LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3]Paschal Donohoe has a piece in yesterday’s Irish Times in which he denies the claim that the sub-committee which he chaired wasn’t entirely objective about the Lisbon Treaty. Yet the whole piece is permeated with his own bias. For instance he claims that the Lisbon Treaty is the “agreed way” in which European governments have decided to “work more efficiently together”. This, in fact, amounts to a firmly minimalist pro-Treaty interpretation. No campaigners view the treaty as the constitutional capstone of a superstate-like political structure, a capstone which has been twice previously rejected. He also claims, again echoing Yes claims, that the new economic situation has increased the “political urgency to find better ways to work together.” Why do we need treaty after treaty to achieve this? Why can governments not work together within previously existing institutional structures? Why did the recent economic crisis actually necessitate the exact reverse- countries working to protect their individual interests? How can “working together” encompass different economies at different stages of growth and needing different kinds of interventions? [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3]And then, incredibly, Mr Donohoe lets drop with scarcely a hesitation the extremely biased claim that “Irish sovereignty has flourished in the European Union.” Such a statement amounts to a political parry aimed at refuting No claims to the contrary. This from the chairman! How could our sovereignty have flouished when all acknowledge that we have ceded great swathes of it (even if some term it “pooling”)? One can only claim this by redefining the meaning of sovereignty. Hardly what one would expect from a committee committed to being “open, fair and efficient”! Mr Donohoe is entitled to his opinion, of course, and equally entitled to drain the semantic content from words before investing them with politically expedient meaning, but such attitudes and ideas will inevitably colour and shape his work.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3]More interesting is what Mr Donohoe leaves out. At no stage is the No vote viewed as something positive, a potential turning point, something which uniquely affords the opportunity to redirect the whole European project. Of course, if Ireland was alone it would be absurd to suggest this. But Ireland is not alone. There is a groundswell of opinion across Europe which support’s Ireland’s position. But this isn’t even acknowledged by Mr Donohoe. The terms in which he frames the discussion are in themselves revealing: it is simply Ireland’s problem, not a European problem though ratification was forced through parliaments in countries that had previously rejected the same set of proposals. Ignoring these realities may be popular in Eurocrat circles but it, at the very least, renders doubtful the objectivity of the sub-committee.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3]He concludes “a way must be found that acts on the No vote last June and recognises the desire of the huge majority of our country to remain committed to Europe.” This is code for a “a way must be found to ratify the Lisbon Treaty so that we can remain committed to Europe.” It’s essentially an ultimatum, a shotgun wedding. The Lisbon Treaty is extremely controversial and the political elite know this well: hence their extreme reluctance to hold referendums. Ahern was the only leader Merkel was unable to persuade not to hold a referendum (because he knew that this option was a non-runner). Is the EU being built for the citizens of Europe or for the ruling elite who, through the provisions of Lisbon, will appropriate to themselves even greater powers? These are the questions Mr Donohoe’s committee might have considered. As it is, it is difficult to view the sub-committee and its report as anything other than a whitewash.[/SIZE][/FONT]
Originally Posted by eurosceptic
