January 3, 2014: Its reported over half of the
senior management team in Irish Water has
been drawn from local authorities and
government departments. Just four of the ninestrong team were externally recruited. Some
203 staff have been recruited, of which half are
from local authorities, Bord Gais and the
Department of the Environment. At senior
management level, four of the nine posts have
been appointed from local authorities, one from
the Department of the Environment, one from
Bord Gis ireann, two from consultants firm
RPS and one who has worked for a number of
civil engineering contractors.
January 9, 2014: John Tierney tells Sen ORourke
on RTE that Irish Water has spent 50m on

consultants last year.

January 10, 2014: Irish Water defends how it
recruited senior staff. John Tierney said two
former executives with consultancy firm RPS
which advised Dublin City Council on the
Poolbeg incinerator project when he was Dublin
City Manager had left RPS by the time Irish
Water employed them, and he said they were
employed following an open recruitment
process. Irish Waters head of asset
management Jerry Grant was the managing
director of RPS until August 2012. Elizabeth
Arnett was head of project communications at
RPS until December 2012. Shes now head of
communications and corporate services in Irish
Water. Its reported Grant resigned from RPS in
August 2012, while Arnett resigned in December
2012. They both worked for the Irish Water
Programme, the project that was put in place to
set up Irish Water. Poolbeg has so far cost the
State almost 100million with more than
30million to RPS, even though the original
contract was for 8.3million. The EU found the
contract between Dublin City Council did not
conform with EU law. It is to be terminated at
the end of January 2014.
January 10, 2014: It emerges that among the
consultants who were paid 50m in consultancy
fees included IBM, Accenture, Ernst and Young,
and Oracle.
January 11, 2014: A spokesman for Irish Water it
was unlikely to to give a detailed account of
which consultants were paid and how much
would ever be disclosed because of

commercial sensitivities. He said that

situation would not change, even if we were
subject to Freedom of Information.
January 11, 2014: John Tierney tells Newstalk
Radio that up to 2.2billion would be saved
between now and 2021 by more efficient water
services. In relation to the 50m spend on
consultants, Phil Hogan tells KCLR radio in
Kilkenny: These particular costs have been
openly tendered for and they have been verified
by the regulator. This is going to be a very costeffective and lean operation.
January 12, 2014: Its reported that Tensions are
mounting within the Coalition over the latest
revelations, with questions being raised about a
lack of transparency and the extent of Mr
Hogans knowledge. Mr Hogan took ministerial
responsibility for Irish Water away from junior
minister Fergus ODowd after the legislation to
set it up had been completed. Its also reported
that sources close to Mr Hogan insist the
minister was unaware of the spending on
consultancy. While he was aware that 100m
was being spent establishing the agency, he
was not informed that 50m of this was being
spent on outside consultants. Its reported Mr
ODowd first heard about the cost when he
heard Mr Tierney being interviewed by Sen
ORourke on RTE.
January 12, 2014: A confidential 20-page report
drawn up in September 2012, and obtained by
RTE, shows the Government expected Irish
Water would be established using Bord Gis
existing operational capacity in the areas of

IT, asset management, customer billing

systems, and other functions. The report sets
out how Irish Water would be implemented over
the following five years as a subsidiary of the
Bord Gis Group but it makes no reference to
any use of external consultants to create or
operate key IT or other systems.
January 13, 2014: Junior environment minister
Fergus ODowd says Irish Water will be subject
to Freedom of Information, retrospectively, but
not until it is fully established.
January 14, 2014: The Department of the
Environment issues a statement saying Mr
Hogan was aware of the overall set up costs of
Irish water. But, the statement states,
arrangements were put in place to monitor the
costs by the Department of the Environment
and Irish Water. It adds that the minister had
asked the energy regulator to review these
costs. Irish Water managing director John
Tierney tells the Environment Committee he has
never spoken to Mr Hogan or Mr ODowd about
the agencys budget. Mr Tierney also defended
consultancy costs including legal services of
85m to the committee, saying since the
outset, Bord Gis had been clear that they were
always going to need them to set up Irish Water.
The Committee was told that they had
submitted a budget for the setting up of Irish
Water to the Department of Environment in
September 2012. That budget was for 150m
with a further contingency of 30m. In their
submission they also outlined correspondence
with the department on expenditure since then.

Fianna Fils Barry Cowen and Sinn Fins Brian

Stanley asked if there was ministerial approval
for their budget. John Tierney said he had never
spoken to Ministers Hogan or ODowd about the
budget, adding the department would answer
about their internal processes.
The committee is told Irish Water will spend
85m on external special service providers or
consultants, including legal services, by April
2015.
IBM will receive 44.8m, Accenture will receive
17.2m, Ernst & Young will get 4.6m, while
KPMG and Financial Panel Works will be paid
2.2m. Two legal firms will receive 3.87m,
while 13.3m will be paid to another 18
contractors.
Its reported that the Government will bring Irish
Water under Freedom of Information legislation
for a period. Its also reported that its likely to
be withdrawn from FOI once its an independent
entity and has built up a track record of
accessing funding itself, which is planned to
happen in 2017, similar to how Bord Gis is
excluded.
A series of parliamentary questions reveals that
9.7m was paid to consultant to carry out a
range of reports on policy issues for ministers.
Environment Minister Phil Hogan had the
highest bill, spending 3.4m on 31 reports since
Mar 2011 including 179,584 paid to
PricewaterhouseCoopers for consultancy
services on the establishment of Irish Water. A
further 51,789 was paid to the Economic and
Social Research Institute for a report on the
affordability aspects of the provision of water

services in Ireland.
Its reported Irish Water awarded four major
contracts without putting them out to public
competition. Irish Water used exemptions in EU
procurement rules to award contracts for
computer services to four suppliers already
working for parent company Bord Gis,
including CORE Software based in Mitchelstown
in Cork, IBM in Dublin, and two UK-based
companies, Syclo International Limited from
Surrey and ClickSoftware Europe Ltd with an
address at Burnham Bucks. The reason they
were not open to competition was because Bord
Gais said the contracts would not be delivered
on time due to the technical challenges
involved.
January 15, 2014: John Tierney tells the Public
Accounts Committee almost 300 workers at Irish
Water may get performance-based bonuses,
worth an average 7,000 each just hours after
Taoiseach Enda Kenny rules out any bonuses for
Irish Water staff. The committee also hears Irish
Water had a County Managers Group to
oversee the transition of services from local
authorities to Irish Water, and this cost 5.7m.
January 16, 2014: Mr Kenny says Irish Water will
be fully transparent and accountable to the Dil
and will be subject to the full rigours of the
Freedom of Information Act from the companys
inception. It will be a national flagship of high
quality and integrity. As leader of the
Government, I say that Uisce ireann will be wide
open in terms of transparency, accountability
and justification of expenditure. Every deputy

on all sides and none and Oireachtas

committees will have the opportunity to see
that this happens. It is in all our interests that
this be so, he said.
Its reported that Irish Water never received
questions submitted by politicians about its
spending because they were not passed on by
officials at the Department of Environment. The
startling admission was made by a senior civil
servant, who cited workload issues as the
reason.
January 17, 2014: Its reported that Irish Water
spent 20,000 on the Irish Water logo.
January 19, 2014: 6,000 was spent on Irish
Water staff to attend a laughter yoga workshop
for team-building in Croke Park in 2013.
January 21, 2014: Phil Hogan tells the Dil
Environment Committee his department spent
almost 16m last year in relation to the
changeover of responsibility for water services
from the 34 local authorities to Irish Water
separate to the companys budget of 180m, of
which 85m will be spent on external service
consultants. The figure includes the 5.7m
spent on water services transition office in each
local authority and a national office; 7m on a
survey of where the meters should be located;
628,000 on programme management office in
the department; 760,000 on the regulator;
328,000 on staff engineering services and
321,000 on additional staff; and 179,000 on a
PricewaterhouseCoopers report.
January 21, 2014: Taoiseach Enda Kenny says
John Tierney is the right man to head Irish

Water, saying: We have to have consistency

and a very high standard and Mr Tierney is
heading up the utility called Irish Water to
deliver that. I have every confidence that he will
do his job as expected.
January 22, 2014: The Taoiseach declined to
respond to a claim by Fianna Fil leader Michel
Martin that former local authority employees
with pensions had joined Irish Water at a senior
level and were in line for bonuses.
January 23, 2014: It emerges that more than one
third of the Irish Water staff recruited so far
worked in local authorities and 29 staff are
earning over 100,000. Its also revealed that
almost 100 staff could earn future performancerelated bonuses of between 14% and 15%.
January 26, 2014: Confidential documents
obtained by RTs This Week reveal that local
authorities indicated their co-operation with the
establishment of the States new public utility,
Irish Water, may be linked to assurances over
jobs, pensions and the duration of service-level
agreements. The unpublished, 40-page
document, dated 5 December 2012, was
prepared by the Irish Water steering group.
January 27, 2014: Professor John FitzGerald of the
Economic and Social Research Institute [a
brother of Mark Fitzgerald (see above)] says
Irish Water could incur extra costs of between
1.5bn and 2bn, through the employment of
over 2,000 staff that it does not need.
January 29, 2014: Phil Hogan writes, in the Irish
Independent, how Prof FitzGeralds wild
assertions have no basis.

February 6, 2014: Irish Water denies that their

contractors are damaging existing pipes while
installing new meters following reports that
Dublin City Council has had to fix 250 leaks in
homes where meters have been installed at a
cost of 136,000 Euros, stating that all the
repairs had been to existing leaks and that the
Councils costs will be covered by Irish Water.
February 14, 2014: It is reported that Irish Water
will spend 3.2 million Euros on postage,
advertising and design. 1.8 million Euros have
already been spent with 1.45 million Euros to be
paid out later this year.
March 10, 2014: A paper submitted by An Bord
Gais criticizes the Governments January
decision to retrospectively apply the FOI to Irish
Water with effect from July 17th on the basis
that it would present an unfair administrative
burden and could lead to unnecessary costs.
March 16, 2014: It is reported that Irish Water
paid the sum of 579,000 Euros to consultants
for a single report regarding water metering of
apartments.
On the same day it is also announced that Irish
Water will be seeking the PPS numbers and
bank account details of householders along with
the PPS numbers of their children.
April 13: 2014: Bord Gais hires a third firm of
public relations consultants to work alongside
two existing PR companies to improve
communications by Irish Water.The firm hired is
Terry Prones The Communications Clinic.
May 3, 2014: Former Taoiseach Brian Cowen and

former managing director of AIB, Colm Doherty

appointed to the board of Topaz Energy Group,
the controlling interest in the group having been
acquired by Denis OBrien in January in a deal
that again involved the writing down of bank
debt. Sean Corkery, the chief executive of
Siteserv, is also a board member of Topaz.
May 7, 2014: Irish Water proposes a free water
allowance for families of 30,000 litres per year.
May 8, 2014: Former Northern Irish Water boss
Trevor Haslett says that the free yearly water is
unlikely to see families through even the first
quarter of the year.
July 2014: Environment Minister Phil Hogan
nominated as Commissioner-Designate for the
EU Commission.
July 30, 2014: Draft price plan published by
Commission for Energy Regulation (CER)
proposes a price increase of 1/5 more than was
claimed in May 2014. The St Vincent de Paul
expresses concern at the high charge per unit.
August 3, 2014: An independent review of Irish
Waters estimated consumption projection of
21,000 litres of water a year for children carried
out by the Economic and Social Research
Institute (ESRI) concludes that there is every
chance that the estimate is wrong.
August 11, 2014: Irish Waters 1.9 billion running
costs reported to be more than twice the
average costs of water companies in England
and Wales. 29% of these costs comprise staff
salaries, a percentage three times higher than
in England and Wales (10.5%) and over twice as

high as in Northern Ireland.

August 13, 2014: It is announced that Sierra has
won the Republic of Ireland contract for the
installation and provisioning of prepayment
electricity meter installation services for PrePay
Power.
August 17, 2014: Reports of attacks on Irish
Water workers.
August 25, 2014: Fire at Irish Water facility in
Sligo occupied by GMC/Sierra.
September 7, 2014: Disclosure of a document
dated October 21, 2014, signed by Phil Hogan
and authorizing the expenditure of 50 million
Euros on IT (32 million Euros), customer billing
and registration (12 million Euros) and support
services (8 Million) for Irish Water, with an
additional 9.5 million Euros being expended on
legal advice.
September 10, 2014: Phil Hogan confirmed as EU
Commissioner for Agriculture.
On the same day It is reported that the Data
Protection Commissioner is examining Irish
Waters policy on how it collects and uses
personal information, including PPS numbers.
September 12, 2014: It is reported that water
meters are being installed at a rate of one every
30 seconds with 400,000 meters already in
place.
September 19, 2014: High Court Judge Patrick
McCarthy grants GMC/Sierra, represented by Jim
OCallaghan SC, an interim injunction against
nine water meter protestors.
September 21, 2014: 2,000 protest in Dublin

against water charges.

September 27, 2014: Five arrested after water
meter protest against GMC/Sierra in Raheny.
September 30, 2014: It is disclosed that Paudie
Coffey, Minister for State at the Department of
Environment, has hired Irish Water board
member and former Fine Gael Councillor Hilary
Quinlan as his personal driver at a salary of
15,000 Euros per annum. Quinlan sees no
conflict of interest, stating: You tell me one
party out there who doesnt look after their own.
I dont see anything wrong with it. Its politics.
On the same day High Court Judge Max Barrett
lifts the injunction against the nine Irish Water
protestors granted by Judge Patrick McCarthy on
the 19th September 2014.
On the same day the CER announces that it will
generally accept Irish Waters charging
proposals, published in July 2014, with some
changes, such as halving the amount of time for
rebate but extending the period during which all
water bills will be capped at an estimated rate
and the discount period for those whose water
is undrinkable. The free allowances will remain
the same at 30,000 litres per household and
21,000 litres per child annually.
October 1, 2014: Billing for domestic water
begins. However, two-thirds of homes do not
yet have meters installed.
On the same day, Hilary Quinlan resigns as a
director of Irish Water in order to remove[s]
any doubt or confusion of any potential conflict
of interest.
On the same day, Elizabeth Hourihane, of

Malbaun, Passage West, Cork, is given leave to

commence proceedings challenging the
constitutionality of the decision to set up Irish
Water, on the basis that the government failed
to take account of public and common good
acted wrongly.
On the same day, Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams,
speaking in the Dail, draws attention to the fact
that under the 1997 Taxes Consolidation Act all
Government Ministers who maintain a second
residence will pay reduced water charges.
October 2, 2014: Michael Noonan announces that
the second residence water charges reduction
for Government Ministers will be removed.
October 3, 2014: Phil Hogan defends sending the
employment CVs of three of his constituents to
Irish Water.
On the same day it is announced that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is suing
Irish Water over the water standard in
Letterkenny.
October 8, 2014: Fianna Fail leader Micheal
Martin, speaking in the Dail, calls for an
amendment to the legislation to include an
ability to pay clause, something strongly
opposed by the government. Taoiseach Enda
Kenny acknowledged a general public lack of
clarity of explanation and understanding
regarding Irish Water and the charges imposed
by it.
On the same day there are complaints about
excessive Garda force and numbers being
used against anti-water meter protestors.

Talbot Street, Dublin this morning.

Mark writes:
The We Wont Pay campaign returned to Irish Water
with a wheelie bin of water packs which were
collected at demonstrations at the weekend, and set
up a stall outside their head office giving out charge
free water.
From top: Returned Irish Water mail; (from
right): Anti Austerity Alliance candidate for
Dublin South, Paul Murphy, Bernadette Rynne
and Frank Donaghy; Catherine ONeill and a
charge free cup of water.

So they want Water charges to be paid for through general

taxation are they forgetting we already pay through
taxation. And they want households to pay extra it they go
over the quota so in other words you will have to have a
meter in this smells like privatisation to me. Don't be
fooled this time round stop the meters going in folks. Does
the so called Government think we are really so stupid.

It's been the government's intention from the

outset to set up Irish Water as an stand-alone
business that is intended to operate on a full-cost
recovery basis. In others words, operate as a defacto private company. At the stroke of a pen, our
government can make this de-jure as well by
selling and transferring shares in Irish Water to a
private operator (most likely Veoila Ireland, a
French based multinational specialising in the
provision of water services worldwide.). In order
to operate on a full cost recovery basis, this could
will mean an average charge of around 1,200 per
household per year plus more for the company's
profit. This would not include catch-up capital
investment to repair our ailing water
infrastructure. A stop-gap measure against this is
to have a referendum that will give Constitutional
protection against the privatisation of Irish Water
in the future. I feel we are on a time limit with this
because if the TiSA (Trade in Services Agreement)
corporate trade treaty were ever to be ratified,
then protection against privatisation of our public
utilities will become very difficult or impossible
under binding international law.
Article from brian flynn....There was a mention in
the papers this morning of them setting up a new
tax system to pay for water through general
taxation. A NEW TAX SYSTEM!!!? What's wrong
with the tax system that is in place right now and
where exactly is the tax money which they are
collecting RIGHT NOW going??? They are trying
to fool the general public once again into
accepting Irish Water as the established method
of practice in the management of our water
system and in doing so, accepting water charges as
an established method of practice as well... If we
sit still for this, water charges WILL become an
established method of practice and we will find it

near impossible to get rid of them. On the surface,

this appears to be a victory but don't be fooled...
We are about to be taxed double on our water
supply and albeit most of the population will no
longer receive a bill, there is still a system in place
to charge for water and when have you ever seen a
charge of any sort remaining static in this
country? They just want you to accept these
charges thinking you won't mind because they
don't apply to you. If you do accept this, how long
do you think it will be before these charges WILL
apply to you, your children and your children's
children??? The truth is the powers that be think
they are so cleaver and that we the public are so
stupid... Let's prove them wrong. don't stop until
Irish Water and water charges of any kind are
abolished completely and the protection of our
water and our water system is enshrined in our
constitution FOREVER.

Homeless developing frostbite and

trench foot sleeping on the streets
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Joe Leogue

A charity has revealed it has seen cases of frostbite and

trench foot among homeless people sleeping rough in
Cork City.

Cork Simon revealed that the GP in its emergency shelter

came across a case of frostbite last week, and that a
handful of people have presented with trench foot a
painful condition in which the surface tissue blackens and
dies due to prolonged exposure to damp, cold or
unsanitary conditions.
The charity said it believes an average of 16 people a
night slept rough on the streets of Cork in November, and
has warned it does not see any end to the demand for its
services, which are operating above capacity. Normally
44 people per night are accommodated, Paul Sheehan,
campaigns and communications manager at Cork Simon
said of the charitys emergency shelter.
Between November 1 and 25 inclusive an average of 50
people per night have been staying. We try to
accommodate as many people as is safe to do so, he
said.
During the same time period we had no choice but to
turn away an average of seven people per night because
the shelter was full and there was no bed available. In all
cases we make sure people have warm clothing, blankets
and sleeping bags, and work to make sure they can secure
a bed as soon as possible.
Cork Simon said that in the week up to last Friday when
temperatures dipped at night to lows of -1C it supported
an average of 12 people a night who were sleeping rough.

