JPMcKenna.ie – News, Opinion and Analysis

The Global Warming agenda has always relied on junk science, science largely driven by a political agenda. Thankfully, the media and the public seem to have lost all interest in Global Warming (Did you know Earth Hour took place over the weekend?). Nevertheless, the junk science just keeps coming. This latest example is brought to us via Science Daily. Here, a group of researchers have concluded that sea temperatures have increased by 0.59°C since the 1870s. Their conclusions rest on comparisons made between sea temperature data collected on the historic voyage of HMS Challenger (1872-1876) and modern data obtained by ocean-probing robots now continuously reporting temperatures via the global Argo program.

A part of my undergraduate university degree involved examining and critiquing scientific papers. We were essentially trained to spot the flaws in research. Admittedly, I haven’t read this paper in its entirety but a brief look at the abstract (obtained on the Nature website) will tell you that its methodology doesn’t even meet basic scientific standards. It would have been torn apart by that undergraduate class. I doubt this paper would even pass as an undergraduate research project.

Firstly, different measurement techniques were employed at Time1 (original Victorian study) and Time2 (modern study). That is unforgiveable. Different measurement techniques will yield different results. That variable could have been simply eliminated by recreating and utilizing the original measurement apparatus and method of data collection.

Secondly, the original Victorian study was conducted over four years whereas the modern study was conducted over six years. This error fails to account for possible sea temperature changes overtime. Conceivably, the sea may simply heat up more in a six-year cycle than it does in a four-year cycle before the temperatures nautically decrease again. This may not be the case but, for the sake of accuracy, that variable should have been eliminated too.

Good scientific research will always aim to eliminate as many confounding variable as possible. This study failed that basic task. This research is nonsense and should never be published in a journal like Nature. The fact that this paper was published in Nature is testament to the lack of scrutiny that research supporting the notion of Global Warming receives in the peer review process.

Most of us recognize that securing a complete write-off or restructuring of the Anglo promissory notes is essential for Ireland’s economic recovery. Unfortunately, most of us probably think that we haven’t a hope of securing either. In reality, though, both options are achievable. This is no time for wallowing in negativity. Quite simply, the stakes are too high. There are no other sustainable solutions and minister Noonan and his colleagues need to convince the European Commission and the European Central Bank that the benefits of a promissory note write-off or restructuring far outweigh the drawbacks.

On our current trajectory, the taxpayer is on course to pay the Irish central Bank, via the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, 31 Billion Euro in promissory note payments by the end of March 2020. That’s more than one third of Ireland’s total 90 Billion Euro banking debt. Ultimately, the taxpayer will foot the bill through increased taxes and spending cuts. There will be less disposable income, reduced consumer spending, further job losses and even higher rates of unemployment. Moreover, servicing debt on that scale would make it even more difficult for the State to return to the bond markets in 2013. The State’s debt to GDP ratio will be well beyond what would be considered reasonable levels for any potential investors.

Securing a complete write-off of the promissory note payments should be minister Noonan’s primary goal. This is by no means the nuclear option. The non-payment of the promissory notes does not constitute a sovereign default. The promissory note payments are merely debts owed by one part of the State (the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation) to another (the Irish Central Bank). The non-payment of the promissory notes does not involve the burning of Anglo bondholders, creditors, depositors or the ECB. Most of those debts have already been paid. Anglo used the 31 Billion Euro it received from the central bank, along with some of its own assets, to service those debts.

Since the non-payment of the promissory notes does not constitute a sovereign default, investor confidence would not be eroded by such a move. In fact, investor confidence in Ireland could soar because the State’s overall debt burden would be significantly reduced. That would significantly increase the likelihood that the State would be able to pay back any debts incurred in the future, an attractive prospect for potential investors.

The only “loser” in the non-payment scenario is the Irish Central Bank since the promissory notes are owed solely to that institution. However, the Irish Central Bank, like any other Central Bank, but unlike other institutions that would simply become insolvent if they incurred losses on this scale, is able to absorb the losses it would incur on the Promissory notes because it can simply create money. An institution that can create its own money cannot go broke provided that the money it creates is accepted by those who use it.

Admittedly, the non-payment of the promissory notes is not without its pitfalls. Other Eurozone countries could seek similar arrangements for their own indebted banks. The prospect of other Eurozone counties bailing out their own indebted banks in a similar manner would certainly raise a few eyebrows in the European Central Bank. Such a scenario would undoubtedly lead to significant Eurozone inflation. But it must be remembered that Anglo is no longer a bank. Its new home is the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, a home it shares with the Irish Nationwide Building society. Essentially, the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation is a non-bank, an entity that does not perform normal banking functions. Its main function is to act as a conduit for the payment of the promissory note debts. Since the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation is not a functioning bank, a strong case could be made that the non-payment of the Anglo promissory notes does not set a precedent for other Eurozone countries to seek similar arrangements for their indebted banks.

Securing a restructuring of the Anglo promissory notes is also an achievable and sustainable option. Under this plan, promissory note payments could be scheduled to begin at some future date when the economy has reached a specified degree of recovery. The payments schedule would also be restructured such that smaller annual repayments would be made over a greater period of time. This option is the more conservative of the two options because it involves the complete repayment of the Promissory notes while significantly reducing the immediate burden on the taxpayer. This option would ensure that all obligations are met, provide the taxpayer with an austerity holiday and ensure that fewer cuts are required in future budgets.

The International Monetary Fund has already indicated that it would support some sort of agreement on the promissory notes issue. Whether it would like to see a complete write-off or restructuring of the promissory notes is not known but, either way, its pronouncements on the issue are likely to put pressure on the European Commission and the European Central Bank. After all, it is in their interest that Ireland’s banking debt is significantly reduced and the prospects of Ireland returning to the bond markets are significantly strengthened. Ultimately, in unofficial consultation with the European Commission, the decision will be made by the European Central Bank. It could decide to block a deal aimed at writing-off or restructuring the promissory note debt if two thirds of its governing council deems it to be contrary to the ECB’s objectives. Persuading Brussels and Frankfurt won’t be easy but it is not impossible. Securing either a complete write-off or restructuring of the promissory notes is achievable and sustainable. In fact, it is the only game in town. The gravity of the situation should not be underestimated. Failure is not an option.

Anglo Irish Bank Protest

Wouldn’t it be great if there were a way to reduce Ireland’s banking debt by 31 BLN, more than a third of the State’s total banking debt? Or, wouldn’t it be great if that could be restructured in such a way that’s it’s repaid at a later date and over a longer period of time, drastically reducing the burden on the taxpayer? Well there is and it doesn’t involve burning depositors, bondholders or the ECB. I am, of course, talking about the Anglo promissory notes. There’s been an incredible amount of misinformation and confusion about this in recent weeks. If we have any chance of writing off or restructuring the debt it’s crucial that people understand the issues involved. I’ve written a consolidated paper explaining Ireland’s debt obligation to IBRC and the options open to the government in its attempt to minimize taxpayer exposure to that institutions debts.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD A COPY

Irish protest against water charges

One way or another, our masters always get what they want. It’s been on the cards for months now but talk about the introduction of water charges has stepped up a gear this week after their introduction was further flagged by Phil Hogan, minister for the environment (a man who laughingly calls himself minister for the environment even though virtually all “Irish environmental legislation” comes from the EU since environmental legislation is a shared competence under EU law). According to several sources, Irish households will be metered for water early in 2012 with the first bills sent out by 2013.

At present, only “commercial operations” pay for water. This is in accordance with Article 9 of the EU Water Framework Directive.  This includes farms, B&Bs, hospitals, homes for people with mental or physical disabilities, convalescent homes, health centres, schools and clubs. Most Irish households, however, have enjoyed free water since the abolition of domestic water charges in 1997 (some rural water users still pay a small fee if they belong to a local group water scheme).

Successive Irish governments and campaigners have fought tirelessly to prevent the EU from Introducing water charges. However, In October 2000, the EU introduced the Water Framework Directive which required all EU countries to charge for both domestic water and water used in “commercial operations”. In what represented a partial success, the Irish government and various other lobby groups persuaded the EU to allow Ireland to opt-out of the aspect of the directive that forced European countries to charge for domestic use. Ireland was the only country given the right to opt-out of this aspect of the directive. However, Irish businesses, and organisations such as schools etc, would still have to pay for their water.

Soon, though, Irish households will be forced by the EU (and, to a lesser extent, the IMF) to pay for the water they use under the terms of the EU/IMF loan agreements announced last November. Other taxes will also be levied under this agreement including a household charge to be introduced in 2012 or 2013.

There are advantages and disadvantages with the introduction of water charges. Arguably, the introduction of water charges may help to plug the gaping hole in our public finances. However, the cost of metering households won’t be cheap. It has been estimated that meter installation will cost between €200 and €580 per household. That’s a lot of money. Meters will need read and maintained too and that will add to the long term cost of the project. Perhaps the money required to establish and maintain the water charges system should be used to maintain our ailing public water supply system instead.

Irish Protest against water charges

Irrespective of the advantages and disadvantages of the introduction of water charges, there will come a time when the number of taxes and charges levied on the Irish people will actually serve to reduce overall tax intake. People will have less and less disposable income and their purchasing power will be greatly reduced. When water charges are added to other EU and state sanctioned taxes such as the upcoming property tax, things will get really nasty. The resultant reduction in purchasing power will lead to two things. Firstly, there will be a reduction in tax intake from the taxing of the sale of goods and services. In other words, the overall tax intake will actually decrease. Secondly, this reduction in spending in the economy will lead to the further loss of jobs. A vicious cycle of reduced spending and job lossess will ensue.

Sadly, this cycle is already in train. People are finding it tough to pay the bills out there and the governments’ obsession with austerity (stemming from their obsession with obeying the EU to the letter of the law) is not helping matters. A lady on Joe Duffy last week rang in to talk about her fears surrounding the proposed water charges. She also feared the introduction of a property tax and she lamented how she and her neighbours already find it difficult to pay for bin charges and other bills. Of course, she blamed the government. Like many others, she had absolutely no idea that both the proposed water charges and the proposed property tax are EU ordered taxes and that our government has little or no say in relation to whether they are introduced or not. Somewhat ironically, the bin charges she lamented about are also an EU ordered charge (under the EU’s “polluter pays principle” enshrined in the EU’s Environmental Liability Directive).

Since the idea of domestic water charges was first announced, as usual, the role of the EU in imposing water charges has been played down. The media talk about the imposition of water charges as if it were purely a matter for the Irish government. The reality is that the Irish government has little or no say in whether water charges are to be introduced or not. This is a perfect example of the workings of the EU. One way or another, the EU always gets what it wants in the end.

Michael Collins led the IRA intelligence operation on the morning of Bloody Sunday

On the morning of Sunday the 21^st of November 1920, during the Irish War of Independence, an intelligence-led operation was carried out in Dublin by the IRA, under the direction of Michael Collins, which led to the deaths of fourteen people believed to be British intelligence agents. Later that day, members of the Royal Irish Constabulary opened fire on a crowd of civilians watching a match between Tipperary and Dublin in Croke Park. Fourteen people died. Later that evening, three republican prisoners were beaten to death in Dublin Castle. Not surprisingly, Sunday the 21^st of November 1920 became known as Bloody Sunday (not to be confused with the Bogside Massacre that took place in Derry on the 30^th of January 1972). Among Irish nationalists, Bloody Sunday is widely remembered for its brutality.

Amid all the talk of the Queen’s historic visit to Croke Park, it is not surprising that the anti-nationalist historical revisionists are out in full force trying, as they will, to rewrite Irish history in a way that fits their own brand of anti-Irishness. Among them, not surprisingly, is Kevin Myers. In a recent Irish Independent article he claims that the events of Bloody Sunday now “exist largely in a realm of legend, which states that the British secret service was crippled in one brilliantly organised stroke, and so the cruel British army got its revenge with a massacre of the innocents of Croke Park.” He further asserts that that “the general Irish account for Bloody Sunday is that some 14 British secret agents got their thoroughly deserved come-uppance that morning, and that British soldiers later murdered 14 unarmed people in Croke Park in revenge.” While Myers disagrees, citing some book that he puts a great deal of faith in because it supports his narrative, I, however, think that is a pretty accurate summation of the events of Bloody Sunday.

A ticket to that fateful match in Croke Park

To strengthen his argument that the events of Bloody Sunday now remain “in a realm of legend”, Myers points out three things (1) that British “soldiers shot no one in Croke Park – policemen did”, (2) those that opened fire in Croke Park were simply “out of control. They were not following orders, nor were they implementing policy of any kind” and (3) that somehow, there is some sort of macabre but just symmetry between the shootings carried out by the IRA and those carried out by the men in Croke Park. This latter point, however, in merely implied, it is not explicitly stated.

First of all, Myers is only telling a half truth when he suggests that the killings in Croke Park were committed by policemen and not soldiers. The men who carried out the Croke Park massacre were made up of both members of the Royal Irish Constabulary (the then Irish police force) and, to the best of my knowledge, members of the Royal Irish Constabulary’s Auxiliary Division (the military wing of the RIC). Most of the shooting, however, was done by the ordinary members of the RIC (the police force) but this was under the direction of its military wing (commanded by Major Mills). Thus, both the ordinary and military wings of the RIC were involved. To call these men Policemen is only telling half the story. Of course, all this took place in the context of the War of Independence and it does not take a great leap of faith to consider the RIC as “British soldiers”. Ok, they weren’t British soldiers in the true sense of the term but they were an armed police force with a military wing. The RIC, at least during the War of Independence, had a military structure and it operated under the direction of the British government. The RIC was armed, it had a military structure and it took its orders from the British. At least in that sense, they could be considered “British soldiers” (as they would have been viewed, arguably, by the majority of Irish people at that time). It is for that reason that “military courts of inquiry” investigated the events in Croke Park. Even if you did accept Myers’ contention that those who carried out the Killings were policemen and not soldiers, that does not excuse anything. In fact, it probably makes the events more sickening.

Secondly, Myers is also only telling a half truth when he suggests that those who opened fire in Croke Park were simply “out of control. They were not following orders, nor were they implementing policy of any kind” Of course, it must be remembered that the decision to carry out the Croke Park massacre was taken at a local level by individual RIC members and not by the British government itself or by very senior British military figures. However, the command to carry out the massacre was given by a member of the British forces with at least some degree of authority, a Major. In any army, a Major is a senior figure and it could be said that he would have had the power to give “official orders”.

Thirdly, Myers seems to implicitly suggest that the shootings in Croke Park were a fair reprisal for the earlier IRA killing of British and Irish personnel. These men were, as Myers points out, mostly British intelligence officers while some were completely innocent. What is clear, though, is that those shot in Croke Park were civilians but most of those shot by the IRA could be considered as legitimate military targets since they were operatives for the occupying British forces (at least in the eyes of the vast majority of the Irish people). The IRA were engaged in a legitimate military struggle and, with all wars, there are usually innocent causalities. In this case, the innocent causalities were killed as the result of poor intelligence. That, of course, should never have happened. It must be noted, however, that there is a gaping disparity, whether Myers wants to admit it or not, between shooting a group of fourteen people comprised of legitimate military targets and a number of innocent people wrongly singled out due to poor intelligence and shooting fourteen innocent civilians at a football match.

Of course, this is a view that will never be accepted by Myers and his anti-nationalist ilk. As Myers suggests, “before one is entitled to have a strong opinion on historical matters, one must at least learn them”. Perhaps he should practice what he preaches.

A member of the central bank commission advocates leaving the EU on the front-page of the Sunday Independent this morning…. great to see! He’s not afraid to call a spade a spade – it’s very refreshing. However, he does suggest joining the US as one future option and notes that “surrendering our independence (to the US) would never be palatable but that’s what we have done through our membership of the European Union”. At least he’s making the right noises. This is the beginning of the end and it’s about bloody time! The idea will become mainstream.. eventually… it’s only a matter of time. Off for a walk in the stunning grounds of an autumnal Castletown House.

Brian, on his continued mission to ease his workload

EU finance ministers have agreed to send their national budgets to the European Union for approval before they are presented to the national parliaments. Current practice involves the presentation and approval of budgets in the national parliament before they are handed to the EU for final approval. The new changes will give the European Union more power in dictating the contents of national budgets.

