The vision thing… Declan Ganley of Libertas speaks against the European superstate by suggesting… something close to a nascent European superstate. June 16, 2008
Posted by WorldbyStorm in European Union, Irish Politics.trackback
Okay, I exaggerate a little… But only a little… for today brings us an interview with Declan Ganley in the Irish Times. What’s important about it is that it goes straight to the heart of the Libertas project and raises some fascinating questions about their vision for Europe. Or rather the competing vision we are presented with is one that I actually find more, rather than less, concerning than Lisbon as regards the ultimate nature of the EU.
That said, I should preface this by noting just how adeptly Libertas ran their campaign. Way back when I may have suggested that the publicity material and billboards they were using were not great. I was missing the big picture. That the billboards were going up well in advance of the Referendum was sufficient unto itself. They managed to shape the argument at a time, when as noted here, the rest of the political world was fixated on other issues. Now, none of this was rocket science, and perhaps is easier for a group like Libertas to do, not least because of access to funds. But above and beyond the issues concerned it points to a dramatic inability amongst our supposed political classes to appreciate how the nature of the exercise has changed.
This has some serious implications, not least for Brian Cowen. His party rating in the last poll was good. Very good in fact. It will be interesting to see if some of the gloss has come of it subsequently. For Fine Gael the rating was pretty shabby. I expect no improvement. Labour has been rising slowly but surely over the past six months. Gilmore’s unequivocal, and correct, assertions about Lisbon can hardly dampen that. The PDs hardly registered and the Greens lack of a stance may have wound up being a better place to be in than they could ever have envisaged. And for Sinn Féin although not necessarily the kiss of life they may expect it is a good performance that can only assist Mary Lou McDonald in the ever more constrained – and now three seat – Dublin European election constituency next year. Not to mention the local elections.
And here is the thing. Our electoral cycle has been changing in recent years. By way of example consider the pressures from elements within FG, near apoplectic at their continuing sojourn on the opposition benches, which has led to a serious disintegration of relations within the Dáil. Cowen received no honeymoon at all from them. There is a strong argument that that is how it should be. But consequently stuff has to happen otherwise it simply becomes sterile argy bargy across the chamber. And stuff is happening. European elections, local elections, possible referendums on children, and so on. The next four years prior to the General Election in 2012 are going to be packed out with all parties vying for better positioning.
So while direct correlations between the Lisbon Treaty referendum may be hard to chart, the environment that we saw there is likely to be replicated. We can expect better campaigns of greater length, from all players. This doesn’t mean that I envisage Sinn Féin making some striking breakthrough either next year or in 2012. It will be tough enough to hang on to what they hold and make the two or three potential seat gains that they arguably deserve considering the work put in. The idea of Libertas, or God forbid (!) Coir, contesting Dáil elections successfully seems minimal. I’ve asked it before, where would Ganley set up shop? What constituency would be suitable for him? But, that said, a European seat might be a better bet. It is just that it is difficult to see precisely where he could transmute whatever capital Libertas has into solid electoral gold.
And then… and then there is the message that he is putting out. Now, can I reiterate once more that I’m not an EU federalist, that while I strongly believe in deepening and strengthening cooperation I also believe in limitations on integration and the broad primacy of nation states. It’s a case by case, area by area issue for me. Can I also reiterate that there was a NO vote, that this means that for Ireland Lisbon is finished. That anything from here on in will have to take a different form. What that form may be is obviously up for grabs. My suspicion that it will be close to a Lisbon redux but with clear opt-outs and a number of other aspects (presumably a Commissioner, and incidentally wouldn’t it be nice to acknowledge the de facto rather than de jure aspect of the Commission i.e. that it does represent national interests to a degree and should indeed do so?).
This is a tricky area because both Sinn Féin and Libertas have argued something along the lines of renegotiation. I’ve never been quite clear does that mean of the Treaty as a whole or a new Treaty. And the leaflet that I have from SF isn’t too clear either. It states amongst others that “To Keep Ireland at the Heart of Europe we Need” [and I paraphrase]:
… a permanent EU Commissioner and maintain our voting strength… a specific article protecting neutrality… opt-outs ending financial support for nuclear power/EDA… taxation… exempting health and education from privatisation…protections for workers’ pay and conditions….
The mention of ‘a specific article’ suggests that they envisage precisely a Lisbon Treaty redux but Gerry Adams interviewed in the Irish Times was more clear:
“The Taoiseach won’t need a team talk from me but he needs to go back and tell the EU what they know already, that treaties need support from all the states, that this treaty is finished, that a new treaty is required,” he said.
He argued, according to the IT that: The retention of an Irish commissioner is central to any renegotiation of the Lisbon Treaty
And also that:
Mr Adams accepted there could be a second referendum, but only if there was a renegotiation. He said a little tweaking with the text would be unacceptable to his party.
Incidentally there’s nothing I’d quibble with on their list – I just don’t think they’re all achievable. But who knows? These are in the unlovely phrase – uncharted waters.
And what of Libertas? Well, here are the thoughts of Chairman Ganley…
Immediately following the result, major leaders of the EU project, who had assured us all before the vote of their love of democracy began openly talking about finding a way to circumvent the democratically expressed will of the Irish people. President Sarkozy, who has ignored his own people’s rejection of the same formula, has taken to referring to our referendum result as an “incident” which can be overcome. Their argument is a simple one, but one that is equally simply deconstructed. 26 member states either have or will ratify Lisbon, and one has failed to do so – why should Ireland hold up Europe? The answer is something that ordinary people can quite easily grasp, but that appears beyond the grasp of our leaders. The moral power of a popular referendum is infinitely greater than that of ratification by parliament in a political system where a majority of government and opposition parties agree.
Lisbon is indeed dead. For Ireland. But, is it in all its areas dead for other states? What about Spain and Luxembourg who voted Yes in referendums to the Constitution originally? What of states where there is no provision for referendums on such matters. Is the EU now to become a supposedly democratic wedge forcing states to rework their own historically validated democratic arrangements? Which is not to to say that the unanimity rule can be overturned, but… that it is reasonable for the countries that do wish to to work together as they see fit. That too is their democratic right and under enhanced cooperation (excepting CFSP) is entirely legitimate under Nice). Either national sovereignty is paramount in the way in which states organise their internal affairs, and we should not question it, or it isn’t. But if it isn’t…
Take Ireland as an example. 53 per cent of the Irish electorate oppose Lisbon. 94 per cent of our elected politicians support it. There is no prospect in the immediate future of a major political party in the State changing its view on Lisbon, and as such, our electoral system offers no real choice to those of us who feel that European policy is on the wrong track. The same situation is repeated in an overwhelming majority of EU member states, and to suggest, as our leaders do, that those systems for ratification have the same moral weight as our referendum is frankly ludicrous.
The reality is that in general Europe is low on the list of voters priorities. And not just voters, but also activists. One of the most interesting aspects of the referendum was to look back over the response to posts which our Euro-critical contributor franklittle had made in the last twelve months. The number of comments tended towards the lower end of the scale. This was in no part due to fl’s posts, but seems to me to be more indicative of general interest even in this hotbed of the elite intellectual liberal left… 
Now, granted during this time period interest peaks, but it will wane.
If Europe is to succeed and if it is to have the powers it wants, it must be seen to be legitimate, and true political legitimacy in a democratic society can only come from voters who have been presented with a real choice. I truly believe that European voters want to make a positive choice, in favour of a new Europe, but they can only do that if they can hold the key decision makers to account.
Those leaders must now face up to the reality that on three occasions, electorates in three culturally, politically, and historically distinct nations have rejected the formula that they have chosen to present to us. On the previous occasion, a cynical attempt was made to circumvent that result, and silence the will of those electorates who had rejected the Constitution. On this occasion, the early indications are that this is the instinctive approach of our leaders on this occasion also.
So, what different formula can we expect?
The solution to this should be obvious to our leaders. Most Europeans want to see our Union grow, prosper, and lead, and realise that for this to occur, further and deeper integration between member states is a necessity. Voters, in my view, will accept that. In return, however, they want to be given the chance to have a real input into the direction that a new, more powerful, and more credible Union takes.
As it happens I support further and deeper cooperation between member states. It’s a subtle distinction, but it’s important. One of the key issues for me of Lisbon was the Article outlining a secession process. Not because I wish it to be used but because I think national states have a right to do so. I want nation states to continue to be the ultimate arbiters of decision making in specific areas. I find aspects of the standardisations in various areas, agriculture, environmental legislation and so on, to be broadly positive. I’m not overly troubled by the EU legislation that is incorporated into Irish legislation. Indeed, I was entertained to read on the Sinn Féin site the following:
• Sinn Féin is also calling for the full transposition into domestic law of the three existing EU Equality Directives (including the Gender Equal Treatment Directive), and for the introduction of more comprehensive EU anti-discrimination legislation including a new comprehensive Gender Equality Directive.
• Sinn Féin supports the call of the European Women’s Lobby for the introduction of binding gender parity measures in the next EU Treaty, the appointment of at least 40% women to the next EU Commission, the appointment of a qualified woman President of the EU Commission, and the adoption of similar equal representation measures by the new European Parliament.
No disagreement from me with that…
But in these discussions it must come back to the nations involved. There must always be the option – not in a negative fashion simply to lever unreasonable national advantage, but there nonetheless – to resile from such cooperation in various areas. How does Ganley see that operating? Well, it’s not entirely clear.
The challenge, therefore, is to reform the Union in such a way that it brings people from vastly differing cultural and political heritages together, and gives them a chance to speak with one voice on a regular basis.
Okay.
I personally believe that the idea of an EU president is a good and sound one, but only if that person is democratically elected by Europe’s citizens, has a much stronger EU parliament to act as a check on his or her power, and is forced to submit him- or herself to the people at agreed intervals for their record to be judged. Member states must have permanent and credible representation on a commission that respects the principle of subsidiarity.
Interesting. Is he advocating that, in a sort of political leap frog, a directly elected Presidency plus a commissioner validates the project in some hitherto unsuspected way?
I am not advocating a European superstate;
Well, it sure sounds like he is suggesting something more likely to lead ultimately to a superstate with a character quite different to that of the preceding state of affairs in Europe. The sort of Presidency suggested pushes us closer towards a US situation than that envisaged even under Lisbon where the Presidency remained a logical outworking of the Council/Commission/Parliament mode of operation. This is not to say that it’s an absolutely awful idea, there are positives in this, but also negatives, not least of which is the centripetal tendency of any office as regards increasing power, particularly one which could point to democratic legitimation by an EU wide vote.
I am, however, suggesting one possible way to begin the process of creating a pan-European polity, wherein people are given a meaningful say in the process that now generates a majority of most member states’ laws.
The problem with a pan-European polity is that it inevitably weakens national interests. This central paradox is part of the problem of combining supranational and national interests. We can’t, proponents or critics of the project, avoid it. The best we can do is manage it and determine where we best think the balance lies.
And I can’t help but think that Ganley must know this, that as time progresses we will hear a ‘more in sorrow than in anger’ retreat from his europhiliac language as Europe ‘let’s him down’ in one way or another. Perhaps in effect establishing a straw man that he can then knock down himself. Unless he is entirely sincere in what he says here. Which is puzzling not least because of the concentration during the campaign on the Commissioner issue, something he surely realised was a function of Nice and democratically validated through that referendum. But if sincere, is it that he seeks to project a different sort of Euro critical stance, somewhat less abrasive than traditional euroscepticism? The oddity is that the solutions he offers seem to push towards long term destinations that are the opposite of euroscepticism.
And what of when he concludes…
If Mr Cowen can persuade his colleagues of this, and get them to act, I would hope that many of us who said No on this occasion could, in our own small way, join him in asking Irish people to support what he brings to us. Europe’s leaders stand this week at a fork in the road.
An olive branch? An assertion that given the ‘right’ formula he’s onside?
All very emollient. All very reasonable. I genuinely don’t have a clue where we go from here other than that Lisbon as such is over. Reading all this I’m beginning to wonder does he? Does anyone?
Looks like Ganley is positioning himself to stand for the European parliament. He asserts that he is not now and never has been a neocon. But the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and the articles he wrote for it, have a decidedly neocon bent. And the FPRI annual dinner next November will honour and feature a keynote address by John Bolton.
The Brit daily mail was heavily backing Ganley.
It certainly does CL. But can you see a likely constituency for him? He’ll avoid Dublin I’ll bet.
V. true Gorby… and reading between the lines so was the Sun.
will he even run though? I think CL is spot on to join those dots but there are far more dots that can be joined up if you are running for office, because he was in some sense “the respectable face of opposition” media found it hard to dig dirt and opponents hard to land punches. I cant see it being that way if he runs in 2009.
There is a question then of whether he desires to tough it out and see how he fares or attempt to confer the Libertas cache on another candidate? Were he to run he would never go for Dublin (Mary Lou makes four for three and his running means neither get in – paradoxically hurting the ’cause’)
Would it be West/North-west? Galway base, independent minded voters, plenty of disillusioned farmers and fishermen who dont want to drop out of Europe but reform it. Not sure he would get a hearing in the other two options. Especially in Cowen’s back yard.
erm that isnt supposed to be a smilie just a closed bracket
and as such, our electoral system offers no real choice to those of us who feel that European policy is on the wrong track.
Interestingly, given the list of ex-comrades who constitute the ‘members’ of Libertas, I’ve heard the “choice” line pedalled at length before by members of the Freedom Institute, Waghorne in particular (note to gorby: yes, the Daily IRISH Mail ‘correspondent’/columnist).
Back issues of Magill (from before the FI’s yellowpacks were sent pink slips) will prove illuminating on following Ganley’s likely line of rhetoric on this isue.
Were he to run he would never go for Dublin (Mary Lou makes four for three and his running means neither get in – paradoxically hurting the ’cause’
I wouldn’t look at it that way. SF/leftie voters are unlikely to ever vote for Ganley or one of his employees, and the reverse is true. More likely is that their hopes rest on eating into the more respectable parties.
I guess Cian the Galway thing might work for him. Tricky though. Incidentally it usually is an ordinary smiley.
EWI, ah, ‘choice’… what a great word, and it can mean anything!
EWI, re 7, which party though. Perhaps with the demise of the PDs and the subsiding FG vote there is some room for the latest ‘new’ alternative…
Can he pick up the Dana vote? I expect so.
Good post. As you note, that piece by Ganley in today’s Irish Times was quite telling. Unfortunately I don’t have it in front of me now, so I’m working from memory, and from your extracts, but what I found most interesting was the fact that it was utterly devoid of any serious concrete proposals for institutional reform in the future. On the question of the “EU President”, he should know that the President of the European Council (which already exists as an unelected position – Lisbon only changes the way the individual is chosen) actually has no formal power and is actually a chairman, so it’s difficult to see how the EP is supposed to act as a ‘check’ on him. Unless, of course, Ganley is suggesting far more radical institutional changes than anything included in the Lisbon Treaty, in which case where’s the actual proposal and why’s he only raising it now?
He’s also falling into the same trap that many of those who talk about the supposed ‘democratic deficit’ in the Union. As has been well noted elsewhere, the only way to make the Union more democratic is to move towards a more federal model and reduce the sovereignty of Member States. In a more “democratic” Europe, Ireland’s voting weight should be reduced, and Germany’s increased. This, of course, is one of the grounds on which Libertas opposed the Lisbon Treaty. Frankly, from today’s piece, I would tend towards the view that Ganley is throwing terms like “further and deeper integration” around simply in order not to appear to be a UKIP-style Eurosceptic, but without substance behind what he says. Where’s the beef (as it were)?
The only other concrete proposal that he suggests is the retention of the Commissioner which, as you rightly point out, is actually ruled out by the provisions of the Nice Treaty. Ganley spent so much time emphasising that he had read the Lisbon Treaty (ever the intellectual – no wonder Libertas represents itself as a ‘think tank’), you can’t help but wonder if he ever read its predecessor and, if so, why did he vote for it? I actually disagree with you where you posit a permanent Commissioner as a presumable outcome of a post-Lisbon compromise. While I hope to come back to this issue in a substantial post in the near future, I actually think this is one of the issues where the EU26 will dig their heels in and insist that the change is implemented (it doesn’t actually need Lisbon to be ratified in any event). Incidentally, I’d also disagree on whether the Commission represents national interests and whether it should, but let’s not open that particular can of worms today.
Finally, though, just on the Commissioner point, that Sinn Féin suggestion that you highlight – the 40% gender quota for the Commission – is a little confusing. Presumably, SF supports the retention of the right of each Member State to nominate its own Commissioner (as well as to having a permanent Commissioner). That being the case, which states do they suggest choose boys, and which choose girls?
The federal Europe = more democratic theory only works if we accept that all Europeans have the same interests. Otherwise, the interests of the big states will overrun those of the smaller in a way that is not possible now. But the PSF proposal is extremely silly while trying to be radical sounding. Not of course that that could be extended in a general critique.
Accepted Garibaldy, although with respect I think you slightly misread the point I was trying to make (I should have been clearer). I wasn’t suggesting that a federal Europe would necessarily be more democratic. Indeed, it’s easy to visualise a completely federal EU which is far less democratic than the current arrangement. What I was saying was different; it was that a more democratic Europe (“democratic” meaning that equal weight is given to the views and interests of each citizen) must, by necessity, be a more federal one than at present. There’s a direct contradiction between prioritising ‘national sovereignty’ within the Union and addressing the much-vaunted democratic deficit. However, the point you make is absolutely valid and goes to showing why addressing the issue of democracy and the EU is much more complicated than some of those who like to talk about the ‘Brussels elite’ would like to concede.
Garibaldy, that’s entirely my critique of it as well. Yes to federalism in theory… but the practice… how, when, who and why? And this isn’t borne of a huge love of nationalism, but simply from a view that whatever their artificiality nation states at this point in history provide the best legitimation for political activity. Which doesn’t in any way stop me from saying that cooperation can be deepening and strengthened and can often (but not always) be a “good thing”. Wu Ming, I’d be fascinated to hear your thoughts on the national identification of Commissioners. They do seem from the track records to act as proxies for ‘their’ states. That said, I’ve found it entertaining to hear the idea put forward so strongly by both SF (and to a lesser extent) Libertas of their importance considering the fairly uninterrupted line of right of centre pols who have been sent out on our behalf (or not) to Europe. I mean C. McCreevey, surely a PD in FF clothing with all the ideological stuff that engenders. And heres the problem with the national representation model, we live in overwhelmingly centre centre right societies whose elected reps are centre centre right. I know many see that as a reason to walk away, and understandably so, I take a different view, but it does throw up some serious contradictions as regards dealing with not merely the EU but our own polities.
I think I got what you were saying Wu Ming, just that I don’t think that the individual citizen is the appropriate measure for the EU given that it is formed of people from many different countries who elect their own governments, and who comes from countries with very different social and economic and political traditions, cultures, and interests. I in fact had a not dissimilar discussion on Friday night with regards as to whether an EU bloc would automatically be a counter-weight to America given its ignoble role in the destruction of Yugoslavia. The other guy was looking at it in terms of individuals without regard to the right of peoples to form their own governments, and decide their own policies. So there is nothing to stop the EU deciding nationalisation is a violation of the individual human rights of shareholders for example.
As to WBS’ point on the nature of societies we live in. Well I guess you get what you vote for, and can’t really expect the EU to be different. Hence all the British yapping during the 1980s when Europe was overwhelmingly social democrat in comparison. Funny now to see people on the left say the same thing.
WbS, that’s precisely the point. McCreevy is absolutely a right of centre – let’s be blunt, economically right-wing – politician. However, if, mirabile dictu, a left-of-centre coalition had been returned to power in the last general election, McCreevy would still have been Commissioner but would have had a rather different outlook to the government in power. We can still this in the current Italian Commissioner – Franco Frattini: nominated by Berlusconi, Italian government changes, then changes back, but he remains in office.
Obviously Commissioners bring their own prejudices and particular national viewpoints to the table, and are likely to reflect the opinions of those who have nominated them – analogies can be drawn, but perhaps not stretched, to government Ministers or Supreme Court justices. However, what is notable is the extent to which Commissioners tend to become institutionalised and rely on the advice of the senior members of their Cabinet in any event. In fact, one could cite the example of Paddy Hillery who pushed through equal pay directives as Commissioner that the boys back home could have done without.
The actual benefit of having a permanent Commissioner to a national government can also be overstated. While Ganley had a little soundbite about ‘this most crucial of tables’ that he hauled out ad nauseam across the airwaves, what is becoming clear is that the larger the Commission gets, the less business actually takes place at the full meetings of the Commission which are rarer than they used be. Rather, a lot of the serious discussion takes place at sub-committees to which the full meetings tend to give the nod. There’s no ‘national input’ at these other than perhaps from certain of those present. The real benefit having a Commissioner brings – i.e. the ability to informally keep national governments in the loop about what’s going on behind the scenes in the Commission – is therefore diminished and, in any case, is actually far less important than having nationals of particular countries in key Commission positions, as they tend to come from national state administrations and would often keep in contact – even on a social level – with former colleagues. Catherine Day has been far more useful to Ireland than any number of Charlie McCreevys, although the usefulness of either shouldn’t be overstated.
As for whether the Commission members should explicitly represent national interests, that’s a much more complicated question. I would, briefly, argue that without the Commission as it currently stands, you don’t have an EU institution whose responsibility is to protect the interests of the Union as a whole, as the national Cabinet has towards the State’s interests.
Garibaldy, again I tend to agree with you re measure although I think we wind up in different places
Wu Ming, the Hillery example is a good counter-intuitive one. Can I throw out the thought that while I accept that the EU has interests beyond the(although again paradoxically subordinate to the) national this is one instance where such an oversight/continuity function might actually be better led by the parliament perhaps? Now the net effect might be entirely similar if not indeed identical given the composition of the parliament… on the other hand I can imagine some might see that as giving scope to all manner of mischief…
WBS,
I guess you can lead a horse to water …
Very true…
Whic is the horse however?
Difficult to know – just like the EU.
One of my favourite jokes is a Laurel and Hardy one where Stan says, “well, Ollie, you can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead.”
(cough). Ahem.
I’ll just get me coat.
I’m not overly troubled by the EU legislation that is incorporated into Irish legislation. Indeed, I was entertained to read on the Sinn Féin site the following:
Well, that’s completely in line with what I was saying earlier about pooling sovereignty in order to expand human rights. That’s the position SF has consistently taken. You might note that where the likes of YD objected to the Charter of Fundamental Rights on the grounds that it might override Irish law, the point we were making was that it wouldn’t give us any more rights than we already have because of its deference to national law and practice.
Presumably, SF supports the retention of the right of each Member State to nominate its own Commissioner (as well as to having a permanent Commissioner). That being the case, which states do they suggest choose boys, and which choose girls?
I’m not in favour of gender quotas myself, but FYI, the European Women’s Lobby proposal is that each member state nominates one man and one woman, with the final composition being determined by the President selecting among these in a way that ensures gender parity.
WBS, I’m really not sure how you reckon that Labour will benefit from Lisbon in any way. Between the reaction to their incredibly cynical use of the campaign to promote their local election candidates, Gilmore’s generally weak performance and the fact that the position they took clearly didn’t resonate with a large segment of their support base, I don’t see them getting much out of this at all.
Wednesday, that wasn’t meant as a dig at you, but at the SF leaflet. The EWL proposal isn’t absurd, but… it’s hard to see it being implemented.
Re Labour, consistency I think assisted them. Rather like FF and indeed SF. And Gilmore came straight out the next day, and acknowledge Lisbon was finished. No harm there and entirely different to the equivocation from other sources. One message, however mildly put. I think in the context of their increasing poll ratings that can only do them good. Incidentally, while I agree that the local election candidates ploy was cynical they weren’t the only ones by any means, nor was the use of personality politics restricted to them more broadly. Anyhow, time will tell.
Wednesday, that wasn’t meant as a dig at you, but at the SF leaflet.
I realise that. My point is that the SF leaflet is entirely consistent with the SF position.
Re Labour, I think “Lisbon is finished” was damage control more than anything else. And while all parties engaged in personality politics and to some degree the promotion of local candidates, you have to admit Labour were more guilty of this than others (for the information of non-FS residents, Labour just used their local election posters with a small, often barely visible, “Yes” sticker affixed in a corner). Have their poll ratings actually increased by any statistically significant degree?
The IT had an article which stated that maybe they should take each item in Lisbon and deal with it on a case by case basis. A bit complicated but it would help the transparancy issue.
I am really pissed off by the threats esp by overpaid Irish bureaucrats. (Esp Kouchner ex medicins sans frontiers or should it be threats sans?)They remind me of the RTE shoneens (not all employees of RTE) whose main dream seemed to be a job serving tea in the Dublin branch of the BBC when we rejoined the empire.
On a 2 speed Europe surely we have that with the Euro zone. I would think a common currency is a very big thing.
Gilmore had dignity and respect for the voters. Gay Mitchell was insulting tio the voters (let him go and claim political asylum in Brussels).
I have had to live with the democratic choice in doing away with articles 2 and 3, why cannot the “democrats” live with a Lisbon rejection.
What is wrong with a back to the drawing board and a look at what European people actuallt want. If this is it so be it. If it is a Social Europe with workers rights etc. let us plan for it.No more sneaky stuff like the way the Battlegroups appeared without much of a debate.
Whether they liek it or not there is a genuine fear that a lot was being smuggled in with the small print.
Does anyone think that the tarnish on Bertie and the end of his image of a modest man satisfied with a couple of pints of Bass damaged the YES side.
What’s a FS resident? You surely don’t mean Free State, do you?
To my mind the most revealing statement in Ganley’s article was this:
“The moral power of a popular referendum is infinitely greater than that of ratification by parliament in a political system where a majority of government and opposition parties agree.”
Not just greater, but infinitely greater. Conversely, the legitimacy of delegated democracy is infinitely smaller. (If you were being pedantic and took this literally, it would mean non-existent.) The first of the ‘8 reasons to vote no to Lisbon’ on the Libertas site is based on the same idea:
“1. Creates an unelected President and a Foreign Minister of Europe”
This is explained as follows:
“The new President and Foreign Minister for Europe will be appointed by the European Council by qualified majority vote.”
In other words, appointed by a vote of national delegates equals unelected.
So the logical conclusion in the case of Lisbon is to do as the IT suggested and break it up into small pieces and have a referendum on each. And from then on run the EU on a continuous series of separate EU-wide plebiscites, as if it was a Swiss canton. Great fun, but total chaos.
(I went to Switzerland on holiday about twelve years ago, and one of the days I was there they had about 15 referendums, all about nuts and bolts stuff. The only one I remember was about the renewal of the canton’s bin collection contract. Should Ireland have a referendum on bin charges?)
Labour’s ratings have been on the up since the beginning of the year.
Yep Bartholomew, quite a paradox, and even more entertaining is the way in which DG has decided he is the spokesperson for the No side.
Jim, re your last question, yes… definitely. I’d be willing to bet that some FF voting people shifted towards the No camp sharpish, and not just them. I think his behaviour angered people enormously. But then again, there was no way he was going to be pushed out pre-the speech to Congress so once we were into this year that was it.
[...] Declan Ganley, superstates and Europe – a thought-provoking post by WorldByStorm at the Cedar Lounge [...]
Labour’s ratings have been on the up since the beginning of the year
You didn’t answer the part of my question about whether this was to a statistically significant degree. Anyway, are the polls that show Labour is up the same ones that showed Lisbon was going to pass?
No more or less so than SF – and I’ve rarely heard an SF member complain when they’re on the up, or a Labour one for that matter.
I’m thinking of both TNS and RedC across the last six months. I was dubious initially – if you look back over posts here in that time period, but as Michael Taft noted there is a distinct trend emerging. And, the final TNS in the IT did seem to show Lisbon passing and at all times prior to that the polls indicated a very large pool of undecideds that could break either way, so I’m not certain whether that demonstrates one thing or another.
Which reminds me, perhaps work for another day, but as regards human rights legislation being okay to import in, it strikes me that that too impinges on our sovereignty (and not merely in an EU context, consider the way the ultimate introduction of the Hague Convention will override bilateral national agreements between the RoI and individual states such as Vietnam, etc, etc), and an awful lot depends on the nature of how we define ‘human rights’, how narrowly or broadly. The push to incorporate socio-economic rights has clear implications, Patricia McKenna’s acceptance of QMV on environmental issues points to another wedge inwards. All have the potential to undermine/diminish outright national sovereignty and in an ‘activist’ form, which is precisely why the right is so suspicious of them… I’m not seeking to contradict what you’re saying, just proposing that it’s a bit more difficult to draw clear boundaries around that area.