I’ve been back in Dublin for the last few days for a short break. Viewing a referendum campaign from afar is really quite a different experience to being there yourself. The first thing that struck me when I came back was the postering campaign for the yes side was much more impressive than I thought it would be. I not sure referendums are won on posters, but I do remember that the almost complete absence of yes posters at the time of the first Nice vote spelt doom. Of course it remains to be seen if the people putting the posters up are going to vote yes themselves.
Posters aside things clearly aren’t looking too good. If Fine Gael and Labour can’t get their own core supporters on-side, it’s difficult to see how any of the three main parties can convince anyone else.
What depresses me most about a prospective no vote is the ‘reality gap’ between the extravagant claims being made by no campaigners and what the Lisbon Treaty actually says. The oxymoronic European federal super-state being dangled before voters should – given Lisbon’s modest contents – be laughable if it wasn’t going to result in the rejection of the Treaty. But it’s EU referendum time again, and fiction becomes reality. In fact, all of the following are undeniably true:
1. Shane Ross knows more about corporation tax than the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ireland.
2. Declan Ganley knows more about what’s good for Irish businesses that IBEC, and the Small Firms Association.
3. The Unite trade union is a more representative of the Irish Trade Union movement than ICTU, which represents all Irish trade unions.
4. Fianna Fail, the party that introduced our low rate of corporation tax, is now conspiring with the French and the Germans to get rid of it.
5. The Roman Catholic Bishops want to introduce abortion in Ireland. Otherwise they wouldn’t have said that Lisbon won’t introduce it.
6. Lisbon will damage Irish farming even though both the IFA (Irish Farmers’ Association) and the ICSA (Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers’ Association) support the treaty.
7. Irish membership of the European Nuclear Energy Community will require us to introduce nuclear power, even though we’ve been a member of this community for 35 years and we have never been required to introduce nuclear power.
When I think of any more, I’ll let you know...
I'll be heading back to Rome today, well before the vote on Thursday, which living abroad, I can't vote in anyway.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I'm voting no. The Treaty is an anti-democratic attack on the wishes of the French and Dutch peoples who voted no in 2005 to an 95% identical Treaty in the EU Constitution. We should not foist it on them against their will, and if we vote no this time the Government must accept it and go back to Brussels for a better deal or the status-quo. The bureaucrats in Brussels don't care about democracy which is why they need to be taught a lesson next Thursday. I speak as someone who feels cheated by Nice when the Govt played down the risk of mass migration of cheap labour from Eastern Europe. The tired old Europhile slogans will not work on me this time. We have seen the French and Dutch say no and not suffer for it. They are still in the EU, as will we be when we vote no. The only job-prospects that will be damaged are Bertie's chances of becoming President of the European Council, but then again after what we've heard from the Tribunals, maybe that isn't such a bad thing.
The latest polls show 6/7s of the undecideds breaking for the no side. If that trend continues until polling-day, the Treaty will deservedly be defeated.
Regarding the detail in the treaty itself, here are the reasons I'm voting no:
A: Ireland's vote is halved while Germany's is doubled. The Big States power under the new voting system is too great. Because the blocking minority will be 4 states including over 35% of the population of the EU, 4 Big States will be able to block everything while 11 small states will not be able to block anything. Malta does even worse, getting a 90% drop in its weighted vote on the Council of Ministers. This is accomplished by replacing the triple-majority of Nice with a double-majority voting system which replaces the numerical weighted votes (which overrepresented small states like Ireland getting 2%) with a simple population weight. This is unfair to small countries and constitutes a powergrab by the Big States.
B: The loss of our Commissioner. Nice did not, contrary to what the yes side claim, end our Commissioner. David Byrne claimed in 2002 that if we voted yes to Nice we would keep our Commissioner for 130 yrs. So the yes side cannot now come along and claim otherwise. Lisbon reduces the Commission from 27 to 18, and introduces rotation, meaning that for 5 out of 15 years, Ireland will have no Commissioner. This is unacceptable to a small country like Ireland, especially considering our vote is being halved on the Council of Ministers. The Commissioner - for all the denials of the yes side - does bat for his country on controversial issues - in Ireland's case this is Charlie McCreevy opposing tax-harmonisation. Without an Irish voice at the top table, more laws including tax harmonisation can be forced on Ireland against its will.
C: The Charter of Fundamental Rights gives the ECJ too much power. Its vague language on rights, including the right to asylum, will inevitably lead to many test cases, especially in the asylum area, leading to the Court effectivelt dictating Irish asylum policy. The reference to how the death penalty can be reintroduced in cases of "upheaval" is disturbing.
D: Tax harmonisation can be forced on Ireland by Enhanced Cooperation which will get around the Irish veto. Enhanced Cooperation is a mechanism allowing for a group of countries to harmonise laws by getting the permission of the Commission including 9 member states. This group could then impose taxes on Irish companies exporting to participating countries - forcing them to pay their taxes in the country of sales-destination rather than to the Irish government. In fact, EU Tax Commissioner Laslo Kovacs has said he intends to impose this plan, known as CCCTB (Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base) via Enhanced Cooperation if Ireland tries to veto it. He also claims that 2/3rds of member states support this idea including Commission President Barroso. When asked about this some time ag by Mark Little on RTE, Barroso admitted we could not veto the use of Enhanced Cooperation to get around the Irish tax veto. Because 90% of Irish products are exported, CCCTB would be disasterous for our economy, forcing companies exporting from here to pay their taxes to France, Germany and the UK instead of to the Irish govt.
E: Article 113 of the Treaty copperfastens the Commission's plans for tax-harmonisation by outlawing "distortions of competition" and saying that the Council shall carry out
'measures of harmonisation' of 'turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation'. CCCTB/destination taxes could be interpreted by the ECJ as "turnover taxes".
F: Article 48 of the Treaty ends Ireland's automatic right to referenda on handing sovereignty to Brussels, by allowing changes to the text without new treaties being needed. Note that Dick Roche told Newstalk (Late Night Live) some months ago that the Dail would have a veto on giving up more vetoes - he did not say the Irish people would have such a veto. And in any case, the Dail already has such a veto. The question is will we continue to have? I believe the answer is no. Irish politicians want the freedom the French and other EU govts have to avoid EU referenda, so they can do what they like.
F: A lot of the lobby groups e.g. unions, farmers, business calling for a yes vote contain personalities who the govt may have offered jobs to in Brussels. Look at the member of bodies like the European Economic and Social Council. They are largely former leaders of these sorts of groups. Draw your own conclusions I have mine.
Vote No!
Post a Comment