We would be concerned, given the rates of rough

sleeping last week, that we still dont have enough
emergency beds so that no one has to sleep rough, Mr
Sheehan said. We dont see any immediate end to the
demand for homeless services, he said in reference to
last weeks homelessness report published by the
Department of Housing.
In Cork alone there were 240 adults in emergency
accommodation the department doesnt provide a
breakout of figures for children in emergency
accommodation in Cork. For adults, this represents an
increase of 17% since October 2015. The figures are all
going in the wrong direction.
Cork Simon also conducted an audit of rental properties in
Cork over three days earlier this month, and found the
average rent for a one-bed property is 867 per month.
The housing crisis continues to be the biggest obstacle
for people trying to exit homelessness. People simply
cannot find any housing, particularly in the private rented
market, that they can afford, Mr Sheehan said adding the
number of available properties, particularly one and twobed homes, is at an all-time low.
The maximum rent supplement/housing assistance
payment from the Department of Social Protection for a
single person in Cork City is 550 per month the
average rent of a one-bed flat in the city is 58% higher
than rent supplement /HAP limits, he said. We do not
expect to see any fall in the number of people turning to
us for help until the supply of housing, and the rental
costs, are addressed.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/homeless
-developing-frostbite-and-trench-foot432759.html
Dragon's Den businessman Barry OSullivan is selling a
home on the Aran Islands and donating the proceeds to
two homeless charities.
The sale will provide deposits to purchase at least 15
homes for families who are homeless.
Family homelessness is at record levels with over 1,200

families and 2,400 children facing Christmas in emergency

homeless accommodation this year.
The Home from Home campaign encourages people to
donate properties or funds to support the provision of
homes.

GAA president open to

association dropping use of
Irish flag and anthem
Gaelic games to be introduced to schools in Emirates with
4,000 Irish teachers in UAE
about 14 hours ago

Sen Moran

In the context of an agreed Ireland, the GAA would consider curbing the

widespread use of the Irish flag and national anthem. Photograph: Cathal
Noonan/Inpho

GAA president Aogn Fearghail has said that he is

open to the idea of dropping the widespread use of the
Irish flag and anthem in the context of what he called
an agreed Ireland.
He volunteered the view when asked whether it was
time to consider relaxing the rules in this respect for
overseas units, many of whose members are not Irish
a view originally floated by former GAA director
general Liam Mulvihill.
Well, itd be time to look at it in our own island too in
terms of an agreed Ireland, which everybody in Ireland
and everybody in the GAA looks at. You certainly
cannot look at these issues in advance of an agreement,
thats for sure. The flag and the anthem means a lot to
the GAA and will continue to do so, but who knows in
the future? In the future, if there are different
agreements in place for the whole of Ireland, of course
the GAA would be inclusive in that.
Further questioned on what type of agreements he had
in mind, he replied that circumstances were changing.

Changing world

There could be further agreements politically at home.

There is a massively changing world at home. Brexit is
going to affect the GAA the same as its going to affect
everyone else and it does cause concerns. In the future
if there are new agreements and new arrangements
wed be open-minded about things like flags and
anthems but not in advance of agreements.
He pointed out that there had already been moves by
the GAAs European Board to underline the
importance of the games as opposed to their cultural
provenance.

I would say in terms of overseas, Europe GAA have

changed their name; theyve rebranded. Theyre now
Gaelic Games of Europe and I think thats an inclusive
title that they have chosen deliberately to include their
camogie and their football and have changed their
logo.

NOTES: 1. All tokens are represented by '$' sign in

the template. 2. You can write your code only
wherever mentioned. 3. All occurrences of existing
tokens will be replaced by their appropriate values.
4. Blank lines will be removed automatically. 5.
Remove unnecessary comments before creating
your template.
He added that the Irish brand probably causes more
difficulty at home and commended overseas units for
their inclusiveness. We have to learn from our
international units that we should never have closed
minds about things that we always thought were
precious and sacred. They may well be that but we have
to have open minds as to where this could go.

Schools in the Emirates

On a more practical front, Fearghail said that the

GAA, working through the embassies of Ireland and
the UAE, had cleared the way for Gaelic games to be
introduced to schools in the Emirates.
A lot of children are of ex-pat Irish but a lot arent.
They find the games exciting. Were now getting into
the schools here, which is a huge thing. There are
almost 4,000 between Dubai and Abu Dhabi. There are
4,000 young Irish teaching in schools. They really
value them as excellent teachers. It is a difficult role.
We have now worked through the embassies again,
particularly the UAE embassy in Ireland and we have

now established that we can have Gaelic games in the

schools.
That will be interesting and it might follow the same
model as in Canada. Its now in Canada on the official
curriculum in Ontario province and they enjoy it. They
find that it suits the Canadian style. It gives all body
strength, upper and lower, its safe. It has progressed
the game enormously over there. All that has to be
welcome.

GAA president open to association dropping use of

Irish flag and anthem
Gaelic games to be introduced to schools in
Emirates with 4,000 Irish teachers in UAE
PLEASE NORTHERN IRELAND AND BRITAIN
AND CANADA , THEY WANT TO USE LOGO EU
FLAG INSTEAD NO WAY

I only wipe me arse with eu flag

Remember this when the tan lads went in

croke park
The flag of the European union is not ant never will
be the flag of Ireland our National Anthem is known
and respected all over the world and is not to be
replaced as I've stood up for the playing of our
National Anthem as far away as Cape Breton island
and have heard it being played for Remembrance
day in a place called Kingston in Canada for the
Irish who fought with the Canadian forces during
world war two
I love my Irish flag and my Irish Anthem so
don't you or any one else try to change that
shame on YOU
When the rented one of their clubhouses to
facilitate eviction hearings, it was only a matter of
time before a major sellout.
This is it,
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelicgames/gaa-president-open-to-associationdropping-use-of-irish-flag-and-anthem-1.2885324

Kenny in running for

European Council
chief
John Walsh
November 29 2016, 12:01am,

Enda Kenny could be in line to replace Donald Tusk

if the European Council president stands down next
June.
The taoiseach was widely tipped to take over from
Herman van Rompuy as council president in
November 2014, but did not formally apply for the
position. It is understood that he was Angela
Merkels favoured candidate.
Mr Tusk had been expected to stay on for a second

term, but there are growing signs that the Polish

government will not formally back his candidacy.
It is not essential that Mr Tusks home government
approves a second term because the appointment
is done by qualified majority voting, but reports from
Brussels suggest that Mr Tusk may be vulnerable if
Warsaw withdraws its support. A spokesman for the
council
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kenny-inrunning-for-european-council-chief-gxqhkjjnf

European and
Canadian civil
society groups call
for rejection of
CETA
November 28, 2016

Joint Statement European

and Canadian civil society
groups call for rejection of
CETA

http://www.s2bnetwork.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/11/CEO_statement_281116.
pdf

Garda punched suspect

who later died, inquest told
Wed, Sep 8, 2010, 01:00

GEORGINA O'HALLORAN

A MAN arrested with Dwayne Foster, who was being

held for questioning about the fatal shooting of a young
woman when he was found unresponsive in a Garda
station, has told an inquest that he saw Foster being
punched at the time of his arrest.
Foster (24), Woodbank Avenue, Finglas, Dublin, was
discovered unresponsive in Coolock Garda station on
March 7th, 2006. He was taken to Beaumont Hospital
where he was pronounced dead.
He was being questioned in relation to the shooting of
Donna Cleary (22), who was shot dead at a party early
on March 5th, 2006.
A postmortem by Deputy State Pathologist Dr Michael
Curtis found he died from methadone intoxication and
noted that 34 injuries on Fosters body were caused by
blunt force trauma.
Solicitor for the Foster family Michael Finucane has
accepted that not all of the injuries were caused during
the arrest.
Wayne Hart, who was arrested with Foster and Jeffrey
Finnegan on March 5th at a house in the Curragh, Co
Kildare, said garda entered the room where they were
sitting and pushed them to the ground and put
pillowcases, or something like pillowcases, over their
heads.
They were handcuffed, he added.
They came in and pushed us to the ground, said Mr

Hart, who was giving evidence at a resumed inquest

into the death of Mr Foster.
He told Dublin City Coroners Court that he saw Foster
being punched once at the back of his neck around his
ear after he (Mr Hart) moved the cover over his head.
Mr Hart told the court he himself was kicked in the
face because he moved and that his lip was busted
and bleeding, but it was not a full force kick.
Asked by Stephen Byrne, for the Garda, how he was
able to move the cover over his head given his hands
were behind his back and handcuffed, Mr Hart said he
shook his head and it came off a little bit. It was then
replaced.
The pillowcases were removed as they were being led
from the house, said Mr Hart, who was taken to
Coolock Garda station and placed in a cell opposite
Foster. Mr Hart was moved to another Garda station
the next day.
According to garda who were involved in the arrests,
nothing was placed over the heads of the detainees.
The inquest heard that Det Sgt Cormac Brennan, who
was involved in the investigation into Ms Clearys
death, had a warrant to search the house in relation to
a firearm.After entering the room, Det Sgt Brennan
went to Foster and Det Garda Brian Hanley went to
Det Sgt Brennans assistance as Foster was resisting
and continued to struggle, said Det Garda Hanly.
The garda pushed Foster to his knees.
The two were assisted by Det Garda Joseph Enright,
who pulled Fosters legs out and got him down on the
ground.
He was twisting and turning trying to break free, said
Det Garda Enright.
Foster was then handcuffed.
Det Garda Hanley told the inquest that at no stage did
he mistreat Foster nor did he see any members of the

Garda mistreat him.

All the force used was reasonable and necessary, he
said.
Giving evidence on Monday, Det Sgt Brennan said Mr
Foster resisted arrest and said the force used by garda
was proportionate to overcome the resistance offered
by Foster.
The inquest continues today.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/garda
%C3%AD-punched-suspect-who-later-diedinquest-told-1.647947

NBCI Detective Brian Hanley yet again

exposed
Lies leaked to the media about Dwayne
Foster so as to ruin this mans name, as they
always do so as to cover up his murder in
garda custody
This is the same Brian Hanley now a
sergeant of NBCI/pearce street that is
framing innocent people and whistleblowers
, the same Brian Hanley that intimidates and
harasses witnesses into giving false
statements.
The same Brian Hanley that was involved in
the death/murder of Dwayne Foster in garda
custody.
They promoted Brian Hanley after this
murder, to sergeant , OMG
"Det Garda Hanley, NBCI told the inquest
that at no stage did he mistreat Foster nor
did he see any members of the Garda
mistreat him." Liar is what hanley is and
always will be

"Det Sgt Brennan went to Foster and Det

Garda Brian Hanley went to Det Sgt
Brennans assistance as Foster was
resisting and continued to struggle, said
Det Garda Hanly."

Well done Wayne ! Be prepared for their dirty tricks because they
will try pull every trick in the book to get out of this one.
Why are none of the Lame Stream Media taking Simon and the rest
of Fine Gael to task over this video?
We keep hearing that Irish Water is a National Utility. It's all over the
media even today.
Well according to Simon, Irish Water is not a National Utility at all....
This video was taken back in 2009, at the launch of Simon's
brainchild, NewERA. NewERA outlined a wholesale privatisation
agenda for all the natural resources under State ownership and one
such resource was the water.
So to just let it sink in. Fine Gael had a plan to create a commercial
company from the assets of the State and is driven and run on the
basis of a commercial return and they even knew the NAME of the
company one year before the Troika had even arrived on our shores.
Oh they had a plan for our water alright but it was as a cash cow for
the wealthy banks and financiers and not for the good of the
people...
Run on the basis of a commercial return can mean only one thing....
Profits for banks and higher bills for us once the cap is lifted...
An Irish Water commercial Company Pdf doc

Regardless of what they tell you about Irish Water,

remember that their original plan was the
commercialisation and commodification of our water
resource for a commercial return...
This hasn't changed as long as the corporate structure of
Irish Water remains...
As far back as 2009, Fine Gael were making plans for your
water and with the help of Fianna Fail, they have almost
reached their goal..

https://www.facebook.com/RevolutionIrela
nd/
Irish Water Programme ... 6.5.1 IWP
Commercial & SLA ... COMPANY
CONFIDENTIAL Irish Water Establishment
Costs Stage 2
https://www.cer.ie/docs/000979/CER14371
a%20%20-%20C4%20-%20Halcrow
%20Report%20-%20Irish%20Water
%20Establishment%20Costs.pdf
Lying bastard the lot of them we should have
a referendum on these Politians they should

not be paid these outrageous salaries and

pensions funded by the tax payers give them
the job on a average salary along with the
civil service these people are taking the piss
time for revolution get out on the streets and
block government buildings let them know
time for all of them go
Group Water Schemes in Ireland ... Their
Role within the Irish Water ... average or
fewer than 50 people which are not
supplying water as part of commercial or
public 2010
http://www.ewra.net/ew/pdf/EW_2010_29
_05.pdf
Previous Issues of Relate & EU Supplement 2015 Relate December 2015 This issue
provides an overview of things you may need
to know after a bereavement, including
arranging the funeral, accessing money,
claiming social welfare payments and
administering the deceased persons estate
http://www.citizensinformationboard.ie/downloads/rel
ate/relate_2015_12.pdf

The November issue of Relate describes Budget

2016 in the areas of social welfare, taxation,
housing, employment, childcare, education,
health and justice
http://www.citizensinformationboard.ie/downloads/rel
ate/relate_2015_11.pdf

Revised Water Charges Plan published in March

2015, and the new Irish Human Rights and

Equality Commission. It also contains an update
on personal insolvency, and describes the new
Competition and Consumer Protection
Commission.
http://www.citizensinformationboard.ie/downloads/relate/relate_2015_03.
pdf

EU Supplement This supplement covers the signi cant

EU developments from May 2015 to July 2015 in the
broad areas of social policy, consumer policy and
citizens rights.

http://www.citizensinformationboard.ie/downloads/relate/eu_supplement
_2015_08.pdf

Further arrangements for the role of Irish Water

as provided for by the Water Services Act 2013
are described. There is an overview of changes
made to the Housing Adaptation Grants for
Older People and People with a Disability and to
the Mobility Aids Grant. Finally there is a brief
legislation update.
http://www.citizensinformationboard.ie/downloads/rel
ate/relate_2014_02.pdf

Draft report shows

EU Commission
questions Govt
changes to Irish
Water
Updated / Jan. 23, 2015

The revised water charges were assessed as part of a

review of Ireland's progress after the bailout

This is the actual article body

A draft report from the EU Commission, seen

by RT News, has raised significant questions
about changes made by the Government to
make Irish Water politically acceptable.
The Commission says the prospects of the
utility "becoming self-funded seem
distant" because charges will be frozen until
the end of 2018.
An assessment of the Government's revised
water charges was carried out by the
European Commission as part of its review of
Ireland's progress after the EU IMF bailout.
It says the extent to which the company will
be able to borrow on the markets for capital
investment is yet to be determined, and may
have been diminished by the revised
proposals.
The draft report also raises questions about

the impact changes to the original plan may

have on the independence of the Commission
for Energy Regulation.
The CER had approved the original proposals
and was to regulate operating costs,
investment plans and efficiency gains for
Irish Water. The EU Commission says that
while key CER decisions remain in place, the
regulator may risk being politically influenced
in the future.
The Commission points out that certainty
about the fiscal treatment of Irish Water will
not be in place until April of this year.
It says that it will be up to Eurostat to
determine whether the company will pass the
market test.
The draft report finds that the revised water
package has increased the uncertainty
surrounding the Eurostat decision for a
number of reasons which include: treatment
of the water conservation grant, less revenue
being collected and the freezing of household
charges until at least 2019.
It also notes that Irish Water will face rising
capital costs as it implements its
infrastructure programme.
The Commission adds that capping domestic
charges at low levels will mean people will
feel less likely to conserve water.
He said Irish Water is talking to the Data
Protection Commissioner to establish the
parameters in relation to destroying the PPS
numbers given to the company.

Mr Tierney said there was a lot of work to be

done in relation to that as they had received
870,000 responses from householders.
But he hopes they will be in a position to
destroy the numbers in the next seven or
eight weeks.
In relation to concerns by unions over the
decision not to pay staff performance related
payments for 2013 or 2014, he said it was a
very difficult decision but, he added, the
payment of the awards is at the discretion of
the company.
He added he was very sorry that people
started to think that the company was
putting pay before people.
The company is looking at the pay model for
2015 with a view to bringing back
recommendations to the board and unions
will contribute to that, he said.
His experience of staff is one of absolute
commitment, he said, and he would be
hopeful that would continue.
The regulator has said that Irish water must
cut its costs by 14% by the end of 2016,
which he described as "significant".
Mr Tierney said the company is currently
working with the local authorities and he
expects there will be up to a 10% reduction in
local authority staff that Irish Water pays for
through service level agreements in 2015.
This would represent a reduction of around
430 local authority staff.
Kelly does not want jail sentences for

non-payment
Minister for the Environment Alan Kelly
earlier said he does not want to see anyone
ending up in jail if they fail to pay their water
charges.
Mr Kelly was speaking on RT's Morning
Ireland a day after announcing a revised
scheme for water charges.
An assessment of the Government's revised
water charges will be carried out by the
European Commission as part of its review of
Ireland's progress after the EU IMF bailout.
The Troika has been in Dublin this week
meeting Government officials and staff from
the Central Bank and Nama.
Sources close to the commission said there
was surprise at the changes to Irish Water's
fees as officials had expected earlier plans
would be implemented.
Questions were also raised about the use of
flat charges for supplies.
Its assessment of the new regime for
charging for water will be published as a part
of its overall economic review in January.
However, the commission is understood to be
happy with Ireland's economic growth,
improvement in unemployment and falling
mortgage arrears.
It is understood the commission is confident
Ireland will meet its deficit reduction targets.
However, sources said it would have wished
to see more money spent reducing Ireland's

national debt in the Budget.

Irish Water MD confirms court action
will not be taken against those who
don't pay their water bills
Irish Water Managing Director John Tierney
has confirmed that court action will not be
taken against those who do not pay their
water bills.
He said the company intends to use the new
provisions of the legislation to put a charge
on the property, and he said the company
does not envisage a situation where they
would be taking people to court.
Mr Tierney said Irish Water will be aiming for
the maximum compliance with charges
similar to other utility companies, which
currently stand at around 90%.
He said the aim of the company is to work
with people so there is no necessity for
penalties or to go to landlords to collect the
charges.
In relation to those who cannot pay he said
the company would work with them on
payment plans so they could pay their bills
over time.
He also said the decision to have peoples
PPS numbers was well intentioned in terms of
the allowance system that was in place at the
time.
Meanwhile, at the request of the garda, Joan
Burton has given a statement following a
protest over water charges in Jobstown in
Dublin last week, which saw the Tnaiste

locked in her car for more than two hours.

