Lisbon food fight
Eddie Downey from the Irish Farmers' Association leads his cattle across a field that is a pleasant shade of green, if not quite the required emerald, in County Meath. We'll see tomorrow if the farmers follow their own organisation with quite such obedience.
The complaint I have heard most frequently in this campaign is that people can't make head or tail of what they are voting on.
The farmers' fears and the debate it has prompted illustrate magnificently the central problem of this referendum - not the patronising view that the issues are too complex for the ordinary voter to follow, but that the complexities are too much for just about anyone to follow. Watch as just one strand of the Lisbon debate descents into baffling wonkery.
Irish farmers were among the staunchest No voters. They are worried that if there is a change in the world trade rules they will be undercut by cheap beef from Argentina. But they swiftly moved into the Yes camp after some hard bargaining with Prime Minister Brian Cowen.
Eddie told me: "We have a written assurance from our PM that he will veto this World Trade Organization deal if it goes through in its current form. He said it was unacceptable. Because of that, we are now on board on the Lisbon deal."
"It's changed everything ?" I ask.
"It's changed everything absolutely. Without that written assurance we would be in the No camp."
Of course the big argument here is the old one between free trade and protectionism. But it also throws up the political questions. Does the Irish government really mean it? Does this have anything to do with the Lisbon Treaty? And does the government have a veto anyway?
The first is relatively simple. If by some miracle Mr Mandelson were able to negotiate a successful deal in the dying days of the Doha round he might not take too kindly to such a triumph being vetoed. In fact, I can safely predict the explosion would need a new metaphor suggesting more heat and power than merely thermonuclear. Not just I, but commission sources, think the Irish government must be banking that no deal will be done. Otherwise they really would be portrayed as the bad boys - not just of Europe, but the whole world.
Many would argue that the farmers', er, "beef" is nothing to do with the Lisbon reform treaty and that their objection is about the general pro-free trade thrust of the current European Commission.
But when I put that to the man behind the No campaign, Declan Ganley, he disagrees.
"Not true, it is linked to the Lisbon Treaty. We have the prime minister here talking about the veto and there is no veto. The fact is that all international trade agreements are moved to qualified majority voting. And the remaining technical areas where we could raise objections are massively eliminated and reduced to ridiculous areas, like the field of audiovisual services."
But the commission tells me nothing in the Lisbon Treaty changes the status of trade talks and technically the Irish government does have a veto. They say that the apparently "ridiculous" areas left are what allow the Irish to stop an agreement. This on the principle of "nothing is agreed, until everything is agreed" - known more elegantly in Brussels as "the pastis principle". A drop of the French aniseed drink into water turns the whole thing cloudy. Similarly, the commission argues that although there is no veto over agricultural deals, there is in certain special areas and that turns the whole thing into an area where there is a veto.
Neil O Brien from the British anti-Lisbon group Open Europe tells me that the only trade areas where countries will have a veto in future are cultural and audiovisual services, where there's a risk to cultural and linguistic diversity, and social, educational and health services, where the national organisations of these services are at risk.
He says: "In my view this is not even an emergency brake. Unless you can prove to the European Court of Justice that a trade deal which includes a health or education services element would 'seriously disturb the national organisation' of those services then the default position is a decision by qualified majority voting. In other words, if you wanted to stop a QMV decision then you would have to take a massive and potentially humiliating gamble on an appeal to the court."
By now we are far from the fields of Meath and knee-deep in lawyer land. I've made them as comprehensible as I can, but the arguments are so fine, so detailed, that even most of those with a keen interest in politics won't have the time to follow them.
Heady stuff, this pastis principle. Perhaps there should be a referendum on the world trade talks. They might even be easier to understand.
Thanks to those who pointed out yesterday that the three politicians represented 80%, not 8%, of the voters: a slip of the typing finger I didn't spot. And thanks also to wickedmessenger for pointing out what I actually wrote, rather than what Jose thought I wrote: it would be the designers of the treaty who would be sad, not me.
Several ask why I think the Irish would not be asked to vote again. Largely because I am hearing "you can re-heat something once, not twice", which I will henceforth call the "Salmonella Principle". But I agree if there is a No vote there will be many different proposals - and some will say they should vote again.
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 
© MMX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~25~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"A drop of the French aniseed drink into water turns the whole thing cloudy."
That's an appropriate metaphor.
And that's why there's not going to be any real CAP reform.
Complain about this comment
I have a question. If the Irish vote Yes tommorow...Will they ever have the opportunity to hold another referedum in the future on any given topic?
Complain about this comment
hmm lack of coverage about the treaty from the bbc on the TV and also the lord vote makes you wonder what does the EU gives the bbc for it also pro views
Complain about this comment
This "treaty" is the latest in the well worn path of asking us to rubber stamp the plans of the self appointed European elite. The fact that the European project has struggled to get it's accounts approved by its' internal auditor, and has responded to any challenge to it's authority with petulance and malice should ring alarm bells in any democracy loving individual.
There are undoubtedly important and sensible procedural and administrative changes included in this document. However, there are also fundamental and radical changes to the way that we will be governed in the future. The pro-treaty lobby has chosen to focus only on the benefits and blatantly ignore the reasonable concerns of the majority of voters. It is a bit like saying that the building of the Autobahns in Germany is more important than the crimes against humanity of the era.
It is very illuminating that many pro-treaty pundits seem to think that the Irish owe a yes vote in return for previous European largesse. You can't buy love in life. I don't believe for one minute that this treaty would have survived for a minute in most of Europe had it been subject to any popular challenge. The Eurocrats must have been pretty certain of an Irish "yes" when they decided to put all their eggs in this basket with only the potential Irish vote to risk it.
This really is the last chance saloon. The eurocrats are so fed up with the petty restrictions of democracy that they have produced a document that moves all meaningful vestiges of power to them and allows them to assume any additional authority they wish in the future without the need to consult anyone other than themselves. As any anti-european political party is explicitly removed from the benefits of the funding system, we have no choice but to express our displeasure in the occasional referendum.
I am not xenophobic, I believe in a Europe of democratic nation states. My complaint is against the structure and running of the current European institutions and the fundamental democratic deficit at the heart of the project.
I believe that I am not alone, but have been denied the democratic right to express my views by the blatant refusal to honour a manifesto promise by my govern
Europe needs an Irish "no".
Complain about this comment
Post 2 -
No - the treaty is self amending, so there won't be any future treaties. It also takes precedence over all national law, so there is no way for the Irish (or anyone else) to claw back powers. Finally all interpretation of the treaty will be by the European Institutions, ultimately the European Court.
The Irish will have has much self determination under Europe as they did under Cromwell.
Complain about this comment
Actually, any future EU treaty which would affect the Irish Constitution would have to be ratified by another referendum. That is enshrined in Irish Law.
The Lisbon Treaty can be amended without another referendum, but only if the amendment doesn't seek any further power. Any amendments which seek to extend the EU's powers would have to be agreed to afresh.
Complain about this comment
As this treaty is so vague, it will be for the Eurocrats to decide if new powers are being sought.
Therefore, the powers in it are effectively limitless.
There will be no further treaties, other than to act as window dressing.
Complain about this comment
@kapenaar:
The Irish are voting to amend their constitution to allow the government to adopt the Lisbon treaty. Any further EU treaties would require a constitutional vote also. Referendums in Ireland aren't held on "any given topic" due to the gathering of 10,000 signatures, etc (as happens in some US states). Instead the Irish Supreme Court held that as EU treaties are (legally at least) superior to Irish law the Constitution must be amended to reflect this. As amendments can only be carried out by referendum hence the reason for tomorrow's vote. I can assure you was it not for this constitutional requirement for a referendum on Lisbon there would not be one as politicians here hate them.
Complain about this comment
The more centralized European power becomes, the easier Europe is to beat as a commercial competitor. Even now it is impossible for the French government to lower taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel to ease the crushing weight on their pathetic economy. I just love the way every step towards the Euro super duper state is a step closer to the edge of the cliff. Hasta la vista.....baby.
Complain about this comment
The hard bargaining that the Irish Farmers Association entered into with Brian Cowan constituted a demand for Fianna Fail to block any attempt to cut EU agricutural subsidies.
An organisation that was against the Lisbon Treaty now swings its weight behind an attempt to take away Irish sovereignty.
Two points- do the IFA trust Fianna Fail and Brian Cowan to deliver?
Second point- many representative organisations in Ireland have a copy of the declaration of the Republic hanging somewhere on their office walls.
Will the IFA have the decency to turn their copy to the wall when they furtively sign a receipt for their forty pieces of European silver?
Complain about this comment
As I understand it, we will probably only get a vote on any changes to defense as we are not simply being asked to ratify Lisbon, I got a copy of the amendment itself in the post, and i think it was up on the referendum commission site, but I cant seem to find it right now.
Amendment 28 .1 (a) 14 will effectively reclassify changes in existing EU treaties as needing approval from the houses of the Oireachtas (parliament for non-Irish) rather ratification from the Irish people. The amendment is long and difficult to read, you in fact need an up to date copy of the constitution to cross reference with it.
This in combination with the provisions for the "ordinary revision procedure" in Lisbon, article 48.2 (extract of part of it):
"The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission
may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties. These proposals may,
inter alia, serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the
Treaties."
would allow expansion of the treaties to expand power to everything except maybe defense without a referendum, unless they wanted one. I think defense is protected by Amendment 28 .1 (a) 15 so we would need a referednum on it at least.
Complain about this comment
The poor Irish are caught between the English (and I mean English, not British) view of government and the 'continental system' (pax Napoleon).
There is something of an elitist tradition in parts of Europe. I suppose it comes from many centuries of being invaded because you have many land borders. It means you have a government to which the people do not traditionally consent. I believe it gave rise to 'mafia' in Sicily, which is the idea that you oppose such a government.
Once government is restored to the native people from the occupiers, the notion is already instilled in the population that the government does not really belong to them. It is alien and to be feared and manipulated rather than respected.
For the ruling elite, the population is just an irritant that keeps moaning. They have to be pandered to sometimes or revolutionary ideas start to spread.
In England, the government is just a bunch of people like us - and we know what we are like. It means we don't trust them but neither do we fear them or feel alienated from them. We just wish we could do better so we keep changing them. It's the 'political pendulum'.
In Europe, I believe most of the population wishes the aliens in Brussels could do better but knows there's nothing they can do about it. So they just screw what they can out of the system, as they did with their own government.
Complain about this comment
I note that in the 'summary' of Lisbon Treaty Constitution provided by the EU, as well as being deliberately obtuse, there is not a single mention of country or nation.
Why would that be, I wonder ??
Complain about this comment
Re Post 2 and 5...
The indepenant Irish Referndum Commission website states the following ..
"The Lisbon Treaty now proposes to give the European Council (Heads of Government) the power to propose changes to certain parts of the governing Treaties. Any such changes cannot increase the competence of the EU. Any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council. This means that any national government may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, then in order for it to come into effect, it must be ratified by the Member States in accordance with their own constitutional traditions. This may require a referendum in Ireland as happens at present."
It would seem that any future attemts to increase the powers of the EU could be subject to a referendum in Ireland.
You're all doing verry well !!
Complain about this comment
Post Number 5: Blatantly inaccurate. All and any treaties negotiated by the Irish government and the European Union MUST be ratified by means of a referendum in the Irish Republic. The Lisbon treaty does not and cannot change that. We the Irish people are the only ones who can change that....by means of a referendum as prescribed by Bunracht na hEireann.
Complain about this comment
Wopitt::
Directives from the EU are just that "Directives", and only direct our government enable them as national laws. The fact of the matter is that NO EU directive can become LAW in Ireland without being passed by the Dail. And these laws can only be passed if they are lawful and constitutional.
Any law that seeks to amend the power of the Constitution MUST be put to a referendum under Irish law. There is NOTHING in the treaty that changes that. Further amendments to the treaty must go before the Dail, and be passed into Irish law and so face the same checks as any other law.
Vote Yes. Everything that us Irish asked for has been given.
Complain about this comment
Speaking as a ‘yes’ supporter, there seems to me to be a growing expectation that if we vote 'no', we'll get another bite at the cherry. I think this time around, 'no' should be taken to mean 'no' - end of story. A renegotiation will mean our diplomats and leaders asking for something that is either unreasonable or else something that's already there.
Some people are voting 'no' because they think we'll be made vote again. Also, some feel that "we might get a better deal" if we vote 'no' and then try to renegotiate the treaty. I haven't seen anyone say what improvements they'd be looking for. Personally, I don't think it's possible for Ireland to get a better deal than the one described in the current treaty.
As many 'no' people have said, this Lisbon Treaty is very close to the original constitutional treaty. The Irish played a crucial role in the negotiation of this. Bruised from the experience of the Nice ratification process, the Irish negotiators made damn sure that all loopholes were closed by the time the paper was signed. Such was the central role of the Irish that they received a standing ovation from the other delegations and huge praise in the international media.
See the section below dealing with "Areas for Renegotiation?". Either we'll be asking for even more when we're getting more than our fair share already or we'll be seeking to have more safeguards around something which is already totally safeguarded. One way or another, our politicians, diplomats and civil servants will look either seriously greedy or just plain silly. God knows what effect it will have on our relationship with the EU but if we vote 'no' tomorrow, that should be it. We deal with those consequences.
AREAS FOR RENEGOTIATION?
1. Abortion - Irish position is safeguarded and there is no change
2. Irish Neutrality - so watertight you could make tea in it
3. Corporate Tax - we keep the veto
4. Health and Education Services - they can't be privatised
5. Future referendums - no change, we still have them if the Irish constitution decides so.
6. Veto on trade treaties - no changes, nothing to do with Lisbon Treaty.
7. EU Commission - we'll have exactly the same representation as Germany and the other large countries
8. QMV - We continue to have nearly 5 times the power per capita as Germany, nearly 4 times that of France or the UK.
9. Euro Parliament - same story. We have twice or three times the representation of the large countries.
10. Even if we ask for one more seat in the Parliament or one more vote in the Council, it'll means we'll be asking for more power than countries like Slovakia, Denmark and Finland who have larger populations than us. Do you think they'll agree to that?
Complain about this comment
Diom1982 (16): No national parliament can block an EU Directive. If a member state fails to pass the required national legislation, or if the national legislation does not adequately comply with the requirements of the directive, the European Commission may initiate legal action against the member state in the ECJ. The ECJ has also invented the concept of ‘direct effect’ where unimplemented or badly implemented directives still have legal force. And the ECJ has further ruled (Francovich v. Italy) that member states can be liable to pay damages to individuals and companies who had been adversely affected by the non-implementation of a directive.
Furthermore the Irish Constitution says "No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted by the (Irish) State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union" Therefore no EU law can be rejected as being unconstitutional.
If you like the sound of all that then by all means vote Yes.
Complain about this comment
Number 14, 15, and 16
I do not question your technical view of the document, but firmly believe that the Eurocrats will never again allow the voters the veto on their cherished project. Therefore they have written a document that is deliberately vague so as to allow them to argue that if the Irish vote "yes" to Lisbon, then they have already given their consent. It will be for the European Court to decide one way or another.
You wouldn't trust the British to honour their promises on a matter like this, why the Eurocrats? Expect lots of future politicians to say "sorry, but there is nothing we can do".
You are voting for democracy in Europe, not Irish self interest in a few key areas. Vote "no" and keep the flame of Irish independence alive, and earn the eternal thanks of European democrats.
Complain about this comment
The vote of the Irish farmers will be very important because the outcome of the referendum will be extremely close. The Irish will approve Lisbon with 51% in favour and 49% against or the Irish will reject Lisbon with 51% against and 49% in favour. The farmer vote could be the key to approve or reject the treaty. I expect the largest part of the farmers will vote 'Yes' but will it be enough to let Lisbon be approved?
Another swing vote will be the religious Catholic vote. They want to safeguard the Irish position on abortion and they fear Lisbon might damage that position. Because Ireland is a religious country we shouldn't underestimate the power of that vote.
Complain about this comment
calling all irish sink the lisbon treaty tommorrow and put a smile on the EUs face
Complain about this comment
What all the 'No' voters don't seem to realise is that for the first time since the EU's creation, the Lisbon Treaty will allow countries to negotiate leaving the EU.
If Ireland are reluctant to furher their relationship with the EU, then they should accept the Lisbon Treaty, because then they could formally leave, if they wanted to.
Complain about this comment
I do understand that the EU is lacking in direct democracy, favoring indirect democracy instead. (Whether that is good or bad is up to discussion.) But what I don't understand: The Lisbon Treaty takes a significant step forward to direct democracy by enlarging the areas in which the EU-Parliament shall decide, by forcing the Commission to consider a "citizens initiative" etc.
Now what I don't understand: How does voting down the Treaty improve dircet democracy within the EU?
Complain about this comment
European62 (23): The measures you mention are fig leaves. There is no requirement for the EU Commission to act on the basis of a citizen initiative or to withdraw its legislative proposals no matter how many national parliaments object. Nor is the EU Parliament any solution to the problem of democratic legitimacy in the EU when the people who elect it are not part of one polity that will agree to be bound by pan-European majorities. Can the EU Parliament be viewed as a legitimate representative of the Irish people when it recently voted 499 to 129 not to respect the outcome of the Irish referendum this Thursday?
The Lisbon treaty is a step backwards in democracy because it transfers decision-making on more policy areas to Brussels where the unelected EU Commission holds the monopoly on all proposals for European law superior to any other for 500 million people and whose proposals can be forced upon countries against the will of their governments by a qualified majority in the EU Council of Ministers where the Irish weight is less than 1% of the total.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John (24): You got me baffled again: Quoting you: "Can the EU Parliament be viewed as a legitimate representative of the Irish people when it recently voted 499 to 129 not to respect the outcome of the Irish referendum this Thursday?"
Now according to my humble opinion the EU Parliament is elected in all member states according to the principle of universal suffrage, i.e. "one person, one vote" which means it's as democratic as can be. And the democratic EU Parliament votes 499:129 (mind you, I haven't checked your numbers, I have faith in you) on whatever, then that "whatever" is agreed upon! (And mind you not the fickle 49:51 we're heading for in the Irish referendum but a sound 79:21 vote). That's democracy at work or what???
Complain about this comment
Re post 24 and 25. I think what Freeborn John is complaining about is that the treaty provsions specified it will only come into force when ratified by all countries. This procedure was agreed by the elected Governments of all countries.
The E.U. Parliament appear to be saying (again accepting the figures given) that such agreements do not matter and they will not respect them - for this reason I find it very worrying for the future and another reason to vote no
Complain about this comment
To jordanbasset:
But Freeborn John, in my humble opinion, got the cart before the horse: It's the parliaments which elect the government, not the government electing the Parliament. So - democratically speaking - the EU Parliament is within its right to overturn a Government decision.
Y'all complain about lack of democracy in the EU, about how the governments and bureuacrats and commission decide behind closed doors, and for once the EU Parliament does its democratic thing and overrules the governments (because IT's directly elected by the Europeans and the governments only indirectly, namely though their various parliaments), -- and it's wrong again!
Complain about this comment
Must admit I do not know all the various constitutions across Europe but thought that all Governments were elected by the people. Certainly the British Government is through general elections.
But if you are seriously saying that the E.U. parliament has supremacy over all these matters in all countries and have legitimacy to over turn decisions of national Governments and more importantly the electorate in this treaty (and all others I assume) please keep saying it - such comments will be a real boost for the no campaign
Complain about this comment
European62 (27): Democracy is more than elections. It requires the people doing the voting to consider themselves part of the same group such that they will accept the majority verdict, and this is not the case for the peoples that elect the EU Parliament. Indeed the very existence of the Irish state is testament to the fact that the Irish would not agree to be bound by majorities in the Westminster parliament in which Irish views were overwhelmed by others.
Everyone's vote is their use as they best see fit. But the Lisbon treaty is about your future governance and should not be decided by short-term issues such as what might happen at a meeting of the WTO next week. As someone else has remarked you do not need to understand the meaning of every article of the treaty of Lisbon to know that what is going on the creation of a gigantic and undemocratic state controlled by people at the end of a chain of delegation so long that your vote has no hope of influencing them. Ireland is the only country to vote on this because it is alone among EU member states in recognising that in a democracy power belongs to the people and is not something that should be handed away by the government of the day.
Complain about this comment
I would trust EU parliament as I would
my own.
In politic's nobody lies, and anyway it's all for your own good
Complain about this comment
Dear jordanbasset,
the EU Parliament is elected by the people in Europe (and that includes the Irish) to exercise its supreme power on EUROPEAN matters. The No Campaign deplores - justifiedly - the lack of possibilities, the EU Parliament has under the Nice Treaty to do just that. The Lisbon Treaty will remedy that. You're talking about Britain, so I think, you're British. Suppose the Scottish held a referendum (I make it absurd, so the point becomes clearer) on driving on the right side of the road (or abdication of the queen), would Westminster be entitled to ignore it? Certainly, because it concerns the UK as a whole. Incidentally, I would be very much interested in the Irish tally in the abovementioned vote. Suppose they're in favor of ignoring the referendum as well? What I'm saying is: If you have an EU Parliament and if - as No-Campaigner - you complain about lack of democracy, then you should accept its last word on European issues.
Incidentally, why should the Lisbon treaty require unanimity? All the clubs and unions that I'm in stipulate in their by-laws majority rule. The EU is a club, either you're in - then you abide by the rules and *majority* decisions, or you leave.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John (29)
I can understand what you say about the Irish and Westminster, that's one small group and one large one. But the EU Parliament consists of 27 groups - small and large ones - the Irish aren't the minority by definition. And when you say that democracy is to "to consider themselves part of the same group such that they will accept the majority verdict" that would seem to say that the Irish don't consider themselves part of the EU. But if that were the case - just hypothetically - then they would have refused EU aid, as it would not have been ok to accept money from a 'group that they don't consider themselves part of'.
Complain about this comment
Dear European 62, I think the Scottish Parliament actually could decide that motorists must drive on the right, so I suppose if there was a referendum asking for that they could do it.
Re the Queen she is head of state for the U.K. so the scottish people alone could not decide that, but they could hold a referendum to leave the U.K. and so replace the Queen. As a matter of record Alex Salmond for the Scottish Nationalists wants Indepependence but is happy to keep the Queen as head of state.
Re the Irish referendum, , the people are deciding. How much more democratic can you get. I wish my own Government did the same.
You say the E.U. is a club and rules should be obeyed. Th rule in this case was the treaty had to be ratified by all nations, not just the majority. In your words obey the rules or leave, I wonder how many M.E.P.'s wil be resigning
Complain about this comment
European62 - post31
What if the Westminster Government had refused to accept the results of the referendum on Scottish devolution? The principle is the same.
If any government chooses to ignore the wishes of a significant and cohesive minority they are in for a rough ride. To do so in the name of democracy is particularly interesting concept.
In this case, the are effectively demanding the Irish approve the transfer of powers to Europe, before they have the power to demand it.
None of the political wonkery that you have given answers the basic charge that the European political institutions are undemocratic. The Irish are the only people who have been given the chance to vote on the issue, but had it gone to a Europe wide plebiscite, it would have been voted down by a significant and meaningful majority.
Fundamentally that is because whatever its' merits, the case for this treaty has not been made. One of the basic principles of democracy is that the status quo is maintained unless a clear majority agree to the change.
Please don't give me the guff about the people's elected representatives being empowered to make the decision in a parliamentary democracy. In Britain, we were promised a referendum, so we can genuinely claim that the government has no mandate to pass the treaty into law.
This treaty is an affront to the principles o
Complain about this comment
My last sentence was:
This treaty is an affront to the principles of natural justice.
Complain about this comment
Dear Jordanbasset,
if the Irish vote No to the Lisbon treaty, then that is a democratic decision and should be respected. And for the record I would not (repeat: not) want a repeat of that referendum in say half a years time.
But: Then it is up to us to decide how we want to go on, and this too will be done in a democratic way; i.e. those countries, that the 499 votes came from will unite more closely and make provisions for those that won't. As is the case with Schengen or the Euro.
In this discussion, I detect differences in expectancy. Some want the EU to be something that acts on behalf of the nations, when they empower them to do so. (Like the U.N. - If we don't want it, we veto it. ) For them the Lisbon treaty goes to far. And some see the EU as the United States of Europe and would gladly give up their sovereignty to it, because they know, what nation-states can do. (I'm one of them and I'm not alone, see opinion-polls and see youtube comments on EU-videos.) For them the Constitution would be better (btw There were countries that voted yes for the Constitution - so far for wopitt's claim that the Lisbon Treaty would be rejected by a "significant and meaningful majority")
As to the special case of the British Government promising a referendum: Then they should deliver. But that's an internal issue and should not influence the Irish vote. Brits telling the Irish to vote No because they themselves would like a say in a referendum on the treaty don't play fair. They should let their own government know what they think instead.
And last but not least: Pure Democracy is tyranny of the majority! I do not say that this is the golden rule, I'm however very puzzled by the fact that the No-Campaign cites "lack of democracy" as a reason to vote No, but a true democratic (i.e. yes to no 80:20) decision is cited as a No-Reason as well.
Complain about this comment
Dear European 62, I do agree with much of your post 36, if the Irish do vote no that should be the end of the treaty.
The representatives of the nation states do then need to sit down and decide how to move on. I hope they do nothing until they have consulted with their respective electorates.
It may be that some countires want to go on with further integration and federalism. Provided this has no repercussions for those that want a much looser union based on freedom of movement and trade I would have no issue with it
Complain about this comment
re 22 meshuganah13
What all the 'No' voters don't seem to realise is that for the first time since the EU's creation, the Lisbon Treaty will allow countries to negotiate leaving the EU.
If Ireland are reluctant to further their relationship with the EU, then they should accept the Lisbon Treaty, because then they could formally leave, if they wanted to.
******
Sorry but if that was true how did Greenland leave the EU in the 80's as they most certainly did. All you are saying in reality is that now (maybe) you can "negotiate" leaving the EU, which means having to keep all the cravats, laws, regulations that been imposed on non-EU as well as EU countries by way of concerted pressure. Quite frankly if any country wants to leave then why should it be subject to negotiation, or will it be at the wrong end of a figurative shotgun from politicians who don't want to lose their feeding trough. If you think I'm wrong, especially about the UK, look at the EU figures for 2006, remove the rebate which is the ambition of many EU countries, and guess who would be the main net, 'hard cash', contributer as 'per capita' is not worth the paper it's written on.
Complain about this comment
@ 38!!!!
why greenland part of the EU....?
***
What is a food fight going to solve? Not very much...except to make many more hard feelings.
Complain about this comment
If the decision to finalize the Doha WTO deal ends up being scuppered solely by an Irish, veto, that *would* pique quite a few tempers (but would be agreeable to those opposed to globalization). 4 million in a Union of 500 million is bad enough. 4 million in a world of 6.7 billion, would be extremely bad, especially given the recent food price hikes, which should be impetus to end subsidies.
An is the audiovisual veto just there for France to protect itself from 'Anglo-Saxon' music and American films and TV shows?
Complain about this comment
Is MarcusAurelius2 the American version of Gruenebaum?
An EU country would be powerful, at least rivaling the United States. As a single unit, the EU has around half a billion people and a slightly larger GDP than the United States.
Besides, why should you want something bad to happen to an ally?
(What is it with people who have some need to put down others to puff themselves up?)
-----
And in the previous post, the 'An' was supposed to be 'And.'
Complain about this comment
Is there chance of any treaty after the possible Irish no vote not being taken as rehash of the Lisbon treaty ? I think not.
Complain about this comment
To suamalainen (42):
The EU Constitution was written because there was a need for it. The Lisbon Treaty was written because there was a need for it. If the Lisbon Treaty isn't accepted now, the underlying need to make structural changes to EU and advance European integration still remain.
The basic need for changes and European integration come from the fact that Europe is weakening in politically, economically, militarily and technologically in relation to forming powers like China and India. In the 18th and 19th century alone European country had the power to conquer and colonize wast lands in Africa, Asia and Americas. Since the WWI all European countries have been in relative decline in power and thus we have ended in a position where we as an continent can only match the rival powers.
To jordanbasset (37):
I think that its wishful thinking to hope that things will stay the same. If some European countries would further integration and advance to some form of European Federation, there would be massive changes ahead. The biggest change would be that the current EU would probably froze and it's function would largely to agree when its going to move on to an area of integration that the Federal Europe has already took. This basically would mean that countries in Federal Europe would write and negotiate further integration and countries outside of it would either accept to move on or stay put. That is the reality what happens.
To AnonymousCalifornian (41):
MarcusAureliusII is just reviving an old 19th century habit of comparing and competing between the colonies and the old countries. The thing of course is that sometimes this goes to far ahead and comes unfitted for pleasant conversation.
Of course another thing is that, maybe, most Americans have felt pride of their country because its the biggest in every way from economy and military to political freedom. Europe and European pride in the other hand has for long been concentrated on culture, arts and our fine differences on languages and so on. As some other power that looks the same and has the same history is now coming to same level starts to threaten the base for national pride.
Thought if we look at culture especially modern and post modern art there is nothing for Americans to be shamed on their country's contribution to global culture. But the question of course remains do Americans feel pride about these things? Or do Americans feel pride in example of rich culinary culture of southern states or the mixed kitchen culture that risen in multi cultural states? I would hope so.
Complain about this comment
Jukka Rohila (43): Who are you to say there is a need for a Federal European state when only a tiny majority in every European country want that? All you are concerned about is power to go head-to-head vis-a-vis large countries in the world. You don't care if democracy is lost in your lust for power. Your priorities are wrong and indeed dangerous because you are simply an old style nationalist in search of a bigger country.
Complain about this comment
To dennisjunior1 #39,
Greenland is part of Denmark and was in the EU and Wikipedia says "In 1985, Greenland left the European Community (EC), unlike Denmark which remains a member. The EC later became the EU (European Union) when it was renamed and expanded in scope in 1992. Greenland retains some ties with the EU via Denmark."
This merely proves that the new treaty is not necessary for a state to leave the EU.
Complain about this comment
To Out-Rider (44):
Your comment doesn't have any backing. It's basically same as the ones that eurosceptics use that majority of people don't want UK to be part of EU. It's illogical as if there would be such majority they would have elected such people to their parliament that would take the UK out of the EU, but as that hasn't happened it seems that there isn't no such majority at all.
There is a need for Federal Europe and there is a need for concentrated power to respond to moves larger countries are doing. It's not about having power, but protecting Europe and the values it stands for. We have already seen what US can do in its foreign and economic policies. What we will see when China grows is its flexing of muscles and enlarging its sphere of influence. Currently China is dealing arms and supporting such regimes as the one is Burma and Zimbabwe, stopping intervention to genocide in Sudan etc.. If we don't concentrate our power, we will start loosing our positions in global economics and politics and there are real consequences to that in a world where resources are becoming scarce.
You also make the mistake to think that Federal Europe would be undemocratic when it's the contrary. We already have strong direct and indirect democratic elements in the EU. Those elements can be transformed to fully democratic when entering a Federal level. The current EU and it's democracy deficit is caused by it being a club of countries not a country itself. There is no reason why Federal Europe wouldn't work the same as the USA does.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Jukka (46): It is obvious that there is no support for a Federal Europe. The clearest evidence is that all the referendums other than in Ireland are cancelled or have been ignored because they would be lost. A federal Europe just means big countries outvoting smaller ones which is very different from the USA which is one country. Why should Irish voters share your anti-Americanism? Dublin is closer to Boston than to Berlin.
Complain about this comment
To Out-Rider (48):
Have you ever considered that in other countries there are different traditions on how government works and how country is being lead? In my own country, Finland, we have a strong parliamentary tradition. Parliament is elected to lead the country and make decisions regarding the country and the nation. Decision making also includes making tough and unpopular decisions in order for the long term survival and benefit of the country and the nation. Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, in other countries people actually trust their elected representatives and their government to do the right thing, to decide on their best knowledge on what is good for the country and the nation?
A Federal Europe will mean a fair and balanced Europe where both big, medium and small countries can work together and prosper. Currently big countries can't out vote small countries. With the Lisbon Treaty there has to double majority of both population and countries. In Federal Europe we could have, as in the USA, a congress and a senate.
PS. My anti-Americanism? So it's anti-American to talk about American policies and their impacts? So it's anti-American to notice the growing influence of China and India? So it's anti-American to say that maybe we in Europe shouldn't just give a blank cheque to other powers to rule the earth as they wish?
On a note... From Dublin to Berlin, 1315km, and from Dublin to Boston 4808km. The same also in other perspectives.
Complain about this comment
I have considered that Jukka which is why I do not want your politicians to run my country. After all, if they will not listen to their own people why would they listen to me?
Complain about this comment
"From Dublin to Berlin, 1315km, and from Dublin to Boston 4808km. The same also in other perspectives. "
Could it be that's why Irishmen are less afraid of Americans than of Germans?
And why it's not American interference Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, let alone Ukraine, are worrying about?
And why Finnish governments have been traditionally much more critical of governments in Washington than regimes in Moscow?
As they say in real estate: "Location, location, location". :-)
P.S. Good luck to Irish citizens. However they vote, I'm glad that at least the RIGHT to a referendum has not been denied to them. Unlike in some other European countries which claim to be epitomies of democracy and civil rights.
Complain about this comment
An EU country would be powerful, at least rivaling the United States. " [#41]
Because, AnonymousCalifornian, EU is not a country, but a wannabe superstate.
California, on the other hand may yet become a country (rather than a state) if it separates from US along San Adreas Fault's line.
Complain about this comment
Don't abstain if unsure...
Vote no under the cautionary principle.
Complain about this comment
At 08:11 am on 12 Jun 2008, Buzet23
thanks for the information...i knew that greenland was part of denmark.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS