Use your vote wisely too. The balance of power will be decided by the last seats to be decided. And the last seats are decided by transfers. And everyone is usually eliminated by that time apart from 2 candidates. So no matter how far down the list, a 13 for candidate A is as good as a 1 if candidate B is 14th on the ballot.

Here is a sample Irish ballot paper with instructions from a TCD page

Dail Eireann – Windows Media Player – http://asx.heanet.ie/oireachtas/dail_broadband.asx

Dail Eireann – Flash Player (new to me) – http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/livewebcast/DailFlash512KB.htm

Dail Eireann – audio only – http://asx.heanet.ie/oireachtas/dail_audioonly.asx

RTE have a twitter account and a special page on their website for the occasion – http://twitter.com/RTEBudget2009 and http://www.rte.ie/money/budget2009/

Unfortunately there is no concensus on which tag to use on twitter but you can watch #aprilbudget #bludget or #budget09 for live tweets. Do like me and add them all together like this http://search.twitter.com/search?q=+aprilbudget+OR+bludget+OR+budget09

To cut a long story short, there is a link from Dublin to North America provided by Hibernia Atlantic (formerly 360 Networks until they went bankrupt) which landed in Dublin in 2000 and they have a 2nd cable that goes around NI and lands in the UK. All this project is doing (Project Kelvin) is adding a link from that 2nd line to NI for approx. €30 million. The RTE page has since been updated to be a little more precise i.e. specify that it’s only the first direct link to NI and added the map from Hibernia Atlantic.

In some lovely PR work the department states that they awarded “a €30 million contract to construct a new direct telecommunications link to North America” and you’d assume that we were getting a full cable, wouldn’t you? They go on to list the benefits of direct connectivity (connectivity that already exists without state aid) stating that “Communications between Ireland and North America will be routed directly without having to use external networks e.g. through London. Amongst the benefits will be faster response times at lower cost for high capacity broadband.” This is only true if you are talking about Northern Ireland and granted, if you live in Letterkenny or Monaghan, there might be some benefits. In the approval from the EU approval for state aid, it quite clearly states “There is one submarine cable which connects the Republic of Ireland directly to North America from Dublin” which is information that would have been provided by the department presumably.

And what about redundancy? There are nine submarine cables providing international connectivity for the Republic of Ireland, eight of which connect via Great Britain (according to the EU state aid document). Back in 2003, there was even one in Cork, but that cable PTAT-1, has since been shut down as it was no longer considered financially viable by Cable & Wireless.

The BBC got it right and Irish Times got it more right than RTE on their first attempt.

more after the jump i.e. you need to open the full blog post

The Health Service Executive (HSE) is picking up the bill for a family of eight travellers who checked themselves into Dublin’s Citywest hotel after being evicted from their home in Clondalkin earlier this month.

The Doherty family booked into the four-star hotel on June 20 and the HSE has since agreed to fund the cost of at least €2,000 a week.

There is a strong view that after struggling to get this treaty for so long, the rest of Europe would simply decide to go ahead without the Irish.

If 490 million citizens wish to accept Lisbon via their elected parliaments – who are we to hold them back? We already do not participate in the Schengen Agreement (abolition of border controls), the UK is not part of the Euro Zone while Norway isn’t even in the EU but has access to the common market via the EEA, is oart of Schengen and implements almost all EU directives. Voting no (for the 2nd time) is a clear indication that Ireland is either not willing or able to ratify EU treaties and other states can bolster the argument that enhanced cooperation is needed to allow those member states that are willing to move forward. A no vote increases the likelihood of enhanced cooperation (Ireland isn’t excluded because a rule of enhanced cooperation is that it is open for any state to join when they wish)

First off, corporation tax, arguably the most important factor for multinationals moving here, along with our access to EU markets and educated, english-speaking workforce. Without the EU market, the tax would be meaningless.
Our veto on our corporation tax rate is rock solid It is a direct tax and is a fiscal policy which the European Court of Justice has ruled is a matter for member states, not the EU.

Article 93 of the Lisbon Treaty opens another door to EU tax meddling. Where national differences in company tax lead to “distortion of competition”, it would enable the European Court of Justice to apply the internal market rules on competition, where majority voting applies, to matters of corporation tax thus bypassing our much touted “Tax Veto”, which is relevant to tax harmonization but not other key aspects of Ireland’s tax policy. – Libertas.org

Article 93 clearly states that it applies to indirect taxes, which corporation tax is NOT!

On Questions and Answers, Declan Ganley and Mary Lou McDonald of Sinn Fein changed tack and claimed that enhanced cooperation would lead to our veto being bypassed. This is totally misleading and has nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty. Lisbon changes nothing with regard to enhanced cooperation apart from increasing the minimum number of countries involved from 8 to 9. Approval of Enhanced Cooperation has been QMV for years and will be whether we vote yes or no afterwards. The Irish Times explains it well too

What is clear, however, is that the Lisbon Treaty doesn’t change the rules on enhanced co-operation or on corporate tax. Tax experts also suggest that groups of EU member states can already club together and try to renegotiate their bilateral tax treaties with Ireland outside the EU framework to create their own common consolidated tax base.

Furthermore, the common consolidated tax base as proposed refers to the method of how taxes are calculated as opposed to the rates. Other countries are opposed to this either in principle like Sweden and the UK or because of their own low corporation tax rates like many Eastern European states.
Rejecting Lisbon does nothing to protect our corporation tax rate unless pissing off our allies somehow helps…

“The Members of the Commission shall be chosen on the grounds of their general competence and their independence shall be beyond doubt.

