Stephen Kinsella wrote in the Sluggerotoole blog: "Lisbon has nothing to do with the current Irish economic situation, nor does it directly provide any help for or hindrance from a viable recovery in the short to medium term."
Jim McConalogue, from The European Journal, replied: I do not agree that “Lisbon has nothing to do with the current Irish economic situation, nor does it directly provide any help for or hindrance from a viable recovery in the short to medium term.”
First, many Yes campaigners say that EU membership has been pivotal to Ireland ’s success story. There is much evidence to support the fact that the substantive parts of Ireland’s growth is due to the fact that she retained control over central aspects of her own economic affairs – the Celtic Tiger was created through her own tax cuts and cuts in regulation. Significant research has established no link between Ireland ’s economic growth rates and EU transfers/subsidies. Over a substantial period of time, Irish growth rates were at its highest when EU subsidies were at their lowest. At its highest level, Ireland ’s subsidies were 4% of GDP, whereas Greece also received 4% of GDP – but its growth rates were nowhere near Ireland ’s. If Ireland hands over controls over central aspects of her own economic affairs, as Lisbon requires, then one can only expect her economic difficulties to worsen.
Second, leading Irish politicians have falsely assured people that on Lisbon, they are protected from EU changes to the law on abortion, taxation and defence, because those assurances are not part of the Lisbon treaty (Judge Frank Clarke, Chairman of the Referendum Commission) and are not EU law – so acceptance of the Lisbon treaty by the Irish people could very freely lead to changes on abortion, taxation and defence.
Third, the Fine Gael leader and Yes campaigners have already insisted that Ireland needed Lisbon because Europe faced challenges from growing economic powers like China, Russia and India, but Lisbon inhibits Ireland from remaining globally competitive. In fact, many of Lisbon’s objectives are already provided in Article 2 TEU, Article 2 and 3 TEC as well as in various Articles of the TEC but most astonishing of all, there is no mention in Lisbon as to whether the Union’s objective is “free and undistorted competition.” Since it is such an essential feature of the internal market, it must be noted that the French President (Sarkozy) was able to negotiate the removal of free and undistorted competition from the Treaty, which represents a real threat to free competition. The reference to undistorted competition was moved to the ‘Protocol on the Internal Market and Competition’, annexed to the Treaties. The Protocol makes no effective legally binding statement that would be able to defend the objective of free and undistorted competition. Ireland will be forced to accept European laws when trading, dealing with or competing with growing economic powers like China, Russia and India . If anything, a post-Lisbon Europe will inhibit Ireland from facing its own challenges that develop from growing economic powers.
