I recently attended a meeting of the People’s Movement, an organization of broadly leftist activists who are opposed to the Lisbon Treaty.  Here are some observations on campaign themes used by the People’s Movement at at Mullingar rally.

Much of the discussion on economic policy was preoccupied with the alleged free market bias in the European Union.  It was noted that some of the most extensive powers of the Union are concerned with free markets, particularly with preventing countries from regulating corporations differently in different parts of the Union.  The support given to the Lisbon treaty by IBEC was also noted.  American corporations, like Microsoft, appear to be sympathetic to a more powerful EU.

However the big corporations can easily afford some of-the regulatory and taxation burdens discussed in Brussels.  Medium in small sized enterprises, the backbone of our economic expansion, are the ones that will suffer most from the regulations emanating from  the European Union.  It should not be forgotten the Ireland’s economic success has been based, in large measure, on free markets policies.  The ethos of the European Union is essentially social democratic.  It is true that the European People’s Party bloc, the Christian Democrats, now dominate many EU institutions.  Nonetheless, these center-right parties are afraid to challenge the core of the social democratic regime created by years of more left-wing dominance in the Union.  Britain and Ireland, on the other hand, have had a more Atlanticist and more business-friendly outlook.

There was considerable confusion in the debate about military security.  One speaker from the floor even suggested that George Bush was planning an invasion of Venezuela.  While Bush is certainly hostile to the attempts of Hugo Chavez to turn himself into a Castro-style dictator, the U.S. is primarily interested in economic and political pressure on Venezuela.  Military intervention would be very difficult and entirely counterproductive, unless Venezuela does something dramatic or aggressive in its own backyard.  Unfortunately, extreme statements like this one add to the notion that the “no” campaign is out of bounds in its criticisms of the foreign policy implications of the Treaty.

The real threat to Irish neutrality does not come from NATO or links with NATO.  There is no pressure for Ireland to join NATO.  Indeed, Ireland, Finland and other neutral countries can have mutually beneficial but essentially ad hoc relationships with NATO, through NATO’s outreach programs like the Partnership for Peace.  NATO has done good work in defending Europe during the Cold War.  The NATO and the United States would be willing and able to take on any threat to Europe coming foam Middle East weapons proliferation or missile development.  Likewise, Nato is well-suited to dealing with with Russian expansionism, should that ever re-emerge.  At the other end of the scale, there are a number of regional threats based on the risk old inter-ethnic or territorial conflict in southeastern Europe.  These include hotspots around Macedonia, Moldova and relations between Serbia and its neighbors.  For the most part, these situations may require passive peacekeeping and diplomacy rather than war fighting.  For this, Europe has a second security infrastructure in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.  So, Europe already has two powerful institutions capable of handling the range of security threats to its backyard in the years ahead.  It does not need a new military and political bureaucracy to run a European defense policy.

It is true of the Lisbon Treaty granted Ireland some exemptions from military alignment.  However, there is a slippery slope to defense cooperation., starting with foreign policy coordination.  While the People’s Movement often exaggerates the risk of direct alliances, they are correct to point to a tendency toward defense policy making by another name, by the back door.

There was also some discussion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, although it too focused on labor union concerns. Many of the rights and responsibilities referred to in the Charter could be included in the Irish Constitution  -or, if they are rejected by the Irish people, should not be imposed on the state at all.  There is nothing in the realities of European interdependence or economic integration that requires us to sign up to a series of rights and responsibilities in areas outside of economic policy in this way.  But I will say more about the Charter in the subsequent posting.

The People’s Movement raises very important issues about the democratic deficit and about how Irish politicians are treating the public in a condescending way in their handling of the debate so far.  The Government’s efforts at informing the public, even through the White Paper, are entirely inadequate.  It’s not surprising that the Westmeath Examiner, while still holding back on its own position on the Treaty, was critical of the information dimension of the “yes” campaign..

Finally, in my own contributions, I noted that many people will be put off by those who are on the “no” platform.  The fact that Jean-Marie Le Pen is supporting the “no” campaign or that the main political parties on the “no” side are not mainstream may drive many voters away from this side of the argument.  However both the politicians and issues to which they now object will be long gone, even as Lisbon remains in force.  It is this longer-term perspective that needs to be taken into account as voters go to the polls this summer.

There will be more on the Mullingar People’s Movement rally in later posts.   

This provides the outline of the text to be decided by referendum in the summer. This PDF link is via the Irish Times site. There will be more analysis and commentary here over the weekend.

France and EUFOR characterize their crossing into Sudanese territory as “accidental.” Conflict on the Chadian side of the border was expected - this was not. The BBC story underlines the complexity and danger of the EUFOR mission.

I have promised a thorough evaluation of the Treaty. It is taking time to get around to this. Here are some more observations on the text as I am reading it.

> Treaty defenders are right in saying that much of the document is about tidying up earlier agreements in the light of subsequent change. There are numerous cases where the revised name of the Council is added in or previous references to early steps in the Euro changeover are removed.

This supports the view that a large percentage of the document does not really represent significant change at all.

However, this prompts two further observations

What we need is a clear exposition of the new document, as is, rather than the list of amendments. The latter is also necessary but it is the new basic document (i.e., constitution) that will govern how the Union works.

Cross-referencing to other articles and protocols may be appropriate for legal clarity. But the addition of short titles or descriptors for these would make the document more readable. The inaccessibility of this maze of cross-references can also be used to hide subtle changes whose impact will only emerge in practice when the deal is done. In this context, the section on Schengen represent a barbarous assault on the English language.

The protocol on national parliaments is of fundamental importance. For defenders of the Treaty, it offers more information for national assemblies and a potential role in decision-making. On the other hand, the process by which these parliaments can input into decision-making privileges collective European rather than national interests. This is a critical point because the net effect is to negate the apparent powers granted to the parliaments. I will blog on this at greater length: there is considerable obfuscation and even deceit in the discussion of this whole area.

Sweden’s conservative “Moderate Party” has been taking of NATO membership as a long-term aim. But why not simply a European defense alliance?

Well, you may object that they are “conservative,” so that explains it. Not really! Sweden’s “conservatives” are not really conservative at all by standards elsewhere. They are centrists, at best, and slightly to the left of FF or FG if you pinned them down on issues. 

There is an argument to be had over whether NATO or an EU defense would be the best long-run security guarantee for Europe. And, even if you came down on the side of NATO, you might still say that Ireland should not join the alliance. The case for an EU defense agenda is simply not as strong as is often made out.

As for Irish neutrality, think of it this way. When the pressures of the Cold War did not compel us to join NATO, we are probably safe from that quarter in future. However, can we really say the same for an EU alliance? In the great European division of labor, Ireland’s interests are best served by giving the defense portfolio to NATO. As always, we can then applaud (quietly!) from the sidelines.

Seriously, though, this is an important topic - one for a longer posting later.

As Irish troops prepare to deploy to Chad, as part of the EUFOR mission, there has been some media discussion of the role of France in that country. These arguments raise bigger issues about French foreign policy and Europe’s CFSP.

But first, I have not posted much for a while, so here are some brief updates on the Irish debate.

(more…)

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern has highlighted the long-running anti-EU stance of some groups opposing the Lisbon Treaty. He singled out those whose goal was always to get Ireland out of the Union altogether and challenged them to repeat this now. Mr Ahern questioned the possibility that opposition to the Treaty could be compatible with support for Europe.

My last pro-EU campaign was for the Single European Act. And, I will admit, it was actually under the Fianna Fail banner. I trudged the streets of South Dublin in that cause. I have no regrets.

There may well be others who campaigned for a YES vote in even more recent referenda. And there are natural Fianna Fail and Fine Gael supporters who want a very different pattern of EU evolution.

You do not have to be a Sinn Feiner, anti-capitalist, anti-Western or even anti-EU to have serious problems with both the Lisbon Treaty and the process by which it is being imposed on Europeans.

In this latter connection, the Taoiseach dismissed a concern for the lack of democracy elsewhere in Europe, insisting that Irish voters should look at the cost-benefit calculation here. This site will do such an analysis later. But we also have an opportunity to speak for those denied referenda elsewhere. This is in our long-term interest too. If the ditching of referenda is indicative of how European politicians view the peoples of Europe, it will not be long before some legal technicality is found to enable our Government to impose new EU changes without a popular vote. Recent court judgments requiring referenda are fine so long as this technicality remains undiscovered. A shock NO vote, on the other hand, would signal , in no uncertain terms, that decisions on expanding the power of the EU are not simply another funny little game for well-paid lawyers and smug politicians.

RTE reported on an Irish Times commissioned poll suggesting that decided voters were overwhelmingly in favor of the Lisbon Treaty by late January. However, most voters were still undecided.

If the proportions hold up for the undecided later, it is all over.

That is where the campaign comes in. And all of this underlines the need for truly informed consent.

[for updating later]

Fine Gael May Bring European CDs to Ireland

(more…)