Biofuels targets too much too soon for Ireland, writes  LEIGH PHILLIPS for EUobserver. Electric cars are slowing winning favour in the council.   28.07.2008
Gently squeezing the brakes on biofuels policy is the growing consensus amongst European diplomats regarding the controversial energy source, with Ireland the latest member state to pull back from short-term targets on its use in transport fuel.

While not wanting to abandon the mid-term goal of 10 percent use of biofuels by 2020, the Irish energy minister is now pushing for an abandonment of the already agreed EU biofuels target of 5.75 percent of what fills the tanks of cars and lorries by 2010.

In an interview with the Irish Times, energy minister Eamon Ryan said that his government has dropped the earlier target in the wake of a slew of reports released in the last six months that have shown strong links between EU and US biofuels policies and increased greenhouse gas emissions and skyrocketing food prices.

“There’s been an avalanche of these reports, but it was the [UK Renewable Fuel Agency’s] Gallagher Report that in particular had an impact on our thinking,” an Irish official told the EUobserver.

“[Minister Ryan] still believes in the 2020 target, and that should still be the main goal - it doesn’t make sense to tear that apart, but as far as the 2010 interim target, it’s too much too soon.

“The minister thinks it’s overly ambitions and that we need to slow down.”

Earlier this month, the UK Renewable Fuels Agency issued a report recognising the negative impact of biofuels on greenhouse gas emissions and food prices as a result of indirect land-use changes, arguing for an avoidance of the use of productive agricultural land in favour of idle or marginal land, and an emphasis on so-called second-generation biofuels - such as the use of agricultural residues, algae, forest waste or timber industry left-overs - which do not compete with food production.

Two-stage approach:

The Gallagher report has convinced Ireland that biofuels do indeed have an indirect result on land-use changes that result in increased greenhouse gas emissions. Such changes occur when the agricultural land used to grow biofuel crops displaces land otherwise used to grow food or feed. Those crops still need to be grown, resulting in grasslands, forests or peat bogs mowed up or even burnt to open up land for the displaced food or feed crops.

“The minister is a big supporter of including indirect land-use change [considerations] in the development of sustainability criteria for biofuels,” said the official.

The report did not however argue for a wholesale abandonment of biofuels or even the dropping of the EU’s 2020 target, but rather to apply the brakes on their development until sustainability can be assured.

The UK government immediately embraced the report’s findings and is pushing for an evolution of the EU biofuels strategies in line with its conclusions.

Member states are essentially now agreed that there be a two-stage approach to biofuels for transport.

First, any biofuels used must deliver a 35 percent savings in greenhouse gas emissions on what would be emitted by fossil fuels.

Secondly, following an interim review of the effects of biofuels conducted by the European Commission, there would be a move to a demand that biofuels deliver a 50 percent savings on fossil fuels, so long as the commission review found such a move appropriate.

There is however division over the date of the move from the first to the second step, with some eastern member states feeling that 2015, mooted by other member states, as too early. A compromise date of 2018 for the switch from 35 percent to 50 is “very likely” said the Irish official.

Electric cars on their way:

“We’re very happy with the way the discussion is moving in the council,” the official said.

“We’ll also see more of an emphasis on the development of electric cars, perhaps with some sort of credit for their use,” added the official, underscoring that the 2020 is for ten percent of transport fuel to come from renewable energy sources, which does not necessarily mean biofuels.

Denmark has put a proposal before the council to give a triple bonus to all electric cars within the 10 percent renewable energy for transport target, a proposal which has been well received.

On Sunday at the British International Motor Show, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown promised €114 million (£90 million) in government money to make Britain “the European capital for electric cars”.

The moves in the council are still more conservative on the issue than where the discussion is at in the European Parliament.

“There is a good mood to strengthen the sustainability criteria within the parliament, from members of all parties, [to achieve a greenhouse gas savings of] between 45 percent and 50 percent immediately,” Luxemburg Green MEP Claude Turmes told the EUobserver.

The deputy, who is in charge of shepherding the directive on the use of energy from renewable sources through the parliament added that MEPs in the environment committee support an increase to 60 percent savings on their fossil-fuel equivalents in a second stage beginning in 2015, not 2018.

“Why should we be less ambitious if almost all the biofuel industry already is claiming that they can achieve a 50 percent or greater savings today?” he asked.

Mr Turmes also welcomed the moves towards electric cars, noting that the use of biomass to produce electricity to run a car is three to five times more efficient that turning biomass directly into a fuel for a car.

However, he warned: “But we must make sure that this is electricity from genuinely
renewable sources, not coal-based or nuclear energy.”

——————-

We, at www.SustainabiliTank.info are flabbergasted - this was said to me by Mr. Herman Kahn, the genius of the Hudson Institute, already 35 years ago. I was talking to him of ethanol from corn and he said - why not burn the whole plant and go for the maximum energy output? 

Barroso calls for more concessions from developing economies ahead of WTO talks.
LEIGH PHILLIPS, July 21, 2008, EUobserver.

All eyes are on Geneva on Monday (21 July) as world trade talks open in a last-ditch attempt at reaching a global agreement some seven years after discussions were launched.

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, in a statement released on Sunday night as trade ministers from 30 nations met for dinner in the Swiss city ahead of the negotiations, called the talks the “last great opportunity” for a deal, and called on the third world to make greater concessions.

“For those negotiations to succeed, the other developed countries and the emerging economies in the WTO also have to make a major contribution,” he said.

“Europe cannot be the sole banker of this deal,” he added. “Moreover, Doha is not just about agriculture — we also need to make progress on industrial tariffs, and in other areas of the negotiations such as services and geographical indications.”

The EU feels that the meeting is the last chance to clinch a deal on a basic framework for a final agreement in the Doha Round of WTO world trade talks ahead of the November US presidential and congressional elections. The positions of the incoming president and members of congress are expected to be much more protectionist than has been the case for decades, making a deal after the end of the year unlikely.

An agreement has been blocked for years since negotiations opened in 2001 in Doha, Qatar. The main sticking points have been wealthy countries’ demands that developing countries reduce duties on imports and open their markets to more manufactured goods.

In return, poorer countries want the EU and US to reduce subsidies for agricultural products, something that Northern countries have been loath to do.

Within the EU, key players are themselves divided over the level of reductions in financial support for the agricultural sector.

Trade commissioner Peter Mandelson and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have been in an ongoing scrap in recent weeks, with Mr Sarkozy going so far as to blame the commissioner’s position on WTO talks for the defeat of the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland’s 12 June referendum.

Paris believes too many concessions have been made already, without sufficient commitments from the developing world on access to their markets for European industrial goods.

Although Ireland has not been as blunt as Mr Sarkozy, the country’s prime minister, Brian Cowen promised farmers that he would veto any deal that harmed their interests - a commitment made in what proved to be an unsuccessful attempt to win Ireland’s rural areas to the Yes side in the referendum.

Development NGOs for their part warn that the talks are stacked in favour of the wealthier nations, saying that what is currently up for discussion will exacerbate ongoing problems with food prices and worsen levels of poverty in the third world.

“Forcing open the markets of [developing] countries still further will deepen the [food] crisis by handing greater control to multinational corporations, which put their own profits before people’s needs,” said John Hilary, the executive director of War on Want, a UK development charity.

“Developing countries are still being pressed to open up their markets, despite the risks involved, while rich countries fail to address their own farm subsidies,” he added.

“If the deal on the table goes through, millions of the world’s most vulnerable people stand to lose their jobs and fall into poverty,” he said, calling on ministers to abandon the talks.

{US corporations increasingly take regulatory lead from Brussels, not Washington
American investigative reporter Mark Schapiro in his book - Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What’s…}  http://euobserver.com/9/26519/?rk=1

French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, prime minister, François Fillon, and members of the French government will meet up with the European commission college in Paris for a working lunch to discuss the country’s agenda for the next six months.

Later, following a ceremony at the Arc de Triomphe, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso will have a private meeting with Sarkozy, before attending a dinner party in honour of the European commission at the Elysée Palace.

Parliament president Hans-Gert Pöttering will also attend the opening ceremony at the Arc de Triomphe alongside Sarkozy, Barroso and outgoing EU president, Slovenian prime minister Janez Janša.

From TheParliament.com Press Review: Sarkozy pledges to restore trust in EU.
President Nicolas Sarkozy of France seized the reins of the EU last night, pledging to turn the EU’s crisis of confidence into an opportunity to make the unloved union more popular with almost half a billion Europeans, reports the Guardian.

The paper says that French president Nicolas Sarkozy painted himself as the guardian of Europe in a television appearance on the eve of taking over the presidency, quoting him as saying, “We must not be afraid of the word protection. We have to reflect on how to turn Europe into a means of protecting Europeans in their everyday lives.”

According to the paper, France’s presidency priorities include combating climate change, cushioning consumers against soaring food and fuel prices and taking action against illegal immigration.

However, Le Monde says that Sarkozy’s efforts to set himself up as the protector of the EU almost fell flat in the TV appearance on French channel France 3, as he struggled to offer solutions to complex European problems.

Les Echos quotes Sarkozy defending Europe’s role to French citizens, saying that the EU can play a part as a barrier against the effects of globalisation. “This will not work,” he said. “Europe is worried. Citizens are asking themselves if they’re not better off solving their problems at national level.”

The Times takes the same slant, reporting on how Sarkozy wants to restore faith in the EU after the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty. He will travel to Dublin in a few days to meet with Irish prime minister Brian Cowen to discuss the fallout.

But Deutsche Welle reports on comments from a London-based expert on Sarkozy’s upcoming visit to the Irish capital. It says that because of the French president’s unpredictability, the trip could well set Europe back rather than take it forward.

Meanwhile, the FT says that France wants to add a military dimension to European space policy to counter threats from terrorism and conventional military power. French ambitions range from setting up an EU spy satellite system to joining a manned US mission to Mars, adds the paper.

nbsp;http://www.theparliament.com/policy-focu…

Recycling is crucial first step in reducing emissions, says former London mayor Ken Livingston in a visit to an EU Parliament Committee in Brusells: An economic perspective on climate change can convince people to reduce their carbon footprint, the former mayor of London has said.

Ken Livingstone said that highlighting the benefits of saving money by reusing and recycling was an important first step in winning popular support for climate change policies.

“We need to get across to people that almost everything we do can save money,” he told theparliament.com. “Basically, it’s all about being more careful and not wasting things.”

Livingstone said that there was a lot to learn from attitudes that prevailed half a century ago. “If you look at my parents’ generation, this approach was their whole ethos,” he said.

Livingstone was in Brussels to speak at the eighth thematic session of parliament’s temporary committee on climate change, on sharing examples of best practice to achieve significant CO2 emissions reductions in the short term.

As mayor of London, Livingstone established the C40 initiative, a collective agreement between 18 cities to take action towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions, begun in October 2005.

Irish GUE/NGL deputy Bairbre de Brún added that it was important to learn from those cities which had adopted energy-saving policies. “Initiatives taken at the local level can have an impact on national policy,” she said. “Foresight, imagination and political will are what is needed.”

Deutsche Welle says Ireland has dashed hopes of a quick fix to the uncertainty caused by the Lisbon treaty rejection, after Irish foreign minister Micheál Martin said that he didn’t think there would be any solution on the table by October.

Meanwhile, at a summit of EU leaders that kicked off last night, French president Nicolas Sarkozy accused the EU’s trade chief of causing the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty, says the Telegraph.

Sarkozy said Peter Mandelson’s policies had alarmed Irish farmers and contributed to the no vote.

The Belfast Telegraph says that Irish Taoiseach Brian Cowen is due to have more talks with his EU counterparts today as the summit continues, after EU countries agreed to give the Irish until October to come up with a solution to the impasse.

Meanwhile, the Irish Times reports that Sarkozy may visit Ireland in July to hear the Irish perspective on the no vote. France is keen to get the treaty ratified during their presidency of the EU, which is fast approaching.

And the Guardian says that Sarkozy has put pressure on the Irish to vote again on the treaty, and encouraged the other eight member states which have not ratified it yet to do so as swiftly as possible.

The Euobserver presents three different Commentaries on the subject:

[Comment A] A coalition of the willing has to bring Europe back on track - 19.06.2008 - 16:58
—————————————————————————-
The time is up for mini-compromises and mini-solutions. We need a coalition of the willing to get Europe back on track, argues Christoph Leitl, President of SME Union and Honorary President of
Eurochambres.

 http://euobserver.com/9/26359/?rk=1
[Comment B] The EU: reform or self destruct? - 19.06.2008 - 16:33
—————————————————————————-
The better way out would be to accept the Irish No vote for what it was – a rational rejection of deeper EU integration – and to carry out the reformsthat were promised in the Laeken Declaration, writes Open Europe Director Neil O’Brien.

 http://euobserver.com/9/26356/?rk=1

[Comment C] Democracy may be the price for securing a Lisbon agreement - 19.06.2008 - 09:51
—————————————————————————-
The EU’s democratic deficit has killed the Lisbon Treaty, argues Peter Sain ley Berry. Nevertheless, a non-treaty ‘Lisbon
Arrangement’ might succeed if a real extension of European democracy was on the agenda.

 http://euobserver.com/9/26355/?rk=1

The referendum: populism vs democracy: The idea of the referendum as an instrument of the people’s will rests on pre-democratic foundations, says George Schöpflin on www.OpenDemocracy.net

16 - 06 - 2008

The result of the Republic of Ireland’s referendum on 12 June 2008, a rejection of the European Union’s “reform treaty” agreed at the Lisbon summit in October 2007, has precipitated a crisis for the union whose resolution is hard to foresee. For the victorious “no” side, and for those elsewhere who support the use of referenda to decide on constitutional or other matters, the outcome in Ireland is also on three grounds a vindication of the institution of the referendum:
▪ it restores democracy to the people
▪ it allows the people to tell political elites to be responsive
▪ it restores “the people’s will” to the storehouse of democratic instruments.

These propositions - which can be summarised as the seduction of direct democracy - are misconceived. The championing of referenda they embody proceeds from a series of four untenable assumptions, which are worth itemising in some detail.

George Schőpflin is a member of the European parliament for Fidesz (Hungarian Civic Union) and was Jean Monnet professor of politics at University College London.

An unsafe vehicle:

First, in complex modern societies there is no such thing as “the people”. The concept is a leftover from the time when democracy had to be legitimated in the eyes of anti-democrats; its residue today leaves it open to political manipulation. The homogeneity it implies can hardly be reconciled with the reality of an enormously varied modern society composed of millions of members with multiple motivations and choices, used to exercising individual rationality in the marketplace. How can they be compressed into something with a single voice, namely “the people”?

In too many cases - European integration among them - referenda function as an instrument not of democracy, but of populism. They can assist democracy only in a few special circumstances: for example, to resolve an issue that is more ethical than political (legalising divorce or abortion, say); or to unblock a political system (offering autonomy or independence to the population of a particular region and thus perhaps helping to avoid civil war or ameliorate division).

An example of the latter is when the populations of the various republics of the Soviet Union voted for or against declaring their sovereignty, which led to their independence as states. Another case where the referendum was a legitimate use of the instrument was the votes in 1997 on devolution for Scotland and Wales within the United Kingdom. The referendum held on 9 March 2008 in Hungary was ostensibly about the government’s health-reform project; in reality it was about a means to articulate the deep disquiet in society about the refusal of the Hungarian government to listen to that disquiet.

Second, referenda are profoundly unsuitable ways of addressing complex issues, because they offer the illusion of a simple answer to complexity. In this sense, they pull the voters into the pre-political stance that lies at the heart of populism. Modern politics is about weighing various options, in circumstances where issues only very seldom appear in stark, good-vs-bad form. Referenda have an implicit, contextual message that says the opposite, something along the lines of “vote no” or “vote yes” and all your problems will be solved; as Tøger Seidenfaden has pointed out, referenda reduce highly complex issues to a simple yes/no answer. In a cultural sense, they “dumb down” the voters.

Moreover, voting “yes” often means accepting the word of the political elite’s saying, in effect, “trust us”. If voters wish to send a message to the elite that they are dissatisfied - for whatever reason, even one wholly distinct from the issue at stake - voting “no” is a convenient and simplistic solution. So the illusion of expressing the popular will is just that, an illusion.

Third, referenda reintroduce the tyranny of the majority, the very thing that modern democracies have sought to dilute by, for example, upgrading the role of civil society. Here again, careful analysis is needed. A great deal of politics is about making matters relatively easily intelligible, but this can readily cross the line into oversimplification, especially when sections of society will be clamouring for just that. The erosion of trust between political elites and society is also about the reluctance of the latter to come to terms with political complexity and the way in which both elites and media pander to the outdated desire for a golden age when choices were simple.

The trouble with that supposed golden age is that - whenever those who invoke it can be persuaded to identify it in terms of a definite period - majorities had no trouble in imposing their views on a minority. The evolution of various forms of lobbying, advocacy and pressure groups, and radical movements since the 1960s and 1970s is precisely about giving otherwise silent groups a voice. Referenda suppress that. It is quite plausible that a referendum on, say, recriminalising homosexuality or reintroducing the death penalty would gain a majority in several European nation-states. It is unlikely that the more vocal protagonists of “the people” expressing its view in this way would approve. Indeed, supporters of referenda as the articulation of the popular will are seldom if ever called upon to define what is a proper topic to be decided by “the people” and what is not. That too is a part of the easy ride the referendum receives in modern democracy (or, to be more precise, in a surrogate for democracy).

Fourth, referenda offer power without responsibility, in that voters can confront elites without having to face the consequences of their action. At their heart, referenda provide an opportunity for ad hoc coalitions that never have to worry about the outcome. The far left and far right coming together in France in the May 2005 referendum on the European Union’s constitutional treaty was a case in point; the two sides could never have governed together, but they could operate as a spoiler. Something similar was in evidence in Ireland in the Lisbon-treaty vote, where rightwing Catholics made common cause with leftwingers suspicious of Europe. The irony of this is that an ad hoc coalition of this kind can focus on a single issue and need never on any single occasion assume responsibility for the power that it wields.
The one-way street:

Referenda have unintended consequences in that they introduce new political actors into the system together with fresh lines of polarisation, often around issues that (regardless of the new actors’ demands) have no straightforward solution. This can also introduce and legitimate potentially destructive discourses - accusations of “sell-out” and “betrayal”, for example - that gain credibility through being voiced by these “untainted” political actors.

Besides, the task of the negative campaigners tends to be simpler than that of the supporters - they only have to argue: “if in doubt, say no”. This was much in evidence in Ireland’s referendum campaign. For all practical purposes it left the supporters of the “yes” camp having to prove their credibility, if not actually their innocence. And once a “no” campaign has won, it cannot be blamed, as it immediately evaporates, once again leaving the (elected) elite with the problem of what to do next. The organisers of “no” campaigns themselves never have to face an election.

When referenda are held on questions to do with the future of Europe, there is a further generally unidentified twist to the story. European integration operates simultaneously with three different sets of actors - the European Union, its institutions and elites; the national elites; and the supposed European demos. These three do not really connect very much. There is some connection between the EU and the national elites, but the linkage between the EU and its demos is very weak and is generally felt to be weak.

It is this political gap that provides the opportunity for negative campaigners in European matters - they believe that they can hold “their own” national political elites to account for European commitments, something not possible at the European level, largely because identification with that level does not exist.

This is the democratic deficit that must be addressed. But referenda, far from overcoming that deficit, actually intensify it. Accountability and responsibility, after all, have to be a two-way process to work at all. Referenda operate only in one direction and, for that reason, are not an appropriate or a democratically sustainable instrument in European matters.
Also by George Schőpflin in openDemocracy:

“Israel-Lebanon: a battle over modernity” (8 August 2005)

“Putin’s anti-globalisation strategy” (10 July 2006)

“Hungary: country without consequences” (22 September 2006)

“Hungary’s cold civil war (14 November 2006)

“The European Union’s troubled birthday” (23 March 2007)

Russia’s reinvented empire (3 May 2007)

Turkey’s crisis and the European Union (23 July 2007)

The new Russia: a model state (27 February 2008)

June 18, 2008 - EU leaders must reflect on their collective responsibilities in failing to explain Europe.

Ahead of the European Council summit meeting tomorrow in Brussels, the European Parliament held a debate with Council and Commission in Strasbourg today to assess the impact of the Irish vote and its implications for the EU agenda over the coming months.

Graham Watson, leader of the Liberal and Democrat group in the European Parliament, said:
“The heads of state and government should also reflect why, on the threshold of a new French Presidency, we have come full circle since the last. The Commission has a Plan D for Dialogue, but our member state governments have no equivalent. There is a role for Parliament and Commission in explaining the EU - but also for every national government to do so, every single day. Not just when ratification of the latest treaty is due.

My Group’s advice to Council is to get on with the real business of Europe - boosting trade, combating climate change, fighting food and fuel price hikes - whilst those who will, continue to ratify the Treaty.”

Andrew Duff (UK, Lib Dem), ALDE constitutional affairs spokesperson
This afternoon the Westminster parliament will complete ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. It will be refreshing to see Britain say ‘yes’ to Europe for once. It will restore the moral authority and political credibility of the UK and assist the Irish to seek a new consensus based on less ‘Libertas’ and more ‘Veritas’.”
“What is bizarre is that the British eurosceptics in this House prefer to let a referendum in a foreign country take the decision in place of Britain’s sovereign parliament. The plebiscite is a crude form of democracy possibly suited for revolutionary circumstances of regime change but totally unsuited for informed and deliberative decisions on complex treaty revision.”

Marielle de Sarnez MEP (MoDem, France) said: “Since the Treaty of Rome the world has changed. We must rethink and relaunch the European project in order for it to respond to the huge challenges of the new century: financial crisis and crisis of energy. How can we create qualitative growth that is both sustainable and fair ? How can we reduce the inequalities in our society ? How can we achieve a new world order ? These are the questions to which we need answers and to which Europe must now dedicate itself through politics.”

Marian Harkin MEP (Independent, Ireland) underlined that “it is only possible to defend Irish sovereignty if you also recognise the sovereignty of other Member States too. The Lisbon Treaty represents a real test for the principle of unanimity and therein lies the challenge for EU leaders. Ireland must be allowed time to reflect on their vote and answer the questions it raises. Whatever the solutions proposed to the current dilemma, Ireland must remain at the heart of Europe.”

————–

Ireland’s commissioner under fire for ‘poor’ EU treaty campaign: Commissioner McCreevy has been criticised for doing little to boost support for the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland.

LUCIA KUBOSOVA - 17.06.2008, EUOBSERVER / STRASBOURG.

The leader of the Socialists in the European Parliament, Martin Schultz, has accused Irish EU commissioner Charlie McCreevy of “arrogance” for his public revelations that he had not read the Lisbon Treaty and for a visit to the US just ahead of the referendum in Ireland.

“We have to ask Mr Barroso what kind of people he has in his commission, particularly if you have someone acting as the deregulation Pope in Europe who then goes home and says he hasn’t read the treaty and doesn’t understand it,” Mr Schultz told reporters on Tuesday (17 June).

He was reacting to several statements of Mr McCreevy, who is in charge of internal market in the 27-member-strong European Commission, ahead of the only popular vote on the new EU reform treaty in Ireland held last week, in which the Irish rejected the document.

The commissioner admitted a lack of knowledge of details of the treaty in an interview with the EUobserver, saying he had only read most of a summary of the document.

“But is there anything different about that?” said the commissioner, adding: “Does anyone read the finance act?” referring to the lengthy documents he drew up when he was finance minister in Ireland.

Mr Schultz said he was “particularly disappointed” by such remarks, as well as by Mr McCreevy’s visit to the States four days before the vote. “That is an arrogance that we cannot put up with,” he added.

Moreover, the German Socialist leader criticised the EU executive for tabling proposals on rising oil prices the day after - rather than before - the referendum in Ireland, saying he was “amazed” that it had happened.

“There is little passion for European integration, [but] there is passion against Europe. The pro-Europeans need to look to themselves. You cannot allow the No to win because the Yes is not doing anything.”

Both the commission and Slovenia, which currently holds the six-month rotating EU presidency, will on Wednesday brief MEPs on the expected proceedings at summit of the bloc’s leaders. The summit, which begins on Thursday, is to give the first initial response to what impact the Irish No will have on the Union’s further proceedings.

In his own reaction to the verdict delivered by his fellow Irish citizens, commissioner McCreevy said: “We should remember that Ireland is not alone in being unable to secure a popular endorsement of a European Treaty. As politicians this is something we need to learn from.”

—————–

The strange thing here is how the US got into this. We bet the US does not want to see a strong and united Europe - so does that mean that the US had a hand in this EU fiasco engineered by the Irish?

From:  press at alde.eu Distribution: immediate - June 13, 2008
Irish vote sends EU back to the drawing board

[ Final results announced just after 1700hrs local time put the no side at 53.4 per cent and the yes at 46.6 per cent, with an average turnout of around 54 per cent, higher than that polled during the defeat of the Nice treaty in 2001, and also more than turned out to vote when Nice was put to a vote the second time in 2002.

What is not clear is how the eight EU member states that have not yet ratified the treaty will proceed, and what, if any, measures will be taken to broker a compromise with the Irish. ]

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats note the outcome of the Irish referendum with deep regret.

Graham Watson, leader of the ALDE group in the European Parliament also indicated his huge disappointment:

“If the rejection is confirmed today the incoming French Presidency should convene a special summit of EU leaders with only this one item on the agenda. All 27 Member States must decide a course of action on the fate of the Treaty and its proposed reforms and commit themselves to a concerted campaign to explain what the European Union is, why and how it works and why it deserves their support - the Alliance of EU Parliament Liberals and Democrats say. If there is one clear lesson from Ireland it is that too few people know what the EU is about or how it is adapting to a changing global environment.”
Andrew Duff MEP, constitutional affairs spokesperson for the ALDE group and one of the co-authors of the Treaty of Lisbon, said:

“This is a tragic outcome for Ireland, for the EU and for Europe’s place in the world. The problems that the Treaty of Lisbon addressed remain: democracy, efficiency and capacity to act. We continue to believe that the content of the Treaty of Lisbon is in the very best interests of all the member states and citizens of the European Union.

“Brian Cowen, Irish Taoiseach, will have some tough explaining to do next week in the European Council on 19-20 June.

“I urge the heads of government to show strong leadership. They should not delay a decision about how to tackle the problem nor propose any new ‘period of reflection’. If a solution is to be found it needs to be done soon.”

Marian Harkin MEP (Independent, Ireland) commented:

“It is a very disappointing result. It was an extremely difficult campaign, much of the time was spent trying to counteract the misinformation being put out by the very well resourced “no” camp. Ireland became the battlefield of Europe and unfortunately this particular battle was lost. I am hoping that the Council meeting next week will give the necessary leadership to put the EU reform process back on track.”
For more information, please contact:
Neil Corlett: + 32-2-284 20 77 or + 32-478-78 22 84
e-mail:  neil.corlett at europarl.europa.eu
Yannick Laude: +32-2-284 31 69 or + 32-495-22 78 37
Web: http://www.alde.eu

———-

In effect, www.SustainabiliTank.info is at a loss to understand how a country like Ireland, that started out as if they belonged to the third world - an underdeveloped country that modernized and became an economic leader with the help of the main countries of the EU, is now so ingrate as to believe that they will be better off without a strong EU entity.

Ireland does not have oil like Norway, the best they can dream of becoming is another Switzerland, but then they are geographically not at the center of the world like the Swiss were, so - why do not the rest of the EU simply decide that for the good of the 26 they just put the Irish membership on hold, until the country reapplies, when the people get to their senses.

Anything less then that just is not in Europe’s self interest - and the geopolitical structure of the 21st century needs a strong and united Europe in order to be at the table with China, India and the US. The days that Europe got two memberships at the Security Council (the UK and France) are over. The real Global Security is now a deal that will involve one seat for the EU, and US, China, India, and Russia. Not even Japan, and not yet Brazil, can undo this reality. The individual France and UK, are already overshadowed by Germany, and without being united, Japan is ahead.