Lisbon Treaty news: Czech president's State visit to Ireland ends on acrimonious note
Thursday, November 13, 2008
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/1113/1226408582949.html?digest=1
Labour Party spokesman on European affairs Joe Costello accused Mr Klaus of "an act of unprecedented diplomatic discourtesy by a visiting head of state". "I am well aware that Mr Klaus is an extreme right-wing figure who likes to court controversy," said Mr Costello, who added that a dignified but firm diplomatic protest about the president's behaviour should be made to the Czech government.The Minister of State for European Affairs, Dick Roche, said Mr Klaus's description of Mr Ganley as a dissident was "misguided, misinformed and insulting" when applied to a state which had an unbroken tradition of democratic political life and free debate."Given the type of business activities that Mr Ganley has been involved with, the comparison is not simply over-the-top but an insult to the selfless men and women that challenged communism," said Mr Roche.
Irish public spending, as per EIC
Now, where's all this Irish socialism we so often hear about? Eh? Ehhhh??????
http://notesonthefront.typepad.com/politicaleconomy/2008/10/october-20th-morning-the-recession-diaries.html
Is it really plausible that the cause of our fiscal meltdown and recessionary decline can be put down to 'uncontrollable spending' when 1. Ireland spends less (and I mean really less) than any other Eurozone country. 2. That Ireland's increase in expenditure amounted to 1 bloody percent of our GDP - at a time when our population was growing much faster than almost any other country EU country?Could it be that our ability to cope with the meltdown is encumbered, not because our spending is too high, but rather because our spending is too low? Is it possible that we do not have the resources to engage in 'counter-cyclical' policies (that is, flood money into the economy to maintain activity) because of our low-tax, low-spend economy? Other countries which much, much higher spending are going through hard times, yes - we're all living together in this global downturn; but these 'profligate' countries haven't seen their economic fall like a parachutist without a parachute.
Lisbon & Ireland
http://www.irishleftreview.org/2008/07/22/lisbon-immigration-ireland-voted/#more-348
Not sure I buy it, but worth reading.
Probably the largest factor that swung it was that the Yes campaign failed utterly in providing the undecided voter with a very good reason why they should have voted Yes to Lisbon. They provided a lot of reasons why they shouldn’t believe what the No campaigners were saying, but nothing about why it would be good for them, and for Ireland, to change the sovereignty of their constitution to ratify this particular treaty when it was stated that it was purely a procedural document.
Kiersey: EU of city-states is all Greek to me (Irish Independent)
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/eu-of-citystates-is-all-greek-to-me-1415947.html
By Nicholas Kiersey, USA
Friday June 20 2008
[printable version]
FOR Kevin Myers, the ideal model for the EU would be a commonwealth based on the city-state system from ancient Greece. Thucydides must be turning in his grave!
Does Mr Myers need reminding of the cut-throat logic of realpolitik that defined the relations between the Greek city-states? Commonwealth indeed.
If nothing else, the Europe of Schuman and Monnet represents a meaningful effort to break with that legacy, to put aside the egoism that has haunted our mutual past, and to reconstitute the European polity in such a way as to make a reversal practically unthinkable.
The EU is far, far from perfect. But its imperfection should be absolutely desired to the extent that it throws a spanner in the bloody logic of inter-state rivalry. In this light, the flaws in the Lisbon Treaty are sufferable. And, indeed, we should note that these can mitigated within the processes it would allow.
Let us recall, the history of the EU to date has been one of progress towards ever deeper union interrupted by episodic assertions of state egoism (sometimes known as isolationism, Gaulism or Thatcherism). These periodic assertions are possible because of the lingering power of the discourse of sovereign supremacy. These assertions will continue to haunt Europe until we realise that a way to bridge our Irish ethnicity is with a European national identity.
So long as this task is unfulfilled, Europe will run the risk of reversal, which would be an injustice of imponderable scale.
The task today remains one of completing the European project.
Hopefully the process of ratification can continue across the EU, and the Irish will be given a chance to reconsider their decision at an appropriate time.
Nicholas Kiersey
Assistant Professor, Political Science
Ohio University
Options for Irish Progressives on Future Lisbon Treaty Settlement
Simply put, I think the NO vote was misguided. There were obvious problems with the Lisbon Treaty. And we all know what they were (the militarism and the fact that it was incomprehensible to most people, to name just two issues). But I contend that these problems can only be truly solved thru ever-deeper integration. Brussels is a disgrace, its true. But we must remember that to a limited extent, the dysfunctionality of Brussels is *purposive* and a good thing.
Am I crazy? Absolutely not. Because while commentators like Kevin Myers can casually toss out their Timothy Garton Ash-esque aphorisms on why the EU ought to be a "commonwealth" of states (for Myers, akin to the commonwealth of Ancient Greek City States - a laughable idea, Thucydides must be turning in his grave!), the rest of us must surely accept that the Europe of Monnet and Schuman has not only kept us at peace with each other for decades now, but has fundamentally reconstituted the European polity in such a way as to make a reversal practically unthinkable.
The EU is far, far from perfect. But its imperfection should be absolutely desired to the extent that it throws a spanner in the logic of inter-state rivalry which led to continuous bloodshed known by our forebears. Moreover, its imperfection can and should be tolerated to the extent that the status quo is insufferable and we must not go backwards. To stay still is to risk a reversal to the inter-state Europe, which would be an injustice of imponderable scale.
Why do I believe this risk to be so present? Because the history of the EU is one of continuous reassertions of nationalism (sometimes known as isolationism, Gaulism, or Thatcherism - whatever name you like). These periodic assertions are possible because of the lingering power of the discourse of sovereign supremacy (which is a beast neither of the left nor right). These assertions haunt Europe today because we have yet to "de-ethnicize our nationality, and denationalize our ethnicity," as a professor of mine once wrote. And so long as this task is unfulfilled, Europe will run the risk of reversal.
If I could nominate a secular saint, it would be Altiero Spinelli, the visionary intellectual who while in a fascist prison drafted what became known as the Ventotene Manifesto, which was the ultimate blueprint upon which the ECSC was later founded. This document should be read in our high schools, folks. Therein is stated in clear and precise terms the nature of the threat of the logic of sovereignty.
Its simply a question of identifying the worse evil. The flaws in the Lisbon Treaty are sufferable. And they can be addressed within the process. But to halt in the face of such a challenge is, in this instance, to sup with some very dodgy angels indeed.
What we need is a Europe that satisfies our dreams, not a sovereigntist cottage off in the backwoods living with pro-life zealots and Trotskyists. These people are seriously crazy. They aspire to produce crisis in the world, and thereby to render it more pliable to their agendas.
Please don't get me wrong, I am deeply sympathetic to the more intelligent critics of the Lisbon Treaty who wanted to vote no because it was such a flawed document. In a way, they were right to do so. But if we adopt a more historical perspective, as I have tried to do here, and understand that at the core of the EU's bureaucratic mess is a kernel of humanistic vision which we must desperately keep alive, then the choice over Lisbon is really no choice at all. We simply should have voted yes. And whatever options may come our way now, we must remember the peace that is at stake.
-- Nicholas Kiersey
Labour’s Rendezvous with Lisbon
http://www.irishleftreview.org/2008/06/16/labours-rendezvous-lisbon/
June 16th, 2008
Key Quote::
So how do progressives proceed? The Labour Party passed up the opportunity to create a new credibility with the electorate in its haste to take up the catastrophist language that dominated both sides of the campaign. This is not about whether it should have supported the Treaty or not. But even campaigning for Yes it could have distanced itself from the negative ‘we have to be grateful’ and ‘we’ll become pariahs’ tone taken by the right-wing parties.For instance, Labour could have acknowledged that, while the Treaty would not have a qualitative effect on our ‘neutrality’ (such as it is), the issue of the militarisation of Europe is a wholly valid concern, a process unaffected by whether the referendum succeeded or not. Or, again, that while the Charter of Fundamental Rights is a great advance, the extent and limitations on the right to collective bargaining will still be determined by the European Court and that more safeguards are needed. Instead of adopting an ‘all concerns are allayed’ language, it could have risen above the desultory debate, and accepted that the more thoughtful contributions from the No camp raised legitimate points - points which Labour would take on board.