No Waffle. Sinn Féin Gives A Commitment On Irish Water Utility Funding

Thejournal.ie 27/08/2014

Sinn Féin say they’d abolish your water charges… But their alternative plan is a little short on detail

Mary Lou McDonald has been setting out how Sinn Féin would pay for the utility today… But the party won’t be giving precise details for another two weeks or so.

SINN FÉIN ARE no fans of water charges — members have been voicing their opposition to the contentious plan to levy households for water use ever since it was announced by Government.

And, after accusations from rival candidates in the Dublin South West by-election this week that the party had changed its stance on the issue for electoral gain, the party chose this morning to unveil its vision for the country’s water services.

Cathal King, Sinn Féin’s candidate in that Dáil vote, stated

unequivocally on election literature that his party had given and “absolute commitment” to reverse water charges, if in power.

That led to claims from Ex-MEP Paul Murphy, running in the by-election under the Anti-Austerity Alliance banner, that the party had changed its position. Labour candidate Pamela Kearns also accused them of making “contradictory statements”.

Speaking at a press conference at a Dublin hotel this morning, Sinn Féin deputy leader Mary Lou McDonald insisted there was no uncertainty about her party’s position.

Asked whether water changes would stay or go, if her party were given a majority in the Dáil, the TD replied.

They’re going.

She added:

“We’re opposed as a matter of principle to charging people for their domestic water supply.

“We’re also fully aware of the fact that there are households up and down the State who simply do not have that money in their domestic budget to pay this charge.

“Those are the realities… So our commitment is to campaign against these charges.

If a scenario arises where we are in a position to reverse them, we

will reverse them — that is our commitment.

Outlining her party’s plan ‘The Future of our Water Services’ McDonald explained that Sinn Féín wasn’t proposing that Irish Water as an entity be scrapped. It would, instead be funded from elsewhere in the tax system.

“That has always been the case.

I mean, we’re all grown-ups — and we know water has to be paid for. There’s absolutely no dispute there that the service has to be paid for, but it has always been paid through general taxation, through exchequer funding, through the local government fund and then through non-domestic water charges.

“That’s the established funding mix,” McDonald insisted.

[There's] no argument for shifting the burden of that onto households and people who are already paying for the service in question.

Asked several times by reporters how the costs would be covered, and whether there would be a rise in taxation elsewhere as a result, McDonald and the party’s Environment spokesperson Brian Stanley declined to give detail — but said more would be provided in their pre-Budget submission, due out in the next fortnight.

“We’re not making any pie-in-the-sky argument that services can be provided for free,” McDonald said, stressing that she believed basic services like water should be paid for through the general tax system.

Sinn Féin Mountmellick – Serving The Community

Murky Waters Ahead."Be Aware"

Independent.ie

• Gene Kerrigan 27/09/2014
  
  
  Never mind the small print - trust us
  They have us wondering if the things they say are even distantly related to our reality
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   Illustration: Tom Halliday.
  Paranoia beckons. There's not a day goes by when we don't wonder: what are they really up to? And, after last week's bizarre behaviour by the Taoiseach and his loyal supporters, words themselves have been drained of meaning.
          
                   
                   
                   
  Irish Water's latest effort to convince us there's nothing to worry about doesn't help. When the political establishment speaks, or Corporate Ireland, it's increasingly difficult not to wonder if there's some sleight of hand that conceals the true agenda.
  There's always been a level of suspicion. But the paranoia level today is moving out of deep orange and into blazing red. I get letters about - well, they're not all about - the Fine Gael/CIA secret base on Inishbofin to facilitate their joint selective assassination programme.
  It's not healthy, seeing something sinister behind every move of the establishment.
  But it is, I'm afraid, appropriate.
  Let's take just two things from the past week: First, Irish Water's claim that the supply of public water is not being and cannot be privatised; and, second, Taoiseach Enda Kenny's deliberate deception of his colleagues, his party and the citizens.
  Call me paranoid, but I believe two things about Irish Water. I believe it's building a database designed to produce a stable flow of wealth from one section of society to another - not just this year or next, but into the far future.
  And I believe that there's a long term privatisation strategy under way.
  Now, on the face of it, privatisation is impossible. Last week, we showed that the small print on the Irish Water website referred to a procedure for selling the company, and how Irish Water "may disclose Customer data to the prospective seller or buyer"; and that customers' personal data "will be one of the transferred assets".
  Irish Water said that the website shouldn't have said that. The references have been removed.
  Irish Water's head of communications, Elizabeth Arnett, has made various media appearances to assure us that our personal data is safe with them, and that there will be no privatisation.
  The legislation, she said, prohibits privatisation. On Prime Time she said: "Irish Water cannot be sold, it's against the law". So, that sounds solid. No privatisation, it would be illegal.
  But, would it? No doubt Ms Arnett believes so. She would have received a thorough briefing on what Irish Water wishes to tell us; the legal prohibition on privatisation would no doubt have been drawn to her attention. She would not, we can be confident, have been made privy to privatisation plans, as she would not then be able to stand over the company's claim that it cannot be sold - and there's no doubt that her statement was made in good faith.
  What is the legislation that prohibits privatisation? It's the Water Services Act of 2013, part 1, which deals with company formation.
  Section 5 (4) of the Act says that the Board will have one share in the company, and all remaining shares will be halved between the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Finance.
  Section 5 (6) says: "The Board shall not . . . alienate the share issued to it in accordance with subsection (4)".
  Archaic language, but clear enough. Under this legislation, the Board is indeed prohibited from selling its one share. But, see those three dots?
  Where those three dots are, the legislation says: "without the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance".
  So, the legislation prohibits the Board from selling the company - unless the government wants it sold. The law, therefore, specifically allows for privatisation.
  At which point, no doubt, our personal data will indeed become a saleable asset.
  In internal strategy and training documents (Google them) Irish Water teaches its people about its strategy for changing our perception of ourselves.
  A flow chart admits that we are "citizens". Then, an arrow points to the next stage, where we will be taught to see ourselves as "consumers"; and the next arrow on the chart takes us to the third stage of revelation.
  And there we accept that we are "customers".
  In two easy steps - we go from being citizens of a republic to being customers of a company.
  The remodelling of capitalism goes on apace - a "new funding model" to refloat the system after the crash of 2008. To this end, income tax will be cut slightly, to make the gullible cheer, and the shift of wealth via "charges" and "levies" will continue.
  It's all about "funding models". These lads would tax us for breathing, if they could find a way to attach meters to our throats.
  While we were all trying to understand what's going on with Irish Water, and hoping it was more benign than it seemed - Enda Kenny chose that week to play silly buggers with the Seanad.
  His preferred candidate for the Seanad bye-election, John McNulty, was dipped into the board of the Museum of Modern Art, so he'd have a smell of art off him, to qualify for the cultural panel.
  A blatant stroke, but Enda made it clear it wasn't his doing. It was Minister Heather Humphreys's responsibility. She dutifully tried to outline the wonderful qualities that allegedly caused her to appoint McNulty.
  In short - both of them sought to convince us it had nothing to do with Kenny. Michael Noonan weighed in, with a weird explanation about how in big parties "there's bound to be differences of opinion", and what mattered was that they "work through it as honestly as possible".
  This was soothing stuff, putting Noonan's credibility behind the claim that nothing wrong was going on. And it was entirely divorced from reality. Noonan was saying that what was happening wasn't happening, that something else entirely was happening - to do with honest disagreements about policies.
  This is beyond odd. This is seriously disturbed.
  Then, it turned out none of them were aware of the law - McNulty couldn't be appointed while seeking election. The whole thing wasn't just a stroke, it was a stroke they were too incompetent to carry through.
  At which point, according to the Irish Times, "Kenny apologises over McNulty debacle".
  Really? Kenny said, "I take responsibility for this having evolved to what people might imagine it is."
  Where's the apology? He takes responsibility. For the issue evolving into something distorted by our twisted imaginations.
  "I accept responsibility perhaps for not taking a closer view of how this evolved." And Heather Humphreys had nothing to do with it.
  Why didn't he - and she - tell us this at the beginning? Why did they mislead us that it was all about Humphreys?
  Is it really okay for the Taoiseach to do what he did, then he makes a non-apology and everyone moves on?
  Did Enda Kenny lie to us?
  You won't find a straightforward statement in which he said he had nothing to do with the stroke. Instead, he said, "ministers are free to make nominations to particular boards". Sleeveen language. Deliberately deceptive, while taking pains not to formally lie.
  Such things have happened down through the years. It's part of political life. But these days, under this government there's an arrogance born of self-belief that allows them to say what they like - because, they're the Good Guys, and what matters is that they win.
  Mind you, I'm a refugee from the paranoid Seventies. We had a saying: Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
  By the way, having done my homework I can reveal that there's no Fine Gael/CIA assassination drone base on Inishbofin. It's on Inishturk.
  Sunday Independent
  
  
  
  
  Sinn Féin Mountmellick – Serving The Community

Will The Fine Gael/Labour Party Government Step Up To The Mark.

Anti-agreement axis hollowing out peace process - Declan Kearney

22 September, 2014

Writing in today's Belfast Telegraph newspaper Sinn Féin National Chairperson, Declan Kearney said:

"A lazy narrative has gained increased currency over recent months about the political situation in the north. Disagreement on welfare cuts is portrayed as the cause of the current political impasse.

"Both ignored that the political process faces its greatest challenge since the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) talks in 1998. Peter Robinson's call for new talks is code for removing the safeguards and protections enshrined by all of the agreements. 

"The DUP leadership's position is now completely subordinate to an anti-Agreement axis within unionism. 

"Charlie Flanagan's comments ignore that the democratic core of the GFA is now being hollowed out by this anti-Agreement axis; which includes important DUP figures, the TUV, Ukip, others in the Orange Order, and loyalist paramilitaries.

"The DUP leader asserted the political arrangements set up under the Good Friday Agreement, and other agreements, were no longer fit for purpose, and wants new negotiations. Charlie Flanagan said there was a failure by parties to deliver basic services.

"The political landscape is being polarised between pro and anti-Agreement positions. Disagreement over welfare cuts is a by-product of that; but also reflects an ideological division on socio-economic issues. 

"Democracy in the north is now under direct threat from the unionist anti-Agreement axis. This reality goes to the heart of the impasse, which increasingly exhibits the potential for developing into a full crisis.

"There is an urgent need for popular and democratic opinion, along with the Irish, British and US governments to develop a pro-Agreement axis as a counter to the extremists. 

"The model and momentum used in the past should become the strategy to empower the positive constituencies which support political stability."

Sinn Féin Mountmellick – Serving The Community

Political process in perilous situation – Michelle Gildernew

21 September, 2014 - by Michelle Gildernew

Sinn Féin MP Michelle Gildernew speaking at a Labour Party 

Conference fringe meeting told her audience that ‘our political process is in a perilous – I would actually say untenable – position’.

 The full text of Michelle Gildernew's speech tonight

This year marks the 16th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, a watershed in Irish politics and surely one of the British Labour Party’s greatest recent achievements.

Much work was put in by many people to get the Agreement and to slowly and painstakingly work to get it implemented.

That implementation is far, far from over – but to continue with that task needs momentum – the bicycle syndrome where at least slow pedalling is needed to keep moving forwards.

However at present, our political process is in a perilous – I would actually say untenable - position.

And this is because not only is the bike not being moved forwards, but there are significant elements looking to find a reverse gear.

Over the last two years, political unionism has clearly moved into an anti-Agreement mode.

In 2012 we saw the violent unionist and loyalist reaction to the lawful, democratic  decision of Belfast City Council to reduce the flying of the union flag to ‘designated’ days – the same as in the Assembly, where unionists accept this state of affairs quite quietly.

In 2013 we saw the violent unionist and loyalist reaction to the lawful decision of the Parades Commission to prevent an unwanted Orange Order march to pass nationalist Ardoyne in North Belfast.

And then in 2013, DUP leader Peter Robinson reneged on the agreed Programme for Government commitment to develop the Long Kesh/Maze site – by way of a letter sent from Florida, not to his joint First Minister Martin McGuinness, but to DUP party colleagues.

This approach has increasingly defined the nature of DUP participation in the political institutions in the north.

We see no genuine willingness to share power with republicans in a real partnership government, or to embrace things like mutual respect, parity of esteem or reconciliation.

And the reasons for this are clear. Many in the DUP entered the arrangement unwillingly back in 2007, and are still lukewarm – to say the least - about the new dispensation. But since the May elections, we have seen the makings of a pan-unionist coalition of the unionist political parties – including those aligned to the paramilitary UDA & UVF.

It is primarily focussed on the parades issue, and trying to reverse the Ardoyne decision - but it’s wider than that – it is an anti-GFA axis, aiming to subvert the GFA’s principles and processes.

So we have seen a refusal to agree the compromises emerging from the talks chaired by Richard Haass & Meghan O’Sullivan later last year; a walkout from reconvened party leaders’ talks in July, and threats to bring down the institutions over the issues of ‘On The Runs’, the Parades Commission decision, and now most recently on the issue of welfare reform – or what are in reality welfare cuts.

I will return to welfare cuts in a minute, but what does need said very clearly is that all of this unionist obstruction, delaying, sitting on their hands and seeking reverse gear back to the 1960’s is being facilitated and allowed to happen by the behaviour of the government in London.

It has repeatedly shown its willingness to capitulate, and an unwillingness to stand up to unionist threats and intransigence. Reasons or explanations are various – a total lack of interest or engagement? Possibly, but it can be argued they are engaged – engaged in doing the wrong things. An ideological sympathy with where unionists are at? Remember, the Tories did not negotiate the GFA or St Andrews – to them republicans are still the enemy. And the small matter of eight DUP seats – and votes – post 2015 general election cannot be ignored.

As I said earlier, this situation is untenable, and it is for the British and Irish governments – with support from the US – to step up, get engaged positively and get things moving again.

We need to talk - there are too many issues sitting unresolved and unagreed - and I welcome signs in recent days that we may be moving into full and inclusive negotiations on all of this.

To return to the issue of welfare reform, let me be brief and clear.

The British Welfare Reform process has not been implemented in the north.

This is due to our party stalling the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill, which the Assembly must pass.

We had hoped for much more cross-party efforts to fight the London government on this.

This has not happened. Unionism are content to bring this insidious Bill into force, and all that flows from it – and I do not need to tell people here just what welfare “reform” really means.

Last week Martin McGuinness made it clear – the DUP minister responsible should bring the Bill to the floor of the Assembly for debate and votes, and let them explain how foisting this welfare cuts agenda on their own working class constituents, as well as everyone else, is in any way desirable.

If they refuse to bring the Bill, then this issue should go to the people, by way of an election to the Assembly.

We fear no election.

Sinn Fein will not deliver the cuts demanded by a cabinet of millionaires in London, who have not one vote in Ireland, and we stand alongside the poor, the low paid and the disadvantaged in this battle.

So things are not good. What unionism’s aim is is not always clear – to collapse the institutions so as not to be handcuffed to Sinn Fein in the run-up to next year's general election?

Possible, but again let me be clear, that is not our agenda. We do not want direct Tory rule from London. We want local politicians making the decisions and doing proper government and delivery.

These institutions are part and parcel of the Good Friday arrangements, and those need developed and strengthened, not thrown to the side.

To conclude, as I remarked at the start, the GFA must be seen as one of Labours biggest achievements, and we certainly believe that there is a big onus on the present Labour party to help in ensuring that things do not go down.

And I know Ivan and his colleagues have been at the heels of Theresa Villiers and the government here to step up and to engage positively – in an even-handed way. That is sorely needed as we find ourselves in the choppiest of political waters, and those demands need to be louder and stronger.

Next year could see Labour return to power, and of course there are many issues we would wish to see them working on in preparation for that, and once in power – the transfer of more fiscal powers to the Assembly, the completion of the many (still) outstanding elements of our Agreements and much else, including Labour's previous public commitment to a public inquiry into the assassination of Pat Finucane.

So we have much to deal with – crunching down on all the difficult issues; ensuring the very survival of our institutions, and standing up against the Tory cuts.

I’ll leave you with all of that, and I look forward to Ivan’s contribution and to the discussion.

Sinn Féin Mountmellick – Serving The Community