Lisbon loopholes?
A quick technical point raised by a couple of you. Like the-real-truth, post 7, I too thought for a while the wheeze of keeping the commission the same size was not likely, because it would require all countries to ratify again. This is apparently not true. There is a provision in Lisbon for a unanimous vote of the council (that is, the leaders of the 27 EU countries) to tinker with this. It would be slightly awkward, because it wouldn't come into effect until Lisbon was law and the Nice Treaty, which does cut the size of the commission, would be in force until then. But that's the sort of thing politicians employ lawyers to get round. The big political difficulty of having to ratify Lisbon doesn't exist, or so it appears: I want to check this with the lawyers, but haven't got round to it.
Clarifications, such as "Lisbon does not affect Ireland's abortion laws," don't need any ratification, either.
Just a point to Kallboll, post 28: nothing here reflects my "hopes, needs or desires". But as a journalist it is my job to "speculate": to point out likely outcomes and possibilities. If something is politically unlikely I will say so. If it's a possible way politicians may proceed I will say that, too. Don't take it for some sort of personal preference. I haven't, in this current run, explored some of the bolder ideas for reform of the European Union suggested here.
While this is the right place for such free thinking, at the moment I am more concerned with exploring what the EU is actually going to do: and none of the 27 current governments want radical changes. But I do want to explore if the EU can be changed, reformed, halted and how that could happen. More on this next week, I hope.
Tomorrow, as presidents and prime ministers gather in Brussels, I'll look at the subject at the core of many postings: what part of "no" do they not understand?
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 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~22~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I suspect the part of 'no' that they don't understand is the part that is ambiguous. The Irish voted 'no'. Fine. Why? It is highly unlikely that a large number of them wrote in which clauses of the treaty they didn't like. Some people, primarily on the EU-sceptic side, would say that it shows they don't want to go down the direction this treaty was leading us. That doesn't tell us much at all, as it is really restating that they voted no, without giving a solid reason. Could part of the reason be that they were misled? If clarifications such as "Lisbon does not affect Ireland's abortion laws," are needed, then it suggests that some were. Whatever the reason, we will probably never know it, but it does show up one of the problems with referendums on complex questions (or at least referendums resulting in a 'no' vote - 'yes' is generally fairly unambiguous).
Complain about this comment
Have you heard of 'Common Purpose'?
...No????
Read this: http://www.stopcp.com/index.php
It is very important to our dying democracy.
If their allegations are true, we may be in serious trouble; and tax payers money, channelled through a registered charity(!) is being used to train our new Elite and reward the pro-Supranationalists in positions of power...
We need whistle blowers!
The truth is out there.
Keep digging!
Beware 'the minority of a minority of a minority...' that is the Elite (aka. The Minuscule Minority)
They despise us!
Complain about this comment
Mark,
This is astonishing. If they can still ratify the Lisbon Treaty by modifying it on the hoof within the Council of Ministers using lawyers to justify their actions - what does that say for your comment under the topic [Ireland votes No - what next?] "..... it will hardly enhance its reputation for democratic accountability."
Wheeling and dealing in locked rooms over wine and cheese to achieve the enforced ratification despite the one and only allowed referendum indicating a sizeable majority of voters in one country saying "No", just emphasises that the EU is not a democratic institution!
How much further can they alienate the plebians from the patricians?
Complain about this comment
The fact that it is not clear what has been voted against by the people of Ireland remains a key issue, as referenced by your first poster.
When a treaty is complex it is very hard to get anything across at all, let alone if opposition parties are consistently sniping at the government with populist, often unfounded, objections.
What is interesting in Ireland is that all major parties supported it. Brian Cowen did have high poll ratings when becoming prime minister, which on the surface would suggest this was about the EU and not the government. However the fact that people did not follow the advice of their elected representatives, both ruling and in opposition, adds a dimension of apathy to this which you appear to have discounted.
Complain about this comment
Why do the pro-EU idealists always want to analyse the "No" of the Irish ad nauseam.
The "No" is final and it was a majority.
