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
A Better Deal 
If the EU was going to be act on behalf of the Irish, I believe that would include listening to what they have to say.
Does the EU need to be reminded that Ireland is Neutral and plans to remain so, regardless of their attempts to bully.
Besides they would turn the Irish into “front line cannon fodder” (again). Does history need to keep repeating? The Irish have come such a long way to turn back now.
By: k on August 9, 2008
at 10:58 pm
HA! Irish cannon fodder…
The only thing the Lisbon Treaty would change cocnerning defence is that you would have it easier to tell what suggestions are actually being made!
In terms of your voice, why do you think they’re trying to bring in provisions for giving the European Parliament, the national parliaments and citizens more influence.
Honestly, neutrality? What common position did the EU take on Iraq? None. You can have your neutrality, because as much as you’d like to think, the EU can not and does not want to try and act like the US in military attitudes.
Wake up and get over your seperatism.
By: mw on October 30, 2008
at 7:26 am
MW,
Seeing as how Ireland remains extremely positive about the EU and Ireland’s role in the EU I dont think there is any talk of separatism. You may have meant isolationism because separatism implies something else about the relationship between the EU and Ireland.
The treaty makes quite a few changes to the EU’s defense policy – the new treaty provides for an extension of the Petersberg Tasks on peacekeeping, disarmament and conflict prevention and resolution as well as ‘permanent structured cooperation’ of those member states “whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments”.
The text also includes first-ever mutual defence and solidarity clause in an EU treaty.
However note that the full implications of these measures are not even clear to MEPs or EU policy experts as described in the following article.
http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/eu-treaty-impact-defence-policy-remains-unclear/article-170256
I do agree with you that had the treaty been clearer as to what suggestions were being made then the debate would have been much more worthwhile in Ireland and across the EU member states.
By: Jer on November 3, 2008
at 6:08 pm