Focus, Ireland, focus – 1990s not that important

Despite living in Ireland for 20 years, despite being Irish on both sides of my family, despite being married to an Irish woman and having Irish children and Irish in-laws and Irish friends, despite all that and more there are times when I'm completely dumbfounded by the Irish people. This is one of them.

Now first I should say that it may be that I'm misinterpreting the excessive focus of the Irish media and Irish Twitter users on the report of the Moriarty Tribunal. Yes, that again.

I hope I'm wrong and that the average Irish person is not really that exercised by the report's publication. I'd actually like to believe that for most people a bad result in Ireland's soccer game with Macedonia tomorrow night will actually cause them more distress. I hope that's how it is.

It's just that the radio and the Internet are still full of people fuming over the report, which is, after all, about a government tendering process that happened 15 years ago! And I haven't seen anything that says that the government got a bad deal. They wanted competition in the cellular phone market and they got it. Despite some of the more emotive claims, it bears no relationship to what happened at Enron.

Now maybe one of the losing consortia would have done a better job than eventual winners ESAT, but maybe not. What I remember of that time was how surprised I was at the speed with which the market was transformed. We went from one stodgy, overpriced, under-performing state-owned mobile phone company to a fully competitive market in next to no time. I don't think anyone could argue that ESAT didn't do what it was supposed to do.

Of course there are aspects of the deal that stink, but there are a lot of smelly government tenders in every country. It's important that government tenders be as transparent and equitable as possible, but at least in this instance we got a decent company and a competitive marketplace.

I'm not saying that if it can be proven that a politician took money from a businessman that he shouldn't be prosecuted, but I gotta figure if that were possible it would have happened long before now. You have to bear in mind that Judge Moriarty's report represents a (2,000 page) summary of 14 years of public hearings and his conclusions.

Public hearings. As far as I can tell all the facts presented in this report were already in the public sphere, which is why I can't quite understand why people are getting so worked up about it now. (Probably because most of the irate Twitter users were only in grade school when these facts were revealed the first time.)

There are real problems facing this country right now. If corruption is one of them - and I suspect no more so than in America or other western democracies - then let's learn the lessons from the mobile phone license tender and move on. Anything more than that - such that might even cause our new government to lose focus - would be far worse than just burying the whole report. We're in a big economic-financial hole and beating ourselves and each other over something that happened in the mid 1990s is totally counterproductive.

{Photo: TD (MP) Michael Lowry, who was at the center of the Moriarty Tribunal's investigation.}

What a clunker!

Posted by TheYank at 8/11/2009 5:30 PM EDT

The Clunker Law.

Back in the 90s Ireland had its "Scrappage Scheme", which was basically an Irish version of the Clunker Law. Only the Scrappage Scheme operated differently and was much less of a talking point.

I can't remember the details now, but car owners were encouraged to upgrade from old to new with £1,000 of government money. The government hoped to encourage people to trade in old 'bangers' for newer cars and, consequently, make the roads safer. I don't think the environment was much more than a passing interest in the Irish law and the

The environment didn't figure - not that I remember anyway - and I don't think the car industry was much of a factor either (there is not auto manufacturing in Ireland). The argument was that too many people were driving cars that were too old and unsafe so the government provided an incentive for people to upgrade. I remember little or no objection to the law. And little discussion.

That's why I'm enjoying the whole Clunker Law thing so much. Americans love talking about cars. I don't think I've gone an evening during my ten days in America without hearing about the Clunker Law. I even overheard two men talking about it at the Met game last Wednesday. (The Mets themselves are clunkers and should be traded in!)

Maybe it's only the people I've been talking to, but it's amazing how much conversation is about the Clunker Law. I haven't met anyone who thinks the law is a good idea, even though two of the people I've spoken to have taken advantage of it and others are considering it. And a radio discussion on a local station was almost entirely negative. I'm sure there are arguments in favor, but I haven't come across them yet. Maybe if I was visiting Detroit rather than upstate NY ...

Most of the complaints I've heard center on:
perfectly good cars are being junked;
the law rewards those who in the past bought gas-guzzlers and ignores those who bought environmentally-friendly cars;
it will provide a temporary boost to the car industry, but one that will fade away quickly;
those who sell used cars will lose out;
people only have so much money and what people will spend on new cars will not be spent on new, (mostly) American-made, more energy-efficient fridges, washing machines, dishwashers, etc.
To be honest, I don't really care, but I'm enjoying it. It's just a real piece of Americana. Changes to health care and tax laws are one thing, but when the American's car is in the mix, well, it's a big deal.