If the vote had been "Yes" I am sure the Pro-EU commentators would not be looking to analyse whether it was just a "Yes" for the treaty or it was a "Yes" for further expansion of the powers of the EU or whatever. Well perhaps they would!
They seem to see the "No" as something that can be dissected, broken down into partial "No", obstinate "No", ill-informed "No", deluded "No" or misled "No" and that somehow the smaller "Yes" vote gets more weight by splitting up the "No" vote into smaller compartments.
"No" is "No" for whatever individual reasons the voters chose to select "No" and the majority vote of "No"won in the Irish referendum!
"Democracy", "majority", "popular vote", "choice" and "elections" are other words that pro-EU idealists are probably as wary of as "No" and have as much difficulty understanding as the word "No".
It certainly looks as though the Council of Ministers have lost touch with those words too (if Mark is reporting the gossip as well as I believe he does!). But then, should anyone be surprised that the Council are looking for the way out of the mess and will look for fair means or foul to get themselves out of the fix that they got themselves into by not asking the people to participate in the process in the first place?
Complain about this comment
Let's assume Lisbon is dead. What's next? Where are the alternatives? Redrafting a new treaty, a new Constitution, a simple agreement? What points of the Lisbon treaty should be removed or reformed?... Or do they just surrender and give it up?
While there is a global need Europe acts efficiently with one voice (there won't ever be 27 voices allowed in the international arena), the EU has been spending the first years of this century (8 so far) and the taxpayer's money discussing endlessly how better we will face the global challenges.
Whatever positive outcome is received from the EU, like reducing the price of mobile calls inside the EU or not having to queue to cross a border, we just take it for granted.
There's a problem of communication: the EU institutions have failed to show the advantages of being a EU citizen to the public.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
I imagine that the voters in the "EU" have been thoroughly disgusted by the reaction of their "leaders" to the Irish NO.
I would expect opinion polls to show that the Irish and others are now even more hostile to the Lisbon wotsit and the "EU" in general.
This might just be wishful thinking on my part.
Do you have any post-referendum opinion polls which you can quote at us?
Just think how wonderful it would be to be Norwegian and to have nothing to do with this rubbish.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
It's certainly true that "none of the 27 current governments want radical changes". Naturally! But do the Irish people?
And given the Irish aren't merely 10% of the EU population in this matter but 100% of those allowed to vote on Lisbon, could it be that a significant majority of other peoples across Europe share their views?
I see a signal that this vote *does* communicate a desire for more radical change in the fact that much of the disquiet among Lisbon 'No' voters, according to recent polling by the EU and Irish Times, was centred around issues of power and identity.
Yet these are the two fundamental aspects of a nation state which today's EU has designs on - grabbing power and eroding identity in order to advance its own. These are the central purposes successive treaties, like Lisbon, are meant to serve.
Hence I think there is a more fundamental clash between what the people want from European co-operation in the 21st century, and the driving forces of today's 1950s-envisaged EU. Certainly beyond mere 'clarity' over EU influence over abortion or neutrality policy.
Naturally, the EU elites want to gloss over this. But it won't go away. What better time than now to ask the question, before the governing elite carry on once again down the wrong path?
Complain about this comment
The problems did not start with the Lisbon wotsit. They started when they lied to the British people before we joined the predecessor of the "EU", the Common Market.
One of the people involved in the original negotiations said so on Newsnight a few years age, as I remember it.
I think it was Lord Denman or Lord Stenman. As I remember it he said it to this Scottish presenter who quickly changed the subject.
They are just storing up trouble for the future.
There will be trouble whatever we do but we should make a special effort to cause trouble - all within the "law" of course.
Complain about this comment
In response to Menedemus (comment no. 5):
As someone from the 'no' camp, can you honestly say you would not have claimed, in the event of a yes vote, that it was ill informed as the treaty was complex?
It is important to establish what was voted for and what was voted against in any election, let alone a referendum. Here, as many in the no camp and yes camp acknowledge, the treaty was very complex and, as Europe will develop inevitably over time, even if Lisbon is dead, establishing what was democratically voted upon is most certainly important.
Opposition parties often have a field day with Europe, but those in government, regardless of being right or left, usually see it as an opportunity.
That is why people are still talking about it.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
Does what you say mean that they can use the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty to modify it both before and after it is passed into law?
Anyone know?
Complain about this comment
Number 6
The problem is not that the benefits of the EU have not been communicated, but rather many people have seen the benefits without seeing the need for an EU superstate.
The EU has been unable to explain why lower mobile phone call charges and the like are conditional on a sovereign EU because they are not.
A useful analogy might be that of marriage. Do you need to be be legally married to have the benfits of a long term stable emotional relationship?
Complain about this comment
The downfall of the EU as just started name a undemocratic organisation which wont take NO
Complain about this comment
The downfall of the EU as just started name a undemocratic organisation which wont take NO for a answer which as survived over a long period of time.The EU tries to push public opion under the carpet.But one day itv will get a big slap.no body want EU intergration....
Complain about this comment
Mark, in midst of the brickbats, you deserve a bouquet for the way you have increased our understanding of things 'euro', as the greatest weapon the EU has is the ignorance of the people as to what is going on in the corridors of power.
I found it frustrating when Jane Hill, being the good 'telly' journalist she is, was trying to sex up the proceedings on Friday by talks about 'crisis' and 'turmoil' when really it is just the status quo.
Many things could happen now after this vote.
However I suspect that the leaders of Europe realising that an anti-democratic and confusing set of institutions and a tortuous law-making process which leaves the citizens out in the wilderness is not going to work, and resolving to change all that in favour of free and fair elections for all the people making the laws and any future EU president, is not on the menu at all.
Complain about this comment
Dayvine @ 10
It may help you to understand my thoughts.
I did not know how the Irish felt about the referendum question before the event but like many people thought it would be a close decision with most Irish people not being anti-EU by nature.
I was surprised by the size of the "No" vote but was pleased to see the the majority had voted "No". Simply becasue it stoped the Lisbon Treaty which I believe still creates an EU Constitution.
If the vote had been "Yes" my fundamental opposition to the EU as a totalitarian democracy would have still been as strong but I would not, in all honesty, try to analyse why the Irish voters/people had made that choice.
I sincerely believe that one person's vote is their private decision and it is their conscious choice that matters. I, therefore, consciously choose not to deride the Irish voters who chose "Yes" - that is their fundamental right given to them in Ireland. I also choose not to deride pro-EU idealists(I can actually sympathise with their idealism!) who support the EU come what may!
I do believe that the Council of Ministers and the pro-EU idealists should realise that it must be a right for every citizen within the boundaries of the EU to be able to make the same choice as the Irish when it comes to developing the EU and how they are governed within Europe in the future.
If the choice of the European Electorate majority were FOR the consolidation of the EU, I would accept that choice because I am a true democrat. I am also a citizen of Europe and have no quarrel with other European citizens.
My concern is that the democratic rights to help shape the future of Europe is being removed simply to expedite the founding of a sovereign EU with legislative powers over which I have no democratic control. It is this concern that drives me to being anti-EU.
If the EU was more democratic and gave us all democratic voice and choice, I might well become a strong advocate for Europe to be governed more centrally.
Failing, that I will remain anti-EU as I believe it has become more totalitarian and more distant from "the People" since it was first formed and when it first seemed to be a great idea!
Hopefully, that explains why I don't care why someone votes for or against something but I am concerned when only some of "the People" have a voice and/or choice in the specific matter!
Complain about this comment
What are all the loopholes?
:)
Complain about this comment
Mark, You are quite right to "..look at the subject at the core of many postings: what part of "no" do they not understand?"
If a woman, confronted by an over-excited male, said ‘No’ and the man continued nonetheless with his unwanted advances, then he would rightly be accused of attempted rape.
How do you think the Irish feel?
‘No’ means ‘No’.
Complain about this comment
Mark, Could you please also report on the position of the Czech republic and their (heroic?) President Vaclav Klaus in their efforts not to be pressured into ratifying a dead parrot.
Complain about this comment
"Certain decisions will continue to be made unanimously – they include decisions on defence and taxation. This means that any Member State may veto a proposed change in these areas."
"The Lisbon Treaty also proposes to give the European Council the power to amend the Treaties so as to allow QMV to operate in certain areas where unanimity is now required."
A contradiction, and like the implementation of the treaty itself, unanimity may not be required.
Complain about this comment
What happens at 9pm - do all the moderators go home? have a tea break?
It has been 30 mins since a post was "moderated". Perhaps since it is past the watershed, we might be allowed to post unsupervised!
Complain about this comment
Wopitt @ 12 ... Well said!
The casual assumption by the likes of betuli at No.6 that a 'need to address global problems' requires ever more decision-making powers to be passed to remote, central EU institutions is completely bogus.
Plenty of countries in the world co-operate very successfully together on a range of topical issues without handing over governing powers to external supra-national institutions.
It seems far *less* likely to me that 1950s-designed structures can most effectively deal with the problems of today. They could be replaced with something better, and much cheaper. Time for the EU to leave Europe, maybe?
I also like Menedemus's comment at No.5.
Imagine if the government refused to accept the outcome of an election that went against it, and decided to pick the opposition vote to pieces to find what sections it could buy off with better policies.
The EU's mind-set just isn't democratic, and there are strong grounds for denying it even more powers on that basis alone.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus (no. 16)
That is an interesting (and in many ways admirable position). However I am sure you realise that it is also, in part, paradoxical.
For my part I too hope that Europe will become much more democratic in the long run, however I approach this from the other side.
I think that democracy on a scale as large as will be required within the EU will take time to build and, in order to ensure that it is free and fair, will require a prior degree of centralisation.
Without the stability this infrastructure would provide, implementing such a vast project or indeed any moves toward democracy at all, are likely to be swayed heavily by national interest and be ultimately flawed.
As the EU is being built from scratch by internally democratic nations I do not see too much of a problem with a graded approach, nor do I see the red warning flags that many consistently insist are there.
Complain about this comment
A rose by any other name...
"Despotism is a form of government by a single authority, either an individual or tightly knit group, which rules with absolute political power.....
...The term now implies tyrannical rule. However, in enlightened absolutism (also known as benevolent or enlightened despotism), which came to prominence in 18th century Europe, absolute monarchs used their authority to institute a number of reforms in the political systems and societies of their countries."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despotism
Complain about this comment
Dear Mark,
My intent was not to label you as not being a Journalist. I believe I have seen several snippets with your own convictions. This is natural, that is my point. No one can separate these things very good. Especially considering your job is to speculate to some degree. Your country, in contrast to my own, has great honesty when it comes to political sciences (e.g. economy and political science) and I think the same standard should apply in Journalism. In my view political writers should not be allowed, when writing in an open way such as blogs or editorials, declare themselves journalists - during that assignment. At least, there should be allot of "extra information" attached to that title.
The mere indication and declarations of your background, or personal convictions, makes it OK to take side, or perhaps better described, lean towards one side. Perhaps (!) I was wrong in assuming you were doing that, time will tell :-)
I applaud you for taking an look at alternatives, my suggestions was not very serious. However, that suggestion was not more radical that this treaty. It is in my view always important to describe an alternative - often there is no right or wrong in these cases.
Complain about this comment
Will Cameron now guarantee to de-ratify the Lisbon wotsit if he gets into power and it is already "law"?
If it is unacceptable before he gets into power then it must be unacceptable when he is in power. If not then he does not deserve to be in power.
Complain about this comment
If the lawyers find that the Lisbon Treaty can be ratified by clauses contained within it before it has come in to law, i believe there is little future for democracy, or indeed, the EU.
the end just does not justify such means as this: such an act must surely destroy any credibility and validity the EU still has. The Eurocrats are losing sight of what is really important in pursuit of their political dreams.
Complain about this comment
The fact that the Commision and some other countries regard this as "the Irish problem" really shows how undemocratic the EU has now become.
If other governments allowed their citizens to vote, there is a good a chance they would also say "no".
People ask "what part of 'no' don't they understand?"
The truth is, they DO undesrstand "no" - which is why (apart from Ireland) we have all been denied a vote.
Complain about this comment
There are several legal ways to ratify without Ireland. People of Ireland were told about it before they voted, but they felt threatened and "bullied" by it and did not want to believe it was possible.
But there would also be ways to amend the Nice Treaty without a referendum in Ireland. I think e.g. abolishing unanimity could be done without a referendum in Ireland, because the Irish constitution would not have to be amended, since abolishing unanimity would not equal shifting more power of the national parliament to the European Union.
One thing is clear though - there is no state that is more souvereign than another. A yes-vote needs to be respected as much as a no-vote. Neither one of them can expect or even force the other to change their mind that they have made up. In case there is a second referendum people should think harder about what they truly want. It's not about bullying, but about making a final decision by taking every possible scenario into consideration.
Complain about this comment
Arsch Angel
I would like to know when one deems a decision to be 'final'? When it is 1:1? 2:0? 2:1? 3:0? Or merely when the Irish people agree to what the EU leadership wants?
If a no vote is respected as much as a yes vote, why weren't the people of Spain and Luxembourg encouraged to vote again after voting 'yes'?
What makes you think that the Irish didn't think long and hard before this referendum? Why do they need to 'think harder about what they really want?' Or do you mean the Irish need to think harder about what the EU leadership really want?
Complain about this comment
No 1
People write about the Irish not understanding The Lisbon Treaty .
I have tried to read it ; hundeds of pages of legalese . I doubt that many if any of the polititions have read or understood it . I have read brief shortened versions , which look what they are , sick makingly sugar coated , covering a bitter pill . It is evident that the Treaty is written in such a way ; that the EU could if it wished make all the promises and assurances to satisfy the Irish people , in the full knowledge that once the treaty was ratified , they would have carte blanc to carry on as if no promises had never been made .
The Irish people and those in other countries may well be justified in doubting the EU honesty and good faith .
Complain about this comment
"If a no vote is respected as much as a yes vote, why weren't the people of Spain and Luxembourg encouraged to vote again after voting 'yes'?"
Because the Constitution and Lisbon Treaty are pretty much the same and they did not request opt-outs as well. Why vote again on pretty much the same thing?
"What makes you think that the Irish didn't think long and hard before this referendum?"
Because I have watched the campaigns before the referendum VERY closely. Some people did not think at all. They simply said - if you do not understand it, vote no. As a sensible citizen I would have suggested - if you do not understand it try to get informed instead. But many ignored the information they received - for the sake of a better deal, even though they did not even (want to) understand the deal they were offered in the first round.
I am not sure whether you should reward such ignorance with a better deal.
Complain about this comment
"I have read brief shortened versions , which look what they are , sick makingly sugar coated , covering a bitter pill ."
Actually the treaty really isn't that bad. Probably you just expect shock and horror and are disappointed not receiving it, after all the NO-campaign has told about the treaty.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
ArschAngel @32 wrote:
"Because the Constitution and Lisbon Treaty are pretty much the same and they did not request opt-outs as well. Why vote again on pretty much the same thing?"
Very true.
It's a pity that Gordon Brown and his pro-EU supporters in the UK deny this basic fact in order to avoid a British referendum.
Complain about this comment
ArschAngel, some people didn't understand it and voted Yes, following the party line. Or, are you trying to say it was read and understood fully by all the Yes campaigners? I think Brian Cowen and Charlie McCreevy have shown this to be untrue.
Complain about this comment
covering their tracks...
BBC are telling Europe and America we have already ratified!
Complain about this comment
1:16am this morning on France24.
Headline:
'EU treaty passed by British parliament.'
The lords haven't voted yet!
1:32am this morning on BBC News24
Headline:
'The UK government has 'effectively ratified the EU constitutional reform treaty, hour before EU summit...'
This is not the case!
We are told that all runs smoothly except for Irish vote and 'little Englanders'.
This is not the case!
MEDIA MANIPULATION
WAKE UP
BECOME THE MEDIA
Complain about this comment
The EU is becoming the present day version of the old USSR although at the present time more benign. As we go further down the road of integration, so do national governments become more obsolete. It is beyond my understanding why politicians hasten the day of their own demiss and be replaced by a parish or regional council. The House of Lords will become defunct and be reduced to a tourist attraction.
All this because the Germans and French need their war like nature curbed and controlled.
John Weybridge
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Its funny how the facts are ignored and the side issues debated ad nausiem.
But then we are seeing the post-democratic age at work.
Open your eyes to the reality.
Open your eyes to who gains.
Open your eyes to who loses.
This is not a drill.
Strange things are happening and need to be stopped.
Why is the full story not being told?
Why the whims of a secret meeting at the end of a private road?
They the illumined we the blind slaves.
Open your arms to our European brothers and sisters who are saying the same things as we are.
They would have us divided and ruled.
No to Dictatorship.
No to media blackouts.
Yes to democracy.
Yes to co-operation.
Yes to freedom.
Complain about this comment
"ArschAngel, some people didn't understand it and voted Yes, following the party line."
Well, many didn't read it and just noted NO. You need to admit, not everyone on this planet can be a European and International Law expert. Of course, not everyone understood it. It is written by lawyers for lawyers, since you will not have to read it regularly in your everyday life anyway, and will hardly ever have to check the treaties, because as a regular citizen you hardly ever get into conflict with European Law - just just check out your national regulations usually to find out what rights you have.
Unfortunately Irish people were supposed to understand the Treaty to be able to make up their minds. Some trusted people they thought they were trustworthy already before, some just didn't trust some people just for the sake of distrusting them for whatever reason they may have (some just can't deal with others having power and therefore feel they have reason enough not to trust them). Some trusted people they had never heard of before, like Declan Ganley, a millionaire slamming companies that want to make money, okay.
As arrogant as it may sound - a treaty of that kind is not the kind of stuff non-experts should decide on. It is simply not a comic that everyone could understand. It is also hard to make it more understandable. You have to consider that 27 states have to agree on one text, and they all want to add their bits and pieces. Even if you started out with a simple text, this thing would end up like a huge Bible again after a debate among 27 states.
And on the way of renegotiating treaties you have countries like Great Britain or Poland that suddenly want to drop fundamental rights, because now that they have a chance to discuss Plan A again why not just drop some of that useless stuff like rights for citizens.
People just seem to not understand what kind of risks their vote includes.
Complain about this comment
@ArchAngel (42)
the fact that it is difficult to read (with all the crossreferences ea) alone is enough reason to vote against it.
And also, the majority of peoples in the EU are against further integration. Therefore, it should not continue.
Referendum anyone?
Complain about this comment
ArschAngel wrote:
"But there would also be ways to amend the Nice Treaty without a referendum in Ireland. I think e.g. abolishing unanimity could be done without a referendum in Ireland, because the Irish constitution would not have to be amended, since abolishing unanimity would not equal shifting more power of the national parliament to the European Union.
One thing is clear though - there is no state that is more souvereign than another. A yes-vote needs to be respected as much as a no-vote. Neither one of them can expect or even force the other to change their mind that they have made up. In case there is a second referendum people should think harder about what they truly want. It's not about bullying, but about making a final decision by taking every possible scenario into consideration."
Two mistakes in logic.
1. Abolishing unanimity constitutes a substantial shift of power from the national parliament to EU by blocking the latter's power to veto EU decisions interfering with the national legislations.
2. The entire point of ratifying the treaty by ALL 27 states is enable any of these states to veto it. Therefore, yes vote is a necessary condition for legalizing the treaty, but not a sufficient one, whereas a single no is a sufficient condition for its rejection. There is no symmetry between the two.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
"what part of "no" do they not understand? "
I think, that most people known what NO means....
~Dennis
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS