06.03.08
At last, a pro-Lisbon columnist
Hurrah. Fintan O’Toole saves the collection of columnists and argues sensibly for a Yes vote.
“LAST WEEK, a delegation of local people from north Mayo, opposed to the Shell-led Corrib gas project, travelled to Brussels. They did not travel to Brussels to protest, however, but to meet the petitions committee of the European Parliament and the head of the environmental directorate of the EU Commission. They were arguing that the Corrib development breaches key EU directives on habitats, environmental assessment, water protection and public consultation.
And, what is more, they got a much more sympathetic hearing than they have ever got from the Dáil or from their own Government. The European Parliament representatives promised to engage “in a far more pro-active manner” with the issue. The commission representative promised “detailed and direct liaison with the local community in north Mayo”.
Now this, surely, is the nightmare scenario that so many of those campaigning against the Lisbon Treaty want to warn us against. Here is a perfect example of Brussels interfering in the internal affairs of Ireland, seeking to frustrate the will of a national government and bypassing a national parliament to deal directly with the concerns of citizens. Here, too, is EU law being used potentially to override national law and frustrate the will of an elected Irish Government.
Three things are worth noting about all of this. The first is that this kind of thing has been going on for a long time now – Lisbon changes very little of it. The second is that it is a very good thing – in the contemporary world the value of sovereignty needs to be balanced by other considerations, like human rights and the environment, which transcend national boundaries.
And the third is that anti-Lisbon campaigners were curiously silent about the outrageous collusion of the Mayo people with the Eurocrats in challenging the sovereignty of the Irish State. Could it be that they realise that, if you put names and faces and issues to it, the process they want us to fear is actually a progressive and civilising one that can be used to support real political struggles by people against power?
The big problem with Lisbon, and the reason it is so boring, is that it is about process, not politics. It is an argument about the shape and dimensions of the boxing ring, and about some of the nuances of the Queensbury Rules. It is not about the real fight, which is the struggle for social justice and against the abuse of political and corporate power.
……………..
Was it a breach of a narrowly-defined Irish sovereignty for the EU to force a reluctant Irish government to cede equal pay for Irish women in the 1970s? Absolutely.
Was it an imposition of alien European socialist principles of solidarity for Jacques Delors to force us to accept billions from the European taxpayer to aid our development? Sure.
And hasn’t the effect been overwhelmingly positive? Look around almost any Irish small community fighting an environmental struggle and you’ll find people making a beeline for Brussels. What, for example, was the Spanish MEP David Hammerstein-Mintz doing at the oral hearing into Fingal County Council’s plans for a super-dump in Lusk a few months back? Oppressing the Irish people with the iron hand of a European super-state? Or responding to a plea to the petitions committee from local people who believed that they had a better chance of getting a fair hearing if someone from the EU was keeping an eye on things?
When the issues are up-close and concrete, rather than abstract and legalistic, Irish people actually want the EU to supplement local and national democracy and to have the power to stand up for them.
The point in all of this is not that the Lisbon Treaty is wonderful, or that there are not fierce battles to be fought over workers’ rights, Europe’s response to the developing world, defence policies or the direction of market economies. It is that those vital political issues get lost in the endless tedium of structural reform. If we defeat Lisbon, those tedious abstractions will continue to dominate the agenda.
Vote Yes, get the damned thing out of the way, and let the real games begin.”
JL Pagano said,
June 3, 2008 at 11:55 am
Here, here.
andrew said,
June 3, 2008 at 12:45 pm
It’s not all that surprising that pro-Lisbon columnists are rare in our papers. O’Toole’s article makes clear,and unashamedly celebrates, the fact that the EU is essentially a paternalist undertaking. It has often forced our hands on issues that we never would have dealt with otherwise, because of inertia, ideology or infighting.
Anyone old enough to remember Irish newspapers in the 70s, and therefore in a position to make a comparison, must be very struck by their current domination by younger columnists, often trained as economists, who buy totally ino the individualist, low-tax, pro-business agenda – McWilliams, Ruddock, Cooper,Coleman x 2, etc. Their instincts are to oppose the things the EU does well – regulation, protection of workers’ rights – because they don’t promote business interests. So, even if they don’t overtly call for opposition to Lisbon, they have a sneaking regard for Mr Ganly, and don’t show much enthusiasm for a yes vote.
Maybe O’Toole is a man out of time, but read his list again of things that might never have happened here were it not for the EU, and think.
Sarah said,
June 3, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Well observed, but its not just them. Kevin Myers, and even David Quinn. Meanwhile the Sunday Times is refusing point blank to let me write a pro-Lisbon column as they are adopting a paper-wide No position. Most frustrating.
Electron said,
June 3, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Sarah, nobody can say that Europe hasn’t been very good to us – the fear among business people has nothing to do with regulation, but the establishment of a fully democratic Europe where a vote is only a vote – as it stands, we can punch way above our weight as we’re still being wooed, but after the wedding the reality will be different – it always is!
andrew said,
June 3, 2008 at 2:42 pm
‘the Sunday Times is refusing point blank to let me write a pro-Lisbon column as they are adopting a paper-wide No position’
I left out of my list of pro-business commentators the editor of the Sunday Times’ Irish edition. One misses his weekly union-bashing column on the back of the business section – not.
Electron said,
June 3, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Europe at its worst and one month’s warning.
This is to inform you that Deca-BDE is now being Banned under European Union RoHS Directive. The European Court of Justice has just ruled that the deca-bromodiphenylether (deca-BDE) exemption included by the European Commission in the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS) Directive has been annulled. Thus, as of June 30, 2008, decaBDE will no longer be allowed in covered electronic products sold in Europe.
simon said,
June 3, 2008 at 3:22 pm
That seems more an arguement that the EU is working fine at the moment without Lisbon then saying that Lisbon is needed as the whole thing is falling apart.It is like Kevin Myres latest
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/why-i-find-myself-in-bed-with-the-shinners-on-lisbon-treaty-1391780.html
It really has nothing to do with Lisbon.
Anyway.
Meanwhile the Sunday Times is refusing point blank to let me write a pro-Lisbon column as they are adopting a paper-wide No position. Most frustrating.
Interesting. Should you be really publishing that fact. Will they not be pissed that it is known they are censoring their journalists?
An Fear Bolg said,
June 3, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Maybe I’m naive, but I’m actually surprised that the Sunday Times would do that. I don’t buy it very often, but there’s the reason I need to never buy that horrible newspaper again.
What’s the point in hiring a columnist if you’re not going to allow them write a perfectly reasonable article? Is the ST some type of Murdoch echo chamber?
FutureTaoiseach said,
June 3, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Fintan O’Toole seems strangely excited by mere sophistry from the European Parliament, coming conveniently close to the Lisbon referendum. Actions are what matter – not words. But the article does confirm one argument of us on the no side – namely that the treaty’s plans for a Citizens Petition are nothing new. The petition already exists, and even under Nice, it will have nothing more than an advisory affect. It will continue to be non-binding. And in any case, the European Parliament will continue to have no power to act on it in a manner that will change the facts on the ground. I am singularly uninspired and unconvinced by Fintan’s points.
Joe H said,
June 3, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Fair play for coming out and saying that the Sunday Times is refusing point blank to let you write a pro-Lisbon column.
Now go write the column anyway and publish it here under the by line “The column The Sunday Times (Ireland) wouldn’t print.
Sarah said,
June 3, 2008 at 8:46 pm
“Interesting. Should you be really publishing that fact. Will they not be pissed that it is known they are censoring their journalists?”
Well, I think they are pretty unapologetic about it and shouldn’t mind. Their agenda is quite upfront and like I always say, nothing wrong with an agenda, so long as its not one of the hidden sort.
AFAIK some politicians have protested to them (their editorials have been consistently anti-Lisbon) but the editor defended their right to take a position on the referendum. They say that newspapers often take ideological positions. If they are arguing that case to me, and to the government, and are happy to stand over it, then I’d be surprised if they weren’t willing to defend that position in public.
Of course, life is full of surprises!
B said,
June 3, 2008 at 9:29 pm
For that reason alone I will buy two copies a week now.
Electron said,
June 3, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Not one comment on the annulment by the European Court Of Justice of an exemption agreed by the commission speaks volumes about our priorities – the world’s high tech industries are in a state of panic and the Irish are worried about Mr. Murdoch’s attitude to Europe – where’s the surprise in that?
The shock to Industry from this ruling is the time scale to implementation – one month for something that normally takes at least one year to phase out on the ground – this is the nonsense that puts business people off the idea of further integration.
Wait until these loo-las get more powers – then we’ll have a laugh a minute.
Sarah said,
June 3, 2008 at 11:57 pm
I think the problem electron is that we don’t understand what DecaBED is
NotoLsibonyestoEU said,
June 4, 2008 at 12:45 am
Lisbon is a joke! Anybody who votes for this treaty does not see the bigger picture.
The EU has gone so wide off the original path that it now has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with vested business interests.
A treaty which is being sneaked through all the other Nations of the EU is not worth voting for.
The EU needs to REFORM big time and the pace of change be lead from the ground up not the other way around. The fact that almost all the politicians are in favor is actual evidence and proof of why it is so bad.
Politicians ]especially in Ireland] simply cannot be trusted and in fact this country is already a joke politically. There should be a change in the number of politicians we have I estimate we need to get rid of about 66 TDs we simply should not have so many TDs and as a partial result we now have so many bad ones that it really is a vast waste of money.
Change is good but it must be at the right pace and for the right reasons. The EU was expanded way to fast and for way too many countries. All of the former east block nations should not have been accepted for about another 10- 15 years from today! Special agreements which brought the EU closer could have been done and then a gradual inclusion of countries oj a case by a case basis.
Instead we saw the stupidity of just expanding willynilly and the EU hijaked by business interests and EURO elites. This instead of a gradual movement that came from the people themselves. Now we have a scenario in which not a single EU nation is willing to give their population a choice in the matter for fear of people doing a “Nice one” on it.
It is a travesty and a disgrace and I would urge anyone with a vote to say no! Thereafter a change can take place in which the EU can evolve through its people and not its politicians.
IF you are PRO EU then you need to reject this farcical and insulting treaty which is actually a constitution by the back door.
NotoLsibonyestoEU said,
June 4, 2008 at 12:49 am
They don’t call him FINTAN O FOOLISH for nothing!
Nice guy, but an intellectual lightweight not to be taken seriously.
NotoLsibonyestoEU said,
June 4, 2008 at 12:54 am
“Taoiseach warns No to Lisbon would be ‘disaster’
Translates as I am a liar and a bully, just do as I say and don’t bother me with any hassle about the details.
A disaster would be a plane crash or tsunami event, or some such like.
Saying no to Lisbon would be people expressing their views in a vote. it wont be a disaster if they vote yes or no but the most sensible option for those who care about Europe and their own country would be to vote no.
Sarah said,
June 4, 2008 at 9:38 am
bla bla bla bla
sigh
Roisin said,
June 4, 2008 at 10:48 am
Sarah, First shock is that the ST tells you what you can and can’t write but the bigger shock is that you accept it.
Anna said,
June 4, 2008 at 10:52 am
That’s outrageous that the Sunday Times won’t let you write what you want. Wish someone would set up a half-decent Irish Sunday newspaper. I don’t bother with any of what’s on offer at the moment.
Sarah said,
June 4, 2008 at 10:57 am
Well, they are entitled to take a position even if I don’t agree with it. They have an editorial policy. They’ve taken a position. I’m frustrated but that’s life.
Another point is that should they decide to give balance to the yes side (which they are under no obligation to do unlike the broadcasters) it wouldn’t necessarily be me they’d choose to provide that. They have specialist political writers that might do a better job on it than I would.
And you know, I think its a great paper. We end up keeping the magazines for weeks cos there’s so much stuff in them. Liam Fay, Damien Kiberd, Stephen Price, Jeremy Clarkson. They’re great writers.
Bolg said,
June 4, 2008 at 11:19 am
Jeremy Clarkson is not a great writer. He’s incredibly immature and says things just for the sake of it, hoping to p*ss a few people off. He is, I believe, the ugly face of the UK. Funny sometimes, I admit.
I was a huge Liam Fay fan, but the ST don’t seem to know what to do with him. His disjointed jumble of mini-columns doesn’t hang together. He was a good TV reviewer but it became an exercise in language rather than TV critique. They should give him a proper column – though I’d rather see him in a daily newspaper.
Incidentally, wasn’t he complained to someone for offending a group of people or something? I remember something recently … seemed like state censorship to me (like the Broadcasting Commission rubbish and the requirements of balance).
P.S. See that a Mayo newspaper threatened legal action against castlebar.ie and forced it to shut down? I know it’s a freesheet, but nice to see a newspaper strike for free speech etc.
Roisin said,
June 4, 2008 at 11:27 am
God, woman, what is the matter with you? Go write for something that gives you freedom. I’ll buy it whatever it is. And we’ll just have to assume that the other writers in the ST are under the same restrictions, so who gives a damn whether they are good writers or not? Bloody hell, this is making even the Sindo look good.
Sarah said,
June 4, 2008 at 11:28 am
OH he does say things for the sake of being funny, but it IS funny.
Anna said,
June 4, 2008 at 12:32 pm
It’s just so English with just a smattering of Irish content. I enjoy AA Gill the odd time I read it. I’m amazed the Irish Times haven’t brought out a Sunday edition.
Btw Sarah, my sis who lives down the sticks loved your piece about the birds. I forget the details, something about them getting into the house I think.. She had the exact same experience.
Tadhg McGrath said,
June 4, 2008 at 12:32 pm
One of the worrying aspects of the Lisbon Treaty, and one that isn’t getting debated a lot, is that it commits all the member states of the EU to increase their military spending every year, for ever. This means that no matter what else you are able to find money for, you always have to spend a bit more than last year on guns. It’s a big blank cheque for the arms industry.
Now I’m not a pacifist, but I’d be happier if it said something about increasing spending on education or health, or even renewable energy. But it doesn’t. Just more and more money for guns and bombs.
This is the actual wording :”Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities.”
It’s in article 27 which, if you want to, you can read here: http://tinyurl.com/6xgdc9
I guess “improve their military capabilities” could mean that we all have to learn ju-jitsu, or wear camouflage trousers or something, but as far as I can gather the EU will get to tell us what we need to do, and I fear it will mean spending tax money on tanks, no matter how much we’d prefer to fix up our schools with leaking roofs, or hire a few more nurses.
Bolg said,
June 4, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I agree with Anna – I hate the way the ST goes from one Irish article to the next English one. References are made to police/counties/officials without a reference to what jurisdiction they are in. It may seem petty and nationalist, but it gives the impression of a single jurisdiction, i.e. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Most of the voluminous supplements are not localised.
Also, Anna, the IT have addressed the weekend by making the Saturday edition the Saturday and Sunday addition, and charging you 20 cents extra for the privilege of pretending that it’s a proper weekend edition.
Tadhg, I appreciate that many in this country seem to have an ingrained military phobia, but I don’t understand why? Personally, I think neutrality was a useful policy that has long since outlived its purpose and should be jettisoned. The No side object to the mutual-assistance/defence provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, which seem totally reasonable to me. If the UK/France/Spain were attached, should we not be obliged to help? Whether it be militarily or otherwise? Bear in mind that we would 95% depend on other Member States to defend us if some crazy terrorist decides it’s worthwhile to target Liberty Hall.
Also, while schools etc may need some more money, that doesn’t mean that you withdraw funding from other areas to pile it all into one deficient department. If this were the logic should we not tackle problems one by one – no spending by any government department until health is sorted out, all government funds into health. Does anyone think we would solve the problems, even with endless funding? Plus, just because Mary Hanafin appears to have achieved nothing in Education doesn’t mean that huge amounts of additional funding should be diverted to that department.
Electron said,
June 5, 2008 at 10:57 am
Sarah, Deca-BDE is a flame retardant additive used in plastics – it reduces the risk of a product catching fire should it overheat under fault conditions. Its use has been phased out in Europe by most material manufacturers, while the rest of the world continues to use it. Europe is no longer a big player in the provision of materials for the Electrical/Electronic manufacturing sectors – so its possible that some imported components may contain it – hence the panic.
The exemption was for five years, but has now been annulled by the European Court.
Our low Corporation Tax could suffer the same fate – be warned!
“Nov. 2005 – The European Union has announced its decision to exempt decabromodiphenyl ether (Deca-BDE) from the Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directive, which will allow the continued use of the flame retardant Deca-BDE in electrical and electronics products.
The European Commission’s decision was based on results of a ten-year EU risk assessment which evaluated 588 studies. The EC assessment concluded that the use of Deca-BDE does not pose health or environmental risks. This decision also supports the majority opinion of EU Member States that voted on the exemption of Deca-BDE in September 2005.”
Tadhg said,
June 5, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Bolg, that’s not what Article 27 says. It means, if it is passed, that we are OBLIGED to spend money on one area -military- no matter what we think is our priority. So even if we were facing economic ruin and we couldn’t pay the old age pension, we would have to buy more guns.
As to whether we should rush to the defence of Britain if their foreign policy leads another state to attack them, I don’t think we should be obliged to. Why should we?
Sarah said,
June 5, 2008 at 8:31 pm
I approve of Article 27 for two reasons.
One aim of it is that the countries will pool their defence purchases – a bit like a small shop joining Londis or Gala. The idea is that as a unit the EU can then negotiate to buy better military equipment at a better price.
