This news from Europe:
Berlin - The German government is firmly against applying pressure to Ireland over the ratification of the European Union's reform treaty following the Irish no in a referendum last week, government officials said Wednesday.
Speaking ahead of an EU summit in Brussels Thursday and Friday, the German officials said Ireland had to be given time to analyze and assess the situation.
[T]he German officials said Ireland had to be given time to analyze and assess the situation.
“We are not going to point a pistol at them,” a high-ranking source said. “We must give the Irish government time to consult.” (“Germany says no pressure must be put on Ireland over Lisbon Treaty”)
Considering how literal talk of pointing a pistol at another country by German officials was only as recently as 1938, I’d say Germany has made some real progress.
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Go, Irish!
I’m not referring to any teams associated with the South Bend institution another State over from here.
Rather, I’m tipping my cap to the real Irish, who’ve just told the rest of Europe, (or at least their respective Parliaments), where to head in.
I’m referring to the Lisbon Treaty, hurtling along to ratification by 26 members of the 27-nation EU, until 1.5 million Irish voters said, "No."
I won’t pretend to know a great deal about either the Lisbon Treaty, being pushed on all member nations by the EU, nor on what its actual impact on Ireland would have been. Some said it would force Ireland to bring its abortion laws and other national values into line with the rest of liberal Europe. Others said that wasn't true, just a misstatement of the facts. Some Irish were concerned that their constitution would have to change.
But, whatever it would have done if adopted,the really interesting thing about the Lisbon Treaty is that Europe's voters, with the exception of tiny Ireland, (4 million people), aren’t being allowed to vote on it for themselves. Rather,
All other EU members are ratifying it only through their national governments, but Ireland is constitutionally obliged to subject all EU treaties to a popular vote. The unexpectedly strong "no" result announced Friday should act as a veto. (“Europe's would-be voters view Irish 'no' to EU treaty with far less surprise than leaders”).
This No vote caused EU leaders to freak out. “Refusing to take Ireland's no for an answer, leading politicians in Berlin and Paris prepared for a crucial EU summit in Brussels this week by trying to ringfence the Irish, while demanding that the reform treaty be ratified by the rest of the EU.” (“EU powers try to isolate Ireland after treaty defeat”).
The European press consistently explains the Lisbon Treaty as having been “drawn up to replace the draft European constitution after it was thrown out by voters in France and the Netherlands in 2005.”
Except, never having been ratified, the draft European constitution never was adopted, and so doesn’t need replacing. What actually is going on is that the parties who wanted it, and then didn't get it, came up with the Lisbon Treaty as a way to get it anyway, in spite of what the Europeans wanted.
Which isn't really very democratic.
Ireland's leaders were calling for a "Yes" vote, and were right on the same page with the rest of the EU leaders about getting the treaty passed. But the Irish voters' rejection of the treaty struck a chord with the rest of the European folks in the street.
Citizens across the bloc complain they have no direct power to influence EU treaties, which are produced in legal language too complex to understand. They say it's not enough that their elected governments help to negotiate such treaties.
Would-be voters in France and the Netherlands appear particularly annoyed on that score. Majorities there thought they had registered powerful statements against EU accountability by rejecting the EU's proposed constitution in 2005.
Instead, most of the constitution's rules for reshaping EU institutions and decision-making procedures reappeared in new packaging two years later when all 27 governments signed the Lisbon Treaty in the Portuguese capital.
"First they asked our opinion (on the constitution), and we said 'no.' So the second time they didn't ask our opinion. They said it wasn't the same; just some little laws. But it is the same," said Han de Vries, a parking meter attendant in Amsterdam.
"Now the Irish have said "no." So in Brussels they will now look again for a way and pass it anyhow," de Vries said. ("Europe's would-be voters view Irish 'no' to EU treaty with far less surprise than leaders").
In Ireland, the No voters just couldn’t see approving something they didn't completely understand, with consequences they couldn’t really predict.
And they don't like being bullied.
