DarrenByrne.com

Really feeling sick today. I wonder if it has anything to do with the family of spiders we just found living IN our kettle in work? 🙁

It seems the No campaign has finally got legs, a voice and a brain at last. I can understand how some can see the No campaign as nothing more than a few archaic parties more interested in putting a lid on this thing called the EU than in deciding what is best for this country. It is clear that many of the No campaigners are going about things the wrong way entirely (Sinn Féin and Libertas, I refer to you here), but that doesn’t mean they are ultimately wrong on Lisbon.

Independent TD, Finian McGrath, yesterday sent a letter to President Mary McAleese asking for her to call a Council of State to decide on the constitutionality of the Lisbon Treaty. Being that I am not a political aficionado, I didn’t know this was an option open to us. McGrath is suggesting that the Treaty goes against Article 9 of our own constitution, which states that fidelity to the Nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens. According to McGrath,

The Irish people need clarification on this matter. Lisbon would establish a supra-national European federation for the first time, and in effect establish a new State.

And it would seem that adding Article 28.4.11 to our Constitution would put EU Law and EU Treaties ahead of our own Constitution. We have already said No (Update: I refer here to Europe having said ‘No’. See comments below) to a Europe wide Constitution and we should now say No again, to this watered down stepping stone towards a single European State.

The President is put in a difficult situation here. Entertaining Finian McGrath’s request could send out a message to the People that Lisbon is unsound and could sway the vote towards a No, and this is not the job of the President’s Office. However, ignoring or rejecting his request sends out a clearer message that the President is endorsing the Treaty. It will be interesting to see what twist this takes in this ongoing saga.

Either way, McGrath is to be commended for being the one of the first people in the No campaign to do something constructive and criticise the Treaty not because it is too pro-Europe, but because it may be against our Constitution and ultimately anti-Ireland.

There is no reason why we can’t be loyal Irish people and also be part of Europe, but supplanting our Irish pride with a blind faith in Europe is not the way forward.

Side note: Bruce Arnold today replies to Minister Roche’s article in yesterday’s Independent. He rebukes everything Roche said. I don’t have much more to say on this except that the pair seem to be playing a bit of a tag-you’re-it game. They both made good arguments, while attempting to change the focus onto something their side can campaign for. Roche was right yesterday regarding the issue of taxation. Arnold is right today on the issues of the pressures the EU would be able to exert if the Treaty is ratified.

Previous Posts

5. Lisbon and Me – Roche’s Reactionary Rant

4. Lisbon and Me – Consequences

3. Political Apathy and a Yearning for Change

2. Lisbon and Me – Deciding The Future

1. Lisbon and Me

Finally, the dates and details of Tom Waits Irish gigs has been confirmed. He will be playing on July 30th and 31st and on August 1st (my birthday is the 2nd). It will be in the Rat Cellar in Phoenix Park tickets will go on sale at Tuesday 27th May at 9.00am. It’s fully seated, €116.25 and €131.25, which is a touch pricy to say the least.

But I’ll still be going! Wooohooo!

Here is one of my favourite Waits tracks, God’s Away on Business:

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls is Harrison Ford‘s fourth outing as the intrepid adventurer and takes place 19 years after the last movie, The Last Crusade, the time of the Nazis being replace by the Cold War era. This tale sees a weather-worn but not worn-out Indiana, team up with the rebellious Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf) and Indie’s long lost love from Raider of the Lost Ark, Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), in search of the answer to the enigmatic Crystal Skulls, while being chased by a group of Russia military types, led by Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett).

Anyone who reads this blog should know fairly well that I am Mr Positivity. I am happy and cheery about almost everything and even the things that piss me off usually have the hint of a silver lining.

Let me tell you about the silver lining in Indiana Jones. It is a fun and funny movie. It’s an exciting thrill ride that plays out like a high octane computer game with impressive graphics. It has some great action sequences and a quality fist fight that hasn’t been seen in movies for a number of years.

Harrison Ford slips back into the role of the aging Indie with ease – it’s his role and he plays the wisecracking professor cum explorer brilliantly. Shia LaBeouf, formerly of Transformers, could be the next Tom Cruise (I mean this in a good way). He can pull off the action sequences (his sword fight with Cate Blanchett rivaled Bond’s fencing frenzy in Die Another Day) and he can definitely act (he pulled off a impression of James Dean without me cringing). John Hurt, as the former friend and colleague of Jones, turned mad by the Skulls, is excellent. He offers a tense and interesting character, who serves as a human map to the inevitable lost Kingdom.

That’s the silver lining. It’s a movie worth seeing for the many reasons listed above…and if you are an Indiana Jones fan and fully intend on seeing the movie, read no further than this.

The silver lining has a big black cloud. I’m sure I read somewhere over the past year that most of this movie was done without the overuse of computer generated imagery, that it was going old-school, using stunt men and huge set pieces. So why then, in this age of Transformers, Lord of the Rings, Iron Man and Superman Returns, do we have scenes in a major blockbuster movie that have such awful, woeful, pure unadulteratedly poor CG sequences.

I have no intention of giving away any spoilers in this review, but I feel I must warn you about one particular scene. Perhaps you could orchestrate a bathroom break around it, or maybe choose this scene to be extra affectionate towards your partner. In a CG laden car chase that at times resembles Toy Story in it’s cartoon-like scenery, LaBeouf is caught up in some vine which sends him hurtling into the trees. In the trees he meets some cute little monkeys (if the monkeys are CG, they are quite impressive). The monkeys begin swinging from tree to tree, so LaBeouf decides he can do the same. Now, this is a leave-your-brain-at-the-door action movie, so swinging from tree to tree is not unfathomable, but the shockingly poor CG characters swinging through a cartoon landscape actually embarrassed me – I put my head into my hands while watching (as I type, I am red faced). I find it hard to believe that Spielberg and Lucas could not see the awfulness of this scene (and some others) and then to do nothing about it… I can only assume that they saw the problem but decided not to rectify it, as surely only kids will watch this movie.

Even before the media campaign for this movie started, I was deeply concerned about Blanchett being cast as the bad guy, a Russian (I think, but she may have been French or German) who either has psychic power or wants psychic powers, I couldn’t really tell. I like Cate Blanchett. She is a fine actress and deserves many of the accolades awarded to her, but as the Indiana Jones nemesis, she was distressingly cheesy, over the top and very difficult to watch – her accent was worse than Richard Gere’s Irish accent in the Jackal. I know these movies are known for being OTT at times, but she became very grating very soon.

Ray Winstone, too, a fine actor, who I have loved in many movies, played the role that many hundreds of people have played before, the bumbling buffoon of questionable loyalties. Do you remember The Mummy and the jester in that who tried to steal all the gold whenever he could? Picture him, make him English, add some fat, and voila, Ray Winstone in Indiana Jones.

The only good thing that can be said for the opening few scenes of the movie (in which he survives a nuclear explosion by hiding in a fridge) is that it could only get better from there. And it did. This is by no means a bad movie, it’s just not a great one either.

The storyline isn’t bad. It ranks along side the other Indie movies and escalates the more mysterious sides of history, just as each movie did before it. The eventual payoff however is let down by that which precedes it. The climax is epic, if a touch obvious, and would be a good way to finish the series (although I believe there is already rumours of two more movies).

And then the very final scene is jaw-droppingly poor and should either be removed from the movie, or given an additional comic payoff that was heavily lacking. I wonder if, like Iron Man, there might be an additional scene added when it goes on full release (May 22^nd).

Go see it if you’re a fan. It really is good fun and has some great action sequences, but don’t go expecting it to be better than the previous Jones outings. One of the reviewers said it meets expectations but doesn’t exceed them. I think they were being kind. I think it’s time for Indie to hang up his hat for good.

Sidenote: Ray Foley is on the radio now slagging off Rick O’Shea’s introduction of the movie in the Savoy last night. 🙂

I don’t think there’s a man on this planet who can say he didn’t find Jessica Rabitt sexy. Look at her, she’s gorgeous:

Just when you thought she couldn’t get any sexier, Pixeloo has brought Jessica Rabbit to life:

Oh woe is me. Instead of going home to watch the Eurovision Semi-Finals, I have just been invited to the Indiana Jones Premiere in the Savoy instead.

Poor me! 🙂

I’m not the biggest fan of Minister Dick Roche at the best of times. Fianna Fáil hid him away during the General Election, so why on earth they would allow him to run their Lisbon Treaty Campaign is beyond me.

Today, he writes in the Independent. It is a response piece to an article by Bruce Arnold. Arnold’s assertion was that we should vote No as giving control of our corporation tax over to the EU will reduce our competitiveness and place the fate of our jobs in the arms of the Government of Europe. Looking at the facts, as laid out by Roche, he refutes Arnold’s claim and I must give credit where it is due, he definitely cleared up a few questions I had on Europe’s responsibility for our tax rates if the Treaty were to be ratified. It is very clear that our corporation tax rates cannot be touched by the EU, but they have more or less carte blanche with our indirect taxes.

He goes on to berate Arnold for his errors and misgivings, pointing out that the Institute of Chartered Accountants have endorsed the Treaty, the American Chamber of Commerce and IBEC have all endorsed the Treaty and they would not do this if there was any issues over competitiveness and the corporation tax.

He criticises Arnold for having not read the Treaty correctly or fully. But here, Minister Roche further nails home the entire problem with this Treaty. It is virtually impossible to understand; it is near unintelligible at times; and is someone like Bruce Arnold, an intelligent, educated, political journalist, cannot fully comprehend what it is saying, then how on earth can the rest of us be expected to make an informed judgement? I suspect Dick Roche may be one of the very few people in this country who can truly claim to have an understanding of the Treaty. This is not good enough.

Previous Posts

4. Lisbon and Me – Consequences

3. Political Apathy and a Yearning for Change

2. Lisbon and Me – Deciding The Future

1. Lisbon and Me

I have seriously had enough of Europolitics. I have immersed myself in it far too much over the past few days, more so than I would have expected or intended.

So, this evening, I am going to switch off my brain, open a few cans of beer and settle in to watch the semi-final of the Eurovision Song Contest.

I truly love it. It’s stupid, it’s over the top, the music is generally poor and the presenters are invariable an embarrassment. What’s not to love?

Dustin will be up 11^th and I may have to go for a bathroom break at that point. Needless to say, sending Dervish, Brian Kennedy, the small odd brother and sister who were clearly a little too close, that awful Chris Doran (remember that?) have not worked for us in recent years, but sending a loudmouth bird (not Linda Kavanagh) to represent us can only end in disaster. My prediction is that we won’t even get to the final, which will, admittedly, be a pity. Watching the painfully inevitable voting at the end of the night is (I say unashamedly) very exciting.

This year, I haven’t had the opportunity to listen to all the songs prior to the event, so I will be making my mind up at the same time as everyone else. Bookies have Russia as favourite to win, so rather than cause us further misery by posting up Dustin’s video, here’s Dima Bilan with Believing.

I’ve detailed the meaning of the extensive language in the Lisbon Treaty, I’ve given my opinion regarding the poor campaigning on both sides of the argument. Now, I plan on doing something neither side seem willing to do. I want to discuss the consequences and repercussions of saying Yes or No to this treaty.

So, what happens if we say Yes?

So, what happens if we say Yes? Initially, not very much apparently. Most of the changes proposed won’t come into effect until 2014 and, as suggested before, much of what will change will be bureaucratic in nature: name changes and voting numbers. So, why do we need a time consuming referendum?

Something I neglected to discuss in my article explaining the Treaty was the immediate change that would occur to our own Constitution. The changes include the deletion of Article 24.4.9, which states:

The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defense pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7° of this section where that common defense would include the State.

Now, that sounds to me like they are paving the way for a joint defense force for Europe, of which Ireland will be a part, except for the fact they are inserting a whole new Article (29.4.15) with virtually the same wording. Further evidence of the stupid bureaucracy surrounding this entire endeavour.

The problems begin in the rather long winded and confusing insertion of Articles 29.4.11, 29.4.12, 29.4.13 and 29.4.14 which says the state agrees to a whole bunch of stuff, none of which is detailed in the changed Constitution, merely referred to by Article numbers.

Here’s the wording of the articles – feel free to skip down to the explanations:

Article 29.4.11

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10° of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.

This article gives constitutional backing to the supremacy of EU law which has been laid down by the European Court of Justice. Surely, this is the most significant of changes. While it may not state it in definitive terms, this section seems to be conceding that EU Law overrides the Irish Constitution. I am not a legal mind, but that if that is even inferred here, then here is a conclusive argument for the No campaign. The Irish Constitution must come first. If it is not the supreme and final point of law in our state, then it is not worth the paper it is written on. This is my new reason for calling for a No vote.

Article 29.4.12

The State may exercise the options or discretions provided by or under Articles 1.22, 2.64, 2.65, 2.66, 2.67, 2.68 and 2.278 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 10° of this section and Articles 1.18 and 1.20 of Protocol No. 1 annexed to that Treaty, but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Articles 1.22 and 2.278 of the treaty provides for Enhanced Cooperation among groups of Member States. This is not huge on the detail but it could be argued as a good thing by the Yes side – it may help reduce friction between nations and nationalities. It could lead to harmony between different ethnicities, religions and other groups. The No side could see this as a small step towards that Common Defense thing that we are so strenuously trying to avoid.

Article 2.64 deals with a myriad of issues mainly Security, Discrimination, Enhanced Cooperation and the role of National Parliaments. Article 2.65 deals Policing, border checks and Asylum. Articles 2.66 and 2.67 deal with Judicial Cooperation in Civil and Criminal Matters. Article 2.68 deals with Police Cooperation, and seeing as there is enough difficulty getting our police force to cooperate with our neighbours up North, I don’t see this Article being anything other than a publicity stunt.

This amendment will basically allow Ireland to participate in schemes in these areas, when it so wishes, and opt out when it does not suit. This, on the whole, may seem positive, but with the two major political parties in this State trumpeting a pro-Europe stance, I can’t see us opting out very often, can you?

Article 29.4.13

The State may exercise the option to secure that the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly known as the Treaty establishing the European Community) shall, in whole or in part, cease to apply to the State, but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

This allows us to opt out (which has the same flaw as the Article above) in the areas of freedom, security and justice, but if our Constitution is being overridden by EU Law, I can already hear the debates in the European Courts.

Article 29.4.14

The State may agree to the decisions, regulations or other acts under:

1. Article 1.34(b)(iv)
2. Article 1.56 (in so far as it relates to Articles 48.7 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 4 of this section)
3. Article 2.66 (in so far as it relates to the second subparagraph of Article 65.3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), Are you lost yet, because there’s seven in total?
4. Article 2.67 (in so far as it relates to subparagraph (d) of Article 69A.2, the third subparagraph of Article 69B.1 and paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 69E of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union),
5. Article 2.144(a),
6. Article 2.261 (in so far as it relates to the second subparagraph of Article 270a.2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), and
7. Article 2.278 (in so far as it relates to Article 280H of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union),

of the Treaty referred to in subsection 10 of this section, and may also agree to the decision under the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 137.2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (as amended by Article 2.116(a) of the Treaty referred to in the said subsection 10), but the agreement to any such decision, regulation or act shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Article 1.34(b)(iv) deals with the European Council should decide that the Council should use Qualified Majority Voting in areas not specified by the Treaty. This is only an issue if you have a problem with the changes to the QMV. Personally, I am fine with it – it gives smaller states a higher weighting than the larger states, so their voices will not be lost in the din.

Article 1.56 deals with further revisions to the Treaties. This is a little grey for me as it seems to be saying that this Treaty cannot be revised without a referendum (in Ireland’s case), but from my reading of the Lisbon Treaty itself, Europe will (if ratified) have the power to make changes to any Treaty without the need to go back to the people. They will simply need agreement from each member state’s government. I would like this clarified, but I have not been able to find clarification.

Articles 2.66 and 2.67 are mentioned above and relate to Judicial Cooperation. Article 2.144(a) changing the Legislative procedure to “ordinary legislative procedure” by decesion of the European Council. is similar to the change to the QMV – it is down to personal reservations about changes to decision making procedures. Article 2.261, 2.278 and 2.116(a) deal with procedures and rules regarding the allocation of budgetary powers and are more clerical issues.

Constitutional Consequences

So, this is why it is clearly more than a simple Eurocratic exercise. The consequences of our changing the Constitution may not be immediately apparent, but our constitution is one of the strongest and most envied across the world. We should be very careful and well informed about every single change we make to it. We are, each of us, guaranteed so many rights and freedoms by our Constitution. The Americans have such pride in theirs and it’s odd that we do not have similar feelings towards ours.

And a No vote?

And a No vote? What will happen if we vote no? Will the rest of Europe wage war upon our defection? Or will they breathe a sigh of relief that the one and only stopgap (the Irish Referendum) remaining between the safe and sturdy status quo and the untried and untested Eurostate, has stood up to the seemingly inevitable?

It’s not that simple. The reason this treaty is so confusing and divisive is that no body can sufficiently explain the repercussions of either outcome. The consequences of ratification may not be seen for many years from now. By 2014 the political landscape of Europe could look very different. The current downturn in the economy and the rise of a number of new political leaders throughout Europe (our own Brian Cowen, Britain’s Gordon Brown, France’s Nicolas Sarkozy and even Germany’s Angela Merkel (elected Nov 2005)) make the future impossible to predict.

A No vote will invoke the political ire of many though. This is clear. Internally, Fianna Fáil will look very egg-faced if they fail to return a Yes. Indeed, Fine Gael lead figures, with their 5 MEP’s having a significant interest in a Yes verdict, will try their best to make it look at though they were not the ones who failed, and instead blame the Government. And with a Government in place pushing so hard for a Yes vote, in a country that votes No, tensions, mistrusts and paranoias will abound. An article about the bias evident in the Referendum Commission suggests that there is pressure coming from on high to push the Yes vote. How worrying it will be for the current government if we say No.

And externally too, this Treaty has already cost a lot of time and money Europe wide. 13 of the 27 European governments have already accepted the Treaty, seeing as no other country requires a referendum allowing the people to choose for themselves. Remember, we are the only people who have the opportunity to vote on this – we should be proud of our democracy. So, the political repercussions of a No vote on the European front is much harder to predict. Again, there may be relief from countries such as the UK, who are controversially not holding a referendum, and the Czech Republic, who are still trying to decide if the Treaty abides by Czech law.

Too Much, Too Quickly

The Treaty is too much too quickly. I would like someone to explain to me why so much has to be pumped into this one (exceedingly long) document. Surely, a phased introduction of many of the measures (many of which would not require a referendum) would make more sense and would allow people time to understand a smaller, more manageable proposal down the line. Enda Kenny was very fond of saying something didn’t smell right when Bertie’s Mahon problems came to light, but with this Treaty, Enda, something does not smell right. To use two wonderful words that are often bandied about by politicians trying to sound important – there is far too much manipulation and obfuscation here. There is nothing straightforward about this and if we are being asked to make changes to our Constitution, then we need to be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that we are doing the right thing. Well I, for one, still have doubts. My No stance is still in place. I am still awaiting a decent argument from the Yes side.

Previous Posts

3. Political Apathy and a Yearning for Change
2. Lisbon and Me – Deciding Our Future
1. Lisbon and Me

In my hours and days of infiltration into the quagmire of Europe’s Lisbon Treaty, I, very early on, found myself asking, “Why should I bother?” Why should I bother spending hour upon hour of precious drinking time trying to educate myself in the ways of the force farce EU. The political landscape of Ireland and Europe was never a vista I cared to gaze upon. In fact, at 26 years of age, the general election of 2007 was the first time I exercised my franchise. I don’t think I was even registered to vote until last Summer.

I am the last generation who will live to remember the recession of the eighties – having to wear clothing that was stitched and sewn back together so much that there were more patches that original material; that one chocolate bar a week I would get after Mass every Sunday with my 20 pence pocket money; the depression on the face of my father when he lost his job in the factory. And if I’m completely honest, most of what I remember from that time is from the beginning of the recovery, the birth of the Celtic Tiger – my mother would scrimp and save hard so not be seen to have poorly dressed children; that one chocolate bar a was supplemented by the three hundred more my Granny would give me during the week; and one of my strongest memories from the late eighties was the relief and joy on the face of my father when he got his factory job back.

My generation and the generation running behind me in their Gucci runners and BT2 retro range of attire, really only know the good times. We didn’t need to know about the politics behind our money for mobile phones and holidays in Torremolinos. There was no reason for us to understand why our clothes cost more than our parents’ first house – there was always more money available. And why should we care what that funny little man, Bertie Ahern, did with a few grand back in the nineties?

The photo of Bill Clinton bringing the hands of Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat together is the first recollection I have of politics. We had to do a report on it for school (I was probably in sixth class, maybe 12 years old). The only reason I remember it is because I got a prize for it for my own illustration of the historic moment declaring peace in the middle east. I’m glad that all went so well.

After that, I have fleeting recollections of discussing abortion around the time of one of the referenda, I’m sure I made some flippant comment on the second Mary in the presidency, I may have paid brief attention to the Good Friday Agreement, but overall, looking back across my life, Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a far greater feature.

And I’m not alone. There are very few people of my age group who are avidly involved or even vaguely interested in politics. Why should we? We’re too wrapped up in our four nights out a week, our new apartments, our three week tours of Italy (taking in Sicily if we have time).

Well, we may have only known the good times, but the times they are a-changing.

In this last year, conversations around the table in the pub have ceased mentioning the huge increases in our parents’ house prices. No more do we drivel on about SSIA’s and new cars. Instead, the whisper of recession is heard. Job losses are no longer fun breaks before trying new careers and increasingly we hear of relief when a friend has found a job after looking for weeks or months. These are still lighthearted conversations – no one is truly worried (I say this as I shift nervously in my seat).

Maybe it is time our generation peaked out from under our sun beds and took note of what our elected officials are doing with our lives.

So, what have I to gain from being well informed on all things dull and dutiful (apart from material for a few lengthly blog posts)? I will gain focus and understanding of what is being done with my taxes. I will begin to see the true state of our health service. I will gain some comprehension of the anger that older generations have towards politicians who talk and talk, but don’t provide concrete answers.

Perhaps, one of us or some of us will gain enough interest to stand up and say “enough is enough”. Perhaps someone will ask questions of the government that have never been addressed before. Perhaps, a young person with fresh ideas will rise from the aged political ranks and give new direction to a country that is in need of more than a figure head. Perhaps someone will emerge as a leading light. We need a leader.

Following on from yesterday’s post, I’ve heard a few arguments at this stage from both sides and I’m currently erring towards a ‘No’ vote for a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons may seem on the face of it to be slightly invalid, but if you hear me out, I’d like to explain my current thinking.

Firstly, it’s worth pointing out that there are reasons to vote ‘Yes’. Much of the Treaty is nothing more than a bureaucratic exercise to rename some judicial bodies and combine a bunch of already agreed upon charters and treaties. Much of the Treaty is about improving efficiencies of government and ease decision making. So, on the outset, a simple tick in the Yes box seems logical. In fact, it may be argued that Ireland is the only country required to hold a referendum because of our own bureaucracy and the need to reword our own bit of paper – the constitution.

But then remember, Ireland is the only country that is sending this Treaty to the people. We, as a nation, are the only people who have been given the opportunity to fully read, discuss, debate and either accept or decline this set of rules and systems, that is the closest thing to a Europe wide constitution that we are likely to see for the foreseeable future. Surely we owe it not just to ourselves but also to our European neighbours to, at least, make an informed decision.

So, my first reason for voting No is that the electorate is currently ill-informed and a better effort over a longer period of time should be made to make sure that every single person who ticks Yes or No truly understands what they are saying Yes or No to.

I can already hear the ‘Yessers’ condemn me. “It is up to the individual voter to inform themselves on what they are voting for” and “The only reason people don’t understand is that they are too lay to read and ask questions”. Well, I have made serious efforts to inform myself, I am neither stupid nor lazy, and yet I am still concerned and in need of some further clarifications.

And considering it is only a month to the referendum, why are we only receiving the Commissions pamphlets this week (the only unbiased piece of government literature and it doesn’t even give the date of the referendum!!!), why is the Rock the Vote campaign only kicking off now, why is there an endless barrage of posters and ad campaigns pushing us to say Yes, when there is so very little information regarding the consequences of the ratification of the Treaty. I can now happily say that I understand what changes will be made to both our Constitution and to the make up of the EU, but what influence will the Lisbon Treaty have on my life, if it is made law? I’m still not sure.

I consider myself an intelligent person, reasonably well-educated and informed on current affairs, but I, after many hours of research, am unable to ascertain what the big changes will mean to my daily life. Indeed, Mr Doyle asked a number of questions yesterday:

Nope, I still don’t get it, despite how well you’ve explained it Darren. I don’t see why we need it or how it will benefit us or indeed Europe.

Europe has undeniably been good to us and I hate the feeling that because of that we should vote yes.

What I’d like to know is:

Will it mean a better education system where schools are better funded, teachers better trained and more facilities provided?

Will it mean a better health service with shorter waiting lists, less bureaucracy and more availability to people of all financial situations?

Will it mean a better police force, helping to prevent random crimes, racist attacks and the like and to cut down on the amount of drugs in the country?

Will it mean social workers get more help, training and resource to deal with the problems in working class areas?

Will it mean higher levels of pensions for OAPs and people on invalidity pensions, and help unemployed people get training and skills that they need?

Will it improve the standard and quality of living?

Until I get an answer to those I’m not going to vote either way. I’ve read the literature and still can’t see the benefit.

As Elly then pointed out, these issues have nothing to do with the Treaty, they are our own government’s responsibility, not Europe’s. If someone as savvy and informed as Darragh is asking questions about areas that the Treaty has no influence on, then clearly the Referendum Commission has not sufficiently done its job.

To be clear, the Treaty will not effect –

• harmonisation of direct taxes
• our neutrality
• our stance on abortion
• our childcare system
• our healthcare system
• our responsibilities to the elderly
• our system of education

So my second reason, an extension of my first, even if everyone is given a detailed breakdown of the 294 page document, even if Dick Roche goes around to each voter in Ireland and explains which treaties will be amended, what Articles will be removed and what will be brought it, even if every single person knows what the wording is inside and out, how will anyone know what ultimate influence the EU Reform Treaty (it goes by that name too) will have on their lives and the lives of their children.

Truthfully, I wonder if any of the ministers know what effect it will have in the long term. Are the EU Ministers just putting together this document of reform in order to simplify their lives and remove many of the headaches and much of th paperwork they must endure by sticking to the rules which we currently have. If this were the truth and they admitted it, I’d be more inclined to vote Yes, because at least then I’d be making an informed decision.

The other side of the coin, however, is the No campaign is very poor. Sinn Fein and Libertas’ arguments are invalid and Europhobic. There is ample evidence that the EU has been a fantastic thing for our country (but that is not a sufficient ‘Yes’ argument) and saying No to Europe in its entirety is ignorant of the truth. So, I await a good argument from the No side as much as the Yes.

I expect that through my own research and discussions, I will ultimately be swayed towards ratification of Lisbon, but am I being naive in throwing down the gauntlet to both sides of the debate and asking them both…convince me.

I’ll keep you updated as to where my loyalties lie, as they undoubtedly seesaw from Yay to Nay. Today it’s a No; tomorrow, who knows?

Previous posts:

Lisbon and Me

Okay, so it’s probably the most obvious statement you’re likely to hear this week, but Alisa Miller has conclusive evidence of the fact that Americans are blind to world affairs, and at TED, she lays out her information in a very interesting way.

Is it any wonder the Bush administration found it so easy to instill fear and paranoia in the Americans?

Among the many things we talked drunkenly about in the bar last night, the Cat Laughs featured heavily. We were making plans as to what we should see:

What should we aim to go see? I was thinking Neil Delamere, Maeve Higgins and Rich Hall for definite. After that, I’m easy.  A bit of improv will keep me happy.

We also spent much of last night putting the world to rights, but sadly, by morning, we forgot how to do it.

Here are our drunken poser pics:

And at the end of the night, there were cranes. Well, one crane – one huge crane over Grafton Street.

I love cranes!

I have a manbag! Yes, I am one of those metrosexual, fashion conscious, manbag-wearing men.

No, it does not contain make-up. It does not have compartments full of cleanser, moisturiser or foundation. I do not carry a spare pair of “comfortable” shoes around, nor do I have “overnight” clothes. My diary is not in there; my most recent birthday cards are not tucked away for safekeeping; my list of gifts for people who I might buy gifts for if there was an occassion for which I should by gifts for these people for for…is not in this bag.

It contains my Filofax. It has numerous pens. I have a multimedia card reader in one of the compartments. It houses my glasses (my sunglasses when I wear my regular glasses, my regular glasses when I wear my sunglasses). I have many cables – a standard USB cable, my phone charger, my camera charger, my iPod cable. It plays host to Darragh‘s external harddrive and cable (I should probably return that).

It is full of pages – printed blogs, because I didn’t have time to read them in work, so I read them on the train; a collection of post such as bills and statements which I should file away at home but keep forgetting to do; le craic’s Blog Awards book which I keep meaning to give to Lottie; and lots of random crap, much of which I’m not even sure where it came from.

I have a manbag. I need a manbag! How did the Irish male function pre-metrosexuality? Though I’m sure I’ve just landed myself on Grandad‘s list of “people I hate just because…”, I cannot give up on this vital tool. We spend 12 to 16 years or more carting around our school and college books, copies, lecture papers and notes – it’ hard to become pocket people.

My dad is a pocket person. He carries his keys, his wallet, his phone, his loose change, his lotto ticket, his tissue and his packet of chewing gum in two pockets. Young women say to him, “is that a phone in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?” The answer is depressingly predictable.

In fact, my father only recenty invested in a wallet – an improvement on just throwing his cash, his ATM card and his change in the one pocket. How do these people cope?

In my wallet I have my ATM card, two credit cards, my Cineworld card, my annual Bus and Rail Card (and my stupid CIE card with a grinning fool on it), my student card, my loyalty card to Zumo, my loyalty card to SoBo, my Starbucks card, my Hughes and Hughes gift card, my (apparently out of date) HMV studen card, numerous random business cards, my own Moo cards, several receipts and a note reminding me of a dental appointment (21st August at 12.30).

I have manbag and I could not live without it. As I sit on the DART, attempting to clear out all the crap from it, I realise there is more stuff in it that I need to keep than there is junk I can afford to cast away.

I have a manbag – don’t judge me!

Well, I didn’t have my giant picnic in the green yesterday evening, but I did get to enjoy another amazing lunch today, listening to Divine Comedy on the iPod and watching the people go by.

Would anyone like to suggest a decent beer garden for this evening after work? I have no interest in hibernating for the evening – I want good company, a nice few cold pints and maybe a bit of decent music (or at least some good conversation).