EU crisis talks begin
The foreign ministers' meeting in Luxembourg will be keen to hear what Irish Europe Minister Dick Roche, who played a big role in the referendum, has to say for himself. His thrust will be "keep calm, give us time, don't push us too hard". Click here to listen to what he said to me:
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions
The UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband, on the way into the meeting, said that Britain would continue to ratify: "It would be a bizarre situation for every country to take a view about the Lisbon Treaty but for Britain to refuse to take a view," he told me.
But what will happen next? People are starting to back one of three options:
Ireland votes again;
Abandon Lisbon;
Move ahead without Ireland.
Luxembourg's foreign minister has suggested that Ireland could be given assurances about defence and abortion: a clear prelude to a second vote. 
The new Italian foreign minister, former commissioner Franco Frattini, said as he went in that the referendum was "a cold shower, but Europe does not stop for this". Perhaps that is close to the third position.
No one senior is talking about leaving Ireland out in the cold, but some MEPs are in favour of this "coalition of the willing" and there is a suspicion that this is the French and German fall-back position if Ireland doesn't vote again. Mr Miliband is clearly against. He told me Ireland must not be bulldozed, and that it was written in "black and white" that the treaty must be backed by all 27 countries.
They are still in the first meeting as I write and the real discussion will be over lunch, which lasts until four in the afternoon. It's alright for some.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~22~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I'm not going to delude myself that this will slow or stop the 'project'. The determination of the political class to squeeze the people of the EU into a superstate straightjacket is far too strong and their own interests are too vested for this to end.
Nevertheless, it is a salient reminder that the EU is deeply unpopular, even amongst those nations who benefit the most from it. If only that lesson could be taken up by governments and ministers of all stripes, particularly our own venal and cowardly ones.
For what it's worth, the BBC's reporting of the Irish Referendum has been less than stellar.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7453560.stm
This line in particular irked me:
"Fourteen countries out of the 27 have completed ratification so far.
Just over three million Irish voters are registered - in a European Union of 490 million people. "
The implication is that we should ignore the evil Irish in our march towards greater Unity, Prosperity And Freedom.
The truth, of course, is that NO OTHER COUNTRY has been allowed its say on the rejigged referendum. Whoever wrote these sentences should look again at the Beeb's impartiality remit.
Complain about this comment
How will these the politicians decide to either leave Ireland behind when they have already bought into the treaty (which has a clause that ALL 27 countries must ratify the treaty) or keep asking national electorates to keep voting until they vote the right way.
To take either of those routes is to further alienate some (if not the majority) of the "the people" from the EU and make it appear to be an imposed solution and the EU look more tawdry and even less democratic than it is already!
They should call a moratorium on ratification as to ratify simply ties down future administrations to a 'deal' that has been given the last rites by the Irish and would have been killed off if the politicians had allowed other countries to have referenda.
Complain about this comment
This was what one of the leaders in the EU just said.
"It is not truly democratic that less than a million people should decide the fate of half a billion Europeans", said the leader of the Euro-Greens, Daniel Cohn-Bendit.
Quite an incredible arrogant statement that shows even this NO vote is to be ignored. When will they get the message that it is NO!
I would also suggest that it was totally un democratic that a few hundred unelected officials are able to decide the fate of billions of Europeans that do not want this given that this is the third no vote in a row. It is also undemocratic to offer a referendum to get yourself elected and when in power retreat form offering one. This is why GB and Nu labour will never be trusted again.
Kind regards
Baron VonRipwinkle De Parkbench
Complain about this comment
Typical - A country votes the wrong way. Hold another vote until it votes the way its "Conscience" tell it to.
Marvellous thing, democracy.
The EU should try it some time....
Complain about this comment
Also (3) an astonishingly undemocratic statement for a man who was at one time a leader of the French student left back in 1968.
Complain about this comment
A lot of people have said that this treaty is incomprehensible and that is one reason why the Irish rejected it.
There is, however, a much more comprehensible message coming from electorates around the EU when they are allowed a voice.
They do not want their local rights diluted any further - indeed, the opposite is true. All over the EU, nations are forming smaller autonomous units with more localised power.
The EU encourages this regional trend in order to undermine nation-states. It misses the point that this trend undermines the EU federalist cause even further. The people clearly believe that the further away the governance, the less trustworthy it is.
Another message, however, is that the people do want to cooperate in uncontentious ways. These include such things as trade with like-minded entities and possibly a common aproach to Third World support.
These simple messages appear lost on EU politicians. It is not clear where that failure will lead but one suspects nowhere good.
Complain about this comment
@#3 and #5
Cohn-Bendit's quote seems to be astonishing only if it is taken out of its original context. What he really said is that national national referenda are not an adequate instrument to decide European questions. Instead, he and the European Greens have called for an European-wide referendum on the Lisbon Treaty:
'Regrettably, the request for a European-wide referendum has not been fulfilled but national referendums can clearly not be seen as a satisfactory substitute.'
Sources:
http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/pressreleases/dok/238/238197.irish_no_to_lisbon_treaty@en.htm
http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dok/210/210551.lisbon_treaty@en.htm
Complain about this comment
The Irish Government failed miserably to enable people to contribute to the debate. The vote should have been on the various issues contained in the amendments to the Treaty, rather than on something obscure and vague of which not even the Taoiseach admitted to know anything about. The No campaign successfully scared people with lies but the yes campaigners were not able to react due to lack of basic knowledge or simple lack of interest. I wouldn't call the referendum a democratic exercise but rather a way for the Irish to voice their disappointment about their government. In the past Ireland has gained much more than other countries from Europe due to the effective lobbying and negotiations of its representatives at EU level. Apart for receiving the highest net contributions, Ireland has also succeeded in having Irish Gaelic as official EU language (but the Spanish did not manage the same for Catalan, which is spoken by many more people than Gaelic Irish). It is probable that the friendly and helpful attitude enjoyed by Ireland at EU level will now change. Bad timing for this with the country's economy in free fall and no safety net. Event the US companies, who had heavily invested in the country are now moving to countries with better infrastructures and lower costs. A number of EU countries seem to be in favour of moving ahead and leaving Ireland behind. I hope a solution will be found!
Complain about this comment
Two things I've noticed which are coming from the 'NO''side are interesting:
1) 'Ms McKenna and her anti-treaty grouping, the People's Movement, emphasise ....(that)...Ireland like all countries, will have to forego a commissioner within the EU's executive'. (EU Observer)
2) 'Elsewhere, the Irish Society for a Christian Civilisation has warned that the treaty would "ignore God and the Christian roots of Europe and will create a new European identity based on radical secularism and atheistic philosophies."...will "facilitate abortion, euthanasia, and embryo experimentation" and impose homosexual marriage and gay adoption on the Roman Catholic country'.
On the first point, what exactly is the problem with that? Are the Irish 'Nos' really suggesting they should have more than anyone else?
On the second point, maybe the Irish 'Nos' need to conisder the move towards respecting some of the other values that exist within the EU, including secularism, and take a look at the recent advances made in Turkey, which is not yet even a member. I for one do not wish to be in a Union which 'God' resides over (perhaps ths is this why they do not want an EU President?) and so maybe this is not the Union for them.
(Option 3 please David)
Complain about this comment
I don't think another referendum is an option in Ireland. Considering that an 80% turnout is the absolute maximum you'll get in a country with an electoral register like ours, a 53% turnout is as high as you'll get on an issue that doesn't arouse simple emotions on one side or the other. Those who defied the entire Irish establishment are unlikely to change their change their minds because a few window-dressing protocols are added.
Most of those who voted NO did so because they couldn't see any convincing reason for changing Bunreacht na hEireann. If in doubt, leave well enough alone is the normal reaction of an electorate that is a fair bit more sophisticated than arrogant elites give them credit for.
And perhaps that's the message that Brussels and its outposts should listen to. Is there any need for Lisbon or the EU Constitution ? The EU appears to be working fine without them.
Complain about this comment
"The annual rate of inflation in the 15 state zone hit 3.7% in May, according to the Eurostat statistical office.
The figure is the highest since 1996, when Eurostat started using the current methodology for calculating inflation." [BBC World]
Now, that's a real problem, not a Lisbon whatever.
Particularly that an increase in interest rates may slow already slowing down EU economy even more.
Complain about this comment
''But what will happen next? People are starting to back one of three options:
1. Ireland votes again;
2. Abandon Lisbon;
3. Move ahead without Ireland.''
1. The most prefered option, and probably the best one. Ireland will be given assurances on neutrality and abortion. Then the Irish will vote again next year.
2. Very unlikely, the European Union needs serious reform. I don't expect our politicians to start negotiating a new document.
3. We need to move together to prevent the Union from falling apart. Besides, ignoring the Irish vote would damage the already weak democratic accountability of the European Union.
Conclusion: Lisbon Treaty=NiceII
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell writes: 'The UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband, on the way into the meeting, said that Britain would continue to ratify: "It would be a bizarre situation for every country to take a view about the Lisbon Treaty but for Britain to refuse to take a view," he told me.'
Surely, what is bizarre is to press ahead with ratifying a (non) treaty as according to the rules the Lisbon Treaty (a.k.a The Constitution) is now dead.
Or could it be that pressure will be put on the Irish to change their minds - another referendum perhaps? The Eurocrats do have form when the voters misbehave.
Complain about this comment
Number 9
You really don't get it.
The Irish are not asking for more representation than other nations. They are not expecting to keep their commissioner while other countries give up theirs. They haven't put forward an alternative - they don't have to. It is for the proposers to make the case - not the other way around.
Secondly, they are not trying to impose their view (if it is that) of a God centered Europe - it is the Eurocrats who are trying to force a single view on all of Europe. The Irish seem to want to be left alone to their own devices on such matters.
Complain about this comment
Does anyone have idea ideas what the effect of making concessions to the Irish would have on the validity of the acceptance process on the other countries. Surely a change to one, means a change to all?
For any concessions to have any meaning, I would imagine that they would need to have the same authority as the treaty.
If they can do this for the Irish (and they seem dertermined to do so), then why not everyone else. A no vote by Britain could get us some serious negotiating power - reform of the CAP perhaps?
Any ideas?
Complain about this comment
Perhaps the time is right for the UK government to put forward a different interpretation of Europe - a trading body of indempendent nation states.
If the Germans, French etc want to form a superstate, then let them negotiate union and they can then join the EU as a single country. Others countries could decide whether they want to join the "superstate" or remain independent.
The "take it or leave it", "in or out" argument is not very helpful.
Complain about this comment
#15 wopitt, yes there are serious legal implications of making concessions to us in order to try and push it to a Lisbon II. What about the countries that have already ratified? I believe that it would have to be re-ratified in those countries. This is a minefield the EU does not want to go down.
It makes me cringe that we are left out to dry on the scrapheap of Europe because other nations leaders were too spineless to put it to their people.
We have taken a serious bashing over this, in the name of democracy and the voice of the people. I hope this does not go unnoticed and is appreciated.
Complain about this comment
The arrogance (cf Danny Cohn-Bendit for sheer chutpah) is breathtaking.
So far only four countries have let their people vote on thse proposals.
The other 23 have refused them the chance.
Of the four who consulted their people, only Spain got a 'Yes' vote.
The people of France, Ireland and the Netherlands have all said 'No' - very firmly.
It's not giving the others the chance that isn't democratic. Not listening to the voices of the few who have been allowed to speak ...
It's time to scrap the whole shebang and start again with a long process of consultation by Referendum.
If the politicians find that too difficult, let them resign and be replaced by some who are democrats!
Complain about this comment
Mark,
Why do the pro European bloggers not realise that the third option is in fact one nation short of a binding Treaty and in all likelihood unenforceable? If any nation wishes to push ahead without the Irish, then they will more than likely breach their existing treaties, rendering the whole escapade a complete and utter waste of time.
From my perspective, the authors of the Treaty realised a long time ago that the populace at large would not like what was being proposed and to avoid scrutiny they made the document as dense as possible hoping that the electorate would take the word of politicians at face value. Somewhat of a misjudgement there perhaps.
I for one do not take at face value the various claims of Brown or Balls or Milliband with regard to securing binding opt outs. Why should the Irish trust their politicians any more than we trust ours?
So after all of the huff and puff, it is back to the drawing board. Let us hope they get the message this time.
All the best.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Mark for your consistently high-quality reporting, which I find is very balanced.
I think Europe needs to solve two major problems about its future. They both indirectly concern the Lisbon treaty but are much more important than that.
The first is direction. Do we need more or less Europe? Do we need an EU at all? If we do, do we want it?
I am personally convinced that we do need a stronger than ever European Union to deal with European Citizens' concerns. Some will argue it is not what it does now, and this is partly true, but I am still convinced that Europe cannot deal effectively with problems such as unemployment, global warming, or rising oil and food prices on the basis of the treaty of Nice which does not give either governments or EU institutions enough leverage to do so.
While I think I agree with most when saying that it is direly needed to take the citizens' voice into account in the decision of what direction we should take together, the problem is that the three 'nos' so often highlighted by eurosceptics *don't* give a clear answer to this.
As much as it might pain EU-haters on this blog to hear it, the Dutch, and especially French nos did not call for less Europe. I was in France in 2005 and the most oft-cited reason for voting no back then was that the French were fed up with a purely economic Union and wanted something more political, more social. They wanted an EU that could defend them against the risks their economy ran in a globalised world, while helping them take the most advantages from it. They wanted an EU that could guarantee them minimum social conditions if their government failed to do so.
How do you reflect this in the direction the EU must take, while taking into account the opposite argument given to the 'no' in Ireland?
I am personally convinced, first, that most Irish 'no' voters that voted no because they didn't understand the Treaty, may indeed be convinced by the argument I have outlined, even if the few Irish politicians backing the no don't. I do not think the Irish no was a no to more Europe, I think it was a no to a confused text which has resulted from fantastic leap backwards in the way this Treaty was negotiated when compared with the then-extremely innovative Convention.
Some will undoubtedly say this is my own interpretation of the referendum result in Ireland and that I have no right to put words into Irish voters' mouths. Maybe so, but I contest the widely-held view that eurosceptics promote of an Irish no against the EU, or against more EU. This is the eternal problem of a 'no' vote that can be done on countless grounds, with no certain way to prove which.
Apart from the direction the EU must take, we are now faced with a second, incredibly complicated problem, and it is of the method we have of ratifying treaties.
Unanimity cannot go on. This is a conclusion that we have to accept, or we must let go entirely of the idea of building something together.
In fact, we could have been faced with the problem much earlier. France only very narrowly passed Maastricht in 1992. Denmark and Ireland both passed on the second try some treaties (Amsterdam for Denmark, Nice for Ireland) that could also have failed a second time. What actually has happened since 2005 would have happened at some point in the EU's history and we need to stop cowing from this logical conclusion: unanimity is no way of ratifying treaties in a Union where membership is at 27 and counting.
This brings the question of what can be done to ratify treaties while maintaining the democratic aspect of Unanimity.
I believe the solution has already been floated around by numerous Experts, political leaders, parties, organisations, think-tanks, journalists and other observers. It is a pan-European Referendum.
The modalities of such a referendum could of course be discussed, but would seem logical that a majority of the population of the Union would have to agree with the changes. One solution could then be of saying that a proposed treaty would apply in all member-states where a majority of citizens have a approved of it; another could be of saying that a given treaty would apply throughout the Union if a double majority of citizens and states have approved it. The second is yet even more innovative, but even the first solution would definitely do the trick.
Of course there are problems with a pan-European referendum. The first is legal: it is impossible in Germany and Austria for historic reasons, except for very specific matters like setting regional boundaries. This would have to be overcome, possibly by a ruling of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVG, Germany's constitutional court) or an amendment to their constitution.
But where there is a will, there is a way, so this would not be the main problem. That would undoubtedly come from the Council. Heads of States and Governments would be extremely reluctant to relent of their right to shape and mould Europe's future, but they may have to.
I don't share Mark's view that Lisbon is either dead or dying, but this is to a large extent inconsequential. The big question mark now is what will happen
1- Because of failed ratifications, failure to reform itself, and failure to abandon unanimity, the EU has to use current legal frameworks ad vitam eternam. It will lose more and more grip with reality, try applying well what competences it does have, until the weight of what competences it doesn't have but should becomes too strong and it isn't seen to make a difference at all anymore. It will then slowly descend into the popular image that it has of out-of-touch bureaucrats, until it has completely lost view of Europeans' priorities, and will be either deposed of or left to rot.
2- It manages to reform some things after years of concessions-making, wrangling and cajoling. It might then survive for a while, but will be confronted to the same problem of unanimity ratification at a later stage. If it fails to address it, move to 1.
3- At some point, the Union will agree that unanimity is not an option for the long run.
It can then do either one of two things: kick out members who do not ratify treaties one by one, leaving Ireland in the cold, followed by more Member States, creating a reinforced EEA-style area around an increasingly small but increasingly integrated EU.
It can also simply pause and really think through a reform, a treaty, a constitution, call it what you may, that would last for a lifetime because self-reforming. It must then adopt the procedure I have described above. This is the only democratic way forward by the EU and must be acknowledged by its leaders. It would imply forgoing unanimity, yes.
But throughout the EU's history, the attentive observer can notice that whenever any decision is moved from unanimity to majority voting, it results in increased dynamism, increased efficiency, and, down the line, better results. Take the liberalisation of air travel for example. Majority voting, still one of the most successful EU initiatives to date. Reduction of mobile phone roaming charges? The directive on registration and limitation of toxic chemicals (REACH)? The European Carbon Trading system? all recent, and all done with majority voting.
So ratifications or reforms by majority voting? it really would be an improvement.
I am sorry I have gone so off the subject, but I really do believe this Irish no gives us an opportunity to reflect on what we want from working together, and why we are doing so.
Damien Routisseau-Magrou
Vice-President of the Young European Movement (YEM)
www.euromove.org.uk
Complain about this comment
The view of our elected representatives is not necessarily Britain's view. If David Miliband wants to honestly present Britain's position let him invoke the referendum clause in the 2005 Labour Party manifesto - ask us.
Complain about this comment
Wopitt (R16),
What you a sugesting is basically a two-speed EU, which I find a very plausible option.
There is de facto a Europe in two speeds, th Euro/Schengen space and the others.
It coud be expressed in other words by the theory of concentric circles: the hard core, and 1 or 2 "second or third zones" around it.
It is a dynamic and over all realistic structure worth to be considered, since all states could find themselves "confortable" within the chosen circle.
Complain about this comment
Options;
1. Ireland votes again. And they continue to vote until they get it right meaning a vote YES. And if they continue to be an obstacle, then they should be punished with increasing sanctions and removal of their rights within the EU. In other words, bludgeon them into submission.
2. Abandon Lisbon. Well the EU will never do this, it needs Lisbon as a tool to impliment the consolidation of power. Lisbon is a surrogate for the Constitution. The next treaty will be a surrogate for Lisbon under another name. Now why couldn't the Irish government explain Lisbon to the satisfaction of the voters? a) it is so incomprehensible that they don't understand it themselves. Most never even read it. b) if they told the truth about what is in it, there'd be even more no votes because of the restrictions it would impose, if they lied those lies would be all over the internet five minutes later c) the Irish don' t have the intelligence to understand basic issues governing their lives and they should therefore trust an elite that does. All unacceptable answers. So what happens if Lisbon really is abandoned. The best plan IMO would be to create a treaty which ONLY deals with administrative changes necessary to efficiently operate the enlarged EU. But this misses the point. Those changes are incorporated with many others which are the real object of the treaty, to sneak in more centralized control under the guise of administrative reform.
3. Move ahead without Ireland. Well that shows that if a cloak of democracy doesn't achieve the real goals of the EU, throw away the cloak.
The telling point is that acceptance of membership in the EU fraudulent as it was when it was presented as merely a trading bloc is that acceptance was sold predicated on the fact that all major decisions would be unanimous. What this means is that it was promised to each European citizen, either his population as a whole would vote approval in a referendum or his representative government would approve or reject it on behalf of his nation. Unfortunately, there has been little or no dissent in Parliamentary approvals, the lack of meaningful debate demonstrating that they are not truely democratic. How can every majority in every Parliament in the EU always be of one mind? So in the one referendum where voters had a say, and said no the inconceivable event that someone would actually not go along with the plan suggests that the EU now rescind it promise to not act without unanimity and just forget that promise. And isn't that what Lisbon was about anyway, rescinding that promise to make it far easier for Brussels to jam its laws down all of Europe's throats? Surely, people as determined as those championing the European Project will not be deterred by this new minor setback. Not only will the find plan B but C, D, E, F, and G if B fails. They will not give up, they will not obey their own rules, they will not submit to the will of the people under the terms they promised and agreed to when they sold this idea.
Complain about this comment
gerardmulholland R18,
In your list you forgot in the Yes side Luxembourg, a founder country.
Complain about this comment
Number 22
I believe that there is a difference between the EU running at 2 (or more) speeds and the union of individual countries within the EU.
This would allow the EU to focus on what it is best at - cross border trade and the soverign nations to focus on issues of shared / merged soverignity.
Seems to simple to be possible.
Complain about this comment
"This was what one of the leaders in the EU just said.
"It is not truly democratic that less than a million people should decide the fate of half a billion Europeans", said the leader of the Euro-Greens, Daniel Cohn-Bendit. "
Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that the vast majority of the half a billion Europeans didn't have a vote and instead their choice was made by a group a lot smaller then the number of people voting in Ireland.
Complain about this comment
I do not believe it is a case of 'more Europe' or 'less Europe' but rather 'appropriate Europe'.
As a European citizen, I am extremely concerned that we Europeans do not enjoy the same level of basic human rights as a American citizen.
For example, an American citizen , if arrested anyway within the USA must be charged within two days.
In Europe, that could be anything from five days (Spain) to 'forever' (Italy).
That is simply not good enough.
What is the point of being a European citizen if we cannot enjoy these basic human rights?
There are some laws which must be federated throughout the EU and this, being charged after being detained for a certain duration, is one.
Complain about this comment
Dictatorship lives again in Europe and we must all be prepared for the worst...
Rome rises from the ashes of our dreams and optimism lost.
Europe has said NO and the fascists won't accept it.
