Sinn Fein once again cloud the Irish Water issue - Lynn Boylan's faux pas

April 3, 2016

Lynn Boylan, Sinn Fein MEP, on 'Tonight With Vincent Browne' , March 29th, 2016, got into deep waters trying to explain Ireland's water derogation in Article 9 of the EU Water Framework Directive.

Incidentally it really boils down to two words in clause 4 of that article, 'Established Practice'. For a explanation of this Directive see 'Michael Noonan 'Water Charges Required Under European Law' is a Lie'.

TV3 Tonight with Vincent Browne March 29 2016. Lynn Boylan explaining the Irish Derogation in EU Framework Directive but gets into deep water.

Ms Boylan lost an opportunity to dwell on what should be a major controversy in Ireland, involving threats from Irish Water Ltd's solicitors . She said

"their remit is to manage Irish Water so why are they commissioning legal opinion in order to have an argument for their self preservation. Was tax payer's money spent on this legal opinion and how much did they spend. Those questions need to be answered".

She should have insisted that this issue be discussed and brought other panel members into the debate. It is a major substantial issue, one which could easily have taken up the entire programme and one no doubt we all want an answer to. Paul Murphy, Anti Austerity Alliance understood this importance when, earlier in the week, he brought the controversy up and sent a formal letter to Irish Water and the media requesting an answer.

Unfortunately, Ms Boylan's questions were sidelined. In what seemed to be an prearranged schedule, she went on to give her opinion on the so-called 'Irish Derogation' in the EU Framework Directive, a complicated EU bureaucratic legal document. Ms Boylan had a piece of evidence to hand which she read out verbatim. From her demeanour she looked like she believed that this scoop was a coup de grace. The evidence concerned Scotland's water provision model and their interpretation of the EU Directive.

In retrospect she should not have complicated her first point. She opened the door for the presenter to pin her into a corner where she had to explain how people inScotland pay for their water, i.e. Council Tax. Ms Boylan then went on to bring Northern Ireland'swater model into the conversation. Northern Ireland of course pay individually for their water through Corporation Tax.

The statement was really Lynn Boylan's opinion, her interpretation of the EU Directive, nothing more. Possibly her standing as an MEP gave it credibility but the Noonan article above mentions the opinions of two other MEPs. The fact is we can all have opinions even Irish Water's solicitors (as long as we do not spend other people's money on it).

When all is said and done our derogation exist with the words 'Established Practice' in there. The next government should apply this derogation, irrespective of what Irish Water or Mr Noonan says. It will then be up to the European Commission to take it to the European Court if they think we are wrong. Although not part of the above Vincent Browne video clip, one of the panelists, Mr Sean Fleming, Fianna Fail, understood the point when he said that the present set up of water charges, as put in place by the former Fine Gael/Labour government, is not an 'established practice'.

Far from Lynn Boylan's statement, being a "nail in Irish Water's coffin", as has been described on social media, it was another episode of Sinn Fein complicating the issue for other anti water charge campaigners. Sinn Fein have been doing things their own way ever since the campaign started.

Gerry Adams and other party members were in favour of water charges at the start. Next they did not support a boycott. Sinn Fein controlled Right2Change and came out with a unilateral election pact and orchestrated the expulsion of the Anti Austerity Alliance. In 2015 Lynn Boylan was embroiled in a controversy 'Sinn Fein backed water charges in European Parliament'. One of the most bewildering Sinn Fein's statement was the one by Eoin O'Broin, March 13th, 2016, where he called for an independent commission on Irish Water to be set up and that Sinn Fein would accept the outcome, RTE This Week March 13th 'Sinn Fein Change of Position on Irish Water'. Lynn Boylan recently dropped another bombshell, 9th March, which has never been adequately explained"Irish Water charges plan must be withdrawn before March 22nd deadline".

Getting into a tizzy on EU bureaucracy ?

At the outset we have to ask the question why a Sinn Fein MEP is only now bringing up the question of such an important EU Directive? Why has Sinn Fein's MEPs not been on top of this from the start and why have they not shared it with the Irish anti water charges' movement?

One of the reasons that the little derogation clause has sent politicians into a tizzy lately is because of a leaked threat from Irish Water Ltd's solicitors which appeared in The Irish Times, 29th March 2016; 'Water Charges irreversible in EU Law says Lawyers'.

Another reason occurred three weeks ago when Michael Noonan, aformer Fine Gael Finance Minister, issued a broadside to Fianna Fail; 'Michael Noonan 'Water Charges Required Under European Law' is a Lie'. Here Mr Noonan was using the EU Directive as a bargaining ploy in Fine Gael's negotiations with Fianna Fail and other parties trying to form a government.

These two revelations coming one after the other are very similar. One would think that there may be a connection, designed to put pressure on the political discussions taking place at present on forming the next government. The threats have come out about three weeks after the Irish General Election, the result of which was a stalemate where no party got a majority. The formation of the next government is up for grabs. Both Fine Gael's and Irish Water's futures are at stake.