Mr Kelly acknowledged that Irish Water would

have the right to take people to court for not
paying their bills, but said "it's not a road I
believe they should go down too much".
He said the sanctions for not paying bills
would be applied 15 months after the first
bills were issued.
The minister also said he would meet
landlords to discuss the charges and would
be introducing legislation to allow landlords
to deduct unpaid water charges from their
tenant's deposits if necessary.
Mr Kelly announced yesterday that charges
will be capped for a single-adult household at
160 and for others at 260.
Households that register will get a 100
Water Conservation Grant each year,
resulting in net charges of 60 for a single
adult household and 160 for other

households.
Members of group water schemes and
owners of wells will have to register with Irish
Water to claim the grant.
The starting date for the charges is 1 January
and bills will be charged from April next year.
There will be penalties for those who do not
pay after a year or do not enter into a
payment plan.
A single-adult household will face a 30
penalty and 60 will apply to other
households.
The capped charges will be in place until 1
January 2019, with legislation to allow for
capped charges to continue after 2019.
Households with either water or sewage-only
services will pay 50% of the charges.
Those with meters who use less will get a
once-off rebate.
People now have until 2 February to register.
Landlords do not want to collect water
charges
A spokesperson for the Residential Landlords
Association has said if legislation allowing
landlords to deduct unpaid water charges
from tenants' deposits goes ahead, deposits
will have to be doubled or even trebled.
Fintan McNamara said landlords did not want
to be in the position where they were
collecting water charges.
He said there was no reason why water
charges should not be collected as other
utility bills are, where the tenant has a

unique identity number and account that is

carried from one accommodation to another.
Mr McNamara said his group had been told
six weeks ago by Irish Water that this was
how the system of water charges would work,
and that landlords would have no role in it.
He said his organisation was very anxious to
speak to the minister about this and other
issues affecting the residential rented sector.
Meanwhile, Anti-Austerity Alliance TD Paul
Murphy said he believes people will continue
to resist the water charges and there will be
a "massive boycott" when the first bills come
in.
Also speaking on Morning Ireland, Mr Murphy
said the package announced by the
Government would not diminish the
campaign to abolish the charges.
He said: "People are no longer afraid of the
Government. They're increasingly aware that
the Government is afraid of them."

Tnaiste Joan Burton told the Dil today

she is very confident that Irish Water will
pass State aid rules that will be scrutinised
next year by the EU statistics agency,
Eurostat.

However, Minister for Communications Alex

White said there is a risk as to whether the
100 Water Conservation Grant will pass the
market corporation test, but he added that
he was confident it would.
Under the rules, 51% of Irish Water's revenue
must come from charges.
During Leaders' Questions Fianna Fil
Environment Spokesperson Barry
Cowen pressed the Tnaiste on whether Irish
Water would pass State aid rules and if there
was a "Plan B".
Ms Burton said she was confident it would
and said the results would be known around
April.

Sinn Fin Deputy Leader Mary Lou McDonald

said people had not marched for concessions,
but for the abolition of the charges.
Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform
Brendan Howlin said there are people who do
not want to pay for water even though they
know there is a cost associated with
providing it.
People Before Profit TD Richard Boyd Barrett
told the Dil that something that has not
come out is a directive from the Department
of the Environment to local authorities and
warned that Irish Water arrears will be taken
out of council tenants' rents.

TDs also debated a private members' motion

by Sinn Fin this morning, which proposed to
ensure Irish Water is never
privatised regardless of what political party is
in power in the future.
Meanwhile, the Taoiseach has said he
hopes people will reflect on the changes

announced to water charges adding

that while the Government had admitted
mistakes on the issue,they had now fully
addressed the issues that were causing
concern.
Enda Kenny added while there may be some
who do not want to pay this is why
Government had sought to make what he
called "the last national charge" as affordable
and easy to pay as possible.

If you paid your water bills you

won't be getting your money
back
The regime may be changing but that doesnt change the past, says
Simon Coveney.
November 29, 16

PEOPLE WHO PREVIOUSLY paid their water bills will

not be getting their money back following the new water
charge recommendations today.
Local Government Minister Simon Coveney said this
evening that it was Fine Gaels view that people who have
paid money to Irish Water were doing what was right at
the time.
The expert commission on water charges earlier today
recommended that normal use of household water
should be paid for out of general taxation.
Speaking on RT News, Coveney was asked whether this
meant that people who paid bills over the past two years
would get their money back.
No, I dont think so, he responded.
Certainly the Fine Gael view on this is that, anybody who
paid their charges, they were paying what they were legally
required to pay at the time and they should not be
disadvantaged in any way.
Coveney added that he also felt that people who hadnt
paid bills issues to them still owe that money.
Reacting to the overall recommendations, Coveney
welcomed them and said theyre about ensuring that the

taxpayer isnt paying for people who waste water.

I dont think its fair to ask the taxpayer to effectively pay
for someone to leave the taps on or have their sprinkler in
the garden or wash their car every second day, he said.
The report will now be considered by a Special Oireachtas
Committee which has a March deadline.
Political reaction to todays recommendations has been
mixed.
Fianna Fils spokesperson Barry Cowen TD noted that
water charges as previously introduced and subsequently
suspended will not be reintroduced. The other aspects, he
says, need to be considered:
This is a detailed report and will require due
consideration. Following an initial reading of the report it
is clear there are a lot of issues that need to be clarified
and addressed.
Sinn Fin has said that there are no surprises in the
report. Eoin Broin TD welcomed the acknowledgement
from the report that general domestic water usage should
be paid for through general taxation.
He did not, however, support the recommendation of a
tariff for so-called excessive usage.
This would be the thin edge of the wedge for across the
board water charges in the future, OBroin said.
He sentiments were echoed by AAA-PBPs Paul Murphy
TD:
View image on Twitter

Follow

Paul Murphy

Expert Water Commission recommends water charges

under guise of excessive use. People aren't stupid. If FF

go for this will pay heavy price.
4:41 PM - 29 Nov 2016

9 9 Retweets13 13 likes

Source: Paul Murphy/Twitter

The Green Party has described the commissions

recommendations as sensible and fair.
We hope that all parties can now work together to make a
decision on water charges that is fair, affordable and
prioritises the conservation of, and the investment in, our
water and wastewater services, said party leader Eamon
Ryan.

THE EXPERT COMMISSION on water charges has

recommended that the vast majority of consumers will
not have to pay direct charges for water.
The report, published this afternoon, stated that the use of
water for domestic purposes is a public service that
should be funded out of taxation.
It recommends that the State should pay the bill for the
normal usage of water by households and that anything in

excess of that should be paid for by the consumer.

The report states that a distinction must be made between
a right to water for normal domestic and personal
purposes and wasteful usage.
The commission states that there is overwhelming
support for retaining Irish Water in public ownership.
What is normal water usage?
The report recommends that the free allowance for normal
usage per household would be based on the number of
persons in a household. This can also be adjusted for
special conditions.
The report acknowledges that there are difficulties in
determining normal usage but that this would be
determined based on an open and transparent process
that includes the CER and the Public Water Forum.
The CER, or Commission for Energy Regulation, already
monitors the cost of other utilities.
In teasing out the issue of normal usage, the report
suggests two different methods by which this could be
considered.
The first is by adding up the typical amount of water used
by different household behaviours that and adjusting
based on occupancy.

Source: Oireachtas.ie

The second suggested method of setting normal usage

would be by basing it on current household usage and
reviewing it regularly based on changes in water use
patterns.
The report will now be considered by a Special Oireachtas
Committee which has a March deadline.
The report also makes reference to the clamour for a
constitutional provision on public ownership of water
services. It says that this Special Oireachtas Committee
should examine this in its deliberations.
Fianna Fail members on the committee include TDs Mary
Butler, John Lahart, Willie ODea and Barry Cowen.
Fine Gael TDs include Martin Heydon, Colm Brophy, Jim
Daly, Alan Farrell, Kate OConnell and Senator Paudie
Coffey.
Paul Murphy is the AAA-PBPs representative on the
committee, while Eoin OBroin and Jonathan OBrien are
representing Sinn Fin.

Image: PA Wire/PA Images

/Photo Text content

FIANNA FL HOUSING spokesman Barry Cowen said
this evening that he is not against people paying for water.
The party has repeatedly been accused of flip-flopping on
the issue with leader Michel Martin saying just last week
that he doesnt think theyre {water charges} coming
back.
Speaking this evening on RTs Drivetime, Cowen said he
could see people paying for water on top of their general
taxation.
He said: Water charges is not a religion. Water charges is
a means to raise funds.
Its not no, never. I have always said, personally
speaking, that in the event of making the system fit for
purpose, through a capital investment programme, we can
arrive at a scenario whereby it can be measured against
European norms in relation to cost-effectiveness, in
relation to staffing levels, in relation to leakage, in relation
to quality of service and of water.
That, if you reach those European norms, you may then

look at a process whereby people may pay for water over

and above their general taxation.
Martin had said last week that he believed water charges
would not be returning.
He said: We said before the election we were against
water charges. We didnt want water charges. We wanted
to abolish water charges.
Sinn Fin had claimed that Michel Martins party had
more positions than the Kama Sutra on the issue of paying
for water.
In an interview with TheJournal.ie in October of this year,
Fianna Fil TD Thomas Byrne also said the charges were
gone for good.

Water charges have been a divisive issue

He said: The bills wont be coming backwater is

gone.We are going to look at the commission when it
comes out, but I cant see Fianna Fil supporting them in
this government, they wont be back.
It also emerged this evening that independent senator
Pdraig Cidigh is to chair the committee on water.
The water commission report is due to be published in the
coming days.

TD PAUL MURPHY has said that hes not surprised that a

report suggests water charges will be imposed in Ireland,
but that it was up to the Dil not the committee, to make
the final decision.
This is in reaction to RT reports that say an expert
commission on water may recommend that a modest
water charge be implemented here.
The report leaked to RT suggests that sources from the
commission say a water charge of some description may
need to be put in place in order for Ireland to satisfy its
legal obligations to the EU.
Paul Murphy, who will be the representative of the AntiAusterity Alliance/People Before Profit on the Dil
committee to consider water charges, has responded to the
reports saying that the decision didnt depend on the
commission, but on the commitment of Fianna Fil to
their election promises:
Whatever the Expert Water Commission says will not
change the reality of this political debate. A majority of
TDs elected to the Dil were elected on a platform which
included opposition to water charges and Irish Water. This
is because of the mass movement of protest and boycott,

which saw 73% boycott the latest bill.

Fianna Fil will hold the balance of power between antiwater charges and pro-water charges forces on the Dil
committee and in the Dil itself.
What happens with water charges in this Dil term will be
decided by whether they stick to their election promises
and the recent definitive anti-water charges position they
put in their submission to the commission.
Water commission
The water commission was established after Fianna Fil
and Fine Gael came to an arrangement to temporarily
suspend the controversial charges which had led to a
widespread protest movement.
Just one week after the establishment of the commission
in July, its chairman Joe OToole was forced to resign after
giving an interview to the Irish Examiner in which he said
he thought people should pay their water charges.
Paul Murphy also called the findings of the commission as
the least surprising news of the year.
This is the Commission which was described as a
political exercise; to find a method of having enough
sugar on water charges for people to accept them by its
former Chair, Joe OToole.
Close to 300,000 of public money has been spent on
this political exercise, designed to pile on pressure on
TDs to break their election promises to oppose water
charges.

First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon MSP,

visited Leinster House today to address Seanad
ireann.
Speaking in advance, the Cathaoirleach of the
Seanad Senator Denis ODonovan said: We are
honoured that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has
agreed to address Seanad ireann. Ireland and
Scotland have a long history of cultural, social and
economic ties. Our two countries have enjoyed close
relations for many years and Tuesdays visit and
address by the First Minister is another step in
strengthening those bonds. The recent vote on
Brexit points to the need for continued co-operation
and dialogue between our two countries. Therefore,
we are looking forward to her address and to an
engaging discussion on matters of mutual interest.
Watch the full address here
http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?
DocID=34085&&CatID=129
Since you have chosen to use my taxes to travel
around Europe meeting the Governments of the EU
to undermine the UK, can you please take some
time to ask the Irish people what it feels like to have
a less diverse and smaller economy.
Please do step outside on to the streets and ask
them about paying 43% in income tax, 7% social
welfare tax, higher VAT, property tax, road tolls for
the EU motorways, oh and please don't forget the
water charges. Please also ask about Quinn and that
delightful 1% to bail him out.
Thankfully the people here in Scotland did not

support your separatist vision of division and voted

NO.
You do not speak for the majority in Scotland.

Milk/Commissioner Hogan exchanges

with MEPs on the new 500m Solidarity
package for EU farmers
Aug 11, 2016
EN (Version in English) - Extraordinary AGRI European
Parliament Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development:
exchanges of views with Phil Hogan (EPP, IE), Member of the
European Commission in charge of Agriculture and Rural
Development, on the new 500m Solidarity package for
European Union farmers, mainly in the Milk, Skimmed milk
powder and Fruit and vegetables sectors - 19.07.2016 European Parliament, Brussels:
[00:00:00-00:02:45] Introductory remarks by AGRI Chair
Czesaw Adam Siekierski (EPP, PL),
[00:02:45-00:21:40] Introductory speech by European
Commissioner Phil Hogan, in charge of Agriculture and Rural
Development,
Questions and statements by MEPs:
[00:21:40-00:25:40] Albert De (EPP, DE),
[00:25:40-00:29:05] Paolo de Castro (S&D, IT),
[00:29:05-00:34:25] James Jim Nicholson (ECR, UK/Northern
Ireland),
[00:34:25-00:37:45-00] Jens Rohde (ALDE, DK),
[00:37:45-00-00:41:00] Mara Lidia Senra Rodrguez (GUE/NGL,
ES),
[00:41:00-00:45:50] Martin Hasling (Greens/EFA, DE). Before
entering politics, Husling managed his family's 75 hectare
organic farm near Kassel,
[00:45:50-00:47:35] Giulia Moi (EFDD/Movimento 5 Stelle, IT),

[00:47:35-00:49:50] douard Ferrand (ENF/Front National, FR),

[00:49:50-00:53:05] Jan Huitema (ALDE, NL). Together with his
father Huitema owns a dairy farm with 130 cows based in
Makkinga. His slogan for entering the European Parliament
was: "Brussels could use some farmers wisdom",
[00:53:05-00:55:15] Clara Eugenia Aguilera Garca (S&D, ES),
[00:55:15-00:57:45] Marc Tarabella (S&D, BE),
[00:57:45-01:00:30] Michel Dantin (EPP, FR),
[01:00:30-01:02:40] Richard Ashworth (ECR, UK). Before being
elected in 2004 he was a dairy farmer in East Sussex for over
thirty years and during this time operated his own dairy
business. He has also acted as chairman of United Milk Plc and
of NFU Corporate,
[01:02:40-01:05:05] Herbert Dorfmann (EPP/South Tyrolean
People's Party, IT/German speaking),
[01:05:05-01:06:10] Jrn Dohrmann (ECR, DK),
[01:06:10-01:09:15] Marijana Petir (EPP, HR),
[01:09:15-01:11:00] Elisabeth Kstinger (EPP, AT),
[01:11:00-01:13:05] Annie Schreijer-Pierik (EPP, NL),
[01:13:05-01:14:55] Gabriel Mato (EPP, ES),
[01:14:55-01:17:20] Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL, IE),
[01:17:20-01:19:47] Ricardo Serro Santos (S&D, PT),
[01:19:47-01:22:02] Zbigniew Kumiuk (ECR, PL),
[01:22:02-01:24:10] Daniel Buda (EPP, RO),
[01:24:10-01:26:05] Diane Dodds (NI, UK),
[01:26:05-01:28:40] Sofia Ribeiro (EPP, PT),
[01:28:40-01:30:46] Bronis Rop (Greens/EFA, LV),

[01:30:46-01:33:05] Mairead McGuiness (EPP, IE),

[01:33:05-01:34:55] Marco Zullo (EFDD/Movimento 5 Stelle,
IT),
[01:34:55-01:54:15] Closing speech and answers by
Commissioner Phil Hogan,
[01:54:15-01:57:13] Closing remarks by AGRI Committee Chair
Czesaw Adam Siekierski (EPP, PL).
Frdrick Moulin 2016 - EU2016 - European Parliament - All
rights reserved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=SEZkNIXn5UQ

EU Agriculture Commissioner Hogan

interview with POLITICO on TTIP, GIs and
other topics
May 3, 2016
Watch the 20 minute interview of Commissioner Hogan with
POLITICO editor Matt Kaminski at the April 28 POLITICO event
"The Future of Farming: Smart Agriculture in a Competitive
World", presented by ECPA, in Brussels on April 28.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=ld8jeWawYcY
Commission of the European Comunities
White Paper on the completion of the
internal market, also published on 14 June
1985
http://europa.eu/documents/comm/white_
papers/pdf/com1985_0310_f_en.pdf
The EEA Agreement and the European
Convention for the ...

The EEA Agreement and the European Convention for

the Protection of Human Rights Walter Klin * ... 1 Article
1, para. 1 of the EEA Agreement.

http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/3/2/2044.pdf
Can Ireland Legislate Contrary to European Community
Law?
William Phelan
Department of Political Science, Trinity College Dublin
wtphelan@gmail.com
Abstract
This paper considers whether Ireland can unilaterally
legislate contrary to European Community law, and
achieve the application of that legislation in Irish courts
not withstanding the European Community law doctrines
of supremacy and direct effect. It argues that the
scholarship on the relationship between Irish law and
European Community law, together with decisions of Irish
courts, indicate that Ireland could legislate contrary to
European Community law by amending the European
Communities Act. More broadly, for member states of the
European Union which like Ireland derive the
application of European law in the national legal order
from national legislation, it is not so much the
'constitutional' claims of European Community law that
prevent the member states from legislating contrary to
European Community law but rather the fact that the
member states persistently refrain from legislating to limit
the effect of Community law in the national jurisdictions
which gives European Community law its 'constitutional'
character.
Can Ireland legislate contrary to European Community
law?
Can Ireland legislate contrary to European Community
law?1 More precisely, can Irish political institutions pass
statutory or constitutional legislation explicitly contrary to
European Community law and have that legislation
applied in Irish courts? European Community laws
doctrines of supremacy and direct effect claim that
national courts must apply directly effective European
Community obligations regardless of any provision of
domestic law. Are there nevertheless circumstances where
Irish courts would permit Irish political institutions to

legislate contrary to European Community law and

achieve the enforcement of that legislation in Irish courts,
notwithstanding Community law doctrines or decisions of
the European Court of Justice? Despite the rejection of the
Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe in referenda
by the electorates in France and the Netherlands, it seems
likely that European governments will agree a further, and
perhaps similar, European treaty in the near future. Now
would therefore seem to be an appropriate moment for a
consideration of the jurisprudence and scholarship on this
important question of the relationship of European
Community law and Irish law.
Understanding the limits of European Community law in
the national legal orders is also an important step towards
understanding of European Community law as a
constitution.2 Many scholars of the law and politics of
European integration emphasise that the feature which
most importantly distinguishes European Community law
from other international legal systems is that the EU
member states cannot legislate
1 I would like to particularly thank Gerard Hogan and
Diarmuid Rossa Phelan for very helpful discussions of the
topic of this paper. Thanks also to Des Ryan for helpful
comments and to Elizabeth Gleeson for advice on sources.
The responsibility for the contents is, of course, my own.
2 E Stein, 'Toward Supremacy of Treaty - Constitution by
Judicial Fiat in the European Economic Community' (1965)
48 Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 3-28
2
contrary to their European treaty commitments.3 If this
claim does not hold, then new ways of explaining the
effectiveness of European Community law as a
constitution will need to be investigated.
The possibility of national courts applying national
legislation contrary to European Community law is only
one of several possible limitations on the effectiveness of
European Community law in the national legal orders of
the member states. Other possible limitations include the
non-application of European Community law in the
national legal order where European Community law
obligations conflict with national constitutional law
fundamental rights; the non-application of European

Community law where its law obligations exceed the scope

of the competences delegated to the European institutions
by the European treaties; and the non-application of
European Community law in the national legal order
following a unilateral national decision to relinquish
membership of the European Union. The specific question
that this paper addresses is whether Ireland can legislate
contrary to European Community law in part, while
remaining a member of the European Union and
continuing to enforce other European obligations in
national courts.
Of course, the application of national legislation contrary
to Community law might lead to a dispute between Ireland
and the European institutions, or Ireland and the other
member states, just as the decision of a national court not
to apply directly effective Community law on the grounds
that a Community law obligation was contrary to
fundamental rights protected by the national legal order
might also lead to a dispute. A full consideration of the
various ways in which such disputes be might be resolved
would merit a separate discussion. This paper addresses
only the question of
3 See, for example, JHH Weiler, 'The Transformation of
Europe' (1991) 100 Yale Law Journal 2403-2483 especially
2413-2415; A Stone Sweet, The Judicial Construction of
Europe (Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York 2004)
especially 25 on the EU member states' lack of unilateral
legislative options vis--vis their own courts.
3
whether the Irish courts would permit Irish political
institutions to legislate contrary to European Community
law and receive the enforcement of that legislation in Irish
courts, notwithstanding the European Community law
doctrines of supremacy and direct effect or decisions of
the European Court of Justice.
This paper will develop its answer to this question through
a wider discussion of the relationship of Irish law with both
public international law and European Community law,
based on a review of court decisions and legal scholarship.
Basic legal arrangements and jurisprudence are discussed
to allow those less familiar with the Irish legal order to
more easily follow the argument.

