Nuke Algeria? Invade les Rosbifs? Just tell my pollster!
The President of France, M. Nicolas Sarkozy, has continued his manic leaping up and down the political spectrum like a demented flea on Red Bull by pledging that voters may tweet policies directly into his manifesto. Addressing a rally in Toulouse under a giant banner proclaiming “Seriously, what’ll it take?”, Sarkozy declared that “it is not true, as my opponents allege, that I have no beliefs. I have always held firmly to one belief my entire life, and so have room for plenty of others, which I ask the French People to insert directly through Twitter. Let me be your vessel!” Sarkozy’s socialist opponent, M. Francois Hollande attacked Sarkozy for being as erratic as a balloon with the air escaping, and pointed out that, unlike the sitting president of the republic, he has very firm convictions on the future of France, including the restoration of the Year 1959, the nationalization of good hair so that it can be made into a human right for all, and the passing of a law to ban the losing of one’s car keys when one is in a rush to get the kids to school.
I recently attended, and greatly enjoyed, a debate organised by Marc Coleman of Newstalk on behalf of the centre-right “National Forum” thinktank. The subject was the Fiscal Treaty, and the speakers were Brian Hayes TD, Minister of state at Finance, Eamon O Cuiv TD, Michael McDowell and Declan Ganley. A few observations:
Brian Hayes gave a pretty stock Vote Yes for Jobs/Send the right signals for FDI speech. Having said that, his speaking style was quite engaging, almost Blairite, and he did have the one killer line that the No campaign either avoid or struggle to engage with: What happens if we need a second bail out? He seemed on top of his brief, and along with Lucinda is beginning to emerge as one of the younger FGers worth watching.
Eamon O Cuiv is an odd fish that I can never quite work out. There seems to be a certain sincerity and thoughtfulness there, yet I can’t help thinking that he has never made a political sacrifice on a point of principle. His point seemed to be that we can blackmail Europe into giving us a deal on promissory notes and corporation tax. Curiously, he seemed to be against federalism but in favour of a federal EU banking regulator.
Declan Ganley was funny and very comfortable with the mantle of European Federalism. I’m not sure I agree with his stance on the FC, which seems to be to play chicken with the rest of Europe, and some aspects of his federalism would worry me, but he deserves credit for laying out a clear vision of the EU and its future direction. He also seems to have lost some of his more agressive style and it has done him good. Irish politics certainly gains from his participation.
Michael McDowell always reminds people when he speaks what we are missing from the Irish political scene. He’s a politican that likes ideas and discussing them, which is very refreshing compared to the “I’m calling for a full scale review” carry on that most Irish Pols offer. He strongly advocated a Yes vote, making the same “Who is going to pay?” argument that Brian Hayes made. He then attacked the concept of a United States of Europe on the grounds that there is no European demos. He made very valid points about the dangers an EU superstate without a real democratic anchor, but having listened, I’m still more with Ganley on this.
One other observation about the evening was the tone of the meeting. I spotted a lot of ex-PDs in the audience, and any mention of the Croke Park Agreement set off the crowd. Marc Coleman gave a pretty fiesty centre-right speech which was notable by its absence on the political arena, outlining a series of positions that a moderate US Republican or British Tory would regard as perfectly reasonable. I don’t say that disparagingly, by the way, what I mean is that it is a pretty disgraceful state of affairs that we don’t have a party advocating a clear centre-right pro-private sector position.
One other thing: Nessa Childers MEP spoke, giving a centre-left analysis. She was heckled a bit, but for the most part listened to. Curiously enough, I have always found right of centre meetings far more tolerant of left wing contributors (and rightly so) than vice versa. Or is that just me? One woman at the back called for a minute’s silence for that poor Greek bastard who took his own life. Do you ever notice how people who call for a minute’s silence always wait until they have exhausted what they want to say, and then want the minute’s silence from someone else’s speaking time? A pet peeve of mine.
You can get more information on the National Forum here. I’m not a member, by the way, but I would go to another meeting if it was a lively as this.
Scientists in the CERN facility in Switzerland have confirmed that a time-loop has emerged within the political system in Ireland, causing its politicians to repeat the same referendum campaign over again and again. “It’s quite extraordinary. Whereas other countries have new political issues to debate every few years, as culture and technology progress, Ireland’s elected representatives seem doomed to fight the same campaign every time. Just watch as Ireland’s pro-EU people talk about treaty X being vital for jobs and “sending signals” to people outside Ireland. Meanwhile, the No campaign will bang on about Ireland being bullied and four million Irish people not being treated the same as eighty two million Germans. Then the voters will refuse to read anything, and then complain that they haven’t been properly informed. They don’t seem to know it, but they have fought this same campaign six times since 1992!”
A time trvelling adventurer travelling in a blue box-shaped space craft, well known to Earth authorities has refused to intervene. “You must be joking. Last time I intervened in Ireland, some guy named Boyd Barrett accused me of being a Tory because of the colour of my ship, and some big fella from Carlow menaced me for a €100 for some bloody charge or other. Screw that. I’ll take the Daleks, at least they don’t try to pretend they’re doing you a favour.”
Ganley: Like him or not, he is one of the few to talk ideas.
I have been a critic of Declan Ganley in the past, and disagree with him on other issues. But he has to be given credit for the fact that he, with the exception maybe of John Bruton, is one of the few active political figures in Ireland who openly outlines a clear vision of what he wants Europe to look like. Neither Eamon Gilmore, Enda Kenny, Gerry Adams or Micheal Martin share their visions of a future Europe in any detail, other than to rely on trite and empty statements about Ireland’s national interests. Listening to both him and Lucinda Creighton discussing the future of Europe recently on Newstalk, he was talking about the treaty AFTER this one, something our full time political leaders give the impression they have not even begun to consider, despite the fact that the German Foreign minister has. Having said that, Lucinda should be given some leeway, as she does seem to be considering these issues too, but is restrained by her position. Her bosses should start considering them as well, and talking about them in public. You can’t say nothing about the possibility of a federal Europe until its sudden arrival, and then expect to pass it in a referendum.
If I were Enda Kenny, I’d be worried. Yes, the polls are giving good numbers with regard to a Yes vote, but I’m wondering where exactly is the physical Yes campaign actually going to come from? In the last three days I’ve spoken to four people who all played very significant roles in the last two treaty campaigns, and what’s frightening is that not one of them is planning to actively campaign for a Yes vote. In fact, two are even wavering about voting Yes themselves.
The reason is not as much to do with disenchantment with the EU (although that is a factor in their giving Declan Ganley a second look. More on that below) as to do with the fact that they haven’t got the energy to spend days standing on Grafton street defending cutbacks (the “Rectal Fistitude” programme) and the banking bailout. That’s the problem right there. I’ve already encountered people who would be in the usual Yes voter camp who are voting No because they associate the treaty with cuts to a public service they use. I predict that the Yes campaign will struggle to actually put non-FG bodies on the ground, as even the usually pro-EU NGOs will waiver as they battle cuts to their own funding.
But there’s another reason: many veteran Yes campaigners are so tired of the onslaught from the Easy Answers Brigade (Shinners and the ULA) that they almost want this treaty to be the trap the perennial Noes finally walk into, a treaty that can’t be halted but will have clear effects if there is a No vote. One speculated to me that he’d relish an Ireland without access to a second bailout staring into the abyss of eye-watering cutbacks, the No side finally proven to be the smoke and mirrors merchants that they are. In particular, the curious line put out by some No voters, that “the Germans have to bail us out in order to save the euro” will finally be shown to be not actually true. After all, the Greeks have proven that it is possible to remain in the single currency whilst undergoing cutbacks in public services on a scale unimaginable in Ireland.
Have you noticed, by the way, that rightwing opposition to the treaty is taking the almost diametrically opposed line that the No-To-Cutbacks left are voicing? Take a look at Cormac Lucey’s piece in the Irish Daily Mail, where he suggests that a Yes vote may allow the government to wiggle out of harsh measures to reduce the cost of the public sector. It’s a line I have encountered a few times now, voiced mostly by what would be termed “Thatcherites”, that a No vote and the contraction in funding for services it could bring will be a wonderful opportunity to start dismantling the social welfare system by the back door.
The other interesting factor is the reception Declan Ganley’s message is getting amongst pro-EU activists. The media have, quite oddly, only recently twigged that Ganley is a European federalist, something that he has never hidden in the past. I’m struck by the amount of former Yes campaigners who secretly whisper to me how much they agree with Ganley’s “not far enough” line, particularly on the democratic control of the EU. He’s winning admirers in pro-European circles (one likened him to an Irish version of Polish foreign minister Sikorski, who made a very inspiring speech on the EU last year) because he is actually offering a positive long-term vision of the EU, something this generation of technocratic poll-watching nervous nelly EU leaders have failed to provide. If he could temper his perceived right-wing social views, or at least explain them better, as John Bruton does with his, Ganley could find himself leading something interesting.
All across Europe, a collection of left-wingers, eurosceptics, Occupy activists and anti-globalisation protesters took to the streets as the election results from Greece came in. The PASOK and the New Democracy parties, the old parties of corruption and clientelism that had led Greece to its knees, had been annihilated by a hard left alliance of small parties on a platform of resistance to austerity. Thousands of students danced in the streets of the Greek capital, and the people voiced their opinion. In Ireland, Richard Boyd Barrett of People Before Profit spoke excitedly of a Irish “Greek Revolution”, whilst Joe Higgins of the Socialist Party spoke ominously of a military coup.
Within days, the new Greek government had expelled the EU and IMF monitors, and announced plans to nationalise the major Greek businesses. Of course, the fact that nearly every commercially owned Greek vessel had left Greek ports in the days leading up to the election had not been missed by the media, nor had the streams of expensive Porsches and Mercedes and haulage trucks that had choked up the border posts leading into Turkey or up into Europe. Some border guards had attempted to delay them, but bundles of euronotes had eased the bureaucracy in a way the old Greece would have been proud of. The new prime minister’s exchange controls on banks were merely symbolic, given the billions that had fled the country in the previous weeks.
Angela Merkel was quick to welcome the new government, stating very clearly that the EU would not force Greece to take any more of its bailout funding. The will of the Greek people must be respected, she said.
Within a month, the Greek government defaulted on all of Greece’s debt, and announced that it was leaving the eurozone. Greek banks began to collapse, the ECB providing assistance to other eurozone banks to assist them with their Greek losses. Greek banks began issuing euronotes with “New Drachma” stamped on them, at an exchange rate of one half of their euro value. As a result, food prices soared in shops, and Greeks continued to haggle using unstamped euronotes, until the government announced that hoarding unstamped euronotes was a criminal offence. Then the government announced that it could no longer pay pensions or public sector workers in notes, but would issue scrip until the New Drachma could be printed, which must be honoured in shops. Despite this law, many shop-owners refused to accept scrip, or gave preference to customers with euronotes.
There was a sense of excitement when the New Drachma finally reached the banks. Although the central bank attempted to restrict the amount printed, the new government, eager to restore public order, continued to print notes to pay public sector workers and restore cuts to wages and pensions. Prices in shops began to rise sharply, fuelled by internal inflation and the collapse in the New Drachma against other currencies. Tourists did begin to return, but were surprised to find themselves pestered by tour operators to be paid in euro. Given the almost daily price rises, tour operators going to Greece found themselves forced to admit that they could not guarantee prices, especially as imported fuel, food and consumer goods were soaring in price.
Trades unions demanded price rises to keep place with inflation, which the government agreed to, funding with more printed notes, which fuelled higher inflation. The daily demonstrations, a regular feature during the IMF programme, returned to protest outside parliament, complaining of the soaring prices. The government attempted to instigate price controls, forcing business to sell products at prices below import cost. Not surprisingly, this plan did not resolve the issue. Far right protesters started marching, suggesting that the problem was caused by an alliance of Turkey and Jews, and demanded that Greece must make a military gesture to restore her national dignity. President Obama quickly dispatched secretary Clinton to Europe to London, Paris, Berlin and Ankara to make sure that Athens got the message that the rest of NATO would not tolerate such action.
By now, rioting was a daily occurence, with empty supermarkets being torched, and the government struggling to find a solution. The much hoped boost to tourism fuelled by the much devalued New Drachma didn’t arise, possibly due to the unattractive nature of rioting and tear gas dispersal on European television screens.
Then the army moved, seizing parliament and announcing a National Salvation Council to restore order. Martial law was imposed, and demonstrators were shot dead. Joe Higgins and Richard Boyd Barrett, who had been curiously quiet in recent months, immediately appeared, demanding that this “fascist putsch” be countered. When asked would they be going to Greece to lead an international brigade against the fascists, journalists were told “eh, we’ll get back to you on that”. The EU immediately imposed sanctions on Greece, freezing bank accounts and military imports. NATO suspended Greek membership within days.
Within two weeks of the coup, even the army were beginning to protest, with the shortage of food and fuel causing massive army desertions as soldiers returned to their families. A group of younger officers then staged a counter coup, overthrowing their superiors in a lightening operation, and returning power to the government, provided the prime minister agreed to one policy, which he assented to.
Two days after being restored to power, the Greek prime minister addressed the Greek people, and announced that his government would put the EU bailout package to a national referendum.
It can be a ballot box or a can of petrol. It’s our call.
There is a phrase used in Ireland, “codding ourselves”. I’m unsure as to whether it is used elsewhere, but it basically means that someone is knowingly deluding themselves, usually out of a dislike of the reality. It is a very common practice in Ireland, regarded, in fact, as a daily way of life, especially in Irish politics.
Now, consider the current bunfight going on over the possibility of a referendum on the EU fiscal compact. The government does not want to hold one, because it might lose, and governments don’t like uncertainty. The truth is, the government is afraid that the Irish people might make the wrong choice. But they won’t admit that they don’t want to hold one, instead making legal arguments about the constitution.
Now, when someone like me, on the pro-EU side of the aisle, makes a remark about the people being wrong, there’s normally uproar. The people can do no wrong, won’t be patronised, etc, etc. It is bollocks. Of course the people can do wrong, especially if, as always happens in Ireland, a substantial section of the electorate A) decide to vote not for what is on the ballot paper but what they think should be on the ballot paper, ie the local hospital, property taxes, bank bailouts, Uncle Tom Cobley and all, or B) refuse to believe that the rest of Europe will not save Ireland no matter how reckless we decide to be.
That’s why the government want to avoid a vote. Because we do have a choice. This is a referendum on the bailout too, and the government is afraid that the voters will pour petrol over our house, toss a match at it, and then look proudly at our neighbours as our house burns down.
The others can go on without us, and what happens then? Will the Irish people then turn to the government that agreed to the referendum and thank them for the opportunity to torch the gaff? No, they’ll start screaming at the government about the fact that our house has burnt down, and where are we going to live now? It actually makes more sense to just ignore the usual “undemocratic” jibes and carry on. After all, if Irish political history is anything to go by, they’ll be forgotten in six months. The house will still be there.
Having said that, if the Supreme Court or the Attorney General or even the Oireachtas (yeah, that band of brave heroes) decides that we have to vote, fair enough. The law’s the law. But let’s be honest about it at least, rather than denying that the government wants to avoid a vote.
They'll look back on the blue flag and golden stars with nostalgia.
One of the things that I have always found interesting about euroscepticism, and not just in Ireland or the UK, is the assumptions it makes. Eurosceptics always seem to assume that the alternative to the EU is some sort of magical reset button, back to a golden age when national sovereignty actually meant that a country could decide its own direction by making decisions for the most part within its own borders.
I can see the romance behind the idea, and it’s a very powerful idea which has caused a lot of bloodshed, certainly from the American Civil War onwards. But it is flawed. Take Britain in 1940. It was a nation of far greater military and economic importance than it is now, a global power in fact. Yet in 1940, even with all the power Britain’s future was not decided by London, but by decisions made in Berlin, Moscow and Washington DC.
The problem for us is that life in the 21st century is almost impossible for a country that does not want to interact with others. The only country I can think of that genuinely attempts it is North Korea.
Now, it is true that a modern European country outside the EU will not be another North Korea. Britain, for example, is a modern and wealthy industrialised economy with global links. But it’s no USA. Or China. Or Russia. Or Japan. Or India. Or Brazil. With the exception of Germany (which only qualifies economically, as opposed to culturally or militarily) there is no European country that is, on its own, going to be a first tier player in the global economy of the 21st century. In effect, by turning our back on European integration, we are handing over the running of the world to the giants, to economic and military superpowers.
It is they who will set the rules, and the rest of us who will follow in their vast wake. That is the world that the Eurosceptics are moving us towards, and let us make sure that they know it, because in 2021 when a Chinese commissar decides what the technical standards will be for new products, he won’t be sending us draft directives for comment the way those nice men and women in Belgium used to. He’ll just tell us.
We'd be down the back stealing quills and wig powder to sell down the mart later.
One of the more curious aspects of the debate about Europe and the euro in Ireland is how it doesn’t happen. The Sunday Business Post’s Pat Leahy once remarked as to how short term Irish politicians are in their thinking, and you find no better example of that than in our approach to foreign policy.
In recent weeks, options from rejoining Sterling to forming a federal Europe have been discussed in the media, and not just in Ireland. What’s surprising is that the Irish political system seems not as much incapable of discussing these issues seriously as completely unwilling. In short, there seems to be no Irish plan, no idea as to what it is Ireland actually wants. The government will say that it wants to defend the status quo and the euro, but the argument goes far beyond that, and we seem to have no opinion. Are we for or against a federal Europe? Irish politicans will claim that they are, but only in such a way as to ensure that if that is the least unsavoury option, we’ll sign up. Where is the Irish vision?
The scary thing is that our leaders are only reflecting our stance as a people. Are we committed to Europe? Probably not that much. It has worked well for us, but we’d almost certainly sell out, Bird O’Donnell like, for the next best offer. We’re more comfortable with the Brits than we let on, and if there was a few quid in it…even when we joke about joining the US (with that weird Irish assumption that they’d be delighted to have us, something I do not believe) we know that at the first sign of trouble (legalised abortion, the IRS actually enforcing the tax code on pensioners and conscription to fight in the US-Iranian War) we’d have the blade out and into Uncle Sam’s back quicker than you could say “Benedict Arnold”. Even if the Chinese offered us €5 billion to endorse an invasion of Taiwan, we’d consider it. We’re not big on beliefs or honour. If one of our politicians had been sent to negotiate the US Declaration of Independence, he’d probably never set foot in the hall, trying instead to steal a horse when ”all dem udder fellas is distracted with all dat writin’ an’ dat!” After all, we complain about the Paris-Berlin axis. Has anyone ever written the Dublin Plan?
