The idea of Ireland leaving the EU is a non-issue in Irish politics and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. However, what is worth considering is whether the EU has left Ireland?
To refresh our memories: joining was a very attractive prospect for Ireland: it helped remove us from the shadow of the UK—and join with old friends in Europe.
It enhanced the natural instinct for a more independent role in the world, as had joining the UN some years earlier. The agricultural interest was well catered for with CAP and the concept of a Europe of the Regions; the prospect of a Social Europe envisaged by Jacques Delors—President of the European Commission from 1985 to 1995—was attractive to the society as a whole. The Catholic Church was particularly happy for obvious reasons.
The aim of a peaceful Europe playing an independent role between the two Powers of the Cold War world—the USSR and USA—appealed to all.
Robert Emmet’s hope of Ireland taking “its place among the nations of the earth” seemed to be coming true: as we were now formally equal to the highest and lowest in Europe!
And Taoiseach Charles Haughey secured the billions to help us on our way—as well as copying the European Social Partnership model which created the basis for future economic success.
Integrative moves were welcomed. It all proved irresistible and there was a Panglossian air about membership, of being in the best of all possible worlds. As was said in another context “Great it was in that dawn to be alive and to be young was very Heaven” [William Wordsworth, Ed.].
As Rip van Winkle would quickly realise: today’s EU has left the European project that Ireland joined 50 years ago.
The most obvious difference is that the Union’s main purpose now is planning for a War with Russia: a chimera based on the crazy assumption that Russia is planning to attack Europe as a continuation of its intervention in Ukraine. But the fact is that Russia had a very limited object in its tentative incursion into Ukraine. That was to stop an eight-year de facto war against Russian-speaking Ukrainians, which was being conducted by a Coup Government, established in 2014: a military campaign which was aided by the European Union.
The new focus embraced by the European Union has led it to switch from peaceful economic development to building a militarised economy at the expense of other social considerations.
That has been possible because the EU is now led by its Commission President after a procedural coup that replaced the Council Presidency, its political leadership, thereby overturning the basic structure of the EU.
The civil servants have replaced the nation-states in providing direction to the Union. Instead of being subject to political direction, they are issuing orders to the nation states in political areas which were never part of their prerogative under the European Treaties—the EU Constitution.
Therefore we now have a rogue EU which by its nature is and will continue to be reckless.
An example of the usurpation: the Commission President seeks to determine the make-up of the Commission—the Commissioners which are nominated by member states as of right—on an ideological gender basis, rather than on ability and allegiance to the EU.
This made-up rule, imposed by the civil servants, has been issued at the expense of the free choice of nomination by Member States, another fundamental part of the original structure.
In contrast to the founders’ idea of the EU conducting an independent international policy, there is total subservience to the US— despite the latter’s clear, open contempt for the EU: as shown by the blowing up of Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, which brought cheap natural gas from Russia. This terrorist act helped to damage European industry: making it more dependent on more expensive US energy.
There are innovations on membership with no basis in the EU Treaties—the bedrock of European jurisprudence. One of these is the proposal that Canada and Ukraine be made Associate Members—thus negating all the hitherto accepted conditions for membership.
There is no need even to be European!
As well as planning for War with Russia, full complicity in the genocide in Gaza and the colonisation of the West Bank of Palestine is the position of this EU. In other words the breaking with all moral guidelines on War.
The founding political axis of France and Germany has been replaced by an Eastern European axis: the exclusive focus of which is nationalist conflict with Russia.
The UK, a non-member, is being encouraged to play a full part in the EU’s military plans. This gives the UK the opportunity to play its traditional role in Europe of encouraging conflict between its states, an up-to-date version of the Balance of Power strategy which led to two World Wars and the destruction of Europe as a political force in the world: ‘The Crime against Europe’ as Casement so aptly described British meddling in European affairs.
But the most significant change from Ireland’s perspective is yet to come: the plan to have majority decision-making in all areas, including Foreign Policy. This is openly advocated by President of the European Commision, Ursula von der Leyen.
There has been no noticeable objection to this scheme from our political class—which seems quite willing to accept the further hollowing out of any national dynamic of which this would be the final outcome.
But can we expect the emergence of an Irish Victor Orban, to prevent such a development? (Incidentally, Orban’s political outlook, by an ironic coincidence, was based on the history and background that inspired the original Sinn Fein concept of national independence.)
Will an Arthur Griffith emerge to be able to write about “The Resurrection of Ireland”?
Jack Lane
