Tag Archives: Bryan On Monday

From top: Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and Tanaiste/Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney at Dublin Castle for the Global irewland conference; Bryan Wall

One of the fundamental aspects of democracy is the ability to pass laws and legislation for the greater good with support from the majority of people.

This should be self-evident in any democratic society.

I say should be because Fine Gael seems to think otherwise.

It seems to think that it, and it alone, is the arbiter of what constitutes democracy, what the greater good is, and who it applies to. Of course, then, this raises questions about the extent of our own democracy and its inherent limits.

So a national broadband plan that will enrich a select few is for the greater good. On the other hand, a piece of legislation which would outlaw the extraction of new fossil fuels in Ireland is to be blocked given its apparent lack of benefit for wider society.

The treatment of the Climate Emergency Bill by Leo Varadkar and company is not unique. Far from it. Perhaps it’s seen as leftist posturing.

Or maybe even seen as a threat. But it is yet another bill that the government is blocking via an outdated and undemocratic piece of legislation: The money message.

This allows for the government to block any bill from progressing that will have an effect on the state’s coffers. Under Article 17.2 of the constitution, no vote, resolution, or law can be passed if it will touch the state’s revenues.

Instead, Article 17.2 states that any of the above will first have to be “recommended to Dáil Éireann by a message from the Government signed by the Taoiseach” before they could be passed.

In a 2017 piece for the Irish Times, Kieran Coughlan pointed out that under normal circumstances the use of a money message to block bills in the Dáil would be unusual.

This is because the normal circumstances would consist of a majority government that could simply vote down everything it didn’t like. But Fine Gael is a minority government.

As Coughlan intimated, opposition bills have a real chance of getting passed as a result. And this, he said, “has alarmed the Government (and no doubt the permanent Government)”.

Skip forward to today. As it currently stands the government is blocking 55 bills from progressing via a money message.

This is an obscene figure. No matter how the government wants to try and spin it, there is simply no excuse for this level of intransigence.

Take the Climate Emergency Bill as an example. The bill, as mentioned, would outlaw any new exploitation of fossil fuels in Ireland.

On the one hand the government claims to care about the environment and published its Climate Action Plan. Yet it blocks the Climate Emergency Bill despite its obvious importance. Permission has been granted for a Chinese oil company and Exxon to begin drilling off the coast of Kerry.

And one of Leo Varadkar’s advisors has been in regular contact with a representative of the fossil fuel lobby.

It has been known for years now that the majority of the newly discovered fossil fuel deposits must stay in the ground if we are to have any hope of alleviating the ongoing climate catastrophe.

No matter. Someone has to make a profit. And it might as well be friends of the government that do.

And there’s the Occupied Territories Bill. Proposed by Senator Frances Black, it would ban trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights.

The bill adheres to international law which the Irish government presumably respects. Yet it has stated its opposition to the bill. And it’s expected to block it via a money message.

As Ciaran Tierney has revealed, the government has come under immense pressure from beyond Ireland to block the bill.

Politicians in the US have put pressure on their Irish counterparts about the bill. They called the bill “ill-conceived”. And referencing the role of US corporations in the Irish economy, they said the “stakes for Ireland are high”.

The government has also been directly lobbied by a major Israeli government agency. The chair of the Jewish Agency for Israel, Isaac Herzog, wrote to Simon Coveney in January asking him to block the bill.

Herzog called the bill “unfair and unjust”. He also claimed that if the bill is passed it would encourage:

a violent turn by extremists who would interpret it as an official encouragement to more hostility, and indeed more hostilities.

He closed his letter by telling Coveney:

I am offering my help to try and prevent it. We need to join efforts to block this Bill.

All of the above speaks to a wider agenda. The government will do everything it can to ensure that its own interests are looked after first at the expense of everyone else. That much is clear.

But there’s also the interests of the government’s supporters and allies that must also be taken care of.

No Fine Gael government is going to vote for proposals that would protect renters to the extent that is needed. It’s not going to anger the fossil fuel lobby by banning new oil wells and coal mines.

And it’s not going to enrage the Israeli government, especially when it’s vying for a seat on the UN security council.

It’s us who’ll pay for all of this, literally and figuratively. Varadkar and his government have done nothing but show contempt for ordinary people.

For them, democracy is a tool to get elected. Its usefulness stops once that has been achieved. Fine Gael isn’t particularly distinctive in this regard.

But it’s the party that we all have to deal with at this point in time. And it’s the party that’s doing its best to show its contempt for what little democracy we have and ensuring that its own interests and motives take precedence.

Democracy extends only as far as Fine Gael allows it. An alternative is unthinkable. Because after all, that might mean allowing some real democracy to take root and flourish.

Bryan Wall is an independent journalist based in Cork. His column usually appears here every Monday. Read more of Bryan’s work here and follow on Twitter:  @Bryan_Wall


From top President Micahel D Higgins joins members of the Defence Forces at the annual 1916 Leaders Commemoration Ceremony at Arbour Hill cemetery in Dublin in May; Bryan Wall

Is Ireland willingly walking into an EU army? This is the question that was dismissed during the recent elections as if it was some kind of conspiracy theory.

But the fact is that alongside climate change, it should have been at the forefront of every debate. Instead, it barely got a mention.

Ireland’s involvement in an EU army has been assured via its commitment to the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) arrangement.

Ireland joined PESCO in 2017. But what does that mean? A factsheet published by the EU itself lays it out clearly. PESCO means “increased investment in defence” along with “further integrating and strengthening defence cooperation

If that in itself seems somewhat unclear, uncertainties are brushed aside a few lines later. The factsheet states:

The aim is to jointly develop defence capabilities and make them available for EU military operations.

To make sure that the involved states are living up to their PESCO commitments, each country will publish a yearly report known as a National Implementation Plan (NIP). This is so each state will know how everyone else is “contributing to fulfilment of the binding commitments it has undertaken”.

On top of this, states’ spending on national defence will be monitored.

Given the amounts of money involved, someone is going to profit from all of this. And in this case it’s the arms industry that stands ready to reap the whirlwind of increased defence spending.

This is not hidden from the public. In the European Defence Agency’s (EDA) own publication, European Defence Matters Magazine, it’s made quite clear what the role of industry is when it comes to increasing EU militarisation.