Original TV3 programme: Tonight With Vincent Browne

Does anyone still take them seriously?

April 3, 2016

By Gene Kerrigan

**'Frankly, I'm getting tired of being lied to.'**

Let's try what they call a "thought experiment". That's something that used to be called "blue sky thinking". Before that the cool people called it "thinking outside the box". Back in my day, we called it "thinking"

Let's see if the two largest right-wing parties have any credibility left; if the media is being played like an accordion; and if we really need a government at all.

For this thought experiment, let's imagine we had a general election and Richard Boyd Barrett ended up at the head of a party with 50 TDs.

And, as he's still sorting out who sits where, in comes Ruth Coppinger, and behind her there are 40 more TDs from her party.

So, in this thought experiment, about 90 TDs are elected for two left-wing parties, thereby giving them a solid majority in the Dail.

What would happen next?

Anyone with more than two ounces of brain tissue would expect the immediate formation of the first left wing government in the history of the State.

But, suppose Richard said, "Ah, no".

And Ruth said, "Nah, that's not on".

And suppose that with no further explanation they began weeks of "round table discussions" with Independents and odds and sods galore, even as the numbers of homeless steadily increased and the doubts about the economy multiplied.

And suppose everyone in the country knew that this refusal to form a stable government had its basis in an unnecessary civil war fought 93 years earlier.

And that it was complicated by a struggle for party advantage, not to mention ego.

And suppose we all knew that policy differences are minimal.

This is what has been going on for the past 37 days, and will continue for maybe another 37, as the people who fought the election on the issue of "stability" try to find a way of besting one another.

And they must find a way in which they control the government, and simultaneously prevent the development of any other opposition.

But what if it wasn't two right wing parties? What would happen that would be different if it was Boyd Barrett and Coppinger playing juvenile games?

You know well what would happen.

Every time either of them, or anyone connected with them, came within range of a camera or a microphone, or sat down or stood up or walked through a doorway, a bellow of journalists would descend on them.

We can be certain that Richard and Ruth and all the other lefties would be hounded day and night by professionally indignant journalists.

The papers would be full of analysis that explained that the electorate had made a dreadful mistake. The voters had elected irresponsible left-wing chancers who didn't give a damn about the people.

So, from this thought experiment we can conclude that our media are pretty tolerant of right-wing playacting. Only in the past few days have some outlets become slightly irked at being played for suckers.

Even now, journalists who have to keep on good terms with their political sources insist that this is just the nitty-gritty of putting a government together.

It's not.

Experienced journalists have found themselves being told that Enda's people having a chat with Mattie McGrath is "very constructive".

And that a sit-down between Leo Varadkar and Michael Healy-Flatcap amounts to "government formation".

Enda ran out of people to talk to and had to have the two Green TDs in for a second time, during which even they found the farce too much to take, and walked out.

And the Taoiseach, in this day and age, with the vast apparatus available to him, from army couriers to highly paid advisors, tried but was unable to contact the leader of Fianna Fail.

And vice versa.

Enda rang Mee-hawl, who didn't hear the phone ringing, didn't notice the texts. Ah, sure, you know how it is - lunchtime, a few scoops with the lads, a bit of banter, and you don't notice the phone buzzing away in your pocket. We've all been there.

Imagine Boyd Barrett or Coppinger trying to get away with that bullshit.

While the clowns have been cavorting, serious doubts have been forced on us as to whether we need a government. And whether there is any point to having elections - and this in a period in which Enda and Mee-hawl and the rest of them have been commemorating the people who gave us an independent(-ish) state.

We're told the children's hospital is being delayed again. There can't be a more serious health project, but the Government has stood idly by as one delay followed another, at a leisurely pace.

Education has been eased away from academics, to become part of the supply chain for business, so the Minister for Education has little to do except occasionally worsen the pupil-teacher ratio at primary level.

The Minister for Transport has no role in the current Luas dispute, because it's a private company. Why exactly do we have a Minister for Transport, if such a central part of the transport system is off limits to him?

Oh, yes, I forgot - he's there to gradually crop State involvement in bus and rail and anything else that moves.

Alan Kelly, Power Ranger, tells us now that in his experience as minister for housing, the Government can't do anything about the homeless, because of the property clause in the Constitution.

Hospitals, education, transport, housing - it's out of the Government's hands because of the Constitution or the EU or "the market".

Do we need a government, at all, then? Or an election?

Now they selectively leak an alleged "legal opinion" that allegedly says we can't get rid of Irish Water because of an alleged "EU rule".

I wonder why this alleged EU rule didn't apply to Paris, when they took the privatised water supply back into municipal control? And why it won't apply to Rouen, Saint Malo, Brest, Nice, Bordeaux, Rennes and Montpellier as they do the same?

Or to Berlin when they took back control of the water supply in 2013?

