Irish No under scrutiny
The fate of the Lisbon Treaty will, I suspect, be in the hands of the opinion pollsters.
Have we learnt any more since the dust settled on the European Council meeting? At the summit President Sarkozy frankly admitted to his fellow leaders that if a referendum had been held in France right now, it would have been lost. So he might have some sympathy for the man tasked with finding a way forward. As I understand it, no one was crude enough to directly suggest that the Irish prime minister call another referendum, but it was the assumption that hung in the air.
When the Czech prime minister stormed out of the room during the first session, effectively bringing it to an end, it concentrated minds. His protest was at a text that would have pushed countries to carry on with ratification but this together with the influence from other eastern countries, the Scandinavians and Britain, made it clear that those who wanted to push Ireland were not in the majority. If the Franco-German motor still drives the European Union it isn't spinning quite as furiously as some would like.
I know it will disappoint some readers, but no consideration was given to abandoning Lisbon or taking the No vote as a serious comment on the direction of the European Union. So they wait for Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen to report back in October. In that time there will be an effort to cajole, scare, but above all analyse the Irish people.
A telephone poll of 2,000 people, conducted days after the vote, had 55% only making up their minds in the week before the poll, 52% of No voters saying their main reason was not fully understanding the issues and 76% felt their No would help renegotiate a better deal for Ireland. This, on the surface, is quite good news for those who want another vote.
An Irish colleague of mine tells me Irish airwaves are filled with phone-ins full of people saying "what have we done?" in nervous voices. This is an attitude some EU stalwarts will wish to encourage, ahead of a possible second vote. Two very well respected commentators, Peter Ludlow and Wolfgang Munchau have published articles suggesting that Ireland will be isolated if the No vote stands. And the Centre for European Policy Studies has published an analysis suggesting how this could happen. 
Some think a bit more of this, and a few concessions on some of Mr Cowen's eight points will do the trick. I am not sure and I think the "don't push us around" vote might be stronger than some care to think. No analysis has been done by any august body on what a second No would do to the EU.
In the meantime, the French presidency will tread carefully: the plans for harmonising base rates of corporation tax have disappeared and the defence plans will be presented to stress their voluntary nature. The delicious debate on who would get what job has been shelved. This fascinating report explains what has been going on behind closed doors to set up an EU diplomatic service, as envisaged under the treaty: I wonder if they will still go on behind even tighter-shut doors?
The Irish No will dominate EU politics for a good while now, but I don't want to turn into a one-trick pony, so I am going to take it easy for a couple of days, and when I return I hope it will be with a different subject.
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~18~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The bigger questions are:
(i) Can the Irish people and perhaps the Czechs hold out until the Conservatives come to power in 2010? If they do will the forces behind the project simply enact as much of Lisbon as they can anyway under the existing Nice rules and attach the rest to an accession treaty for Croatia which they will argue can be ratified by the Irish parliament without another referendum?
(ii) Would a failure for Lisbon to come into force actually take the steam out of the EU issue in the UK, making it less likely that a Conservative government would finally grasp the EU nettle? The EU problem is much bigger than this one constitution/treaty, whose refusal to die is serving a useful purpose of bringing the EU issue to a head.
Complain about this comment
Look, what don't people get ?
We've said No - we're not interested in being run by the French and Germans, end of story!
This Treaty allows 65% of the members to vote on EU matters - okay, so the population of the EU is around 500m.
A majority therefore of 325m must vote for this to happen.
However, it means the REPRESENTATIVES must vote - i.e. Merkel, Sarkozy, Berlusconi etc.
So, Germany, France and Italy have about 220m people betwen them, add the UK and you're close to 300m. One more largish country and five nations ride roughshod over the other 22 - or more!
No way, anyone in GB remember being asked in the 70s if they wanted to be run by the French and Germans ? No, me neither!
So now they ask us - well us here in Ireland! - and we say no. Ask Britain, I guarantee they'll say no also.
No one apart from the above countries want this Constitution (sic) so leave it be.
Complain about this comment
I can't work out why the No vote by the Irish people was such a shock. From the very beginning, Irish and other EU politicians knew that ratification of the Lisbon Treaty required an amendment to the Irish constitution and such an amendment had to be condoned by Irish voters. Therefore, from the very beginning, a No vote was always a possibility. Because of the insulting and cynical lack of information from Irish politicians on the likely impact of ratification or non-ratification of the treaty, I suspect the No vote was not so much a rejection of the treaty but a rejection of Irish and EU politicians.
Complain about this comment
So, all the EU governments tell us that they are acting on behalf of the people. Please ask them to explain their comments when they say that if a vote was put to their people, they say that they would say NO!!
How is that acting on behalf of their people?
"At the summit President Sarkozy frankly admitted to his fellow leaders that if a referendum had been held in France right now, it would have been lost. " - How can he push for ratification when the people who elected him tell him they don't want integration?
Complain about this comment
What options does Ireland have?
As things stand if the EU is going to go ahead with Lisbon they will be left behind.
The EU is fundamentally broken - the constitution debacle is just one symptom of this; whatever the outcome on the Lisbon Treaty the EU will still be broken.
The Irish situation should be taken as an opportunity for the non-federalists to form their own group - not just pulling the EU back from its current disasterous course, but actively driving it in a new direction - a democratic, accountable, consensual direction.
If the EU could be simply fixed there would have been some progress by now, however I don't see any (how close are any annual accounts to being signed off? how accountable are the MEPs and the commissioners etc?, does the CAP work yet?).
Pushing in a new direction will be very painful for the existing cabal - but the sooner this is started the less painfull it will be in the long run.
If our governments won't do it, then the people will end up doing it themselves, and this will be even more painful.
Complain about this comment
Mark, you say "above all analyse the Irish people"
As we were reminded by Matt Damon in the film "The Departed", Freud was quoted as saying about the Irish, "This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." As one myself, I agree.
Analysis Shmanalysis. It is the EU which needs to look at itself. Fascinating that it doesn't now do so, for such a normally inward looking body.
Only one nation had the chance to state their views on the Lisbon treaty and they said No. And they are the most pro-EU people in the EU.
If the EU is so proud and sure of this treaty they should INSIST that it be put to the vote in every country. They know they bet all on Lisbon and have lost. Instead they just trundle on regardless, ignoring reality until their pensions become due.
Lisbon is dead. Killed by Europe's only true democracy. How fitting.
Complain about this comment
@5 - The Lisbon treaty can't go ahead. It can progress on papaer but it can't be implemented on the ground without the agreement of all.
Complain about this comment
So 1.6 million Irish voters vote in the referendum with a majority of over 100,000 voting no and with majorities for no in 33 of the 43 constituencies
And the EU conducts a telephone poll of 2,000 voters and asks us to give this equal weight to the referendum result
Presumably Robert Mugabe will soon be dialing 2,000 of his friends!
Complain about this comment
What's the difference between democracy in Zimbabwe and the EU? Answer in Zimbabwe they they fix the result before the voting takes place....in the EU they fix the result after the vote has taken place. Is there much difference? There is no real democracy in either, but at least the EU is not physically killing the people, only trying to treat them as fools.
Complain about this comment
I find it very strange that countries and "federations" espousing Democracy as part of their constitution refuse to give anything but lip service to the basic principles of Democracy.
The EU is attempting to ride rough shod over the European peoples preferences; George W Bush has almost rewritten the constitution to take as much power away from the people as is possible, under the auspices of 'national security' (really George?) Mugabe is pulling his country to pieces, killing his population - not just with scare tactics in the run up to the run off, but by starvation in many parts.
At some point the people have to say enough. But when you look around most individuals are completely apathetic and not interested... "What can we do?" seems to be the only response. It is about time the peoples of the worldstarted to take back some of the power from these jumped up little politicians, for Democracy to work we have to be involved, our own apathy has lead us to the situation we are in now.
We must start to pay more attention and we must sack governments that are not acting in the best interest of the people, sooner or later the chrony-ism of the EU will get what it has coming, but I fear it may be a while longer before there is sufficient momentum from the public.
Complain about this comment
I think the Politicians need to be very careful. I was going to write "our" Politicians, but they're beginning to act as though they know better than the Electorate.
What don't they just 'fess up and say that the EU is not about Democracy, and the Electorate's opinion is not important.
Thank goodness for the Irish and the Czechs! The EU is good in theory, but everyone "games the system" in practice.
To paraphrase von Clausewitz, the EU is the continuation of National Interest by other means. How else would we still have the CAP?
Anyway, what's so bad about a Two-speed Europe?
Complain about this comment
I find it amusing that now with the downturn of the economy, Ireland now have the audacity to turn to the EU and request a loan of €11bn to see them through the tough times ahead. Like a child spending all his/her pocket money on the day they received it and goes back requesting more. I find it amazing that the people of Ireland really seem to believe that we are capable of standing unaided without the help of the EU. We had one of the strongest, fastest growing economies in the world for several years, which wouldn't have been possible if it were not for the help of the EU. What have we done with our countries new found wealth? our health care system is a disaster, prisons of third world standards and a joke of a public transport system. Our country entered Europe a small underdeveloped child, over the years we have grown into a unruly spoiled petulant teenager. It's about time the that Europe lays down the laws and reminds us we are not ready for greater reasonability.
Complain about this comment
It's a matter of democracy. It's funny that the country that is probably the youngest democracy in Western Europe had to say no on behalf of the residents of our neighnours.
The people of Holland and France said no. Senior politicians have been quoted several times saying they could never put this to the people.
We've said no and we're being told to vote again until we get it right. Hmm... makes me wonder how much they'd respect a veto to protect our right to control our own taxation system.
Who do these politicos and faceless eurocrats work for? It's certainly seems that they don't work for the people who elected them.
France and Germany want to run the entire continent. Napoleon and Hitler would be proud. Once again, a small island of 4 million people has kicked an empire where it hurts to achieve democracy.
Hopefully people in the other countries will finally hear about Lisbon and make their voices heard. Unforunately, I suspect Orwell was right and the sheep are being led to the slaughter. We'll just end up with another China-like Eurostate with a faceless french speaking eurocracy running the continent.
Complain about this comment
@2 Ceannair
A Qualified Majority Vote (QMV) at present requires 255 weighted votes – that is almost 74% of the total. This system would remain in place until 2014. If the Treaty is ratified, from 2014, a qualified majority (also to be known as a double majority) will require that decisions must meet two conditions:
a) 55% of the Member States must agree: (for example, while there are 27 Member States, 15 Member States must agree);
b) those Member States supporting the decision must represent 65% of the EU population.
In addition, at least four Member States must be opposed to a decision in order for it to be blocked. This ensures that decisions cannot be blocked by just 3 of the larger Member States acting together.
If there are fewer than 4 Member States opposed to a decision then the qualified majority will be deemed to have been reached even if the population criterion is not met.
Thats just a copy paste job but its explains it better than I could.
You (i don't mean any offence in saying this) are an example of how peope voting were misguided or misinformed
Complain about this comment
The European Union generates hostility not because it is good, bad or neutral but due to the prompting of our foreign owned newspapers and television. In a global economic situation individual countries are powerless; it is necessary to be part of a ‘power block’.
In Europe we have three choices; national isolation, the European Union or being the 51st state of the USA. Our politicians are terrified of any meaningful referendum because they have calculated that Rupert Murdoch et al will produce the 51st state answer.
The irony is, the solid block who would vote for the 51st state solution are the very group who would be most disadvantaged by that move.
Complain about this comment
@Mark Mardell
Your irish colleague who told you the airwaves are full of people who are saying "what have we done?" is wrong
There just as many people saying that we are in the same place as we were before the vote was annouced - we haven't moved forward but we haven't moved back
people who believe we have taken a step back should look at it as a chance rather a set back
Complain about this comment
Another thing that President Sarkozy has said is that without ratification, enlargement will not be possible. If that is so natural an implication, if enlargement is on the current agenda, then the Treaty is frankly not about validating Europe but about changing it.
These are deep waters and the UK government is closing its eyes and ears to the realities. There can be no excuse for withholding a UK referendum for the next parliamentary session, and in owning up now to the very real issues that arise here.
Complain about this comment
Oh how I wish they would make a new series of 'Yes Minister' based in the EU as 'Yes Commissioner'. (I believe it was mooted once but shelved as too politically sensitive.)
What a wonderful storyline this would make ! That the Irish had the temerity to actually vote ! and then come up with the 'wrong' result !
The irony of already having been asked to vote again on the Nice treaty after returning the 'wrong' result is delicious. How can they ask them again? I'm sure 'Sir Humphrey' would even find this problem difficult.
Complain about this comment
Sarkozy is no better than Mugabe. He openly admits that his position and his government's position in the EU does not represent the will of the French people. The entire exercise now is trying to find a way around the law they can justify. The requirement for unanimity was adopted a) because it was unthinkable that all Europeans would not see the world alike and agree to what their leaders told them was best for them and b) to dupe them into agreeing to join in the first place on the promise that no nation would be forced into action the majority of its people did not agree to. Both these notions have proven false. Talk of leaving the Irish behind in effect says that if you do not agree with what the rest of the EU leaders have been able to impose on its own populations, you're out. That is also not in conformance with the EU's own laws.
kenjenha, rest assured that the EU will NOT become a state of the USA. Even Britain alone would not stand a chance. President Roosevelt told this to Churchill in no uncertain terms during WWII and it is still true today. That Europeans would even think this a possibility is one more proof Europe does not understand much of what the US is actually about. Puerto Rico stands a better chance and that is at best probably only 50-50 if they want to apply. And that decision to apply is decided by a referendum every 5 years. So far, of the three choices offered; independence, apply for statehood, or remain a Commonwealth, Puerto Rico has chosen to remain a Commonwealth every time.
"The fate of the Lisbon treaty will, I suspect, be in the hands of the pollsters."
If it is, that's one more proof that the will of the people as expressed in the referendum means nothing, the entire process would be revealed as a sham. And it may just well be proven so once again.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
You mentioned "Two very well respected commentators, Peter Ludlow and Wolfgang Munchau have published articles suggesting that Ireland will be isolated if the No vote stands."
I don't know if you've read the Wolfgang Munchau article as it cropped up in the previous thread of your blog, it is so full of inaccuracies and scare mongering as to be worthless. If this is typical of what this 'respected' commentator produces then all I can say is that those who respect him must have their heads in the sand or be wearing extremely rose tinted sunglasses.
He makes a claim that it is legally possible to kick out Ireland or Czech or any other country but declines to give the detail suspiciously. If you know the detail of this I'm sure there are many of us that would love to know where this mechanism is hidden in the current treaties so please let us know.
Complain about this comment
There's really only one word for this, disgusting.
