Vo l . V I I , Is s u e 2 P r o d u c e d b y L a b o u r Yo u t h Ap r.

1 2

THE LEFT TRIBUNE

Interview: Frances Byrne of OPEN p 3-4 Labour & the question of Abortion p 6-7 Fiscal Treaty Debate

p 16-17

LABOUR MEMBERS FORUM ATTENDED BY OVER 100 PARTY MEMBERS IN DUBLIN

Tom Healy gave an interesting talk on where the economy is Dublin now, with the other two speakers giving interesting accounts on On the 18th of February, the first their specialist areas. meeting of the Labour Members Forum took place in Wynns Hotel The afternoon session saw Dr. in Dublin, with the room packed Mary Murphy of NUI Maynooth, out with over 100 members. Mags OBrien of SIPTU and Organised by grassroots Michael Taft of UNITE speak. activists, it aimed to give a Mary Murphy spoke from a platform for discussion, debate social and equality perspective, and the formulation of concrete giving several good concrete proposals. The talks began with proposals, such as taxes on high John Douglas (Mandate), Orla income earners, the ending of OConnor (National Womens subsidies on private services, Council of Ireland) and Tom and an economic plan B based Healy(ICTU) giving a descriptive on growth and investment. Mags talk on where the country is now. OBrien gave the Trade Union

By Paul Hand

perspective including proposing new collective bargaining legislation. Michael Taft gave a talk on a plan B based upon the twin track strategy of investment in jobs, to increase the productive areas of the economy creating growth and converting spending cuts into tax increases to fix the deficit through increasing domestic demand. Both sessions were well received by all there. The contribution of ideas and discussion from the floor ensured the event was a forum for all. Everyone who wanted to speak was given the opportunity to do so. The formulation

of concrete policy proposals by the speakers was something well received by all. Also the opportunity to debate and engage is something that all members relish. The Labour Members Forum will be organising more events in the future. Debate and discussion is something that gives the Labour movement strength and the Members Forum aims to provide that space. The British Labour Party has the Fabian Society providing that space. Perhaps now is the time for the Irish Labour Party to have a similar space?

Left Tribune

In this Issue:
3 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 18 20 Interview: Frances Byrne Shaping Society Legislate for the X Case Respecting Womens Choice ACTA and Irelands SOPA 10 Things about #IrishSOPA Vatican Relations Budget 2012 Labour Youth Branches Geese, Golden Eggs & Euros Constitutional Reform Will Fianna Fil take our Spot? Third Level Funding Debate: Fiscal Stability Treaty Book Review: Strumpet City Editorial: Universal Legal Care Lyrics to the Red Flag

@Labouryouth

Social Policy:

WHAT WILL LABOURS LEGACY BE FOR SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES?

Since the announcement of Budget 2012, lone parents have been raising concerns about aspects of the reforms to oneparent family supports and the cumulative effect of a range of cuts on their families. One-parent families were affected by cuts in Rent Supplement, Fuel Allowance, Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance and cuts to Child Benefit for families with three or more children. Measures specific to lone parents were a reduction in the Earnings Disregard element of the One-Parent Family Payment, and cuts to the Qualified Child Increase and One-Parent Family Payment to lone parents participating in Community Employment Schemes. It was also proposed to limit eligibility for the One-Parent Family Payment to lone parents with children aged 7 or under by 2015. At the centre of the movement are OPEN, the national network of one-parent families, and the newly-founded S.P.A.R.K. campaign (Single Parents Acting for the Rights of our Kids). As their campaign heats up in advance of the publication of the Social Welfare Bill, Deirdre Hosford spoke to Frances Byrne, CEO of OPEN, to find out more about her concerns.

By Deirdre Hosford
Dublin
First, to dispense with the stereotypes: What do you think are the most commonly held misconceptions about one-parent families?
For most people, if you say Lone Parent, they picture a 17-yearold. But actually, the truth is that less than 3% of lone parents are under 20. And just like all Irish women, were becoming mothers older; CSO figures show more women becoming mothers for the first time in their late 20s or early 30s. Its the same for single mothers. And, of course, mothers of any age dont get pregnant by themselves, and most lone parents were previously married or in a long-term relationship. And 14% of us are dads. So were not a homogenous group. The other stereotype is the welfare queen: young feckless women getting pregnant for social welfare, to get a house, and somehow living on the pigs back. The reality in the statistics is that 58% of us have one child, so were not having children to get things; we over-populate housing lists because we dont get housing, and 10% of us live in other peoples households, which is another manifestation of the housing problem; and even during the boom, we were among the poorest families.

There are 189,000 of us, of which 92,000 of us are in receipt of weekly social welfare benefit. Of that 92,000, about half are working outside of the home in paid employment, in spite of the Then, in late November, there lack of childcare and so on.* was a headline in The Sunday Times to say that the limit was to What are your main concerns be reduced to age 7. We laughed around the reforms that are out loud. Literally. We said, this taking place at the moment? cant be; nothing has changed. There are no new jobs, no new We at OPEN have no problem facilities, no childcare strategy. with reform of the social welfare The Department of Social system; weve been looking for Protection has a long, proud reform for 18 years, and our history of consultation, but we founding group, Doras Bu in hadnt been consulted. That was Coolock, since 1986. The problem we have is that we are in a reform programme which was designed and put in place by the Fianna We were absolutely Fil/ Green government, and stunned when that this government brought the budget was into effect in April 2011. That programme outlined that an announced, and age limit of 14 years for children we realised the of parents in receipt of the OneParent Family Payment would implications for our be phased in from April 2011 to families. 2016 for all recipients. The only concern we expressed about this, because of the recession, was that we wanted the age absolutely unprecedented. We limit introduced in the context were absolutely stunned when of a system that worked with the budget was announced in lone parents, so that they would December, and we realised the receive a letter when their child is implications for our families. 10 to say that this is happening in Since the budget, the Oireachtas four years time, and to work with Committee on Jobs, Social them towards that. Everyone Protection and Education has wants to see people lifted out published, with unanimous of poverty, but in the context of support, a report on the Single

400,000 people on the dole, it couldnt happen. And remember that lone parents only stay on the payment for an average of six years anyway.

Working Age Payment. It is saying that we cant have a Single Working Age Payment for anybody, including lone parents, because there arent enough jobs; education and training is already flat out; and there isnt childcare or an after-school strategy. But, because of what happened already with the reduction in the Earnings Disregard, and the intention to keep reducing that - combined with the reduction to age 7 - by 2015, those two together mean that lone parents will have a Single Working Age Payment. This government and Im not saying this to question the motives of anyone around the Cabinet table but we will end up with a scenario where our families are singled out in a deeply unfair and misguided way. The impact will effectively be that lone parents on social welfare and not working will be put onto Jobseekers Allowance. Lone parents working parttime and in receipt of a reduced payment will be forced out of work and onto social welfare exclusively. And all of this will inevitably increase child poverty. From our perspective, this will set back the agenda for economic independence, which lone parents really want, by a decade. Does the Labour Party want to be part of the government that is responsible for doing that?

Continues on page 4.

4
full-time employment is the best way to lift someone out of poverty, so any policy that pushes lone parents off social welfare or out of part-time employment and into fulltime work is poverty-proof, though jobs are thin on the ground at the minute. What do you think of this approach to poverty-proofing?

Left Tribune
register. We think S.P.A.R.K. is a manifestation of the realisation that lone parents need to get active. Like OPEN, S.P.A.R.K. is grassroots and led by lone parents. There isnt a lone parent in the state on social welfare or not who thinks its a good idea to reduce the age to 7. debate in Ireland about what age is appropriate all else being equal to have non-parental care. Is it 1? 2? 3? And do we therefore need to increase and pay for paternity leave? The early school year has been one of the most successful things the State has ever done, with 98% take-up. At OPEN, we think that the system needs to be as universal as it possibly can be so that its not a stigmatising system, and those with resources can contribute through their taxes. But we want to have a debate. Thats at a minimum. Education and training also needs reform, as does the social welfare system. Work must pay. If were saying that there will always be low-paid jobs, then social welfare has to kick in. The same applies if you have to work part-time or cant work full-time. Ultimately, its about us deciding what kind of society we want. OPEN recommends a move away from the current meanstesting and to put in its place as much universal provision as the country can afford, and after that, you pay according to your ability to pay. Its 50% rights, 50% responsibilities. And it needs to be transparent. At the moment, its piecemeal, and then we get disasters like this Social Welfare Bill. *Preliminary findings from Census 2011, published since this interview was conducted, show that there are now 215,300 families headed by lone parents with children, 87 per cent of which are headed by lone mothers.

