Blink and pinch yourself, a tiny island population on the edge of Europe are on the verge of renegotiating the Lisbon Treaty, particularly in the context of more access to the EU Council of ministers, speaking rights within EU structures, a role in controlling subsidiarity and they already have a protocol guaranteeing autonomy on taxation.

In total the influence and concessions won by this tiny island  within the EU is way out of proportion to its population of 27,000. Oops, you thought we were talking about Ireland.

No, this is an island where a government is displaying real backbone. The Aland Islands, an autonomous, demilitarized zone in the Baltic between Finland and Sweden are  refusing to ratify the Lisbon Treaty unless four demands are meet.

The Aland Islands parliament wants an MEP, a seat on the European Council of Ministers, a role in controlling subsidiarity, and more speaking rights within EU power structures.

Unlike Ireland the Aland Islands government is not embarrassed to be holding up EU ratification but is actively negotiating concessions.

The EU Observer have more on the Aland Islands campaign, you can read about it at: http://euobserver.com/9/26601

Today  the EU is reported in various media as being active on our behalves on a range of issues including trying to negotiate an incentive package with Iran to encourage halting of uranium enrichment to focusing on the conflict in Georgia.

OMV AG, central Europe’s largest oil company has dropped its plans for a multi billion euro take over of a hungarian competitor after the EU raised concerns about market competition.

$5 million dollars was committed by the EU to help deal with spiraling food prices in Haiti, while this EU commission this week has started a public consultation to help formulate an approach to tackling climate change post 2012 when the current Kyoto accord runs its course.

The EU is busy making decisions that affect us all, often with little comment from the Irish Government on any of these issues, many of which are worthwhile and uncontroversial, but the lack of effective scrutiny and discussion in Ireland is the crucial issue. It is the government who can solve this issue. They control Dail and Seanad speaking time, they allocate power to committees.

So how given this do we view an article today by Dan O’Brien, senior editor at the Economist Intelligence Unit, in the Irish Times where he claims that, “The really big problem facing the EU is not a perceived democratic deficit but the public’s willingness to believe wild rumours about Brussels“.

O’Brien writes that, “Though the EU has many flaws, a democratic deficit is not among them“, the definition of which he cites as, “today’s Russia, the Northern Irish state of yesteryear or countless other examples, you do not have to be a political scientist or legal theorist to know it. Your rights are ridden roughshod over and woe betide you if you attempt to do anything about it“.

Maybe he hasn’t met any of the fishing sector workers in Ireland, small farmers and small firms who have been squeezed out of business by EU policies with no recourse, no right to appeal, or what about the Irish people as a whole who have no appeal about the badly run, unprofitable and dangerous nuclear industry In Britain supported by the EU.  These are just some of a long list of policies dictated by the EU.

O’Brien does cite the lack of Government and Dail scrutiny of EU policy decisions, Maybe he should focus his ire there rather than ignore the reality of the EU on many people’s health and livelihoods.

How long will it be before we see an opinion column that focuses on the Irish Government’s failures on the EU, from their failure to negotiate a better package at Nice and Lisbon through to their failures to scrutinise and comment on EU policies, many of which are essentially good.

Finally, the International Herald Tribune has an article today on the post Lisbon scenario by Stephen Castle, where he questions the benefits of the Lisbon treaty to bring about internal reform in the EU and poses the idea that some diplomats are beginning to think that Lisbon not coming into force would not be “such a bad thing”. Reading this article titled “Two ways of looking at the Lisbon Treaty” highlights the limitations in the Dan O’Brien article.

The Castle article can be viewed at:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/04/europe/letter.php

Support for ratifying the Lisbon Treaty in Poland has fallen according to an opinion poll by CBOS, a publicly funded polish research centre. Angus Reid Global Monitor an online reporter on opinion polls around the world reports that, “Fewer people in Poland want the president to ratify the Lisbon Treaty—although they still represent the majority”.

“52 per cent of respondents say the country should sign the proposed accord for members of the European Union (EU), down 13 points since April”.

After the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland, Polish President Lech Kaczynski had refused to ratify the Treaty into law, saying that “For the time being, the question of the treaty is pointless.”

Polling Data

Should the president ratify the Lisbon Treaty?

	Jul. 2008	Apr. 2008
Yes	52%	65%
No	14%	8%
Not sure	34%	27%

Source: CBOS
Methodology: Interviews with 1,094 Polish adults, conducted from Jul. 4 to Jul. 7, 2008. Margin of error is 4 per cent.

The Irish Times made no secret of its support for the Lisbon Treaty during the referendum campaign, particularly in the comment of editorials and columnists such as Garrett Fitzgerald, but what are we to make of today’s column by Stephen Collins, who also doubles as a news reporter at the paper.

Collins takes on a new role as government adviser and Moses like has the tablets of stone that will solve the Lisbon Treaty conundrum. The Dail should seek to ratify the treaty while “opting out of  areas such as the charter of fundamental rights, which probably does require referendum approval, and the new defense arrangements whose misrepresentation prompted so many women to vote No“.

I wonder what women readers of the Irish Times think of being told that they were misled into voting No, while the more clever men voted Yes!

But what drove Collins to write such a prescriptive column, moving beyond the realm of reporting on actual news, or even offering analysis of news events, but instead jumping the rails into the world of fantasy solution provider.

A hint is offered in his opening paragraphs when Collins writes that, “At this stage it is hard to see how a confused and divided Yes side will be any match for a confident No campaign, awash with money and unhampered by any allegiance to truth“. Time for Steve to jump into his superhero costume.

So we have a dazed and confused government, with Labour and Fine Gael in tow, frustrated by a No side telling lies and easily led women so it is only right that journalists should take up the reigns of power.

The Irish Times solution is in the article headline – “Ratify Lisbon Treaty regardless of referendum result“. So maybe it is true that the Irish Times don’t really want to suggest what we should think about, they really want to tell us what to think!

It is an interesting world where you have to read about the Irish government’s EU policy decisions in newspapers, rather than in parliament, or even through a government press release.

Two articles on the Lisbon Treaty today in the Irish Independent and Financial Times offer interpretations of the state of play on the stalled Lisbon Treaty and Irish government policy with the FT suggesting that the Irish Government may unilaterally leave the European Defence Agency and the Irish Independent suggesting that there will be a deal on the issue of the EU Commissioner.

The FT article titled “European defence: How to take ‘no’ for an answer” is by Nick Witney “a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and author of a report published this week on European defence”

Witney writes that, “When European leaders talk about respecting the Irish No on the Lisbon treaty, what they really mean is putting the best face on it until the Irish can be induced to change their minds.”

Turning to the issue of a common EU defence policy Witney says that, “There is little about defence in the treaty. The provisions about the European Defence Agency are redundant, since that body was already created back in 2004 – ironically, largely thanks to a highly professional effort by the Irish EU presidency”.

This he writes is a “multi-speed Europe, and in defence – where co-operation can only work to the extent that each member state individually decides – it makes perfect sense”.

“Such good sense, in fact, that there is talk of Ireland implementing it unilaterally, by withdrawing from the European Defence Agency, the body charged with brokering co-operation among member states on everything from weapons projects to common transport fleets. No one should try to dissuade them.”

“The Irish have an admirable record in deploying their small army for international peacekeeping operations. But they also spend a smaller percentage of their gross domestic product on defence than any of the 27 member states (yes, less than Malta). When it comes to building the capabilities Europe needs, if it is to become a worthwhile contributor to international security, they have almost nothing to bring to the party.”

“So if the Irish decide to distance themselves from European defence, there is potential double benefit: it may help unglue the Lisbon treaty by providing grounds for a second, positive vote on ratification; and it will point the way to a more sensible and productive way of organising the common defence endeavour.”

If you want to read the full Financial Times article, you can access it at:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0101fca0-5c98-11dd-8d38-000077b07658.html

The Irish Independent article is at:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/play-it-again-brian-thats-the-eu-view-1443108.html

It seems one person’s poll is another’s poison. A few weeks ago in the immediate aftermath of the Lisbon Treaty referendum, the preliminary results of a European Commission poll, carried out by Gallup, were leaked to the Irish Independent who reported them inaccurately.

Days after the preliminary results were officially released, other findings from the survey not in the original published results were given to the Irish Times.

There was no comment from the Irish Government, no criticism of the leaks, the inaccurate reporting, or of the EU Commission’s reasons for conducting a poll in the first place.

This week what AFP describe as, “London-based euro-sceptic Open Europe think-tank” published a poll, conducted by Red C which showed that:

71% of Irish voters oppose a second Lisbon Treaty referendum with 24% in favour a re-run.

AFP reports that, “Of those who expressed an opinion, 62 % said they would vote “no” in a second referendum, compared to 34% who would vote “yes”.”

“67% agreed with the statement that “politicians in Europe do not respect Ireland’s no vote” and 61% disagreed with the statement that “if all of the other 26 EU countries ratify the treaty in their parliaments then Ireland has to change its mind and support the treaty.”

Now PA is reporting that Irish foreign affairs minister Micheal Martin has “slammed” Open Europe and accused them of “meddling” in the Lisbon Treaty debate.

Mr Martin said, “I would like to know what prompted a British organisation with a strong ideological bias to commission a poll into Irish attitudes to Europe at this time. Ireland’s future in Europe is a matter for decision by Irish people.”

Did Martin give Nicolas Sarkozy as blunt a message when he was in Dublin last week?

Peter Mandelson, EU external trade commissioner, is locked in intricate deliberations as I write. Though slogging hard  for the EU in the WTO negotiations, he can comfort himself with a “beautiful view” of Swiss trees and mountains and then there are the gifts!

French Agriculture Minister Michel Barnier gave EU Agricultural Commissioner Fischer Boel and Mandelson picnic baskets and rugs after Mandleson had joked with Barnier he would be in Geneva so long that “perhaps he could bring a picnic”.

We know all this courtesy of Mandelson’s blog, reported in the International Herald Tribune today after he had written that “We are potentially closer than we have ever been to a deal”.

The blog is an interesting read as it does give an insight into the type of negotiations the EU is involved in and which could seriously impact on all our working lives, farmer or factor worker and everything in between.

The fact that the blog is one of the valuable insights into what is happening at the WTO talks rather than a more full account from the EU itself highlights the  democratic deficit in the EU.

You can view the Mandelson blog at:

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/newround/doha_da/geneva08/update_en.htm

The Guardian newspaper in Britain is claiming that British Government officials are “trying to water down European Union plans to give priority access to green energy sources on national energy grids”. Britain’s support for nuclear power has been highlighted in recent weeks but this attempt to marginalise renewable energy initiatives is a new tactic.

The leaked documents show that Britain “wants to block attempts to give renewable electricity sources such as wind farms priority access to the national grid. The European official who drafted the legislation accused Britain of “obstructing” EU efforts on renewables and said UK officials wanted to protect traditional energy suppliers and their coal, gas and nuclear power stations”.

The EU renewables draft directive is “intended to support an EU target to generate 20% of energy from renewable sources by 2020”. According to the Guardian the draft directive proposes that: “Member states shall also provide for priority access to the grid system of electricity produced from renewable energy sources”.

“However, documents seen by the Guardian show Britain wants to change “shall” to “may” – which experts say would seriously undermine the directive.”

A recent commons select committee in Britain found that “9.3GW of wind power projects were currently waiting” to be connected to British electricity grid. The Guardian claims that this is “the equivalent of a new generation of nuclear power stations”.

Better access to the energy grid within member states and across the EU would be a vital part of an effective EU strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emission and this action by Britain could be followed by other EU nuclear power producers like France, so it seems that we can have a green EU or a nuclear one, but for now the nuclear lobby is marginalising renewable energy initiatives.

One of the big selling points of the Lisbon Treaty was that it differed from the rejected EU Constitution by removing the formal trappings of flags, anthems and the other symbolism associated with a superpower.

Enter this week Georg Dutlik, the head of the EU Commission’s mission in Vienna who is reported in the Bangkok Post and the Malaysia Star, (why just these news media outlets is a mystery) proposing an EU medals table in the coming Olympics.

For those of us in Ireland who read and watch the British Press the medals table at the Olympics is a core feature of the games… Irish media tend to carry one too and in the Cold War period the battles between the Soviet Union and the USA for who had the most golds etc was for some a key issue. We had to declare ‘who’ had won the games the West or the ‘Evil Empire’.

China has in recent years obsessed on the medal contest and will no doubt be seeking to top the medals table in Beijing, but do we really need the EU in the game too.

Georg Dutlik has got his Olympic calculator out and figured that if “all the EU members’ medals in the 2004 summer Olympics in Athens were added up, the EU would have a better count than the United States, Russia and China combined“.

This would mean that “a certain pride in Europe could be created, and an urgently needed positive perception could arise” or we could just renegotiate the Lisbon Treaty and make Europe more just, democratic and relevant to its citizens. Will a medals table do that?

Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams who met French President Nicolcas Sarkozy yesterday in Dublin has floated the idea  a new EU treaty.

In a statement Adams said, “The space and the support for a new treaty clearly exists. If the Irish government were to take a lead in building a political and social alliance for a better deal it would reap substantial dividends both in terms of the content of any new treaty and in its standing among the peoples and governments of the EU“.

German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier disagrees and writing today on the website  of Deutsche Welle the German international radio and TV broadcaster argues that, “We will not give up on the Lisbon Treaty. We want to see the ratification process continued” and that “the Irish ‘no’ should not lead Europe into a cul-de-sac“.

Steinmeier makes the  predictable argument that ratifying Lisbon will make the EU more effeicient, democratic and accountable, a belief only held among the political eites of Europe and not by its people.

I wonder will he read the Financial Times today, it has a fascinating article by Tom Gallagher who is releasing a book next year on Romania’s entry into the EU. In his article titled “How the EU let Romania off” Gallagher alleges that, “Former communists and rogue capitalists who became extraordinarily rich through manipulating an unregulated economic system after 1989 are among the main beneficiaries of the €30bn in structural funds flowing into the country courtesy of the EU taxpayer” and writes of the “EU’s inability to stand up for basic standards of governance” in Romania.

If the claims made by Gallagher are true, its is fair to ask how will the Lisbon treaty deal with such corruption… or can we assume that it won’t and the failures in dealing with their accession in the EU will be replicated in any future EU enlargement process.

It adds up to just one more reason to go back to the drawing board and negotiate a new EU treaty… A better deal is possible!