The fundamental basis of the Irish legal order is the Irish

Constitution, Bunreacht na hireann, enacted by the Irish
people on 1 July 1937. The Irish Constitution creates a
parliamentary system of government. The Irish Parliament,
the Oireachtas, is comprised of the President of Ireland,
and two legislative chambers. The House of
Representatives, Dil ireann comprises the directly
elected lower house, to which the Irish government is
responsible. The Senate, Seanad ireann comprises the
upper house, with modest powers of legislative delay,
whose members are either indirectly elected by members
of the Dil and local authorities, or appointed by the
Taoiseach, the Irish prime minister.
The Irish Constitution provides, inter alia, for Irelands
inalienable right to self- determination,4 that Ireland is a
sovereign state,5 for popular sovereignty as the
4 See Art 1 of the Irish Constitution (IC): The Irish nation
hereby affirms its inalienable, indefeasible, and sovereign
right to choose its own form of Government, to determine
its relations with other nations, and to develop its life,
political, economic and cultural, in accordance with its own
genius and traditions.
5 Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state.
Art 5 IC. 4
fundamental basis of government,6 that the Oireachtas
has exclusive power of making laws for the State,7 and for
the invalidity of laws enacted contrary to the
Constitution.8 Amendments to the Irish Constitution are
initiated by the Dil, enacted by the Oireachtas, and
submitted for the decision of the Irish people in a
referendum.9
When Ireland joined the European Communities, it passed
statutory legislation and amended the Irish Constitution in
order to give effect to the European treaties in the Irish
legal order. This was accomplished by an Act of the
Oireachtas, the European Communities Act 1972, and the
Third Amendment to the Irish Constitution (enacted 8
June, 1972).
Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act states:
From 1 January 1973, the treaties governing the European
Communities and the existing and future acts adopted by

the institutions of those Communities and by the bodies

competent under the said treaties shall be binding on the
State and shall be part of the domestic law thereof under
the conditions laid down in those treaties.
The wording of Section 2(1) of the European Communities
Act reflects Art 29.6 of the Irish Constitution: No
international agreement shall be part of the domestic law
of the State save as may be determined by the
Oireachtas..
The Third Amendment inserted what was then Article
29.4.3 (the predecessor of what is now Article 29.4.10) of
the Irish Constitution stating:
6 All powers of government, legislative, executive and
judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it
is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal,
to decide all questions of national policy, according to the
requirements of the common good. Art 6.1 IC.
7 The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the
State is hereby vested in the Oireachtas: no other
legislative body has power to make laws for the State. Art
15.2.1 IC.
8 Every law enacted by the Oireachtas which is in any
respect repugnant to this Constitution or to any provision
thereof, shall, but to the extent only of such repugnancy,
be invalid. Art 15.4 IC.
9 See especially Article 46.2 IC: Every proposal for an
amendment of this Constitution shall be initiated in Dil
ireann as a Bill, and shall upon having been passed or
deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the
Oireachtas, be submitted by Referendum to the decision of
the people in accordance with the law for the time being in
force relating to the Referendum.
5
The State may become a member of the European Coal
and Steel Community ..., the European Economic
Community..., and the European Atomic Energy
Community...
No provision of this Constitution invalidates law enacted,
acts done or measures adopted by the State necessitated
by the obligations of membership of the Communities, or
prevents laws enacted or acts done or measures adopted
by the Communities or the institutions thereof, from

having the force of law in the State.10

Since Ireland joined the European Union, Irish courts have
regularly applied European Community law obligations in
place of contrary Irish law and the obligation to disapply
national law to give effect to Community obligations is
clearly accepted. Costello J stated the position in Pigs and
Bacon Commission v McCarren:
The effect of [Section 2 of the European Communities Act
1972] is that Community law takes legal effect in the Irish
legal system in the manner in which Community law itself
provides. Thus, if according to Community law a provision
of the Treaty is directly enforceable so that rights are
conferred on individuals which national courts must
enforce, an Irish court must give effect to such a rule. And
if, according to Community law, the provisions of
Community law take precedence over a provision of
national law in conflict with it an Irish court must give
effect to this rule. That Community law enjoys precedence
over a conflicting national law has been made clear in a
number of decisions of the European Court and most
recently in Case 106/77, Amministrazione delle Finanze
dello Stato v Simmenthal.11
Similarly, in Murphy v Bord Telecom ireann,12 the
European Court of Justice found, on the basis of a
preliminary reference under Article 177 (now 234) of the
Treaty, that Irish law did not provide for equal pay for
equal work for men and women. Disapplying Irish law in
line with the ECJs opinion, Keane J stated:
10 With further amendments to the Irish Constitution to
accommodate various subsequent European treaties, the
numbering and text of the original 29.4.3 has changed
accordingly. Between 1973- 93, this was Art 29.4.3; 19939, Art 29.4.6; 1999-2002, Art 29.4.7 and currently (as of
June 2007) 29.4.10. See G Hogan and G Whyte, J M Kelly:
The Irish Constitution (LexisNexis, Dublin 2003) 514
footnote 101.
The current provision (as of June 2007) 29.4.10 states:
No provision of this Constitution invalidates law enacted,
acts done or measures adopted by the obligations of
membership of the European Union or of the Communities,
or prevents law enacted, acts done or measures adopted b
the European Union or by the Communities or by

institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the

Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the
force of law in the State.
11 [1978] JISEL 109. 12 [1989] ILRM 53.
6
The interpretation of those sections [of the Irish law in
question], in accordance with the canons of construction
normally applied in Irish courts, has in the present case
yielded a result which is in conflict with Article 119 of the
Treaty as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the EC.
Where such a conflict exists, national law must yield
primacy to community law...
Seamus Henchy, a judge of the Supreme Court of Ireland,
writing in a 1977 article on the Irish Constitution and the
E.E.C., stated baldly:
Because Community law is part of domestic law, it is the
duty of the courts set up under the Constitution to
implement it; but it is the exclusive function of the
European Court to interpret and determine conclusively
the validity of the Treaties and of acts put forward as
Community law; and where there a conflict is found
between national law and Community law, it is an absolute
imperative that the Community law shall prevail.13
Irish judges have held European Community law
obligations to qualify or limit provisions of the Irish
Constitution if necessary to ensure the supremacy of
Community law. In Campus Oil Ltd v Minister for Industry
& Energy,14 the question arose whether it would be
possible to appeal to the Supreme Court, which under
Article 34 of the Irish Constitution has appellate
jurisdiction from all decisions of the High Court and other
courts, against a decision of the High Court to seek a
preliminary reference from the European Court of Justice,
using the preliminary reference procedure. The Supreme
Court held that seeking a preliminary reference was not a
decision within the meaning of Article 34, but Walsh J
added that:
However, even if the reference of questions to the Court of
Justice were a decision within the meaning of Article 34 of
the Constitution, I would hold that, by virtue of the
provision of Article 29.4.3o of the Constitution, the right to
appeal to this Court from such a decision must yield to the

primacy of Article 177 of the Treaty. That Article, as a part

of Irish law, qualifies Article 34 of the Constitution in the
matter in question.15
Irish courts have considered the compatibility of Irish law
with European Community law obligations in a wide range
of issue-areas. The consensus of scholarly
13 S Henchy, 'The Irish Constitution and the E.E.C.' (1977)
(1) Dublin University Law Journal 20-25 23.
14 [1983] IR 82.
15 [1983] IR 82, 87.
7
opinion is that the Irish courts willingly acknowledge the
supremacy and direct effect of European law, and are
willing to disapply substantive provisions of national law to
give effect to EU obligations in Ireland.16
In the ordinary course of events, as shown by Pigs and
Bacon Commission, national laws which are contrary to
Community law obligations will not be applied by Irish
judges. The concern of this paper, however, is with the
availability in Irish law of mechanisms for elected Irish
politicians to legislate contrary to directly effective
European Community law and thus avoid the application
of part of EC law (what J.H.H. Weiler would term selective
exit from EU obligations17) in the national legal order.
This paper addresses the question by answering three
questions on the relationship of Community and national
law in Ireland: Do Irish courts recognise an Irish law
obligation to apply treaty obligations in place of contrary
Irish law (Pacta sunt servanda)? Do Irish courts recognise
a direct Community law obligation to apply Community
law and disapply contrary Irish law? And, do Irish courts
recognise an Irish law obligation to apply Community law
in place of Irish legislation expressly contrary to
Community law? The paper then concludes with brief
comments on the relationship
16 The following references are typical, as are the
frequent references to a possible exception in the Grogan
case (considered below). F Murphy, 'Community Law in
Irish Courts 1973-1981' (1982) 7 European Law Review
331-345 342: The first general conclusion that may be
drawn from these cases is that the Community legal order
with its attendant doctrine of supremacy has been

accepted almost without question in the Irish legal order..

Hogan and Whyte, J M Kelly: The Irish Constitution 533:
Save for one isolated and inconclusive instance dealing
with abortion [Walsh J in Society for the Protection of
Unborn Children (Ire) Ltd v Grogan [1989] IR 713] the Irish
courts have unhesitatingly acknowledged the supremacy
of Community law.. DR Phelan and A Whelan, 'National
constitutional law and European integration: FIDE Report'
(1997) 6 Irish Journal of European Law 24-64 44: Despite
the remarks of McCarthy and Walsh JJ in Grogan, the Irish
courts are normally content to take the European
Communities Act and Article 29.4.5o of the Constitution at
[sic] according primacy in domestic law to Community law
as interpreted by the Court of Justice. There is a large
volume of cases to this effect. The courts sometimes take
an over-deferential attitude to the Government when it
implements Community law, at unnecessary cost to Irish
constitutional norms....
17 JHH Weiler, 'Alternatives to withdrawal from an
International Organization: The case of the European
Economic Community' (1985) 20 (2-3) Israel Law Review
282-298; Weiler, 'The Transformation of Europe' 2403.
8
of European and national law in the national legal orders
of the member states in general, and on the significance
of any subsequent European treaty which would unlike
the existing European treaties, but like the proposed
Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe make
explicit provision for the supremacy and direct effect of
European Community law.
Do Irish courts recognise a Irish law obligation to apply
treaty obligations in place of contrary Irish law (Pacta
Sunt Servanda)?
Article 29.6 of the Irish Constitution states: No
international agreement shall be part of the domestic law
of the State save as may be determined by the
Oireachtas.
As a result of Art 29.6, the Irish legal order adopts a
dualist approach to international treaty obligations:
international law is only effective in domestic law as a
result of domestic legislation.
Michael Forde summarises as follows:

Dualism, which is the political-legal tradition in Britain

and in Ireland, may be described as a doctrine of legal
insularity. ... Dualism distinguishes sharply between
international law and municipal law, and holds that
international legal standards become part of national law
only when they are incorporated by legislation into the
states legal system. The fact that a state becomes bound
by a particular treaty has no significance for its own laws;
for the treatys standards to become part of state law
requires that legislation be enacted that contains the
treaty provisions.18
Irish courts therefore do not apply international treaty
obligations in domestic law in the absence of domestic
legislation incorporating treaty obligations.19 Domestic
18 M Forde, Constitutional Law (Second edn, First Law,
Dublin 2004) 235.
19 See for example Phelan and Whelan, 'National
constitutional law and European integration: FIDE Report'
26; CR Symmons, 'Irlande Ireland' in PM Eisemann (ed)
L'Intgration du droit international et communautaire dans
lordre juridique nationale: tude de la practique en
Europe (Kluwer Law International, The Hague 1996) 317363 330; G Hogan, 'EU Law and National Constitutions
Questionnaire for FIDE 2002: The Irish Constitution and
the European Union' in MT Andens (ed) FIDE XX
Congress: Vol 2 Reports and Conclusions (British Institute
of International and Comparative Law, London 2002) 369386 368.
9
legislation incorporating treaty provisions can be
challenged for unconstitutionality before Irish courts.20
Two decisions of the Supreme Court of Ireland
demonstrate the dualist approach of the Irish legal order.
In In re Laighlis,21 Irish internment legislation was
challenged as contrary to the European Convention on
Human Rights which Ireland had ratified in 1953. The
Supreme Court found:
The insuperable obstacle to importing the provisions of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms into the domestic law of Ireland if
they be at variance with that law is that the the sole and
exclusive power of making laws for the State is hereby

invested in the Oireachtas; no other legislative authority

has power to make laws for the state. Moreover, Article
19, the Article dealing with international relations,
provides at s 6 that no international agreement shall be
part of the domestic law of the State save as may be
determined by the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas has not
determined that the Convention of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms is to be part of the domestic law of
the State, and accordingly this Court cannot give effect to
the Constitution if it be contrary to domestic law or
purports to grant rights or impose obligations additional to
those of domestic law. No argument can prevail against
the express command of s 6 of Article 29 ... before judges
whose declared duty is to uphold the Constitution and the
laws.22
In the 1999 case of Doyle v Commissioner of An Garda
Sochna23, where the plaintiff attempted to invoke
provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights,
to which Ireland was a signatory but which Ireland had not
made part of domestic law. Barrington J wrote in
judgment:
20 The obligations contained in the international
convention then have the status in Irish law of the
incorporating measure a status inferior to the
Constitution. It is therefore possible for the implementing
measure to be challenged for unconstitutionality before
the Irish courts. The courts also appear to be willing to
review the constitutionality of the States accession and
adherence to international agreements even if they are
not incorporated into Irish law, if they undermine the
constitutional order ... In both case, the finding of
unconstitutionality, and thus of the invalidity of the States
adherence as a matter of Irish law, could result in an
inconsistency between the States domestic and
international obligations ... Phelan and Whelan, 'National
constitutional law and European integration: FIDE Report'
26.
21 [1960] IR 93. For a more extensive discussion of the
Irish case law, see Hogan and Whyte, J M Kelly: The Irish
Constitution 548, footnote 220.
22 [1960] IR 93, 124. 23 [1999] 1 IR 249.
10

Ireland is a signatory of the European Convention on

Human Rights and accepts the right of individual petition.
But Ireland takes the dualistic approach to its international
obligations and the European Convention on Human
Rights is not part of the domestic law of Ireland. (See In re
Laighlis [1960] IR 93). The Convention may overlap
with certain provisions of Irish constitutional law and it
may be helpful to an Irish court to look at the Convention
when it is attempting to identify unspecified rights
guaranteed by Article 40.3 of the Constitution.
Alternatively the Convention may, in certain
circumstances, influence Irish law through European
Community law. But the Convention is not part of Irish
domestic law and the Irish court has no part in its
enforcement. 24
As well as providing for Irelands dualist relationship with
international law, Irelands Constitution also recognises
the influence of generally recognised principles of
international law. Article 29.3 provides that Ireland
accepts the generally recognised principles of
international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with
other States.
Article 29.3 has been used to apply generally recognised
principles of international law and customary international
law in Irish courts.25 However, it does not incorporate the
international law obligation pacta sunt servanda in Irish
law.26
In conclusion, Irish courts do not recognise a Irish law
obligation to apply treaty obligations in place of contrary
Irish law. On the contrary, Irish courts recognise that the
Oireachtas possesses the right to legislate contrary to
Irelands treaty obligations in whole or part if the
legislature makes its intentions clear.
In the event of an explicit attempt by the Oireachtas to
remove the application of a part of Community law in
Ireland, Irish courts would not enforce Community law
obligations on the basis of a general Irish law principle of
pacta sunt servanda.
24 [1999] 1 IR 249, 268.
25 Forde, Constitutional Law 237-241; J Casey,
Constitutional Law in Ireland (Third edn, Round Hall Sweet
& Maxwell, Dublin 2000) 190-195; Symmons, 'Irlande

Ireland' 350-356.
26 Even in relation to the generally recognized principles
of international law which are covered by Article 29.3, Irish
courts have held that such principles cannot be part of
Irish municipal law if they are contrary to Irish statute law
- see Casey, Constitutional Law in Ireland 193-194.
11
Do Irish courts recognise a direct Community law
obligation to apply European Community law and disapply
contrary national law?
The European Court of Justice claims that European
Community law itself determines the place of European
Community law obligations in the national legal order and
that national judges have a European Community law
obligation to apply European Community law in place of
contrary national law. According to European Community
law, this European Community law obligation on national
judges is direct and unmediated by national statutes and
constitutional provisions27. Irish judges, however, have
repeatedly disagreed with the ECJs claims about the basis
of supremacy and direct effect of European Community
law in the Irish legal order. Rather, Irish judges conceive of
the supremacy and direct effect of European Community
law in the Irish legal order as derivative of the European
Communities Act and the provisions of the Irish
Constitution which introduce European Community law
into the Irish legal order.
Barrington J, in Crotty v An Taoiseach28 in the High Court,
makes clear that Community law is effective in the Irish
legal order only because of Irish legislation in the form of
the European Communities Act:
These acts [the Third Amendment and the deposit of the
instrument of ratification] may have been sufficient to
make Ireland a member of the European Community in
international law as from 1 January 1973. ... But these acts
were not sufficient in themselves to make Ireland an
effective member of the Community. To make Ireland an
effective member as of 1 January 1973 it was necessary to
make the Treaty part of the domestic law of Ireland. To
achieve this it was necessary to pass an Act of the
Oireachtas pursuant to the provisions of Article 29.6
making the Treaty of Rome part of the domestic law of

