Climate At Its Extreme

One of the more pressing concerns raised by climate change is its effect on extreme weather conditions. Extremes in levels of precipitation levels and in terms of high temperatures can have devastating consequences on human life.

According studies launched on behalf of the European Parliament’s Environment, Public Health and Food Safety committee in 2005, if unchecked, climate change will result in severe heat waves such as the one that swept Europe in occurring almost every second year. We have seen hurricane intensity increase by 70%, terrible floods sweep European plains and severe droughts are now 75% more likely, due to human influence.

The WHO has verified over 22,000 deaths as a result of the 2003 heat wave. 2005, the year of the EU study, had seen 26 tropical storms in the region, 14 of which went on to become hurricanes and 4 of these reached the United States of America. All of these figures are records for European storms and one of the hurricanes, Wilma, reached the highest intensity level ever recorded. Storms causing €1 billion or more in damages are now to be expected every 2-3 years. We have seen a marked increase in extreme rainfall events and, on the other end of the spectrum, the world area suffering from drought has doubled since the 1970s to include much of southern Europe.

All these indicators show that action needs to be taken.

Such action must be two pronged. The ENVI committee here at Lake Constance must come up with innovative ways for Europe to deal with natural disasters and extreme weather conditions as they happen while also working to reduce the liklihood of their occurrence (or at least prevent an increase in such a probability).

I look forward to seeing what they come up with.

Originally published in:
Green Piece, Issue 2 (p.4)

Official paper of the European Youth Summit on Climate Change and Adaption Strategies, Friedrichshafen, August 2011

Stop Lying!

A Populous poll of 1,000 people in the UK revealed that 1 in 4 did not believe that climate change was taking place. This is despite numerous, rather rigorous, studies from the foremost authorities on the issue which demonstrate that climate change is a fact that we must face. It is clear from numerous scientific studies that global temperatures are rising and are doing so at an ever increasing rate.

We (I am referring to the other 75% who are here in Friedrichshafen to offer solutions to a problem we know we must address) dismiss the “sceptics”, the “deniers” as “loonies”, “crazies”, “cranks”. We consider them enemies of science, of progress. Their view flies in the face of reason and the conclusions of scientific research, a form of research that is, in many ways, the pinnacle of human reason.

However, I think we are wrong to do so.

A much more telling poll was recently conducted by the Gallup polling agency reveals that a staggering 48% of Americans believe that claims regarding climate change by the scientific community are “generally exaggerated”. They are not necessarily wrong.

Al Gore came to global prominence (or more precisely regained global prominence) in his efforts to spread the message of the ills of climate change chiefly through his 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth. This film helped shape a growing consensus behind the validity of the threat posed by global
warming, bringing to light the evidence of countless scientists.

The real inconvenient truth that we need to realise is that this consensus is largely based on lies, falsifications, exaggerations and pseudo science.

People don’t like being duped. They hate being lied to. Yet, in their arrogance, this is what the people that we label the “scientific” community have been doing. We were lied to about the rate that temperatures are rising (numerous IPCC reports). We were lied to about the number of freak weather incidents afflicting us (Webster et al. Science Magazine, 2005). We were shown graphs skewed to fit the propaganda exercise (Mr Gore’s infamous” hockey stick” graph).

The public would be too stupid to react quick enough to the facts as they were, or so these “experts” said. They needed to be sold a fabrication to react with the necessary rapidity.

And oh, how we are all now paying for the arrogance of these individuals. The old adage goes “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”. Once lied to once by the “scientific” community, the words of scientists are now taken with a pinch of salt. Now, when consensus is required more than ever to combat the real problems of climate change, it is weakening. Skepticism is on the rise.

We need to have faith in humanity. The truth is shocking enough. No more lies. No more exaggeration, just the plain, honest-to-God, truth. That is the only way public trust can once again be forged into the consensus necessary to save the pale blue planet. Let’s just hope it happens before it is too late.

Originally published in:
Green Piece, Issue 1 (pp. 6-7)

Official paper of the European Youth Summit on Climate Change and Adaption Strategies, Friedrichshafen, August 2011

Ave duci novo, similis duci seneci

Michaél Martin cuts an impressive political figure. He is articulate, intelligent and comes across with a degree of sincerity lacking in Fianna Fáil’s leadership for some time.This strong media persona likely lies behind the recent Sunday Business Post’s RedC poll that showed an estimated 31% of the electorate preferring Martin as our next Taoiseach (as opposed to Enda Kenny on 19% and Eamon Gilmore on 26%) making him the public’s favoured choice.
What’s most impressive about Martin, in my view, however, is that, unlike many politicians, he has no qualms about talking about substantive policy issues. He seems incredibly eager to debate them. In fact, within days of being elected, he was laying out an interesting policy stall on programmes such as Newstalk’s Breakfast show.
However, on analysing the contents of Mr Martin’s policy stall, I can’t help but feel that if he wishes to maintain support at this level, currently twice that of the party he now leads, he might be better off staying quiet.
Fianna Fáil has always proudly proclaimed itself to be the Republican Party. Since its founding, Fianna Fáil has always propounded Republican ideals and commitment to the eventual reunification of the Irish island into a 32 County Republic has always been a core value of the party.
Those who hold such a value dear will not be encouraged byMartin’s leadership if his pronouncements on Newstalk are anything to go by. When asked by Ivan Yates whether or not he supported a unified, unitary Irish state. He responded “no”. Commitment to Irish Unification seems to have been, unceremoniously, thrown out the window.
As harmful as this, likely unpopular, shedding of a once core Fianna Fáil value may prove to be for the party, it is Martin’s resurrecting of a few old Fianna Fáil values, I had hoped long dead and buried, that are more worrying for the country at large.
In this same Newstalk interview, Martin stated his opposition both to our current multi-seat constituencies and to the adoption of a list-based electoral system.

Instead he advocates an electoral system based on single seat constituencies.

Fianna Fáil has tried to bring this in before but thankfullythe Irish people had the sense to reject the proposal in referenda in 1958 and again in 1968.
Single seat electoral systems are inherently unfair. They are not proportional and are therefore less representative of the electorate. They are simply not as democratic as the PRSTV system we currently have in place.
To illustrate this we need only take a glance across the Irish Sea to our neighbours in Britain, where one of the more well known single-seat constituency electoral systems operates.
In 2005, Michael Howard’s Conservatives lost by less than 3% to Tony Blair’s New Labour. Blair’s party, however, won a substantial majority in the House of Commons. They needed just 35.2% of the vote to return over 55% of seats. On the other end of the spectrum, the Liberal Democrats received 22% of the vote but ended up with less than 10% of the seats. That is hardly a fair representation of the will of the electorate.
Single-seat constituency based systems are heavily biased towards large parties and those with strong geographical vote concentrations. If Fianna Fáil had been able to push such a system through, they would have enjoyed perpetual single partygovernance ever since as they have yet to receive less than 39.1% in a General Election, decidedly more than the British Labour Party won in 2005.
Such as system would squeeze out the smaller parties, they would be virtually nonexistent, and would severely limit the representation in the Dáil of minority interest groups.
It would be hard to argue that such as system would be more democratic or preferable to what we currently have. Yet, that is what Mr Martin wants.
It is, however, not the only archaic Fianna Fáil ideal thatMartin desires to resurrect.
The unfortunate ignoring of pertinent social issues has long been a cornerstone of the Irish political establishment. It has been left to the Catholic Church to run our social system; our schools, our hospitals, our foster homes and it has been left to the Courts to force legislation on socially progressive issues.

At pains to insist that he is “not a raging liberal now, at all” Martin lost his usual coherence when dealing with social issues. When asked directly about Abortion and Gay marriage, he waltzed around the issues. Such social issues are far from the forefront of Martin’s agenda. He seems more than content with how they are legislated for at present.
However, rulings from the European Courts and conversationwith any of those affected by such legislation make it clear that current legislation is not adequate. These are issues that must be tackled by the next government, yet Martin seems unwilling to take them on.
Michéal Martin is, undeniably, a man of charisma and sizeable intellect, yet the policies that he espouses are far from progressive or encouraging and are not what we need to move Ireland successfully into the future. I am forced to agree with Leo Varadkar’s characterisation of the new Fianna Fáil leader as simply “old wine in a new bottle”. He is just more of the same.

First published in Trinity News 8 February 2011.

(http://issuu.com/trinitynews/docs/issue7/1 Page 19)

Things Heat Up for O’Dea

It looks like the case against Willie O’Dea has notched up a gear.

Today, Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny announced in the Dáil that he would be tabling a Motion of No Confidence in Minister of Defence Willie O’Dea amidst allegations of his perjuring himself (see my post from earlier in the week).

The Irish Examiner will tomorrow report Enda Kenny as saying that ministers have been fired “for a hell of a lot less” and Labour’s Pat Rabbite as claiming that O’Dea “has been lying in [the Dáil] for 25 years.Condemnation of O’Dea united the opposition benches. The Government however have given the Minister their full backing. Cowen claiming that O’Dea only made an “honest mistake” and the Greens saying that the High Court has satisfactorily dealt with the issue.

The idea of O’Dea making an honest mistake does not wash with me. A newspaper misquoting you as accusing someone of running a brothel is not easily forgotten especially if, like O’Dea, you are a qualified barrister. Also the Greens stance would appear to only further support their appearance as a party that has lost anything even approaching moral standards. As Enda Kenny put it to Cowen in the Dáil debate, this issue is as much about the abysmally low standards he, as Taoiseach (and implicitly the Greens in propping up the Government) is willing to accept in Government cabinet. It simply is not good enough.

In my last article on this subject I questioned whether or not this could gain steam as the media seemed determined to brush it under the carpet. They are not the only ones.

In the video of Senator Eugene Regan raising the issue in the Seanad, the Leader of the Seanad is seen to try and prevent him from doing so. Today in the Dáil, the opposition was prevented from even questioning O’Dea about his statement. Attempts to address this issue are being oppressed by Government appointed house leaders in the Oireachtas and it is simply not acceptable.

Labour leader Eamon Gilmore rightly stated that this was “not an acceptable way of dealing with this matter” and Caoimhghín Ó Caoileáin called it “totally inadequate”. It is an affront to our democracy that our elected representatives could not question the Minister over this rather serious issue in our house of parliament. Even more damningly, Fine Gael Justice Spokesperson Charlie Flanagan was suspended from the Dáil for calling the way the matter was eing dealt with in the Dáil a “whitehouse” and telling the Ceann Comhairle the he hoped his office was not “complicit in it”.

Next week will see this issue put directly to our elected representatives. Will they accept low standards in high places or will they do the right thing and force O’Dea’s resignation? Only time will tell.

I for one will be contacting all my local TD’s to urge them to support the Motion of No Confidence. Hopefully they will do so (though it is unlikely) and uphold basic standards of decency in Irish public office.

Links

Irish Times Article

From RTÉ news

Face Book Group: Willie O’Dea should resign

Low Standards in High Places

Could this question posed by Eugene Regan in the Seanad lead to something big? It certainly should.

For those of you who don’t know the back story, last April Minister of Defence, Willie O’Dea denied, on a signed affidavit, that he had accused Sinn Féin councillor Maurice Quinlivan of owning a brothel as had been reported in a Limerick Leader article last year. However, a recorded interview from the newspaper clearly shows O’Dea as saying “I suppose I’m going a bit too far when I say this, but I’d like to ask Mr Quinlivan is the brothel still closed?” As Senator Regan rightly asserts, the Minister has quite clearly perjured himself and should be held to account.

Both in the Seanad and in a statement on his website Regan asserts that Willie O’Dea should resign or be sacked. To quote Regan’s statement “If this were to happen in any other jurisdiction Minister O’Dea would now be without a portfolio.”

There are certain standards that we should expect from our politicians. Honesty being the first and most basic one, a standard that O’Dea has failied to live up to. Lying to a court makes a mockery of the criminal justice system of the country but for a Government minister to do so is simply despicable. Not only that but as Justine McCarthy wrote in last week’s Sunday Times article, it is a terrible example to be setting to the Irish people and incredibly hypocritical when you consider his calls for witnesses to testify honestly against gangland criminals in his own Limerick East constituency.

If the man had any integrity he would resign. If the Government had any integrity it wouldforce his resignation and if the Greens had any integrity they would refuse to serve in government with someone who has no problem lying to our courts. However the chances of any of these to actually do the right things are fairly slim. O’Dea lied in the first place and considering his piece in the Sunday Independant (why a supposedley politically neutral newspaper has a Government minister as a regular columnist is beyond me..) there is no chance of him resigning off his own batt. Considering the fact that Gormley has already shorn the Green Party of any principles it once had I can’t see them taking any action and Fianna Fáil harboured three corrupt Taoisigh in a row before we were “blessed” with the leadership of Brian Cowen. If the party took no issue with Haughey, Reynolds or Ahern, they will hardly take issue with O’Dea.