I think if there was a second vote and the Irish said yes, I'd be more dissappointed in them than I would have been if they'd voted yes the first time. (hope that makes sense)
Its now looking like its going to be down to how easily the Irish people can be fooled. There are encouraging signs that Ireland will not and cannot be left behind because the UK and Eastern Europe won't allow it, but still I am concerned that the Yes "scaremongering" that went on prior to the first vote will just be turned up in volume to try and get a yes at the second vote. At the end of the day the Yes camp all liked to point figures at the No camp for "misleading" and scaring voters, but they have done and are continuing to do the same thing!!
I just don't get how anybody, anybody at all (except for those who are out of touch with reality) can be excited about the "European project" after all this, I honestly just don't get it. Its a shambles.
Complain about this comment
9. At 10:29am on 25 Jun 2008, happylorddudley wrote:
"... at least the EU is not physically killing the people..."
NOT YET!
I can't find Mark's report of the European Army in the archives, but as I remember it, the exercise involved invading an island.
German and British "EU"-lovers have told me repeatedly that the UK has no right to leave the "EU" even if 100% want to do so. I was in Germany during the Falklands war. Hardly any Germans were on the side of the Brits. Many stated that the Argentines had the right to invade and that the Falklands were part of Argentina because they were part of a geographical unity and a geographical unity should also be a political unity. They have also told me that the UK is part of the geographical unity called Europe.
The "EU" has not brought peace to Europe for 40 or 50 years and it has not made war in Europe impossible as Franz Fischler claims it has. It could be about to make wars of independence inevitable.
Complain about this comment
People are quoting how the people in Ireland shouldn't be dictating to the vast millions of people in europe.
Well i look at it this way 300 people give or take took the decision for 60 million UK citizens.
That makes the Irish vote democratic in my opinion.
I would hope that all people use their vote at the next EU elections to remove as many Labour MEP's as possible they don't deserve to have it and are incapable of listening to what the people want,which is a vote.
If they are bothered about the expense they could have included the papers with our next vote as could all other nations,then we can see democracy served.
The biggest states are doing no more than zimbabwe in forcing this through against the wishes of the people to have a vote.
You never know they might be surprised and people will vote yes.
Complain about this comment
@22
The removal of our politicians is our aim, not 'wars of independence'.
This can be done democratically every few years, so use your vote and get rid of them.
The only party that will pull the uk out of europe completely is ukip. (and no, I'm not in ukip!)
We have a peaceful means of removing governments from power in this country and it should be used to remove the present one without any militant talk.
Complain about this comment
Buzzet23 (20): I am afraid that is typical of Wolfgang Munchau's articles in the FT. He is the most biased journalist on the most pro-EU newspaper in the country. He is best described as the authentic voice of German wishful thinking. I have lost count of the number of 'good news' stories from him about the German economy (e.g. 'German business confidence improves') that appear on the same page as a story by another journalist with a headline such as 'German growth revised downwards'. During the decade he has spent writing FT articles that talk Germany up, it has become one of the poorest countries in Western Europe. His political projections should not be taken any more seriously than his economic projections. No doubt he was foaming at the mouth on June 13 when he learnt the result of the Irish referendum and wrote this fantasy piece about kicking Ireland out of the EU before he calmed down.
Complain about this comment
SuffolkBoy2
There is only one reason that there hasn't been at least one major war in Europe since World War II and that is the presence of the United States Military in a major way and its committment to peace in Europe through military strength and political will often despite the lack of will among Europeans themselves. Had the US not been there, the USSR would have overrun Western Europe sure as you're born. The EUSSR would already exist as part of the Soviet empire. Europeans can deny it all they want to, credit it to Pope Paul II or whomever they like but trillions of dollars spent by American taxpayers on tens of thousands of soldiers stationed in Europe and around the world with the best arms and training money can by backed up by 20,000 thermonuclear weapons and the credible warning that they'd be used to annihilate the USSR if it invaded Western Europe was the only thing that stood between Western Europeans and being slaves of the evil empire like the Eastern Europeans were for nearly fifty years.
Complain about this comment
#24 - I take your point about peaceful means to remove governments but lets try to understand the frustrated UK voters.
During the 2005 election the three main parties refused to discuss two important issues, immigration and the EU.
They avoided both by 1) promising to hold a referendum on the constitutional treaty, and 2) dismissing all opponents of unlimited immigration as racists.
And what two issues have dominated the political scene since 2005??
The 2009 Euro elections are another chance for UKIP to possibly break the 20%/30% barrier. That still may be too late if the Europhiles get their way with ratification of the Lisbon constitional treaty and proceed with even closer integration.
Complain about this comment
To continue ahead with the Treaty is correct.
You cannot stop because one group of people rejected the Treaty on the basis of unfounded and irrational fears.
The fact that 52% of No voters voted No because they didn’t understand the Treaty says it all. You cannot stop because people couldn’t be bothered to read it and chose instead to listen to scaremongerers and business leaders who have an interest in protecting their own profits and newspaper editors who sell fear on a daily basis.
The first respondent to this article suggested that they did not wish to be ruled by the French and Germans. What's this about? This is a club of 27 nations, on a voluntary basis, and THAT is exactly the kind of nonsense and scaremongering that confused everybody in the first place. It needs to stop and the Treaty needs to go on.
Complain about this comment
To #28,
I think you miss the point the original poster was making, that France and Germany traditionally were able to use their clout in the EU to get what they wanted more easily. Take a look at the issue of energy for example - who have been the two countries halting progress because they can't get their own way? Why, its France and Germany of course!
And when you hear now that its France and Germany who are leading the charge to have an "lets just leave Ireland in the cold" approach, why on earth shouldn't people be angry and be allowed to accuse them of attempting to "bully" the smaller, less powerful member states.
As it stands, I think we are thankfully seeing signs that the Franco-German domination of the EU, whilst still clearly in play, is no longer as invincible. Thank goodness for Eastern Europe. For the EU to work I think we need two things, a strong Poland and a strong Czech Republic, to be able to stand up to "old Europe" in situations like this.
Its not scaremongering, its just fact. Scaremongering is claiming that Ireland are going to be isolated!
Complain about this comment
Marcus Aurelius II says....
"Puerto Rico stands a better chance 9of US staehood) and that is at best probably only 50-50 if they want to apply. And that decision to apply is decided by a referendum every 5 years."
Not sure the relevance of Puerto Rico to the EU but it's a strange example. Puerto Ricans can be drafted to kill and die for a CinC they cannot vote for - hardly democratic. Surely -No call-up without representation!
You also suggest that the US would not consider itself bound to follow the will of the people of a small off-shore island as expressed in a referendum - but isn't that exactly what you're critising the EU for doing?
You're all doing very well !!
Complain about this comment
The Ultimate reason for a NO vote is a lack of education about the facts and too many people being led by the media.
A perfect example is below where a comment seems to claim that a mere 5 big member states could pass any vote because they would have the requisite 65% of the EU Population needed to do so. In fact THIS COULD NOT HAPPEN as the treaty also requires at least 55% of Member States (not of the EU population) to agree a vote as well as the 65% of the population requirement.
People just dont know what the Treaty says and what it means. The public have this media message that the EU spells loss of power, freedom and identity when in fact it empowers small states with the backing of a superpower, it grants us the freedom to travel and do business anywhere in Europe and it gives us an international element to our countries (through various cooperations and agreements) that would not be there otherwise.
The EU is efficient, friendly, powerfull and the best thing for us all. The politicians agreeing these treaties understand this - its time they explained it to the rest of the population. Or stopped those who are not educated in the issues from having a say in the matter.
Complain about this comment
I was delighted with a 'no' vote, not because I'm anti-European but because the EU institutions needed a good kick in the pants for making assumptions it shouldn't be making.
I don't like certain elements in the Irish Constitution but until such time as a referendum changes anything in the Constitution I have to defend the whole document.
That is my duty as an Irish citizen and I feel no such sense of duty towards the Lisbon Treaty.
A way forward can be found;
The Plain People of Ireland: We don't want Irish soldiers committed to defending 'EU interests' just 'Territory', OK?
Little Nicky: Bien
TPPOI: And we get to decide our tax rates.
Little Nicky: Oui
TPPOI: Social Affairs issues remain the province of the Irish constitution.
Little Nicky: Bien. Can we 'ave our pen back?
TPPOI: No.
There we are. All sorted.
Complain about this comment
Re #18 from thecanarian and Yes Commissioner
Spot on! Bernard's "Red tape is fun" springs to mind.
Complain about this comment
The Irish people were asked whether they wanted the Lisbon Treaty. "No,"they responded. Suddenly the European politicians are asking, "What's wrong with the Irish people?" But they should be asking, "What's wrong with the Lisbon Treaty?" and "How can we reform the European Community so that it's acceptable to the people of its nation states?"
Complain about this comment
Would sometwo1better please explain how the EU is "efficient, friendlyl" when they can't sign off any audit since it started, they make friends by bulling smaller countries and are only powerfull to pass laws in countries they bully.
the original eec trading agreements worked well and have made all this possible why change it to this abomination, nearly all of us DO NOT want to be a single super state
Complain about this comment
US vs EU WAR on the Cards!!!
French daily Le Monde reports Mr Jouyet as saying that "Europe has powerful enemies on the other side of the Atlantic, gifted with considerable financial means. The role of American neo-conservatives was very important in the victory of the No."
He made the comments at a pro-Europe meeting in Lyons over the weekend, just over a week after Irish voters rejected the EU's latest treaty by 53.4 to 46.6 percent.
Allegations that some funding for the No side came from across the Atlantic also came up during the Irish debate preceding the referendum.
Libertas, an anti-treaty organisation campaigning on a platform of cutting Brussels red-tape, was on the receiving end of such accusations earlier this month.
The Yes camp alleged it was being bankrolled by a US company, Rivada, which has links to the US military. Some key member of the Libertas campaign had been on Rivada's payroll.
Libertas chief Declan Ganley is also chief executive of Rivada, a telecommunications company. Mr Ganley has said that the company has only been involved in domestic rescue and disaster operations, and helping US military bodies such as the National Guard and the Coastguard.
The Yes camp has urged Libertas to make its donors and accounts public, saying it could not have raised its money so quickly with domestic donors only.
Opposition Fine Gael MP Lucinda Creighton said earlier this month: "The businesses of Ganley and [aviation millionaire Ulick] McEvaddy are heavily dependent on contracts from the State Department, the Pentagon and US government agencies. These men are a lot less concerned about Irish sovereignty than they are about the potential hit to their own personal business interests."
Complain about this comment
Sometwo1better (31) and SternButFair (14): Qualified Majority Voting is used in the Council of Ministers which is at the end of the EU legislative pipeline. That body has the power to block Commission proposals, but cannot itself propose anything. So what matters in the Council of Ministers is not the 65% of combined population needed to approve, but the 35% of combined population needed to block.
The significance of the Lisbon treaty voting rules is that 4 countries with a combined population of 35% of the EU27 total can block. Under the Lisbon treaty Germany would see its voting weight rise from 9% to 17% and France from 9% to 13%. These 2 countries alone would then have 30%. When you add a couple of their 'Old Europe' allies you very quickly reach the 35% blocking threshold, effectively giving this group a block on any EU legislation they dislike. Therefore it is entirely reasonable to say that these changes in voting rules are designed to preserve the power of the Franco-German axis in an expanded EU.
Complain about this comment
In a strange way, I have some admiration for President Sarkosy.
At least he has the honour to frankly admit to his fellow leaders that if a referendum had been held in France right now, it would have been lost.
No such honourable admissions from Gordon Brown though. But then he does appear to be like a rabbit caught in the headlights most of the time and a great British Prime Minister he is not and never will be!
It just makes me wonder by what right that our elected politicians can justify their decisions for surrendering state legislative authority to the EU when they know that this is not something that their electorates have approved or would approve.
It all seems to make the EU sordid and underhand to me!
Complain about this comment
I am a supporter of the closer integration between the EU states and I hope that Lisbon Treaty or similar document will enter into force some time soon. But I think we should all respect the vote of the Irish people, like it or not. I think the real problem is all too clear, but somehow not mentioned by the politicians. Most of the people voted No because they did not understand the Treaty. And this is a sensible decision, after all we have a system that works, may be not a very good one, but still working. Why change it with something I have no idea what is all about. I think in such situation I will vote No too. By the way the same reason was most often cited by the No voters in France and The Netherlands as well. I find it ridiculous that after the people in those two countries proved that they are smarter than sheep, so called leaders decided to give test the same in Ireland. In a way the Yes campaign should have put much more effort to explain what the Treaty is all about, what is going to change and what not. Even most people that voted Yes admitted that the No campaign was much better organized. In a way now we know that France, The Netherlands and Ireland are run by lazy fools. I will bet you that in the other 24 EU member states the result will be the same. It’s a supreme arrogance to think that people that elect you are stupid.
I personally think that referenda are great. Just look at Switzerland. They really work. I guess you need to practise them for a while to get it right, but it turns out most of the populist stupid proposals don’t pass through. A recent example is the attempt of Swiss People’s Party to change the citizenship laws in defiance of Court ruling. Referenda teach the people to be responsible for their own actions. You can’t blame somebody else for your own choice.
So I have a suggestion, plan C you may call it. The EU member states should negotiate a new treaty that is clearer. I think the EU Constitution was a step in the right direction in this respect. Then this treaty should be put on EU wide referendum and enter into force if it approved by the majority of voters (half or two thirds) in two thirds of all member states, but no less than two thirds of all EU voters (of the ones that bothered to vote). Then the Treaty will enter into force for these states. The states where it failed to gain the necessary majority, will enter European Economic Area that should be established by a different treaty. Then they will have three years to choose form the following options: 1. Ratify the EU treaty and join the EU; 2. Stay outside of EU in EEA; 3. Leave EEA.
. The changes of the EU Treaty can be proposed by: 1. Group of three or more member states; 2. European Parliament, Commission or Council; 3. Group of citizens if they collect signatures of five percent of EU voters or more. All the proposals will be put on EU wide referendum like the one described above that takes place once a year or once every two years.
I will be glad to hear your comments on such a proposal.
Complain about this comment
To No : 38 You quote :
"In a strange way, I have some admiration for President Sarkosy.
At least he has the honour to frankly admit to his fellow leaders that if a referendum had been held in France right now, it would have been lost."
What exactly is HONOURABLE about an elected representative KNOWINGLY going against the wishes of his people by ratifying this treaty?
Complain about this comment
@31
To say that people only voted no because of a lack of education about the facts is ridiculous
Of course there were people who didn't fully understand the treaty and voted no but there was also people who voted yes and didn't understand the treaty
If anything the media were on the yes side,
the big parties in government have the most money and can spend most on campaigning through all media outlets while the smaller support groups for no (sinn fein...) have less money and cannot spend as much
Complain about this comment
I think if handled carefully there is a good chance of this treaty being passed (I'm an Irish voter) in a second referendum. With a decent set of new protocols/opt-outs
on tax, neutrality, charter of human rights and other issues raised in the campaign
(whether extraneous or not) I feel it would stand a strong chance of passing. The campaign would need to be handled delicately though.
