Comment

Ireland’s economic reliance on foreign multinationals is stark, posing significant risks for our future stability, writes Cormac Lucey. The Revenue Commissioners recently published the report, Corporation Tax: 2023 Payments and 2022 Returns. Despite its relatively innocuous title, however, the information contained in this report has critical implications for the Irish economy and Ireland’s public finances. It has long been known that the multinational corporation (MNC) sector pays a disproportionate share of corporation tax in Ireland and this new report from Revenue confirms it. When it comes to corporation tax, the foreign MNC sector paid 87 percent of all corporation tax in Ireland in 2022. What is startling is the extent of MNC contribution compared to our two other major tax sources: income tax and value added tax (VAT). According to a 2022 report by IDA Ireland, there are a total of 301,475 people working for foreign multinationals in the country. That year, there were 2,121,300 working across the entire economy, according to the Central Statistics Office (CSO). Hence, just 14.2 percent of the workforce was employed by the MNC sector at that time. Yet, thanks to the highly progressive nature of our income tax system and the much higher wages paid by our MNC sector, that cohort paid 54.6 percent of total income tax. The cherry on the cake is that, according to Revenue, the MNC sector also accounted for more than half of all VAT payments (53.8%). When you examine all of Ireland’s varying tax heads and apply these percentages to the expected actual 2023 tax take (as set out in the Budget 2024 documentation), it emerges that the MNC sector contributed 55 percent of Ireland’s total tax revenues that year – even if we assume that it did not contribute at all to customs, excise duty, capital gains tax, capital acquisitions tax, stamp duty or motor tax. If we make the more realistic assumption that the MNC contribution to those other tax heads was the same as its contribution to VAT, the MNC contribution to the state’s total tax take rises to a staggering 62 percent. There are two slow-motion dangers facing our MNC sector. The first is that our native incapacity drives away mobile international investment. We are already bursting at the seams in terms of the supply of housing (we can’t build enough), skilled personnel (we don’t have enough) and electricity (we’re at risk of not having enough). The second danger is that the US takes action to seize the eggs that our MNC golden goose has been laying for us by legislating for a global minimum rate of corporation tax on the worldwide earnings of all US multinationals at its current corporate tax rate of 21 percent. MNCs might save tax by paying 15 percent in Ireland only to face a six percent surcharge in the US. This measure would undermine any tax rationale for locating in Ireland and reduce our attractiveness as an investment destination. If we are at risk of having maxed out our extraction of eggs from the MNC golden goose, how stands our indigenous sector of Irish-owned operations? A recent report, published jointly by the Nevin Economic Research Institute (NERI) and trade union SIPTU, revisited the CSO analysis and concluded that the average value-added per hour of indigenous sector workers was just €28. This report shows sectoral productivity in the Republic compared to that in Northern Ireland. Apart from sectors dominated by MNC activity, productivity levels in the south lag those in the North, sometimes quite markedly. In the construction sector in the south, for example, productivity is less than half that north of the border. However unpalatable a conclusion, the economic rise of the Republic seems entirely down to foreign multinationals and appears to owe little to native endeavour. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the June/July 2024 issue of Accountancy Ireland are the author’s own. The views of contributors to Accountancy Ireland may differ from official Institute policies and do not reflect the views of Chartered Accountants Ireland, its Council, its committees, or the editor. Cormac Lucey is an economic commentator and lecturer at Chartered Accountants Ireland.