It is a sad reflection on our times that a man in such a responsible office would committ such an act but we get what we vote for. According to tonight’s “Week in Politics”, Fine Gael will raise the issue next week in the Dáil. Hopefully it will gain some political momentum and O’Dea will be held to account. However, considering the parties involved and the fact that the media seem committed to downplaying the issue, I would think it unlikely that much will happen.

Support Calls for O’Dea’s Resignation:

Facebook Group: Willie O’Dea should Resign

Yet Another Resignation…

Deirdre de Burca followed George Lee’s lead from earlier in the week by resigning both from the Seanad and from the Green Party. In her letter of resignation to Green leader John Gormley she stated that “We have lost our way as a party” and criticised Gormley’s leadership as a “disservice to the green party”.

While I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments that she expresses in the letter about the current state of the Green party I am afraid that I am not exactly convinced of her true motive for resigning. Agreeing with John Gormley as quoted by RTE, a all too rare occurence in recent times, I can’t help but feel that De Burca was strongly influenced by her failure to secure a post working with newly appointed Irish Commissioner to the EU, Máire Geoghegan Quinn which came to light only over the last few days.

Despite my reservations over De Burca’s motives, I hope that some more Green TD’s see the light and realise that continued involvement in this government is an abject betrayal of Green Party principles and the mandate of opposition to Fianna Fáil corruption that was given them by the people in 2007. Perhaps the resignation of a, reasonably, prominent national figure will help some more members to resign who will make more of an impact than the councillors that we saw resigning over the last 12 months or so.

Hopefully this can act as a catalyst for the downfall of this government. However it is late and being the first day of the mid term , my judgement is likely fogged by fatigue and blind optimism. Here’s to hoping that there might be some integrity left within the Green parliamentary party after all!

In Defense of the Seanad

Back during the Fine Gael Presidential Dinner in October, Enda Kenny announced a dramatic proposal for electoral reform in Ireland. The major point being the abolition of the Seanad.

The Seanad has many problems in its current guise and certainly should not continue as is. It’s members earn approximatly €70,000 per annum (excluding highly generous expenses) yet the Seanad sits even less often than the Dáil and its members don’t have any of the time consuming constituency work or ministerial work that occupies so many of their TD colleagues in the Oireachtas. What is worse is that the impact of the Seanad on politics is minimal.

However, the Seanad could, and should, be so much more. The Seanad with its appointees and selective electoral constituencies allows the election of Senators who would not succeed in mainstream politics. Yes, it is more often used as a retirement home for failed politicians or as a kindergarten for young prospective candidates but it is also home to many valuable legislators who are simply not cut out for mainstream politics.

As an example of the excellent contributions that some senators do make and that should be followed by the house as a whole , you need only look at Ivana Bacik. She failed to get a European Seat in 2004 or a Dáil Seat in the 2009 Dublin Central Bye-Election. Her radically liberal views, in particular her strong advocation of abortion, set her apart from the general electorate and likely forgoe any chance of mainstream political success.

Her only hopes of getting involved in the legislative process in Ireland is through the selective constituency of Trinity College graduates. However, as a senator she makes a valuable contribution to Irish politics. She tackles the abortion issue. An issue so divisive in Irish politics that no TD would dare touch, one way or another, for fear of isolating themselves from substantial sections of their electorate. She has pushed for legislation to criminalise female genital mutilation which,  due to the lack of any cases in Ireland, is too much of a fringe issue to be given much Dáil time but none the less demands legislation.

Despite not agreeing with much of her politics, I cannot help but laud the contribution that Bacik continues to make to Irish politics. She is an example of what a senator should be.

She is however not the only shining light in the Seanad. Eoghan Harris with his maverick views, David Norris with his proud advocacy for gay rights and Shane Ross the champion of Irish shareholders and consumers all make contributions to Irish politics that would be sorely missed if the Seanad was to be abolished.

The Seanad, being less serious in many respects than the Dáil, allows for braver and often more intellectual discussions than we see in the Dáil. A few days ago Fine Gael Senator Eugene Regan practically acused Willy O’Dea of perjuring himself (which he did: see link) something than no one would dare do in the Dáil chamber. George Lee’s resignations led to a discussion of political life and the role of politicans in this country.

The Seanad is an important part of our democratic process. It’s abolition would be a tragedy. Calling for its abolition is not a brave act but a populist move that is both anti-intellectual and focuses attention from what the reform that is sorely needed.

Firstly, the Seanad needs more actual power. While, as a non directly elected institution, the Seanad should be significantly less powerful that the Dáil, it should be allowed to have more of an impact on national legislation. As it is the Seanad simply is not able to do much. If we want to get the most out of the Seanad, we should give it the opportunity to actually contribute concretely to governance.

Secondly, the Seanad’s usage as a political graveyard and nursery rolled into one needs to be rolled back. I would strongly urge a reduction in the number of Taoiseach appointees to the house and an increase in the number elected from universities and panels. I think that it is telling that of the senators that I have singled out for their positive contributions, only Eoghan Harris is an appointee. The rest were elected from selective constituencies, Regan by the Agricultural Panel and the rest by Trinity College Dublin.

In the likely event that Fine Gael lead the next government and the future of the Seanad goes to a plebiscite, I will be fighting to ensure the retention of this valuable political institution.

George Lee’s Resignation

When I got home on Monday, the first thing I did was check my laptop for an email I needed to get to quite quickly. Of course I couldn’t get to my email without seeing my iGoogle homepage and the news headline just in from breakingnews.ie,  “George Lee Resigns”.

It took me a few seconds to realise what the headline meant. Surely they didn’t mean the George Lee? Alas, the man heralded by many, including myself, as a hero railing against the political status quo ready to bring solid economic expertise to Dáil Éireann was prematurely ending what looked set to be a glittering political career.

The Irish Times told us that “he said the decision had been difficult, but that despite his best efforts, he had had virtually no influence on shaping Fine Gael’s economic policies.”

My first action was to say “Kenny needs to go”. How could he have mismanaged Lee so badly that this could happen? Lee’s candidature for the bye election had been a real coup for Kenny and Fine Gael. Now any poll boost from being having such a respected TD in their ranks will surely collapse. Intrigued by the story I spent much of the day, when I really should have been studying, listening to the many many media broadcasts that Lee partook of to explain his resignation.

The more I heard, however, the more my opinion changed.

I was at George Lee’s selection conference (though not a FG member in my utter delight at George running for the election I managed to tag along with a FG friend of mine) and was astounded by his speech. He spoke of “freedom” and how the goal of the government was to give the people freedom of opportunity, to give everyone the opportunity to live their lives to their full potential. He spoke of how he wanted to be able to tell his children that he did something to help us recover from the economic crisis. He struck me as genuine and committed to making his departure from RTE and into politics a success. His economic expertise had been enough to make me thrilled at the prospect that he might soon be one of my local TD’s, his speech made me even more so.

However after only nine months the dream was ended. George Lee’s political career was no more.

George Lee told us repeatedly that he had “virtually no influence or input” into Fine Gael’s economic policy but it later transpired that he had never expounded his economic ideas on paper. He had never contacted FG Finance Spokesperson Richard Bruton who told us on Newstalk that Lee had never even convened the Economic Committee he was given chairmanship of. A front bench position in the likely upcoming reshuffle was a given and in any case he was given much more opportunities than any other TD to put forward his agenda. At FG parliamentary party meetings and through his chairmanship of the economic committee he had the opportunity to influence policy. He simply did not.

The more I heard George Lee go on about how long a time nine months was and how he wanted change now, right now, the more angry I got with him. Back at his selection conference Dundrum Councillor Jim O’Leary had proposed Lee’s candidature. O’Leary had been Fine Gael’s third candidate and was Fine Gael’s presumptive nominee for the Dublin South bye election before George Lee was parachuted in. He stood aside to let Lee get the nomination unopposed. He forwent the opportunity to run so that George Lee could. O’Leary who has worked very hard since his 2004 election to Dun Laoghaire Rathdown county council would almost assuredly give and arm and a leg to have been sitting in the Dáil never mind say been given all the opportunities that George Lee was. Lee’s resignation was terrilbly disrespectful to the many politicians across the country who have worked a lot longer and harded than he did and continue to do so despite having much less opportunity to influence anything than George Lee did.

What also struck me was that there were some fundamental issues with George Lee’s attitude to his political career. In one case Fine Gael are probably happy enough that this happened when it did and not when George Lee was on the front bench or, heaven forbid, a cabinet minister where a tantrum from him could bring down the government!

As Vincent Browne exposed on Monday night, George Lee had never put the many policies that he was complaining FG weren’t interested in onto paper. He had never emailed Bruton or Kenny with his policy ideas, he seemed to expect them all to come running to him. This was a simply ludicrous expectation. George Lee is not the only economist in FG. Richard Bruton is an Oxford educated economist with much more experience both economically and politically than Lee. As a Paul Hickey wrote in a letter to the Irish Times “Fine Gael Senator Eugene Regan has vastly superior academic economic qualifications. Mr Lee’s former Fine Gael Oireachtas colleagues Joe McHugh TD, Kieran O’Donnell TD, and Senator Paschal Donohue are qualified economists. And his former colleagues Seán Barrett TD, Frank Feighan TD, and John Perry TD have vast practical understanding of commerce.” The idea that Fine Gael would be running to George Lee for policy advice was insane. TD’s, especially front benchers, do not have time to tend such egos. If he had advice he should have picked up a phone and told them.

If Enda Kenny can be credited with one things it is that he allows talent to prove itself and get onto Fine Gael’s front bench. One need only look at Leo Varadkar and James Reilly, both first terms TD’s given much less opportunites than Lee was, and the impact they have been able to make to see that Noel Whelan was right on Monday’s Frontline. George Lee “bottled it”.

Upcoming: Criticism of Enda Kenny’s proposed electoral reform & reaction to the Ukrainian election, will be up when I get some time from all this bloody studying! Thanks for reading.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2010/0209/1224264028214.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/outsidein/2010/02/09/why-isnt-george-lee-a-hero/

The Lisbon Treaty: 1.The Common Foreign and Security Policy of the EU

Today I will look at the positive changes to the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy that would be brought about under the Lisbon Treaty.

The EU first established a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) with the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. However, since then the EU has failed to cement any real semblance of a common front on many issues of international concern and has failed to project any influence or even coherence on the international field. The Lisbon Treaty brings about a few changes to make the CFSP more cohesive and allow the union pull its weight and make its voice heard internationally.

1)      High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the EU.

At the moment the CFSP is represented by two seperate offices. The old High Representative who represented the CFSP in the Council of Ministers and the Commissioner on External Affairs who represented the CFSP in the European Commission.

Article 18 of the Lisbon Treaty will combine these two offices into the new role of High Commissioner. He would be involved in discussing and drafting all legislation involving the CSFP aswell as being the face of the EU in foreign affairs matters.

This decision would allow the EU to have a much more coherent CFSP which is especially augmented by the removal of the 3-Pillar system with Lisbon, which along with moving representation of the CFSP to one office will greatly assist different parts of the union getting in each others’ way in putting together a coherent and effective CFSP.

2)      EU Embassies

The Lisbon Treaty (Article 32) requires that EU member states’ embassies serve the needs of all EU citizens in their country of location. For example if an Irishman loses his passport in some country without any Irish Embassy or consulate, he can get assistance from any EU embassy in the country.

An example of the Lisbon Treaty benefitting the lives of all EU citizens. A small change but nonetheless a positive aspect of the Lisbon Treaty.

3)      Solidarity Clause

Article 42 of the Lisbon Treaty requires that all EU member states assist another member state that is the “victim of armed agression”. The treaty makes it quite clear that the nature of this assistance is up to each member state and does not necessarily have to be of a military nature.

While this has been the source of much controversy, to me this clause is only positive. It cements the idea of European unity and let’s be honest, it would be morally repugnant for us not assist a fellow EU member state that was invaded. We would expect them to do the same for us.

My next post will again deal with the CFSP but this time with regards to safeguards within the treaty that prevent the EU going mad and becoming a “military superstate” and answer a few questions that have been raised in the Lisbon Treaty debate.

Lisbon Treaty II

So in 3 weeks Ireland’s reconsidered vote on the Lisbon Treaty will cast. With the eyes of Europe and much of the world up on us, our decision is crucial.

The Lisbon Treaty is a vast document but it is far from incomprehensible. I read it! Click the link to “The Lisbon Treaty Demystified”  (or go to http://www.tinyurl.com/lisbontreatysummary.com) for my summary of the treaty to assist you in making a fully informed opinion before voting.

Now as readers of this blog from last time around probably know, I am a proud advocate of a YES vote. Saying that I would like it to be clear that my views are not biased or taken from another’s cue but based on my own conclusions from my own research into the treaty.

Over the coming week or so I will be making posts concerning different sections of the treaty and hopefully facilitate a better understanding its contents. First up will be a look at the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

As always if you have any questions about the treaty (or anything else for that matter)  or a request for me to cover any particular area please feel free to contact me.