The aftermath so far doesn't inspire me with confidence. After a very poor and lacklustre yes campaign the basic strategy to date seems to be to try scare the Irish into voting yes. Many references in our own media to being thrown out of the EU. Thinly veiled threats from European politicians. The reaction to the no voters, apart from lots of use of the word 'respect', has often been quite patronizing. There have indeed been some callers on radio phone in shows wondering "what have we done?" but these are easily outnumbered by calls of a more resentful and angry nature.
The Irish are largely pro European. I am convinced that if the electorate here is treated respectfully and we get a number of protocols/opt-outs assuaging voter's concerns this treaty will pass.
What I fear will end up happening instead is that in six months we'll end up voting again on exactly the same treaty (with perhaps the flimsy window dressing of a non-legally binding declaration assuring us there's nothing to worry about, and perhaps a promise we'll all unanimously agree to keep a commissioner once Lisbon is in effect). Being asked to vote a second time on Nice still sits uneasily with many. I think voters would want to be assured that there are substantial differences on offer to what they voted on the first time. A simple rerun would be unwise. Throw in some bullying and threats to bring out the
contrariness of the Irish electorate and one could very easily end up with the prospect of a second no vote. The way things are going I fear this second scenario is at the moment the more likely.
Complain about this comment
@Freeborn John (37)
I understand that the 4 countries you suggest can block something but so could any other four, so it does even out for everyone else
France could veto something along with 3 other tiny populated countries so it doesn't matter about population numbers when it comes to the veto
Only when they are supporting a proposal
55% of the Eu member states must support the proposal and in addition 65% of the Eu population must be living in these countries
I think that these are safe guards against France and Germany dominating in the EU
---->Because the criteria of 55% Eu member state support
France of germany or italy or anyone else doesn't get an extra point when this criteria is being consider - every country counts for one so their populations are irrelevant when considering this
(unless i'm making a huge oversight)
Complain about this comment
@37 Freeborn - john
my apologies, that niggling feeling i had that i was missing something turned about to be that 35%!
taxi
Complain about this comment
"Treaty No vote hands Sarkozy an Irish hot potato", Potato? Irish? how witty.
Complain about this comment
@Russelyates2
“To continue ahead with the Treaty is correct.
You cannot stop because one group of people rejected the Treaty on the basis of unfounded and irrational fears.
The fact that 52% of No voters voted No because they didn?t understand the Treaty says it all. You cannot stop because people couldn?t be bothered to read it and chose instead to listen to scaremongerers and business leaders who have an interest in protecting their own profits and newspaper editors who sell fear on a daily basis.”
Mr Yates, what planet do you inhabit? At least, what country?
You cannot be from Ireland, as your ignorance of the issues and the role of the media in the pre-referendum campaign is simply breathtaking (ironic, in light of your reference to people who “couldn’t be bothered to read it”).
Why did NO voters reject the treaty? The EU Commission carried out a survey shortly after the vote which sought to explain the reasons for a NO vote. Obviously the results must be taken with a pinch of salt, as those being surveyed were asked to choose from a range of options provided by the canvassers i.e. representatives of the EU itself. The main findings about the NO camp were:
22% voted NO because they felt they didn’t know enough about the treaty to give it their approval (BTW Mr Mardell, where did you get the 52%, was it gleaned from your “Irish colleague” perchance, the colleague who fed you the rubbish about phone-ins?).
12% wanted to protect Irish identity.
6% to protect Irish neutrality (I’m aware that Ireland’s provision of pitstops to US troops at Shannon shreds our neutrality).
6% because they don’t trust our politicians (surprisingly low, IMHO).
6% to retain a full time commissioner.
6% to protect our tax system.
5% against a unified Europe.
4% to protest against the government’s policies.
4% to avoid the EU speaking with one voice on global issues.
4% because large states dictate on EU matters.
3% to protect the influence of small states.
2% (THIS MUST BE NOTED by those in denial of the result), only 2% mentioned EU legislation on abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage.
1% (NOTE) to avoid an influx of immigrants.
1% because the EU doesn’t need fixing.
14% another reason (those provided by the canvassers not covering all bases).
3% didn’t wish to respond.
Item 1, the 22% who felt they didn’t understand the treaty: those on the YES side had better realise that this does not attest to an intellectual inability to read text or an unwillingness to do so. At a major press conference in the lead-up to the vote, the Chairman of the Referendum Commission, a High Court judge no less, was asked to explain a particular section of the treaty. After an embarrassing 4 minute silence, during which he tried to formalise a reply, he admitted that he simply could not offer an explanation of the text.
The text is deliberately devoid of clarity, so as to enable groups as diverse as Big Business and Europe’s Green parties, employers organisations and trades unions, to argue the case for Lisbon. They cannot all be correct, and, if history shows us anything, it is that the Rich and Powerful rarely fail to identifiy the path to greater wealth and privelege. If people smell a rat as a result of this, they should not be castigated for failing to read the entire document. Furthermore, 51% of the YES vote came from people who felt that it was in the best interests of Ireland, or that Ireland had benefitted from the EU, hardly an indication that they’d deeply explored the document themselves.
Lay off on the accusations of ignorance. Others in the YES camp should ditch the bogus references to the scaremongering of the catholic fascists of Coir, as they represent nobody but themselves, 50 maniacs with 3 gorilla suits and a big banner (1% of NO voters doing so on an anti-abortion/euthanasia ticket). Lay off with your accusations of anti-Lisbon scaremongering by Irish newspaper editors, evidence of which I ask you for a single instance. Quit whingeing about business leaders who were likewise spreading scare stories, as one could count them on one hand.
It’s time for the losers to grow up and face the real reasons for the NO vote. People smelled a rat, didn’t like being bullied by our ‘leaders’, by the Irish Times, the Irish Independent, RTE (more subtly, of course), didn’t like being bullied by Eurocrats, didn’t like MEPs voting recently to keep secret their expenses (at our expense, of course), didn’t like the lies so helpfully alluded to by Giscard d’Estaing, didn’t want an EU superstate to continue to kiss US butt a la EU support for US policies in the middle east etc etc etc.
We simply don’t trust our political elites, at home or in the EU. Why, because they refuse to trust us, evidenced by their refusal (Ireland excepted) to ask us for our permission to enact this deliberately misleading treaty. We don’t want to give our democratic voices to them, forever. I’d encourage our true friends in Europe to safeguard their own democratic voices, gained in many cases at great human cost.
Get off your backsides, and make your voices heard, before it’s too late.
Long live Europe, and long live democracy.
Complain about this comment
SternButFair (43): France plus 3 small countries could not block as this would imply that 23 out of 27 countries (more than 55%) with more than 65% of combined EU27 population supported the Commission proposal.
In practice one has to consider the likelihood of countries voting together. The Old Europe alliance of France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg would have 32.9% of the votes, within touching distance of the 35% blocking threshold. This is the main reason why France and Germany are such strong supporters of the Lisbon treaty.
Complain about this comment
Why don't we just hope they vote yes and then maybe we can have a politcal influence in the world in the future. Unless Europe joins together, India, China, Russia and USA will be the only influential nations.
Complain about this comment
glenn_fleetwood @ #40
You misunderstand my comment I suggest? I did not say Sarkosy was HONORABLE.
I used the term HONOR to describe his decency in being the one politician seeming to own up to believing that the French people would not vote for this treaty.
A criminal is a criminal but he can somewhat redeem himself by pleading guilty and admitting to the crime.
In that sense, the Council of Ministers are all criminals, rogues and dishonest BUT at least one of them (Sarkozy) has the decency to admit that he is a criminal by denying his people voice and choice!
But of course, regardless of his honor, decency or redemption, the crime has been perpetrated and the victims shall never forget! And this goes doubly so for the politicians who do not even admit to their crime of denying their electorate voice or choice when it comes to the EU!
Complain about this comment
The government is elected to represent the will of the people. If at any stage the government opinion differs from the will of the people it can no longer represent them fairly.
The goverment needs to be reminded of this regularly.
When we voted down the Nice treaty, they made us hold another election and it passed by the sheer exaspiration of the public.
This time a second referendum will fail.
The Irish people have never liked being bullied by those in charge and a second referendum is political suicide.
We have said no.
Cowen was not elected. He does not represent us. He apologised to Europe on my behalf and on the behalf of everyone who didn't do Europes bidding in the polling stations. He is a cancer in Irelands democracy.
Complain about this comment
Either make a treaty that is not purposely made vague and concealing shrouded authoritarian powers; or just don't bother at all.
You're not clever, you're just mean spirited; and that is not my vision for Europe.
I love Europe; I love my country: but I will not stand by while a tiny minority of Media hyped silver-spoon fed sell outs, ruin what has been up to now a promising (if sometimes flawed) process of European Unity.
And that is what the EU should be about: Unity; some call it Unanimity; but no, you have to dominate all 500m of us don't you...
Not happy with co-operation and peace.
Stop with the ego and warmongering and Genetically Manipulated garbage; and start solving the worlds problems.
Such as,
1)persuading the Fed to stop stoking the Oil market and through that vile speculation making food to expensive for the worlds poor...
Its called, Evil, if you've forgotten the word you label others with so often.
''who are they to you?'' you say.
They are the people of the world. Our brothers and sisters who need our aid: not domination by Agribusiness and the propping of tyrants who would maim their children...
Your only suggestions thus far have been 'tighten your belts' and 'cut production of food in Europe'
Have a heart!
2) Start with the renewable energy and stop just talking about it!
And no Nuclear isn't renewable, its a disaster waiting to happen: how does that translate to sustainable?!
3) Stop stifling all progressive methods of tackling problems!
Stop talking endlessly about hydrogen fuels, they release the same amount of energy as it takes to separate them in the first place...
an efficient store of energy, yes, solution as a source of energy NO.
Waste of time!
4) Go take a hard look at yourselves and your plans for World Domination and grow up to the fact that you're all really childish; and have had life so good, that you are detached from the very essence of life on this planet!
To all the human beings out there,
They offer fear: Choose love.
Complain about this comment
So the Lisbon Treaty would have us doing Majority Voting?!? Frankly, that stinks of democracy.
Complain about this comment
Mark
Thanks for the link to the "Friends of Europe" report. This makes fascinating reading. It is clear that even a "trade" partnership has to embrace far wider issues than simply buying and selling goods and services.
On the one hand, you could argue that what's being proposed is a UN of Europe (and, do we need such a thing?). On the other, as they conclude, where the EU is complex and has many overlaps, Lisbon is a genuine attempt to redress that.
My real concern is that, if I accept the "Friends of Europe" conclusion, why are there so many issues left hanging in the air. (To understand this you will need to follow Mark's link).
Complain about this comment
jon_toronto @ #52
If it were a majority of 'the people' able to vote then, looking at the definition of Democracy, I would agree that this would be democratic.
However, it is Majority Voting by Nation States as represented by their elected politicians who may not make decisions that take into account the wishes of the majority of their nation's electorate. (For example Sarkosy is pushing for ratification of the Treaty DESPITE knowing that his people would vote against it!)
That is Autocracy and not Democracy! Some might even call it Tyranny!
Complain about this comment
To comment on this Blog. From the first picture, I would say that the Irish P.M. looks like a man who has a few sleepless nights and Gordon Brown is say he understands how it feels not to be the most popular man in town.
I agree that the E.U. will go on which opening borders, introducing the Euro, etc etc.
What will happen about Ireland? Sticks and carrots will be tried to encourage them to see where their true interests lie. Some clarification but not much else as carrots. And the stick. Now about that loan .. 11 billon Euros was it ... nughf said.
The idea of Prsident Sarkovy treading carefully made me smile. He has a reputation for speaking 'off the cuff'. As one frustrated official is said to have put it: he does not pass his ideas across he own brain let alone his advisers.
I am glad to see MarcusAurelius II is on good ford (he is an American, just in case you had not guessed). He is right in at least on thing. There is absolutely no possibility of the U.K. become part of the U.S.A
Complain about this comment
I find it very interesting how many of my fellow Brits (most probably members of the Murdock voting block) feel as though the UK would lose power over itself if it pooled powers with other members of the EU. If the UK were not a member of the EU then very quickly the USA, Russia, China and India would dictate trade terms which the UK would have no choice but to accept. The multinational companies (such as Murdock's interests) would very quickly demand favourable tax rules or they will move abroad and the decisions effecting the future of humanity such as climate change would have almost zero input from the UK government - is this the control over your own affairs you claim that withdrawal from the EU will give you?
Complain about this comment
To : kingcod1980 (if that is your real name)
Murdock move abroad , AS WELL as having our full sovereignty returned! YEE HAA!! Let's not waste another minute and get the heck out of the EU. Maybe we'll even get our fishing industry and farming industries back - it sounds too good to be true!
Complain about this comment
kingcod1980 @ #56
"I find it very interesting how many of my fellow Brits (most probably members of the Murdock voting block) feel as though the UK would lose power over itself if it pooled powers with other members of the EU."
Firstly that is merely an assumption on your part that most British anti-EU commentator are in any way allied to Murdock! I do not read any of his papers and I refuse to pay for Sky TV!
Secondly, I think you mean "gain power" rather than "lose power" but that is probably a slip of your fingers as you know full well that the UK IS losing National Sovereign power by membership of the EU!
"If the UK were not a member of the EU then very quickly the USA, Russia, China and India would dictate trade terms which the UK would have no choice but to accept."
The UK has sacrificed an awful lot by turning it back on the Commonwealth in order to sacrifice it's National Sovereignty on the alter of the EU. In my opinion given the growth of the emerging economy of the Indian Sub-continent it may well turn out that this was the UK's biggest mistake!
And finally, if the UK were to set it's own favourable tax regime to attract foreign business. Why not do so? It works fine for Switzerland and Norway - why not the UK?
The EU is not the be all and end all although the fervor with which the pro-EU Elite view the organisation - one starts to imagine that it may involve some kind of religious belief!
Complain about this comment
Kingcod1980 (56): The USA, India, China and others could not 'dictate' trade terms to the UK outside the EU because they must, by the rules of the WTO, grant the same 'most favoured nation' status to all other WTO members.
What would change s that the UK would be able to negotiate in our own interests, i.e. for the lowering of tariffs applied on our service or industrial exports in exchange for a steep reduction in the agricultural tariffs we apply to foodstuffs exported to us. Currently the UK cannot negotiate in our own interests because the EU negotiates on our behalf in the WTO but has always prioritised the interests of the agricultural sector (which employs less than 1% of Britons) ahead of the service and industrial sectors that employ 99% of Britons.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
You wrote: Some think a bit more of this, and a few concessions on some of Mr Cowen's eight points will do the trick. I am not sure and I think the "don't push us around" vote might be stronger than some care to think. No analysis has been done by any august body on what a second No would do to the EU.
