Archive for category The campaign
And Now the End is Near…
Posted by Michael in The campaign on October 1st, 2009
…no not of Europe if we do the wrong thing but of yet another Irish Euro Referendum. We really are gluttons for punishment. 1973, SEA, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice (twice) and now Lisbon twice. That’s eight versions of more or less, give or take, the same bleedin’ question! I regularly explain to people overseas that if you can’t explain the EU’s (or any particular treaties) benefits simply to people on the street then it’s not worth having. There seems to be only so far you can take this though. “It’s all vey complicated people say” OK here’s a shortened version “don’t patronise me” they reply. The Title by Title version produced here took about 2-3 hours overall…seriously it’s not that bad.
It would be nice to have a final trump card to play in the campaign or unearth a new article to win the day. The truth is far more boring and this was never the idea of the blog. Lisbon is a modest progressive set of reforms which will make the EU more efficient and democratic that’s still really it. It seems anything can be put on a poster now in referendum campaigns. Why dies Europe need 8 referendums but NAMA, the Finance Act and The Mc Carthy report don’t. Maybe we need to think it out again.
The constant fascination with what happens if we both No is a bit annoying but Yes campaigners have finally realised the honest answer of “nobody knows” is better than the Euro bogey man will get us. In fact the Euro bogey man might be preferable as we could send Joe Higgins, Patricia Mc Kenna and Coir out to defend us with non militarised pea shooters! The truth is probably more worrying, nobody really knows.
Business as usual? Maybe for a year or two but the push for reform will continue and no amount of whinging about being the only country to have referendums will matter when the changes come. I would certainly concur that enhanced co-operation will be used more under the current treaties and after that who knows. But don’t we want to know? Isn’t political stability and certainty an element of economic recovery?
Another blogger has said it’s like throwing rocks at the fire brigade…I like the analogy. Anyway do we want another 5 or six years talking about institutions and voting weights and QMV. What people want is the EU to help solve the big problems that member states can’t deal with like climate change, cross border crime and unemployment. Settling the interminable institutional questions will allow this to happen.
I’m not convinced the general standard of debate was much improved this time not to mention the overall knowledge or understanding of Europe but we can but hope. About 7,500 people happened by hear though so hopefully that was useful.
It’s the End of the World as we Know it and I feel Fine!
Posted by Michael in The campaign on September 28th, 2009
Probably the most fascinating aspect of referendums on Europe is the constant evoking of the doomsday scenarios. Seriously “The Sky Will Fall In” rings just a bit narrow after it’s outing in the SEA, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice twice and now Lisbon twice. In fairness the Yes side can fall into this trap too and promise the sun the moon and the stars in every treaty but as No votes have only come into vogue more recently they have more form.
The unfortunate and humdrum reality of it is Lisbon is quite a mundane and straightforward affair. A few changes to the institutions, greater democracy for sure, a bit simpler when consolidated and a few streamlined effects. We will probably know what the AG said about the need for a referendum, it may have been connected to the High Representative on Foreign Policy or the new provisions for amendment although it is hard to see, possibly a more permanent president of the European Council. Interestingly the latter hasn’t featured at all in public debate.
The real treaty to get worked up about was Maastricht. This was where the EU was established and the Euro finally rolled out. This was a serious treaty with serious ramifications. Does anybody remember the debate? Somehow we managed to get it all tied up with abortion and even run three separate abortion referendums on the same say!
The EU manages to get completely hung up on institutional naval gazing all the time. This is hugely problematic for Yes campaigners as they have to get people worked up about arcane and technocratic issues. Other countries just vote on these in parliament.
In separate posts I’m compiling an title by title analysis of the treaty which hopefully will be complete before polling day. I now am confident about this as the vast bulk of the work on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union involves three words repeated over and again – “no change here”. Apart form the extension of QMV, provided for in the Crotty case, there are no significant changes to whole swathes of the treaties. The changes to institutions and some of the declaratory stuff all sites in the first short Treaty on European Union.
In relaity we are being asked to believe that a body that has been immensely positive for Irleand is suddenly going to chnage and turn on us because of this treaty and there are somehow parts of it which are out to get us. Eoghan Harris puts it well in his analogy of the EU as a marriage!
On another private forum I’m involved with this came up for debate. Those arguing for a No vote clearly didn’t realise this and where quoting whole chunks of text that are unchanged. When it was drawn to their attention they went on to say that people are voting on all the articles again…this form people who think a second referendum is undemocratic!
Brits In?…For Honesty!
Posted by Michael in The campaign on September 8th, 2009
Surely one of the greatest things about politics and public life in this country is that we have a written constitution. A relatively simple document (not counting millions of pages of judgements which are effectively part of it), which of course gives rise to our referendums on Europe.
The Crotty Judgement is often misinterpreted as meaning we have to have a referendum on every treaty. A careful read of it shows this is not the case. It is more accurate to say that only major transfers of sovereignty or changes in the nature and reach of the EU require referendums. As the Government has never published or really commented on the AG’s advice in this area it is hard to know the precise reasons for each referendum.
However it is reasonably clear that having a written constitution increases our prediliction for European referendums. We have seen fit to vote 6 times in 25 years on Europe putting us top of the referendum charts, with Lisbon 2 being our seventh go at relatively similar issues.
Such a fixation makes us prey for a whole load of others who have an interest in these topics. I suppose generally it is a good thing to have others take an interest and I don’t go along with the idea that it’s not anybody else’s business. However what I think most people would like to think was that outside involvement in a referendum here (remember SIPO makes it illegal for non Irish people to donate to a campaign) is at the invitation of Irish people or groups and respects some of the basics of our democracy and culture. In the end of the day I am far from convinced about it’s effectiveness anyway. Of late it is UK based groups that are showing a renewed interest in our debate. It’s a bit like the Battle of the Boyne all over again, English interests fighting out their European battles in Ireland.
Lisbon 2 promises to be a new watermark in this regard with UKIP and Nigel Farage promising to put in an appearance. UKIP of course welcomed the last Irish vote by using the national flag instead of beer mats in Kitty O’Sheas. A former leader opined that Ireland was a land of peasants and pixies and several of their MEPs have been prosecuted for various types of fraud and malpractice…takes all sorts I suppose
The Daily Mail’s Irish edition has similarly thrown it’s lot in with the Irish No campaign, along with the Trade Union Unite. While Unite have several Irish members they still like to categorise us as a region of somewhere…presumably the UK. The BNP European Election manifesto incidentally committed them to re-incorporating Ireland into the UK
Again I’m sanguine enough about all this and don’t believe in the little Irelander approach. What do these guys feel they will bring to the debate? Are our own naysayers not up to the job given that they have actually won two referendums.
Well one thing some of them bring is a good shot of honesty. UKIP state clearly that they wish to withdraw from the EU. Yes I said withdraw form the EU. Now nobody amongst the Irish No campaign on the surface advocates that. Of course they have campaigned against every referendum to date but they are all very clear in saying that the like Europe as it is. That’s quite a statement if you opposed all the building blocks that make it what it is like QMV, supremacy of EU law and the common institutions.
So roll on UKIP and their hangers on, let’s have the real debate that our No side won’t have. Under the surface many No campaigners don’t want the EU as it is, they oppose any move to QMV which brought us workers rights, better environmental legislation and the single market. They oppose the very notion of the EU Commisison which watches out for smaller states and pulls up the Microsoft’s of this world, they want only co-operation amongst independent states which is a charter for domination by the large states. They want no military role thus abandoning Bosnia, Kosovo and many more to the ethnic cleansers.
At least UKIP have the honesty to come out and say what the real agenda is, to leave the EU and to halt it’s progress. If only the Irish No campaign accorded us with the same honesty.
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!
Sinking Feeling?
Posted by Michael in The campaign on August 29th, 2009
For the Yes campaign admitting we have problems is half the battle!
Labour Councillor Joe Ryan feels the Yes campaign is faltering
I give my tuppence worth to Slugger O’Toole
The Irish Times hosts and email duel!!
As the Muppet show might say…why don’t we get things started!
Forget the British Sausage…what about the Irish Water!
Posted by Michael in The campaign on August 26th, 2009
Jim Hacker knew a thing or two about politics UK style, his infamous defence of the British Sausage saw him into Number 10 in a comedy series that we now know owed a lot more to real politics than was admitted at the time. Comedy or not many the domestic politician realises that bashing Brussels and the “eurocrats” is good for domestic appeal. Fine as far as it goes politicians have to get by. However the constant euro bashing down the years inevitably comes home too roost. It is hard to have the informed debate that everyone claims to want if prominent politicians insist on passing off all difficult issues and bad news on to the hapless officials in Brussels.
This also applies to over simplifying and reducing what Europe is all about. Like for example explaining the benefits of Europe as being loads and loads of cash and a big free lunch for us like structural funds etc. Down the years those favouring European integration in Ireland unfortunately did the cause little service with this sort of carry on, anybody remember Albert Reynolds promising 7bn for a yes vote in the Maastricht Treaty! While the EU did bring many undoubted benefits it is important to communicate what it does warts and all, the “flags and balloons” approach to the EU does nobody a service. Often the issues are more complicated. The differing institutions and their respective roles viz a viz the national governments can mean communications need to be subtle and nuanced.
So are there many Jim Hackers in the Irish political ferment? Too many unfortunately, all trading on the hope that mere mortals don’t know or won’t find out how things really work. So instead of the Great British Sausage let’s look at the great Irish water debacle. The water framework directive is a major piece of EU legislation to ensure the quality and availability of drinking and other water, a key benefit for European citizens. The directive went through a long and arduous legislative journey with little or no interest from the Irish or indeed many others. In early 2008 it transpired that schools in Ireland would now be liable for water charges.
The general response of the Government (and the Eurosceptics) was…blame the EU. The Questions and Answers programme led with a question “Are we to have a no flush no wash policy in our schools just because Brussels says so?” However unlike many decisions taken in Ireland, it is possible to see the documents when EU decisions were made, another part of the EU democratic system. They’re here http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/00/st12/12294en0.pdf
It’s worth quoting in full
STATEMENT 88/00 Statement by the Irish delegation
“The Irish delegation fully supports the objectives of the Water Framework Directive and its basic provisions. Ireland is satisfied, following legal consultations, that the final text accommodates the case advanced by Ireland in relation to the domestic sector, enabling that sector to continue to be exempt from water charges in accordance with established practice.”
So the Irish Government “fully supported” the adoption of the directive…pass the sausages please Sir Humphrey!
How to Amaze your Friends Down the Pub
Posted by Michael in Charter Fundamental Rights, EU Law, Security and Defence, The campaign on August 20th, 2009
Have You Read it? The most common question journalists ask politicians about the Lisbon Treaty. The answers became symptomatic of the problems in the Lisbon One campaign, here were a bunch of lazy politicians telling us all to vote for something but couldn’t be bothered to read it themselves. Fair enough, if you set yourself up to sell something in today’s PR conscious world you should have a grasp of it. Vincent Browne likes to jump on this bandwagon calling the Treaty impenetrable and impossible. However there is more going on here than meets the eye. The now departed (from the Lisbon campaign at any rate) Declan Ganley waved around what he called the Lisbon Treaty implying it was somehow secretive and hidden. Of course what he had in his hand was actually a propaganda tract from Jens Peter Bonde, a strange bedfellow as a former Danish Communist.
Anyway the news is you can very easily read the Treaty. I’ll say that again, you can very easily read the treaty. Now like everything this needs to be put in context. As most people know EU Treaties have been made by amending the original treaty of Rome. I’m happy to say this is ridiculous and leaves the EU open to accusations of secrecy and garbled euro legalese of which Vincent Browne is so fond. What really matters here is what is in the treaties now and what will be there after we vote. As it happens this is of course available online. Indeed you can have what the treaties will look like if Lisbon is accepted, the current treaties with changes, additions and subtractions in different colours and the actual Lisbon text . The first two are thanks to the Institute for International and European Affairs, I think all sides of this debate recognise the excellent work done in compiling these although I have to declare an interest having worked there some 12 years ago! Links are here http://www.iiea.com/publications?offset=10&max=10&sort=publicationDate&order=desc unfortunately they are no longer free but were in Lisbon 1, not sure why that is. Richard Corbett MEP has them here for free http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/assets/docs/briefing/annotatedtreaties.pdf …not sure about intellectual property rights and all that but it’s a public site.
The treaties are set out in chapters with headings….I know, I know its sooooo complex! I intend to go through most of these headings looking at the changes and the issues involved in the coming weeks. For the moment I will stick to some introductory comments
The first thing people will notice is we are actually talking about two treaties or a set of amendments to two treaties. The Treaty on European Union and The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The latter is effectively the treaties to date with their amendments (single market, freedom of movement etc.) and the former more political and cross cutting principles.
Brother Kelly used to tell me not to use a small word when a large one will do. The EU has taken this up with gusto leading to all sorts of chaos when it comes to the numbering of articles and sections in the treaties. The method of amending treaty after treaty leads to a constant renumbering. Having the two treaties doesn’t help either. The Lisbon Treaty itself contains a note on numbering which is adhered to by the IIEA and I think should be used by everybody. So if you want to amaze your friends down the pub with “Oh yeah I read that” keep logging on!
Why Not!
Posted by Michael in The campaign on July 27th, 2009
Durchgebratenes Deutschland
Posted by Michael in EU Law, The campaign, Uncategorized on July 21st, 2009
Well it’s not many times we say that but reading the judgement of the German Constitutional Court (in summary form at least) gives some very clear insights into EU integration and the Lisbon Treaty. It should also be noted that, around the internet anyway, the judgement has received plaudits form Lisbon yes and no supporters alike.
Most importantly of all the Karlsruhe Court audited Lisbon and the process of EU integration from a democratic standpoint an area where both often come in for unfair (in my view) criticism. The court places a huge emphasis on the concept of conferral which is of course more explicit in the Lisbon Treaty.