Take Eric Trappier, the CEO of Dassault Aviation, and the current president of the AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD).

During an interview in the aforementioned publication, he pointed out that “Industry, has developed very good working relations with all EU institutions”. And new initiatives like PESCO create “opportunities” for the arms industry.

He also argued that “appropriate governance” for the industry is needed. Presumably he doesn’t mean greater regulation. This is seemingly confirmed when he says there’s a need for “an EU political and legislative environment that is fully adapted to the defence specificities”.

But that’s not all. In an EDA report about the EU’s “capability requirements” out to 2035, it notes that it’s important that the arms industry is able to supply states with the weapons they need.

This includes “future cutting-edge technologies”. In the introduction the report states that it “does not consider the ethical and legal aspects” of the weapons and technologies it discusses.

This makes sense when you get to the sections on human “augmentation” and “enhancement”.

These enhancements include the use of exoskeletons, “Cybernetic augmentation, genetic alteration and/or nanotechnologies to enhance human cognition”.

If that wasn’t enough, there’s also the potential use of pharmaceutical drugs to increase the “resilience of individual soldiers” to various biological, chemical, radioactive, or nuclear threats.

The “use of enhanced individual soldiers” is later mentioned as one of a number of “Key future military capability requirements”.

Is it any wonder that this wasn’t discussed during the elections and has been largely ignored?

For a start, some of it reads as bizarre and other parts are typical given the world we live in; bizarre given the discussion of human augmentation and typical because, as usual, if someone’s going to profit it’ll be large corporations.

So to even mention PESCO would open a can of worms as it were. All of this would have to be discussed.

But that can’t be allowed to happen because promises have already been made that can’t be reneged on. Ireland’s commitment to its lack of neutrality has been assured for a long time now.

PESCO just makes it official that our neutrality is a farce and always has been.

The mainstream political position can be summed up by a document published last year by Seán Kelly, Mairead Mc Guinness, Deirdre Clune, and Brian Hayes in their roles as MEPs.

In the document, which discusses Irish neutrality, they argue that much of language in debates about Irish defence spending uses “outdated language”.

They insist that “Ireland is vulnerable” to terrorist attacks. And for this reason they say they “support reinforced security and defence cooperation in Europe”.

At the same time, they also take note of Ireland’s lack of neutrality over the years which they describe as “practical, flexible, and pragmatic”.

And they insist “Taking a more proactive position in the security and defence policy of the future is in our national interest”. And all this while claiming Ireland will remain “non-aligned”.

People disconnected from the realities of daily existence get to define the so-called “national interest”. There’s nothing to be gained by an increasing militarisation of society.

PESCO ensures that and much more.

It ensures increased defence spending here, involvement in wars abroad, and a tidy profit for the arms industry. In a remotely democratic society this would be open for debate.

But it never was and it never will be unless a large amount of pressure is brought to bare on the political elites who believe that turning Ireland into a branch of the EU military is something to be lauded.

In Homage to Catalonia, George Orwell wrote:

It is the same in all wars; the soldiers do the fighting, the journalists do the shouting, and no true patriot ever gets near a front-line trench, except on the briefest of propaganda-tours.

Our case differs, but only slightly. We have politicians doing all the shouting while the soldiers will eventually do the fighting with the arms industry profiting.

Some kind of open debate is needed. The last thing Ireland needs is to be dragged into a conflagration with Iran and Russia. And that means resisting every attempt at militarising our society.

Bryan Wall is an independent journalist based in Cork. His column usually appears here every Monday. Read more of Bryan’s work here and follow on Twitter:  @Bryan_Wall


From top: The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) has proposed regulating social media in ireland; Bryan Wall

The push by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) to regulate social media and the internet in general should concern us all.

We’ve gotten used to the idea of a free and open internet. For better or worse, everyone has the chance to voice an opinion and hear opinions back in return.

The simple fact is that an unregulated internet has given us access to information in a way that would have been impossible 20 years ago.

But now it has been determined that this is unacceptable.

Yes, hatred exists on the internet and oftentimes to an extent that is hard to believe. But granting power over the whole internet to an organisation like the BAI is not the answer to combating this hate.

Its proposals border on the extreme if not outright authoritarian.

It proposes three functions of any online regulator: The removal of harmful content, the promulgation of an online content code, and promoting awareness of online safety.

The latter sounds mundane. But it’s the former two that pose the problem. In its submission to the government, it contends that in working to remove harmful content from the internet monitoring of encrypted private messaging services is carried out.

It wrote that the online regulator should be able to issue Harmful Online Content notices (HOC) to “both ‘open’ online services (e.g. social media platforms) and ‘encrypted’ online services (e.g. private messaging services)”.

It further argues that this targeting of encrypted private messaging services — presumably they mean the likes of WhatsApp and Signal — is “desirable to ‘future proof’ them and to effectively tackle certain online harms”.

What’s more, it says that takedown notices can be issued by the regulator “on receipt of requests from Irish residents or someone legitimately acting on an Irish resident’s behalf”.

As for the online content code, the BAI suggests that:

“Appropriate and dissuasive sanctions should exist in statute where a regulator determines that an online platform has repeatedly or seriously breached the HOC Code”.

What’s more, the BAI also proposes that “Suitable investigatory powers should be granted to the regulator to support this function”.

Essentially, the BAI wants to regulate all online content, including private messaging services, and sanction providers if they do not adhere to the online HOC Code.

And not only would the BAI be monitoring private messages for hateful content, it would also be encouraging tech companies to monitor the private messages of their userbase themselves.

This would be a requirement given that having the BAI monitoring all content at all times is impossible. Instead, it would have to force tech companies to do this for them and sanction them if they don’t.

To say this is a dangerous turn would be an understatement. This has thankfully been recognised by some people already.

Simon McGarr, a solicitor and director of Data Compliance Europe, has criticised the BAI’s move into the world of online regulation. During an interview on  RTE Radio One’s Morning Ireland, he commented that it simply “doesn’t have the right instincts” to regulate online communications.

For its part the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) insisted that the BAI’s suggestions are extreme.

It wrote that any attempts to tackle online hate should not turn into the construction of “totalitarian state structures capable of indiscriminate surveillance and censorship of our private communications”.

It went on to declare that:

We are deeply alarmed by BAI’s proposals for internet regulation, including their proposals to access, monitor and censor the private communications of people living in Ireland.

