Today the UK and Netherlands have started voting in the European elections (France 24 overview here). DerStandard has complained at the lack of pro-European/moderate party passion during the elections (here - in German).
The European Greens say that the latest polls predict them (the Scottish Greens) winning a seat in Scotland, with 18% of the poll.
I haven't voted yet myself (I will after posting this), and BBC Newline has reported that there's a steady stream of voters going to the polls, even if it's a bit quiet. Turnout may or may not pick up later when more people finish work.
There has been controversy over the decision of the Netherlands to release some "preliminary results" before the elections are over in other countries - but for the NI results, they won't be counted until Monday. It's not a breach, but it's annoying that we'll vote first here, and find out last...
If you're voting in NI and haven't made your mind up yet (or want to know a bit more on the candidates' stances on some European issues) you can read the responses of 4 of the candidates to some of my questions here. Not all parties replied (4 out of 7 replied), but I did email late on in the campaign (just on Sunday, in fact).
Some members of the liberal Radical Party in Italy are on hunger strike because the media there is not giving them enough attention in the run up to the elections, despite a ruling that said that Rai (the main channel they're in dispute with) should give them equal airtime.
In the Republic of Ireland, voting doesn't officially start until tomorrow, but voting on the offshore islands takes place today (they traditionally vote a day early).
In the Dublin Euro-constituency (which votes tomorrow), the battle for the third and final seat is still a tight one, with Mary Lou McDonald (Sinn Féin/GUE-NGL), Eoin Ryan (Fianna Fáil/ELDR) and Joe Higgins (Socialist Party) close in the polls - MLM has had a slight lead in the polls lately, but there have been a few events since then.
A Fine Gael strategist has hinted that a possible Fine Gael-Sinn Féin coalition after the next general election, and Trever Sargent has claimed that FG leader Enda Kenny approached him after the last general election to sound out SF on the possibility of a rainbow coalition (FG-Labour-SF). In the Republic coalitions with SF are taboo, so naturally enough Enda Kenny has rejected these claims.
It's unclear whether or not the whole episode will have much impact on the vote at all. Former FG leader and Taoiseach (and French-speaking Europhile) Garret FitzGerald has called on people to transfer to pro-Lisbon parties in this election - which really means transferring to Fianna Fáil's Eoin Ryan in Dublin, who is facing a feirce battle to retain his seat (Dublin is down 1 seat from the last elections).
Enda Kenny has stated that Eoin Ryan's loss will be Fine Gael's gain - and both Fine Gael and Labour have unfortunately pushed the line that the elections are a referendum on the Government (a Fianna Fáil-Green coalition). It's a pity since some of the MEPs have tried to give a more pan-European flavour to the election by highlighting the European Group aspect of pan-European politics.
Irish Minister for Health Mary Harney (independent; formally Progressive Democrat) has clashed with Mary Lou McDonald over MLM's attendance record and the issue of maternity leave.
Labour's Dublin candidate De Rossa, launched a report "No Time to Waste" slamming Ireland's record on environmental protection and compliance with EU environmental law. He also took a swipe at the Greens who have been in government for 2 years now in Ireland (their first time in government here), stating that they haven't improved the government's record on the matter. Ireland apparently accounts for 6% of environmental infringement cases despite only having 1% of the EU's population. I doubt the report will have much of an impact (de Rossa is favourite to win the second seat with a healthy first preference vote predicted), but it could prevent "slippage" of voters to the three candidates fighting over the third seat, since that battle is getting more media attention.
Apparently, the Mayo News has called the third seat in the North West constituency for Declan Ganley. Why? Read here. I think that Ganley's vote could be bigger than predicted considering the size of the constituency, but I doubt he will win a seat. As for his promise not to play a leading part in a No campaign in the upcoming Lisbon Treaty referendum - well, there are other roles apart from leading ones, and Libertas could still play a role (if it can exist independent of Ganley/operate effectively without his leadership).
The Irish Examiner has written a good article on "Making the EU work for You", explaining how individuals can try to make their voices heard at different points in the EU system. Naturally one way is through your MEP, so vote to make sure you've a good one!
Showing posts with label Dublin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dublin. Show all posts
Thursday, 4 June 2009
Monday, 11 May 2009
Dublin EP Elections on TV3's Nightly News
Vincent Browne hosted a debate between some of the candidates in the race for 3 Dublin EP seats. (People Korp's site flagged this up).
Only one of them was a sitting MEP (Proinsias de Rossa - Labour/PES), but the programme was interesting none the less, with a Green candidate (and current Sentator - one of eleven who had been appointed by Bertie when he was still Taoiseach) Deirdre de Burca and a former Green Patrica McKenna (who lost her EP seat in the last election and campaign against the Lisbon Treaty in the referendum) arguing over their independence from the government should they win a seat. Caroline Simons, the Dublin Libertas candidate was also there, and gave a lamentable performance when Browne tried to pin her down on policy.
The debate raised 3 issues: the independence of MEPs from their parties when they're in government, MEPs expenses, Libertas' lack of policies.