Primary school teacher Deirdre Nic Eanruig described the Treaty as an obscure document.
"Europe already has too much power in Ireland and I think we are giving away all our power," she said.
"This restricts our power, we won't have a Commissioner anymore, and we would also be stopped from having a referendum anymore. The European courts will also decide much more of our laws, which is very dangerous.
"I think we were being bullied by a lot of the politicians and the governments. They may be Europe's puppets but we're not."
John McDonald, 51, said a No vote was the best option.
"I do not like having my arm twisted, I do not like being threatened, and I do not like the way the EU is run," he said.
"The Government are puppets of Brussels, implementing policies made by Brussels.
"I'm also against the EU commissioners who are not elected but have all the power."
Anne Kelly cast her No vote to protect Ireland's rights.
"From talking to people around the village, everyone said they were voting No." (“EU referendum: Irish voters stand up to Brussels”).
Rather, I’m tipping my cap to the real Irish, who’ve just told the rest of Europe, (or at least their respective Parliaments), where to head in.
I’m referring to the Lisbon Treaty, hurtling along to ratification by 26 members of the 27-nation EU, until 1.5 million Irish voters said, "No."
I won’t pretend to know a great deal about either the Lisbon Treaty, being pushed on all member nations by the EU, nor on what its actual impact on Ireland would have been. Some said it would force Ireland to bring its abortion laws and other national values into line with the rest of liberal Europe. Others said that wasn't true, just a misstatement of the facts. Some Irish were concerned that their constitution would have to change.
But, whatever it would have done if adopted,the really interesting thing about the Lisbon Treaty is that Europe's voters, with the exception of tiny Ireland, (4 million people), aren’t being allowed to vote on it for themselves. Rather,
All other EU members are ratifying it only through their national governments, but Ireland is constitutionally obliged to subject all EU treaties to a popular vote. The unexpectedly strong "no" result announced Friday should act as a veto. (“Europe's would-be voters view Irish 'no' to EU treaty with far less surprise than leaders”).
This No vote caused EU leaders to freak out. “Refusing to take Ireland's no for an answer, leading politicians in Berlin and Paris prepared for a crucial EU summit in Brussels this week by trying to ringfence the Irish, while demanding that the reform treaty be ratified by the rest of the EU.” (“EU powers try to isolate Ireland after treaty defeat”).
The European press consistently explains the Lisbon Treaty as having been “drawn up to replace the draft European constitution after it was thrown out by voters in France and the Netherlands in 2005.”
Except, never having been ratified, the draft European constitution never was adopted, and so doesn’t need replacing. What actually is going on is that the parties who wanted it, and then didn't get it, came up with the Lisbon Treaty as a way to get it anyway, in spite of what the Europeans wanted.
Which isn't really very democratic.
Ireland's leaders were calling for a "Yes" vote, and were right on the same page with the rest of the EU leaders about getting the treaty passed. But the Irish voters' rejection of the treaty struck a chord with the rest of the European folks in the street.
Citizens across the bloc complain they have no direct power to influence EU treaties, which are produced in legal language too complex to understand. They say it's not enough that their elected governments help to negotiate such treaties.
Would-be voters in France and the Netherlands appear particularly annoyed on that score. Majorities there thought they had registered powerful statements against EU accountability by rejecting the EU's proposed constitution in 2005.
Instead, most of the constitution's rules for reshaping EU institutions and decision-making procedures reappeared in new packaging two years later when all 27 governments signed the Lisbon Treaty in the Portuguese capital.
"First they asked our opinion (on the constitution), and we said 'no.' So the second time they didn't ask our opinion. They said it wasn't the same; just some little laws. But it is the same," said Han de Vries, a parking meter attendant in Amsterdam.
"Now the Irish have said "no." So in Brussels they will now look again for a way and pass it anyhow," de Vries said. ("Europe's would-be voters view Irish 'no' to EU treaty with far less surprise than leaders").
In Ireland, the No voters just couldn’t see approving something they didn't completely understand, with consequences they couldn’t really predict.
And they don't like being bullied.
Primary school teacher Deirdre Nic Eanruig described the Treaty as an obscure document.
"Europe already has too much power in Ireland and I think we are giving away all our power," she said.
"This restricts our power, we won't have a Commissioner anymore, and we would also be stopped from having a referendum anymore. The European courts will also decide much more of our laws, which is very dangerous.
"I think we were being bullied by a lot of the politicians and the governments. They may be Europe's puppets but we're not."
John McDonald, 51, said a No vote was the best option.
"I do not like having my arm twisted, I do not like being threatened, and I do not like the way the EU is run," he said.
"The Government are puppets of Brussels, implementing policies made by Brussels.
"I'm also against the EU commissioners who are not elected but have all the power."
Anne Kelly cast her No vote to protect Ireland's rights.
"From talking to people around the village, everyone said they were voting No." (“EU referendum: Irish voters stand up to Brussels”).
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Iran: Praying For Obama
By Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
We live in a dangerous world. According to the European Union, that world will become exponentially more dangerous in the coming years. An internal EU document leaked to the Financial Times states that Iran will likely go nuclear in the near future. "Attempts to engage the Iranian administration in a negotiating process have so far not succeeded," says the document. "At some stage we must expect that Iran will acquire the capacity to enrich uranium on the scale required for a weapons programme." The document also suggests that economic sanctions will be useless.
What is to be done? The European Union, as usual, has decided to stick its collective head in the sand. No surprise there. If Iran is to be stopped, of course, it will not be the EU that takes the leadership role -- it will have to be the United States. "The price of greatness is responsibility," explained Winston Churchill. The price of global leadership is global leadership.
Unfortunately, we are currently mired in an existential crisis of our own. The war in Iraq has undermined the will to use military force, even when military force is necessary. Just because we did not find massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq does not mean Iran is benign. Yet, like the Western powers after World War I, we prefer to watch as our enemies re-arm rather than stopping them when we can. The results, as they were in 1939, will be devastating.
All of which makes the presidential election of 2008 the most important election in recent memory. America teeters on the brink of a crippling European post-modernism.
The political embodiment of that post-modernism -- that nihilistic resignation -- is the modern Democratic Party. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democrats' bright new star, is no more capable of global leadership than Jacques Chirac. Obama's politics of "understanding" dictates that evil cannot be fought -- it must be placated with psychobabble.
In his new forward to "Dreams From My Father," Obama writes, "I know, I have seen, the desperation and disorder of the powerless: how it twists the lives of children on the streets of Jakarta or Nairobi how easily they slip into violence and despair. I know that the response of the powerful to this disorder -- alternating as it does between a dull complacency and, when the disorder spills out of its proscribed confines, a stead unthinking application of force, of more sophisticated military hardware -- is inadequate to the task." This sounds like boilerplate rhetoric. It is not. It is the theory of appeasement, stated clearly and succinctly.
Obama's adolescent insistence that everything can be talked out is matched in its idiocy only by his adolescent scorn for military sacrifice in general. In a speech in Iowa on February 11, Obama stated, "We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged -- and to which we have now spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted." Wasted. This is the language of MoveOn.org, the language of Democratic Underground, the language of the 1960s radicals Obama claims to deplore.
This was no isolated incident. It reflects what Obama believes. After Obama sponsored legislation mandating a full troop withdrawal from Iraq by March 2008, Australian Prime Minister John Howard lashed out. Al Qaeda, Howard said, would be "praying as many times as possible" for Obama's election in 2008. Obama's response was breathtakingly ignorant and immature: If Howard is "ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq," spat Obama, "I would suggest that he call up another 20,000 Australians and send them to Iraq. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."
There are currently over 1,400 Australian troops dispatched to Iraq. Howard has a legitimate reason to declaim Obama's politics: His country has hundreds of troops on the ground, and American policy affects those troops. For Obama to dismiss Howard's opinion by insulting Australia's sacrifice is outrageous.
And yet it is Barack Obama -- a man who sees aloe vera as an actual foreign relations strategy, who routinely derides military sacrifice -- whom the Democrats put forth as their hot new candidate for the 2008 presidential nomination.
Will America join Europe, sticking its head in the sand, enabling Islamism by ignoring it? Iran certainly hopes so. Like Al Qaeda, Iran's leaders must be praying every day that Americans turn to a candidate like Barack Obama.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
We live in a dangerous world. According to the European Union, that world will become exponentially more dangerous in the coming years. An internal EU document leaked to the Financial Times states that Iran will likely go nuclear in the near future. "Attempts to engage the Iranian administration in a negotiating process have so far not succeeded," says the document. "At some stage we must expect that Iran will acquire the capacity to enrich uranium on the scale required for a weapons programme." The document also suggests that economic sanctions will be useless.
What is to be done? The European Union, as usual, has decided to stick its collective head in the sand. No surprise there. If Iran is to be stopped, of course, it will not be the EU that takes the leadership role -- it will have to be the United States. "The price of greatness is responsibility," explained Winston Churchill. The price of global leadership is global leadership.
Unfortunately, we are currently mired in an existential crisis of our own. The war in Iraq has undermined the will to use military force, even when military force is necessary. Just because we did not find massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq does not mean Iran is benign. Yet, like the Western powers after World War I, we prefer to watch as our enemies re-arm rather than stopping them when we can. The results, as they were in 1939, will be devastating.
All of which makes the presidential election of 2008 the most important election in recent memory. America teeters on the brink of a crippling European post-modernism.
The political embodiment of that post-modernism -- that nihilistic resignation -- is the modern Democratic Party. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democrats' bright new star, is no more capable of global leadership than Jacques Chirac. Obama's politics of "understanding" dictates that evil cannot be fought -- it must be placated with psychobabble.
In his new forward to "Dreams From My Father," Obama writes, "I know, I have seen, the desperation and disorder of the powerless: how it twists the lives of children on the streets of Jakarta or Nairobi how easily they slip into violence and despair. I know that the response of the powerful to this disorder -- alternating as it does between a dull complacency and, when the disorder spills out of its proscribed confines, a stead unthinking application of force, of more sophisticated military hardware -- is inadequate to the task." This sounds like boilerplate rhetoric. It is not. It is the theory of appeasement, stated clearly and succinctly.
Obama's adolescent insistence that everything can be talked out is matched in its idiocy only by his adolescent scorn for military sacrifice in general. In a speech in Iowa on February 11, Obama stated, "We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged -- and to which we have now spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted." Wasted. This is the language of MoveOn.org, the language of Democratic Underground, the language of the 1960s radicals Obama claims to deplore.
This was no isolated incident. It reflects what Obama believes. After Obama sponsored legislation mandating a full troop withdrawal from Iraq by March 2008, Australian Prime Minister John Howard lashed out. Al Qaeda, Howard said, would be "praying as many times as possible" for Obama's election in 2008. Obama's response was breathtakingly ignorant and immature: If Howard is "ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq," spat Obama, "I would suggest that he call up another 20,000 Australians and send them to Iraq. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."
There are currently over 1,400 Australian troops dispatched to Iraq. Howard has a legitimate reason to declaim Obama's politics: His country has hundreds of troops on the ground, and American policy affects those troops. For Obama to dismiss Howard's opinion by insulting Australia's sacrifice is outrageous.
And yet it is Barack Obama -- a man who sees aloe vera as an actual foreign relations strategy, who routinely derides military sacrifice -- whom the Democrats put forth as their hot new candidate for the 2008 presidential nomination.
Will America join Europe, sticking its head in the sand, enabling Islamism by ignoring it? Iran certainly hopes so. Like Al Qaeda, Iran's leaders must be praying every day that Americans turn to a candidate like Barack Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