Such proposals ignore a long established body of human rights doctrine protecting our important rights including privacy, association, and expression.

Communications that are encrypted from end to end are a thorn in the eye of authorities for obvious reasons. For that reason alone the BAI’s proposals should set alarm bells ringing.

We didn’t and don’t monitor everyone’s mail just because some people use it for nefarious purposes. The same holds for the internet. And let’s be clear. This isn’t just a push to regulate the internet for safety reasons.

It’s a push to regulate the internet because a lot of powerful people don’t like the fact that it is an effective counter to state propaganda. It’s also a counter to lies and distortions promoted in the mainstream media.

And that’s not including the benefit of private, encrypted messaging which allows people and groups to communicate and organise outside of public channels.

Given that the BAI currently regulates television and radio, this move is surprising. There have been proposals in the last 12 months to increase its scope when it comes to journalism. Fianna Fáil have suggested the BAI begin funding “public interest journalism”.

That would pose problems of its own. Yet the BAI seems to think it is the organisation that can and should regulate the internet.

It’s also worth mentioning that the effects of this wouldn’t be limited to Ireland.

Given that major tech companies have their headquarters here, regulations imposed on Facebook and Twitter here are going to affect every one of their users across Europe. I don’t think many Europeans would be keen on the BAI snooping through their private messages.

We’ve seen before what happens when organisations have access to information that is supposedly private and who then use it to further an agenda. Alan Shatter had no problem using information that was leaked to him by former Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan to attack his rivals.

After Clare Daly’s arrest in 2013 for an apparent driving offence, the details were quickly leaked to the media. Added to this is the fact that an “unexpected number” of Gardaí accessed the PULSE records of her arrest.

Now imagine the kind of information that the BAI wants to have access to and you’ll begin to understand the kind of power that they’d have. It’ll go far beyond the kind of information that PULSE records store.

You’ll also begin to understand that many a grudge will soon be itching to be settled. Regulating the internet is one thing.

There is a legitimate argument to be made that websites like Reddit have never done enough to tackle the racism that flourishes on it.

But that doesn’t mean we should allow a state agency to have access to the entirety of our online selves. But that is what the BAI is proposing. It’s madness. It’s Orwellian.

And for that reason, don’t be so sure that they won’t get what they want.

Bryan Wall is an independent journalist based in Cork. This is an election special. Bryan’s regular column appears here every Monday. Read more of Bryan’s work here and follow him on Twitter:  @Bryan_Wall

Pics: Rollingnews/Wired

From top: Taoiseach Leo Varadkar with Fine Gael TD Maria Bailey in 2016; Bryan Wall

As we’re all well used to by now, the government insists on image over substance. It can claim to represent the needs and wants of the wider citizenry but all it continues to do is take care of its own interests and that of its backers.

We are in the midst of a climate breakdown but all the government can muster is a tepid response in the form of the Climate Action Plan.

Then we have the lack of accountability with Maria Bailey and her legal excursions. Instead, Leo Varadkar and company have decided to go after the source who leaked the entire fiasco to the media.

In the space of a week, then, we have a government intent on doing nothing constructive about the climate breakdown and pursuing a whistleblower.

One would think that given recent history, particularly when it comes to the latter, the government would know better.The fact of the matter is that it does know better. It just doesn’t care. And neither does Leo Varadkar.

With the Climate Action Plan, nothing of major substance is provided. Instead, the government admits that over the coming decades it intends to rely on a relatively “low price trajectory for oil”.

It also suggests allowing local authorities to ban petrol and diesel cars from certain parts of cities or towns. “Zero-emission vehicles” would be given precedence, thus punishing the lower-middle and working classes for not being able to afford a new car.

And that’s not even mentioning the state granting an exploration licence to a Chinese-owned oil company and Exxon to drill for oil off the Kerry Coast.

Another example of the plan’s hollowness comes in its discussion of agriculture. At beginning of the document it is revealed that 32% of Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. By comparison, the European average is 11%.

But in the chapter on agriculture the plan states that:

‘Irish agriculture has strong green credentials and a positive international reputation in terms of the carbon intensity of its dairy and beef output’

In the world of Leo Varadkar and company, being three-times worse than your European peers in polluting the planet is to have “green credentials”.

This is emblematic of the Fine Gael and Leo Varadkar edifice. Image is everything. Reality can never be allowed to shine through. But when it does, it illuminates the side of politics that people like Varadkar want covered up at all costs.

Take the issue of Maria Bailey. Instead of holding her to account for her apparently spurious legal claims, the source of the leak to the press about the entire fiasco is to be hunted down and named and shamed.

We aren’t at the level of Maurice McCabe but it does show that nothing much has changed since he was vindicated by the Charleton Tribunal.

Whistleblowers are not to be celebrated. They are to be found and punished for daring to undermine the edifice and the narrative that supports it. This shows how for Varadkar image is everything. Anything that undermines him and his party is to be denigrated and sought out as a threat.

That also includes the UN. Earlier this year the UN Rapporteur on Housing, Leilani Farha, along with Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations, Surya Deva, sent a letter to the government criticising its housing policies or lack thereof.

They declared that the government has a practice of “adopting laws and policies which treat housing as a commodity and undermine the enjoyment of housing as a human right”.

They went on to accuse the government of essentially allowing the “financialization of housing”.

Housing in Ireland, they wrote, is now “significantly unaffordable”. Government investment in the area “has disconnected housing from its core social purpose of providing people with a place to live in with security and dignity”.

The letter was written back in March, but the government has now taken the authors to task. The government has even claimed that housing is “eminently affordable”.

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul says otherwise. In its pre-budget submission, it revealed that one in five people in rental accommodation spend more than 40% of their income on rent. This, despite what the government might insist, is not sustainable.

Varadkar’s tactic is to maintain that everything is fine and that society is not starting to buckle under the weight of obscene rents, rising homelessness, and a health system on the verge of collapse.

Nothing can be allowed to question the myth of him and his party working for the “common citizens”.

Maria Bailey is an embarrassment because she damaged this edifice by allowing people to see that, in fact, politics-as-usual is the same old story: One rule for them and another for the rest of us.

And that’s why the person who leaked the story to the press in the first place has to be tracked down and duly flogged.

