Louth TD criticises regulator's ‘clean bill of health' for supermarkets amid soaring grocery prices
Irish supermarkets do not publish their profits publicly, but the Drogheda TD and his party have recently sponsored a private members' bill in the Dáil forcing the Irish supermarkets to do so.
He demanded that his new bill be enacted so data on their profits is revealed publicly and for the government to order the CCPC to carry out an in-depth study of the Irish grocery market in the interests of transparency.
Deputy Nash said: "Given the limited reliable data that is publicly available on supermarket profits, it is a big stretch for the CCPC to definitely claim that the Irish arms of global retailers are no more or less profitable than their EU counterparts. This is a peculiar conclusion to reach under the circumstances.
"This is exactly why Labour's Unfair Pricing Bill, which could compel operators to share data on profit margins with the CCPC so they can undertake more robust market analysis and surveillance to ensure competition is working and consumers are treated fairly, must be enacted by the government.
"Because the CCPC says that current prices in Ireland are in line with other EU countries is little comfort to hard-pressed Irish households where salaries are not rising as quickly as prices.
"We need to get a better understanding of why prices for the basics in Ireland have remained high for so long; why they are not coming down and why there is only moderate competition with no new, major entrants in 25 years.
"This report does not have the answers and it reveals in stark relief how limited the actual functions of the CCPC are.
"Farmers have the Agri-Food Regulator to stand up for their interests, while the limited interest the government has in how competition and consumer protection works in the interest of citizens and small retailers means citizens are left to suck up high prices."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Post
2 hours ago
- Business Post
Jack Chambers: Risk-averse civil service will not be protected
Business Post subscribers can read: • The government's new 'crisis mindset' to speed up infrastructure delivery • Why a €300m Amazon project collapse has become a warning shot for Ireland's competitiveness Jack Chambers has fired a warning shot at Irish civil servants, telling state agencies and departments they will not be 'defended or protected' if they ...
RTÉ News
4 hours ago
- RTÉ News
UN, EU condemn Israel's deadly strike on journalists in Gaza
Condemnations poured in from the United Nations, the EU and media rights groups after an Israeli strike killed an Al Jazeera news team in Gaza, as Palestinians mourned the journalists and Israel accused one of them of being a Hamas militant. Dozens of Gazans stood amid bombed-out buildings in the courtyard of Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City to pay their respects to Anas al-Sharif, a prominent Al Jazeera correspondent aged 28, and four of his colleagues killed on Sunday. Hospital director Mohammed Abu Salmiya said a sixth journalist, freelance reporter Mohammed Al-Khaldi, was killed in the strike that targeted the Al Jazeera team. Mourners including men wearing blue journalists' flak jackets carried their bodies, wrapped in white shrouds with their faces exposed, through narrow alleys to their graves. Israel confirmed it had targeted Sharif, whom it labelled a "terrorist" affiliated with Hamas, alleging he "posed as a journalist". Al Jazeera said four other employees - correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh, and cameramen Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal and Moamen Aliwa - were killed when the strike hit a tent set up for journalists outside the main gate of Al-Shifa. An Israeli military statement accused Sharif of heading a Hamas "terrorist cell" and being "responsible for advancing rocket attacks" against Israelis. The military released documents alleging to show the date of Sharif's enlistment with Hamas in 2013, an injury report from 2017 and the name of his military unit and rank. According to local journalists who knew him, Mr Sharif had worked at the start of his career with a Hamas communication office, where his role was to publicise events organised by the group that has ruled in Gaza since 2006. Mr Sharif was one of Al Jazeera's most recognisable faces working in Gaza, providing daily reports on the now 22-month-old war. Media freedom groups have condemned the Israeli strike on journalists, which the UN human rights agency called a "grave breach of international humanitarian law". The European Union's foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said that "the EU condemns the killing of five Al Jazeera journalists." 