« Cook County Dems Rejoice at DNC Move to Chicago |
Blog Home Page
| Hands off Michelle Obama you GOP Meanies! »
June 13, 2008
Irish voters reject EU power grab
Thomas Lifson
The Treaty of Lisbon, in effect a new constitution for the European Union intended to add to the power of EU bureaucrats at the expense of democratically elected national governments, was rejected by Irish voters yesterday. Predictably, the New York Times is disappointed.
If that outcome is confirmed in official results, it will mean that the 27-member bloc will be in turmoil, its latest attempt to reform stymied by less than one percent of its population of almost 500 million.
A small recalcitrant backward minority thwarting the democratic will of half a billion people? Well, not exactly. Whenever EU voters have had the opportunity to be heard on earlier versions of the plan to gut national sovereignty in favor of bureaucratic power for Brussels, they have rejected it.
Needless to say, the EU will press on with its power grab, regardless of voters' wishes. The Times quotes disappointed officials
In France, senior officials insisted that, whatever the Irish outcome, other European countries must continue their procedures to approve the treaty.
"The most important thing is that the ratification process must continue in the other countries and then we shall see with the Irish what type of legal arrangement could be found," Jean-Pierre Jouyet, the French minister for European affairs, told LCI television. He did not specify what form this legal arrangement might take. [....]
Andrew Duff, a British member of the European Parliament who supports the treaty and the spokesman on constitutional issues for the Liberal Democrats, described the vote as a "tragedy for Ireland, the EU and Europe's place in the world".
"The problems the treaty was established to address are still there: effectiveness, democracy and capacity to act," he said. "If the outcome of this is that we are obliged to struggle on with the existing treaty, then the Irish will have done no favors for themselves or us."
Mr. Duff added that EU leaders will have to try to assemble a new strategy when they meet for a summit in Brussels next Thursday.
"I think the Irish prime minister, Brian Cowen, will have to explain himself at the summit. If he brings a credible and coherent proposal to extricate the EU from this mess, then he will be listened to. But I suspect he can't because there isn't one." [emphasis added]
"I think we are probably going to have to wait for quite a considerable time before political circumstances have improved to the degree necessary to acquire public consent."
The arguments used to advocate the treaty to Irish voters betray a mentality common to welfare states: we subsidized you, so now give us political power
Alex Adrianson of Insider Online wrote:
The New York Times quotes French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner saying:
It would be very, very troubling that we would not be able to count on the Irish who counted a lot on Europe's money.
Times reporter Sarah Lyall goes on to explain:
Ireland is one of Europe's great success stories. European largess has helped fuel the country's extraordinarily rapid transformation from a poor, homogeneous, largely agrarian society to a place of flourishing international business.
It doesn't speak well of the treaty that its proponents must resort to saying "you owe us" in trying to convince Irish voters. If giving the EU more power were prospectively good for Ireland, then support for the treaty shouldn't have to be seen as a quid pro quo for past assistance.
In fact, as many observers have noted, the key to Ireland's stunning economic growth the last two decades was not EU subsidies (handed out to countries that are poorer than the EU average - welfare, in other words), but rather radical tax cuts and deregulation, which ignited the "Celtic tiger" phenomenon, propelling the Irish to genuine prosperity. Benjamin Powell of the Goldwater Institute explains:
Non-interest government spending was cut from 55 percent of gross domestic product in 1985 to about 41 percent in 1990. The top tax rate fell from 65 percent in 1985 to 44 percent in 2001, while the standard income tax rate was cut from 35 percent in 1989 to 22 percent in 2001. In the 1980s, Ireland's per capita income was only 63 percent that of Great Britain, but by the end of the 1990s, Ireland had shot past both Britain and Germany in per capita income.
Apparently the Irish voters, having learned from their experience with a low taxes and reasonable regulation, are not anxious to return to a system premised on the notion that bureaucrats must regulate everything in detail, and taxes must be high.
Hat tip: Nancy Coppock
|
|
|
Comments
Hopefully the Irish are storing up fertilizer, diesel, and blasting caps to revive the IRA when the EU JBT's(Jack Booted Thugs) come a calling.
Posted by: Michael Coffel | June 13, 2008 10:45 AM
Erin Go Braugh!
Posted by: McG | June 13, 2008 10:50 AM
One of the many negative consequences of the LT (if it would've been ratified by Ireland) would've been the harmonisation of European tax rates in line with the French and German tax codes. So yes, Ireland would've ceased being "a Celtic tiger".
Although many columnists have described Sarkozy and Merkel as conservatives, the truth is that both of them are socialists just like their predecessors. They will never admit (even though they know) that usurious taxes and red tape cause economies to stagnate. So rather than make their economies competitive, they are trying to bring everyone else down to their pathethic level. If there are tax havens, that's ONLY because there are tax hells.
I would advise the Eurocrats to abrogate the Lisbon Treaty and to decentralize, or even abolish, the EU. I would also warn all US politicians (and the columnists who have endorsed them): do not try to force an undemocratic treaty like the LT upon foreign citizens who do not approve of it. Abide by the wishes of the majority of EU citizens. That would apply to you too, Barack Obama and John McCain.
If Obama and McCain won't abide by the verdicts of foreign voters, how can they be expected to abide by the decisions of US voters?
Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | June 13, 2008 10:51 AM
Rejected as well they should.
Posted by: Will Becker | June 13, 2008 10:58 AM
Some very careful thinking on what this means--and how hard the elites are going to continue to fight the will of the European citizens.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/774111/ireland-votes-no-now-whats-next.thtml
Posted by: clarice feldman | June 13, 2008 11:07 AM
Good on the Irish!
The battle against EU bureacracy doesn't end here though, it merely allows some breathing space.
Reports are suggesting the Irish Prime Minister may step down. After all, what happened yesterday was a complete an utter sham. Why on earth can't the Irish government control it's people??
Posted by: Douglas Lang | June 13, 2008 11:44 AM
Ireland is a tax haven indeed, but that's not the only reason why it is one of the richest countries in the world (on par with the US by GDP per capita - by that measure, if Ireland was a US state, it would be one of the richest). There's a good ranking available on the Net:
http://www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings/
Ireland is the 8th easiest country in the world to do business in, just sligthly behind the US, which ranks 3rd. Ireland ranks 5th in the ease of starting a business; 20th in the ease of dealing with licenses; 37th in the ease of employing workers; 79th in the ease of registering property; 7th in the ease of getting a credit, 5th in the ease of protecting investors, 6th in the ease of paying taxes, 20th in the ease of trading across borders (even though it is an EU member), 39th in the ease of enforcing contracts, and 6th in the ease of closing a business. It because of its capitalist economy that Ireland is as rich as it is, not because of EU subsidies.
Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | June 13, 2008 12:17 PM
The fact that almost all members of Europe's political elite have refused to abide by the verdict proves, if any proof were needed, why the best option is to dump this continent, i.e. emigrate from it.
As for the US, it should radically change its policy towards the EU, by:
1) Refusing to signal any public or private endorsement of the EU or its Lisbon Treaty. American officials from all levels must never tell the Eurocrats that the US supports further European integration. At worst, the US should refrain from stating an opinion at all.
2) Adapt its foreign policy to that of the EU, by making it more hawkish, more conservative, more assertive. The US needs to start using its enormous clout against the EU, because as little clout as the EU wields, it will never hesitate to use it against the US.
3) The Congress should organize hearings to gather information on the LT.
Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | June 13, 2008 03:33 PM
Ireland's flat tax has been instrumental in curing economic woes. Our own Republican Party's New Platform has an economic plank idea to allow citizens to opt out of the current tax code and participate in a new two tiered flat tax.
I'll have some of what the Irish are having.....cheers!
Posted by: Nancy Coppock | June 13, 2008 03:36 PM
The Irish Prime Minister needs to exaplain himself? May I be his speechwriter?
"You need MY explanation? Alright, here it is. The Free People of Ireland voted, and they said #@$& you!"
Posted by: hadsil | June 13, 2008 06:32 PM
Laughed out loud at hadsil!
I'll raise a toast to the Irish. Here's to them!
One thought: the EU eurocrats are making a power grab, but what power are they grabbing? The way they are going, they will be under Muslim control before long and will have no say under Sharia law! Do they have NO foresight at all?
Posted by: Ed | June 13, 2008 09:01 PM
It wasn't just low flat tax rates that brought investment to Ireland. Throughout the 80's they offered tax-free windows of 10 years (as I recall) to attract US corporations who liked the educated english speaking irish people, and it's location inside of the EU, to use as the one of the first outsourcing and offshoring platforms. Dell, EMC and numerous other US hightech corporations located there.
My guess is that US offshoring had more do with Irlands transformation than its membership in the EU. However, if Ireland hadn't been in the EU, these US corporation might not have invested there.
Posted by: Corporate Cog | June 14, 2008 03:58 AM