“The media…is by far the most powerful agency in shaping people’s perspectives on social and political issues” [Vincent Browne, Irish Times, 18/04/12]

Discussing the highly concentrated ownership of Irish media on the eve of Gavin O’Reilly’s departure from Independent News & Media, Vincent Browne makes a statement his former editor Geraldine Kennedy would be proud of. Yet gone are the days when the Irish Times could credibly boast to be ‘leaders’ or ‘shapers’ of public opinion, save for a small subset of influential south Dubliners.

Successive campaign failures over the last few years, including the Lisbon Treaty and more recently the household charge, have shown the limitations of the media’s agency to sway public perspective. On the other hand, the media’s ability to influence or at least reinforce government thinking on certain important policy issues has not been undermined. Successful campaign wishes for austerity budgets since 2008 have been granted, with politicians responding to the media “call to arms” by throwing caution to the wind, “sticking to their guns” and delivering the required “tough medicine” over and over.

Below, Vincent Browne responds to some of your tweets about tonight's show. {jathumbnailoff}

An exclusionary venture that values banks ahead of ordinary people – this is not what we signed up for. By Vincent Browne.

Just three years ago we were being bamboozled into voting for the Lisbon Treaty, the then latest stage in the creation of a wondrous European project that would consolidate peace on the continent and promote yet further wealth creation.

It would also give Europe a voice in world affairs corresponding to its financial clout, give greater administrative cohesion to the decision-making processes in the union and incorporate the industries of war (defence industries) into the corporate structure of the union.

Europe Day is an opportunity to celebrate the EU, but also a chance to turn a critical eye on the project,  Eoghan Murphy argues

Europe is changing and we’re changing with it, quickly. There is little time to pause and catch one’s breath. Europe Day offers us an opportunity, but we need more such opportunities, and soon, if the people of Ireland and Europe are to continue with the European project.

Intervention in Libya by France and the UK, with our support, calls in to question a pillar of our foreign policy - military neutrality - and yet no one is talking about that.. Decisions are being made in the midst of the financial crisis, through the Pact for the Euro and other agreements that will see macro level financial controls permanently relinquished to Europe. We will never return to the financial independence that we enjoyed pre-crisis; have we thought that far ahead?

The same could be said for the ever-shifting international context in which we find ourselves.

Just look at Europe. It's not a coincidence that as we come to contemplate a new reality nationally (a new dimension of sovereignty even), the state of the union is also changing. This is where the common market and everything that has since followed has brought us. And, I suppose, we it.

Grass roots activists have proposed a new system to elect the EU President. The system would allow candidates outside the largest political grouping in the EU Parliament to run for the Presidency. By Brendan Kelly.

Under the rules established by the Lisbon treaty, the president of the European Parliment is selected from the largest political grouping in parliament. Inspired by the failure of the Party of European Socialists (PES) to nominate a candidate to lead the grouping in the run up to the European Parlimentary elections, a grassroots activist movement within the party has proposed that candidates for the presidency would be subject to a United States-style primary whereby members of the grouping's consituent parties would be entitled to vote for their choice of candidate.

The proposals, currently championed in Ireland by PES coordinator Desmond O'Toole, would in the opinion of those supporting lead to an increasingly democratised European Parliament.

With only a single hesitation will I vote No to the Lisbon Treaty on Friday. The hesitation has to do with Turkey, and nothing to do with the consequences to Ireland and/or the EU of voting No.

There are ostensibly persuasive arguments for voting Yes. They are: (i) we will damage our economic interests and prospects if we vote No; (ii) Europe has been good to us and we owe it to it not to frustrate reforms that have been in gestation for nearly a decade; (iii) the Lisbon Treaty will make Europe more efficient and therefore better for Europe and for Ireland; (iv) the EU will be more democratic if the Lisbon Treaty is passed, because the European Parliament will have more powers and national parliaments will have a greater involvement; and (v) the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty now would have a debilitating impact on the EU and Ireland, just at a time when Europe and Ireland need energy and focus to surmount the economic crisis.

We seem to be on our way to yet another act of abject deference. But then acts of deference are what we are best at. They are part of what we are.

Friday is to be the next day of deference, although perhaps Tuesday should be the National Day of Deference, for reasons that I will explain later. On Friday, we look set to endorse the Lisbon Treaty, reversing what we did in June last year for no reason other than deference.

The Lisbon Treaty proposes to incorporate the European Defence Agency (EDA) within the institutional structure of the European Union. Among the tasks of the EDA will be to co-ordinate the military equipment of EU member states to ensure there is greater efficiency and synchronisation of the military capacities of member states in the conduct of humanitarian and peacekeeping projects. It also sponsors research on measures to improve the protection of military personnel engaged in such missions.

At an  extraordinary meeting of the Parliament of the Czech Republic on Tuesday, 9 December, it was decided to defer the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty at least until 3 February 2009.

The government spokesman who said on Tuesday (26 August) that "Nothing whatsoever has been decided" on whether there would be a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was telling some of the truth. Dick Roche was telling more of the truth when he said on Morning Ireland on Tuesday that he believed a second referendum would be held.

The Lisbon Treaty referendum thoroughly dominated press coverage in both the lead-up to the poll and in its aftermath. The most striking thing about this coverage was that every single newspaper, bar none, adopted its proprietor's opinions as their editorial line. So, for example, Rupert Murdoch is a critic of the EU's ambitions to become an independent strategic player. In April of this year, in a speech to the Atlantic Council of the United States, he argued in favour of NATO expansion and decried the “painful truth” that Europe was “losing its faith in the values and institutions that have kept us free”. Every single one of his newspapers in Ireland (The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun and The News of the World) dutifully opposed the Lisbon Treaty.

For the first time, the rejected EU Constitution and Lisbon Treaty sought to incorporate into the formal structure of the European Union, the huge European armaments industries. Even following these defeats the European Defence Agency continues to prepare for war and plan future armaments.
By Carol Fox

The new Article 46a [47]: 

The Union shall have legal personality.

NO: Establish a legally new European Union in the constitutional form of a supranational European Federation - in effect a State - and turn Ireland into a provincial state within it.  The first sentence of the Constitutional Amendment we are being asked  to insert in the Irish Constitution on 12 June recognises this: "The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon  and  be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty. " This post-Lisbon EU would have the same name but would be constitutionally very  different from the present EU, based on the 1993 Maastricht Treaty. (National Platform on EU Research and Information Centre)

This makes the EU a “single legal personality. This gives the EU the same legal status as a State under international law. In practical terms, this enables the EU to negotiate and conclude international agreements, including international trade agreements and seek a seat on international bodies. (Sinn Fein).

Commentary: This is of no consequence. In so far as the EU is becoming a federal state it is because of the powers transferred to EU institutions, not because of it acquiring a legal personality. Anyway, one of the problems with the EU is that it is not federal enough, for if it were, it could be more democratic.

The articles pertaining to Defence are presented as it would appear in the amended constitution should the Lisbon treaty be passed. Also, extensive commentary by the Yes and No sides and by Vincent Browne.

The key Articles of the Lisbon Treaty made intelligible

The Lisbon Treaty is published in a manner that is unintelligible.

It is presented as a legal document that merely amends two other legal documents, without showing what effect the amendments have on the amended documents. We have attempted to simplify this by showing both the deletions and additions, thereby we hope, making it intelligible.

For instance, we present Article 57 [64] 2 and 3 in the following manner:

Whilst endeavouring to achieve the objective of free movement of capital between Member States and third countries to the greatest extent possible and without prejudice to the other Chapters of this Treaty the Treaties, the European Parliament and the Council may, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall adopt the measures on the movement of capital to or from third countries involving direct investment – including investment in real estate – establishment, the provision of financial services or the admission of securities to capital markets.

Unanimity shall be required for measures under this paragraph which constitute a step back in Community law as regards the liberalisation of the movement of capital to or from third countries. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, only the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may unanimously, and after consulting the European Parliament, adopt measures which constitute a step backwards in Union law as regards the liberalisation of the movement of capital to or from third countries.

The parts of earlier Treaties that are deleted by the Lisbon Treaty are shown as struck out and the parts added by the Lisbon Treaty are shown in bold type.

More...