'Attempt to silence' A posthumous message, written by Mr Sharif in April in case of his death, was published online saying he had been silenced and urging people "not to forget Gaza". In July, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) called for his protection following online posts by an Israeli military spokesman. The group had accused Israel of a "pattern" of labelling journalists militants "without providing credible evidence", and said the military had levelled similar accusations against media workers in Gaza including Al Jazeera staff. "International law is clear that active combatants are the only justified targets in a war setting," Jodie Ginsberg, CPJ's chief executive, told AFP. Unless Israel "can demonstrate that Anas al-Sharif was still an active combatant, then there is no justification for his killing." Al Jazeera called the attack "a desperate attempt to silence voices exposing the Israeli occupation", and described Sharif as "one of Gaza's bravest journalists". The Qatari broadcaster also said the strike followed "repeated incitement" and calls by Israeli officials to target Sharif and his colleagues. Reporters Without Borders says nearly 200 journalists have been killed in the war, which was sparked by Hamas's deadly October 2023 attack on Israel. Israel prevents international reporters from entering Gaza, except on occasional tightly controlled trips with the military. The strike on the news team in Gaza City came days after the Israeli security cabinet approved plans to send troops into the area, a decision met with mounting domestic and international criticism. 'Another calamity' Mr Netanyahu said the military will conquer the remaining quarter or so of the territory not yet controlled by Israeli troops - including much of Gaza City and Al-Mawasi, an Israeli-designated safe zone where huge numbers of Palestinians have sought refuge. The plan, which Israeli media reported had triggered bitter disagreement between the government and military leadership, drew condemnation from protesters in Israel and numerous countries, including Israeli allies. Notably Germany, a major weapons supplier and staunch ally, announced the suspension of shipments of any arms that could be used in Gaza. Mr Netanyahu has remained defiant, telling journalists that "we will win the war, with or without the support of others." The United Nations and humanitarian agencies have condemned the planned offensive, which UN Assistant Secretary-General Miroslav Jenca said "will likely trigger another calamity in Gaza". UN agencies warned last month that famine was unfolding in the territory, with Israel severely restricting aid entry. Israel's offensive has killed at least 61,499 Palestinians, according to the health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza, figures the United Nations says are reliable. Hamas's 2023 attack on Israel resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people, according to an AFP tally based on official figures.
Irish Examiner
4 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
John O'Brien: EU capitulation to US in trade deal shows weakness of the bloc
The EU has agreed a trade deal with the US that forces us to trade on worse terms than before. Increased tariffs on exports will make European products less competitive in the US market with a corresponding drop in sales, profits and jobs. This is expected to reduce GDP by 0.5% over the medium term. Financial markets reacted by selling the euro, signalling not only that it is a bad for economic growth but worse than expected. The nature of the negotiation is as damaging as the result. The EU commission, and Ursula von der Leyen in particular, capitulated to US demands, making significant concessions getting nothing in return. The negotiations did not need to go this way. The EU, the world's third largest economy and the US's largest export market, had the ability to hurt the US. Member states had given the commission powerful negotiating team tools. They agreed a targeted package of counter-tariffs on €93 billion of US exports to the bloc. The Anti-Coercion Instrument provides a legal framework for massive and wide-ranging counter measures, in particular against services, where the US has a significant surplus with the EU. The optimal outcome to retaliation would be a US retreat, either immediately or after negative market reaction, the infamous TACO trade ("Trump always chickens out"). Small concessions could be sold as a major victory to the domestic audience. This approach comes with a big risk, if the US does not back down, with escalating tariffs leading a full-blown trade war. This would cause significant economic harm to both sides, sufficient for the EU to enter a recession. The end game in this scenario is a fairer deal, following significant pain on both sides. The commission has chosen the low risk accepting a bad deal in return for stability, in the context of annual growth expectations of between 1-1.5%, a loss of 0.5% will not cause a recession. However, it is difficult to see the long-term plan from the EU. The trade commissioner, Maros Šefčovič, suggested that is the start of a process leading to a broader, more equal agreement in future, possible after a change of administration. Future administrations will have little incentive to renegotiate a deal tilted so much in their favour once a treaty is signed. The commission may be playing for time, recognising that Europe is in a poor position to deal with economic recession while contributing to the defence of Ukraine. In this scenario, we can expect extended negotiations to delay signing a treaty and locking in the new tariffs. The key selling point is a stable business environment, but this may be more mirage than reality. Even describing the agreement as a trade deal is misleading. It is little more than a memorandum of understanding between politicians; the commission refers to it as a framework for negotiation. Outside the tariffs, many points remain vague, such as the aspiration to reduce non-tariff barriers. It will not become a trade deal until the treaty is signed, and much can go wrong between now and then. Any business planning on the basis of 15% and done could be getting a nasty surprise before the end of the year. A formal trade agreement needs to be ratified by member states in the EU and congress in the US. The French prime minister has strongly condemned the deal, while Germany has been lukewarm at best. Ratification remains likely but not certain. No congress, whatever its composition, is likely to reject a deal so favourable to the US. The US may increase demands having seen the EU weakness. The administration has made clear its desire to bring the pharmaceutical industry home and is currently reviewing its options. Any effort to strip the industry from the deal will likely result in counter measures. Trump has been vocal about getting access to international markets for American beef, demands for access will cross a European red line on food safety and could escalate quickly. EU weakness The worse effects will be long-term, not directly from the deal, but the manner of negotiation. The deference to the US and capitulation to its demands will cost the EU prestige and credibility in international relations. It has projected weakness in surrendering to economic threats and accepting a one-sided deal and this will be noted globally. It has shown unwillingness to accept short term pain for long-term benefit, China and Russia will be particularly interested in this. Special pleading on areas of national interest such as wine (France), cars (Germany) or IT Services (Ireland) has shown it is possible to follow a divide and conquer strategy in negotiations with the EU. Collective bargaining on trade is presented as one of the key benefits of the EU and the poor outcome has boosted Eurosceptic groups. Populist and far-right parties have been quick to criticise the commission. Victor Orban has focused on the commission's weakness while both National Rally (France) and AfD (Germany) have been vocal critics. The inability of the commission to match the UK's 10% tariff gives ammunition to these groups. The America First disengagement from global affairs has created a leadership vacuum, and an opportunity for the EU. It could have taken a leadership position with a principled rejection of the bullying US demands. Instead, it submitted, making it harder for smaller countries to negotiate fair trade. The impact on Ireland Ireland's economy will suffer along with Europe as exports become less competitive in the US. However, we have more reason than most to be thankful that the commission has chosen the safe route. The Irish economic model has created an economy dependent on foreign direct investment – primarily from the US and centred on pharmaceuticals and technology. These sectors are now as important to the economy as the construction industry at the peak of the property bubble. Ireland would see a significant recession in the event of a trade war. The economy will face a double hit as high US tariffs significantly reduce pharmaceutical and other exports, while European counter measures on US technology companies would hit employment in and corporate tax from the many companies headquartered in Ireland. It is no surprise the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and a collection of ministers have been lining up to support the agreement. This is not a new vulnerability and should not be dismissed as the consequence of a uniquely erratic US administration. John O'Brien: 'The commission may be playing for time, recognising that Europe is in a poor position to deal with economic recession while contributing to the defence of Ukraine.' Repatriation of Irish-based US companies' profits has been an issue for administrations on both sides of the political divide, since at least the presidency of Barack Obama. The biggest gain for Ireland is if the near miss, so far, on a damaging trade war jolts our politicians out of complacency and into action to rebalancing the economy. In the shorter term, the government and business must prepare for a break down in the agreement. The situation around pharmaceuticals is not stable, agriculture exports are vulnerable to fall-out from moves to open Europe to US agricultural products. Businesses operating across the island of Ireland will be disrupted by different tariff rates between north and south, with unpredictable results. Ireland, like most EU governments, seem happy to accept a one-sided deal that brings an appearance of stability and avoids a damaging trade war in the short-term. Unfortunately, this comes with a long-term cost of a loss of prestige and influence and a missed opportunity to take a greater role in global leadership. John O'Brien is lecturer in the department of accounting and finance, Cork University Business School
