Today the Irish Times published a survey on attitudes towards a new Lisbon referendum, finding that a majority of people would now vote yes based on assumptions that we would be assured a permanent commissioner, and that separate issues such as abortion & neutrality would be clarified. Declan Ganley, founder of Libertas appeared on Eamon Keane's lunchtime program on Newstalk to give his response to the survey.
Being a bastion of integrity, Mr Ganley clearly and without the use of rhetoric described his feelings on the matter, and his plans for Ireland's future in Europe.
Oh, wait, no...
As most people are aware, our No vote was a sign that the country was unhappy with the deal on the table. Seeing as both sides of the argument agree that Ireland has no wish to leave the EU, the only way forward is to re-negotiate the treaty and come to an acceptable compromise. Indeed, one of the main selling points of the No campaign was the slogan 'Ireland can do better'. Now it seems that Libertas don't want to make a deal at all, instead numbingly repeating a mantra which is as obvious as it it unhelpful: 'The people have said No'.
Rather than provide any inkling as to how he and his organization would suggest we progress from this point, Mr Ganley seemed more interested in propagating his own inevitable candidacy for the upcoming European elections. Any mention of improvements to the Lisbon treaty were greeted with shocking petulance. When the possibility of Ireland maintaining a permanent Commissioner was put to him, Ganley forgot that he had in fact campaigned for this concession, and instead responded with a childish: "Should we be grateful??"
Every serious question is given a coy or 'humourous' answer, with the occasional injection of a catchy soundbyte: 'We are the voice of reason!', 'A second referendum would be undemocratic!' etc, etc...
It is inevitable that we will have to vote on this treaty again, the point being that the terms will have to change to guarantee that at least some of the Irish people's concerns are abated. There is no way any government- particularly this struggling one- would even attempt to get away with asking the exact same question twice. When the Nice treaty came up for a second referendum it was only because a specific clause ensuring Ireland's neutrality had been inserted.
This is what will have to happen with Lisbon... but it seems Mr Ganley has no interest in re-negotiating. He appears to be horrified at the prospect of a second referendum no matter how much the deal is altered in our favour.
In his eyes, he has won- and that's the end of the story.
Ganley Plans For The Future
Krauthammer follows Hilton's lead.
Today Charles Krauthammer continued to bemoan the American Democratic party from his column syndicated in The Irish Times... this time criticising Barack Obama's policies on energy.
Apart from nitpicking what is clearly just good, general advice by portraying it as a solid proposal (or even a campaign platform) and attacking it with statistics- Krauthammer comes up with a suggestion of his own, and proceeds to explain it in depth. This proposal, to amalgamate both parties energy policies, is a bold one, and one which shall certainly earn Mr Krauthammer some admirers. What a wonderfully novel way of approaching the situation- and how sensible!
Unfortunately for Krauthammer, he was not the first to come up with this particular strategy, but was merely following the lead of one of the greatest political theorists of our time. Someone who made the same proposal only last week, not only beating Charlie to the punch, but also putting it much more eloquently than he ever could:
Surely this is just a coincidence? Great minds... etc? Except it seems not. Credit where credit's due, Mr Krauthammer!
Sarkozy Says Ireland Must Vote Again
So the rumblings of a second Lisbon vote are getting steadily louder, largely thanks to the exceptionally loud voice of French president and hard-ass Nicolas Sarkozy. Not being known for beating around the bush, Sarkozy, whose country has just assumed the EU presidency, commented yesterday that Ireland will just 'have to vote again'. Brian Cowan, Dick Roche et al were quick to (nervously, I presume) laugh off Sarkozy's comments as 'just one of many views held across Europe'. Bless them.
Ctd in the readmore...
Like a clumsy autocratic parent, Sarkozy has resolved to address the issue in the manner to which he is accustomed- wading in and effectively saying 'this is how it is, just deal with it'. While the French may be quite partial to this style of government, the Irish are a very different bunch, and I fear Sarkozy is going to learn this the hard way.
Even those who may be inclined towards a Yes vote are bound to be miffed by comments such as these, and I can see opinions already changing out of spite. We don't like to be told what to do, and take great pleasure in telling people to bugger off when we think they deserve it. The French premier is putting himself firmly in line for such an act of defiance, and in all likelihood the Irish electorate will be more than happy to play the role of the stroppy teen. The sweat forming on Cowan's brow is telling. He is well aware of the fact that we need to be treated with kid gloves, and being manhandled by European big-shots is bound to be counter-productive.
Nervous shuffling can also be heard from certain parts of the No camp in the last few weeks, as comments like this add increasing support to the realisation that the treaty is unlikely to be renegotiated. One of the more vocal arguments for a No vote was that 'Ireland can do better', and like the perennial chancers that we are the majority of us put our hands up and asked for more.
Hence the current stalemate: the EU must continue to grow, and evidently the consensus is to grow as per the initial plan- through the Lisbon Treaty. With the 'all for one and one for all' thrown out the window, we're left with a simple 'are you in or are you out?'
Unfortunately this decision has already been made, and the only way the question can legitimately be posed again is if, like in the case of the Nice Treaty, the terms are in some way changed. Which brings us back to our request for more…
What exactly is it that we want? What exactly can we be given that we don't already have? This is the question that is worrying Messers Cowan, Roche et al, and the question which is prompting a characteristic 'cut the crap' response from Nicolas Sarkozy.
As much as we don't like being asked the same question twice, and as much as our own character demands a bullish retort rather than subservient compliance, maybe that's not the wisest plan of action in this particular case. We chanced our arm, and it didn't quite work out the way we'd planned. So now the question may be posed again, and though it will read the same, the ramifications will be very different. Let's not balk at the repetition, but instead really concentrate on what's being asked.
Der Cowan
This 'amusing subtitles on Hitler's Downfall rant' thing is getting a bit crazy (I already saw on on the Cristiano Ronaldo transfer saga today), but this one via UnaRocks featuring an enraged Brian Cowan just has to be reposted.
Tee hee.
Vote No to Lisbon Or Vampires Will Eat Your Babies
According to an Irish Times survey published today, the No side on the Lisbon Treaty has gained the lead- holding 35% of the vote, while Yes has dropped to 30%.
The shocking part of this is that the main reason given by those who answered No was that "they don't understand the treaty". Is it just me, or is that an incredibly moronic answer? Voting No because you don't understand makes absolutely no sense. First off: the information is there- go out and get it. Make yourself understand. Secondly, if you don't want to do this and insist on staying in the dark- then don't vote at all!
To me this is the greatest success of the No campaign- confusing everyone. All sorts of irrelevant issues have been brought into this debate. Most of the No argument is based on sensationalism. Because of this we have debates on TV & Radio which solely consist of one side saying 'This is the case', the other saying 'That is NOT the case', and back and forth ad infinitum.
It's underhanded rhetoric which has characterised this referendum campaign. The likes of Coir (national crazies) have been handing out leaflets with such utter rubbish it's shocking that anyone would believe it. According to these loons, Lisbon will (amongst other things) legalise hard drugs & prostitution. They also criticize the treaty's intention to respect the rights of all major religious organisations, while condemning it's lack of a specific reference to the Catholic deity.
The media is obliged to provide equal coverage to both sides of the debate, but with the vast majority of our politicians voting Yes, media debates are reduced to having to give airtime to crazies like the above Coir (last night's late debate on Newstalk, for example) & the other one- Jim Corr, who raved last week on Today FM about how we should vote No to 'fight the New World Order'. Sigh...
Lets just hope people see sense, be it one way or the other, and vote on the actual treaty- not some moron's publicity stunt.
Listen to Crazy Jim Corr here.
More Idiot's Guide To The Lisbon Treaty
Since posting our original Guide to the Lisbon Treaty the debate has somewhat heated up. The 'Yes' campaign has finally started, and the referendum is finally getting daily national media coverage.
Understandably a few more issues and questions have arisen which we didn't quite touch on in our initial 'Idiot's Guide'. So this post is something of an add-on to the original. It's not going to be as lengthy as the first one, as most of the issues were covered there, but should answer some of the outstanding questions.
As usual, a healthy skepticism is urged when reading this kind of thing. I'll reiterate what I said before the last one: I don't have a party affiliation, or an agenda. This research was conducted to try to make sense of all the crap floating around concerning this treaty. My opinion at this stage is that I'll be voting yes, but this is based solely on the facts turned up during my research (for which I've read everything I could get my hands on, listened to debates & speeches, attended meetings, and even read a lot of the actual treaty- which is as horribly dense as everyone says it is).
Righto. Click the 'read more' to get going.
Lets take this point by point.
Firstly, the main one, and the issue that is pissing me off the most.
Losing an EU Commissioner
One of the recurring arguments against the treaty is the fact that Ireland will lose an EU Commissioner. This one seems to be rolled out at every debate, with people such as Sinn Fein's Mary Lou McDonald consistently describing it as 'Ireland losing power in Europe'.
This is utter crap, and here's why:
1. EVERYONE loses a commissioner, not just Ireland. There are only so many jobs to go round in the commission, and having more people sitting around the table than is necessary is counter-productive. So if Lisbon gets passed there will only be as many commissioners as there are jobs, with each country sitting out a few years in rotation. No one's getting the short straw.
2. (and this is the big one) Commissioners are not representatives of Ireland in Europe. The commission is the entity designed to protect the interests of the Union as a whole. When entering the post each commissioner must swear an oath that their actions will only be motivated by the interests of the Union, and all national concerns will be put aside.
So we could have a hundred Irish commissioners in there twenty-four hours a day and it still wouldn't matter a damn to Ireland.
'The Lisbon Treaty is Self-Amending'
What's meant by that in the first place? Basically that be signing off on Lisbon we'll never have to vote on things like this again, because it incorporates a mechanism for 'beaurocrats' to make changes in the future without all this silly voting malarkey.
Well, yes, it does cut through some red tape. Article 48 of the treaty allows for a speedy, simplified method of drawing up a future amended treaty. Obviously creating a document of this nature takes time (check out the document itself, it's fairly intense), so Lisbon attempts to make this process less painful. But... as the treaty is very careful of in all areas, any changes must always be "in accordance with member states' constitutional requirements". Which means there's no way they could just sneak in something dramatic and get away with it.
But more importantly- the changes in Article 48 are merely to the process of drawing up an amending treaty. There is no change to the fact that any amendment must be ratified in the proper fashion, ie: we'll still have to vote on it. First in the European Parliament, then on to individual states to be decided upon in either the National Parliaments, as is the case in most of Europe, or through a referendum, as is the case with Ireland. Everyone will still get their say on whether or not any of these future amendments are passed.
There will be a new 'President of Europe' (ala President of the USA)
This is a common mistake made by confusing the new post of 'High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy' with a 'President of Europe'. There will be no 'President of Europe'. The new post is largely administrative, and combines the existing posts of (deep breath) 'High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy' and 'European Commissioner for External Relations'.
The bearer of this post will have no formal powers, but rather work as a mouthpiece for the previously agreed upon foreign policies of the Union. This seems to be just another instance of making the whole thing less messy and cutting out some red tape. The new High-Representative will put a face on Europe for purposes of foreign policy, but that policy will still be decided upon in the same way it always has- through the Parliament, the Commission, and ultimately the individual member states.
Militarisation
Ok, so the neutrality thing is a buzz issue, but I think it's fairly clear to everyone at this stage that Ireland's neutrality is not affected by Lisbon. But what impact will the treaty have on the military, if any? Well, the truth is that if Lisbon is ratified, there will definitely be more militarisation.
Once you've picked yourself up off the floor we'll continue.
It is a desire of some that all armies within the Union be of reasonable standard, so that each countries armed forces are capable of operating effectively. Hence Lisbon obliges each country to increase it's military spending to achieve this level. There's talk of centralised spending (instead of all the individual countries putting in small equipment orders, Europe puts in one big one, hence cheaper), but that's not in the treaty- it'll be argued over another day.
This does not mean we'll build our army in to a major force. This does not mean we can be conscripted into the army (Irish or European). This does not mean military issues will have any more attention than they do now. What this means is that when we go off on peace-keeping missions (such as the one in which Irish troops are currently involved in Sudan) our army will be equipped to a certain standard, and one that is common throughout all of Europe.
~
These four seem to be the issues which keep cropping up, but of course there are bound to be others which we've yet to address- so you can probably expect another post on Lisbon before the day of the referendum. I hope everyone's still vaguely keeping up will all the madness.
If you haven't read our original Idiot's Guide you can check it out here.
egoeccentric's Idiots Guide To The Lisbon Treaty
One of our sporadic politics posts, and probably the heaviest one yet, but I reckon this is fairly relevant. Bear with me...
I've been pondering this one for some time. It's really important that we understand the Lisbon Treaty before we go to vote on it in June, but it's an awkward bugger to understand.
I've tried to trawl through all the material on the subject (which is a bloody lot) in order to try to give it a summing up that you wouldn't need a degree in politics to understand.
As is the way with these things, they're tough to write without bias. I've tried to do so, but all the same a healthy skepticism is urged.
Just so you know where I stand, I started neutral but I'm now swinging towards Yes. I'm not a fan of any particular party so I have no agenda. Questions are welcomed, and I encourage anyone interested to check out information for yourself (RTE have a good section on it here).
Ok, so lets get started...
Background
The EU is essentially held together by a series of treaties between countries on various issues. As time goes by we have to update of these treaties to make them relevant & more effective. So the Lisbon Treaty is basically taking existing treaties (Masstricht, Rome etc) and crossing out some things, rephrasing others and inserting some new bits.
The point is to streamline the EU and make it 'more efficient' or 'better equipped to deal with challenges'.
At the moment we're working under a system designed for 17 states, but in fact there are 27 states involved. So the system needs to be updated in some way.
The initial plan was to do up a European Constitution, which was drawn up... but rejected by France & the Netherlands in 2005. It's rejection was more than likely due to campaigning by groups that were protective of the countries' individual sovereignty, and anti-globalisation movements.
Following this rejection, work was started on re-drafting the Constitution into a more acceptable form... the Lisbon Treaty.
So what's it all about?
The treaty has several functions. It's effectively summing up all the other treaties and making them all neat and tidy. The idea is to establish exactly the purposes of the EU, its aims, and how it functions.
And yes, there are some changes.
For example:
What the hell does all that mean?
Ok, lets looks at these main points:
1. The way in which decisions are generally made will be changed.
You'll have to excuse the jargon on this one. Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) will become the main way decisions are made (when opinions aren't unanimous).
This method is designed to fairly represent based on population, but at the same time allow for fears of smaller countries that they might be bullied by the bigger states. There's lots of provisions to ensure that this doesn't happen, like if four member states are against a contested proposal, no matter how big or small those states are- the proposal is shot down. This way smaller states aren't at risk of losing their voice.
How QMV is worked out is a very maths-y process, which isn't my strong point, so you can read about it here. All in all the process gets more democratic, and more representative of reality, ie all states have a say, not just the big uns, or the ones who were in first.
2. The EU will be made into a solid legal entity.
This seems to be an economic provision more than anything. The EU will be more effective on the World stage if it's recognised as a legal entity in itself, ie- it will be able to perform better in World markets.
3. The sizes of the commission, and the parliament will be restricted.
The European Comission will be reduced in size from 27 Commissioners to just 18.
This is done purely with efficiancy in mind. It was decided that there wasn't enough tasks to warrant 27 Commissioners, so a Commission of 18 will be more effective than 27, ie- decisions will be easier and faster made. Who sits on the commission will be allocated on a rotational basis, so at any given time there will be 9 countries without a Commissioner.
The amount of MEP's in Parliament will be capped at 751, for pretty much the same reason- you can't get things done with thousands of Ministers all vying for attention. The seats will be allocated proportionately based on population.
4. National parliaments will be given a greater roll.
For the first time, EU proposals will have to be run by National Parliaments before they're approved. The individual parliaments will be able to give their views on proposals well before they're passed, and if enough parliaments are opposed to the change it'll be amended or withdrawn. This gives us a bit more control of things, and eases some fears of the whole 'random bureaucrats in Brussels' thing.
5. Introduction of 'Citizen's Initiative'.
Another step in the same direction- for the first time regular citizens will be able to propose European legislation by producing a petition with a million EU signatures (which sounds a lot, but isn't really).
6. The Charter on Fundamental Human Rights becomes legal.
The Charter on Fundamental Human Rights does exactly what it says on the tin. It's a great document which sets out standards of human rights. Right now it has no legal standing, merely a guideline, but Lisbon makes it legal. This means it can stand up in court. So if you reckon your human rights are being breached in some way, you can go to an Irish court on the basis that it breaches this EU charter.
Our own Irish constitution is particularly kickass on human rights anyway, so we pretty much already have the benefits that this provides, but that's not the case for all 27 countries in the union.
Things you've probably heard or are wondering about:
There is a thing in the treaty called the 'Solidarity Clause', which says that member states are compelled to help another member state if it falls victim to a natural disastour, terrorist attack, etc. BUT... the treaty explicitly states that individual countries foreign policies are respected. Which means that Ireland's neutrality will be preserved. So there's no risk of anyone being conscripted into a super-european army.
Yes. For the first time the environment is focused on. The treaty adds to the aims of the EU the intention to preserve the environment, and recognises the threat of climate change. By adding this to the unions aims, it allows Europe to actually do something about the issue.
Yes and no, but mostly no. First off, it's not just Ireland who'll lose a commissioner, every country will, so we're not being picked on- it's just fairer that way. Secondly, and more important- the nature of the commission is that commissioners are not representatives for their own country, but all countries in the union. On entering their post they have to swear an oath saying they'll be motivated only for the good of the union, not the country of their nationality. So even if Ireland had a commissioner in 24/7, it wouldn't mean more of a voice for Ireland.
I reckon I've covered most aspects of the treaty here, at least the ones that seem to be most controversial, but it's totally worth having a look into it yourself.
If anyone has any other element which the want cleared up, or any questions on it, ask away via comment or email and I'll do my best to answer.
The most important thing is to actually get out and vote, be it yes or no, as this will affect all of us in some way or another (this means you, Bob, you buffoon). Do it!
Click here for the add-on to his post: 'More Idiot's Guide to the Lisbon Treaty'
Shame Corner
Via UnaRocks...
US Presidential Candidates Talk Trash on WWE:
Oh the shame.
At least Obama had the best soundbyte.
Bertie Out!
Breaking news that I'm sure all will be hearing whispers of by now, Bertie Ahern has announced that he will resign on May 6th, a damn sight sooner than most of us expected.
Seems the pressure of thieving & lying has finally got to him.
More on this story on RTE.
First Casualties Of The Sub-Prime Market
The implosion of the sub-prime mortgage sector in the US is largely being credited for the financial down-turn we're seeing in Global markets.
The Irish Government are, as usual, asking us all to tighten our belts (while they add extra notches to theirs); but while we worry, the real damage of the current financial climate is already being seen- in the US.
Los Angeles has recently seen a number of shanty towns spring up due to the large number of houses being repossessed. This is pretty outrageous for the 'Richest Nation In The World'. Considering how much has already been spent on the war in Iraq, and how much more is likely to be spent in the future, this seems even more of a tragedy.
Check out this shocking BBC report:
Thanks to the watchful Oz for the heads up.
Liars & Loons
Associated Press are reporting that a study by two non-profit organizations shows that George Bush & The White house told the public no less that nine hundred and thirty five out -and-out lies in the build up to the war in Iraq. Yes, 935. Apparently Bush himself was directly responsible for 259 of these shameless fibs. Ridiculous? Not really, it's just confirming and putting a number on something we already knew.
They should still be pretty ashamed though (Ha! As if..).
Click for story
Our other US related story of the day is that Secretary for Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (pictured above with Jim Carrey) has declared 'European terrorists' to be the biggest threat to the safety of the US.
For Christ's sake..
Click for story
Student tasered at John Kerry Speech
This is madness. I'd love to think that heads will roll over this, but somehow i don't think they will. Scary.
