The Quiet Rebellion In Europe

[Carlos]

THE QUIET REBELLION IN EUROPE
By JOHN O'SULLIVAN

June 18, 2008 -- IRELAND has stunned the world by voting down the Lisbon "constitutional treaty" intended to give the European Union all the attributes of a sovereign state - without formal statehood or the word "constitution."

Experts ask: Why is Ireland, which has greatly benefited from EU membership, so ungrateful? Nonexperts ask: Can anyone make head or tail out of all this? Let's focus on the nonexperts' questions.

What is the European Union?

It's an organization of 27 European states that began as mainly a free-trade area but gradually expanded its activities.

Its first big project was the Common Agricultural Policy, which still spends about 40 percent of the EU's total budget on subsidizing farmers. But since the end of the Cold War, it has pursued political integration - a common currency (the euro), foreign policy and governmental institutions in Brussels and Strasbourg that decide about 70 percent of the laws and regulations governing member-states.

So what's the problem?

Until recently, everyone supported European free trade. But many Europeans don't much like political integration: They want to govern themselves.

And even the Eurocrats running the show admit that Europe's common institutions have a "democratic deficit" (i.e., are undemocratic and run by unelected bureaucrats.)

Who does want political integration?

Well, the Eurocrats do: They'd get to govern a superstate look-alike with minimum democratic accountability. And the political elites in most member-countries often get the chance to become Eurocrats (with large tax-free salaries and inflation-protected pensions) when the voters throw them out of office at home.

Also supporting it are some ordinary voters in those nations with lousy governments (Italy), embarrassing pasts (Germany) and lots of farmers needing subsidies from other countries (France).

Most Europeans are bored by all this. A large and growing minority resist it.

Where does the Lisbon Treaty fit here?

Lisbon was the second attempt to fasten onto the EU the straitjacket of a constitution that would make common European institutions the real government of EU states - with national governments acting as their agents - across almost the entire field of politics.

The second attempt?

Yes. The first attempt, frankly called a constitution, was rejected by the voters of France and Holland.

Legally, that was supposed to kill the constitution. Instead, member governments made a handful of cosmetic changes to the constitution, called it a treaty instead and declared that it needn't be submitted to the voters.

That way, the original French and Dutch referenda could be ignored, and the British government could renege on its pledge to hold a referendum on the "constitution."

Why did the Irish alone get a vote?

First, the Irish constitution required it. Second, the Irish government was convinced that their voters would say "Yes."

But the Irish voters decided that it might compromise their independence, democracy and right to the low taxes that are the real explanation of their prosperity. They rebelled - as is their wont - and even the British are cheering.

So that dooms the Lisbon Treaty, right?

Per the law, yes. Per the Eurocrats and their tame governments, no. Ratification will go ahead in 26 other countries; when the Irish are completely isolated, they will either be bullied into voting yes - or perhaps sidelined.

But this is a risky business. Other governments - like the Czech one - and many other countries admire what the Irish have done. And forcing nations to vote again and again until they do what the Eurocrats want is getting embarrassing. It looks, well, a little authoritarian.

Is there a compromise available?

Yes, if the Eurocrats and the elites would bend a little. It's called a "variable geometry Europe" (sorry, not my coinage) and it means that different countries could have permanent "opt-outs" from new and existing common European rules. So the Irish wouldn't have to conform to any common taxation rules that come down the line, the British wouldn't join the Euro, etc.

But the Eurocrats don't want to bend: They want a grand Euro-state to compete with the United States as a superpower, not a comfortable confederation where the ordinary voter gets to decide who governs him and what laws get passed.

Should Americans give a damn?

Americans signed onto the European Union a long time ago. They wanted a strong partner in world affairs. And they liked the idea of European prosperity based on free trade. But the EU is increasingly anti-American. Its regulatory policy is hostile to the United States.

In practice, Washington gets more real support from strong military powers such as Britain and (yes, even) France than it would from a pacifistic Europe hobbled by disagreements and rivalries and unwilling to spend money on its defense.

So the US should encourage Ireland to stand firm and other Europeans to support them.

Up the rebels!

John O'Sullivan, the executive editor of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, is a former Post editorial-page editor....
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06182008...014.htm?page=2
____________________________________________
ps: (John O'Sullivan is also wonderfully charming, utterly brilliant, and the one who introduced Carlos to Benedictine over a lovely dinner. )

[Tessie]

Thanks for the article. I was in Ireland last month, and couldn't really figure out what this treaty was supposed to do, but this explained it well.

[Barbara Fan]

Looking back, one of the worst things UK has done was join the EEC, and have to put up with beaurocrats from Brussels/Salzberg/Wherever telling us what we can and cant do.

The Irish were lucky - they got a vote! Smarmy Tone B and Gordon B would never allow us that!

I remember doing the EEC at Modern Studies at school, it bored me rigid then and still does!
Fat cat politicians on the gravy train - out for themselves and all the perks they get with it!

[Carlos]

Looking back, one of the worst things UK has done was join the EEC, and have to put up with beaurocrats from Brussels/Salzberg/Wherever telling us what we can and cant do.

The Irish were lucky - they got a vote! Smarmy Tone B and Gordon B would never allow us that!

I remember doing the EEC at Modern Studies at school, it bored me rigid then and still does!
Fat cat politicians on the gravy train - out for themselves and all the perks they get with it!

good post, bf. indeed it seems the eurocrats are still at it. i don't understand how big government of any brand doesn't scare the living daylights out of people.

[Garrison]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/domest...15382320080618

[BlackPython]

The vote of the Irish was great.

[Darius]

An interesting and insightful article!

[Englishboy]

Europe is a home for failed politicians, think Peter Mandelson, Neil Kinnock, Leon Brittan etc.

The Irish got a vote only because their constitution provides for one (otherwise, they probably wouldn't have been given a say).

As for Blair and Brown, neither would ever allow a referendum to take place which they cannot win, especially in the face of a very hostile press.

[Garrison]

Ireland is wrong to put its miracle at risk

By Wolfgang Münchau

Published: June 22 2008 19:21 | Last updated: June 22 2008 19:21

After a week of what European leaders call reflection, another Irish referendum beckons, to be held early next year. Without it, there might well be an attempt to oust the Irish from the European Union.

A Yes vote in a second referendum is not certain, even if the Irish government were to succeed in securing another rent-extracting, treaty-amending protocol. At a time when the Irish economy is about to fall off a cliff, enthusiasm for the EU and its treaties will not increase. In other words, holding a referendum would be as risky as not holding a referendum. A fine mess.

So within a couple of weeks, the chances of Ireland ending up outside the EU have turned from zero to a distinct possibility. The same goes for the Czech Republic, another potential non-ratifier. I do not want to get into the legal details of how a country’s departure from the EU could be accomplished. Suffice it to say that it can be done within European law as long as there is political will.

What strikes me the most about this extraordinary turn of events is the perception in Ireland that a break with the EU would be no big deal. I received a large number of letters from Ireland last week from readers who steadfastly maintain that the country’s economic success had nothing to do with the EU and everything to do with domestic policy – in particular with low corporate taxes and skilled labour.

The view expressed by those correspondents is as wrong as it is revealing. If so many people are delusional about their country’s economy, then we should perhaps not be surprised about the outcome of the referendum. It is therefore perhaps worth looking in some detail at the nature of Ireland’s economic success over the last 30 years to gauge what life might be like outside the EU.

There are several interactive factors. The importance of EU subsidies is almost certainly overrated. They played some part, especially in the early phase of the country’s economic renaissance. In any case, Ireland is on the verge of becoming a net contributor to the EU budget. But one would be even more mistaken to conclude the opposite: that the EU matters nothing or little.

Ireland was one of the early and enthusiastic members of the European Monetary System in 1979, which brought much needed macroeconomic stability. Membership of the eurozone in 1999 led to lower interest rates, which have contributed to the economic growth ever since. Low corporate tax rates certainly helped Ireland attract foreign investors. But never forget that Ireland is also the only English-speaking member of the eurozone, the one place where eurozone and Anglosphere meet.

The country naturally benefited from membership of the EU’s internal market. Without it, Ryanair, the Irish low-cost airline, would not be able to offer its popular flights across Europe. The Irish have also proved influential in the management of the internal market, not least through Charlie McCreevy, the Irish commissioner in charge of the EU’s internal market and financial services. As a member of the EU, Ireland has been in a position to veto motions that would have impaired the country’s economic success. Without steadfast opposition from Ireland, the EU would have made more headway in imposing corporate tax harmonisation.

I do not want to play down the importance of domestic policies either. Ireland owes its success to a complex set of policies and circumstances. Perhaps among the most important were the various tripartite social partnership agreements since 1987, through which the government, employers and the trade unions achieved a combination of wage moderation, high employment and low taxes. This form of round-table corporatism works best in tiny open economies if it works at all. It is ironic that this country, whose officials take pleasure in hectoring others on free-market economics, is in fact one of Europe’s most corporatist states. Even France and Germany cannot produce so much social partnership, and I can assure you that this is not for lack of trying.

So what would happen if Ireland were to leave the EU? As an associate member of the single European market, Ireland would probably attract less foreign investment than it does today. Dublin’s financial centre would be demonised as an offshore tax haven and treated on par with Liechtenstein. We would see lots of Ryanair flights between Dublin and Cork and the EU would put even more pressure on Ireland to raise corporate taxes.

Oh, and by the way, Ireland would no longer be a member of the eurozone. The Irish could use the euro if they wanted to but this would be like Panama using the dollar – a little sad, really. There would be no Irish voice in the European Central Bank’s governing council warning that this is not a good time to raise interest rates. Leaving the EU involves a huge loss power and influence.

To put it mildly, the No vote is highly risky. Considering that the country is now on the verge of a severe economic slowdown, brought on by a downturn in the real
estate market and the credit market crisis, it could not have come at a worse time. Not only does the No vote carry risks, it is a highly asymmetric gamble that brings no material benefit under the best of circumstances. The No vote put Europe’s most impressive economic miracle at stake, and the cards are not looking good.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6afc0772-4...0779fd2ac.html
__________________________________________________ ________________

Ireland has been put in a very, very awkward position by all this, they've been so quick to embrace the ECC and EU and now it's all coming back to haunt them.

[Canon]

LOL, I was just waiting for an article like this to be written - ungrateful Ireland voted no because they now want out of the EU. What nonsense! An article written by someone who neither understands or cares why Ireland voted no.

[Garrison]

I don't think it matters. Either Irish sovereignty is going to be compromised anyway (the government is not going to let this go) or they will end up on the outside looking in. Ireland was very quick to embrace the EU, probably too quick to read the fine print.

[Canon]

The vote of the Irish was great.

BlackPython, I need to know from someone actually living there. Are the German people behind it as much as the government is?

[Canon]

A new survey from the European Commission shows that Ireland appreciates the benefits of EU membership more than any other nation.

The findings, based on work conducted before the Lisbon Treaty referendum, are in line with a snap poll of 2,000 Irish voters conducted immediately after the referendum decision.

The snap poll showed that 80 per cent of those voting No were in favour of the EU.

Today’s survey shows that 82 per cent of Irish people believe their country has benefited from EU membership. That represents a five per cent drop since the last survey, but still higher than anywhere else in the EU.

Estonia comes closest with a 76 per cent approval rating for the benefits of membership. At the other end of the scale, the UK, Austria and Hungary all record a lowly 36 per cent who think there have been benefits from membership.

The Irish are also top of the poll when asked if they think membership has been “a good thing”, with 73 per cent agreeing and only six per cent describing EU membership as a bad thing.

In the UK only 30 per cent see membership as a good thing and 32 percent say it has been a bad thing - once again recording the lowest level of EU support amongst 27 countries.

When asked if the EU represented a “positive” image, 65 per cent of Irish voters said yes, compared with only 29 per cent in the UK.

The Romanians were top of this poll, with 67 per cent seeing positive images when thinking of the EU. Bottom of the poll, tipping the UK by 1 per cent was Austria.

Trust in the EU is put at 62 per cent in Ireland, a 7 per cent increase on last autumn. The situation has improved in the UK too, with a 4 per cent increase in levels of trust in the EU - bringing the UK figure up to just 29 per cent and way below any other EU country.

ireland.com

[Garrison]

Like I said, Ireland rushed into the EU with open arms. Indeed, it has been very good to the Irish people and Ireland has been very good back to it. I don't think they stopped to read the fine print, you rarely do on something so good, and now I think it's gone a bit too far.