The Irish People Have Spoken: NO EU TREATY; EU Commission & US Democratic Congress BEWARE!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7453560.stm

Ireland rejects EU reform treaty

BBC News

June 13, 2008


Voters in the Irish Republic have rejected the European Union's Lisbon treaty in a vote by 53.4% to 46.6%.


The poll is a major blow to leaders in the 27-nation EU, which requires all its members to ratify the treaty. Only Ireland has held a public vote.


The European Commission says nations should continue to ratify the treaty, designed to streamline decision-making.


Irish PM Brian Cowen said he respected the vote but it had caused a "difficult situation" that had "no quick fix".


Leaders of the No campaign said the vote was a "great result for Ireland".

An earlier, more wide-ranging EU draft constitution failed after French and Dutch voters rejected it in 2005.


'Uncharted territory'


The Irish No campaign won by 862,415 votes to 752,451. Turnout was 53.1%.



Mr Cowen said: "The government accepts and respects the verdict of the Irish people."


He said he would work with other EU leaders to try to find an "agreed way forward" but that the bloc was in "uncharted territory".


At the end of the day, for a myriad of reasons, the people have spoken Dermot Ahern, Justice Minister "Ireland has no wish to halt the progress" of the EU, he said.


A referendum was mandatory in Ireland as the country would need to change its constitution to accommodate the treaty.


European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said he had spoken to Mr Cowen and agreed with him that this was not a vote against the EU.


"Ireland remains committed to a strong Europe," he said.


"Ratifications should continue to take their course."


France and Germany quickly issued a joint statement expressing regret over the Irish result.


British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said the UK would press on with ratification, saying: "It's right that we continue with our own process."


[THIS IS THE TYPICAL BRUSSELS/GERMANY/FRENCH RESPONSE: WHO CARES WHAT THE PEOPLE SAY?? THEY WILL LEARN THAT WE KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM! WE SHALL EDUCATE THEM THROUGH REGULATION... See, e.g., UK Labor Party Willing to Give-Away Country's Sovereignty to EU; Does the US Democratic Party Wish to Do the Same for America??, ITSSD Journal on Pathological Communalism, at: http://itssdpathologicalcommunalism.blogspot.com/2008/04/uk-labor-party-willing-to-give-away.html ; Why Europe’s National Politicians Sign Away National Sovereignty , ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom, at: http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-europes-national-politicians-sign.html ; Brussels' and Gordon Brown's Contempt for the European People, ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom, at: http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/brussels-and-gordon-browns-contempt-for.html ; Forner UK Prime Minister Tony Blair Was Determined to Modify Public Behavior Through Claude Helvetius’ ‘Education Thru Legislation' Program, ITSSD Journal on Pathological Communalism, at: http://itssdpathologicalcommunalism.blogspot.com/2008/01/forner-uk-prime-minister-tony-blair-was.html ; Roger Helmer - UK Member of EU Parliament - "Straight Talking" Newsletter Dec. 2007, ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom, at: http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/roger-helmer-uk-member-of-eu-parliament.html ; 11/6/07 E-mail Correspondences Between Roger Helmer UK Member of European Parliament & Lawrence Kogan, ITSSD CEO, ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom, at: http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/11607-e-mail-correspondences-between.html .]


Spain has said a solution will be found but Czech President Vaclav Klaus said ratification could not now continue.


Mr Barroso said EU leaders would have to decide at a summit next week how to proceed. He called for the EU to continue focusing on issues of interest to people like jobs and inflation, energy security and climate change.


This is democracy in action... and Europe needs to listen to the voice of the people Declan Ganley, Libertas.

But BBC Europe editor, Mark Mardell, says this is a multiple crisis for the EU - a crisis of rule change, of legitimacy and of morale.


In the end, he says, the Lisbon treaty could be declared dead: some parts of it would be implemented without a treaty, others abandoned, others put in a new treaty when Croatia joins the EU in a couple of years time.

Declan Ganley of the anti-treaty lobby group Libertas said: "It is a great day for Irish democracy." He added: "This is democracy in action... and Europe needs to listen to the voice of the people."


The No campaign was a broad coalition ranging from Libertas to Sinn Fein, the only party in parliament to oppose the treaty.


Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Fein, said: "People feel secure at the heart of Europe, but they want to ensure there's maximum democratic power."


Confusion


Correspondents say many voters did not understand the treaty despite a high-profile campaign led by Mr Cowen, which had the support of most of the country's main parties.


