Charlie McCreevy has been Ireland’s man in Brussels for the past four years.
Before that, the colourful politician – dubbed ‘Champagne Charlie’ by the media – was one of the country’s longest serving Ministers for Finance, presiding over seven budgets during the boom times of the Celtic Tiger and leading the way towards a low tax, light regulation style of economy. Cynics have recently been saying that McCreevy got out at the right time, ultimately leaving others to take the brunt of the flak for the financial turmoil facing us today. He, however, is characteristically unrepentant, believing that the policies pursued were the right ones.
I met the 59-year-old European Commissioner for the Internal Market and Services in his office at the Berlaymont building, which is the home of the European government in Brussels. It’s here McCreevy bases himself during the week, flying home most weekends to be with his family in County Kildare.
Getting into the Berlaymont isn't easy. Security is tight. After presenting your passport at the reception area, visitors then have to put their possessions through an airport scanner and walk through a metal detector, before getting patted down if the alarm is triggered. Afterwards, an assistant will usher the visitor to an elevator that can only be opened with a security pass.
Eventually, when I get in to see McCreevy, a member of his cabinet, Mary Kerrigan – a former journalist, barrister and one-time director of Celia Larkin’s company Beauty at the Blue Door – sits in on the interview and takes copious notes as we speak. I express my surprise at the arrangement, pointing out that even the Taoiseach didn’t bother having somebody sit in on the interviews he’d conducted for Hot Press – but Charlie insists.
I stick the recorder on and fire the questions anyway. He is, as ever, a colourful interviewee, who doesn’t shy away from expressing controversial opinions...

JASON O’TOOLE: Do you think there will be a second referendum on Lisbon next year?
CHARLIE MCCREEVY: I don’t know, to tell you the truth. It’s primarily a matter for the Irish government and I’m sure they will have consultations with the EU partners. But the Irish government has been pretty forceful in saying that no decision has been made yet. I’m just an ordinary citizen, who happens to be EU Commissioner. It only falls into my remit as an Irish citizen – it doesn’t even fall into my responsibility as Irish Commissioner. It’s entirely a matter for Brian Cowen and the rest of the Cabinet to judge.
But do you not fear that if we don’t sign up to this treaty that Ireland might become isolated?
You must remember that each country had to ratify this particular treaty. If the only answer to the question is ‘yes’, there was no point in putting the question to any of the other 26 countries either. You must remember, this is a club. The rules of the club are being changed. Existing members of the club were asked to agree to the changes in the rules of the club. Ireland – by our own constitution – has to put these questions to referendum of the people. The Irish people said ‘no’. And that decision has to be respected by our European partners as well. There is no provision in the existing treaties to isolate anybody. There is no provision to throw out anybody, unless unanimously all the existing members of the club agreed to throw you out. And I doubt now, or in the future, any Irish government is going to unanimously agree to throw themselves out. So, therefore I think the question is not really the proper one to be addressed.
Why?
A – because it’s not correct. B – there is no proper procedure for going that direction. And C – it’s not the right thing to do. It’s not the right thing to say to people. Who came out and voted? 53% of the Irish electorate turned out. I read some interesting post-referendum statistics which suggest that a considerable segment of that 53% were actually people who hadn’t voted in the 2007 Irish General Election. So, therefore people did take the issue very seriously. So, that has to be respected.
What do you make of Libertas and Declan Ganley?
I don’t get too excited about this. We live in a democracy. Mr Ganley decided that he was going to front a campaign to get the Irish people to vote no. He was singularly successful in that against the might of all the political parties in Ireland. Against the might of practically all the established media and all of the representative politicians, representative policies in Leinster House, bar a few. He won the argument because the Irish people listened to him more than anybody else. We are a democracy. So, I don’t have any difficulties with that. I fought nine general elections and I used to say, ‘I was always amazed that 100% of the people in Kildare didn’t vote for me!’ It was quite a big shock to me on many occasions. Then I was doubly amazed over the years when they didn’t elect Fianna Fail into government. But that is the process we go through. So, I don’t get that excited about Mr Ganley.
What do you make of the recent medical card debacle?
For very good reasons I don’t comment on matters in Ireland – except in a very general sense – because I was the third longest serving Minister for Finance in the history of the Irish State. In government, the Minister for Finance must make decisions on the facts available. I made a whole lot of changes in Irish policy, from taxation matters to the medical card things that you think about. I did them. It’s now Brian Lenihan’s job to make those decisions on behalf of the government and he’s making those decisions he has to make – and it would be inappropriate for me to comment about them.
The IMO kicked up a stink on the medical cards when you were bringing them in for the over 70s. Didn’t you agree to increase tenfold the annual capitation fee to GPs for these ‘new’ patients?
No, what happened there was... on that regard, you’ve been looking up the files in the Department of Finance, but you’d really want to be looking at the files in the Department of Health. Because the Department of Health negotiated with the IMO when it was done at the time.
So, it was nothing to do with you?
The negotiations were with the IMO and the Department of Health.
So, you’d given the Department of Health their budget and it was their responsibility?
Yes.
But it lacked commonsense, didn’t it?
You’d have to put those questions to other people rather than me.
I bet you don’t envy Brian Lenihan his job as Minister for Finance at the moment?
I was nearly eight years Minister for Finance. Or seven-and-a-half...
Or would you be itching to get back?
No. In that period there were difficult times as well.
But you had it a little bit easier – your period was during the so-called Celtic Tiger boom...
But there was a period of time as well – 2001/02/03 – when the economy went down to maybe zero and we had to take some appropriate measures, which were very, very controversial and very, very tough. I reduced spending considerably. But I’ve always said, “You must do what you have to do!” And you must make up your mind – what you think is the best thing. That’s what the government must do and then you must go about doing it. In the current economic crisis, we’ve had to make decisions.
Are things going to get worse?
We are in for a period of lower and slower economic growth worldwide. I hope the big tsunamis of the financial sector that have occurred – I would like to think that the worst of that is out of the way. I can’t predict that better than anybody else. But the consequences of all this – no matter what’s going to happen in financial areas – are being felt at the moment in the wider economy. We’re going to have a period of slower economic growth – minus economy activity in some countries – for a couple of years. That’s going to have inevitable consequences in terms of high unemployment; greater pressure on the public finances etcetera. That’s an inevitable result of all of this. If you check a year ago, I said that I thought it would happen.
Do you think the collapse of our banking system demonstrates that free market economy doesn’t really work?
I don’t think it proves that free market economics don’t work. I think it only proves that everything at some stage goes to excess...
But shouldn’t these bank guys be reined in – they got too greedy and too selfish.
Well, it’s not just bank guys! Hold on now! It’s the whole lot of us. Everybody partook of this. You know what I mean? It’s just the system maybe goes too far. But I don’t think it proves that the free market of economics doesn’t work. I think free market economics creates greater wealth. I’m a great believer that you must create more wealth. You can have differences of opinion as to how you go about doing that – and there are, say, people who believe in having a total socialist approach of doing it. I think that’s a failed economic philosophy. But one thing you have to agree on – you have to create wealth in the first place and then we have a separate debate as to how we should distribute that wealth, so that some people have a very, very total socialism approach, some people have a more free market approach. You need a banking system for the economy to work; whether it’s going to be an economy run on total State control principles or on total free market principals, you do need a banking or money system to make it operate. But I don’t think you can deduce from, say, the problems in the banking system worldwide that free market capitalism doesn’t work.
Isn’t the EU nothing more than a gravy train?
Okay, let’s look at it – it’s been a fair old gravy train for Ireland because of the billions we got in terms of structural funds that helped our roads, our sewers, our waterworks etcetera. I think they estimate that €55 billion has been pumped into the Irish economy. So, it’s been good for the Irish economy. It hasn’t been the only instrument in bringing the Irish economy up, but certainly it was a very significant factor. Therefore it has helped the Irish economy grow. I think the gravy train used to be related to members of parliament, but you could say the same thing about members of the UK parliament or members of Dail Eireann as well. You can always make those comparisons. The EU has been very, very good to Ireland and it has put a lot of money in Irish people’s pockets.
What do you think of the idea of holding elections for voting in EU commissioners? Shouldn’t the public vote on this rather than having them nominated by the Government?
There were two ideas floating around there for a while. That all of Europe would vote for the President of the Commission and then she or he might pick the individual commissioners. It’s a theoretical utopia. I can’t see that working.
You reduced tax on betting. Do you not think that doing so would only encourage people to gamble?
No. When I was Minister for Finance I reduced it from 10% to 5% and then down to 1% and now it’s back up to 2%. Actually, during my time in the Dail it went up to 20% and Alan Dukes, when he was Minister for Finance in 1985, reduced it from 20% to 10%. When Alan reduced it from 20% to 10%, he got more tax because there was an awful lot of under the counter betting at the time. That was the reality of it. And I think that was recognised. And I advocated that. I supported that idea because, as I said, it was not being returned. And the reduction from 10% to 5% actually got more money. The volume of betting went up. What Brian Lenihan has done now is bring it from 1% to 2% and that will all fund Irish racing.
So, you don’t think gambling went up dramatically?
Well, gambling did go up but not as a result of the Betting Act. I don’t think there’s any evidence to support that. There are people on the Left of Irish life who would always advocate that. All the people on the Left think that. They’re wrong, in my view.
In regards to semi-state bodies, do you think that perhaps the likes of Aer Lingus should still be under the government's control?
I don’t think you can say those industries would be in better shape – or it could be better – if it was still owned by the State. In fact, all the evidence – in my view – would be the opposite. Private business principles are the best ones to operate within. Business will thrive better in private enterprise. But I have always said that there are many incidents where that is not always possible and we should never be prepared for ideological reasons to rule out another type of solution. So, there were many State industries privatised before I was Minister for Finance; there were some done when I was Minister for Finance – Eircom being the biggest one that we did. Since I left the government has partially privatised Aer Lingus. The government now only own 25% of Aer Lingus. So, they adopted a pragmatic approach. Your question is a valid one – whether the enterprises are any better. I don’t think the airline business is any worse on account of Aer Lingus being 75% privatised. The competition in the airline business has been good for everybody. I mean, the ordinary people of Ireland can go places cheaply, where they could never even dream of going when I was growing up.
If you look at when Eircom was privatised, only a few months later the shares fell dramatically...
No, it didn’t. It took a year. I think it took 14 months to be precise...
But that’s a bit of a disaster?
No, it’s not because – remember in that period of time the German telecom dropped by over 50% as well. Telecom stocks all over Europe were at a peak. We, luckily enough – and I take a little bit of the credit for this – actually sold Eircom into the market at just about the height of the telecom boom. And the next year after that – right around Europe – the market in telecoms went from up there to down there. But markets go like that. We actually got Telecom sold off into the private market at the height of the market. We did the taxpayer very good because we got billions of euros for it.
But didn’t ordinary Joe – ordinary Irish citizens – on the street who bought into Telecom at the time lose money on it?
But the ordinary Joe had up to a year he could’ve sold the shares and made a profit. If I remember correctly now, 575,000 people applied for shares. That meant at the time there was 3.1 million people in the country who didn’t apply for shares – and couldn’t afford them, right? The money I got – the State got – for Telecom I put it into, say, the pensioners reserve fund; I paid some debts off, etcetera, and the taxpayers – the ordinary Joe and ordinary Mary – benefited by that. What happened was, the telecoms bubble just dissipated – but it didn’t just happen to the Eircom stock, it happened to all telecoms.
What’s your thoughts on legalising prostitution?
I’ve never given it any thought over the years. If the Irish government woke up in the morning (and legislated it)... it wouldn’t excite me. And if they don’t do it, it doesn’t vex me either.
It would bring more tax in, wouldn’t it?
Funny enough – hold on – immoral earnings are taxable. The fact that they are immoral and illegal still doesn’t make them untaxable. So, they are taxable under the current regime (laughs).
And what about legalising abortion?
An Irish government of whatever persuasion – no matter who’s in government – would be very loath to revisit that question.
And what would be your own personal opinion on this issue?
I’m more pro-choice because I’ve always believed that people must make their own decisions and live with it.
What about legalising soft drugs?
Funny enough, I saw Brian Cowen – who is a very close friend of mine – said in an interview with you in Hot Press that when he was in UCD he smoked marijuana. I was in UCD! I’ve always said this as a joke: there’s very little in life that I haven’t done – and a lot of that I’m not particularly proud of – but the funny thing is I was actually never even offered a joint. It’s funny enough for a fella who has been in all kind of bad situations. I’ve never been offered it in all my life – including the ‘60s! I don’t know what I would have done if I’d been offered it, but knowing that I was a heavy smoker, I probably would have taken it. I have an addictive type of personality – I smoked too much. I loved cigarettes. If you think of it now – would we ever have legalised cigarette smoking? I doubt it. I think on balance I have to be against it. I know that lots of people have claimed that legalising marijuana was less harmful than cigarettes. Then there is other evidence from experts that says if you smoke those particular type of drugs it will lead to something else and is bad for you. But then cigarettes are bad for you as well. And so is heavy drinking. And so is heavy eating. I only judge things on my own thinking and I would be afraid if it was readily free that people would be addicted. I don’t know whether it’s addictive or not!
The PDs are in the process of disbanding. They turned into a bad joke in the end, didn’t they?
You must remember that the PDs lasted longer than Sinn Fein/the Workers Party, Democratic Left, Clannna Phoblachta. They have been singularly more successful than any of those parties in what they’ve achieved – and that should be recognised. They lasted over 21 years. They spent a lot of that time in government. They contributed a lot. They are absolutely detested by the Left in Irish life and by a lot of the media, but their achievements should be recognised as well. An objective look at their achievements would prove the things I just said.
I have to ask you about Bertie Ahern. Do you not think, in the end, it was just a repeat of the Charlie Haughey story in some ways?
Well, hold on! You must remember about both individuals. The Charlie Haughey story – there’s a lot left to be written about Charles Haughey. He was the most dominant figure from 1960 up until the time he died. He retired in 1992 and was still influencing and being talked about in 2002 – 10 years after he going. He was only Taoiseach from ’79 onwards – a leader of the party from ’79 – yet he was the dominant political figure from the 1961 election (onwards). But in the end, anyway, about Charlie Haughey, in my view, it was proven that he got a lot of money, right? But there wasn’t proven anything else about it, right? That wasn’t proven.
But it was a similar situation with Bertie?
Bertie’s financial affairs were an inglorious mess! I think I’m not offending Bertie by saying that! I think he’d say the same himself. But I think with Bertie also, no semblance of corruption has been identified as a result of the peculiarities about his own personal finances. So, therefore, I don’t think like in either case it’s right to draw the insinuations that you do.
But, come on, the line he uses was a bit silly: “I won that on the horses!” You’re a gambling man. It’s a line you normally hear the mafia use.
All I can say (pauses)...what I can say about Bertie is – I was elected the same time in '77. We served in government from '92 onwards and we were out (in opposition) for two-and-a-half year from '94 to '97. When we were out, he made me the front bench spokesperson on finance in opposition. I was finance then hence that. I never did any other job for Bertie bar the finance thing. We get on exceptionally well. I found him a great leader. I found him a very good friend. I read, of course (pauses)... I gave up reading most of it. But, like, let’s say his finances... there were a lot of questions being asked about monies going in and out of his account and etcetera. The explanations were hard to reconcile, but the question is, how would anyone’s finances look if they got type of detailed forensic examination? And the overall question was – was there anything corrupt in any of the things Bertie did that was linked to his personal finances? And, in my view, the answer is unquestionably no.
I reckon there will be an adverse finding by the Mahon Tribunal...
Why, Jason? Well, I saw nothing during the evidence that could make me come to that conclusion.
Would you consider running for the Irish presidency?
No. I was elected in the 1974 local elections, so next year I’ll be 36 years in politics – and that’s long enough to be in political life. I said when I come out here that this would be my last political post.
Would you not be tempted?
Absolutely not. It would be a great honour but it’s not for me. No, it wouldn’t suit me at all.
Political pundits always say you had the potential to be Taoiseach...
I think I mightn’t have been a bad Taoiseach for so long as it didn’t mean having to lead the Fianna Fail party. I might have the skills necessary to be Taoiseach of the country, but I know I don’t have the skills to lead the Fianna Fail party, which is a very big coalition itself. I realised a long, long time ago that I am not that type of person. I would be fairly efficient as Taoiseach. I thought I was fairly efficient as a Minister. I know I don’t have the personal or political skills to lead the party. I don’t have the temperament. I wouldn’t have the patience. I never wanted to be leader of the party.
Did party colleagues ever sound you out about maybe becoming leader?
A few colleagues of mine – there’s no point in going into who they were at the time – when I was Minister for Finance would have liked me to become leader and I always said, “Look, I’ll never do that!” I would like to think I was a good finance Minister. People mightn’t like some of my policies – because that’s the only job I was interested in doing. I wasn’t trying to be popular with my colleagues because I wasn’t looking for their support – support for me to be Taoiseach. I just wanted to do the job. So, it was easy for me. And it was easy for Bertie as well because he knew that I was never going to be a threat to him because I didn’t want that job.
There’s a theory out there that Bertie Ahern gave you this EU gig because he basically wanted to get rid of you because he feared a leadership challenge from you...
There’s nothing I can do about that theory. I know it upsets Bertie as well. The night of my birthday in 2003 I went out to St Luke’s asking him for the job. I handled it very badly after that because after Christmas I said to him, “I don’t think I’ll do it because I talked it over with my wife – and I have young children – and it mightn’t be the best thing.” He said, “I’ll leave it up to yourself.” Then I dithered about it. Normally I don’t dither about things. It’s a bit un-Charlie McCreevy like to do that! I made a mess of it. Both of us made a bit of a mess of it – how we handled it in the end. But it was 95% my fault. But there’s nothing either one of us can do about it now.
What do you mean by it being a “mess”?
Well, maybe looking back if I had made it known – about March onwards – that I wanted to go, it would’ve been different. I had a very strong view as Finance Minister that you could not even indicate that, because once you say that...it was hard enough to control the departments and Ministers, but if they thought you weren’t going to be there, they’d run riot altogether.
Did you want it in the end?
I was never running for another election. I was calling it a day. I wanted to do other things. I wanted to try this...
Metaphorically speaking, you’ve been known for occasionally putting your foot in it...
All over my life (laughs)!
Like recently when you said you’d be “insane” to read the Lisbon Treaty. Do you have any regrets about any of these foot-in-mouth comments?
Not one of them even. I came to the view a long, long time ago that there’s enough people being cute and everything else. “Don’t say this!” and “Don’t say that!” It’s just not my style. Early on in my political career – it became a dictum at the time – I said, “One can always afford to tell the truth in Irish politics but no one would believe it!”
Do you think the government’s in for a rough ride in next year’s elections?
I don’t know. That’s a domestic political matter in Ireland.
What do you make of the Champagne Charlie moniker that the press labelled you with? Does it annoy you?
Not at all. It didn’t take a literary genius to think up that – Champagne Charlie (laughs)!