Barroso at Shannon is appropriately inappropriate, or something
Posted at 2:08 am by Conor SloweyAfter reading Hugh's article on PANA's campaign style, I came across this Irish Times article on PANA's reaction to Barroso appearing in Shannon later today, and it gives us another example of the kind of strange arguments PANA is coming up with:
"Pana's international secretary Dr Edward Horgan said: “In view of the fact that Ireland was specifically criticised for its unwillingness to co-operate with EU Parliament’s investigation in to the rendition for torture activities of the CIA, it is very appropriate that the EU Commission President should be reminded that this is the airport that was heavily involved in that rendition programme"."
So the government's to blame for not co-operating with the European Parliament's investigation, and is responsible for the policies it pursues. With you so far.
""The fact that he is holding this meeting in Shannon Airport in particular is also disturbing since the airport has been, and continues to be, the scene of a gross abuse of Irish neutrality in spite of the so called legally binding guarantees on Irish neutrality promised by EU leaders,” Dr Horgan said."
Wait a minute - the guarantees were only drawn up months ago; how were they supposed to have an effect here? Also, my reading of this seems to suggest a hint of the idea that PANA would like to see something in the Treaty to tie down Ireland's foreign policy to a certain stance. Because it doesn't make sense to suggest that a Treaty isn't preventing a state from taking certain actions in foreign policy unless you want that treaty to have a great impact on foreign policy...
"The former Irish Army Commandant added: “And, no doubt, while Mr Barroso is holding his meeting in Shannon, some of the US troops who pass through Shannon every day on their way to Iraq and Afghanistan will be in the airport at the same time. What more evidence does he need that Irish neutrality continues to be compromised while there is nothing in the Lisbon Treaty to suggest that this will change even after another referendum?”"
Ok, and what exactly is Barroso supposed to do here? Should the Commission have the legal power to intervene and reverse foreign policy decisions made by the Irish government? Should Ireland's ability to set its foreign policy be changed in a future EU treaty; is the fact that this one doesn't the problem?
Past - and current - foreign policy decisions made by the Irish government aren't affected or caused by the Lisbon Treaty, and its ability to make those decisions in the future won't be affected by it either.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights
Posted at 7:23 pm by Conor SloweyOne of the biggest changes the Lisbon Treaty makes, is to enshrine the Charter of Fundamental Rights as part of Treaty law - you can find it here (PDF). It's based on the European Convention of Human Rights (which is the product of the Council of Europe, which is separate from the EU), which the EU would also sign up to if Lisbon is ratified. Though the European Court of Justice has drawn on the ECHR as being part of the legal culture of Europe, this would be the first time that these rights will be part of the EU's primary law, along with the four freedoms (of goods, services, people and capital) that underpin the single market.
The aim of enshrining these rights is to boost the social side of the EU, and to make its laws more responsive to human rights and workers' rights. Though the EU has long had a positive impact on gender equality and other rights, the Charter is a response to the criticism that the economic rather than human elements of the single market dominate the EU's law making. The Charter will only apply to EU law, and national laws that implement EU laws - so it can't be used to expand the EU's powers or competences (it even says so explicitly in Article 51(2)).
Why we’re voting again
Posted at 3:18 pm by Owen RooneyOne of the principal arguments I've come across from No campaigners is, in absence of any objection to the Treaty itself, that having a second referendum is undemocratic, and that the people who voted No last time should be respected. The difficulty with this argument is that respecting and listening to the No voters is exactly what has led us to have this second referendum.
After the last referendum, it was quite clear that a renegotiation of certain aspects of the treaty was on the cards. The two biggest No campaign groups, Sinn Fein and Libertas, had both campaigned on the basis of going back to the EU and renegotiating on their contentious issues. Furthermore, no less than 76% of No voters believed that the No vote would be used to "renegotiate exceptions within the treaty", which gave the Government a clear mandate to seek this new deal before putting the treaty back to the people.
Which is exactly what the Government did. The biggest issues for No voters in the referendum were 'Loss of Commissioner' (which 71% of No voters said was somewhat/very important to their vote), 'Neutrality' (82%), 'Workers Rights' (82%), 'Abortion' (66%) and 'Corporation Tax' (72%), which were unsurprisingly the points which the main No groups campaigned on in the run-up to the referendum. These top issues are the very ones which the Government received guarantees on from the 26 other member states, guarantees which state in the most unequivocal terms that these matters will be decided at national, not EU, level.
While I can certainly accept that a No voter might not be happy with these guarantees, might feel that they don't address his or her specific concerns, it would be disingenuous to suggest that the Government doesn't have the right, after listening to the voters and attempting to address their worries, to put this new deal back to the people for a second vote, and allow the people a chance to say whether their concerns have been met or not.