The Minuscule Minority have abandoned democracy when it suits them throughout history...
They despise us.
We say no to dictatorship.
Complain about this comment
As an Irishman who voted Yes I feel like I should have my say instead of letting others talk for us.
There were many reasons the Treaty was rejected but IMO here are the main ones:
1) Badly ran campaign by the Yes side - no TV ads, little door-to-door canvassing, mixed messages, our Minister for Europe's (Dick Roche) incompetence, the short campaign time, the distraction of Berties resignation/ new Taoiseach, the confusion amongst farmers (the farmers union only agreed to go with Yes in the last week - but rural areas still had much higher No votes).
2) Well ran No campaign - for the first time a lobby group with serious money (Libertas) ran in an Irish referendum. The Yes parties didn't no how to handle this
3) Complications of the treaty - a very complex treaty which was never properly broken down and explained, by either side
4) Nothing for Ireland - every previous referendum had something very good for Ireland in it. This didn't. It had nothing really bad for Ireland either but it is easier to sell a negative message
5) Issues - the ones that people voted against eg. idea of our disappearing neutrality, loss of commissioner, feeling of being ignored/swallowed by Europe, feeling that a better deal was possible.
Really options 2 and 3 would only prove the No sides arguments correct. I think option 1 will be the way to go. Most of the reasons it failed can be easily rectified. Ireland is quite pro-EU, much more so than the Britian but we didn't want to get into something we didn't understand. Telling us that we are wrong and pushing ahead or saying our voice doesn't matter or that as a small nation we can't control Europe's direction won't sell with us.
I'm of the firm belief that we would not be the only nation to fail to pass a referendum if they were held Euro-wide so 'blaming' us for voting No would not just alienate us but the people of other EU nations who didn't get the chance to vote. I think Britain and other small nations should stand with us as it could be them that are left out in the cold next time.
We are either the European Union or the European Disunion.
A partial renegotiation of the treaty would be the best way forward. The only issue that we voted against that may be problematic is the commissioner issue but imo a properly ran Yes campaign would render this issue void.
Complain about this comment
Giving the Irish the opportunity to vote again will send the following message: always vote NO the first time and you will get a better deal. That is not the way it should work.
Europe loves the Irish; if people, however, are so determined to slaughter the goose that lays golden eggs, then I guess we have no other choice than to continue without them.
Complain about this comment
The EU should propose the Lisbon Treaty to every state of the EU, and if they don't accept it, then they should be kicked out - what's wrong with that?
You either comply with treaties designed to improve the running of the EU, or you don't join in the first place.
Complain about this comment
I accept eirekevmy's analysis but would add that, from what I have read online, majority voting seems to have been a major worry for many Irish voters. (Maybe talidal's ideas -above - are worth pursuing?) And, for all those anti-EU enthusiasts who cheered when Eire voted "No" to the Lisbon Treaty, even Libertas has been careful to underline that it is NOT anti-EU.
I note what Mark says about Irish neutrality - that's "one in the eye" for Sarkozy, especially (France take over the EU presidency at the end of the month).
I note that the Campaign for Human Rights now wants an EU more responsive to people, but doesn't say how this might be achieved. Referenda are certainly not the way (again, see talindal, above).
Finally, I agree with John Constable. A federal USA was created to allow individual states to act alone on issues where they were most effective; the federation where national issues were of importance. OK, this founding principle has been watered down over time - but even where states have found themselves rubbing up against "national interest" (eg California and environmentally friendly cars), the courts have often supported them.
Complain about this comment
Why does the Lisbon treaty remind me of a certain Norwegian Blue Parrot?
Complain about this comment
I think we should all embrace a multi-speed Europe with enthusiasm. Cooking up messy compromises between consenting countries is what Europeans are good at. Why do we need the Lisbon treaty for any of this to happen? A majority of EU states (including Ireland and a couple of non-members as well!) have managed to adopt the euro, but many haven't and are content for things to stay that way. The Schengen system (which excludes Ireland) began life as a treaty separate from the EU altogether and it also includes non-EU members. Maybe a majority of EU states (possibly excluding Ireland) will adopt a standardized corporate tax base. A different constellation of countries may agree to collect traffic fines imposed in another state's territory. I see no reason why the outer edges of these "zones of integration" all need to be coterminous. lf these useful (?) outcomes can be more easily achieved by stringing together successive "coalitions of the willing" than by trying to drag or bludgeon a few hold-outs over the unanimity line on each occasion, so be it. If you go for an all-or-nothing approach, you end up with precisely nothing, as the Constitution-dreamers are finding to their discomfort. Threatening Ireland with exclusion from all emerging European integration policies ex-ante, and all for the sake of a treaty that is hardly any improvement over the current arrangements, is just plain daft.
Complain about this comment
@31
Well, the first problem with that is that it would be completely illegal to kick them out. You see, all the countries signed the Nice treaty. There is no way out of the Nice treaty, unless all the countries agree to it. As long as Ireland says no to the treaty, they cannot be kicked out.
Secondly, if this was Germany instead of Ireland, then the whole debate would be different. Apparently, big countries get to do whatever they want, small countries get bullied around. Is this the kind of signal the EU wants to send?
Thirdly, be careful what you wish for. I think that if you try to bully countries like that, you might see more of them leaving than you'd bargain for. What is to stop say the Nordics, the Netherlands, the UK and Ireland walking away from the current EU and starting their own. The greatest proponents of the EU are those that get money from it. If you were to put it to a vote, those countries might find that the net contributors would walk away.
Complain about this comment
To eirekevmy (29):
I think the one thing that you didn't address was in your comment that the current Irish system of negotiating and accepting treaties is a little bit of the beat. No, I'm not criticizing your constitution that demands referendums, referendums are not the problem, the problem is that the rest of your system doesn't play according with referendums.
The things that in in fully representative democracy essentially the parties with the goverment and in the opposition work together when negotiating international treaties in order to ensure that the end result has in any case the backing of enough large majority in the parliament that the treaty will be accepted even if ruling parties change in the mean time.
Now, in your system you have a government that negotiates a treaty that does basically the same thing as in other systems the difference being in that in your system the citizen directly decide. The problem arises that your goverment doesn't address citizens before it has accepted and signed the treaty. Your government doesn't consult the key decision makers, it's citizens, while negotiating. In my mind your goverment should do more referendums and do it while the treaty is being negotiated. Yes, it would be some what expensive and need work, but then the whole treaty would be put on referendum, if needed, the end result should be much more secure and more accepted. If you don't address this thing in your system, your goverment will loose it's negotiation power as your electorate will probably just reject the treaty at first.
Complain about this comment
@ Jukka_Rohila (36)
I agree to a certain extent that the government does not involve or consult citizens enough when negotiating these treaties. However I don't think more referendums are the answer as it would mean constant additions to our own constitution.
The Yes campaign was poor from the beginning and they seemed to learn no lessons from Nice(1).
Also the seemed to forget that we the Irish electorate make up our own minds on issues regardless of political party affiliations. This is someway explained by the fact that our parties are ideological but more historical.
Some from the past to show the Irish electorates independence from the major parties include Nice (1) and two seperate attempts to get rid of the Proportional Representation voting system in '58 and '68. It should be noted that Eamonn DeValera supported the rejected referendum in '58 but was elected President of Ireland on the same day
Complain about this comment
Mark, although, as you know, I’m a keen Eurosceptic, I’ll try to be constructive.
There are three possible ways forward:
1. Press ahead without Ireland.
This will alienate Ireland and some other more 'independent' countries and lead to a two (or more) tier EU and, ultimately, the break up of the EU. (A result some would applaud – though lengthy and painful – and not, I trust what the EU wants).
2. Force Ireland to vote again until they come up with the 'right' answer.
As an Englishman I know that the Irish don't take kindly to being bullied and any 're-vote' is likely to be counter-productive at best. Furthermore, other countries (especially small ones) will not agree – and will express this by halting their ratification process (I'm thinking of the Czech Republic and the heroic Vaclav Klaus).
3) Scrap the Lisbon Treaty and start again.
This will provide an opportunity to do what Vice President Margot Wallstom proposed after the rejection of the French and Dutch Referenda in May/June 2005: PLAN D – but this time for real!
Ask all the peoples of the member states what type of EU they really want. Forget the 'noble' ideals of the 1950s and find out what type of EU they want for the 2020s and beyond. Maybe the peoples of Europe don’t actually want 'ever closer union' and prefer a modified free trading area (with a single currency and free movement in some areas)? How do you know we don't? Ask us? Build it from the ground up – Don't impose it from above [the writ of God as interpreted by the Euro-Elites].
Sure this process may take years – or a decade. But the European 'Community' (I won’t say 'Union') that emerges will be honest and transparent in its construction.
Meanwhile, the EU can muddle on OK....
Complain about this comment
Can the eurosceptics who constantly carry on about 'democracy' and 'referendum now', explain what the problem is with the EU drafting legal opt-outs for Ireland to address its people's concerns, and then asking them to have another referendum? If they consider it bullying, or outrageous etc then they can vote NO. What are the eurosceptics going to hypocritically shout next time round, 'No referendum now'?
Of course a referendum is a cumbersome and ridiculous way to carry on the negotiations and compromises necessary for international relations. But it appears to be the favourite tool of those would halt European integration - so it will have to do.
Complain about this comment
Damien Routisseau-Magrou
Vice-President of the Young European Movement (YEM) @20.
Hardly 'disinterested', are you?
A couple of questions before I consider whether it is worth debating with you:
1) How much do you earn in salary and/or expenses from the YEM and/or the EU?
2) How much subsidy per annum does the YEM receive from the EU?
[For the record, I receive not a penny from any source].
Complain about this comment
To eirekevmy (37):
Well, either way, you have to do something to your system. Your current system, and I say system, isn't reliable when negotiating international treaties. There has to be some structural reform that updates the workings of the goverment up bar with having referendums.
I also don't see any problem on having more referendums. Why not have referendums that, if accepted, allow the government an option for a period of time, to make agreed amendment to your constitution. Basically this way your constitution would not be amended all the time, it would take your citizens to the process and make Irish government an reliable negation partner. Dynamic contracts are done constantly in business so why not do the same in your countries governance.
It should also be noted that either way you are going to pay some price. If you don't do any reforms on how your system works you will loose positions as negation partner. If you do more referendums it may tire voters and cost money... either way, you have to do something. You just can't blame rest of the Europe for rejecting the treaty.
Complain about this comment
When you say people are starting to back one of three options etc
You mean the politicians not the people. The people have been asked and they said NO.
Complain about this comment
"Libertas has been careful to underline that it is NOT anti-EU."
Well duh, neither are all the other Uber-reich free marketeers...
The myth that the right wing are against this treaty is being perpetuated by their corrupt lawyers and think-tanks all over Europe.
Liberate tutamen ex nuvos Ordo Seculere.
Romani ite domum.
Complain about this comment
Listening to you on this evening's news report, and hearing the comments of the European politicians claiming that Europe (i.e. they) wants the treaty to be ratified despite the fact that the European people have not been asked for their opinions, I visualised a headline for tomorrow's papers: The Gadarene Rush to the Cliffs of Lisbon.
Complain about this comment
@39
Well, the problem is still that only 1 out of 27 countries got to have a referendum. I think noone would oppose having the treaty amended and then having all 27 countries have a referendum. That would be perfect. But the system is wrong if only the one country that said no gets to have another vote. As if No was some kind of 'wrong answer and they have to redo the test until they 'get it right'.
Let everyone have a referendum, and if all 27 vote yes, then we have a new Treaty of Lisbon. I bet all the no-voters would agree to that, can you say the same for your side?
Complain about this comment
Jukka (36): States frequently sign treaties that they cannot ratify because of domestic opposition. At most, there is an obligation on the Irish state to make its best good faith efforts to secure ratification. As it happens, the main party in the Irish government did make extensive and sincere efforts to get the Treaty passed, but there is no obligation whatsoever on Irish voters (or voters elsewhere, if they get a choice) to rubber stamp decisions that their government has agreed to in an IGC. The idea behind a free vote, after all, is that you actually have a choice, and the idea behind separating initial signing of a Treaty and ratification is that not all treaties signed by international negotiators will be agreeable to a domestic audience. This is standard practice in many democratic systems, including the US where the executive negotiates treaties but the results require the approval of a representative body (the US Senate) to be ratified.
Your idea of holding national referendums during negotiations to be sure that the results of the negotiation will be acceptable is an obvious non-starter. Furthermore it is obviously not the case that the treaty of Lisbon enjoys popular support in every EU country (or even a majority of them) or even the support of all main political parties in each country. This treaty fully deserves to die, and would have died several years ago if the EU were democratic.
Complain about this comment
To virtualrationality (45):
Actually not. You see the things is every country negotiated hard, first with the EU constitution and then with the Lisbon Treaty. In the end, all governments agreed that the treaty was good, it was good for their respective countries and it was good to EU, and signed the treaty. Basically, every goverment made a promise to each other that they would ratify the treaty. So No is a wrong answer as it was not what was agreed.
Now as I said in my earlier post, when governments are negotiating a treaty they usually make sure that what is agreed is agreed by a large majority of political parties and representatives. In example the negations that lead to the Lisbon Treaty was started in Finland by center-socialist goverment coalition and agreed by center-conservative coalition. In the parliament the treaty was ratified by the socialist, the center party and the conservative party. Now in Finland governments had made sure that the treaty was good for Finland and thus there would be no problem ratifying in the parliament. In the case of Ireland, the Irish goverment dropped the ball because they had not consulted and informed their people well enough and thus Irish voted No to the treaty.
So in essence, No wasn't what was agreed. The blame rests on the Irish goverment. They dropped the ball. Partly the blame also rests on the Irish public that hasn't voted representatives to power that they truly trust nor forced the goverment to consult and inform them more.
PS. Referendums don't belong to all countries. In Finland a referendum can't be binding and all in all referendums aren't seen as belonging to our parliamentary republic.
Complain about this comment
31. At 6:00 pm on 16 Jun 2008, meshuganah13 wrote:
"The EU should propose the Lisbon Treaty to every state of the EU, and if they don't accept it, then they should be kicked out - what's wrong with that?
You either comply with treaties designed to improve the running of the EU, or you don't join in the first place."
Please, please, please arrange for the UK to be thrown out of the "EU" so that I can ceremonially rip up and burn my "EU"-passport.
We don't need the "EU". If you want free trade then you just trade freely. We don't need the "EU"s attempts to create a Greater European Reich.
"...designed to improve the running of the EU..." That's just bull-product. It is just an excuse. It is camouflage. The "EU" is about megalomania and we don't want it.
Complain about this comment
Here in the U.S., we find it enormously interesting that little Ireland can block the Lisbon Treaty. Clearly, the population of that country is in touch with the Euroskepticism that so often finds its way into BBC blog comments and Have Your Say contributions. For that matter, many Americans share in the Euroskeptic point of view to some extent and admire Ireland for having taken this stand. My own view, though, is that Europe needs to strengthen its political institutions enough to take on a more vigorous role in the world's security arrangements. Many American believe that the upcoming elections will confirm that the American electorate is ready for the U.S. to turn inward, i.e., lay down the multiple and staggeringly expensive security guarantees that it has been extending to Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and even Israel. The U.S. has borne this burden pretty much alone for half a century and now must lay it down, in order to once again invest adequately in its infrastructure and human capital. For that reason, we hope that the Lisbon Treaty passes so that Europe will finally have the foreign affairs and military cohesion to take on the role that the U.S. has been bearing.
Complain about this comment
On the Conservative Party website I read:
'David Cameron has said the Lisbon Reform Treaty should be "declared dead" following Irish voters' rejection of the treaty by 53.4% to 46.6%.
He accused the Government of "arrogance" for pressing ahead with ratifying the treaty against public opinion.
After calling on Mr. Brown to make a statement on Monday, David added that the British people should now be given the referendum they deserve.'
Was it not the position of the Conservative Party that if they came into government after the Treaty had been passed that they would not seek to renegotiate it or have a referendum on it?
Is that still the case or has it changed or was I wrong in the first place?
If the treaty was unsatisfactory before they came to power then surely it would be quite simply unsatisfactory at any stage of the game and should therefore be discarded.
If "David" considers the Government "arrogant" for pressing ahead with ratifying the treaty against public opinion will he also condemn his predecessors for arrogance for forcing the Maastricht Treaty on us or is he just playing games and trying to score points. In other words do we not need another political party to represent us, one which really means what it says and does really want to represent the British people and not just to gain power by using whatever weapons are at hand to hit Labour with.
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn-John (47):
"States frequently sign treaties that they cannot ratify because of domestic opposition."
That can be expected from young or unstable countries, but modern democracies with working political culture should produce decisions in international relations that are supported by a large majority from elections to elections. If a country fails to ratify a treaty it signed because of domestic reason, it should not have signed the treaty in the first place. To me signing and not ratifying tells that there is a problem in the political system and political culture of the country.
"Your idea of holding national referendums during negotiations to be sure that the results of the negotiation will be acceptable is an obvious non-starter."
Actually how is it a non-starter? It's not technically impossible. It's not politically impossible. In any case, in a treaty where unanimous decision is required, it's the only way to increase chances of success of ratifying the treaty.
"Furthermore it is obviously not the case that the treaty of Lisbon enjoys popular support in every EU country (or even a majority of them) or even the support of all main political parties in each country."
18 countries have ratified the treaty, that's a majority and all those countries are democracies so there is real support for the treaty.
PS. Define democratic. How EU is not democratic?
Complain about this comment
meshuganah13 @31, You have a very apt moniker.
Complain about this comment
@47 Jukka
You are incorrect. Governments cannot promise to ratify treaties since that is not their call to make. Governments can only sign treaties.
Anyone believing a government 100% that they will ratify a treaty should realize its a promise they cannot always keep. Government is the executive arm of government, and treaties have to be ratified by a legislative effort, whether that is parliament or a referendum or some other means.
And since a treaty is not valid until its ratified, currently the Lisbon treaty is worth as much as a piece of toiletpaper. Probably less because its not as soft and fluffy.
The only treaty that is currently completely valid and thus relevant in determining what should happen, is the Nice treaty. And going by that treaty, you can't kick Ireland. So what you suggest is actually illegitimate and would require breaking a treaty by all the Member States. Good luck getting that one past an international court.
Complain about this comment
What the hell is the "EU" doing in Northern Kosovo?
Is it not the case that the Serb majority in Northern Kosovo wants to stay with Serbia?
It appears to me that the "EU" is intent on practising its invasion policy in Northern Kosovo. They intend to send an "EU" police force there that will practically be an army of occupation.
It is the forerunner of what we in the UK could have some day if we leave our attempts to leave the "EU" too late.
Peoples have a right to be independent. The "EU" should be insisting that the Serbs in Northern Kosovo have the right to be independent of the Albanian-majority areas.
But the "EU" is not about democracy. It is about the creation of a Greater European Reich.
The British government should not be supporting this part of the "EU" policy towards Kosovo. There should be no British police or soldiers in Northern Kosovo.
The "EU" should be telling Spain to grow up and recognise the right of the peoples of Gibraltar and the Basque country to be independent.
They should be telling Italy to grow up and recognise the right of the people of the South Tyrol to be independent or join Austria.
But the "EU" is not about democracy. It is about arrogance, power and megalomania.
The Czechs have shown that they are grown up. They let Slovakia become independent. About one-hundred years ago the grown-up Swedes let Norway become independent.
The "EU" could become even more grown up and let us have the referendum we were promised.
Until we get it the answer is NO and the "EU" has no right to exist.
Complain about this comment
I rather think that the "EU Machine" has made it very clear why a "NO" was the "right" answer. They appear to think that the Irish got it wrong so they've come up with their usual answer: They're going to cheat!!!!!!
BTW, SuffolkBoy2, us Catalans would like a bit of that independence too.
Complain about this comment
To virtualrationality (53):
No, governments do make promises. Governments, especially governments of your closest partners and modern functional democracies, should be trusted. In a case where you are making a treaty that required unanimity, truest is a key issue.
The thing is, Irish goverment didn't deliver what it had promised. Actually the whole Irish political establishment failed to deliver what they had promised. As this was the second time Irish goverment didn't follow what it had promised in EU treaty negotiations, their reputation as a trustworthy partner will erode if they don't make reparations on how the political system works. If Irish goverment and political establishment had done their work, they would have consulted and informed their citizens in time and well enough for the Irish to give a Yes vote in referendum.
PS. In any of my comments I haven't told that Ireland should be rejected from the EU. You must have addressed the last part of your comment to somebody else.
Complain about this comment
I think that the UK created EFTA would still be working wonders (a great deal better than the EU) if it were still running. The Common Market, as it was, is no longer such a thing. The UK, Eire, Nordic and Dutch should go back to something like the EFTA and leave the EU.
Complain about this comment
R54
"The Czechs have shown that they are grown up. They let Slovakia become independent"
Czechoslovakia split up in 1993 by mutual consensus between its two nations.
The result of this split has benefited more Slovakia, which will embrace the Euro next 1st of January.
So before telling what EU has to do with its member countries, you'll better off be informed.
Complain about this comment
Jukka (51): I am afraid your post is not worth replying to.
Complain about this comment
Dear BaronVonRikWinkle and others, may I point out, in the interests of objectivity (if such a concept is of the slightest interest to anybody taking part in this debate), that Daniel Cohn-Bendit is not an ‘EU leader’ but a Member of the European Parliament, directly elected by his constituents in France? Could I also take issue with the statement that “a few hundred unelected officials are able to decide the fate of billions of Europeans”? The deciders in the EU are the Council of Ministers (i.e. national ministers, who arrived in their governments via a democratic process) and the European Parliament (directly elected representatives of the people of the member states, just like, for example, Daniel Cohn-Bendit). The ‘few hundred unelected officials’ constitute the European civil service, just like the ones in all the member states. If the writer is referring to the Commission, the Commission initiates and enforces legislation – it does not adopt it. The Lisbon Treaty, if any of you had bothered to find out, actually gives greatly increased powers to the directly elected European Parliament. Sorry to spoil the fun with a few facts. Ignorance is such bliss, isn’t it?
Complain about this comment
No.56
You really don't get it do you?
The Irish government had no legal standing to make such a promise as they know the final decision does not rest with them, but with the people via a referendum as outlined in their own national constitution.
A constitution created deliberately so a future government could not make such changes without the will of the people.
It is not an incorrect answer as you say, only a different answer. I know it may be hard for pro-europeans to understand but people, and even nations are allowed to have a difference of opinion.
Most of us in the UK aren't anti-european, but we are anti-EU. They are not the same thing. It is not that we dislike the french, italians, spanish or whoever, we just do not like the the vision of the EU the eurocrats are trying to create.
Rather than claiming an Irish no vote is some sort of crisis (which it isn't), instead we should sieze this opportunity to create a new vision of what the EU should be, one that the people want and will support. Why are we trying to fulfill the goals of 60 years ago, and not trying to fulfill the goals of 60 years into the future?
There needs to be proper consultation with the people of every nation, no matter how long it takes. If not the resentment will just continue to increase.
Complain about this comment
@alphacen1 (39)
would it then also be acceptable for the other 26 countries to get their FIRST Lisbon referendum?
Or is it that you and the rest of the pro-EU bunch think that only those who say 'no' should be 'asked' to reconsider.
Complain about this comment
@aarddave (61)
don't bother. It seems that explaining to Jukka_Rohila that we do not agree with further political integration or do not agree with the Lisbon treaty is like talking to a brick wall: pointless.
Jukka_Rohila seems to believe that EVERYTHING that is decided in Brussels must under all and any circumstances ALWAYS be accepted by everybody in the end. Thinking about the possibility that there might be no popular demand or support for political integration is a non-starter for people like him.
National sovereignty and parliamentary democracy however, seem completely alien and obsolete concepts to him.
Complain about this comment
@ Scepticmax (Comment #40)
Well, no I am not disinterested, in the sense that I am an engaged volunteer in favour of Europe. Take my message as being that of pro-european organisations as a whole, and more specifically pro-european Youth organisations.
To answer your question, I not receive any salary or any other comparable benefits, either from the EU or anyone else as I am a self-supporting, full-time student, and act in YEM as a volunteer, like all other YEM activists.
The YEM receives money from the European Movement (EM), of which it is a part. The European Movement is also non-governmental organisation and is funded by membership fees and private donnations from esteemed patrons, which range from Lord Highbury to Lord Ashdown.
You may find all relevant information concerning funding on the EM's website.
The EM has been over the years presided over by respected members of British public life, with our current president being Charles Kennedy MP. The EM is the UK branch of the European Movement International, an organisation which since 1948 fights for closer European Integration, and has been presided over by such prestigious names as Winston Churchill, Leon Blum, Paul-Henri Spaak or Alcide de Gasperi.
In short, we are the real deal, pro-europeans in flesh, who do this for no financial interest. I remain at your disposal.
Complain about this comment
@ comment #48
You say:
''"...designed to improve the running of the EU..." That's just bull-product. It is just an excuse. It is camouflage. The "EU" is about megalomania and we don't want it.''
Well, actually, it isn't. I voluntarily chose your post since it is one of the most provocative in all the eurosceptical ones here.
Can you actually prove the treaty is about anything but improving the EU?
I'm certainly convinced you are not, because it isn't. All the no-backers have ever been able to say against this treaty is either wrong or it isn't a problem.
Opponents of the constitution in the 2005 French referendum used parts of the then constitutional treaty, which stated that the EU believed in free trade and free and unobstructed competition. I am using this example because this happens to be also in the Lisbon treaty, and I am sure if a referendum would be held in France today it would come up again.
The thing is that this is one of the rare true attacks that has been made on the treaty. Yes, it favours and backs free market, yes it favours free competition. I don't have the problem with it. Many French people did.
However opponents of the Lisbon treaty had to do better than this to convince voters in Ireland, so they invented false attacks.
- The Lisbon treaty will put in question Ireland's neutrality
- the Lisbon treaty will force back conscription into (pick a boo) national armies or a common soviet-like eu army
- the Lisbon treaty will force Ireland to legalise abortion
- the Lisbon treaty will force Ireland to abandon its corporate tax rate
- the Lisbon treaty will force Ireland to re-establish the death penalty.
Really, as anyone having the slightest drop of information knows, this is utter nonsense.
Is there any real attack that you can make on the actual treaty?
If not, I consider my point proven that really, this is a boring, institutional treaty, that is needed for EU institutions to work better.
Complain about this comment
Dear Damien Routisseau-Magrou
Vice-President of the Young European Movement (YEM),
Thank you for your courteous reply (as tailindil @64) to my strongly worded post.
In view of the late hour, I'll not respond to the contents of your original post (@20), but wait until tomorrow to give it the attention it deserves.
Complain about this comment
@ VirtualRationality, post #53
Actually, though I share your analysis of the current operativity of the Lisbon Treaty, and while I also agree it is indeed not as soft and fluffy as loopaper (though that is always the case in European Treaties), I disagree with your legal interpretation of how a country may leave the EU.
Currently, the legal framework under all the treaties combined since Rome provides for member states to withdraw from the European Union.
The basis for this would be for the Irish parliament to rescind the act by which it joined the EU, which I do not know by name but is the equivalent of the 1992 European Communities act in the UK.
Under Irish law, this would probably trigger a referendum. One such referendum was already held, by the way, in the UK, where 67% opposed leaving the EEC in 1975. So there is a legal precedent for leaving.
From there on a lot of pressure could be put on to Ireland to force it to have such an in-out referendum.
I am of course speaking entirely hypothetically to respond to your claim that there is no way for the EU to kick Ireland out, and would like to note this is not in any case what I or my organisation advocates.
Damien.
Complain about this comment
Dear ScepticMax,
No need to repeat my title in every post, I know it looks good but it's a little repetitive ^^.
I will await your rebuttal tomorrow, and probably respond to it too, so I will see you around.
I have until now not posted on Mark's blog as I feel the number of comments is slightly daunting, but I am going to try and keep up with them.
Damien
Complain about this comment
No. 56, Juuka Rohila
You're missing the point regarding Ireland's constitution. Any international treaty entered into by an Irish government must be consistent with Bunreacht na hEireann. If it is not, then a constitutional amendment is required to legitimise the transfer of powers from the state to a supernational organisation and this can only be effected by simple majority vote in a referendum.
Irish governments may negotiate treaties on behalf of its citizens and the vast majority of them do not require constitutional amendments. But a very clear distinction was drawn by the Supreme Court in the Crotty case (re the Single European Act of c.1987) regarding those which alter the powers delegated by the people to the state. By proposing institutional changes, by extending the competencies of the EU and by increasing the areas subject to qualified majority voting, the Lisbon Treaty clearly falls into that category.
It's not simply a matter of trust. Under Bunreacht na hEireann, there is a clear understanding of those matters which are solely to be decided by the people and those which are delegated to government. This system has worked very well for us since 1938 and is the bedrock of Irish democracy. I don't know what the situation is like in other countries but the people of Ireland are very aware of their sense of ownership of their constitution.
And they don't like to see it being tinkered with for no understandable reason. I believe that, more than anything else, was why the Lisbon referendum was rejected.
Complain about this comment
@ SuffolkBoy, re post #54
The only reason I am responding is to react to your outrageous comments concerning the EU's role in Kosovo, which is a region I know quite well; and I will not even bother to rebutt your accusations of the EU being a new reich or whatnot.
The European Union, in co-ordination with Nato allies, and with the backing of the UN Security Council, indeed has had a peacekeeping mission in Kosovo since 1998. It fulfilled its mission with success and after 10 years of peace-keeping, the Kosovan people have found a way towards the independence you seem to cherish in your post.
This independence was carefully negotiated on the part of the Kosovan government and was deemed acceptable to a great majority of EU member states, UN security council states, or for that matter our esteemed allies over the pond, since the new-born state was recognised by these states.
Kosovo's declaration of independence was made in a spirit of democracy, and the new Kosovan constitution guarantees the Serbian minority in the country (which as you point is majority in the north of the country) unprecedented protection of their human, civil and political rights, as well as guaranteed representation in both the Cabinet and the Assembly. The Kosovan government is currently implementing a step-by-step programme devised by former UN envoy Marrti Ahtisaari which will guarantee further rights to the Serbian ethnic minority in Kosovo.
The EU is, in short, doing its job of defending human rights, and it is doing it well and openly. You can find any information concerning the work done by the EU in Kosovo on euinkosovo.org
I wish NATO was carrying out its work as openly in afghanistan, or that the US army held a comparable website concerning iraq, unfortunately it does not exist.
The EU is one of the most respected voices defending democracy and the freedom of peoples throughout the world.
I would like to point you towards the much-talked about European parliament Sakharov prize for the defence of Freedom of Thought, which rewarded personalities like Nelson Mandela or Belarussian opposition leader Aleksandar Milinkievic. You can find a list of awardees on Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Sakharov_Prize )
Complain about this comment
re post #57 (chf-cooper)
''The UK, Eire, Nordic and Dutch should go back to something like the EFTA and leave the EU.''
The thing is that I very much doubt that the countries you mentioned would favour a 'nothing-but-free-trade' agreement. Ireland is one of the biggest beneficiaries of CAP funds per capita still (even though structural funds have somewhat shifted to the east).
The Irish, Dutch, and Scannies, while sometimes weary of the EU, do see that it is the most sensible solution to our common problems and would most likely refuse point blank to follow the UK in such a delirious walkabout.
Actually, I very much doubt British citizens would back it either, as an increasing number of us are realising the EU's full potential by travelling, studying, and working abroad or benefiting from EU funding.
All the advantages brought by the EU would not be echoed in EFTA and that's why your argument doesn't work.
Damien.
Complain about this comment
''Most of us in the UK aren't anti-european, but we are anti-EU. They are not the same thing. It is not that we dislike the french, italians, spanish or whoever, we just do not like the the vision of the EU the eurocrats are trying to create.''
Here comes the eurocrat-myth once again.
I feel like saying I'll only spell this out once, but infortunately I might need to do this quite often so I won't.
There are no such things as Eurocrats. Brussels is filled with
-1 Directly elected MEPs who earn less than most national MPs and have more transparent rules than most national parliaments (with the UK as an exception, but then again we are probably one of the most advanced member states on this particular issue)
2- Commissioners who are appointed by their National Government and confirmed by the European parliament (hardly pulled out of a hat as many seem to want to describe the Commission).
3- Civil Servants. Since this seems to be the most widely-held myth, let me despel it
- the EU as a whole employs around 35,000 people permanently. This is sometimes contested, but even taking the biggest and wildest claims of some eurocsceptical blogs, this number hardly rises above 50k full-time employees, and this figure is very controversial.
Compared with the most conservative estimates of how many people are employed in the French or British civil service, the number of people working in EU institutions is very low.
In addition, the EU spends about 5% of its budget, or about €6bn a year on administration, of which over 1.3bn is in translation costs (which national governments do not have to bear).
When put in comparison, the UK spends upwards of £10bn a year on the civil service, including civil servant's pensions.
In fact, the average european will in a year pay for all the Brussels-style extravaganza (about €12 or £9 per person) in just under two hours of work. At the same rate, a UK citizen would neet to work just under a week to pay for Whitehall.
So, yes, Eurocrats.
Complain about this comment
#70 tailindil
Your sentence "The EU is one of the most respected voices defending democracy and the freedom of peoples throughout the world.
I would like to point you towards the much-talked about European parliament Sakharov prize for the defence of Freedom of Thought, which rewarded personalities like Nelson Mandela or Belarussian opposition leader Aleksandar Milinkievic."
What a shame that they do not apply the same principles within the EU, after all, the words of almost every EU politician in the last two days are the opposite of 'Freedom of Thought'. Who are they proposing this year for the Sakharov prize, Mugabe or have they already awarded him that 'honour' for his well known freedom of thought democracy.
Complain about this comment
dear Buzet23,
Funny you should talk about Mugabe, since our government has yet to this point to strip him of his knighthood. I don't think the EU could quite surpass that as far as complimenting a dictator can go, even if it did give him the Sakharov prize.
Concerning your accusation, let's try not to get everything mixed up, it just annoys me.
The EU is a democracy where freedom of speech and of thought are respected.
Every single member state has a high rating in all international organisations' indexes on freedom of speech or thought, whether it be at a national level or international level. The EU does not and will never do anything but guarantee our basic liberties, as it is bound to do under article 6 of the Masstricht treaty.
What you are referring to are more political comments, I believe, and those of various leaders from throughout Europe trying to find a solution to the Irish 'no'. I would like you to point me to any one such comment that suggests that the treaty should be imposed on Ireland despite the vote. No one said that and no one will, so please just calm down.
What they were commenting on are ways for all other countries to find a way to adopt changes that they obviously want, and all solutions that were floated would ultimately respect the choice of the Irish people over themselves (!). What some of us, myself included are contesting, is the right of Irish people to decide for the whole continent.
now, as far as democracy or freedom of thought is concerned, the fact is that the Lisbon treaty cannot and will not be applicable in Ireland without the Irish people's ascent, and no one suggested it would be.
Complain about this comment
What part of NO don't they understand in Brussels?
The original constitution was rejected by the French and Dutch people, the rebadged version has just been rejected by the Irish people (other countries might well have done the same had they been given the chance). And still the politicians are blindly pursuing it. It sounds to me as though we need a new set of politicians before we do anything else, a set more in tune with what the people of Europe think about it all.
Complain about this comment
Why does it seem like everyone is being so blockheadedly stupid about this? The majority of Ireland most likely has no clue about what exactly this treaty does, and the impact it would have on their lives, if any. Then theres your typical group of hardcore island-mentality naysayers that automatically despise anything to come from Europe, especially if it's got something to do with their Government, who ruin it for everyone else by coming up with blatantly over exaggerated arguments as to how this is such a horrible mainlander treaty that will completely destroy their autonomous government. It's horrifyingly repulsive, and I'm convinced that rather than trying to appease Irelands population over issues such as Abortion and 'Defence', all that has to be done is tell them how exactly this is better for them, as it undoubtedly is, whether they admit it or not.
Complain about this comment
Apparently they're arresting people now who 'protest through internet blogs'...
There really is nowhere to express your fear of the coming tyranny is there?
They are constantly watching us, cheating us and misleading us... this is an outrage.
fascist pigs.
Complain about this comment
How come the European Union came have a "emergency meeting" in such a record time following a "no" vote...
Complain about this comment
To aardave (61) and colplugwellington (69):
No. You didn't get it. You should have read a little more the message change. As I said before, the problem is not Ireland having a referendum, the problem is that the rest of the Irish goverment doesn't play according to this. The rest of the systems falls.
To make it short. The situation in Ireland is basically the same that if in some other country, goverment would negotiate a treaty, not consult or inform it's parliament and parliament parties about the treaty and not getting a large political acceptance to it. When the day would come when goverment would put the treaty on vote, the parliament would shut it down as the goverment and not made sure that it will pass it. That's the situation, that's what happened in Ireland, just change parliament to citizens.
My suggestion in previous messages was that maybe Irish goverment should have more referendums during treaty negotiations or at least before signing the treaty. The point is that if the Irish goverment consults its people after it has signed a treaty, the result will be always shaky, thus there is need to consult and inform people before in order to secure people voting Yes to the proposal.
Complain about this comment
@74 tailindil
You said:"What some of us, myself included are contesting, is the right of Irish people to decide for the whole continent."
Ok, so you are denying the validity of the Nice treaty and all previous treaties of the EU spanning 40+ years. Interesting position. The right of the Irish to decide for the whole continent was given to them by those treaties, and by nothing else. Why would anyone ever trust the EU if they can't even abide by their own treaties.
Complain about this comment
The Lisbon treaty should now be abandoned and would if it were not for the Clinton-like refusal of the federalists to accept defeat. The two other options that Mark Mardell raises (Ireland voting again and ignoring Ireland) are an affront to democracy. Those who say that the Irish people should be ignored because they are a small minority of the combined population of EU countries would have a bit more credibility if they were not the same people that argued it was right to deny the majority elsewhere a chance to vote. Ratification by national parliament is nothing but a rubber stamp when the prime ministers who negotiated this treaty owe their position to the majorities they command in those parliaments. There is no way on earth that these parliaments will do anything but their master's bidding in such circumstances. No one can believe that this rubber-stamp ratification is in any way comparable in legitimacy to the Irish, French and Dutch referendums.
What we are witnessing is a slow bid by Continental politicians to shake of the democratic shackles that constrain their power. They want to create a power cartel in Europe on the sly that will let them run each others countries at such a distance from the people that we will effectively be disenfranchised. They can create this power cartel by international treaty rubber-stamped by national parliaments that are supposed to represent their people but which in practice are controlled by party discipline and the whips.
Complain about this comment
I am informed that the Treaty of Lisbon was deliberately written in an incomprehensible way , to conceal from idividual state politicians and general public alike , the real implications of the treaty ; to combine what is already agreed in other treaties and the contents of the "Failed" Constitution , to move forward to an absolute European State , where member sovereign states are totally subordinate to the Nation State of Europe . We the people will no longer be citizens of Britain , France , Germany , Holland , or wherever . We will by slight of hand be made citizens of Europe . The EU is trying to create the European Nation State . A Nation State has to have people , that is us .
If you feel , like me , that that is not the kind of Europe you want ; you/we have to oppose The EU in every way we can . As individuals that is not easy , together we might achieve something . The LIB/DEM party recommend having a referendum on whether Britain should leave the EU .
AS they are unlikely to win a general election , they can feel safe from having to deliver on that promise . I think that if a referendum were held on whether Britain remain in the current EU , or leave , we would vote to leave .
I have lived in Italy and my daughter lives in Germany . The general public strongly criticise The British Eurosceptic attitude towards the EU . At the same time , Europeans look to Britain and her success , without the accursed Euro , to see the way forward . It is my belief , that Britain's membership is more important to the EU , than the EU is to Britain . If Britain left the EU , it would do irreparable damage to European Morale . I wonder whether that is the reason successive British governments persist in supporting our membership . We do not trade profitably within Europe ; the arguments for continued membership are lost on me . I am not an Amerigofile? , but if I had to show allegence , other than to Great Britain ; it would be to The USA , Canada , Australia and New Zealand , NEVER the state of Europe !
I recommend you to visit this site below .
http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com
Complain about this comment
77 need4reality
Where are they arresting people commenting in Bloggs ?
Come on , let's get arrested !!
Complain about this comment
#74 Talindal,
re "The EU is a democracy where freedom of speech and of thought are respected.
Every single member state has a high rating in all international organisations' indexes on freedom of speech or thought, whether it be at a national level or international level. The EU does not and will never do anything but guarantee our basic liberties, as it is bound to do under article 6 of the Masstricht treaty."
I'm afraid it's nothing more than lip service as if the various closely linked political parties are prepared to ignore their electors in pursuit of their political dreams, can you be sure that they respect those basic liberties as well, I can't. I live in Belgium and there are more and more local people I know beginning to get concerned. They've seen (in some cases) the Germans, some have visited eastern Europe during Communism, and they see a slow erosion of freedom of thought and liberty, especially when they see their own politicians on TV claiming todays economic difficulties don't exist.
Re "What some of us, myself included are contesting, is the right of Irish people to decide for the whole continent."
I'm sorry, but just because the Irish were the only one forced to put it to the people does not mean they're deciding for the whole continent, it simply means the rest of the EU Governments want to dictate to and ignore their voters, a large part of whom would also have said NO. For such important changes the voters must be consulted in a democracy and for those claiming that Governments are elected, remember they are elected on a written mandate of what they will do. Anything important not on that mandate or which occurs later on, such as these constitutional changes should always be put to the voters.
Complain about this comment
Dear Mark,
I read:
"77. At 01:08 am on 17 Jun 2008, need4reality wrote:
Apparently they're arresting people now who 'protest through internet blogs'..."
Is this true? If so, where is it happening?
Has anybody got any evidence to support this statement?
Complain about this comment
My gut feeling is that lisbon will be shelved.
Another referendum risks producing the same result and leaving ireland behind would be opposed by most of the northern countries.
The EU is more than capable of struggling on under the terms of the Nice treaty for the time-being. There's no pressing need for treaty reform until our next enlargement (possibly Croatia next year). At that time, there will need to be a new treaty outlining voting weights in parliament and council and the make up of the commission. It could easily be that the Lisbon compromises on these points are included in Croatia's accession treaty. There may even be one or two other things resurrected (legal status possibly).
However, it seems hard to imagine the whole thing being represented. After 5 referendums and 3 Nos, Europe's politicians would be morons to try and push this through again
Complain about this comment
51 Jukka_Rohila
Ireland should indeed have had its obligatory referendum before signing the Treaty.
The Treaty was proposed in Lisbon , with all member states represented . It was I assume on the understanding that no member state would consult its people or have a referendum , so everyone signed the treaty . Ireland had evidently had forgotten their constitutional obligation to hold a referendum. I understand that this Treaty , contrary to the failed Constitution is written in a legalese language that is scarecely intelligble to politician and electorate unless they are lawyers . I am reliably informed ; that without stating it clearly , the Lisbon Treaty was intended to combine most of the constitution , with other already agreed treaties ; empowering The EU to eventually create the nation state in place of the member sovereign states .
You write of reliable governments delivering , when they have signed a Treaty . I feel your authority as though you were an executive member of the EU . You say all the other countries have delivered , 18 have ratified . How many of their polititians have read and fully understood the implications of the treaty , none of them have consulted the people . The British government reneged on a promise of a referendum ; we regard them as Traitors to their people and country . This treaty is a Fraud , in line with all EU policy to hoodwink governments and nation states into an agreement they will not ultimately like .
The people of Ireland have intuition and they are right .
You express to perfection the contemptuous attitude of the EU to member states and the people of those sovereign countries .
If most of the comments written here are negative to the EU , that is why .
Complain about this comment
Dear Damien,
This is in response to your post @20 (not all the subsequent posts, otherwise, I'll go on forever). I'll also try to answer as concisely as I can. As I am not a student of EU affairs and international law, I will also avoid the small print of national and international law, treaties and concords, but will concentrate on first principles.
Firstly, I agree that we - the citizens of the member states - need to decide the direction of the trans-national organisation (currently called the EU) of which our countries are members, but also, fundamentally, the nature of this organisation.
Do we really want ever closer union? Do we really want more Europe? The whittling away of sovereignty from national parliaments to a supra-national nascent federal super-state?
How do we really know what is wanted until the issues are discussed and voted upon in individual, national, referenda? I say referenda because - although we live in a representative democracy - we can vote out our elected delegates every 4-5 years, and their decisions are reversible at the end of each parliament. Our parliamentarians have no mandate to cede national sovereignty - of which they are but custodians - to another entity, over which we, the British people, have no ultimate control.
Some say we do need more Europe (to tackle cross border issues), others, I among them, say we don't. What we don't have is a clear direction and mandate from the citizens. Here in the UK the last time people were actually asked about this, in 1975, we were told they we were voting for an Economic Community (EEC), not a European Union.
The reasons that different states gave for their 'nos' are indeed, er, different. Perhaps we should - as they say in trendy circles - celebrate their diversity… What we must do, however, is respect their decisions and not tell them to vote again (Nice) or try subterfuge (claiming that Lisbon Treaty is not substantially the same as the rejected Constitutional Treaty - and then withdrawing the mechanism of referenda).
Most Irish voted 'no' for a multitude of reasons - many of them valid, some silly and others plain wrong. It doesn't matter: they voted and this should be respected. The best explanation I heard was that they voted 'no' in order to protest about the fact that they (the Irish) were the only people allowed to have a say on the matter… (And my interpretation is as valid - or invalid - as anyone else's).
Secondly: Unanimity. You want it to go, I want it to stay. You say This is a conclusion that we have to accept, or we must let go entirely of the idea of building something together, and I say - that is exactly why it must stay - until we’ve decided on what - if at all - it is we want to build.
A pan-European referendum is not an option as we are not one European People. To be brutally honest, I don't give a tinker's cuss what the peoples of France, Austria, Sweden, Bulgaria, Malta, twenty-odd others (oh, yes, and the rich pigmy state of Luxembourg) have to say about anything. Until, that is, the British people have agreed to cede their sovereignty to a supra-national entity.
Finally, as for what may/should happen now, please see my post @ 38.
As a coda, I was gratified to read on your website that: The European Movement is funded entirely by membership subscriptions and private donations. It receives no money from the British Government, from political parties, or from the European Union or any of its institutions (the Council, the Commission, or the European Parliament).
I wish that more NGOs were as honest in their intentions and as scrupulous in their activities as is the EM. I disagree with the EM's core policies, but applaud its openness and fair play.
Complain about this comment
ScepticMax,
Your comments so far have been barely tolerable, but your suggestion than civic societies, let alone structures which organize them, should be built from a bottom up (like a house) rather than from a top down - are simply outragous.
How unEuropean of you!
Complain about this comment
76 LinusMuell
You say the Irish government , instead of going into details , should have simply told the people ," The Lisbon Treaty will be better for you , please vote YES for it ".
Maybe they too know in their hearts that it isn't .
The EU is too corrupt and dishonest to be believable . If like this treaty , something is forced on you , shoved down your throat and your ordered to swallow it , you may be sure it isn't good for you .
Complain about this comment
Did I hear that they are recruiting an army to fight a civil war against the EU ? As most Europeans are pacifist the anti EU would be sure to win .
Where are they recruiting ?
Complain about this comment
Just a small comment to a number of posts I've seen on these blogs about if you don't like what your elected government does, eg, ratify Lisbon, vote them out.
The electoral system is not always first past the post, most EU members have proportional representation and often that does not include a null or white vote whereby you can say you don't support any of the parties. In Belgium, where I live, there is no null vote, and since all the main parties support the EU, that only leaves the fanatic or loony fringe parties. How therefore can any voter realistically vote his or her Government out. Changing the colour of the balance of the parties every four years effectively means just maintaining the same old status quo, and that's why a lot are getting fed up with their elected representatives.
Complain about this comment
Re #92
do you think that status quo in Belgium is going to continue?
And if not, which side you'll end up living on?
Wallon? Flemish? Or perhaps German?
[Whether you like it or not]
Complain about this comment
Some British eurosceptics here keep shooting against Brussels, when it's in Westminster where UK participation into the EU is decided.
Continentals don't care too much anymore over British presence in the EU and are tired of the "lack of democracy" complains coming from British eurosceptics.
In this sense, we should remember the UK turnouts in all type elections are the lower among Western Europe. So pls stop giving lessons on democracy that no one has asked to you.
Complain about this comment
To powermeerkat #89
Re "Your comments so far have been barely tolerable, but your suggestion than civic societies, let alone structures which organize them, should be built from a bottom up (like a house) rather than from a top down - are simply outragous."
Did you really mean to say that because to create the EU from a top down approach is another expression for a typical dictatorship, whereby the top control absolutely. The complexity of the EU and it's member states means that common agreement between states is vital (eg the bottom), that agreement then creates the top, eg commission. What is clearly missing in the EU is the sense of shared identity and unity, and trying to impose that from a 'top down' approach will never succeed since most EU member states and their populations have had recent exposure to dictatorships of one colour or the other.
It's becoming pretty clear that political union is just a politicians dream and not what most voters either want or care about. What the people I know here in Belgium like is the social economic side of the EU and that's where the EU can become a world force if it gets it's priorities right.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
As Guido Fawkes proved on his BLOG - a mere 9,225 people are deciding the European future for 490 million people outside of Ireland.
The machinations of these 9,225 people to ignore the electorate shows exactly how undemocratic the EU is.
Why, pray tell, are reporters giving politicians such a smooth ride when they are fundamentally ignoring the will of the people and the law ?
The only solution for France, Germany and Brown (UK wants a referendum not ratification) is for every country apart from Ireland to leave the EU and set up a new organisation with the rules they actually want. That, of course, would mean that Ireland would own huge chunks of Brussels as the only member left of the EU. Suggest it converts them into flats and bars.
Complain about this comment
To powermeerkat #93,
I live in the Francophone Wallonie and will certainly stay here, at the moment our politicians continue their endless petty rivalries and squabbling over the reforms whilst being in denial about the state of the economy. If there is a split, and it's by no means certain as some on the Flemish side are speaking up a bit now, it will be interesting to see what happens to our Nationality as I don't know whether I would become Wallon or French or Luxembourg or an amalgam of these. Whether the area North of Liege would join Germany, who knows, just as whether the Netherlands allow Flanders to become part of a United Netherlands, who knows.
Complain about this comment
@Buzet:
Belgium does have the nullvote, but only when voting old-style (i.e. paper ballots) as for some odd reason the computer for digital voting haven't got the option programmed (much to the chagrin of many voters).
But rest assured: the nullvote does exist and the way to make one is by invalidating the ballot (for example by writing on it, colouring outside the correct areas, colouring dotw wrongly, etc).
edit: did some searching, apparently nullvoting is possible via the computer. Basically via ruining the ballot-card.
There's also the blanco vote, but then you might as well vote on a party.
-------------
It's amazing that post 60 of this blog is ignored, as it basically spells out the basics of the EU. What is described there is how the EU, when all is said and done, works.
-------------
On some forum I visit I've seen the comparison between ancient Poland with its liberum votum and the EU, with the added conclusion that the Polish liberum votum ended up being very good for Prussia, Russia and the Habsburg Empire. Implied was that a deadlocked EU makes things very easy for the likes of a resurgent Russia.
------------
A two-speed Europe seems more necessary than ever. Those who wish to move along can do so, in the process creating a new organisation, while the slackers stay behind in the EU (which will probably lack many of the funds it does now as Germany would likely be part of the new core-group). No one needs to be kicked out when they can just be left behind.
Complain about this comment
BernardVC,
It's not a surprise British eurosceptics ignore here whatever reason you give in defense of the European project.
They give us lessons, talking about democracy and respect, but they insist on qualifying the EU as "the new USSR or the Mugabe dictatorship".
When wrtitting over "popular participation", they forget in purpose UK turnouts, including at national elections, are lower than a minimum of 50 per cent of the electorate, contrary to what happens in the rest of Western Europe, where the vote is NOT either compulsory (except in little Belgium), only optional.
And they don't accept the EU is already a two-speed reality de facto. It seems it's not enough for them trying (democratically) to pull back the UK from the EU.
Jealousy is a bad advicer.
Complain about this comment
Several points
To all those saying that the NO voters clearly have not read, and do not understand, the treaty, which is why they voted no. You imply that all the YES voters have read and understood it, which is clearly rubbish.
To Jukka_Rohila, I'm sorry but your referendum suggestion IS unworkable. You would be asking people to vote on something that was not complete, which could therefore still be changed, and without the opportunity to debate it properly (unless you want to stop the negotiations for a month every now and again to check it's still OK!). This is clearly not sensible.
You also complain about the Irish system only holding public votes on certain things. That's the whole point - if a treaty will change the powers that the government had when elected, then there is a referendum, if not, it doesn't. So if powers are transferred to the EU, then there is a referendum. This has been the case for a long time and actually seems quite sensible.
On governments negotiating treaties - all that happens is that ALL governments send their representatives to negotiate. When they have come up with a deal that the governments are happy with, they sign the treaty and agree to put it through their ratification process. The treaty is always signed SUBJECT TO RATIFICATION, just like being given a job subject to suitable references. It just happens that only Ireland HAS TO put it to a referendum, because of the powers being signed away in the treaty. Noone is surprised by this, after all its not as if the Irish kept it a secret. Incidentally, this probably happens to all treaties signed by all democratic countries. I don't know of any major country that does not have to ratify treaties before they come into force. You could take Kyoto as a non-EU example.
To tailindil, you suggest that the no campaign claimed the treaty WILL do a lot of things such as impose abortion rules etc. Actually they claimed the treaty COULD BE USED TO impose such things, as they now fell under a qualified majority remit, instead of retaining a veto in those areas. In other words Ireland would not have the power to prevent the imposition of such things as it currently does with a veto. Perfectly true, and a reasonable concern given the Irish position on these matters.
Complain about this comment
BernardVC (98): Post 60 fully deserves to be ignored. It suggests the EU Commission is just a civil service, ignoring that it has the monopoly on legislative initiative for law superior to any other for 500 million people; law which those people cannot change again through their votes. Commission proposals can only be modified with the unanimous support of all national governments (unless the governments are supported by the EU parliament when a qualified majority will do) and if the Commission believes such unanimity may develop against one of its legislative proposals it may withdraw the proposal rather then be forced to amend it. No executive of any parliamentary or presidential democracy in the democratic world has such a power, which is obscene for an unelected body like the EU Commission to hold. To describe this as a civil service is pure deceit.
The additional powers that the Lisbon treaty gives to the EU Parliament are not taken from the Commission. They come from the EU Council of Ministers which being composed of national governments has greater democratic legitimacy than the EU Parliament. Therefore the Lisbon treaty increases the EU crisis of democratic legitimacy. This should be no surprise as the goal of its designers it to take another step towards a federal state.
Complain about this comment
BTW - there's a petition out:
Tell Gordon to respect the verdict of the Irish people - and drop the Treaty.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon/
Complain about this comment
To BernardVC,
That's interesting, I've only ever encountered the paper voting as I vote in a very small village and unlike some countries there is no box for a null vote. I was also told by people years back that spoilt papers got reallocated across the parties but maybe that's been changed or was wrong. I will see my local Mayor soon so I'll ask him.
Re "A two-speed Europe seems more necessary than ever. Those who wish to move along can do so, in the process creating a new organisation, while the slackers stay behind in the EU (which will probably lack many of the funds it does now as Germany would likely be part of the new core-group). No one needs to be kicked out when they can just be left behind."
That if applied, is an admission of the abject failure of the whole project, should this happen the EU (fast and slow stream) is finally in its death throes, and as for funds just remember that once the UK rebate goes it will become the largest net contributer as I've put the EU published figures for 2006 into a spreadsheet (ps Wikipedia figures are incorrect as TOR is unaccounted for).
Complain about this comment
@buzet23: it's the blanco's thet get reassigned. At least, that's what I was teached.
RE: two speed europe: A two-speed Europe already exists, just look at the euro, or the Shengen-zone.
A two-speed Europe is a better alternative than stagnation pre-partition-poland-style.
Complain about this comment
BernardVC,
I can't find anything on the Belgian federal portals about how they handle blank or null votes, I'll just have to ask a politician, lol.
As for a two or three or four etc speed EU, isn't that more about a social economic EU rather than the current unwieldy political monster. In a social economic Europe it would be more about consensus and should certain parties not agree about something then they simply don't adopt that part. I would much prefer such a consensus direction than the one size must fit all direction being pushed now.
Complain about this comment
I have just signed the No 10 petition to the UK Prime Minister to request him to not proceed with ratifying the Lisbon Treaty.
However, I hold no belief that the Prime Minister will heed the request (even if more than half the population were to sign it!) as he will simply take the view:
They were all lied to!
They don't understand the issues!
How can a small number of people hold up the will of the people!
The government is always right!
I want to be President of the EU when I pack up in 2 years time - no Lisbon Treaty: No chance of that happening!
I am not calling a General Election for 2 more years so I can bulldoze this through Parliament and stuff the next Conservative Government with a treaty they can not revoke!
muaahahaha!
Complain about this comment
It wouldnt surprise me if Germany and France want to push ahead and leave Ireland in the cold, they both have long always looked down on Ireland. Their attitude that appears to have been shown in the last few days has been absolutely disgraceful if you ask me.
It is good to see though that Labour will be forced into having Ireland's back as the other Member States try to leave the Irish behind.
I have no idea why so many member states are delaying the inevitable though - we need a two speed Europe so that countries like the UK can keep what we have just now and the ones that want to integrate more can go ahead and do their own thing. There really is no alternative as its become more and more clear that the pro-integrationists will not take No for an answer, whether its a Dutch No, a French No, and particularly if its an Irish No. They are unyielding and will not consider any other opinion or stance on Europe other than their own.
I am ashamed to say that prior to 2005 I was quite strongly pro-European, I have completely lost faith now in national governments and the EU. Its a shambles. Europhiles are these days becoming absolutely unbearable.
Complain about this comment
#107,
Searching for keywords "cornered rats" I just found a piece on the internet by a Richard Daughty that might explain the attitude of the europhiles at the moment.
********
So I nervously hem and haw, desperately looking for some plausible reason, and I can't think of one, and pretty soon I am resorting to personal attacks against the person questioning me ("Did your stupid kids dream up that question, or is that your own stupid question?) and all-in-all I get to feeling like a cornered rat, which usually leads to the Attack Without Mercy (AWM), which is, actually a "surprise attack" even if the enemy knows right where you are, is looking at you, and is actually laying in ambush for you! I get this little-known tactical nugget from General Armstrong Custer himself in the movie "Little Big Man", where he said, in this very "they know we're here!" circumstance, "Nothing is more surprising than the attack without mercy!"
*******
Looks like they may be following this guys advice.
Complain about this comment
Ich bin ein Dubliner!!
Complain about this comment
Buzet23 @108 wrote:
"Looks like they may be following this guys advice" in reference to General Armstrong Custer.
You do know, of course, that Custer - and all his men - were totally, utterly, destroyed.
Thanks. Very encouraging.
Complain about this comment
To BernardVC,
I spoke to my political friends today about the Belgian voting system and yes there was a public misconception about what happens, many add the opinion that the larger parties got spoilt or blank votes. It was clarified and all spoilt or blank votes are now not counted, however my friend said that to be sure it's better to write something on the ballot paper that's maybe negative, otherwise somebody could add to your paper.
Complain about this comment
Hi ScepticMax,
The General Custer bit was both curious and amusing I must admit, maybe it's synonymous in 'last stand' with what's happening now concerning our snouts in the trough senior politicians as my local commune friends are not at all like that.
Complain about this comment
85. At 09:03 am on 17 Jun 2008, SuffolkBoy2 wrote:
"need4reality wrote: "Apparently they're arresting people now who 'protest through internet blogs'..."
Is this true? If so, where is it happening?
Has anybody got any evidence to support this statement?"
Apparently a practice started in the US; and presumably reported by the BBC on their bottom scrolling 'headline banner' for certain people to see and fear...
...things can change so quickly when you uncover conspiracies...
The truth is that they are the ones who are scared, because the truth is coming back to haunt them. They can keep lying but the truth remains unchanged...
Keep digging.
The truth is so close now...
All roads lead to Rome.
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." --Reinhold Niebuhr
Complain about this comment
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon/sign
Complain about this comment
Re 'Custer', etc....
REMEMBER ALAMO! ;-)
Complain about this comment
I liked the idea of less commissioners. if every member state has to have one then we'll soon see Kosovo being the 31st commissioner and given the inportant job of lawn cutting co-ordination. The Lisbon treaty was a reasonable way to avoid creating jobs for the sake of it. The "D'Oh" voters will be the first ot complain of the cost of the commission if it expands just to ensure each state has a seat.
You're all doing very well !!
Complain about this comment
To Powermeerkat #115
I'm not an American but I seem to recall that all that happened in the battle of the Alamo was that they held out for a while very courageously, but the end was still inevitable, they lost just like Custer did. It does however make an interesting parallel to the EU governments position on the Lisbon treaty, as they are maybe also just delaying the inevitable collapse of the Lisbon treaty, and it's for us in the EU to ensure there is no after the Alamo rallying of troops for a later Battle of San Jacinto, our victory will be that a renaming of the Lisbon treaty must be blocked.
Complain about this comment
That's not what I was implying at all.
I was suggesting that even if oponents of Lisbon Treaty are ultimately defeated, it will mobilize and radicalize even more those who don't want any part of EU superstate at all.
NO PASARAN! :-)
Complain about this comment
Why does each commissioner need a different job?
Can't they work together in teams? I imagine that there is work for more than on on trade etc.
Complain about this comment
@116. At 09:32am on 18 Jun 2008, Young-Mr-Grace
A No vote (or the D'oh vote as you put it: meaning Lisbon sceptics are all ignorant prols in your eyes... where have we heard that before? Oh yeh the EU...) was not a vote for the EU to stay as it is.
Quite the contrary, it was a vote against the proposed constitutional changes and the starts of an informed debate. I remind you it is the pro-EU lobby and their underhand pressure groups (some disguised as charities!), buying favour with our less than reputable politicians and civil servants.
That is the problem!
And that is the basis of the NO vote.
@The EU Aristocracy (not Europe as a whole - for the EU Elite are but the smallest, how did they put it now? 'Minority of a minority of a minority...' a 'minuscule minority' if you will...)
I know its difficult; but please get over yourselves and rejoin the real world.
We are not your slaves.
Instead of working through secretive organisations, unelected Quangos and corrupt officials; bring your ideas to the table for all to see plainly.
If you look under democracy in the dictionary it says: (I'll quote chambers here...)
'a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people collectively...'
No mention of subverting the institutions of countries for the impending supranationalist regime...
The Elite Oligarchy (aka. the smallest minority in the world.)
Post-democratic Europe, brought to you by the Minuscule Minority.
''Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again... And their grandchildren are once more made slaves.''
~famous bible quote by D.H. Lawrence, Classical American Literature, 1922
Complain about this comment
I really don't get all of this.
Firstly, I've never really trusted the EU since it became the European Union. We voted to join an Economic Commitee in 1975.
Secondly, it looks as if now that the Pro-EU people are calling the Anti-Eu, and even those voting against the Treaty as dull and stupid.
Thirdly, it would seem to me that by not taking into account Irelands referendum, the EU are breaking the treaty, and they haven't even put it into effect yet! And what about all of the other treaties!
Fourthly, if we end up (which now seems more likely than ever) joining this wretched plan, then personally, I'm leaving. I don't want to live that is subject to undemocratic rules. Take the Swiss for example; every decision is decided by the people. Why do we have to have an arrogant PM who is only in power because Blair resigned, and he sneaked his way in?
I don't want to be part of a Great Europe. Sounds more like the Reich, a dictatorship.
I'm happy as it is; even better without the EU entirely.
PS. ~82. Your comment seemed realistic, but I've never heard it from any European person I know. Maybe it's because we're the mos sceptical about the EU...
Complain about this comment
@need4reality (120)
I'm quite a fan of this quote by C.S. Lewis: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
And I do believe that the Brussels crowd think that they are doing what they do 'for the good of us'. Which explains why they decided for us that those who voted NO do not understand it.
Complain about this comment
As a convinced pro European I find it very sad that the anti EU people know so little about the EU. What do they know of the historical events that lead to the setting up of the Common Market in the 1950s? What do they know about EFTA which was a rival free trade area set up to accomodate states that were uneasy with the political dimensions of the Common Market? EFTA failed and all countires except Norway and Iceland, I believe, have since joined the EU.
The trouble with referendums is that most people are so ignorant of the true facts that they vote according to the trivial nonsense they have been fed by the gutter press. Has it not occured to anyone else that there are plenty of millionaires ready to fund "NO" campaignes in these referendums? What do these rich people have to gain by trying to wreck the EU? Are they being alturistic in using their wealth for the benefit of us poor folk? I doubt that very much. If we are to have referendums in the EU then what about an EU wide vote in every country, on the same day with compulsory voting? The result being effective throughout the whole EU. Then we would know what everyone wanted.
Complain about this comment
#123,
re "Has it not occured to anyone else that there are plenty of millionaires ready to fund "NO" campaignes in these referendums?"
Even more so the 'yes' campaign as they're making fortunes at our expense because of the lack of observance of the rules and regulations by most member states (mostly those politicians who support the Lisbon treaty). Try actually looking at what is happening, as the so called open market is in reality almost non-existant for any worker prepared to travel. Social and Pension laws are a mess, harmonisation of qualifications a joke, and then people like you say "As a convinced pro European I find it very sad that the anti EU people know so little about the EU."
Please actually try working in multiple countries at this moment in time, your views afterwards will change.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Well their seems to be a glitch in Brown's rattified treaty.
Mr Wheeler's case was still being heard.
The judge was (quite rightly) not amused when told the treaty was about to be rattified. Gordon was left with egg on his face and had to call a halt to procedings.
So it's not rattified yet.
Listening to a debate about the concept of Britishness, I'm overcome with the urge to shout OUR SENSE OF FAIR PLAY.
Our Right To Vote.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS