The "no" side brought together an unlikely assortment of campaigners notably including Libertas, a slick lobby group run by businessman Declan Ganley who is now considering taking the anti-Lisbon message to mainland Europe. ... In an interview hours after the result was announced, Ganley was asked whether he would now move into politics full-time following the success of the campaign which he spearheaded. "I'm not ducking the question, I genuinely don't know the answer so I wouldn't rule it in and I wouldn't rule it out," he told national broadcaster RTE on Saturday in a high-spirited appearance. Whether or not he makes the leap into politics full-time, a Libertas spokesman said that Ganley was set to visit Europe "and see if he can build some sort of pan-European organisation", without giving further details.
...
In an interview hours after the result was announced, Ganley was asked whether he would now move into politics full-time following the success of the campaign which he spearheaded.
"I'm not ducking the question, I genuinely don't know the answer so I wouldn't rule it in and I wouldn't rule it out," he told national broadcaster RTE on Saturday in a high-spirited appearance.
Whether or not he makes the leap into politics full-time, a Libertas spokesman said that Ganley was set to visit Europe "and see if he can build some sort of pan-European organisation", without giving further details.
Still... Ireland has recieved huge sums historically. Nice of them to repay us in this way. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Reducing the use of EU funds would force the irish gov. to have a tax policy a bit more redistributive, wouldn't it? A free fox in a free henhouse!
As Ireland is now a net contributor to the EU - reducing its benefits might also lead to a reduction in its contribution - so a major question is how efficient and how equitable is the targeting of EU funding. Certainly the management of infrastructural projects and public service provision leaves a lot to be desired - although it has been improving a little.
My guess is that the low corporate tax rates is the last thing the Government would touch - as it has been key to attracting mobile international investment and create growth and jobs (and widening the tax base). The most likely scenario under the current Govt. would be a reduction/delay in investment, a reduction in public service provision, greater privatisation of service provision, and, as a last resort, the raising of indirect taxes - none of which is very progressive from a redistribution perspective.
You could make the case that Ireland's position as a small market on the periphery of Europe means that it needs to provide greater incentives for inward investment to overcome increased transport costs and lack of economies of scale. Whether that is also in the interests of the larger more centrally located states is another matter entirely - I suspect not - but then the EU has evolved precisely to help resolve such conflicts of interest.
At least the EU investment in Ireland has been generally successful in raising average standards of living and now Ireland is starting to pay back some of that investment for use in Eastern Europe. It would have been much worse had it created a society dependent on more and more handouts - as some economic conservative theorists would have predicted. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Get them to change their mind? And hold another referendum? Sure. This is the new face of democracy. As in the Netherlands and France in 2005. As in Denmark in 2000. The policy is that if Brussels fails by democratic standards, then it seeks other means to pursue its policy - a second vote, a legal solution... and when all else fails, forceful implementation.
Another blatant example where European policymakers are turning international law into a mockery is Kosovo. Brussels is intent on replacing the United Nations mission in Kosovo with EULEX without the prior approval of the UN Security Council. Talk about a flagrant breach of international law! Do our policymakers in Brussels want to do away with the United Nations? Do they think that the UN is about as worthless as the League of Nations? It would seem so.
If Europe were so democratic, why not organise referendums throughout the 25 countries to wee what the people want? Brussels lacks democratic... and indeed legal credentials to rule. Nobody in the European Commission has even been elected!
Coming back to the Irish referendum: the people voted NO. The will of the people needs to be respected, which means Ireland should now opt out of the next phase of European political integration. An the same opportunity should be given to te remaining 400 million Europeans.
Now wouldn't that be a real test of democracy?
Nobody in the European Commission has even been elected!
I might also add that the EP is directly elected. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
And then we also have a very biased media, but I won't touch that issue here. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
sigh. A free fox in a free henhouse!
Also, if people come out and say "we voted NO to the Lisbon Treaty because of high fuel prices", that is democratic, but not exactly right. As is when US military contractors campaign on "protect Irish neutrality".
You might want to address the alleged reasons for voting no, and the possibilities for accommodation that are being discussed, instead of filling your mouth with "democracy". When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
The will of the people needs to be respected, which means Ireland should now opt out of the next phase of European political integration.
I have no problem with this, except as far as I know it isn't allowed for under the treaty, which requires unanimity. Those are the rules, but they are hardly "fair". Perhaps the EU-27 can agree unanimously to scrap the unanimity requirement, although I doubt it. In any case, it should probably be excluded from any future treaties.
the same opportunity should be given to te remaining 400 million Europeans.
I don't think you will get many objections here, but that remains a matter for the individual countries. They all have their own procedures, which are open to internal judicial review if any national group feels that the national rules are being flouted.
What will happen with regard to the Irish would only become clear after the next European summit. And as I tried to indicate in the introduction to this roundup on my own blog, offering suggestions is all fine, but no one who matters is going to listen to them.
