BBC Blog Network

User Profile

virtualrationality

Listed below are comments made by virtualrationality between Monday, 16th June 2008 and Tuesday, 17th June 2008.

«Newer
Older»

Treaty mired in Irish bog 3:55pm on 17 Jun 2008 I have a question.

What happens in the following scenario:
1. All countries ratify the current treaty (except Ireland).
2. Tthe EU then changes the treaty to the extent that they add a few commissioners, and then let Ireland revote.
3. Ireland votes yes.

Could then, a new government in say the UK go to the European court a year later claiming that the treaty is invalid because it was not ratified by them?

I.e. if a country ratifies a treaty where the Commission has 15 commissioners, would such a ratification still be considered as having been done if the treaty is amended afterwards to let the Commission have 25 commissioners?
EU crisis talks begin 06:20am on 17 Jun 2008 @74 tailindil

You said:"What some of us, myself included are contesting, is the right of Irish people to decide for the whole continent."

Ok, so you are denying the validity of the Nice treaty and all previous treaties of the EU spanning 40+ years. Interesting position. The right of the Irish to decide for the whole continent was given to them by those treaties, and by nothing else. Why would anyone ever trust the EU if they can't even abide by their own treaties.
EU crisis talks begin 8:50pm on 16 Jun 2008 @47 Jukka

You are incorrect. Governments cannot promise to ratify treaties since that is not their call to make. Governments can only sign treaties.

Anyone believing a government 100% that they will ratify a treaty should realize its a promise they cannot always keep. Government is the executive arm of government, and treaties have to be ratified by a legislative effort, whether that is parliament or a referendum or some other means.

And since a treaty is not valid until its ratified, currently the Lisbon treaty is worth as much as a piece of toiletpaper. Probably less because its not as soft and fluffy.

The only treaty that is currently completely valid and thus relevant in determining what should happen, is the Nice treaty. And going by that treaty, you can't kick Ireland. So what you suggest is actually illegitimate and would require breaking a treaty by all the Member States. Good luck getting that one past an international court.
EU crisis talks begin 7:58pm on 16 Jun 2008 @39

Well, the problem is still that only 1 out of 27 countries got to have a referendum. I think noone would oppose having the treaty amended and then having all 27 countries have a referendum. That would be perfect. But the system is wrong if only the one country that said no gets to have another vote. As if No was some kind of 'wrong answer and they have to redo the test until they 'get it right'.

Let everyone have a referendum, and if all 27 vote yes, then we have a new Treaty of Lisbon. I bet all the no-voters would agree to that, can you say the same for your side?
EU crisis talks begin 6:18pm on 16 Jun 2008 @31

Well, the first problem with that is that it would be completely illegal to kick them out. You see, all the countries signed the Nice treaty. There is no way out of the Nice treaty, unless all the countries agree to it. As long as Ireland says no to the treaty, they cannot be kicked out.

Secondly, if this was Germany instead of Ireland, then the whole debate would be different. Apparently, big countries get to do whatever they want, small countries get bullied around. Is this the kind of signal the EU wants to send?

Thirdly, be careful what you wish for. I think that if you try to bully countries like that, you might see more of them leaving than you'd bargain for. What is to stop say the Nordics, the Netherlands, the UK and Ireland walking away from the current EU and starting their own. The greatest proponents of the EU are those that get money from it. If you were to put it to a vote, those countries might find that the net contributors would walk away.
Why politicians hate referendums 4:12pm on 16 Jun 2008 @57 Oulematu

Yes, stagnation is a real possibility here. Unfortunately, that is a choice that governments have willingly made when they agreed to all the treaties preceding the Lisbon treaty. However unattractive that might be, it is the only basis that has a full legal basis. Everything else would be imposing rules that have not been agreed on by everyone on countries.
Why politicians hate referendums 1:18pm on 16 Jun 2008 @ 52 oulematu

Yes you are forcing a package deal.

The situation, if we follow it by the book is very simple.

The current rules state:
- We abide by the rules of the current Treaty (lets call it Nice for clarity)
- Unless all 27 countries agree to the Lisbon treaty, we stick to the Nice treaty.

Those are the rules everyone accepted a few years ago. I see no reason why Ireland or any other country would accept your proposal. There is no choice available within the current rules that states 'the majority decides which way to go, and if you don't like it you have to leave'.

The only choice available in the current rules is simple:"We all abide by Nice and if we can't all agree on a new text, we stick to Nice". There are no hints in the current rules anywhere about being able to leave or to being able to force anyone else to leave. So why do you insist on such a course which has no basis whatsoever in the current Nice treaty?

I did not make these rules, all the memberstates wrote and or agreed to that set of rules. Is it so much to ask that countries abide by the rules they actually agreed to?

Don't you see that your and the EU's willingness to trample the current rules as set in Nice and force a small country like Ireland to abide by the will of the other governments is exactly what is wrong with Europe?

That it is that attitude more than anything else that is making people resist further integration.

There is no respect for the rules, as set in the current Nice treaty in the Yes-camp, there is no respect for the sovereign right of a country like Ireland to say no, even though every nation in the EU agreed to the treaty that gave Ireland that very right to say no.

And then you wonder why people stop following you further down that path? Amazing.
Why politicians hate referendums 12:17pm on 16 Jun 2008 @47 ignace2

I'm afraid the No campaign has learned a few tricks from the Yes campaign in the Netherlands in 2005. The Dutch government said that 'the lights would go out' and even referred to what happened to Yugoslavia (i.e. civil war) if the Netherlands voted no.

Personally, I don't believe in weird conspiracy theories in either direction, but I do have to say that if I look at Mugabe being unable to accept his defeat in the first round of elections there, and the EU refusing to accept a No from Ireland, I see disconcerting similarities. Am I wrong?
Why politicians hate referendums 12:13pm on 16 Jun 2008 @44

How about European countries tackle the challenges that are most relevant today in the same way they tackled similar challenges in the past 60 years?

I.e. working together where possible to find common ground, but accepting there are certain areas where countries don't agree with each other, and then going their own way for better or worse?

It went well enough for 6 decades, what is so very different now? We had military crises ranging from the Cold War to Yugoslavia, we had an oil crisis in the 1970's, we had the arrival of a new economic superpower in Japan in the 1970's and 1980's, not too dissimilar from China today.

Somehow everyone seems to assume all the time that the current issues are completely new and unlike anything we've ever seen before. The countries in Europe have faced many problems in the past, and have gotten through them without the need for an overarching EU policy. Granted, not all were handled perfectly, but in my opinion, none were handled so catastrophically wrong (at least in the past 60 years) that it makes a strong enough argument for scrapping the sovereign rights of every country to set its own foreign policy.
Why politicians hate referendums 11:08am on 16 Jun 2008 @ 28 Oulematu

Why would every country be forced to accept or reject such package deals?

I feel great sympathy for the idea to break up the treaty into dozens of smaller issues, each to be decided by referendum in all member states. That would really add legitimacy to the EU, if all over Europe we could have a referendum on each issue individually. Including each of the 60 or so areas of policy where we are being asked to give up veto-power.

And it would also be good, to add more validity to the decisions of the EU of the past 30 years, if those referenda included questions on whether current QMV areas should be returned to veto, or retained as QMV.

It would take a few years, but it could be a project that would finally give Europe the legitimacy that the Europhiles so desperately crave. And as an added bonus for them, I can think of few things that would have the potential to create a certain feeling of cohesion between all the populations in all the EU memberstates than such a project.

Of course I fear these are all daydreams, and that the EU will continue its Mugabe-like refusal to accept any poll result that does not favour their position.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

virtualrationality