Archive for September, 2009
You Will Loose…any Sense of Proportion or Reason!
Posted by Michael in The campaign on September 3rd, 2009
I started getting furtive emails and texts last week-end, “have you seen them?” “I don’t agree but they are great as political art!” “These guys are really setting the agenda”. Yes it’s time for the Coir posters again. It appears like another Yes side blind spot. About 20 years ago (gulp) I was a member of the Labour Party in Dun Laoghaire. There was a young terrier called Eamon Gilmore making a lot of noise in the constituency for the Workers Party. “He has people everywhere” they whispered in Labour “They’re organised into street committees” We were near to giving up, how could we compete with these black arts, us with mere leaflets and volunteers! Fast forward to 2002 when I was on Eamons leadership campaign team (the unsuccessful one!).
Me: “Tell me Eamon how did the Workers Party organise those street committees back in the 80’s”
Gilmore: “What Street Committees? Never heard of them!”
Sometimes our own sense of insecurity leads us to puff up and exaggerate the opponent for some reason, perhaps to give us the ready made excuse when we are unsuccessful, and so it is with Coir and EU referenda. During the Nice 1 campaign they emerged with a novel concept, a direct no nonsense poster that summed up the fears of many “You Will Loose, Power, Money, Influence” in stark lettering using a simple clear colour scheme they were considered highly influential. That poster at that time undoubtedly was, but that was 8 years ago. Can anybody remember any of the other ones?
As with most marketing campaigns success lies in innovation and new thinking. Rather like the great British sitcoms, limited numbers and exposure provides the greatest potency. Do we remember the Coir posters from Nice 2 (ok one or two…gun to head etc.) Maybe Lisbon 1, “Don’t be bullied” I have no problem saying it out straight. Coir posters aren’t so great. Naturally I don’t agree with them but I mean as pieces of political material. They are dated, jaded and a repetitious formula that is out of step with where the electorate are at. So stop whispering about them yes campaigners. Now unfortunately the Yes side have not distinguished themselevs in the postering stakes either.
Let’s examine them one by one. Firstly anything with 1916 leaders on it talking about freedom and all that appeals to the 0.1% of people who vote for Republican Sinn Fein or whatever, plus barstool republicans who do what Fianna Fail tell them. Its what’s called appealing to the base, sometimes necessary in elections, never in referenda. Another poster quotes Charlie Mc Creevey as saying 95% of Europeans would vote against Lisbon. I don’t think the Irish electorate could care less about this, they are examining their own lives and situation and the only major European issue they are reflecting on is the effects, if any, on our economy. Next they present half the picture on voting weights, a common approach from the entire No campaign which will need to be countered.
However if the debate on the street actually gets into the two elements of double majority voting things will be looking up I reckon. Simply telling the electorate that the No side is deliberately only presenting half the picture on voting weights will leave them feeling a little betrayed I feel. The coup de grace for many will be the claim that our minimum wage will be €1.85 after Lisbon. Now if I was making some spurious claim about migrant labour or something (which presumably this is) I would at least take a figure close to Ireland’s current minimum wage of €8.65 (which practically nobody earns!) or maybe some of the figures suggested by IBEC. Most of the electorate posses some common sense and will see straight through this nonsense. The biggest mistake campaigners on either side can make is to underestimate their electorate or be out of step with their lives.
Lisbon is not necessarily an easy sell but any debate must be related to the economic and political crisis the country faces. The Treaty is not primarily about the economy but it seems reasonable to argue that Ireland’s relationship with Europe is. Yes campaigners should not be intimated by Coir bluster. Their posters are increasingly relics of how campaigns used to be…oh and “Vote No” isn’t in large enough font!
From the Start…Title I
Posted by Michael in Lisbon Treaty Title by Title on September 1st, 2009
There must be tonnes of newsprint and trillions of gigabytes published on the Lisbon Treaty yet it is hard to find anywhere a blow by blow explanatory guide of the treaty. The Yes and No groups, the Government and the Referendum Commission all produce guides and summaries but in each instance they are selecting what is and isn’t important. They also in my view cow tow to the idea that the whole thing is way to complex for the ordinary person. It’s not. Once you have a copy of the consolidated text you can read the whole thing. The annotated version available online shows the changes aswell. Playing the complexity card strengthens the idea that this is impenetrable stuff.
Very few groups, certainly in the online sphere, have produced an article by article guide. This is important as a huge number of questions in the referenda debates relate to things already agreed or not even agreed. So the idea here in a few short weeks is to produce such a guide in hopefully understandable terms, with some commentary and an idea of what has changed and what has not. All this of course is from a Yes perspective so log off now if that offends you. Of course my view is that any reasonable and objective step by step analysis of the Treaty inevitably leads to support for it.
In most cases nobody would disagree with what are the important issues. However the way debate goes all sorts of things are dragged in to the debate, things which aren’t in the Treaty and often not even in the realm of the powers of the EU. So just looking at the Treaty itself is not always enough, some history and context are required. As always the numbering is that used by the IIEA which is effectively the numbering which will apply if they treaty is passed.
The structure of the treaties is fairly straightforward. The original treaty of Rome founded the coal and steel communities and EEC. Maastricht established the EU which developed areas such as foreign policy, the single currency and the idea of EU action in the field of justice and home affairs. The core of the EU for many years was the single market and things which derived from it. More integrated decision making also developed in this area. Since Maastricht two treaties have existed side by side and one of the major changes from the idea of an EU constitution is to maintain this approach rather than collapsing everything in to one document and approach effectively scrapped after the French and Dutch No votes.
The Treaty of European Union (TEU) originally signed at Maastricht is substantially amended and the Treaty of Rome in renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The Treaty of European Union is about 40 pages. Many of the changes proposed originated in the convention on Europe which consisted of elected representatives, this followed the Laeken Declaration which sought to simplify and make relevant the EU and its structures. Ironically it was the No Votes in Holland and France which heralded a return to a relatively more cumbersome structure.
The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is longer at xx pages but largely contains most of the historic legal basis of the old EC in the fields of the single market and associated measures. It I reasonable then to ask anybody quoting form these sections wether the provision they are referring to is actually new or has existed for a long period of time and has effectively been endorsed by the people in a previous referendum. This is a fair question to those who reassure is they are not opposed to the EU but just the way Lisbon is bringing it.
The preamble has been changed in the TEU, this was somewhat controversial as a large lobby to have specific reference to Christianity was resisted with a compromise text inserted referring to “religious and humanist heritage”
The first substantial section (Title I) in the new TEU is entitled Common Provisions. This emerged form a desire in the Convention and amongst leaders to set out clearly the role and functions of the EU. These opening articles are important as they are effectively available to the ECJ in interpreting other aspects of the Treaty texts.
Article One effectively announces the foundation of the European Union which now covers the two treaties. It sets out the need to have open decision making close to the people, this as a common provision applies to the rest of the text.
Article Two sets out the values the EU is founded on including respect for human rights, non discrimination, tolerance and equality between men and women. For those who would dismiss these as flights of rhetoric we must again bear in mind the important legal role of the common provisions. This is a new statement
Article Three summarises some of the main aims of the union in terms of promoting peace, the internal market, combating social exclusion, the Euro and principals in it’s relations with the world which are consistent with the UN Charter. These articles emphasise the need for subsidiarily (decision making as close to the people as possible) and conferral where the EU can only do what it’s member states require of it.
Article Four helpfully sets out what the EU does and what the member states do and how the EU must respect member states and their roles. States must also implement policies agreed together in the Union
Article Five elaborates on the concepts of conferral and subsidiarity. A Protocol is also attached to the treaty on subsidiarity and National Parliaments
Article Six commits the EU to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and also sets out it’s limitations, it also provides for the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights which will apply to the EU and it’s institutions as well as all the member states who have signed it
Article Seven provides for a mechanism to deal with member states who transgress the fundamental values of the EU. This is a new provision and arises form the controversy over the Freedom Party in Austria several years ago. The provisions have a number of safeguards and effectively require a 4/5 majority of member states.
Article Eight provides for relationships with the EU’s neighbours and sets out the values that govern these.
Much of this is new or replaces articles largely arising from the work of the Convention which sought to simplify and consolidate the text and the functions of the EU