And should we buying better military equipment and improving our capacity? Yes. We have a moral obligation to help out in peace keeping and peace enforcement around the world under UN mandate. What’s the point in saying we’ll do that and then turning up in a few crappy jeeps. We should improve our equipment and we should be ready when called upon.
The US shouldn’t be the sole superpower. I think its a good thing if the EU has military clout outside of NATO. We should be able to act when needed without needing the bloody yanks in all the time.
Sarah said,
June 5, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Gee, looks like the No’s have it. Unless FF lay down the law and get the vote out. While I would enjoy seeing them shamed over losing what should have been a winnable referendum, I would be sorry if it was defeated. There are hundreds of millions of people who through their representatives have signed up for this. And we, a country of 4 million, will stop their march. It seems unjust. The Brits will be delighted. sigh.
V said,
June 5, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Shows what a waste of time ‘Direct Democracy’ is.
An Fear Bolg said,
June 6, 2008 at 10:06 am
I don’t think the Yes side can win this referendum. As the Times points out today, the politicians on the yes side = the parties that got 90% of the vote last year. The majority of FG/Lab have swung to the no side.
These facts don’t make any sense, but there is the “sophisticated” Irish voter for you.
Thick more like – the most common reason given for voting no was not understanding the Treaty or not knowing what they were voting for. WTF? Doesn’t that mean you (a) find out or (b) don’t vote? Despite prevailing attitudes, Lisbon is not that complicated and voluminous information, consolidated Treaties, summaries and treatises are available.
In reality, the majority of No voters are therefore voting no out of laziness and stupidity.
Electron said,
June 6, 2008 at 10:52 am
An Fear Bolg, the problem is that most Irish voters are now educated – a) they are suspect of parliamentary democracy – the Iraq war being the prime example of all cock ups in modern times. b) the lack of trust in our politicians factor – what’s in it for them question.- Bertie for EU President ? c) France, where a five hours a week lecturer gets full pay, while there’s massive unemployment among under twenty fives. d) Italy, great life, but can it last?. e) Belgium, can’t agree on a government. Country to country, they’ve got problems that are much greater than ours and finally, the European Court gets involved in too many issues and the perception is that we’ll be ruled by judges. In all, it’s better to remain a friendly spectator than to get involved.
betty said,
June 6, 2008 at 12:09 pm
There is a perception that FF were semi-detached from the Lisbon campaign, —the delay in deciding when to have the referendum then the delay in announcing the date , Bertie calling the NO people loolahs, then the first 4 weeks devoted to Bertie and Cowan, then Cowan takes a swipe at Kenny and now using the posters to promote their county councillors,it was as if Lisbon was just incidental. If Lisbon is important it should have been treated seriously when FF held all the aces—where are their highly paid advisors????/
An Fear Bolg said,
June 6, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Electron, I don’t see what the “education” relates to.
a) suspect of parliamentary democracy
What’s the alternative? And I don’t see how the Iraq war is a consequence of parliamentary democracy – particularly as it was led by a country which has a presidential system.
b) the lack of trust in our politicians factor – what’s in it for them question.- Bertie for EU President ?
This is facetious. What interest do Brian Cowen or Lenihan have in Bertie being EU President? Alternatively, shouldn’t we all be happy if we get an Irishman into the job? Realistically, Bertie has dropped off the radar for this job.
c) France, where a five hours a week lecturer gets full pay, while there’s massive unemployment among under twenty fives.
Your point being?
d) Italy, great life, but can it last?
Again, what’s the point here? And how do you mean can it last? The country has serious difficulties at the moment.
e) Belgium, can’t agree on a government.
An interim government was agreed in December 07 and a final government in March this year.
I fail to see how a list of various domestic issues weighs agains the Lisbon Treaty – but this follows the Irish pattern of throwing any gripe going into the debate.
Electron said,
June 6, 2008 at 2:25 pm
An Fear Bolg – a quick response – UK went to war – parliament decided – Endorsing Lisbon – all other countries, parliament decided. Trust in politicians , I’ve heard a number of people questioning their motives for the possible long term personal gain. Other countries problems – too far apart culturally and economically for a serious commitment at this juncture – ok in the long term when there is more equality in attitudes and standards.
shell victim said,
September 7, 2008 at 1:04 pm
The trip to Brussells for the Rossport folks doesn’t seem to have done them a lot of good does it? Last week two navy warships arrived in Broadhaven Bay to protect Shell’s pipelaying ship from interference from the fishermen in their tiny crab boats. These fishermen, many fourth and fifth generation, face ruin because of the possibility of contamination from the Shell refinery.
So much for the power of the EU…