Endorsing Lisbon Treaty another act of deference

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

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

There is simply no persuasive reason to vote for the Lisbon Treaty on its own merits. This might seem extravagant, but let me explain.

The original point of the treaty was twofold: to translate into intelligible form the multitude of treaties that defined the fundamental law of the European Union until then and to reform the institutional structures of the EU to take account of the then-impending expansion of the union.

If that had been put to us, unaccompanied by covert and devious asides, there would have been substantial reason to support the new constitution.

But when the constitution was defeated in France and the Netherlands, it was abandoned. It was then reformulated in the form of the Lisbon Treaty, in terms that made it entirely unintelligible, and in away that allowed governments and parliaments of all member states (except Ireland) to bypass the tiresome process of allowing the people to decide.

The passage of time brought about another change: the realisation that the old decision-making mechanisms worked just fine with the old arrangements, and there was no pressing need for a change. So the reasons for voting Yes in 2004 were gone.

But there were also reasons to vote No in 2004, and they remain. First, the constitution (and now the treaty) sought to centralise power even more in the EU, via the creation of two new roles: a President of the Council and a super-foreign minister. The new voting mechanism on the Council of Ministers serves to strengthen the clout of the bigger states.

Yes, the European Parliament would be given a say in decisions under the Lisbon Treaty, but this is a mere nod to democracy at a time when the democratic engagement of the peoples of Europe is being subverted.

Then there is the European Defence Agency, part of whose remit is to promote the manufacture of weapons of mass killing for sale around the world, as well as making plans for resourcing wars to counteract migratory pressures mainly from Africa - in the decades to come (see the agency’s report Initial Long-Term Vision for European DefenceCapability and Capacity Needs).

The only reasons now being advanced to vote Yes have nothing at all to do with the merits or otherwise of the treaty. They have to do with deference. If we do not defer to the Eurocrat elite, who want Lisbon, we will be in trouble; jobs will go or fail to return, the flow of money from the European Central Bank will dry up. If we don’t defer, we will be in big trouble. All this is bogus: what happened to Denmark, France and the Netherlands when they voted No in EU referendums?

On September 29, 2008, Brian Cowen and Brian Lenihan deferred in awe to international capital, at potentially enormous cost to this society, via a bank guarantee that far exceeded any similar guarantee given by any other state, as stated by Patrick Honohan, the newly discovered guru on these matters. (Although he was just down the road from Government Buildings on September 29, he was never called on while the fateful decisions were made).

The banks had acted criminally (literally) and anti-socially over the previous decades and had been brought to the verge of collapse because of their own reckless and greed-fuelled pursuit of private profit.

Then, the state bailed them out, at enormous cost to society, to appease wealthy depositors (less wealthy depositors were already guaranteed up to €100,000), bondholders and the interbank market.

A new state bank could have been created within days, to keep the supply of credit going. That wasn’t on the agenda.

The government had to defer to the super-rich and international financiers. Lethal deference. That same deference caused the state to remain passive while children were raped and brutalised in clerically-run institutions.

That deference caused the state to agree to fund 90 per cent of the reparations for this abuse and allowed the Catholic bishops to continue to be managers of primary schools around the country.

Deference to hospital consultants allowed them to blackmail the state to command exorbitant salaries. Deference to judges is integral to our judicial system. Deference to Lords, Sirs, Excellencies, Ministers.

There’s even deference to tax exiles; otherwise, why are they not taxed on their Irishearned income, as US tax exiles are taxed on their Americanearned incomes?

In memory of that potentially fatal deference to international finance, the anniversary of September 29, 2008 should be commemorated every year, starting on Tuesday.