Ireland and giving the institutions of the Community a

status in Irish domestic law. Had the Oireachtas not
passed the European Communities Act 1972 Ireland
27 The classic reference is Case 106/77 Amministrazione
delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal Spa [1978] ECR
629.
28 [1987] IR 713, [1987] ILRM 400.
12
might still have been a member of the Community in
international law but it would have been in breach of its
obligations in international law under the Treaty of Rome
and under the Treaty of Accession. This however would not
have been a matter in relation to which the domestic
courts of this country would have had any competence
because the Treaty would not have been part of the
domestic law. The immunity from constitutional challenge
conferred by the second sentence of the Third
Amendment on laws enacted, acts done, or measures
adopted by the Community or its institutions would
therefore have been meaningless as these laws, acts or
measures would not have been part of the domestic law of
this country. To make them part of the domestic law of this
country the European Communities Act 1972 was
necessary.29
Barrington Js judgment in Crotty shows the limited,
contingent and derivative basis of European Community
law supremacy in Irish law: To make EC law part of the
domestic law of Ireland the European Communities Act
1972 was necessary. The views of the European Court of
Justice on supremacy and direct effect notwithstanding,
and unlike the relationship between federal and state law
in a true federal state, European Community law in Ireland
depends on Irish legal provisions which enable its effect in
the domestic legal order.
Irish judges have explicitly recognised the possibility of
deviations between European Community obligations and
the obligations imposed by Irish constitutional law, and
stated that in such circumstances their duty would be to
the Irish Constitution. This possibility occurred in litigation
culminating in the Society for the Protection of Unborn
Children (Ire) Ltd v Grogan30 decision of the Supreme

Court of Ireland over whether an Irish constitutional

amendment restricting access to abortion, enacted by the
Irish people subsequent to the Third Amendment which
provided the immunity from constitutional scrutiny of
European Community obligations in Ireland, could restrict
the availability of information about abortion facilities
outside Ireland which might otherwise have benefited from
the freedom to provide services across borders under
Community law.
29 [1987] IR 713, 757.
30 [1989] IR 753, [1990] ILRM 350.
13
McCarthy J stated in Grogan:
The sole authority for the construction of the Constitution
lies in the Irish courts, the final authority being this Court.
Article 29.4.3 [the Third Amendment, preventing
constitutional challenges to EC law in the Irish legal order]
may exclude from constitutional invalidation some
provision of the Treaty of Rome the enforcement of which
is necessitated by the obligations of membership of the
European Communities; it may be that in enacting the
Eighth Amendment to the Constitution [relating to
abortion] as explained by this Court in the Open Door
Counselling case, the People of Ireland did so in breach of
the Treaty to which Ireland had acceded in 1973.31
McCarthys statement acknowledges the possibility of
domestic constitutional change qualifying the domestic
legislation which receives Community law into national
law, and a clear statement that it is the Irish Supreme
Court not the European Court of Justice that has the
sole authority to determine the resolution of possible
conflicts between different provisions of the Irish
Constitution.
Walsh Js statement (Hederman J concurring) in Grogan
makes the same argument more explicitly, including the
fact that the ECJs response to a preliminary reference
under then Art 177 of the European treaties may not be
decisive where such a decision conflicts with the Irish
Constitution:
It has been sought to be argued in the present case that
the effect of the amendment of Article 29 of the
Constitution [the Third Amendment], which was necessary

to permit our adhesion to the treaties of the European

Communities, is to qualify all rights including fundamental
rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Eighth
Amendment of the Constitution is subsequent in time, by
several years, to the amendment of Article 29. That fact
may give rise to the consideration of the question of
whether or not the Eighth Amendment itself qualifies the
amendment to Article 29. Be that as it may, any answer to
the reference received from the European Court of Justice
will have to be considered in the light of our own
constitutional provisions. In the last analysis only this
Court can decide finally what are the effects of the
interaction of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution
and the Third Amendment of the Constitution.... it cannot
be one of the objectives of the European Communities
that a member state should be obliged to permit activities
31 [1989] IR 753, 770.
14
which are clearly designed to set at nought the
constitutional guarantees for the protection within the
State of a fundamental human right.32
Note that at issue in Grogan was the possibility that an
Irish constitutional amendment subsequent in time to the
amendment providing immunity from the Irish constitution
for European obligations would have limited the immunity
provided by that amendment. As such, Grogan raised the
question on an implied restriction of Community laws
basis in Irish law. Grogan did not raise the issue of an
express restriction of Community laws basis in Irish law.
There are other examples of Irish judges making clear
statements about the limited basis of Community law in
Irish law, and the limited role of the ECJ in interpreting
national law compatibility with Community law. T.F.
OHiggins, Chief Justice of Ireland 1974-1986 and
subsequently Judge of the European Court of Justice, and
so, one may assume, not unaware of the claims of
Community law, wrote after his retirement from the ECJ:
Should a question arise as to whether a particular
measure is so necessitated [this is the test for immunity
under the Third Amendment to the Constitution] it would
seem to me to be one exclusively for the
32 [1989] IR 753, 769. Walsh had earlier mentioned such a

possibility in B Walsh, 'Reflections on the Effects of

Membership of the European Communities in Irish Law' in
F Capotorti (ed) Du droit international au droit de
lintgration : Liber amicorum Pierre Pescatore (Nomos,
Baden-Baden 1987) 805-820 .Hogan and Whyte suggest
that the later case of Society for the Protection of Unborn
Children (Ireland) Limited v Grogan and Others (No 5)
[1998] 4 IR 343 indicates that it is unlikely that Walsh Js
statement in Grogan [1990] ILRM 350 would nowadays be
followed - see Hogan and Whyte, J M Kelly: The Irish
Constitution 535. It should be noted that Grogan (No 5)
merely straightforwardly applies Community law in the
Irish legal order. There is no explicit rejection of Walsh Js
earlier statement and it is not clear from the judgment
that the questions of whether the Irish courts could reach
a decision on the relationship of the Third Amendment and
other provisions of the Irish Constitution at variance with
an opinion of the European Court of Justice or whether
Ireland could be obliged by the European Union to permit
activities which are clearly designed to set at nought the
constitutional guarantees for the protection within the
State of a fundamental human right were before the
court. In the hypothetical circumstance that European
Community law required Irish courts to apply a Community
law obligation which removed all restrictions on the
provision of abortion services within Ireland or to apply a
Community law obligation which restricted freedom of
speech or freedom of worship, it is submitted that Grogan
(No 5) could not be relied upon to settle the issue in
favour of the application of the European Community law
obligation. In this respect, see also Fennelly and Collins:
The Irish Supreme Court cannot, in the final analysis,
renounce its own exclusive power to interpret the
Constitution, including 29.4.5, nor the obligation which the
Constitution imposes to protect the individual rights
guaranteed in it. [Fennelly and Collins write in French
translation by the author] N Fennelly and AM Collins,
'Irlande' in J Rideau (ed) Les tats membres de lUnion
europenne: Adaptations - Mutations - Rsistances
(L.G.D.J., Paris 1997) 263-300 299.
15
High Court under the provisions of Article 34.3.2 of the

Constitution. I cannot see on what basis jurisdiction to

decide what is, essentially, a question as to the validity of
a law having regard to the Constitution can be conferred
on or exercised by any other court.33
Again, the implication is that the domestic law basis for
the operation of Community law in Ireland is Irish law,
here Irish constitutional law, as interpreted by the
Supreme Court of Ireland, and not by the European Court
of Justice.
Clear statements of the limited and contingent
relationship between Community law obligations and Irish
legal provisions which make European law effective in
national law are less common than the pervasive reliance
on those national acts of reception in adjudicating
European Community law questions in Irish Courts, or on
Irish case law, such as Crotty, which in turn relied on those
national acts of reception. Every time an Irish judge states
that they are applying directly effective Community law
because of the European Communities Act and the Third
Amendment to the Irish Constitution, they derive the basis
of European law from a national legal source which has
both the potential for incompatibility with European
Community law and can be unilaterally changed by the
Oireachtas, or, in the case of an amendment to the Irish
Constitution, by the Oireachtas together with the Irish
people.
This conclusion is supported by other Irish court
judgments such as Teresa Tate v Minister for Social Welfare
Ireland, and the Attorney General,34 in which Carroll J
stated: This section [section 2 of the European
Communities Act] is the conduit pipe through which
community law became part of domestic law.35
From the perspective of European Community law, directly
effective European Community law requires no conduit
pipe to become part of domestic law. From the
33 TF O'Higgins, 'The Constitution and the Communities Scope for Stress?' in J O'Reilly (ed) Human Rights and
Constitutional Law: Essays in Honour of Brian Walsh
(Round Hall Press, Blackrock, Co. Dublin 1992) 227-242
229.
34 [1995] 1 IR 418.
35 [1995] 1 IR 418, 437.

16
perspective of the Irish courts, however, it is Irish law
which provides for directly effective Community law
obligations to be part of domestic law.
The case cited earlier in this paper, Pigs and Bacon
Commission, is also an example: The effect of [Section 2
of the European Communities Act 1972] is that
Community law takes legal effect in the Irish legal system
in the manner in which Community law itself provides.
In its own conception, of course, the manner in which
Community law itself provides rejects any derivation from
Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.36
A recent case in the High Court, Hugh Kearns and Irish
Bartering Services Limited v European Commission,37
shows the Irish judges step-by-step reasoning for the
application of Community law supremacy in the Irish legal
order, first from the European Communities Act enabled
by the amendments to Art 29 of the Irish Constitution and
only then from Community law itself:
The provisions of Chapter 9 of the Copyright and Related
Rights Act, 2000, which provides remedies in the domestic
jurisdiction of this Member State for Copyright
infringements, cannot in my judgment limit, exclude or
take precedence over the primary law provisions of
Articles 288 part 2 and 235 of the E.C. Treaty. By Section 2
of the European Communities Act, 1972, as amended by
the European Communities (Amendment) Acts, 1973-2003
as enabled by the several Acts amending Article 29 of the
Constitution, it is provided that:The treaties governing the European Communities...shall
be binding on the State and shall be part of the domestic
law thereof under the conditions laid down in those
treaties.
Part II of the Schedule of the Third Amendment of the
Constitution Act, 1972 provides, inter alia that:36 There are differing views as to whether the reliance by
national courts on national legislative provisions to receive
directly effective EC law into the national legal order is
itself contrary to EC law even where such national
provisions give full effect to the obligations of EC law. See,
for example, G Hogan and A Whelan, Ireland and the
European Union: Constitutional and Statutory Texts and

Commentary (Sweet & Maxwell, London 1995); DR Phelan,

Revolt or Revolution: The Constitutional Boundaries of the
European Community (Round Hall Sweet & Maxwell,
Dublin 1997) 52-57.
37 [2006] 2 IR 1.
17
No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted,
acts done or measures adopted by the State necessitated
by the obligations of membership of the Communities or
prevent laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by
the Communities, or institutions thereof from having the
force of law in the State.
In the event of any conflict between E.C. law, particularly
directly effective law, and National Law, even National
Constitutional Law, the effect of Article 10 [formerly 5] and
Article 249 [formerly 189] of the E.C. Treaty is that
domestic law must give way to the E.C. Law provisions.
This is clearly established by the European Court of Justice
in a series of well known cases ...38
The most detailed studies of the relationship between Irish
law and European Community law concur that the
jurisprudence of Irish courts demonstrates that Ireland,
while facilitating legal outcomes compatible with
Community law, does not recognise a direct Community
law obligation to comply with Community law, but rather
derives that obligation from Irish legal sources.
As Diarmuid Rossa Phelan writes in his study of the
relationship of Community law and Irish law, Revolt or
Revolution:
The incompatibility of national courts relying on national
law and jurisdiction for the enforcement of a European
Community law right is one element of the state of
constitutional disobedience that exists in national law and
national courts, the other being the limits to the
recognition of European Community law in national law,
the difference between the national law perception of
European Community law and European Community laws
self perception, the possibility of unilateral denouncement
and withdrawal, and the limits on amendment to
incorporate European Community laws claims.39
Hogan and Whelan, in Ireland and the European Union,
also emphasise the exclusively national legal basis of

Community law in Irish law:

Later adherents [to the EEC] such as Ireland ...
acknowledge expressly or by implication ... many of the
incidents of the constitutional claims of the Communities
as expressed by the European Court of Justice ... They do
not really accept the basis of these claims, however, in so
far as these constitutional provisions and other acts of
reception are still considered, as a matter of national law,
to be necessary for Community constitutional law to have
force in the national legal order and legal
38 [2006] 2 IR 1, 8.
39 Phelan, Revolt or Revolution: The Constitutional
Boundaries of the European Community 57.
18
space. ... The fundamental difference in perspective
between Community law and national law is obscured in a
number of Member States, including Ireland, by what
Rawlings has called, in the United Kingdom context, the
principle of the mirror image ... While Community law is
operative in the United Kingdom legal order, as in that of
Ireland, only by virtue of relevant incorporating provisions
of the European Communities Acts (section 2(1) in the
Irish case, as supplemented by the terms of Article 29.4.35 of the Constitution), it is sought by that act of
incorporation to grant to Community law the effect in the
national legal order which it itself requires. Thus the daily
interaction of national and Community law, operating on
fundamentally different premises, should be conflictfree. ... The problem with this attempted solution is that
the mirror may be flawed.40
In short, Irish courts do not recognise a direct Community
law obligation to apply Community law and disapply
contrary national law. Like the legal orders of many other
EU member states, Irish courts derive the application of
European Community law in the national legal order from
national law.41 If the Oireachtas, or the Oireachtas and
the Irish people together, decided to explicitly amend the
Irish law provisions which give application to the
obligations of the European treaties in the Irish legal order,
Irish courts would require an Irish law argument for the
continued effectiveness of Community law in the Irish
legal order. A direct Community law argument alone would

not suffice.
Do Irish courts recognise an Irish law obligation to apply
Community law in place of Irish legislation expressly
contrary to Community law?
If the Irish courts derive the effectiveness of European
Community law from Irish law, and there is no Irish law
obligation to apply treaty obligations in the absence
40 Hogan and Whelan, Ireland and the European Union:
Constitutional and Statutory Texts and Commentary 8-9,
11-12. Cf. R Rawlings, 'Legal Politics: The United Kingdom
and Ratification of the Treaty on European Union: Part 1'
(1994) Public Law 254-278
41 TC Hartley, The Foundations of European Community
law: and introduction to the constitutional and
administrative law of the European Community (Fifth edn,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York 2003) 244, 243268; P Craig and G De Brca, EU Law: Text, Cases and
Materials (Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York 2003)
315; K Alter, 'Explaining National Court Acceptance of
European Court Jurisprudence: A Critical Evaluation of
Theories of Legal Integration' in AM Slaughter, A Stone
Sweet and J Weiler (eds) The European Courts and
National Courts Doctrine and Jurisprudence: Legal Change
in its Social Context (Hart Publishing, Oxford 1998) 227252 231.
19
of Irish legislation giving execution to such treaty
obligations, is there an Irish law reason to apply
Community law if Ireland legislated to remove or restrict
the Irish law basis for the effectiveness of European
Community law obligations?
Irish courts apply Community law obligations in Ireland on
the basis of the European Communities Act in conjunction
with Article 29.4.10 of the Irish Constitution (the provision
originally introduced by the Third Amendment to the Irish
Constitution, subsequently altered by later amendments
to the Constitution consequent on the ratification of later
European treaties). As a result, there are two possible
scenarios whereby Ireland might attempt to legislate
expressly contrary to Community obligations. First, the
Oireachtas might expressly legislate contrary to
Community law obligations by explicitly amending the

European Communities Act; second, the Oireachtas, in

conjunction with a referendum of the Irish people, might
adopt a constitutional amendment explicitly contrary to
Community law obligations.
In the first scenario, the Irish courts, whose current
jurisprudence relates to the application of Community law
in Ireland on the basis of the European Communities Act
together with Art 29.4.10 of the Irish Constitution would
have to consider whether its jurisprudence would provide
for the application of Community law in Ireland through Art
29.4.10 alone, which is to say, without the support of the
European Communities Act.
Ireland has never enacted a law attempting to expressly
legislate contrary to European treaty commitments by
amending the European Communities Act, so there are no
authoritative Irish court decisions directly relating to this
scenario. Nor are there national court decisions which
mention, as part of their reasoning in relation to other
circumstances, the hypothetical situation of Irish laws
expressly designed to derogate from European treaty
obligations by amending the European Communities Act.
As
20
such, an answer to this question relies on the
interpretation of the Community law jurisprudence of Irish
courts and on the legal scholarship on the relationship of
Community law and Irish law. It is particularly important to
be precise about the constitutional meaning of Art 29.4.10
of the Irish Constitution.
Article 29.4.10 states:
No provision of this Constitution invalidates law enacted,
acts done or measures adopted by the obligations of
membership of the European Union or of the Communities,
or prevents law enacted, acts done or measures adopted
by the European Union or by the Communities or by
institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the
Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the
force of law in the State.
James Casey describes the difficulties which directly
effective European Community law would have created for
the Irish Constitution if such a provision had not been
inserted into the Irish Constitution:

Thus a regulation promulgated in Brussels immediately

becomes part of Irish domestic law, and may be relied
upon in any relevant proceedings before an Irish court.
This would have been quite incompatible with Article 15s
vesting of the sole and exclusive power of making laws for
the State in the Oireachtas, and its trenchant declaration
that no other legislative authority has such power. But
Article 29.4.3 was effective to remove any difficulty on
that score. ...
Constitutional barriers having been removed by Article
29.4.3 , the Oireachtas passed the European Communities
Act 1972. The key provision is ...:
From the 1st day of January, 1973, the treaties governing
the European Communities and the existing and future
acts adopted by the institution of those Communities shall
be binding on the State and shall be part of the domestic
law thereof under the conditions laid down in those
treaties.
This is plainly effective to incorporate into Irish domestic
law not only the Treaties but all existing and future
regulations, directives, etc., as well as judgments of the
Court of Justice.42
It is possible to create a relatively extensive list of
provisions of the Irish Constitution which might have been
incompatible with Irelands membership of the
42 Casey, Constitutional Law in Ireland 205-206. 21
European Communities and the supremacy and direct
effect of European Community law in the absence of such
an immunity clause.43
The relevant question is whether Article 29.4.10 of the
Irish Constitution is permissive, allowing the otherwise
unconstitutional delegation of competences to be
exercised by the European institutions, or whether it
contains an Irish law requirement of pacta sunt servanda
in relation to the obligations of the European treaties.
The text of the amendment itself, with its negative
instruction, together with much scholarly opinion, supports
the view that the Third Amendment only if the word
only can be suitably applied to such a sweeping provision
prevents the operation of European Community law in
Ireland from being challenged as being contrary to the

provisions of the Irish Constitution. The Third Amendment

does not itself introduce European Community law into the
Irish legal order or require its application. That is the sense
of James Caseys description above, where constitutional
barriers having been removed by the Third Amendment,
the European Communities Act is effective to incorporate
[treaty provisions, secondary legislation of the European
institutions and judgments of the European Court of
Justice] into Irish domestic law.
43 Phelan, Revolt or Revolution: The Constitutional
Boundaries of the European Community 329-332.
Discussion at the time suggests that the approach taken
by Irish authorities was to envisage that European law
would become effective in the Irish legal order through a
statute, with a constitutional amendment required to
prevent such a statute being held unconstitutional by Irish
courts see J Temple Lang, 'Application of the Law of the
European Communities in the Republic of Ireland' Die
Erweiterung der europischen Gemeinschaften (Klner
Schriften zum Europarecht, Heymanns, Kln 1972) 47-64 .
For other discussions of the constitutionality of Irelands
membership of the EEC prior to Irelands accession, see J
Temple Lang, 'A Constitutional Aspect of Economic
Integration: Ireland and the European Common Market'
(1963) 12 (2) International and Comparative Law Quarterly
552-581; J Temple Lang, The Common Market and
Common Law: Legal Aspects of Foreign Investment and
Economic Integration in the European Community, with
Ireland as a Prototype (University of Chicago, Chicago and
London 1966); J Temple Lang, 'The Republic of Ireland and
the EEC - The Constitutional Position: II' in ME Bathurstand
others (eds) Legal Problems of an Enlarged European
Community (Stevens, London 1972) 17-23 ; J Lynch, 'The
Republic of Ireland and the EEC - The Constitutional
Position: I' in ME Bathurstand others (eds) Legal Problems
of an Enlarged European Community (Stevens, London
1972) 13-16 .
22
As Diarmuid Rossa Phelan writes in Revolt or Revolution:
Overall, the provision [the Third Amendment] constitutes
a bar to constitutional challenges to European Community
law rules and Irish implementing measures. It is not

enabling. It does not make European Community law rules

part of domestic law.44
By it is not enabling D.R. Phelan means that the Third
Amendment does not by itself enable Community law in
Ireland in the sense of directly introducing Community law
into the Irish legal order. The Third Amendment does,
however, as the passage of Kearns cited above states,
enable the European Communities Act by preventing that
Act from being held contrary to the Irish Constitution.
D.R. Phelan and Whelan write, similarly, in the 1996 FIDE
Report on Irish Constitutional law and European
integration:
These constitutional provisions are phrased either in
permissive terms ... or in negative terms... Thus, while
they might enable the State to apply Community law
without obstacle, they do not oblige it to do so. Within the
dualist paradigm of the Constitution of Ireland, a further
act of domestic incorporation was necessary in Irish law to
give the force of law to Community law. This Act benefits
from the constitutional immunity contained in Article
29.4.5o of the Constitution. This was the European
Communities Act, 1972.45
This view is also supported by Barrington Js judgment in
Crotty in the High Court, where it is the European
Communities Act which provides the competence for the
domestic courts of Ireland to apply European Community
law, while the Third Amendment provides only immunity
from constitutional challenge:
These acts [the Third Amendment] may have been
sufficient to make Ireland a member of the European
Community in international law as from 1 January 1973. ...
But these acts were not sufficient in themselves to make
Ireland an effective member of the Community. To make
Ireland an effective member as of 1 January 1973 it was
necessary to make the Treaty part of the domestic law of
Ireland. To achieve this it
44 Phelan, Revolt or Revolution: The Constitutional
Boundaries of the European Community
338-339.
45 Phelan and Whelan, 'National constitutional law and
European integration: FIDE Report' 28.
23

was necessary to pass an Act of the Oireachtas pursuant

to the provisions of Article 29.6 making the Treaty of Rome
part of the domestic law of Ireland and giving the
institutions of the Community a status in Irish domestic
law. Had the Oireachtas not passed the European
Communities Act 1972 Ireland might still have been a
member of the Community in international law but it
would have been in breach of its obligations in
international law under the Treaty of Rome and under the
Treaty of Accession. This however would not have been a
matter in relation to which the domestic courts of this
country would have had any competence because the
Treaty would not have been part of the domestic law. The
immunity from constitutional challenge conferred by the
second sentence of the Third Amendment on laws
enacted, acts done, or measures adopted by the
Community or its institutions would therefore have been
meaningless as these laws, acts or measures would not
have been part of the domestic law of this country. To
make them part of the domestic law of this country the
European Communities Act 1972 was necessary.
... It is these matters alone which are given immunity from
constitutional challenge by the second sentence of the
Third Amendment. But such of these matters as are acts
of the institutions of the Communities derive their status
in domestic law from the European Communities Act,
1972. If the second sentence of the Third Amendment is
the canopy over their heads, the Act of 1972 is the perch
on which they stand.46
Note particularly that Crotty states that Community law
enters the Irish legal order subject to Article 29.6 of the
Irish Constitution, by which Irish legislation is needed for
the application of treaty obligations in Ireland. According
to Crotty, it is the European Communities Act and not the
Third Amendment to the Irish Constitution which gives the
Irish courts their competence to apply European
Community law.
The meaning given to the Third Amendment by the Irish
court in Crotty is vital for the contemporary application of
Community law in Ireland. Without it, the application of
Community law in Ireland would be unconstitutional. The
Irish courts have not, however, included pacta sunt

servanda in relation to the European treaties in their

understanding of Third Amendment. The latter concept is
separate from the significant role the court has
acknowledged to the Third Amendment and is not
necessarily implied by the courts jurisprudence.
46 [1987] IR 713, 757, 758.
24
In the recent High Court case of YNR v MN,47 a case
related to divorce, the court did discuss the reasoning
behind the application of a Community regulation in
Ireland, mentioning the Third Amendment (now Art
29.4.10), without referring to the European Communities
Act.
In YNR v MN, however, the argument was advanced by a
party to the case that another provision of the Irish
Constitution related to divorce, Art 41.3.2, would restrict
the application of the provision of the Constitution
originally introduced by the Third Amendment. In response
to this argument, the court said that Art 29.4.10 provided
constitutional protection to Community regulations and
that there was no hierarchy of constitutional rights in play
in the case which would render that constitutional
protection inoperative. The court did not state that directly
effective regulations were applicable in Ireland through
the effect of Art 29.4.10 in the absence of the European
Communities Act. It addressed only that part of the
reasoning for the application of Community law in Ireland
implicated by the argument presented to the court, which
related to an aspect of the content of Art 29.4.10 the bar
Art 29.4.10 provides against judicial review of Community
acts for compatibility with other provisions of the Irish
Constitution which is both widely accepted and entirely
consistent with the view that Ireland can legislate contrary
to Community law by amending the European
Communities Act. The argument that Art 29.4.10 provides
protection for Community law from other provisions of the
Irish Constitution is not evidence that Art 29.4.10 provides
an Irish law obligation of pacta sunt servanda for directly
effective Community law
Many Irish legal scholars agree that Ireland could legislate
contrary to European Community law obligations by
amending the European Communities Act.

47 [2005] 4 IR 552.
25
Diarmuid Rossa Phelan states:
The legislation [the European Communities Act] has the
same problems vis--vis subsequent legislation as the
European Community [sic] Act in the United Kingdom. If a
subsequent statute enacted by the democratically elected
Oireachtas specifically derogated from a European
Community rule, could this 1972 Act be invoked against it?
There is no existing doctrine to say that it could. There is
nothing in Irish law to weaken the effectiveness of a
statute saying European Community law shall not be part
of the domestic law of this state. Or European community
law shall not be part of the domestic law of this state so
far as it conflicts with fundamental rights protected by the
constitution. European Community law has a similar
status in the Irish hierarchy of norms as a statute, the
status being conferred by a statute which benefits from a
jurisdictional immunity of debated extent. European
Community law does not have a status superior to
constitutional law, rather the interaction of the 1972 Act
and Article 29.4 generally preserves its application.48
Such a statute could equally remove the effect of any
Community law obligation.
Hogan and Whelan, commenting on D.R. Phelans Revolt
or Revolution, also allow for the possibility of Irish
legislation explicitly contrary to Community law:
Phelan makes three remarks about section 2 of the
European Communities Act, 1972 ... First, this Act cannot
prevent its later repeal by another Act of the Oireachtas;
this, of course, is true (save in the extreme case that the
legislative power of the Oireachtas under Article 15 of the
Constitution is seen as being among the provisions of the
Constitution disabled from preventing Community law
having the force of law in the State), but it is in practical
terms not very important. It is implicit in the continued
autonomous subsistence of a legal order which
accommodates itself to the existence and claims of
another (rather than accepting those claims in their own
terms) that the possibility persists of abandoning that
accommodation; until that occurs, however, the
accommodation, if well conceived in the terms of the

accommodating legal order, should proceed smoothly. ...

One assumes here, as has been done in the United
Kingdom, that the Community law requirement of primacy
which is introduced into Irish law by section 2 of the
1972 Act will be found, in domestic terms,

exclude implicit amendment by an

inconsistent later statute of the 1972 Act or
of Community law introduced into domestic
law by its terms.49
(The claim that the possibility of legislating
contrary to Community law is in practical
terms not very important depends of course
on the composition of the Oireachtas.)
In a particularly relevant article written at
the time of Irelands accession to the
Communities, John Temple Lang addressed
the constitutional meaning of the Third
Amendment to the Irish Constitution. He
started from the position that the
amendment to the Constitution itself only
provided for constitutional immunity, and
did not confer any other special status on
Community law:
Under Article 29.6 of the Irish Constitution,
the reception of Community law into Irish
law can be effected only by an Act of the Irish
legislature. The proposed amendment to the
Constitution validates any Community
measure which would be otherwise
inconsistent with the Constitution, but it
does not confer any special status in any
other respect on either Community
measures or national measures adopted to
implement Community obligations.50

Temple Lang then considered the question

whether national legislation contrary to
directly effective Community legal
obligations, subsequent to Irelands
membership of the Community, would be
valid in Irish law, even if a breach of
Irelands European treaty commitments:
It follows that, even as amended, the Irish
Constitution will not give an express answer
to the question: if the Irish legislature in the
future passed an Act inconsistent with the
Act enacting the Treaty, which Act would
prevail? ... The question may be academic ...
because a deliberate breach of the Treaty
would be a repudiation of Irelands
commitments in the EEC. ... Since Irish law
does not bind the
49 Hogan and Whelan, Ireland and the
European Union: Constitutional and
Statutory Texts and Commentary 13-14, 15.
50 J Temple Lang, 'Legal and Constitutional
Implications for Ireland of Adhesion to the
EEC Treaty' (1972) 9 Common Market Law
Review 167-178 171. For Temple Langs
consideration of this issue several prior to
Irelands accession to the EEC membership,
naturally without reference to the text of the
amendment to the Irish Constitution as
actually adopted, see Temple Lang, The
Common Market and Common Law: Legal
Aspects of Foreign Investment and
Economic Integration in the European
Community, with Ireland as a Prototype 5566; Temple Lang, 'Application of the Law of

the European Communities in the Republic

of Ireland'
27
legislature to enact even a treaty which is
binding on Ireland in international law, it
would be logical to say that the legislature
has power under Irish law to repeal or
amend the Act enacting the treaty in
question, even where the repeal or
amendment is in breach of Irelands
international law obligations. This is the
position in England ...51
Temple Lang proposed three arguments by
which Irish legislation explicitly contrary to
Community obligations might be contrary to
Irish law.
First, such legislation would be contrary to
Irelands treaty obligations and therefore
barred by Art 29.3 of the Irish Constitution
(Ireland accepts the generally recognised
principles of international law ...).
Second,
If Irelands entry into the Communities was
important enough to necessitate a
referendum and a special amendment to the
Constitution, and if the people approved the
amendment, it would follow that the Irish
legislature should honour the obligations of
the State under those Treaties, once
undertaken. This suggests that the
legislature might not have power under the
Constitution (as amended) to act in breach
of the Treaties.52

Third, by analogy with the transfer of

powers from the United Kingdom to the
legislatures of former subject territories
upon independence, Temple Lang suggested
that powers transferred jointly with other
States are irrevocably assigned and not
delegated.
Temple Langs proposals reveal the
difficulty, even for an observer highly
sympathetic to the European institutions, of
finding Irish law reasons why Irish
legislation expressly inconsistent with the
Act enacting the Treaty would not prevail
over directly effective Community law
obligations in the Irish courts.
Irish courts have consistently rejected
Temple Langs first argument, that Art 29.3
of the Irish Constitution incorporates pacta
sunt servanda in the Irish legal order.
51 Temple Lang, 'Legal and Constitutional
Implications for Ireland of Adhesion to the
EEC Treaty' 171-172.
52 Temple Lang, 'Legal and Constitutional
Implications for Ireland of Adhesion to the
EEC Treaty' 173.
28
Temple Langs second proposal, a reference
to the importance of the referendum, may
reveal a lack of confidence about what the
text of the Third Amendment specifically
provides. All provisions of the Irish
Constitution are important. Surely it could
not be argued that an amendment which
provided constitutional immunity for the

application of European Community law in

the Irish legal order but which did not, as
Temple Lang put it, confer any other special
status was unimportant. The obligations
that derive from Irish constitutional
provisions depend on their specific
meaning. A basic element in establishing the
specific meaning of constitutional and other
legal provisions involves distinguishing
whether the matter regulated is permitted
or, alternatively, required. Ireland could
have amended its Constitution to require
that European law would prevail over
subsequent legislation inconsistent with the
Act enacting the Treaty, but it did not do so,
as Temple Langs discussion of the
amendment itself conceded.
It is worth noting, in this regard, that the
Irish government at the time originally
proposed a constitutional amendment which
would have protected from constitutional
challenge measures which were consequent
on Irelands membership of the European
Union. When the proposed amendment was
criticised as too broad, the amendment was
revised to protect only measures
necessitated by the obligations of
membership.53 Irish courts have
maintained a restrictive view concerning the
scope of measures necessitated by the
obligations of membership which benefit
from the Third Amendments protection
from constitutional challenge. In Crotty, the
courts found that ratifying the Single

European Act was not necessitated by

Irelands obligations of membership of the
EU, with the result that a further
constitutional amendment and thus a
referendum was required for Ireland to
ratify the Single European Act and
53 Temple Lang, 'Legal and Constitutional
Implications for Ireland of Adhesion to the
EEC Treaty' 169-170.
29
subsequent European treaties.54 Some, like
former Taoiseach John Bruton, have
criticised the unnecessarily restrictive
wording of the Third Amendment and the
interpretation given to it by the Irish courts,
particularly for the result that subsequent
European treaties require the approval of
the Irish people in a referendum.55 Despite
such criticism, however, it is the text of the
Third Amendment itself, and not some
general importance to be attributed to an
amendment relating to Irelands
membership of the European Union, which
guides Irish court decisions.
As for Temple Langs third argument, a
sceptic might find the inability of the United
Kingdom to reassert powers granted to
other territories now independent, an
argument based above all on the
impracticality of a unilateral repeal of, for
example, the Canada Act 1982 by the UK
Parliament, to be a dubious analogy for
whether Ireland (or the United Kingdom, or
Canada, for that matter) could revoke

powers delegated to an international

organisation in order to reassert them
within their own territory.56
54 For a discussion and references, see
Hogan and Whelan, Ireland and the
European Union: Constitutional and
Statutory Texts and Commentary 25-49.
55 The origin of this difficulty is in the
unnecessarily restrictive wording in the
unnecessarily restrictive wording of the
original constitutional amendment to
authorize Irelands original accession to the
European Union (then the European
Community), and from the subsequent
interpretation of this by the Supreme Court
in the Crotty case. There is a strong
argument for revising this provision of the
Constitution. The Irish people, of course,
should be required to be consulted, in
referendum, before Ireland would agree to a
binding Treaty commitment to a new area of
activity, or to a qualitative change in the
nature of activity within the European
Union. Referenda should not, however, be
required, to approve E.U. Treaties which
just incrementally develop clear
commitments already given. The
Government and the Oireachtas must be
given a greater freedom than they now have
to ratify E.U. Treaties that do no more than
incrementally develop existing
commitments. Houses of the Oireachtas
Joint Committee on European Affairs, The
Future of the European Union (2002):

section 2.17-2.18. Available at

http://europa.eu/constitution/futurum/doc
uments/press/pr010202_en.pdf.
56 One might add here that there is also
reason to doubt Temple Langs view of the
UK law perspective on parliamentary
legislation which infringed on the
independence of former British territories.
To take one example, in a contemporaneous
article, considering the possible application
of a similar argument in relation to the UKs
membership of the EEC, Trindade stated ...
there is no evidence whatsoever that an Act
of the United Kingdom Parliament will be
declared invalid by the British courts if the
statute is enacted contrary to section 4 of the
Statute of Westminster 1931 or the various
Independence Acts. We can be fairly certain
that the courts in the former dominions or
in the independent countries of the
Commonwealth would not give such a
statute any effect in their respective
territories, but that is not the same thing as
saying that the courts in the United Kingdom
would declare such an Act of Parliament as
invalid or of no effect. On the contrary, it
seems that the courts in the
30
Temple Lang concedes that his view is
superficially incompatible with the dualist
Article 29.6 of the Irish Constitution, which
does not provide an exception to the power
of the Oireachtas to determine the
application of international agreements in

national law in relation to powers

transferred jointly with other states; and
allows that the view that the Oireachtas has
the power to legislate contrary to
international obligations, including the
power to legislate contrary to Community
law obligations after Ireland has joined the
Community, is the traditional one,57 and, if
correct, could result in conflicts between
Irish law and directly effective Community
law. 58
Based on the most detailed scholarship on
the relationship of Irish and European
Community law, there is therefore
considerable scholarly support for the view
that Ireland could explicitly legislate
contrary to directly effective European
Community law obligations by amending the
European Communities Act. Such legislation
would be contrary to Irelands international
obligations under the European Treaties,
but Irelands courts would give effect to the
Irish legislation and not to Irelands
obligations under the European treaties.
https://www.scribd.com/document/332849
633/The-Story-of-a-Commited-High-FelonyTreason-in-Ireland-in-2012
ubmissions received - Public Consultation on Irelands Aarhus
Convention National Implementation Report 2014
Preliminary Draft
Irish Water Submission - Aarhus Convention 2013
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/irish_water_submis
sion__aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary.pdf
submission from An Taisce in response to the consultation on

Ireland's Aarhus Convention National Implementation Report

2014
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/an_taisce_submissi
on__aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary.pdf
Public Consultation on the Implementation of the UNECE
Aarhus Convention in Ireland Submission by David Browne,
Ph.D., Barrister-at-law1
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/browne_submissio
n__aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary.pdf
Social Justice Ireland Consultation on the Implementation of
the UNECE Aarhus Convention in Ireland Submission to the
Department of Environment, Community and Local
Government
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/social_justice_irela
nd_submission__aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary.pdf
coillte_submission_aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/coillte_submission_
-_aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary.pdf
Cunningham Submission - Aarhus Convention
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/cunningham_subm
ission__aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary.pdf
Department of Agriculture Submission - Aarhus Convention
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/department_of_agr
iculture_submission__aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary.pdf
Eirgrid Submission - Aarhus Convention
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/eirgrid_submission
_-_aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary.pdf
Environmental Pillar Comment on 1st Draft of Irelands
Preliminary Report to the MOP of the Aarhus Convention
Comments from Environmental Pillar on Preliminary First Draft
of Irelands Aarhus Convention Implementation Report for the
MOP5
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/environment_pillar
_submission__aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary.pdf
EPAW Submission Part 1 - Aarhus Convention
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/epaw_submission_
part_1__aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary.pdf
EPAW Submission Part 2 - Aarhus Convention

http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/epaw_submission_
part_2__aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary.pdf
Fs Nua Submission - Aarhus Convention
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/fis_nua_submission
_-_aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary.pdf
Friends of the Irish Environment Submission - Aarhus
Convention
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/friends_of_teh_irish
_environment_submission__aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary.pdf
UNECE Aarhus Convention Irelands First Implementation
Report, 2013
Heritage Council Draft Submission, August 2013
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/heritage_council_s
ubmission__aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary.pdf
IPI Submission - Aarhus Convention
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/ipi_submission__aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary.pdf
IWEA Submission - Aarhus Convention
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/iwea_submission__aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary.pdf
Leonard Submission - Aarhus Convention
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/leonard_submissio
n__aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary.pdf
Logue Submission - Aarhus Convention
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/logue_submission_
-_aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary.pdf
NCPD Submission - Aarhus Convention
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/ncpd_submission__aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary.pdf
O'Ceallaigh Submission - Aarhus Convention
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/oceallaigh_submiss
ion__aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary.pdf
Ryall Submission Part 1- Aarhus Convention
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/ryal_submission_p
art_1__aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary.pdf
Ryall Submission Part 2 - Aarhus Convention
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/ryal_submission_p
art_2__aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary.pdf
Ryan-Feehan Submission - Aarhus Convention

http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/ryanfeehan_submission__aarhus_national_implmentation_report_2014_preliminary.pdf
Water
Water represents a societal challenge. On a planet where 70%
of the surface is covered by water, only 1% of this amount is
actually usable freshwater. In the European Union, water
scarcity and droughts already affect one third of the European
territory and yet, of the total abstraction of freshwater, 44% is
used to cool thermal power plants and 24% for irrigation. As
water scarcity and droughts regularly affect large parts of the
European territory, water availability and its efficient use are
also issues that need to be addressed in Europe.
The JRC supports several pieces of legislation including the
Water Framework Directive (WFD) and its associated daughter
Directives. In the context of the WFD, the JRC is actively
involved in the Blueprint to safeguard Europe's water resources
(the "Blueprint) initiative. This initiative, which is part of the
EU 2020 Strategy and the Resource Efficiency Roadmap, aims
to ensure that good quality water is available in sufficient
quantities for all legitimate uses.
The JRC provides scientific assessments to address societal and
economic challenges deriving from the evolving vulnerability of
the European and global water environment. In particular, it
develops modelling tools to predict climate change impacts on
water, assesses water governance in developing countries and
carries out studies on the preservation of ecosystems.
Water and chemicals
Chemical compounds used in our daily activities can travel
along rivers and lakes and end up in coastal and marine
environments, where they can potentially threaten the health
of humans and aquatic ecosystems. The JRC assesses and
monitors the impact of pollutants and chemicals in aquatic
ecosystems at regional and pan-European levels. To facilitate
this, the JRC developed the Environmental Quality Standards
(EQS) that set limits on allowable concentrations of aquatic
pollutants.
Ecological water quality
In the early nineties, the increasing contamination levels of
freshwaters led the European Commission to adopt a series of
directives to reduce water pollution. The general objective of
these directives is to achieve good status for all surface
waters by 2015
Preserving ecosystems
Ecosystems contribute to the supply of clean water by

absorbing or filtering pollutants such as heavy metals, excess

nutrients, and pesticides and storing water that could
otherwise lead to floods. Many ecosystems are vulnerable to
climate change, land use reclamation, and pollution. Their
degradation and disappearance negatively affects our wellbeing and threatens our economies. The JRC supports EU
nature and water policies by mapping ecosystem services,
developing robust modelling approaches to simulate future
ecosystem scenarios, and assessing the costs and benefits of
conservation actions.
Water-related Risks
Extreme water events such as droughts, floods and tsunamis
have enormous environmental, social and economic impacts.
Local and transnational disasters have demonstrated that
efficient risk management is of paramount importance.
The JRC develops early warning, monitoring and damage
assessment systems for weather-driven natural hazards. It also
develops tools for assessing the effects of climate and land-use
change, risk mapping and adaptation to extreme events across
Europe and worldwide.
Coastal and marine environment
Water and Energy
While insignificant water quantities are consumed in renewable
energy operations, carbon capture and storage requires higher
amounts of water (for cooling and other processes) than
conventional fossil fuel plants of similar capacities.
The transition to a low-carbon economy is one of the key
priorities of the European Union. Essential to achieving this
goal is the large-scale deployment of energy technologies with
a low carbon footprint. Measuring the impact of such
technologies on water resources is one of the JRCs
contributions to the EUs Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water
Resources and the European Energy Roadmap to 2050.
Water supply for agriculture
Water abstraction for irrigation purposes accounts on average
for 24% of total water abstraction across Europe. Pressures on
water resources culminate during the summer period when the
irrigation demand from agriculture is highest. Intensive
agriculture is also responsible for the degradation of the
quality of surface- and groundwaters, including contamination
from pesticides and nitrates. The JRC is actively involved on
studying the impact of agriculture on the quantity and quality
of water resources.
Water in development cooperation
EU policies promote an integrated framework for water
resource management, drawing on European experience of

managing river basins and transboundary rivers, and a whole

range of European approaches to water and sanitation
services.
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/water
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS A
Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:52012DC0673&from=EN
Water Quantity and Efficiency The JRC carries out several
support studies and assessments for the EUs Blueprint to
Safeguard Europe's Water Resources
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:52012DC0673&from=EN
Implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive,
which aims to protect marine waters.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:32008L0056&from=en
EUs Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources and the
European Energy Roadmap to 2050.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:52012DC0673&from=EN
CHALLENGESi OPPORTUNITIES ABROAD WHITE PAPER ON
FOREIGN POLICY
THE IRISH DEFENSE FORCES: ... Irish and European documents.
... The Irish Defense Forces consist of the Permanent Defense
Force
http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/Library2/DL033049.p
df#page=20
Powers of inquiry for the Oireachtas
The other referendum being voted on at the end of the month
regards granting powers of inquiry into the conduct of any
person to the Houses of the Oireachtas, whether or not they
are a TD or a Senator.
Either the Dil or the Seanad would be able to carry out an
inquiry alone or in conjunction with the other House. They can
also make findings of fact about that persons conduct.
The referendum proposes renumbering Article 15.10 of the
Constitution as Article 15.10.1. This currently reads:
Each House shall make its own rules and standing orders, with
power to attach penalties for their infringement, and shall have
power to ensure freedom of debate, to protect its official

documents and the private papers of its members, and to

protect itself and its members against any person or persons
interfering with, molesting or attempting to corrupt its
members in the exercise of their duties.
The Thirtieth Amendment of the Constitution (Houses of the
Oireachtas Inquiries) Bill 2011 proposes to amend the
provisions of the Constitution relating to the powers of the
Houses of the Oireachtas to conduct an inquiry into any matter
stated by the House or Houses concerned to be of general
public importance. The proposed amendment would add the
following subsections to Article 15.10:
2 Each House shall have the power to conduct an inquiry, or
an inquiry with the other House, in a manner provided for by
law, into any matter stated by the House or Houses concerned
to be of general public importance.
3 In the course of any such inquiry the conduct of any person
(whether or not a member of either House) may be
investigated and the House or Houses concerned may make
findings in respect of the conduct of that person concerning
the matter to which the inquiry relates.
4 It shall be for the House or Houses concerned to determine,
with due regard to the principles of fair procedures, the
appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the
public interest for the purposes of ensuring an effective inquiry
into any matter to which subsection 2 applies..
IF YOU APPROVE of the proposal, mark X opposite the word YES
on the ballot paper.
IF YOU DO NOT APPROVE of the proposal, mark X opposite the
word NO on the ballot paper.
Launching the Referendum Commissions information
campaign ahead of the 27 October ballot, Dr Bryan McMahon
urged voters to inform themselves and use their vote. A copy
of each of the Bills referred to in the referendums can be
obtained free of charge from any post office.
The constitution is important, it was enacted by a vote of the
Irish people in 1937 and can only be changed if the Irish
people vote to change it, he added.
The referendum proposes adding the following text to Article
15.10 after the section quoted above:
10.2 Each House shall have the power to conduct an inquiry, or
an inquiry with the other House, in a manner provided for by
law, into any matter stated by the House or Houses concerned
to be of general public importance.
10.3 In the course of any such inquiry the conduct of any
person (whether or not a member of either House) may be
investigated and the House or Houses concerned may make

findings in respect of the conduct of that person concerning

the matter to which the inquiry relates.
10.4 It shall be for the House or Houses concerned to
determine, with due regard to the principles of fair procedures,
the appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the
public interest for the purposes of ensuring an effective inquiry
into any matter to which subsection 2 applies.
Referendum opponents welcome defeat
Yesterday's rejection of the referendum to give more powers of
inquiry to the Oireachtas has been welcomed by opponents of
the plan.
Critics had complained that the move would create 'kangaroo
courts' and usurp people's rights to fair procedures in the
courts.
The public defeated the proposal - however they supported the
other referendum allowing the government to change judges'
pay.
Independent Senator Ronn Mullen said the defeat of the
referendum on Oireachtas inquiries highlights the
Government's failure to engage with the public.
"To some degree it was a 'vanity project' for certain politicians
who had been involved in some of this abortive inquiries in the
past," Senator Mullen said.
"What they really need to be doing is strengthening the role of
the Dil and Seanad as scrutineers of legislation and policy.
"Certainly not setting up 'kangaroo courts', as they were
described, or having politicians playing at being Dirty Harry
down in the committee room of Leinster House."
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/referendum-opponentswelcome-defeat-526459.html
ABBEYLARA
O'MAHONY ON DEFEAT OF 30TH AMENDMENT
http://humanrights.ie/tag/abbeylara/
NATURAL LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE: AN
IRISH CAUTIONARY TALE
http://faculty.cua.edu/lewisb/NATURAL%20LAW%20AND
%20CONSTITUTIONAL%20JURISPRUDENCE.htm
THIRTIETH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION (HOUSES OF
THE OIREACHTAS INQUIRIES) BILL 2011
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/b4711d.pdf
HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS AND THE EUROPEAN UNION. ...
In 1972 the Irish people agreed to membership and in later
years to the subsequent ... COURTS OF JUSTICE AND
The Institute of International and European Affairs ... with the
power to make laws. The Oireachtas ... the Conventions
obligations in the Irish Courts

http://www.iiea.com/ftp/Publications/Transcript-PeterSutherland-Brian%20Lenihan%20Lecture%20Feb%202013compressed.pdf
The Bar of Ireland Strategic Plan 2015 2018
https://www.lawlibrary.ie/media/lawlibrary/media/NewsEvents/T
heBarOfIreland_StrategicPlan_web.pdf
Submission to European Commission in response to the
Commission Staff Working Document, Country Report Ireland
2015
https://www.lawlibrary.ie/News/Conferences-andSeminars/Downloads-Reports-and-Submissions/BCSubmissionEC-re-CountryReportIreland20150410.aspx
Submission to the Law Reform Commission Cyber Crime
https://www.lawlibrary.ie/News/Conferences-andSeminars/Downloads-Reports-and-Submissions/BCSubmissionCyberCrimeFeb2015.aspx
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-DISSOLUTION FINANCIAL
TIES IN ... second time the Irish people voted on the
legalisation ... Due to Article 41.3 the Irish courts
http://corkonlinelawreview.com/editions/2014/59COLR14.pdf

Garda management strongly

criticised by Policing
Authority
New allegations of Garda malpractice made by Sinn Fin
TD Martin Kenny in Dil
Fri, May 27, 2016, 01:00 Updated: Fri, May 27, 2016, 06:09

Conor Lally, Pat Leahy

Garda Commissioner Nirn OSullivan arriving for the Policing Authority

meeting in Dublin, May 26th, 2016. Photograph: Eric Luke/The Irish Times

The Policing Authority, the new body set up to oversee

the Garda Sochnas policing functions, has issued a
series of stinging criticisms of the management of
garda following a meeting with the Garda
Commissioner Nirn OSullivan on Thursday to
discuss the report of the OHiggins inquiry.
In a statement issued last night, the authority said it
would hold two further meetings with the
Commissioner in public in the coming weeks to discuss
the policing failures identified in the inquiry report,
and the Garda managements response to them.
In a statement after the meeting, the Policing Authority
chairwoman, Josephine Feehily said: The recurring
deficiencies in policing performance evidenced in the
OHiggins final report are deeply troubling.
The authority expressed serious concern at the impact
on victims and at the systemic performance and
management failures.
It also said it was dismayed that the same performance
failures as identified in previous reports into the Garda
had reoccurred.

Deep unease

The authority said it felt deep unease at the

organisation and management culture including the
environment for speaking out, as evident in the
report.
It also identified the need for an urgent response by
the Garda Sochna to the findings and
recommendations.
Meanwhile, fresh allegations of Garda malpractice, this
time in Co Leitrim, were raised on Thursday in the Dil
during a debate on the OHiggins inquiry into policing
in Cavan-Monaghan.
U
U
U

People living close to Garda stations feel no safer,

report finds
Analysis: Garda must abandon cultural fear of
opening up
Over 40% of crime victims frustrated with Gardas
response

With some TDs suggesting the malpractice identified

by the inquiry was unlikely to be confined to CavanMonaghan, Sinn Fin TD Martin Kenny put on the
record of the Dil several incidents he said garda in
Leitrim had brought to his attention.
He said they had been referred to the Department of
Justice and to the Garda Sochna Ombudsman
Commission, but that satisfactory investigations had
not occurred. He called for the establishment of
another commission of inquiry to investigate them.
Mr Kenny related several incidents which he said had
been brought to him by whistleblowers still serving as
garda and also by former garda. Several of the
complaints related to the misuse of Garda informants.

Alleged incidents

Among alleged incidents Mr Kenny related to the Dil

were:
*A Garda informant was allegedly instructed by his
handlers to offer a bribe to an NCT tester. Having

accepted the bribe, the employee was charged and

convicted.
*Failure to investigate properly the disappearance of a
man who was last seen in the company of a Garda
informant.
*Failure to investigate the discovery of a pipe bomb.
*Failure to investigate information that a man
associated with a criminal gang was in possession of a
gun.
Mr Kenny also alleged a man who claimed to be a
Garda informant told him in 2014 that he had been
instructed by named garda to carry out a robbery at
his, Mr Kennys, house. His house was subsequently
burgled in March 2007.
Meanwhile, some TDs and Ministers are uneasy about
a raft of senior Garda promotions announced in recent
days.
The Government approved the appointment of four
Assistant Commissioners - the third highest rank in the
Garda - at its meeting on Tuesday.
In addition, it is expected that up to 20 further senior
appointments, many to the rank of chief
superintendent, are in the process of being made and
will be announced shortly.
Under new legislation, the Policing Authority is due to
take over responsibility for senior Garda appointments.
The Department of Justice has said it hopes to have the
necessary regulations to allow this change in July.
A Government spokesman said many of the
appointment have been outstanding for many months.
The current wave of gun murders underlined the need
for leadership in the Garda, he said.

Press Release: IMF Statement

on Cyprus at the Eurogroup

Meeting
March 16, 2013
Press Release No. 13/80
March 16, 2013

Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the

International Monetary Fund (IMF), issued the
following statement today following the Eurogroup
meeting:
I welcome the agreement reached today to
address Cyprus economic challenges. The IMF has
always said that we would support a solution that
is sustainable, that is fully financed, and that
appropriately allocates the burden sharing. I
believe that the agreed package meets these three
objectives. On this basis, I intend to make a
recommendation to our Executive Board for the
IMF to contribute to the financing of the package.

European Commission to assess revised

water plans - RTE.ie
as part of its review of Ireland's progress after the EU/IMF
bailout. ... European Commission to assess revised ... has said
that Irish water must

An assessment of the Government's revised

water charges will be carried out by the
European Commission as part of its review of
Ireland's progress after the EU IMF bailout.
The Troika has been in Dublin this week
meeting Government officials and staff from
the Central Bank and Nama.
Sources close to the commission said there
was surprise at the changes to Irish Water's
fees as officials had expected earlier plans
would be implemented.
Questions were also raised about the use of
flat charges for supplies.

Its assessment of the new regime for

charging for water will be published as a part
of its overall economic review in January.
However, the commission is understood to be
happy with Ireland's economic growth,
improvement in unemployment and falling
mortgage arrears.
It is understood the commission is confident
Ireland will meet its deficit reduction targets.
However, sources said it would have wished
to see more money spent reducing Ireland's
national debt in the Budget.
Irish Water MD confirms court action
will not be taken against those who
don't pay their water bills
Irish Water Managing Director John Tierney
has confirmed that court action will not be
taken against those who do not pay their
water bills.
He said the company intends to use the new
provisions of the legislation to put a charge
on the property, and he said the company
does not envisage a situation where they
would be taking people to court.
Mr Tierney said Irish Water will be aiming for
the maximum compliance with charges
similar to other utility companies, which
currently stand at around 90%.
He said the aim of the company is to work
with people so there is no necessity for
penalties or to go to landlords to collect the
charges.
In relation to those who cannot pay he said

the company would work with them on

payment plans so they could pay their bills
over time.
He also said the decision to have peoples
PPS numbers was well intentioned in terms of
the allowance system that was in place at the
time.
Meanwhile, at the request of the garda, Joan
Burton has given a statement following a
protest over water charges in Jobstown in
Dublin last week, which saw the Tnaiste
locked in her car for more than two hours.
He said Irish Water is talking to the Data
Protection Commissioner to establish the
parameters in relation to destroying the PPS
numbers given to the company.
Mr Tierney said there was a lot of work to be
done in relation to that as they had received
870,000 responses from householders.
But he hopes they will be in a position to
destroy the numbers in the next seven or
eight weeks.
In relation to concerns by unions over the
decision not to pay staff performance related
payments for 2013 or 2014, he said it was a
very difficult decision but, he added, the
payment of the awards is at the discretion of
the company.
He added he was very sorry that people
started to think that the company was
putting pay before people.
The company is looking at the pay model for

2015 with a view to bringing back

recommendations to the board and unions
will contribute to that, he said.
His experience of staff is one of absolute
commitment, he said, and he would be
hopeful that would continue.
The regulator has said that Irish water must
cut its costs by 14% by the end of 2016,
which he described as "significant".
Mr Tierney said the company is currently
working with the local authorities and he
expects there will be up to a 10% reduction in
local authority staff that Irish Water pays for
through service level agreements in 2015.
This would represent a reduction of around
430 local authority staff.
Kelly does not want jail sentences for
non-payment
Minister for the Environment Alan Kelly
earlier said he does not want to see anyone
ending up in jail if they fail to pay their water
charges.
Mr Kelly was speaking on RT's Morning
Ireland a day after announcing a revised
scheme for water charges.

Mr Kelly acknowledged that Irish Water would

have the right to take people to court for not
paying their bills, but said "it's not a road I
believe they should go down too much".
He said the sanctions for not paying bills
would be applied 15 months after the first
bills were issued.
The minister also said he would meet
landlords to discuss the charges and would
be introducing legislation to allow landlords
to deduct unpaid water charges from their
tenant's deposits if necessary.
Mr Kelly announced yesterday that charges
will be capped for a single-adult household at
160 and for others at 260.
Households that register will get a 100
Water Conservation Grant each year,
resulting in net charges of 60 for a single
adult household and 160 for other
households.
Members of group water schemes and
owners of wells will have to register with Irish
Water to claim the grant.