Frankly, I'm getting tired of being lied to.

Meanwhile, to add farce to farce, with great pomp the media tells us that Michael Noonan has been brought in to knock some sense into the "negotiations" for "government formation".

Really? Is that the Michael Noonan who made a balls of the Fine Gael campaign, with his 12 billion fiscal space that turned out to be eight billion?

There's no "money to play with", says the man who spent the past few months telling us how he'd fixed the economy. Does anyone anywhere take seriously anything that person says anymore?

Which brings us back to our thought experiment.

It would be a big jump, blowing off the right-wing parties and giving the left a majority. But, consider this.

The farce on Thursday - about missed calls and who called who - that's not an aberration. That kind of childish stuff has been going on since the election. And during the election. And before the election - same clowns, same politics of bluff and pander.

On top of the deregulation that caused the crash; the market worship and the cowardice when the ECB made faces at them. Next time this happens - and it will - do we want Enda and Mee-hawl and Michael of the miscounted billions dealing with the bankers and the EU hard nuts who instruct them to pay bankers' debts?

The playacting that's been going on suggests we need to do a lot more "thought experiments" about the nature of Irish politics.

Original article: Sunday Independent Published 3/4/2016

Cllr Brendan Young criticises Irish Water's threats and calls for boycott intensification

April 1, 2016

Brendan Young, councillor for Kildare North, calls for the boycott campaign against Irish Water to be stepped up. His statement is in response to Irish Water's recent legal threat that water charges can not be abolished. He sees this as a last ditch effort to keep Irish Water alive by 'undemocratic legalistic means'.

Brendan Young's Statement Mar 30, 2016

"Recent reports are saying that neither water charges nor Irish Water can be abolished because the EU says so – according to the opinion of two barristers who were undoubtedly paid a lot of money by Ervia (IW parent company) to give their opinion. My opinion is that IW management know that there is a very real prospect of their jobs going down the plug hole. This is a last-ditch attempt to keep IW alive – undoubtedly with the support of FG – by undemocratic legalistic means: 70% of the recently-elected TD's said they oppose this water charge.

Whatever the opinion of barristers, the political reality is that prior to the election nearly 50% were not paying – and that number has increased, perhaps close to 60%. People who did not pay are standing firm; and those who did pay are stopping: why throw more money away if the charge is being scrapped?

It is non-payment that has made water charges a political issue. If a FG government tries to retain the charge and gives IW the green light next Spring to try to take up to 700,000 non-payers to court, individually, to get attachment to earnings, there will be uproar and the government could fall over it. FG and FF know this. FF also know that if they go back on their promise to postpone the charge, or support court cases to enforce it, they would be hammered at a time when they are jockeying with FG to be the the dominant party of the rich while simultaneously trying to compete for working class support against SF and the Left.

So FF want to diffuse the non-payment movement and are calling for people to pay while the charge remains in place. They are also saying they are not legally bound to impose the charge and will postpone it. They may be hoping that the movement will dissipate and the charge can be revived in a few years' time.

We cannot rely on FF to abolish water charges. Nor should we entrust the decision on how to manage our water system to an 'independent commission' as proposed by SF's Eoin O'Broin. Who would establish such a commission? What does 'independent' mean in this instance?

Once the charge has been dropped and there is a commitment to fund water from direct taxation we can start discussing how to co-ordinate the upgrade and management of the service. My response to comments on the EU's Water Directive is this: there is no 'established', accepted procedure for charging for water in Ireland; and I reject the EU's regressive proposal of individually charging for essential services such as water – the trajectory of which is privatisation of profitable parts (which TTIP would make much worse).

IW was set up to charge domestic users for water – one of the bank-bailout charges. It has to go. The FF plan to postpone this charge and re-introduce something similar in a few years is unacceptable. The only way to ensure that it's abolished is to make it unworkable by not paying. In the short term, we need to begin planning the organisation of a big demonstration in support of non-payment and abolition before the discussions on the formation of a government are concluded."

Bruncrana Together
We asked Brendan to elaborate on what he meant by 'green light next Spring to try to take up to 700,000 non-payers to court' and about levies this year. He replied

"A penalty of €60 for a multi person household and €30 for a single person household applies after a year of non payment. IW will presumably add this to outstanding bills. No court case is needed to levy the penalty. Anyone who is confident about not paying, or those who think it will be abolished, are likely to ignore the penalty. But you are correct about the timing and if the charge still exists in three months time a big demo needs to be organised against the penalties.

The crunch really comes when people owe €500 - at the end of 2016 - and IW have to decide whether or not to attempt to get attachment orders through the courts. That will determine whether IW can survive, assuming it survives til then. If non payment remains around 50% IW can't survive, and everybody knows this. So sustaining non payment is vital to keeping pressure on FF and FG. Both are susceptible to pressure because of the instability of whatever administration takes office. But if people pay, that pressure will be much reduced."