De Burca and McKenna battled over the issue of independence. McKenna has just left the Green Party (she is at odds with the party's decision to go into government with Fianna Fáil) and is standing as an independent, and claims that she will be better placed to press for Ireland to properly implement environmental directives and fight for environmental and social policies when a Green candidate would be pressured into following the government line. De Burca rubbished this, but I think that all national party executives exert pressure on their EP contingent - especially when they're in government. I don't know how the Green party is in this area, but, as Jon Worth has explained, national party executives have divided the PES and effectively wrecked moves to run a socialist candidate for the Commission Presidency.
De Rossa and De Burca also highlighted the importance of political groups within the EP, and De Burca said she encourages people to check out the groups. It's good to hear candidates trying to communicate the politics of the EP, and De Burca deserves credit for calling on voters to support the left leaning parties to ensure an EP that will be strong on Green and social issues. It's not exactly a strong European campaign, but it's good to hear that some candidates are trying to communicate what votes can mean for the make up and policies of the parliament.
Simons was torn to shreds by Browne. It took a lot of waffle and increasingly impaticent interjections from Browne for Simons to give an example of what kind of powers the EU should return to member states - she settled on labelling: she believes it burdens businesses with too much cost. Browne wasn't impressed, and De Rossa easily asserted the value of labelling rules for consumer protection and the free movement of goods. It was a very poor choice by Simons - there are undoubtedly arguments for and against regulation in many areas, but it's a different argument to at what level the power to regulate should be vested.
Later, Simons went on the attack over the actions of the ECJ. She didn't do well here either - after raising the issue, Browne pressed for an example, which she had to admit she hadn't prepared and couldn't think of one off the top of her head. This is very damaging - after all, Simons is supposed to be a solicitor, and I imagine she was choosen as a candidate to lend credibility to Libertas' claims in areas of EU law. Not that's she's been very good on the subject before - as her performance in front of the Sub-Committee for Ireland's Future in Europe shows.
She did a bit better attacking De Rossa over expenses, but the blows didn't really land. De Rossa wasn't great at explaining his position over expenses, but he defused the issue by asserting that he's put information on his expenses on his website (here). It was still quite shocking to find out that he received €300,000 in expenses. It raises a lot of questions of the worth/need for this level of expenses. (The video showing this is the second half here).
Only one of them was a sitting MEP (Proinsias de Rossa - Labour/PES), but the programme was interesting none the less, with a Green candidate (and current Sentator - one of eleven who had been appointed by Bertie when he was still Taoiseach) Deirdre de Burca and a former Green Patrica McKenna (who lost her EP seat in the last election and campaign against the Lisbon Treaty in the referendum) arguing over their independence from the government should they win a seat. Caroline Simons, the Dublin Libertas candidate was also there, and gave a lamentable performance when Browne tried to pin her down on policy.
The debate raised 3 issues: the independence of MEPs from their parties when they're in government, MEPs expenses, Libertas' lack of policies.
De Burca and McKenna battled over the issue of independence. McKenna has just left the Green Party (she is at odds with the party's decision to go into government with Fianna Fáil) and is standing as an independent, and claims that she will be better placed to press for Ireland to properly implement environmental directives and fight for environmental and social policies when a Green candidate would be pressured into following the government line. De Burca rubbished this, but I think that all national party executives exert pressure on their EP contingent - especially when they're in government. I don't know how the Green party is in this area, but, as Jon Worth has explained, national party executives have divided the PES and effectively wrecked moves to run a socialist candidate for the Commission Presidency.
De Rossa and De Burca also highlighted the importance of political groups within the EP, and De Burca said she encourages people to check out the groups. It's good to hear candidates trying to communicate the politics of the EP, and De Burca deserves credit for calling on voters to support the left leaning parties to ensure an EP that will be strong on Green and social issues. It's not exactly a strong European campaign, but it's good to hear that some candidates are trying to communicate what votes can mean for the make up and policies of the parliament.
Simons was torn to shreds by Browne. It took a lot of waffle and increasingly impaticent interjections from Browne for Simons to give an example of what kind of powers the EU should return to member states - she settled on labelling: she believes it burdens businesses with too much cost. Browne wasn't impressed, and De Rossa easily asserted the value of labelling rules for consumer protection and the free movement of goods. It was a very poor choice by Simons - there are undoubtedly arguments for and against regulation in many areas, but it's a different argument to at what level the power to regulate should be vested.
Later, Simons went on the attack over the actions of the ECJ. She didn't do well here either - after raising the issue, Browne pressed for an example, which she had to admit she hadn't prepared and couldn't think of one off the top of her head. This is very damaging - after all, Simons is supposed to be a solicitor, and I imagine she was choosen as a candidate to lend credibility to Libertas' claims in areas of EU law. Not that's she's been very good on the subject before - as her performance in front of the Sub-Committee for Ireland's Future in Europe shows.
She did a bit better attacking De Rossa over expenses, but the blows didn't really land. De Rossa wasn't great at explaining his position over expenses, but he defused the issue by asserting that he's put information on his expenses on his website (here). It was still quite shocking to find out that he received €300,000 in expenses. It raises a lot of questions of the worth/need for this level of expenses. (The video showing this is the second half here).
Saturday, 9 May 2009
Dublin MEP Debate
On RTÉ's Saturday view this afternoon (Here. If it's not the "latest show" anymore, look for the 9th May programme under the "current series"), there was a debate between the 4 Dublin MEPs: Proinsias de Rossa (Labour/PES), Mary Lou McDonald (SF/GUE-NGL), Gay Mitchell (FG/EPP) and Eoin Ryan (FF/ELDR).
The main topics were the Lisbon Treaty, MEPs expenses and work, and the economic crisis. McDonald faced a strong attack after she called for more transparency on MEP expenses, with the other 3 attacking her attendence rates and Committee participation - even pointing out an instince where she had been present at a plenary meeting, but didn't bother to vote. The effect of this attack may have been damaged since it could come across as ganging up on her. Mitchell subsequently backed McDonald's calls for more publication of MEPs expenses, but returned to the attack, saying McDonald's expenses may be lower since she wasn't there as much. (McDonald got the most "tumbs down" out of all of Ireland's MEPs on Parlorama - which has been closed down again).
On the interest in the EP, de Rossa said that the only attention he ever got for his parliamentary work was a proposal he made on the price of condoms. (That they shouldn't be considered luxery products).
De Rossa was quite downbeat on the influence of the EP, his ambition seemed to be limited to increasing the PES's share of the seats in order to get more socalist commissioners - quite defeatist when it comes to the question of who gets the Commission Presidency. Annoyingly, I didn't get the chance to send in a question to get a more explicit answer from him (and from the others on their attitudes to EP-Commission relations).
The Lisbon Treaty was naturally a noisy debating topic, though I think that it probably won't change anyone's opinion on the issue: the positions where listed off again, with the main point being the second referendum. McDonald attacked the others for voting in the EP in favour of letting the other member states continue with the ratification process. It was countered that the EP voted to respect the ratification choices of all member states, including Ireland.
The arguments over the validity of the second referendum haven't changed. Pro-re-run: the guarantees change the overall package, and if they address the concerns of the people raised in the original referendum, of course it should be put to the vote. Anti-re-run: we've had one, and decided, so there shouldn't be another. Because I've already taken a side (pro-re-run), McDonald's arguments seemed quite weak to me, but I'm sure there are quite a few who will stick to that position.
There was also the standard government-bashing, with a major point being the FF logo on candidates posters being particularly hard to see - the acusation was that FF-ers are ashamed of the government and their association (which is probably true).
Eoin Ryan and Mary Lou McDonald will be fighting for third place (I'd say it's unlikely that de Rossa and Mitchell have much to worry about) as the Dublin constituency will be reduced to 3 seats from 4 (Ireland's overall seats being reduced from 13 to 12). Ryan will be the embattled representative for the government, but McDonald has a fair battle on her hands too.
The main topics were the Lisbon Treaty, MEPs expenses and work, and the economic crisis. McDonald faced a strong attack after she called for more transparency on MEP expenses, with the other 3 attacking her attendence rates and Committee participation - even pointing out an instince where she had been present at a plenary meeting, but didn't bother to vote. The effect of this attack may have been damaged since it could come across as ganging up on her. Mitchell subsequently backed McDonald's calls for more publication of MEPs expenses, but returned to the attack, saying McDonald's expenses may be lower since she wasn't there as much. (McDonald got the most "tumbs down" out of all of Ireland's MEPs on Parlorama - which has been closed down again).
On the interest in the EP, de Rossa said that the only attention he ever got for his parliamentary work was a proposal he made on the price of condoms. (That they shouldn't be considered luxery products).
De Rossa was quite downbeat on the influence of the EP, his ambition seemed to be limited to increasing the PES's share of the seats in order to get more socalist commissioners - quite defeatist when it comes to the question of who gets the Commission Presidency. Annoyingly, I didn't get the chance to send in a question to get a more explicit answer from him (and from the others on their attitudes to EP-Commission relations).
The Lisbon Treaty was naturally a noisy debating topic, though I think that it probably won't change anyone's opinion on the issue: the positions where listed off again, with the main point being the second referendum. McDonald attacked the others for voting in the EP in favour of letting the other member states continue with the ratification process. It was countered that the EP voted to respect the ratification choices of all member states, including Ireland.
The arguments over the validity of the second referendum haven't changed. Pro-re-run: the guarantees change the overall package, and if they address the concerns of the people raised in the original referendum, of course it should be put to the vote. Anti-re-run: we've had one, and decided, so there shouldn't be another. Because I've already taken a side (pro-re-run), McDonald's arguments seemed quite weak to me, but I'm sure there are quite a few who will stick to that position.
There was also the standard government-bashing, with a major point being the FF logo on candidates posters being particularly hard to see - the acusation was that FF-ers are ashamed of the government and their association (which is probably true).
Eoin Ryan and Mary Lou McDonald will be fighting for third place (I'd say it's unlikely that de Rossa and Mitchell have much to worry about) as the Dublin constituency will be reduced to 3 seats from 4 (Ireland's overall seats being reduced from 13 to 12). Ryan will be the embattled representative for the government, but McDonald has a fair battle on her hands too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)