Two peripheral remarks:
Buyer's remorse is overrated folk wisdom psychology. The general trend is that people become happier about their decision once they have made it. I've seen this after the Dutch referendum. Sentiment against the 'Constitution' hardened, also because the result was a resounding rather than a narrow defeat. I predict the same for Ireland.
The disconnect between politicians and the public means that it is rather difficult to even find out why the Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty. The biggest mistake right now would be to negotiate with the political parties who campaigned for the 'no'. They do not deliver anymore. As much as we might dislike it, the American and Irish financial backers of the 'no' campaign and Rupert Murdoch are more relevant partners. Ultimately, though, even their sway is limited. What would be needed is a direct dialogue with the citizens, which politicians don't have any clue about (neither do I, no idea how to organise something like that). See further:
Centre for European Politics - CEP Blog - Ireland's No to Lisbon: What are the causes?
Three points need to be made to explain this. The first is nothing to do with the EU as such. Political dealignment is the process, which since the 1970s, has led to voters becoming more disloyal and more "available" on the electoral market for new political forces. Citizens are less involved directly in party politics. Political parties have lost their mass memberships, as well as becoming centralised and professionalised. All of this means that in referendums, citizens are more likely to abstain and less likely loyally to follow cues from "trusted" party leaders about how to vote. Gratitude to the EU for all it has done for Ireland to be able to escape from the Third World in the 1970s is therefore not sufficient.
That is certain. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
He talks about the way even the organisations supposed to represent the civil society, such as unions, human rights defenders, environmentalists, who were also campaigning for the yes, also have lost all access to the citizens. Society is now atomised, and the only path to popular opinion is the MSM... Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Ireland would have been an easy win if someone with an understanding of the MSM had tried to sell it in the MSM. You can win the public debate even against stiff competiton and opposition - but only if you're media literate.
Wallstrom isn't. Or if she is, she's not paying attention to what Europe's corporate media machines are turning into.
Let's not underestimate this - the MSM literally has the power to cripple or kill Europe. This isn't about newspapers and TV, this is a nasty and brutal political fight for votes herded by rhetoric and canned right-wing talking points.
So far no one at EU HQ seems to have realised there's a problem. The content of Lisbon is secondary to the EU's complacency, and its institutionalised and wretched inability to understand how media politics is being played around it.
How can society be improved if people behave more and more as members of a libertarian utopia, not participating in any social body that would allow some democratic feedback from top to bottom and from bottom to top ?
Getting better MSM is only a temporary solution. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Getting a better MSM isn't a temporary solution, it's the first step to a more permanent one.
That's partly why the Internet could be good news on that front, too. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Then again, the Commissioners are political positions, not technical. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
Margot Wallström's Blog: The Silly Season already? (April 23, 2008)
Migeru Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. June 16th, 2008 at 1:48 pm Dear Margo, When are those providing the political face to the EU (and you in particular as Commissioner for Communication) going to realize that there is a vicious campaign of manipulation of public opinion against the EU waged through the press? It is most obvious in the UK, but you just saw the result of much the same process in Ireland. Until you understand the nature of the opposition you can't effectively fight the battle to communicate Europe to the citizens. It's not just about providing information - it's primarily about fighting and winning a battle over narratives and frames. And about knowing what the real obstacles are and who the enemy is. If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
Dear Margo,
When are those providing the political face to the EU (and you in particular as Commissioner for Communication) going to realize that there is a vicious campaign of manipulation of public opinion against the EU waged through the press? It is most obvious in the UK, but you just saw the result of much the same process in Ireland.
Until you understand the nature of the opposition you can't effectively fight the battle to communicate Europe to the citizens. It's not just about providing information - it's primarily about fighting and winning a battle over narratives and frames. And about knowing what the real obstacles are and who the enemy is.
If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
Society is now atomised, and the only path to popular opinion is the MSM...
"Atomization", is the pervasive issue of all issues.
This would be topic number one on any progressive agenda. People talking and living with people, feeling their friends, their neighborhoods.
Left wing politics is above all based on empathy. Invert the atomization problem and things might "get back on track".
In fact, (though I would appreciate a reference for this), Frank Schnittger elaborated
I wrote them down as I was listening to debate and vox pops on the RTE radio. It's not a particularly scientific sample, and no doubt more reasons will emerge.
I think there are a number of dangers and traps which we must avoid in this debate:
Sometimes how you do it is as important, if not more important than what you do. The failure of the Lisbon referendum sets us a real test. If we respond in an authoritarian, bullying or blustering way, the EU project will die in more countries than one. The EU has to take this negative result on the chin and come up with a better proposal, and the manner in which this proposal is arrived at is as important as what it eventually includes.
My suggestion is that the EP elected in 2009 should be specifically tasked with coming up with the new proposal - not the EU Council or Commission - and that that should be explicit at the time of the election. Essentially it will double as a constitutional assembly charged with coming up with a new constitution. It will then at least have a more direct legitimacy.
My guess is that, if sold in the right way, the Irish electorate would actually be more supportive of more radical proposals rather than less. The proposals need to capture the public imagination and represent a more comprehensive response to the global challenges facing us.
The murky elements behind the NO campaign may just have won a Pyhrric victory. What comes after Lisbon could be much more radical indeed. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
linca:
The approval needs not be a referendum ; but an European Parliament elected with constitutional powers as an major campaigning point could have that legitimacies. Governments, which are still systematically elected on national platforms, with EU policies an afterthought, don't have that legitimacy.
1. The EU bill of rights (Title II of the current treaty). 2. Union membership rules (Title IX of the current treaty, including Article I-60 on Voluntary withdrawal from the Union) 3. The 2009 European Parliament will be a constitutional assembly 4. Referendum rules: The treaty shall be put to a vote by referendum simultaneously in all EU members states. The result of the referendum will be binding if at least 50% of all EU citizens cast a valid vote in it. The treaty shall come into force only if at least 50% of valid votes in a binding referendum support the treaty. In that case, An EU member state shall be considered to have approved the treaty if it is supported by at least 50% of valid votes in that member state, and the number of valid votes in that member state is at least 50% of the eligible voters. An EU member state where the treaty is not approved shall hold a second referendum within 5 years, with the choices being approval of the treaty or withdrawal from the EU according to the provisions of the treaty. A transitory institutional regime shall apply as long as there are any remaining EU Member States which have not approved the treaty and have not yet held a second referendum.
The treaty shall come into force only if at least 50% of valid votes in a binding referendum support the treaty. In that case,
The member states are never going to agree to this, and the sovereigntist opposition would be very loud. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
An EU member state where the treaty is not approved shall hold a second referendum within 5 years, with the choices being approval of the treaty or withdrawal from the EU according to the provisions of the treaty.
You are effectively holding a gun to the head of each member state and saying that they have to agree to your proposed new treaty within 5 years or else face eviction. Why would they agree to this?
You have to start from the position that everybody will want to hold what they have or gain something else for anything they give up. This assumes that we are playing a non-zero-sum gain - i.e. that the size of the cake to be divided will up (in smaller or adjusted portions) will grow sufficiently to ensure that everyone is a net beneficiary.
You could argue that the Irish electoral decision to reject Lisbon is rational if the benefits of further expansion/rationalisation of decision making were outweighed by the loss of relative weight in the weighted majority voting system.
Nobody really made the case for why the EU as a whole would benefit significantly from the new arrangements very convincingly - and so the loss of weighted voting strength could be presented as a net loss without compensatory benefits.
If people still trusted the EU/Irish Government to deliver improved overall benefits that might not have been a problem - but that trust now seems to be gone - for any number of reasons alluded to elsewhere in these threads. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
The fact that the Chater of Fundamental Rights was mostly redundant given the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that European nations have rather advanced constitutions of their own already (this is 2008, not 1776) doesn't help. And the UK, the only backwards country without a bill of rights wants to get rid of its own Human Rights Act... When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I disagree - the problem is that the treaty was about streamlining the organization and not about anything affecting the citizen directly
I tried to argue - in my LTE of the Irish Times published some time back, that it was in Ireland's, Europe's and World's best interest that a more effective, efficient, cohesive and influential EU should emerge onto the world stage - and thus whilst Ireland would have a smaller slice of the pie (in terms of weighted majority voting) it would be compensated for by the fact that the pie had grown.
However I was about the only one who did so. Perhaps the political parties did their focus group thing and decided they had to compete with the NO side on bread and butter, local, and narrowly define nationalist issues, but on that basis I don't see how they could win the argument.
There is a lot of negative rhetoric about bloated bureaucracies and back room dealing, and when the EU actually tries to do something about this - it i voted down as giving more power to the bureaucrats.
The problem is the EU vision has been eclipsed by the nationalist vision. Everything else is boring implementation detail that people don't want to know about. Citizens do buy into visions of they are well argued and presented, but vision they bought into was one of an undemocratic EU foisting complex and opaque schemes onto them which would have unspecified and hard to determine impacts on their lives - more regulation, higher oil prices, poorer terms of trade, you name it - it was all the fault of the EU - an image that has also been fostered by local politicians to deflect blame from themselves.
I would love to have an age breakdown of the voting patterns. I suspect the younger the more NO the vote "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Citizens do buy into visions of they are well argued and presented, but vision they bought into was one of an undemocratic EU foisting complex and opaque schemes onto them which would have unspecified and hard to determine impacts on their lives - more regulation, higher oil prices, poorer terms of trade, you name it - it was all the fault of the EU - an image that has also been fostered by local politicians to deflect blame from themselves.
I suppose we could just invite them to rejoin the UK, though. That would be certainly more satisfying...
Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
