Obama-rama

So, Barack Obama is now only 73 delegates short of his magical number (2026) to ensure he is going to be the Candidate for the Democratic Party in the United States. It has not been a fun campaign I’d imagine, just yesterday over half of the Clinton staff came out to say they’d rather abstain than vote for Obama, because of his ‘frightening lack of experience’. He has weathered the storm over Rev Wright, and managed to recover from comments he made in relation to small town voters getting bitter, and clinging to religion and guns (something which to be honest, I did not think was a mischaracterisation).

With Hillary Clinton seeming hell bent to stay the course, Obama seems to be destined to have a competitive floor vote at the DNC to ring fence his candidacy. These last 73 delegates will most likely come from super-delegates, party leaders and officials who are given the power to vote whatever way they want in the Convention which will end on August 28th. Many commentators in the US are now calling for Florida and Michigan to be allowed a re-vote, with the Clinton camp even offering to pay for the privilege. This is unlikely to happen from what I have read, but also there would be no guarantee of success for Clinton here either, its been a long and divisive campaign since she won delegate votes in those illegal primaries.

I have long admired Obama’s rhetoric and message. And in the last few weeks I have seen him clash with both President Bush and Sen. McCain, in a way which leads me to believe he can stand toe-to-toe in November, and I believe come out on top. As pointed out by a fellow politics watcher, he answers hypothetical questions, something which has done him some damage, but which gives us a clearer upfront picture of how the man is likely to operate when he gets into the Oval Office. But how much, if any damage, is he likely to sustain from this drawn out fight, and the sapping of his war chest that comes along with it. Raising money is an important part of US presidential politics, and Obama’s network of small donors has been awesome in its application, raising over 30 million in the last month, but how much more can that network donate.

Personally, I do hope he gets the nomination, if super-delegates decide this in Clintons favor, or if the two illegal primaries are allowed a re-vote, the division in the Democratic Party will be far too great to overcome. But as one CNN commentator has said, Clinton is a fighter, and while the odds must look slim of her being able to overcome Obama’s number at the minute, she needs an additional 286 delegate votes, over three times Obamas number, stranger things have happened. Meteors do fall from the sky sometimes.

Apathetic? Me?

I had lunch the other day with a friend of mine, and talk turned, as it often does with me to politics. You can probably guess that I am a little politically active, I have been involved in politics since I was a wee lad, with a pretty active family. And not just party politics, but board of management stuff in schools, heritage projects, and public works stuff. So I was a little concerned to hear from someone, who has always been pretty smart and well informed, and who I respect, to say something along the lines of, ‘”I’ll never vote, I don’t see the point, like no matter how I do vote, the government always gets in.”

Young people are,now more than ever, apathetic towards organised politics. That is not to say that there aren’t young people involved in the machine, from youth organisations such as Ogra Fianna Fail to Young Fine Gael, and non-profit politically active organisations, like Suas and more directly Rock The Vote. Young people are being elected to office, in the Dail and Seanad, with Deputies Dara Calleary, Lucinda Creighton, Olwyn Enright and Barry Andrews, all having a high profile within their respective parties. The profile is astounding for Fine Gael, one in five TD’s are under 35. But still there is little or no evidence to show that young people turn out to actually vote in elections, with more and more staying at home or not informing themselves.

How do we tackle these kinds of problems? I think that parties need to do more to tie all parts of life into politics. Young people need to realise that every part of their lives, from college fees to grants, from job prospects to house prices, can be tied directly back to the government. It is a fact that if you don’t get out and vote, or get involved, then you are giving some of your biggest decisions to other people.

Some people, like my friend, don’t think they can have an effect. Well, I have been involved in several initiatives which have come to fruition with policy change. Students and young people have shaped society in the past, and could again. Look at all the major changes, student opposition to apartheid, student campaigning for equal rights for the gay community, student revolt in various countries leading to awareness and change. Maybe it because we are a little too comfortable.

And governments and parties need to do more to assist in mobilising voters, and young voters. Most college age people have been ruled out of voting in the last general election, and again in the upcoming Lisbon treaty, due to bad timing, either for the vote, or for registration amendments or changes. Everyone should be automatically registered to vote, and the act of polling should be made easier.

It has to be made easier to decide how to vote, by which I mean who to vote for. I will admit there is little or nothing to seperate parties on issues nowadays, but if people could identify a set of general principles they could agree with, a list of broad objectives for government that we could either get on board with or not. Then voters could get active, get involved, and shape how those general objectives are made into policy.

Politics is a murky world. It is often difficult to see the wood from the trees until you have been inside the organisations and understand how these leviathan machines plod along. We, the people, have the power to alter that machine once we get involved. I think that moves from the parties to select more young candidates are great, drawing people into the inner circle. I also think that groups coming together to politicise young people are fantastic, but have an uphill battle. Rock The Vote, which is a great idea, faces a problem. They have to dumb down politics to a certain extent, but not do it so much that the message becomes patronising. Lets wait and see how this campaign unfolds for them. But one thing is certain. Young people need to find their voice.

Is The Lisbon Treaty Evil?

I just finished this, and it’s quite long, so apologies for that. It is a run through some of the major problems I have heard people having with Lisbon, and my opinions of them.
—-

The Lisbon Treaty is a hot topic at the minute, so I have spent a while reading various Anti Lisbon stuff, just to see what the arguments are, and if they make sense to me. The best run down I have found on the web are the Libertas 6 Points, which are below, but with some of my thoughts on them too. To be honest, I think they are a pile of twaddle, but have a read and see if you agree.

1. Ireland’s vote in the Council will be cut by 60% while Germany’s increases by 100% and France’s by 50%

- Well to be fair guys, Ireland’s vote will be brought in line with its population. One person one vote, I would think thats a bold democratic standpoint to take to be honest, particularly from an organisation that is constantly being branded as Anti-Democratic by opponents. Or should it be democracy which favours you and your people?

2. Foreign Direct Investment would come under the control of the Common Commercial Policy for the first time so that the Irish Government could no longer legislate in this area except with the permission of Brussels.

- Foreign Direct Investment provisions can only be legislated by the EU if there is UNANIMOUS support from member states. The CCP again only acts unanimously. Maybe I’m not getting this, but I don’t see how a unanimous decision is an overriding of the rights of the Irish Government. And given that we are subject to Enforcement Notice control of our Corporation tax regime at the minute, and it hasn’t been utilised to damage our economy, I don’t see a problem. To be honest, we need to move away from attracting business simply because of a low tax base to a more robust model.

3. Ireland would lose its commissioner for five out of every 15 years – an Irish voice in the body that has the exclusive right to propose EU legislation.

- As does every other member state? And this presupposes that no one else will listen to Irish concerns for the time we don’t have a commissioner? Is that what Europe is about, having one guy over there to shout loudly for us…. It should also be kept in mind that now all legislation has to be sent to National Parliaments for consideration, thus giving more power than currently available.

4. Ireland would lose its veto in 68 areas including over “competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market”, immigration policy, employment policy and many other areas.

- Given that a number of issues which we are supposed to be able to veto are actually ideas we have signed up to in agreements and through ratification already, the big ones here seem to be taxation policy and immigration/rights based stuff. Firstly, like already mentioned, all members need to unanimously support any taxation changes, so I don’t see a clearer indication of our veto power. In relation to human rights based vetos, we have signed up to more restrictive covenants on rights than the EU would seek to enforce, and I think it’s xenophobic to say, “Oh, the EU can make us take in a load more Poles/Romanians.’ I really wish Libertas had put more substantive stuff behind this point. Oh and note also that the UK have already secured a clear opt out structure, simular to the ones Ireland uses to opt out of issues we don’t agree with.

5. The EU’s traditional commitment to “free and undistorted competition”, a key component of every EU treaty since the 1957 founding Treaty of Rome, has been relegated in the Lisbon Treaty by Nicholas Sarkozy, who upon removing the clause asked “what has competition ever done for us?” His idea is to have European business dominated by what he calls “National Champions”. This is code for protection of inefficient state supported industries to the detriment of European entrepreneurship and innovation, the growth companies that produce 80% of all new jobs in Europe.

- So, firstly here, the entire reason for objecting on this ground is a statement, taken in isolation, and made by a single politician, who has incredibly low support in his own country. Even leaving all that aside, the changing of the language does not alter the fact that the EU has at its heart strong principles on making competition fair. Also, doesn’t point 2 on this list argue that we shouldn’t be ‘forced’ into the same practices as all the other states, thus equalising competition? And I love it when in order to argue against something people rely on statement like “This is code…”

6. So understanding that we would have our voting weight reduced, the competition clause relegated, surrendering 68 key vetoes, and conceding to having an unelected President and Foreign Minister. Any person familiar with business negotiation might ask, what do we get in return that we don’t already have? Nothing.

- My god. What do we get in return. A more democratically representative EU. Which has always been a huge problem for skeptics in the past. We get more protection through the new voting rules in relation to qualified majority and double majority, which require not only state majority, but also population majorities to pass legislation. We get consultation with National Parliments on European legislation. We get confirmed opt outs for policy we do not agree with. But no, Liberts, you’re right, we should vote no. Someone on the Libertas Facebook page said that this list of problems should be on the front page of the profile. I think it should too.
—-

One last thing, however bad this is, at least Libertas has come up with problems with the treaty itself. I have seen some amazing claims from other organisations, everything from Ireland will lose it’s neutrality, to passing Lisbon will result in the outlawing of Republican organisations. That’s just sad.

And there are several campaigns I kind of can see the point to, like a number of hospital campaigns who have made statements like, No Health Reform, No Lisbon Treaty. Honestly though, the way to address health reform is through Local and National government. 2009 local elections, make your voice heard there. There is little or nothing to be achieved, other than a waste of money, in voting No to this treaty without something that can be changed in it to make it improve your situation. Like, if by voting no to Lisbon there could be a clause inserted requiring a full time Accident and Emergency department in every major town, then there would be a reason to vote no. But there isn’t. We have to come up with more appropriate ways to lobby for that kind of change, using Lisbon isn’t the right way.
—-

One last, last thing. This idea that Lisbon removes the right to have a treaty passed by referendum. That decision, to put the treaty before the people, lies solely with the government and the people, through the constitution. Article 48 clearly states: “The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.” In Ireland, our constitutional requirement dictates that such matters be passed by referendum. There is some scare mongering on this issue, so here, have a piece of information, readily available from the citizensinformation.ie website:

In order to call a constitutional referendum, a proposal to amend the Constitution must be introduced in the Dáil as a Bill. The Bill sets out the proposed amendment to the Constitution. The Bill must be passed by both the Dáil and the Seanad.

The Bill is then submitted to the people so that they can vote for or against it. If the majority of the votes cast at the referendum are in favour of the change, the Bill is signed by the Irish President and the Constitution is then amended.

In fact, to abandon this method, there would have to be a referendum to pass the power to agree to EU treaties back to the government, a referendum to abolish referendums. If that does happen at some stage, well it take a majority of voters, like all elections.
—-

Finally, finally I promise. The Lisbon Treaty also sets out clearly the procedure for leaving the Union. So if it all does go horribly wrong, and there really are no more benefits for us, or if the majority of peoplethink we should, we can just leave.
—-

Thats my view on the subject, thanks for reading. Now, regardless of whether you agree or not, please just get out and vote on the 12th.