Monday, June 30, 2008

Deja Vu - The Irish are coming! The Irish are coming!

The Irish Times

Back to the future?
HARRY McGEE Political Staff
Today's young people have never known hard times, yet it is only 20 years since Ireland was mired into a recession that felt unending. Could it really get that bad again?
USUALLY THIS newspaper steers away from collar-grabbing shock headlines but there was something about last Tuesday's front-page lead that sent a shudder down the spine. It read: "ESRI warns of recession, job losses and renewed emigration."

It's almost two decades since that potent combination of words showed up in the same parish. And together they conjured up a moment of grim déjà vu for those in their late 30s and older.
As the story fleshed out, there were more ominous details. The level of unemployment is forecast to rise by 60 per cent; there will be a net emigration of 20,000 people next year; and the economy will experience a recession this year for the first time since 1983.

These are alien concepts to today's young. Looked at now, the Ireland of the 1980s seems as distant a place as all those sad, monochrome countries in eastern Europe were before the Iron Curtain came down. In particular, it was the inclusion of the weasel 'R' word that had an impact: the shot heard around the world. Within 24 hours, more than 500 news outlets around the globe were carrying the story of an impending Irish recession, according to the hits on the Google news site.

But does this looming recession really mean recession, at least in the sense of what it meant for anybody born before 1970 and for whom the 1980s was the decade they want to forget?
Continue reading this excellent article by clicking below:

Sunday, June 29, 2008

ILIR is Blowing The Green Card Game for the Irish

This column was originally published in August of 2006

ILIR is Blowing the Green Card Game for the Irish
"Pete King will be getting a message from Sinn Fein . . ."

By Patrick Hurley
In late June, the Irish Government’s lobbying surrogate, the Irish Legal Immigration Reform (ILIR) descended on Washington to promote the U.S. Senate’s emasculating immigration legislation the Reid-Kennedy bill, AKA the terrorist accommodating "Dissolve America Act". Unsurprisingly, ILIR is an amalgamation of the various factions of the unrepresentative, though disproportionately vocal, Irish Left, with unfortunate deluded Irish illegals being dragged along. The group first saw the light of day thanks to a healthy infusion of Euros courtesy of Irish Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern. Subsequently, the entity has been sustained by further Celtic Tiger largesse. It enjoys the enthusiastic support of Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny, various other members of the Oireachtas, Sinn Fein and the SDLP.

ILIR's chairman is Niall O’Dowd, a sycophantic apparatchik of the Leftwing limousine elite and publisher of the Leftist weekly tabloid, the Irish Voice, a publication of ever decreasing circulation. If there really are 50,000 undocumented Irish, as ILIR claims, O’Dowd should be really worried! Empirical evidence suggests that they are most certainly not reading his weekly propaganda sheet, as evidenced by the piles of Irish Voices that remain unbought on the newsstands. Of course, the Voice, long a hybrid of the National Inquirer, the Sunday World and a fawning Kennedy/Clinton fan mag, has never been a beacon of intellectualism.
In implicitly nominating Niall O’Dowd to woo Irish America, the Irish Government and broader political establishment, have revealed an appalling naiveté and detachment. O’Dowd has earned the rebuke and garnered the ire of many in the Irish American community over the last 20 years. He came to prominence through his attempts to denigrate and undermine the organizations and institutions of Irish America including the AOH, the Emerald Societies, the County Associations, the New York St. Patrick’s Day Parade, Friends of Irish Freedom and, indeed, the Irish Immigration Reform Movement (IIRM), back when there really was an immigration crisis with a capital "C". Niall is the brother of Fergal O'Dowd, a Fine Gael TD from County Louth.

ILIR's vice chairman is long time Sinn Fein representative, Ciaran Staunton. In fairness to Ciaran, he was one of the few standing in the Bearna Baol advocating for the Northern Irish nationalist community long before it was de rigueur to do so. In the late 1980s, he was instrumental in the establishment and organization of the IIRM in Boston. It is unfortunate that he should lend his talents to this charade. Ciaran is also Niall O’Dowd's brother -in-law. A new perspective on "keeping it in the family".

Because of the growing rapprochement between Sinn Fein and the Southern Irish political establishment, increasingly nurtured by a shared anti-Americanism, ILIR can be counted on to assertively use the Celtic Tiger’s munificence to promote Dublin’s Leftist Europhilic line. "A weird raggle taggle of Shinners and Free Staters," is how a prominent Irish American recently described the group.

As to be expected, in a wartime nation, which is constantly reminded of its vulnerability by almost daily headlines proclaiming terrorist plots uncovered and foiled, ILIR has had little success in advancing its Left wing agenda. A center piece of its recent machinations on Capitol Hill was, yet, another attempt to embarrass the powerful chairman of the U.S. House’s Homeland Security Committee, Congressman Peter King of Long Island. King, of course, has long been a staunch advocate of the Irish American political agenda. As to be expected, he had declined to meet with the Leftist group.

O’Dowd and ILIR enthusiast Sean Crowe, a Sinn Fein TD from Dublin, whipped the crowd of mostly deluded illegals into an anti- King frenzy with Crowe telling the jeering crowd that "Pete King will be getting a message from Sinn Fein . . ." Notwithstanding the impropriety of a foreign parliamentarian waltzing into Washington and upbraiding the chairman of our congressional Homeland Security Committee, scholars of Irish history, and, no doubt, persons living in certain areas of the Northern Irish statelet, are keenly aware that a phrase such as "getting a message from Sinn Fein" can have connotations much more profound and sinister than the simple meaning of the words imply. Having spent the last decade working closely with the various protective agencies of the U.S. Government, and becoming familiar with their mindset, I can only imagine how vigilant, super sensitive, gung ho federal agents might have interpreted Deputy Crowe's remarks.

Following ILIR's repeated broadsides, the vibes emanating from Pete King's office are not good. The Chairman lost over 150 constituents and friends on September 11. In recent months, he has publicly revealed his displeasure with the anti -Americanism that is rampant across the spectrum of the Celtic Tiger’s political and media establishments, AKA "Dublin 4". He is particularly disappointed at the way his commonsensical legislation, H.R. 4437, has been negatively distorted in the Irish American community by ILIR and in the Celtic Tiger by "Dublin 4". In March, former Minister Michael Woods, TD, chairman of the Dail’s foreign affairs committee, described H.R. 4437 as an "overreaction" to Sept 11. Imagine, three thousand Americans – an equivalent to the entire fatality list from the 30 year Northern Irish conflict – are murdered in the space of three hours on one sunny September morning and the Dail thinks that King’s legislation is an "overreaction". The persistent sniping from ILIR could well be definitive. Suffice it to say that it may be a while before the Chairman chooses to expose his ears to a lilting brogue.

O’Dowd speaks of "a rift" developing between King and the Irish American Community. "Rift"? What "rift"? Any "rift" exists only in O'Dowd's imagination along, of course, with 50,000 illegals. Consistent polling and empirical evidence indicates that the Irish American Community, just like the U.S. population at large, believes that Congressman King is doing an excellent job in protecting our nation. Irish American cops, firefighters and federal agents, those who are on the frontline of the war against Radical Islam, greatly appreciate his efforts. It is refreshing to see an elected representative taking a principled stand and actually advancing the interests of the American people.

Over thirty states and numerous local municipalities - tired of waiting for Congress to enact, and the federal government to implement, meaningful and substantial immigration enforcement - have begun to institute their own anti - illegal immigration efforts from denying driver’s licenses to illegals, to penalizing employers who hire them and landlords who rent to them. In recent weeks, the chairman of the GOP's Senate Conference, Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania has introduced his own immigration bill into the Senate, the Secure the Borders First Act. Santorum's legislation is not unlike the King/Sensenbrenner bill, H.R. 4437, which passed the House before Christmas. A likely scenario is that, with an election pending, the Senate will pass Santorum's legislation. It will then be easily reconciled with the similar House legislation in a House/ Senate conference, and subsequently enacted. Conveniently, on the eve of an election, Congress will give the U.S. electorate what it craves, the first steps towards genuine security on the borders and in the heartland.

In a debate in which the electorate recoils in horror at large numbers, such as 12 million illegals here, and 60 million there, many GOP/conservative legislators will tell you, off the record, that the undocumented Irish are not controversial. They are few in numbers - more like 5,000 (if even that) than 50,000 - speak English, are well educated and skilled, are producers not beneficiaries and assimilate effortlessly. A concept that had been considered in Irish GOP/conservative circles was for some provision akin to an annual quota of 5,000 immigrant visas for Ireland, which could have been covertly buried by our congressional friends in the boiler plate of any ultimate immigration bill. Such a move, of course, would have required political dexterity, discretion and stealth. Nevertheless, precedents such as the Donnelly Visa program, the Morrison Visa set – a - side and the recent Australian visa deal exist for such a concept. The Irish American Community does not have to conspire in the disintegration of the United States, in order to legalize a few thousand undocumented Irish. However, thanks to the antics of ILIR, in attracting the unwanted harsh glare of publicity and in alienating our friends in Congress, this window of opportunity is probably now firmly closed.

There is no such a thing as the generic immigrant group. Each one is different. Some, like the Irish, speak English, enjoy a high standard of education, are very well motivated and assimilate effortlessly. Others, not so. ILIR, by merging the undocumented Irish into the monolithic block of illegal aliens, who may not share some, or, indeed, all of these characteristics, has severely diluted these natural advantages in the public’s perception. In aligning the undocumented Irish with anti - American, Leftist groups like La Raza and ANSWER, and entrenching them firmly on the wrong side of the issue, ILIR has probably ended the subtle, benevolent relationship, which generations of undocumented Irish have enjoyed with the U.S. political establishment since the Kennedy Immigration Act of 1965.
In particular, ILIR has alienated the Irish American community, which having suffered disproportionately on 9/11, understands completely the need for commonsensical, comprehensive security. Irish Americans have difficulty understanding undocumented Irish that, on the one hand, zealously propose themselves as potentially loyal American citizens, but, on the other, actively oppose legislation, which would implement commonsensical security measures and institute rationalism in our immigration system.

There are two possible explanations for ILIR's conduct. One is that its failure to read the mood of the nation - with over 80% of Americans clamoring for meaningful security on our borders and the preservation of our cultural, economic, environmental and intellectual integrity through assertive and meaningful enforcement of our immigration laws - and the nuances of U.S. political culture, has been appalling. Certainly, there is substance to support this hypothesis. The other, less charitable explanation is that the group has a much broader agenda than legalizing the Irish. Could the Irish illegals be only a means to an end? The acceptable face, the palatable thin edge of the illegal immigration wedge? Perhaps ILIR, together with anti - American organizations like La Raza and ANSWER, with whom it has made common cause, is an enthusiastic element in the extreme Left’s design to obliterate the Judeo Christian, Anglo Saxon culture of the United States.

But what of ILIR’s enablers, the Irish political establishment? Its failure to curb its progeny is just mind boggling. In this game, silence is interpreted as complicity. Why are Irish politicos, of all hues and stripes, so blatantly inserting themselves into U.S. domestic affairs to push the U.S. Senate’s debilitating Reid – Kennedy legislation, which consistent polling indicates that over 80% of Americans – and by extrapolation Irish Americans – realize will emasculate this nation? Understandably, Americans – especially Irish Americans – are skeptical of any of "Uncle Teddy's" work products. In 1965, he, and his ilk, got us into this mess in the first place!

About a decade ago, as Ireland was been increasingly sucked into the vortex of Europe, it was suggested that the country’s historical and natural affinity with the United States would eventually come under strain in the tug of war between Washington and Brussels. Ireland would eventually have to choose "Boston or Berlin". The recent anti - U.S. machinations of the Irish political establishment indicate that the choice has probably been copper - fastened.

After our borders and interior are effectively secured, the American people will turn their attention towards the implementation of an admissions system that has as its primary objective our nation's cultural, economical, environmental, intellectual and security interests. Within that rational context, immigration will be a zero sum game with a finite number of Green Cards to go around. As Irish Americans our objective is to ensure that the Irish obtain their realistic share. However, as citizens of this great nation, we must also ensure that reform will address the real concerns and priorities of the United States, not the fantasy agenda of the Left. Fortunately these objectives are perfectly reconcilable.

Patrick Hurley is president of the Regular Republican Club, 30th AD, Inc., in Woodside, Queens, New York City. He is a member of the Queens County Executive of the Republican Party. In 2003, he was the GOP/Conservative candidate for the New York City Council for the 26th CD. He is currently president of the County Cork Association of New York, one of the largest Irish American organizations in the Tri State area. In 1987, Hurley was a co founder of the Irish Immigration Reform Movement, a grassroots lobbying organization that secured thousands of Green Cards for the then burgeoning illegal Irish community.
This column was originally published in August of 2006.

New York Lad On Irish Baseball Team

www.irish-american-news-opinion.blogspot.com

New York Irish Lad On Irish National Baseball Team


By Patrick Hurley



Chris "CJ" Browne of Huntington, Long Island has been capped for the Irish National Baseball Team and will play in the European Championship baseball tournament near Lisbon, Portugal in early July. He is an alumnus of Chaminade High School, Mineola and recently graduated from the University of Hartford with a degree in marketing and business. "CJ" attended college on a baseball scholarship. It was while he was playing for the school that he attracted the attention of the Irish scouts.

Chris is the son of Denis Browne, a detective sergeant with the Nassau County Police Department, and wife Deirdre, a native of Newtown Hamilton, South Armagh. His New York grandparents are John Browne, formerly Kanturk, Co. Cork and wife Christine, formerly Co. Limerick. Both immigrated to New York in the late 1950s. John Browne, of course, is well known in New York's Irish community. He is a past president of the County Cork Association of New York and a very active community leader. John is a principal of the renowned Irish American bar and restaurant, The Grandstand, in Elmhurst, Queens, New York City. Chris, himself, is an alumnus of the County Cork Association scholarship program.


Ireland will play Portugal on July 9, Russia on July 10 and Greece on July 11. The final will be played on July 12. All contests will be decided in the town of Abrantes, near Lisbon. Congratulations to Chris Browne and good luck to all of the Irish squad. Good batting and good catching!


To keep up with the progess of the Gaelic Boys of Summer, in Portugal, or, indeed, to learn more about Irish baseball go to: www.baseballireland.com.



www.irish-american-news-opinion.blogspot.com

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Irish America's Good Friend, Pete King!

Whether for America or Ireland,

Pete King has always manned the Bearna Baol!



Please join us
for a fundraiser in support of



Congressman
Pete King
Ranking Member, Homeland Security Committee
Member, Financial Services Committee



Bourbon Street
348 West 46th Street, New York, N.Y.
Monday, June 30, 2008
5:30 PM – 7:00 PM

Donation
$250 Friend / or $500 Patron

Checks should be made payable to:
Pete King for Congress Committee


For more information call
202-302-7678 or email
MikeGBurton@aol.com * Fax 202-986-5319

Paid for by Pete King for Congress Committee, P.O. Box 1428, Seaford, NY 11783. Contributions are not deductible for income tax purposes. Corporate contributions are not acceptable. PAC contributions are limited to $5,000 per election cycle, $5,000 for Primary and $5,000 for General for a total of $10,000. Individual contributions are limited to $2,300 per election cycle, $2,300 for Primary and $2,300 for General, for a total of $4,600. Federal Law requires us to use our best efforts to collect and report the name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer of individuals whose contributions exceed $200 in a calendar year.

Nil, No, Non, Nein, Nyet . . .

Irish Examiner USA
Don't They Know What 'No' Means?
Charlie McCreevy talks sense, but he still doesn't really understand the European Union

What is it exactly that the Eurocrats think voters mean when they say 'No'?
It obviously doesn't mean the same thing that we thought it did based on their long-lasting reaction to popular referendums throughout the European Union. Ireland's European Commissioner, Charlie McCreevy does (as Charley Brady notes out on the page opposite,) pointing out when questioned that, "It was clearly understood that this treaty had to be ratified by all 27 member states."

Of course, that begs the question of why the British government, and others, despite facing heavy domestic pressure to do otherwise, decided themselves to ratify a treaty that is dead in the water?

The only conclusion from the continuing ratifications is that the Eurocrats are either going to simply change the rules (perhaps they can pass a Weimar Republic-style 'Enabling Act' to allow them to do so) allowing them to forge ahead without Ireland's ratification, obviously assuming that the question will simply be put to the Irish people again, only this time holding a referendum when they (and perhaps the plucky Czechs) are outside of the so-called 'European Mainstream.'

Perhaps they will simply ignore the ratification process and, as they have done before, just dictate the individual sections of the European Constitution Reform Treaty Lisbon Treaty at Inter-Governmental Conferences.

Either way, the Eurocrats continue to display their inherent arrogance and distaste for democracy and the rule of law (except for the flood of EU regulations that they spew forth). Charle McCreevy continued by saying, "I somehow suspect that if any other member state of the EU had to put it before the people, that the result would be the same."

He's absolutely right! The French and Dutch people already rejected this Constitution Treaty once, the British would in a heartbeat, but he seems to have missed the obvious conclusion that that's the reason why the Eurocrats don't want referendums and ignore them when they go "the wrong way."
Irish Examiner USA
www.irishexaminerusa.com

The Immigration Solution


ANNOUNCING A NEW BOOK
THE IMMIGRATION SOLUTION: A Better Plan Than Today's (Ivan R. Dee, 2007)
By Heather Mac Donald, Victor Davis Hanson, and Steven Malanga
Introduction by Myron Magnet
Contact:
Lindsay Young Craig Executive Director, Communications
Bridget Sweeney Press Officer
Manhattan Institute646-839-3352


"The Immigration Solution is not just another book about the catastrophe caused by millions of illegal aliens flooding our country; it is a call to arms combined with an outline for a sensible immigration policy. If every member of Congress would read this book, we might be able to begin the process of securing our borders and reducing the number of illegal immigrants within them."— Congressman Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado



Order Your Copy today at Amazon.com ISBN: 1-56663-760-0

Undoubtedly the United States needs a liberal and welcoming immigration policy, geared to the needs and interests of the nation. In this urgent new book, three astute observers argue that we have lost control of our southern border, so that the vast majority of our immigrants are now illegal Mexicans. Poor, uneducated, and unskilled, these newcomers add much less to the national wealth than they cost the taxpayers for their health care, the education of their children, and (too often) their incarceration. The Immigration Solution proposes a policy that admits skilled and educated people on the basis of what they can do for the country, not what the country can do for them.

About the Authors
Heather Mac Donald is author of The Burden of Bad Ideas and Are Cops Racist? and lives in New York City.
Victor Davis Hanson's most recent book is A War Like No Other; his syndicated column appears in newspapers throughout the country. He lives in Palo Alto, California.
Steven Malanga's most recent book is The New New Left. He lives in New Jersey.
All three are contributing editors of City Journal.
* * *
ADVANCE PRAISE
"The Immigration Solution is a cogent analysis of our illegal immigration crisis and the public policy choices facing America. This book is a critically important read for our elected officials and the citizens they should be representing."—Lou Dobbs, anchor and managing editor, Lou Dobbs Tonight

"The Immigration Solution demolishes open-borders myths and provides a clear, sane path toward an immigration plan that benefits America and adheres to the rule of law. Heather Mac Donald, Victor Davis Hanson, and Steven Malanga battle muddled amnesty, advocates with impeccable logic, facts, and principle. This book is not just a must-read. It's a must-do."—Michelle Malkin, author of Invasion

"In this book, the writers from City Journal again show why that magazine is so indispensable. Having helped change conventional wisdom on the urban problems of crime and welfare, they have now taken a hard look at an issue even more suffused with sentimentality and cliche. The Immigration Solution is essential reading for anyone seeking to develop an informed opinion on this vital national issue."—Mark Krikorian, executive director, Center for Immigration Studies

"The divisive debate over immigration is going to continue for some time to come. Mac Donald, Malanga, and Hanson lucidly present their concerns over the current direction of immigration policy and offer more than a few suggestions for change. Even if you disagree with their preferred policy changes, their suggestions are serious, provocative, and worthy of careful thought—and, regardless of your ideological background, you might actually find yourself nodding more than a few times as you read through the book."—Dr. George Borjas, Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, and author of Heaven's Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy

The Lisbon Treaty is Dead



The Economist

The future of the European Union
Just bury it
Jun 19th 2008
From The Economist print edition
It is time to accept that the Lisbon treaty is dead. The European Union can get along well enough without it

VOTERS have once again shot an arrow into the heart of a European Union treaty. This time it was the Irish, who voted no to the Lisbon treaty on June 12th by 53-47%, on a high turnout. They follow the French and Dutch, who rejected Lisbon's predecessor, the EU constitution, in 2005. In 2001 the Irish also turned down the Nice treaty, but the Danes started this game when they voted against the Maastricht treaty in 1992.

Europe's political leaders react to these unwelcome expressions of popular will in three depressingly familiar stages. First they declare portentously that the European club is in deep “crisis” and unable to function. Next, even though treaties have to be ratified by all members to take effect, they put the onus of finding a solution on the country that has said no. Last, they start to hint that the voters in question should think again, and threaten that a second rejection may force the recalcitrant country to leave the EU.
The sole exception to this three-stage process was the Franco-Dutch no in 2005. Then, after two years of debate the politicians hit on the cynical wheeze of writing the constitution's main elements into the incomprehensible Lisbon treaty, with the deliberate aim of avoiding the need to consult Europe's voters directly again.

Now the Irish, the only people in the EU to be offered a referendum on Lisbon, have shot down even this wheeze. And as EU leaders gathered for a Brussels summit, after The Economist went to press, most had duly embarked on their usual three-stage reaction, all the while promising to “respect” the outcome of the Irish referendum—by which they mean to look for a way round it (see article). Some have had the gall to argue, with a straight face, that Lisbon must be brought into effect despite the Irish no because it will make the EU more democratic. This is Brussels's equivalent of a doctor saying that the operation was a success, but the patient died. In truth, it is the Lisbon treaty that should be allowed to die.

Democracy and efficiency don't always go together
Every part of EU leaders' three-stage response is wrong-headed. The Irish rejection of the treaty is a setback, certainly. But in the days after the vote, the Brussels machinery has acted normally, approving mergers, looking into state-aid cases, holding meetings and passing directives. The claim that an expanded EU of 27 countries cannot function without Lisbon is simply not true. Indeed, several academic studies have found that the enlarged EU has worked more efficiently than before. Besides, it is not always desirable to speed up decision-making: democracy usually operates by slowing it down. And many of the institutional reforms in the Lisbon treaty would not have taken effect until 2014 or 2017 in any case.

Nor is it right to treat the outcome as a problem for Ireland alone, still less to start talking of making the Irish vote again. As it happens, a case can be made that EU treaties are too complex to be readily susceptible to a simple yes/no vote. But 11 EU governments grandly promised such referendums on the constitution, and ten of them have been dishonest in pretending that Lisbon is a wholly different document. The Irish constitution requires a vote on any treaty that transfers any power at all to the European level. Even if one believes that referendums are not always desirable, it is both stupefyingly arrogant and anti-democratic to refuse to take no for an answer. Just what kind of democracy is being practised by the EU when the only outcome of a vote that is ever acceptable to Brussels is a yes (see article)?

A mess of pottage
It is not as if the Lisbon treaty is such a wonderful text. Besides being incomprehensible, it was—as so many EU treaties are—a messy compromise. And, like the constitution, it failed to meet the objectives laid down by an EU summit in Laeken almost seven years ago. The broad aims then were to clarify the EU's distribution of powers, with an eye to handing more of them back to national parliaments; and to simplify the rules so as to make the EU more transparent and bring it closer to its citizens. Nobody could pretend that Lisbon fulfils these goals.

This is not to say that everything in the treaty is bad. It would have improved the institutional machinery in Brussels, sorted out a muddle in foreign-policy making and brought in a fairer system of voting by EU members. But these are not the sorts of changes to set voters alight. And in truth, few EU governments or institutions are genuine enthusiasts for the treaty as such (Germany, which would gain voting weight, and the European Parliament, which would win extra powers, are two exceptions). Most simply wanted to get it out of the way and move on to issues more interesting than the institutional navel-gazing that has preoccupied the EU for too long.

After the Irish no, that is precisely what they should now do. The treaty should be buried so that the EU can focus on more urgent matters, such as energy, climate change, immigration, dealing with Russia and the EU's own expansion. It is disingenuous to claim, as some do, that without Lisbon no further enlargement is possible. Each applicant needs an accession treaty that can include the institutional changes, such as new voting weights or extra parliamentary seats.

Needless to say, many of Europe's leaders will instead look for ingenious ways to ignore or reverse the Irish decision. But to come up with a few declarations or protocols and ask the Irish to vote again would not just be contemptuous of democracy: the turnout and margin of defeat also suggest that it might fail. Nor can Ireland, legally or morally, be excluded from the EU. Attempts by diehards to forge a core group of countries that builds a United States of Europe would also founder because, outside Belgium and Luxembourg, there is no longer a serious appetite for a federal Europe.

Ireland is a small country, to be sure. But the EU is an inter-governmental organisation that needs a consensus to proceed. It is bogus to claim that 1m voters are thwarting the will of 495m Europeans by blocking this treaty. Referendums would have been lost in many other countries had their people been given a say. Voters have thrice said no to this mess of pottage. It is time their verdict was respected.

De Cork Boy's Perspective

De Cork Boy's Perspective
A little late but still great


By Patrick Hurley

"Battman" Returns!

A Micheal, beware the mandarins!


Congratulations to new taoiseach, Offaly man Brian Cowen. We wish the Clara man all the luck in the world as he takes the helm of Ireland, Inc.. He will need it as, by all accounts, the Celtic Tiger is in expeditious demise.

The feline phenomenon was predicated on the input of Brussels largesse, in the form of billions of Euros in EC structural funds, during the 1990s . The southern Irish state had been entitled to the lolly because of its designation as one of the economically undernourished of the European Community. Of course, another essential element of the Irish boom was the old reliable, U.S. corporate investment i.e. inputs from those "evil U.S. imperialists". Though the Celtic Tiger’s politicos and functionaries like to intimate strongly to the contrary, the decade or so of affluence was certainly not as a result of any economic brilliance exhibited by Dublin. All it had to do was to manage and distribute the largesse. Pour billions of Euros into a small country like Ireland and why wouldn’t it boom? In fairness, the bold initiative of visionary Education Minister Donagh O’Malley in the 1960s, in making secondary and third level education widely accessible, ideally positioned the Irish people to successfully exploit the largesse when it came along.

Now that the economic doldrums are once again on the horizon, an increasingly subdued Celtic Tiger is no longer classified as a hardship case. The Brussels largesse is no more. New members from the east have long ago displaced Ireland on the EC dole queque. Long a net beneficiary, as a mature member of the community, the Celtic Tiger is now expected to be a net contributor. This time round there will be no generous handouts to jumpstart the Irish economy. Now the politicos and functionaries will really have to roll up the shirt sleeves and rely soley on native ingenuity and initiative. Reality is slowly permeating the trendy leftie Europhile salons of Dublin 4. The Euro party is well and truly over.

Cowen’s predecessor, Bertie Ahern, has exited on the crest of a wave. Ahern, of course, is the quintessential "northside Dub". However, both his parents were from West Cork. Ahern senior from Kilbrittain and mother from Bantry. Both were active with the West Cork IRA Brigade. In later life, Ahern the elder was a well-known figure to the thousands of clerical students who passed through All Hallows Seminary in Drumcondra, on the northside of Dublin. He was a highly regarded grounds manager at the institution for many years. Ahern the younger has the dubious distinction of having been described by "de Boss" himself, Charlie Haughey, as "the most cunning, the most ruthless, the most devious of them all". Now, that’s an endorsement!

Irish American Corkonians were delighted to learn of the inclusion of two Cork ministers in Taoiseach Cowen’s new cabinet. Batt O’Keefe from Cork Northwest has been named minister for Education. For many years, O’Keefe has been a staunch supporter of the New York County Cork Association. He has been a regular attendee at our functions on "the other side". The word is that "Battman", as he is affectionatley known, is personally close to Cowen.

The Irish American Cork jury is still out on the new Foreign Affairs minister, Michael O Martin, from Cork South Central in "de" city. The feeling is that O Martin has remained very much aloof from Irish American Rebel expatriates. Certainly, he has rebuffed many New York County Cork Association overtures over the years.

A certain humble graduate from West Cork - not looking at anybody, in particular, and certainly not looking into any mirrors - recalls O Martin as the very radical chairman of the Donogh O’Malley Fianna Fail Cumann, in the University College Cork of the early 1980s. Ah, the radicalism and zealousness of youth! There’s nothing like political office and "de" ministerial mercs and perks to knock the anti - establishment edges of "de" boy!

As he assumes his new portfolio, O Martin should be careful not to become envelopped in the reality-averse, desensitizing cocoon spun by Iveagh House - Ireland’s Foggy Bottom - mandarins. Blindly, following the diktats of the "Yes Minister. No Minister. Three bags full Minister. Here’s your script and stick to it, Minister," Foreign Affairs brigade can have adverse repercussions for the aspiring politico. As disparate political characters as "de reel taoiseach" Jack Lynch and "de Boss" Charlie Haughey, quickly grasped the essentiality of bringing the Iveagh House mandarins expeditiously to heel. It remains to be seen whether O Martin will assert himself and stare down the mandarins, or will he be content to vegetate and allow them to call the shots?

As one who is considered potential taoiseach material, O Martin would do well to ponder the fate of his predecessor at Iveagh House, Louth man, Dermot Ahern. Poor Diarmada was demoted to the Justice portfolio in the cabinet re -shuffle. As if following the pied piper, he danced merrily and unquestioningly to the tune composed by the mandarins in collaboration with the extreme leftist group ILIR and assorted anti - American apparatchiks. Thus, did Poor Diarmada aggressively intrude into the domestic affairs of the United States, overtly lobbying for insane debilitating amnesty legislation, which would have been severely detrimental to our cultural, economic and security interests. Adhering verbatim to the mandarins’ reality-challenged script, not only did Poor Diarmada embarass Ireland and the Irish American Community, he also earned a rebuke from the one hundred-member Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus.
One must conclude that Poor Diarmada’s starring role in this mandarin-contrived debacle was a major reason for his political demise. Incredibly, after his embarassing U.S. performance, he was still being touted in some quarters - no doubt by loyalists in deep denial - as a challenger to Cowen for the top job. His demotion signals that that fantasy has well and truly dissipated. So, beware Micheal O Martin! Beware! Aire a mhic! Political misfortune can only befall those promising ambitious ministers who fall under the powerful hypnotic sway of the mandarins.
Ironically, in his new portfolio as minister for Justice, Poor Diarmada will now find himself responsible for enforcing some of the toughest immigration policy in the world - Ireland’s. I mean like . . . poetic justice or what! Irish Americans can only salivate enviously when contemplating Ireland’s commonsensical, no nonsense, hard edged immigration policy. It gives new meaning to the lyrics, "If only we had old Ireland over here!" As the discerning Corkonian will have by now deduced from Poor Diarmada’s surname, Ahern, he is also of Rebel County origin. Father was a schoolteacher from the Coppeen area of West Cork, who navigated his way north to the "Wee County".

Another Soldier of Destiny of the same surname who also did not fare well, in Cowen’s ministerial reshuffle, is Michael Ahern from Cork East. Unfortunately, Michael was demoted to the backbenches from his junior ministerial post.

The current scuttlebutt is that with Batt O’Keefe’s elevation to the cabinet table there are now two Fianna Fail factions in the Rebel County. "Battman’s" brigade is close to Cowen and apparently has the mission of curbing the power and ambitions of O Martin. Then, of course, in O Martin's case, there is Micheal's Mafia championing the good minister and his political interests, which might not always be reconcilable with those of "Battman". T’is a treacherous business, indeed!

As the sage said, "Politics is a fickle mistress!"
Patrick Hurley is a past president of the County Cork Association of New York. In 1987, Hurley was a co-founder of the Irish Immigration Reform Movement, which went on to secure thousands of Green Cards for Irish and other European immigrants to the United States. Active in GOP and Conservative Party politics, he is a former candidate for political office in NYC. Patrick Hurley is a 1985 graduate of University College Cork.

Recession, Job Losses, Renewed Emigration

The Irish Times

ESRI warns of recession, job losses and renewed emigration
PAUL TANSEY, Economics Editor

THE ECONOMY will experience a recession this year for the first time since 1983, and a return to net emigration next year, the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) forecasts in its latest Quarterly Economic Commentary, published today.It anticipates that the economy will contract in size by 0.4 per cent this year after growing by 4.5 per cent in 2007.
This recession reflects a steep decline in domestic demand, according to the ESRI, which calculates that the volume of domestic spending this year will fall by 2.6 per cent. Investment spending is forecast to fall by 14.9 per cent while real consumer spending growth in 2008 has been revised downwards by the ESRI to just 1 per cent from 3 per cent just three months ago.

Shares in Irish companies fell heavily as news of the report leaked into the market. Bank shares were particularly badly hit, with Bank of Ireland down 5 per cent. The ESRI expects economic growth to resume next year, with a forecast expansion rate of 1.9 per cent.
However, this will be insufficient to stem a recurrence of net emigration in 2009. The ESRI projects that the outflow of people from the country will reach 20,000 next year, a level of net emigration not seen since 1990.

The reappearance of net emigration signals a steep deterioration in domestic labour market conditions. The ESRI projects that the level of unemployment will increase by 60,000 or 60 per cent between 2007 and 2009. The unemployment rate - the number out of work as a percentage of the labour force - is expected to climb from 4.5 per cent in 2007 to 6 per cent this year before increasing again to 7.1 per cent in 2009. The numbers at work in the economy next year are forecast to be smaller than in 2007.

Yesterday, the financial services group Hibernian announced plans to move more than 500 jobs to Bangalore in India in the next three years. The recession will also derail the public finances. From an overall budget surplus of €5.2 billion in 2006, the Government is expected to incur a deficit of €7.4 billion in 2009, a turnaround of more than €12.5 billion in the space of three years.
As a result, the Government's overall budget deficit is projected to reach 3.9 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2009. At this level, it would breach the 3 per cent budget deficit limit imposed by the European Union's Stability and Growth Pact. The large budget deficits projected for this year and next would cause the burden of the national debt to increase by almost 10 percentage points. The ESRI reckons that government debt as a percentage of GDP would rise from 25.4 per cent in 2007 to 34.5 per cent in 2009.
Reflecting the recessionary environment, house prices are forecast to decline in both 2008 and 2009.

The ESRI estimates that house prices were overvalued by 12.5 per cent in 2007 and it projects a 6.3 per cent decline in house prices this year followed by a further 1.5 per cent fall in 2009. From the new house price peak in February 2007 to the expected trough early in 2009, the ESRI estimates that new house prices will fall by 17 per cent in money terms and 24 per cent when adjusted for inflation.

However, despite the economy receding into recession, upward pressure on consumer prices remains pronounced. The ESRI has revised its prediction for the rate of consumer price inflation this year to 4.5 per cent from 3.4 per cent three months ago. However, it anticipates that inflation will abate to 3 per cent during 2009.


The Irish Times

The British Defend The Irish People in The EU Parliament

Watch the video and cry!
The British defend Ireland in the European Parliament.
The Irish representatives are nowhere to be seen!
Where are the Fianna Fail and Fine Gael MEPs?
Dev, Collins, Lemass, Tom Barry, Liam Lynch . . . all of the War of Independence generation - both sides! - are turning in their graves.
"Think - what have I got for Ireland? Something she has wanted these past seven hundred years. Will anyone be satisfied . . . Will anyone?" - Michael Collins
It's a sad day for the Irish people everywhere! Our own politicians sell us out!

Aftershock in EU Parliament

Irish Government vs. Irish People

June 20th, 2008

* Taoiseach Brian Cowen and Minister Michael Martin give in to Franco-German and EU Commission pressure to permit the remaining Lisbon ratifications to continue, when they could have stopped these by saying that Ireland cannot and will not ratify the Lisbon Treaty, as the Irish people have rejected it.

* The Irish Government lines up with Brussels against the Irish people rather than stands by the people’s democratic decision of last week to defend it vis-a-vis Brussels - so as to bring about a 26/1 situation by year’s end with which to bludgeon Irish voters in a referendum re-run.

* Talk of “respecting” Ireland’s vote turns out in practice to be a cover for setting out to overturn it in a referendum re-run, with Brian Cowen’s, Michael Martin’s and Dick Roche’s full support - and behind a thick barrier of hypocrisy, spoofing and lies.
Friday 20 June 2008

* These are the three principal lies Irish Government Ministers and the EU people are telling to hide their first steps towards preparing this Lisbon referendum re-run:

* LIE NO.1: That the nine EU States that have not yet ratified Lishon have a “right” to do so irrespective of the Irish No. There is no such right under either EU law or customary international law. Brian Cowen could stop any further ratifications by saying to his EU partners that he respects the Irish No, that because of that there is no question of trying to overturn it by re-running the referendum, and that therefore Lisbon is dead because Ireland cannot ratify it and there is no point any other ratifications continuing, for Lisbon cannot come into force unless all 27 ratify it. British Foreign Secretary David Milliband underlined this point last weekend when he said that it depended on Brian Cowen whether Lisbon was alive or dead.

* LIE No. 2: Minister Dick Roche was up to this usual spoofery on “Morning Ireland” today when he attacked Patricia McKenna for saying that the French and Dutch Governments stopped further ratifications of the EU Constitution in 2005 after their peoples voted No in their referendums. Minister Roche said that Luxembourg held a referendum on this Treaty after the French and Dutch No and in his usual gentlemanly fashion accused Ms McKenna of “telling lies”. In fact, as the Minister is well aware, the Luxembourg referendum was held shortly after the French and Dutch referendums but BEFORE the French and Dutch Governments decided they would not re-run them, and therefore that they could not ratify the Constitutional Treaty - which led the remaining EU States, including Ireland, to abandon further ratifications at that time.

Messrs Cowen, Martin and Roche are spoofing like this, with their EU confreres helping them, to try to cover up the fact that the Irish Government is urging the nine remaining EU States to continue with their ratifications so as to bring about a 26/1 situation which can then be used to pressurise the Irish people to turn their No into a Yes in a second Lisbon referendum.

It is Messrs Cowen, Martin and Roche who are failing to “respect” the Irish people’s No vote by effectively telling the other EU States not to respect it either, but to continue with their ratifications. Why should the other EU States respect last Thursday’s referendum result when the Irish Government does not respect it, but sets out rather to subvert it, as they decided to do even while the voting tallies were being counted on Friday morning last?

Remember Foreign Minister Martin saying at luncthtime on the day of the count that “of course” the remaining ratifications would continue. Remember Commission President Barroso’s at his press conference held before the count was even finished, following a phone chat with Taoiseach Cowen, saying the same thing.

If Messrs Cowen, Martin and Roche had a scintilla of the political courage and statesmanship of the founder of their Party, they would be telling their EU counterparts that they had no alternative but to open up Lisbon and work out a better Treaty for Ireland, for Europe and for a more democratic EU, instead of the supranational EU Federation, with laws made on a population basis, which is what is on offer in Lisbon.

* LIE NO.3: That the other EU States can go ahead with the Lisbon Treaty provisions under the rules for “enhanced cooperation”. The barrack-room lawyers of the Irish media are speaking here. It is the enhanced cooperation rules of the EU Treaties as amended by the Nice Treaty that currently apply. It is nonsense to suggest that the enhanced cooperation provisions of one Treaty, viz. Nice, can be used to bring into force the far wider provisions of another Treaty, viz. Lisbon.

* NB: The number of EU Commissioners must be decided unanimously. Under the current Nice Treaty (Protocol on the enlargement of the EU, Article 4), a reduction in the number of Commissioners to fewer than the number of Member States must be decided unanimously in 2009. Under the Lisbon Treaty(Article 17.5 TEU) the number of Commissioners must be reduced by two-thirds from 2014, “unless the European Council, acting unanimously, decides to alter this number.”

At their next summit meeting in October or December the European Council of Prime Ministers and Presidents will make a “European decision” that when it comes to allocating EU Commissioners in 2014 in the post-Lisbon EU, Ireland and all Member States will be permitted to retain a permanent Commissioner, although in practice there may be senior and junior Commissioners. Because both the Nice and Lisbon Treaties lay down that arrangements for the Commission require unanimity, a commitment on these lines can be given without opening Lisbon.

Taoiseach Cowen will present this as a triumph for Irish diplomacy, while his EU colleagues will smile cynically to themselves. Then various Declarations will be given - to meet Irish concerns on company taxation, human rights, neutrality etc. - which will be tagged on to the Lisbon Treaty, but wll not alter a jot or tittle of its contents.

What threats or implicit threats will be needed to go with these promises? The most obvious one is that Irish voters will be told, as they were not told over the past months - that the Lisbon Treaty aims to establish a constitutionally new Federal Union and that the Irish must decide whether they want to be members of this or not, or do they want to keep the present EU as it stands under the Nice Treaty rules.

The other Member States still cannot ratify Lisbon and establish this new Union without Ireland’s agreement. But the hope will be that this mix of promises and implicit threats will suffice to overturn the Irish people’s No in Lisbon One and turn it into a Yes in Lisbon Two.
A peaceable democratic popular revolt in Ireland and across the EU is needed to prevent this happening and to prevent the anti-democratic Lisbon Treaty-cum EU-Constitution being clamped on most of the peoples of our continent.

- Anthony Coughlan
Anthony Coughlan is the secretary of the National Platform for Ireland and a prominent leader in the "No" campaign.

Monday, June 23, 2008

Tom Rooney for Congress

Tom Rooney for Congress

Please Join
BORGOGNONI & GUTIÉRREZ, LLP
THE WREN GROUP

For a Reception Honoring
TOM ROONEY
Republican Candidate for U.S. Congress
16th Congressional District, Florida

Tuesday, June 24, 2008
5:30 pm – 7:00 pm
BORGOGNONI & GUTIÉRREZ, LLP
GRAND BAY OFFICE PLAZA, SUITE 701
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133

$500 per person (suggested min. contribution)
Maximum Contribution is $2,300.00 per person
Personal Checks Only.

Please RSVP to Ann Marie Bravo
annmarie@milanostrategies.com or 561-271-9320
Paid for by Rooney for Congress

Sunday, June 22, 2008

Readers' Feed Back

As you can see . . . I forwarded your Peter King Fundraiser Event. I have already sent a donation to his campaign. Keep up your good work.
Irish American leader, Queens, New York




Hey, most of that stuff is wrong. I work in a radio station and I spent most of the week putting together a show on Lisbon. Your 8 points are wrong. The treaty is good for Ireland and good for Munster.

With respect,
Radio Program Producer, Cork City



Congratulations, Pat Hurley. I never even heard of the Lisbon Treaty until you started shouting from the rooftops about it! Reading the NY Post article I see it was more dangerous than I originally thought. You're a tireless worker and this time you beat the odds.
Irish American leader, New York City



Pat,
We have been to Limerick, Cork, and Galway in the past week and everyone we've met is voting NO.
Irish American activist, New York City



The blog is a great idea and the current ‘No vote’ a great subject.
Irish American leader, Philadelphia




Pat:

Tell Your Family & Friends in Ireland - Vote "YES" to Lisbon!
I have to disagree with you on this one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A YES vote is very important for the Irish economy and the Irish nation.
Ireland has done very well from our participation within the EU.
We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
Hope you and all the family and my friends in NY are well.

Up the Rebels!

Fianna Fail Councilor, Cork City



Regarding the Bruton reflection on the negative Lisbon Treaty vote. Surprisingly, and disappointingly, however, in the 23 pages of explanation, I saw nothing of national and cultural (especially religious) identity referred to as playing a role in the NO vote, which it most certainly did. I would love to hear what the former Irish leader and present rep of the EU in Washington has to say about that point!

Irish American religious leader, Virginia

Hi Pat

I won't even attempt to argue with you, as I am a (sceptical) yes voter who waivered before deciding to go the same way as every party in the country bar SF! Except to say that many of the (No) arguments are pure fiction. I worked at the Brussels coalface for a number of years - it just doesn't work the way suggested below and it won't change in the ways suggested either. In fact it's a fairly minor (albeit legally necessary) legal instrument. But let's agree to disagree.

Academic, University College Cork





Thursday, June 19, 2008

Europe's Unhappy Union

From City Journal

18 June 2008


Europe’s Unhappy Union

Political elites continue to push unification against their constituents’ wishes.

By Theodore Dalrymple
"Only the Irish had the guts . . . to hold a referendum on the issue."


Is the European Union heading for a Yugoslavian-style denouement? It sometimes looks as if its political class, oblivious to the wishes or concerns of the EU’s various populations, is determined to bring one about. The French and the Dutch voted against the proposed European Constitution, but that did not deter the intrepid political class from pressing ahead with its plans for a superstate that no one else wants. To bypass the wishes of the people, the politicos reintroduced the constitution as a treaty, to be ratified by parliaments alone. Only the Irish had the guts—or was it the foolhardiness?—to hold a referendum on the issue. Unfortunately, the Irish people got the answer wrong. They voted no, despite their political leaders’ urging that they vote yes. No doubt the people will be given an opportunity in the future—or several opportunities, if necessary—to correct their mistake and get the answer right, after which there will be no more referenda.

The European political class was briefly taken aback. What could explain the Irish obduracy? Several explanations came forth, among them Irish xenophobia and intellectual backwardness and the malign influence of the Murdoch-owned press. The narrowest economic self-interest was also said to have played a part. Having been huge beneficiaries of European largesse over the last 30 years, the Irish—who have the second-highest per capita GDP in Europe after Luxembourg—are now being asked to pay some of it back in the form of subsidies to the new union members from Eastern Europe. Ingrates that they are, they don’t want to pay up, especially now that their own economic growth rate has slowed dramatically in the wake of the financial crisis and the economic future looks uncertain.

Another explanation for the Irish “no” vote was that Irish citizens had been frightened by the proposal of the French finance minister to equalize tax rates throughout Europe, thus destroying unfair competition (all competition is unfair, unless the French win). No prizes for guessing whether the high tax rates of France or the low rates of Ireland would become the new standard. Ireland’s golden goose would find itself well and truly slaughtered in the process.

Not to worry, the European political elites soon recovered from the shock. Ireland, they pointed out, is a small and peripheral country, and not a founder-member of the European Union. Anyway, what does it really matter if referendum after referendum, in Denmark, France, the Netherlands, and Ireland, defeats the proposals of the European political class? The proposals can always be enacted regardless, by other means. What does it matter if two-thirds of Germans regret monetary unification, as do the French and the Italians? What does it matter if prime minister Gordon Brown refused to hold a referendum on the treaty in Britain—having previously promised one—once he realized how roundly voters would reject it? As European Commission president José Manuel Barroso said after the Irish vote: the Lisbon Treaty is not dead, it is living. What the people of Europe want is completely irrelevant.

For the moment, all is peaceful and quiet. The political class, which loves the unitary European state precisely because it so completely escapes democratic or any other oversight (let alone control), and for whom it acts as a giant pension fund, holds the upper hand for now. But tensions and frustrations in Europe have a history of expressing themselves in nasty ways.


Theodore Dalrymple, a physician, is a contributing editor of City Journal and the Dietrich Weismann Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

The U.S. Should Back Ireland

From The New York Post

THE QUIET REBELLION IN EUROPE
By JOHN O'SULLIVAN

". . . . the US should encourage Ireland to stand firm . . . Up the rebels!"


June 18, 2008 -- IRELAND has stunned the world by voting down the Lisbon "constitutional treaty" intended to give the European Union all the attributes of a sovereign state - without formal statehood or the word "constitution." Experts ask: Why is Ireland, which has greatly benefited from EU membership, so ungrateful? Nonexperts ask: Can anyone make head or tail out of all this? Let's focus on the nonexperts' questions.

What is the European Union?
It's an organization of 27 European states that began as mainly a free-trade area but gradually expanded its activities. Its first big project was the Common Agricultural Policy, which still spends about 40 percent of the EU's total budget on subsidizing farmers. But since the end of the Cold War, it has pursued political integration - a common currency (the euro), foreign policy and governmental institutions in Brussels and Strasbourg that decide about 70 percent of the laws and regulations governing member-states.

So what's the problem?
Until recently, everyone supported European free trade. But many Europeans don't much like political integration: They want to govern themselves. And even the Eurocrats running the show admit that Europe's common institutions have a "democratic deficit" (i.e., are undemocratic and run by unelected bureaucrats.)

Who does want political integration?
Well, the Eurocrats do: They'd get to govern a superstate look-alike with minimum democratic accountability. And the political elites in most member-countries often get the chance to become Eurocrats (with large tax-free salaries and inflation-protected pensions) when the voters throw them out of office at home. Also supporting it are some ordinary voters in those nations with lousy governments (Italy), embarrassing pasts (Germany) and lots of farmers needing subsidies from other countries (France). Most Europeans are bored by all this. A large and growing minority resist it.

Where does the Lisbon Treaty fit here?
Lisbon was the second attempt to fasten onto the EU the straitjacket of a constitution that would make common European institutions the real government of EU states - with national governments acting as their agents - across almost the entire field of politics.

The second attempt?
Yes. The first attempt, frankly called a constitution, was rejected by the voters of France and Holland. Legally, that was supposed to kill the constitution. Instead, member governments made a handful of cosmetic changes to the constitution, called it a treaty instead and declared that it needn't be submitted to the voters. That way, the original French and Dutch referenda could be ignored, and the British government could renege on its pledge to hold a referendum on the "constitution."

Why did the Irish alone get a vote?
First, the Irish constitution required it. Second, the Irish government was convinced that their voters would say "Yes." But the Irish voters decided that it might compromise their independence, democracy and right to the low taxes that are the real explanation of their prosperity. They rebelled - as is their wont - and even the British are cheering.

So that dooms the Lisbon Treaty, right?
Per the law, yes. Per the Eurocrats and their tame governments, no. Ratification will go ahead in 26 other countries; when the Irish are completely isolated, they will either be bullied into voting yes - or perhaps sidelined. But this is a risky business. Other governments - like the Czech one - and many other countries admire what the Irish have done. And forcing nations to vote again and again until they do what the Eurocrats want is getting embarrassing. It looks, well, a little authoritarian.

Is there a compromise available?
Yes, if the Eurocrats and the elites would bend a little. It's called a "variable geometry Europe" (sorry, not my coinage) and it means that different countries could have permanent "opt-outs" from new and existing common European rules. So the Irish wouldn't have to conform to any common taxation rules that come down the line, the British wouldn't join the Euro, etc. But the Eurocrats don't want to bend: They want a grand Euro-state to compete with the United States as a superpower, not a comfortable confederation where the ordinary voter gets to decide who governs him and what laws get passed.
Should Americans give a damn?
Americans signed onto the European Union a long time ago. They wanted a strong partner in world affairs. And they liked the idea of European prosperity based on free trade. But the EU is increasingly anti-American. Its regulatory policy is hostile to the United States.
In practice, Washington gets more real support from strong military powers such as Britain and (yes, even) France than it would from a pacifistic Europe hobbled by disagreements and rivalries and unwilling to spend money on its defense.

So the US should encourage Ireland to stand firm and other Europeans to support them.
Up the rebels!

John O'Sullivan, the executive editor of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, is a former Post editorial-page editor.

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Thank You Ireland!

A relieved German citizen says:
"Thank You Ireland!"


See Jo Conrad's video message

The Economist: Ireland Says 'No'

Ireland's referendum
The answer's no
Jun 13th 2008 DUBLIN
From The Economist print edition

Ireland rejects the EU's Lisbon treaty
AFP


THE European Union has been plunged into chaos after the rejection of its latest treaty by Irish voters. EU leaders must now decide if the Lisbon treaty is dead or can be salvaged in some form—even if the cost is pushing Ireland to the fringes of the European project. Though strongly pro-European, early tallies on Friday June 13th showed Irish voters rejecting the new treaty by a hefty margin. During voting on Thursday, both supporters and opponents complained that they did not understand the highly technical text—many chose to “play safe” and say no.

The Lisbon treaty is complex. It offers sweeping changes to the way the union runs—creating a new full-time “president” to represent member states, and a foreign-policy chief to speak for Europe round the world. It also sweeps away national vetoes in some important areas of policy, such as cross-border policing and justice. Many Irish no voters voiced suspicions that the treaty would, in reality, rob their small state of clout at the EU’s top table.

Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Angela Merkel of Germany are set to issue a joint response as soon as a final result is announced on Friday, calling for leaders to debate a way forwards for Lisbon at a long-planned summit in Brussels next Thursday and Friday. France takes over the rotating presidency of the EU on July 1st for a six-month stint, and is desperate not to lose a carefully planned agenda of projects on things like climate change, immigration and beefing up EU defence co-operation. Both leaders will call for sticking to that French programme: whether that is realistic remains to be seen.

Expect some EU politicians to demand that the Irish vote a second time on the treaty (and this time get their vote “right”). That has been done before: the Irish were asked to vote again after they rejected the Nice treaty in 2001, and obliged with a yes vote the following year. Federalist types will demand to know why a small country on the far-western fringes of Europe, with less than 1% of the EU population, should be allowed to deny Lisbon to 26 other states. Others, including Britain, will continue with their own ratification procedures for Lisbon, but will resist any attempt to “punish” Ireland.

A second Irish referendum would be harder to pull off this time. An economic slowdown after a long boom hung over this week’s referendum. Ireland’s economy will be in still worse shape in a few months’ time, when any second vote might be organised.

More important, the Lisbon treaty’s claims to democratic legitimacy are already threadbare. The Lisbon text is a reworking of an earlier attempt to create a constitution for the EU. That grandiose project was killed off by votes against it in twin referendums in 2005, in France and the Netherlands. It was no accident that Lisbon was a hard text to read: EU leaders were to be heard crowing last year that they had made it “unintelligible” in order to smuggle it past voters. The Lisbon treaty was specifically designed to be passed by the less risky route of parliamentary votes. Unfortunately for its fans, Ireland has to hold referendums on any treaty that amends its constitution. In the end, it was the only country in the block to hold a popular vote on the text.

The yes camp amounted to the entire Irish political establishment: the only parliamentary party to oppose Lisbon was the nationalists of Sinn Fein. Disgusted yes campaigners accused Sinn Fein and a motley collection of other anti-Lisbon groups of spreading lies about the treaty, including claims that it would impose higher taxes on Ireland, force the country to legalise abortion and undermine Irish neutrality. Lies were told, but the big parties waged a terrible, half-hearted campaign. In the face of punchy anti-treaty slogans like “Lisbon: It’ll cost you”, the main messages from the yes camp included such bland generalities as: “Europe: let’s be at the heart of it”.

Ireland now faces a fight to remain at the heart of Europe, amid calls for its marginalisation. That would be outrageous hypocrisy, of course: Ireland only had to vote on the Lisbon treaty because the French and Dutch had already voted no to the constitution. But the EU has been wounded today: do not be surprised if some of its leaders lash out.

AOH Leader Pleads for Irish Priest

IRISH-AMERICAN LEADER PLEADS TO PRESIDENT BUSH
FOR COLUMBAN PRIEST



Quincy, MA & Albany, NY June 17, 2008 - The National President of the nation’s oldest and largest Irish Catholic organization has urged President Bush to remove any threat of deportation of Fr. Cathal Gallagher, a Columban Missionary who has served St Thomas parish in De Smet, South Dakota for 10 years and is seeking Permanent Resident status.
President Jack Meehan stated: “We are not unmindful of the enormous tasks faced by Homeland Security but surely there is no need whatsoever to deport this good man merely because his religious worker visa has expired.”

President Meehan noted the A.O.H’s long support of the Columban Missionary Society and asked President Bush and Michael Chertoff, Secretary for Homeland Security to remove any threat of deportation while the priest's paperwork ---now in its seventh year of processing---is being considered.

“We join the voices of 80,000 Hibernians,” concluded the Irish-
American leader, “with those of Senators Thune and Johnson and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network to grant Fr Gallagher’s petition for Permanent Resident status.”

For more info contact Jack Meehan at 617-285-5113 or Mike Cummings at 518-482-0349



Letter to President Bush


June 16, 2008
Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D. C. 20500


Dear President Bush:



As the leader of the nation’s oldest and largest Irish Catholic organization, I write to you as a matter of urgency regarding the case of Fr. Cathal Gallagher, a member of the Missionary Society of St. Columban.


Fr. Gallagher’s religious worker visa recently expired while in his seventh year of waiting for action on his request for Permanent Resident status. He will be subject to deportation effective July 1 unless his status can be addressed. We urge that any threat of deportation be removed and that Fr. Gallagher’s request for Permanent Resident be granted.

We appreciate that the 9-11 attack has caused considerable upheaval and change in immigration services, not the least of which was the creation of a Homeland Security Department, which has been processing Fr. Gallagher’s request. We also recognize that the illegal/undocumented status of a great many people in the United States is a serious problem with no simple solution and many heartbreaking stories of divided families and life under cover. However, even under those circumstances, we believe that Fr Gallagher’s missionary work overseas and 10 years of service to parishioners in rural South Dakota deserves special consideration and clemency. He has done everything requested of him in terms of documentation and paperwork but the bureaucracy is either too burdened with paperwork or has great difficulty in distinguishing problematic cases with those whose only ‘problem’ has been the ravages of time.

The AOH, whose long association with the Columban Missionary Society extends over a century, wishes to add the voice of its 80,000 members to the pleas of Senators Thune and Johnson of South Dakota and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network for a prompt and favorable decision on Fr. Gallagher’s behalf. We especially will join in prayer with the members of St Thomas in De Smet, South Dakota in the hope that this good man will not suffer deportation.

I would appreciate the favor of an early reply. If there is anything further we might do to help Fr. Gallagher legally remain in the United States, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,


John J. Meehan Jr.
National President
60 Longwood Road
Quincy, Mass. 02169-3925
617-285-5113


Michael J. Cummings
12 Marion Avenue Albany
New York 12203-1814
518-482-0349(h) 518-447-4802(o)