According to the EU observer,

The ministers endorsed a new system of a ‘European Semester’, pushing EU nations closer towards fiscal harmonisation than ever before.

The semester, to kick in as soon as January next year, will begin with the European Commission producing a survey of the overall state of the economy, identifying difficulties facing both eurozone nations and the EU as a whole. This in turn will be presented to the European Parliament.

EU member states will then submit by April broad budgetary outlines for the commission to assess. Following this, based on the commission’s opinion, may then choose to issue country-specific ‘guidance’ by June and July.

It goes on to say,

Specific sanctions for flouting the ‘guidance’ of the Council and Commission remain to be decided. The European Commission will on 29 September unveil a proposal for the imposition of ‘quasi-automatic’ sanctions for delinquents. It is understood that this package of measures would invert the current framework, wherein a qualified majority in the Council must be reached to impose sanctions on countries in breach of the current fiscal rules. Under the commission’s plan, sanctions would be imposed automatically and it would require a qualified majority to block their imposition.

In typical EU fashion there will be a sanction imposed on EU states that fail to follow the ‘guidance’ of the Council and the Commission. Only in the EU could there be sanctions for failing to follow “guidance”! The term “guidance” is, of course, nothing but a code word for a dictat. Notable absent from the discussion following the news is Enda Kenny who played the patriot game last May when the idea was first mooted. Predictably, he has become silent on the issue because he knows that we are totally powerless to oppose the will of Brussels.

The national budget has largely remained one of the last vestiges of national sovereignty to survive “official” Brussels power grabs but that day is coming to an end. Currently, the European Union is a “hidden but active player” in the formation and approval of national budgets but these new measures serve to formalise that role.

Details regarding the actual powers given to Brussels in relation to national budgets remain largely unknown at present. However, it is unlikely that the EU will be satisfied with a role limited to mere “scrutiny”. Past experience with EU power grabs suggests that its new budgetary powers will allow it to dictate all aspects of the national budget such as taxation and social welfare provisions.

This is, officially, the first time in the history of the Irish state that a foreign government will have almost absolute authority over our national budget. Not since British rule has our national budget been formulated outside the State.

JP Mc Kenna

Campaign to save historic Moore Street structures

A number of key buildings associated with the 1916 Rising on Moore Street (Dublin City centre) are under threat.  A developer (Joe O’Reilly, Chartered Lands) has been granted permission to build a shopping centre on the site of a number of houses occupied by the leaders of the Rising as they attempted to flee the GPO and continue the battle on the far side of Parnell Street.

Of particular importance are the buildings at 14 – 17 Moore Street. The leaders of the Rising tunnelled through these buildings (carrying Connolly on a stretcher) in a bid to reach the far side of Parnell Street but they soon realised that they could go no further. A British barricade blocked their exit from Moore Street on to Parnell Street and sniper fire from the roof of the Rotunda rendered their plans impossible. It was in number 16 that the leaders reluctantly signed the surrender order and ultimately signed their death warrants.

Destruction on O'Connell Street after the Rising

These buildings are of major national significance. Today, they remain largely the same as they did during the Rising. From inside the houses you can actually see where the rebels tunnelled through the walls!

The site at numbers 14 – 17 Moore Street has been designated a National Monument following a lengthy campaign but this has failed to secure its protection. Current plans for the site only allow for the preservation of the facade of the buildings; the buildings themselves are set to be demolished. Campaigners argue that the structure of the buildings should be left untouched and that a commemorative centre should be opened on the site.

Tour of the Moore Street area during National Heritage Week

These buildings are the only buildings associated with the Rising that still look almost exactly the same as they did in 1916. They are a major part of our national heritage and their destruction would be a huge mistake.

To find out more please visit (and join) the campaign’s Facebook Page. You can help the campaign by signing this petition to Dublin City Council and the Government and/or by writing to the minister for the environment John Gormley.

Email: minister@environ.ie / john.gormley@oireachtas.ie

Address: Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Custom House, Dublin 1.

Tel: 01 888 2403
Fax: 01 878 8640

We all know that the brown envelope is king in Irish politics but if we let these people know that enough of us care they might just think twice about the destruction of our national heritage.

JP Mc Kenna