It's hard to believe that such a law would pass, but let me point out that the Act is not exactly what it seems. (Yes, I'm Irish)

The Law Reform Commission - the people who are charged with updating legislation in Ireland, recommended that a law had to be put in place for blasphemy because it was provided for in the constitution.

They also said it didn't have to be done any time soon, and that a referendum would remove the requirement. The Irish government is very touchy at the moment about holding any additional referenda (especially in light of an upcoming referendum that affects all 27 EU members), so it decided to pass a law.

People - from the left, the right and the centre - all let out a collective 'gasp!' of surprise. The man responsible probably thinks he has been clever.

You see, what has actually transpired is not so much a 'blasphemy law' but a law that is unenforceable. The law, as written, cannot be used in the courts.... and deliberately so.

It's an Irish solution to an Irish problem: We need a law if the article remains in the constitution. The constitution won't be changed, so the article will remain. However, the crime is outdated and we actually do not want anybody to be charged under this law. Therefore, the only remaining choice is to draft a law that is unworkable.

Is it's a silly, high-cost manoeuvre? Yes.

But it's a tried and tested method.

Why it was rushed through is anyones guess - a mixture of pandering to a far-right that may not currently exist in Ireland (but one suspects is probably going to gain ground in recession times), a particular individual trying to score a quick victory or just an ill thought out move.

Some of our politicians are quite slow to recognise the obvious and will latch on to an idea.

Nice interpretation, but that's not quite what I meant. It is not comfort, it is active protection.

If you follow this argument: have you ever bought anything online? If you bought it from inside the EU you have a lot of protection under the Distance Selling Regulations. This covers all sorts of things, like if your product is faulty, not as described and so on. The EU is brilliant for Consumer Protection.

However, if you intend to buy from outside the EU, the Distance Selling Regs do not apply. You have to resort to local law. No offence to non-EU citizens, but consumer protection is pretty lack-luster in most other jurisdictions, and sometimes overly complex. However, using a credit card, if something is wrong with an item or service, if it turns out that what you signed up to is a scam, if goods never arrive etc... the credit card company is obliged to help out/refund the cash.

This is a protection that doesn't exist if I use bank transfer or debit card without escrow.

I understand where you are coming from. Points systems are a red herring if you think they are there for the benefit of the consumer.

As already established, because of the protections afforded to me under the Sale of Goods Act by using a credit card (it counts as a proof of purchase for warranty purposes), I tend to buy all my goods bought in local physical shops on my credit card. Is that hifi I bought broken after 3 years? No problem, credit card records are proof of purchase to retailer, they have to repair item. Is that milk I bought today sour, but I didn't get a till receipt? No problem - back to the supermarket with my credit card and ask for refund.

For years I had a credit card without a points system, using it for most things for my own protection. Then I realised my card issuer gave points on certain cards. The main drawback is if you overspent or couldn't pay your bill you were charged a higher rate of interest. As I pay off on time each month, this was not an issue. I got the card but didn't change my spending habits. After three years I finally have enough points to get something I want from their catalogue. Something I would not have purchased if I had to pay. It's a nice gimmick. It's an incentive to have this card over an ordinary card.

The perfect payments system does not exist. There are a lot of reasons consumers may choose to pay via credit card - being theoretically perfect or technologically impressive may not be as important as practical protection.

I'm not American - and I wonder about the op's premise as I thought most countries had moved (or were moving) to PIN-numbers rather than signatures to verify in-store transactions.

Regardless, credit cards are very safe for Europeans because of the extra protection they provide to consumers.

In Ireland as well as the UK - and most other European countries - there is a version of the Consumer Credit Act. It treats all purchases on the card as, unsurprisingly, a type of credit agreement. This is a very powerful and pro-Consumer thing, providing lots of protection for any who cares to look into it, e.g. chargeback.

True, a lot of these 'safeties' was introduced in an attempt to make the cards more secure - don't forget the premise of credit cards has been around for many, many decades and, during that time, the type of fraud perpetrated against credit card users has become more and more complex.

It's also well documented that Germans (culturally/in general) have an aversion to credit cards for a number of reasons; from 'all credit is borrowing - and borrowing is bad' (note the low rate of borrowing in Germany) to a series of pre-existing methods of paying for goods and services easily at a distance (e.g. in Germany, there is the long standing inter-bank transfer system; very cheap and secure to use inside the borders of Germany but, until very recently, was astronomically expensive for anyone in another country to transfer money to).

So why do I use a credit card? A large number of international traders accept credit cards, doesn't cost me any extra and I get points on my Sony card for every purchase I make. I am not liable for any fraud/misuse of my card. I suspect it's the same for Americans and most people who use credit card. Having the advantage of being European, I also have a lot of legally enforceable extra protections that I'm not sure Americans have in the Consumer Credit Act.

I also do use bank transfers to pay for stuff. Usually only to Germany because Germany is one country where their banks are pretty secure. And only in recent years - because, thanks to an EU Directive, the astronomical cost of transferring money across borders to another member state of the Eurozone has plummeted (note: UK not member of Eurozone, so a UK consumer could still face high charges).

I also have the protections of the Distance Selling Regulations when buying from Germany, but I would never transfer money via bank account outside of Europe.

As for 'reloadable' cards, for me they are slightly more expensive and don't offer me any incentive or attractiveness to use, and are not universally accepted.

Debit cards don't seem to be standarised internationally - or even across the EU - so are not really viable as a payment method.