Tuesday, 11 November 2008
Question Time Event
A Conservative Coalition Question Time was held in the debating chamber of the Durham Union Society on Monday evening and discussed some very interesting ideas, especially with many of the panellists in Klute afterwards...It was attended by Jonathan Isaby, formally of the Telegraph, now of Con Home, Mark Wallace, Campaign Director of the Taxpayers' Alliance, and Patrick Sullivan from the NME of CF. Especially good was being able to discuss tax cuts with the conviction that such policies can help the Tories win in 2010. Everybody at the event seemed united around many of the Conservative beliefs which have served the party well in the past...now all we need is a Durham PPC who can take up the challenge. Role on November 29th...
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
Now’s the time for policy and ideas, not complacency on Europe
A YouGov poll last month found that 70% of the British public ‘disapprove of the government’s record to date’ whilst 76% are ‘dissatisfied with Gordon Brown as Prime Minister‘. The average Conservative lead in the polls is around 20 points, whilst before the last election Labour had a stable 5-10 point advantage under Tony Blair. After a year of Gordon Brown’s premiership, two-thirds of people say they expect the Conservatives to win the next general election be it in 2009 or 2010. Surely, given such figures, one must expect that much if not all is rosy, and that despite David Cameron’s assertions about victory ‘not being in the bag’ and his party not being smug, the Tories should be going back to their constituencies and preparing for government after conference season.
There are a number of problems with the direction the party is travelling in, away from the mainstream of British public opinion on some key issues however. At the turn of the year, another poll suggested that if presented with a choice between the three main parties over who they trusted to manage Britain’s relations with Europe, 39% of the public favoured none of them or other parties. In fact the poll revealed that the public trust Labour 25% to 24% over the Conservatives, on what should surely be natural Tory territory.
These indications about the popular mood not only suggest next year’s European elections may not be quite the success this year’s local and mayoral elections were for Cameron, but they also highlight widespread confusion over which way the party faces over Europe. European policy isn’t the only issue which needs to be addressed, nor does one wish to descend into arguing about the relative electoral importance of particular ideas; proposals on tax and spend will certainly get more media coverage during an election campaign. A minority, again how large or small this is can be difficult to ascertain, must hear something about Conservative plans, they must be united, clear and propose to cut back on waste coming from Brussels.
It is because of a lack of clarity on these issues, and not a small deal of internal division, since 1992 when the right last triumphed in the UK, that more than five million Conservative voters have gone missing. Whilst thoughtful and realistic proposals on Europe wouldn’t bring them all back, one would be foolish to assert that such proposals would be a magic wand, this area is symbolic for the party. When candidates get a popular Conservative message across in their constituencies it is very well received; this now needs to happen on a national level coming from the top of the party hierarchy.
Old-fashioned Toryism seems to be back in fashion, but perhaps just at the time when the party is in danger of abandoning it over issues such as Europe. Despite the government’s crushing unpopularity only 37% choose Cameron when presented with all the available options, and only that familiar stubborn 33% expect a Conservative government under him to perform any better than the present one.
This illustrates that Cameron is not ‘light years ahead of his party’ as commentators are avowing, but that if the Tories fail to present standpoints on a post-ratification referendum on Lisbon, taking back economic and social powers from Brussels currently undermining governance from Westminster, and the logistics of withdrawing from prohibitive international legislation like the Human Rights Act or amending the European Communities Act then the popularity of the party might nose-dive once again in the face of such paralysis. Forget the unworkable ‘broad church’ or ‘ministry of all the talents’ and lets make some tough decisions on Europe which can only strength the currently tenuous popularity of the Conservatives.
There are a number of problems with the direction the party is travelling in, away from the mainstream of British public opinion on some key issues however. At the turn of the year, another poll suggested that if presented with a choice between the three main parties over who they trusted to manage Britain’s relations with Europe, 39% of the public favoured none of them or other parties. In fact the poll revealed that the public trust Labour 25% to 24% over the Conservatives, on what should surely be natural Tory territory.
These indications about the popular mood not only suggest next year’s European elections may not be quite the success this year’s local and mayoral elections were for Cameron, but they also highlight widespread confusion over which way the party faces over Europe. European policy isn’t the only issue which needs to be addressed, nor does one wish to descend into arguing about the relative electoral importance of particular ideas; proposals on tax and spend will certainly get more media coverage during an election campaign. A minority, again how large or small this is can be difficult to ascertain, must hear something about Conservative plans, they must be united, clear and propose to cut back on waste coming from Brussels.
It is because of a lack of clarity on these issues, and not a small deal of internal division, since 1992 when the right last triumphed in the UK, that more than five million Conservative voters have gone missing. Whilst thoughtful and realistic proposals on Europe wouldn’t bring them all back, one would be foolish to assert that such proposals would be a magic wand, this area is symbolic for the party. When candidates get a popular Conservative message across in their constituencies it is very well received; this now needs to happen on a national level coming from the top of the party hierarchy.
Old-fashioned Toryism seems to be back in fashion, but perhaps just at the time when the party is in danger of abandoning it over issues such as Europe. Despite the government’s crushing unpopularity only 37% choose Cameron when presented with all the available options, and only that familiar stubborn 33% expect a Conservative government under him to perform any better than the present one.
This illustrates that Cameron is not ‘light years ahead of his party’ as commentators are avowing, but that if the Tories fail to present standpoints on a post-ratification referendum on Lisbon, taking back economic and social powers from Brussels currently undermining governance from Westminster, and the logistics of withdrawing from prohibitive international legislation like the Human Rights Act or amending the European Communities Act then the popularity of the party might nose-dive once again in the face of such paralysis. Forget the unworkable ‘broad church’ or ‘ministry of all the talents’ and lets make some tough decisions on Europe which can only strength the currently tenuous popularity of the Conservatives.
Pole’s support for Irish poll wanes in the face of Sarkozy Presidency
In the wake of the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, the next six months, under the French Presidency, now look very different for the European Union than they might have done. President Nicolas Sarkozy has already had to shelve plans for increased action on climate change and energy shortages plus reform of how the union tackles questions of defence and immigration to concentrate on institutional reform, and where Europe goes from the events of June 12th.
As the Centre for European Reform has observed, ‘the last time France held the EU’s Presidency, in 2000, the then President, Jacques Chirac, was widely criticised for subordinating European interests to French ones’. Initially, Sarkozy needs to strike a more consensual tone than his predecessors if he wishes to successfully guide through changes which politicians and bureaucrats across the 27 member states argue are necessary before the Presidency of the more sceptical Czech Republic in early 2009.
This is not something which Sarkozy has proven particularly skilled at doing so far. The strength of his relationship with German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been the subject of much speculation, and by blaming Peter Mandelson for the Irish No and, many believe, harbouring an ambition to block the reappointment of Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso next year he has won few friends in the European executive. Sarkozy’s views on how the European Union should operate, becoming more ‘protective’ in terms of economic policy also grind against the prevailing wisdom in more liberal countries, including the UK.
More serious than those established conflicts for Europhiles, though, are the division in strategy regarding how to proceed with Lisbon, and the ideas contained within the document, in the build-up to the suspension of the European Parliament in March for the elections.
Initially Poland provided a major headache when President Lech Kaczynski indicated that he would decline to sign the pact until Ireland has decided the best way to proceed, describing signing the document as ‘pointless’ in an interview with Polish daily newspaper Dziennik. Michal Kaminski, a Presidential aide, also told Poland’s Radio ZET that ‘the Lisbon Treaty today doesn’t exist in a legal sense because one of the countries rejected its ratification’, shortly after the Irish vote.
After criticism from Donald Tusk, Poland’s Prime Minister, who has said Poland was in danger of consigning itself to the fringes of Europe, and pressure from the French President who described the events as ‘a moral question’ about a head of state keeping his word, Kaczynski softened his position, Le Figaro reporting that Sarkozy had received a promise that Poland ‘would not be an obstacle to ratifying the treaty’.
Many Poles worry about the power Lisbon endows upon Germany, but inside the European machinery there is suspicion that Kaczynski sought to buy some foreign policy concessions with these comments, in particular talks about possible membership for the Ukraine. Friction certainly remains after the European Commission reminded the President that he was ‘obliged’ to sign after taking part in the ceremonial activities last year.
Despite such assurances, governments of EU member states remain divided, perhaps not to such a degree as they were after the referenda on the Constitution in France and the Netherlands about whether the reforms are necessary, though perhaps they should be thinking more carefully about this as well, but chiefly about how to proceed.
The UK and Cyprus have both ratified since the Irish No vote, but the process in other countries has been paralysed by court battles and constitutional wrangling. German President Horst Koehler refused to sign the document until two legal challenges in the Constitutional Court are adjudicated upon. German daily Spiegel expects that no decision will be reached until early 2009, with particular debate over whether Article 48 significantly weakens the status of the national Parliament as it may no longer have to give permission when the EU changes its rules.
Another obstacle for Lisbon has intensified in the Czech Parliament. With a Euro-realist majority in the upper house, legislators in Prague sent the treaty to their Constitutional Court back in April to determine whether it contradicts the Constitution. Despite significant pressure from French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner who has stated that ‘they’ll be persuaded in the end’. With the Czechs interested in widening rather than deepening integration, and holding the influential position of the EU Presidency next year which would be withdrawn from them by Lisbon, delays may be imminent, and thus that statement could be prescient.
While a handful of member states ponder how to proceed from these positions, at the other end of the spectrum the countries more supportive of Lisbon are mulling over how best to proceed. Austrian Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer insisted that ‘any future changes to the treaty must be decided in Austria by a referendum’ in a letter to Kronen Zeitung, which could be viewed as an outbreak of democracy, but in reality is most probably a gambit to ensure no changes are implemented.
The EU looks likely to press ahead with Lisbon even in the face of such widespread hostility, ignoring the Irish vote and the wishes of Europeans. Should ratification not be completed in the face of a successful legal challenge or a failure to find a fix for the Irish situation, then it also seems that Croatian accession in two or three years time could provide an opportunity to bring in many changes pivotal to the idea behind Lisbon. One could almost think that Lisbon hadn’t been an exercise in recycling at all…
As the Centre for European Reform has observed, ‘the last time France held the EU’s Presidency, in 2000, the then President, Jacques Chirac, was widely criticised for subordinating European interests to French ones’. Initially, Sarkozy needs to strike a more consensual tone than his predecessors if he wishes to successfully guide through changes which politicians and bureaucrats across the 27 member states argue are necessary before the Presidency of the more sceptical Czech Republic in early 2009.
This is not something which Sarkozy has proven particularly skilled at doing so far. The strength of his relationship with German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been the subject of much speculation, and by blaming Peter Mandelson for the Irish No and, many believe, harbouring an ambition to block the reappointment of Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso next year he has won few friends in the European executive. Sarkozy’s views on how the European Union should operate, becoming more ‘protective’ in terms of economic policy also grind against the prevailing wisdom in more liberal countries, including the UK.
More serious than those established conflicts for Europhiles, though, are the division in strategy regarding how to proceed with Lisbon, and the ideas contained within the document, in the build-up to the suspension of the European Parliament in March for the elections.
Initially Poland provided a major headache when President Lech Kaczynski indicated that he would decline to sign the pact until Ireland has decided the best way to proceed, describing signing the document as ‘pointless’ in an interview with Polish daily newspaper Dziennik. Michal Kaminski, a Presidential aide, also told Poland’s Radio ZET that ‘the Lisbon Treaty today doesn’t exist in a legal sense because one of the countries rejected its ratification’, shortly after the Irish vote.
After criticism from Donald Tusk, Poland’s Prime Minister, who has said Poland was in danger of consigning itself to the fringes of Europe, and pressure from the French President who described the events as ‘a moral question’ about a head of state keeping his word, Kaczynski softened his position, Le Figaro reporting that Sarkozy had received a promise that Poland ‘would not be an obstacle to ratifying the treaty’.
Many Poles worry about the power Lisbon endows upon Germany, but inside the European machinery there is suspicion that Kaczynski sought to buy some foreign policy concessions with these comments, in particular talks about possible membership for the Ukraine. Friction certainly remains after the European Commission reminded the President that he was ‘obliged’ to sign after taking part in the ceremonial activities last year.
Despite such assurances, governments of EU member states remain divided, perhaps not to such a degree as they were after the referenda on the Constitution in France and the Netherlands about whether the reforms are necessary, though perhaps they should be thinking more carefully about this as well, but chiefly about how to proceed.
The UK and Cyprus have both ratified since the Irish No vote, but the process in other countries has been paralysed by court battles and constitutional wrangling. German President Horst Koehler refused to sign the document until two legal challenges in the Constitutional Court are adjudicated upon. German daily Spiegel expects that no decision will be reached until early 2009, with particular debate over whether Article 48 significantly weakens the status of the national Parliament as it may no longer have to give permission when the EU changes its rules.
Another obstacle for Lisbon has intensified in the Czech Parliament. With a Euro-realist majority in the upper house, legislators in Prague sent the treaty to their Constitutional Court back in April to determine whether it contradicts the Constitution. Despite significant pressure from French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner who has stated that ‘they’ll be persuaded in the end’. With the Czechs interested in widening rather than deepening integration, and holding the influential position of the EU Presidency next year which would be withdrawn from them by Lisbon, delays may be imminent, and thus that statement could be prescient.
While a handful of member states ponder how to proceed from these positions, at the other end of the spectrum the countries more supportive of Lisbon are mulling over how best to proceed. Austrian Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer insisted that ‘any future changes to the treaty must be decided in Austria by a referendum’ in a letter to Kronen Zeitung, which could be viewed as an outbreak of democracy, but in reality is most probably a gambit to ensure no changes are implemented.
The EU looks likely to press ahead with Lisbon even in the face of such widespread hostility, ignoring the Irish vote and the wishes of Europeans. Should ratification not be completed in the face of a successful legal challenge or a failure to find a fix for the Irish situation, then it also seems that Croatian accession in two or three years time could provide an opportunity to bring in many changes pivotal to the idea behind Lisbon. One could almost think that Lisbon hadn’t been an exercise in recycling at all…
Why McCain Must Beat Obama
In what is proving a Presidential race just as tight as that of 2000, American voters have the difficult choice between choosing the first African-American President or the first female Vice-President, between youth and charisma and experience and straight-talking, and between two men who say they are going to tackle the Washington establishment, but have contrasting plans about doing so. Personality politics though, should be of considerably less importance than the policies which the candidates propose to implement.
Supporting McCain this side of the Atlantic is an unpopular proposition, with recent polling suggesting that if Europeans voted in the Autumn, a resounding 91% would choose Obama. This has much to do with his image as a young, vigorous, charismatic liberal progressive who would reverse much of the damage of the Bush years, especially in foreign policy. The mainstream British media has thus far contributed to the myth which portrays Obama as a valiant outsider, a narrative peddled repeatedly by a supposedly impartial BBC.
The truth of the election in America is that it is mainly about future economic security rather than the good record the Republicans have had over the last eight years in helping the American economy to boom, about future issues of national security rather than the invasion of Iraq. It is about the present not about the past, something one must remember.
Whilst Obama is spending $3 million a day on advertising, and benefiting in the polls from meltdown in the financial markets, it is still unclear what he would actually do if President. Whilst McCain suffers in the short-term for having a coherent and consistent position on financial regulation, this could pay off over the next month, especially in the crucial television debates where 25% of independent voters say they will decide.
Investment in public services funded by raising taxes for hardworking families may have been a reasonable suggestion in the boom years, but it is the last thing which is required in the midst of a world economic downturn, with tax revenues down in the face of recession, Obama would actually have to borrow more and more, sliding the US into a budgetary deficit. This would have a knock-on effect for us all. It is imperative, especially in the coming years, that America remains a low-tax economy.
As one of the first leading American politicians to highlight the need for sustainable energy resources to combat climate change, an acknowledgement which was deeply unpopular in the GOP at the time, McCain not only demonstrated himself to be independent of thought, a crucial trait for any potential President, but able to actually drive forward ‘change we can believe in’. The world needs an energy independent America.
For all Obama’s posturing, he is a dangerous choice in an uncertain time for America internationally, with a lack of experience, clarity or depth to his ideas. His idealism may be endearing, but in the end a President is judged on how things are, not on how they think they should be. As an American commentator might ask, where’s the beef?
President Bush has historically low approval ratings because of one word; Iraq. Defending the invasion is simply not really part of this election. Independent voters who will decide the election want to know what is next. Senator McCain backed the surge when it was unpopular in America, a sign of brave leadership. Whether one agrees with his stance or not, we are where we are.
Voting for Obama doesn’t reverse history, but it would lead to an extraordinarily dangerous withdrawal of troops from Iraq, leaving a country in turmoil to which we surely must owe some debt. The one way to dishonour those who have fallen in the line of duty is to abandon the task now when success seems possible in a manner it perhaps didn’t two or three years ago.
The choice of a running-mate again shows something about the character of a candidate, with McCain having picked executive experience and a Vice-Presidential nominee who could feasibly implement change. Sarah Palin is a dynamic and principled Governor who has had tangible success in her relatively short political career, fighting government waste, corruption and complacency. Joe Biden is Mr Establishment. A Senator for over three decades, and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, it is implausible that he can deliver the changes which are pledged by the Democratic ticket.
The Obama campaign is one of many inherent contradictions, a fundamental one which could lead to its downfall is that it gives different messages to different people. Thus, McCain is doing well with skilled workers and Latinos as Obama struggles to communicate to groups outside his powerbase of the suburban middle-class intelligentsia.
McCain, with a history of heroism for his country in Vietnam, talks in a language everybody can understand. Obama is divisive, as was predicted, but not because of his race, because of his class and his method of communication. Phrases like the ‘Audacity of Hope’, the title of one of his four books, do him no credit with the average voter, as well as not meaning very much. But then, one must ask oneself whether a man who has published three autobiographies but has never implemented a meaningful reform of the law at local or congressional level is the sort of individual that is in touch, or capable of running the world’s only superpower in a fashion which benefits us all.
Supporting McCain this side of the Atlantic is an unpopular proposition, with recent polling suggesting that if Europeans voted in the Autumn, a resounding 91% would choose Obama. This has much to do with his image as a young, vigorous, charismatic liberal progressive who would reverse much of the damage of the Bush years, especially in foreign policy. The mainstream British media has thus far contributed to the myth which portrays Obama as a valiant outsider, a narrative peddled repeatedly by a supposedly impartial BBC.
The truth of the election in America is that it is mainly about future economic security rather than the good record the Republicans have had over the last eight years in helping the American economy to boom, about future issues of national security rather than the invasion of Iraq. It is about the present not about the past, something one must remember.
Whilst Obama is spending $3 million a day on advertising, and benefiting in the polls from meltdown in the financial markets, it is still unclear what he would actually do if President. Whilst McCain suffers in the short-term for having a coherent and consistent position on financial regulation, this could pay off over the next month, especially in the crucial television debates where 25% of independent voters say they will decide.
Investment in public services funded by raising taxes for hardworking families may have been a reasonable suggestion in the boom years, but it is the last thing which is required in the midst of a world economic downturn, with tax revenues down in the face of recession, Obama would actually have to borrow more and more, sliding the US into a budgetary deficit. This would have a knock-on effect for us all. It is imperative, especially in the coming years, that America remains a low-tax economy.
As one of the first leading American politicians to highlight the need for sustainable energy resources to combat climate change, an acknowledgement which was deeply unpopular in the GOP at the time, McCain not only demonstrated himself to be independent of thought, a crucial trait for any potential President, but able to actually drive forward ‘change we can believe in’. The world needs an energy independent America.
For all Obama’s posturing, he is a dangerous choice in an uncertain time for America internationally, with a lack of experience, clarity or depth to his ideas. His idealism may be endearing, but in the end a President is judged on how things are, not on how they think they should be. As an American commentator might ask, where’s the beef?
President Bush has historically low approval ratings because of one word; Iraq. Defending the invasion is simply not really part of this election. Independent voters who will decide the election want to know what is next. Senator McCain backed the surge when it was unpopular in America, a sign of brave leadership. Whether one agrees with his stance or not, we are where we are.
Voting for Obama doesn’t reverse history, but it would lead to an extraordinarily dangerous withdrawal of troops from Iraq, leaving a country in turmoil to which we surely must owe some debt. The one way to dishonour those who have fallen in the line of duty is to abandon the task now when success seems possible in a manner it perhaps didn’t two or three years ago.
The choice of a running-mate again shows something about the character of a candidate, with McCain having picked executive experience and a Vice-Presidential nominee who could feasibly implement change. Sarah Palin is a dynamic and principled Governor who has had tangible success in her relatively short political career, fighting government waste, corruption and complacency. Joe Biden is Mr Establishment. A Senator for over three decades, and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, it is implausible that he can deliver the changes which are pledged by the Democratic ticket.
The Obama campaign is one of many inherent contradictions, a fundamental one which could lead to its downfall is that it gives different messages to different people. Thus, McCain is doing well with skilled workers and Latinos as Obama struggles to communicate to groups outside his powerbase of the suburban middle-class intelligentsia.
McCain, with a history of heroism for his country in Vietnam, talks in a language everybody can understand. Obama is divisive, as was predicted, but not because of his race, because of his class and his method of communication. Phrases like the ‘Audacity of Hope’, the title of one of his four books, do him no credit with the average voter, as well as not meaning very much. But then, one must ask oneself whether a man who has published three autobiographies but has never implemented a meaningful reform of the law at local or congressional level is the sort of individual that is in touch, or capable of running the world’s only superpower in a fashion which benefits us all.
Sunday, 15 June 2008
Brussels must wake up and smell the (Irish) Coffee
Thursday 12th June may have marked a turning-point in the history of the European Union, as a once solidly pro-European country stood up against the European elite for the rest of Europe, denied a say on the content of the Lisbon Treaty. The ‘Yes’ campaign have used a number of excuses for this abject failure to convince the sceptical public into backing new and erosive reforms, ranging from the contention that people want more integration, and not enough was being offered, to the fact that people don’t understand either the document or the philosophy behind it. The reality is very different; Europeans are simply bored of being lied to, taken for granted and press ganged into agreements which are detrimental to the national interest. Before Brussels understands this, it has no chance of addressing the problem.
The Irish campaign was a lesson in how to lose public confidence. Only Sinn Féin, representing just over a tenth of the Irish electorate, campaigned against the Treaty, yet resoundingly 53.4% of voters opposed the implementation of this further step towards assimilation. A mixture of political scare-mongering, such as that of Fine Gael Leader Enda Kenny who argued that Ireland would ‘decide whether we want to reaffirm and strengthen our place in Europe or turn our backs on the huge progress we have achieved over the past 35 years’, inability to explain the content of the document to the public, and failure to combat widespread contempt for the political classes following the resignation of Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach contributed to the recycled Constitution’s defeat.
Also crucial was a vibrant campaign from Libertas, and Chairman Declan Ganley, who made the running and headlines, drawing attention to the fact that the Treaty handed over powers in sixty policy areas including immigration, culture, transport and the appointment of the European President and Foreign Minister. The Eurocrats in Brussels must be worried about how the threat to the Irish Commissioner, who would only have sat for ten out of every fifteen years under the proposals, was so spectacularly unpopular, and the running which was made with the, largely accurate, critique that the Treaty was chiefly about cementing European control in areas like international trade and foreign direct investment, whilst opening the door to interference in new areas, with economic interests like tax being a poignant example.
In a week where Greece, Finland and Estonia brought up to eighteen the number of countries which had ratified Lisbon, the arguments across Europe towards Ireland became more threatening as the day of reckoning drew ever closer. French Foreign Minister Bernhard Kouchner asserted that Ireland would be ‘the first victim’ if it rejected the Treaty, whilst another Frenchman, MEP Daniel Cohn-Bendit, threatened them with expulsion; ‘a referendum must have consequences: if we say ‘No’, we leave Europe’. The Irish political elite also became more and more desperate, with statements like ‘future generations of young Irish people will suffer’ and ‘if we vote No, we are saying we don’t care about…tackling climate change, energy security or future competitiveness’ coming from the major parties.
Ultimately, the ‘Yes’ campaign only won ten out of forty-two constituencies because these wild accusations were inconsistent with earlier claims by European Commissioner Charlie McCeevy that the document was hard to sell because ‘it does not bring tangible benefits to the population’. The prolixity of some very patronising arguments also turned voters off, with leading ‘Yes’ campaigner Gay Mitchell MEP announcing that as over 90% of the Dáil Éireann voted for the Treaty, that people should ‘repose some confidence in those they entrusted to negotiate’ for they ‘cannot be expected to know all the contents of a detailed Treaty’. Much more fundamental, even than such political snobbery though, was that much of Ireland , a country which has greatly benefited from EU subsidies, now feels it no longer benefits substantially.
So where does Europe go from here? If past evidence is anything to go by, probably in a totally opposite direction to the will of residents in the twenty-seven member states. Indeed, the largest coalition in the European Parliament, the EPP-ED, has already called for the ratification process to continue despite the Irish refusal, and Gordon Brown seems likely to follow suit. Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen also stated that he wished ‘to make it clear to our European partners that Ireland has absolutely no wish to halt the progress of the Union’, seemingly positioning himself to force a second poll on the issue. Labour coalition partner Eamon Gilmore has failed to support his ‘full-steam ahead’ approach, though, interestingly offering the possibility of a split in the future.
With European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso asserting that ratifications ‘should continue to take their course’, it seems the EU shall forge undemocratically ahead defying popular sentiment, again. His view, that this vote was not one against the EU, seems to be worryingly widespread, with many Irish Europhiles concluding that not enough centralisation and integration had been offered. So long as the European elite remain this out-of-touch, there is thankfully little prospect of a popular mandate for further bureaucratic institutional change.
The Irish campaign was a lesson in how to lose public confidence. Only Sinn Féin, representing just over a tenth of the Irish electorate, campaigned against the Treaty, yet resoundingly 53.4% of voters opposed the implementation of this further step towards assimilation. A mixture of political scare-mongering, such as that of Fine Gael Leader Enda Kenny who argued that Ireland would ‘decide whether we want to reaffirm and strengthen our place in Europe or turn our backs on the huge progress we have achieved over the past 35 years’, inability to explain the content of the document to the public, and failure to combat widespread contempt for the political classes following the resignation of Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach contributed to the recycled Constitution’s defeat.
Also crucial was a vibrant campaign from Libertas, and Chairman Declan Ganley, who made the running and headlines, drawing attention to the fact that the Treaty handed over powers in sixty policy areas including immigration, culture, transport and the appointment of the European President and Foreign Minister. The Eurocrats in Brussels must be worried about how the threat to the Irish Commissioner, who would only have sat for ten out of every fifteen years under the proposals, was so spectacularly unpopular, and the running which was made with the, largely accurate, critique that the Treaty was chiefly about cementing European control in areas like international trade and foreign direct investment, whilst opening the door to interference in new areas, with economic interests like tax being a poignant example.
In a week where Greece, Finland and Estonia brought up to eighteen the number of countries which had ratified Lisbon, the arguments across Europe towards Ireland became more threatening as the day of reckoning drew ever closer. French Foreign Minister Bernhard Kouchner asserted that Ireland would be ‘the first victim’ if it rejected the Treaty, whilst another Frenchman, MEP Daniel Cohn-Bendit, threatened them with expulsion; ‘a referendum must have consequences: if we say ‘No’, we leave Europe’. The Irish political elite also became more and more desperate, with statements like ‘future generations of young Irish people will suffer’ and ‘if we vote No, we are saying we don’t care about…tackling climate change, energy security or future competitiveness’ coming from the major parties.
Ultimately, the ‘Yes’ campaign only won ten out of forty-two constituencies because these wild accusations were inconsistent with earlier claims by European Commissioner Charlie McCeevy that the document was hard to sell because ‘it does not bring tangible benefits to the population’. The prolixity of some very patronising arguments also turned voters off, with leading ‘Yes’ campaigner Gay Mitchell MEP announcing that as over 90% of the Dáil Éireann voted for the Treaty, that people should ‘repose some confidence in those they entrusted to negotiate’ for they ‘cannot be expected to know all the contents of a detailed Treaty’. Much more fundamental, even than such political snobbery though, was that much of Ireland , a country which has greatly benefited from EU subsidies, now feels it no longer benefits substantially.
So where does Europe go from here? If past evidence is anything to go by, probably in a totally opposite direction to the will of residents in the twenty-seven member states. Indeed, the largest coalition in the European Parliament, the EPP-ED, has already called for the ratification process to continue despite the Irish refusal, and Gordon Brown seems likely to follow suit. Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen also stated that he wished ‘to make it clear to our European partners that Ireland has absolutely no wish to halt the progress of the Union’, seemingly positioning himself to force a second poll on the issue. Labour coalition partner Eamon Gilmore has failed to support his ‘full-steam ahead’ approach, though, interestingly offering the possibility of a split in the future.
With European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso asserting that ratifications ‘should continue to take their course’, it seems the EU shall forge undemocratically ahead defying popular sentiment, again. His view, that this vote was not one against the EU, seems to be worryingly widespread, with many Irish Europhiles concluding that not enough centralisation and integration had been offered. So long as the European elite remain this out-of-touch, there is thankfully little prospect of a popular mandate for further bureaucratic institutional change.
Exams over...everyone to Haltenprice???
Good to see a solid Yorkshireman fighting for traditional British freedoms...hope to see many of you down there in what is a crucial fight. Just because the Westminster village think it's a stunt doesn't mean the public do...
Wednesday, 14 May 2008
Classical answer dodging
When one listened to Alistair Darling this morning trying to justify how 2.7 billion pounds of tax cuts wasn't going to create inflationary pressures when but a couple of months ago he had claimed, along with Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, that a police payrise amounting to some 40 million could not be honoured, as independently agreed, due to such pressure, it was striking how Tacitus sprang to mind.
'Omnium Consensu Capax Imperii, Nisi Imperasset' he said of Galba; 'all in the empire pronounced him worthy, until he actually became emperor'. A striking epitaph for one Mr Gordon Brown and some of his cronies one may be led to think.
'Omnium Consensu Capax Imperii, Nisi Imperasset' he said of Galba; 'all in the empire pronounced him worthy, until he actually became emperor'. A striking epitaph for one Mr Gordon Brown and some of his cronies one may be led to think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
