Will it ever be safe to say "No" to Europe?

Will it ever be safe to say “no” to Europe?

The answer to that question is a clear and unequivocal “No”.

We tried it in the Nice Treaty. And we had our wrists slapped and were told to try again. We did. And we reversed our vote.

Somewhat amazingly, the lion roared again for the Lisbon Treaty. We again said “no”.

A contrite Irish government once more had to face the barons of Brussels.

“Give us a second chance” they pleaded. “Our people are not the brightest penny in the European purse, even the Commissioner couldn’t read the document. And this time throw in a few frighteners”.

And Europe has responded. It has sent out its most brutal persecutor, Peter Sutherland, to do battle with the Irish electorate.

Peter Sutherland is an interesting character. He has been at the top in business, politics and banking. He is reputed to be the father of globalisation. As such, he is a favourite target of conspiracy theorists.

Be that as it may, Peter Sutherland holds an executive position in an exceedingly shadowy organisation known as the Bildeburg Group. This group is said to comprise of thirteen international figures, people of power within their own communities. They meet once every four years in some luxury hotel and their meetings are conducted without any known agenda, nor do they hold press briefings at the conclusion.

Denis Healy, onetime Chancellor of the British Exchequer is a founder member of the group and once said of it: “It is not fair to say of the Bildeburg Group that we are intent upon world government, though not entirely unfair.”

Peter Sutherland has fired the opening salvo of threats against the Irish electorate. Now we can expect those threats to rain thick and fast about our ears.

When fears come in at the door, democracy goes out the window.

Let us examine the position as it stands.

The Irish people reject the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish government, citing the confusion of its electorate, heads off to Brussels to negotiate a set of guarantees and, after a bout of shadow-boxing, returns home in triumph and, in a scene reminiscent of Chamberlain’s return from Munich, waves its guarantee in the air. Job done!

Now we can vote in favour of Lisbon. No problem.

Consider this. If the commissioner could throw out elements of the Treaty without care, then how much easier it would be to dispose of our guarantees, even if they do, as promised, become protocols? Just take a look at the major element concerning the number of commissioners. We have principles. If you don’t like them, we have other principles.

Europe is moving inexorably towards Federation. And a Federation of Europe will demand, of necessity, a standing army.

Try telling the Federation of the United States of America or, for that matter, what remains of the USSR, that state-controlled armies in their constituent parts would serve the needs of the Federation.

There is one upcoming issue which will determine the independence of Ireland within the EU. And that issue concerns the possible entry of Iceland into the Union.

Just recently, the people of Iceland voted, by a very narrow majority, to apply for membership of the EU. There is no doubt that the Icelanders would have much preferred independence, but the shocking greed of their bankers led them to the edge of a financial abyss (much like our own have done for us).

The acceptance by the EU of Iceland’s application to join will only become an issue should the Icelanders secure in their negotations a much-enhanced exclusion zone to protect their fisheris. It is here that the leadership of an Irish government will be tested.

Whatever the agreed extent of the Icelanders’ exclusion zone must automatically become the exclusion zone applying to Ireland. Iceland is an island. Ireland is an island. One size fits both.

Would anybody be foolish enough to believe that an Irish government will demand parity? Fear, on this issue as on so many others, will be the determining factor. As it will be in our second vote.

We have good cause to be frightened of Europe. But should we be cowed?

Can Charity Begin at Home?

We are cutting €95m from our overseas aid budget. There is a way in which this money could be used to create jobs in Ireland yet provide emergency aid overseas. How?

Our sheep farmers are finding it impossible to dispose of wool. Some are paying to have it taken away. Let government buy that wool at a nominal price and transport it to the spinners and weavers in Donegal where it can be used to manufacture clothing, underclothing, sweaters, socks, overcoats et al.

Employ those workers on terms of absolute flexibility of labour, so that production can be switched to the manufacture of all those other items that are required at the scene of a disaster, cooking utensils, medical supplies, and, most importantly of all, rain-proof, wool-filled and lined duvets and tents.

Right now it is reported that we source and store all such emergency aid abroad, most likely at inflated prices. Just imagine how much more efficient it would be were all such emergency aid to be manufactured and stored here in Ireland, ready to be flown to the scene of any emergency at a moment's notice. Nor would such practical aid be confined to disaster areas: Refugee settlements exist all over the world. Aid such as is proposed here could not find its way into Swiss bank accounts.

In these straitened times there is an urgent need for government to look seriously at the possibilities of import substitution. This could be done by gathering together an elite group of investigators who would have experience in business, manufacture, farming, fishery, tourism etc, then let them loose in every department of government with a brief to subject every item imported to a forensic examination with a view to having the work done here at home. Whatever its nature. (Having the literature pertaining to the Lisbon Treaty published in Portugal was criminal.)

In response to this suggestion the Minister with responsibility for Foreign Aid, Minister Power, replied that it was his department’s policy to use the UN’s procurement scheme.

Two weeks ago the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin called this very scheme into question.

The more hands money passes through, the greater the possibility that it will adhere to somebody’s hands along the line.

Trocaire, Concern and GOAL are all organisations with unblemished records. Alas, of necessity their budgets will be cut this year.

The money they will lose could be used creatively to help those in need of their assistance, while at the same time assisting our sheep farmers and the crafts people and unemployed textile workers of Donegal. Does it not make sense?

The Eu: Its Place in Ireland's Economic Misery

We are, we are told, on the edge of a financial abyss; if this be true, we are in that position because we are members of the European Union, and historians of the future (assuming they are freed from the shackles of political correctness that presently cripples honest debate) will record this fact as being the truth of the matter.

In the mid-nineties government decided to stimulate the economy by providing tax reliefs to those building houses and hotels; incentives on such a scale as to leave builders and property developers drooling at the mouth. Pretty soon the tall cranes were scarring the skyline of our cities like an army of invading gulags. At this point, enter the EU.

Ireland badly needed an increase in interest rates; Germany and France, with their massive rates of unemployment, did not. Guess who won the argument?

Once more, enter the EU. With the entry of the accession states, it was very obvious at that point that an army of workers from the new states would be poised to migrate to the West. The other states of the union (with the exception of Britain and Sweden, protected by a difficult language) declared, Augustine-like, "Give us your workers-- but not just yet." The Republic of Ireland, an island of four million people, said: "Come one, come all". And they came, more than three hundred thousand of them.

To the property developers, the builders, the banks and the renters, this was manna from Heaven. Quite amazingly, David Beggs of ICTU and Christy O'Connor of SIPTU were equally enthusiastic about the prospect of a legion of Eastern Europeans descending on the Irish labour market and, inevitably, lowering the wages and the working conditions of Irish workers. Theirs' was the greatest betrayal of the Irish worker since William Martin Murphy.

So how do we get out of this mess?

There are twenty thousand plus non-nationals on welfare just now. The cost to the exchequer is more than twenty thousand euro per unemployed non-national. That's not to mention the cost of language teachers, children's allowance and so forth.

A "going home" sum of five thousand euro should be offered to each such person, plus an additional sum of two thousand euro for each dependent relative. And it should be explained to them that, God forbid, the IMF enter the picture then welfare rates and wages will be slashed, taxes will increase massively, and they will suffer as much as anyone else. Whereas if they accept the payment they will return to their country with a tidy sum of money (the average yearly income in Poland is seventy-five thousand euro) in their pockets. And the Irish apocalypse will be averted.

No criticism should be levelled at the foreign workers. Were the situation reversed, many Irish people would be labouring in Poland, Latvia and elsewhere.

Criticism-- the strongest possible criticism-- should be directed at those non-nationals who agree to work below the rate.

So the next time some bright spark remarks in your presence, "The EU has been good for Ireland", pause. Reflect on the massive welfare queues, the young people with negative equity, the overcrowded hospitals and roads, even the prisons. Lift one quizzical eyebrow, and say: "Oh, yeah!".