The Cedar Lounge Revolution

I only managed to catch the contributions to the Dáil debate on Lisbon from close to the end of Joan Burtons piece… her parting words? She had encountered a dynamic of concern about ‘foreign workers’ ‘…[while there was] some racism, that is ugly, but that is different from … people [who] are worried about the economy, their house and their job…’

John Gormley gave a spirited defence of the charter of fundamental rights and the provision regarding climate change. And he noted that it was this government which had been central to some of the aspects of it. But it was gloomy stuff and apologetic too, ‘…that was a message we couldn’t get out there…’.

He also suggested that Ireland was not neutral, but instead non-aligned ‘the same as the former neutrals in the Scandinavian countries’ and that this was recognised in the Treaty and was another ‘failure’ to communicate. He too pointed to an undercurrent of concern about immigration amongst a list of the ‘reasons why people decided to vote no, and some were absolutely valid and I respect that, but there was a level of misinformation out there that I haven’t experienced in the past’.

He considered Declan Ganley is on the ‘extreme-right’…and although he recognised that DG ‘…claims that he’s pro-Europe’ … ‘I have my doubts’.

Then came Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin. Notable were the ‘modest and achievable’ list of changes he wanted that went on for a good couple of minutes, and the further ‘deeper and broader ambitions for the EU’. For those of us who read Mary Lou McDonald’s piece in the Irish Times today it was curiously familiar. No, no, it was almost identical with entire passages lifted verbatim. I wonder about the tone of it, particularly in regard to the advice to the government on how to negotiate. I’m not sure that’s going to play well with the broader public particularly if the mood darkens.

Dick Roche rather unwisely quoted from the report from the Irish Times on a purported Eurobarometer flash poll. Conor at Dublin Opinion has added up the figures and noted some basic problems. Now, I’d suspect that overall the thrust of the details of that poll are correct, not least because I heard from a third source independent of the Independent or the Irish Times that the figures were roughly correct.

Michael Mulcahy – I think it was – struck a sort of kind of euro-critical note, complaining about euro-elites and cliques of federalists including … John Bruton. But not entirely. He lavished Brian Cowen in praise. And so too did Cyprian Brady.

So it went. Every speech prefaced with some formula of words referencing ‘respect’. But what to say really? Only a few in that chamber (and it was striking how few there were other than those speaking) were going to be negotiating whatever happens next. Good thing? Bad thing? Representative democracy thing?

Perhaps we should look at McDonald’s list of demands in the Irish Times, but before that let’s consult the campaign leaflet from SF where the main points in summary on the back were as follows:

… 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….

In today’s Irish Times she writes:

We focused on three sets of concerns.

Which are…

We argued [in the campaign] that the Lisbon Treaty would deepen the democratic deficit by removing Ireland’s permanent commissioner, reducing our voting strength at council, removing or weakening key strategic vetoes, such as on taxation and international trade, and by giving the European Council the power to amend the fundamental laws of the union. That the treaty was written and presented in an unintelligible form added an information deficit to the democratic deficit.

On militarisation, we argued that as well as taking the EU further down the road of developing common foreign and defence policies, Lisbon would promote militarisation and undermine the State’s neutrality.

We were also deeply worried that the treaty was designed to further open up vital public services such as health and education to competition and privatisation. This would have been complemented by the removal of key vetoes on the inclusion of health, education and social services in international trade agreements.

Sinn Féin also expressed deep disappointment with the failure of the drafters of the Lisbon Treaty to address workers’ rights and the continuing trend towards social dumping, aided and abetted by the European Court of Justice.

We also highlighted the negative impact of the treaty on the developing world and Ireland’s continued involvement in the European Atomic Energy Community.

It may be me, but that seems to be more than three sets of concerns.

Anyhow, Today Sinn Féin will submit to the Government a detailed position paper outlining proposed changes to the Lisbon Treaty. We are arguing for:

And they’re detailed. Indeed they are. For she continues:

• The retention of a permanent commissioner for all member states;

• The retention of the Nice Treaty formulae for qualified majority voting;

• The removal of all eight self-amending articles including the simplified revision procedure in Article 48;

• The removal of Article 46a giving the EU a single legal personality;

• A strengthened protocol on the role of member state parliaments;

• A significantly expanded protocol on the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality including the aims and values of the EU;

• Substantial amendments to aspects of the Common Foreign and Security Policy;

• Substantial amendments to the section of Common Defence and Security Policy;

• A new protocol on neutrality;

• A strengthened social clause;

• A substantially revised protocol on vital public services;

• Amendments to articles dealing with public services and state aid;

• The inclusion of the European Trade Union Confederation Social Progress Clause to protect workers’ rights;

• A protocol on Irish tax sovereignty;

• Substantial amendments on Article 188 dealing with international trade agreements including a cast-iron veto on mixed World Trade Organisation agreements;

• A new protocol ending Ireland’s participation in the European Atomic Energy Community;

• A series of amendments to Articles 10 and 188 promoting the needs of the developing world in the context of international trade.

Hmmm… no problem there then. Or as they suggest…

These are, in our opinion, modest and achievable. They represent both the detail of the better deal we argued for during the referendum campaign and what we believe to be the minimum changes required for any new treaty to be acceptable to the electorate.

That’s a big ask which arguably guts the Lisbon Treaty, and indeed many of the aspects that underpinned the Treaty. And that’s before we get to the issue of the unstated ‘amendments’ to CFSP and CDSP.

Even taking the line that some of that is negotiating fodder to be chucked overboard, and with SF that is not an unreasonable proposition, I wonder how realistic it is, at least in the context of Irish participation in the EU from here on in.

And how do they dovetail with Chairman Ganley’s list of demands which are – albeit vague – somewhat different? Indeed what of Chairman Ganley? How does he exercise leverage post-referendum. It will be interesting to see.

The ghost at the feast? Coir. Nothing at all from them, obviously. Which merely points up how elected political representation is essential even if only to get face time with the electorate.

This is going to run and run and run…