I think your intuition on this point is correct. The folowing may support this view: A week or so before the Irish Referendum I was speaking to a Brussels-based friend who has a relatively senior and influential role with the EU Commission. I expressed my concern that all the pundits were of the opinion that the Irish would vote in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. My friend said that Irish would vote - and had advised Commissioners accordingly - but they just did not want to know. (My friend also suggested that I place a sizable bet on the outcome being an Irish rejection - but I stupidly dithered a la Brown, and lost an opportunity to make a nice packet...).
Anyway, the moral of the story is that the political classes - and the attendant EUrophile commentators and media deluded themselves that the Irish would behave like a tamed puppy. They are still - two weeks later - gasping in disbelief that this 'tame puppy' bit them hard where it hurts.
And now they continue to delude themselves that a second referendum will provide the 'right' answer. It will not.
As I have said before, the Irish don't take kindly to being bullied. davidmarconi @50 above, confirms this simple truth.
Complain about this comment
In my above post @60, I should have written that "My friend said that Irish would vote NO".
Complain about this comment
Re #46 from 1OUTTA27:
Very well put. I just wish that Brownedov in particular or one of the EU Politburo was prepared actually to listen for once. Until and unless one of them does, we seem to be in for a euro version of the parliamentary ping-pong we know and love in the UK.
Re #54 from Menedemus:
True. The problem is who has the ability to change things when any one of the EU heavyweights can just say NON/NEIN and it really will mean NO to any change in the system?
Complain about this comment
holmdps @ #62
I see what you say but my issue with the intorduction of majority voting is more a case of who can say "No" in Dutch, Irish, Danish, Italian, Spanish or any of the East European languages if France and Germany collude with their tame EU Satellite nations to push through changes that are to their benefit or worse to the disadvantage of the member nations!
I can imagine France, colluding with it's allies to use the majority vote to push through a return to the CAP levels of pre-Margaret Thatcher days - and this would be despite many politicians (let alone citizens of Europe) knowing in their heart of hearts that the CAP is an example of the worst case of minority protectionism that there has ever been since Roman Europe cornered the market in Slavery!
I can see Majority Voting being used to ensure that waste not only continues but even proliferates within the EU!
Complain about this comment
Number 23
AqualungCumbria
You question the legitimacy of the Irish vote deciding the decision for the remainder of Europe, and denigrate it as wishes of a minority dictating to the majority.
Your point is flawed as:
1. The remainder of Europe could have taken a vote, but their elected representatives decided not to hold one as it would probably resulted in other "no" votes. Even the President of France said as much.
2. 12 countries were promised a vote in recent domestic elections and were subsequently denied it when the treaty came up for ratification. You can say that this was a legal decision, but it ignores any concept of honesty, integrity and natural justice.
3. Voters in countries that were promised a referendum can reasonably consider that they had not given a mandate for their representatives to decide the matter for them.
4. The governments in many EU countries cannot claim to have a popular mandate. In the UK for example, the Labour party won 22% of the vote. Taking you argument, how dare they have the temerity to consider they have a mandate for anything. At least the Irish no vote represented about 30% of the electorate.
How can all this be possible - well because it was in the rules. The Irish did not write the rules regarding the need for unanimous ratification by the European Nations, the EU did. Now that the result is not their satisfaction, rule bending is occuring. There is another word for it - cheating.
Complain about this comment
Number 28
russellyates2
You suggest that the Irish no vote was wrong because the majority of the voters didn't bother to read the treaty and understand it is interesting.
Were they to not bother reading the treaty, not understand it, and vote yes? Because that is what their PM said he was going to do and asked others to do the same. Voting NO was entirely rational - and lets not forget that the treaty was written to be unintelligable, so what chance has the voter got?
Finally, before anyone comes back and says that the complication of the treaty is an inevitable consequence of these serious matters that are beyond our ken, and better left to our representatives, I would point out that the the treaty was only complicated becuase of the compromises in it. These compromises were a direct result of the desire by some to create an EU state. This was a choice by them - there was no other need for it.
Complain about this comment
"24. At 12:19pm on 25 Jun 2008, glenn_fleetwood wrote:
@22
The removal of our politicians is our aim, not 'wars of independence'.
This can be done democratically every few years, so use your vote and get rid of them.
The only party that will pull the uk out of europe completely is ukip. (and no, I'm not in ukip!)
We have a peaceful means of removing governments from power in this country and it should be used to remove the present one without any militant talk."
At the moment we have a peaceful means of removing them. Given the staggering arrogance of Merkel, Brown and Sarkozy and many "EU"-lovers we may not have that peaceful means for long.
UKIP is not doing very well at by-elections. It has not made the most of the wonderful opportunity which the "EU"-lovers have given. It has a number of policies which have nothing to do with the "EU" and put me and probably others off. Its performance has been so bad that the thought has crossed my mind that it is heavily infiltrated with "EU"-loving moles.
I believe we need a new party to get us out of the "EU" and that we probably need new parties for that purpose in most "EU" countries.
I suggest that those parties should have very few policies 1) stop "EU" megalomania 2) change voting systems which have allowed the staggeringly arrogant ones to gain power.
Complain about this comment
Young-Mr-Grace #30
You seem to know nothing about the unique relationship between Puerto Rico and the US. There is no military draft in the US. There hasn't been one for around 35 years. And the military itself does not want one, it wants only those who want to be there.
Puerto Ricans enjoy just about every privelege of US citizenship there is. The only privelege they don't enjoy is representation in Congress and the right to vote for President and Vice President. In every other way their rights are equal to Americans. Every five years they are given a choice through what we call a plebicite, in effect a referendum. They can choose to remain a Commonwealth which they've always done so far, they can choose to become an independent nation, or they can choose to apply for statehood. Granting statehood is far from automatic. I don't know the specific details of the law (it would be easy enough to look it up on say Wikipedia among many others) but they would have to convince Congress I think that they would be an asset to the US as a whole. Many Americans have reservations about this because Puerto Rico's overwhelmingly Hispanic culture and language would make it unique and could suddenly change the basic character of the culture of the US as a whole. I'm not saying this would be bad or good but it is a step the US might not be prepared to take, especially since Hispanics are already the single largest minority in the US and their numbers continue to grow largely as the result of uncontrolled illegal immigration. Generally the US prefers a balance of people with backgrounds from all over the world with no one group predominating. It is not necessarily true or even likely that America's history of being largely of European ancestry will continue on indefinitely. But by absorbing new cultures at a reasonable rate, the basic American culture and social ethic will not change suddenly, it will continue to evolve slowly and collectively. That's what we want, the continued melting pot which has worked so well for us throughout most of our history.
Complain about this comment
marcusaureliusII.
Thanks for reading my comment. I did not mean to suggest that there is a military draft in the US. At present there is not. However the people of Puerto Rico are eligible for military draft if/when one is created and they do not have a vote for CinC.
My point about the referendum is valid. There are referenda in PR (1967, 1993 and 1998 - the last two being five years apart but I'm not aware of there being regular 5 yearly votes. In 1998 statehood recieved 46.7% with the option "none of the above" on just over 50%) but the US does not have to respect the outcome if the outcome is a desire to become a US state. After all why should the PR's be able to force themselves on the rest of the US if the rest of the US doesn't want them? However by the same token why should those countries in the EU who (rightly or wrongly) want closer ties to towards common decision making be prevented from so doing because one country doesn't want to follow? The question becomes where do national rights stop and common (european) benefits start. In Europe we will be wrestling with this question for some time - however I believe that we need to begin to identify with a Common Europe in addition to our national identities. It will require a big change in mind set for some but many in Europe are already Scottish and Brittish, Walloon and Belgian, Corsican and French all be it with tension between the identities. I hope the Eu project works out - we are I think beginning to reach the limits of what can be legitamately done as goverenment by treaty and will need to create european democratic institutions - which will need a european "demos".
I konw that you have been concerned about "anti-US" feeling in europe and that the EU might want to set itself against the US but I (perhaps naively) would hope that a strong europe would be a good partner to the US when our interest co-incide and an effective friendly voice to temper the US when they don't.
I do hope the US melting pot continues to work reasonably well. It's not easy to absorb new cultures but I believe that we all grow from doing so.
You're all doing very well !!
Complain about this comment
Re #63 from Menedemus: I can see Majority Voting being used to ensure that waste not only continues but even proliferates within the EU!
I fully agree, and that's why I fervently hope that the Irish NO will be honoured and that there really will be a re-think of how the EU can move towards more democracy.
My point in my post #62 regarding NON/NEIN was more about the current situation, where France, Germany and perhaps a few others really could say NO to any change from the status quo and their veto would be accepted.
In the long run, if the EU is to become a democratic political entity it needs to look hard at the Swiss and US constitutions and take the best bits of both. A bicameral confederation could have a lower house elected on the basis of population and an upper house on the basis of geography.
This would acknowledge that size matters but still give the smaller countries a fair deal. I'm not hopeful that this will happen any time soon, though.
Complain about this comment
Anyone care to explain why exactly we need this treaty?
-Is it so we can have a consitution like the US(which was voted down in France and Holland and that's the next best thing we can do)? If so, do we really want to be one country, i.e. do the british feel the Bulgarians for example are the same to them as the Welsh?
-Is it so Europe can speak with one voice?
If so, could it be a voice AGAINST one or more member states? This would be unthinkable in the US, the federal government siding with say Mexico against California.
Is it for some other reason?
Complain about this comment
Young- Mr-Grace
I don't see any parallel between the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty process and the periodic Puerto Rican plebicite.
The plebicite is a public referendum held at regularly scheduled interviews. All of the citizens of voting age in Puerto Rico are eligable to vote directly on an issue that affects how they will be governed. The acceptance of Puerto Rico as a state is akin to the accessoin of a new nation into the EU. I think in the case of statehood it is a majority of Congress or perhaps two thirds and signoff by the President, I'm not sure but it's in the Constitution. As I said it's easy to look up. The accession of a new nation into the EU on the other hand has to be unanimous and in some existing nations that could be by referendum. Turkey for example doesn't stand a chance. France and Austria have already said they would oppose it.
The Lisbon treaty affecting basic governance is akin to a Constitutional amendment in the US. The US Constitutional itself spells out a process for this involving both Congress and the State legislatures. It's not as severe as a unanimous vote required for Lisbon but it is very difficult. Many voters in the EU have only been given a choice once and that was to join a trading bloc, not a supranational government which was ultimately intended to replace their governments. They've had nothing to say about it ever since. The fact that Sarkozy admits that he does not represent the will of his own people is proof that at least in France, the government is not democratic. Democracy literally means government of the people. But this is true in many if not most European countries. These nations have a very weak history of any democracy at all, their culture spanning back centuries in most cases was invariably one of despotism. That there is no outcry for public debate of the issue in any of them is proof their citizens don't really care, their value of their rights to make their own decisions and their lack of outrage that their government has usurped those rights, barely with a whimper from the people shows they hold democracy in low esteem. None is worse than the UK.
Puerto Rico can become an independent nation any time it wants to. It doesn't even have to wait for a referendum, its government could call a special election between referendums to make that decision immediately if that's what its people want. If it remains a Commonwealth, it will retain all of the priveleges I mentioned above but it will also bear responsibilities including being subject to a military draft if that is what the rest of us are required to do for our defense should the need arise. They share the freedom, get the protection, they have to also bear the burdern. No slackers the way for example most of NATO skates by.
Anti Americanism in Europe has been a fact since just after the American Revolution. It ebbs and flows but it is always there. It's easy to forget the outrage in Europe when Reagan began the emplacement of the Pershing II missiles in Germany. This helped bring about the end of the cold war. Ratcheting up the Nuclear Arms race turned what was a military and political war into an economic war which bankrupted both governments. Most of Europe was very angry about it. Much of Europe is still angry at America for destroying the USSR while not even admitting that it was the US which did it.
Complain about this comment
Reading all the comments from anti-EU readers, I consider it extremely urgent that Governments start negotiating an EXIT procedure :
No country should be forced to remain part of the EU, but unfortunately as it is today, once a country is in, there is no way that it can exit, voluntarily or not.
The Irish should have been given that choice : in or out of the Lisbon Treaty, meaning in or out the EU.
From France, by Claudine van Gasselt
Complain about this comment
One of the problems is that our democracy isn't quite that. it is rule by technocrats. we can vote for them, but they will only vary within certain margins. we elect them to make decisions for us.
the basic principle is that the proletariat cannot understand these decisions, that they do not know what is best for themselves. if asked to vote on a specific point they will not. they will sometimes vote based on irrational assumptions and not what is most sensible.
Germany and its history with plebiscites exemplifies this point and shows why they are illegal.
what we should be thinking about is if, on balance, this kind of government is best. its got us so far, we get by. would we be better run more by the people themselves, or by the political elite. and if the former, then start the reforms at home, rather than with the EU.
Complain about this comment
Marcus AureliusII,
I only mentioned Puerto Rico in responce to your Post No. 19 in which you first raised the issue. As to it's relevance well, to me, the Q is are those outside the area voting bound by the will of those inside. it would seem that we would agree that they are not.
Of course PR's statehood would be more akin to a new country joining the Eu - you give the example of Turkey and the problem that would represent given that some existing member states may oppose it joining. Personally I think that Turkey should be able to join if it can demonstrate that it passes the criteria but those who oppose it's membership do so on the grounds that it's overwhelmingly Islamic culture would make it unique and could suddenly change the basic character of the culture of the EU as a whole i.e. exactly the same reason you give (post No. 67) as to why some in the US would oppose the entry of PR as a state. You see american/european - not really so different.
As to the preciousness of democratic rights -one of the most basic of those would be the right to elect the government which could call you up to fight and die in it's defence and PR does not have this right. It does not have regular referenda every 5 years but it does have votes on it's status. The last one 10 years ago gave an inconclusive result.
Anyway PR is a hang over form America's past and not a good example of typical America. It does however illustrate that we all have areas where our systems are not prefect.
You're all doing very well !!
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure I get the "you're all doing very well" that follows each of your comments Mr. Grace but I have to say its not big and its not clever!
To #72..
You seem to maybe have missed the point that your president has admitted that the French too would have rejected Lisbon if it had been put to a referendum. Should France then be given the same choice of in-or-out? Could you be quite so sure of a Yes victory these days? I think it would be much tighter than you imagine.
We are no longer living in an age of a clear Eurosceptic-Europhile divide and people are living in a fairy land if they want to believe we are. It is quite possible to like what we have just now, feel maybe it needs a bit of tweaking, but that we have integrated as much as we need to. That is not being Eurosceptic. And to be honest I think its more and more how the majority of EU citizens feel.
The problem remains that we have 27 Member States all with very different views on the direction of the EU, yet none of them are willing to admit this. They'll have to eventually.
And as for negotiating "exit clauses", ironically such a thing was going to be in the Lisbon Treaty!
Complain about this comment
I'm starting to get fed up with all the poeple saying that tbhe UK voted for/to stay in a trading bloc, not a supranational government, folowed by other saying that we could have read the Treaty of Rome instead kof replying upon our politicians
The majority of people in the UK were not even given that choice - by vitrue of teh fact that we were either too young or not born at the time
I am not bound by the governemt my father voted for in the 70s, why am I bound by a referendum?
It's (yet) another example of the 'one-way diplomacy' practiced by the EU since it was the EEC
In a true democracy, the people can reverse the decisions of their forebears, by either electing a governemt that promises to make the changes, or by means of referenda on specific issues
Neither of these are possible under the treaties signed by Heath, Major, Blair and now Brown
All EU countries' citizens should get an in-or-out vote every ten years
the majority of people in the majority of countries wil vote to stay in, but for those countries whose citizens do not want to be part of Monnet's grand anti-democratic experiment, we should be allowed to leave amd be embers of EFTA instead
Why do the EU leaders fear democracy so much?
Complain about this comment
Young Mr-Grace:
"I think that Turkey should be able to join if it can demonstrate that it passes the criteria but those who oppose it's membership do so on the grounds that it's overwhelmingly Islamic culture would make it unique and could suddenly change the basic character of the culture of the EU as a whole"
Not true -and in fact a standard excuse(boo-hoo-hoo, the europeans do not like us, they will not give us a fair chance). Some more important reasons are that it illegally occupies a part of the EU(Cyprus), has serious internal problems in terms of democracy and human rights and behaves in general like a boss, making imperial demands on the EU, while failing to honor even its most basic committments. Plus that it is a big, extremely nationalistic country which
has not shown a will to conform to Eu
standards. In no EU country could a court
make the majority party illegal and in no
Eu country is there an analog to "insulting turkishness" law. When Turkey becomes
more european in the above aspects, then ask again if it has a chance or not. Turkey has made some steps, but they are only a very tiny fraction of the steps it has to take.
Complain about this comment
To # 75
I think you missed my point : if, as voters, we are currentky given the choice between change the rules (Lisbon Treaty) or status quo, there is no incentive to even read the Treaty. Why change if you feel that the current rules are ok to you ?
Therefore the choice should be between 2 changes, and the voters should decide which one is the best, i.e. the question should have been between new rules (Lisbon Treaty) and exit the EU.
In France, NL and Ireland, the answer was NO (though not exactly the same NO) to change vs status quo.
I thus find urgent to eliminate those types of referendums, negotiate an exit process, in order to be able to submit to the EU citizen the RIGHT question.
Claudine van Gasselt
Complain about this comment
#78,
Fair enough then, I misunderstood your point slightly, but even at that, what is wrong with saying "we like the status quo"? Why isn't it a legitimate question to ask, or a legitimate answer to give?
Why have I got to decide whether to have a new Treaty or whether I want to leave the EU? I don't understand why the decision has to be between two extremes.
I do get what you're saying (I think, apologies again if not!) in the sense that those who don't want to take the European project should perhaps leave the others to, but surely the onus lies with those who want to go further (whilst the others are happy with what they have), to go and start their own club, ala the Mediterranean Union?
Surely as a member of a club, when there is a new proposal which you don't like, you are allowed to say "No thanks, I like the current rules". Surely it doesnt mean you have to leave the club because you don't like the new proposal!
Complain about this comment
Another example from Ceannair (post number 2) of the complete lack of understanding of the Lisbon Treaty that plagues such a huge portion of the Irish population. How can the will of the people be done when they don't know what they are talking about? I voted Yes, but would happily accept the result of the referendum if the people were in some way knowledgable about the Treaty itself. Sadly a huge proportion were not (at best 30-40%). And I will not be led by ignorance.
And in response to post 4 glenn, you must remember Sarkozy ran his election campaign with the promise that he would ratify the Treaty without a referendum. The French elected him so they must have been happy enough with that.
Complain about this comment
WernerR11 Post 77.
Thanks for your comment. I would support Turkish membership IF it satisfies membership criteria. You are quite right to point to areas where at present Turkey would not pass. However it is to be hoped that the GENUINE prospect of membership after reform will encourage change in Turkey.
I do believe that some will still not want Turkey to join even if it reforms on all the issues you list. For those people it does come down to turkey being different just as Marcu AureliusII (post 67) suggested that some Americans would oppose statehood for Peurto Rico on the grounds that it would be different from existing US states.
You're all doing very well !!
(SCFNL29 - sorry if you disapprove of my sign off. It's the catch phrase of my name sake on 1970's BBC sitcom "Are you being served?" I mean it to be tongue in cheek and slightly self depricating I'd never considered it very big or clever myself)
Complain about this comment
To jonny1047 :
You say :
"the basic principle is that the proletariat cannot understand these decisions, that they do not know what is best for themselves. if asked to vote on a specific point they will not. they will sometimes vote based on irrational assumptions and not what is most sensible.
Germany and its history with plebiscites exemplifies this point and shows why they are illegal."
So, who decides that we, the proletariat, don't vote sensibly? Is it YOU? Is it YOU who deems whether the outcome of a vote is right or wrong? And is it YOU who compares ordinary people to Nazi fascists?
Should we let YOU rule us because only YOU know what is good for us?
Complain about this comment
Claudine(#78),
has it crossed your mind that if one starts giving such ultimatums, i.e. saying yes to Lisbon or leaving the EU, you may be left alone in the EU?
Complain about this comment
Much of Europe is still angry at America for destroying the USSR while not even admitting that it was the US which did it. [#71]
Today is a 60th anniversary of the beginning of the Berlin Airlift .
But, hey, who cares?
Complain about this comment
zaz1234 @ #78
Claudine,
What is the right question?
For some people the issue is not that they want to exit Europe but that they want to participate in a common trading bloc.
Others hate the EU as it is but simply want to change it for something that is less remote - seemingly more responsive to the wishes of the people. (This happens to be my wish)
Some people love the EU as it is and want it to expand eastwards.
Some people love the EU as it is and don't wan to see eastward expansion.
Some people hate the idea of integration with their neighbours for a variety of reasons.
Some people just simply hate the idea of the EU and its centrist undemocratic values and imposed legislation.
As I see it, it would be very reactionary to abandon the close ties that have developed between the Western European nations since the end of WWII but I, personally, do not like the way that the EU has grown from concept to grand vision to de facto Political State without consulting the people who are affected by the existence of the EU.
The somewhat bureaucratic laws imposed from the EU and enforced with such vigour (for example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2199214/EU-rules-ban-sale-of-%27too-small%27-kiwis.html) influence people's perceptions of the EU as a centrist organisation intent on making people conform to a 'norm' that is unnatural and tyrannical.
If you ask people influenced by this type of story "Would you like the UK to leave the EU?" the answer will no doubt be "Yes".
On the other hand if you ask them if they would like the EU to allow flexibility in how member states can implement the EU laws to suit their nation psyche - the people might also say "Yes".
One answer is a closed door, the other answer is an answer that allows for the individual citizens to feel less threatened and, perhaps, warm to closer integration with their fellow Europeans.
I honestly believe that the majority of people living in the territory of the EU want to get along with their fellow Europeans. I don't think the problem is closer ties and the grand vision of a United Europe (although I do accept that there will be many who don't agree to the vision at all!)
My view is quite simple. Give the member states a choice of being affiliates, full members or leave the EU but let the choice be a series of questions, asked directly of the people, to identify what THEY want the future of Europe to be. I think many pro-EU and anti-EU people might be pleasantly surprised - not everyone, of course, but enough of a majority to form a future for Europe that is less hated than the current EU.
A political organisation that stems from consent of the people will always be a stronger organisation than a political system imposed from above.
Above all else, I believe that 'the people' can be trusted to make the right choices - if they are asked positive questions rather than negative questions. The critical benefit is that they are asked for their opinion and given the opportunity to freely express their voice and choice!
Complain about this comment
SuffolkBoy2 wrote: ''I suggest that those parties should have very few policies 1) stop "EU" megalomania 2) change voting systems which have allowed the staggeringly arrogant ones to gain power.''
Good point, UKIP have been their own worst enemy; and some of their policies are bizarre. I think their big strength is the bravery of some of their individual spokesmen to have their voice heard.
They will never be a party of Office, so why have a broad and alienating manifesto: stick with your issue and keep up the good work.
We of course need Proportional Representation to prevent the kind of white wash bribery based politics we are seeing today. Voices are unheard, votes are wasted and the people are disenfranchised by a system that ignores them.
Ironically it [proportional Representation] may be (new) Labour's only hope of preventing a Tory landslide at the next general election. Short of actually laying a golden egg himself, Gordon Brown is finished; and Miliband is perhaps the scariest prospect for their future: more of the same and with a less appealing smile than Tony Blair.
The new (New) Labour stealth weapon: the Cheshire Cat mark II.
Another promise reneged by Blair was exactly the cure for our current situation: Proportional representation. It will slow down the rate of legislature and allow more voices to be heard in a more detailed and scrutinised debate.
They lied about PR in 1997 (I wonder if the landslide they won had anything to do wit that...?)
If they offer Proportional Voting as a manifesto pledge, we know it will be reneged (as all their promises are).
They must introduce it in the current term; and for implementation before the next general election.
Nationalism and despair only rise when voices are heard but not listened to.
It's not in the paper, it's on the wall.
Choose love.
Complain about this comment
GOOD NEWS!!
Well, sort of.
Austrian Radio website reports that the SPOe, the socialist party, states that if the Lisbon Treaty does not go through and there is yet another treaty, then that treaty should be subject to a referendum in Austria.
"The contents would have to be discussed with the people, right from the start..."
WELL DONE AUSTRIA!!!
Austria - 10
Gordon Brown - minus 17
Complain about this comment
WernerR11 wrote: ''Anyone care to explain why exactly we need this treaty?''
Unfortunately that is the one question they never want to give an answer to.
Because they know it will not be what the people of Europe want to hear; thus the refusal to hold referendum. We are more use to the establishment as the blind subservient 'stake-holders' they try to make us.
It is perhaps more unfortunate that it is always the common (their term) people of Europe that lose their stake when the double 00 comes in.
The house always wins.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Grace, I didn't realise that, apologies, I thought you were trying to patronise others or something!
To #80 though,
You say there would no doubt have been a lot of ignorance within the No vote in Ireland... can you honestly say that it will not have been the exact same with much of the Yes vote? I would be willing to bet my house on the fact that a large number of them truly believed the scaremongering that Ireland would be isolated if it voted No, that it would be a disaster for the country if it didnt vote Yes etc.
The idea that people on the Yes camp knew any better than those in the No camp when they went to vote for the Treaty is absolutely laughable. Just because you may have been familiar with the changes/its content it does NOT mean that your other Yes bretheren will have been.
So should there be a second vote, and the Irish vote yes after being scared/bullied into it, you'll refuse to be bound by ignorance again I hope?
Good point about Sarkozy though. In that case, the French can't really complain... though saying that we should remember how tight the French election was (53%-47%). Hardly a glowing mandate (granted, thats another debate).
Complain about this comment
SCFNL29 wrote: ''And as for negotiating "exit clauses", ironically such a thing was going to be in the Lisbon Treaty!''
True.
But unfortunately it is in the vein of: 'treaty yes/no, means EU yes/no.' All or nothing. With us, or against us.
As the more democratically generous point out, some say no to treaties and still yes to EU.
I dare say there will be numerous so called 'exit clauses' hidden in the text of Lisbon.
Complain about this comment
zaz1234 (72): There is nothing to stop those nations (if there any) that want be part of a federal European state from going right ahead and signing up to new treaties to that affect tomorow. How come federalists never suggest this? Instead you demand that other countries MUST to do what they want or be punished somehow? How come you demand that referendums not allowed in your country should either be abolished elsewhere or be twisted from a free choice about the issue at hand into a false choice between the federalism you seek and punishment. Federalists who make arguments like yours should called what you are; imperialists.
Complain about this comment
chrisboote wrote: ''Why do the EU leaders fear democracy so much?''
It gets in the way of their vision; and attempts to hold their 'projects' to account.
To them, this is unacceptable.
Because to them [Lisbonites], we are all stupid cockroaches that have the annoying habit of speaking above our station.
To all the 'stupid cockroaches' out there (almost 500million): it is time to speak; and yet remain calm.
zaz1234 wrote: ''...the question should have been between new rules (Lisbon Treaty) and exit the EU.''
Illustrates my previous point exactly(90).
Perhaps, zaz1234, is a Sarkozy insider planting seeds; or indeed an agent provocateur (for this idea is ludicrous.)
molloyjh wrote: ''I voted Yes... And I will not be led by ignorance.''
Yet you would gladly lead by Ignorance, or so it would seem.
The no voters knew exactly what they were saying no for; and the yes voters (also advocates) didn't know what they were saying yes to. That is why the yes campaign could not rebuke peoples concerns; because they didn't have the foggiest idea what it was all about. QED
SCFNL29 wrote: ''...surely the onus lies with those who want to go further (whilst the others are happy with what they have), to go and start their own club, ala the Mediterranean Union?''
That is plan... er... E, or is it F or G? Thats the alternative to dominating all of northern Europe along with Western and Eastern Europe. It is a sign that all is not as it seems and that there are other purposes behind the Union; and, that the issue of which nations will to join in this Superstate is a secondary issue to their over-riding vision and ambition.
Has anyone worked out what the vision or ambition is yet? (serious question...)
Complain about this comment
To molloyjh:
You say that 40% of your fellow countrymen are dimwits for not understanding the Lisbon treaty.
Perhaps you could enlighten the rest of the world to the meaning of the treaty, because as far as i can tell, you seem to be the only one that claims to understand it.
As for saying that the french public electing Sarkozy, knowing that he would not give a referendum, suggests a very subtle con trick being played on them.
Complain about this comment
To chrisboote (@76)
If you do not think that we are bound by constitutional arrangements between countries which were made in the past, and should be allowed to vote again every 10 years in a referendum, presumably you agree that:
1. we should vote every 10 years about membership of NATO, the UN and the Commonwealth; and
2. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should vote every 10 years as to whether they wish to remain as member nations of the United Kingdom?
After all, none of us alive today have had an opportunity to vote on these matters, and thus bound by decisions of our forefathers...
Complain about this comment
SuperJulianR @ #94
Oh yes please!
Can we have a referendum in England tomorrow to separate England from Scotland.
I am more than happy to go to Berwick-upon-Tweed with my spade and start widening the River Tweed if that will help.
With the practice we could then turn our attention to the River Severn.
Wow. What a great idea! We could undo centuries of leeching the English in one fell swoop.
Complain about this comment
SuperJulianR wrote: ''...and thus bound by decisions of our forefathers...''
...or the lack of freedom to make a decision.
England was at one time a number of separate kingdoms; which had a high council of kings (its called co-operation between nation states incidentally...) and they ELECTED the high King of the Isle, by one king one vote.
Now conquered and unified into England.
The Scotts (not to be confused with Picts) became bankrupt after a failed attempt to send a colony to the new world, and were bought out of debt by the English crown, in exchange for the union of two crowns.
Wales was conquered by Edward I.
N. Ireland by William of Orange.
These are examples of change, not brought about by popular demand within the lands in question; but by circumstance and force.
This is an argument supporting referendum surely...
To take without consent is bad: to take advantage of other people by force of circumstance is greedy; but times can and will change.
Devolution for example...
Do you want a situation in a decades time of widespread calls for European Devolution?
Because that is what will happen if this is not addressed in a sensible manner. And those pulling strings and making threats do not learn from history.
Forget fear: choose love.
Complain about this comment
To molloyjh @80 :
Sorry, should have posted this on my previous comment, but i'm intrigued as to how Sarkozy managed to get elected by the French after saying that he would not give a referendum on the very same EU constitution that was rejected by his people 3 years ago. I find it staggering that this could happen - that someone could be elected by people who know that he would go against their wishes!
I've searched the net to try and find out how this happened but no luck. Can anyone give me some information as to how this happened?
Complain about this comment
I'm pro-EU. I was denied a promise of a referendum. As a result I am now very anti-EU. The fact I was promised something then denied it implies to me that if it had all been brought out in the open there would have been no chance of a yes vote.
Therefore it stinks and therefore NO is the corret position to take.
Complain about this comment
To be honest, from my talking to people the main reason we voted no was due to Tax.
Most people I know who voted no, this was their biggest concern. Every Irish person knows that our low tax policy is possibly our biggest attraction after the fact we are english speaking and part of the EU.
I didn't vote as I was not in the country, but would have voted yes. The only thing that would have changed is the threat to our tax system.
On another point, before George Bush Irish people definitly felt closer to america than Europe. Now we are probably a bit more confused.
Interesting point: In either the Irish Examiner or Business Post one of the writers was given the job about Ireland becoming the 51st state and to his surprise apparently there was a commitee in one of the houses in america to look into this. Can't remember the details too much or don't know if it still exists.
I think we are 55% European 45% american in our beliefs. (only my opinion!!!)
Complain about this comment
valley2 @ #99
What would be the opinion of the Irish when the kind of EU money that has been granted to Ireland in the past starts to be spent on the eastern European countries with their poverty, poor infrastructures and economies instead?
When the money that Ireland has previously enjoyed form the EU starts to dry up and go elsewhere, how are the Irish going to then fund their low taxation economy?
Is this going to alter the pro-European mindset of the Irish? Are they going to become less pro-EU do you think?
I know the £4 and half billion sterling that the UK contributes to the EU is a sore point for the UK citizens when all they get is a reduced rebate now and have to pay more and more tax to fund the UK's EU contribution!
Complain about this comment
To #94,
This is a completely different situation. Not one of the organisations/states you mentioned have sought to change their organisation in the same way that the EU is attempting to with its drive for further integration. And as for the UK, when it has done, it has given us referendums, like the ones in Scotland and Wales on whether we wanted a parliament/assembly. And NATO and the UN are wholly different kettles of fish from the EU.
If the UK was starting to amend the Treaty of Union or act in little niggly ways which would ultimately harm the integrity of the four constituent home nations then the people would obviously demand a say. Incase you havent noticed thats one of the reasons why we got the referendums on devolution in the first place.
So no, the EU is a completely different situation and cant fall under such a general argument as yours.
To #97 though,
Apparently he was elected on the basis that he told them that there would be no constitution, but that France would seek to propose a toned-down version of the Constitution which would not need a referendum. So he lied to his citizens too, as we all know Lisbon = 90% of the Constitution.
Ahhh.. Politicians.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus
For me it is not an issue and for other people I talk to it is not.
I believe if eastern Europe becomes rich it secures our wealth more. I hope that all of the world becomes as rich as Western Europe. Threats are always oppurtunities, you just need to look at it the right way and turn it to your advantage.
I believe we need to give money to charity and I think spending money on eastern europe is money better spent than on our unemployment benefit.
I am very proud to be Irish but I see the evils of nationalism. I wonder is my pride an illness. We are all equal and have seen nationalism cause so much hurt in the world. It makes me think.
We all know in work by working cordially with your colleagues it makes life a lot easier.
Europe must work together and work with America to better all our lives. Just stop this threat of kicking Ireland out, it is so childish.
All the people in the world have so much in common, we are all the same and the EU helps to break down barriers.
The main problem they need to come accross to the people as more democratic.
Complain about this comment
Number 80
molloyjh
I'm afraid that in this case you will be led by ignorace - literally.
Your PM hadn't read the treaty, neither did he understand it.
Let's not forget that that the people of Ireland (or anywhere else for that matter) were not meant to either read it or understand it.
Complain about this comment
I don't think the EU had much to do with Sarkozy winning the election, the French had far more pressing issues on their mind. Like how to revive their comatose economy and how to bring back all those bright young ambitious people who left the country for greener pastures elsewhere. The alternative was the Socialist Segolene Royale who offered pretty much more of the same. Watching and listening to Sarkozy (the substance of what he says, not his personal life which IMO couldn't matter less) he has a very poor grasp of economics. Even if his population listened to him, I don't think his ideas would work. As for the EU, his position came with the package. Royale probably felt the same way.
SCFNL29, even on my side of the pond, some of us have asked "Are You Being Served" and "I am unanimous in that."
Don't you watch the telly :-) ?
Complain about this comment
Hi Menedemus,
Just to put a true figure on what you said in post 100, the 2006 EU published figures that are not confirmed say that the Net UK contribution is 4.8046 Billion Euro. Should the UK's rebate be disappeared for the same year then not only would the UK have been the first net contributer but it would have paid 9.3078 Billion Euros against the next largest being Germany 7.8783 Billion Euro.
By the way should anyone try to verify these figures don't use the Wikipedia ones as they ignore the TOR (Traditional Own Resources) figures, look direct at the EU's own figures, and remember the TOR figure is composed of the next four figures.
Complain about this comment
To Glenn @097:
After the Constitution was rejected both the Dutch and French renegotiated elements of it. These renegotiations formed part of the Lisbon Treaty negotiations. So while the guts of the articles within the Treaty are the same as the articles within the Constitution, they are not exaclty the same. I had a link of the changes somewhere. If I can find it I'll post it.
Complain about this comment
#97 i'm intrigued as to how Sarkozy managed to get elected by the French after saying that he would not give a referendum on the very same EU constitution that was rejected by his people 3 years ago.
Sarkozy understood that the 2005 French No vote was only peripherically linked with the EU and the so-called Constitution, but rather expressed a deep frustration over economic stagnation and the inefficacy of the politicians (remember that Chirac was still in charge at this time…). Therefore Sarkozy when campaigning just said, ok let’s forget this grand standing Constitution, we pick in it the elements of reform we need to make the EU moving on, we put that into a simplified treaty (he stamped that «le mini-traité»), we don’t need a referendum for this stuff, and now let’s talk about what really matters like standard of living, crime, over taxation, immigration, bureaucracy and the need for change in France…Sarkozy was comfortably elected in 2007 and when the Lisbon Treaty was ratified by a majority of over 75% in the French Parliament in 2008, the heteroclit union of conservative-left-wing, extreme-right-wing and no-wing-at-all, that dominated the 2005 debate and led the NOs, had purely and simply evaporated.
#98 I'm pro-EU. I was denied a promise of a referendum. As a result I am now very anti-EU.
Referendum or no referendum in the UK is not an EU issue: it is a purely internal
debate in the UK. So go and complain to your government and/or your Parliament about a question that can be dealt with only by your national polities. It’s that simple.
Ah, and now that this misunderstanding is clarified, you can keep being pro-EU ;-)
Complain about this comment
To need4reality @092:
I suggest you pop over to some of the discussion sites like boards.ie to get a clearer picture on what is going on. The No voters had no single clear message for Europe. Some voted No (approx 20%) because they didn't understand the Treaty. Some voted No (about 6%) because they didn't like the Government, which is nothing to do with Lisbon. Another 8% voted No because they didn't want to lose our sovereign right to dictate our corporation tax, abortion and same sex unions - none of which were in any way impacted by the Treaty. Another 6% or so voted because they didn't want to lose "our" Commissioner because of the Treaty, regardless of the fact that the Nice Treaty already stated that the Commission would be reduced in size in 2009 and the Lisbon Treaty was delaying that until 2014. There have even been interviews with people who voted No to prevent Irish citizens being conscripted into an EU army!
As a Yes voter I voted for a more effiicient EU that lost a lot of the deadweight and streamlined a number of distinct areas into smaller and more logical groups. A more efficient EU after all can only be a good thing for the member states. I voted Yes because I really like the introduction of the Citizens Initiative. I voted Yes because of all of the things we could have lost we in fact got well looked after in terms of opt outs and the major elements like direct taxation remain wholly sovereign issues. I voted Yes because at the moment the EU cannot take on any new members without becoming grossly inefficient and potentially even grinding to a halt under all the beaurocracy (sp?). I voted Yes because the new QMV voting method (which despite what the No campaign tried to say) did not realisitcally affect our voting weight, but also provided a system where-by voting weights do not need to be reviewed on a regular basis, but instead are now dynamic reflections of the population of member states and the number of member states. If new memebers join the rules remain the same and it is still just as fair as before. I voted Yes because Lisbon puts energy policies and the threat of global warming on the agenda for a untited EU to tackle. I voted Yes because the EU will have a stronger voice with only 1 Foreign Polilcy/Affairs department, the current 3 cause a lot of confusion among non-member states.
I could go on a bit more, but I think I've proved that I know why I voted Yes. And while there are certainly No voters who voted for genuine and understandable reasons, there was what I would deem an unacceptable level of ignorance among the people as a whole in Ireland regarding this Treaty. So much so that in a region of 1/3 of voters, possibly more, didn't really vote on the Treaty at all. How can the will of the people have been done when so many of them didn't know what they were voting for?
Complain about this comment
number 96
need4reality
Complain about this comment
To SCFNL29 @089:
Apologies I didn't mean to suggest that the No vote were thick and the Yes vote geniuses. I wholeheartedly agree that there was a huge level of ignorance overall in the country, regardless of how people voted. And I have stated (elsewhere, not here) that I would only be willing to accept that the will of the people had been done if/when the people who vote are doing so on the merits and realities of the Treaty itself. If that means that its still a No vote then so be it, I'll respect that.
My point on this is really that I don't find the result upsetting in anyway despite the fact that I don't agree with it. In the run up to the referendum itself I was mourning the state of our democracy when so many people (on both sides) were so blatantly ignorant of the facts. Voting is a right that we all have, however IMO it comes with it the responsibility to educate yourself on what you are voting for.
Complain about this comment
To wopitt @103:
This came up again and again over here. Our Government were involved in the negotiations of this Treaty so to say they don't understand it is almost like saying a novelist doesn't know how his/her book finishes. Also I would be very surprised if any politician read any legal documents, be they Treaties or laws etc as there isn't enough time in the day for them to do all that and the other aspects of their jobs too. They would, however, have a well paid legal team that would do this job for them and present the findings.
Either way I didn't pay a blind bit of attention to any of the politicians in either Yes or No campaign. I have a fundamental distrust for them all. Instead I tried to inform myself the best I could by ignoring the drivel being spouted by the various sides of the "debate" and going to impartial sites like the Referendum Commission and lisbontreaty2008.ie. I also reviewed numerous bulliten boards to get an insight into peoples opinions/sources etc. It wasn't that hard in the end, it just required a bit of my time and a bit of effort.
Complain about this comment
Number 96, need4reality
A point of history. The Union of the Crowns occurred in 1603 when James VI of Scotland acceeded to the throne of England as James I. He was succeeded through various twist and turns by his successor, Anne in 1703.
In 1707, following differences between the Scottish and English as to who would succeed the childless Anne, both the Scottish and English Parliaments voted to unite in a single parliament in Westminster. Key to this was the agreement to a successor to Anne.
You could say, therefore that 2 countries were united under a Scottish Queen, although both thrones were replaced by a single throne of Great Britain.
It might be more relevant to point out that the parlimentary vote in Scotland for the Act, while technically legal, was seen by many at the time to have no legitimacy. This was due to the democratic deficit caused by Parliament not having a mandate to decide such matters without consulting the people.
The Act was alledgely signed in a privvy off the High Street.
Notwithstanding the peace and prosperity that followed over the next 300 years, the Act of Union is very fragile due to the flaw at its' heart.
Complain about this comment
valley2 wrote: ''The main problem they need to come accross to the people as more democratic.''
No. They need to BE more democratic.
The constitution has to BE a good thing.
All this 'we have to present it better' garbage has to stop. It demeans us all.
MarcusAureliusII wrote: "I don't think the EU had much to do with Sarkozy winning the election, the French had far more pressing issues on their mind."
Exactly.
Complain about this comment
Number 107
The lack of a referendum might be an issue in the UK, but it should be an issue elsewhere.
12 countries were promised a vote by their national governments at the time of their election.
Only 1 held a vote.
It is interesting that the government of these countries persist in maintaining that they have a mandate, when they had explicitly said that the people would be given the choice.
My previous post gives an example of the potential consequences of such a decision. If the EU statists want to prevail, they should make their case and trust the people.
Complain about this comment
To Wopitt @107:
Those Governments do have mandate. Nowhere in any other countries law besides Ireland is there a need for a referendum. In fact in some countries it is illegal to even hold one. Ireland had the Referendum due to a man called Crotty who brought a case before our Supreme Court regarding the fact that the Single European Act was contrary to the Constitution of Ireland. He exercised his legal and democratic right to enforec a Treaty. Other citizens of other EU countries have every right to attempt the same. It is up to them to have their voice heard if they so wish it, just as it was up to Crotty here in Ireland. If they don't force the issue we must assume (as no other conclusion can be reached) that they are happy with things the way that they are.
Complain about this comment
# 114 « The lack of a referendum might be an issue in the UK, but it should be an issue elsewhere. ??12 countries were promised a vote by their national governments at the time of their election. »
Why should it be an issue?
Do you mean, you know better than these member states and their peoples about the right way for them to ratify a Treaty such as that of Lisbon?
Do you mean that referendum should be made mandatory for any decision taken in any member state about any issue because this, and only this, is Democracy? Btw that reminds me of a guy who used to rule by referendum in his country, a real democrat, Nap, Napolo, er can’t remember his name, sorry.
Complain about this comment
Number 116
Why should it be an issue?
Because we (and others) were promised an vote on the matter. I think therefore, that the various electorates had every reasons to think that it was a "reserved matter". The fact that various governments then refused to hold a vote is, for me, a serious matter. I think that it should be a serious matter.
Please note -
I did not say that a referendum should be held on the matter. The prosepective parlimentary candidates said that one would be held.
I did say that I thought politicians should be held to their word.
There is no need to mis-represent my point and to extrapolate my opinions to compare me to Napoleon is a blatant personal attack.
I am pretty sure that I could use your argument to show that you believe in similar principles to Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mugabe or Genghis Khan for that matter.
Complain about this comment
"together with the influence from other eastern countries"
Too often I can see this vague phrase - "eastern countries" or "Eastern Europe" - here on this site. There is over half a dozen of those "eastern countries" and using this expression makes as much sense as saying "western countries did this", "Western Europe did that"; it's just not specific enough! Is it as much of a problem to specify whether that was Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary etc.?
Complain about this comment
Julian (94)
While I spoke somewhat with tongue in cheek, your reply has got me thinking - why not?
Why not have a plebiscite every X years (at least three parliaments' worth, so fifteen or twenty years)?
This could become part of a national 'conversation' with the electorate to decide the direction of our country
Membership of NATO, EU, even the UN could all be up for discussion
This way, those in favour of our membership of these instituitions (and I am one of them, by the way) would have to argue persuasively and demonstrate their relevance and value to the Bristish people, rather than treating it all as a 'done deal' for ever and for always
After all, the WTO, which arguably has a far greater impact upon the lives of most of us than UN discussions, renegotiates every ten years, analysing the results of the previous 'round' of discussions and changes in the world's economic situation before coming up with a new ten year plan.
No one would suggest that having made a trade agreement with, say China, in 1970, we should honour it for ever more with no further discussion, so why should we stick to a 1950s defence pact, or a 1970s decision to stay in a federation of european states?
As for referenda upon Scottish (or Welsh, or Cornish) independence, should the vote of the Scots for independence be binding upon me as an Englishman? If the answer is Yes, then the vote of the Irish to scupper Lisbon must be allowed to stand. If the answer is No, then why bother having the vote at all? (I favour the former, of course)
But if we DID have a vote, then, Yes, by all means repeat the vote every twenty or so years to find out what the people actually want (shocking idea there!)
Certain countries survive well wth 'continual referenda' - Switzerland for one
This is not just because the choice of subjects comes from the electorate themselves, but also because there is an ingrained culture of political maturity, of involvement, of studying the issues and choosing whether or not to vote based upon how important the issue is to the voter, and of political trust - the elected trust, and abide by, the wishes and the votes of the electors; surely a model to be admired in any democracy?
Complain about this comment
#102 valley2 said "The main problem they need to come accross to the people as more democratic."
Interesting - not that they need to BE more democratic, just to 'come aross' that way
This is true EU speak all right!
Complain about this comment
With reference to Sarkozy getting elected, I think this is a good analogy:
Ted Heath 1973 : "This is not a politcal union but a trade agreement" only later we find out that it WAS a political union. .......
British public CONNED.
Sarkozy : "This is not a constitution" only later did the French realise it WAS a constitution, and Sarkozy admits that his people know this and don't want it...too late.
French public CONNED.
Complain about this comment
To SCFNL29 (@101)
well actually, devolution for Wales and Northern Ireland and particularly Scotland HAS fundamentally changed the Union, to the detriment of the English and we (the English) have been denied a referendum on these new arrangements.
The de facto First Minister for England (even though that post has not yet formally been created) is elected by people in Scotland and is in charge of making laws which affect England but do not affect Scotland. The English cannot vote for or against him. That is fundamentally undemocratic.
In this capacity (as opposed to his role in making laws that apply to the whole of the UK) he may as well be elected by the people of the Irish Republic or Holland.
The Constitutional set-up was broken, and no referendum has been allowed for England. My point is that is hyprocritical to demand one on the Lisbon Treaty without at the same time demanding one on the continued existence of the Union between England and Scotland.
Complain about this comment
To Glenn@121:
Do you not think that is an incredibly arrogant assumption you're making? A lot was made of the Treaty being pretty much the same as the Constitution. So surely the French aren't as stupid as you're making them out to be. But then would that suit your point of view? And if not would you be ready to admit that maybe, just maybe, the French are quite happy with Lisbon?
Complain about this comment
molloyjh wrote: ''The No voters had no single clear message for Europe.''
Correct. The opinions were diverse; but agreed that the Lisbon treaty was a bad idea.
The fact that the Lisbonites (who happen to be at the EU fore front at present) can only see two views: ie clever, well read yes; and stupid anti Europe no, even as far as stating that this should be the question tabled, and not Lisbon yes/ no.
This all clearly illustrates the one dimensional politics that these people are planning for Europe.
Democracy is about diverse opinion coming together and a compromise or majority view being established.
The lisbonites won't even accept a majority view (yes there were abstentions) unless it agrees with them.
molloyjh wrote: ''As a Yes voter I voted for a more effiicient EU...''
As a potential yes or no voter who was not given the chance to make a decision; I was glad that the Irish constitution gave rise to some form of debate, which has helped me make my mind up as to the potential danger in the Lisbon treaty. If it was so good, they would have no doubt explained what it was all about...
Set us free from our 'ignorance', as you put it...
If the best it can offer us is a faster turn around of legislation by the Lisbonites then I'm afraid the answer will always be no. 'streamlined' sounds all very well and good, until those who are in charge of the legislation let slip how much contempt they hold for the general population.
molloyjh wrote: ''I voted Yes because Lisbon puts energy policies and the threat of global warming on the agenda for a untited EU to tackle.''
How exactly?
I think it has been on the world agenda for a long time; and has been held up by the very people who are now claiming to have started a 'green revolution'. Do they mean the 'green revolution' that they started ten years ago...?
The logic: 'we haven't got enough power to solve the problem' is absolutely ridiculous.
molloyjh wrote: ''I could go on a bit more, but I think I've proved that I know why I voted Yes.''
I dare say you know exactly why you voted yes. Just as those who voted no, know exactly why they voted no; and those who see the scaremongering tactics of the Lisbonites have yet another reason to vote no.
molloyjh wrote: ''How can the will of the people have been done when so many of them didn't know what they were voting for?''
My previous point exactly.
Some voted no because they knew something. Others voted no because they were kept in the dark; and saw no reasonable argument from the yes campaign to alleviate their concerns. It is becoming apparent to some that these concerns were quite valid; and that the yes campaign could not answer because they didn't actually know what was going on themselves.
I was pro-EU and a Lisbon-sceptic (for matters of importance should always be scrutinised and a decision made after, NOT BEFORE the debate.)
The EU Elite have abandoned reason for madness.
Therefore I am now EU-sceptic (in its current climate) and anti-Lisbon.
I just need them (oh the irony) to allow me to vote now...
Complain about this comment
rega112. Wopitt wrote: [concerning the Union Scotland-England and reasons/ history of...]
My apologies. I have in my haste, over simplified a complicated issue.
...your much more detailed and accurate account proves my point much more rigorously.
My greatest respects and thanks.
Who would have thought it was perhaps made a deal in secret. How times don't change.
Complain about this comment
To need4reality @124:
I've been through all these points countless times on other forums at this stage so I don't really have the energy or inclination to reply to each and every point yet again. I'll try and summarise as best I can though.
First, noone was kept in the dark about the Treaty. The Referendum Commission (an impartial body here that exists to provide non-biased factual information on referendum topics) sent a booklet to every registered voter in the country that outlined the articles of the Treaty. It also had a website which was quoted on the booklet and a link to yet another impartial wesite - lisbontreaty2008.ie - that had the same purpose. There was plenty of info available on the web from the actual Treaty itself to consolidated versions if people were really that bothered to educate themselves on it. I did, and a lot of others did. And I'm no more than an average bloke. So to say they were kept in the dark is blatantly untrue. The Yes campaign was a terrible campaign, but that is no excuse for people not attempting to inform themselves on what they are voting on.
Secondly, are you saying that all No voters voted No for genuine reasons? Even the 20% that admitted in a post-referendum poll that they voted No because they didn't understand it? Does it include an additional 20% (approx) who voted based on things about the Treaty that weren't true (the idea that Lisbon would hand decision on things like Corporation Tax and abortion law over to the EU, which is compeltely false)? Its just not true that they "agreed Lisbon was a bad idea", however it is true to say that these people voted without the relevant knowledge. The same is true for some people that voted Yes, it was a nationwide issue that I was highlighting before the referendum itself.
Third, the Eu has absolutely nothing to do with whether you do get to vote or not. Ratifcation is a matter of sovereignty and only the member states themselves can decide how ratification should take place. It only happened here by Referendum because in the late 80s a guy called Crotty availed of his legal and democratic right to force it to happen (by challenging the Government of the time re the Single European Act). If other EU citizens want to vote on the Treaty it is up to them to make that happen, just like it was up to Crotty to make it happen here. There have been no widespread protests to Lisbon, and outside the UK no major pushesfor referenda. So we have to then assume that the people within the EU are quite happy with their Ratification processes and the Lisbon Treaty.
Oh and......
"The opinions were diverse; but agreed that Lisbon was a bad idea"
"Others were kept in the dark"
How on Earth can you have an opinion on something AND be kept in the dark about it at the same time?
Complain about this comment
If Europe is to face the future challenges as one political,economical and united regional union,then it needs some kind of treaty to serve as a basic rule (call it consititution,whatever) and that can not be achived by puting into referendum every treaty that takes so long and so much diplomatic resources to be made,because it will simply be imposible to have 27 referendums and win all of them ,before going foward.
The question is,should Europe let nationalistic sentimets and poltics get on the way of the future Union?
It is clear (to me) that arogance and anti-Union politics will not bring anything positive to any individual nation.
Who can deny the fact that Europe will need a sort of Constitution in oreder to rapresent an United front in global affairs??
And what kind of Constitution would the No-camp sugest then?Because is easy to disagree without having an alternative solution.
Oh, if one would say that a constitution (of the sort) is not realy even needed,then may i ask,Can one deny that all individual nations in Europe face simmilar or the same challenges in the future?
And can one deny that is much better to meet this challenges United rather then devided?
Well then if United,then responsibilities within the union and duties must be made clear by a sort constitution,in order to make it easier for the political Body in Brussels and their work more efficent.
Complain about this comment
To molloyjh @123 :
You keep saying that the French 'must be happy' with the treaty because they elected Sarkozy on the understanding that he would ratify it without putting it to vote, and yet ,Sarkozy has admitted that, if put to a referendum, his people would reject this wonderfully re-negotiated treaty. How can they be happy with it if Sarkozy says that they would reject it if put to a vote?
Complain about this comment
To molloyjh :
By the way, you don't have to be stupid to be conned - so called intelligent people can be conned too.
Complain about this comment
molloyjh wrote: ''The Referendum Commission... sent a booklet to every registered voter in the country...''
True. And people quickly realised it had very little resemblance to the actual treaty; and that the bullet points and jargon filled Lisbon speak, missed a lot of the detail; and gave rise to more questions than answers.
molloyjh wrote: ''...inform themselves on what they are voting on.''
They must indeed, inform themselves.
molloyjh wrote: ''Secondly, are you saying that all No voters voted No for genuine reasons?''
Yes. Whatever their reasons, they were indeed genuine.
molloyjh continues: ''...Even the 20% that admitted in a post-referendum poll that they voted No because they didn't understand it?''
'Admitted', as in guilt...? They voted no to constitutional reform that no-one seemed to fully understand, or be willing to explain. The only sensible thing they can do in that case is vote No.
I propose they possess more intelligence than you would award them credit for.
molloyjh wrote: ''Its just not true that they "agreed Lisbon was a bad idea" ''
Then why did they vote No? I suggest you look at the genuine reasons rather than jumping to generalised conclusions.
molloyjh wrote: ''Third, the Eu has absolutely nothing to do with whether you do get to vote or not.''
I beg to differ.
molloyjh wrote: ''There have been no widespread protests to Lisbon...''
Because Europe is being starved of oil; and their infrastructure has been gridlocked by protest on the issues the EU has chosen to ignore (delay until after the Lisbon process). I would hate to think that this was in some way a distraction from the democratic process.
What is more important to them; the Lisbon deal, or the food, air, oil deal...?
molloyjh wrote: ''...and outside the UK no major pushesfor referenda. ''
That is not true.
Complain about this comment
To #122
I personally would like a referendum on independence, but thats not the point.
And yes, of course devolution changed the setup of the United Kingdom, thats why like I said, we got a referendum, as we should have.
You make very simplified points about the impact of Devolution, and I'm sure you even know yourself that your claims are simply untrue. Since when did the UK parliament, dealing with all Scottish/Welsh non-devolved matters, simply become the English parliament? Sure I wish that was the case but to claim it is, is just a bit silly.
It is an entirely different situation with the EU from the setup of the UK, it is ridiculous to try and compare the two referendum (referendi??) situations.
And what about that referendum in the North East of England in 2004? Remember, the one that killed off the plan of establishing devolved bodies throughout England? Did that just suddenly not happen in your mind?
So we have had referendums on such significant issues, and we deserve one on the EU.
As to somebody elses claim that there have been no widespread protests to Lisbon, yes but there have still been significant pockets of protest in a number of member states and just because people aren't protesting about it en masse, it doesnt mean they like it. Case in point, as Sarkozy has admitted, France would have rejected the Lisbon Treaty if they had been given a vote on it.
And remember, thats a Pro-EU France. Think about that one.
Complain about this comment
Some people in this discussion applaud "eastern Europe", especially The Czech Republic, but also Poland, for standing up to Western Europe and not letting France and Germany bully Ireland. What they seem to forget is that e.g. Poland is a feverishly pro-European country and opinion polls show continuous and extremely high (above 70%) support for the EU. Had the referendum been held in Poland instead of France, and given the last year's fall of the former eurosceptic ruling coalition, it is safe to say the Yes camp would absolutely bring the No camp to its knees. So all those who hail 'Eastern Europe's' standing up to 'Western Europe' on the EU issues are missing the point.
Complain about this comment
dj1979 wrote: ''Poland is a feverishly pro-European country and opinion polls show continuous and extremely high (above 70%) support for the EU.''
Good and that is their choice and arguably a sensible one; but it is still a good thing that they recognise the existing principal of Unanimity.
And do not forget that Pro EU does not necessarily mean pro Lisbon, as has been pointed out for the public opinion in both UK and Eire.
No one claims Europeans are anti EU, we are all part of the EU; but the majority does not want Lisbon in some states...
By the principal of unanimity, it falls.
Complain about this comment
need4reality #133
What the Poles are is pro handout recipient. Their nation is a net winner in the transfer of wealth. They were subsidized under the USSR with iron chains, now they are subsidized under the EU with silk cords. But a leash is still a leash. Right now when they are making money, they don' t care about the restrictions just as Ireland didn't. But now that Ireland has prospered and can stand on its own, the worm has turned.
Complain about this comment
SCFNL29 @131
No, the Scots and the Welsh got referenda on devolution, but the English did not. As a result, the English nation has been disadvantaged. Add to that the fact that MPs from the other member nations of the UK get to vote on matters that affect only England, and you have a system that is profoundly undemocratic. Surely that is plain for everyone to see.
Yes, of course Westminster is the UK parliament, but unless and until a separate parliament is set up for England, as it should have been, Westminster must also serve as parliament for England - that is the whole problem, and is also why I said in my first post that Gordon Brown is DE FACTO First Minister for England because (unfortunately) that post has not yet been created.
The whole UK set up IS analagous to the EU set up (the EU is a supra national state and so is the UK, as even Gordon Brown recently acknowledged), except that:-
1. the UK is a far tighter Union than even the most ardent pro-European fans would propose for the EU (doubtless one reason why the UK is now failing as a state); and
2. the EU is actually now more democratic!
Also, the UK had a referendum about remaining a member of the EU, but we (the English) are being denied the opportunity to vote on whether we wish to have our own parliament, or indeed, wish to remain memebrs of the UK.
The referendum in the NE failed because it sought to break up the England, which clearly the English do not want.
Complain about this comment
From last post - I should of course have said that the UK and the EU are both supra national ORGANISATIONS - the EU not being a state. Apologies...
In the sense that I have described though, they remain analagous.
Complain about this comment
Among the countless hypocricies of Europe is its criticism of Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Mugabe held an election in March to determine the nation's governance and he lost. He didn't like it. So he figured a way around it claiming there needed to be a runoff. In other words he didn't accept the will of his people, he would hold votes again and again until he got his way. The EU did exactly the same, not once but at least twice. First there was the rejection of the Constiution by France and Holland. The EU rejected it and brought it back as Lisbon. Now with Ireland's rejection of Lisbon the EU is scheming to undo that legal obstacle to its will. And it will of course succeed in doing that just as Mugabe did. Will it have to use physical force to that end the way Mugabe did? No, it has far more effective tools, legal force. It has enough laws on its books to justify anything and a court which will never rule against it. And unlike Mugabe who is mortal and will die a natural death, the EU is not.
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell wrote
"A telephone poll of 2,000 people, conducted days after the vote, had 55% only making up their minds in the week before the poll, 52% of No voters saying their main reason was not fully understanding the issues and 76% felt their No would help renegotiate a better deal for Ireland. This, on the surface, is quite good news for those who want another vote".
But equally interesting are the reasons for those who voted Yes, like loyalty to political parties and "the EU has been good to Ireland". These reasons to vote Yes are not positive reasons for voting Yes. Their answers revealed they didn't understand the treaty either but voted Yes anyway! And if there was a second vote, how many of these voters would still vote Yes?
Complain about this comment
To those who do not understand the 'No' vote(from the link to Lisbon on this thread)
"How similar is Lisbon to the draft constitution?
It contains many of the changes the constitution attempted to introduce, for example:
* A politician chosen to be president of the European Council for two-and-a-half years, replacing the current system where countries take turns at being president for six months
"
Gimme a break! It is as if something will be different if say the US is talking to Baroso than Brown, Sarkosy, Merkel, Berlusconi or whoever happens to be current president.
The president is just a figurehead and is as powerful as the support he has.
"
* A new post combining the jobs of the existing foreign affairs supremo, Javier Solana, and the external affairs commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, to give the EU more clout on the world stage
"
To do exactly what with it? Speak with one
tongue, as if they were speaking with a different one. Again, Solana or Ferrero-Waldner are only to be taken seriously if the EU nations support them seriously. When they start critisizing individual nations or speaking against their interests, as they have done in the past, they will have no support.
" * A smaller European Commission, with fewer commissioners than there are member states, from 2014
"
...a rather symbolic gesture. Is this all the
money-saving this treaty will bring? It probably amounts to much less than what it cost
for the treaty to be prepared, let alone put to vote in Ireland.
" * A redistribution of voting weights between the member states, phased in between 2014 and 2017 - qualified majority voting based on a "double majority" of 55% of member states, accounting for 65% of the EU's population"
In general I would agree with that PROVIDED the EU is one country. If we do not feel like one country, it would be like inviting the US and the Russians to also vote. This is related to the veto issue, see below.
" * New powers for the European Commission, European Parliament and European Court of Justice, for example in the field of justice and home affairs"
That I cannot agree with. Essentially in the EU we have two justice systems, the French model where "everything is allowed except what is forbiden by law" and the Anglo-saxon model-also used in the US where very little is written and you just "should not do anything bad", but it is up
to the jury to determine if what you did is bad, rather than read it off a checklist.
Since these are fundamentally different way
of viewing justice, I do not feel we can have convergence there yet, unless one model
is accepted.
" * Removal of national vetoes in a number of areas."
What's wrong with national vetoes? Is there
a feeling that they have or are being abused? And who is the abuser? The UK, with its opt-outs, Poland or who?
The reason for vetoes are that EU nations are not (yet?) one country and do not feel as such. In the US states may not have vetoes, but it is unthinkable that the federal government will side with say a third country against a state, which has happened in the EU. I cannot recall any veto abuse- which btw has consequences for the country which uses the veto-.
I can recall no case where any country used the veto just as a prank. On the contrary there have been cases where countries with a legitimate reason for a veto have chosen not to use it.
"Most European leaders acknowledge that the main substance of the constitution would be preserved. "
which kind of vindicates Marcus Aurelius's Mugabe analogies.
Complain about this comment
Ireland's "no" demonstrates: 1:26 = 27 losers
500 million Europeans are taken in hostage by 862,415 Irish (less than 0.2% of the European population) - in the name of democracy. According to the elitist representative democrats this is the direct democrat's fault, i.e. the "uneducated and unteachable people".
Because: in a democracy the tool democracy can only be always right. In Ireland it was however employed wrongly. For a pan-European concern however, only the pan-European referendum can be the correct means.
In the EU the sovereign are the 500 million Europeans - and not a slight Irish referendum's majority. Regarding the current archaic principle of unanimity it could even appear more bizarrely: even Malta or Cyprus could by their 315,000 resp. 500,000 eligible voters bring the EU to a final halt. Good gracious!
No matter whether for or against the EU: we should not be lead by a handful of nationalists. For important matters we do need a pan-European referendum! The Treaty of Lisbon would have given us this power! Although its fate is uncertain at the moment, we have to become active for the EU's future, i.e. our future. Let us demand a pan-European referendum for all important EU-matters, such as enlargement, environmental issues, the future election of EU president etc. There is the possibility to stand up in an organized way and to vote at the citizens' platform:
www.we-change-europe.eu. Let's change Europe - now!
Complain about this comment
to 82 (glenn_fleetwood):
"So, who decides that we, the proletariat, don't vote sensibly? Is it YOU? Is it YOU who deems whether the outcome of a vote is right or wrong? And is it YOU who compares ordinary people to Nazi fascists?
Should we let YOU rule us because only YOU know what is good for us?"
I certainly don't decide that people don't vote sensibly, and it is certainly not I that decides whether the outcome of a vote is right or wrong!
I was just trying to make a point - very similar parties have decided what they think is best - there are no electable alternatives, so the choices offered by the political elite are limited - they have decided what is best and wont let people have a direct yes/no as the vote may go wrong - it is THEY who think a result is right or wrong!
As far as comparing 'ordinary' people for Nazi fascists - were all 'ordinary' Germans fascists? They are just as 'ordinary' as us, so I'm sure we could have succumbed to the party in similar circumstances.
I was simply using an often-used example of where plebiscites aren't always the best tool! - I think governments think that people need to be saved from themselves!
Finally, I don't think everyone should let me rule and I certainly don't know what is best for everyone! But politicians think they do - which is why they wont hold referendums - which was my point in the first place.
I was just trying to stimulate debate. My comments are hardly novel but widely accepted criticisms of referendums.
Although, having seen your reaction to my mentioning a negative example of a plebiscite I think I'll leave that one out of my election campaign if I do ever decide I know what is right for everyone and stand for election!
I can just imagine David Cameron jumping up in parliament 'defending the British people from accusations of Nazism' - setting a bandwagon rolling for people to jump onto when simply a fair enough point has been made!
Complain about this comment
I think that like the Lison Treaty itself, many people are misinterpreting the Irish 'No'. I can only speak for myself.
The reason I voted ‘No’ was because when it came to polling day what we were actually asked to vote on was ‘Do you agree to amend our constitution so that we can ratify the Lisbon Treaty?’ not ‘Do you agree with the Lisbon Treaty?’.
I read the treaty several times and read many of the commentaries that were available to me at the time in a full honest attempt to understand it. I didn't think that it was a bad treaty and I was willing to give Europe the benefit of the few doubts I had about some parts of it.
I was all set to accept the treaty but when I got to the polling booth and saw ‘Do you agree to amend the Irish Constitution so that the Lisbon treaty can be ratified?’ that was a whole other question.
Nowhere and at no time during the Yes/No campaigns did any one point out that was what we were going to vote on so I voted ‘No’.
I'm glad I did as I did some research after the vote and found this, hidden in the 278 page booklet produced by the referendum commission:
"Under the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Ireland the approval of the Dáil and Seanad will be required for Ireland to agree to such proposed changes. Such changes would not require a referendum in Ireland."
This is the core of what we were asked to vote on and it is the only reference anywhere I looked on the issue. We didn't need to know what the Lisbon treaty was about or what it was changing for Europe.
This ammendent would forfeit any right to referendum on every future EU decision, and would remove from the equation the very factor that a constitution is designed to protect, the people.
Complain about this comment
#140:
"In the EU the sovereign are the 500 million Europeans - and not a slight Irish referendum's majority."
Well, these are the only ones allowed to vote and only because one could not get around the constitution
"Regarding the current archaic principle of unanimity it could even appear more bizarrely: even Malta or Cyprus could by their 315,000 resp. 500,000 eligible voters bring the EU to a final halt."
Why would Malta or Cyprus want to do that(the EU is their union too), unless of course the EU was planning to screw them?
Complain about this comment
To glenn @128:
That was Sarkozy expressing an opnion and can hardly be considered fact. That he was elected with ratifying Lisbon without referendum as part of his agenda IS fact and therefore holds a lot more water than what he said. As for the conning point, I agree but don't see the relevance.
To need4reality @129:
Your name is quite apt. The booklet we were sent did a relatively decent job of explaining the Treaty, although there were a few points that needed further clarification. The websites that it quoted, however, did a pretty good job of doing that. Believe me, if I could understand it there's very little reason others should not. This point then feeds into the 20% quote of mine you have taken, in that they could have informed themselves, and by stating that they did not know anything about the Treaty they have proven that they didn't. Not a point that can be disputed, just simple fact. The problem, IMO, isn't down to intelliegence - although it does suit some peoples agendas to insinuate that this is what I meant. In fact I think it is more to do with the common reality of modern Western democracy, i.e. apathy and laziness. A huge issue with many causes, none of which we have tme for here.
Again, voting No due to a lack of understanding cannot mean, by definition, that the people that did so thought Lisbon was "a bad idea".
You may also beg to differ re the EU role in ratification all you want, the fact is that the EU DOESN'T have anything to do with it. The laws for ratification are domestic sovereign laws that cannot in anyway be altered or superceded by the EU, be that to block or force referenda. Perhaps your need to disagree regardless of the facts proves something?
So the oil crisis is being used as an EU conspiracy to turn peoples attention from Lisbon onto that issue? I would have given the people of Europe more credit than that to be honest. After all we can have opinions on 2 things at once can't we?
And you say its not true that there has been no other member states citizens pushing for a referendum, yet you fail to name the ones that are. If you're going to make statements like that the least you can do is back them up with something, anything nearly at this stage.
Complain about this comment
To Jack @142:
Two quick points:
This referendum was all about ratifying the Lisbon Treaty. It was negotiated and signed by all member states, however to fully bring it into being and make it an official Treaty it needs to be ratified by the member states. There was nothing in the question on the ballot paper that differed in any way to what we being asked to vote on previous to that.
Secondly the section that you read in ther referendum commission document is taken slightly out of context. I'll try and summarise it as clearly I can here, however it does provide a back door to our constitution. I stil voted Yes as I feel that the chances of it actually happening are so low that I don't feel that it is a realistic possibility.
Through-out this example you must remember that all policy areas within the EU that could affect our Constitution require unanimity among the member states in accordance with each states constitutional laws, and that was not going to change post Lisbon.
Take for example Proposal A, which would require a change to our Constitution. If that Proposal is put directly to the EU member states then we must (by our own law) have a referendum on the issue. A No vote here would be our veto to the Proposal.
However should the Proposal A be preceeded by Proposal X, which requests that the policy area in question move to QMV then this must go before all member states in accordance with their constitutional laws. In this case no change to our Constitution is nessecary and therefore the Dail and Seanad vote on it.
If they reject the Proposal X that then acts as our veto. However IF they for some reason accept the Proposal X, then Proposal A can be put forward for QMV. In this case we will again be required to vote on the issue, however if the Proposal passes the QMV requirements then our referendum will not be sufficient to block it and could be changed against our will.
Now I know that sounds horrific (it scared the be-jaysus out of me when I first read it!) you have to remember all the things that must happen for this to become a reality.
1. Someone must propose a change that alters our Constitution and that we disagree with and propose that the particular competence become a QMV competence.
2. Our Government must agree to the QMV change and not seek an opt out (which they did seek during Lisbon for a number of issues)
3. This change must be one that the majority of the EU is in favour of - I personally believe that other EU citizens aren't a million miles away from us in terms of Constitutional expectations so find it hard to believe that there could be something fundamental that most of them support but that we would reject.
I think a far more likely scenario would be (assuming point 1 ever actually happens) that our Government negotiate an opt out for us so that the rest of the EU can go ahead and do as they please, just as they did during the Lisbon negotiations.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII is right. Europe can pat itself on the back all it wants regarding the EEC/EU etc preventing the occurrence of a major war in Europe since 1945, but the cold hard fact remains that US tax dollars and US soldiers were the only real thing standing between Western Europeans and mandatory Russian language lessons.
Complain about this comment
baileno
Trillions of dollars for weapons, hundreds of thousands of soldiers far from home, and twenty thousand thermonuclear weapons on a hair trigger ready to wipe out the human race to protect them in a 40 year vigil and what for? So they can spit in our eye and tell us how wrong we were to defend ourselves against Iraq or bomb Afghanistan, the sanctuary of the Taleban. War mongers us? Yes, that was the only reason they remained free of being swallowed up by the evil empire and the only reason a United States of America exists at all. We should have left them to their fate in 1917. We should have left them to become part of the borscht belt of the world in 1945 and eat potatoes and sour cream for dinner and be grateful they'd have even that. As we know, no good deed goes unpunished. When will we learn to mind our own business and forget about them? Their inferior civilization is beneath contempt.
Complain about this comment
To jonny1047 @141
Apologies for assuming it was you who was putting across the idea that you knew what's best for the electorate.
You're definitely right about reform starting at home - if a government can't even run it's own country, what chance has it of running 26 others?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS