Treaty mired in Irish bog
At the end of the foreign ministers' meeting the big question is: "Will the Irish hold another referendum?" To some it will seem amazing that the Irish government is even being asked this question. But for those who are very keen on this treaty it seems the only way forward.
The British official position is that the treaty is good for Europe and means a more efficient and effective Europe. I don't see ministers shedding too many tears if it goes in the bin. The major concern seems to be not being the first, or indeed second, to declare it dead. The Czechs also have grave reservations, and gave President Sarkozy a bit of a slapping.
But as far as I can see everyone else is determined to keep Lisbon alive. They will ask the Irish what they want. Luxembourg's foreign minister said there could be assurances on abortion and defence. There would be a few tricky legal niceties to get lined up, but it is possible to ditch the smaller commission (so Ireland doesn't lose a commissioner on a rotation basis) without opening the whole business up again.
But would this be enough for the Irish government to take such an immense gamble? They would be accused of having contempt for the people. They would run the huge risk of another "No": has anyone thought through the consequences of that?
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© 2012~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~22~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The EU don't like the "No" so they'll ask the same question again and this time they'll bribe the Irish electorate to vote "Yes".
Seems very simple and a very middle-european way to achieve the right result!
I wonder if the British could now have a referendum and simply, by the threat of giving a resounding "No" result, we might be able to stuff the CAP, get our rebate reduction back (if not increased) and have some of our abandoned opt-outs reinstated!
Sounds good to me!
I'd still vote "No" but what the heck! If it's good enough to bribe the Irish electorate, I am open to the UK electorate being bribed too - it is no loss as we're stuck with a Labour Government that is going to ratify the Treaty anyway regardless of the UK electorate!
Can the Council of Ministers make the EU look any more shabby than it already is by going down the route of re-running a referendum for the third time because of an undesireable "No" vote. I don't think so!
Complain about this comment
Since Vaclav Klaus has already admitted that Lisbon Treaty is dead, I think Gordon Brown can safely do the same, since he wouldn't be first.
Complain about this comment
It seems the French are ruling out changes to the Lisbon treaty, which would imply an assumption that the Irish will vote again. The measures that were being delayed until the Irish referendum was out of the way are now to be brought forward, e.g. the Beres Report on Tax Harmonisation and EU defence initiatives. So not only are they not thinking of the likelihood of a 2nd NO they also intend to demonstrate previous concerns are accurate.
Since the French government has ignored the result of the 2005 referendum in France, why does anyone think it strange they will be prepared to ignore referendums in other countries? Smaller countries and net recipients of EU subsidies are worried to speak their mind. It should be the UK government that stands up and calls an end to this madness.
Complain about this comment
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?
Complain about this comment
Free-born John
Whist I am with you re. this treaty, I have to admit that the French can at least claim some mandate for their ratification of Lisbon without holding another referendum: Sarkozy, unlike our own Ministers, stood on a clear pro-EU / Lisbon platform during the Presidential elections. In voting him in, the French people therefore gave a mandate and some legitimacy to the French's subsequent actions. It is the coward's way out of a political hole, but marginally better than breaking three promises and breaching the trust of the electorate.
What is going on now over the Irish vote beggars belief. My own concern is that the politicos and the media will allow things to go quiet and the whole thing will eventually pass under the radar screen and we will wake up one morning to find Tony Blair is President of Europe.
Complain about this comment
Czech reluctant position can be explained by another previous slap (not the Sarkozy's one): its ex poor partner, Slovakia, has successfully managed to embrace the Euro from next year ;-)
Complain about this comment
If the application of the treaty can be adjusted/interpreted to make it acceptible to the Irish, then surely it needs another complete round of ratification.
If however the treaty can be switched between 'acceptible' and 'unacceptible' with out changing its wording or needing another round of ratificaiton, then it is a dangerous document and must be avoided at all costs.
After all it is just as likely that what seems acceptible now, my be reinterpreted in an entirely unacceptible way later.
The PROs can't have it both ways.
Complain about this comment
May I refer the Eurocrats and BBC to the words of another great Czech Vaclav, Mr "Velvet Revolution" himself, Vaclav Havel:
"Europe must be aware of the sources of its internal integrity and strength. The ideas of human rights, civil freedoms, democracy and the rule of law emerged on European soil, and were thus exported to the entire world, often violently. Europe itself has frequently forgotten and abandoned them. Such tendencies and inclinations can still be seen today."
I don't wish to imply that he was speaking about the Irish vote, but the observations are very relevant.
Complain about this comment
The Lisbon Treaty is not "mired in an Irish bog". It is dead.
The only problem is the arrogance of a political elite who think they have the right to move the goalposts and go ahead anyway.
THAT is essentially what we Irish voted against.
Complain about this comment
From a purely party political point of view, I can imagine that Gordon Brown would love this treaty to simply wither on the vine:
1. he knows the majority of the British people (some 80% at the last poll, I think) want a referendum. By the same polls, the majority would also vote 'No'.
2. by appearing to carry on regardless after the Irish vote, he risks appearing even worse to the electorate. It may not be as big an issue for people as our impending economic problems, but it is significant ammunition for accusations of not listening to the British people and building a centralised, authoritarian state.
3.He has never shown himself to be a big fan of tax harmonisation.
4. He could not stand the possibility of President Tony Blair.
i concur with Mark Mardell that Gordo would be happy to see a vote loser falter, but, as ever, has not the guts to wield the axe himself. He is hoping to tread a middle way, urging caution but not actually doing anything himself.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It it is surpising Brown's support on the Treaty, it is still more shocking Cameron's silence on the issue.
Or maybe Timothy Garton Ash (The Guardian) was right when he wrote that the hidden Tories' agenda is to bring UK into the Euro and Schengen :-o
Complain about this comment
Mark
Your turn of phrase is amusing. There is little doubt that the Irish no vote has made it legally impossible for the Treaty to take effect. The idea that the Irish can be forced or invited to vote again is a nonsense as is the idea that the EU of 27 can function with procedures that are simply deficient -both from democratic and efficiency perpsectives indefinately. The only way the Treaty can be legally saved is if Ireland unilaterally suspends its membership of the Union and negotiates its continued participation in the single currency. Given the independence of the European Central Bank that should not be a difficult legal problem. The decision of the Irish electorate to reject the Treaty should not halt the other 25 or 26 Member States, who have ratified and will ratify the Treaty according to their sovereign constitutional systems to implement the Treaty. The whole tone of the debate suggests that it is no convenient when it comes to discussing the EU that all Mmeber Staes are representative democratic systems and not plebiscitary systems. The Union cannot continue to be held back by States who do not believe in the founding constitutional myth of the process -that of ever closer union. Those States that do not share that vision should simply withdraw. There is nothing legally forcing them to remain in the Union.
Complain about this comment
"It it is surpising Brown's support on the Treaty, it is still more shocking Cameron's silence on the issue.
Or maybe Timothy Garton Ash (The Guardian) was right when he wrote that the hidden Tories' agenda is to bring UK into the Euro and Schengen :-o"
I actually read in the papers that Cameron has come out and publicly stated that Gordon Brown should declare the treaty dead.
I am not sure why the Tories would want to bring the UK into the Euro, most people realise it would be a vote loser - unless of course the public were allowed to vote on the matter (which I would expect is unlikely considering New Labour's track record!)
Complain about this comment
I very much doubt that the Tories hidden agenda is to join the euro. I think the reason for the 'silence' is far more obvious: the Tories have to worry about appearing schismatic and Europe has long been a divisive issue for them.
Complain about this comment
It is surely becoming increasingly clear that the European Community not only must but will go forward. Ratification will be completed in all but one or possibly two countries. This creates a problem for Brussels but not for these who have ratified. If one or two find themselves jumping on the train at the last minute or even missing it all together well so be it.
In fact I believe that over the next few years gradually the pressure on any country that is not fully committed will increase.
So it is time to put the fear of foreigners and of change, so clearly showed in many of these coments and join the Europe of open border and the Euro as a common currency. United we stand, divided we fall.
Complain about this comment
I read of a survey in today's Irish Independent that says that most Irish citizens think that the Lisbon Treaty would be acceptable with very little tinkering. I suppose the example of the Nice treaty is in the back of their minds - a few additional protocols added to the Treaty, and it was passed at the second referendum.
Hmmm. I'm not so sure. It was a big turnout in the Lisbon referendum: surely it would take more than "a bit of tinkering" to sort out everything that so many disliked?
Libertas made clear their reasons for opposing. Should the Irish PM bring them on board to explain to other PMs/Presidents just what it would take for them to change their view of Lisbon? They might even be able to resuscitate the EU .... (joke!)
Complain about this comment
The European Union has indeed run into a watershed moment of its 50-year history, and I agree that the Irish government should not make the Irish citizens vote again on the Lisbon Treaty as such! Instead, they should ask them to vote again, and very soon if you please - knowing that a negative outcome would commit their government to leaving the European Union. While they are at it - please ask the Danish, Czech and UK citizens the same questions!
It's about time that the peoples of Europe who wish to continue creating an ever closer Union among us are no longer bogged down by those countries who do not share that vision. It is time that those who share a wish for political integration are no longer held back by a plethora of opt-outs. It is about time that national rivalries are stop holding back solutions to European and Global issues.
That, my European friends, is the watershed we have reached.
My 92 year-old grandfather, a WW II veteran and POW, celebrated the 2004 enlargement with a good bottle of wine. Although unfamiliar with the intricacies of the CAP or QMV; he and those that fought (and fell) alongside him know truly know the benefits of political integration.
It is time for the second generation of Europeansto sit down and think hard about losing themselves in the fear of the unknown and fear of change. It is time for us to decide whether we want to move into - and prepare oursselves for - a 21st century which will not be decided in either of our 27 capitols, but in Beijing and Bombay.
It is time for us to make hard choices.
Either you are in or you are out.
Complain about this comment
I find it strange that a few days before the referendum the French Prime Minister said that if the Irish voted against it the Lisbon Treaty was dead. A few days after the referendum the French Foreign Minister says there is broad agreement to continue ratification and that they won't start drafting a new treaty.
Similarly Barroso's first words were that he respected the decision of the Irish people and the next day he said ratification should continue.
Complain about this comment
TheFatZebra (18),
Congratulations for your nice and brave post. You know you are not alone in this feeling. Milions of young people across Europe share your thoughts and hopes ;-)
Complain about this comment
Mark,
As I see it, there are three options of which the first two are not really options.
Option 1: Go ahead without the Irish. Legally impossible and politically a non-starter given that the UK and Czechs have indicated their opposition and others would no doubt join them if this got any wind.
Option 2: The Irish have another referendum. The Irish already have opt-outs for abortion and to a certain extent for defence (neutrality). Politically also a non-starter. Turn-out was high and the 'yes' vote was catastrophically low in rural and poorer areas. Domestically, the big Irish story is the latent electoral threat of Sinn Fein which could become magnified exponentially with a second referendum.
Option 3: (a) Bring in almost all the substantive amendments through existing Treaty processes (this is just about legally possible).
(b) Ask the Irish which of these will wear politically for them and create opt-outs/exceptions using existing mechanisms for those they will not go with (including keeping an Irish Commissioner).
(c) All the other States ratify the Lisbon Treaty.
(d) The other States will declare the Lisbon Treaty an amendment of the TEU amongst themselves that does not affect Irish rights etc because of (b). Formally, it will govern the situation in 26 legal systems and the existing TEU the situation in Ireland. This would be lawful on my understanding.
Legally and politically hopelessly opaque and maybe dishonest, but possible and workable. It seems the only option in town given the desire of the majority of governments to continue. It is the option that is possibly British strategy. It is the only one that makes David Milliband's comments intelligible about the necessity for time and everything being dependent on the Irish government (see item (b)).
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Sorry betuli
Re"TheFatZebra (18),
Congratulations for your nice and brave post. You know you are not alone in this feeling. Milions of young people across Europe share your thoughts and hopes"
Just try talking to the young for once and don't listen to so called spokespersons, not one young I know via my kids in my area of Belgium shares your comments, their vision is a lot different to yours.
Complain about this comment
R23
Many young people whom I deal with and myself share TheFatZebra thoughts. Also milions of Erasmus students across the Continent enjoy the ever closer European unity.
But I won't call you "spokeperson", nor I will tell TheFatZebra to whom he has to talk ant to whom he has not to.
Complain about this comment
My 'referred to the moderators' comment @11 drew a parallel between the refusal of the EU to accept the Irish 'No' and that of an over-excited man who refuses to accept a woman's 'No' to his unwanted advances.
Somebody was obviously offended.
I wonder how the Irish feel....
Complain about this comment
TheFatZebra @18 wrote:
"Either you are in or you are out."
This reminds me of George Bush's claim: "Either you are with us or against us".
Except that, when it comes to the crunch, I'd rather be with George Bush that with 'Old Europe'.
Complain about this comment
betuli @20 wrote:
"TheFatZebra (18), Congratulations for your nice and brave post. You know you are not alone in this feeling. Milions of young people across Europe share your thoughts and hopes ;-)"
Do they? How do you know? When were they ever allowed to express their view?
Complain about this comment
Option 4: Remove the treaty completely since it was rejected in democratic elections (yes plural). Do not continue further integration until every nation is committed to every step. Begin with sanitising EU and cut staff to 15 000. Replace with A new EU - which represent all nations, not only those who began this great EU project. Begin building again ..slowly!
I also find that BBCs articles in this matter promoting the idea that WE don't have ANY choice. Of course we do! It is not a crisis, its a normal democratic procedure. The ideology behind, the procedure of ratification, the implications and implementation of every aspect of this treaty must be shredded. European politicians must respect the voting procedure.
Perhaps a few tiny ideas can be recycled - though they should be voted for in direct democracy:
I suggest the Swiss form of direct democracy. Personally I would not like to see it used in my own country, for instance women did not get normal civil rights until very late. Though, it is renowned for being a slow and a very representative form of democracy (WE WANT EU TO BE SLOW MOVING).
Additional bonus: Remove EU commission and Parliament completely - replace with "council of collaboration" (were EU politicians speak to each other and make suggestions for things WE can vote for). Remove all EU government branches dealing with unnecessary tasks (if you remove the parliament and the commission it should be quite a few). All remaining EU offices deal with issues ratified before, or issues voted for (in the future) by people. The EU court must not be allowed to do political interpretations at all, if laws are unclear the must be declared void (free to interpret in any way).
Catch: ALL countries must gain majority (51%) in all issues suggested! All issues must be written and explained in less than 2 paragraphs (if needed: ask how scientist skip the "fluff" when writing)!
Voting procedure: performed over the Internet (click and play) or in regualar voting.
How hard would it be (impossible?): It would be just as easy to implement as this constitution (treaty if you like), probably easier since you get less overhead (we already have laws, constitution, taxes, courts, buildings, bureaucrats, politicians, EVEN money in respective country).
Footnote: I'm fully aware that this is a blog, and also that Mark in his current role is not writing as a journalist (at least we do that distinction in my country). He is repeatedly expressing what he thinks, wants, needs, desires and mostly he is speculating (etc). My intent with this remark is not to insult Mark! He probably is a journalist, just not in his current role. Perhaps BBC should label this part of their staff in a honest way, i.e. declare political standpoints, beliefs/allegiances and temporarily renounce the title "journalist". This is standard practise in many countries.
Complain about this comment
"My 92 year-old grandfather, a WW II veteran and POW, celebrated the 2004 enlargement with a good bottle of wine. Although unfamiliar with the intricacies of the CAP or QMV; he and those that fought (and fell) alongside him know truly know the benefits of political integration."
Tell me, would he be celebrating if he'd just bothered to cast his vote in an election only to be told that his vote didn't count ? There are plenty of people who made real sacrifices to fight against tyranny. But tyranny isn't only manifest in war. Bullying people into doing what they do not wish to do also counts. The vote was cast. The rules were clear at the outset. One cannot change the rules because one does not like the result. Live with it.
"It is time for the second generation of Europeansto sit down and think hard about losing themselves in the fear of the unknown and fear of change."
I do not fear change - I welcome change. Change would come whether you're in or out. Why is it that Europhiles believe that being 'in' equals the enlightened way, whilst being 'out' is somehow the way of the ostrich, trying to deny the world? Given the way the world is gong, I have long believed we in Britain would do well to invest more in our commonwealth - which Europe prevents us from doing effectively. In many ways, we have a lot more in common with India and its political philosophy than we do with Italy and France.
Complain about this comment
Well, ScepticMax, young people older than 18 and thus entitled to vote have contribute to choose their respective national governments that signed a Treaty in Lisbon last December.
Also milions of young people are lining up to enjoy an Erasmus grant to go to study at any Euroepan university. The formidable success of this programme inside and beyond the EU speaks by itself.
Complain about this comment
There would appear be only one way that the Irish could be asked to vote again without requiring the other countries to re-ratify the treaty, and that is for "clarification" to be given on issues that appear to be of concern.
This would work as the treaty is worded in such a way that it allows almost any interpretation the reader wishes, so clarification would leave the original document unchanged.
It may be that such clarification would not be sufficient for the Irish, or the clarification would result in complications that would need to be unpicked at some point in the future. In any event, it would allow the yes lobby to try again, which given that they won't accept that they lost fair and square is all that matters.
Complain about this comment
What are you blathering on about? We have no idea what the majority of Young Europeans think because no one has asked them. Just because they take advantage of an Erasmus grant doesn't mean they've all signed up to the dream of European Integration. And by the way, Erasmus is not just an EU phenomenon: it extends to Norway: not a member of the EU.
We have asked the Irish...oh, but we don't like the answer, so let's ignore that.
And Betuli, it is lovely in theory to think that Governments all act in accordance with the will of the people, or even in their best interests, but on this issue, this has NOT occurred in the UK. We haven't even voted for our current PM.
Complain about this comment
Is it not possible that the pro integration countries could persue union outside the EU?
Why is union only possible within the EU? It seems as if we have overlapping and independent areas of competence at the moment with customs union, Schengen, the Euro etc. Why does everyone have to go down the "ever closer union" road together?
Complain about this comment
betuli @30 wrote:
Your argument is void: Neither voting for a national government or enjoying an Erasmus grant is any indication of support for the Lisbon Treaty.
I doubt that the EU - let alone the now dead treaty - was in the top 5 'important issues' of 90% of voters in any EU member state...
Erasmus can exist quite happily without a federal supra-national super-state.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@virtualreality (4)
absolutely. If they change the treaty after a country ratifies it, by definition ratification will have to be done over again. We the majority won't have it any other way.
It is now positively proven, that no matter how we vote, limitless step-by-step integration for the sake of it just keeps going on, regardless whether we want it or not.
@TheFatZebra (18)
you might be left with very few countries indeed. Popular resentment with the EU is far greater than you seem to assume it is. And the only time Europe was ever (temporarily, more or less) politically integrated was in the spring of 1942.
@betuli (30)
at least 3 governments (Britain, Netherlands, Portugal) came into office on the specific and explicit promise of a referendum. Which was then cancelled after pressure by Barroso, Merkel and Sarkozy.
No amount of supposed benefits is worth discarding parliamentary democracy for, and discarding parliamentary democracy is exactly what is being done. Step-by-step 'integration' leads to ever more legislative and executive powers moved AWAY from directly elected national parliaments and governments and TOWARDS unelected EU commission. And as the Commission and Council effectively form a superlegislature, and are not subject to meaningful democratic control, it can be said that parliamentary democracy is all but dead. Government ministers find its much easier agreeing with their colleagues in Brussels and the Commission, and together they can legislate and no national parliament is ALLOWED to stop such laws. Therefore it can be said that government ministers have executive powers at home (the executive powers the Commission doesn't have) and legislative powers in Brussels. Is that not a blatant breach of the separation of powers?
Please answer the question this time.
Complain about this comment
#24 Betuli,
When I was young and politically active I could also say I knew many students who shared either my views or the oppositions, but they were a very small proportion of the vast majority of the millions of young people. How many do you seriously think can afford to go to university without vast unpayable debts and how many of those that get these fantastic Erasmus grants can actually make use of whatever subject they study before getting totally frustrated by the utter futility of the current job market. To quote, "UK Erasmus students normally receive an Erasmus grant provided by the European Commission which contributes towards the extra costs arising from studying abroad." um, er is that for a free holiday, "The Erasmus experience allows you to become immersed in another culture; make new friends; obtain a working knowledge of another language; and to develop skills which will contribute to your employability.", nice one that, but can they actually do a job other than in the local bar or restaurant?
Complain about this comment
There is a petition on the Number 10 website asking Godon to abondon the Lisbon Treaty at
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon/sign
anyone fancy starting a counter petition, and we can have a 2 horse race?
Complain about this comment
Betuli (30): Pre-referendum opinion polls in Ireland showed that there was a majority in favour of the Lisbon treaty in only one age group; the over-50s. A majority in all age groups under 50 said they would vote against it.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-mcwilliams/why-yes-and-no-voters-are-in-a-class-of-their-own-1404851.html
The same phenomenon was observed by the EU's own Eurobarometer post-referendum surveys of the 2005 referendums in Spain, France, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Page 9 of the fourth of the 2005 post-referendum surveys conducted by the EU Commission says the following:
"The sociodemographic breakdown (in Luxembourg) confirms phenomena noted in Spain, France and the Netherlands and shows that the voters of the two camps have a well-defined profile irrespective of the country where they are. So, the 'Yes' come out on top more clearly among women (60%) and especially among the more elderly (72%), whilst the great majority of young people (62%) tend to side with the 'No'."
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl173_postref_lu_en.pdf
Complain about this comment
RatchettPatchettII (32),
You wrote: "it is lovely in theory to think that Governments all act in accordance with the will of the people, or even in their best interests, but on this issue, this has NOT occurred in the UK. We haven't even voted for our current PM".
I understand you British pursue a referendum on the issue and, if you want, you also have always had a different approach to Europe than the rest of continentals. No problem with all of that. Just address it to Westminster and let us, the rest of Europeans, feel free to aspire for more integration.
Scepticmax (34),
Read well TheFatZebra post. He doesn't talk over the bureaucratic issue of Lisbon Treaty, but about a general feeling for closer European integration, something you may not share, but you should respect for others.
Complain about this comment
“The only problem is the arrogance of a political elite who think they have the right to move the goalposts and go ahead anyway.”
Ignoring the rule of Unanimity as it stands is unacceptable. Which rules will they ignore next if they are allowed to get away with it.
“It is surprising Brown's support on the Treaty, it is still more shocking Cameron's silence on the issue.”
Not really, New Labour have always been a Globalist party... ie. First EU then onto Global governance. All very 'streamlined'. They have distracted the people for so long arguing about whether or not they are still left-wing or whether its politically correct to call them right-wing now, or if dictat Brown's favorite colour is red, purple or blue, that we are forgetting their over-riding aim:
Inviting World Governance.
Ever fewer hands...
The deeper you dig the greater the charade becomes. All the constitutional reforms they promised were reneged; now they give you the EU and the coming World Government. Oh, and by the way 'you're all really stupid and childish'...
TheFatZebra wrote: “It is about time that national rivalries are stop holding back solutions to European and Global issues.“
This isn't about rivalries... its about democracy and the move away from it towards a committee based post-democratic regime. You will find few solutions to any issues... by which I presume you mean, population growth, resources, environment. Adding new tiers of government is not the solution. The elite are exasperating the worlds problems to drive us towards their tabled solution, ie. World governance with them at the top.
The quick fix is their offer and the devil is in the detail.
The solutions will become all too simple if we allow them absolute control.
They are so close and yet so far away...
TheFatZebra wrote: “It is time for the second generation of Europeansto sit down and think hard about losing themselves in the fear of the unknown and fear of change. It is time for us to decide whether we want to move into - and prepare oursselves for - a 21st century which will not be decided in either of our 27 capitols, but in Beijing and Bombay.”
It seems you are the one who has succumb to fear of China and India
“It is time for us to make hard choices.”
Indeed. Between a Europe ruled by fear, or united in love and friendship.
Complain about this comment
@Freeborn John (39)
that reminds me of the breakdown of voters in our referendum 3 years ago. The only age group in favor was 65+
The group 18-30 year olds was against more than any other group. So people like betuli must like deluding themselves that they and their friends are representative of the general population. Betuli's ambition must be an EU job (you know, the kind that doesn't require you to pay any income tax). Is that correct, betuli?
As I said before, probably 99,99% is in favor of economic cooperation (EEC), but of political integration, many are sceptical. I'm willing to put this to referendum: economic cooperation or political integration as well.
At least we pro-Europe anti-EU types are not like Bush. To us it isn't: you are either with us or against us (as the pro-EU people do think, they think dissent is not allowed).
Complain about this comment
Betuli. I am not trying to stop you aspiring for whatever you want. However, the same cannot be said about the European politicians and their attitude to the irish.
I should be careful about those assumptions regarding 'the rest of Europe': I do not claim to have a psychic connection to the entire 450 million in the Eurozone, but the French and Dutch 'No' votes, not to mention the recent YouGov poll in the Telegraph would give me pause for thought before asserting that 'the continentals' were all pro-Lisbon too. No one has asked them either.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John (39): statistics is not alway a right tool, it mislead you very easily. You can induce this youngs' No means they find the Treaty "too freemarkestist or too Anglosaxon style", let alone the systematic opposition to authorities is a youth feature. Facts are more clarifying: young people travel across Europe more than ever, without passport and with the same currency, and I cannot imagine them complaining about that.
Buzet23 (37): trying to find any practical, economic result from every experience may be the big red line between the Anglosaxon model and the Continental one: spending 1 year in another European university is just a priceless experience.
mdvc1975 (36): the Lisbon treaty is meant to ammend the EU democratic deficit. The European Parliament, directly elected by EU citizens, will control the Comission and the President. It's intrinsecally contradictory to oppose Lisbon and at the same time complaining over lack of democracy in the current EU institutions.
Complain about this comment
It's rather odd that the Heads of EU Governments feel they should ask the Irish Government what they want or need to turn around an "irritating" situation.
It was not the Irish Government that rejected the Treaty - it was the people.
Legally, the Treaty is dead.
If all the other governments want to form a "break-away" club, they would have to ratify it again, with Ireland being excluded.
Would they really do that?
Complain about this comment
betuli @40 - respect is a two-way street.
When the pro-EU types start respecting the legitimate verdicts of referenda in France, the Netherlands and now in Ireland, and grant referenda to those member states whose peoples demand them, they may earn respect in return.
Complain about this comment
@Freeborn John (39)
The fact that people whose life experience includes the period 1939-1945 being more likely to be pro-EU does not surprise me.
What is interesting is that this is a sampling of Irish voters whose experience of war was that their country was neutral in WWII although many Irishmen/women fought and died for european freedom on the Allies side!
The EU dream derived from the same age group or older and who had experienced European Conflict in WWI and WWII and wanted closer unification to remove any future chance of warlike complications between Germany and France in particular.
In fact 50 years later, the younger generation now realise that Europe has been at peace for 50+ years (and some would argue that is because of NATO and not the EU but that's another topic of conversation!) and do not feel as great a need for closer european integration as their elders.
Thank you for the link to David McWilliams article. It was written before the Irish Referendum result but interesting, nonetheless, as it does also indicate that rich/higher class people are far more likely to be pro-EU than the less-well-off working class. This sampling result alongside age differences being seen to provide different attitudes was very interesting.
One of the fears that many people seem to have is that there is a move towards a EU Defence Force and that the EU could issue a call-to-arms and expose troops from member states to fight in a EU conflict that their nation state might object to. Or, like the Irish, be a fight that they could not, in conscience, support as they are neutral country!
Again food for thought when the pro-EU camp belittle the right of 470 million voters to vote by plebiscite/referendum and insist that sovereign 'democratic' governments have the right to lead us into closer ties within the EU without 'choice or voice' being given to their electorates.
Complain about this comment
Betuli #44,
I think you just said it all in a perverse way, "trying to find any practical, economic result from every experience may be the big red line between the Anglosaxon model and the Continental one: spending 1 year in another European university is just a priceless experience." just delete the university bit as it's not necessary and of no use towards harmonisation of qualifications, and advise your young friends to make absolutely sure their holiday experience can count towards their social and pension history, whoops have I given the game away or will they lose one years pension rights?
As for the economic bit, it's ok if daddy bank is a big earner who can support you until 25 or more, but I know very very few of my age group who can do it these days, so even the 'continentals' like me have to say enough is enough to our kids.
Complain about this comment
''...young people travel across Europe more than ever, without passport and with the same currency, and I cannot imagine them complaining about that.''
You're right, it is not that which they are complaining about. It is the lack of democracy and the potential misuse of the power in a corrupt system of governance that is the problem.
Barroso, said himself, the EU is "akin to an Empire"; an empire built by treaty.
The freedom of movement and exchange is great: the forging of 'Empire', built on supranationalism, unwanted.
Whatever happened to Intergovernmentalism?
Complain about this comment
I am Irish, pro-EU however I voted no to the Lisbon treaty as I do not want any futher political intergration from Ireland to Brussels.
I am greatly insulted to hear foreign ministers and government spokesperson across the EU reminding "EU citizens" that Ireland represents less than one percent of the EU population, or in the words of Axel Schäfer, SPD leader in the Bundestag "we cannot allow the huge majority of Europe to be duped by a minority of a minority of a minority".
Ireland is not less than one percent of the EU, Ireland is 1/27th of the EU.
If the Irish government takes the treaty back to the electorate, it will fail again I believe. I will vote no for sure. Comments like "minority of a minority of a minority" has enraged people in Ireland can only increase the hostility to this treaty in Ireland.
We will not be bullied.
Complain about this comment
ScepticMax (46),
I challenge you to find any post of mine where I vow for "not to respect the Irish result on Lisbon treaty".
I've only been defending the European integration as a general concept. I'm more than willing to discuss how to improve the ways to achieve it.
Moreover, I dare saying this is the general reaction of most Europhiles, who simply aspire for further integration, and they are not taking the Lisbon treaty as if it were the Mao's book.
On the other side, the Eurosceptics take the Irish result as a tool to hammer the European integration as a general concept.
Remember: no one is forcing Uk to take part. Actually, European governments have made up their minds over UK insularity, since this country refused to take part in the Euro and Schengen.
So, go with your plea to Parliament Square, Westminster, London, UK.
Complain about this comment
"So, go with your plea to Parliament Square, Westminster, London, UK."
But the EU has bought our politicians, they are not listening to us. How about the EU take our corrupt politicians and we will start to rebuild our democracy that they are intent on destroying...
"Remember: no one is forcing Uk to take part."
...actually they are, in secret meetings to ratify Lisbon. Europe is waking up to what the supranationalist EU could (and seemingly would) become...
"...Irish result as a tool to hammer the European integration as a general concept."
No one is against integration as concept; just against the current plan for post-democratic empire by treaty...
And by the way President José Manuel Barroso called it 'Empire without Imperialism', there is some truth in that statement, the question is which part?
Complain about this comment
The best way to progress integration would be for political parties to stand on a policy of union with other countries. They could then negotiate with each other for full union.
Mind you, 400 years after the Union of the Crowns, and 300 years after the Act of Union, Scotland still seems to want some form of independence. I am not sure that the Eurocrats dream is viable, particularly when the route is soiled with deceit, trickery and self interest.
Complain about this comment
The early findings from the EU’s Eurobarometer analysis are that those who voted NO in Ireland did so for the following reasons:
1. 40% per cent said they did not understand the treaty,
2. 20% per cent said it was to protect Irish identity,
3. 17% per cent that they did not trust politicians,
4. 10% per cent to keep Irish neutrality,
5. 10% per cent to keep the country’s commissioner, and
6. 8% to protect the tax system.
It seems the EU cannot do anything about reasons 1, 2 and 3. The EU could attach some protocol about Irish neutrality and tax, but who would believe such protocols when the EU is about to unveil the Beres Report on tax harmonisation and EU defence initiatives? Therefore all they could do is promise Ireland an EU Commissioner, a promise which may not have any real legal status if it is not written into the treaty.
What is certain is that none of the top reasons for the NO can be addressed by forcing the Irish to vote again on the same treaty. Indeed it would almost certainly lead to politicians being trusted less. Therefore the EU would be taking a massive gamble, perhaps on its very survival, if a second vote is forced. They would also be doing it just before the 2009 elections to the EU Parliament which is the only opportunity for most people in most countries to express their frustration with EU developments. It seems to me that federalists are not just content to allow their project to hit the rocks; they seem to be actively driving it onto the rocks.
I have some hope that the Conservative party will announce a new policy of re-negotiation of the UK-EU relationship in the run up to the 2009 EU elections. It seems to me that there can be no more auspicious circumstances imaginable for the announcement of such a policy than for it to coincide with a period during which the Irish are forced to keep voting until they deliver the answer Brussels wants to hear. So keep up the bullying Feds; I have the feeling it will be me laughing at the end of all this.
Complain about this comment
Wopitt
Do not mistake the Scottish people for the Scottish premier. In fact, I do believe recent polls only show are 19 to 20% being pro-independence.
Complain about this comment
The early findings from the EU's Eurobarometer analysis are that those who voted NO in Ireland did so for the following reasons:
1. 40% said they did not understand the treaty,
2. 20% said it was to protect Irish identity,
3. 17% that they did not trust politicians,
4. 10% to keep Irish neutrality,
5. 10% to keep the country's commissioner, and
6. 8% to protect the tax system.
It seems the EU cannot do anything about reasons 1, 2 and 3. The EU could attach some protocol about Irish neutrality and tax, but who would believe such protocols when the EU is about to unveil the Beres Report on tax harmonisation and EU defence initiatives? Therefore all they could do is promise Ireland an EU Commissioner, a promise which may not have any real legal status if it is not written into the treaty.
What is certain is that none of the top reasons for the NO can be addressed by forcing the Irish to vote again on the same treaty. Indeed it would almost certainly lead to politicians being trusted less. Therefore the EU would be taking a massive gamble, perhaps on its very survival, if a second vote is forced. They would also be doing it just before the 2009 elections to the EU Parliament which is the only opportunity for most people in most countries to express their frustration with EU developments. It seems to me that federalists are not just content to allow their project to hit the rocks; they seem to be actively driving it onto the rocks.
I have some hope that the Conservative party will announce a new policy of re-negotiation of the UK-EU relationship in the run up to the 2009 EU elections. It seems to me that there can be no more auspicious circumstances imaginable for the announcement of such a policy than for it to coincide with a period during which the Irish are forced to keep voting until they deliver the answer Brussels wants to hear. So keep up the bullying Feds; I have the feeling it will be me laughing at the end.
Complain about this comment
I do not mistake one for the other - being a Scot living in Edinburgh.
I am not saying that the Scots are pro-independence, rather wished to highlight the underlying sentiment to control one's own destiny and not be dictated to by a remote parliament - irrespective of the benefits of Union.
The lessons of history are worth learning.
Scotland was financially broken at the time of Union. England refused to allow Scotland to trade with her American possessions and offered a significant financial inducements to Scotland, and the Parlimentarians personally to pass the act. The vote was made by parlimentarians who could only claim a mandate through the legal technicalities of hte system. The people were denied a vote and rioted, and after about 30 days of acrimonious arguement, the act was signed in a privvy in the High Street before the the signatories hot-footed it to London. How different to the American experience!
The lack of popular legitimacy flawed the Act of Union, and not withstanding the significant benefits of the following 300 years, a significant proportion desired a greater say over their governance.
Devolution is working well, we have a government that is focussed on getting the best deal for Scotland, and not worried about the consequences for the remainder of the Union! That is not to say that because we a happy with Salmond we will follow him and support independence.
Devolution works in Scotland, in London and everywhere it has been tried. There is and interesting debate in Scotland as to what the SNP's view on Ireland's vote is - we don't know because they are saying nothing. The SNP has been peddling a line of "Independence in Europe" - not withstanding the fact is is a non-sequiter - for years now, and repeatedly cited Irelands example. The Norway example is perhaps more illuminating.
If the EU is followed the American example and not the British they might have more luck, but then again, maybe they wouldn't. Who knows, they seem determined not to ask us.
Complain about this comment
I am a young Irish voter who would in general be a supporter of the EU project and I voted yes for the Lisbon Treaty but I can share the concerns of many people here about the reaction to the No vote.
One of the many concerns raised was a question about where and how far the EU project is going and this no vote presents an opportunity for the EU elite to re-present the ideas and future of the project to the people of europe once more.
We as a soverign nation state, members of a group of nation states collaborating together, have exercised our right to vote and yet we are being told, no not good enough go do it again. In 1973 we joined the European ECONOMIC Community. We are not interested in a USE which is what many people fear is the ultimate aim of the elites of europe at the moment. With all due respects to our nearest neighbours, we had 800 years of that before and we are not going back and I doubt if the people of Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Lithuania or any of the former satellites of the USSR if they were asked, would be rushing back into another European Empire of any sort.
The Dutch and French rejected this proposal already, a majority here has now rejected again, therefore the elites of Europe need to listen to that no and ask why.
I for one will change and vote no to any version of it represented which seeks to ignore our democratic decision. Lisbon as it stands is dead. If this, the ultimate veteo given to nation states within the EU is ignored, then how can you ask us to rely on anthing contained in any treaty you present to us again? It seems to prove the point of all the No campaigners!
Complain about this comment
18. At 6:35 pm on 17 Jun 2008, TheFatZebra wrote:
"...It is time for us to make hard choices.
Either you are in or you are out."
Fat Zebra!
Please, please, please get the UK thrown out, so I can rip my "EU" passport up, burn it and open a bottle of bubbly as I did when the Berlin wall came down.
Complain about this comment
30. At 8:25 pm on 17 Jun 2008, betuli wrote:
"Also milions of young people are lining up to enjoy an Erasmus grant to go to study at any Euroepan university. The formidable success of this programme inside and beyond the EU speaks by itself."
So!?
You can have student exchange programmes without the "EU", without "EU"-passports, "EU"-parliament, the CAP, the Euro, "EU"-commissioners etc.
There has always been co-operation without the "EU". We just don't need the "EU".
The "EU" is about megalomania and the creation of a Greater European Reich. It will end in bloodshed and tears.
Complain about this comment
44. At 9:31 pm on 17 Jun 2008, betuli wrote:
"Facts are more clarifying: young people travel across Europe more than ever, without passport and with the same currency,..."
The last time I crossed into Holland from Germany by train a Dutch policeman checked everybody's passport on the moving train in Holland. One woman did not have hers and he told her that next time he would send her back.
I said something to him like 'I thought all this business of checking passports was over because of the "EU".'
To which he replied that Holland was in the Schengen zone and the police were entitled to check anybody's identity at any time to see if they were entitled to be in the Schengen zone.
So the talk of crossing Europe without a passport is yet more "EU"-lovers claptrap.
Complain about this comment
40. At 9:00 pm on 17 Jun 2008, betuli wrote:
"I understand you British pursue a referendum on the issue and, if you want, you also have always had a different approach to Europe than the rest of continentals. No problem with all of that. Just address it to Westminster and let us, the rest of Europeans, feel free to aspire for more integration."
My reading of opinion polls in Germany and Austria is that the majority do not want more integrations. Give all those countries a referendum and find out.
As for "Just address it to Westminster..."
NO!!!!
The "EU" interferes all over the place both inside and outside the "EU". Let it demand a referendum in the UK.
Since we do not have a functioning democracy in the UK one of our possible strategies is to get the other "EU" countries to throw us out. Our so-called democracy in the UK is a farce, a charade and a sick joke. One of its functions is to give people like you the excuse they are searching for to effectively tell us to shut up.
NO!!!
We ain't gonna shut up.
Complain about this comment
No means NO.
Dead means Dead.
PM's are holding onto a fig leaf trying to hide their contempt of the people of Ireland.
(vote again and get it right)
I demand my vote so I can have a say in a promised referendum. The time has come for our Democratic country to VOTE.
Complain about this comment
The Lisbon treaty isn't mired down in an Irish bog. It drowned in it. It is dead lying face down floating in the water. I'm sure Dr. E.U. Frankenstein will try to figure some way to bring this corpse back to life but until he does, it is dead, dead, dead, dead. There's only one way and that is to violate the laws that gave life to the EU in the first place. Is that a problem?
Complain about this comment
I think the EU has come to a significant moment in it's history indeed.
Some people commenting on this blog expressing the view - "if you're not with us you're against us" aren't exactly sounding like they want "togetherness".
If some contributors here think that Ireland (and any other member state that's against this treaty) should leave the EU because it doesn't accept it, then they have to accept that their idea of Europe has failed.
No country should be bullied into delivering the desired result of the elite nations.
What next? Any nation that doesn't ratify future treaties to be expelled also. Keep expelling countries until there's a handful of countries left.
Is this democratic?
Complain about this comment
how can the treaty [lisbon] can get out of the irish quagmire....
i would like to have any suggestions to fix this problems.
Complain about this comment
shaneambrose @58
A rational view eloquently put.
As an aside, many pro-EU contributors often speak of how well Ireland has done out of membership of the EU and glibly suggest that the "No" vote from the Irish was ungrateful given the benefits form the EU that the Irish have received over the years.
Of course, no pro-EU contributor dares also mention to the Irish that their EU good times will slowly but surely come to an end as EU funds go ever eastwards to the 'poor' east european countries that have scrambeld to join the EU - merely to get their hands upon the redistribution of wealth that epitomises the socialist ideals behind the EU!
When Ireland with it's sound economy (or as sound an economy as any of the west european countries!) becomes a net contributor to the funds going east to the new member states, the Irish voter may become even further estranged from the shenanigans surrounding the moves to closer integration of nations into the EU.
I am not bemoaning the re-distribution of wealth, I am merely suggesting that the 'ungrateful' tag placed on the Irish "No" voters by pro-Europeans is not warranted as the EU good times may disappear very quickly with such rapid expansion of the EU eastwards!
Complain about this comment
"But would this be enough for the Irish government to take such an immense gamble? They would be accused of having contempt for the people."
And why should we expect the Irish Government to be different from the other 26 EU administrations?
The ALL have contempt for the people. It's just that the Irish politicians were forced by their constitution to offer a referendum to the people, and the people showed their contempt for the politicians.
Complain about this comment
"how can the treaty [lisbon] can get out of the irish quagmire....
i would like to have any suggestions to fix this problems."
Simple: rephrase (obfuscate) the points people most frequently object to, wait till January, rename basically the same document Prague Agreement and assure supicious Europeans that it doesn't have to be approved in national referenda because it's not a constitution or even the previous Treaty.
I bet you it shall pass.
Complain about this comment
As much as I consider myself pro-European and pro-European federalism and I voted Yes in the Lisbon referendum, I find the idea of making the Irish hold a second referendum utterly abhorrent and a clear threat to the democracy of the smaller EU states.
If there was a No vote in a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in France or Germany, these countries would not be made to have a second referendum.
If a second referendum is held in Ireland, it prooves that the bigger EU states such as France and Germany have no respect for one of the EU's core values of democracy.
The sad reality seems to be that bigger countries are back to their bullying tactics again.
Complain about this comment
With moderation like these, there is no debate here, just the eurosceptic line is accepted.
Complain about this comment
Mark
I agree with post 21 when he says the first two options are non-starters. I think I said the same thing in my previous input. I also think his option three is a non-starter. Too complex, both legally and politically and probably doomed to failure. In essence it may not be possible to implement such a scheme with the Irish having to vote again. In effect the option wants to keep Ireland in the EU, or their version of it, and let the others proceed with the Treaty. ingenious but flawed. It stretches the notion of opting out so far that in effect Ireland would remain the sole member of the EU a la Nice Treaty and the other 25 or 26 States in a Lisbon Treaty version of the EU. In short, a fine legal and political mess. No the only workable legal solution is for the Irish to unilaterally suspend membership. The Treaty could then come into effect in the states that have ratified -24 or 25. Any other solution would worsen the situation by adding yet another layer of confusion. In the end this is fundamentally a political not legal question. Does the Union move forward with much needed reform or not ? Enhanced cooperation is already possible under the Treaty but is really not the appropriate mechanism to effect the crucial reforms required.
Complain about this comment
Number 72
Althernatively the integrationist countries could persue their ambitions bi-laterally outside the EU, and then rejoin the EU as a single nation.
Complain about this comment
When the EU was formed, at least two things were promised. 1) that it was only a trade agreement. This was to reassure each nation that the power of the EU would be limited. 2) that any decisions to change would have to be agreed to unanimously. This was to reassure each nation that nothing would be imposed on it without the collective assent of its own people. Now that the purpose has morphed into creating a single political entity, those promises are no longer convenient, they are an obastacle unless all of the governments collude to deny their people a direct voice. Clearly to become the EUSSR, the rules will have to change. It's like any other democratically elected dictatorship, one man, one vote, one time. One way or another the EU Soviet will find a way to subvert the laws of the EU trade block or just toss them out. Europe is doomed to the same fate as the USSR. This was just one more stumbling block to be overcome.
Complain about this comment
56. At 11:11pm on 17 Jun 2008, Freeborn-John wrote:
"The early findings from the EU's Eurobarometer analysis are that those who voted NO in Ireland did so for the following reasons:
1. 40% said they did not understand the treaty."
This single data dismantles the excessive importance given to this referendum. We should add to this 40 per cent many people who are not willing to recognize "they don't understand the treaty" and prefer to provide other more "respectable" answers.
Referenda? Yes, but for white/black questions that we can understand for a reliable result based on well informed voters.
Complain about this comment
Number 75,
It doesn't matter why they voted the way they did, what matters is that they did it.
The Irish were under no illusion that this was a significant decision and not taken lightly. The rules were clear and the yes camp needs to salvage their reputation by clearly and unambiguously supporting the decision of the Irish people. Enough of the weasel words and qualified acceptance of the Irish decision.
I personally don't believe that the Irish - or anyone else - was supposed to understand the treaty. The true meaning was for the Eurocrats to decide at a time and place of their choosing. The Irish were unsurprisingly unhappy about it and said no.
The failure of the treaty is a direct result of the actions of the Eurocrats - not the Irish. The EU institutions should be reflecting on their behaviour and not try to find ways to force through the treaty that will undermine what remaining legitimacy they still have.
Complain about this comment
So it is time to put the fear of foreigners and of change, so clearly showed in many of these coments and join the Europe of open border and the Euro as a common currency. United we stand, divided we fall.
No. 16, talk to the French, Italians and many other European normal citizens countries who joined the Euro: they will all tell you this is the reap-off of the 21st century and that they would all like to get back to their old currency because the inflation on prices since the euro was implemented has gone crazy. An item which used to cost 10 French francs now costs 10 euros which is nearly 7 times the price!! Unfortunately salaries have not reflected this overinflation...
The countries which have not joined the Euro as doing economically far better than those who are in the eurozone... Some questions are to be asked as to whether the euro was not designed as another divisive issue by the EU-crats...or let's rather say the Franco-German axis...
Complain about this comment
76. At 11:40am on 18 Jun 2008, Wopitt wrote:
"Enough of the weasel words and qualified acceptance of the Irish decision".
I wonder why eurosceptics tend to be so "respectuous" with opponents' opinions. And probably these are the softest words we've heard so far.
Complain about this comment
Number 73
An interesting idea. The only problem with it is that it would be far more practical if the EU remains the organisation for those believe in it and think it has made a generally positive contribution the general wellbeing of the citizens of its Member States in an increasingly uncertain world, despite the flaws it undoubtedly has. As to the EU being behind a plan (which is clearly being kept from all but a select few) to create one European nation. I suggest you watch Euro2008 for evidence of how the one nation plan is coming along. I must be missing something because I am still able to distinguish between the Germans, French, Italians, Dutch, etc., Different languages, cultures, etc., and they have been part of the club since it was first established over fifty years ago. No conspiracy, I'm afraid. Still we cannot be sure. We may be one nation already but simply not realize it.
Complain about this comment
betuli @75
This sounds like someone clutching at straws to try and denigrate the result of the referendum in Ireland and justify an attempt to ignore the wishes of the Irish majority?
Your comment seems to suggest that technocracy is better than democracy, i.e. only people who understand the question should be allowed to vote?
All democratic elections, referendas and plebiscites may ask a simple question but it is the right of every voter to use their voice and make their choice in a way that suits them. That is the freedom of choice in a democratic society.
The key thing ina democratic vote is not why people vote for or against a party or a question but that the majority of votes cast decide the outcome.
To try and belittle the Irish voter's choice is to decry their fundamental right to have voted as they saw fit!
Lack of understanding of the treaty may be a key component to the Irish voter's choice but that is the fault of the people who rewrote the Nice Treaty into the Lisbon Treaty and obviscated the treaty (in my opinion to ensure that the constitution changes were concealed in gobbledegook!).
It is certainly not the fault of the Irish voter and to decry their choice is to undermine democracy.
But there again, the EU is fundamentally a totalitarian democracy so I am not that surprised at pro-EU commentators clutching at straws!
Complain about this comment
Number 73
An interesting idea. The only problem with it is that it would be far more practical if the EU remains the organisation for those who believe in it and think it has made a generally positive contribution the general wellbeing of the citizens of its Member States in an increasingly uncertain world, despite the flaws it undoubtedly has. As to the EU being behind a plan (which is clearly being kept from all but a select few) to create one European nation. I suggest you watch Euro2008 for evidence of how the one nation plan is coming along. I must be missing something because I am still able to distinguish between the Germans, French, Italians, Dutch, etc., Different languages, cultures, etc., and they have been part of the club since it was first established over fifty years ago. No conspiracy, I'm afraid. Still we cannot be sure. We may be one nation already but simply not realize it.
Complain about this comment
As someone who voted “yes”, I think the other countries should continue ratification. Then we can see how things are later in the year. Beyond that, I don’t know. I don’t like the idea of a new referendum. Given that the subject matter is so legalistic and open to deliberate distortion, it would just provide another platform for irresponsible elements from the far right and far left to create confusion.
During the recent campaign, the ‘no’ side behaved like monkeys at a picnic; jumping around, making noises, scaring people and preventing a real debate about what the issue is all about. Ordinarily, they wouldn’t even get 5% of the vote but they LOVE a referendum on EU treaties. It’s the only chance they get to be noticed and have some electoral fun.
Complain about this comment
Quoting Betuli in post #75
"Referenda? Yes, but for white/black questions that we can understand for a reliable result based on well informed voters."
This is the problem. It was not a black and white question. In previous referenda, there was one big idea that people could seize on emotionally and say, "Yes, I like that". The Nice Treaty was ultimately sold to the Irish people because it allowed enlargement. This is one argument against those who say we as a nation lack generosity or solidarity. Most of the other EU15 regarded enlargement in 2004 as a bad thing and would have voted down the Nice Treaty had they been given the chance.
Complain about this comment
As the days go by, my opinion doesnt change, if anything I become more and more angry at the behaviour of the EU and national governments. It is an absolute disgrace and I hope every national government involved in the fiasco gets a good drubbing at their next election for it. I'm completely disgusted by them all, particularly those who clearly want to move on without Ireland because they look down on the country.
Somebody mentioned on another post that one Commissioner per Member State will end up costing all taxpayers money... well why on earth can't we keep them and just cut MEPs already ridiculous salaries instead? Or even get rid of that useless second parliament building in Strasbourg?
I have faith in the Irish that if asked again, they will give another No. What will happen then? Will France and Germany try to kick Ireland out of the EU?
I'm in my twenties but I have to say the fiasco over the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty has probably been the biggest political disgrace I have seen during my lifetime.
Complain about this comment
So, is the official position now that the Irish people are not intelligent enough to vote fo the right choice?
This shambles gives a pretty clear indication of how the public are held in utter contempt by many senior politicians and the EU.
And as for that cretin who thinks people are pro-Europe because they like having free money for being students, let them vote on this and find out what people really think.
Complain about this comment
The UK should continue to ratify the Treaty today in the House of Lords.
There is no justification for halting the process in the UK. The House of Lords will debate the Treaty based on its merits, and presumably these merits will be those that can be awarded to UK, not Ireland.
If some Irish voters said 'No' because of their desire to not see a reduced Common Agricultural Policy - is this also therefore the view of the UK? I think not.
That's just one example, but any solution that is eventually found will have to be based on addressing the particular wishes of each Member State and that is why the Treaty should be ratified by the UK based on UK concerns, not those of Ireland (however this assumes that the issues of concern in Ireland regarding the reasons to vote against are rational concerns that are actually related to the Treaty rather than irrational fears based on scare mongering for other reasons).
Hopefully too, the House will also consider the merits of the Treaty on the EU as a whole and take a look at the bigger picture, accepting the principle that in order to gain consensus sometimes compromise is necessary and that there will be winners and losers in different policy areas but equally being satisfied that the greater good is progressed for the benefit of all.
Let's also not forget that this Treaty is not being forced on those Member States that are not choosing to ratify via a referendum. Too many people critical of the EU seem to forget that this is a voluntary club into which 27 states have opted in, and choosing to not hold a referendum and ratifying via Parliament is equally valid and democratic. If this is not the case then maybe those calling for a halt to parliamentary ratification or even a referendum (in any Member State) might be better questioning the state of their own democracies if they do not believe they are truly representative or democratic, and stop focusing on the alleged democratic void in the (not so) evil EU.
Complain about this comment
To SCFNL29 #84,
I think you hit the nail on the head with "Somebody mentioned on another post that one Commissioner per Member State will end up costing all taxpayers money... well why on earth can't we keep them and just cut MEPs already ridiculous salaries instead? Or even get rid of that useless second parliament building in Strasbourg?"
It is ridiculous that the MEPs and the parliament in Strasbourg cost so much when they effectively are just a rubber stamping operation. It is also ridiculous the frequent moving of staff and files between Brussels and Strasbourg. I also recall the reason for Strasbourg was simply down to Franco-German pressure many years back, cost justification - never, logic - sadly missing, political prestige - Oui Ja, passed it's sell-by date? - many years back.
Complain about this comment
Potatolord - great handle!
I once heard that if you didn't eat potatos every day you died. I haven't risked it yet.
Complain about this comment
"During the recent campaign, the ?no? side behaved like monkeys at a picnic; jumping around, making noises, scaring people and preventing a real debate about what the issue is all about. Ordinarily, they wouldn?t even get 5% of the vote but they LOVE a referendum on EU treaties. It?s the only chance they get to be noticed and have some electoral fun."
Schrodi, a real debate would take 2 sides. The Yes campaign failed dismally to answer anything. Putting up posters of current or prospective election candidates saying vote Yes to Lisbon, very informative and reassuring. It wasn't only Sinn Fein supporters that voted No.
Complain about this comment
The Lisbon Treaty is due to be ratified today by the unelected upper chamber of the Houses of Parliament, the treaty having been passed on a commons majority by a Labour Government elected to office by winning a majority of parliamentary seats with only @25% of the popular votes cast for them (actually representing only @10% of the population of the United Kingdom) at the last general election.
The said government having promised a referendum on the EU Constitution Treaty in their manifesto at the General Election, this UK Government reneged on this promise and is now bulldozing the UK into accepting fundamental changes to the EU and, by ratifying the treaty, they are binding the hands of the future Conservative Government which will replace them no later that 2010 - how I wish time could fly!
Fortunately, an amendment has been put forward to the upper chamber asking the Lords to defer their decision on the treaty until at least the Autumn of this year.
That will probably allow for the UK Government to realise that a dead parrot is a dead parrot and not a sleeping parrot!
It will give Brown and Milliband time to realise that the EU is an issue that must be decided in the UK by referendum - as both many Liberals and Conservatives now seem to agree.
So, despite the glee of pro-EU supporters of our UK parliamentary system thinking that ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is a done deal . . . I think their smugness may be short lived. I certainly hope so!
Long live democracy where the people decide and not totalitarian democracy where the thetes do not get a say!
Complain about this comment
I find this treaty business very disillusioning. I'm an Irish citizen and I consider myself reasonably pro-EU (as most Irish people do), but the Mugabe-style democracy employed by the EU and its member states' national governments is fast changing my mind.
To see so many people making so many irrelevant and false points is truly mind-boggling:
- Regarding Ireland's minority population: Yes, Ireland represents less than 1% of the EU in terms of population, but, in context, those who voted no were a resounding 53.3% of those who actually got a vote on the treaty.
- Regarding a '2-speed Europe' or 'leaving Ireland behind': This particular notion is laughable, as it implies that (in light of our referendum, presumably) Ireland is the only country whose citizens disagree with the treaty. The reality is that many other countries would have also said no, had they been given a vote (Spain and France already said no to an almost identical EU consitution in 2005). How many nos are needed until those backing this treaty realise that it is against the wishes of the citizens of Europe?
- Regarding Ireland 'not getting' the treaty: I've seen several people argue that the Irish would have voted yes, had they properly understood it. To me this seems to be some variation of the excuse that the no campaigners are using scare-tactics and misleading people as to what the treaty is about. Is it so hard to credit the Irish electorate with enough intelligence as to reject the treaty because they disagree with it, as opposed to rejecting it because they didn't understand it? If anyone is misleading people it's the yes camp with their 'Europe - let's be at the heart of it' slogans. If the treaty is so good and beneficial to us, why not rely on solid points which are true as opposed to ridiculous claims like the aforementioned?
As I said before, I am pro-EU, but I believe that any further integration should be built on a foundation of political and democratic transparency and accountability. As it stands there are countless unnamed faceless EU bureaucrats making decisions which affect my life and the lives of other EU citizens - decisions such as the new EU plan for illegal migrants, which is set to be voted on. The treaty asked me to give these people more power and I don't even know who they are, nor do I have any influence in putting them into or out of office via ballot-box. Was I so crazy to vote no? I voted no because of a lack of democracy and transparency, and, in part, in protest of my fellow EU citizens not getting to vote on the treaty. I didn't vote no because I thought I'd be forced to undergo an abortion while being drafted.
Complain about this comment
If all other member states ratify the treaty and Ireland announces that it will start the process to withdraw from the Union, then the problem is solved, democracy is saved and everyone is happy - aren't they?
Complain about this comment
Vindaloo1 (comment #89),
A real debate would consist of both sides telling the truth! The anti-Lisbon campaigners didn't highlight any problems with the treaty. Rather they focused on those areas most open to distortion where they felt they could scare people the most.
Have a look at the antics of certain MEPs in the European Parliament today. It appears we have acquired a new set of wannabe friends from a part of the political spectrum that would hitherto caused us to wince in distaste. If they're the sort of people you want to hang around with, you're welcome to them. But most Irish people wouldn't touch them with a barge pole.
Complain about this comment
Schrodi (comment #93)
Which MEP's? If you can point out who, I will make an informed decision about whether I would want to hang around with them or not. Don't assume anything.
Complain about this comment
'Romanian villagers have voted to re-elect a dead man as their mayor, to prevent his living rival winning.' [BBC World]
Those Romanian villagers remind me vividly of Brussels peons who insist on continuing ratification of a document which is dead, in order to prevent those still living who could vote from winning.
Complain about this comment
The Fat Zebra said that "It is time for hard choices. Either you are in or you are out."
I agree, with the caveat that choices should be made by the people.
If the fiasco of the 'Constitution that dare not speak its name,' proves anything, it is that secret integration is doomed to fail.
The solution is obvious. A clear, open declaration of intent, made by the Commission, to the people of Europe. They should state specifically what the objectives are i.e. Full political and monetary union.
They should then offer a vote. Country by country. Nation by nation. They should ask us all, 'Are you in, or Out?'
Those few (two?) countries that are in should immediately set a timescale for integration.
The laggards should form an affiliated customs and trading union from the ashes of the EEC.
For them, they would remain, forever safe further integration.
The newly integrated countries could bask in their cojoined status. To quote the Bard, 'Tis a consumation most devoutly to be wished.'
Complain about this comment
number 96
I believe that the EU fear that given the choice of full political integration or a union of sovereign states in a internal trading block, the majority would vote for the latter.
Why - for some because it is what they want, others because they would be happy to "suck it and see" and leave the decision integration to the next generation who can make the decision
One of the basic rules in life is not to ask for something unless you fairly sure of the outcome - unless you like gambling. For the EU to press on regardless fulfills Einstens definition of insanity - doing the same thing over again hoping for a different outcome.
The EU took a gamble - and lost. I hope they don't fulfill Einstein's definition......
Complain about this comment
Surely it would be easier for any integrationist countries to push ahead with union bi-laterally than unpick the EU?
It may be seen as defeat to the "true belivers" for the EU to morph into a trading block, but that is what it was sold to the voters as, that is what it has done well, and that is what it has a mandate to do.
Complain about this comment
Vindaloo1 #94
"Which MEP's? If you can point out who, I will make an informed decision about whether I would want to hang around with them or not. Don't assume anything."
Nigel Farrage and the UK Independence Party. Jean Marie Le Pen officially loves us and you'd get good odds on Vlaams Belang, the Northern League and the Austrian Freedom Party suddenly being quite fond of us too.
Complain about this comment
From the BBC's report of the Lords debate.
"Lord Kinnock said delaying the vote would put the UK "on the sidelines", while ratifying it would put Mr Brown in a stronger position to "safeguard the interests of Ireland". "
Interesting concept. I would have thought that the best way to safeguard Ireland's interest would be to ensure that they are not isolated.
Complain about this comment
@71. At 10:34am on 18 Jun 2008, cryptomate wrote:
"With moderation like these, there is no debate here, just the eurosceptic line is accepted."
No one is censoring the pro-Lisbon view, its just they haven't got a leg to stand on and they know full well!
All they say is we must find a way to bypass the current rules, or force a repeat of the vote with a couple of promises tagged on...
...its an indefensible position.
You can't accuse the BBC of bias on the grounds that no-one with any sense agrees with what you are saying...
Give us a break (or more to the point: give the BBC a break.)
Complain about this comment
Shirley Williams on the Lords vote on PM:
'There have been four votes on the Lisbon Treaty, 2 for, 2 against, so no conclusive result'.
Am I losing the plot? have three other countries been voting in secret? Or are we now entering some Orwellian world where inconvenient history is rewritten?
Shirley, here's a little crib sheet to help you remember those all important facts before you cast your vote:
1. There has been one vote on Lisbon, the Irish vote. They voted no.
2. There have been three votes on the Constitution. Dutch and French voted No. Spain Yes.
3. 2+1=3 Noes and 1 yes.
4. This treaty is not subject to a majority vote. This is supposed to be passed unanimously or not at all.
A small question i feel she perhaps ought to clear up:
5. If Lisbon and the constitution are the same, why did the Liberal Lords vote with the Government and against a UK referendum ?
Isn't it reassuring that not only do the Lords and Commons seem to have lost all sense of moral compass, they can't be bothered to get their facts straight either.
Unless...maybe its me...perhaps I have finally got so hopelessly muddled up by the Liberal two-step shuffle and the Labour farrago of nonsense that I have lost MY grip on reality.
Complain about this comment
This is a rare day for me, but perhaps the Europhiles might listen if the words come from one of their own:
After the French voted No, our former "Great Leader" Tony Bliar said:
"We locked ourselves in a room at the top of the tower and debated things no ordinary citizen could understand. And yet I remind you the Constitution was launched under the title of 'Bringing Europe closer to its citizens'. ”
He went on:
"The evening of the French result, I remember being in Italy with friends, and someone saying, in despair at the vote: 'What's wrong with them?', meaning those who voted 'no'. I said, 'I'm afraid the question is: 'What's wrong with us?', meaning 'us' the collective political leadership of Europe."
What insight! What perception! What referendum?
Complain about this comment
102. At 6:40pm on 18 Jun 2008, RatchettPatchettII wrote:
''If Lisbon and the constitution are the same, why did the Liberal Lords vote with the Government and against a UK referendum ?''
An impartial bystander may see this as the Lord Class realising the winds blowing in their direction again...
Lots of strange things are happening in our political system.
Those here to safeguard our constitution would appear to be abandoning it altogether.
The real question as RatchettPatchett so rightly asks, is why?
Keep digging.
Complain about this comment
RatchettPatchettII 102,
For your records, Luxembourg was the first country to pass the Constitution by referendum.
So, the scores are 3 - 2
Complain about this comment
105. At 7:55pm on 18 Jun 2008, betuli
For your records, there still exists the principal of UNANIMITY.
...or have you forgotten?
Complain about this comment
need4reality,
Again a Eurosceptic is putting on me words I have never said: tell me, in which of my posts have I supported to disdain the principle of unanimity? or is it just prejudice once more?
Complain about this comment
@107. At 8:23pm on 18 Jun 2008, betuli
My apologies, indeed you are right; but it does not escape the irrelevance of all the comments that are reducing this debate to a football scoreline.
@EU Elite.
To force this treaty on the people claerly breaks the existing EU agreement of Unanimity. End of discussion.
If you propose a new treaty, we will have an INFORMED debate regarding its implication.
Complain about this comment
need4reality,
Apologies accepted. No worries. Discussions must go on :-)
Complain about this comment
I can't understand this fixation with having a referendum. This is a fairly standard and boring treaty. I say we let governments get on with governing and ask for a referendum on the occasional matter of ethics which the politicians are not qualified to decide.
Post no. 8 (RatchettPatchettII):
If Vaclav Havel and his chums were such big fans of democracy, why was there no referendum in either half of Czechoslovakia about the "Velvet Divorce"? The whole thing was just a personal falling out between a few individuals - no-one thought to ask the people.
Complain about this comment
What is the point of pretending that the EU is democratic ? you are given no end of opportunities to 'reject' a treaty. But once you slip up and vote to 'accept' it, you are never ever ever given the opportunity thereafter to reject it if you realise you made a mistake.
There is no 'cooling-off' period.
This is why it makes me so angry that the Irish are seen as being a 'problem to be dealt with', rather than accepting that they simply don't want an extension of this non-democratic, federalist unaccountable body which will then claim forever after that they have a democratic mandate from the Irish people, when in fact they are just press-ganged into voting the right way by having to vote again and again until they give an answer acceptable to the plutocrats that seek to control Europe's destiny.
Enough is enough !! Now go away and start again from scratch !!
Complain about this comment
Thanks Schrodi.
UK, France, Belgium, Italy, Austria - thought Ireland was supposed to be alone in dissent?
Complain about this comment
To Vindaloo1 and Schrodi,
I don't see that us in Belgium, apart from maybe the Vlaams Belang thought we were against dissent, maybe you guys should have seen the Belgium TV tonight as Brussels was Paralysed today by dissenters, and if you think it was just farmers and truckers that think like that you should have been in a Cafe, as every one was behind them, is that a real surprise, other than to a head in the sand politician.
Complain about this comment
Just a thought Vindaloo1,
Black cummin is used in Indian curries and the seeds are used as a carminative and stimulant to ease bowel and indigestion problems and are given to treat intestinal worms and nerve defects to reduce flatulence, and induce sweating. Dried pods are sniffed to restore a lost sense of smell. It is also used to repel some insects, much like mothballs (source Wikipadia).
It sounds like the EU needs to adopt Vindaloo or similar as the preferred EU dish, it might diminish the internal worms (EU commisioners) that are reducing our strength and ability, and if black cummin is used it may even repel that species most call an insect ie. politicians.
Complain about this comment
Betuli
Thank you for the correction. It seems I am indeed losing the plot.
However, dear ole Shirley is still unable to add up and she is supposed to be representing us! At least I was still correct in the balance, if not the numbers...still still, weasel words, I should also check my facts, eh? ;o)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
You cannot hide the truth.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I do not think that the treaty is over; it needs to be redefined....
~Dennis Junior
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS