Intersting analysis over at Open Democracy about the reasons Lisbon was rejected and an attempt to conceptualise the ‘democratic deficit’ that was apparently at the heart of the rejection. It is interesting from perusing the papers today that this analysis is taking a lot of hold, that it was the local context that informed voters perspective on Europe.

I am not sure there can be any other way of approaching this short of asking all people to be European citizens in the fullest possible sense of identification.

As Richard Sinnott outlined in the Irish Times yesterday, that is a huge ask of a country where 59% describe themselves as solely “Irish”. The analysis is interesting for it suggests that the lack of a joined up system between the EU, our executive which negotiates treaties, the Dail and the media/public is what constitutes a lack of democracy in Europe. That the EU itself is ok but the procedures in this country for connecting voters to it, plugging them in and getting the buy-in or cache that wins referenda is not there. They may not be off the mark in one sense, school water charges anyone?.

Yet there is a more fundamental disconnect expressed here, I think the word that swung many voters was consolidation because pro-EU as we may be we do not want a Federal State. There is a chaotic element to Europe that is reassuring to voters, it tells them that no one is in charge per se and it remains an intergovernmental plaything at its very core. The idea of consolidation, of rationalising, of tidying up is a bridge too far at present. The idea hints at a centrality and organisation that we are more familiar with at national level, an ability to organise policy and law from the centre. It did not need to be spelled out because it was not a rational argument, it was an emotive response.

Like a pavlovian response, voters were presented with a “consolidating” treaty and thought, hang on. They didn’t do it in huge numbers, 53%-46% is not a landslide, but they did it in far greater numbers than in Nice I with a lot of “soft no” votes coming down to vote and abandoning the 60% pro-EU majority that seems to be latent in the country. Most notable voters in this regard were Munster and Connaught voters who saw this as a step they would not take - by as much as 60% - 40% in some cases.

Personally I think it was far more than a democratic deficit that swung it, dislocated social groups were wary of voting in favour of distant sites of governance (real or perceived). When the socio-economic activity is moving rapidly out of their locality and either outsourcing abroad or drying up as an industry the desire and impulse is, naturally, to retain control as locally as possible.

In a great day for Irish and European democracy, the Irish people, on a higher turnout than Nice II, rejected the illegitimate and anti-democratic Lisbon Treaty by 53.4% to 46.6%. In doing so, they have struck a blow for freedom and against remote, unaccountable and undemocratic rule by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. They have shown great courage in the face of an Establishment media blitz by Independent Newspapers, the Irish Times, the Sunday Business Post, The Tribune and others who bombarded us with a relentless torrent of black propaganda about the “disaster” a no vote would be for Ireland. As I pointed out on a previous post, the final day before polling was marked by a disgraceful attempt at scaremongering on the front-page of the Irish Independent, claiming that a “No” vote would accelerate rising unemployment. It is interesting that while the margins were not as large on the day, the poll on the Independent’s own website and the story’s comment pages were deluged by angry criticism of the story and support for a “No” vote.

This outcome cannot be separated from the context in which it takes place, which relates to one of my biggest grievances against our party-political culture - namely the culture of the “cosy-consensus”, in which like the ideological equivalent of a business-cartel cornering the market by refusing to compete with one another on price, the political-elites insist on refusing to compete with one another on a certain set of political issues. The Irish elites insisted - like with immigration - on refusing to represent the huge segment of public opinion that has historically opposed closer European political integration. Never has that been more true that now, with the elites continuing to display open contempt for our decision. Only yesterday, Una Claffey, former government spokesperson, argued that in Lisbon “we” had gotten all we wanted. Who is the “we” in this? This mantra continues to be repeated by members of the FF elite, who insisted during the referendum campaign that “we” had gotten all our “redlines” in the negotiations. Again who are “we”? The answer is clear - they are referring to themselves - the elite. Never in the history of Irish politics as an independent country have our political-class be so out of touch with the people they claim to represent.

It is infuriating to me, as a “no” voter, to hear Barroso, Wallstrom, Polish PM Donald Tusk, French Secretary for Europe Jouyet, German Foreign Minister Steinmeier and others insist that the ratification of the Treaty must go ahead. On the contrary it must not go ahead, and most certainly must not apply to Ireland in its current form. The Irish people have said “no” and if the elites persist in trying to railroad us into ratification by trying to isolate us by getting the other 26 governments and parliaments to ratify Lisbon, then it will only reinforce Irish and European public opinion of Brussels as a remote and anti-democratic project. While a pro-European myself, I had not choice but to vote no due to a number of factors including those I have described in the previous post. The French and Dutch peoples have already said no. Now the Irish have said no. You don’t need to be a rocket-scientist to deduce how the British would vote had they been given the opportunity. When the Irish politicians tell the other states should continue ratification, what they really mean is that the governments and parliaments of those countries should do so - for not one of them will dare put this to a referendum in their respective countries due to the certainty of a “no” vote. Sarkozy said as much in a meeting with journalists some months ago.

Our decision on the current package is final. Another tarted-up copy of the rejected formula rejected by the Dutch, French, and now Irish is a non-runner. We Irish are tiring of the “permanent revolution” of European integration. We want to remain in the EU and the euro, but not at any price. The recent reintroduction of the annual 1916 parades have served to remind the Irish people of what was sacrificed for our freedom, and I believe a richer Ireland is now more self-confident and inclined to defend its sovereignty in a way that was not the case in the past. If they come back to us again with a new package, we must insist it be radically different - at least in its application to Ireland - from the one we have rejected. That must include the deletion of the self-amending Article 48 that allows for treaty ratification without referenda, the retention of our Commissioner and voting weight on the Council, an opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights like Poland and the UK obtained, and the retention of our national vetoes on issues like energy, public health, and tourism and sport. Anything less deserves the same answer we gave on June 12th.

Brian Cowen, Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore will be more uncomfortable tonight than simply for losing an election. In their own ways they will each feel the pressure of having to face the fallout of a no vote. While it is easy to explain the no as a rejection of the entire establishment, that explanation does not really help the leaders of the three main political parties in the country.

Yesterday they lost the Lisbon referendum for a number of reasons, not least the inability of the yes campaign to parse their arguments in ways that resonated with voters. When all of the ‘plan a’ failed, it was a case of resort to namecalling/intimidation/scare-mongering. All of this was done with various degrees of media help in an environment where any political scientist would have said they could not lose. But, lost they did and today they all face unique problems as a result.

Cowen: As head of government he is paradoxically quite secure. His party will rally around him as they always do, out of a sense of loyalty. In Europe and at home he will be besieged. Pressure on him to deliver some fix, some workaround will be immense as well as him have to face the shame (should it really be shaming?) of going to a European Council meeting and explaining our ‘no’ vote. He does not have to face any leadership challegne for the spin will allow him to get on with things in the business of government.

Yet this should not fool us, he is in deep trouble. The electorate that voted were making a statement against some of the orthodoxy of current economic governance. They decided all parties were illegitimate brokers for their concerns - fishing, farming, labouring, manufacturing - and opted to support independent minded TDs and non-governmental bodies campaigning for a no vote. Cowen cannot afford to ignore such a trend in the FF heartland of rural Ireland.

The loss of fishing, farming and urban C2DE votes will harm him in the local elections. Not only does he have to face Europe and work something out to their satisfaction, he has to remain cognisant of what voters want and why they voted as they did. A balancing act in which I do not envy him.

Enda Kenny: I made a point of suggesting that Cowen is a safe leader because it now seems clear that Enda Kenny is not. He failed to carry his own Mayo constituency - as opposed to last May when 3 Fine Gael TDs were elected. Rumours have abounded since the last election of a possible move against Kenny, in the belief that he would be unable to move the party beyond their current position in 2012. The fact now exists that his attempt to direct a European campaign, aided by some big-name FG heads, was a failure. His decision to appoint Creighton as EU spokesperson did not pay off, his party could not convince its own voters to vote yes and he could not impose himself on the campaign.

Yes he is in opposition but Fine Gael has long been Ireland’s most European party, unflinchingly supportive of all EU measures. This is a rich electorate to tap for an opposition leader seeking to showcase his skills as a leader of men. It didnt happen and his party will look at next year’s local elections with some trepidation. Cowen and FF remain at 42% despite the Lisbon disaster yet Fine Gael are back to he bad old days of 23%. Knives will be sharpened and Kenny will have to fight for his life if he is to keep leadership, perhaps the injection of life is not a bad thing…..

Eamon Gilmore: Eamon Gilmore is in many ways a simple analysis but also a complicated one. First of all he is a leader of the third party, a social democratic party. He wanted a yes vote, on paper his core constituency of C2DE voters voted no. That break with the party ‘elite’ and its core vote is not isolated but is perhaps most worrying for Labour. If this was a mid-term kicking then they are alright but if those voters in urban Dublin see the Labour party as one they cannot identify with then trouble beckons. Lots of workigin class voters and constituencies voted no. Labour wanted yes. Therein lies the rub. That is the simple part.

The complicated part is Gilmore’s authority. After Ruairi Quinn’s solo run as IAE Chairperson there are issues about how Gilmore was leading his party. Who was the main Labour person on the campaign trail? Who was the one to whom we were listening for the Labour perspective? That division was not a clearcut handicap to Gilmore but it can easily be seen as such. If that is the case he also has a great deal of work to do to reassert his authority, link with his core electorate and prove Labour is in chime with these.

Whatever the result in the referendum later - and at this stage it looks like a no - recriminations and blame will be handed out over the nature of the yes campaign. The first evidence of this was a while back when Cowen wanted Fine Gael to up their game. Today we see more of this as angry backbenchers in Fianna Fail attack their MEPs for a very quiet performance.

Surely not attempting to deflect from an inability to deliver their constituency (as Cowen demanded). We might also want to watch Bertie Ahern being credited for this loss, the lack of government movement early enough, the scary no vote going “unchallenged”, the backlash against the economy/globalisation/EU defence. Perhaps reading Donncha’s post will enlighten the analysis.

Thomas Byrne TD will be familiar to blog readers. The newly elected TD competed via blog and on the ground with Dominic Hannigan for votes last May. Anyhow, turns out his former speciality was solicitor specialising in EU law and in a public message on the blog he is inviting voters (I doubt he could be that picky about geography - it is a referendum after all) to email him questions on the treaty before they go and vote (thomas.byrne-at-oireachtas.ie thanks to oireachtas.ie). Positive engagement beats the more scary tone elsewhere.

“Ahern said he was not really a gambling man, but he enjoyed attending festive race meetings when he had the opportunity.”

So reported the Irish Times at the end of December last year when Bertie Ahern was at the Leopardstown races. Despite that, he appears to have been quite successful at the old gee-gees.

Pat Phelan has a horror post about Mrs. Phelans mammogram appointment. After going to the doctor for an appointment she recieved the letter from the HSE (here) for an appointment in 2010.The conclusion though;

Anyways money changed hands, job done, Mrs Phelan is healthy as a horse.
Dont depend on the Irish health care system to save your lives though.

Only seems to confirm that the unacknowledged trend (policy?) of pushing privatisation continues. If you want results, you need insurance and payment. Yet if this continues it will lead to more heartache, more collateral damage as those who can afford it least end up with inferior health care. We may well be having a debate about universal healthcare in a few elections time.

Is that news which slips out now has got to be bloody good to dislodge other politics stories from the news and really really good to last more than one turn of the news cycle (and how long is that now?). Which is why its a good time to draw some more lines and circles around what will get delayed in the NDP.

Dan Boyle has it spot on, now is the time to borrow and invest in the future.

The report today from Central Mental Hospital Carers’ Group, the Irish Mental Health Coalition and Schizophrenia Ireland about the desirability of moving the Central Mental Hospital from Dundrum to Thornton Hall emphasised two major things for me - the first political and relevant, the second trivial, unoriginal and selfinvolved.

The first point is that this site at Thornton Hall looks like it could turn into a nasty problem for the government, they paid well over the odds for the site and will shoehorn this onto the area to extract value from the decision by selling land in Dundrum. That decision will end up doing damage to the status of sufferers of mental health and according to Dr Harry Kennedy (director of the Hospital, not consulted about the move) impair recruitment. Check out the bebo that has been set up to get a million signatures together to protest.

Mental health is an issue that is treated appallingly in this country, we lose 500 people a year to suicide but spend a fraction of the amount spent on road safety on preventing suicide and addressing its wider mental health issues. Politics doesn’t respond to those with no voice, I suppose.

While the Green party were at pains last night on Q&A to emphasise their return to focussing on their ministries and a narrower agenda (perfectly entitled to do that), I did find a statement on this issue from a year ago on the Bebo site above;

We regard this Government’s plans to re-locate the Central Mental Hospital to a site alongside the planned Thornton Prison as being totally unacceptable. Such a move will accentuate the stigma and isolation/social exclusion of the mentally ill.

I hope they raise it at Cabinet at the very least, more here.

The second point is that the debate today, invariably featuring Jim Power but excellently done by Vincent Browne on his Nightly News was of the highest quality. John Moloney was on with VB and many of his points are worth listening to, primarily his admission about the role of cost in this decision and his avoiding explaining how Harry Kennedy was not consulted. It didn’t come across well but wasn’t awful, perhaps because of the issue at heart but also Moloney’s straight forwardness at times (when it suited him admittedly).

Yet there is little or no way to get it streaming onto any blog or news site without a great deal of tech. Politicians wont cry, neither probably will media (ask RTE who have kept ownership of so much content) but it is something that really needs to change or get left behind. I admitted this is a self indulgent point but one that is increasingly relevant. I know Simon and others are pushing this and they are right, politics needs it.

Charlie McCreevy won’t miss the tent, it is amazing how few TDs actually went

[McCreevy] said he had found the tent to be a pain in the arse, adding that he was allowed to use such language as it had been sanctioned by the Taoiseach.

Love the alternative ideas from Le Craic, better than increasing subs.

Photo by juverna and adapted under a creative commons license at Lecraic.com