During the months of August and September, I was working on the Ireland for Europe campaign to secure the passage of the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. It was a privilege to be part of this effort, and I got on very well with those I was working with.
One of the areas in which I worked on was as a contributor to the blog. Now that I’ve finished there, I think I’ve into the habit. I’ve long posted items on Facebook, using it in ways as a blog between friends, but posting a public blog makes a connexion with the wider internet. I’ll see what I can make of this anyway.
My main interests are political, between Irish, American and elsewhere. Ideologically, I’d class myself as a liberal, in the way The Economist uses the word.
As previously noted here, a recent Indecon survey reported that 90.8% of economists asked said that Ireland’s overall economic interests were likely to be best secured by a Yes vote.
These were economists from the seven Irish universities, from the ESRI and from Indecon itself. Economists working for the media, banks, government departments or agencies, or with employer or trade union organisations were not included.
In light of this, we held a seminar earlier today titled Economists for Europe, chaired by Dr Alan Ahearne, Special Advisor for the Minister for Finance, and with presentations from Dr Alan Gray of Indecon, Prof. Antoin Murphy of Trinity College, David Croughan of IBEC and Paul Sweeney of ICTU (so, of course, only Gray and Murphy contributed to the Indecon survey).
In his opening remarks, Dr Ahearne reported that the American Chamber of Commerce have said that they provide 300,000 reasons to vote Yes. He emphasised the benefit our EU membership gives us as a traditionally export-based economy, which is to be the case again after the brief period earlier this decade when we were demand-based. 62% of our exports go to other EU countries. Given this emphasis in our economy, he said that it was important for us that the globalised world functioned well.
Alan Gray, Managing Director of Indecon International Consultancy Group, prefaced his remarks by stating that both he and other economists tended to stay away from political commentary, but felt it important to intervene on this occasion. He said that the fundamental question was about confidence, something which can have a major impact, even if not easily quantifiable in models. He said that the economic question is not about the Treaty per se, but about the vote. If there were no vote on Lisbon, we would not feel its absence, but the vote itself would send out a particular message which would be difficult to explain to potential investors. He also made the point that investors would generally give very little attention to Ireland, so this could have a serious impact on perception.
Prof. Antoin Murphy, of the Department of Economics in Trinity College, Dublin, highlighted the help we received from the European Central Bank in two periods: the initial stage of multinational growth from the late 1980s, and in the past year when we needed an injection of liquidity. He also refuted claims that bond prices have already taken our rejection into account, as the trend downwards, rather than upwards as would be expected in such a case.
Paul Sweeney, economic advisor to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, referred to The Charter Group, a pro-Treaty lobby group. He also admitted that there were concerns about workers’ rights in the EU, but that these had nothing to do with Lisbon. He appealed to the right of collective bargaining in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the benefits of FDI which we have from being less Eurosceptic than Britain. He termed Cóir’s poster on the danger of a €1.84 minimum wage as a disgusting lie.
David Croughan, chief economist of the Irish Business and Employers’ Confederation, talked of how business was overwhelmed by the benefits of the internal market and the single currency. In terms of specific changes Lisbon would introduce, he outlined the benefits of the Protocol on Eurogroup in terms of closer coordination and dialogue between finance ministers. He said that business never really thought there was a problem threat to our direct taxation last time, and that despite what we might have heard, he felt that our international reputation was damaged last year.
In conclusion, Dr Alan Ahearne recalled the old joke that if you have five economists in a room, they’d have six opinions between them. On this occasion, however, they were all of one mind, that a Yes vote was a crucial component of our route to economic recovery.
Last year’s referendum in June 2008 took place under very different economic circumstances. While Bear Stearns had collapsed in March, and it was clear that the credit crunch had arrived, few realised what the true extent of the crisis would entail. The rise of unemployment in July of 19,000 was the highest ever monthly increase, and from then there seemed to be little good news. As unemployment grew, the pressure on the state’s social welfare budget grew while the tax intake shrank. The government found itself in a considerable deficit which two budgets and public sector pay renegotiation has failed to fully address. After guaranteeing the banks’ debt in September 2008, both the state and public found borrowing more costly as the major credit-rating agencies Moody’s and Standard and Poors downgraded Irish banks and Ireland’s credit sovereign rating.
We face this referendum then with a widely different economic situation. Both employers and unions realize how important it is to maintain a strong relation with Europe so that Irish bonds do not fall further in their standing in international markets. A vote that could be interpreted as eurosceptic would add uncertainty to our standing of our banks. Leading international firms, Intel, Ryanair, and Microsoft, have clearly stated their support for the implementation of the Treaty, taking active roles in calling for a Yes vote. Equally, ICTU General Secretary David Begg is a Patron of Ireland for Europe and, speaking on Tuesday, he stated that rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, allied to the return to power of the Conservative Party in Britain, could see Ireland “boxed in an Anglo-Saxon, Eurosceptic, northwestern corner of Europe” and could seriously hit Irish jobs.
These are the people who deal day-in, day-out with Irish employment, and they have clearly committed themselves to a Yes vote.
Those on our side of this debate have been criticized for linking the Lisbon Treaty with jobs or recovery. It is, of course, not as simple as a claim that there will be jobs that will be created or maintained directly because of the vote on the Treaty, but it is part of the process. It is because of the reality that we attracted multinationals to this country for many reasons, such as our low tax rates and our well-educated English-speaking population, but also because we provided a link to a European Union which now has a population of 500 million.
If we were to vote No, the appetite for reform among other European countries would not be diminished. But with the likely election of the highly Eurosceptic David Cameron as Prime Minister, the United Kingdom could well decide to opt out of that process. After a second No vote, European leaders could justly assume that we had made our decision clear that we did not wish to be part of that process either. While the United Kingdom could afford to go it alone if they wished, we should not consider this an option for us.
It is true that we will remain members of the European Union no matter what way we vote on 2 October. But a No vote will mean that we will not be a part of core decision-making processes. Particularly for those who have had concerns about EU policies in the past, such as on agriculture and fisheries, it is crucial that Irish voices are heard at all levels of the EU.
This might seem like a biased analysis coming from this organization. It is backed up, however, by those who have no interest beyond creating and securing jobs, and by independent economic analysts. Those working at all levels, whether small firms, medium enterprises or multinationals, have emphasised the importance to job-creation and maintenance in this country of a strong commitment to Europe.
A recent survey by IBEC found that 86% of employers polled believed the passing the Lisbon Treaty was important or very important to Ireland’s recovery. In its statement, IBEC Director of EU and International Affairs Brendan Butler said: “Ireland has been very successful in attracting major investment from abroad, which in turn has led to the creation of many jobs. Being fully engaged with Europe is vital to ensure this continues. A yes vote will send a positive signal to foreign investors that Ireland is committed to being a key player in the world’s most successful economic union.”
Most significant is perhaps the judgement of academic economists in the Indecon report, which surveyed the views of the 66 non-government economists in all Irish universities and the ESRI. The report concluded that our vote would have a significant effect on the cost of borrowing. Alan Gray, one of the authors of the report, wrote that “a No vote would result in additional concerns about Ireland’s precise role in Europe at a time when we cannot afford any self-imposed additions to our economic problems.” Equally, many economists have spoken out in their own capacity, such as Prof. Alan Matthews writing for Irish Economy yesterday.
It is vital not to create this uncertainty about Ireland’s place within the European Union at this time given the state of our public finances, the cost of borrowing and our rate of unemployment. Over the remaining nine days, we will be maintaining a focus on this aspect of the referendum and the implications of our vote.
In an earlier post, I looked at the support that prominent Catholics have given to the European project. Of particular note in recent weeks have been a few Jesuits, making their voice heard first in their objection to Cóir’s misuse of Caravaggio’s The Taking of Christ.
In this video, Fr Edmond Grace, SJ, answers the question why we should be voting on the Lisbon Treaty again, given last year’s rejection.
Also worth checking, is a blog by Fr Fergus O’Donoghue, SJ, who has posted a few items recently on the Lisbon Treaty.
The ‘No’ pamphlet also showed a picture of a large hypodermic with the caption: “Will we get EUthanasia?” Well, that kind of disgusting and disingenuous question is what we repeatedly got during the infamous divorce referendum debate in the 1980s. And my answer is that if we do get EUthanasia, the very first people we should EUthanase are the fine fellows who went in for EUthanasia scare tactics before the referendum.
A comparable piece of mischief was at work with the pamphlet’s sly and grubby query: “Do you wish to split up the family farm?” Ah, that one again.
At least, the ‘No’ pamphlet spares us any wheedling insinuations about conscription and neutrality — perhaps because the authors know that, aside from the fir-bolg Left, as characterised by the Rossport potties, most people know that our neutrality is dead. We are Europeans. Our soldiers must be part of the European Reaction Force, and have already served in Chad within that military framework. .
One of Declan Ganley’s talking points on his return to the campaign was his objection to what he called the “unelected President of Europe”. The position is usually referred to as such by those critical of the new post. The position is in fact titled the President of the European Council. It replaces the rotating presidency held by the head of government of the each of the states for six months. Its job is to chair the meetings of the Council of Ministers.
The Lisbon Treaty will create a 2½-year term with the same function. It will be a more high-profile role, but they will have no policy agenda. There would be nothing for them to campaign on in any popular election that Mr Ganley desires. During the Convention which drafted the text of the Lisbon Treaty, Valéry Giscard D’Éstaing was describing what the role would in effect entail. The word “Président” is used much more in French than it would be in English, so for the only time, he used an English word, “c’est le mot anglais – chairman”.
But why this assumption that any government representative must have a direct democratic mandate? The Taoiseach could in Ganley’s terms be described as unelected, as could Britain’s Prime Minister or Germany’s Chancellor or most of the heads of government in Europe. Our representatives in the Dáil elect the Taoiseach, just as our representatives in Europe elect the Presidents of the Commission, of the Parliament, and as would be the case under Lisbon, of the Council of Ministers.
More absurdly, Mr Ganley even decried the fact that the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will not have a mandate from the people. While some countries, like France and the United States, might elect their head of government, no country elects their foreign minister.
We recently commended Independent TD Finian McGrath‘s willingness to reconsider his position on the Lisbon Treaty, in light of the guarantees which the government secured after last year’s defeat. He voted No last year, and we can now confirm that he will be voting Yes.
While he still has some concerns with the nature of the European Union, “but this will not stop me making a decision that is in the interest of the Irish people”.
He believes that we are being offered a step in the right direction, and that the governments of the EU countries have addressed the main concerns of the Irish people since last year’s referendum.
I wanted firm and legal guarantees. I also wanted a commitment to a protocol. We now appear to have achieved these objectives. There is now a package of legally-binding guarantees on the table.
In a previous blog, I looked at the improvements in the democratic character of the European Union which the Lisbon Treaty will introduce. Yet this week, we heard Declan Ganley again decrying the lack of democracy in the EU, ignoring these changes. He talks of the need for a 25-page constitutional document, overturning 52 years of negotiation by Treaty. This rejection of piecemeal change in favour of a fundamental overhaul deserves analysis in itself.
His 25-page document would turn the EU on an entirely new path, with very little relation in its institutions and structure to what exists at present. He expects us to ignore the 7 years of work which included a convention with parties across Europe and across the political spectrum, in government and in opposition, as well as contributions from civil society.
To recap on the changes Lisbon will introduce to make the workings more open and democratic:
- the Council of Ministers, which finalizes any EU legislation, will vote in public
- the Citizens’ Initiative will require the Commission to consider an application from a million citizens, a power far greater than exists nationally, where we cannot in anyway control the agenda of cabinet meetings
- national parliaments will review legislation after it is proposed by the Commission, and a sufficient number could veto legislation going any further
- our MEPs elected in the European Parliament will have an equal say with the Council of Ministers in making law
The Irish eighteenth-century philosopher and statesman, Edmund Burke, criticized the idea of a revolution upon a theory, arguing instead for institutional change by a steady and thoughtful process. In rejecting the moves towards open and democratic government in the Lisbon Treaty, Mr Ganley has fallen into this trap. Similarly, the twentieth-century philosopher Karl Popper praised the merit of piecemeal institutional change. Basically, we should ask where we should go from where we are now. It is very common to hear those on the No side talk in terms of “Another EU is possible”, rejecting any change that does not give it all at once, even if in their desired direction. This all-or-nothing approach is an unrealistic approach to diplomacy, and ignores our long-standing political traditions.
Remember, we should debate the Lisbon Treaty on the question of whether the changes it itself introduces are beneficial to the working of the Union compared to what exists at present. On these terms, Lisbon clearly brings the above benefits. Without Lisbon, we will not get these beneficial changes.
[wpaudio url="http://www.rte.ie/podcasts/2009/pc/pod-v-140909-28m12s-todaywithpatkenny.mp3" text="Today with Pat Kenny, 14th September." dl=0]
In this morning’s Today with Pat Kenny, Declan Ganley dismissed out of hand those polled by IBEC, who stated by 86% that they believed a Yes vote was important or very important for economic recovery. Mr Ganley is perfectly entitled to side with the 14% of who did not see Lisbon as a vital part of the recovery, but to patronisingly call into question the ability of the 86% to understand the implications is surely a step too far in arrogance. He also continued to spread the accusation that there is a possibility of a common consolidated corporate tax base, despite the fact that our new guarantees ensure that there can be no threat to our corporate tax rates, which have proved so important in attracting firms to Ireland.
[wpaudio url="http://blog.irelandforeurope.ie/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/McGrath.mp3" text="Morning Ireland, 9 Spetember" dl=0]
Independent TD Finian McGrath voted No last year, while an official supporter of the government. Yesterday on Morning Ireland, he explained why he is a Don’t Know now. He cited the lack of a permanent Commissioner and concerns about our involvement in defence arrangements as his biggest reasons for voting No, and he felt that he had a duty as a public representative to reconsider his stance of last year now that we have guarantees that there will always be an Irish Commissioner, and recognizing our neutrality.
This is welcome to hear, and especially as Finian McGrath has since withdrawn his support for the government. He has been a critic of government policy over the past year and is respected for his diligent efforts with local communities. He has now shown here that whatever way he does vote, it is quite possible to separate one’s views on the government from the important decision on the Lisbon Treaty.
Sunday’s This Week program featured an item on Cóir, who are claiming to represent the views of Catholic voters. They also interviewed prominent Catholic commentator, David Quinn, who had changed his mind from last year. He voted No last year because of his concerns on issues of religious sensitivity, but is now satisfied with the guarantees on abortion, religious education and the family, and will be voting Yes this time. The Tribune’s Conor McMorrow also featured an insightful article on Cóir, which is well worth reading.
[wpaudio url="http://blog.irelandforeurope.ie/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/RTECoir6th.mp3 " text="This Week, 6th Spetember." dl=0]
In fact, while the Roman Catholic hierarchy has not taken an official position on the Treaty, they have assured voters that there is no reason whatever that a conscientious Catholic could not vote for the Treaty.
In a recent Irish Times op-ed, the Jesuit priest Edmund Grace, SJ, wrote in response to the claims that the Lisbon Treaty could threaten our stance on abortion.
If we vote for Lisbon, we will be insisting on one area of fundamental disagreement, but in a context of trust and mutual respect. As the underlying weakness of the secular world view becomes clear we will be in a better position to make the case for the equal rights of the unborn based on a world view that protects liberty by placing it in its rightful context of human solidarity and mutual respect.
Before last year’s referendum, Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin said, “I do not believe the Lisbon Treaty changes the current position with regard to Ireland’s position on abortion within the European Union”. At a speech at the Institute for International and European Affairs entitled, “Christian values and Irish membership of the EU“, Archbishop Martin spoke quite positively of the European Union, “In many ways Brussels is not the problem, but it is recognised more and more as an essential part of the solution.”
Indeed, Pope Benedict XVI spoke in 2004, as Cardinal Ratzinger, spoke favourably about the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In a speech entitled “Europe: Its Spiritual Foundation: Yesterday, Today and in the Future“, while acknowledging the challenges for Roman Catholics in areas such as marriage, he saw these as something to work constructively with. Ultimately, as can be seen at the end of this lengthy speech, he concluded by stating that “The Charter of Fundamental Rights may be a first step, a sign Europe is once again consciously seeking its soul.”
Perhaps Catholics looking for moral guidance could turn to these members of the church hierarchy rather than those who would set themselves up as defenders of the faith.
At the campaign launch of Ireland for Europe yesterday, Eamon Dunphy used this choice quote from economist John Maynard Keynes to explain his Yes vote this year. He voted No last time, citing various concerns he had with the workings of the EU, but believed that because of our economic circumstances, our links with Europe were too important to put in jeopardy.
Eamon Dunphy is one of many who we expect to profile who has changed his mind to call for a Yes vote since last year.
[wpaudio url="http://blog.irelandforeurope.ie/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Karen-Coleman-COIR-.mp3" text="The Wide Angle, 4th September" dl=0]
On Karen Coleman’s The Wide Angle, a representative of Cóir was caught out lying in his interpretation of a Labour Court ruling. In attempting to use the EU rulings in other countries to claim that Irish labour law could be overturned, Manus MacMeanmain claimed that a ruling of the Irish Labour Court backed him up.
Towards the end of this segment, Kevin Duffy of the Labour Court called on the line to correct Mr MacMeanmain’s claims. You can hear him hear (12:15), “What the Court has said is exactly the opposite of what your speaker claims … The Court had simply stated that in the absence of regulation in Ireland, companies could operate under other rules, but of course, there is regulation, all of which has the force of law”. He said that Mr MacMeanmain either hasn’t read the judgement he refers to, or doesn’t understand it (14:25). Mr Duffy and the Labour Court were taking no position one way or other on the Lisbon Treaty or the campaign, but he felt that in circumstances where the Court was being misrepresented for political purposes, he had a duty to correct this.
It puts Joe Higgins comments on Prime Time last Thursday in a very interesting light.
Click on picture for video.