Stephen Lowry delves into details of the upcoming referendum on Ireland’s proposed participation in the Unified Patent Court  In the wake of referenda on family and care, voters were due to decide on another important constitutional referendum on 7 June. Although the vote has since been postponed by the Government, voters will be asked whether they approve of Ireland’s proposed participation in the Unified Patent Court (UPC).  First mooted in 2013 with the signing of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA), the UPC is a new international court with exclusive competence to grant ‘unitary patents’ – a new form of patent that gives uniform protection across all participating European countries on a one-stop-shop basis.  Currently within its jurisdiction are 17 EU Member States, though this number is expected to increase over the coming months as more countries move to ratify the UPCA.  Before Ireland can join the UPC, an amendment to the Constitution is needed as doing so will involve a transfer of jurisdiction in patent litigation from the Irish courts to an international court.  So, what’s to be gained from joining the UPC?  1. Reduced cost and administrative burden  At present, there is no single European patent valid in all Member States. Instead, individual patents must be held in each country where the patent is to be applied.  Applications can be made to either the national patent office in each country or as a single application to the European Patent Office (EPO).   Rather than acting as a one-stop-shop for patent litigation, however, the EPO can essentially only grant a bundle of national patents for the countries designated by the patent application.  If subject to challenge, these patents must then be litigated separately in the national courts of each country in which they are granted – thereby potentially giving rise to legal costs across a number of jurisdictions as well as risking the prospect of different legal outcomes.  By contrast, the UPC will instead allow applicants to apply for a single patent, which will be valid across multiple Member States, upon which it will be the sole arbiter.  2. Boost to FDI and export activity If the referendum is carried, the Government has signalled its intention to establish a local division of the UPC in Ireland. Doing so would mean Ireland would be the only common law, native English-speaking jurisdiction with a UPC.  Coupled with Ireland’s already attractive tax regime for research and development, the establishment of a local UPC would arguably further boost the State’s profile as a location of choice for inward investment.  Moreover, access to a streamlined European patent protection system would likely act as a useful incentive for Irish businesses to expand exports to a greater number of countries previously out of reach because of the costs of securing multi-jurisdictional patent protection.  3. Impact on the domestic economy  Estimates provided to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment indicate that the establishment of a local division of the UPC in Ireland would contribute at least €415 million, or 0.13 percent in GDP growth, per annum by way of increased patent development activity.  Consequently, the establishment of the UPC can also be expected to generate increased expenditure and employment in legal, professional and other related technical advisory services.  Whether the referendum will be carried  will, however, ultimately depend on the Government’s ability to engage the public on the merits of adopting a streamlined patent court – a difficult task on such a niche subject.  Stephen Lowry is Public Policy Manager with Chartered Accountants Ireland

Growing support for extremist and smaller parties across Europe could change the fundamental composition of the new European Parliament, writes Judy Dempsey Elections to the European Parliament (EP) take place every five years. Until recently, the outcomes were predictable. The conservative European People’s Party has dominated with the Progressive Alliance of Socialists, albeit with declining numbers, and Democrats (S&D) coming in second.  Their decline reflects waning support for mainstream parties and an increasing fragmentation of European party systems at national and European levels.  This time round, the EP election is about how the growing support for extremist and smaller parties across Europe could change the composition of the parliament and the EU. Integration is taking a back seat. The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) reckons the major winner in the EP elections will be the radical right Identity and Democracy (ID) group.  “We expect it to gain 40 seats and, with almost 100 MEPs, to emerge as the third largest group in the new parliament,” states ECFR.  The political elites across Europe are nervous as far-right parties in France, Germany, Austria, Portugal, Hungary, Italy and other countries are campaigning hard to strengthen their presence in the EP. And, despite backroom deals and trade-offs taking place inside the EP regarding which countries will become EU commissioners, a different political constellation could upset the way things have been done in the past. The political status quo across Europe is changing. The 2009 global financial crisis dented the belief that the EU was on a permanent trajectory towards prosperity. The wars in Syria that led to well over a million people seeking refuge in Europe in 2015 created divisions inside the EU regarding identity and values. COVID-19 and Russia’s war in Ukraine dented the unity and self-confidence of the EU even further.  More importantly, as EU leaders grapple with these global issues, they must respond to their electorates back home.  Citizens want security, affordable housing, better access to good schools, healthcare and other public services. These services are under pressure as governments, struggling with inflation, weigh up the cost of spending or saving more.  The far-right, nationalist and far-left parties, from the comfort of not being in office, exploit these crises. They want their governments to stop sending weapons to Ukraine; to stop the inflows of asylum seeks or refugees fleeing wars, famine and the effects of climate change. They question the costs of protecting the environment.  In short, the sense of security that characterised most of (Western) Europe after 1945, and even after the reunification of Germany after 1991, is being replaced with an uncertainty that populist and far-right and far-left parties are tapping into.  They challenge the status quo that oversaw the establishment of today’s EU.    If they gain many seats in the EP, they will not want to leave the EU. The financial benefits are too big and support for the EU is still high across the bloc. Instead, they want to change the EU from within.  The issue for these parties is sovereignty. Like Brexit, they want to ‘regain’ their national sovereignty but remain in the EU.  Yet EU membership requires ceding some sovereignty in return for certain benefits. With few exceptions, EU leaders shy from selling those benefits to their citizens. Their reluctance plays into the hands of the far right and the far left.   Judy Dempsey is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Carnegie Europe and Editor-in-Chief of Strategic Europe

Cormac Lucey outlines his suggestions for an election manifesto that, he believes, would protect and sustain the Irish economy into the future  This June, voters in the Republic will go to the polls to vote in local and European elections. What would represent a sensible pro-business agenda to promote in these elections? Here are my ideas: 1. Tackling skewed public debate While media debate understandably focuses on public questions that often revolve around public spending, the simple fact of the matter is that far more people work in the private sector than in the public sector.  CSO data indicates that, at the end of 2023, just 20 percent of employees worked in the public sector. Given that the private sector generates our income and our wealth, why are its concerns so overlooked in public debate?  2. Cutting down on public spending High public spending, even through the exchequer, is heavily dependent on tax revenues from the multinational sector. My estimates suggest that in 2022, just over half of Ireland’s total tax take came directly (corporation tax) and indirectly (PAYE, VAT, etc.) from the foreign direct investment (FDI) sector.  Even though some of these FDI tax revenue streams may prove temporary, the Irish State has entered ongoing spending commitments based on the assumption that they will continue indefinitely.  3. Promoting indigenous business Economic and commercial policy should be primarily directed at promoting the indigenous sector. Our current national prosperity depends on revenue streams from FDI that are ultimately controlled by people outside the State. We should use those streams to invest in our future and build up our economic capacity.  4. Holding public officials to account The primary job of elected political officials is to hold unelected public officials to account. The recent RTÉ saga has, at its heart, been a story about the failure of those who were supposedly directing the organisation to adequately hold executive management to account. Was the lack of managerial accountability at RTÉ an exception or the rule? I fear it was the rule. 5. Improving State performance Why is State performance so lamentably weak across so many important areas? When we examine the public management of key national issues – such as housing, health, crime and immigration – our leaders demonstrate powerlessness and ineffectiveness.  Confronted by a complex web of constraints – managerial, legal, administrative and economic – public service leaders have repeatedly displayed a worrying incapacity. 6. Reducing public sector pay Why are Irish public servants paid so much? In the fourth quarter of 2023, public sector workers were paid, on average, €35.08 per hour. This was 32.6 percent more per hour than the €26.45 their private sector counterparts received.  These figures are before we take into account the gold-plated pensions public sector workers get. 7. Curbing inflated costs Ireland was named the most expensive country in the EU for goods and services by Eurostat in June 2023, with prices a staggering 46 percent higher than the average across the bloc. How can the State address the high costs of the Irish economy if it is the direct cause of high costs? The focus of Irish politics needs to change. It seems to me that our political class is looking in the wrong direction. Rather than investing in the future, it is focused on short-term results. A new approach is needed. *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the April/May 2024 issue of Accountancy Ireland are the author’s own. The views of contributors to Accountancy Ireland may differ from official Institute policies and do not reflect the views of Chartered Accountants Ireland, its Council, its committees, or the editor.  Cormac Lucey is an economic commentator and lecturer at Chartered Accountants Ireland

When and how the war between Israel and Hamas ends, Israelis and Palestinians will have to find a way to live side by side, writes Judy Dempsey The long-running conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been one of missed opportunities. The 1995 Oslo Peace Accords were supposed to usher in a kind of co-existence. That didn’t happen. Israel did not stop withdrawing the illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. It designated areas for Jewish settlers.  The Palestinian Authority (PA), bankrolled by the European Union, didn’t use the opportunity to introduce democratic reforms. The former head of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) Yasser Arafat could not make the transition from freedom fighter to democrat.   His successor Abu Mazen has presided over a corrupt PA, refusing to hold elections due back in 2006. He has lost credibility among Palestinians. Mazen did Israel’s bidding: keeping the lid on opposition to the occupation and preventing the establishment of a vibrant civil society that could challenge his authority.   In Gaza, the Islamic Hamas movement took over the strip in 2007 after ousting the discredited PA. Hamas is the precursor to the Muslim Brotherhood encouraged by Israel in the 1980s as a means to divide and weaken the PLO. Since 2007, Hamas has run Gaza with an iron fist. It has its own agenda: to not recognise the state of Israel, even to destroy it.  Fast forward to 7 October and Israel’s devastating response to the gruesome Hamas massacre of Israeli civilians. This will make it more difficult than ever to change a mindset on both sides concerning the need to end the cycle of violence and resume peace talks.   Gaza is in ruins. Suffering people have nowhere to go. At least 20,000 have been killed. There is no systematic flow of humanitarian aid. Hamas shows no signs of negotiating over Israeli hostages.  As for Israel, its right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – who never believed in a two-state solution and who is (conveniently) beholden to his far-right-wing coalition partners – believes he can destroy Hamas.   This ignores the day after for the hapless, suffering citizens of Gaza and for Israelis who have been shocked by the failures of their military and intelligence services.    The day after is difficult to think about. The United States and the European Union still support a two-state solution but how might it be achieved? A few ideas:  Benjamin Netanyahu needs to be replaced with a moderate leader.    Abu Mazen and the PA need to be replaced by younger people who want democratic change.  A two-state solution is impossible unless Jewish settlements in the West Bank are dismantled. They prevent a viable Palestinian state.  Middle Eastern countries must play a central role. They see the wider impact of the Israeli-Hamas conflagration. The Arab countries, and even possibly Iran – a pivotal player in supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi rebels in Yemen – cannot afford a war in the Middle East.   Egypt and Jordan (which have peace agreements with Israel) and Saudi Arabia (which had considered establishing relations with Israel before 7 October), need to take the diplomatic and political lead in ending the war between Israel and Hamas.    Former US President Donald Trump missed an opportunity when he didn’t link the Abraham Accords – signed in 2020 by the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan to normalise relations with Israel – to negotiating a peace deal between Israel and Palestine.  A two-state solution is unthinkable today. Anger and radicalisation on both sides will demand time and a special mediation to make any sustainable peace possible, but what is the alternative?  Judy Dempsey is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Carnegie Europe and Editor-in-Chief of Strategic Europe.  *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the February/March 2024 issue of Accountancy Ireland are the author’s own. The views of contributors to Accountancy Ireland may differ from official Institute policies and do not reflect the views of Chartered Accountants Ireland, its Council, its committees, or the editor.

The foundations for a common polity are eroding as increasingly polarised views and influences continue to flourish, writes Cormac Lucey It looks like voters in the United States will have to decide between Joe Biden and Donald Trump in November’s presidential election. It is symptomatic of how polarised American politics have become that the strongest argument for voting for Joe Biden is that he isn’t Donald Trump and vice versa.  Why have politics in the developed world become so opposite? And what is the likely future direction of travel? In my opinion, several secular factors are eroding the political centre and promoting the rise in political extremes.  Narrowcasting has replaced broadcasting. In the past, TV and radio channels were limited in number and had to cater for a large audience. The result was broadcasting that was jointly watched or listened to by large sections of the community. Today, it is viable to create media and social media offerings that cater for very narrow and specialised audiences. Broadcasting has been replaced by narrowcasting. Sectional views are being promoted. A common, integrated view is being relegated. Social media algorithms seek to maximise their audiences even if it means promoting a one-sided view of what’s happening. Just look at the US where the difference in political perspectives offered by Fox News and MSNBC is such that, even when covering the same story, they often appear to be reporting on different events. The commercial imperative to maximise audiences means that people are increasingly being told what they want to hear resulting in an echo chamber effect where contrary views are downplayed or ignored. Division is promoted – unity is structurally disadvantaged. The growth of technology has turbo-charged the division of labour. The essence of the Industrial Revolution is that people ceased to be farmers and moved off the land to earn their living by doing increasingly specialised tasks. While specialisation has promoted greater efficiencies and higher economic growth, it has come with the cost that we now have a reduced understanding of what others do and of how the entire system hangs together.  Society has become more politically polarised around socio-economic differences. In his book The Road to Somewhere, David Goodhart explained the shock of the Brexit and Trump 2016 votes. He described a UK society that was divided between “Somewheres” and “Anywheres”.  “Somewheres” are firmly rooted in a specific community and Goodhart reckons that this group constitute about half of the UK population. “Anywheres” are typically socially liberal, well-educated and generally living in cities – they could live and work anywhere (as the pandemic illustrated).  Goodhart reckons that they comprise just 20 to 25 percent of the population but dominate politics and the media. “Inbetweeners” oscillate between these two groups. Brexit and Trump represented a shock victory for the “Somewheres” over the “Anywheres”. Recent protests in Ireland against immigration by asylum seekers are probably being carried out by “Somewheres,” angry at the immigration policies of Dublin’s “Anywhere” political establishment.   In the future, the challenge will be that each of the drivers of political fragmentation listed above seem likely to continue to grow. If the foundations for a common polity are eroding, reaching political agreement is likely to be increasingly difficult in the future.   *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the February/March 2024 issue of Accountancy Ireland are the author’s own. The views of contributors to Accountancy Ireland may differ from official Institute policies and do not reflect the views of Chartered Accountants Ireland, its Council, its committees, or the editor. Cormac Lucey is an economic commentator and lecturer at Chartered Accountants Ireland