Phoenix expands tower empire to Ireland

Phoenix Tower International has announced an agreement to purchase 650 wireless towers from Irish telco eir, expanding its infrastructure footprint to a new European nation.

With 9,000 towers spread across 15 countries, Phoenix is quickly turning into one of the major players in the telecom infrastructure game. The acquisition of these assets, 100% of eir’s tower portfolio, will further drive Phoenix into the European markets, following hot on the heels of a deal with Bouygues Telecom to acquire 4,000 sites in France.

“Ireland represents an important economic hub for Europe and the world, and we are proud to support eir on their ongoing build-outs across the country,” said Tim Culver, Executive Chairman of Phoenix Tower International. “This transaction further expands PTI’s global footprint and we are excited to be a long-term partner of eir.”

Although operations are primarily focused in the Americas, Phoenix is becoming a much more familiar name for European telcos, several of which are keen to explore ways to access more cash.

While it is certainly a more attractive position to own assets rather than lease off an outside party, the deployment of 5G networks and upgrading broadband to full fibre are two very expensive projects. With the price of connectivity contracts only going down, spreadsheets only tolerating so much debt and investors only able to cough up so much, alternative means to raise funds are needed. The sale of physical infrastructure, the passive part of the network is proving to be a popular way forward.

Phoenix Tower International is one company which realises the potential of asset with (theoretically) consistent demand and zero expiry date, but it is not alone. Cellnex is hoovering up assets across Europe, InfraVia is finding cash to invest, as is Brookfield, a Canadian alternative asset management company. All of these companies recognise that owning the passive infrastructure in a world which is increasingly defined by mobile connectivity is an attractive bet.

But what does this mean for the industry? The influence of the telco on the telco industry is being diluted.

If the telcos no-longer want to own or invest in passive infrastructure, they will have less influence on construction plans, as let’s not forget, companies like Phoenix will have multiple customers to consider. There are of course build-to-suit programmes, but new sites will have to be attractive to multiple telco customers, not just one.

This is a compromise which has to be made. The telcos need money, they have assets to sell, but they will have to accept that they are also trading a slither of control of their own fate. We suspect there will be criticism of this trend in decades to come, when the future leaders of telcos are finding their voices drowned out by other segments of the industry, but it is a case of needs must.


Telecoms.com Daily Poll:

Should privacy rules be re-evaluated in light of a new type of society?

Loading ... Loading ...

Privacy champion Schrems blasts Irish authorities over secret Facebook deal

Max Schrems, one of the central figures in bringing down the EU-US Privacy Shield, has penned an open-letter slams the Irish Data Protection Commission for not dealing with Facebook appropriately.

With his privacy campaign organisation, noyb.eu (none of your business) taking on the social media giant, Schrems has heavily criticised the regulator for a lack of action, shrouding investigations with mystery and secret meetings with the firm to create a ‘consent bypass’ situation.

“It sounds a lot like those secret ‘tax rulings’ where tax authorities secretly agree with large tech companies on how to bypass the tax laws – just that they now do this with the GDPR too,” noyb.eu Chairman Schrems said.

The ‘consent bypass’ was an agreement between the authorities and Facebook to switch its policy from ‘consent’ to an alleged ‘data use contract’, allowing the company to track, target and conduct research on users.

“It is nothing but lipstick on a pig,” said Schrems.

“Since Roman times, the law prohibits ‘renaming’ something just to bypass the law. What Facebook tried to do is not smart, but laughable. The only thing that is really concerning is that the Irish DPC apparently engaged with Facebook when they were designing this scam and is now supposed to independently review it.”

According to research quoted by the privacy advocates, only 1.6 – 2.5% of users were aware they were actually entering into a ‘data use contract’. Should these figures be anywhere near accurate, this should not be considered anywhere near good enough.

This entire saga is a bit of ‘he said, she said’ with mud being slung across the wall. On one side of the coin, it is not difficult to imagine secret meetings to figure out how rules can be circumnavigated, but it is also within reason to assume Schrems and his privacy cronies are exaggerating and making a mountain out of a molehill.

Schrems has stated his organisation filed complaints about Facebook during the first few hours of GDPR coming into action, however, the subsequent investigations have not been concluded. This is a fair complaint, these investigations do take time, but then again there has to be a limit. The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) in the UK has delivered dozens of rulings in this period while the Irish DPC celebrated completing the first of six steps last week.

Facebook is a very complicated business with operations spanning across almost every European nation, and while the Irish DPC has been designated lead regulatory authority for several high-profile names, it is not proving itself worthy of this responsibility yet.

Again, you have to take Schrems claims with a pinch of salt, but Silicon Valley is escaping without punishment. We find it impossible to believe all of its residents are acting perfectly within the rules. It would be more credible to blame overly complex bureaucratic processes, a lack of funding, steep workloads and people just not taking privacy as serious as they should; Silicon Valley’s residents at the top of the list.

Ireland unlocks additional spectrum to combat COVID-19

Irish authorities have signed new regulations allowing the release of additional radio spectrum to create extra capacity for mobile phone and broadband services.

Signed by Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment Richard Bruton and ComReg, the Irish telco regulator, the temporary measures are in response to a sharp increase in the use of mobile networks. The telco networks are currently standing up to the additional demand, though extra help will always be welcomed.

“Now, more than ever we are depending on technology to connect with others and to access services,” said Minister Bruton. “These regulations will ensure that our mobile network operators have the capacity to accommodate the increase in demand. I’d like to thank ComReg for responding to this need so quickly.”

The additional spectrum was released following a consultation with Eir, Three, Vodafone and Virgin Media, along with RTÉ and the Irish Aviation Authority, which was published on March 27. In contrast to the usual state of play in the telco industry, this is an example of rapid action in response to a very difficult environment.

“The provision of this spectrum will help the mobile providers cater for increased demand on their networks,” said ComReg Commissioner Jeremy Godfrey.

“ComReg will continue to work with industry and will support operators so that telecoms networks may continue to meet demand during these unprecedented times. I wish to pay particular tribute to the dedication and skill of ComReg’s staff in completing such a complicated project with such great professionalism and in such a short time.”

The additional airwaves will be released in the 700 MHz and 2.6 GHz spectrum bands, with changed conditions for 2.1 GHz to ensure it can be used for 4G connectivity. Telcos will be able to apply for temporary licences that run for a maximum of three months, for a fee of €100, with the options to extend the licences should it be required in the future.

Ireland is not the first country to release additional spectrum, the FCC offered assistance to AT&T, T-Mobile, US Cellular and Verizon in the US, though many European telcos have said they do not necessarily require the additional airwaves to maintain networks today.

Ofcom, the UK regulator has said it does not plan to release additional spectrum and it has not had any appeals to do so either. Mobile UK, the telco association in the UK, also confirmed operators are not seeking additional spectrum. In Italy, Telecom Italia also said it has made no requests, while Orange also confirmed it has adequate spectrum for today’s operations so would not be making any requests.

Although this seemingly not developing into a pan-European trend, it is somewhat comforting to see a regulator responding promptly. It is very out of character for the telecommunications industry.

Three UK CEO to exit business at end of March

Three UK has announced CEO Dave Dyson will leave the business at the end of the month, with Three Ireland CEO Robert Finnegan to take over a newly combined telco.

While Dyson will continue his work as a Board member and executive resource to parent company CK Hutchison Group Telecom Holdings in Hong Kong, his nine-year tenure at the head of the disruptive telco will end in just over three weeks. Three have said the decision was made for personal reasons.

“Three UK is very well positioned to grow in the market after a period of investment in 5G spectrum and more modern IT systems and processes,” said Dyson. “Robert joins at an exciting time in our history and the combined assets of the UK and Ireland businesses are a fantastic platform to deliver against customer demand.”

As you can see from the table below, Dyson has led the business through a time of growth after being appointed in 2011.

Year Subscriptions Market share Annual revenue
2019 10.03 million 10.86% Not available
2018 10.02 million 10.89% £2.439 billion
2017 10.07 million 11.06% £2.425 billion
2016 9.18 million 10.09% £2.276 billion
2015 8.97 million 9.84% £2.195 billion
2014 8.41 million 9.28% £2.063 billion
2013 7.94 million 9.32% £2.044 billion

The mobile industry in the UK has been somewhat stagnant in recent years, though the Three business did continue to improve revenues during this period. That said, Three is in a promising position for growth and diversification over the next couple of years.

For 5G, the telco does arguably have the most attractive spectrum portfolio, though whether this translates into increased market share and subscription gains remains to be seen. In terms of diversification, the launch of a fixed-wireless access (FWA) proposition allows Three to challenge the status quo in broadband, while a string of new hires allow Three to make a more considered effort in the enterprise market.

Three is in a healthy position though it does seem to be losing senior figures at a rapid rate.

Last month, Three announced that both Phil Sheppard, who was for all intents and purposes the telco’s CTO, and Graham Marsh, the former-Director of Core Technology would be leaving the business. Although this announcement was made in the wake of the disastrous Supply Chain Review conclusion, this is a red herring as neither exit should be attributed to this saga.

The Supply Chain Review, which restricted procurement from ‘high-risk vendors’ to 35% of the total RAN inventory, leaves Three in somewhat of an uncomfortable position. The telco signed an agreement with Huawei, a vendor deemed high-risk, to provide 100% of the RAN. Despite this being a stain on Dyson’s reputation, the work done to improve the Three business over the last nine years and create a platform for future growth should not be undermined.

Taking over at the helm will be Robert Finnegan, the current CEO of Three’s Irish business unit.

“With the integration of the Three and O2 business in Ireland largely complete, we now have a solid platform to look at the next phase of our development,” said Finnegan. “Collaborating more and progressively aligning operations and platforms with Three UK is an obvious opportunity and I am excited to be taking on this challenge as the CEO of both operations.”

With the two business units coming together, there will certainly be more opportunities to realise efficiencies, though it will be interesting to see how this combination works with Brexit. Operating inside and outside of the European Union through as a single business unit of a larger multi-national might present some complications.

Looking at the Irish business unit, this is somewhat of an interesting story.

Revenues have been falling thanks to a competitive environment eroding ARPU, though the impact of handset revenue amortisation has also had an influence on the spreadsheets. That said, looking at subscriptions, Three Ireland has wrestled a leadership position at the expense of Vodafone Ireland and the result of acquiring the O2 Ireland business in 2015.

Year Subscriptions Market share Annual revenue
2019 2.36 million 42.98% Not available
2018 2.19 million 42.16% €591 million
2017 2.06 million 40.43% €603 million
2016 2.07 million 40.38% €655 million
2015 2.03 million 39.43% €689 million

 

Apple and Ireland begin appealing €14.3bn tax bill

Lawyers representing Apple and the Irish Government has begun their arguments in the EU’s lower General Court in an attempt to protect the suspect corporate tax environment.

In 2016, the European Commission ordered the Irish Government to collect back-taxes off Apple to the tune of €14.3 billion, including interest. Apple does not want to pay tax. Ireland does not want to collect it. Europe wants a level playing field. The lawyers are looking forward to nuance to bolster their bank accounts.

During the opening arguments, Apple’s lawyers suggested the European Commission decision “defies reality and common sense,” according to Reuters. Both the iPhone manufacturer and the Irish Government will argue against the decision to tax environment contravenes state aid rules.

Let’s be clear. Ireland is a tax haven. It is facilitating corporate tax avoidance. It is helping corporates collect greater profits without rewarding the societies they strain. Irish Government officials should be embarrassed they are helping technology giants abuse its European partners, the very same European partners which bailed it out of financial doomsday a decade ago.

This is a selfish position, and just at the time when the country is looking to Europe to protect it as Brexit looms large on the horizon.

Some might argue the Irish Government is entitled to charge whatever tax it wants. However, a modern society works because the general public and corporations pay taxes. It pays for roads, schools, hospitals, police officers and postal workers. There are technology giants out there who are asking consumers to strain their wallets further each year and care less about their right to privacy, but they are not willing to contribute to the societies which are fuelling the monstrous profits reported every three months.

With international borders being broken down, much to the distaste of some, irregular taxation policies can be taken advantage of. This is what is happening here. It beggars belief that Ireland can argue the benefits of the single economy, and still maintain this position, weakening the position of partners, depriving them of much needed taxes.

This is not the position the European Commission has taken, but it is the one each of Ireland’s partners in Europe should. Why should Ireland be able to collect all the benefits of Apple’s assaults on the European digital economy when it is citizens of every other nation which is fuelling the iLeader’s growth?

For some, it might sound bizarre that the Irish Government doesn’t want to collect €14.3 billion off Apple, but there are two reasons for this.

Firstly, if the Irish lawyers were not to fight back against the enforced tax run, it is effectively conceded to the assertion that it is a corporate tax haven. The last thing the Irish Government wants to do is admit that it is helping the already richly rewarded residents of Silicon Valley rip-off neighbouring governments further with creative tax strategies.

Secondly, Ireland needs to ensure it is viewed as a friendly corporate-tax environment moving forward if it is to continue to attract corporations to its borders. Ireland doesn’t necessarily have the best talent, it doesn’t have the largest economy and it doesn’t have a local supply chain for manufacturing. It needs a plug to interest the likes of Apple, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Twitter, Pinterest, PayPal and Amazon to house their European HQ in the country.

The value of the technology industry to both the Irish Government and society should not be undervalued. The Irish economy entered severe recession in 2008, and then an economic depression in 2009. The country was in tatters, though it was saved by the technology industry.

Over the last decade, technology giants thrived in the tax haven, creating new jobs directly and indirectly, and continues to be one of the biggest drivers today. Silicon Docks is as important to Dublin as Silicon Valley is to California.

That said, the European Commission does not agree this dynamic should be allowed to continue.

Should the Irish Government continue this favourable tax regime for certain companies, a competitive advantage is offered. The Commission, ably led by Margrethe Vestager, has been tackling anti-competitive business practises for years. If such a monstrous company like Apple is given a competitive advantage, state aid to run riot, start-ups will always be on the back-foot. Competition will likely never emerge, and the consumer will be in a precarious position.

Over the next couple of days, lawyers representing Apple and the Irish Government will argue against the opinion of the European Commission, attempting to overturn an order to collect back-taxes and create a more reasonable tax environment. It will argue that it is perfectly reasonable for it to help Apple bleed the consumer dry and then hide profits from governments who are asking for a fair contribution back to society to pay nurses.

Ireland should be embarrassed.

Irish data watchdog defends its GDPR actions

The Irish data protection regulator has unveiled a progress report on GDPR on the first anniversary of the rules, perhaps defending itself from a perception of inaction.

As Europe’s lead regulator for GDPR, the Data Protection Commission (DPC) is in an incredibly important position. It is supposed to lead the bloc into an era of increased privacy and data protection, though considering its economy is largely dependent on the very firms GDPR has been designed to punish, it is a tricky position.

Despite some suggesting GDPR is failing to live up to the promise of holding the technology giants accountable, the DPC has defending its positions, actions and ambitions.

“The GDPR is a strong new platform from which we can all demand and drive higher standards of protection of our personal information,” said Commissioner for Data Protection, Helen Dixon.

“As the national supervisory authority, the Data Protection Commission (DPC) is firmly committed to its role in public enforcement of the new law, while also working hard to provide guidance to sectors as they seek to comply with the new requirements.

“The DPC is grateful for the positive and energetic engagement with the GDPR that we have seen from all quarters, particularly from consumers and concerned persons who have raised queries about the processing of their personal data with the office.”

Looking at the numbers, 6,624 complaints have been received since the introduction of GDPR, while 5,818 valid data security breaches were notified. 54 investigations have been opened, 19 of which are cross-border investigations into multinational technology companies and their compliance with the GDPR. Last week, the DPC announced its most recent investigation into Google.

Interestingly enough, more than half of these investigations will see either Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram as the focal point. The question which remains is whether the rules are having a material impact on data protection and privacy across the world?

According to the International Association of Privacy Professionals, more than 500,000 data protection officers have been appointed at firms across the world, while more than 200,000 instances of data breaches have been reported. However, the largest fine which has been levied at one of the internet giants is €50 million.

Back in January, French data watchdog CNIL fined Google €50 million for various different violations of GDPR. These violations included a lack of transparency, overly complicated wording and inaccessible information on how a user’s data is being collected, stored and processed. This might serve as a wake-up call for the ‘normal’ companies across the world, but it is might not be considered a deterrent for the worst offenders, the tech giants who collect billions in profit each year by monetizing data.

As mentioned previously, the DPC is in a slightly precarious position. Ireland will want to protect the interests of the technology giants due to the role the industry plays in the country. The technology sector has largely been credited with saving Ireland from economic recession a decade ago, and now employees a significant number of individuals. The industry has also fuelled a rise in entrepreneurship, creating bright prospects as the world strides towards the digital economy.

Reading between the lines, this is perhaps the rationale behind today’s announcement from the DPC. It is working to uphold the promise of GDPR.

What is worth noting is one year is not a lot of time. Investigations into complaints will take months on months, due to the number of companies involved, collections of statements and all the relevant information, and the complex nature of data processing business models. The big data machine is incredibly complicated and understanding whether there have been any violations of rules is even more so; some clauses and sections made grey areas to be exploited.

One year one, GDPR has clearly had an impact on the world, but whether this is enough of an impact to create a privacy-orientated digital society still remains to be seen.

Europe’s lead data watchdog opens Google GDPR investigation

Ireland’s data protection watchdog has kicked off a GDPR investigation into Google following a complaint from ad-free web browser Brave.

Although GDPR is approaching its first birthday, there is yet to be an example of the towering fines which were promised for non-compliance. Perhaps everyone is playing merrily by the rules, or it might be that they are very good at covering their tracks. Brave will be hoping to chalk up a victory over Google with this investigation however.

“The Irish Data Protection Commission’s action signals that now – nearly one year after the GDPR was introduced – a change is coming that goes beyond just Google,” said Johnny Ryan, Chief Policy Officer at Brave. “We need to reform online advertising to protect privacy, and to protect advertisers and publishers from legal risk under the GDPR.”

The complaint itself is directed at Google’s DoubleClick/Authorized Buyers advertising system. While giving evidence to the Data Protection Commission, Ryan has suggested the way in which data is processed through the system violates Article 5(1)(a), (b) and (f) of GDPR, as well as Section 110 of the Irish Data Protection Act.

DoubleClick/Authorized Buyers advertising system is active on 8.4 million websites, allowing the search giant to track users as they scour the web. This information is then broadcast to more than 2,000 companies who bid on the traffic to deliver more targeted and personalised ads.

This information can potentially be incredibly personal. Google has various different categories which internet users are neatly filed into, including ‘eating disorders’, ‘left-wing politics’, ‘Judaism’ and ‘male impotence’. The companies bidding on this data will also have access to geo-location information and the type of device which the user is on.

Under Article 5 (1)(f) of the GDPR, companies are only permitted to process personal information if it is tightly controlled. Brave suggests Google has no control over the data once it is broadcast and is therefore violating GDPR.

With the Irish watchdog, Europe’s lead for GDPR, investigating the system in Ireland, similar complaints have been filed the UK, Poland, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Should Google be found non-compliant, it would be forced to ditch the DoubleClick/Authorized Buyers advertising system and could face a fine as much as 4% of annual turnover. Based on 2018 revenues, that figure would be $5.4 billion.

“For too long, the AdTech industry has operated without due regard for the protection of consumer data,” said Ravi Naik of ITN Solicitors, who will be representing Brave for the complaint. “We are pleased that the Data Protection Commissioner has taken action. The industry must change.”

GDPR is supposed to be a suitable deterrent for the internet economy, but without enforcement and demonstrable consequences little will change. If GDPR is to work as designed, a monstrous fine will have to be directed at someone sooner or later. Could this be the first domino to fall?

Privacy International lines up US firms for GDPR breaches

UK data protection and privacy advocacy group Privacy International has submitted complaints to European watchdogs suggesting GDPR violations at several US firms including Oracle, Equifax and Experian.

The complaints have been submitted to regulators in the UK, Ireland and France, bringing the data broker activities of Oracle and Acxiom into question, as well as ad-tech companies Criteo, Quantcast and Tapad, and credit referencing agencies Equifax and Experian. The complaints are specifically focused on the depth of personal data processing, which Privacy International believes violates Articles five and six of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

“It’s been more than five months since the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into effect,” a Privacy International statement read. “Fundamentally, the GDPR strengthens rights of individuals with regard to the protection of their data, imposes more stringent obligations on those processing personal data, and provides for stronger regulatory enforcement powers – in theory. In practice, the real test for GDPR will be in its enforcement.

“Nowhere is this more evident than for data broker and ad-tech industries that are premised on exploiting people’s data. Despite exploiting the data of millions of people, are on the whole non-consumer facing and therefore rarely have their practices challenged.”

The GDPR Articles in question relate to the collection and processing of information. Article Five dictates a company has to be completely transparent in how it collects and processes information, but also the reasons for doing so. Reasonable steps must be taken to ensure data is erased once the purpose has been fulfilled, this is known as data minimisation. Article Six states a company must seek consent from the individual to collect and process information for an explicit purpose; broad brush collection, storage and continued exploitation of data is being tackled here.

In both articles, the objective is to ensure companies are being specific in their collection of personal information, and that it is utilised in a timely manner before being deleted once it has served its purpose. These are two of the articles which will hit the data-sharing economy the hardest, and it will be interesting to see how stringently GDPR will be enforced if there is any evidence of wrong-doing.

This is where Privacy International is finding issue with the firms. The advocacy group is challenging the business practises on the principles of transparency, fairness, lawfulness, purpose limitation,

data minimisation, accuracy and integrity and confidentiality. It is also requesting further investigations into Articles 13 and 14 (the right to information), Article 15 (the right of access), Article 22 (automated decision making and profiling), Article 25 (data protection and by design and default) and Article 35 (data protection impact assessments).

While GDPR sounds very scary, the reality is no-one has been punished to the full extent of the regulation yet. This might be because every company has taken the guidance on effectively and is operating entirely within the legal parameters, though we doubt this is the case. It is probably a case of no-one being caught yet.

The threat of a €20 million fine, or one which is up to 3% of a business’ total revenues, is nothing more than a piece of paper at the moment. If there is no evidence or fear authorities will punish to the full extent of the law, GDPR doesn’t act as much of a protection mechanism or a deterrent. When a genuine violation of GDPR is uncovered, Europe needs to bear its teeth and demonstrate there will be no breathing room.

This has been the problem for years in the technology industry; fines have been dished out, though there has been no material impact on the business. The staggering growth of revenues in the industry has far exceeded the ability of regulators to act as judge and executioner. Take the recent fines for Apple and Samsung over planned obsolescence in Italy. The $10 million and $5 million fines for Apple and Samsung would have taken 20 and 16 minutes respectively to pay off. This is not good enough.

Regulators now have the authority to hold the suspect characters in the industry accountable for nefarious actions concerning data protection and privacy, but it has to prove itself capable of wielding the axe. Until Europe shows it has a menacing side, nothing will change for the better.

Europe lets Ireland off the hook after €13bn Apple tax collection

After the Irish government announced it has recovered Apple’s €13 billion tax debt, the European Commission has confirmed it will also drop its lawsuit against the country.

Having begrudgingly collected €13 billion in back taxes from the iLeader, it seems the Irish government has jumped through enough hoops to avoid the courtroom and having to explain why it was willing to help Apple’s tax avoidance strategy.

“In light of the full payment by Apple of the illegal State aid it had received from Ireland, Commissioner Vestager will be proposing to the College of Commissioners the withdrawal of this court action,” Commission spokesman Ricardo Cardoso said in an email statement to Reuters.

While the lawsuit, which was filed on the grounds Apple was receiving illegal tax benefits, was filed last year, Ireland did not collect the first payment until May. That said, the full amount has been collected, currently placed in escrow due to an Irish appeal, and it would seem this is enough for the European Commission.

“While the Government fundamentally disagrees with the Commission’s analysis in the Apple State Aid decision and is seeking an annulment of that decision in the European Courts, as committed members of the European Union, we have always confirmed that we would recover the alleged State Aid,” Irish Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe said.

Ireland is clearly not happy, though you can understand why. In allowing Apple to conduct ‘creative’ accounting practises, the technology industry has thrived in the country. Apple is not the sole reason for this recovery, though it would certainly be a contributing factor. €13 billion is of course a lot of money, though a technology renaissance has meant a lot more to the Irish economy and society. No wonder Ireland was content in keeping Apple happy.

What is always worth remembering is the employment history of European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. Prior to bagging the top job in Brussels, Juncker was the 23rd Prime Minister of Luxembourg and also the Minister for Finances, during which time the country turned into a major European centre of corporate tax avoidance. This was also a time Juncker spent a considerable amount of time secretly blocking EU efforts to tackle tax avoidance by multinational corporations.

But at least he’s willing to sue Ireland for facilitating tax avoidance now it suits his agenda.