Let's ask our Government an uncomfortable question:
The Government claims (legitimately, to some extent) that
- The economy has stabilised & fiscal situation has improved significantly and
- The Croke Park agreement 1.0 delivered what it required in terms of savings.
In that case, why does the Government need Croke Park 2.0 with another round of EUR1bn 'savings'?
The idea that we need structural reforms in the public sector is not exactly hot on the Government's agenda. Furthermore, that idea was already, allegedly, reflected in the Croke Park 1.0 which was a 'success' per Government official accounts. Lastly, all structural reforms were supposed to deliver on targets set within the MOUs and these are consistent with the Croke Park 1.0.
So which side of the Government is talking porkies? The side that claims Croke Park 1.0 has delivered on reforms and changes and savings needed or the side that claims we need Croke Park 2.0?
Post a Comment