Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
“Fine Gael’s foreign affairs spokesman Billy Timmins said the Minister for Foreign Affairs should lodge a formal complaint with his Czech counterpart over Mr Klaus’s “inappropriate behaviour in creating a very definite perception that he is strongly sympathising with groupings and individuals who are opposed to Irish Government policy.”
(Irish Times).
What would be the basis of such a complaint? That Mr. Klaus was democratically engaging in free speech?
Copy to:
Fine Gael
The second Lisbon Treaty debate is on and it’s obvious that the pro treaty crowd have learned nothing. In fact, it seems that their arrogance and undemocratic attitudes have become even more extreme.
Dick Roche is still calling the anti treaty side a bunch of liars and Fine Gael MEP Gay Mitchell obviously doesn’t like the idea of democracy when it comes to ratification of the treaty.
Anti treaty campaigner, Ulick McEvaddy, in a debate (Tuesday) with Mitchell, expressed a very reasonable point of view:
“They’ve been misleading us or they have not got their act together. If it takes us another ten years to get a proper treaty in place that people can understand, let us wait that ten years and spend that ten years doing something that’s right instead of putting this treaty back to the people.”
When RTE presenter, Myles Dungan, put it to Mitchell that he was ‘scaremongering’ the Fine Gael MEP began to lose the run of himself.
“I resent that comment and you shouldn’t have used that comment Ulick (He didn’t make the comment, Myles Dungan did) and everything I’ve said has been very measured on this both this morning and at other times and we’ve let this go… (Interrupted by McEvaddy) there you are interrupting me now, you said you didn’t interrupt (He didn’t say that). You should not be using those terms (He didn’t) if we’re to have some reasonable discussion and debate on this.
I’ll tell you what has to happen Ulick; we have to put people like you in your place. You’re a good businessman but you know sweet damn all about politics and what we’ve really got to do and this is the real problem here… We’ve got to restore to Dial Eireann the democratic deficit between the Dail and the people.
All the TDs have left themselves with is responsibility and they’ve given away authority…It’s time for the Dail to take back authority and to say to people like Ulick…the business of politics requires people to be able to find real solutions to problems.”
Phew, what a roasting for poor Ulick. Let’s do a small analysis on Mitchell’s outburst.
He wants people like McEvaddy taken out of the democratic process, banned from participating in political campaigns. Mitchell would probably allow Ulick to express a personal view and maybe even vote but any kind of campaign that challenges the body politic would be forbidden.
Mitchell admits that Dail Eireann has lost its authority but fails to acknowledge that this situation was brought about by the corruption and cowardice of politicians themselves. Fine Gael, in common with all the major parties, constantly waffle on about Dail reform but do not posses the courage or vision to actually implement change.
Later, Mitchell brings up the question of funding political campaigns:
“Ulick, I don’t know anything about running your business…my business is politics…and it’s people like you and your other wealthy pal down in Galway, Ganley, walking on to the pitch with your millions of pounds (sic) and being able to tell us our business…this is a little game for people like yourself and others.”
It takes a special kind of hypocrisy to attack non politicians for operating under a system carefully set up by politicians to make sure that the millions they get from big business remains hidden from public scrutiny.
In addition to attacking those from outside the body politic for having the neck to mount a political campaign Mitchell is obviously not happy that the people themselves should be trusted to have a direct say in such important matters.
“Do you know that the people in Germany voted for the Third Reich, the people outside Caesar’s palace (sic) voted for the crucifixion of Christ, what has a referendum got to do with…if you ask the people tomorrow to vote for the Government…”
Unfortunately, he was cut off at this point before he made a complete eejit of himself.
Ah yes, there’ll be many a scourging and crucifixion before this campaign is done.
Copy to;
Gay Mitchell
Minister of State for Finance Martin Mansergh is a dangerous fool.
He’s a fool because he’s a great admirer of the corrupt Haughey and numbers himself among those who have publicly admitted that they believe Bertie Ahern’s fantasy tales.
The Minister is dangerous because he’s one of those politicians who find democracy to be very inconvenient.
During the Dail debate on the Lisbon Treaty referendum Mansergh strongly suggested that perhaps it’s time to ‘re-interpret’ the Crotty Judgement, not as an attack on democracy you understand but because it would save the peasants, er citizens from having to deal with complex matters and would make things easier for our fellow EU partners.
“It is with good reason that all our other European partners chose to seek parliamentary ratification of the Lisbon treaty and the ruling party in France won a mandate to do that last year.
Referendums on something as general yet as complex as this treaty are vulnerable to all sorts of cross-currents, some quite unconnected with it. While many people passionately cherish the right to vote directly on such treaties now and in the future, I encountered many others who implicitly and sometimes explicitly resented a matter this complex being referred to them.
While I am certain the decision to hold a referendum was based on both clear legal advice and sound political considerations, it could be argued that since 1987 we have taken an expansive interpretation of the Crotty judgment.
While no longer relevant in relation the referendum just past, it is an issue that needs to be looked at carefully if we are not continually to be hampered in the future vis-à-vis all other member states. While our strict constitutional requirements must be respected, we do not necessarily have to go well beyond them.”
Martin Schulz MEP is not happy with Charlie McCreevy (RTE, 1st report 3rd item).
Schulz, who is chairman of the Party of European Socialists in the European Parliament, wants McCreevy fired from the Commission because of his remarks during the Lisbon Treaty referendum campaign.
“He has one of the highest responsibilities in the European Commission and then to tell people – ‘I don’t care about this treaty, I have not even read it’ is not only a mistake it is a catastrophe because the message is clear – I don’t care about the legal framework in which I have to act.’ That’s inadmissible for such a high responsibility.”
“I don’t care about the legal framework in which I have to act.” ?
Ahhh Mr. Schulz you are so innocent. Do you not know that working outside the legal framework is the default position for most Irish politicians and officials.
“And the responsible minister is McCreevy who prefers to go to a horse race than come to the European Parliament; that is the behaviour of a lord of the 19th century.”
Ahhh Mr. Schulz, are you not aware that McCreevy is merely aping the low standards of another Charlie who acted like a lord over the people for decades?
Schulz was asked should Charlie McCreevy be in the Commission at all
“I’m not an employment institute, we could find certainly another dossier. Multilingualism is another dossier, perhaps it would be good for him because if you listen to him when he’s speaking English I have always the need to speak to the Commissioner of multilingualism to help me to understand Charlie.”
Ahhh Mr. Schulz, now you’ve hurt our Charlie’s feelings but also given us all a good laugh.
Mary O’Rourke’s howls of pain could be heard for miles as that dog bit deeply into her ankle.
“I take responsibility having led the Yes campaign that goes with that position. I don’t walk away from that in any way.” (An Taoiseach Brian Cowen, 1st report, 11th item)
In most countries taking responsibility means resignation – In Ireland it means nothing.
I suspect that plans and plots are afoot for the toppling of Enda Kenny.
“Obviously you’re not being allowed to interview me. As you know we were opposed by elements on the extreme left and extreme right. We’ve seen this in European history before and one of the first things to go is free speech.”
A very angry Brian Lenihan as he experiences a rare contact with ordinary people (1st report, 8th item).
I agree with several commentators who said that the result was principally a reflection of the disconnection between ordinary citizens and the body politic.
Would everybody please now standby for chaos in the universe followed by the sky falling in – Thank you.
Not once during the campaign did I hear the word ‘conscription’ mentioned never mind hotly discussed as a serious possibility. Yet Michael Martin claimed on a number of occasions today that fear of conscription, put out by the No side, was a factor in the result.
The funniest comment today was written on the tricolour displayed at Dublin Castle – “Who is the loola now Bertie? (1st report, last item).
Hallelujah, Yipeee, whopeeee, go on ya good thing, yeeehaaaaa.
Article in today’s Irish Independent.
We owe vote to this man
By Mary Cody
Thursday June 12 2008
The actions of a Kilkenny man secured the right for three million Irish citizens to vote on behalf of 500 million Europeans in today’s Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Ireland is the only country in the EU where citizens are being allowed to vote on the adoption, or not, of the Lisbon Treaty European Constitution.
Raymond Crotty’s daughter Mary, and her sister Ann, who has returned from South Africa where she works as a journalist to campaign for a ‘No’ Vote, explained the pivotal action which their father took and which could now impact on the shape and direction Europe takes in the future.
“The French and Dutch, who were given an opportunity to vote on the European Constitution, voted against it. They are not being given an opportunity to vote on the Lisbon Treaty,” she said.
“We are being afforded this right, not because our government has secured it for us, but because our father, Raymond Crotty, took the Irish government to court back in 1986.
“The Supreme Court ruled in that case that in the event of any major change within the EU that impacted upon Ireland’s constitution, the government would be obliged to get approval for that change from the Irish people.
“The implications of the current treaty are so wide-ranging that lawyers who worked on our dad’s case believe that, if it is implemented, it will be our last EU-related referendum.”
Fergus Finlay wins the prize for the most patronising, most dishonest and most insulting argument to come from the Yes side.
Writing in yesterday’s Irish Examiner, Finlay, who in a previous life was advisor to the Labour Party and always gave the impression that he was a democrat, glibly skips over the fact that only 1% of the EU population is being given the opportunity of deciding how the EU will operate in the future.
“I know it has been said there’s something undemocratic about that, and maybe there is.”
It gets worse, Finlay goes on to tell us that if we vote No we will damage the newer member states.
“We can, of course, say ‘I’m alright Jack’ and decide to leave things as they are by voting no…But it will damage the people who need Europe’s help to get their economies growing a bit like ours.”
This is just patronising nonsense, to Irish citizens and to the newer states. A No vote will not damage these countries and it is dishonest to state otherwise. In fact many of these countries have progressed more in the last two decades since throwing off the yoke of Soviet oppression than Ireland has since our independence in 1922.
For example, Polish citizens can vote in general elections no matter where they are in the world and I suspect the same applies for referendums. Irish citizens have no such freedom, if you’re not in the county – tough, no vote.
The infrastructure of many of these countries is decades ahead of ours especially in the areas of health, education and transport while we struggle to keep up with Third World standards. And many of the improvements in these countries are down to the efforts of their own politicians who are for the most part competent, hard working and honest.
To my knowledge, every one of these new countries has taken action against corruption, especially the white collar variety. Most of them have established well funded anti corruption agencies with real power to put people in jail. In Ireland, we don’t have a single agency with the power or competence to take on the corrupt. Instead, corrupt politicians and businessmen are bestowed with honours and given state funerals.
Finlay, like practically every Yes politician, reminds us how Ireland has benefited from the EU. Equal pay, anti discrimination laws, environmental laws consumer’s rights and so on – Irish people would never have these advantages if it wasn’t for the EU, they tell us. It apparently never enters their narrow minds how these claims reflect on their own intelligence and abilities.
I’m voting No in this referendum because I believe those with power are side lining what they see as the inconvenience of democracy. Instead they trying to create a United States of Europe controlled by bureaucrats.
I think it is inevitable that Europe will evolve into a United States of Europe and I have no problem with that whatsoever so long as it’s done by the democratic will of the people of Europe.
In such a United States of Europe Irish citizens would enjoy the great benefit of being ruled by a competent and efficient administration and hopefully would be rid of the moronic self serving and for the most part corrupt rabble that have blighted our country since independence.
A recent poll indicated that nearly half of Fine Gael members are going to vote No. I think that figure will increase after last night’s debate on Questions & Answers.
Enda Kenny was not good and watching him there ‘colluding with the enemy’ must have made many a Fine Gaeler cringe in embarrassment.
There was skin and hair flying on Today with Pat Kenny (Monday) as Pat desperately tried but failed to control the warring parties. Hard to say who won the debate but it was certainly very entertaining.
Pat should have a chat with John Bowman who was impressive as chairman on Questions & Answers last night. I know I’m biased but I thought the No side won the debate hands down.