But this insistence on the edifice and its stability is proof of the contempt that Varadkar and his party hold the country in. It doesn’t matter what’s true. It only matters what they say is true.

So, there is no housing crisis and there is a well-thought out plan to combat climate breakdown. The opposite, even if it is true, really isn’t because Leo says so. It isn’t surprising but there is a boldness in his actions and statements that’s impressive.

It makes you question what you’ve actually seen and actually read. This is a well-worn political tactic. Thus far, it seems to have worked. In our confusion the government continues its policies of ignoring the masses for the benefit of the few.

But the thing about tactics is that they can only be used for so long before their target adapts and realises what’s going on.

And this means that for Leo, time is hopefully running out.

Bryan Wall is an independent journalist based in Cork. This is an election special. Bryan’s regular column appears here every Monday. Read more of Bryan’s work here and follow on Twitter:  @Bryan_Wall

From top: Ross Maguire of New Beginnings; banking whistleblower Jonathan Sugarman; Bryan Wall

One of the most amazing articles in recent times came across my Twitter feed last week. The author, Ross Maguire, contended that banks are getting too much flack from the public, which itself has been whipped into an anti-bank frenzy by academics and activists.

He argued that this is a dangerous form of populism. This populism, in the author’s mind, is dangerous because it involves people exaggerating their problems and seeking out a scapegoat.

Any solutions they offer are “clichés” and therefore, one can surmise, not to be taken seriously by privileged men such as the author.

In the author’s mind banks do not deserve the scrutiny they receive from the wider public. This attention, he insists, “has now developed a whiff of populism”. But the author’s definition of populism is one associated with Donald Trump and hardcore Brexiteers.

And given this, he is trying to dismiss the concerns of ordinary people while at the same time attempting to perform a semantic and theoretical sleight of hand by making banks and their shareholders victims. In this equation, the victims have become the victimisers.

Populism has been twisted and corrupted by people like the author of the piece and the likes of Donald Trump. But populism has only ever meant one thing: An overriding concern with the needs of the common people.

This has always been seen as a threat because the idea of people having their rights respected, let alone granted, has scared establishment figures throughout history.

In fact, it precipitated a Trilateral Commission study in the 1970s which found the above notions of people having the temerity to demand their rights be respected so obscene that they called it a “crisis of democracy”.

In Maguire’s case the obscenity is that banks may have something to answer for and people are in fact rightly angry.

His only allusion to this is that banks might deserve this “to some extent”. For Maguire, protections for homeowners would be “profoundly negative” given the effects on the market. And besides, “Irish borrowers are already so well protected”.

Dare he mention the fact that last year thousands of people had their mortgages with Permanent TSB sold off to vulture fund Start Mortgages. In many cases the mortgages were performing but Permanent TSB wanted them off its books. Protected indeed.

But Maguire’s attitude, even though he isn’t a banker, seems emblematic of banking culture in general. Ethics and regulations become optional or in some cases a disadvantage.

Take the case of whistleblower Jonathan Sugarman. Having taken up a position as a risk manager for the Dublin-based but Italian-owned UniCredit Bank in May 2007, he quickly realised that the bank was regularly breaking Irish banking laws.

Irish legislation allows for a 1% breach of liquidity by banks. Sugarman discovered that UniCredit was in breach by up to 20% on daily basis. This meant that every day the bank was running billions of euros short.

As he related to an Oireachtas committee in 2017, Sugarman informed the Central Bank of the liquidity breaches. According to him, “A breach of 1% should have set alarm bells ringing” in the Central Bank. But with a breach of 20% he said, “I expected all hell to break lose”. Instead, nothing happened.

After hiring an outside IT company in order to get a second opinion, it reported to him that UniCredit was actually breaching liquidity by up to 40%. Sugarman’s figures, it appears, were conservative.

He resigned the next day and has been seeking justice since then. It appears no sanctions were ever placed on UniCredit for its liquidity breaches. Irish banks ran dry of liquidity the following year in 2008 which then gave us the bank guarantee. So not only was UniCredit in breach of liquidity regulations, everyone was.

I recently met Sugarman and he continues to be amazed at the lack of accountability in Irish banking circles. The inquiry into the collapse of the Irish banks was, he agrees, a distraction and farce, with the outcome predetermined.

This was seemingly confirmed at the time by a different whistleblower who claimed the Central Bank was redacting and in some cases withholding vital documents from the inquiry’s investigators. This story — and Sugarman’s — is far from over.

Meanwhile, Maguire has attempted to defend the indefensible by insisting that any anger the Irish public may feel because of the above actions of banks is irrational.

“Rage”, he says, “is the human emotion associated with populism. But rage is not intelligent and only intelligence solves real problems”. Therefore, populist notions of wanting banks to be held accountable for their actions is unintelligible. It stems from a place of rage and not of cold calculation.

But rage is justifiable and it in no way lessens the idea of populism; the idea that the concerns of average people are important. In Maguire’s world, banking should be left to the technocrats who know better. Any ill will thrown in their direction is misguided, misplaced, or simply irrational.

This contempt is elitism writ large. It’s the same contempt that caused the liquidity breaches in 2007 and 2008. And it’s the same contempt that’s going to give us another economic crash.

As Sugarman told me, nothing has changed since 2007. And the next crash, which is coming soon, won’t be pretty.

This is supported by former Central Bank governor Patrick Honohan. He has said that “deeper reforms” are needed in Irish banking. Furthermore, he pointed out that there is a:
long-standing culture of corporate entitlement by the banks operating in Ireland.

He also revealed that regulators are “deferential”, “lenient”, and showed a “tendency to passivity” towards banks.

Despite this not-so-new revelation, we still have to deal with unaccountable banks and bankers putting people’s homes and lives at risk. For them profit is never enough. It has to be an obscene profit that is endless and always increasing.

But to question this is unfair. It is to give in to populism. After all, we can’t have people being put above profits.

Bryan Wall is an independent journalist based in Cork. This is an election special. Bryan’s regular column appears here every Monday. Read more of Bryan’s work here and follow on Twitter:  @Bryan_Wall

Top pics via Twitter

From top: People Before Profit’s Adrienne Wallace; Bryan Wall

The election results have shown that there is a crisis in left-wing Irish politics. More specifically, parties of the left have, for the most part, fundamentally failed to make gains at the expense of the big parties.

