Category: European Politics

Dick O’Brien is surprised at my noting that I got the impression that he has ‘some sympathy’ for Dennis O’Brien It was a straight misread – I read ‘a little sympathy’ rather than ‘little sympathy’. Apologies Dick.

I’m going to have to stop blogging while cider is running through my brain.

Dick expresses ‘some’ sympathy for Irish uber-entrepeneur Denis O’Brien. I have no sympathy for him at all – in fact I think he should be fined the sum total of his profits from selling Esat – and you all know the reason – corruption.

Esat Telecom, based on all the evidence from Moriarty, as I watched personally for weeks on end at the Tribunal, got the second mobile phone licence by buying off Michael Lowry.

Lowry awarded Esat the licence – and Lowry got lots of benefits directly and indirectly from Denis O’Brien and Esat. If you can’t draw a line between a and b then don’t, but its plain and obvious to us all what went on, is it not?

O’Brien had no right to the licence, and got it on the basis of corrupt payments. The entire thing is a travesty, and now he tries to hold on to his ill-gotten cash, giving the Revenue and the Moriarty Tribunal a big ‘***k off’

Fuck him too.

Secrets are spilled of 1993 deception that allowed president to suppress parliament. This is amazing stuff.

Officials and participants today paint a fresh picture of the clashes that began with rioting on October 2 and led to tanks rolling up to the parliament building on October 4. The Kremlin and western governments portrayed the unrest as a liberal regime suppressing angry communist hardliners and rightwingers. Yet 10 years after the bloodshed, in which at least 123 people were killed, Russia is exploding the myth that the crackdown was anything other than a putsch against Mr Yeltsin’s political opponents.

The unrest was sparked by his decision in late September to dissolve a parliament increasingly opposed to his economic reforms. He also scrapped the constitution, replacing it with another that gave him near-monarchic executive powers. Rebel MPs, comprising communists, liberals and fascists, responded by barricading themselves into the parliament.

Dick has responded, in depth, as ever…

Just what is so undemocratic about the EU is beyond me. Sure, we all hear about the bureaucrats in Brussels, but all the decisions are made by our elected representatives. The Council of Ministers comprises of our governments while the European Parliament is directly elected. European Commissioners are appointed by our governments who, once again, answer to the people of each state. If people don’t like what their government is doing in Europe, they should start voting for someone else. In Ireland that hasn’t been the case to date.

Of course you could always make it more democratic by increasing the influence of direct representation. But this would move us further towards federalism, something the euro-sceptics don’t want. You can’t have it both ways.

If the EU were democratic, it would be accountable and transparent. I do not think it is. Is that fair?

As a voter, I never felt bullied, but I did feel that the government dropped the ball in terms of not explaining what was involved the first time around. As to alleging that the government in some way bought the election, its impossible to uphold. The upshot of the McKenna judgement is that the government can’t use state funds to simply promote one side of the argument. Indeed, at the time of the first referendum, it was felt that the government was far too cautious in the light of the McKenna judgement and backed off too far from promoting its point of view. The result was the only voices being heard were those of the naysayers. You can also read the Nice debate another way. From being enthusiastic supporters of all things European, we suddenly rejected Nice. We were asked were we sure about this and we changed our minds. Another way of looking at it is voter turnout, which jumped dramatically with the second referendum. Those who didn’t bother to express an opinion on the issue came out the second time around and said they wanted Nice.

As for Prodi’s remarks, there’s nothing exceptional about them. It’s not about forcing people into something, but rather emphasising that you can’t cherry pick too much. The EU has been built on compromise. Sooner or later you have to decide whether your in or your out. Each has its own sacrifices.

If you did not feel bullied Dick, that’s fair enough, but I know I did. In a roundabout kind of way I was referring to the government decision to send a heavily slanted white paper to every household, at the taxpayers expense, which in my view directly broke the law, as seen in the McKenna judgement. The cost of this white paper did go into hundreds of thousands – but the government had no qualms about pushing the McKenna judgment to its limits. That went hand in hand with dumbing down the powers of the Referendum Commission – I would call that a concerted attempt to move the goalposts prior to the second referendum.

Furthermore that we did have a second referendum could also nullify the idea of having any future referenda at all. What’s the point? The only answer Europe wants to hear is yes, and be damned with us fogies who vote no. It has been pointed out that a referendum will be held on the Convention, but I can ask now…why? Even if we vote no, surely such a result will not be accepted, and we will have to do the whole thing again. It makes the whole idea of referenda farcical.

Yes the EU is built on compromise, but where is the compromise when Romano Prodi makes veiled threats against those who fail to follow the France/Germany line? Deciding whether your in out of the EU is not the issue, its how much you want to be a part of it. And that is every country’s right.

I would argue that I voted No because I want to stop exactly what is happening in Europe, deeper integration. Integration has gone far enough – and someone needs to say it.

It seems that I have created a bit of a stir with my comments yesterday on the European Union. Blog Irish picked up on my post and noted:

Gavin’s line is a little too close to the Shinners’ for out taste, but it is the witless enforcement of “consensus” masking real problems that gives the Adamses and Le Pens their entree.

There are diverse ideas floating around in the Irish blogosphere. Please don’t anyone tell Andrew Sullivan.

Interesting that my line appears close to that of Sinn Fein and the Greens while at the same time sounding pointedly Tory. Hm. I am inclined to agree on the consensus issue, it is being enforced, debate is being stifled and the majority of parliaments in the EU dont put important European issues to the people, they just put the treaties through regardless.

Dick O’Brien then notes:

As to how he can say that the EU is undemocratic, I’m not sure. If anything it’s too democratic, given the painfully slow pace that things move at. The Nice Treaty is a separate issue from Sweden and the Euro and the Irish double referendum was a bizarre, but not undemocratic exercise. If Irish people didn’t really want Nice they would have voted No the second time.

Its true it was a shambles. Used to an electorate that usually voted for anything EU related served up to them, the Government didn’t bother explaining much about Nice. Ironically, the debate that should have happened before the referendum, took place afterwards. Holding more than one referendum on an issue isn’t unprecedented. We seem addicted to having referendums on abortion and on two occasions, 1959 and 1968 Fianna Fail tried to abolish proportional representation. In this light, the Nice Treaty wasn’t much of a travesty.

I had a letter in the Irish Times covering this very topic – the spin from the Irish media was that us xenophobic Irish had made a horrible mistake and we better but things right.

The EU I would strain to call a democracy, simply because of the nature of the hierarchy of power in Brussels. For Nice, a referendum was only held in Ireland due to our consitution, and I am certain were it nor for that the government would have decided for us with no debate whatsoever. No other country in Europe voted on it.

If the EU was democratic would it not either accept the decision of the Irish people in the first instance, or at least adopt the Treaty to satisfy concerns? The reaction of Prodi to the Swede result almost equates to his reaction to Nice – countries who vote no will be penalised – ‘you can’t be half in and half out’ noted Prodi yesterday.

It is really very simple to me, if a referendum is held and the people decide, their decision should be respected. If politicians in Fianna Fail or the PDs had any balls, they would have accepted the decision, rather than a week later saying that the same vote would take place the following year, with the text unchanged.

Dick argues that if we didnt want it we would have voted no the second time. But did he not see the campaign mounted, using large sums of taxpayers money, to shame and bully Irish people to vote yes. And it was that blatant, to me at least. Brussels could not have been clearer – vote no and pay the consequences for dissent. That is not democracy.

With regard to precedents, I dont believe it is fair to compare referenda on abortion – up to a decade apart, each time using different language, to a referendum put to the people, rejected, and then put again unchanged a year later. Entirely different.

I am not a Sinn Feiner, or Green party sympathiser, I have no serious leanings left or right – I do have a thing about respecting democracy. Something the unelected officials in the EU seem not to comprehend.

Of course off the back of a No in Sweden, we have a firm yes in Estonia. I hope the Estonians know what they are letting themselves in for.

With all the votes counted, the Yes side had 66.9 per cent, compared with the No side’s 33.1 per cent.

Some 63 per cent of 850,000 eligible voters cast ballots. There was no minimum requirement for the vote to be valid.

The results are being carefully monitored in Latvia, which will hold its own vote on the issue next Saturday. A strong Yes vote in Estonia was expected to boost the arguments for joining in its Baltic neighbour.

Lithuania, the third Baltic state, voted 91 per cent in favour of joining in May.

The pro-EU campaign had stressed the economic benefits of joining. About 75 per cent of exports are to EU countries and the EU accounts for 80 per cent of direct investment in the country. There is also a hope that the country’s infrastructure will be boosted by grants from the EU’s structural funds.

The decision is also a reflection of concerns over the country’s relationship with its giant eastern neighbour Russia. Estonia was forcibly incorporated in the Soviet Union in 1940 and regained its independence only in 1991.

During the campaign, opponents of EU membership said Estonia had had too brief a period of independence and would be handing over a large amount of its newly won sovereignty to Brussels. Moreover, they argued, its fast-growing economy – GDP growth has averaged almost 5 per cent a year since 1995 – would be stifled by EU regulations.

So Sweden has voted no the euro. I can’t help but admit that I am absolutely delighted.

Yes, your Irish blogger Gavin Sheridan is, for all intents and purposes, a euro-sceptic. Back in my younger days I was a euro enthusiast, loving the ideal of a great and unified Europe, intent on pursuing peace and justice and blah blah blah.

No more; am I not so naieve to believe that.

Europe is a dinosaur, it is an undemocratic shambles. It is an offence to the very idea of democracy. It is a travesty of global proportions. Thank you Sweden for giving a polite two fingers to Brussels.

Speaking as an Irish person, I have never, and probably will never forgive either the Irish government or Europe, for the debacle of two Nice referenda in Ireland.

Holding a second referendum on the Nice Treaty was the final nail in the coffin of my belief in Europe. It also demonstrates to me the very nature of the EU, an axe-wielding megalomaniac.

I am going to put together a coherent post on Europe soon – for now I am happy to gloat.

William Pfaff writes a good take on EU expansion, he gives the whole moral argument that was given to the Irish during the Nice Referendum, I dont buy it. If a country in Europe wants to join – let it – once it meets the criteria needed.

This idea that we are doing it for some higher moral sense is balderdash. We are doing it to expand the union for more members, markets and money.

I do like Pfaffs take on the British media…

Moral intensity is a striking quality in the European debate, evident last weekend at the 29th Ambrosetti strategic workshop in Italy, bringing together more than 300 political and business figures, mainly but not exclusively European.

A score of Americans were there, including Tom Ridge, the homeland security secretary, and the ubiquitous neoconservative publicist Richard Perle, currently suffering shock and denial concerning Iraq.

Otherwise, there were the chancellor of Austria; the prime ministers of France, Spain and Turkey; Germany and Spain’s foreign ministers; cabinet ministers from Italy, Turkey, Russia and Austria; and prominent EU commissioners. The archbishop of Paris and members of the new governing council of Iraq completed the assembly.

I emphasize the breadth of the participation and the intensity of the debate because American readers are often led to see “Europe” through the lens of the right-wing British press: in the caricature of a meddling and quasi-socialist bureaucracy.

That might even be desirable, in terms of efficiency, flexibility and prospective European political power. The original six include all of the major European economies except Britain, Sweden and Spain. Nonexpansion might even be the expedient choice for those who want the EU to become a major international actor.

It is a moral consideration that all the rest must be given the opportunity for full membership. If they refuse, it will be their choice. Either way, Europe shall change.

Gideon Burrows is creating quite a stir here in London on the subject of the Defence Systems and Equipment International arms convention. His article featured as the cover story for this weeks New Statesman. Worth a look.

Naturally, protests are planned against the arms fair, and not just among peaceniks and the anti-capitalist crowd, though both will be out in force. For more than a year, church and community groups in Newham, the borough in which the ExCeL exhibition centre is sited, have been writing to their MP (Jim Fitzpatrick), the Mayor of London and their local council, calling for the arms fair to be cancelled. They would rather £1.5m of government money was spent on improving their neighbourhood, one of the poorest in London. “ExCeL is at the heart of a residential area that was one of the worst-hit areas during the London Blitz, which many of the older residents remember,” said Tim Wardle of East London Against the Arms Fair. “We feel that most will be disgusted at what is going on down the road from where they live.”

Only Ken Livingstone has said he wants the exhibition cancelled, but has admitted that he is powerless to stop it. The London arms fair is symbolic of new Labour’s contradictory approach to arms sales and foreign policy. On the one hand, it claims to be a force for good in the world, and will use military force if necessary to deprive terrible regimes of their weapons. Yet on the other, it is willing to assist the supply of yet more weapons to some of the most brutal regimes, and even to those accused of sponsoring terrorism. Whichever way you look at it, there’s blood on their hands.

Dick over at Back Seat Drivers has brought up the alcohol debate over the last few days. The topic has also featured on Samizdata

I wrote an article (June 23) for the New Statesman back in June on the subject so I think I will publish the entire unedited version here.

I have a fairly extensive amount of work done on the subject, and a number of links that are worth following.

A week following my article in the New Statesman there was a feature on Newsnight covering the self-same issue, myself and Liz MacKean largely agreed on the subject, after communicating briefly by email. After her report Paxo took on Richard Caborn in an hilarious interview – very well worth reading. Most notable:

CABORN:
Jeremy, when you’re walking in Derbyshire and you can’t get a drink at 4pm in the afternoon, because of the licensing laws, you get a little annoyed.

PAXMAN:
So we’re doing it to placate French and German tourists and walkers in Derbyshire?

It is a somewhat uncontroversial feature on drinking in Ireland, but let me know what you think. Incidentally I worked as a barman, senior barman and head barman in Cork and Dublin for about 4 years.

In vino veritas the saying goes, and when applied to the Irish there is a veritable ocean of truth. The Irish are perhaps a people more associated with alcohol than any other nation and their fondness for drink has been the butt of countless jokes.

Advertisements for visiting Ireland almost always figure a pint or two as part of the campaign. A country with such a reputation, one might expect, would have the most liberal of laws for the consumption of alcohol. Not so, and it seems that the laws are about to become more draconian.

Ireland has a love-hate relationship with alcohol. On the one hand Irish people are known for their joviality, the pub culture is unlike any other—being the centre of Irish social life. Depending on the report you read, Ireland is one of the biggest consumers of alcohol per capita in Europe, and according to a 1996 WTO report, the second highest consumer of beer in the world.

On the other hand, alcohol related assaults have increased exponentially in recent years and up to 25% of cases in Accident and Emergency wards in Ireland are alcohol related. The Irish President, Mary McAleese, recently went as far as to say that Irish people have an ‘unhealthy’ and ‘sinister’ attitude to drink. In 2000 there were almost 15,000 reported cases of intoxication in a public place and a similar number of cases of abusive or insulting behaviour.

In an attempt to stem the huge growth of these offences the government updated the existing legislation, the Intoxicating Liquor Act, in 2000. Believing that by extending opening hours and liberalising the drinking regime Irish people would respond by moderating their alcohol consumption, the government underestimated how ingrained in Irish culture alcohol is.

The situation has since worsened, with alcohol consumption increasing yet more and incidences of violent behaviour growing. In response to the spiralling problem the government established a Commission to look into the problem, taking submissions from all sectors related to the drinks industry.

Released recently, the final report of the Commission on Liquor Licensing has made a number of recommendations that the government intends to implement. In order to combat endemic underage drinking the government is proposing that every person under the age of 21 be required to hold proof of age on licensed premises and that those under 15 be banned from pubs after 8pm.

The legal age of consumption shall remain at 18, but by making ID mandatory above that age to 21 the government believes it can cut down on those drinking who might look older than they actually are.

The government has also decided to back-pedal on laws introduced in 2000 whereby premises could remain open on Thursday nights until 12.30am, it will now be reverted to 11.30pm. It is believed alcohol abuse costs the Irish economy up to €2 billion in lost productivity, due in part the government believe, to people drinking on those late Thursday nights.

But some of the more controversial aspects of the proposals have caused widespread anger from the publicans lobby group, the Vintners Federation of Ireland. These plans include allowing plain-clothes police onto premises in order to enforce drinks legislation.

It is illegal for publicans to serve people that are ‘drunk’, but the law has been all but unenforceable. Previously small fines could be levied, but now the Irish Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, believes that pubs should “face closure if they serve drink to the point where they are turning people out on the street plastered.”

But how does a publican define when a person is ‘drunk’? As one publican from Co. Wexford noted on Irish radio “At what point does the person who gets quietly plastered and ‘out of their tree’, at what point do you hold them responsible?”

Another controversial measure is that police may start using video cameras to record people leaving premises to be used as evidence if they are, in fact, drunk. A bit extreme one might say, but where 40% of fatal road accidents are drink related and an average of 25 alcohol related assaults occur every night, the government believes that enforcement is the solution.

Many do not agree. They believe a sea-change is required in the mentality of Irish people with regard to, as Irish people put it, the ‘demon drink’. Education from an early age is the solution, with a view to adopting a more mature, Mediterranean view of alcohol.

Green party MEP Patricia McKenna noted “In Mediterranean countries young people actually have access to alcohol from a very early age. In the European Parliament I never see Mediterraneans’ sloshed and out of their minds, unfortunately, closer to home, I do see it.”

It is also believed that an outright ban on alcohol advertising is in order. Currently some Gaelic games are heavily promoted by the drinks industry, and while there is a voluntary ban on the national television station, the fact remains that drinking is heavily promoted through other media.

If the Irish government could strike a balance between a national alcohol strategy, and proper enforcement of current legislation then perhaps in the future we would see a more mature attitude in Ireland towards alcohol consumption.

Unfortunately the effects of any such strategy could take up to a generation to show results, and few governments will commit to such a long-term strategy. It is a difficult cultural trait to overcome, but with time we may see an Ireland not so keen to find answers to its problems at the bottom of a glass.