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.

Wednesday’s Irish Independent is a case-in-point for those of us who suspect the press of siding with the Establishment against the people over Lisbon. With jobs losses growing by the week, they cynically attempt to link the issue to the possibility of a “No” vote to the June 12th referendum. This article is pure facile scaremongering and beneath contempt. But it deserves a reply from the “No” camp, and as a determined “no” voter who believes the time has come to draw a line in the sand against further surrender of sovereignty to Brussels, I firmly believe it merits - just - a response.

These job losses are already happening - without Lisbon in force. Why should they suddenly soar after a “No” vote? This is utter rubbish. If anything a “Yes” vote will jeopardise the Irish economy considering the threats of Article 113 which calls for the harmonisation of indirect and turnover taxes to combat “distortions of competition”. It also copperfastens the plan by EU Tax Commissioner Laslo Kovacs to introduce destination-taxes on companies exporting from Ireland under a scheme - said to be backed by 2/3rds of member states and Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso - known as CCCTB (Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base). During last Monday’s debate on the Treaty, Declan Ganley, leader of the anti-Treaty group Libertas, read out comments by IBEC condemning CCCTB about a year ago. It is highly strange then, that IBEC has lined up with the Establishment behind Lisbon, especially as other senior businessmen like Ganley, Ulick McEvaddy and Chris Coughlan (President-elect of Chambers Ireland) have come out for a “no” vote. Clearly they can’t all be right about what is best for the economy and business. Continue Reading »
The answer must be no

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.

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?

An interesting clash of interpretation on the widely discussed style of the new Taoiseahc. For Pat Leahy the new style is “clear thinking and firm decision-making”. For the Sunday Indo, it is “authoritarian” and “stalinist”. An enigmatic man.

Cowen’s political positioning of the government is very much the slowly slowly affair befitting of a month in May. The cabinet reshuffles were quite deft, keeping the big names happy but at arms length from a putsch while the junior ministries gave the backbenches more hope than Bertie ever dared. It is a mark of confidence as much as anything else to trust Fianna Fail with a meritocratic approach. Beyond this though, we have seen some utterances on policy.

His speech at the grand homecoming was laden with community solidarity, the needs of others, the common good and the necessity of good government. If Bertie never did the “vision” thing or the ideology then Cowen was brimming with the stuff for his first few days. The approach to social partnership, as a microcosm of his tack towards the trade unions, is likely to become easy shorthand for the differences between Ahern and Cowen. Ahern isn’t gone a wet week when we read the news that the HSE will allow about 1,000 jobs to go in natural attrition.

The management structure at the HSE has come in for a huge amount of criticism as disprorpotional to the level of care and the number of doctors. Indeed it is one of the rare points of unison among all critics of the public health system. Jobs that go need to be streamlining delivery, not cost-saving for its own sake. That means somebody (anybody?) knowing what the hell people are supposed to do and who they are reporting to. The voluntary redundancy measure was on the table at the formation of the HSE only for Ahern to intervene and assure unions the jobs were safe.

Harney won’t speculate on the scale of job cuts in the service - and rightly so, the last thing people want is to see the return to the binge-purge approach to Health provision - but putting the service on an even keel in the ratio of service providers to managers is a necessary step to do this. This returns it back to the realm of industrial relations, cutting jobs doesn’t need to bring the house down around our ears and just how much hardball gets played is going to be important.

Bloggers rejoice as John has this news over on his blog.

Yet Rock the Vote are launching their campaign on May 19th (or so I’m told)! Well after the day and date of the vote has been decided on and less than a week before the closing of the voter registration date.

What are they at?

Only got seven of the fifteen minutes at election time?

The Offaly Independent reports that a massive caravan of Offaly folk will descend on the Dail today to celebrate the election of Brian Cowen to the post of Taoiseach (at around 3.30pm - live on Oireachtas.ie)

“There`ll be a festive atmosphere,” Tom O`Donovan of O`Donovan Cowen Solicitors, a firm in which Minister Cowen is involved, said. The solicitors firm is planning to close it`s doors on Wednesday with most of the staff travelling to Dublin to join in the celebrations.
…
The Offaly contingent have even arranged a designated meeting point in the city which they are keeping tight lipped on for now.

More celebrations will take place over the weekend as the All-Ireland Champion new Taoiseach takes a tour of his home county and, of course, Clara

Gardai and the Civil Defence are preparing for a continuation of celebrations on Saturday and Sunday when the triumphant Taoiseach arrives home.

Visiting first Edenderry at 12 noon before leaving for O`Connor Square in Tullamore at 1.30pm where up to 10,000 people are expected to greet him, Brian Cowen will attend a Civic Reception in Aras an Chontae at 3pm before returning to his home town of Clara.

In Clara, the Civil Defence will be assisting with medical points set up around the town. Some Tullamore publicans are even putting on coaches to ferry people to Clara and back.

The tour of the county will not end in Clara however as Brian Cowen will visit Ferbane at 2.30pm and Birr at 4pm on Sunday, May 11.

The CSO figures for April’s Live Register were released this morning, with Exchequer figures due out later today. The numbers only continue with the trend seen in recent months as the number of people on the unemployment list tends towards 200,000.

The number is without a doubt a worry for the government. We will be hearing lots about the global economic picture and a lot about the difficulty that has faced construction industry workers in the past year. However this was not unforseen, the industry has been in slow-down since the last builder’s holiday in August 2007.

There were a number of good ideas put forward at the time, notably by FAS, to retrain the workers and give them skills which might help them find more secure work. So what we appear to have now is a situation where government tax returns are decreasing, their budget projections look under severe pressure and the spending on areas like Social Welfare and Unemployment Benefity look set to increase.

In conventional terms this has the potential to lead to a downward spiral unless the politicians show some vision and take a risk.

If they allow things to stand as they are then we face upwards of 24 months where the fiscal situation deteriorates alongside the number of people who are on the live register. We have no evidence to believe that large multinationals are going to do anything but tighten their bottom lines through continued vigilance over costs. They have sent signals that they will seek to remain on the tightest possible margins because they simply cannot find access to large amounts of cash for expansion.

This impacts us greatly as the model for indigenous jobs growth has always been premised on the presence of large multinationals around which we could hinge local jobs. This pattern has proven to be problematic as the global conditions have worsened. Now we need to see some new ideas and a new direction, Social Partnership ironically has the potential to do this but it seems unlikely to be used in this way.

Rather than sitting in hope that things will stabilise and foreign direct investment will return-or the era of cheap credit-the social partners could be doing a deal that will benefit everybody. This means spending money and taking a risk. The alternative is to leave more people needing social welfare at a time when the prices of goods, services and food are on an inflationary curve we have not seen in years.

I am not the first to suggest this, others who have more experience have been talking on the one hand about supporting Irish industry, Irish indigenous business in the field of tech, products and services, by altering the countries perspective. We spent almost E10 billion last year overseas buying property. That money could easily have been invested - at a potential for a decent return - in startup businesses, in people who have an idea and feel they can make it work in Ireland.

We cannot reinvent the wheel but this crisis has underlined that we need to have a far greater degree of self sufficiency in economic terms than we were focussing on previously.

Politically, this occurs in the context of defeat for Labour in last night’s local elections in the UK. That defeat comes for one of the most supportive governments of globalisation that we have seen. That support, the presentation of globalisation as inevitable and the deterioration it has led to for the position of the middle-class was a catalyst for the rejection of the party last night in a situation of economic uncertainty.

Perhaps it is easy to ‘punish’ the government in a local election, considering it a free shot, but in times of economic uncertainty the prevailing logic is that rarely do voters vote for change - it is stability, mother’s apron, that they cling to. Last night suggests that this has changed, governments who were slavish in implementing the policies of globalisation as inevitable are being turned on by voters who would like a little less of it.

Fianna Fail are adept at being all things to all people but in this instance they need to make a decision on where they see the next years of growth coming from, is it the same same? Increasingly pressured to cut costs and compete with China or is it attempting to put meat on the bones of this “knowledge economy” and attempting to channel money, like that E10 billion spent overseas, into local start-ups and people who are working within communities, providing jobs and creating wealth?

It will require a little creativity to break the cycle of tightening spending, rising prices and growing unemployment which can lead us right back into the bad days by spending when we have it and starving when we don’t. There are enough politicians in that government who were around in those days to have learned a lesson or two.