Instead, discontent was channelled towards the Greens, with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael still largely coming out on top in spite of some losses.

Most people recognise that we need to urgently do something in order to have any hope of leaving a somewhat habitable planet for our children and grandchildren. That partly explains the success of the Greens.

But in spite of this, the neo-liberal parties won out at the expense of the parties of the left. It seems that people are willing to combat climate change by voting for a party or parties they believe will do something to combat climate change. But they aren’t willing to take that extra step and question the capitalist system which is responsible for climate change in the first place.

So the question then is, what did the left do wrong? And, probably more importantly, what does it portend for the future of Irish politics?

As for the first question, it seems that the left has failed to understand the fundamental issues that people are facing and worried about. And the left appears to not appreciate how electoral politics works to its disadvantage.

Given the housing and homelessness crisis, the left should be dominant in Irish politics and society. But it isn’t.

One of the left’s successes in the local elections is People Before Profit’s Adrienne Wallace, who ran in the Carlow constituency. I spoke to her about why the left overall did so poorly in the elections.

She pointed out that the “the radical left are too small at the moment to alleviate some of the worst aspects of the system” that people have to live with. And for this reason, when it comes to voting day:

“When a woman has all her belongings and her three children in their car with nowhere to go, voting is going to be the last thing on her mind and that’s just the reality of it.

She won’t have time to think about FG’s obsession with privtiasation and profits and how that relates to her situation.

I have witnessed first hand the crippling affect the housing crisis is having on people and I think they are in desperate situations, as a result finding time to go to the ballot booth is low down the list.”

Another perspective that I’ve come across is that the majority of the left in Ireland try to compete in an area which the dominant political parties have mastered years ago.

Quite simply, they are better and more efficient at canvassing, telling people the they understand them, and doing something as simple as pressing the flesh.

This is the realm of the major political parties, make no mistake about it. Anyone outside of this small club will work twice as hard to achieve half the results.

I saw it first-hand in the local elections in West Cork. Independent candidates who understand the issues and want to create a viable society for everyone struggling against the political machines of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.

And that struggle resulted in receiving a fraction of the votes representatives of the above-mentioned obtained. When the field is so skewed against you, why bother to play in the field in the first place?

It’s one thing to see an injustice and strive to change it. It’s another thing entirely when an entire edifice is designed to keep you and your views marginalised for the benefit of the establishment.

And after decades of struggle the result is the same: A few gains here and there but the edifice remains unaffected.

Electoral politics offers the illusion of a diversity of outcome. The success of the Greens is held up as an example of this political diversity. Yet they are more than happy to discuss going into government with parties who should be anathema to them.

As for what this portends for the future of Irish politics, the answer is nothing good. We have a government that is a mixture of incompetent and venal with its insistence in ignoring the housing and homelessness crisis. Instead, developers and landlords are to be helped out to an extent that would make bank robbers blush.

But where does the left fall in this calculus?

It can continue to attempt to make gains via electoral politics. At some stage in the future it will likely be successful. But those gains will be minimal by comparison to the power of the big two.

And those gains will be lost just as we’ve seen in the local and European elections as the ebb and flow of Irish people’s political consciousness will not allow them to challenge the fundamental underpinnings of our society. They can only go so far.

On the other hand, Wallace disagrees. She believes the fact that the main parties only take around 50% of the total vote “is a huge decline from 30 years ago”.

For her, “This indicates that there is huge space and scope for change”. And she hopes that her own party can “occupy that space in the coming years”.

Overall though, an understanding of and solidarity with the average person are all needed. This includes a level of guidance in helping people get to grips with how the system functions. The left has provided some of this. It just hasn’t provided enough of it and it hasn’t provided it on a non-judgemental basis.

As Chris Hedges has previously said, the problem with a lot of the left, especially the mainstream left, is that they want to see the poor. They just don’t want to have to smell them.

There is also an elitism that pervades some parts of the left. If you haven’t read the “correct” theorists and interpreted them in the appropriately dogmatic way, then you are dismissed out of hand.

The future of the left then, does not look positive. With all of the developments in Irish society over the previous two decades, the left in Ireland should at the very least be ascendant. Instead, it’s largely moribund with some small exceptions.

The Connolly Youth Movement (CYM) is one of these exceptions. It seems that its reliance on direct action and avoidance of electoral politics thus far is paying dividends. New branches have recently been formed around the country. And although the numbers are relatively small, it is a success that should be taken note of by others on the left.

For now though, a thorough assessment of how the left relates to wider society has to take place. It can’t continue along the well-worn electoral path with no consideration given as to why we are still ruled by right-wing neo-liberals.

Down that path lies madness and failure. And we can no longer afford such misstep.

Bryan Wall is an independent journalist based in Cork. This is an election special. Bryan’s regular column appears here every Monday. Read more of Bryan’s work here and follow on Twitter:  @Bryan_Wall


Related: Michael Taft: Wanted: A New Popular Front

From top: Green Party’s Ciarán Cuffe arrives at the European elections count centre at the RDS, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4 yesterday; Bryan Wall

With the election results all but in, now comes the time for a post-mortem. The left vote has collapsed to large degree. Sinn Féin has lost the gains it made in the last few years and parties farther to the left have not been able to capitalise on the failures of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.

Instead, the Greens are the main winners right across the country.

Many are lauding this as proof of a greater awareness amongst Irish people of the challenges facing the country when it comes to climate change.

Perhaps there’s a realisation that all the other parties have failed to do anything about climate change. And now the Greens have stepped into the fold with a mixture of the right ideas and the right people to do something about it.

Their electoral success should be seen as a protest vote more than anything else. The Greens are far enough from Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael that there is a difference between them in the minds of some people. This makes voting for them palatable.

But the simple truth is that the Greens have more in common with the big two than with any of the parties to the left.

Having spent the last decade in the political wilderness, this has been forgotten or is simply not known by a generation of voters going to the ballot box for the first time.

When the Greens were in coalition with Fianna Fáil their record was, quite simply, atrocious. As the Shell to Sea campaign noted, when the Green’s current leader, Eamon Ryan, was a minister in the coalition with Fianna Fáil, he was happy to “impose” the Corrib gas project. Ryan, they said, “mobilis[ed] hundreds of Gardai and the Navy in order to do so”.