So where would you like the social policy around oneAs an anti-poverty network, parent families to bring us in OPEN is not happy with the the future, and how do we get approach to poverty-proofing there? because the sad fact is that the current method is informed by We need to prepare for the unfair assumptions and values, moment when we have money which dont take account of again. The first thing we need to realities in the current context establish now is a Cabinet subof part-time work, low pay committee on childcare. There and the diversity of families needs to be political will around and households. Its a blanket this, so that well have a public approach, and the lesson is that everything needs to be looked at. We need poverty impact assessments, which would be much better. And we also need strong poverty targets. Were waiting for the government to publish the latest ones. The S.P.A.R.K. (Single Parents Acting for the Rights of our Kids) campaign was launched after the Budget 2012 announcements. Does this mark a decisive change in the way that single parents engage with the State and the political system?
If the current government doesnt have an underlying negative attitude toward oneparent families, then why is it that lone parents in receipt of One-Parent Family Payments were singled out and thats the only way to describe it in Budget 2012? The conclusion we have come to is that lone parents live in communities where voting levels are very low. If we dont get these things reversed and the age 7 limit stopped in its tracks, the only good thing to come out of this would be the dawning realisation on those lone parents that we need to be much more active citizens, and that starts with voting. Right now, invitations are coming in from everywhere to come and talk about the Social Welfare Bill, and were agreeing of course, but were also asking for 5-10 minutes at the end to talk about voting and the importance of getting on the electoral

Right: Poster for OPENs 7 IS TOO YOUNG campaign.

facebook.com/Labouryouth

5
outlined five steps that should be considered for adoption by the government. These included extending adoption rights to civil partners; introducing statutory paid paternity leave upon the birth or adoption of a child; reforming paid maternity leave to make it transferable between partners, at a ratio to be determined by the couple; introducing payment in respect of parental leave; and extending the period of paid paternity leave over time. While there would be a cost associated with many of these measures, the societal benefit to be reaped would be huge; countries such as Sweden that already use a similar model have noticed huge social benefits since its implementation. As a final note on social policy, it is time to start asking hard questions about what this government will do on the issues of reproductive rights and marriage equality. Reproductive rights will be covered by other articles in this issue. On the issue of marriage equality, the government does appear to be stalling. It is perhaps politically convenient or expedient to kick all decisions relating to samesex marriages down the road to the nebulous Constitutional Convention, but the fact is that we are not acting on issues which attracted many votes to the Labour Party in 2011. Enshrining the marriage rights of same-sex couples in the Constitution will of course require a referendum, but many of the key issues especially adoption rights for civil partners, an issue for many straight couples as well as gay could be addressed using legislation rather than waiting for constitutional change. Labour needs to stop shying away from this and many other issues of social policy that can be addressed during our tenure in government, and when those issues require a loosening of the purse-strings by our coalition partners, we must get better at making the arguments for this to happen.

HOW IS LABOUR SHAPING SOCIETY?

Some progress has been made. Particularly welcomed by most Labour supporters was Minister Ruairi Quinns push to end the patronage of schools by the Catholic Church. While tinged with bitterness over the increase in point-of-entry costs for thirdlevel education that happened almost alongside it, this element of progress will hopefully produce strong social dividends in years to come. Similarly, the introduction of candidate gender quota legislation brings the promise of a progression in the number of women represented at Dil level; the legislation is controversial, and I believe it is flawed, but it is perhaps a step in the right direction and will hopefully be followed up with further social policy to support female candidacies. That said, chipping away at the unrepresentative nature of the Dil composition is a much bigger project; of those elected in the General Election in 2011, women only made up 15.06%, but people under 35 only made up 12.34%, and yet there is no real call for young people to be supported in entering political life.

By Luke Field
UCC
Jobs, Reform, Fairness. was the rallying cry of the Labour Party in 2011s General Election, lest we forget. Each word was carefully chosen and assessed for the impact it would have in the consciousness of a damaged, hurt, betrayed public. Jobs was a no-brainer in the climate of steadily-rising unemployment, and Reform was a dog-whistle to an electorate that knew something, somewhere, had somehow gone wrong but wasnt quite sure what needed changing just that change was badly needed. Fairness was more controversial, probably because it was trying so hard not to be; it was what we said when we wanted to say equality but were told it wouldnt play well with the electorate.

Behind the three buzzwords, though, was quite a strong form of policy or, at least, a strong promise to create progressive social policy. However, of have the constraints government coalition

impeded Perhaps the greatest opportunity much of what we had hoped available to Labour in government to achieve in terms of Labour to implement progressive social social policy, not least because policy will occur in the next year. Having applied for, and received, (contrary to the belief of some) a one-year extension, Ireland so much of social policy is bound must now introduce shared up with a relationship with the parental leave in line with an Exchequer. A more progressive EU directive. The advantages of this model rather than a and fair taxation system would of maternity leave model have been course have huge positive social discussed time and time again. implications, as much through However, merely following the the feeling of social solidarity directives minimum standards that it would create as through will be nowhere near enough to overcome the huge challenges the greater finances available for faced by mothers and indeed spending on social projects. This, fathers in the workplace. In due to the reality of coalition an excellent policy document drafted recently, Labour Youth politics, never transpired.

Left Tribune

By Audrey Walsh
UCC

20 YEARS SINCE X: ITS TIME TO LEGISLATE

Consecutive governments have shirked the issue, even twice bringing forward referenda to have the ruling overturned outright; both of which the Irish people rejected. The ABC vs Ireland case in which three more women brought similar cases to the European Court of Human Rights, threw light back on the issue. C, a woman suffering from a rare form of cancer claimed to have been forced to travel to Britain to seek an abortion because no doctor in Ireland would provide one, despite the fact that according to the X case ruling, it should have been legally available on the grounds that her life was in danger if her pregnancy continued. We in the Labour Party promised to legislate on the X case if elected, and have thus far failed to do so the matter now resigned to a committee of investigation lead by the Minister for Health, Dr. James Reilly, following discussions with Fine Gael. The committee of 14 experts, which is due to report back to the Oireachtas with their findings within 6 months, will be the fourth such committee set up to look into the abortion issue. Abortion in the case of risk to the mothers life is a right that is currently being wrongly denied by the state if not provided. Ireland was put in an embarrassing position recently following the UN periodic review in which several countries criticised our abortion laws and more recently in the European Court of Human Rights ruling on ABC which condemned the Irish government for failing to act upon the X Case ruling, and stated that current law is abhorrent to article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights the right to respect for private and family life. With the prospect now of a referendum on abortion rights in the wake of the Oireachtas groups findings, this issue is sure to prove contentious. In a debate so steeped in moral and religious bias, it may be difficult to have an articulate debate on the issue of reproductive rights. Nonetheless, it is a debate that is long overdue. In the case of a womans life being put at risk, the state has a duty of care both legally and morally to provide her with the means to terminate a pregnancy in a dignified and sensitive manner. Taking the lonely trip on the boat to England is not the ideal situation either psychologically or financially for a woman who is already dealing with a traumatic situation, and yet it is a lonely trip that is made by about 10 or more Irish women every day. Worse still is the growing trend of women and young girls buying unregulated abortifacients online or seeking other DIY solutions. Women should be supported by both the state and the medical system in such a case, even if it is unpalatable for some. Ireland needs to step out of the conservative moral trench it finds itself in on this issue, and the Labour Party needs to be the one giving it the leg up.

It has been almost 20 years since the landmark X-case in which the Supreme Court ruled that a 14 year-old girl, who had fallen pregnant after being raped, could access an abortion on the grounds that continuing the pregnancy was of risk to her life from threat of suicide. Despite consistent lobbying by activists and womens rights groups since then, this ruling has not been legislated upon. Such an act which would make it possible for any woman whos life is endangered by her pregnancy to seek an abortion in the Republic of Ireland. In the murky legal area that exists at the moment between precedent and what is written in law, doctors are highly unlikely to chance performing an abortion for fear of the possible consequences. This contributes to the hopeless situation in which 4000 Irish women a year are travelling to the UK for terminations.

It's Time to Legislate for the X-Case

We believe that the issue of abortion in Ireland must be addressed politically, and no longer swept under the carpet. We call upon the Government to: A. Introduce immediate legislation to make provision for abortion in Ireland in cases where there is a substantial risk to the life of the woman, including risk of suicide, as upheld by the 'X' case ruling. B. Ensure that abortion is provided for in such cases. C. Address the issue of abortion in the longer term, leading to the repeal of anti-abortion legislation and Article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution (Anti-Choice amendment). D. Ensure that any abortion provision in Ireland is accessible to all women on an equitable basis.

Different campaign images calling for abortion legislation in Ireland, including Labour Youths own collaberation with Labour Women and Labour Equality on the 18th anniversay of the X cas.

Travelling abroad should not be the only choice

@Labouryouth

nna N Gleabhin

LIFE-SAVING ABORTIONS ARENT THE ONLY ABORTIONS WE SHOULD BE LEGALISING

Dublin
landmark case and an affront to the rights of Irish women that it has not yet been legislated for, so long after its findings. One cant help but wonder, however, about the true impact on womens rights X case legislation would have, given its very particular application; the X case involves a minor, a paedophile, a rape and a misguided attorney general. We as progressives need to fight for and protect a womans right to abort an unplanned pregnancy not just when it involves a rape, a health risk, or a foetal defect, but also where the pregnancy is simply not wanted. Discourse on women to travel with a friend yet both of these women travelled on their own: A travelled by herself without telling her family or social workers or missing a contact visit with her children and B did not list anybody as her next of kin to ensure that her family would not find out. Both women had complications with the procedures. A, on returning back to Ireland began to bleed profusely for weeks thereafter but did not seek further medical advice. B began passing blood clots and instead of visiting a doctor in Ireland returned to the UK for medical care as she was uncertain of the legality of abortion in Ireland. These cases demonstrate both the emotional and financial distress that travelling for abortions place upon women. These women did not feel that they could tell anybody about their experiences and both had borrowed money, A at a very high interest, in order to receive the abortions. Their experiences also shed light on the lack of correct legal information held by doctors in the UK; the doctor in the abortion clinic advised B to tell her doctor in Ireland that she had had a miscarriage. This not only caused B emotional distress and implied that she had done something wrong but also lead her to spend even more money on returning to the UK for a follow-up exam after she began passing blood clots.

