Impactivism

The rise of the new right in Ireland?

There was a provocative piece in the Sunday Tribune by Justine McCarthy about the re-emergence of the right wing in Ireland. The profile of religious conservatives, among other elements of the right, was politically visible in the referendum campaign to defeat the Lisbon treaty. Much of the left also opposed the treaty.

McCarthy focuses on the right's conception of the role of women in Irish society. "The mood of conservatism is palpable," she writes. And since "feminism has lost its balls," how will this "wind of change" be reversed?

The Lisbon treaty debate is still raging, too. Many people in Ireland increasingly believe they will be asked, in a democracy-eroding sleight of hand, to vote again within a year on the same treaty. (Which would, of course, be a second repackaging of the latest effort to "streamline" the functioning of the EU--the failed European constitution was version 1.0, rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005.)  In Ireland, a similar "those who know better didn't like the verdict of the people, please vote again" occurred in 2001 when the Nice treaty initially was rejected by Irish voters.

So get ready for next year's sequel: Lisbon II. Or as it might be colloquially referred to in Ireland, the "Ah Come On Stop Acting the Bollocks" treaty.

Apparently, here's how Irish Taoiseach (prime minister) Brian Cowen reacted to the No vote (thanks to Sarah Carey for the tips):

Are the Irish really "turning their backs" on Europe?

That's what the headline in Spain's leading daily El País said this afternoon. But is it true?

In case you haven't been following, Ireland is the only country in the European Union to hold a public referendum on the Lisbon treaty. This is required by the Irish constitution; every other European country will ratify the treaty (or not, although most seem likely to do so) in parliament.

Irish voters went to the polls yesterday, and the results were tallied today: the treaty was voted down by 53% to 47%. Turnout was moderate: 53%.

The Lisbon treaty is a slightly-scaled-back second attempt at a European constitution. It would make it easier to pass Europe-wide laws without consensus among countries. Critics see this as concentrating ever more power in Brussels-based institutions with little accountability to people in, say, Galway or Bilbao. Proponents say it will "streamline" decision-making. The treaty also shrinks the number of European commissioners, among other changes.

The treaty, meanwhile, also would give legal force to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which includes such social and civil rights as the right to strike or the right to health care, although it is unclear how those would be enforced.

Much pressure was brought on the Irish government by other European leaders to secure a Yes vote. Almost all major political parties in Ireland supported the treaty, along with major business groups. (Sinn Féin, a left-nationalist party, is an exception.)

So why didn't it pass?

It is clear from multi-year opinion polls that Irish people are very pro-European and support the EU project in greater numbers than in many other countries. Indeed, according to the latest Eurobarometer poll, more people in Ireland (87%) than in any other EU country said their country had benefited from membership. But they didn't support this treaty.

As the Economist pointed out this week, the 26 other European governments, if they were honest, would admit that they would struggle to secure a Yes vote, too. And from reports I read from Ireland today, it is definitely emerging that more working class and rural voters voted no, with more wealthy constituencies voting yes.

Dublin MEP Mary Lou MacDonald said the strong No vote indicated that there was "a deep sense that the Government isn't serious about our position as a neutral state" and that people had declined to back the treaty because of a "sense of a loss of power."

Socialist Party leader Joe Higgins said the vote was a "huge rebuff to the political establishment" but a vindication of the rights of "tens of millions of workers" in the EU. Higgins said he believed the No side had "won the argument," despite the fact that the main political parties and "big business" supported the treaty.

"Certainly from the point of view of the Socialist Party, the key elements that we raised, of concern about public services, militarisation and worker rights and the race to the bottom, they got a key echo among working people and in working class areas, and that was shown quite clearly in the result.

"This is not a disaster, which they have been trying to make out. In fact, this can be a rallying call for workers throughout Europe who have been at the brunt of this neoliberal juggernaut from the EU in terms of privatisation of services, attacking their pension rights, attacking the idea of a decent wage and a proper job."

Even the Economist, hardly an opponent of neoliberalism or privitization, argued, "True friends do not become pariahs just because they disagree with you. If nobody can find more convincing arguments in favour of the Lisbon treaty, the EU as a whole may yet find itself whistling in the dark."

This is your brain on cell phones

Maybe you have a story to tell about the harm to people's health caused by radiation from electromagnetic fields from some electronic and electrical equipment.

You could tell your story, quite factually, like this:

Electromagnetic waves are a type of non-ionizing radiation, i.e., a type of low-frequency radiation without enough energy to break off electrons from their orbits around atoms and ionize (charge) the atoms. Microwaves, radio waves, radar and radiation produced by electrical transmission are examples of radiation sources that generate electromagnetic fields (EMF). Electric lighting generates electromagnetic fields. Fluorescent lighting and many types of low-voltage lighting produce fields that are particularly high compared to incandescent lighting. In addition, computers and many other types of wired and wireless electronic equipment (e.g., cell phones) all create electromagnetic fields of varying strengths.

The United Nations cancer agency has classified EMF as possible human carcinogens based on the scientific literature related to EMF and childhood leukemias. In 1998, a U.S. federal government EMF team recommended that low-frequency EMF, such as those from power lines and electrical appliances, be classified as possible human carcinogens, again primarily based on evidence related to childhood leukemias.

Etc.

Or you could show your story like this:

Even if this turns out to be a hoax (hidden microwave under the table?), it certainly gets your attention.