Comment

Cormac Lucey examines recent election turmoil in Romania, questioning the fragility of democratic processes and need for greater scrutiny in safeguarding electoral integrity We pride ourselves that our modern societies are democracies, but what if this is a comforting illusion? What if the foundations of our democracies are considerably more fragile than we imagine? Some recent developments suggest that caution is warranted. Last November, Romania held its first round of presidential elections. As nobody secured an overall majority, the second run-off round was due to be held on 8 December.  On 6 December, however, the Romanian Constitutional Court annulled the election, alleging Russian interference in the first-round outcome, which had been won by Calin Georgescu, a “Romanian far-right politician, agronomist and prominent conspiracy theorist, who worked in the field of sustainable development”, according to Wikipedia. Four days earlier, on 2 December, the Court had confirmed the first round results despite vote-rigging allegations.  It appears that intelligence agency reports alleging that TikTok had been used to spread political disinformation caused the Romanian Constitutional Court to change its mind. The election is now scheduled to be re-run in May, six months after the original, aborted election.  There are at least four concerns I have with this chain of events.  First, elections have always been battlegrounds of contention. One should not be able to cancel a democratic election without hard evidence of sustained manipulation. Is the assertion that untruths were told on TikTok now sufficient to overturn the election results of a democracy?  Second, the intelligence types asserting that social media fatally undermined the recent Romanian election are the same sort of people who claimed, in the run-up to the 2020 US election, that the disclosure of Hunter Biden’s emails had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation”. We now know that those emails (suggesting criminal behaviour by members of the Biden family) were true.  Those intelligence operatives who untruthfully dismissed the emails in 2020 were granted a pre-emptive Presidential Pardon by Joe Biden as he departed the White House.  Third, if democracy is as important as we are regularly told it is, why is Romania delaying the re-run of its cancelled November 2024 election until May 2025?  Fourth, while the mass media in Britain and Ireland cover in astonishing detail every twist and turn in American politics, there has been almost total silence regarding the cancellation of the results of a modern European democracy on pretty flimsy grounds.  It brings to mind the warning issued by Alexander Solzhenitsyn—the Russian dissident, Nobel laureate in literature and author of “The First Circle” and “The Gulag Archipelago”—shortly after he first arrived in the Western world in 1978 having been let out of the Soviet Union. Solzhenitsyn said: “The Western world has lost its civic courage…Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling and intellectual elite, causing an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society.” The UK’s 2016 vote to exit the European Union and last year’s vote for Trump to reprise his role as US President were as much votes of no confidence in those countries’ ruling political establishments, as they were votes in favour of the outcome.   There is a danger, in an ever more atomised world, that we—part of the ruling and intellectual elite—take democracy for granted, assume that everyone else is doing their job properly and fail to do our bit to sustain the system.  As Chartered Accountants, we are highly trained guardians and interpreters of fact at a time when the facts are increasingly in dispute. Maybe it’s time for us to speak a little louder in public debate.  Cormac Lucey is an economic commentator and lecturer at Chartered Accountants Ireland *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the February/March 2025 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. 

Urgent policy action is needed to protect the EU from Trump’s protectionist foreign policy and rescue a West increasingly beholden to China and Russia, writes Judy Dempsey  The years after the devastating Second World War shaped the cooperative relationship between the US and Europe. Washington launched the German Marshall Fund to put what was then Western Europe back on its feet.  Inspiring European figures led by French foreign minister Robert Schuman, and supported by the US, founded the European Coal and Steel Community—the precursor to today’s European Union (EU). This was a special era. For Europe, after the nightmare of the Holocaust and Nazism followed by Stalinism, it was about forging an ideology based on peace, democracy, economic prosperity and integration—all in a divided Europe.  In Washington, multilateral institutions prospered. They included the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organisation, and US support for United Nations (UN) bodies, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organisation and other multilateral agencies.  More recently, the US, the EU and many other countries ‘updated’ their approach to multilateralism with the signing of the Paris Agreement. This legally binding international treaty on climate change was adopted by 196 parties at the UN Climate Change Conference in 2016.  By contrast, US President Donald Trump’s inauguration speech this year dispensed with aspects of multilateralism and cooperation, making transnationalism and bilateralism his administration’s leitmotiv.  Trump has walked away from the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organisation, and intends to slap heavy tariffs on EU exports to the US unless, of course, European companies move across the Atlantic…or Europeans buy more American energy…or Europeans spend a whopping five percent of their gross domestic product on defence to take on the costs of their own security.  They will also be encouraged to buy American military equipment. Most European leaders have professed shock at Trump’s pronouncements—as if they didn’t know what to expect. They say they want to get on with the new US administration, but on what basis? Trump is no admirer of the EU. He challenges the bloc’s ideological edifice, built on accountability, the rule of law and fundamental values such as an independent media, an independent judiciary, human rights and asylum—and multilateralism.   These qualities don’t have a ‘shop price’. Trump’s policies do. His focus is on deals and trade-offs.  This may suit some EU countries, such as Hungary and Slovakia, whose leaders are pro-Putin—although it is worth noting here that Hungary, under Prime Minister Viktor Orban, is becoming a hub for Chinese investments which may not please Trump.  There is also Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, the only European leader to attend Trump’s inauguration. She could be pivotal in making the EU-US relationship constructive. Further, European countries are unprepared to strategically work together for their collective security, whether or not they are neutral. Russia’s war on Ukraine should have provided adequate warning to European countries, particularly Germany, to prepare for Europe’s security, the security of Ukraine and their eastern neighbours. It hasn’t. With some exceptions, European countries such as Poland, Denmark and the Nordic states understand the threats posed by Russia. The same cannot be said for the European perception of Trump’s new ‘transactional’ administration which lacks the post-1945 focus on Atlanticism. Instead, Europe’s liberal elites continue to resort to their complacent comfort zones.  Criticising Trump does not provide the basis for concrete policy safeguarding multilateralism, protecting Europe and rescuing a West increasingly beholden to China and Russia. Who in Europe is taking the lead? Judy Dempsey is Non-resident Senior Fellow at Carnegie Europe *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the February/March 2025 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. 

COP29 concluded in late November with uneasy agreement on the controversial Baku Finance Goal pledging $300 billion in climate funding to developing countries, writes Susan Rossney COP29, the global climate summit, concluded in the early hours of 24 November in Baku, Azerbaijan. There were some positive developments, such as the deal reached on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement to finally allow countries to trade carbon credits with each other. Most significantly, though, for this ‘climate COP’, was the final agreement called the Baku Finance Goal. In 2009, at COP15 in Copenhagen, parties agreed a collective goal for developed nations to provide $100 billion annually in climate financing to developing countries. The new goal agreed at COP29 ups the annual financial target to $300 billion, to be funded from public sources, with provision for the shortfall to be made up of funding from private sources. To say opinion was divided on this new goal is an understatement. While some parties are cautiously optimistic that the agreement would at least keep the core principles of the Paris Agreement alive, many more were outraged by how much the new goal falls short of what is actually needed. It is generally agreed that $1 trillion per year by 2030 (rising to $1.3tn per year by 2035) is needed to help developing countries build resilience, prepare for disasters and cut emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases. While this figure is enormous, it’s worth noting for context that $2.4 trillion was spent on weapons in 2023, and at least $1 trillion was spent in 2022 on subsidies to keep fossil fuel prices artificially low. Also worth noting is that the provision of financial support to developing countries for climate action serves both a moral and economic purpose for wealthier countries. The chaos caused by the climate and biodiversity crises to societies and economies is not limited to developing countries alone. This was demonstrated most recently by the 224 lives lost in Spain as a result of flooding linked to rising temperatures in the Mediterranean Sea. On 28 November, Spain’s government approved a new “paid climate leave” entitlement of up to four days to allow workers take time off if unable to travel to their place of work in the event of official warnings of extreme weather conditions. The Institute for Economics and Peace further predicts that one billion people face being displaced within 30 years due to the climate crisis, with huge impacts for both the developed and developing worlds. COP30 will take place in Belém, Brazil in 2025. Its focus will centre on efforts by each country to reduce national emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change (the so-called ‘NDCs’ or ‘nationally determined contributions’). It remains to be seen if COP30 will achieve what G20 leaders have said it should – i.e. to be “our last chance to avoid an irreversible rupture in the climate system”. Susan Rossney is Sustainability Advocacy Manager at Chartered Accountants Ireland. Check out Chartered Accountants Ireland’s sustainability centre for signposts to a variety of resources available to businesses. Also, subscribe to the Institute’s fortnightly Technical Round Up and weekly Sustainability/ESG Bulletins, both in the weekly Chartered Accountants Ireland newsletter, and on LinkedIn.

