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.

So Brian Cowen continues to slowly dismantle the Bertie Ahern machine (on which note, anyone see a Fianna Fail ‘Yes’ poster with Cowen’s face on it?). The announcement that the construction industry wont be dining in Ballybrit will be greeted with delight in the offices of the Green Party and Finian McGrath as a potential silly-season embarrassment is now avoided.

Mr Cowen told a meeting of the Fianna Fáil national executive last night he would not be proceeding with the fundraiser.

<!-- document.write('<scr'+'ipt language="javascript1.1" src="http://adserver.adtech.de/addyn|3.0|257|1067124|0|170|ADTECH;loc=100;target=_blank;key=key1+key2+key3+key4;grp=2003;misc='+new Date().getTime()+'"></scri'+'pt>'); //--> “The tent at the Galway Races is gone for this year,” a party spokesman subsequently confirmed.
The announcement will help Mr Cowen recover some lost ground after the negative publicity surrounding his F-word gaffe earlier this week.

It will be presented as a recovery from the F-word usage, but to be fair in this country a slip like that will not lose you votes. You are in good company if nothing else. Despite the spin that Dorgan’s review is what parked the fundraiser, what it really does though is attempt to distance FF from the last 12 years.

The Taoiseach has not been explicit in any form of critique of Bertie’s style of managing the party but if actions speak louder than words then perhaps he had more than a few concerns. Intersting question to know if Fine Gael will be getting rid of Punchestown as a gesture of solidarity?

Fine Gael are criticising Brian Lenihan for a bit of news dumping today. The annual report of the Morris Tribunal into Garda misconduct in Donegal was released today amidst all the furore surrounding the ascension of Brian Cowen to the post of Taoiseach and perhaps Lenihan’s own promotion to Tanaiste. They have a point, this is the sort of report worthy of a newsdump, it will mean bad press and more of the same “bad apples” shtick from all involved.

The report makes serious findings against a number of members of An Garda Síochána involved. It finds that a number of persons were unlawfully arrested and detained, and that some were mistreated in custody, mainly through verbal and in some cases physical abuse. The Tribunal also does not accept the evidence to it of several members of An Garda Síochána, and strongly condemns the instances of mistreatment it has uncovered.

The report also deals with the investigation by the Tribunal into a claim that conversations between solicitors and persons detained in Letterkenny Garda station were secretly recorded by members of An Garda Síochána. The report concludes that this allegation is false.

There will be more to this than a simple news dump however, the report - while lengthy - is well worth browsing (as I am doing here, while listening to our esteemed leaders vote on Brian Cowen as Taoiseach.

*Sub-Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Fine Gael Spokesperson on Foreign Affairs Bill Timmins met with the Foreign Minister of the Tibeten Government in-exile today and suggested that the visit of the Dali Lama to the UK (May 20-31) represented a great chance to have him address the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Why not the Oireachtas as a whole?

Young Fine Gael’s cringe-inducing pro-Lisbon campaign.

Enda gets his place in the sun as the warm, loving, caring place that is the all-powerful blogosphere/interweb gives him some attention at Take Enda With You.

Economic growth to slump to the lowest levels since the recessionary 1980s. Unemployment to rise. Inflation heading back up. Tax revenue slumping. Exchequer deficit out of control. Export growth sluggish. No direction, no respite, no hope and . . . no ideas. Yep, it looks like Fianna Fail is odds on to win the next general election. You gotta hand it to them. They’re a class act.

In its recent Quarterly Economic Review the ESRI substantially lowered its projection for economic growth for 2008: 1.6% (GNP). This is nearly half the Government’s budget estimate and would represent the slowest growth rate since 1988.

Last spring the ESRI was projecting a 3.9% growth. But in each subsequent quarter they revised downwards: to a summer 3.7% to an autumn 2.7% to a winter 2.3%. But those aren’t the only figures that have been readjusted:

* Unemployment: Within a year, the ESRI revised their projection upwards from 4.7% to 6%.

* Inflation: Another upward revision – from 2.6% to 3.4%

* GNP per capita: Their projections are down, from 2.2% to a miniscule 0.3%. Wealth per person will hardly shift.

* Investment: within a year the ESRI, from projecting an increase of 3.9%, is now projecting a decline of 7.4%.

But the piece de resistance is the Exchequer balance. 12 months ago, the ESRI reported an insignificant €91 million deficit. The deficit is now projected to balloon to €5.3 billion. That’s a turnaround of about €10 billion in three years, or over 18% of the Government’s total budget.

With all the indicators going negative you’d expect the Government to be run out of it. Demonstrations outside the Dail, newspaper headlines screaming for resignations, rebellion among the backbenchers – y’know, the usual stuff that happens in democratic societies when a Government so completely mucks up the economy.

So what’s happening? At the very least the Finance Minister being fed to the wolves? Not a bit of it. The Government is holding firm, Fianna Fail still maintains a high rating in the polls – and that’s with their leader violating just about every ethical law in the cannon – while the Finance Minister is being touted, in some circles with great hope, as the next Taoiseach.

There is no single explanation for this, but a contributory factor is the conduct of the Opposition. The Sunday Business Post’s Pat Leahy has been surveying this ground for the last couple of weeks.

‘Attempting to raise questions on the undershoot in tax revenues reported by the Revenue Commissioners last week, (Enda) Kenny criticised the Government for the situation but also warned he would oppose any efforts to row back on public expenditure. Where there is a shortfall in taxes the government can borrow more, raise taxes or cut back on spending. All Kenny has been doing, however, is demanding action.’

Mr. Leahy returned to this theme last Sunday:

‘So while Richard Bruton, the Fine Gael spokesperson, calls for a list of spending cutbacks to be produced by the Department of Finance immediately, his colleagues demand spending in health and education. Any survey of a week’s press releases by the Labour Party also show that the Government is to be condemned for a) spending too much and b) not spending enough.’

Now, is this fair? It could be argued that opposition parties have not been in control of the public finances for the last 11 years. To demand that they ‘correct’ a problem that they did not create, and might not have been created had they been in power, is unfair. Well, it may be but both opposition parties want to get into government. If they do, they will have to convince people that they can ‘fix’ the problem that is current now. And this is where Mr. Leahy is correct: a new economic environment (namely, falling tax revenue, falling growth, etc.) requires new thinking.

In the short-term, to ensure the fiscal situation doesn’t get out of control, there are three options: reduce/scale back expenditure, raise taxes (or cut tax expenditures which amounts to the same thing) or borrow more. All have their shortcomings – both politically and economically.

Cutting back on expenditure is never easy and certainly not at a time when so many of our public services are crying out for investment and staff. Even if one jumped the ‘political’ hurdle, there are economic implications. Paul Tansey, by no means a card-carrying member of the ultra-right brigade, has called for cuts in current and capital expenditure growth. But Alan Barrett of the ESRI warned that injudicious cuts could drive our growth rate down to zero. The cure could be worse than the disease.

Increasing taxes is hardly going to propel any party into power – especially with inflation rising and wages expected to fall from levels which are already below the EU average. In any event, it is doubtful that it would make much of a dent: a 1% rise in the standard rate would be equivalent to about 11% of the Exchequer deficit. When you then subtract the resulting problems of lower spending – especially consumer spending – (e.g. lower VAT/excise revenue, job losses or hours reductions, etc.), you might not find you’re not much ahead in the game.

Borrowing is the great panacea. Everyone likes borrowing because you can keep taxes low and you don’t have to take as sharp a scalpel to spending as you might otherwise. We certainly can afford borrowing – we have one of the lowest debt/GDP ratios in Europe and we don’t fork out as much on interest as other governments have to. It’s a great tonic – but that’s all it is. If the underlying economic problems remain, you’ll only be storing up trouble; we have the experience of the 1970s to prove that point.

Of course, in the short-term we are likely to get a little bit from columns A, B and C in creative ways so that it doesn’t appear there have been tax cuts (just don’t fully index tax bands and credits), or public expenditure cuts (hit the poor, they don’t count politically), or call borrowing ‘capital’ borrowing for future growth. The problem with that last point is that our capital and social infrastructure is so far, far behind our competitors that we would need to borrow bucket-loads – well beyond the Maastricht guidelines – to even start catching up.

So now you’re the punter, listening to Brian Cowen and his ‘borrowing for growth’ mantra. Now you’re listening to opposition spokespersons. Who’s got a handle on all this? If you’re like most, you probably don’t have a clue (and even the experts are all over the place). Okay, you tell pollsters you’re voting against Fianna Fail and their poll ratings drop. You even vote against them in the local and European elections and now they really look in trouble. But deep in your heart, you can’t distinguish between what Fianna Fail and any other party is proposing because there is little to distinguish. So in the main event, when national governments are at stake, you go with what you know.

The axiom that ‘Oppositions don’t win elections, Governments lose them’ is trotted out as a replacement for any real insight. Even if that cliché were generally true, it doesn’t appear to have the same force of law in Ireland. Fianna Fail Governments have lost only 5 out of 17 elections. When Fine Gael and Labour were in Government they lost every one. Fianna Fail has not lost an election since 1982. You really have to be a long-odds punter (and have money to spare) to put money against them.

Ever the optimist, I believe the Left can come out of this best. But they had better start telling a new story about the economy, about the hard truths of taxation and expenditure, about real wealth generation and real partnership. It won’t be an easy story for a lot of people to listen to – not at first – but if the Left doesn’t start telling it now, years before the next election, they’ll be sucked into whatever vapid hole passes for economic debate in the few weeks of campaigning before the votes are cast.

An Irish Times editorial, after cataloguing all the economic indicators that are going south, said it best:

‘It is time for a reality statement.’

If the Left doesn’t step forward, then I know which horse I’m backing. For the simple truth of Irish politics is that you don’t lose money betting on Fianna Fail – in good times or bad.

It strikes one as serendipity - for the opposition at least - that the Dail debates a motion on the three reports from last week into Port Laoise, the one that gave rise to the Naughton letter and entered ’systems-failure’ in the political lexicon by failing patients in a grotesque multiplicity of manners while the HSE meets with relevant unions to discuss €300 million worth of cuts and possible A&E closures.

On another note, it will be interesting to see how HSE martyr Ned O Keeffe votes tonight after his readmission to the Fianna Fail Parliamentary Party - if he can avoid an enforced absence.