They Marched Us To The Top Of The Hill And They Marched Us Down Again

Article by Enda Craig

     

Unrealistic promises

When a political party arrives at a final policy position it is mostly after a huge amount of research.    The party's strategists factor into their final composition as much difficulty as possible for the opposition.   Sizing up the enemy to get the upper hand, they  gear policies to this or that target group, offer this or that incentive and possibly use unsuspecting pressure groups to further their own goals.  Understanding the market is one thing but pressurizing your foes is as important. 

However, the hatched schemes and the offer of goodies usually present some important decisions to be taken.  If a policy, agreed on as strategy,  presents an advantage to the party and to boot it generates difficulties for the opposition,  it may also make things difficult for supporters.  The result is a moral dilemma.   On the one hand it pressurises the opposite parties into offering more  but on the other hand it alienates supporters by not fulfilling  the promised policies.

Consider the following situation

1.  Let's say all along the party doesn't want to be in government, that it is not ready to take power and that it would  be best served by being the main opposition.   The party  pretends that it wants to go into government, but by making it impossible to do so electorally, the party knows that this will never happen. 

2. This opens the door to the possibility of a huge 'hoodwink' as it can promise the world, knowing that it will never have to deliver on the promises.  The policies will be popular.  They will take support away from opposite parties and  will put pressure on them to outdo the promises.   

3. The desire to gain advantage and crucify the opposition now takes over and becomes  the priority.  This is achieved by making monumental popular promises and cloaking them in flimsy and flaky  economic costings.  The details gets lost in the headline announcements and few people question them.

4. The party can now put together an 'a la carte' menu of big time promises.  This  will boost  ratings among  present supporters and  attract substantial new voters.  By extension it will achieve the high popular ground.  Most people only look at the headlines and care less  about the detailed economic or political ramifications.

5.  Opposition parties stand open mouthed at the brazen content of these promises.  They quickly find their opposite number is  gaining popularity from the public at large.  In a panic they decide to react  realising that their arguments pointing out the deficiencies  are gaining them nothing.

6. Rather than continue on the truthful road they now begin to promise the same and maybe more as the enemy.  They know it is totally disingenuous, untruthful and possibly undeliverable.  It is the same as the opposition but the spiraling race for power knows no bounds or morality.  All that matters now is the bottom line - success at the ballot box

7. But will there be a day of reckoning built into this situation, especially for the side who would slaver at the thought  of attaining power?

8. Fianna Fail's  policy promises  are now eagerly awaited by the unsuspecting multitudes.  Their Achilles heel now lies exposed.   Their spinners and magicians are already hard at work putting a gloss on a possible u-turn.  The finished product is anyone's guess.

 9. Meanwhile the initial promoters of this shameful strategy are on the moral high-ground, sticking to principles.  They are  now tooled up and lie in ambush for Michael and his merry bunch.   The time of reckoning is at hand.  The Pantomime plays on and the abuse of the people continues.


Transparancy International Ireland's Speak Up Report 2015

Transparency International Ireland is an independent, non-profit and non-partisan organisation. They state that " Our vision is of an Ireland that is open and fair – and where entrusted power is used in the interest of everyone. Our mission is to empower people with the support they need to promote integrity and stop corruption in all its forms."  Their website is http://transparency.ie/

Maurice McCabe and John Wilson Photograpg People of the Year Awards (Photographer: Robbie Reynolds)

Maurice McCabe and John Wilson Photograpg People of the Year Awards (Photographer: Robbie Reynolds)

Anti-corruption group, Transparency International (TI) Ireland published its first report in March 2015.  It is based on data collected from over 500 whistleblowers, witnesses and victims of wrongdoing in Ireland.

TI Ireland has been operating the country’s only free-phone non-profit helpline for whistleblowers, witness and victims of wrongdoing since 2011. Its clients have included Garda Sergeant Maurice McCabe and former Garda John Wilson and it advised the Government on the new Protected Disclosures Act. 

The Speak Up Report suggests that the risk of corruption and other forms of wrongdoing is relatively high in Local Government and the Health Service, as well as Social Services including Charities, but TI Ireland’s Chief Executive John Devitt has warned against assuming that these sectors are more ‘corrupt’ than others.

Download the Full Report here


Independence of Irish Data Protection Commissioner questioned

Digital Rights Ireland confirms legal papers to be served on Government in coming days

Original article Elaine Edwards Irish Times Jan 26,2016 via fliuch.org

Digital Rights Ireland is to ask the High Court to refer questions about the independence of the Data Protection Commissioner Helen Dixon to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Photograph: Cyril Byrne/The Irish Times

Digital Rights Ireland is to ask the High Court to refer questions about the independence of the Data Protection Commissioner Helen Dixon to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Photograph: Cyril Byrne/The Irish Times

The High Court is to be asked to make a referral to the EU’s highest court for a ruling on whether Ireland’s Data Protection Commissioner is truly independent under EU law.

Legal papers will be served on the State and the Attorney General in the coming days claiming the State has acted in breach of EU law by failing to ensure the regulator exercises its role independently.

The action is being taken by the privacy advocacy group Digital Rights Ireland (DRI), which took a successful case to the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2014 overturning the entire regime under which the telephone and internet data of over 500 million European citizens were retained for up to two years.

The papers note that the office of the commissioner, Helen Dixon, is integrated with the Department of Justice and that the commissioner and all her office’s employees are civil servants.

They also allege the commissioner has failed to act independently in policing databases of citizens created in recent years by both Irish Water and the Department of Education.

Repeated criticism

The commissioner’s office is considered one of the most important regulatory roles in Europe because of the high number of multinational, data-rich firms based in Ireland, including Facebook, Apple and LinkedIn.

It has come under repeated criticism from some EU sources for being “soft” on regulation, partly because of the number of jobs such firms support here. That allegation has been denied by the current commissioner and by her immediate predecessor Billy Hawkes.

DRI confirmed on Thursday morning it had instructed its lawyers to serve legal papers on the Irish Government.

“Ireland’s position as the EU’s centre for technology multinational companies makes it critical for the protection of all EU citizens’ rights that the state has a world class data protection regulatory regime,” it said on its website.

It noted a series of cases decided by the CJEU had stressed the critical importance of a truly independent data protection authority.

“Most recently, in the Schrems case on Safe Harbour [the agreement under which the data of EU citizens could be transferred legally to the US], the lack of such an independent watchdog was cited as one of the most significant differences between the EU and US privacy systems.”

The organisation said its case was that Ireland had failed to properly implement EU data protection law, or to follow the requirements of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by failing to ensure the Irish commissioner was genuinely independent from the Government.

Key role

“Ireland’s DPC has a key role in Europe’s data protection landscape. From our 2014 case overturning data retention to the Schrems case, to the Microsoft v USA warrant case Ireland is the critical jurisdiction for the protection for the rights of citizens across the EU,” a spokesman said.

“Ireland’s data protection authority doesn’t meet the criteria set down by the EU case law for true independence. As the Irish Government has refused to acknowledge this to date, we are turning to the courts to uphold the fundamental rights of Irish and EU citizens alike.”

Thursday, January 28th, marks the 10th annual International Data Protection Day.

A spokeswoman for the commissioner said she could not comment on the case as neither the office nor the commissioner were a party to the proceedings.

Speaking to mark the event, Helen Dixon said a key priority for her office this year was the continued expansion of resources, including the further recruitment of legal and technical specialists.

DRI - “As the Irish government has refused to acknowledge this to date, we are turning to the courts to uphold Irish and EU citizen’s Fundamental Rights.”

DRI - “As the Irish government has refused to acknowledge this to date, we are turning to the courts to uphold Irish and EU citizen’s Fundamental Rights.”

She said the office was already seeing “huge benefits” from the recent additional staffing, particularly in delivering “faster resolutions for complainants”.

Ms Dixon said there was “a clear need for better compliance” with data protection law by the Irish public sector.

“In particular, the legislative process must be improved to ensure greater deliberation and scrutiny of issues that interfere with the fundamental right to data protection.”