Ongoing turmoil in Europe’s largest economy will be exacerbated by Donald Trump’s pledged import tariffs, highlighting the need for EU countries to pull together to withstand transatlantic  trade disruption, writes Judy Dempsey Pity Germany’s next government. Olaf Scholz’s successor will have no time to lose when the federal elections end on 25 February 2025, bringing Scholz’s bickering coalition to a close.  Now, the economy is the priority. Germany’s outgoing government believed the old industrial model just needed a bit of tinkering to effectively counter China’s ever-increasing economic presence – but those days are over.  Massive job cuts announced by Volkswagen and ThyssenKrupp (the traditional giants of the car and steel industry, respectively) demonstrate how this government and its predecessor, led by Angela Merkel, failed to prepare for the inevitable impact of de-industrialisation. The replacement of the combustible engine with electric alternatives – which China has rapidly embraced – has been a shock for German industry, which had mistakenly earmarked China as a reliable export market.  No more.  Germany’s high energy costs and fierce competition from Beijing have combined to catalyse the failure of Germany’s old industrial model – so Berlin’s next government must hit the ground running.  This means making the transition from an old industrial base to more modern sectors driven by digital culture.  It means grappling with a demographic crisis that will only cost more unless the government introduces a robust immigration policy to address the huge labour shortages affecting most sectors.  None of this will happen unless Germany’s next leader loosens the ‘debt brake’ constitutionally limiting government spending.  Germany is in dire need of public financing if it is to invest in defence, climate adaptation, security, housing, transport health and education.   The debt brake (and overbearing bureaucracy) has starved investment. The government already has a spending gap of €64 billion for 2025. If, between 2025 and 2030, defence spending targets were to rise from two to three percent of GDP, it would cost another €300 billion.  This German malaise has serious consequences for Europe.  Last year, Germany had the highest level of intra-EU trade, contributing to 21 percent of the European Union’s exports of goods to other countries. What happens in the EU’s largest economy impacts the entire bloc. To make matters worse for Germany’s next Chancellor – and for the EU – is US President-elect Donald Trump’s stated intention to impose a 10 percent tariff on goods imported from Europe and 60 percent on goods from China.  Germany’s export-driven car industry, one of Trump’s targets, is particularly vulnerable and speeding up the manufacturing of electric-driven vehicles would only solve part of the problem. To escape tariffs, it is reasonable to expect the car industry to move manufacturing to the US. This is exactly what Trump wants.  However, back in Germany, the dwindling market in China for German cars could lead to further job losses.  Trump, too, will pile the pressure on Berlin and NATO allies to spend more on defence. It won’t be easy. Not only because of the costs involved but also because Germany’s far-right and far-left parties are opposed to NATO, opposed to supporting Ukraine and generally pro-Russia. All in all, Germany’s ability to deal with its finances, defence and investment issues will be complicated by the Trump administration.  Ultimately, EU countries need to pull together – even integrate – to withstand the pressures on the transatlantic relationship. Judy Dempsey is Nonresident Senior Fellow at Carnegie Europe *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the December 2024/January 2025 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.

Ireland’s high beta economy makes us the EU member state most vulnerable to incoming US President Donald Trump’s planned import tariffs, writes Cormac Lucey   T he essential goal of financial management is for a firm to maximise its valuation while minimising risk as measured by volatility in that valuation. The measure of risk used by the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) is beta. This measures the anticipated rise or fall of an individual stock price in proportion to the movements of the stock market.  A stock with a high beta is expected to undergo large share price moves relative to market moves.  If one were to view the economy of the Republic of Ireland as the equivalent of a stock, one might describe it as a high-beta economy.  Right now, it is exposed to several factors that significantly increase its riskiness relative to its economic neighbours.  Donald Trump and his declared policy of getting US multinationals to repatriate jobs back to the US represents the single biggest economic danger currently facing the Republic.  This is because Ireland’s success in attracting such jobs has laid the foundations for its current economic success.  It has long been understood that the multinational corporation (MNC) sector pays a disproportionate share of corporation tax in Ireland and a new report from the Revenue Commissioners confirms this.  According to Corporation Tax: 2023 Payments and 2022 Returns, the foreign MNC sector paid 87 percent of all corporation tax in Ireland in 2022.  According to an IDA Ireland report published in the same year, a total of 301,475 people were working for foreign multinationals in the country at that time.  According to the Central Statistics Office, meanwhile, of the 2,121,300 people working across the entire economy in 2022 – just 14.2 percent were employed by the MNC sector. Yet, thanks to the highly progressive nature of our income tax system and the much higher wages paid by our MNC sector, this 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 percent). A Danish employers’ study based on a model devised by the Oxford Economics business group stated that Ireland would be the EU member state hardest hit by a full imposition of Trump tariffs, with the potential loss of 30,000 jobs and GDP in 2027 at four percent below what it would otherwise be. This would represent a huge hit to the economy and to the public finances.  The new government’s honeymoon might not last very long. It’s also hard to imagine that Ireland can escape the attention of the incoming Trump administration when it was the focus of so much pre-election scrutiny.  While campaigning, Trump promised blanket levies of 20 percent on all US imports, as well as tariffs of 60 percent on those from China, suggesting his second-term policies could be even more disruptive to global trade than those of his first administration. The incoming Trump administration knows for sure that it will have two years, at least, while it enjoys a congressional majority. Any politically partisan battles it plans will be best fought (and won) in that period.  The Trump factor will add enormously to uncertainty in Irish economic policy in 2025. This level of uncertainty was already high with slowing economic growth in the UK, France, Germany and China, to name some large economies.  When things are improving, you want greater exposure to beta – but not when they are disimproving. When that happens, you want to fasten your seatbelt! *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the December 2024/January 2025 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.

After a frenetic three-week campaign, General Election 2024 has essentially left us where we began – with a likely Government led by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael albeit this time without the Greens.  The precise makeup of the final coalition is as yet unclear. However, given that the outgoing coalition’s collective seat take will likely not leave them far off the 88 seats needed to command a Dáil majority, it is safe to say that whoever gets the nod to make up the numbers won’t have the same bargaining power to influence policy as some previous smaller coalition partners may have had.  Against this backdrop, it’s safe to assume that the next Programme for Government will largely, if not entirely, be dictated by the policy priorities set out by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in their general election manifestos. So, what might this mean for small businesses?  Addressing the cost of doing business  In their respective pre-election pledges, both parties were keen to highlight their awareness of the rising costs of doing business. In Fianna Fáil’s case, they pledged to address this by establishing a new “Cost of Business Advisory Forum” to conduct a review of all current business costs and taxes.  According to the party’s manifesto, “this forum will be consulted before introducing new legislation or policies that affect small businesses.”  Likewise, in its manifesto, Fine Gael took a similar tack by reasserting its commitment to apply what it calls the “SME test” to any new legislation coming down the track – a test that would essentially require all departments to first assess the impact on small businesses of any new measures being proposed prior to enactment.  So, with both parties essentially singing from the same hymn sheet on the issue, it is likely that we will see the announcement of some sort of new initiative designed to limit the amount of new regulations that could further add to the cost burdens of small businesses.   Employers’ PRSI   Again on the issue of reducing business costs, both parties also made specific commitments to reduce the Employers’ PRSI burden where lower earning workers are employed.  While Fine Gael favoured a temporary, three-year PRSI rebate based on the number of lower-earning workers on a company’s payroll, Fianna Fáil pledged an outright reduction to the lower rate of employers PRSI by 1.5 percent.  The logic behind the latter proposal (we know this because the Institute’s pre-election manifesto originally proposed it) is to mitigate the concurrent 1.5 percent uptick in payroll costs due to hit many employers in late 2025 through the introduction of pensions auto-enrolment.  So again, with both parties essentially aligned here, it’s fair to say that a reduction or rebate of the lower rate of Employers’ PRSI in some format will also likely feature in the next Programme for Government.   VAT on hospitality  The issue of VAT on hospitality was a notably contentious issue in the run up to Budget 2024 with the Government ultimately refusing to reinstate the reduced nine percent rate despite extensive lobbying from the sector.  However, the way in which each party subsequently approached the issue in their election manifestos is perhaps telling of a policy fissure between the two.  Fine Gael clearly favours a reduction, albeit to a midway rate of 11 percent while Fianna Fáil is notably silent on the issue in its manifesto, instead placing its focus on maintaining VAT on gas and electricity bills at nine percent for the next five years.  How this difference in approach will ultimately play out in the final Programme for Government is as yet unclear. However, Fine Gael’s pledge to implement a reduction will no doubt have created an expectation from the hospitality sector that some sort of action will be taken on reducing the rate.  Energy supports  High energy costs continue to be an issue for many small businesses and the manifestos of both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have again sought to tackle this through further one-off grant schemes.  In Fianna Fáil’s case, the party has pledged to introduce a successor to the Increased Cost of Business/Power Up grant schemes to help hospitality and retail businesses deal with higher energy bills.  Likewise, Fine Gael has promised a new energy cost grant scheme, “to help businesses lower their energy costs, enabling them to operate more sustainably.” Given that the two parties appear to be broadly aligned on the issue, a new round of temporary energy support grants seems likely.  However, what is less clear is how the announcement of these relatively piecemeal measures will be received by businesses, particularly given the slow uptake of previous such schemes over the past two years. Stephen Lowry is Head of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland