There’s lots of talk these days about a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. The No side is none too pleased, and wants the result of last June’s vote cast in stone.

Listening to some of the debate over the last few weeks, several contradictions have arisen. Declan Ganely of Libertas wants to halt the march towards a federal Europe and have the Lisbon Treaty replaced by a more concise 15-20 page document, more like the US constitution. However the US constitution is concise precisely because it is for a single, federal, sovereign country. The EU is a collection of sovereign states, which has evolved over the last fifty years or thereabouts.

The No side bemoan the “unelected beureaucrats” of the European Commission, yet are appalled at the idea of “losing our commissioner.” Lisbon proposed maintaining a 15-member commission, with each state appointing a commissioner for two five-year terms out of every three. If we keep the “one member state, one commissioner” model, we will have twenty-seven commissioners. Doing what exactly? The extra twelve commissioners will have to have offices and staff, thus increasing the number of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels poking their noses into our business.

The No side say that a new referendum would fly in the face of democratic principles. “What part of No do you not understand?” being their stunningly unoriginal mantra. Does democracy mean that you can never change your mind? We have precedents for this. The Nice Treaty had two goes before it made it through. Believe it or not, I voted No to Nice first time around. I can’t even remember why I did, but by the time the second referendum came around, I realised that I had made a mistake and I was glad to get the opportunity to put it right. We have had three referenda on abortion, and two on divorce in the last twenty-five years. Bear in mind also that a good chunk of the No vote last June was in protest at the overall policies of the government, which had been elected into office in May 2007. Many of these voters would have voted for Fianna Fáil in May 2007, and were using their ballots as a way of expressing their change of mind.

Tags: lisbon treaty

Graphic created using Google Sketchup

It’s bad enough having the country in a recession. But what’s worse is that we have a government which appears to want to stop us spending money within our economy altogether.

Ask Irish retailers what business is like and nearly every one will say that they are well down on last year. Those that are within an hour’s drive to the border will tell you that trade this year is a disaster. Go to Newry and look at the car park at Sainsbury’s - it will be full of southern reg cars.

Now you can easily point the finger at the retailers themselves and say “Good enough for them. They have been ripping us off for years.” While this may be true to an extent, it is by no means the full story. The cost of doing business in the Republic is much higher than in Northern Ireland. Staff costs, logistics, utilities, local authority charges, etc. are a much bigger share of a southern retail business’s cost base compared to a northern one.

Now that the downturn is upon us, the focus for shoppers is to spend less. With bargains to be had in Northern Ireland (and a Euro that is 27% stronger against Sterling than it was eighteen months ago) it’s no wonder shoppers are flocking over the border in their thousands. Any sensible government would by now have put in place measures to keep these shoppers’ euros on our side of the border, but what has happened is that they have done the opposite.

In October’s Budget, Brian Lenihan raised VAT to 21.5%, applicable from 1 December. So rather than encouraging shoppers to spend in this economy, he is actually enticing them to look elsewhere - i.e. in the North. And then today, Alistair Darling, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought UK VAT down to 15%, making Northern Ireland even more attractive for southern shoppers.

The other factor that is slowly strangling retail in the Republic is the banking crisis. Banks have stopped lending to small businesses, which has completely messed up the cash flow of thousands of retailers. At this time of year, cash flow management is crucial, and if the banks turn off the tap and cancel the overdrafts, then there will be a huge number of retailers in big trouble in the coming weeks. There is potential for a vast number of perfectly viable businesses going to the wall, with thousands of jobs lost. Meanwhile, the government dithers about what to do to stabilise the banks. Answer: look at what others have done, and do something similar.

Brians Cowen and Lenihan have made an almighty hames of this recession so far. They can’t seem to make any timely decisions, and when they do, invariably make the wrong one. But we’re stuck with them for another four years, unless the Greens decide enough is enough and walk out.

Complete, utter, epic FAIL.

I don’t wear a hat, but if I did, I would take it off to Gavin, who called it for Obama back in January of this year (twice), and again in April.

02 January: In a piece entitled “Predictions for 2008”

I’m not going to make any, yet anyway. Dan Drezner does. The biggest surprise? Obama for president. I have a funny feeling he may be right.

Two days later:

Obama, I think, will be in the White House in 2009.

And then on 22 April:

My two cents: Obama will win the primary. He will then go on to win in November. I am considering going to Washington for the result. Though it will be an eventful night no matter who wins.

Well done, sir!

Tags: US Election

The revolution was televised. It was also reported in print, broadcast on radio, live-blogged, vlogged, YouTubed and Twittered.

In your lifetime, you see events unfold in the news that you know will be recorded as turning points when the history books are written. Some are horrific, such as the events of September 11, 2001. Others are joyful, like the release of Nelson Mandela from prison in 1990.

The events of 4/5 November 2008 will be remembered in the latter category. The USA has turned to Senator Barack Obama to repair America’s battered economy and society, and to restore her tarnished reputation in the wider world.



His task will not be easy. Promises are easily made on the stump, but implementing them may not be so easy. A phrase I heard more than once today on radio was “You campaign with poetry and you govern with prose.”

After 9/11, the USA had the goodwill of the rest of the world to count on as it tried to come to terms with what had happened and what it would do in response. President Bush and his neo-con goons ended up squandering that goodwill.

Messages of congratulation are pouring in to the US from all across the world, and this renewed goodwill for America’s new president will give all of us hope for the future.

President-Elect Barack Obama. Dammit, but those words sound good. They will sound better when the “-Elect” bit no longer applies.

Tags: US Election

Take this poll: Gallup Poll Daily tracking from Friday through Sunday finds Barack Obama with a five percentage point lead over John McCain, 50% to 45%, in the presidential preferences of likely voters using Gallup's traditional model.

Look further down, and you’ll find that the margin of error is +/- 2%. So that means that in reality, Obama is no more than 1% ahead of McCain, which is in itself within the margin of error. And that’s before the Bradley Effect is taken into account. Go McCain!!

Believe it or not, Matt Drudge of The Drudge Report makes a living peddling this sort of crap.

Tags: US Election

Paddy Power have already paid out on Obama.

This may well be a bit early to call the whole thing. If a week is a long time in politics, three weeks is three times a long time. Anything can still happen. The Republicans will throw as much shit as possible at Obama in the hope that some of it will stick, and some of it just might. Osama bin Laden might appear in a new video wearing an “Osama 4 Obama ‘08” t-shirt.

But the balance of probability is that Obama will close out the deal. The Republicans are trying to keep the focus off the issues that concern Middle America, and on what they see as the flaws in Obama’s character. Sarah Palin has been doing what she does best, and has the rednecks a-whoopin’ and a-hollerin’ and a-death-threatenin’ whenever she mentions the name of Barack HUSSEIN Obama. But the rednecks aren’t going to be the game breakers in this election. Any Republican who fails to get the redneck vote, especially when the Democrat candidate is black, shouldn’t even bother getting out of bed in the morning.

The issue exercising Middle America these days is not that Obama once stood next to some former 60s radical in a mens’ room in Chicago, exchanging small talk while they both took a piss. People are afraid that they will lose their jobs, their homes and their savings, and will elect the guy most likely to assuage that fear. At the moment, that guy is Barack Obama, who has appeared the more presidential of the two candidates.

Eight years of President Stupidhead W. Idiot has left the USA in a terrible mess. Mired in two seemingly impossible wars, and with a failing economy and a huge budget deficit, it is a huge ask for any single person to sort it out. But can you imagine if a year into a McCain presidency, he becomes incapacitated and Hockey Mom has to take over? It doesn’t even bear thinking about.

Here’s an interesting snippet from the New York Times (Yes, I know. Part of the latte-sippin’, gun-controllin’, creationism-suppressin’, abortion-promotin’, troops-not-supportin’, tax-raisin’, terrorist-appeasin’ East-coast liberal media elite.) If you invested $10,000 in the S&P stock market index in the periods under either Democratic or Republican presidents exclusively since 1929, your investment would have been six times better off under Democrats than Republicans. And that excludes Hoover’s Depression presidency. If you include Hoover, you would have made nearly 30 times the gains under Democrat presidents. [Spotted at Daring Fireball, where John Gruber commented “Facts continue to hold a liberal bias.”]

Tags: US Election

Yup. Osama - I mean Obama (heh!) - is a terrorist alright. It’s his name, see.

[via 23/6]



Also, read this from Bock

Tags: US Election

There is a great quote from Bob Herbert in yesterday’s New York Times regarding the cult of personality that has grown around Sarah Palin:

"For those who haven't noticed, we're electing a president and vice-president, not selecting a winner on 'American Idol'."

Ever since she burst into the world’s consciousness a fortnight ago, Sarah Palin has done exactly what she was supposed to do - keep the focus on the personalities in the race, and away from the issues.

The media love her, even the Eastern Media Elite. Entire forests have been consumed whole to supply the newspapers full of the latest details about her family, her dress sense, her love of guns, etc. And as long as the media continues to concentrate its focus on her, it means that there is less time to talk about the issues facing the USA. This is precisely what the Republicans want to do, because when it comes to policies, the GOP’s cupboard is bare. Up until Palin made her debut, Barack Obama was all over the media and making the poll numbers. He was doing this without having to denigrate his opponent. (Of course, there is a cult of personality around Obama too, but it has almost vanished in the last fortnight.)

During the week, Obama made use of the expression “lipstick on a pig”. At the time, he was talking about the policies of the Republican ticket, and how little they differ from the failed policies of George W Bush. The Reps immediately picked up the “lipstick” reference and spun it as an insult to Palin, thus bring the focus back from issues to personalities - and in particular, that of Sarah Palin - and thus back onto firmer ground for their campaign.

With just under seven weeks to go until polling day, Barack Obama and Joe Biden have a big fight on their hands. Right now, the Republicans are winning the media war hands down, and this all comes down to Sarah Palin. The airtime and column inches she is getting are keeping the Dems off the airwaves and out of the papers, and brings to mind one of Oscar Wilde’s famous sayings:

“The only thing worse that being talked about is not being talked about.”

Tags: US Election

Immigration is a touchy subject at the best of times, and it doesn’t take all that much to have people jumping up and down, pointing fingers and screaming “Racist!!” at political opponents.

It is a serious issue that merits a wide-ranging and open debate, but sadly this has little prospect of happening, because of the tendency for hysteria to drown out rational discussion. It is only in the last ten years or so that we have seen a shift from net emigration to net immigration, and in that time, the number of so-called “non-nationals” (or “foreigners” in the old money) living here is now roughly 10% of the population. Anyone who says that this isn’t an issue for Irish society clearly has their head in the clouds.

A poll published in detail in De Paper today (and touched upon in others) shows that people have concerns about the issue of immigration, with 66% wanting a clampdown on future immigration. Now does that make us a nation of racists? Hardly, given that 54% believe that the immigration experience for Ireland so far has been a largely positive one.

Fine Gael TDs Brian Hayes and Leo Varadkar have both found themselves in hot water recently by airing opinions on the issue. I’m not going to comment much either way on the merits or otherwise of their proposals. The mistake both men made was to use clumsy language. They both used words that have such negative connotations that it immediately brought opprobrium upon both their heads. For Hayes, the offending word was “segregation” and for Varadkar it was “repatriation.”

Segregation is a word that is associated with apartheid in South Africa or with the open racism of the southern states of the US up until the 1960s. But what Hayes was suggesting was that children of immigrants who arrive in a new school in Ireland with little or no English, should initially be given intensive and exclusive teaching of English before they join the mainstream school curriculum.

The word “repatriation” conjures up images of the National Front or the BNP in the UK, demanding that immigrants and even British-born children of immigrants be forcibly sent back to the country of their birth. Leo Varadkar’s proposal was a voluntary scheme for unemployed non-nationals, similar to the one in operation in Spain. Fianna Fáil have jumped upon it and have accused the Dublin TD of racism. Mary Hanafin came to the conclusion that Varadkar had it in for “the Africans.” Her logic was that as it could not apply to immigrants from the EU, then the target had to be “the Africans” and therefore, it was racist.

If we can’t allow ourselves to have a mature and open debate about immigration, without the attendant hysteria, then the issue will fester, as it has done in several European countries already. Here in Ireland, we have the luxury of being able to learn from the mistakes of our EU partners. However if we choose to ignore the lessons that are there to be learned, then we risk making the very same mistakes ourselves. This will benefit nobody, not least the immigrants living among us, and those who will come here in the future.

For observers of the Presidential race in the US, last week was the real high point so far. We had Barack Obama’s coronation at the Democratic convention in Denver, topped off with a fine acceptance speech by the candidate himself. But you can always depend on the GOP to try to steal the Dems’ thunder, and they did just that with the announcement that Sarah Palin was to be John McCain’s running mate.

Straight away, the pundits, amateur and professional were on hand to call the election. Those of a Republican bent were quick to claim that the selection of Palin for VP was a masterstroke and that the McCain/Palin ticket will hoover up swathes of disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters. Democratic-minded analysts pointed out that Palin’s lack of experience, coupled with McCain’s age, would be the Achilles Heel of the Republican campaign. A VP who two years ago was mayor of a town of 6000 people would be a heartbeat away from the most powerful political job on earth, and a 72-year-old heartbeat at that.

This is all too simplistic by far. The Republicans’ hopes of converting hordes of Clintonistas meets one considerable obstacle - Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin may have their gender in common, but they have precious little else. Clinton is a blue-state liberal and Democratic Party royalty, while Palin is a red-state conservative and was hardly known outside of Alaska until last Friday. Equally, the Democrats would be wise not to point too much at Palin’s lack of experience, as it might reflect unkindly upon the lightweight CV of their own main candidate.

But the main reason that this election cannot yet be called with any certainty is because there are nine weeks to go and anything can happen. Revelations can come to light that could undermine either of the camps. We saw that today, with the news that Mrs Palin’s 17-year-old unmarried daughter is five months pregnant. (She is, we are told, going to marry her boyfriend. Mommy’s lifetime membership of the NRA presumably makes access to the necessary shotgun somewhat easier.) You can be sure that the attack dogs in the right-wing media and blogs will be sniffing around for anything that could knock the wheels off the Obama chariot. Expect to see wingnut pols and hacks being interviewed and making slips like “Well, according to Senator Osama - I mean Senator Obama (heh) himself…” etc.

One thing’s for sure. It’s going to be a dirty fight.

Over at Irish Election, in a comment from some dude called ‘Future Taoiseach’:

A once democraric union of cooperating nation states has crossed the line into coercion and dictatorship. As in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, your vote is not respected unless you vote ‘the right way’.

Indeed. Why, only this evening, I saw a marauding gang of veterans of the Maastricht and Nice campaigns burn a family of “No” voters out of their home in Bracklone Street here in Portarlington.

Tags: lisbon treaty

The result of the referendum was not unexpected, but it is still depressing all the same.

The usual clichés were being trotted out on the airwaves all day:

“The people have spoken and we must respect their decision…”
“Now is not the time for recriminations or assigning blame…”
“We must now reflect on what the people have said…”

Blah, blah, blah.

Two things swung this referendum result - ineptitude on the Yes side and lies on the No side.

The No campaign was well under way before the political establishment got its act together. By the time they shook off their ennui, the best the Yes crowd could do was to try to fight an EU referendum campaign assuming that Ireland’s enthusiasm for the EU from times past was still intact. How wrong they were. Their posters were crap, ranging from bland platitudes to “get to know you” opportunities for the candidates in next year’s local and Euro elections. In debates they were forced onto the back foot by a No campaign that had no compunction about lying repeatedly. Then there was the infighting, with public squabbles between the various pro-Lisbon parties.

What they should have done from the outset was pool their resources and establish one strong Yes campaign, with the focus on the issues and not the personalities. The treaty was always going to be a difficult sell, as the issues involved didn’t resonate with people’s everyday lives. The Yes campaign failed to make the treaty relevant enough to the electorate to motivate them to vote for it.

In contrast, all the No campaign had to do was to raise as many spectres as it could to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of the electorate. It didn’t matter how they did this, as the end justified the means. So they presented a campaign that ranged from what could be called “creative interpretation” of the treaty to outright lies. Tax, neutrality, abortion, worker’s rights, etc., it didn’t matter - just keep spreading the shit and some of it would eventually stick.

What’s disappointing is that no-one on the Yes side had the balls to nail these lies at source. Rather than getting bogged down in technical arguments with sloganeering opponents, it might have been more productive to just call the lies as they emerged. Rather than trying to explain the ins and outs of QMV, or the Maastricht protocol or whatever, it might have been more productive to just say to the naysayer: “We have explained time and time again that the concerns you raise have been addressed. Why do you persist in repeating these unfounded misrepresentations/lies?” Forcing them on to the defensive and making them justify their point of view would have stopped their lies in their tracks.

But that’s all the realm of “what if” now. The referendum has been lost and we must move on to salvage something from the wreckage. Ireland’s political capital in the EU has plummetted in value, and it is now up to Brian Cowen and the rest of the government to restore our reputation as an enthusiastic member of the EU club. It won’t be easy. Neither will it be easy to explain to our EU partners why Ireland rejected the treaty. A lot of the critical detail of the treaty was actually won by the doggedness of the Irish negotiators on behalf of the smaller states, such as the rotating commission arrangement. Originally, the bigger states would have a permanent place on the commission, with the smaller states rotating. Irish intervention changed that to all states regardless of size having to share and concede time on the commission. (Not that it really matters anyway, as commissioners represent their portfolios within the EU, not the states from which they come.)

Still, we can always look on the bright side. At least the threat of the New World Order as outlined by Jim Corr has been averted. (YouTube audio link.)

Tags: lisbon treaty

Last night, I posted my reasons for voting Yes to the Lisbon Treaty this Thursday.

Since then the issue of renegotiating the Treaty has come up again, so I’m going to hammer a few more nails into this one.

As I said last night, if Ireland rejects the Treaty and is forced to go back to renegotiate it, this will have to be done by the very people who negotiated it in the first place. Some naysayers seem to think that we will be in a position of strength in this situation, given our requirement for a referendum in order to pass the Treaty into Irish law.

This is utter horseshit. If we do that, we will be sending our representatives back into the negotiating chamber on their knees. As far as our EU partners are concerned, our negotiators were satisfied with what they got last time round, especially given the fact that the bulk of the negotiations were done on our patch, during our presidency of the EU in 2004. Those opt-outs, protocols and clauses that we gained in the original round of negotiations were the result of hard bargaining, and not everyone was happy that we got them. So if we go back looking for more, we would more than likely end up with less than we had originally.

What is this “better deal” that Libertas, Sinn Féin, Kathy SInnott MEP, et al seem to think we can extract from our EU partners? The simple fact is that it doesn’t exist. The lake of goodwill in today’s EU is not particulaly deep and if we think we can send our horses to drink from it having first let them trample over everyoines else’s flowerbeds, we’ll soon find out that it has dried up.

Even in the best case scenario, whereby we actually come through a renegotiating process with a treaty that is no worse than the one we have now (we will not get a better one, remember), there is every likelihood that the very same hurlers in the ditch will come out and oppose that one too.

In simple terms - this is the best deal we’re going to get. Let’s take it and move on.

Tags: lisbon treaty

On Thursday, I will get up at some ungodly hour and make my way to Dublin Airport to catch a 6.30am flight to the UK for a meeting. I should be back in Dublin about 12 hours later, so there will still be plenty of time before the polling stations close to go and cast my vote.

And if you hadn’t worked it out by now, that vote will be a Yes. I’m voting Yes for several reasons:

• I believe that this treaty is a positive step forward for the EU.
• It brings reform to where it is needed.
• Ireland’s specific concerns have been addressed (even though I’m not bothered about one or two of them.)
• I am satisfied that Ireland’s sovereignty will not be compromised by this treaty.

Furthermore, I simply don’t believe the arguments put about by the various No campaigners. The tax issue is one. We retain a veto on the issue of Corporation Tax. It won’t change unless we agree to it.

The commissioner issue is nonsense. You would swear listening to the arguments that Ireland was the only state that was due to lose a commissioner in the rotation. It will affect every member state. Furthermore, commissioners do not represent their own states’ interests at the commission table. They are there to manage a portfolio without fear or favour to any member state, their own included. To say that each member state has to have a representative commissioner at all times is like saying that every constituency in Ireland has to have a representative minister in the Cabinet. Ireland’s interests will be represented by the Council of Ministers, The European Council (Heads of Government), and the European Parliament. All of these bodies are made up of people who have either been elected to their national parliaments, or directly to the European Parliament itself. Unlike commissioners, who are appointed.

Finally, there is the notion going around that if we reject the Lisbon Treaty, we can somehow negotiate a better deal for Ireland. This gibberish is being peddled by Sinn Féin and also by Kathy Sinnott MEP. So let’s say we do reject it. Who is going to have to go back to our EU partners to renegotiate it? One thing’s for sure, it won’t be the Shinners, or Kathy Sinnott, or any of the other naysayers. It will be the government, the very people who negotiated this deal in the first place, and who are trying to convince the electorate that this deal is the best Ireland can get.

If you can’t make up your mind, or if you feel you don’t understand what it’s all about, I would recommend that you read the Referendum Commission booklet that was delivered to every household in the State. If you can’t get hold of that, they have a website lisbontreaty2008.ie

Tags: lisbon treaty

This is class - The Treaty Of Lisbon, A Spoofer’s Guide To How Not To Vote No.

via Conor.

Tags: lisbon treaty

This sort of stuff is a piece of piss to do.

Tags: lisbon treaty

…is Bertie deliberately spinning completely bullshit stories to demonstrate his contempt for the Mahon Tribunal? I mean, come on - winning eight grand on some bag of bones in the 2.30 at Chepstow?

Double you tea eff, like?

Over the last week or so, I got the distinct impression that the tide has been turning in favour of the anti-Lisbon point of view. This evening that hunch has been confirmed, as a poll in tomorrow’s Irish Times shows that the No vote is five points ahead of the Yes vote.

If this follows through to polling day, it will be a disaster for both the government and the main opposition parties. So far they have allowed the No campaign to gain the upper hand and instil the necessary FUD into the minds of the electorate (well, those voters who are going to bother their arses to vote, at least.)

So where has it all gone wrong? They say that a lie gets half way around the world before the truth gets its boots on, and this is true in this case. The Yes campaign have not had a chance to fight this campaign on their own terms, as they have been forced to spend their time and resources denying the claims of the No side. Whatever the issue, be it taxation, neutrality, workers’ rights, the democratic deficit or abortion, the Yes campaign were forced to firefight. But it didn’t matter, because the seed of doubt has already been sown.

The treaty is a difficult sell for the Yes campaign, as it falls foul of the old maxim that all politics are local. The beneficiary of this treaty is the EU as a whole, and is is difficult to point to any aspect within it that is of direct benefit to Ireland specifically. But it is easy to spin a negative interpretation of it, and point to aspects of it that could possibly be to Ireland’s detriment.

To add to the Yes side’s woes is the general sense of apathy among the electorate. A common reaction is to claim not to understand the treaty (a seam well-mined by the No side), and thus not to bother voting at all. Given that the No side probably have a more motivated constituency, this will work in their favour.

Even taking into account the the difficulty in selling the positives of the treaty, the Yes campaign has been very wishy-washy. “Good for Ireland, Good for Europe” claim Fianna Fáil. Bland, bland, bland. Fine Gael and Labour used the campaign as an opportunity to introduce their candidates for the 2009 local and European elections. Labour’s campaign especially was a disgrace, as you really had to look closely for their message regarding this campaign. Where a lamp post had one poster with a photo of Eamon Gilmore making a profound political point, and another one claiming that we are going to pay more tax because of the Lisbon Treaty, there was only ever going to be one winner.

The Yes campaign have six days to turn this around. They need to promote this as a way of showing that Ireland is a team player in Europe. They need to definitively nail the lies from Libertas, Coir and the rest of the FUD-merchants.

I’m voting Yes and I hope that it passes, but my hopes are below my expectations.

See also Bock and Irish Election

Tags: lisbon treaty

The current Lisbon Treaty referendum campaign is turning out to be one of the dirtiest in years. On the one side we have all of the mainstream political parties, IBEC, Alliance for Europe, etc. On the other side we have all the perennial anti-EU treaty stalwarts like Sinn Féin, the Socialist Party, various trade unions; alongside newer and slicker organisations such as Libertas.

Whichever side of the argument you are on, it's going to be a hard sell. Few people are going to go to the trouble of actually reading the treaty itself, and those that attempt to do so will probably give up after page 2 or 3. It's not a page turner, it's a complex legal text, that is also an amending treaty to other already established treaties.

Now that the campaign proper has gotten underway, it would appear that both sides are trying to use FUD as a tactic to get their message across. The Yes campaign is trying to frighten us into believing that a No vote will isolate us from the EU beltway. their themes include threats to jobs and investment. All utter crap. If we reject it, the worst we will face is having to vote on it again, à la Nice.

The No side are tripping over themselves to paint the Doomsday scenario of an Ireland at the heel of a Euro superstate. There are posters and leaflets out there that are frankly disgraceful. Here's a selection, collated by blogging solicitor Simon McGarr. (The one used to illustrate this page is from that stream, published under a Cretive Commons licence.) Why bother trying to argue against what's in the treaty, when it's so much easier to spread the FUD with what's not in the treaty?

It's going to be a long few weeks, I think.

Tags: lisbon treaty

It had to happen. A local protest group has hitched their trailer to the anti-Lisbon Treaty wagon. Activists in Roscommon campaigning for the retention of hospital services in the county town have urged their supporters to reject the Lisbon Treaty as a way of getting the government's attention.

Now I am glad that Ireland has a written constitution, even when it means holding a referendum on something or other almost every year. However, it does leave us vulnerable to political gobshitery such as this. We are the only electorate in the 27-member EU who will have the privilege of voting on whether or not we approve of the Lisbon Treaty. Therefore we should cast our vote based on our opinion of the treaty, and that alone. Using it as a proxy to highlight a completely separate issue is immature and an abuse of the democratic right we are privileged to possess.

Tags: lisbon treaty

I got the news of Bertie's falling on his sword as I queued up for the Ryanair flight to Verona from Stansted. As a result I missed all the fall-out, as I had no internet connectivity except for my Nokia E65, and I wasn't planning on paying outrageous data roaming rates.

It was the right thing for Ahern to do, of course. But he should have done it ages ago and sorted out his dealings with the Tribunal away from the pressures of the office of Taoiseach. But it seems that he thought he could brazen it out, and if he kept stonewalling or running to the High Court to try to stymie the Tribunal's work, then it might leave him alone. But it was the evidence of Grainne Carruth that brought him down in the end.

So now, assuming I'm still living in Laois in 2012, and that the county will still be spliced to Offaly for electoral purposes, I'll once again have the opportunity to cast my vote for an outgoing Taoiseach in a general election, as I had in 2002. And didn't take up.

The longer Bertie Ahern allows his difficulties with the Mahon Tribunal to continue, the worse it becomes for everyone involved.

The by now familiar dance goes like this:

- Tribunal uncovers new evidence that appears to contradict previous evidence given by Ahern.
- Opposition parties, media commentators, etc. call for clarification of previous evidence.
- Cabinet colleague sent out to bat for Taoiseach, attacking Tribunal.
- Useful fools like Jackie Healey-Rae (Audio link to Morning Ireland interview) and Eoghan Harris offer their tuppenceworth in support.
- Ahern says he will clarify evidence the next time he attends to give evidence.
- A legal challenge to the Tribunal may feature at some point in the process.

This time it's more serious for Bertie, as now we are hearing the calls for clarification coming from his coalition partners as well as the opposition. We're also hearing more trenchant calls for his resignation, or at least for him to set a date, as the Irish Times did last Saturday.

Given that he won't be before the Tribunal again until May, waiting until his next appearance for clarification simply isn't good enough. What will show up next?

Des O'Neill: So, Mr Ahern, can you explain this substantial lodgement to your account on 14 June 1993?
Bertie Ahern: Well, you see, I won de-de-de-de-de Lotto around dat, eh, time…
O'Neill: And this one here a week later?
Bertie: …twice.

By allowing this charade to drag on, Ahern is undermining the office of Taoiseach, his government, his own party, the credibility of his ministers, and his own legacy. The referendum of the Lisbon Treaty is also in danger of being undermined, as it could easily end up as a referendum on Bertie. (We had an opportunity to vote in that particular referendum last year. It was called the General Election, and we fluffed it.)

He should go, so that this matter no longer distracts from the business of being Taoiseach. He's been in the job for almost eleven years. If he thinks he can present entirely innocent explanations for his varied transactions, then he should do it and get all of this sorted out. If he can manage to wriggle his way out of all of this, then he can be sure that a plum job in the European Commission or elsewhere will await him. If he can't, well that's his own doing. He should stop taking us for fools and move to sort his difficulties with the Tribunal as a matter of urgency.

By the way, if you didn't see the Late Late Show last Friday night, there was a wonderful moment when Eamon Dunphy nailed Eoghan Harris to the wall. I'm not a fan of Eamo by any means, but this was great.

Today, the third report in to the breast cancer misdiagnosis scandal at the Midlands Hospital in Portlaoise was published. The best Mary Harney (Health Minister) and Brendan Drumm (head honcho of the Health Service Executive) could do was say "Sorry". (When I heard that it reminded me of an episode of Father Ted, when Father Jack is ordered to apologise to Bishop Brennan for exclaiming "arse biscuits!" in his episcopal presence.)



The big problem with or health service is that it is a power struggle between competing vested interests, but the sector that relies upon it - the patients - are the ones with no power at all. The medical and administrative staff can withdraw their labour if they can't get what they want. The government and HSE can withdraw funding or close down services if they don't get their way. But what can the patients do? Sod all, in truth. They can't withdraw their illnesses and injuries. About the only thing they can do is try to shame the system and its people into doing what is right. But only so many people can talk to Joe. So for every misdiagnosed cancer patient that manages to scramble onto the radar of the national consciousness, there are dozens more whose voices remain unheard and whose health, or even lives, are at risk.

So sorry, Mary, I don't buy your act of contrition. You and your buddies in FF have had eleven years to sort this mess out. The only thing of significance that you have done is to create the HSE, whose only function seems to be as a convenient target of blame for shortcomings within the service.

In recent weeks, Tánaiste Brian Cowen (of this parish, sorta) has been sent out several times to bat in defence of Don Bertione. When answering opposition criticism of the Taoiseach, especially from Enda Kenny, he describes Fine Gael as a party that was "rejected by the electorate."

Let's examine this claim. In 2007, Fine Gael won 51 seats, up 20 from 31. Fianna Fáil won 78 seats, down three from 81.

What are Biffo's criteria for defining "rejected"? On the face of it, it looks like being simply unable to cobble together the numbers to form a government. So does that mean that the government parties have been decisively endorsed by the electorate? The PDs still have a cabinet minister, even though they only have two TDs now, having lost six of the eight that were elected to the 29th Dáil. Even the Greens didn't manage to increase their representation in the 30th Dáil, flatlining with six TDs.

The reality is that no one party was either decisively endorsed or rejected. Due to the fractured nature of our party political system, parties that have seemingly been endorsed by the electorate can end up in opposition; while those that have been rejected can end up in government.

The Irish Times motoring section led with a piece last week about the failure of the the Government and the Road Safety Authority to implement their much-vaunted speed camera project. Under the original plan, 600 speed cameras would have been installed on the country's roads. The installation and maintenance of the camera network was to have been contracted out to the private sector. However, it is believed now that the initial costs envisaged were radically underestimated, and so the prospect is much less tempting for any putative operator.

Needless to say, there has been great wringing of hands by the great and the good as a result. But to me, this is a victory for common sense. As evidence from other jurisdictions has shown, speed cameras are far more limited in their effectiveness at reducing road fatalities than we are led to believe.

"Speeding" can take one of two forms. It can mean (a) driving at a speed that is too fast for the road or the prevailing conditions (fog, ice, etc.), or (b) exceeding an arbitrary speed limit on a stretch of road. In some cases, an instance of speeding might be both of these combined, but usually it is one or the other. Situation (a) above is obviously dangerous, whereas situation (b) may not necessarily be. Yet speeding detection and prosecution is carried out pretty much exclusively on the basis of the latter scenario.

To implement a credible speed control regime on the national roads, the authorities must first sort out the speed limits themselves. They had the opportunity to do this in 2005, when we changed from miles-per-hour to kilometres-per-hour speed limits, but this was botched. Uniform speed limits are applied to non-uniform roads. If you drive from Cahir to Portlaoise on the N8, you will see what I mean. From Cahir to just north of Cashel, you have a dual carriageway, built to motorway standards. From then on, it is mostly a wide single carriageway, with hard shoulders. But once you get past Abbeyleix it is a narrow, twisting road, the sort you might expect to be designated as an "R" road. Yet for the entire length of that journey (stretches through towns, villages and roadworks excepted), the speed limit is a standard 100 km/h. Now, for some of that road, the speed limit is too low, and for other parts of it, it is too high. On the dual carriageway part, it is arguably safe to drive at 120 km/h (the arbitrary speed limit for a motorway in Ireland.) On the narrow, twisty part, driving at 100km/h is arguably too fast. However, you risk prosecution for the former, even though the latter is more dangerous.

Consider also, regional roads and their speed limits. Once again, we have a one-size-fits-all policy. There are a number of "R" roads that are former national routes, and are good wide roads and would be safe for 100 km/h. One that springs to mind is the dual carriageway between Naas and Newbridge, or long stretches of the old N1. Then we have roads that are little better than goat-tracks, some of which cannot accommodate two cars passing one another without one having to pull in. Whereas it is safe to drive on the former in excess of the prescribed 80km/h, it would be an act of unbridled lunacy to attempt the same speed on the latter. (The original version of the image above can be seen at IrishSpeedTraps.com)

Speed limits on all roads are fixed, irrespective of the prevailing driving conditions. 120km/h on a motorway with clear visibility may be safe, but in fog or torrential rain it is not. Last March, there was a multiple vehicle pile-up on the M7 in Kildare in which a young woman lost her life. Eyewitness reports told of drivers tearing along the motorway at speeds well in excess of what was safe, yet most of them would probably have been under the speed limit.

The other question that needs to be asked is how much exactly does excessive speed contribute exclusively to accidents. I would guess that it is a lot less than we are led to believe. Yes it is a factor, but it is often in addition to another factor, like intoxication or inexperience or fatigue. Several fatal accidents involve a single vehicle, late at night, with a young driver. Yes, he may have been going too fast, but he could have been drunk or on drugs, or have fallen asleep at the wheel, or just not have the experience to handle the speed he was doing.

Speed detection is done on the basis of whatever the prescribed limit is for the road in question. Whether the driver is driving safely or not is not considered. So you could happily drive at 120km/h on the Fermoy bypass (a motorway) without fear of prosecution, yet if you drive at that speed on the stretch of the N8 between Watergrasshill and the Dunkettle interchange you risk prosecution, even though the standard of the road is exactly the same as the M8.

The other major problem I have with the speed camera initiative is that it was to be installed and run by a private company. Private companies have two motives - to make a profit, and to have that profit grow each year. I'm not criticising that, as that is what private companies do. But the purpose of speed cameras is to reduce the number of people "speeding". So if fewer people are speeding, that means that revenues should be decreasing each year. To counteract this the company operating the cameras would have to install cameras at "softer" locations (like the aforementioned stretch of the N8 in north Cork, or on the N6 between Kinnegad and Kilbeggan, or on the N11 between the Glen of the Downs and Wicklow, or on the Gorey bypass, etc., etc.) in order to keep revenues up. Instead of prosecuting unsafe driving, they would be persecuting drivers who happened to be exceeding an artificially low limit, but were still driving safely. It would lose credibility very quickly.

The issue of speed and road safety is a lot more complex than is often presented. It requires a fine balance between credible speed limits and effective enforcement. Speed cameras, particularly privatised ones, are a blunt instrument, and we are better off without them.

Leinster House is to undergo some renovation work shortly, and to facilitate this, Seanad Éireann is to temporarily relocate to the Natural History Museum. The Dáil is to stay put, but if it happens that it is required to move, then I reckon its temporary home should be the Gaiety Theatre.

The Gaiety is a very traditional style of theatre, and I always think that it bears a striking resemblance to the theatre of The Muppet Show.

Which begs the question - which politician best matches the various characters in the show?

Kermit - Bertie (or possibly John Gormley, being Green and all that.)
Miss Piggy - Mary Harney
Sam the Eagle - Enda Kenny
Animal - Conor Lenihan
Gonzo - Willie O'Dea
Scooter - Pat Rabbitte
Beaker - John O'Donoghue
Thog - Brian Cowen

Any more suggestions?

In the meantime: