In "The Irish Times" on Saturday, Derek Scally wrote movingly Since Ireland’s No to Lisbon, the Irish in Germany have been made to feel like ingrates. Wherever you go, the same insinuation:"Three decades of EU cash and then you give us the finger."...The fact is that, when explaining why the first Lisbon referendum fell, there are four million Irish people in the EU who believe the complicated version and 82 million Germans who don’t. We are on the wrong side of the argument, and not just with the Germans. Next week, nearly half a billion people across the EU will reach their own conclusions about the second vote. If Ireland votes No again, there is little we can do to stop them thinking that we took the money and ran. This is where the Lisbon debate in Ireland misses the point...
My negative attitude to the Lisbon Treaty is connected with the issue of Turkey's possible accession, but not in the obvious way.There are quite a few good reasons to be opposed to, or at least very sceptical of, the accession of Turkey to the EU. I am not going to discuss them, or even the very persuasive arguments from the other side, in this article. I explain why below.Like Ireland's "bail-out" for its banks, or its cutting of public sector pay, Turkey's accession may just be "one of those things" that have to be accepted (albeit at a high political price) by those who have played no active part in creating the circumstances that have left no other reasonable options open.For nearly 50 years now, the leaders of what is now the EU have held open the prospect of full membership to...
If being opposed to a change in the laws constituent of the EU means that I am an opponent of the EU, can I not oppose any change to our own Constitution in future without being labelled as anti-national...
This PDF document, accessible through the Bonde link on my compendium of Lisbon Treaty Material, clearly and most readably shows, article by article - but only a few words for each - the changes to be wrought by the Treaty. Very usefully, it also identifies the elements of the EU Constitution document which have been dropped or changed....
Occasionally, one hears stories of people being told by their continental European friends that it is felt that Ireland is "letting its friends in Europe down" by contemplating rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. The purveyors of these stories tend, in my experience, to regard themselves as modern, sophisticated people, with a cosmopolitan outlook.One of the core values of the European Union is a democratic approach to political issues. Ireland's constitution specifies that its People are sovereign, and a democratic approach requires that a change to its system of government cannot be made without its express consent. Further, such consent requires that a proper democratic debate take place first.Democratic debate requires a full exploration of the advantages and disadvantages of the change...
Campaigners for ratification of the Lisbon Treaty suggest that, as Finance Minister Brian Lenihan put itWhen we vote in the referendum on the Lisbon treaty on 2 October next, I hope no one forgets that the European Central Bank stood behind this country during its time of greatest need.I am grateful. Absolutely and unreservedly so. We are so fortunate that we have a central bank for the Euro-zone that not only can fulfil but is fulfilling one of the core competences of a central bank.Mind you, what is usually left out of these discussions is a recognition that, if Ireland had not joined the Eurozone in the first place, many of our banking problems would either not have arisen, or would have been of a different, probably less serious, character. However, that is not a criticism of the ECB,...
With the re-run referendum barely a month away now, I have updated the RSS feeds and links to relevant web material in the Lisbon Treaty Referendum section of this...
A letter-writer in Saturday's Irish Times is worried that the Lisbon Treaty will not affect the
continued application of the provisions of the Irish Constitution in
relation to the right to life, education and the familyYes, worried. Agitated he is, as in their different ways, are the newspaper's contributors Sarah Carey and Fintan O'Toole, that their fellow Irish citizens should keep any power to make law for themselves.Neither democracy nor subsidiarity has value in their eyes and for the letter-writer even the "European project" comes second to other priorities:One interpretation of this wording could mean that we in Ireland will
never get full equality for same-sex couples or indeed legalised civil
partnership. If this is the case, I shall be voting No in the second
referendum, no...
Despite the fact that we agreed on how to vote on the Lisbon Treaty, there are not many things that I find attractive in Declan Ganley.The feature that I probably find least attractive is his political amateurism and his unsophisticated tendency, very reminiscent of the British euro-sceptics, to see the "evil hand of Brussels" behind every question that he finds uncomfortable.Some of his other unattractive debating faults can be seen at work here.However, it is quite clear that "they" are indeed out to get him. Having, as they see it, single-handedly sabotaged "the project" by his intervention in the Lisbon referendum, and having managed, as they see it, to get the EU's most euro-philic electorate (see statistics quoted here) to deliver a perverse decision, the forces ranged on the other...
When neither buyers nor sellers understand the ideas being peddled, but go ahead anyway because the experts have (allegedly) "signed-off" on the calculations, it will end not just in tears but in cataclysm beyond...
I have read economist Brendan Lynch's piece in Friday's "The Irish Times" carefully, and yet cannot find a single sentence with which I disagree.The crucial passage is this oneThe Government would be foolish if it did not remind voters that we would never have achieved our current level of living standards without EMU participation thanks to low interest rates, having a world currency and the additional IFSC projects that EMU participation helped bring to Ireland.
Having to play by the EMU rules is an acceptable long term price to pay for EMU’s economic benefits
The writer might have added that membership of the single currency area attracted more than just IFSC projects. If he were more politically-minded, he might also have mentioned the huge gains in convenience for Irish tourists...
As usual, the commentary, this time on the final report from the Irish government's commissioned research into the meaning of voters' rejection of the Lisbon Treaty in The Economist's on-line column, Certain Ideas of Europe, is incisive and intelligent. I urge you to read it, and indeed to read the research findings themselves.Those findings are full of fascinating gems for students of Irish politics, and are also relevant to the wider European polity (inchoate though that be). I expect to be bringing some of them here to examine and admire.Meanwhile, I give you this extract from Certain Ideas of Europe:...56% of Irish voters thought that the treaty would bring about more efficient decision-making in the EU, and 61% thought it would strengthen Europe's role in the world. Those are,...
Foreign Minister Micheal Martin says that the Georgian crisis has made EU governments more determined to push ahead with the Lisbon Treaty. Expect more stories along the same linesFollowing a disaster of Caucasian proportions in this year's All -Ireland Hurling Final, Waterford politicians from the major parties have said that the result shows the need for Lisbon Treaty as, er, obviously the, er, abuse of its dominant position by Kilkenny required more rigorous enforcement of European competition law in the hurling market.Asked to identify which part of the Treaty would help in this regard, a spokesman said that Europe had been good for Ireland, just as Ireland had been good for Europe, and, er, Ireland's competition legislation was largely modelled on the provisions of the Treaty of, er...
They still don't "get-it". Locked in symbiotic obsolescence with the media that have served it so well, the EU elite is nonplussed by the Internet.The Irish Times has obtained a copy of what is apparently an internal Commission memorandum addressing the role of the media, as broadly understood, in the outcome of the vote.The story is here, while the full document is here.Looking at the document on its own terms, and allowing for its understandably biassed point of view, it is a fair enough survey of the "old-media" marketplace. Especially valuable, not least given the demographic analysis provided earlier of the composition of the majority, is the reminder that the Irish media space is populated to a very significant extent now by "Irishised" (not my neologism, I hasten to say) UK...
This website is now divided into three main sections along broad thematic lines: Law, Ideas, and Ireland.
The Ideas section will contain material proper to my pretensions - the word may be regarded as apt in view of the full title that I have given the section - to be a member of the scribbling classes and the intelligentsia - politics, economics, literature, to name a few. If interest is lively enough, the section may in due course be floated off to its own domain.The third section will contain personal/family/Ireland/Cork miscellanea unsuitable for the other two. At present, I am undecided as to its long-term future - maybe a spot on a social network like Facebook would be more appropriate for at least some of it ?I am hoping that the change will enable new readers to more quickly see...
In
Cork,
Humour,
Music,
law,
General,
Books,
Ireland-History,
Visuals,
Wildlife,
Insurance Coverage law,
Economics,
Civilisation and its Discontents,
politics,
EU issues
I promised the other day to explain why I was "almost" able to accept the QMV changes, the loss of a Commissioner for part of the time and that there was no threat to Irish neutrality. Unfortunately, I found the second part of the explanation for my vote so difficult to write that I forgot my promise. I remedy that now.Neutrality:I am persuaded that the so-called "triple-lock" does protect Irish neutrality. However, as I voted really as a European on European issues, I am still a bit uneasy at the eagerness of other member states to emphasise the military aspect of the Union. Indeed, there continues to be confusion in the minds of many, especially in Mittel- and Eastern Europe, between NATO and the EU;Loss of Commissioner: To be accurate, this battle was lost in the Nice referendum....
I believe passionately in democracy, as in the Lincolnian formulation viz. Government of the people, by the people and for the peopleAlthough the EU is formally a democratic entity, and is indeed inclined to be rather arrogant about its democratic credentials, the ethos which governs the decisions of the leading elites is anti-democratic. Whereas democracy means that the People are sovereign, as Ireland's Constitution has it, the EU's ethos appears to be that, instead, those whom the representatives of the People select are entitled/obliged to delegate others to give governing power to people who never stand for election by ordinary voters.The attitude of the EU leadership - and of most campaigners in Ireland for ratification - was so anti-democratic that one felt like voting against...
First, this is a selection of the things that had nothing to do with my decision:1. Fear about corporate tax rates. Lisbon or no Lisbon, there is a threat to the rate;2. Ingratitude. I am very grateful to, especially, the German people for the support they gave us over the last 35 years. If the German People had voted emphatically for Lisbon, it would have been much harder for me to vote against it;3. Neutrality: almost entirely absent from my thoughts;4. Losing our Commissioner for one-third of the time - I could almost live with that;5. QMV changes - I could almost live with them too;
(I will explain the repeated uses of "almost" in part 2).6. Bad deal for Ireland: I don't agree with this formulation of the problem at all. Our negotiators did a reasonable job;7. Abortion: The EU has...
Coming soon:The reasons that did, and - almost as important - the considerations that did not, result in my voting against ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.Due to the pressure of obligations, my reasoned explanation is not yet ready for publication. However, as the ballot boxes start to be opened, this is my last opportunity to put that vote on record without fear of being accused of "post-hoc"revision to accord with the People's...
The BBC's Europe editor, Mark Mardell, had an interesting article yesterday on the possible consequences of a negative referendum result. Some of the several dozen comments that it provoked were also interesting, and I may address some of the sensible ones here at a later stage.It should go without saying, but unfortunately it does not: all those who vote a particular way cannot be tarred with the same brush. Thus, if I end up, as still appears more probable, voting against ratification of the Treaty, it does not follow that I subscribe to the notion that the independence of the USA has already been signed away in N.A.F.T.A.. Similarly, I am well aware that those who favour the opposite position include many who are otherwise sane and civilised devotees of Lincolnian...
In Ireland, the People are sovereign. I would find it difficult to accept as democratic any entity wherein this was not the case. Despite its soi-disant committment to democratic values, however, the people who consider themselves (and are widely regarded by others) to speak for "the EU" impress me with their anti-democratic approach.Typical is this response by "Waldo" to something I said on a Hungarian website:
Fergus, the European constitution was the EU's attempt to get the European
citizens involved through an open and very understandable text.
Note the dichotomy between the EU and its citizens. In my view, the EU is its citizens; otherwise, it is not a democracy.Waldo goes on:
I am for a more transparent, democratic and open working of the Union,
however, this may not come in...
Under the Lisbon Treaty, there would be a new obligation on the Commission to send legislative proposals to national parliaments. John Carroll of Semper Idem sets out the provisions here and I would echo most of his comments thereon.It may seem odd, given what I said the other day, but I disagree with the comment left on the Irish Election page by someone calling themselves "Future Taoiseach". While the provision does carry a whiff of the same tokenism as the Citizens' Initiative, and the time limits are still unreasonable, I share Mr Carroll's optimism on the effect that the new procedure would have on increasing scrutiny of EU proposals by national legislators. Unlike the Citizens Initiative, the Commission is obliged to be pro-active in sending the information, and there are specific...
I think that I would now go so far as to agree that incorporation of the CFR into the EU legal order would be a good reason to vote for the Lisbon Treaty.Not a great one, perhaps, and not a sufficient one for me but still a good one.If the Treaty is ratified, the institutions of the Union would be legally obliged to have regard to the provisions of the Charter in their dealings. Also, the CFR could be formally invoked in cases before the European Courts.While I remain to be convinced that this will make much difference to the current practical position, there are definite benefits to this if only from a "tidying -up"...
Yer man in Rome* wants us to get enthused about the Charter of Fundamental Rights (hereinafter "CFR").I am sorry, but I just can't see any rationality in this approach.We older people - anyone over, say, 30 - should really get over the idea that producing a document and calling it a charter and/or having it refer to rights, fundamental, human or otherwise, automatically means that it is A Good Thing.
Would it be good for you to have the (fundamental human) right to insult people you despise ? No ? How about a (fundamental human) right not to be insulted ?There seems to be nothing new in the CFR. I was wrong in an earlier post to say that the provision relating to it in the Lisbon Treaty would make no difference, but not that wrong. It would serve an important technical purpose, but in no...
On Newstalk on Saturday (10/5/08), Ruairi Quinn responded to a complaint from Ulick McEvaddy about the opacity of the Treaty. He suggested that when buying a house or an airplane (UMcE has bought quite a few Boeing 707s), the "real deal" is simple but the legal document has to be complex, and that there is nothing abnormal or sinister about that.Unfortunately, that is a misrepresentation of how we got this kind of treaty document. It is not "just one of those things" that the Treaty has been made complex. It is intentionally unintelligible. The politicans could have made it simple; they decided not to do so. "The Economist" weekly newspaper, whose Europhile credentials are impeccable, had the integrity to note this here as drafting proceeded, and again here.The titles of these articles...
.So far I have only looked at apparently bad reasons to vote one way or the other in the Lisbon treaty referendum. This reflects the fact that most discussions that I have heard feature only bad reasons on either side. However, in making one's decision, the bad reasons on either side are irrelevant, I suggest. One reaches one's decision based on the weight one attaches to the various good reasons. There are good reasons to vote yes as well as good ones to vote no." It's a no-brainer" say some. I disagree; there are in fact very few "no-brainers", perhaps especially not in politics, and certainly not in constitutional politics. Even in general, one should be careful of cosy consensus, as these celebrated quotations illustrate:If we are all in agreement on the decision - then I propose we...
Even those who are not familiar with Californian politics may have heard of the ballot initiative, which gave us the infamous "three strikes" law, whereby a person convicted of three serious crimes must be imprisoned for life. I abhor that law, but rather like the idea of a ballot initiative.You could be forgiven, then, for thinking that I might, like Fine Gaeler John Carroll, be enthused by the Citizens' Initiative provision in the Treaty. Well, I am not.I cannot understand how anyone could seriously enthuse about this meaningless idea. With no Lisbon Treaty, it is just as easy (or difficult) for one million voters to propose something to the Commission. Even if the Treaty is ratified, such a proposal will have just as much, or as little, legal status as it would do now. The Commission,...
As I warned on Tuesday, I return to the issue of the threat to Ireland's very low (12.5%) corporate tax rate.Briefly, my summary would be that there is indeed a threat. It would be misleading, if not dishonest, to say that there is no threat and/or that the veto gives us absolute protection. Ireland has already changed the rate at least twice before, explicitly in response to EU pressure.That said, ratification of the Lisbon Treaty will have a very minor effect, if any, upon the likelihood of that threat increasing. On the Dunphy/Giles scale, it rates well short of a platini.I have examined the provisions cited by Mr Bonde, and my conclusion is very much in line with the useful comment left by "fd".Bonde describes the wording of the proposed new article 113 as significant, constituting a...
I had not intended to revisit this issue so soon (or even at all) and would probably not be doing so but for the mention of Cork in this comment by the redoubtable Jens-Peter Bonde(it is close to the bottom of the web-page).(The comment was brought to my attention by fellow-Corkman, the indefatigable Tony Coughlan).Mr Bonde believes that the Court of Justice could outlaw what he calls our very distorting low corporation tax rate by use of a new provision to be introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. It seems to me that he does make a new and potentially important point on the difference between the requirement for unanimity on a possible new EU tax policy, and the possibility that a particular existing tax regime, such as the Irish one, might be found to be distortionary. The veto would be of...
Opponents of the Treaty tend to suggest that there is a threat to Ireland's freedom to set its own tax rates, but this is not an issue for me in considering how to vote, for two reasons.First, it seems to me that it is unlikely that those with a direct involvement in Irish corporate affairs would be as unworried about this possibility as they clearly are, if there actually was a realistic threat.My second reason possibly shows what a "good European" I am really, notwithstanding my increasing scepticism about "the project". You see, I am somewhat persuaded that it is necessary for the Single Market which has been so good for Ireland for harmonisation of tax rates to be...