[ACTUALLY, THE VOTERS WELL UNDERSTOOD THE EU TREATY. IT WOULD DENY EUROPEANS THEIR NATURAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW & THE EU TREATY WOULD ALSO ATTENUATE THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS THROUGH MORE REGULATION & TAXATION. THE IRISH TO NOT WISH TO BE RULED BY BRUSSELS-BASED, SOCIAL WELFARE-STATE-DRIVEN 'PHILOSOPHER KINGS'.]


Jose Manuel Barroso said the EC respected the vote but had hoped for another outcome.


Mr Cowen accused the No camp of "misrepresentation", saying voters had voiced concern about "issues that clearly weren't in the treaty at all", the Irish Times reported.


The treaty, which is designed to help the EU cope with its expansion into eastern Europe, provides for a streamlining of the European Commission, the removal of the national veto in more policy areas, a new president of the European Council and a strengthened foreign affairs post.


[THE EU TREATY MANDATES SURRENDER OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY BY EU MEMBER STATES VIA THE REMOVAL OF THE NATIONAL VETO...]


The treaty was due to come into force on 1 January 2009.


Fourteen countries out of the 27 have completed ratification so far.


Just over three million Irish voters are registered - in a European Union of 490 million people.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EU Brussels and National Government Elite Continue to Express Contempt for What the European People Want!!


http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1318932,00.html?f=rss

EU Treaty 'Not Dead' Despite Irish Vote


Sky News


June 14, 2008


European governments have pledged to continue implementing the EU reform treaty, despite its rejection by Irish voters.


More than half those who cast their ballots said 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty, which requires the support of all 27 EU members.


The Irish Prime Minister says there will be no second referendum - which could result in the treaty being scrapped altogether.


Official results of the treaty referendum showed out of some 1.6m votes cast, 53.4% people said No, while 46.6% said Yes.


The vote means the reforms will no longer come into force on January 1, 2009 as planned. "In theory this should kill the treaty dead," said Sky's political correspondent Glen Oglaza.


"The European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso said during the course of this campaign that there is no Plan B.


"Euro-sceptics are pointing out that this was already Plan B - the failed European Constitution was Plan A.


"They want to know how far down the alphabet we are going to go."


However, Mr Barroso argued that despite the referendum outcome, the treaty was "not dead". He said he had spoken to Ireland's Premier Brian Cowen and that "he also believed the treaty is not dead, the treaty is alive".


Mr Cowen, whose Fianna Fail party supported a Yes vote, said he was disappointed but the judgment of the Irish people must be respected.


Irish PM after result announced


"In a democracy, the will of the people - as expressed at the ballot box - is sovereign," he said.
But he added: "We must not rush to conclusions. The Union has been in this situation before and each time has found an agreed way forward."


Gerry Adams, whose Sinn Fein party urged voters to reject the reform, told Sky News: "It's a very good day for Europe and a very good day for Ireland."


The 'No' vote will cause a major headache as it was designed to streamline decision-making for the enlarged EU's 27 member states.


Ireland was the only country to hold a public vote on the Treaty because it would have had to amend its national constitution to enact it.


Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Britain would continue its process of ratifying the Lisbon treaty, despite the setback in Ireland.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2122996/EU-referendum-Ireland-votes-against-Lisbon-Treaty.html

EU referendum: Ireland votes against Lisbon Treaty


By Tom Peterkin in Dublin


UK Telegraph


June 13, 2008


Irish voters have left Brussels' plans for EU integration in tatters by rejecting the Lisbon Treaty.


Even before all the official Ireland referendum results were announced, Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, conceded that the public had voted against the Treaty.


But despite the result, he still called on other member states to ratify the Treaty. "I believe the treaty is alive and we should now try to find a solution," he said in Brussels.


Dermot Ahern, Ireland's justice minister, said: “At the end of the day, for a myriad of reasons, the people have spoken.”


The result is bad news for Ireland's leader, Taoiseach Brian Cowen, who will have some tough explaining to do when he faces EU leaders at the European Council summit next week in Brussels.


Mr Ahern said he became somewhat despondent and surprised at the opposition to the treaty in the final days of canvassing.


The minister believes high numbers of women rejected the EU deal because of fears over army conscription in a new military alliance.


At the major ballot-counting center in Dublin, Finance Minister Brian Lenihan struggled to speak to reporters as anti-treaty activists jubilantly drowned him out with songs and chants of "No!"


"This is a huge rebuff to the political establishment. It shows there is massive distrust among ordinary working people," said Joe Higgins, the sole Socialist Party member in the Irish parliament.


The decision places massive doubt over the future of the pact designed to bring more European integration.


All 27 European member states have to ratify the treaty for it to go come into force next year. So far it has been approved by 18 members including Britain, but Ireland is the only country to put it to a public vote.


The leaders of the 26 other member states watched with dismay as Ireland voted “no”, a decision that will inevitably lead to much infighting and bickering across Europe.


The main Irish political parties, including Taoiseach Mr Cowen's leading government party Fianna Fail, have fought hard for a Yes vote, with Sinn Fein campaigning against the Treaty.


Despite benefiting from £32 billion in European Grants in recent years, a low turn-out (45 per cent) of the Irish electorate discarded the Treaty, designed to streamline the EU.


The outcome was triumph for a highly-effective No Campaign masterminded by the Libertas group led by the multimillionaire Declan Ganley. Libertas argued that the Treaty would undermine Ireland’s influence in Europe, would open the door to interference in taxation and enshrine EU law above Irish law.


For Brian Cowen, the newly-installed Irish Prime Minister, the result was a disaster. All the main political parties, aside from Sinn Fein, had supported the Treaty and made strenuous efforts to win the referendum.


Mr Cowen now has to face the embarrassment of explaining to his fellow European leaders why he failed to persuade his nation to adopt the Treaty.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2008/06/ireland_snubs_the_eu.html

Ireland Snubs the EU


By Conor O’Clery


Irish voters, making up a fraction of one per cent of the population of the European Union, have rejected a crucial EU reform treaty by a narrow margin, leaving itself isolated in Europe and the European Union in crisis.


The result stopped in its tracks an accord hammered out in Lisbon, Portugal, to enable European institutions to cope with a rapid EU growth to 27 countries with a population of 495 million people.


The outcome, announced yesterday afternoon, of the referendum held Thursday dismayed and angered governments across Europe, which saw their tortuous negotiations to make EU institutions more efficient thrown into disarray.


The Lisbon Treaty had to be ratified by every country before coming into effect and EU leaders must now find some other way for European integration to go ahead. Twenty-six countries left ratification to their national governments and only Ireland, with 3.05 million voters, staged a referendum, as required under its constitution.


British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will now face furious domestic pressure to hold a once-promised referendum rather than continue to ratify the treaty through parliament. Ireland can only hope that Britain will also reject the treaty: a small country saying no is a problem for the small country, but a big country saying no is a problem for Brussels.


The vote is a slap in the face for the French Government whose foreign minister Bernard Kouchner warned Ireland on Monday that it would be very troubling “that we would not be able to count on the Irish who counted a lot on Europe's money.” Such comments, implying that an ungrateful Ireland would be cast adrift, sounded like bullying to many Irish voters.


What has left veteran European observers scratching their heads in genuine bewilderment is that Ireland of all countries should rebuff the EU, as membership of the European club has allowed Ireland to prosper mightily and to escape from the shadow of Britain, its former ruler.


The result confounded and infuriated the Irish political establishment, which had thrown all its energies into securing a “Yes” vote. The government, the major opposition parties and the biggest labor and farming unions all campaigned for ratification.


It also confounded Ireland’s leading gambling company, Paddy Power PLC, which was so convinced of the outcome it prematurely paid out winnings to people who bet on a ‘Yes’ vote, leaving the company left with “egg on our faces” as a spokeswoman put it.


Irish prime minister Brian Cowen put his personal prestige on delivering a “Yes” vote and is also left with egg on his face. Seemingly unaware how compromised the Irish political class has been by corruption allegations and failures to cope with internal problems such as a dysfunctional health service, he and other government ministers erected posters on every Irish lamp post with their portraits, urging a “Yes” vote.


Opponents of the treaty in Europe cheered on the Irish ‘No” campaign, and British newspapers circulating in Ireland, like the Rupert Murdoch-owned Times, campaigned against ratification, leading to accusations from the “Yes” campaign that Britain's Eurosceptics were waging a proxy war in Ireland.


For the anti-EU Europeans, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, never has so much been done, by so few, for so many, as the Irish have scuppered a treaty which would likely have been rejected by the electorates of several other member countries.


One reason for the “No” vote was that the 287-page document was so full of bureaucratic language that people did not know what they were voting for. The treaty proved impenetrable even to legal experts: the chairman of the independent Irish Referendum Commission, Iarfhlaith O Neill, was embarrassingly unable to answer a technical point at a press conference last week.


[EU BUREAUCRATIC DOUBLESPEAK, LACK OF TRANSPARENCY & ACCOUNTABILITY, and A SENSE OF ELITISM.]


In an ill-tempered national debate, both sides threw around accusation of lies and distortions. A free-market organisation called Libertas formed by Irish businessman Declan Ganley argued that the country’s low corporate tax rate, crucial for international investment, would be jeopardized by the treaty.


The pro-life lobby expressed fears that a loss of sovereignty could mean the end of Ireland’s strict anti-abortion law.


The minor opposition party, Sinn Fein, stirred up concerns that Ireland would lose its cherished neutrality and become part of a militarized Europe. Some voters said they thought they were voting against conscription.


Opponents also argued that Ireland’s influence in Europe would be weakened through the loss its commissioner on the European Commission, the de facto European cabinet, for five out of every 15 years.


The government rejected all these claims, and pointed out that every EU member country would lose their commissioner for similar periods. But as Irish radio presenter Pat Kenny put it, the “No” campaign had all the best tunes.


Anticipating the outcome, the Irish Times thundered its disapproval on Saturday in an editorial headed “Are we out of our minds?” Seeking an explanation for a likely defeat it reflected on “a strange public mood out there that is anti-establishment, anti-authority and anti-politician.”


Ireland’s foreign minister Micheál Martin admitted the result showed a disconnect between EU institutions and its people. Martin, who has to face his fellow EU foreign ministers on Monday to explain what happened, admitted “There was a general sense we were giving away too much power.”


Ireland may try again as it did with a previous EU treaty when it held two referenda in 2001 and 2002 to get a “Yes” vote, but such a move would only confirm the argument that European democracy means everyone agreeing to what the bureaucrats decide.


Conor O'Clery is former chief foreign correspondent of The Irish Times, Ireland's leading national newspaper.

Freedom Means Responsibility

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120485275086518279.html

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL


Freedom Means Responsibility


By George McGovern

March 7, 2008; Page A15


Nearly 16 years ago in these very pages, I wrote that "'one-size-fits all' rules for business ignore the reality of the market place." Today I'm watching some broad rules evolve on individual decisions that are even worse.


Under the guise of protecting us from ourselves, the right and the left are becoming ever more aggressive in regulating behavior. Much paternalist scrutiny has recently centered on personal economics, including calls to regulate subprime mortgages.


With liberalized credit rules, many people with limited income could access a mortgage and choose, for the first time, if they wanted to own a home. And most of those who chose to do so are hanging on to their mortgages. According to the national delinquency survey released yesterday, the vast majority of subprime, adjustable-rate mortgages are in good condition,their holders neither delinquent nor in default.


There's no question, however, that delinquency and default rates are far too high. But some of this is due to bad investment decisions by real-estate speculators. These losses are not unlike the risks taken every day in the stock market.


The real question for policy makers is how to protect those worthy borrowers who are struggling, without throwing out a system that works fine for the majority of its users (all of whom have freely chosen to use it). If the tub is more baby than bathwater, we should think twice about dumping everything out.


Health-care paternalism creates another problem that's rarely mentioned: Many people can't afford the gold-plated health plans that are the only options available in their states. Buying health insurance on the Internet and across state lines, where less expensive plans may be available, is prohibited by many state insurance commissions. Despite being able to buy car or home insurance with a mouse click, some state governments require their approved plans for purchase or none at all. It's as if states dictated that you had to buy a Mercedes or no car at all.


Economic paternalism takes its newest form with the campaign against short-term small loans, commonly known as "payday lending."


With payday lending, people in need of immediate money can borrow against their future paychecks, allowing emergency purchases or bill payments they could not otherwise make. The service comes at the cost of a significant fee -- usually $15 for every $100 borrowed for two weeks. But the cost seems reasonable when all your other options, such as bounced checks or skipped credit-card payments, are obviously more expensive and play havoc with your credit rating.


Anguished at the fact that payday lending isn't perfect, some people would outlaw the service entirely, or cap fees at such low levels that no lender will provide the service. Anyone who's familiar with the law of unintended consequences should be able to guess what happens next.


Researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York went one step further and laid the data out: Payday lending bans simply push low-income borrowers into less pleasant options, including increased rates of bankruptcy. Net result: After a lending ban, the consumer has the same amount of debt but fewer ways to manage it.


Since leaving office I've written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I've come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.


Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.


The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else

.
Mr. McGovern is a former senator from South Dakota and the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate.

Yearning for [Political AND Economic] Reform and the 17th CPC Congress

Yearning for Reform and the 17th CPC Congress

Caijing Magazine

http://www.caijing.com.cn/English/Editorial/2007-10-17/33915.shtml









The issues of greatest concern to the public are creating checks and balances against abuse of power, extirpating corruption, sustaining a high employment rate, building a social security network and establishing a fair and equal income distribution system. The first two are the core of policital reform and the latter two are directly related to it.


By Hu Shuli


As the current issue of Caijing reaches our readers, the 17th National Congress of the Communist Party of China is getting under way, opening October 15 in Beijing. We previously noted that 2007 was “a year for waiting,” and we tried to predict trends in all domestic fields before this year’s Spring Festival in February. October 15 was the day we had been waiting for.


A new round of reshuffling within the party leadership is now drawing attention in China and from abroad. The Congress will elect a new Central Committee, Politburo and Standing Committee of the Politburo, which is tightly connected to China’s upcoming power structure.


Many who are concerned about China’s future, including people in the business community, overseas observers and the general public, are anticipating newer and more profound guidelines for political reform from this Congress. For example, a poll conducted by the official Xinhuanet Web site shows that the issues of greatest concern to the public are creating checks and balances against abuse of power, extirpating corruption, sustaining a high employment rate, building a social security network and establishing a fair and equal income distribution system. The first two are the core of policital reform and the latter two are directly related to it. These results evidently shows that the public is yearning for reform.


China’s reform process has spanned the past 30 years, starting in 1978. Political reform is making progress by, for example, replacing lifelong rule for leaders with limited terms, dividing government and party functions, launching trials for grassroots democratic elections, and considering a proposal to institute the “rule of law”. It is fair to say that China’s political reforms have accomplished a lot. However, compared with the forceful and well-paced economic reform, political reform is obviously lagging behind, which results in a gap that strains the society.


Currently, the public’s top concern is the rampant corruption and an imbalanced power system, while intellectuals are worried about the trend toward monopoly in the market.


Deng Xiaoping, chief architect of the reforms that opened up China, pointed out in the 1980s that “political reform and economic reform should depend on each other and cooperate. Economic reform will not work if political reform is not keeping pace.” He concluded that “whether our reform is able to succeed ultimately depends on a reform of the political system.” Deng’s remarks have been quoted again and again, but the tide has yet to turn toward political and economic reforms that “depend on each other and cooperate.” China’s economic development has scored tremendous achievements, and its positive experience with economic transition has been acknowledged by the world. However, political reform still has a long way to go.


Political reform results are relatively lagging not only because of the inherent complexity and sensitivity of reform, but also because some groups with vested interests in the status quo have purposely hindered reform. Reform is also being negatively influenced by certain misunderstandings and an excessively cautious stance.


For example, some argue that pushing forward with political reform will be destablizing. Yet, in fact, maintaining the status quo without any reform creates a hotbed for social turbulence. Some consider “democracy” and “constitutional government” as capitalistic attributes. Yet these are not only fruits of civilization shared by all humans but also the commitments that China should fulfill according to UN human rights conventions. Some think political reform should be conducted silently, which is against a principle of democracy that requires public participation in decision-making.


In the face of all these established roadblocks, political reform becomes a sensitive issue, and some efforts in this arena are filed under other titles to divert pubic attention. In this way, overall planning for political reform becomes improbable. Clearing away misunderstandings, updating concepts and reiterating purposes are necessary steps toward reform.


At the center of political reform is democratization. Just as economic reform cannot divert from the road toward market reform, political reform cannot divert from democratization.


Hu Jintao, general secretary of the CPC Central Committee, has made many comments about democracy in recent years. He has pointed out “there will not be modernization without democratization,” stressing “people’s legal access to democratic elections, decision-making, management and supervision” and proposing “the development of democratic politics with Chinese characteristics through a system of governing for the people, by the people in order to institutionalize, standardize and set procedures for socialist democracy. We should adopt democratic system, forms and measures to ensure that people can be real hosts of their own homeland.” In his “6-25” keynote speech, Hu reiterated the goal of “developing socialist democratic politics.” There are democratic connotations in concepts such as “scientific development,” “people-oriented policy” and “harmonious society.” These have been proposed by a new generation of leaders and have obtained public approval.


Comprehending political reform is hard, and pushing forward even harder. The task is made more difficult by the necessity to consider Chinese culture. Although a prosperous economy provides a sound, external environment for reform, political reform, as a massive project, still requires statesmenship, bold but well-calculated experimentation. People now hope for reform as well as stability; they can face reality and yearn for change. Such hopes spark in the grassroot, which brings challenges, opportunities and a test for the leadership.