It has made some pithy summaries of how EU democracy works and how it does not
“in some fields of policy, the European Union has a
shape that corresponds to that of a federal state,
i.e. is analogous to that of a state. In contrast,
the internal decision-making and appointment procedures remain
predominantly committed to the pattern of an international
organisation, i.e. are analogous to international law;”
The Court is clear that Lisbon does not create a superstate and maintains the foundations of integration in the member state. It even has some interesting points to make about EU and U.N. involvement (the latter in the field of peacekeeping and military operations)
“it is a voluntary, mutual commitment pari passu, which secures
peace and strengthens the possibilities of shaping policy by
joint coordinated action”
For those who believe Lisbon will lead to the sky falling in the Karlsruhe judges opine
“The authorisation to transfer sovereign powers to the European Union
pursuant to Article 23.1 GG is, however, granted under the condition that
the sovereign statehood of a constitutional state is maintained on the basis
of a responsible integration programme according to the principle of
conferral and respecting the Member States’ constitutional identity, and
that at the same time the Federal Republic of Germany does not lose its
ability to politically and socially shape the living conditions on its own
responsibility…It is not a federal state but remains an association of
sovereign states to which the principle of conferral applies. ”
Key to the German courts ruling was that the democratic nature of the EU principally through the European Parliament was not enough to “compensate” for powers that Germany had and was giving up but that critically the solution to this lay in changes to national law and practice in Germany and greater involvement of it’s national parliament.
The Irish courts have dealt with similar questions but obviously in a different context given our constitutional set up. The Crotty case was of course the seminal one which is believed to require a referendum on all EU Treaties in Ireland; however this also bears some more analysis. Crotty was principally decided on the issue of European Political Co-operation (the forerunner of CFSP) and the courts narrowly held that this was a new and innovative area for the EU and therefoe not envisaged by the accession referendum. Whether all treaties since would have passed or failed this test we will never know because the decision to have a referendum was made.
Politically the issue of parliamentary involvement in EU matters and legislation has figured in debates here although perhaps not enough in public debate. The interregnum between Nice 1 and 2 saw work in this area and the National Forum on Europe gave the subject a few outings. A new EU scrutiny Act was introduced and an Oireachtas Committee is dedicated to the task. Many may wish for more an if they do they need to look to Dublin not Brussels
http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg09-072en.html
Angus must try harder!
Posted by Michael in Security and Defence, The campaign on July 2nd, 2009
It is hard to know where to start on reading Angus O’Snodaigh’s views on the current situation with regard to the Lisbon Treaty recently in the Irish Times. Rather like Ian Paisley of old and the latter day rejectionist unionists Sinn Fein see the need to say No in so many different ways regardless of what is on offer.
Maybe we will start with the greatest inaccuracies and work our way down.
I was stunned to see Mr. O’Snodaigh regurgitate the discredited Article 48 argument. He says “This article allows the Council of Ministers, by unanimous decision, to alter the text of existing EU treaties” and then goes on to imply this is some major change. He completely ignores the fact that it is clearly stated in the same article (48.4 and 48.6) that in relation to the ordinary and simplified revision procedure “The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements”
In Ireland this means a referendum. Furthermore the EU currently has no competence in the area of direct taxation, so such a revision would give rise to a new competence. It is clearly stated later in 48.6 “The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties”
So all these procedures need a referendum in Ireland and the Government has said it is opposed to harmonization, the EU has no competence in the area, the text says it can’t happen and the guarantees reinforce this, but still Sinn Fein cry wolf!
While Sinn Fein’s position on militarisation gives rise to a wry smile what is it that they mean? Irish troops currently serve in Bosnia, Kosovo and Chad under the EU and with a U.N. mandate; these are the operations that the EU security and defence policy and the Defence Agency are designed to support. Believe it or not these forces have guns, use troop carriers and are “militarised”
Should the people of these countries not have the chance of reconciliation that Sinn Fein worked so hard for in Northern Ireland? Sinn Fein seem quick to forget how EU member states supported our peace process the least they could do now is to support the EU as it seeks to do the same elsewhere.
Neutrality says Mr. O’Snodaigh is not only what you do with your troops; it is also about alliances you form. Indeed, we can clearly see what alliances Sinn Fein formed when neutrality was developed during World War Two and they were not pretty ones.
Where are the reduced voting weights at Council that he speaks of? Gerry Adams at the Forum on Europe couldn’t stand up this argument either. The double majority voting changes some aspects of population but maintains the idea that for something to become law it must have the support of 55% of the member states, as is the case today! The only Treaty that guarantees the loss of a Commissioner is Nice, only Lisbon gives a legal basis to the member states to change this.
Sinn Fein will have to do a lot better than this critique to persuade people of their view on such a momentous decision for our country.