No? Yes? No! 35% anti-Lisbon Treaty, 30% pro-Lisbon Treaty… June 6, 2008
Posted by WorldbyStorm in European Union, Irish Politics, Lisbon Treaty.trackback
I’ve been a bit under the weather this week, and hence had more time than I really want to study the news. And some news it is too. Not least the scary stuff for the pro-Lisbon Treaty campaign, the news that “Poll shows Lisbon Treaty Referendum heading for a shock defeat”. Perhaps not quite a shock. And perhaps the headline is a little premature, although let’s return to that after looking through the headline figures. It’s the only reasonable explanation. You know it is.
It will take an unprecedented swing in the last week of the campaign for the Treaty to be carried.
The poll shows the number of people intending to vote No has almost doubled to 35 per cent (up 17 points) since the last poll three weeks ago, while the number of the Yes side has declined to 30 per cent (down 5 points).
What little comfort there may be in the figures for the pro-Treaty side is provided by:
The number of undecided voters is still a significant 28 per (down 12 points) cent, while 7 per cent won’t vote.
And the reasons for all this? Militarisation? Neutrality? Taxation?
Well, not in the main. The somewhat more prosaic excuse offered is that:
The swing to the No camp has not been prompted by domestic considerations, with just 5 per cent of those opposed to the Treaty saying they are influenced by a desire to protest against the Government.
The reason most often cited by No voters is that they don’t know what they are voting for or they don’t understand the Treaty, with 30 per cent of No voters listing this as the main reason for their decision.
Now. Who’s to blame for that, because that crucial 30% of 35% is the margin between winning and losing. Obviously there are a few health warnings to be thrown into the mix…
The poll was conducted last Tuesday and Wednesday among a representative sample of 1,000 voters in face-to-face interviews at 100 sampling points in all 43 constituencies. It was taken in the middle of the controversy over the World Trade Organisation talks.
That issue came to a head on Tuesday afternoon with the announcement by the Irish Farmers’ Association that it would support a Yes vote following the declaration by the Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, that he would use the veto to block any deal unacceptable to Ireland if the issue was put to a vote.
That has been put to rest, but it will be interesting to see if there is any movement on the figure that shows:
that farmers are opposed to the Treaty by 34 per cent to 31 per cent.
And once more there is a remarkable turnaround in the Fine Gael vote from previous referenda on European matters…
A clear majority of Fine Gael voters are now against the Treaty by 40 per cent to 30 per cent, while among Labour voters there has been a massive turnaround with the No side almost doubling its support to 47 per cent with 30 per cent of party supporters in favour.
Meanwhile, did anyone read the piece by Frederick Forsythe in the Irish Times yesterday, with the accompanying explanation that:
Frederick Forsythe is a novelist and wrote this commentary for Libertas, one of the groups campaigning for a No vote
I’m no fan of either him or his books, but this was a particularly bilious outing.
From his opening salvo that…
The idea that there may be something whimsical about the Irish is the biggest confidence trick since the South Sea Bubble. Behind his cheery “Sláinte”, Paddy is smart as paint and sharp as a new razor. This is nowhere more amply demonstrated than in the 35 years since Ireland and Britain joined what is now the European Union.
“Paddy”?
…to the back-handed compliment that:
Using the agricultural rule book, Dublin brought a torrent of financial support to Ireland’s farmers that has transformed the old image of the bog-farm yielding a very meagre living; using the structural subsidies, more billions of punts and euro came west to build motorways, bridges, docks, ring roads, faculties, and industrial zones.
And his thoughts that:
For years, Irish governments have been able to tell the people: for every euro we pay in, we get six out. Very persuasive. But all that ends with this treaty. Ireland, wealthy, bursting at the seams with money, is to become a net contributor. You will have to start paying for the EU as we have for 35 years. There will be big tax hikes.
Perhaps true, but since Forsythe is clearly indifferent to issues of solidarity, or indeed the idea that there might be some responsibility for the better off to assist the less well off I guess an argument couched in such nakedly self-interested terms somehow leaves me cold.
As does:
So on agriculture, payment-drain, business taxes and neutrality, there are hidden snares in this text. Perhaps the Irish might think of saying: “Much as we love the EU, we would like to go back to the drawing board on this document until we fully understand ever line in it. So for the moment, thanks but no thanks.”
Which would be fine if Forsythe were anything other than a long-time, and entirely vociferous, euro-sceptic. But unfortunately he is, so one suspects he’s simply making a rhetorical point here for the benefit of his argument rather than owning up to the fact that he’d vastly prefer to see the EU and all its works flung to the winds.
An interesting insight into Libertas that they would consider him a worthy proxy.
Meanwhile a fair few politicians may be glad that their participation in the campaign to date has been somewhat half-hearted. But what to make of Mary Lou McDonald on the RTÉ news yesterday evening saying that a renegotiated Treaty might be acceptable. I wonder. One of the killer arguments of the Nice 2 campaign was the concept (and I don’t actually entirely agree with it) that the people had spoken in Nice 1 and therefore that was it. Would SF genuinely accept a renegotiated Treaty – and beyond that, who set them up as arbiters of such matters… or is this an example of the ‘new’ reasonableness?
And returning to the poll. Not for nothing did an FF press conference fronted by Dermot Ahern look particularly gloomy yesterday afternoon, although perhaps he should be glad that after the reshuffle he dodged being directly in the path of that bullet. Mr. Martin has that particular pleasure. I considered some of the aftermaths of a loss in an earlier post during the week, but the response over the next six days will be instructive I suspect.
If today and the weekend heralds a round of outright recriminations between the major parties then – to use an unlovely phrase – they’ve screwed the pooch and all is lost. Somewhat more temperate tones might indicate they believe that it’s still to play for. My guess? They’ll know it’s the first but pretend it’s the second. And they might yet be proven right.
But much more of the FG sniping nonsense that was seen over the last week or so and it’s comprehensively lost. End of story.
Which raises an interesting little thought experiment. The scene of our former leader the bould Bert leaving Dublin Castle this week having managed to put forth yet another excuse for the provenance of his by now near historically impressive quantities of the readies… to wit that they were winnings on races was … well, entertaining is a word used too much around here, by me in particular, and so it doesn’t quite have the necessary effect. Next up? A dog, no a series of dogs… no, no, a bloody wolfpack arrived at his house and regurgitated wads of unmarked non-sequential punts onto his floor… again and again and again…
It’s a reasonable explanation. You know it is.
But consider if you will what the poll rating would have been in the wake of this weeks ‘evidence’. 35% agin? Jesus, more like 66%. And there’d be no coming back from that. But they’ll have to work hard to reverse this. The shift in sentiment to the No side could become a political avalanche if they’re not careful.
So while things are bad, and they truly are for the pro-Lisbon camp, they have at least the comfort that they could have been immeasurably worse (although they might also reflect on the thought that the slow attrition of public confidence in the government was in no small part due to the previous behaviours exhibited over the last two years around and about said Tribunal).
Not least because the poll was then, Thursday is next Thursday.
I was talking over the last day or two to someone involved in the anti-Campaign who has been around the country and made an interesting point that the only evidence of significant “NO” posters outside Dublin and the larger cities are SF posters. This persons read was that it was still too close to call. A rural vote coming to the rescue of the EU? Stranger things have happened.