As Nice has been ratified already, any system of rotation could be agreed from my understanding of this text (with or without Lisbon)

The number of Members of the Commission shall be less than the number of Member States. The Members of the Commission shall be chosen according to a rotation system based on the principle of equality, the implementing arrangements for which shall be adopted by the Council, acting unanimously.

The number of Members of the Commission shall be set by the Council, acting unanimously” – Nice Treaty

Voting No does not prevent rotation of Commissioners

The provisions of the Treaties do not affect in any way the competence of Member States to provide, commission and organise non-economic services of general interest.

and even if people argue over whether health and education are or aren’t non-economic services, the treaty states that the shared values of the Union in respect of services of general economic interest include

the essential role and the wide discretion of national, regional and local authorities in
providing, commissioning and organising services of general economic interest as closely as
possible to the needs of the users

Lisbon does not force the privatisation of public services
Also, the European Court of Justice reinforces the right of member states to provide things like health services – Case C-222/04 Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze [2006]

Health services are also part of the wider framework on services of general interest. Article 152 of the Treaty makes clear that Community action in the field of health services must respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the organisation, financing and delivery of health services and medical care

The Lisbon Treaty now proposes to give the European Council (Heads of Government) the power to propose changes to certain parts of the governing Treaties. Any such changes cannot increase the competence of the EU. Any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council. This means that any national government may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, then in order for it to come into effect, it must be ratified by the Member States in accordance with their own constitutional traditions. This may require a referendum in Ireland as happens at present.

UPDATE 2:And voting no because other countries aren’t having referenda! I believe we should respect the constitutions and elected representatives of other EU member states.

Should we have rejected past EU treaties because some countries ratified them without a referendum?
Should we keep rejecting treaties until we have forced every country to have a referendum on Lisbon?
Places like Switzerland have referenda on non-constitutional laws regularly. Are Ireland’s laws undemocratic or invalid because we didn’t have a referendum on each law?

What is not said, is how the Moriarty Tribunal investigated this matter including FitzGerald’s personal financial situation during their work. They found that FitzGerald had to effectively sell everything to pay his debts and the rest was written off.

To say that he acted improperly or dishonestly beggars belief in my humble opinion

Via Semper Idem and page 48 of The Moriarty Report

In summary it would appear that in compromising his indebtedness with the Bank, Dr. Fitzgerald disposed of his only substantial asset, namely, his family home at Palmerston Road, a property which would now be worth a considerable sum of money. As in Mr. Haughey’s case, there was a substantial discounting or forbearance shown in Dr. Fitzgerald’s case. However in contrast with Mr. Haughey’s case, Dr. Fitzgerald’s case involved the effective exhaustion of his assets in order to achieve a settlement whereas Mr. Haughey’s assets were retained virtually intact.

Although Dr. Fitzgerald continued to enjoy an income from writing, lecturing and consultancy work, he had considerable outgoings, particularly in relation to his wife’s declining health, and he was, in terms of the debt he faced, not a wealthy man. The sole asset of substance was the mortgaged family home at Palmerston Road, Dublin 6; an agreement was entered into with his son, Mr. Mark Fitzgerald, whereby the latter sold his nearby family home, and purchased the Palmerston Road premises, with a view to converting it into accommodation for both families.

An independent valuation had assessed the price with vacant possession at £200,000.00, but discounted to £150,000.00 if Dr. Fitzgerald and his wife took up residence in an upstairs flat. That sum was paid to Dr. Fitzgerald, but by the time he had discharged the mortgage, contributed to the re-conversion works and paid certain other liabilities, he was left with a residue of only approximately £30,000.00
…
Dr. Fitzgerald had initially been hopeful of discharging his indebtedness in full through income, but Mr. Dowling had had to dash those hopes as unrealistic, and was given reluctant permission to approach the Bank with a view to settlement.
…
He offered the £30,000.00 in settlement of the debt, in response to which the Bank concluded that a cash settlement was preferable to expending such limited assets as were available on legal costs, but sought an increase to a sum of £40,000.00. This was accepted, paid and, other than realising the very limited value of the shares pledged, the remaining securities released. Regarding the course taken by Mr. Mark Fitzgerald and his wife in ease of Dr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Dowling stated that he viewed it as one of the great acts of selfless family solidarity that he had experienced.

UPDATE:
Harris has printed his comments in the Independent

Second, how come the Mahon anoraks are so adamantly sceptical about Ahern’s finances and so mellow about how AIB, bailed out former Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald in 1993 by writing off bad debts to the tune of IR£200,000 — ironically the same amount as the alleged IR£200,000 in Ahern’s account?

Trichet stressed repeatedly today that the ECB saw its role amid the turmoil as one of anchoring inflation expectations, making clear that an interest rate cut called for by some investors and politicians should not be expected in the near future

‘If we don’t learn the lessons of the past we will find ourselves faced with the same problems that we encountered during the first oil crisis,’ when countries responded to higher prices by raising wages and salaries, he said.

That had fuelled an inflation spiral, choking off growth and causing widespread, stubborn unemployment that dogged Europe for decades. ‘Never forget, mass unemployment in Europe started with the very bad reaction after the first oil shock’ in 1973, Trichet noted.

Note too that the German economy hasn’t slowed yet and the metal industry there is experiencing the strongest boom in decades. Even the Ifo index has increased this month showing that the business climate has improved in March instead of getting worse.