The starting date for the charges is 1 January

and bills will be charged from April next year.
There will be penalties for those who do not
pay after a year or do not enter into a
payment plan.
A single-adult household will face a 30
penalty and 60 will apply to other
households.
The capped charges will be in place until 1
January 2019, with legislation to allow for
capped charges to continue after 2019.
Households with either water or sewage-only
services will pay 50% of the charges.
Those with meters who use less will get a
once-off rebate.
People now have until 2 February to register.
Landlords do not want to collect water
charges
A spokesperson for the Residential Landlords
Association has said if legislation allowing
landlords to deduct unpaid water charges
from tenants' deposits goes ahead, deposits
will have to be doubled or even trebled.
Fintan McNamara said landlords did not want
to be in the position where they were
collecting water charges.
He said there was no reason why water
charges should not be collected as other
utility bills are, where the tenant has a
unique identity number and account that is
carried from one accommodation to another.
Mr McNamara said his group had been told
six weeks ago by Irish Water that this was

how the system of water charges would work,

and that landlords would have no role in it.
He said his organisation was very anxious to
speak to the minister about this and other
issues affecting the residential rented sector.
Meanwhile, Anti-Austerity Alliance TD Paul
Murphy said he believes people will continue
to resist the water charges and there will be
a "massive boycott" when the first bills come
in.
Also speaking on Morning Ireland, Mr Murphy
said the package announced by the
Government would not diminish the
campaign to abolish the charges.
He said: "People are no longer afraid of the
Government. They're increasingly aware that
the Government is afraid of them."

Tnaiste Joan Burton told the Dil today

she is very confident that Irish Water will
pass State aid rules that will be scrutinised
next year by the EU statistics agency,

Eurostat.

However, Minister for Communications Alex

White said there is a risk as to whether the
100 Water Conservation Grant will pass the
market corporation test, but he added that
he was confident it would.
Under the rules, 51% of Irish Water's revenue
must come from charges.
During Leaders' Questions Fianna Fil
Environment Spokesperson Barry
Cowen pressed the Tnaiste on whether Irish
Water would pass State aid rules and if there
was a "Plan B".
Ms Burton said she was confident it would
and said the results would be known around
April.
Sinn Fin Deputy Leader Mary Lou McDonald
said people had not marched for concessions,
but for the abolition of the charges.
Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform
Brendan Howlin said there are people who do

not want to pay for water even though they

know there is a cost associated with
providing it.
People Before Profit TD Richard Boyd Barrett
told the Dil that something that has not
come out is a directive from the Department
of the Environment to local authorities and
warned that Irish Water arrears will be taken
out of council tenants' rents.

TDs also debated a private members' motion

by Sinn Fin this morning, which proposed to
ensure Irish Water is never
privatised regardless of what political party is
in power in the future.
Meanwhile, the Taoiseach has said he
hopes people will reflect on the changes
announced to water charges adding
that while the Government had admitted
mistakes on the issue,they had now fully
addressed the issues that were causing

concern.
Enda Kenny added while there may be some
who do not want to pay this is why
Government had sought to make what he
called "the last national charge" as affordable
and easy to pay as possible.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1120/6
60891-water-charges/
Documentary looks at impact of super
trawlers in Irish fishing waters
Monday, December 05, 2016
By Irish Examiner digital staff

Right now the second largest super trawler in the world is

fishing off the Irish coast. It drags a net bigger than a
football field and can process over 250 tonnes of fish a
day.

Conversationists and fishermen say huge damage is being

done to fish stocks and sea life including dolphins by such
activity and suggest the Minister responsible for the
Marine and Fisheries is trying to sidestep his
responsibilities by blaming EU Fisheries policy.

As a result campaign groups such as Uplift are calling for

permanent inspectors on board super trawlers in Irish
waters.
These issues and more are explored in an acclaimed new
documentary by award winning Tipperary film maker
Risteard Domhnaill and set to be shown on RT 1
television on Thursday December 8th at 10.15pm.
Narrated by Emmy award winner Brendan Gleeson,
'Atlantic' follows the fortunes of three small fishing
communities in Ireland, Norway and Newfoundland as
they struggle to maintain their way of life in the face of
mounting economic and ecological challenges.
As the oil majors drive deeper into their fragile seas, and
the worlds largest fishing companies push fish stocks to
the brink, coastal communities and the resources they rely
on are fast approaching a point of no return.
This has huge implications for Irish fishing communities
and the national exchequer and is even more relevant
with news of Brexit and the UK leaving the Common
Fisheries Area and with Providence Resources planning a
large Irish drilling program in 2017.
Filmed in some of the most remote and breathtaking
locations in the North Atlantic, and at close quarters with
some of the seas most captivating characters, Atlantic
brings to the fore three very intimate stories from the
global resource debate. It explores how modern day
communities must learn from the past, in order to secure
a brighter future.
My last documentary, The Pipe, told the story of a small
coastal community in Mayo as they faced down one of the
worlds most powerful oil companies, which was forcing a
high-pressure raw gas pipeline through their farms and
fishing grounds. The story raised more questions for me
than it answered, leading me to look at the politics of our
oil and gas prospects off the Irish coast.
"What has since unfolded is an incredible story of resource
mismanagement, and the capture of our offshore riches
oil, gas and fishing whilst our gaze is elsewhere.
Unfortunately, what I found when I looked across the
Atlantic is that Irelands tale is not unique.
"However, in both Norway and Newfoundland, the lessons

learned by similarly affected communities can help us to

chart a different course, before our most renewable
resources are damaged beyond recognition, or sold to the
highest bidders." says Domhnaill.
Since its release earlier this year Domhnaill has toured
the crowd funded documentary around the country,
hosting screenings in more than 100 communities.
The film has also attracted critical praise, winning the
prestigious 2016 Screen Directors Guild Finders Series,
and Best Irish Documentary at the Audi Dublin Film
Festival and numerous other awards.
The film is also being been selected by the Irish Film
Institute for their secondary schools programme and will
be offered to every school in the country. A viewing
recently took place in Leinster House and in the European
Parliament.
More information or to request a screening
visitwww.theatlanticstream.com.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/artsfilmtv/documentarylooks-at-impact-of-super-trawlers-in-irish-fishing-waters-433796.html

Atlantic' - the race for the resources of

the North Atlantic
Apr 27, 2016
Atlantic is a new feature documentary from Risteard
ODomhnaill (The Pipe, 2010). Narrated by Emmy Awardwinning actor Brendan Gleeson, the film explores ocean
resource mismanagement across Ireland, Norway and
Newfoundland (Canada). When traditional fishing communities
meet big oil and overfishing, what does the future hold?
Atlantic was awarded Best Irish Documentary at the Dublin
International Film Festival 2016, and was Official Selection at
the Sydney Film Festival and the Environmental Film Festival in
Washington DC. It is in selected Irish cinemas now.
theatlanticstream.com/screenings
Please Follow us on
Facebook: 'Atlantic Stream'
Twitter: @AtlanticStream #AtlanticFilm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtRHSWGYNFc

Enda kennys not wanted December 2016

Dec 5, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSzh3P4ff7c&feature=share

Eir warns broadband customers of modem

security breach

05/12/2016 - 21:10:01
Back to Ireland Home

C-ON-TEXT_CONTENT_START

Eir is warning costumers that its modems have been

comprised in a security breach.
It is understood at least 2,000 have been breached by a
computer virus.
Costumers are being advised to reset their devices after a
security vulnerability identified on a "limited number" of Zyxel
D100 and Zyxel P-660HN-T1A broadband modems.
"We strongly recommend that customers with these modems
change both their modem administration password as well as
their WiFi password as soon as possible," the company
stated.
The company is contacting those affected by letter and email
to inform them of the situation.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/eir-warns-broadbandcustomers-of-modem-security-breach-767268.html
eir modem advisory
https://www.eir.ie/modemadvisory/

How to find an IP
address of a fake
Facebook user?
There are over 1.3 billion users on Facebook, out
of which around 81 Million users are Fake (Fake
Facebook profiles). Somebody creating a Fake
profile of yours is not a Big deal for Facebook
unless you represent a law enforcement agency
or an Expensive Legal firm. Most fake Facebook
profiles are set-up by adolescents in relationships
seeking to destroy reputation of their ex-partner.

Hi! someone stole my

daughters picture from her
Facebook page & created a fake
account. now that person is
sending abusive messages from

that account to everyone & trying

to ruin her image as she is very
sincere girl. This profile is
creating chaos in my
neighborhood which was
identified as her. Could you
please hack this fake profile for
me?
I often receive such requests from people who
find themselves or their relatives in this situation.
Identity theft is common on Facebook, But
somebody using your image to harass or play
with other people you know, thereby defaming
you is really embarrassing and malicious.

While you can always report such imposters

profile to Facebook using their Report form, it
takes hell lot of time for Facebook to review the
profile and disable it. Also Facebook will never
disclose to you any details about the fake
profile, like when it was created and from which
Computer it was operated. Facebook will provide
Information regarding fake profile only when
there is Police intervention and this is very long
process.
Moreover police will not go through the hassle of
contacting Facebook and behave like a loyal
dogs to track down the imposter unless the
matter is very serious. Once you have the IP
address of fake profile user, you will then need
to get a court-order for the ISP to reveal the

information and billing address of the person

involved. Remember If the fake profile user had
used a proxy server to hide real-IP, it would be
very difficult to track down the real IP address.
Here in this post i will show you how exactly you
can Find an IP address of a fake Facebook
user and even nab the culprit. I have had posted
about finding Facebook users IP Address
through chat and email header before but none
of these two work this day. Facebook chat runs
on XMPP protocol now which is not peer-2-peer,
so it is not possible to determine the IP address
of the user through Facebook Chat using Netstat
command. All i will be doing is use some social
engineering skills and default Banner grabbing
technique of a web server.
Banner Grabbing is an enumeration technique
used to get information about a particular
computer system on a network/internet
(Information like: Operating system, browser, IP
address, etc.)

Steps in finding IP address

of a Facebook user:

Step 1
Collect as much information about the fake
profile as you can and identify all of the people
who are connected to the profile. Make a list of
connected people to this account who are your
real life friends.

Step 2
Select any one of your close friend or relative on
that list (select most trusted person). The person
which you have selected will be doing all the job
for you. If there is nobody you can trust on this
list then ask any of your trusted friend to Befriend
this fake profile user.

Step 3
Ask your Friend to start chatting with this fake
user casually everyday. (Remember whatever
you do should remain between you can your
friend. do not let it spread among other close
friends)

Step 4
Now Go to http://iptracking.geniushackers.com

and fill in your valid email address and enter any

name in the Link Name field. Click Generate.
[ * ] Geniushackers website is down. Alternatively
you can use other tools for tracking IP. You can
find the list of Tracking tools here: List of IP
tracking tools (Tracing facebook user location).

Step 5
In the next page you will get a unique link. Just
copy this unique link.

Step 6
Next goto https://goo.gl and paste your Unique
URL (that is too long) in the text field and click
shorten URL. You will get short URL that will look
something like this: http://goo.gl/mC5gFF.

Step 7
Ask your friend to send this shortened URL to the
Fake profile user along with some nice message
via chat such that he should click on that URL.
Example message:

Hey wassup? i found this really

nice story, read here:

http://goo.gl/mC5gFF
Step 8

As soon as the fake user clicks on that link, you

will receive an email with a link to his System
details. example details:

Steps for Tracing fake profile user and

catching the culprit:

Now that you have found out the IP address of

the fake user, its time to know more about this
fake user.

Step 9
Goto http://www.iptrackeronline.com and enter

the IP address of the fake user, click submit

query.

Step 10
On the new page, scroll down a bit and you will
get to see all the details like ISP, Area-code,
Postal-code, etc. regarding his IP address along
with a Map.

Step 11
Relate these details with the suspect. If you are
not able to suspect anyone then approach your
attorney or lawyer, he will file the necessary
documents for the ISP to disclose the subscriber
details for the IP address.

Step 12
If you are suspecting anyone but not sure if its
him then repeat the steps 3 to 8 for this suspect.
You can take help of the same friend and ask him
to craft some different message accompanied by
IP tracking link for this suspect.

Step 13
As soon as your suspect clicks this link, you will

have his IP address. Now match his IP address

with the IP address of the Fake user. If there is a
match, well congrats!! you have successfully
nabbed the culprit.
Also read our Advanced guide: Trace
facebook user location using USER-Agent
and IP address.
Hope this tutorial helps. If you have any
questions regarding fake Facebook profiles, Let
us know via the Comments Section below.
Facebook Statistics via: Statistic Brain

When The First Small Piece Of

Shit Finally Sticks
Nov 30, 2016

Here is Irish MEP Luke Flanagan asking Mario Draghi directly, and in
Parliament, the question that could be the smoking gun.
Flanagan :
In 2007 you were governor of Banca dItaliaUnicredti the biggest
bank on your watch: Can you please confirm whether you were
informed by the Central Bank of Ireland of the multi-billion Euro
breaches at UniCredit Dublin?
If so, can you explain why the bank has never been sanctioned for
those breaches of 2007.
You can see the exchange as it happened here.
Could this be the small piece of shit that sticks to the expensive
suit?
If so, then Mr Draghi, the Irish regulator and the various politician
and bankers involved will NOT welcome that the whole sordid tale as
told by the whistleblower who would not be shut up, is now
published as a book.

Nor that now one question has been asked, others are going to be
asked today.
If just one whistleblower succeeds in getting their question asked,
their story told, instead of being gaoled and silenced, then the
others will be able to hope for justice too. For every insolvent, bailed
out bank there is a whistleblower too threatened and bullied to dare
to speak out.

Financial Times article on #Irexit

Discuss and share please.
11 October 2016

Wolfgang Mnchau: Ireland should consider leaving the EU

Unsustainable business model in an EU where taxes are
harmonised could see Irexit
It is quite instructive to recast the narrative about
Europes multiple economic crises in terms of the business
models of nations. The EU has a number that are
unsustainable. A much-cited example is Germanys
overreliance on manufacturing. Another is Britains
overreliance on finance.
The failure of national business models takes time to play
out. Germany will probably still be ubercompetitive in a
decades time. But Brexit will accelerate the demise of
Britains business model.
The City of London will surely remain Europes premier
financial centre but it will not be able to retain its role as
the financial hub of the euro zone. The single EU passport
for financial services has enabled UK-registered financial
institutions to operate throughout the union without
subjecting themselves to local regulation and supervision.
For 17 years, Britain was able to play this game without
adopting the euro.
The City will now have to seek a new role because Theresa
Mays insistence on immigration controls settles the issue.
The UK prime ministers Brexit doctrine leaves the EU no
choice but to insist on a hard Brexit. Angela Merkel and
Franois Hollande, the leaders of Germany and France, last

week told us so. There is no scope for a fudge. Brexit

means that Britain will leave the single market and the
customs union.
So we are about to witness a shift away from an old
unsustainable business model to something new. We
should not pretend that this will be cost-free. The overt
xenophobia at last weeks Conservative party conference
may end up driving the very foreigners away the UK can
least afford to lose.
There is a risk that Brexit and the associated change in
model business will go wrong. Brexit is not necessarily a
bad decision. But it requires the right kind of policies to
work.
The British prime minister is right to balance a hard Brexit
with a shift in the direction of the UK economy away from
transactional capitalism towards a more inclusive version
of a free-market economy. This makes sense. One way to
think about this is the theory by Mancur Olson, a 20thcentury US political economist, who tried to explain why
Germany and Japan did so well after the second World
War. In his 1982 book The Rise and Decline of Nations, he
notes that powerful lobby groups can hold a country to
ransom up to the point when a shock destroys the
economic system.
Reinvention
In the case of Germany and Japan, this point was wartime
defeat that allowed both countries to reinvent themselves.
Brexit could do the same in the UK. This is why a dual
strategy of a hard Brexit and a shift in the nature of British
capitalism is intriguing. The first constitutes the shock, the
second the shift. Olsen would have liked it.
The City will not perish in this scenario. It might even do
well with new fintech-type business models, or as a
deregulated financial centre, Singapore-style. But its
relative weight within the British economy may well
decline.
There is another country in Europe with an unsustainable
business model: Ireland. It offers low corporate tax rates
and legal tax avoidance to foreign investors. The ruling by
the European Commission to force Apple to pay 13 billion
to the Irish Government in taxes is a sign that this model
may not be sustainable for much longer. Brussels is also

pushing towards a harmonisation of the corporate tax

basis the rules of what to tax.
Dublin has been resisting such a change, but with the UK
out of the EU it will lose an ally in the fight against EUimposed tax harmonisation. Ireland has done well from its
tax haven status. But this model is unsustainable.
Confluence
Perhaps the confluence of Brexit and the long-term loss of
a business model will persuade Ireland to follow the UK
out of the EU. This will obviously depend on whether
Ireland can find an alternative model inside the EU. It is
possible, but not inevitable. An Irish exit will not happen
unless and until there is more clarity of the costs of Brexit.
It will also depend on whether the euro zone successfully
manages the various crises facing it.
If all this develops as I expect badly the economic case
for an Irish exit would strengthen. Ireland might choose to
stay in the EU for political reasons. But those in Ireland in
favour of EU membership should give some thought to
what could go wrong. They might otherwise end up in the
same place as the overconfident Remain supporters in the
UK: bitter and without influence.
The notion of national business models may sound
counterintuitive but offers a framework of how to think
about the future of the European economies. Brexit is a
rare example of an Olson-type shift in real time. My
expectation is that it will not be the last one.
The whole major issue that has every country pissed off more than
most is the immigration. Nobody has issue with an immigrant
coming to a country , applying , getting work permit , renting or
buying a home and adding to society and if it doesn't work out for
them moving home or elsewhere to try same thing,what people
have issue with is immigrants coming to a country arriving with no
money and going straight to social welfare offices looking for
handouts and a house. These people are nothing but parasites ,
these people add nothing to any country and shouldn't be let in to
any country to leech off the systems !

Many of my colleagues don't speak out"

Very hard to blame them when the leader of your country
sits idly by as the abuse goes on. Encourages it in fact
with his disgraceful behaviour when these allegations
were brought to him in the first place
The fish rots from the head. Anyone who continues to
support Enda Kenny is a traitor to this country. I say this
with more conviction than anything I have ever said before
in my life.

The people of South Galway have had all the promises

from Ministers and Ministers of State. Its now time to
actually deliver on flood prevention.
In January Minister of State Canny promised to access
funding for the people of South Galway. Minister can we
have an update on the progress to date please? The
people of South Galway want to know specifically about
the funding for their area, from the Sleive Aughty to the
sea.
South Galway is a scenic and cultural highlight. Yet for 3 or
4 months of every year neither locals or visitors can
access Cool Park or Thoorballylee, landmarks long
associated with some of our greatest poets and artists.
Garryland and Coole Turlough is buried under 20 feet of
water on an all too regular basis destroying the unique
flora and fauna of the area. Garryland Turlough is held to
be one of the most significant of its kind in Europe.
The Minister proudly posts on his website that this is the
first step in resolving the flooding in South Galway.
Minister if it takes you 6 months to take the first step the
people of South Galway will have to wait a lifetime for
resolution. What have you achieved with this first step?
Have you allocated funding to relieve the flooding of South
Galway?