Author: Anthony

Alan Ruddock gives some very good reasons to vote No in the referendum.

It’s interesting to note that RTE has notched up its Yes campaign since the shock (for the Yes side) of the Irish Times/TNS mrbi poll.

Within hours the Taoiseach was given an (18 minutes) exclusive and unchallenged platform on Today with Pat Kenny (Friday, 1.29) to berate and warn Irish citizens of the dire consequences of a No vote.

Later, on the News at One (2nd report, 2nd item), there was a brief but very telling interruption by RTE presenter, Sean O’Rourke during a debate between Joe Higgins and Eamon Gilmore on the rights of workers and the interests of business.

Higgins was making a point about business and profit when O’Rourke interrupted in a very disapproving voice – Why do you spit the word business?

Higgins quickly put him in his place and carried on making his point.

Saturday View presenter, Rodney Rice, also did his bit for the Yes campaign with this introduction.

“So, the Irish people may reject the advice of the overwhelming majority of political, civic and religious leaders and vote No next Thursday.

But Government, major opposition parties, a majority of the Trade Union movement, employers organisations and the Catholic Church may be ignored in favour of a mixed bag of logic and mythology put forward by traditional EU opponents from the religious right to the political left and a rich businessman whose wealth, businesses, political views and connections to the US security industry were unknown to most before this campaign began.”

And there I was thinking that presenters should act as neutral referees in a debate.

For me, the most worrying aspect of the Lisbon Treaty is the continued drive to create an EU army and arms industry to rival the United States. A quick look at the European Defence Agency website confirms that this is not just a conspiracy theory by the No campaign.

Green Party member and chairperson of the People’s Movement, Patricia McKenna spoke about the matter on Six One News recently (7th report, 2nd item). She seems to be particularly worried about a solidarity clause in the treaty which will require members to increase their military capabilities.

The Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, made some odd comments on the matter during the week (Today with Pat Kenny, Friday, 1.33) saying that while we had reduced the number of people in our army we had increased our military capability.

He didn’t elaborate on what this increased capability was but it is difficult to see how it is possible to increase capability while at the same time reducing numbers.

If I’m interpreting the intentions of the European Defence Agency correctly then Irish citizens are in for a shock if they vote Yes in the Lisbon Treaty. (See EDA introductory video here).

Military capability is seen as critical by the EDA and that means more spending on equipment and research. The video specifically mentions heavy lift aircraft especially helicopters. By voting Yes, Ireland will be locking itself into a commitment to increase military spending.

If this happens it will mean a major change in Ireland’s defence organisation and budget. At the moment Ireland has a tiny defence force with less than ten thousand personnel in total.

The Navy operates with less than 1,000 personnel, has only one base and no real warships. By real warships I mean frigates, cruisers, destroyers and submarines not to mention aircraft carriers. To upgrade, even to the most basic NATO standard, would require a major injection of funds.

The Air Corps also operates with less than a thousand personnel and operates a hotchpotch of aircraft. It has no real war aircraft whatsoever. By real war aircraft I mean fighter jets like the F15, bombers, attack helicopters and heavy lift aircraft. To purchase even a minimum of these aircraft would require a major injection of funds not to mention massive backup support, new airfields and training.

The Army operates with about 8,000 personnel. It is a lightly armed force with no heavy armour or heavy lift capacity whatsoever. To provide these capabilities would require a major injection of funds.

There is no doubt that the EU is well advanced in its plans for an EU army and a Yes vote will almost certainly lock Ireland into making a major contribution to that force.

I’m sure many Irish citizens would have no problem with that and indeed there are good arguments to be made for the creation of an EU army. The problem is that Irish politicians are not being honest and upfront about what’s happening

Letter in today’s Irish Times.

Madam,

At the launch of the information campaign by the Referendum Commission on May 13th last the three principal functions of the Commission, as laid down in the Referendum Act, 2001, were clearly outlined:

1. To explain the subject matter of the referendum.

2. To use all means at the commission’s disposal to publish the explanations to as many people as possible.

3. To promote public awareness and encourage people to vote.

The chairman, Mr Justice O’Neill, said: “We are not going to supervise, control or try to influence the debate beyond discharging our statutory function to explain what’s in the treaty.”

However, he also indicated that the commission would be monitoring the debate and issuing clarifying statements if it was the commission’s considered view that people were being confused or misled.

To date, the commission has announced its “considered position” on taxation, neutrality, abortion, qualified majority voting and the retention of a veto on any future WTO deal.

These are all issues that No campaigners see as critical in their attempt to convince voters to reject the treaty.

So far, the commission has issued no clarifying statements regarding claims made by the Yes campaign, such as Garret FitzGerald’s assertion that we will become the pariahs of the EU and Minister Ryan’s claim that Europe would face chaos if the treaty is rejected. – Yours, etc,

ANTHONY SHERIDAN,

Marc Coleman, columnist with the Sunday Independent, has an article in this week’s Irish Catholic where he argues for a Yes vote. His heading says it all.

I haven’t read all of Lisbon, but I haven’t read the telephone directory either – but, I am still voting Yes.

On May 18th last I wrote that chairman of the Referendum Commission, Mr. Justice O’Neill had bestowed extra powers upon himself and the Commission not contained in the Referendum Act, 2001. He said;

“We will be monitoring the debate to see what happens and if we feel that there is serious confusion or that people are being confused or misled in a serious way on issues arising directly out of the treaty we may then issue clarifying statements.”

In complete contradiction to the above statement Justice O’Neill also said;

“We do not intend to engage in the debate, we see our role as explaining to the people what is in the proposal. We are not going to supervise, control or try to influence that debate beyond discharging our statuary function to explain what’s in the treaty.”

The decision by the Commission to effectively abandon its neutral role and become involved in the debate has seriously damaged its credibility.

To date, the Commission has announced its ‘considered position’ on taxation, neutrality, abortion, qualified majority voting and the retention of a veto on any future WTO deal.

These are all issues that the No campaign see as critical in their attempt to convince voters to reject the treaty. The ‘clarifications’ by the Commission can obviously be seen as a great boost for the Yes campaign.

The Commission has not felt the need to clarify misleading statements made by the Yes campaign such as Garrett Fitzgerald’s assertion that we will become the pariahs of the EU and Minister Ryan’s claim that Europe would face chaos if the treaty is rejected.

It’s worth listening to this news item (3rd report) to understand how the Commission is getting itself into all kinds of difficulties as a result of its interventions in the debate.

Copy to:
Referendum Commission