Eurolink News Blog

Looking out for linguists (14th July, 2010)

eurolinknews — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:39:43 +0000

The EU institutions have begun a major recruitment campaign for translators and interpreters into eight languages including English, in a bid to address serious shortages of language staff in Brussels.

From mid-July, posts are being advertised for translators into English, Danish, German, French and Slovenian. Interpreter jobs, which require a higher level of experience, are also being sought for English, Slovenian, Dutch, Bulgarian and Romanian.

Between 40 and 50 staff will be hired for each of the languages, in the first year of what will become a regular annual recruitment drive for linguists. The European Commission’s Interpretation Department says they will use Facebook and Twitter to communicate job opportunities and reach out to younger candidates.

“We’re facing a wave of retirements and need to replace an entire generation – we will lose up to half our staff in the next ten years,” said department head Marco Benedetti. He added that surprisingly, it was proving especially difficult to find English linguists.

“English is a particular problem. In all English-speaking countries, many people think that just speaking English is enough, but you can’t make translators or interpreters out of those people,” he said.

The credit crunch and the European project (12/10/08)

eurolinknews — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:52:13 +0000

Last week, the European Parliament formally adopted its own flag, anthem (Beethoven’s ‘Ode to Joy’) and an official motto – ‘United in diversity’. The timing was ironic, coming after a week in which the EU showed itself to be anything but united in the face of the global financial crisis. Indeed, the ongoing markets maelstrom has held up a mirror to a deeply fragmented union, with member states primarily focused on saving themselves. Europe was caught off guard, and despite all the belated talk of consultation and coordination, it was each to his own. Ireland’s decision to guarantee bank deposits was initially condemned and then replicated in various forms, as member states scrabbled to come up with a hotchpotch of individual schemes to shore up the banks. The Irish government acted first and asked permission afterwards, protesting that there had been no time to wait for an EU response. And while member states made groundbreaking decisions daily, the European Commission took over a week to look up the rules on state aid and competition law, perpetuating the very myth of red tape and bureaucracy that it is trying to shake off.
All this has implications for that elephant in the room, the thing that won’t go away, the flea in our ear – the Lisbon Treaty. The government is still wary of setting any timeline for a second referendum, although it has indicated that this would be unlikely to happen for another year at least. But officials in Brussels are scared of what they say is the very real prospect of the 26 member states who have ratified Lisbon moving ahead without us. One official confided his concern that Ireland could find itself in the situation of being a’semi-detached’ member of the EU. ‘It’s like this,’ he said, ‘The other countries could just turn around and say “Are you on the bus or off it?” And we’ll be on the trailer behind.’
Fianna Fáil MEP Eoin Ryan says the current crisis highlights more than ever the need to streamline the EU into a more efficient broker on the world stage. ‘We need a stronger base to lobby from,’ said the Dublin MEP, pointing out the horrific situation that Iceland found itself in, practically bankrupt and isolated from the world. ‘Europe is the third largest economic power in the world, and we would be better placed to tackle economic problems as they arise if we can forge a more united structure.’ He also warned that Ireland’s EU membership has been key to our financial stability. ‘We’ve got to realise that the reason US companies invested in Ireland was because we had access to the European market,’ he said. ‘We cannot be sending back confused messages to the States about our role in Europe. We need to say “We are for Europe, and we are at the heart of Europe.”‘
Certainly, the economic turbulence creates an opportunity for the EU to build itself into a more effective player on the world stage. The prospect of not being a fully-fledged member of the EU, for all its weaknesses, is a terrifying one that would seem to court a complete meltdown of our small open economy. Perhaps it is time for Ireland to look at the bigger picture and reconsider Lisbon. And, if Irish concerns about taxation, neutrality and abortion can be appeased through a better communications campaign, voters should at least look the treaty in a spirit of compromise – a spirit that must be central to the European project if it is to continue to evolve in a rapidly changing world.

The Irish question (18/6/08)

eurolinknews — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:44:38 +0000

The EU institutions are blocking their ears. France and Holland rejected the EU constitution in 2005. After this defeat, the constitution was abandoned and EU officials began to draft a new document, the Lisbon Treaty, which could be ratified by the parliament of almost every member state without the need for troublesome referendums. Several European leaders have openly or privately acknowledged that had they held a referendum in their own country, the Lisbon Treaty would have fallen. As it was, Ireland was the only country whose citizens were given a vote on the issue, and they voted against.
If an alien were to observe the situation from a neutral planet in outer space, might he not conclude that the Lisbon Treaty is an undemocratic solution? Or that EU leaders, guessing in their hearts that their own people would also have rejected the treaty, should abandon the idea of pushing it through?
The Lisbon Treaty requires the unanimous ratification of all 27 member states before it can be implemented, yet the two most senior figures in the EU now seem willing to suggest that this basic rule has become pliable, judging on their recent comments. President of the European Commission José Manual Barroso insists that the treaty is still alive, and has urged member states to continue with the process of ratification. That is certainly their right, but is it not an exercise that is null and void? President of the European Parliament Hans Gert Poettering has described the treaty as an ‘absolute necessity’ and said, ‘it remains our goal to see the Lisbon Treaty enter into force before the European elections of June 2009.’ He has called on Taoiseach Brian Cowen to submit proposals as to how we can jointly ‘progress beyond this difficult phase in European politics’. In other words, Brussels is refusing to accept the Irish ‘No’ vote.
Of course, all of those involved in tortuous years of drafting and redrafting the text of the treaty, or who lobbied hard for Lisbon in good faith, are entitled to feel bitterly disappointed. But it is unfair to vent that anger on the electorate, or to brand Ireland as selfish, anti-European, or somehow ungrateful for almost the vast amounts of EU money (almost €20 billion worth of structural funds) since 1973. What happened was that we were asked our opinion on proposals for a new set of rules for the game. For reasons as many and varied as the rules themselves, we disagreed. It doesn’t mean we want out of the game.
As with every European referendum, there were some who voted ‘No’ for misguided reasons, or because they didn’t understand the treaty. But many more voted ‘No’ conscientiously, believing that a clearer, more democratic blueprint for Europe should be made available not only to Ireland, but to every EU citizen.
The Taoiseach should not go to Brussels with bowed head, apologising on behalf of his country. He should stand over the Irish vote, and seek instead with other European leaders to take a good look at what might be wrong with the treaty, instead of what might be wrong with the Irish electorate. The European project cannot proceed without its people, and to press on regardless would undermine the democratic principles upon which the EU is founded, and deepen what must be recognised as a widening gulf between politicians, power structures, and ordinary citizens.

Uncharted territory (13/6/08)

eurolinknews — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:21:14 +0000

53.4 per cent against, 46.6 in favour, the Lisbon Treaty has been roundly rejected by the people of Ireland. As mid-morning tally counts began to tell against the treaty, Foreign Affairs Minister Micheal Martin conceded ‘a perceived lack of information’ among voters about treaty issues. It ‘lacked a clear tangible,’ he said. Was this why Lisbon went down? Was the electorate given a large, indigestible document and ordered to swallow it for its own good? If so, why are we surprised? You can lead a horse to water…
The ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ sides are claiming the result as a ‘crisis’ and ‘a victory for democracy’ respectively. But noone seems to know where exactly we go from here.

The hour before midnight (10/6/08)

eurolinknews — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:55:04 +0000

So this is it. In a few hours time, at midnight, the traditional media blackout of any referendum coverage will kick in, and a strange silence will descend where until now all has been noise and wrangling. Tomorrow, the broadcast media will be full of anything other than Lisbon – not a headline, not a soundbite will allude to the treaty signed by 27 European heads of state in December 2007, which to an unquantified number of Irish voters remains as obscure as theoretical physics.
The moratorium will continue until the moment the polling stations close on Thursday night. Only the lampposts emblazoned with posters still shout ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ to any passersby who care to look. Tonight, only the foreign journalists in Dublin are busy in their hotel rooms filing stories about Lisbon for the world press, while their Irish colleagues scrabble among silly season fare – economic musings, new arrivals at the zoo… The moratorium is meant to allow a final period of reflection for voters, a break from the barrage of non-stop media coverage and canvassers and campaigns, but it also marks a bizarre period of waiting and absence and tension.
At an impressive lineout today of Fine Gael leaders past and present, Enda Kenny heralded what he described as ‘the moment of truth’ for Ireland, expressed confidence that the arguments put forward by the ‘No’ side had been ‘demolished’, and said the treaty would be carried. A smiling Dr Garrett Fitzgerald agreed that ‘We’ll just about make it,’ although he criticised the government’s late start to its referendum campaign. Taoiseach Brian Cowen also insisted that the fight was won. And as an observer, I’m inclined to agree. For better or for worse, the ‘No’ side has crumbled over the last few days into the disparate collection of somewhat dissonant voices it always was. Yesterday’s brandishing by Libertas frontman Declan Ganley of three airline tickets, to send the Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour leaders back to Brussels so they could renegotiate a better deal, only served to point up the unity of the opposition he faced. The motley crew of Sinn Féin, the Socialists, the various anti-war alliances, the smaller trade unions and Youth Defence is unlikely to match up to the combined weight of the political establishment in Ireland and Europe-wide.
Last week’s shock Irish Times poll which gave a five point lead to the ‘No’ campaign so scared the government and the pro-treaty parties that they drew a deep breath and blew for all they were worth, bellowing their message through every available airwave and column inch, singing Lisbon in every line, and warning of the shameful isolation and ignominy that would follow a ‘No’ vote.
This will have had a powerful effect on the remaining undecided voters – 17 per cent of the electorate, according to last Friday’s poll. More so than other nations, Irish people want to be liked. ‘What do you think of Ireland?’ is the question most asked of tourists to this country. For all our boom time brashness, we remain needy of praise, with the national identity of an insecure post-colonial adolescent. The thought of being frozen out is terrifying. That the French and Dutch rejected the EU constitution as recently as 2005 and remain at the heart of the European project provides little comfort in the face of such an icy future – as Garret Fitzgerald said today ‘It’s far easier to worry people than to reassure them.’ He was speaking about the concerns put forward by the ‘No’ side, but he could just as easily have been talking about the pro-treaty campaign.
It remains for the ordinary citizens of this country, in the 24 hours left before polling day, to look squarely at what the Lisbon Treaty is proposing and block out the nightmarish scenarios being propounded by both sides. There are so many summaries available now you don’t need to go near the consolidated version of the text. Read through the main points. Are the changes being put forward significant? Could they affect you? Are they for the greater good of every European citizen, or do they advance a federalist EU machine? Are they just too bloody complicated? Do you actually care?
Vote, don’t vote, spoil your vote – it will all tell a tale. Three million Irish people will decide the future direction of the EU this week on behalf of 486 million European citizens, and Brussels waits with bated breath to hear what you will say. Roll on the results, and as Charlie McCreevey said, may the best team win.

Democracy…a thought (2/5/08)

eurolinknews — Fri, 02 May 2008 11:02:48 +0000

Isn’t it supposed to be us telling the government what to do?

Beware the doomsayers (30/4/08)

eurolinknews — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:27:15 +0000

Once when I was living in France, I was knocked off my bike one morning by a large chauffeur-driven car. I was completely unhurt, so it must have been shock that had me in tears when the passenger of the car came back to see if I was alright. He was a tall, elderly man dressed in high-ranking military uniform, who was kindly and concerned and apologised for the accident – I forget whose fault it was. But he failed to understand why I kept crying if, as I insisted, there was absolutely nothing the matter. After a minute or two of him frowning and me weeping, the light dawned and he said, ‘Ah! It is an excess of emotion.’
There is an excess of emotion, I believe, attaching to the current debate on the Lisbon Treaty. Both the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ camps can be accused of hype and scaremongering and harrying the witless public like anxious parents in a custody battle. How can we expected to make up our own minds when we hear such different doomsday scenarios from both sides? When government ministers and upstanding businesspeople infer dark meanings and motives with loaded terms like ‘sinister’, ‘cowardly’, ‘propaganda’ and ‘the pariahs of Europe’? There is a marked difference from the measured approach of European politicians such as EP President Hans-Gert Poettering, who has said he would not presume to be so arrogant as to tell Irish people how to vote, and our own politicians who are crying ‘Vote this or that!’ from the rooftops. Or maybe from the pulpit. There is an unfortunate moralising element creeping in that is muddying any chances of mature, rational debate.
The Treaty will not open the door, as some on the ‘No’ side have claimed, to a flood of horrors from euthanasia, birth control and (dare we say it) abortion, to militarization and a looming superstate sapping the lifeblood of a diminished Ireland. By the same token, we should not be browbeaten or guilted into voting ‘Yes’ just because other EU leaders want us to. The argument that it would be somehow ‘ungrateful’ to vote against the treaty, that we would biting the hand that feeds us, that it is ‘our turn to give something back’ is spurious and irrelevant and unfair.
The treaty should be considered calmly and dispassionately as a business document which puts forward certain proposals for reforming the EU. Reform is necessary, we all agree, but is this the best route? A ‘No’ vote does not mean you are ‘anti-Europe’ – it may mean you think the Lisbon Treaty does not go far enough. If Ireland rejects the treaty, it would be a pain in the neck for those who would have to draft an alternative, but it will not change our status within the EU or our relationship with our European neighbours.
The fundamental distinction that needs to be drawn is that the Lisbon Treaty is not the EU. However we vote, life will go onwards the same. The public is best advised to seek information from a neutral source, such as the Referendum Commission’s website, http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/, or the site run by the Citizens’ Information Bureau, http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/government-in-ireland/european-government/eu-law/lisbon-treaty.
And can everyone just calm down a bit.

The Lisbon Treaty for Dummies (23/4/08)

eurolinknews — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:32:48 +0000

Confusing. Unintelligible. Impenetrable. This is the general reaction of anyone who has read or attempted to read the Lisbon Treaty, from politicians to pundits to ordinary people trying to find the facts. The Treaty amends the contents of several existing EU treaties in a document running to hundreds of pages of legal articles, protocols, declarations and annexes. Those in favour of a ‘Yes’ vote argue that complexity is unavoidable when a treaty needs to set out the rules governing relations between 27 sovereign member states. Those opposed to the Treaty have claimed it is deliberately unclear, and that we should not be asked to vote on something we cannot understand.
Both sides agree that the Lisbon Treaty preserves the main substance of the EU constitution, rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. Both sides also agree that some reform of EU structures is necessary, to facilitate the continuing expansion of the union and streamline its decision-making processes. The question is whether the Lisbon Treaty, signed by EU leaders last December and due to come into effect in 2009, represents the best path to reform.
Ireland is the only country in the EU to hold a referendum on the Treaty, as required by our constitution. Every other member state can ratify the Treaty by a vote in their national parliament. As such, we hold responsibility for supporting or rejecting the Treaty on behalf of about 490 million Europeans who do not have the option to vote.
Below are some of the main changes that will come about if the Lisbon Treaty is approved by the people of Ireland. Whether they are positive, negative, necessary, significant or otherwise is up to you to decide.

1. Top jobs
A politician will be chosen to be President of the European Council for two and a half years, replacing the current system where presidency is rotated between member states every six months. Another post to be created will be the EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, combining the current roles of EU Foreign Policy chief Javier Solana and External Affairs Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner.

2. Charter of Fundamental Rights
The Lisbon Treaty makes the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights a legally-binding document. The Charter lists the human rights recognised by the European Union.

3. Citizens’ Initiative
Under the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission is obliged to consider any proposal signed by at least one million citizens from a number of member states.

4. National parliaments to get ‘yellow card’ facility
All proposals for EU legislation will have to be sent to national parliaments, who will then have eight weeks to offer a ‘reasoned opinion’ on whether they believe the proposal respects the principle of subsidiarity (this is the principle by which decisions should as far as possible be made at local or national level). If enough national parliaments objects to a proposal, the Commission can decide maintain, amend or withdraw it.

5. Smaller commission
The European Commission is the EU’s executive arm; it put forwards legislation and ensures that EU policies are correctly implemented. Since 2004, it has been made up of 27 commissioners, one from each member state. Under the new treaty, the commission will be reduced to 18 members from 2014, with membership rotating every five years. This means that only two-thirds of member states will have their own commissioner at any one time, and each country will lose its commissioner for five years at a time.

6. European Parliament to get greater powers but reduced numbers
Currently, the European Parliament has joint lawmaking power with the Council of Ministers over about 75% of legislative areas. If the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, co-decision will be extended to virtually all areas of EU policy.
The European Parliament comprises 785 MEPs from across the union; under the treaty, this will be permanently reduced to 751. The number of Irish MEPs will drop from 13 to 12.

7. New areas of EU competence
The Lisbon Treaty will set out those areas over which the EU has exclusive competence, shared competence with member states, or supporting competence. The Treaty gives the EU no new areas of exclusive competence, however it establishes joint competence in the areas of space and energy. It also gives the EU the role of supporting competence in several new fields including health, education, tourism, energy and sport.

8. Redistribution of voting weights between member states
Within those areas to be decided by qualified majority voting, the current rules require the support of a little over 72% of member states for a law to be passed. Under the new system due to come into effect from 2014, a vote can be passed if it is backed by 55% of member states, and secondly, if these countries represent 65% of the EU’s population. It can also be passed if less than four countries oppose it. The changes mean that it will be easier to pass legislation, and more difficult to block it. Countries with smaller populations will have less chance of blocking legislation.

9. Shift from unanimity to majority voting
The Lisbon Treaty will see an increase in the number of policy areas to be decided by a majority vote at the Council, rather than by unanimity. Qualified majority voting will become the norm, however there are some notable exceptions that will still require unanimous decisions, including taxation and defence.
One area where the unanimity veto will way to qualified majority voting is Justice and Home Affairs, covering issues such as asylum, immigration, criminal law, border controls and police cooperation. Ireland has the power to opt-out of this area on a case-by-case basis.

10. Changes to Common Security and Defence Policy
The Lisbon Treaty provides for the progressive framing of a common defence policy for the European Union, which will nonetheless respect the neutrality of member states like Ireland. It also allows the European Council to change decision-making from unanimity to majority voting in a number of areas, excluding military and defence. However such changes will themselves require unanimous decisions.
The Treaty extends the range of peacekeeping and humanitarian missions for which the union may draw on member states to include disarmament operations, military advice and assistance and post-conflict stabilisation.

Interview with Minister for European Affairs Dick Roche (28/2/08)

eurolinknews — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:18:02 +0000

The government has been accused by former Green MEP Patricia McKenna of trying to avoid the principles of the McKenna judgement by delaying naming a date for the referendum, and in the meantime putting out information that is not neutral. Do you reject that allegation?

Well, with all due respect to Patricia, she’ll say what she says, that’s simply not the case. We just agreed the wording of a complex piece of legislation that had to be discussed with the opposition. It’ll be published next week, so there’s no delay in that.

So you reject that allegation?

Well she makes a new allegation every day. And frankly I think it’s not really logical to spend one’s time talking about the Reform Treaty simply rejecting every statement she makes! She makes the point, for example, that this will attack Ireland’s neutrality – it does absolutely nothing of the sort, and the bill which the Irish people will have before them will allow them to put a copper-fastened guarantee of neutrality – that we can’t join any defence pact into the treaty without the specific support of the people themselves. It’s counter-productive to be simply rejecting everything Patricia McKenna says, she’s entitled to her views, she’s wrong on this as she is on so many other things.

Ireland is the only country in the EU having a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. French Prime Minister Sarkozy admitted that if there had been a referendum in France it would have been rejected. Isn’t it unfair that the rest of Europe is not giving people the chance to vote on the issue? Are the leaders of the EU afraid of giving people the option?

If there was a referendum in France it probably would have been a referendum on Carla Bruni! But the reality of it is, every country has its own way of doing things. For example, the Danish took a view and went to their relevant constitutional authority, and said that it wasn’t necessary to have a referendum because there was so little changed in this treaty. In the United Kingdom they actually have a big debate going on about this particular thing, but their tradition is not to have referenda. In Germany there’s always been an allergy to referenda because everyone knows that in the 1903s there were a number of referenda in Germany that produced very sad results for Germany and for the world. So it is very wrong for people in this country to seek to tell other countries how they should do their business. If, for example, France or Germany or England tried to tell Ireland how we should do our business we’d be rightly annoyed with them. It’s up to every country to ratify this and every other treaty in accordance with its own constitutional provisions. Our constitution requires that it be ratified by a referendum. Our constitution is unique in that regard, because of course the citizens of Ireland are the supreme authority in Ireland, unlike in the UK where the parliament is the sovereign authority, so there are different constitutional traditions.

There has been some concern following the recent Laval judgement that workers’ rights might be diminished under the Lisbon Treaty. It’s feared that that that case might set a precedent, whereby a Polish employee working in Ireland would be paid less than his Irish colleague. How will the treaty affect workers’ rights?

The Laval judgement is something that people should read very, very carefully. It was specifically discussed in the Forum on Europe by the Swedish Commissioner Margot Wallstrom. She pointed out that the Laval judgement certainly recognises that the right to strike, the right to combine is a right which is in the public good. Now there were specific circumstances in the Laval case, but will it have an affect on Ireland? No, it will not. In fact, one of the great things, if people in Ireland vote ‘Yes’ for this treaty, they’ll be voting ‘Yes’ for the Charter for Fundamental Rights. Now the charter is a wonderful document, because it is a distillation of all the different rights that we have as citizens of individual countries in Europe, and it will apply them to the EU.

EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevey said we will be ‘the laughing-stock of Europe’ if we vote ‘No’. There’s a lot of pressure on the Irish government to get this through – we won’t have a second chance like we had with the Nice Treaty. But, if the treaty IS rejected, what do you think will happen?

Well I’d hope, first and foremost, that the treaty will not be rejected, because it’s a good treaty. It will make Europe more democratic, it will make Europe more efficient, it will give Europe a much better voice on the world stage. It incorporates the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and it gives a very clear definition between the member states’ rights, and the rights of the European Union; and of course it will allow the European Union to help the member states to deal with international criminality, international drug trafficking, all of those cross-border crimes. And finally, it will make Europe better equipped to deal with the big challenges like global warming, globalisation, the energy crisis, mass migration – all of those big challenges. So it’s a very good treaty, because it does all of that. So I’d hope we won’t vote other than to ratify the treaty – I hope we vote ‘Yes’. But, if Ireland votes ‘No’ – what happens is – first of all we won’t be kicked out of the European Union, there’s no question that that would happen. I’m not sure if people would laugh at us or not, but they’d certainly be scratching their heads and they’d be asking how is it that a country that has done so fantastically well as Ireland – we’ve been the biggest success story in the EU, by a long shot, how in the name of goodness we would prevent the European Union from making progress, because this is a treaty that the Union requires.
What will happen? Well, what will happen if we vote ‘No’ is that Europe will be in crisis. There will be an unprecedented crisis, because they simply can’t continue to operate with the existing structures. And remember – and I think everyone should remember this – the treaty is based on the constitutional treaty, which was finalised during the Irish Presidency of the EU. So many of the elements of this treaty, in fact the bulk of the elements of this – we drafted here in Ireland. So people will be mystified if we would disadvantage ourselves and disadvantage Europe – we’d lose an awful lot of influence in Europe if we voted ‘No’. And I think the summary point to be made is that there’s no benefit, there’s no political or social advantage, there’s certainly no advantage from the point of view of job creation in Ireland to voting ‘No’, but there’s an awful lot of advantages to voting ‘Yes’.

People campaigning for a ‘Yes’ vote to the Lisbon Treaty say it makes the EU more democratic and increases Ireland’s influence in Europe. How is it that those on the ‘No’ side can claim the exact opposite – that the treaty is undemocratic and decreases our influence?

But sure the anti-treaty side have been making stories up about Europe for the last 35 years! I mean they’ve been saying for 35 years if we joined the European Union we’d lose our neutrality – we haven’t; they said if we joined the European Union 35 years ago we’d become an impoverished country – we didn’t; they talked about Ireland having virtually no work for people – that hasn’t happened; we actually now have a situation where people are coming into this country, not leaving this country. They said we’d lose our sovereignty – we didn’t lose our sovereignty; they said our culture would be destroyed – we haven’t lost our culture, in fact Irish culture is more vibrant now than it ever was! And in the last 35 years we’ve become a very successful economy – we’ve two million people working in Ireland at the moment, we had a million people working 35 years ago. Europe has been very good to Ireland, for example it invested €58 billion in this country.
So I wonder, really, why is it that we always focus on the ‘ No’ campaign? Because the ‘No’ campaign has always been wrong! They said we wouldn’t do well out of joining Europe – and they were perfectly entitled to say that back in 1972 – and they said it again when the Single European Act was operated; they talked about neutrality coming to an end when Maastricht was operated, when Amsterdam was ratified, when the Irish people voted all of those times – and they were wrong! And they’re wrong on this occasion too. They have of course a right to their opinions, but they should also recognise that they have always got it wrong, they have never been right on any single issue relating to Europe.

The Taoiseach has described those on the anti-treaty side as ‘loo-lahs and loonies’. Would you see that kind of comment as helpful?

There should be no name-calling in this referendum. Equally, a gentleman on the ‘No’ side described members of the Commission in the most, I have to say, in the most insulting and derogatory terms. People have a right to have a view, whether they’re for it or against it. In fact, what we should be doing is discussing the treaty. Because, when you discuss the treaty, when people see the treaty and they see how it’s going to improve democracy…when they see that the national parliaments are going to have a say for the first time – the Dáil and Seanad Eireann will have the right to effectively veto, in some occasions; when they see that you’ll have a citizen’s right of initiative in Europe, something that doesn’t exist in our constitution – people will see that this is good. They will see that a more efficient and effective union is in our interests, it helps the economy to grow, to create jobs. When people see the facts – and we should focus on the facts, not the myths. And I think people get very frustrated – particularly on the ‘Yes’ side, people get very frustrated, when you listen to the same people saying the same thing as they said in 1972. They’re still saying it 35 years later. And it really is time that they explained why they have been wrong all of those times, and how they feel they’re right this time.

Would you share the concern expressed by Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny about the Taoiseach’s difficulties at the Mahon Tribunal – that this might lead to a section of the public voting against the treaty as a protest?

Well, I would wish, if Enda Kenny is in favour of a ‘Yes’ vote, he would just focus on the ‘Yes’ campaign. Dragging issues which have nothing to do with this treaty into this debate is not helpful. And his party intends to be helpful and wants to be pro-European, it always has been pro-European, it needs to see that these are different issues and we shouldn’t confuse them.
The reality of it is, 80% plus of the members of Dáil and Seanad Eireann are in favour of a ‘Yes’ vote, and what we should be doing is getting out and explaining the treaty to the people, and not scoring little points.

The main political parties, as you say, are in favour of a ‘Yes’ vote. The public perception, nonetheless, might lead some to vote against the treaty, simply on the grounds of dissatisfaction with the Taoiseach.

But sure why would we do that? Why would we destroy our place in Europe? Why would we make Ireland a place that people begin to ask questions about? Why would we deliberately damage the European Union that has been so good to Ireland, and so positive for Ireland? Why would we create a situation where there’d be question marks about Ireland that would affect foreign direct investment? Why would we discourage the job creation agencies from fulfilling their tasks? Why, in the name of goodness, would we do all those negative things to ourselves? Because that’s what we would do. Remember, Europe will exist after the decision on this referendum, and wouldn’t it be much better, from Ireland’s point of view, to be very much at the heart of Europe where we belong, where we can actually have influence on things, where we can lead the debate?
The whole of Europe is looking at Ireland! This week, for example, I spent one day in Germany, I spoke, amongst others to the German chancellor, I spoke to the leaders of various regional governments – the only question they’re asking is – what’s going to happen in the Irish referendum? This is critical for Ireland and for Europe.

Will the treaty have to be renegotiated if it’s rejected in Ireland?

It won’t be renegotiated, no. What will happen then is that Europe will go into crisis.

But it’s not in crisis now -

Well, it isn’t in crisis right now – but we seem to forget that 18 countries have already ratified the constitution! The countries that have already discussed the Reform Treaty have already ratified the Reform Treaty – the only country where there’s a major debate or any question mark about ratification is in Ireland! So why would there be any crisis? We’ll ratify this treaty, I’m convinced, because the Irish people, at the end of the day, every time we voted ‘Yes’ for Europe, we benefited. When we voted ‘Yes’ to go into Europe, we benefited. We have grown dramatically since then. When we voted ‘Yes’ to the Single European Act, the new European market was created, the free movement of goods right across Europe, and Ireland all of a sudden had a domestic market literally of hundreds of millions of people – now a domestic market of almost 500 million people. When we voted ‘Yes’ to Maastricht and Amsterdam we ended up creating economic and monetary union, and of course we created the euro – and the euro is one of our best protections against worldwide inflation, here in Europe. And when we voted ‘Yes’ to Nice, it allowed the European Union to expand, we got new countries into Europe who are very friendly and positive, and help and support Ireland. So why would we vote ‘No’? When every time we vote ‘Yes’, we’ve always had the advantage? The advantage has always been to Ireland. And again, this is a question which the ‘No’ side should answer. They have never, ever dealt with the reality that every single referendum, they got it wrong. I’m not saying that they’re not sincere or they don’t believe what they’re saying, I’m sure that some of them at least do, but when you hear the same argument being made 35 years in a row, and it’s always been wrong, you have to ask yourself why.

Margot Wallstrom, Vice-President of the European Commission, said this morning that she rejected the idea that the Lisbon Treaty is somehow paving the way for a ‘super-state Europe’. But certain features of the Treaty, for example the creation of the new position of President of the European Council, the transferring of more national powers to Brussels, and the changes in the voting system from unanimity to qualified majority voting in some areas – do these not represent a dilution of democracy as oppose to a strengthening of democracy?

No, no, no, that’s an assertion, that’s an assertion that is made by the ‘No’ side. The ‘No’ side assert that the Presidency of the European Council is a ‘bad’ thing. It’s the same as electing a president to run the soccer club, or the tennis club or the GAA club – it doesn’t make any sense to have someone different doing the job every few months. You’re talking about a Union where the lives and well-being of 500 million people are concerned – it makes sense to have somebody there for two and a half years, to make sure that the main body that makes decisions does its decision-making well. Every political party in this country elects a leader, and nobody thinks that electing a leader is a bad thing, everybody thinks it would be fairly strange if you didn’t! What has happened in Europe is we’ve had a circulating Presidency, which was great sometimes, I mean it was great when Ireland was there, because the Taoiseach was very dedicated and the team was very dedicated, and everybody accepted it was good – but then you come onto countries that are somewhat eurosceptic, and the amount of progress they can make is very limited. So having a President or Chairman of the European Council is a good thing. Having, for example, a more focused European Parliament is a good thing. Having a more focused European Commission is a good thing.

What about the loss of the automatic right to a Commissioner for each member state?

But sorry, we would still have the Ministers from each individual member state going to the Council of Ministers where the decisions are made. The European Commission originates the ideas and the policies, and the policies are enacted by the Council. The Council of Ministers will still have a Minister from every member state. And in fact, now what we’ll have is there’ll be a bigger role for the parliaments, both the domestic parliaments and the European Parliament. Now the first point that has to be made about the Commission – when Irish people voted ‘Yes’ to go into Europe, all the big countries had two commissioners and all the small countries had one commissioner. From now until 2014, every country will have one commissioner. But the feeling has been that a 27-member or maybe a 30-member commission is too inefficient, it’s going to be all over the place, it’s very difficult to be coherent. Remember in our constitution we had a limitation of 15 members of the Cabinet. So what is going to happen is that the equality of every member state is going to be recognised in the treaty, and the membership of the commission is going to circulate between each member state on an exactly equal basis. Now that’s a good thing for small countries, because it recognises, for the very first time in a treaty, the exact equality of every member state. It’s a good thing, it’s not a negative thing.

Thank you very much.

Strasbourg Plenary Session (23/2/08)

eurolinknews — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:12:24 +0000

Last week’s plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg was dominated, for the Irish MEPs at any rate, by a report supporting the Lisbon Treaty.The report listed reasons to adopt the treaty, claiming it would enhance the EU’s democratic accountability, better protect citizen’s rights and improve the functioning of EU institutions. It also urged member states to ratify the treaty by the end of this year, to pave the way for the European elections in June 2009. The report got a ringing endorsement from the Parliament, with 525 votes in favour to 115 against. 11 out of the 13 Irish MEPs supported the vote, with Sinn Féin MEP Mary Lou McDonald and Independent MEP Kathy Sinnott leading the charge for the anti-treaty campaign. Proceedings were made slightly more colourful than usual by the fifty-odd MEPs wearing bright yellow sweaters with the logo ‘Too chicken for a referendum?’ in protest at the fact that no other country except Ireland is allowing its people to vote on the Lisbon Treaty. Outside the parliament chambers in Strasbourg, a handful of members of the UK Independence Party dressed in life-size chicken costumes, for which they were reprimanded by security staff and by President Hans-Gert Poettering himself, who said ‘If your parents could see you, they would be ashamed.’ Inside the chamber, Sinn Féin Mary Lou McDonald, Unionist MEP Jim Allister and the British Independent MEPs made what Fine Gael MEP Mairead McGuinness described as ‘strange bedfellows’ as they spoke eloquently against the treaty and applauded each others speeches. UK Independent MEP Nigel Farage accused the parliament of ‘running scared’ by not providing more referendums, citing French President Nicolas Sarkozy who openly confessed his fears that if a referendum was held in France, it would be rejected. France and Holland voted against the EU constitution two years ago, and Sarkozy admitted recently: ‘France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting no. It would happen in all member states if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments. A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK.’
Whatever eurosceptism or other agendas may be driving the UK Independents and other anti-treaty campaigners, they do seem to have a point about the absence of referendums. Surely it should be up to the people in every member state to decide whether or not to ratify the treaty? In this matter, the 4.5 million Irish electorate bears the weight of responsibility of deciding on the treaty on behalf of some 450 million voters across the EU. But this in itself is not a reason to vote yes or no.
One key concern of the No campaign is a perceived threat to Irish neutrality. The Lisbon Treaty would give a legal base to EU battle groups, rapid reaction forces that can be deployed within days to trouble spots around the globe. The government claims that our neutrality is protected under the triple lock policy, by which Irish troops cannot serve abroad without the approval of the Dáil, the Cabinet and the UN Security Council. Yet those against the treaty claim our participation in battle groups (which began last week when the first of some 450 Irish soldiers left to join the EU peacekeeping mission in Chad) represents the first signs of picking at the triple lock arrangement.
The government has further moved to allay fears of any compromise to our neutrality by proposing several constitutional provisions alongside the treaty in the referendum, one of which will declare that Ireland will not be part of any common European defence arrangements. Sinn Féin has seized on this as evidence of the government’s ‘turnaround’ on the issue, and has queried whether the proposed measures will in fact copperfasten our neutrality, or whether they are simply ‘cosmetic’, given that a similar proposal was contained in the Nice Treaty. The Dáil is due to debate the neutrality question next week.