Former Green Party leader John Gormley, who was leader while they were in power with Fianna Fáil, stood by his party’s support of the bank guarantee. He argued in 2009 that “If we had not acted, the costs to the economy would be incalculable and that is why we had to act”. Although he later claimed that he was reliant on bad advice from experts.

Nonetheless, during his time in coalition he defended the austerity budgets he helped to impose on the basis that it was in the “national interest”. And during the banking inquiry he insisted that:

“Every one of those austerity budgets was progressive. In other words, each budget hit the wealthier members of our community proportionately harder than the less well-off.”

According to a prominent Irish activist, before getting into government, Gormley was also known to regularly attend meetings of the Irish Anti-War Movement and was “gung-ho” about Palestine. But they noted that as soon as Gormley went into coalition with Fianna Fáil, “that was the last we heard of such things”.

And current Green Party star Ciarán Cuffe was more than happy to hob-knob aboard the USS John F Kennedy aircraft carrier when it visited Dublin in 1996 while he was a member of the Dublin City Council. As The Phoenix noted, he did this while members of his own party were picketing the presence of the US ship.

This brief and incomplete history of the Greens is telling and all the more given Eamon Ryan’s comments while counting of the ballots was still ongoing over the weekend.

During an interview on Newstalk, he apparently refused to be drawn on whether or not his party would go into coalition with Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael.

His defence was that:

“Every party increasingly in our system vote to agree internally to go into power or a Programme for Government”.

In another interview he told the Irish Times that he could see the Greens being part of “rainbow coalition with a range of different parties”. Cuffe refused to be drawn on this when questioned by journalists.

Fellow star of the party, Saoirse McHugh, has been more forthright, however. She said “Yeah” when asked if she would resign from the party if it entered into a coalition with either of the big two.

Cuffe argued that the idea of a coalition was “hypothetical” but nonetheless said, “Let’s see how things go today and then we can have a look at all these issues”.

Although McHugh seemed put out being asked about a possible coalition with Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, saying “I don’t know why everyone keeps talking about it” as no general election has been called, it appears that her seniors have begun planning for the possibility.

Both Ryan’s and Cuffe’s comments are indicative of this. And, probably more importantly, it appears that Fine Gael has begun setting the stage for the Greens to go into a coalition with them.

Varadkar has said an early general election is possible. This is probably a greater possibility than ever before now that the Greens have shown their willingness to at the very least consider going into government with Fine Gael.

Hoping that the Greens’ local and European electoral success will translate into Dáil seats, he likely realises he can use them to prop up his party in the aftermath of an election in which Fine Gael would inevitably lose some seats.

The political courting has begun, with Simon Coveney saying:

“you will see in the next few weeks… a very significant climate policy coming from the government”.

With the Greens itching for another chance at power having spent the last decade in the wilderness, it seems they believe that their time has come again.

Having surprised everyone with their “surge”, their likely hope is that they can carry this success forwards into a general election. But what hasn’t been widely reported are the demographics of the Green Party’s new voters.

According to the Irish Times‘ Mary Regan, “42% of 18 – 24 year olds in Dublin” voted for the Green Party compared to 7% of the same age group voting for Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael.

This means, then, that the “surge” in support for Ryan and company comes from people who either don’t know or don’t remember the role of the Green Party helping to cripple the country and, in particular, my generation who lost their jobs, income, homes, and, all too often, their lives.

The Greens represent nothing but more of the same old politics we’re all used to. For that reason they’ll be gladly accepted by either of the big two parties, thereby giving us the option of green neo-liberalism or green neo-liberalism.

The signalling of both Ryan and Cuffe that they would willingly enter into such an arrangement shows how hollow their professed green beliefs really are.

And with a general election possibly around the corner, watch as their already pliable beliefs become even more flexible as power draws ever closer.

Bryan Wall is an independent journalist based in Cork. This is an election special. Bryan’s regular column appears here every Monday. Read more of Bryan’s work here and follow on Twitter:  @Bryan_Wall


From top: A car in Molesworth Street, Dublin promoting Fine Gael’s Frances Fitzgerald for the forthcoming European elections; Bryan Wall

With the local and European elections upon us the same worn-out cliches have reappeared. Our various candidates will make a change, be the change, or simply remind us that they know we want change.

Every candidate promises a commitment to job creation. They’ll simultaneously create them, protect them, and bring them in the form of industry. It is, to put it mildly, tedious.

Voting in the current system we live under is seen as a pressure valve. It’s there to relieve the political pressure that builds up over time and release it safely in the form of anodyne candidates who can be coopted by the system if they’re not already part of the system.

But candidates like Frances Fitzgerald are far from anodyne. Her porous memory is a wonder to behold. Even more so the fact that she was “vindicated” by Justice Charleton without actually being so.

The magical wonderland that is Irish political culture means that Leo Varadkar was going to ensure she was appropriately compensated for having her name brought into disrepute by something as tricky as the facts.

Then we have candidates openly mocking trans people. Others calling for the deportation of those they consider “freeloaders”. There are some who rail against the apparently communist government we live under.

We have a candidate in Roscommon who said he didn’t want “Ali Baba” coming into his community. And let’s not forget the assorted mix who combine anti-choice, ultra-conservative Catholicism with a misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine that makes the Life of Brian seem like a canonical text by comparison.

Essentially, what they want is to regress Ireland to a pale church-fearing country where difference is to be destroyed in the name of their version of cohesion and culture.

Somewhere in between is the Social Democrats, ie., Labour without the charm or the intelligence. Their policy of creating an environmentally sustainable society goes hand in hand with their support of “international businesses in creating good jobs”.

The inherent contradiction of the above goes unmentioned. It’s all perfectly grand in the finest Irish sense of the word.

At least Labour pretended to represent the working class. This meant that it realised it had completely abandoned its base in the pursuit of power. In response it decided upon a tactic that it’s best try to keep up appearances.

A tactic that involved congratulating itself publicly for defending the common person while allowing these same people to feel the full brunt of its economic and social policies.

In the morass there are decent people who want to make a change in the way that they know or feel is best. For them, that means getting elected. And a lot of us will be in a position where we will vote for them if their policies aren’t stupid, racist, or both.

Because given the prevailing situation the best that many of us can do right now is vote tactically. Keeping out the old guard and the hatemongers is of such urgent necessity that it is difficult to put into words.

Suffice to say that voting to keep them out is one method of undermining them and ensuring their demise in the long term. This is far from ideal but it’s all that most people are willing to risk.

Hopefully out of this something positive will emerge. The problem is that the political system is set up to divert people and ideas. People can work as much as they want to try and advocate for legitimately good and decent ideas, such as a pushing for a carbon neutral society.

The reality is that anything that runs counter to the establishment and the establishment narrative is to be blocked, undermined, and dismantled. The establishment wants nothing more than business as usual.

Right now that means a lack of any kind of tangible action when it comes to housing and homelessness. A profit has to be made somewhere after all, and if families have to be made homeless to do so then so be it.

Sinn Féin’s bill, which would have made housing a constitutional right was duly voted down. Who needs housing anyway? For too long we put all our hopes in elected representatives being able to gain a few crumbs from the wider political table for us The results have obviously been pitiful.

Political representatives are supposed to fit in and play the game as it has been played for decades. Don’t cause a fuss and you’ll have some success. Dare to raise your voice and you had better watch out.

The best I am hoping for is that the far right gets a trouncing. Beyond this immediate concern there is no hope to be had in voting for candidates who are limited by the system as to what they can achieve.

Greater protections for workers’ rights, the creation of an environmentally sustainable society, and the ending of all forms of capitalism are never going to be within the purview of a somebody running for office. These things can only be achieved by concerted mass action on the part of the wider population.

Our duly elected leaders are currently sitting by as the planet burns and corporations rake in massive profits on the backs of their broken workers. When they ignore something as basic as housing then how can they be trusted to deal with something like climate change? They can’t and they won’t.

So go out and vote in the elections. But go and do so with the realisation that its effectiveness is limited by design. Putting a roadblock in the way of the far-right should be the main goal. Any positive result beyond that is a bonus.

Maybe I’m wrong though and it’s just my own bias. Maybe there are candidates who will be able to change the structure from the inside for the better. I hope I’m wrong. And I hope they can prove me wrong.

Bryan Wall is an independent journalist based in Cork. His column usually appears here every Monday. Read more of Bryan’s work here and follow on Twitter:  @Bryan_Wall


Top from left: Minister for Rural and Community Development Michael Ring, junior minister with special responsibility for rural digital development Seán Canney and Taoiseach Leo Varadkar at a press conference last week approving the next step for broadband in rural Ireland; Bryan Wall

One of the major myths of capitalism promoted by its supporters is that it encourages innovation. That the best battle it out to rise to the top of the economic system, profit, and become household names.

If that was the case then why the need for massive transfers of wealth to the private sector via the state? The reason for this is because the myth of capitalism is indeed not only a myth, but a fatal flaw in the system.

Its insatiable need for new markets and constant profit is a result of it struggling to survive. And in that struggle it has always found a willing assistant in the state. Hannah Arendt argued that the colonialist and imperialist expansion of the European powers was because of the requirements of capitalism. New markets and increased profit were needed. Therefore, the might of the state was to be used to ensure this.

The same pattern continues today. Capitalism is continuing the same search but in a world where most of the markets have been filled; there is nothing more to exploit. But, there is always the chance to return to habits of old and exploit the common people directly.

In Europe, and especially here in Ireland, banks seeking out more profit by being reckless and breaking the law had to be saved, i.e., bailed out, by the government in order to ensure their profit margins were not affected. Essentially, an upward transfer of wealth. Banks profit, developers have their debts wiped, and the general population is left with the bill.

And we see this played out again and again – history repeating itself as farce – with the cost of construction of the National Children’s Hospital reaching nearly €2 billion. The more profit the better, just as long as the right people and the right companies do the profiting.

Now we have the National Broadband Plan to contend with and yet another transfer of wealth for no other reason than the fact that a transfer of wealth has to happen.

Never mind questions about private meetings the now former Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment Denis Naughten had with the head of the then last remaining bidder on the broadband contract.

This is the same group which the government has decided to award the contract to. It’s also the same company who will own the broadband system once construction is complete and before they’ve even fronted most of the bill for it.

An article in The Sunday Times yesterday revealed that the company will be paying less than €200 million into the roughly €5 billion project.

As David McWilliams points out in the Irish Times, it appears that the investment they make will in part be funded by people paying their broadband bills.

So, the company pays little up front, the taxpayer via the government foots the bill, the government hands over the infrastructure to the company which then makes the larger share of its initial investment. And this investment is at least partially funded by the taxpayer directly via their bills. Death by a thousand deals.

We should be shocked. In a country with a functioning democracy and appropriate oversight the citizens would be shocked. Instead, we are resigned to the fact that this has happened before and will happen again.

The litany of controversies during the lifespan of our state has made us complacent; a case of having seen one controversy, seen them all. And given the scale of bank debt that was laden on us, a few billion for a national broadband network seems like small change by comparison. But we should be shocked and we should be angry.

We should be angry at a system that has been set up to reward private investors at the expense of everyone else.

We should be angry at a system that allows the health system in the country to slowly deteriorate so that it eventually be completely privatised.

This same system thought it appropriate that the average person on the street should shoulder some of the massive debt belonging to banks.

Welcome to neo-liberal Ireland; everything for them and nothing for ourselves. Dare to question the system directly and you’ll be dismissed as a naysayer. Try and take it on directly and you’ll feel the full assault of the government both physically and in the media.

Being part of the so-called sinister fringe should be seen as a badge of honour. It means that you believe that basic services that people rely on every day should be in the hands of the public.

They shouldn’t be in the hands individuals and companies whose ethical horizon extends only as far as their quarterly financial statements. The idea that there are certain things that shouldn’t be exploited for a profit and could – horror of horrors – be operated at a loss for the public good is completely alien to these same individuals.

And as much as services like water and health should remain in public hands, the national broadband network remain there too. Like it or not our societies rely on the internet for basic functions. The National Broadband Plan is akin to the rural electrification scheme.

Yet here we are. Our government is willing to hand it over to a private company. You could almost say determined given that it ignored the advice of Robert Watt. Watt, the secretary general of the Department of Public Expenditure, warnedagainst approval of the appointment of the preferred bidder”.

His argument was that it should not go ahead on the basis of affordability, risk, and the effect on other unrelated projects given the cost. He also took the step of saying the risk was “unprecedented”.

But it will go ahead. It has to. After all, a profit has to be made somewhere – just not by us.

Bryan Wall is an independent journalist based in Cork. His column usually appears here every Monday. Read more of Bryan’s work here and follow on Twitter:  @Bryan_Wall


From top: Julian Assange arrested in central London last week; Bryan Wall

The arrest of Julian Assange by the British police is a watershed in journalism. Or at least it should be. Having fled to the Ecuadoran embassy 7 years ago, he now finds himself in a prison that the British government uses for convicted murderers and terrorists.

What Assange has done to warrant this treatment is to embarrass not only governments but also very powerful people who would rather have their actions hidden away from public view.

Hilary Clinton exemplifies this. In her leaked speeches to bankers she said that change “really has to come from the industry itself”, and not from wider political or social activism. In one speech she lauded herself for the fact that she “represented and worked with so many talented” bankers.

She went so far as to say that she “did all I could to make sure they continued to prosper”. Alas, she told representatives of Goldman Sachs that “there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives”.

Then there’s the US military itself which is what essentially put WikiLeaks on the map. With the leak of the Collateral Murder video by Chelsea Manning, the US military’s war crimes were broadcast to everyone with internet access. An American Apache helicopter targeted civilians and journalists for having the audacity to stand around on a street in Baghdad.

Of course our own native Atlantic backwater has not escaped mention in WikiLeaks’ gigantic archive. In leaked diplomatic cables Ireland’s relationship with the US at the time of the second Iraq war is described.

The cables say that “U.S.-Irish relations remains as strong as ever” despite protests over the US military’s use of Shannon airport. So strong that it was suggested that Bertie Ahern, then Taoiseach, be asked about “his willingness to send Irish peacekeepers to Iraq under a UN mandate”.

And in yet another leaked cable it was revealed that the then American Ambassador to Ireland, Thomas Foley, thanked the then foreign affairs minister, Dermot Ahern, for his “staunch rejection” of demands to inspect US military flights passing through Shannon airport.

This rejection included a demand to “inspect aircraft landing in Ireland that are alleged to have been involved in so-called extraordinary rendition flights”.

The cable noted that Ahern “seemed quite convinced that at least three flights involving renditions had refueled at Shannon Airport before or after conducting renditions elsewhere”. In 2013 a report by the Open Society Foundation identified Ireland as one of 54 countries involved in the extraordinary rendition programme.

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are being punished for this and this alone. It has nothing to do with skipping bail or rape accusations. Assange has embarrassed on a massive scale the political masters of the world.

The defenders of the status quo have rounded on him, declaring that he is not a journalist. This is despite the fact that what Assange and WikiLeaks do is what countless other publications have done and continue to do: They publish documents leaked to them on a regular basis. Assange must be made to pay for the transgression of embarrassing the powerful.

The lead lawyer for the New York Times had this to say:

I think the prosecution of him [Assange] would be a very, very bad precedent for publishers. From that incident, from everything I know, he’s sort of in a classic publisher’s position and I think the law would have a very hard time drawing a distinction between The New York Times and WikiLeaks.

On a similar note, The Intercept reported last year that after years of investigation, the Obama administration decided not to prosecute Assange and WikiLeaks “for publishing classified information”.  This was because it surmised that:

‘…such a prosecution would pose a severe threat to press freedom because there would be no way to prosecute Assange for publishing classified documents without also prosecuting the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian and others for doing exactly the same thing.’

And this was not an opinion lightly taken. Obama prosecuted more “whistleblowers under the 1917 Espionage Act than all former presidents combined”. Given all of this, then, the stakes are clearly high.

The attack on Assange is an attack on the press worldwide. Take a step back and think about it. An Australian citizen is arrested in Britain at the behest of the American government for leaking documents related to the US military in Iraq.

In theory, American jurisdiction does not extend past its borders. Reality, it demonstrably appears, is very different. But there is an apparent awareness of this.

In Assange’s indictment the government states that his “offense [was] begun and committed outside of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United States”. It also points out regarding the leaks that the “information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States and the advantage of any foreign nation”.

The contradiction between jurisdiction and supposed criminality is not squared. It is a given that Assange is guilty because the US government and its cheerleaders in the media say he is.

You don’t have to like Assange. You may even loathe him, as many do. But that is a separate issue to the one at play here. Press freedoms across the world are now at risk because of the ability of the US government to arrest a journalist regardless of their citizenship or location.

And it still doesn’t come as a surprise. Despite everything we like to tell ourselves we figured someone, or some government, would get to Assange eventually. His arrest wasn’t a shock so much as the imagery of him being carried out of the embassy by the British police was.

Yet it should be shocking. All of it should terrify and anger us. Fascist totalitarianism has a tendency to be insidious. How we treat whistleblowers can be used as an indicator of how our societies are faring. Daniel Ellsberg’s treatment was no different.

Chelsea Manning is yet again imprisoned. And here on our own shores we have signals of the dangerous potential that lurks.

In 2007 Jonathan Sugarman became a risk manager at UniCredit in Dublin where he witnessed massive liquidity breaches on a daily basis. He wrote a letter, which he hand-delivered to the financial regulator’s office, which outlined the scale of the breaches.

Yet, “apart from the official acknowledgment there was no reaction”. Sugarman soon resigned from his position given the scale of the transgressions and the lack of action taken by the regulator.

He would eventually have a meeting with the Central Bank in May 2011 about UniCredit. He relates that “the Central Bank officials threatened to ‘hand me over’ to the Irish Director of Public Prosecution, should I divulge any further information regarding irregularities at UniCredit Bank”. This was despite the fact that the regulator had “announced that it would consider any information offered about the affair ‘in confidence’”.

Sugarman has paid for this with the loss of his career and a lack of consequences for his former employers.

Whistleblowers and those that publish their revelations are often held up to scorn and ridicule. But their role is imperative given the structure of our societies where wealth and power are hoarded and criminality goes unpunished.

Just as the attack on Sugarman was an attack on all of us, the attack on Assange is just as much so. Different men with different causes yet the consequences of their persecution sets us down a dangerous path which we have already trodden too far.

Bryan Wall is an independent journalist based in Cork. His column usually appears here every Monday but owing to the Bank Holiday… Read more of Bryan’s work here and follow on twitter:  @Bryan_Wall

Top pic: Reuters