This very depressing, if not totally unexpected, news. The fact that the gathering forces of Irish Thatcherism (Libertas et al) have spearheaded the “no” campaign is entirely consistent with experience in other European Union countries in this kind of referendum. The Irish left must surely know that EVERYWHERE the left have encouraged rejection of closer European integration the outcome has been a massive boost for the new right. The French “No” was followed by the defeat of a demoralised left and a triumph of the “tough right” in the French Presidential election. In the Netherlands the “no” vote triumph gave a big boost (and seeming respectability) to the anti-immigrant far right. Further back, the Danish initial rejection of the Amsteram Treaty was followed by the upsurge of the far Danish Peoples’ Party and the election triumph of the conservatives. NOWHERE has the orchestrated chorus of anti EU opinion led to the strengthening of the left or the cause of a fairer, more democratic or more socially just society. It is surely no coincidence that the position of the left is strongest in those countries which have tended to be positively pro-European (think Spain, Portugal and indeed Germany). Of course the political and business establishment in Ireland – and elsewhere – will now reap the harvest they have sown. The defeat for the Lisbon Treaty (if that is what transpires) will also be greeted with whoops of joy in the Bush camp in Washington since they feared its ratification would lead to a more independent minded European foreign policy. Sinn Fein and the other “national sovereigntistsof the left may rejoice in their victory. But the long term smile will be on the face of Ireland new right.
I have some sympathy for what John is saying, but at the same time, can’t help thinking that we’ve had the real forces of Thatcherism in government for a decade with the PDs, and that while Ganley may run for TD, the difference with other situations is that there is no small party of the new right to benefit in Ireland.
is entirely consistent with experience in other European Union countries in this kind of referendum
Well except in France of course: the left might have been demoralised, but not by the referendum result.
The John Palmer argument that you have to back the EU in pretty much all circumstances because the alternative is the Right seems to me to be pretty much the worst kind of do-you-want-Jones-to-come-back politics. What’s more, it actually builds the right, since it makes it inevitable that the only opposition to business-driven neoliberalism is reactionary neoconservatism. It’s actually the argument which has dominated left/liberal politics in Western Europe and North America for a generation and more, and all it’s brought us is left-liberal parties that go ever further to the right and a right that’s ever more confident in attacking them.
Incidentally, the idea that “the political and business establishment in Ireland” is somehow anti-EU strikes me as struggling to achieve the level of tendentiousness.
ejh – But in France – as elsewhere – some sections of the left do think they blundered badly by joining the populist chorus against the Lisbon Treaty. In Denmark the left wing Peoples’ Socialist Party (now showing more support in the opinion polls than the Danish Labour Party) have switched from a euro hostile to a pro- European policy which gives them more influence in the debate about strengthening democracy at European level. In the Netherlands the same debate in now taking place as the hard right exploits their anti-EU triumph.
By “But much more of the FG sniping nonsense that was seen over the last week or so and it’s comprehensively lost.” do you mean sniping by or sniping at? Because and I know it sounds childish but it is true that Cowen started all this, and what it was real evidence of is his lack of the deft touch that a really good Taoiseach has to have. Albert had a similar tendency to speak his brains and look how long he lasted.
Can John Palmer point me in the direction of the ’sections of the left’ in France he refers to?
As to the Netherlands, I was of the view that the hard right prospered under Pym Fortune (iirc he died during the 2002 election campaign here. Seem to remember being in a pub in Swords when his death was announced) which was a couple of years before their EU referendum. I was also of the opinion that the Dutch SP, the only left wing party in parliament to oppose the referendum, had doubled their seats in municipal elections since and tripled their representation in the last parliament elections. Also to the best of my knowledge their MEP’s are in the same group as the Sinners. I don’t claim to be an expert on dutch politics so I’m open to persuasion that things have changed dramatically since I last probably looked at this in 2006.
in France – as elsewhere – some sections of the left do think they blundered badly by joining the populist chorus against the Lisbon Treaty.
I’m quite prepared to believe this, but I’m not prepared to believe that the opposition to Oui in France wasn’t led by the left and the result seen as a victory for them. Of course there were sections of the left who felt otherwise, because there’s always a debate on the left not only about the EU but about the consequenes of a result which some sections of the right would also like to see. That’s a perfectly honourable position.
I suppose mine, though, is that although I have thought many different things during my lieftime on the left, and changed my mind about this and that, one thing I’ve consistently thought is that either you have an independent left or you don’t have a left. You can’t automatically say “yes to the EU because the reactionary Right is against it” and you can’t automatically say “yes to the Democrats because they’re not the Republicans” .Sometimes of course you’ll say yes to both of these – as I said yes to PSOE. But first, not always: odd to rerun a discussion I thought had been settled in 1900 with the formation of the Labour Representation Committee. And second, it really shouldn’t be overlooked that despite the loud mouths on the right, much and probably most of the right is supporttive of the EU and pro-Yes people are allied with the right (if that’s a fair term) every bit as much as the No camp are.
For the whole campaign, both sides have accepted that the treaty is too complex to read and understand. They’ve effectively told people that ignorance is an acceptable position, and legitimised not knowing anything about the treaty.
The truth is that that’s no longer acceptable. There are hundreds of online summaries and analyses of the treaty. There have been literally millions of booklets printed, and there are several consolidated texts for those who are more interested. Generally, these haven’t been taken up, and people comfortably fall back on the laziest position they can: willfull ignorance.
I was giving out leaflets at Heuston Station yesterday morning, and a woman actually said that she doesn’t “know anything about that Treaty, so [she couldn't] take a leaflet”. Another person walked past me and didn’t take a leaflet – they muttered “haven’t a clue about it”. Because they’ve been told that they couldn’t possibly understand the Treaty, people aren’t even trying to.
In such a situation of ignorance, scare tactics trump vague notions of benefits from the treaty. “Making Europe work better” isn’t as good a motivator as abortion, euthanasia, tax, loss of power and neutrality. If people don’t know anything about the Treaty, they’ve no way to evaluate these claims, and the more sensational ones win out.
Have resigned myself to the reality of a no vote.
I don’t think Libertas or anyone else can claim to have won/swung this however. When those who are engaged by the debate struggle with the specifics, and those who aren’t engaged by the debate (and when you come down to it – there’s not much to compel in the treaty) don’t bother to inform themselves, it’s a victory for apathy. I honestly don’t think a decisive number have bought into the scaremongering of the various campaigns (Yes included). This whole bunfight has been remarkably devoid of both ideology and facts. The numbers of people I’ve met who are voting no because they don’t care to trade national leverage for a leaner, and more democratic EU (a position I can understand), have been far outweighed by protest voters and the ‘I haven’t been sold it successfully’ status quo vote.
The big question now will be – who’s going to be more irritating in ‘victory’ – Mary Lou or Ganley?
I still think a yes is as likely as not, especially now the farmers have come out in favour of it. I’d expect a massive effort from FF to get the vote out. I also wonder how many of those who answered no when stopped in the street will actually turn out to vote. A low turnout could hurt no as much as yes in this campaign.
Gypsy – There is an ongoing discussion on just these issues on at least some sections of the French left. I am not thinking of the PS but rather of Attac and the LCR (whicgh seems to be adjusting its politics more fundamentally in recent months). Of course the left in France played an important part in the referendum outcomes. But this – in effect – has the effect of legitimating the arguements of the right (on national “sovereignty”, on racism, on immigration etc). The left also scored an “own goal” by claiming that defeat of the treaties would be a defeat for neo-liberal economic policies. But this is rubbish ALL the neo-liberal provisions already exist in earlier treaties. The Lisbon Treaty goes some (insufficient) way to counter this on workers’ rights, sustainable development etc. But without the Lisbon Treaty that battle is going to be tougher – not easier – to fight.
Please Irish People, in the name of Europeans peoples , vote NO !
See the comments below this french article http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/monde/330142.FR.php
Most of the commentators wish Ireland could vote NO.
If ever it’d happened, this would be a huge slap in the face of the European Commision technocrats who are completely disconnected from reality. The current way the European Union is designed is mainly in the interest of politicians, media and corporations and definitely not in the interest of the majority of the people.
If ever Ireland voted YES, Europe would become the poodle-puppet of the USA, specially into military domains.
Please, be wise, vote NO and do not fear the pressure of the press and of politicians.
I suspect part of the problem with the Treaty is that it was something brought home to be voted on, rather than something that was talked about in advance and which our government had then negotiated on our behalf. We could have had a discussion on the reduction in the size or make up of the commission for example and the various possibilities trashed out well in advance. And then when it came to the referendum we would not be debate after the fact the reasons why we have to vote for this specific set of proposals.
I have a suggestion for example that all countries could be continued to be allowed have a commissioner except with a system of senior and juniors, commissioners could be a pointed for 6 years but half the commission would change every 3 years with the juniors then stepping up to be seniors and the newbies becoming juniors. No country would be without a voice on the commission but we would have half the number of areas of competencies. And all commissioners would in time be seniors. The point is not so much that this is a great idea (thought I naturally think it is kinda nifty) but that we have no idea what options were considered to deal with the problem of a large commission.
Reading John Palmer is like reading a paternalistic Fabian. The referendum is being lost by the pro side rather than won by the antis, whether left or right. A document was cobbled together and right or wrong a lot of people feel that a lot was smuggled in.( Giscard said as much) A parallel would be Trade Union mergers like the one that resulted in SIPTU, the officials got rid of a lot of annoying (for them) democratic elements of Larkinism.
My main objection is militarism. A common buying policy for arms. A slippery road to a military alliance.
I know our elite see nothing wrong with this but as usual are not open and honest, with the exception of FG and PD.
I would like to see the EU extended to Ukraine and beyond. But I see thses countries being asked to join NATO as a preliminary step. This of course feeds into Russian paranoia, which in turn feeds into the clamour for militarism. As regards the Left supporters of this treaty, for many years Gilmore, Rabbitte and DeRossa saw nothing wrong further East so I would take their advice with a pinch of salt.
Jim – EU security policy represents – at least in embryo – a fundamental alternative to US style military/imperialism. Firstly it is multilateral (not uinilateral). Secondly it is primarily based on the use of “soft power” in terms of peace keeping (vis Macedonia, liberia etc). Three : the waste of economic resources with each state spending fortunes on their own military hardwear is ridiculous. If one is not a pacifist (I am not) one has to give soldiers the means of doing the job they are given. By the way the Ukrainian people want to join the EU – but not NATO. They want Europeans to run their own security policy. Surely they are right. Lastly the arguement that supporting the Lisbon treaty is in the interests of neo-liberalism and represents a weakening of the trade uinions: the opposite is the case. All the neo-liberal policies of the EU will remain intact if the treaty is rejected. What will be lost is the Charter of Fundamental (including some important principles regarding labour rights). Not a good deal I think.
Do you really think the French, British , Germans etc. in an EU military alliance would be benevolent compared to the Americans. Our own little lap dogs would do what they are told anyway. (look at the renditiond where they refuse to even inspect the planes). The record of the French for a start in Africa is fairly awful. Thier support for the Chad dictator who is not much better trhan the clique in Sudan. Internally in the EU there has been a toleration of some fairly bad practices, eg discrimination against Turks and other minorities in Greece.
I , also, am not a pacifist, but I would ask how come it is so easy to send armies, give aid and soft loans for military spending rather than aid for schools.
If Ukraine was in the EU it would hopefully help it in dealing with the fuel threats of the Russians. Mind you the Poles feel that the Germans are colluding with similar threats (the Baltic pipeline) and they are in the EU.
I feel that, with John O’Shea at the extreme end, that the kneejerk response to disasters of sending in an EU army is a potential danger.
Take Chad/Darfur. Who understands the myriad of groups and ethnicities. Like Iraq easy to get into, but how to get out. The EU armies and ours is no exception would love a chanc eto show off, dragging us into adventures.
Look at that “Irish” or EU person who was wandering across Afganistan. In whose name I would ask. Most peculiar.
Again “look before you leap” is a good adage.
What Europe should be doing is helping people not supporting militarism abroad which just fuels conflicts and helps only the arms industries.The Marshall Plan did more for the image of America than anything else it ever did and destroyed any possibility of Russian expansion. A similar Marshall Plan support for say Africa would in my opinion obviate the need for military responses.
a footnote. Why do amny of the pro side say there will be negative consequences for Ireland. Did not Britain keep a seat on the governing body of the Euro in which they do not partake?
Jim – Yes, some interesting points. In Darfur the main responsibility for policing any (future) peace agreement will lie with the African Union but THEY are insisting on EU back up. The “Irish – EU person” in Afghanistan was part of an EU effort to open dialogue with sections of the Taliban (which is what will eventually have to happen anyway). For my money he and his colleagues deserve suport not condemnation by the US military and their point man Karzai. I can agree with your “Marshall Plan” idea but the EU is already massively the biggest source of aid for Africa. By the way Britain has NO seat in the governing body of the euro. This is what has pissed off G. Brown. But the euro countries were quite right to say that the British are either IN or OUT. By the way if Ireland kills the Lisbon Treaty the way will open for the next Tory government (2010?) to go full speed ahead with renegotiating the entire British relationship with the EU – effectively taking Britain out of the “core” EU projects. That will present Ireland with a tricky choice. Choose the UK or the EU. Perhaps Dublin will be tempted to rejoin the Commonwealth?
As to the Charter, well that’s open to interpretation. Not my interpretation and not yours but the ECJ’s. It’s too early to tell on that but perhaps more consideration should be given to how that body works and how it is appointed. Working in the environs of the Four Goldmines I’m not aware of any judges who I can see championing workers rights should they get to Luxembourg. There might be a bit of talk now and then about who are progressive on liberal issues but has there ever been any on who is progressive on workers issues?
JP, you still have failed to show me that there has been a dramatic turn in France on the No side (left). There might be the odd individual opinion but I haven’t see the bodies you mention change their views. In fact Francois Duval (LCR) has an article in the ISN’s publication Resistance calling for a No vote and several members of Attac were at a press confernce here this week for the No side. Added to that Francois Delapierre of the French Socialist Party came out this week and said that ‘the French people had been “robbed of the right to vote” on the treaty’.
Gypsey – Actually there have been a stream of cases where the ECJ has ruled in favour of workers. Indeed that is one reason why the British (Labour!) government insisted on an opt out from the Charter of Rights – they feared the ECJ would use its powers of interpretation in ways that the employers would not like. I did not say there had been a dramatic turnaround in French “No” opinion (though there has been in Denmark.) I said that the wisdom of the “no” campaign was being debated. Some of the left “No” intellectuals actually opposed the Lisbon Treaty because they want something more “federalist” not less (see Susan George in Open Democracy).
“ALL the neo-liberal provisions already exist in earlier treaties.” -
John Palmer.
So previous pro-EU arguments from the ‘left’ were spurious?
I’d broadly tend to John’s view, albeit with some reservations. I do think that NATO should be consigned to history, and I can’t see a mechanism for doing this outside the EU. Moreover I agree with Jim re Frances record, but setting France within EU structures can act as a break on future adventures – precisely what we want. I also think that there is some serious underplaying of just what has been achieved as regards various rights by the EU, although Gypsey, I take your point that liberal doesn’t equal workers rights views… and I’d entirely agree with you that the ECJ requires some rethinking on that score amongst others. But the point is that the EU isn’t going to vanish tomorrow or next year or in the next decade so the choice – beyond the Lisbon referendum – then becomes do we engage or not? I’d say yes, and try to push it more in a leftwards direction.
And we’re to do that by dutifully trooping along behind IBEC, the Chamber of Commerce, Fine Gael, the Progressive Democrats, Fianna Fail and Labour, ticking the box where they tell us?
That’s going to “push it more in a leftwards direction” how precisely?
Libertas on channel 4. Excellent stuff.
Irish Mark P. If we don’t do anything to actually engage with Europe as is – again whatever the outcome of the referendum – then those forces you mention (and you ignore the centre left organisations that also are involved) will continue to predominate. Sure, we can sit in ideological splendour and all the while the right in all its forms and the centre will continue to keep their hold. They don’t seem to believe it is pointless to do so. Nor do they seem to believe they have to hold out for a ‘better’ neo-liberal Europe. They get stuck in and progress their agenda. And the point is that this happens whatever ones feelings on Lisbon pro or con.
Also worth noting that despite the current fractious sentiment broadly speaking there is a pro-European sentiment in this state.
G. wasn’t she passionate? !!!
She was indeed. On your other post, we must of course engage with the institutions as they stand, and try to turn them as far as possible to progressive ends, or at the least to blunt regressive moves. But I don’t see how it follows that from that the treaty should be supported. One can oppose it, and then work the system if the vote is lost. Seems to me what the left in places like Greece and Portugal do.
I agree this is a difference of tactics, but to my mind it makes more sense for the left to dive in. In a way it’s the logical extension of ejh’s point above but saying ‘you can’t say No to Europe just because the centre right is for it’. And I see this as an extension of the logic which led OSF to engage with parliamentary and government structures when others didn’t. All struggles are broad based and require different forms of engagement across a range of areas. The problem to me – say with MarkPs point – is that there seems to be more and more a default position of antagonism that say because the right does it we can’t do it… I know that’s not the position of the Greeks or Portugese or indeed others, but the point is that there is not pulling down the EU. That isn’t going to happen.
Surely it won’t be pulled down, and it must be worked. But diving in? I still don’t see that as the logical thing to do. And the fact it is very hard to reform doesn;t mean people should give up trying. A pragmatic approach is important. But doesn’t that apply even if you think you will lose (which is not necessarily the case here)? Campaigns are good organisers, profile raisers, and hopefully recruiters.
Faced to TERRORISM MEDIA in favour of ‘YES’, to disseminate these arguments in favour of the ‘NO’. Send this link ‘http://www.isfcc.org/’ to your email list
I am a Catholic who loves Ireland and Christian Europe
http://www.isfcc.org say:
I am a Catholic.
Can I approve of the Treaty of Lisbon?
The violation of non-negotiable principles raises a grave question of conscience for
Irish Catholics in the face of this referendum.
A spectre is haunting Europe—it threatens you, the Christian future of your family, of Ireland, and of the Continent. It is a European Union without God and without moral principles.
The Treaty of Lisbon seeks to reform, for you and for all Irish Catholics, the fundamental values which govern the functioning of the European Union. These new values are in stark contrast to the non-negotiable principles given by Pope Benedict XVI.
The Pope insists that, in the construction of Europe, there are three areas in which the Church defends “non-negotiable principles”:
• “the protection of life at every stage;
• “the recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family;
• “and the protection of the right of parents to educate their children”.
To be at peace with his conscience, when casting his vote in the referendum, a Catholic has to give absolute priority to these non-negotiable principles. The moral preservation of our children and the future prosperity of Catholic Ireland and of all Europe will depend on the level of respect that the E.U. shows towards these principles.
Catholics must reject the Treaty of Lisbon
Our Lord Jesus Christ commanded: “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His justice, and everything else shall be added on to you.” In contrast to the Divine commandment, if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified by Irish Catholics:
• The E.U. will ignore God and the Christian roots of Europe and will create a new European identity based on radical secularism and atheistic philosophies. We do not want our children to grow up in an Ireland without God!
• The E.U. will impose a relativistic and evolving idea of human rights, contrary to Catholic moral teaching. We do not want the relativisation of the principles that we will pass on to our children and grandchildren!
• The E.U. will considerably restrict the protection of human life and will facilitate abortion, euthanasia, and embryo experimentation. We do not want the mass murder of innocents being promoted throughout Europe!
• The E.U. will destroy the family by dissociating it from marriage between one man and one woman. Our children have the right to live in a normal home, in accordance with Catholic principles!
• The E.U. will impose excessive limits on the right of the parents to educate their children in accordance with their convictions. The freedom to pass on the Faith is a legacy that can never be challenged in Catholic Ireland!
• The E.U. will recognise, for the first time in the history of international treaties, “sexual orientation” as a basis for non-discrimination, opening the way for homosexual marriage and adoption of children by homosexuals. If today promiscuity and immorality already invade our homes and ruin the education of our children, what will it be like when these kinds of practices are imposed on us?
Catholics: only by uniting our voices can we be saved from this tragedy and this chastisement
To prevent Ireland and all of Europe from distancing itself even further from the Kingdom of God, Irish Society for Christian Civilisation is campaigning for a rejection of the Treaty of Lisbon in the name of the Catholic non-negotiable principles.
According to the late Pope, John Paul II, it is “the laity which by its particular vocation has the specific role of interpreting the history of the world in the light of Christ.”
If you consider it a matter of conscience to make heard the voice of Catholic Ireland in this debate, then you already are part of this campaign.
Click Here to read the study: “9 reasons why a conscientious Catholic citizen should reject the Treaty of Lisbon” (Click here for the document in .pdf format) or click here to order the printed booklet of this study, or to order flyers to distribute.
You will understand why this referendum is happening at this crucial time in our history, and why it is not right for a Catholic to abstain in this hour of need. Above all, you will be able to influence and direct others among your acquaintances, clarifying the issues for them to prevent them from voting for the Treaty of Lisbon through ignorance or because of media or peer pressure.
Participating in this campaign you will be doing your bit to alert our fellow Catholics so that, at the moment of casting their votes, they will remember what Jesus said: “He who is ashamed of Me and of My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes into His glory.” (Lk. 9:26)
For the honour and glory of the Most Sacred Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ, say no to the Treaty of Lisbon and you will be saying yes to a Catholic Ireland and yes to a Christian Europe.
Ok here’s a theory, amongst other nuggets buried in Lisbon Treaty is a small clause about member states spending min. 2% of GDP on defence – (neutrals included). The treaty was largely drafted by France, so what’s the deal?
Over the past 5 years ‘France PLC’ in the form of it’s defence companies have been buying huge chunks of worldwide defence companies.
GIAT Industries, Panhard et Lavassor SA, SNPE, SNECMA Group, Thomson SA, Dassault Industries SA, EADS etc etc.
France has been carefully positioning itself in the War Business.
The new European Army will use French guns and expensive French ammunition, will drive Renault trucks, will fire missiles directed by Galileo EGNOS – which will be run from France, (ESA Paris).
(€5bn extra funding from the EU agriculture budget recently redirected to pay for EGNOS cost overruns! – you got to hand it to them…the French really know how to treat the EU as their private bank!)
A Common Defence Policy run by Europe (read-France) will have to be paid for whether we send soldiers or not and with qualified majority voting how long before it’s 9% of GDP we’re being ‘asked’ for?
The world already has an out of control industrial war machine in the US, looks to me that we are being sold another one here?
John,
I respect your knowledge of the EU and the progressive stance you normally take, but with this treaty I feel you are being slightly disingenuous. There is absolutely no doubt the EU and its affiliate nations have attempted to railroad this treaty through, never a good sigh as far as their willingness to engage with their electorates, it also displays enormous contempt towards their electorates
That Irish citizens have an opportunity to vote on the treaty is something those of us who live in the rest of the EU should be very thankful for. I note you talk about how some on the left may vote, about the consequence that rejecting the treaty might be, yet you have hardly mentioned the benefits this treaty would bring to working class people. With respect Comrade, you are not alone here, as this is exactly what Irelands conservative parties, FF, FG, PD are also doing.
As to Europe’s left supporting the Treaty, correct me if I am wrong but I thought the European left party and its affiliates are against it. On this issue I feel I must say I feel SF have played an extremely productive role.
As to a EU army, come on, it is far to early for that, are you really asking for a European army when there is very little democratic structure in place within the EU. Do you believe the UK will give up its nuclear deterrent if it was part of an EU army, no, then that would mean the USA would have control over using it. more likely the UK and France nuclear deterrent would become Europe’s, more proliferation in other words.
Some are selling this as an EU constitution, if so it must be voted on by all the people of the EU not just the Irish. Not least as we are currently seeing in Turkey constitutions can be very dangerous things in the wrong hands.
Comradely regards John.
“opening the way for homosexual marriage and adoption of children by homosexuals. If today promiscuity and immorality already invade our homes and ruin the education of our children, what will it be like when these kinds of practices are imposed on us?”
Fuck me I didn’t realise that voting for Lisbon would mean I’d be sitting there with my feet up, only to have my spot on the sofa stolen by cavorting homosexuals and their adopted children. Maybe I’ll change my mind, and advocate a yes vote.
WBS, I agree that the EU isn’t going to vanish tomorrow but then again nor is the capitalist world in which we live. As far as I know most socialists don’t disagree with engaging with the world as we find it. But that doesn’t mean we suspend our critical faculties.
O.K. a lot of the time we think other socialists live in alternative universes but I suppose it depends on which glasses you put on in a given day.
But when all is said and done you can engage the world in a critical manner. On this topic I’d say no, trying to push it in a leftward direction.
But the point is that the EU isn’t going to vanish tomorrow or next year or in the next decade so the choice – beyond the Lisbon referendum – then becomes do we engage or not? I’d say yes, and try to push it more in a leftwards direction.
The last paragraph in what I last posted is a cut and paste from a previous WBS post (aide memoir and all that) which I didn’t edit out. Looks like posters quick on the send button can’t edit their mistakes. It being late at night -doesn’t help either.
Sorry modesto, I don’t get it, where’s the problem?
Gypsy (and apologies for mispelling that earlier), believe it or not I completely agree. I guess the only difference is the nature of the engagement – or what is the purpose of the exercise? But, that said, I’ll be glad when Lisbon is over, it’s a distraction to my mind and it tends to push people into an antagonostic rather than constructive frame of mind (on both sides of the issue).
Oh dear, oh dear – comrades really should first get the facts right before pontificating. Couldbewrongbut – security and defence, like foreign policy, is something subject to national veto and cannot be decided by majority vote. That will remain true under the new Treaty. Personally I am in favour of majority voting. I cannot think of a single progressive policy which has ever been safeguarded by the national veto. Can anyone else?
EU foreign and security policy could – if it is strengthened – become a real UN mandated alternative to the kind of big power imperialism of which we have too much around today. Worldbystorm is absolutely right – the left must first and foremost recognise the world in which we live. I repeat where “No” campaigns have been supported by the left, it is the right (especially the hard right) which has ALWAYS emerged stronger. Mick – what on earth is democratic about a vote in one country which denies the right of everyone else in the other countries who want to go ahead? Dont forget the constitution was also approved by a number of countries after a referendum. You must know that the euro-phobic, Thatcherite right wing in London is licking its lips at the prospect that “Paddy” (as their spokesman Frederick Forsyth described the Irish people this week) will do their duty by the mother country and rupture relations with Europe. Could THIS be the service rendered to the unronstructed British right wing establishment by Sinn Fein and the left “no” voters? As I said earlier – what then? Onto the Commonwealth?
I don’t like it because he likes it. Not a very good basis for serious political argument I’d have thought.
John Palmer wrote: “All the neo-liberal policies of the EU will remain intact if the treaty is rejected. What will be lost is the Charter of Fundamental (including some important principles regarding labour rights). Not a good deal I think.”
Hmm. But the Charter introduces no new competences and in any case is subordinate to the new increases in neoliberal policies? The Charter is a figleaf of no consequence. So I just don’t understand your logic above.
And speaking of fig leaves and window dressing, another one is the Citizen Initiative which is completely irrelevant as there is nothing to obstruct any number of citizens currently to ‘invite’ the Commission or any other body to consider anything.
Another feel-good irrelevancy is the climate change aspect. It, again, consists of nothing new in that regard and it does not give the EU any new powers. Well, apart from six words referencing climate change, which makes no difference at all.
However where the treaty is much much more explicit and where we can objectively see it as being ’strong’ is in the areas of increased neo-liberalisation (privatisation, deregulation, reduced-democracy etc), increased militarisations and military alliances (and war on terror implications), and pushing free-trade policies in trade talks (as an inserted European objective, of a total opening up of developing countries markets in trade discussions without having to consult with its member countries). The feel-good fig leaves are subordinate or are irrelevancies to the these areas.
So I really can’t see how some sections of the left can go with this one. The motivations and arguments seem dangerously close to the ‘decent’ lib-left support for the Iraq war, for Blair, for hand-wringing acceptance of meagre easily turned around ameliorations, or indeed complete window dressings,….
That the accusation could be made above that those who don’t ascribe to this approach are the posturers of futility, is purblind to the evidence of the last 30 plus years, never mind the historical perspective of real progressive change.
I have to say I think the willingness to accept a liberal-left ameliorating approach is the real posturing position and particularly in the current regional and global climate.
And I don’t see the correlation in John’s original argument either. In fact I’d suggest the opposite could be more likely with the current EU trend with an increase from the right and nationalistic tendicies stemming from Yes vote.
And with that in mind, a much more impressive, in my mind, and similar increasing nationalism argument to this one, was made recently by Tony Benn.
He outlined the lack of honest democratic consent for the people would vote the wrong way, and an open presentation of manifestos and trajectories, with respect to the EU, and made the case of this leading to an increase in resentment, disenfranchisement, rightist parties etc. Perhaps this trend is an adjunct to neoliberalism and neoliberal parties of the right? (I include New Labour in that and increasingly our own Labour party of course) (Harvey’s “A brief history of neoliberalism” is good in this regard). If so, and the EU is further pushing to enshrine these principles then it’s important to stand against that trend.
The comparison with a possible Yugoslavia situation came to mind when I heard Benn’s argument…. A bit apocalyptic that comparison to some, but the building resentment at the removal of certain democratic choices, is certainly there. The best way to diffuse it, is to vote against the current trend and work on the very hard task of building a real alternative while [i]also[/i] doing what we can to ameliorate.
The European superstate project can be stopped in its tracks next Thursday if the Irish hold our nerve and stay the course. The bureaucrats in Brussels and their Irish Vichy-puppets want to take away Ireland’s commissioner, vetoes, 50% of our voting weight on the Council and the right of Ireland to automatic EU referenda. That the elites want to force this Treaty on the French and Dutch peoples who voted no to its evil twin the EU Constitution is an outrageous attack on democracy. Noone who knows that it was already rejected in these countries can in good conscience vote yes, unless they want a European superstate and consider these countries mere provinces of a European empire. Vote no.
Pax – where to begin? You may think there is nothing in the Charter of Rights. All I can tell you is that perhaps the most powerful and sophisticated of the employers’ in the EU – the British – certainly do. They have persuaded Nu Labour to refuse to be bound by provisions which might affect relations between employees and their employers when the Charter is invoked in the ECJ. The British trade unions have (rightly) denounced this sell out by Brown et al. I am afraid your “above it all” denunciation of the Charter as irrelevent is miles away from what working people and their organisations need to see enchrined in EU law. You are also wrong about CO2 (climate change etc). By making this a matter of EU decision making (Commission, European Parliament, ECJ, majority voting) – not just cooperation subject to a veto – it becomes possible to break the veto powers of those states which want to do sweet FA about climate change. As I have said before – can those on the left supporting “No” tell me when the veto has EVER been used by states for a progressive purpose. The Irish political elite defend the tax veto – but this is to prevent any kind of progressive taxation on capital which might flow from thew rest of the EU! Your reference to Blair and Iraq takes my breath away – Blair refused to let foreign and security policy be subject to EU majority vote in part because he knew he could never get them to support the Bush/Blair invasion of Iraq. All of this confirms a depressing impression that there are too many on the left who have no idea what they will be voting about when they join with Libertas, the religious loonies and the Thatcherites to vote “No.”
JP your view on the Charter is different to everyone in CAEUC and the left No vote here, and I’m not surprised at hyperbole from some employer’s at an unlikely scenario but their unions are certainly in favour of the treaty.
Either way what I said is a fact, in that it introduces no new competencies into the union – i.e. they’re already their and this is used as a cover to sweeten the look of the treaty/constitution. The also are not addressed to the citizens of the Union but to the union’s institutions and it’s member states.
However they remain subordinated to the other neoliberal dispositions of “free and undistorted competition” and new more vigourous attacks on the public non-profit provision of services in health and education for instance.
So these ‘fundamental rights’ are thus in no way fundamental. The Union recognizes them but in no way guarantees that they will be applied. And of course in any case there’s nothing new there.
So you do agree with me that these fundamental rights don’t create “any competence or any novel task for the Union” (the Charter gives no new competencies) and that it simply pulls together rights that are existing already?
From Dick Roche 2003
http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0173/S.0173.200306100006.html
http://www.irlgov.ie/debates-03/s10Jun/Sn100603.pdf
The Convention proposes the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the con[567]stitutional treaty. Much work has been done by the Government in the Convention to clarify the scope and application of the charter, to ensure its incorporation confers no new competencies and that it applies only to the EU institutions and member states and only when implementing EU law. It will not affect the domestic legal orders of member states. This is an important issue in Ireland.
Your climate change point completely fails to address the point I made originally,
“Another feel-good irrelevancy is the climate change aspect. It, again, consists of nothing new in that regard and it does not give the EU any new powers. Well, apart from six words referencing climate change, which makes no difference at all.”
And it fails to address the treaty itself. I’m referring to Article 174 [191] and the six word amendment “and in particular combating climate change” It is completely dishonest to suggest this makes any difference at all when it introduces nothing new and no new powers. Again it’s just a fig leaf and window dressing.
JP your view on the Charter is different to everyone in CAEUC and the left No vote here, and I’m not surprised at hyperbole from some employer’s at an unlikely scenario but their unions are certainly in favour of the treaty.
Either way what I said is a fact, in that it introduces no new competencies into the union – i.e. they’re already their and this is used as a cover to sweeten the look of the treaty/constitution. The also are not addressed to the citizens of the Union but to the union’s institutions and it’s member states.
However they remain subordinated to the other neoliberal dispositions of “free and undistorted competition” and new more vigourous attacks on the public non-profit provision of services in health and education for instance.
So these ‘fundamental rights’ are thus in no way fundamental. The Union recognizes them but in no way guarantees that they will be applied. And of course in any case there’s nothing new there.
So you do agree with me that these fundamental rights don’t create “any competence or any novel task for the Union” (the Charter gives no new competencies) and that it simply pulls together rights that are existing already?
From Dick Roche 2003
http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0173/S.0173.200306100006.html
The Convention proposes the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the con[567]stitutional treaty. Much work has been done by the Government in the Convention to clarify the scope and application of the charter, to ensure its incorporation confers no new competencies and that it applies only to the EU institutions and member states and only when implementing EU law. It will not affect the domestic legal orders of member states. This is an important issue in Ireland.
Your climate change point completely fails to address the point I made originally,
“Another feel-good irrelevancy is the climate change aspect. It, again, consists of nothing new in that regard and it does not give the EU any new powers. Well, apart from six words referencing climate change, which makes no difference at all.”
And it fails to address the treaty itself. I’m referring to Article 174 [191] and the six word amendment “and in particular combating climate change” It is completely dishonest to suggest this makes any difference at all when it introduces nothing new and no new powers. Again it’s just a fig leaf and window dressing.
Pax – But you can equally well argue that the free market policies of the EU will be subordinated to the provisions of the Charter – or to the new “sustainability” committments. It is all a question of the balance of forces. Of course Roche plays down the Charter not to alarm employers in Ireland. But the Charter’s impact will – over time – expand as the ECJ interprets its meaning as cases are brought to it for judgement.
You are completely wrong on climate change. The new Lisbon Treaty provisions on climate mark perhaps the biggest step forward in any area. You do not seem to understand that by transferring decisions from “inter-governmental cooperation” to European Union law and decision making – especially recourse to majority voting – the prospects for serious post-Kyoto legislation (carbon emissions etc) are far, far greater. This represents a particular victory for the Nordic states which have been pressing this case for the past decade. Unfortunately the battle over corporate tax rates has not – so far – been won. THAT is down to the blocking minority alliance primarily between Dublin and London. I assume you would be in favour of scrapping the national veto in this area?
An interesting debate, I like John Palmer a lot as he is one of the few on the left who takes time to argue through EU issues. However whilst in the past he convinced me over the euro and in my view has been proved right, on this issue I feel he is on less solid ground and if I had a vote I would be voting no, as there is still far to much of a democratic deficit within the EU to justify a constitution let alone a national army.
Plus if there is to be a new EU constitution, a stipulation must be tagged on to it that all member states hold a referendum on it, with the same question being asked in all EU nations and the vote taking place at the same time throughout the EU. If they cannot agree on this then it is clearly not the time to move forward with a constitution. [why we still allow the flim flam politicos to dictate to us by calling this a treaty is beyond me]
It is interesting, just thinking though about your last point Mick, would that be more or less democratic say than asking the same question to a single EU wide constituency?
I’m certainly with John’s point about ‘balance of forces’. That’s crucial. As leftists of various stripes shouldn’t we be dug in rather than always edging towards the exit door (edging rhetorically, that is rather than actually – just like the UK Conservatives).
I should not trespass too much further on the tolerance of this network BUT .. just a few points. Mick: If we are to decide things by referendum (something denounced by Marx as a “villainous species of Bonapartist plebiscite” – maybe he was wrong) then lets have an EU wide plebiscite. There would clearly have to be a “Yes” threshold to pass – 51%? But everyone would have to be bound. IF we are to have purely “national” referendums than a minority “No” outcome should have consequences – such as: the majority is free to go ahead on their own and the minority has to negotiate a new relationship from scratch. Again, on this, I am with Worldbystorm.
Its difficult to see how a Yes or a No vote is going to make much difference: the same propertied class will be in control. An international capitalist class exists. Some oppose Lisbon. Some don’t. So its neither a right nor a left issue.
“So it must have seemed the most natural thing in the world to make the house owned by Ulick’s company in the south of France available for Mary Harney and Charlie McCreevy when the McEvaddys weren’t using it recently.”…
“Ulick’s experience in military intelligence must have been a great door-opener when he dealt with the US and the armed forces of other countries. It is now 20 years since they established Omega Air, specialising in Boeing 707s, the workhorses of the aviation industry.”
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/brothers-with-altitude-400889.html
I also tend to agree with you CL.
Why do people insist in trying to label the EU as either neo-liberal or socialist? It seems to me that the EU is neither. The Union has arrived where it is through the input of governments from a wide range of ideologies and nationalities. No single ideology therefore characterises the EU. It is true that massive global forces which promote or facilitate free movement of capital have made most European governments realise that old style socialist is no longer viable. There is a sense that one has to hook in to the global system in order to thrive. That means accepting that enterprise must be promoted, trade increased, and competition fostered. Yet the EU has attempted to do this while maintaining stringent regulations, protecting workers, and casting human rights in stone. It attempts therefore to strike a balance. True, in a meld of 27 countries and using complex decision making procedures, the result is necessarily uneven and much improvement could be imagined. It is possible to argue too that the balance is going too far in one direction or the other, but that is a matter of fine tuning, not switching off. I agree with John Palmer that the EU has been the source of a great chunk of workers rights – for example, of the 20 or so significant pieces of Irish legislation protecting workers since 1973, about one half were transposing EU directives. Even this week, the EU was attempting to sign off on a directive to give agency workers rights that would be identical to full time workers. Two countries were objecting – the UK and Ireland (as they did with the directive on the 48hr max hours per week) . Despite its attempts to promote business and to make European companies competitive on the global stage, the EU is still concerned about workers rights. The desire to strike a balance remains.
John Palmer briefly mentioned the idea of an EU wide plebiscite. This reminds me of the No people who lament that the proposed president of the Council is not going to be directly elected by the people of Europe. The idea of an EU wide plebiscite makes no sense. There is no Eu wide demos, and the people of Europe are far too remote from the institutions of the EU in order to make a direct call. How could we identify with a candidate for president? How could we assess his or her platform? Furthermore, if 51% were the threshold we would lose out. As would all small states. At least under Lisbon the proposed president would be elected by QMV, designed not to allow veto, but also designed to protect small states, 5 states can block and 15 are required to pass. But more important than all this, is the fact that an EU wide plebiscite would undermine the intergovernmental nature of the EU as it stands today. It would be a move towards a more federal, unitary polity. Frankly, I believe that our interests are best served in the intergovernmental model. And I think that those in the No camp who regret that the president under Lisbon is not directly elected have not thought it through terribly well.
27 governments of various stripes come together. And the document isn’t socialist? And the EU isn’t left or right per se. It’s like you say Tomaltach (and CL too), where is the surprise? Mind you Vincent Browne in an interesting – but somewhat talking out of both sides of his mouth – piece in yesterdays SBP argued that Vote No or Yes to irritate the opposing side Yes or No. He made a further point. To make the EU more democratic and shift it from the intergovernmental model would necessitate a deeper federal structure – which as he noted would incense much of the No side. Problem here is that the analyses tend to zero sum stuff. In other words per definition pooled sovereignty is bad, or if 27 national governments agree its bad (or elitist). Hence my wish this was all over…
Tomaltach/WorldbyStorm: Surely it is precisely decision by “inter-governmental cooperation” which is the least democratic aspect of the entire EU process. When, in contrast, decisions are taken under what is called the “European process” (proposal by the Commission joint decision by the Council of Ministers representing the governments and by the directly elected European Parliament), the whole thing is far more open and transparent. Inter-governmental cooperation is a by word for shady deals in smoke filled rooms. That also goes for appointments to the Presidency of the Commission and other posts. One of the advances of the Lisbon Treaty is that it opens the way for VOTERS to effectively choose the next President of the Commission since the parties contesting the European Parliament elections next year would be entitled to put their rival candidates for electoral approval if the treaty is passed. Yes, this IS a step towards a more federal system but that is seen in most EU countries are far more democratic and decentalised that the Inter-Governmental Cooperation stitch up. Vincente Browne is right about that. But (Tomaltach) one cannot reduce the whole thing to an abstract “Capitalism or Socialism” alternmative. That is not where we are. We do have the chance to open up new avenues for democratic politics at the European level by votiung YES. By voting NO we consolidate the stitch up. For heaven’s sake we live in a world which is becomming ever more globalised. We can and should use the fight for democratic, progressive European politics as a bench mark for the coming struggle for a democratic global governance. Either that – or we leave the world to the multi-nationals and the Pentagon. (Note John Bolton has said the Lisbon Treaty will weaken US/NATO strategy!)
John,
First, I will be voting yes.
Second thing I would say is I share your concern about the lack of transparency in the intergovernmental process. And that is why I rather like the idea of the European parliament having wider power of co-decision. And I also rather like the way in which the Commission is an attempt to be non-national, though I have read lately that the commission is becoming increasingly politicised. (To be honest, I don’t have enough information to say how much this is the case).
But the fact is, the European parliament is still not, in my opinion, cohesive enough in terms of the party structure, or well enough connected to its electoral base to be regarded as the ultimate safe guard of the interests of the Irish people (or any other nationality for that matter, though it is obvious that the larger states here have a huge advantage). In the end, it is still very sensible that key direction and major legislative proposals pass before the eyes of memebers of the national governments. Europe wide democracy and federation is a pleasing concept in theory, but if you prefer significant power remaining with nation states and if you accept that each nation has red areas that it should guard, then intergovernmentalism is far and away the safest bet. Not pretty, but safer. Which is why I would be loathe to lose that key aspect of the Union. Give more oversight to parliament or national parliaments, by all means very welcome. Give more transparency to the Council, by all mean, very welcome. But keep the intergovernmental nature of the Union.
You argue that One of the advances of the Lisbon Treaty is that it opens the way for VOTERS to effectively choose the next President of the Commission since the parties contesting the European Parliament elections next year would be entitled to put their rival candidates. This is factually wrong. The EU parliament under Lisbon gets the right to vote yes or no to a single proposed candidate emanating from Council (where the candidate is agreed first by QMV). So no such power goes to the voters. Even if the Eu parliament had full power to select and ratify a candidate, I would still say this is not as democratic as it seems. I say this because on the basis of the weaknesses in the democratic fibre of the European Parliament which I have mentioned above.
Tomaltach – I think we have a large measure of agreement. But on the question of the election of future Presidents of the Commission, the way is now open for the EU political parties to nominate their preferred candidates when they fight the June 2009 European Parliament elections. There is a debate going on NOW inside most if not all the major parties about this. The Greens have majority support for this and the Danish President of the PES – the mainstream EP social democrats, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, is strongly in favour. Many Liberals and Christian Democrats (but not Tories) are in favour. Of course it will be tricky agreeing who each party should nominate. It will be novel for the campaign to be more genuinely cross border than in the past. But there is chance ( IF the treaty passes) for this new direction to begin. Consequently voters would have real power to decide who should lead the EU executive (Commission). Of course the successful candidate would have to have majority EP support and we can not be certain this will be a progressive. But that is true of any election. As for the role of the European Council there has been an important change. The Council can only formally propose a candidate to the European Parliament “based on the results of the European Parliament elections” – namely a candidate who actually or potentially reflects the majority of elected members. This takes it OUT of the smoke filled rooms.
I can see some on the right are desperate to defend “national red lines” and the national state veto. But where does the left have an interest in this. The veto and “national interest” has been invoved in this referendum against EU set tax policies. But THAT is only to defend a regime the imposes scandalously low levels of tax on big business. The vast marority of people (and governments) throughout the EU want a much fairer system of taxation.
John,
I looked again at the clause on election of the President of the Commission. You are right – the Council must take into account the result of the election to the European parliament. I withdraw my statement that you had it factually incorrect.
Returning to your closing remarks about the left, the national veto, and corporate tax. In terms of protecting the national voices in Europe, you ask But where does the left have an interest in this.. First, I’m not a particular fan of the veto. You are right it is undemocratic. But likewise I recognise that in a flat Eu, that is to say federal, or entirely supranational, it is easy to imagine that many outcomes might not be what we, the Irish people, feel is in our best interest. In that light, I feel it is much more prudent to make key deals as participating nation states, not as 4m out of 500million. So the veto is undemocratic and in a flat Eu we would be too weak. In between there is a middle ground. That middle ground is a strong voice for us as a member state where we can bring our considerable diplomatic skill and heritage to bear on significant decisions. I argue that the Eu is neither socialist nor neo-liberal but a an attempt to reach a balance betweent the competing demands of the economic and the social. In that uneven balance, outcomes will sometimes conflict seriously with the interests of a small, marginal state. In those circumstances it is prudent to retain a significant voice above and beyond what would be available in wholly supranatioanl Union.
Regarding coporate tax. The commission proposals (and the agenda driven by Germany and France) whereby tax is calculated on the basis of deeper and broader parameters, is, on the face of it, both sensible and fair. But again there are complicating factors.
First, history has brought us to a point where Ireland’s economic prosperity deepends heavily on FDI. Corporate tax is a significant part of that equation. While it would be very wise to strive to wean ourselves off this dependency, it would be foolish to surrender this bulwark of our economy before we build alternatives. (probably a CCTB is coming anyway and other countries are already competing with us so this is or should be an urgent matter in government).
Second is that while a CCTB looks fair and sensible, in reality it might not be fair at all. France and Germany have very significant advantages over us in other areas, not least critical mass in terms of their technological, industrial, and diplomatic capacities. Is it not reasonable, therefore, that tiny, peripheral states should be allowed a certain amount of leeway to level the playing field. I’m sure the Germans would look at our extraordinary FDI figures and say that our advantage is far far greater than what is needed to reach a balance. Perhaps. But the point is that small nations with no industrial base to speak of have a good case for special measures.
For the broader question about the fairness of the Irish tax base in terms of captial versus labour, for sure, I am fully in favour of a rebalance, but it has to come without serious damage to the overall economy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/07/eu.france
The above article from the Guardian on Saturday to me lets the cat out of the bag. Rather than NATO being left to die it is being revived stronger than ever in an EU disguise.
Buried in the not so small print of Lisbon are the articles facilitating this.
There is no ideological problem for FF, FG, Labour and now the Greens with EU militarism.
It will be suitable disguised with humanitarian aid for those with scruples.
Aside form possibly Liberia most of our miklitary stuff abroad was effectively aiding Imperialism. Look at the Lebanon where the Israelis or their proxies killed a large number of our troops without much of a complaint from our pro Israeli government.
In Darfur with its complications and constantly changing alliances we are walking into trouble. As regards the Afrian Union, most of the regimes are fairly awful (ok an non political term but I cannot think of much else to describe what are sometimes called the Mer Benzies).
Ireland with our ruling class are easily manipulated.
Pretty desperate stuff Jim. Your view also conflicts with leading Bush Administration ideologists such as John Bolton whosays that a stronger EU is “a threat to the very future existence of NATO.” By the way EU troops have been keeping the peace in a number of other west African crisis states apart from Liberia. In Sierra Leone for example how has this served the interests of “imperialism?”. Or, in the Balkans, how has the successful peace keeping EU operation in Macedonia served imperialism? The development of multilateral security bodies such as the EU, the AU and others – working to UN mandates – are the antidote to imperialism not the means of its enhancement.
Going back nearly to the start of the comments; Gypsy, the socialist folkeparti of whom you wrote, did so well in their last elections *after* becoming generally less lefty and euro-sceptic. In the European Parliament they abandoned the GUE-NGL Group (the new home of the shinners) in 2004 for the Greens-EFA Group.
Say Yes to became a slave !
Understand that EU is going to be an awful dictatorship
Just listen to this :
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=rNj5iCU5mLg
EU is so democratic
That I can’t vote ?!!
Save us brothers,
Say NO to this – censored – treaty !
Hmmm… baudricourt… ‘brothers’ you say?
veryvert, after your message I decided to look up their website and according to that, they are still a member of the GUE-NGL. And I don’t see any sign of them being less lefty. Unless of course you read the following article differently. http://international.sp.nl/bericht/25849/080528-a_plea_to_the_irish_people_vote_no.html
If the deal is so good for Ireland, why can’t the government leaders and wannabe leaders bring anything else to the debate other than ‘they gave us money before, we kinda owe them this’?
Considering that the document is SO big, why is there so many gaps?
Gaps that apparently will be filled in post-acception of the treaty?????
I’m a lover of the EU but this smells funny.
If they want a ‘Yes’ vote, start being honest.I’ll be voting ‘NO’.
Therese. But it is simply not true to argue that the Yes camp offer nothing but “owe them”. The arguements have been made repeatedly that Lisbon aimed to reform the institutions, clarify and enhance EU competence, and enhance democratic oversight so that the Union would be better prepared for the challenges it faces in a world that is changing extremely rapidly. The EU has spent 6 years on this reform while the world has moved on very quickly. Context is important. The industrial revolution which began in Europe and later propelled the US to a world Superpower has now belatedly caught on in Asia and other parts of the developing world. It is happening at lightening pace. Growth in the US and the EU as around one point something. It is closer to 10 (for a sustained period) in giant countries like China. I don’t want to sound like scaremongering but both American and Europe appear paralysed. Both need to sort themselves out and get on with facing the huge challenges that are already clear. Europe has made a pretty good in imperfect stab at reform to meet some of those challenges. But it cannot wait another 5 or 10 years.
clarify and enhance EU competence, and enhance democratic oversight so that the Union would be better prepared for the challenges it faces in a world that is changing extremely rapidly
Have you been on a course?
It’s just the language used in these contexts. Nothing terribly sinister ejh…
I agree with the post of John Palmer. The neo-conseratives in Washington are scared-to-death of the Lisbon Treaty as it is seen as “undermining the transatlantic links.” The Lisbon Treaty could allow for a more independent-from-the US European foreign and security policy, which is something many have been hoping for…
and if the Irish mobs have their way, and there is a “no” vote, there only purpose .
BTW, the same neo-con ilk in Washington is the same ilk the belittles Europe. I would not be at all surprised if neo-con and American Republican Party activists are active in Europe and are behind the “no” vote campaign – and perhaps behind the election of Sarkozy.
The Lisbon Treaty will liberate Europe from the American ball and chain – and there must be some way to bring Lisbon into force even if their is a “no” vote out of Ireland.
The future of Europe must not be held to the Irish mob!
very droll ESLaPorte. Particularly the ‘mobs’ bit. I really hope that’s a mistranslation.
@ WorldbyStorm
All Human is my brother !
http://policedumondeparodique.blogspot.com/2008/05/euro-maxima.html
As a dutch citizen I am one of the people that voted against the constitution 2 years ago. This time round we do not get any say in the matter and just have to accept the treaty on the word of our politicians.
Since they scrapped the ‘constitution’ word, a referendum isn’t needed to condone the ‘treaty’. Never mind that the actual contents of the document are 98% the same.
The EU started as an intent to economical cooperation between nations. Somewhere along the line politics got thrown into the mix, and by now it’s not about economical matters anymore. It’s evolved into a political prestige project. And it should go back to it’s basics… Just treaties to support economical cooperation!
I wish the people of Ireland wisdom in choosing their vote, but personally I hope with all my heart they will vote a resounding ‘No’ to the treaty.
For if the EU is meant to be so democratic… why don’t they let the people speak out their opinions on the treaty? Please… vote ‘No’!
Well, as I was saying to Gypsy, surely part of the reason is the small issue about national sovereignty and the right of all nations to order their electoral affairs as they see fit. Consequently it’s up to the Dutch and all other 26 to do it either in parliamentary votes or referendums, certainly not up to me to dictate what a nation should do.