AT ONE point during Thursday’s troika press conference, Istvan Szekely from the European Commission mentioned that a number of the “stakeholders” they met here during their review raised “some very legitimate questions about unemployment, the impact of policies on the most vulnerable and generally income distribution changes . . . as a result of policies.” Presumably, he was referring to the Social Partners who haunt Government Buildings.
Istvan, talking with the detached air of an outsider, said “difficult and important” issues were brought to their attention – areas “where one could do more work”. They’re a benevolent lot.
“We will engage in these discussions and we will do our best to improve things if they need to be improved or take more measures if more measure is needed to help these people.” It was unsettling, listening to these men with their cold smiles and clipped diplomatic responses talking about what should be our business, but is their business now.
The press conference had a creepy feel about it. Everyone knew it didn’t really matter what was said or asked – these boys at the top table were in charge and they knew it.
When Vincent Browne tried, legitimately, to ask what the troika thought about the Irish taxpayer being forced to pay billions to the unguaranteed bondholders of a defunct bank, he didn’t get an answer.
The man from the ECB just smiled a condescending smile.
Because he can.
But back to Istvan, who made a remark about “encouraging” the aforementioned stakeholders to make “evidence-based” contributions at their meetings, which should not be “beliefs” and “definitely not driven by other things” apart from trying to help those people who need help.
What was he on about? Our mole in the Merrion Hotel tells us that the troika are browned off with the likes of David Begg and Seán Healy allegedly dictating to them what they should be doing for the unemployed and the vulnerable.
We’re told that the visiting officials are annoyed because they feel some of the Social Partners don’t seem to want a discussion about social issues, preferring to lecture them instead. Surely they’re mistaken?
