Sir, – The response of Seán Mac a Bhaile (March 15th), to the protest over the punishment inflicted on the “convicted criminal, Patrick Begley,” is admirably rhetorical, but ill-informed. I do not mean that Mr Begley, on conviction, should have received a mere slap on the wrist. I believe, however, that he received an unusually severe punishment, and that as such the sentence imposed can legitimately be questioned and criticised.
Mr Mac a Bhaile argues that in evading the customs due on imported garlic Mr Begley was in effect stealing a substantial sum of money from the rest of the population of this country. He appears to be unaware that the Government in Ireland acts merely as a collection agency for the EU for money due under the EU’s Common External Tariff (CET), which applies to imports from non-EU states. The immediate losers were not the long-suffering and downtrodden population of Ireland, but the beneficiaries of EU budgetary spending.
Where CET tariffs on foodstuff imports are concerned, Mr Mac a Bhaile might usefully reflect on the primary object of the tariff regime. It is not to raise revenue for good causes as defined in Brussels. It is to protect food producers within the EU at the expense of consumers in the EU (who must pay more for food) and non-EU producers of food, particularly in third world and developing economies (who receive less for what they produce).
Evading that tariff is illegal, and correctly attracts appropriate penalties when detected, even if it is a highly objectionable tariff in the first place. I am not entirely convinced that Mr Begley’s motivation was to advance the interests of the third world, but if instead he was simply pursuing profits, this at least implies offering a better deal to garlic consumers in Ireland.
Incidentally, Mr Begley’s sentence was not a case of “. . .he got what the law says he deserved for his crime”. The law made no such judgment: a judge did, making a decision within the limits set by law.
True, tax evasion is not a victimless crime, but those who call for extraordinarily severe punishment need to be happy that they are not engaged in evasion themselves. Evasion is not confined to income tax. How many of your correspondents supporting a six-year jail sentence have never made cash payments to goods or service providers without demanding a receipt? John 8.7 (He who is without sin . . .) is apposite. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Credit where credit is due, from a long-term critic: I read John Waters’s article on the recent garlic debacle (Opinion, March 16th) with increasing incredulity as it dawned on me that I agreed with every word. The decidedly anarchistic flavour accords with my own feelings that our Government is failing us. It is in thrall to vested interests and doesn’t represent the will or desire of the people. Enda Kenny and his suited cohorts seem unfazed by our dramatic loss of independence, complacent in their servility to their betters in Paris and Berlin.
I will be happy to join John Waters on the barricades. – Yours, etc,
.
A chara, – While agreeing with Martin Kraska’s concern for the environment over garlic imports from China (March 14th), I strongly object to Chinese imports for other reasons. That country’s regime is a repressive and totalitarian one.
We here in the EU don’t allow members to have the death penalty on our statute books and, in my opinion, we should insist on the same for our trading partners. It is nothing short of a disgrace that we continue to do business with China and other countries that apply this barbaric (cruel and unusual perhaps?) punishment. – Is mise,
Sir, – Why are we importing garlic in the first place? It is a vegetable that grows perfectly well in this climate and one we could easily be self-sufficient in.
In fact, it was the lunacy of bringing garlic half way round the world that inspired Michael Kelly to start growing his own vegetables and to set up the Grow-it-Yourself movement which is currently enjoying phenomenal success throughout the country. – Yours, etc,