One of the most talked about women in Irish society is someone whose name we do not know. X was a 14 year old girl who fell pregnant after being raped and was prevented from travelling to the United Kingdom to terminate the pregnancy. This injunction was overturned when the Supreme Court ruled that X could access an abortion on the grounds that continuing the pregnancy was of risk to her life from threat of suicide. In 2010, nearly two decades later, three women, known as A, B and C, challenged Irelands still restrictive abortion laws at the European Court of Human Rights. The three women told the court that the impossibility of obtaining an abortion in Ireland made the procedure unnecessarily expensive and traumatic. In particular, they argued that Irelands restrictive abortion laws stigmatised and humiliated them and risked damaging their health and, in the case of C, her life. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of just one of the women, C. C was in remission from cancer when she became pregnant and could not obtain clear advice about the risks to her life and to the foetus if she continued with the pregnancy. The ECHR said the Irish government had failed to legislate for abortion under the X case thus violating the rights of C who who had to travel to the UK for an abortion. This publically placed pressure on the Irish government to legislate for abortion under the conditions of the 1992 X case. It is evident that the X case continues to shape abortion discourse in Ireland, and before our most recent election the Labour Party promised to legislate for it. It is arguably a

There is a demand amongst many Irish women for abortive procedures... this is a fact that our public officials are unwilling to admit to.
abortion should stop focusing on saving womens lives and start focusing on the most common reason for seeking an abortion a woman simply does not want to go through with the pregnancy. A was unmarried, unemployed and living in poverty with an alcohol addiction. A, at that time, had four children, one disabled, who had all been taken in to foster care by the State. A, increasingly worried about the risk of postnatal depression and what risk a fifth child could have on her sobriety and regaining custody of her children, borrowed money from a lender to travel alone to the UK and visit a private clinic for an abortion. B found herself pregnant after taking emergency contraception and also borrowed money to travel alone to the UK for an abortion.

amongst many Irish women for abortive procedures. This is a fact that our public officials are unwilling to admit to, including former Attorney General Paul Gallagher who defended Ireland v ABC, claiming that the protection of the foetus was central to the profound moral values embedded in Irish society. The demand for abortive services is clear to many other countries. Indeed, Ireland is one of the only countries in the West in which abortion procedures are completely illegal. In fact, most abortion clinics, in places such as the UK, Netherlands and France, have webpages solely dedicated to advising Irish women travelling from Ireland, linking to airlines, accommodations and even special package offers. We have an estimate of how many women travel abroad for abortions, but what must the figure look like for those who are forced to go through with the unwanted pregnancies due to lack of finances? Any country in which abortion is illegal will be home to backstreet abortions. In 2010, the Irish Medicine Board seized over 1200 abortive pills coming in to Ireland from foreign countries. This shows the desperate lengths that women in Ireland will go to in order to terminate their unwanted pregnancies. There are many reasons that a pregnancy may be unwanted, but the state has no place judging these on their merits. If we accept that a foetus is not a life, than the x-case doesnt go far enough. If we think that it is a life, then rape, incest or the threat of maternal suicide are no reasons to end it. If a woman in Ireland does not want to go through with a pregnancy she must be able to terminate that pregnancy without the psychological, emotional and financial burden of travelling alone to a foreign country.

Its unclear the exact number of Irish women who are travelling abroad for abortions from Ireland each year. In 2009, a report claimed that 4422 women had given Irish addresses to abortion clinics within the United Kingdom. This figure does not take in to account women who give false addresses nor does it take in to account women who are travelling to countries other than the UK. This figure does Abortion clinics advise Irish tell us that there is a demand

Left Tribune

Jobs, Enterprise & Innovation:

By Declan
Meenagh
Dublin
In recent months there has been a lot of debate about the Internet and copyright. Unfortunately, Labour hasnt come out very well in this debate. On one hand we have huge companies who own copyright and want to exploit music and films to their fullest extent and on the other we have users who want fair and reasonable access to things they have bought. Let me start by saying that I do accept the need for artists to be compensated for their work. The problem is that it is trivially easy to copy things on the Internet and there is no real technical way to stop this: The internet was, after all, invented as a network that could survive partial destruction by a nuclear attack. I strongly believe the major reason for people downloading illegally is that firstly they want to see if they like the band or TV show, and secondly that they cant get it at a fair price without outrageous licensing conditions in other sources. If these companies made it easier for people to legally buy their content they wouldnt have this problem. In America, in the 90s, there was a big scare over people taping songs off the radio and record companies clamed that this would destroy the industry. It was legalised and nothing happened. Today we have the ability to communicate to one billion people in our pockets. We have seen this with the twitter documentation of of the Arab spring. The internet has a lot of associations are blatantly making potential and is being and can be up statistics to cover for their hugely beneficial to society. complete lack of investment in new formats, and getting Then we come to Irish SOPA, increasingly irrational and a statutory instrument which unreasonable in their clamour grants the courts sweeping to tighten licenses for digital powers to demand that sites products, the government has be blocked that are accused yet to see a problem in the way of copyright infringement, to these commercial interests are bring Ireland in to line with EU conducting their business. law. However, there is a class of sites which allow users to upload Minister Sherlock has said he content which this law doesnt would like to see both sides adequately protect. sit down around the table to Websites like YouTube, discuss the future of the industry Flickr and Twitter let users well, on one side there are upload anything they like. This large commercial interests, has caused a revolution of and on the other side there creativity on the web and has are millions of Irish consumers allowed people to set up their and citizens. Governments own businesses. There are also desperately need to realise that a lot of new small and medium THEY are the ones who should be enterprises, some of which are representing citizens, and talking based in Ireland, which also let to commercial interests from that users upload content. Under this point of view, and shouldnt have SI, a rights holder can go straight much patience for companies to court and get an injunction who are trying to make it harder against Internet Service Providers to download their products for to block a website, without free, whilst not simultaneously the website owner even being putting any effort downloading informed. their products legally. In such a case, why would an ISP even fight the injunction Then we have ACTA, the Antion behalf of a website that gives Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, them no direct income? The which emerged a few years ago, SI creates the unique situation which aims to enforce American where the defendant isnt the style copyright laws across the one who will suffer from an world. Counterfeiting and trade injunction against them. Those are two very important issues. who will suffer, website owners, Counterfeiting making a hosts, business, etc., wont have substandard product and selling a voice in the courtroom their it off as a well-known brand right to a fair trial being rather is really bad. Cars that werent skilfully undermined by the made safely and drugs that Instrument. dont work shouldnt be on the market and definitely shouldnt Aside from business, this has be on the streets. ACTA doesnt massive implications for satire, deal with counterfeiting. Trade is journalism and art. It also could where two countries sell things have a hugely detrimental to each other in exchange for effect on political activity. Most other things or currency. Trade damningly though, at a time is a very important aspect of life, when music and film industry and is the central focus of many

DISSECTING ACTA AND IRELANDS SOPA

treaties. ACTA doesnt really deal with trade, except to make it more complicated. ACTA deals with patenets and copyright, or rather, ACTA redefines copyright to the extent that a new form of property right will criminalise much of what we regard as legitimate behaviour. Legitimate behaviour like getting seeds and medication to third world countries; ACTA extends patents to goods going through countries even if the goods are out of patent in the source and destination countries. Such trade is therefore policed nay, prevented by countries who have no stake in it or grievance by it. It will enshrine into law the concept that one illegal download equals one lost sale, which will put unrealistic and unfair costs on sites. Perhaps the most damaging part is that it demands criminal sanctions for commercial scale infringement. This is defined in such a vague way that it could mean bloggers who use a copyright image could be criminalised. A horrifying aspect of ACTA, however, is the way we found out about it. We, the public, knew nothing until a copy of the treaty was leaked. Usually trade agreements are negotiated in secret, but ACTA isnt a usual trade agreement, it provides for fundamental changes to law and policy. Indeed, for a treaty that will dramatically change laws in countries that signed up to it, is it not odd that its not being debated publicly, or even by parliaments in signatory countries? Compare the secret negotiation of ACTA to the open access NGOs have to

10 Things you might to spreadknow about #SOPAIreland not the campaign to oppose the Statutory Instrument on ISP injunctions., On January 26th, Labour Youth got creative in attempting
releasing one thing you might not know about #SOPAIreland an hour for ten hours. Here are ten things you might not know about the Instrument...

1. It will breach the European Convention on Human Rights if companies are found to self-censor out of fear of injunction. 2. It gives Judges the ability to destroy accused indigenous businesses without hearing their defence. 3. The ECJ have ruled against provisions now found in #SOPAIreland, and the Commission warned about their blocking growth in the Irish Economy. 4. ThIt will push the price of internet connection up for Irish businesses and customers.

@Labouryouth
the World Intellectual Copyright Organisation (WIPO), which was where international copyright issues were dealt with before those behind ACTA decided it was too open, having given concessions for libraries and blind people. There are systems called digital rights management or DRM which are designed to prevent people from copying things they have bought like books and music. Under ACTA, breaking DRM in any form is illegal and providing information about breaking DRM is also a crime. In the past, companies which have used this technology have shut down leaving users unable to access content they have legally bought. There is no exception in ACTA to access this content, even issue is that if you need to break DRM to access content, for example if you have a disability, or want to translate or annotate something. This, despite the fact that youve paid money for the product.

International Affairs:
played such a fundamental role in Irish society that it usurped many functions of the state, which either was unwilling or unable to take on those functions themselves. Control of education by the Catholic Church enabled these abuses, and the influence of the Church generally allowed their continuation. This insult to every reasonable Irish citizen has and will continue to create much anger. Coupled with the nature of the Vatican as a state, an extremely rich enclave in Italy that was effectively created by Mussolini, and the damage done by the Church with regard to the AIDS epidemic in Africa, the other sort of radical advocating ending diplomatic relations with the Vatican can also be understood, and again, if not agreed with. However, none of the approaches proposed by those who want to reopen the embassy, or those who want to end relations, are realistic or reasonable. In the former case, it is simple economic reality we must contend with. The Vatican, although providing us with megaphone diplomacy on issues like international poverty and peacekeeping, does not provide us with what we really need at the moment: investment, jobs, and economic opportunity. Those ideas must take precedent when it comes to deciding which embassies we close, and which embassies remain open. Furthermore, the option of closing our embassies in key developing countries is not an alternative either, particularly if we are to remain the enthusiasts of humanitarian aid and development that we are today. Lastly, the expense of

A MATURE AND REPUBLICAN APPROACH TO DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE VATICAN

reopening the embassy would be considerable in its own right, and an absurd suggestion considering we already have a building in Rome for diplomatic activity in the form of the Italian embassy. Indulging the Vaticans absurd position on joint embassies at large expense is not reasonable in any sense of the word. On the other side of the coin, ending diplomatic relations would be an extreme move. While the number of people who claim no religious affiliation have increased significantly since the last census, the fact of the matter is that most Irish people continue to claim Catholicism as their religious viewpoint, no matter how serious they are about it. Furthermore, many of our new Irish from Eastern Europe are Catholics as well. It would be extremely disrespectful to them to snub the leader of their church in such a way while other, more productive options are available. The approach of our government has been quite correct on this issue, and indeed, is the only mature one in sight. Coupled with principled republican reforms in areas like patronage of schools at every level, and appropriate child protection legislation as outlined by the Taoiseach during his speech on the Cloyne Report, this government could achieve something never before seen in Ireland. We must not waver on these issues, we must stand resolutely in favour of a reasoned approach to relations with every country, and in favour of a pluralist Ireland.

numerous people of all faiths within the party, and the values we hold that can be considered Christian among others. Zealous statements on the matter have also come from the backbenchers of our coalition partner, with TDs vying with each other to prove their Catholic credentials in an attempt to gain the upper hand on this issue. The press too has been a battleground, with the Letters to the Editor section of the Irish Times continuing to play host on occasion to radicals on both sides of the problem. If one can draw a conclusion from any of this, it may very well be that we are incapable of having a calm and reasoned debate on In all ACTA is a terrible treaty, and this issue, and quite rightly so is indicative of the huge corporate perhaps. interests at work here. While I hope the ECJ completely rejects After all, the Catholic Church ACTA, it is likely there will be has been an institution more treaties trying to force these fundamentally linked to what unjust laws into the EU and across it means to be Irish since the the world. We need to be on our failure of the secular-pluralist guard and ready to fight back as rebels of 1798. Irish nationalism, new threats to free speech and a driving force even today, was democracy emerge. increasingly linked to Catholicism by both nationalists themselves and the British once the Anglican Dublin church was disestablished here. It has been argued that the Church usurped the role of the There has been much criticism monarchy once such a vacuum of the move by the coalition was created after the Treaty. government to move the Hospitals, schools, care of the ambassador to the Holy See poor, these roles were fulfilled by to Dublin, and the closure of the Church where there were no the dedicated embassy to the other groups or societies to do Vatican in Rome. Recently in so. For that reason, the radicals Cork, local Fianna Fil councillor arguing that we must spend far OFlynn claimed that the closure more money than we need to in was to satisfy the godlessness of order to have an embassy can be the Labour Party, to which he was understood, if not agreed with. thoroughly and comprehensively rebuked by our own Cllr Michael However, the same historical fact OConnell. It would almost is also why the abuses detailed be amusing if it werent such at horrible length in the various an insult, considering the reports were possible. The Church

By Eoghan Boyce

5. The messages to companies like Google, Twitter and LinkedIn, is that Irish law might change at any moment to hurt their investment here (and yet, we still wont charge them reasonable tax rates in the same vein...) 6. At the time of initial publication, Sen Sherlocks own website was breaking copyright with several very obvious microsoft software symbols. Had the SI been in place, Irish ISPs couldve been taken to court by Microsoft to block Sherlocks website. 7. It wont just attack illegal downloading, it will also have massive implications for Youtube and Facebook - who are already rolling out a country-by-country censorship program. 8. It wont stop people from file-sharing, and yet it will cost us a lot of our freedoms. 9. While EMI Ireland will use it to make up for their own commercial failings, smaller companies wont risk the legal costs. 10. Its not for the greater good; acts like it across the world are being pushed by and for about 15 large multinationals.

10

Left Tribune

Finance & the Economy:

WORKING PEOPLE SUFFERING UNDER BUDGET 2012
By Rory ONeill
You are not responsible for the crisis. This was the reassuring message Enda Kenny sent to the Irish people on December 4th, 2011, two days before the presentation of the coalitions first budget. One might have had high hopes, as it seemed that the previous government had never really considered that they had in fact created the crisis, not the people who were footing the bill. But now that our Labour Party were in government, one might have hoped that they would ensure a different way of thinking and had no designs on making the working people of Ireland pay for an economic collapse that was in no way their fault. However, this statement was ultimately of little significance. There is little point in acknowledging that the Irish people are not responsible for the crisis when you continue to punish them for it. The coalitions budget was an affront to the most basic Labour Party principles of equality, fairness and social justice. It was a disproportionate attack on working people whilst the higher earners and top echelons of Irish society escaped essentially unscathed. How was this the case? Firstly,

Deputy Editor

arguably the most controversial measure in the budget, for Labour Party members at least, was a 2% VAT hike. This sort of measure is traditionally abhorred by those on the left as crude and unjust, because of VATs inherent nature as a regressive tax: someone in receipt of welfare payments will contribute the same amount of VAT from a given purchase as the very top earners. There can be no doubt in the mind of any progressive that increasing it is unfair. If not notorious for these reasons, it was this measure that incurred the opposition of newly elected Labour TD Patrick Nulty, who resigned from the Parliamentary Party in the act of daring defying the party whip. Then, of course, there is the infamous Household Charge. In the spirit of the anti-austerity Poplar Town Council of 1921, its better to break the law than break the poor, and it is unsurprising that the left supports non-payment. It has been suggested in many quarters that those who oppose the charge are hypocrites for refusing to support a property tax. This is not a property tax, but a poverty tax. A property tax should be targeted primarily at mansions and extravagant homes: not every household equally.

A point of the budget which will be particularly close to the hearts of Labour Youth members is the increase of the third-level student contribution. It is the universal belief of the left-wing that education is a right, but under the last government, and now this coalition, it has become an expensive commodity. At a time when costs are rising and rising for working families, education with a 3,000 price tag sounds more like a privilege than a right. These are just the headline issues in a budget that was disproportionately targeted at lower earners. People earning 17,000 a year will still pay the same proportion of their income in Universal Social Charge as those who earn 100,000 a year. When rising inflation is taken in to account, those receiving child benefit will be facing substantial cuts in real terms. Based on ERSI inflation projections for families on social protection, this could range from real cuts of 10% to 57% depending on how many children the family have. For part-time workers, the gains made by the raising of the USC threshold could be wiped out by the replacement of the FiveDay Rule with a Six-day Rule. For those working two days a week, they will lose 12.53 in Jobseekers Benefit, eliminating any potential gains these workers

would have made from a reduced Universal Social Charge burden. There can be no doubt that a disproportionately large share of the burden is being placed on the shoulders of low earners in order to pay for the ill-destined debts of speculators and incompetent banks. Yet we are told that we are where we are and that these tough policies are necessary in order to restore fiscal stability, but stability comes from economic growth, and austerity does not give you growth. Despite what the government seem to be saying, there are progressive, fairer alternatives to the current strategy. Enda Kenny told the nation that for some certainty for the year ahead, were leaving income tax untouched. This is nullified by the cuts and taxes imposed below the surface, wiping out the gains made by headline rates. This certainly does not provide any certainty. Nonetheless, progressive increases in income tax are in fact one of the most responsible and necessary steps we can take. Firstly, a heavy progressive or graduated income tax ensures that, unlike VAT hikes or child benefit cuts, income taxation is proportional to how much an individual earns and we can thus ensure it is fair. Secondly, it is not the working class who should have to bear further taxation, but the wealthy. It is a basic progressive principle that those who can afford to contribute more should do so. Our taxation system is not progressive enough. We need at least a third rate to target higher earners, for example, those earning over 100,000 a year. Increases in income tax on higher earners, wealth taxes, and increases in the capital gains and acquisitions taxes could raise up to 770 million. Online gambling taxes, the abolition of group relief which allows capitalists to transfer losses to profitable companies, abolition of legacy property reliefs and reductions in mortgage interest relief for landlords would raise just under 1.3 billion.

facebook.com/Labouryouth
most significant and worthwhile saving we could make is to cease paying the promissory notes. 2.6 billion is scheduled to be paid to unguaranteed bondholders alone in 2012. Combined with the progressive measures outlined above, ceasing all payments to just the unguaranteed bondholders would be of even more value to the exchequer than this harsh austerity budget was. If economic history has proven one thing, it is that austerity does not work. As if we needed further proof, we learned recently that Ireland slumped back in to recession in the final quarter of 2011. This can come as no surprise to anyone. When the government continues a failed strategy of deflating and taking money out of the economy at a time when it is already struggling to grow, the end result is almost inevitable. Labour in opposition stood against it, Labour in government should not implement it. It is a worrying indicator of the balance of power in the coalition when Budget 2012 is described by those in the party as a Labour budget. Why is Labour happy to put their name to a budget that sucked 1.4 billion out of the economy in spending cuts? Is this the best we can do? If this is really as much progress as the party can make in government in cooperation with Fine Gael; if our standards have sunk so low that we are satisfied with this budget, then this is a worrying omen for what is to come. A further degeneration and blurring of the values, principles and policies claimed by the Labour Party seems to be imminent. The economy will not get any better if we follow this strategy. The Labour Party thus has two choices: It can shield itself with Troika commitments and the Programme for Government, and continue down the same path; or it can demand a change in policy from the government. If Labour is to claim any credibility as a party fit to represent working people, then it must insist on an alternative plan that is progressive and fair. This is not a debate over whether to enter government or not, because never is it so clear that Labour has opted to stay on the margins than when we have entered government. The partys principles get pushed to the wayside. Will the centenary year

11
mark another year of stepping back? So far, that is exactly what has happened. Labour may be in government and participating in a coalition, but the values that the party claims to represent social justice, equality and progress are not being asserted or implemented. There is no social justice or fairness in how this government is attacking working people to pay for a crisis that they did not create. Thus far, Labour have failed in allowing this regressive campaign of austerity to go ahead, despite warning against it in opposition. A radical shift in the partys attitude towards government is necessary if it is to avoid a damning rejection by the people at the next election.

Labour Youth College Branches:

Labour DCU
Chair: Secretary: Email: David Helion Steven Condon labourdcu@gmail.com

UCC Labour
Chair: Secretary: Email:

Jim Kemmy Branch

Dean Duke Siobhn de Paor labour@uccsocieties.ie

DIT Labour
Chair: Secretary: Email: Luke ORourke Lyndsey Copeland dit.labouryouth@gmail.com

UCD Labour
Chair: Secretary: Email:

Charlie Donnelly Branch

Conor Quirke Lisa Connell ucd@votelabour.ie

Labour NUI Galway

Noel Browne Branch
Chair: Secretary: Email: anna Mac Donnchada Cian Moran
labouryouth@soc.nuigalway.ie

Trinity Labour
Chair: Secretary: Email: Angelina Cox Miriam Henning trinity@votelabour.ie

NUIM Labour Youth

Chair: Secretary: Email: Eleanor McKenna Ruaidhri Boland eleanor.mckenna@yahoo.ie

12

Left Tribune

By Dara Turnbull
NUIG

THE GOOSE THAT LAID THE GOLDEN EGG

year economist can prove to you that this is the case using basic supply and demand diagrams. If a magic goose was messing with this delicate equilibrium then a lot of people would lose a lot of money, so for the sake of keeping the status quo, the goose would have to die. Sorry kids. (Ed: Couldnt we just store the eggs on a gold mountain under the terms of the CAP?) Before sentencing the goose to his fate, somewhere in my train of thought I thought, what would be the implications for Ireland if we had access to a golden goose? Maybe not a literal one, but a device that could solve much of our economic woes. The fact of the matter is there is such a thing as a golden goose. In fact Britain has one. This goose is pampered, it isnt even asked to lay eggs very often but just its very presence is enough to ensure the confidence and wellbeing of investors. The goose in question is called the Bank of England. In terms of its debt position, Italy and Britain are about even with each other. But as far as the bond markets are concerned, they are worlds apart. At the time of writing this piece the yield on a 10 year UK bond was about 2.13% while Italys yield on a 10 year bond was 5.62%. Is this because crack international investors feel that suddenly Italy has lost its edge while Britain has not? The simple answer is no. The reason is that Britain has access to a lender of last resort and Italy does not. Put simply, investors know that if worst comes to worst then in Britain the Bank of England will step in and make the money that the British government needs available. More accurately, they will simply print money to pay off their debts. This is the point in my story when any economics student worth their salt will say but that will lead to high inflation/devaluation of the currency and they would be 100% right. But, and this is the important part, the loss that those holding UK bonds would receive from taking payment in a now devalued currency is far less than they would receive if the Brits were to default (obviously) or even if they could only afford to pay of a percentage of their debt, as the Greeks are doing. Trust me, creditors prefer this. And here is the best part of Britains position, to quote from a paper by Douglas Diamond and Philip Dybvig, the credible promise to provide the [money] means that the promise will not need to be fulfilled. While Diamond and Dybvid were talking about government backed insurance to prevent bank runs, the principal is the same. Simply having a golden goose is enough to ease the fears of creditors, one need never actually command to the goose to lay as the fact alone that she could do so if it were required is good enough. So whats the problem then? Britain has a central bank, so does Italy and so does Ireland. So whats the difference? Well, the difference is that Italy and Ireland have the same central bank, the ECB. If the ECB has to act as a lender of last resort and print money (or at least promise that it would) then that would devalue the Euro not just in Ireland, Italy and our other bad neighbours in Portugal, Spain and Greece but also in Germany and France and all of the other Eurozone states. As far as the inflation-phobic Germans are concerned that is something which cannot be allowed to happen, not now and not ever. Since Angela Merkel and her colleagues seem to be the ones with their hands on the purse strings its their way that prevails even if the ECB is supposed to be an independent organisation. In reality the ECB does what its told or at the very least it is not nave enough to think it could cross the Germans an expect the Euro to survive. Any hope Ireland ever had of having its own golden goose to solve all our problems was ended a long time ago by some Germans with their hunting rifles. So the problem is that the ECB is simply not fit for purpose. It is its job to guarantee the stability of the Eurozone and thanks to the ideological stand point of the biggest bully in the yard that is simply not possible. Uncertainty about the solvency of sovereign debt will continue to hang over Europe like a dark cloud and in many ways countries like Italy could see themselves become the victims of self-fulfilling prophecies where by the fear of a default pushes up yields which in turn increases the fear of a default which pushes up yields and so on. By giving in to the Germans the ECB is playing with fire. Merkel and her minions are counting on all other countries playing their part. But what if they dont? What if someone decides their debt is too much to bear and that a sovereign default is the better option, I mean look at the swing in the fortunes of Iceland since their default. If one country goes, it will be the end for the Euro. If you imagine the Eurozone countries like a row of dominos, once the first one is knocked they are all going to go and from Frankfurt to Faro that is going to be an economic disaster for more reasons than I, or indeed any economist far more qualified and experienced could even begin to contemplate. So why cant we all be like those kids in the cinema thinking how cool it would be to have a golden goose of our own? Why cant we have a cute and cuddly friend who could melt the heart of even the most anxious of investors? While the potential inflationary consequences are dyer the far more serious consequences of a Eurozone failure are what need to be placed opposite in the weighing scales. Keeping in mind that the ECB need not actually ever use its lender of last resort facility, I know which option I would advocate.

Studying economics is something of a mixed blessing. On one hand youre the guy that your friends turn to when someone on the news says something like credit default swap or doubledip recession. However on the other hand you are cursed to forever go through life looking over peoples shoulders and giving them unsolicited advised about how they, in your humble opinion, SHOULD be conducting their financial affairs. The most simple everyday events become the perfect testing ground for economic theory, or maybe I have just read a few too many Freakonomics books. The economist inside me couldnt even do something as simple as watch the recent film Puss in Boots (yeah, what of it?) without ignoring the plot and substituting my own set of what if? questions in its place. For anyone who hasnt seen the film it concerns the titular character involved in a plot to recover the fabled Goose that has the ability to lay golden eggs. Upon recovering the goose the characters are treated to an ever increasing supply of golden eggs. I am sure that everyone in the cinema was thinking how cool it would be if this goose really existed. Everyone, that is, except me. I was sitting there thinking to myself that if this goose were real, for the good of humanity we would have to kill the goose. Gold is valuable because it is scarce. Any first

Economists pray on geese as they would any other helpless being.

@Labouryouth

13

Political Reform:
At the last party conference in Galway, in April of 2010, Eamon Gilmore put forward his vision for One Ireland and proposed a fundamental review of our constitution, calling it a constitution written in 1930s for the 1930s and proclaiming that if we are to truly learn from the experience of the last ten years, then we need to look again, in a considered way, at the fundamental rules that bind us together. Furthermore, he proposed that such a review would be made in a convention of Irish citizens, who would come together from all strands of Irish life with the aim of having a new constitution by 2016. Our constitution belongs to the people, not just to political institutions. So, this must be a peoples process. I remember sitting behind him among the other members of Labour Youth and hearing these words, and being so delighted, inspired and proud. Finally, a political party was talking about the fundamental reform so badly needed in Irelands political system. What was more, it was our party. Almost exactly two years on and in the first genuine conference since this last one, where do we now stand with such a bold proposal? Before considering the progress of constitutional reform, we should remember that the constitution is only a piece of paper outside of its wider context and that for Ireland to be genuinely radically changed requires a much wider programme: for example, local government reform; changes to party funding; changes to the whip system; greater access to government; a new and different type of social partnership; public service reform and other alterations directed towards our wider political culture for example the implementation of the suggestions contained in the Mahon Tribunal. In many of these areas it is too early to pass a great deal of judgment on the government, other than impressing upon it the urgency of substantive change. The current bill linking party funding to equal gender representation is to be welcomed, but without further progress in the many other areas where change is necessary it will amount to little more than a superficial improvement, failing to tackle the deeper roots of the rot in Irelands political culture (which themselves have added to the problem of gender imbalance in politics). In some areas it has to be said that the signs have been rather more discouraging. For example, there has been pretty much no acceptance by the government, or indeed the governing parties more generally, of the need to reform the party whip system in the Oireachtas. This is a big error. Our current, exceptionally authoritarian, whip system undermines the power of individual TDs and restricts internal debate to the extent that party members now find more reliable accounts of their representatives opinions in the Pheonix than they do at constituency council meetings or in the mainstream public sphere. Whip reform would not mean abolishing the system completely and turning the Oireachtas into the US Congress, as has been lazily suggested by some. Rather it would make us more akin to the current system in Westminster, where the threeline whip is only used in a small number of votes, and crucially has the potential to undermine a leaders stature where it is used too often. Most importantly, the unnatural and unprecedented majority currently held by the government would make such a change much more politically feasible than it is likely to be for a long time after the next election. Regardless of other issues, however, the current proposals for constitutional reform stand out not only because of their significance in and of themselves, but because they provided a good case study into the attitude which the government has with respect to implementing genuine political change. Bearing this in mind, it must be said that the signs are not at all encouraging. In terms of the two most essential aspects of the governments proposals for

IS LABOUR DRAGGING ITS HEELS By Neil Warner ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM? Dublin

the forthcoming constitutional convention, which are its scope and its composition; there are major and possibly fatal problems. Firstly, consider the eight issues which the convention will be asked to consider: 1. Review of the Dil electoral system 2. Reducing the Presidential term to five years and aligning it with the local and European elections 3. Giving citizens the right to vote at Irish embassies in Presidential elections 4. Provision for same-sex marriage 5. Amending the clause on the role of women in the home and encouraging greater participation of women in public life 6. Increasing the participation of women in politics 7. Removing blasphemy from our Constitution 8. Reducing the voting age to 17. Firstly, youll notice that by replacing present participles with verbs most of these issues for consideration are actually instructions for implementation. While all of these proposals are welcome, they are not exactly revolutionary. Three of the proposals amount to getting rid of socially conservative anachronisms, three of them are breathtakingly superficial types of electoral window-dressing, and another is unlikely to do much more than is already being considered in current legislation. Only the proposal on reform of the Dil electoral system in any way has the potential to bring about a substantive change to our political or legal culture, and that is likely to be undermined by the conventions composition, which will be discussed shortly. It seems the convention will not even consider giving emigrants the vote in anything except presidential elections. The future of the Seanad will not even be discussed. Instead the plan is to put its abolition to the people without the option of reform. This is in spite of the extensive possibilities which an upper chamber could offer in increasing the representativeness and responsiveness of the Irish political system. Possibilities the Seanad has often outlined, but which the Dil has never considered. Even the remit which was to be given to the convention under the programme for government for other relevant constitutional amendments that may be recommended by the Convention has been removed. Now compare these proposals to the tasks which the Icelandic Constitutional Assembly summoned in 2010 was asked to consider: 1. The organisation of the legislative and executive branches and the limits of their powers 2. The role and position of the President of the Republic 3. The independence of the judiciary and their supervision of other holders of governmental powers 4. Provisions on elections and electoral districts 5. Public participation in the democratic process, including the timing and organisation of a referendum, including a referendum on a legislative bill for a constitutional act 6. Transfer of sovereign powers to international organisations and the conduct of foreign affairs 7. Environmental matters, including the ownership and utilisation of natural resources. The contrast is frankly humiliating. As is the simple fact that, in the wake of a national catastrophe of the kind we have experienced since 2008, we are not going to consider a seventy year-old constitution in anything other than a very selective manner. Contrast with Iceland and its recent national assemblies and forums is equally embarrassing when one considers the composition of the convention. The convention will apparently consist of 100 members; a chairperson, 66 members of the public and 33 politicians (members of the Oireachtas and few representatives of the

Continues on page 14.

14
Such a strong representation seems very disproportionate to say the least, not least considering the fact that interest groups will be not be included among the membership. In the proposals for the convention it is stated that as the Convention is intended to be a forum mainly for ordinary citizens, the Government is of the view that interest groups should not be members of it. Why does this not apply to members of the Oireachtas as well then? The interest and experience of this third of politicians is

Left Tribune
likely to massively overshadow and undermine the intended deliberative and citizen-based nature of the convention. What is more, politicians, as products of the current political system, are likely to be inherently biased against changing it, and may even take criticisms of it personally (Ed: a group of Labour politicians took it quite personally when Labour Youth suggested they not be involved). This is likely to be the case, in particular, when it comes to electoral reform. It would likely be relevant in many other important matters of democracy and institutional reform, were they not barred from consideration. It is also not as if politicians involvement is not present elsewhere in the process, since the conventions proposals will have to be considered by the minister and the government before being put to the Oireachtas. Finally, aside from submissions that can be made, there does not so far seem to be any detail on genuine or extensive public consultation or debate that might be made with respect to the convention. What do we have, then, from Eamon Gilmores speech two years ago? Was it simply empty rhetoric? This is not a peoples process, nor is it anything like a new constitution or even a fundamental review of it. It seems terribly clear that thus far that we as a country really havent learned the lesson of the last ten years. It seems terribly clear that we as a party havent either.

Opinion:
By Craig White
Sligo
For decades in Irish Politics the political landscape was dominated by old civil war divisions, anti-treaty Fianna Fil on one side, pro-treaty Fine Gael on the other. Ireland being such a small country with such a small population (compared with others) coupled with the ferocity and viciousness of the war produced deep scars resulting in Irish politics being almost solely driven by tribal loyalties and differing opinions on the national question rather than social issues. Since independence, successive Governments have been either Fianna Fil or Fine Gael, with the odd coalition thrown in to the melting pot. By the 1960s an entrenched political class from both parties had emerged. Jobs for the boys, nods, winks and handshakes over a quick 18 holes became the order of the day for many years. Amid all of this, despite not being large enough to form a government, Labour stood out, separate from this stagnant environment of 2 parties created by old divisions. Labour was concerned about social issues, it was concerned with reform, it was concerned about the quality of life the Irish people had. Labour knew independence should and had to mean more than simply changing flag and painting the post boxes green. Yet for much of the 20th Century,

FIANNA FIL... TAKING LABOURS SPACE?

independence didnt do much to improve the lives of the Irish people. Not until the economic boom of the 90s did the majority of Irelands citizens experience any reasonable improvement in their standard of living. Throughout all this time, behind the scenes, as I have already briefly mentioned, a culture of cronyism and corruption was being intricately infiltrated into all aspects of political life; a cancer that spread and spread until the country was riddled with it. By the recent past, this cancer was so bad, the always active Irish people had had enough, and no amount of spin from party spokespersons would convince them otherwise. Hence, in the 2011 general election, the playing field was the most level it had been in decades. Labour had always had difficulty convincing the Irish electorate that they were a creditable third alternative to Fianna Fil and Fine Gael, but not now. The Irish people were more interested in, and more critical of, politics than theyd ever been: they wanted reform, a new kind of politics more in sync with the noble aspirations of a democratic system; they wanted to know who was asking for their votes and what they were about. Fine Gael produced a 5-point plan, (Jobs, Public Sector, Budget, Health, New Politics), and if were being pedantic, thats just a collection of words rather than a plausible plan to rescue Ireland from economic depression but it got peoples attention, and how. With all of Fine Gaels guns blazing how did Labour respond to this golden opportunity to wow the electorate? Thats right! a 145 point manifesto. Yawn. For some reason we also thought it would be an amazing idea to run the national campaign like U.S. Presidential election, with the infamous slogan Gilmore for Taoiseach. I say we out of politeness to whoever did make the actual decision. Someone forgot to mention that the people were tired of Presidential politics, just in time for Labour to start dabbling in it. Now to the titular point of this article: After the election, Labour loudly proclaimed its best ever electoral performance in the history of the party (forgetting the combined effort of our predecessors in 1992), before going into government with Fine Gael. If the Labour leadership was honest with itself, and objective for just one minute, it would see that the 2011 general election campaign was only a disaster. The fact that we won as many seats as we did was mainly due to unprecedented circumstances: people were majorly angry; their only realistic choice was between Fine Gael or Labour, and in fairness to all involved they chose the Blueshirts. Rather than looking at what really happened in that campaign, the party has patted itself on the back and seemingly prepared for a cushy spot government. Labour could have performed far better than we did; a cursory look to 2010 poll numbers shows that we had the potential to compete with Fine Gael for first place. In my experience as a member, the current environment in the Labour Party is not as far removed of the archaic political culture that dominated Ireland for most of the past century as other members like to think. Wheres the new reform and transparent politics we were promised? Wheres the new blood and fresh approach within the party itself? We see the same faces, the same attitudes, with few new ideas, and no incentive to truly reform the country and the party. Why? Because, with 37 (now 38) seats, we seem to think were doing everything right. This brings me finally to Fianna Fil yes, Fianna Fil. The two most dirtiest and unelectable words in Irish politics today, or are they? In any any political party there are those who do not agree with the direction the party is going, or how the leadership conducts its business on their behalf. Many of these people spend most of their lives trying to reform the party they have pledged themselves to. As we have seen, there has been little change in the last decade in how Irish political parties and politicians conduct themselves, and the main reason is will. Lets take a look at Fianna Fils present situation: deposed, decimated and disgraced. However, because of the sheer

facebook.com/Labouryouth
committed by the leadership and the unprecedented public nature of their disgrace, Fianna Fil now have no option but to put their hands up and realise that their kind of politics will no longer be tolerated, and, if the party is to survive, can never be repeated. At the present time every other political party believes they have a moral and ethical superiority simply because they are not Fianna Fil. There is a danger of becoming so cosy and comfortable in this blanket of complacency that we forget to look objectively at our own shortcomings. This is the present position the Labour Party finds itself in, and unless there is serious action taken by its members, its going to find the next election rather uncomfortable and can kiss goodbye to the possibility of ever leading the government. Fianna Fil may not have a lot of strengths right now, but what

15
they do have is the will and determination to truly change. There is a very strong possibility that they become the transparent and progressive political party that Labour wish to be, while sadly we stray from that wish with each day that passes.

Education:
Eoghan

Boyce

France

THE CURRENT CONUNDRUM OF THIRD LEVEL EDUCATION FUNDING

duration of the crisis. The solution, for me at any rate, is in the nature of third level education in Ireland. For the most part, who attends college in Ireland? The children of the middle classes, whom were mostly capable of paying full fees before this crisis began. Who pays for their education? Their parents for the most part, the same people who would be taxed by an income band widening or increase. The common idea that the free fees initiative benefits the poor the most is essentially incorrect. The people who can afford to send their children to college must pay somehow, that much is obvious, because there is no other group that can. If we cannot tax these people further via the progressive income taxation system, if we cannot make them take loans or specified taxes without them leaving the country, then we must make them pay directly. system considerably, is the only fair option. The people who can pay for their children to go to university must pay for the maintenance of their social and economic position, while those who cannot pay but have the intelligence to go to university must be facilitated by a grant system that allows them to attend college for free as before. Those in the middle should be able to receive variable grants based on their income. Payment of the fees must be allowed to be variable, per month, per semester, or per year. This would allow the government considerable room to manoeuvre where funding is concerned, and would eliminate a large need to borrow more money. The principles of our party that those who can pay should pay would be protected. It is far from a perfect solution, but it is far better than the farce of continuing a failed Fianna Fil policy, or worse, encouraging the emigration of our graduates.

Third level education policy is a traditional strength of the Labour Party, and our contribution to the creation of a highly educated populace can be applauded. Our last term in government saw us introduce fairness to the third level scene, the idea that people shouldnt have to pay to do the courses they have the brainpower to do, to maximise the intellectual power of the country. Now, with the onset of the economic crisis, we have entered government to find that achievement in tatters, the result of a Fianna Fil government taking its traditional role of economic madness, destructive short-termism and inherent corruption. The model we created in the good times is no longer sustainable, that much is clear. Considering our coalition partners position, the Programme for Government and the emigration risk, we cannot raise significant taxes to fund free fees for the foreseeable future. This leaves us in a significant dilemma, in which the very fundamental principles of our party are at stake. Our principles, our country, our partys future itself hang in the balance as we look for an equitable solution to the funding issue. Funding has also dominated the student movements discourse to the point of obsession, something that has weakened the movement as a whole and has created a trap that this party has fallen into (for the moment). The funding options that seem to dominate discourse do not offer much hope either. The candidates for the USI Presidency both declared themselves in favour of Graduate taxes during their campaigns, though they

are pledged to respect the will of their congress. This represents a completely unrealistic view, as the emigration threat is very real indeed, never mind the strange insult of taxing people for the act of being educated rather than taxing them based on how much they can pay. The fact Fine Gael supported this option before the election is very much based in their own ideological view that income taxes cannot be raised for any reason, and it seems quite obvious that they chose this option to get around the problem.

The idea of student loans is an even more unpalatable option, not to mention one that the government might struggle to implement. From the governments point of view, it requires an equal amount of borrowing as full exchequer funded universities with only a minor benefit that the state is likely to get the money back in the medium to long term. In other words, it requires more The reinstatement of full fees, borrowing at high interest while reforming the grant rates, something that should be avoided like a plague. On top of this, the threat of emigration to avoid payment is even higher, reducing the benefit of the repayments considerably. Legal measures taken to restrict freedom of movement in order to mitigate that threat in either a graduate tax or student loan scenario would be naturally very oppressive, and possibly illegal under the European treaties. So the question is, what is the Minister for Education to do? Its quite clear that the government cannot either maintain the status quo established by Fianna Fil, or return to the old Labour policy of fully exchequer funded education, at least for the

Theres something about a pig sitting on a calculator that screams, Troika! But In all seriousness, we need more swine graduates

16

Left Tribune

The Fiscal Stability Treaty:

EVERYONES BEST INTERESTS ARE SERVED BY THIS TREATY, OR, WHY GILMORE IS RIGHT AND HIGGINS IS WRONG!
Dublin
and the other scaremongers will try to convince you. But thats because of a fundamental misconception. The structual deficit is emphatically not the deficit. Essentially, the meaning of a structural deficit of 0% is that over the course of an economic cycle of both growth and recession, the national debt will remain stable. This allows for either Keynesian policy, in which we run deficits during times of recession or weak economic growth, and surpluses in times of strong growth- or the balanced budget fundamentalism favoured by some governments in which they aim to balance the budget both during recession and growth. The only form of fiscal policy it bans is that of Charlie McCreevy during the Celtic Tiger, the If I have it, Ill spend it procyclical policy which allowed for unsustainable growth bordering on 10% frequently. The point of Keynesianism is that we maintain a sustainable rate of economic growth and during boomtime this is done by running large fiscal surpluses, even if that cuts off growth. It is the way that we smooth out economic cycles and also ensure that we have money to spare when recession comes around and we have to use stimulus measures to do so. Unfortunately this half of Keynesianism is frequently ignored by its supposed

By Peter Gowan
The EU Fiscal Compact Treaty, as it is being put to us, contains several provisions that I believe are is not particularly difficult to understand for anybody with a reasonable knowledge of economics. The provisions bind countries such as Ireland to maintain a structural deficit of less than 0.5% of GDP. There are automatic penalties for countries which breach these requirements, including fines of up to 0.1% of GDP. It also requires us to reduce our national debt as a percentage of GDP to 60%, slowly and over time. I believe that is a reasonable assessment of the main provisions of the treaty, and I will now endeavour to convince you that they are both necessary for our own economy, necessary for the stability of the European economy, and necessary in order to maintain our position in the European Union, which brings our country so many benefits. So, it requires us to have a structural deficit of less than 0.5%. Doesnt that ban Keynesianism, you might ask? Thats certainly what Joe Higgins, Sinn Fein

We can only ever maintain Keynesian policy is we utilise both parts of it. The Treaty bans False Keynesianism and forces governments into a choice between real countercyclical policy of balanced budget fundamentalism.
advocates in the ULA and Sinn Fein. They believe that economic stimulus doesnt have to be paid for, ever, and that we can solve economic problems by defaulting any time we hit a crisis. The problem with default is that we dont have money in reserve, so if we did default wed have to balance the budget tomorrow, and couldnt run a deficit until people were prepared to lend to us again, probably at least ten years down the line. Borrowing money is exactly what sounds like- it has to be borrowed off somebody either the bond markets, the EU, the IMF, the World Bank... we can only ever maintain Keynesian policy if we utilise both parts of it. This is essentially what we are constrained into doing by passing the Fiscal Compact Treaty. It bans false-Keynesianism and forces governments into a choice between real countercyclical policy or balanced budget fundamentalism. The Treaty is also necessary, however, because it puts real constraints on countries that

Is Joes opposition one of tokenism and deceit?

formerly flouted EU budget rules. The 3% deficit target we hear so much about in the media was broken by Germany and France before any other country. The automatic sanctions will mean that they arent allowed to use their huge voting weight in the EU institutions to get around rules anymore. This means that if France or Germany is running a huge deficit which threatens the economy of other states in future, they will be brought into line with sanctions. This is important because the catastrophe that would come from either of those nations descending into a Greece-like situation would likely create a crisis unimaginable to us, even now. Unfortunately, its something everybody has to recognise: ensuring economic safety is a task we have to pull together to do. The banks have to be regulated more stringently, the International monetary system has to be looked at once again, and we should implement a financial transactions tax to curb speculation as well as to raise revenue. But one part of that economic safety package is real, enforceable rules on government borrowing, since what one country does in that regard affects everybody else in this globalised world. Im not going to bother spouting threats about what voting No would do for confidence in Ireland here, even though its a very legitimate reason to vote Yes even if you disagree with everything here- simply because its going to be the goto tactic of everybody in the right-wing press who doesnt believe the voters are intelligent enough to understand the actual economic case for ratifying the treaty. You will all hear these arguments enough times in the coming weeks. However, for all these reasons Ive stated, for real Keynesianism, for an end to irresponsible populism, for international stability and for our own credibility as a real European partner, I urge everyone to vote Yes to this treaty.

facebook.com/Labouryouth

17

The Labour Youth Debate

THE TORIES OF EUROPE ARE LOOKING TO HARDWIRE THEIR FISCAL POLICY INTO OUR LAW. DONT LET THEM!
By Sen Glennon
Dublin
It is no surprise to look around Europe and see a cohort of right-wing and conservative governments seated around the European Council after reading the fiscal compact. This is because the measures contain in the fiscal compact seek to make progressive economics illegal in Europe. The fiscal compact seeks to force countries into a fiscal straitjacket by maintaining a balanced or surplus budget by limiting their deficit to 0.5% of gross domestic product. What Irelands finical problems have told us is that the if I have, I spend it attitude that enforces pro-cyclical economics is deeply flawed. It is the consensus of the Left that austerity does not work. It acts to further supress the economy and limits the opportunity for growth. We know that what is needed is an investment lead recovery; its the best and fairest way of returning to economic prosperity. We on the left know that expenditure cuts disproportionately hit low income earners. It is important to remember that we are where we are due to neoliberal policies and the right in Europe want us to give them another chance. Despite knowing that investment is fairer on society than austerity it also makes more economic sense too. At the moment consumer confidence is low and no matter how much the government call on people to spend to help stimulate the economy, it is unreasonable to expect them to do so whilst they are experiencing increasing financial burdens with the constant fear of losing their job. Thats where a sensible government needs to step in and spend countercyclical to kick start the economy. You cant cut your way out of a recession, but you can grow your way out. Therefore the name Growth and Stability Pact is hugely misleading, as this is the exact opposite of what this treaty seeks to have implemented across Europe. The imposed debt ceiling will mean that as countries economies go into decline theyll be legally obliged to reduce their deficit, ie impose austerity. In the aftermath to the Euro crisis we were told that it was impractical to have a monetary union without a fiscal union. It now is being sold by European leaders, including Enda Kenny and the Irish Government, as a measure to stop governments going wild with spending as the Irish Government did from 1997 onwards. This is not the case at all, as that was pro-cyclical spending the kind of economic policy this Fiscal Compact would see institutionalised. In the aftermath to the Euro crisis we were told that it was impractical to have a monetary union without a fiscal union. Minister of State for Europe, Lucinda Creighton was quick to defend such a move with the promise of Eurobonds and support in the form of stimulus from Europe. None of this has come to fruition due to unwillingness by the German government look after its own self-interest. They are instead making it illegal to pursue countercyclical economic policies though an imposed debt ceiling linked to GDP. So, basically, when the economy is in recession the government will not be allowed to stimulate to compensate for a fluctuating economy. We are now also being told by Michael Noonan and Brian Hayes that it is necessary for Ireland to approve this treaty to avail of bailout funds in the future. As a member state of the International Monetary Fund though, we are not solely reliant on the European Commission and European Central Bank to lend us money in desperate times. These are after all the institutions which contributed to Irelands banking sector collapse and now are willing to see the Irish people burdened to protect their vested interests. Another piece of propaganda is the selling of the vote as a referendum on our Euro membership. Nonsense once again. There is an obvious need to solve the Euro debt crisis, no one is denying that. We are saying there is a better way, a way the left should be advocating, including economic stimulus, Eurobonds and a financial transaction tax as part of a new progressive European agenda. Its the common sense approach. Neoliberalism has failed, so why are we so insistent on letting it guide us out of this crisis. Support for the treaty is based on the rights opinion that the only way to achieve economic growth is to inflict austerity in the hopes it might create the necessary conditions. Ridiculous, if you consider austerity will damage the economy beyond repair whilst hurting the most vulnerable in society. We are not just being asked to give neoliberalism another chance, but to enshrine it into European law and actually make a Keynesian and expansionary alternative unconstitutional. We ought to tell them no.

Are Merkozy leading us on the road to deflationary ruin?

18

Left Tribune

Book Review: Strumpet City

By Mick Reynolds
Athlone I.T.
It may appear trite to describe a book as having changed ones life, but my experience of inheriting and then reading and re reading James Plunketts seminal work Strumpet City had a profound effect on my early political thinking. I was fortunate enough to gain a much thumbed copy from my father when I was about sixteen years old and with little prior knowledge of the events that are central to the storyline; first and foremost the 1913 Lockout, the formation of the ITGWU, the acute poverty of Dublin at that time, and the growing calls for independence and thirst for revolution in Ireland. Plunketts skill in his determining tome is not to romanticise or eulogise these events. They are shown with the warts and all realism that must have been so exceedingly difficult to cope with at that time. We see the central character Fitz go on a journey from fellow traveller in the early stages of the lockout to a defiant yet defeated figure by the end, worn down by the greed and pettiness of the William Martin Murphys of the world. Yet Plunkett is not afraid to highlight mistakes and brutality committed by the strikers either, as the reality of the brutality involved sees the firebrand Mulhall imprisoned for taking his fury out on a blackleg worker. As an allegorical tale of the realism of the lockout; Strumpet City more than does its duty. However, it also serves as a wonderfully descriptive account of Dublin in the early years of the twentieth century. Reading it more than one hundred years on from its setting, it is striking how much and how little has changed about the titular city. The class divide may be more pronounced, but we can still realise the enduring struggle of the ordinary worker such as Mary in the house of the upper class and uncaring Bradshaws, whose callous and uncaring treatment of the young Mary and the elderly Miss Gilchrist could easily draw parallels with much modern day industrial relations. Similiarly, the hypocrisy and culpability of the Church is highlighted in the compelling storyline tracing the ambitious but naive Father OConnor and the deeply troubled Father Giffley, whose ham fisted attempts to make a change are but an endeavour to make up for a life spent self loathing and alcoholism. If there is a hero in the book, aside from the put upon and ultimately broken Fitz, it is the roguish Rashers Tierney, whose attempts to make enough money to get by and get a bit of money together for a few drops of porter alongside his partner in crime the Toucher Hennessey, provide much of the comic relief in the book. The late David Kelly, one of the finest actors to have been produced on these shores, played the role to great acclaim in the 1980s RTE TV adaptation, capturing the endearing charm but tragic narrative at the heart of his story. If the adaptation, which was wildly successful, brought people to the book then that achieved its goal; but as good as it was (Cyril Cuscacks turn as Father Giffley also merits special mention), it could not substitute for the multi layered drama and suspense of the original. Strumpet City fostered more than anything in me a love of Dublin and an appreciation of the rich and diverse nature of the city, and also a deep admiration

of the struggle that took one hundred years ago next year. As a Labour party member, it is difficult not to feel a very strong attachment to the book; to the struggle between workers and bosses, the poverty ridden and the idle rich, the duplicity of the forces of the state and the revolutionary zeal that fired men like Connolly and Larkin into making a stand in the name of ordinary workers. As we approach that most important of anniversaries in 1913, what enduring lessons have we been thought by Plunketts work? For me, it is a message of solidarity that screams out from the pages. For the Doggett and Co of the 1910s read modern day Vita Cortex and GAME, struggles in completely different industries but with the same central themes and with the same need for all of us to stand behind Irish workers whenever they are unfortunate enough to suffer injustice. Plunketts novel left us a rich tapestry of life in Dublin at the turn of the twentieth century, but also a guide on how we can improve conditions for the ordinary worker in the twentyfirst.

Tribune Editorial:
By Colm Maguire
Editor
The debate about universal healthcare in Ireland will likely take off soon as Risn Shortall, prepares the much-awaited reform of Irelands health service, to enable universal and publiclyfunded access to primary care facilities such as G.P. clinics in Ireland. For the left, this should be no trouble to promote and defend: people have a right to healthcare, which is a vital service, and therefore healthcare should be publicly-funded, universally accessible, and regulated by the state. By having the state pay for G.P. visits, the healthcare system becomes more accessible and more useful, as the larger volumes of patients actually going to their G.P. allows the primary care system to treat the early stages of illness or implement preventative care, leading to a decrease in the number of people seeking more serious treatment, including emergency measures. In fact, the merits of universal and publicly-funded access to primary care are so obvious that we may wonder why it isnt already in place though the spectre of the G.P.s political lobby is never afraid of rearing its ugly cranium. If it so obvious for the field of healthcare, however, can the same logic be supplied for the legal profession and legal care? If we havent thought about it before, than we should now. Like healthcare, legal protection is something we have a right to access (legal representation, fair trial, due process, etc.). Again, like healthcare, legal services are only useful to us if we can access them in times of need. An injustice occurs whenever someone is given preferential access to healthcare based on wealth or social status, and similarly, the same when someone is given preferential access to better legal services. One coulc argue that the injustice is amplified in the latter example, given that the law is the gateway to the fulfilment and protection of rights against other inustices.

UNIVERSAL LEGAL CARE

At this very moment Id say that, as a citizen, I feel more of a necessity to have access to good legal care than I do to be protected by a publicly-funded defence force. It seems as obvious as in the case of healthcare that social democrats and socialists across the world should be promoting and defending the ideal of some form of universal legal care. After all, the left campaigns for all similarly vital services to be publicly regulated, publicly funded, universally accessible and free at the point of access. That we have failed to argue such about legal services has so far left a grave legacy for the legal profession: often we wax lyrical about the grotesquely inflationary and manipulative healthcare market in the United States; but when we come to look at our own legal industry, can we not see many similarities? Incomprehensible structures, inappropriate customs, costs that make it inaccessible. Adequate healthcare is a preserve of the wealthy in America, but going to court is a rich mans game all over the western hemisphere: in the same way that a patient migh put off going to the G.P., so to a defendant might plead guilty or a claimant not pursue redress due to the risk of cost in the court case itself. Is it about time that the left started discussing universal legal care as an issue? Is it not about time that the modern state (proven across the world to be the most efficient provider of vital services like healthcare, despite the lazy characterisations) take up the responsibility to drag the legal profession out of its Victorian trench? Is self-regulation proving to be a failure for lawyers like it was for politicians? These are questions I cannot answer, but I do believe that it is necessary to ask them. Political participation and funding in the legal profession may render this tepid suggestion a pipe dream for the foreseeable future, but I would urge Labour members to think about the issue raised and discuss it with others. Legal services are a vital service that, in my opinion, desperately need to become universally available public services.

@Labouryouth

19

The Executive:
Conor Ryan National Chairperson lychair@labour.ie Luke Field Vice Chair & Campaigns lycampaigns@labour.ie Noel Cullen National Secretary lysecretary@labour.ie Aideen Carberry Recruitment Officer lyrecruitment@labour.ie Colm Maguire Communications Officer colmgmaguire@gmail.com Deirdre Hosford Policy & Education Officer lyeducation@labour.ie Cian Moran International Officer lyinternational@labour.ie Rory Geraghty National Youth & Development Officer youth@labour.ie
Volume VII - Issue 2 April 2012 Want to get involved in Labour Youth? Email youth@labour.ie Want to submit an article? colmgmaguire@ gmail.com Left Tribune Volunteers Editor: Colm Maguire

Deputy Editor: Rory ONeill Contributors: nna N Gleabhin Audrey Walsh Craig White Dara Turnbull Declan Meenagh Deirdre Hosford Eoghan Boyce Luke Field Mick Reynolds Neil Warner Peter Gowan Sen Glennon With Thanks to: Rory Geraghty Special Thanks to: Frances Byrne

20
The peoples flag is deepest red, It shrouded oft our martyred dead, And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold, Their hearts blood dyed its evry fold.

Left Tribune

Lyrics to The Red Flag

It well recalls the triumphs past, It gives the hope of peace at last; The banner bright, the symbol plain, Of human right and human gain.

Then raise the scarlet standard high. Within its shade well live and die, Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, Well keep the red flag flying here.

Then raise the scarlet standard high. Within its shade well live and die, Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, Well keep the red flag flying here.

Look round, the Frenchman loves its blaze, The sturdy German chants its praise, In Moscows vaults its hymns are sung Chicago swells the surging throng.

It suits today the weak and base, Whose minds are fixed on pelf and place To cringe before the rich mans frown, And haul the sacred emblem down.

Then raise the scarlet standard high. Within its shade well live and die, Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, Well keep the red flag flying here.

Then raise the scarlet standard high. Within its shade well live and die, Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, Well keep the red flag flying here.

It waved above our infant might, When all ahead seemed dark as night; It witnessed many a deed and vow, We must not change its colour now.

With heads uncovered swear we all To bear it onward till we fall; Come dungeons dark or gallows grim, This song shall be our parting hymn.

Then raise the scarlet standard high. Within its shade well live and die, Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, Well keep the red flag flying here.

Then raise the scarlet standard high. Within its shade well live and die, Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, Well keep the red flag flying here.