French in the hot seat
The French take over the rolling six-month presidency of the European Union today, and the Eiffel Tower has been lit up to mark the occasion.
The French presidency has so many "priorities" that it almost seems indecent: new proposals on defence, immigration, energy, the environment and agriculture among them.
It rather reminds me of when David Miliband first became UK foreign secretary and found that the Foreign Office had something like 14 priorities. He rightly remarked that if there were 14 of them they couldn't be priorities.
The priorities of a new presidency rarely seem to have much to do with what they actually achieve during their time in the hot seat.
Of course President Sarkozy's real priority will be dealing with the aftermath of the Irish No.
But just as high on his list seems to be undermining the EU Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson. Following his remark at the recent summit he has now called a special foreign ministers' meeting on 18 July. Mr Mandelson will have to report to that meeting and the old deep divide between protectionists and free traders will be on display. Mr Mandelson may boast of "broad shoulders and a thick skin", but this hardly rings true to those who know him. But even a politician less sensitive to criticism might be rather cross that in the middle of delicate negotiations a key player is rubbishing his agreed approach.
Now an apology: 1OUTAT27 is quite right to point out a mistake in "Irish no under scrutiny": I misread a table and wrote that 52% voted No because they didn't understand the treaty. It was in fact 22%. The 52% refers to the number of those who DIDN'T vote, and their reason. Sorry.
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~17~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Mark,
Can you let us know the likely outcome of Poland's President, Lech Kaczynski, saying he will not sign the EU's reform treaty at present, following its defeat in an Irish referendum last month.
He said it would be "pointless" to sign the Lisbon Treaty, even though Poland's parliament has ratified it.
Given that all 27 EU members must ratify the document this refusal would certainly kill off the Treaty if President Kaczynski were to continue along this line.
Is it likely he will refuse to sign or is he as hamstrung as our Monarch and actually cannot do but the will of the Polish Parliament?
Secondly, it was reported elsewhere on the BBC yesterday that French President Nicolas Sarkozy has admitted that something isn't right with the European Union. Speaking on national French TV, Mr Sarkozy warned that Europe's citizens were losing faith in the project. Speaking on France 3, Mr Sarkozy reportedly said: "Something isn't right. Something isn't right at all."
He is also reported to have agreed that, "Europe worries people and, worse than that, I find, little by little our fellow citizens are asking themselves if after all the national level isn't better equipped to protect them than the European level."
Mr Sarkozy said: "The first priority is to pinpoint the problem with the Irish voters and to continue to allow other countries to be ratified, especially our Czech friends.".
Given the two Presidents dilemmas one has to feel that the Council of Ministers is treading deep waters and desperately seeking straws to clutch at merely to stay afloat.
From my persective, it is a mess of their making as they could easily have carried the people with them from way back when - if they had only involved the European populace in on the creation and development of the EU instead of denying them a voice and a choice.
Complain about this comment
Thank you, President Lech Kaczynski for refusing to support the delusion that a dead parrot can be resurrected by political chicanery.
Oh, that our own 'great leader' was so principled.
Complain about this comment
Kaczynski acts against the will of the vast majority of Poles, who are very pro-European and pro-treaty. The problem is, although the Polish parliament ratified the treaty and the President actually signed it once, there should be his second signature under the treaty for it to be ratified "completely". No one can overrule him on this. So if he says he will not sign it, he will not sign it. What's worse, he's chosen the worst possible timing for making his decision public; it's as if he wanted to make it harder for the French. Shame.
Complain about this comment
To those Irish persons who said they voted NO because they did not understand the treaty (22%): if you try to read almost ANY law passed by almost ANY European government, you will find it unreadable. That is why you elect members of parliament who are supposed to understand this wording. If any law was up for referendum, all would receive a NO for that reason: no ordinary citizen would undertand it.
If the French president wants to achieve anything, it is this: rewrite the treaty in citizen readable form (one president for 2 years, more power to the elected European parliament, etc.) and add as a footnote that it will be rewritten in legal form later.
Had this been the case, the Irish would have voted YES (47 + 22 =69%).
Complain about this comment
Strikes me that Kaczynski is an honest man while Sarkozy is clutching at straws, but I'm with #1 Menedemus here that it's urgent we get an opinion re whether Kaczynski has the power to implement his words.
Complain about this comment
#3 dj1979
Kaczynski is just doing what all of the EU leaders promised to do, ie not ratifying a treaty that doesn't have unanimous support.
Also, whilst you may be correct by saying the majority of Poles are for the treaty, there's no way you can know for sure, as you weren't asked by way of referendum.
I say that the majority of British people are against the treaty, so we shouldn't ratify it, but again, we'll never know as we weren't asked either.
Complain about this comment
Well done to the Polish President for standing up for the legal principles that this treaty cannot come into force unless all countries ratify it. One country has said no, unlike the treaty, that should not be difficult to understand. Praise also to the Czechs for refusing to go along with the herd mentaility and recognising the reality of the situation.
The treaty is dead, move on and get over it.
Complain about this comment
#4
Had this been the case, the Irish would have voted YES (47 + 22 =69%).
You assume that all 22% want One president for 2 years and MORE power signed over to Europe.
That is a very poor assumption to make!
98% of poeple i have spoken to in the last 2 weeks have said they agree with me that the people of Europe want Trade links but not Political links.
Aren't statistics wonderful things!!!!
Complain about this comment
Well done Poland. It's a shame our spineless Pro-E.U government couldn't do the same.
Still, hopefully it will be so delayed that we will have an election and the Tories will sink it with a good old fashioned Nelsonic broadside.
Complain about this comment
Pot_kettle (post 8)
You cannot assume that if the 22% who said they voted No because they dodn't understand the treaty would have voted yes if they had properly understood the treaty.
It seems to be equally the case that many of the 47% who voted Yes didn't understand the treaty either or voted Yes because the EU had brought them benefits and not because they supported the treaty.
It is quite likely that, if the treaty was much more understandable, many who voted yes might well have changed their minds and voted No.
Complain about this comment
#10
Busby I was quoting post #4
Complain about this comment
The Treaty of Lisbon is effectively dead, and it should be. The voters of quite a few EU member countries would say "No" to the Treaty of Lisbon if given a chance; it's a treaty that one can read and understand, and if one does that (as I have) one may conclude (as I did) that it benefits politicians and bureaucrats, but does very little for ordinary citizens. That is not a satisfactory step forward. The existing EU structure badly needs improvement, but the leaders of EU governments should back off and reconsider how that can best be done, rather than trying to force through the Treaty of Lisbon.
Complain about this comment
Opinion polls show on average that about 70% of Poles are pro-EU and that the majority would vote for the treaty in a referendum. Last year Poles elected a pro-European party to govern the country; Kaczynskis' eurosceptic conservatives were defeated. As a Pole I am in no doubt the treaty referendum in Poland would only prove that. The possibility of holding a referendum was under discussion when Kaczynskis' conservatives threatened not to support ratification in the parliament; eventually, it was not necessary. So I find it deeply disturbing that the president is acting against the government and against the majority of the population.
I agree that the Europeans should have more direct say in political matters. The way to go though is not country referendums, but Europe-wide referendums. As things are today, even a 51% No outcome in 4-million-strong Ireland could cancel out a 70% Yes outcome in a referendum in 38-million-strong Poland. That doesn't make sense. Each European should have one vote with the same power. So let's have a Europe-wide referendum held at the same time with all votes given the same power. That's what could make EU REALLY respond to the Europeans.
Complain about this comment
Even "Le American" is a protectionist at heart! When will France realise that in a global world you can't protect your national industries if others can do it faster, cheaper, and with far less strikes? Even in a protectionist EU heavy industry will still flow West into the Former Soviet block, companies don't build factories because they like the country, they build factories where the work force is the cheapest and most flexible.
Complain about this comment
Post 13 above is what really makes me cautious about the direction I see the E.U. going in
1. The rules were all countries needed to ratify the treaty, now a country has said no certain people want to change the rules to get the result it wants.
2. The E.U. is a collection of Nation states, not a single country. If you went with the 51% rule advocated, 4 or 5 of the big countries could get together and propose something to their benefit. Their pouplations would support it and the 'little countries' may vote agisnt it but their populations would not be sufficient to stop it. This would be the worst kind of system to introduce.
The rule is all countries have to ratify it, you lost, live with it.
Complain about this comment
15# Jordon Basset, you are correct about the difficulties of the imbalence between small and large countries. This is the classic dilema of the federal structure, and is one that the EU in its current Unicameral form is unable to solve.
I wonder when some people will register that the fact that these problems appear insoluable are due to the fact that they are insoluble, and stop trying to solve them.
A trading structure with a minor political role, firmly under control of individual states, would be more popular, be easier to maintian with further expansion, and would address the considerable democratic deficit from which the EU currently suffers.
Complain about this comment
dj1979 @ 13
You surmise that a mass referendum would provide a fair result but the problem with that is that the EU is still in it's infancy and still designed around Nation States as it constituent components.
For the EU to achieve self-sufficiency, each Nation State has to surrender all of it's sovereignty over all national matters from taxation to defence.
It is therefore equally fundamental that each Nation State's people agrees to this or not on a seperate basis. Similar to the cries of foul that 4 million Irish can derail the Lisbon Treaty it would not be fair for Germany to effectively decide the loss of Polish Sovereignty for all Polish citizens!
If the EU were ever to achieve self-sufficiency and have full sovereign power granted to it by all member States then (and only then) would an EU-wide Plebiscite be legitimate in my opinion! The problem is that EU is designed to be autocratic so EU-wide plebiscites will never happen.
Of course, like President Sarkosy, I believe that the current EU model is flawed so I, personally, do not want my Nation to cede any more powers to the current EU - in fact I want some of the powers and opt-outs to be returned given the EU model is so flawed!
Complain about this comment
I see no difference between what the EU is doing and what Robert Mugabe and Zanu PF have done. Both held elections where under their laws what they wanted was rejected by the voters. In the case of Mugabe it was to be leader of Zimbabwe. In the case of the EU it was the Constitution. And in both the leaders rejected the will of the voters under their respective laws. In the case of Mugabe, he lost the election and then insisted on a runoff in which he used physical intimidation to win. In the case of the EU, it reformulated the Constitution as Lisbon and lost again only because Ireland had the audacity to let its voters decide instead of its rubber stamp Parliament. And now the EU is looking for yet another way around its own laws. So why is that different from Mugabe?
The whole issue of lack of understandability is a canard. Hypothetically supposing for some very unlikely technical reasons, the EU Constitution or Lisbon Treaty or whatever name it goes under had to be written in arcane legalese not easily understandable to average citizens. Then if there was to be real debate about it, a real public interest in discussing it and making an informed decision, both the governments and newspapers would take it apart clause by clause and explain in plain language what each part means. Then how accurate that interpretation is and whether it is desirable could be debated. BTW, this is exactly what is done on American ballots for issues such as tax initiatives, there is an explanation right at the poll of what the wording means. But no, there is no public debate. The government and everyone else expects the Public to write the EU a blank check for whatever those laws mean based strictly on whether you are for or against the EU. When someone proposes a law in a real democracy, it is up to them to convince the voters of its value. And that means first and foremost explaining it to them in terms they can understand. At least in Zimbabwe, the voters understood what they were choosing. It's not the voters who didn't understand Lisbon and voted no Europeans should worry about, it's those who didn't understand it and voted yes anyway. And after all, isn't that how Adolf Hitler came to power, by voters not understanding what they were voting for? Europeans never learn anything from history. That's why they repeat it over and over and over again.
Complain about this comment
Sorry Mark - Presidents Sarkosys priority will be no such thing. He is first and formost President of France. The French and they alone are his constituants. His priority must be that of the French which at this moments is the Economy and the price of petrol and fuel oil, the Economy and the price of food, the Economy and inflation. This is exactly the same for the Presidents of of Germany and the United States and the Prime Ministers of Great Britain and Spain, just to mention a few.
There will be talk on The Treaty but very little is any actual action for the rest of 2008 at least and maybe for much longer.
Complain about this comment
Re #4 from Geraldmu: To those Irish persons who said they voted NO because they did not understand the treaty (22%): if you try to read almost ANY law passed by almost ANY European government, you will find it unreadable. That is why you elect members of parliament who are supposed to understand this wording. If any law was up for referendum, all would receive a NO for that reason: no ordinary citizen would undertand it.
Tell that to the Swiss!
Tell it also to the USA, who have a constitution any 10 year-old can follow.
Complain about this comment
I find it difficult to understand why people who claim that the EU should listen to people more closely are against the idea of a Europe-wide referendums. Don't be afraid of 'countries' deciding for other 'countries' - there would be no 'countries' byllying others, but people deciding for themselves. And its not about changing the rules *now* but in the future, so that the EU would listen to what individual people and not abstract 'countries' actually think.
Complain about this comment
"Mr Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have warned that no new countries can join the EU unless the Lisbon Treaty is fully ratified".
am I alone in feeling sentiments like this - or the declaration that Lisbon would not be renegoatied - difficult to swallow? Who made Sarko and Merkel God? Why is it that none of our politicians ever baulks at this extraordinarily dictatorial language? This sort of thing really shows the EU leaders up for what they are. It is why the 'small' nations should be very worried indeed about further integration.
It also shows up Mr Sarkozy as the vainglorious little popinjay he is. What really ticks him off is that instead of having a glorious EU Presidency in which he can claim to have achieved great things, he's inherited a dog's breakfast. Blair was no better when he shafted the former Eastern Bloc countries on the promise of the expansion of the Franco-German bloc to include the UK. It is top table syndrome and vanity.
Oh, and 21 - it would not be about 'people' deciding for themselves: the idea of referenda being at the heart of a greater European state is simply laughable.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
clarification appreciated. Apology accepted, and allow me to apologise for my initial tart retort. It's strange how our new would-be oligarchs in Ireland and the rest of the EU can provoke a red mist to descend, such a state resulting from one's democratic voice being suppressed or ignored.
@geraldmu comment #4
Am I given to understand that we elect our politicians to enact subsequently any laws or constitutional amendments that they see fit, without any reference to we mere serfs who elected them to do as they please? Silly me, I thought the idea was for them to represent the interests of those who voted for them in the first place.
Surely choosing the individuals and parties most competent to run our societies and economies is a complex process. Perhaps the dumbing down of politics into personality and beauty contests has been encouraged to help us make our decisions without thinking too much.
If a lack of in-depth knowledge of Lisbon voids one's democratic right to vote on it, surely the circuses of advertising and smear tactics which pass for electoral politcs in much of the developed world scarcely provide our 'leaders' with mandates to ratify, over our heads, far-reaching treaties such as Lisbon.
I must ask this of you and your anti-democratic bedfellows who have emerged from the woodwork since Ireland's rejection of Lisbon: just who exactly is equipped sufficiently, in your humble opinion, to vote in general elections, the results of which are arguably as significant as those of referenda on EU matters?
Are you and your ilk taking the first steps on the path to official disenfranchisement of the masses, those who, in the case of the Irish public, are obviously too dull to vote in accord with the wishes of the business and political elites across the EU.
A great many of my acquaintances have begun to think the unthinkable: we are facing into a new era in European history in which people are no longer equal in the voting booth, with the richer, more powerful and so-called better educated citizens seeking a greater democratic advantage over the serfs, an advantage even greater than that which they currently enjoy, with their ability to patronise the political classes.
It's time the people of the UK and the rest of the EU woke from their slumbers. They are currently sleepwalking into a 'sweet dictatorship' by the oligarchs within the politcal elites of the EU.
We are not sheep, and we can bite. We should endeavour to do so, as soon and as hard as we can, throughout the EU.
Viva Europe, and viva democratic equality.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII
I broadly agree with your analysis in post 18.
I share your view when you wrote that "it's not the voters who didn't understand Lisbon and voted no Europeans should worry about, it's those who didn't understand it and voted yes anyway".
Complain about this comment
I agree with OldManMark, Sarkozy is trying to re-assert French interests. That's the problem with current EU leaders - they've lost the plot. They all are trying to push petty national interests. They don't understand what the EU is about, so how can they convince their electors? (NB even Margaret Thatcher put aside national interests in successfully achieving some EU reform).
In France, Sarkozy is doing well in reforming working practices (and MarcusAureliasII don't even bother to argue back from out-of-date perceptions). However, Sarkozy is a protectionist: and will try to convince the other EU leaders (unsuccessfully, I expect). However, I do feel that even Mandelson shouldn't be subjected to Sarko' evil side.
Where Sarkozy does have a point is in the need for a thorough review of a common EU defence policy. NATO is run by the USA for US strategic reasons; European it ain't!
Complain about this comment
Thanks Mark...
For making a correction to: 1OUTAT27 ...
Complain about this comment
Sarkozy tried so hard to recommend Tony Blair for president of the EU, like Brutus and Caesar. What happened? Why did he through him under the bus? Or was it one of those Cheney deals where Cheney was to search for Bush a running mate but could think of none better than himself.
All I can say is the world did not deserve a George W. Bush, but the EU may deserve a Sarkozy.
Complain about this comment
Good Sarkozy policy: Stricter control over Genetically Manipulated Food/ Crops.
This knee-jerk push towards GMOs needs to stop; just look at the independent studies...
Hopefully he will push to ban Bt Corn (I think our Bees will thank us...)
If he clearly states what his Constitution will consist of, it would also boost opinions of him, surely. We cannot approve or decry a treaty that is vague and largely confusing, even for those who endorse it...
Complain about this comment
Around a year ago and a little more, Europe's three blind mice, Sarkrazy, Angel Eyes, and Gordo came a callin' on George Bush, one after another. It seemed they could hardly wait to lick his boots but for the life of me, I have no idea why. Angel Eyes even invited Bush to have the US join the EU at the very moment Sarko was telling the Turks they could never join because they are not Europeans. What a laugh.
So frenchderek, what miracles has Sarko brought to French economics? Has he gotten all those civil servants to work to a respectable age before they go on the dole for the rest of their lives with their pensions? Has he upped the 35 hour work week to 40 or whatever employer and employee agree on? Can you discharge an employee who is under 27 years old yet and has less than two years on the job without having to pay his way for a lifetime? How may of those 5 million Moslems who live in the Banlieus has he found work for? Give us a report on what he's accomplished so far.
Complain about this comment
I think we have two issues here - firstly France - as a person who spends a lot of the year in France and who loves a lot of what France is I would like to make two suggestions . Firstly - France needs to be able to stand up on it's own two feet and pay for itself . Secondly it needs to get rid of the attitude that exists in parts of French society that " the World owes it a living " . These are both causing France a lot of problems .
As a general EU issue all countries should pay for themselves . The EU should only make initial adjustment payments - then payments should cease all together .
Secondly - the EU . The EU must realise that a lot of it's citizens have a lot of problems with it . It causes a lot of trouble for a lot of people .
Personally - for me - it makes my life as a contractor \ consultant very difficult . If I operate my business in any country other than my home country I have greatly added costs and my social security arrangements in my home country are endangered - ie. the EU is very anti free trade .
We , of course , know of many other areas where the EU causes massive problems - fishing is one prime example where fishermen are forced to throw away large amounts of catch - a waste and a large amount damage to the environment .
You also get the two tiered approach - the EU elite in Brussels who are treated very differently than the general EU citizen - who has to shoulder the effects of the actions of the pampered and isolated elite .
The list goes on and on . No wonder treaty after treaty is rejected .
Complain about this comment
All motives are mixed, but only the reasons for voting 'No' ever seem to be questioned. People must have had just as varied a bunch of reasons for voting 'Yes', including anti-Americanism and blind faith in the buffoons in power.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
I don't understand where you got your figure of the 52% that didn't vote. The figures that were published were:
Turn out - 53.1%
Yes - 46.6%
No - 53.4%
Margin 109,164 votes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7453560.stm
Complain about this comment
Re #32 from Wopitt:
It seems that the Taoiseach has been learning how to bury bad news from The Supreme Leader. The "Government of Ireland" website linked to by the BBC (http://www.irlgov.ie/) has plenty of information about how wonderful the Lisbon Treaty is on a separate website at http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/ but NOTHING about the referendum results or indeed any links to the NO campaign. If someone can find anything detailing the results from the Irish government, please post it here!
The leastworst link I could find for the results was http://electionsireland.org/results/referendum/refresult.cfm?ref=2008R with a detailed, constituency by constituency, table of results including spoilt papers which can easily be pasted into a spreadsheet.
In summary, they show:
Electorate: 3,051,278
Turnout: 1,621,037 (53.13%)
Spoilt Votes: 6,171 (0.38% of Turnout)
Valid Votes: 1,614,866 (52.92% of Electorate)
For Votes: 752,451 (46.60% of Valid Votes)
Against Votes: 862,415 (53.40% of Valid Votes)
The above seem about right and if they are eventually confirmed by some "official" source, this means that the totals in relation to the electorate are:
Did not cast a valid vote: 1,436,412 (47.08% of Electorate)
Did cast a valid vote: 1,614,866 (52.92% of Electorate)
Voted YES: 752,451 (24.66% of Electorate)
Voted NO: 862,415 (28.26% of Electorate)
It still doesn't explain where Mark got his 52% from!
Complain about this comment
Re my #33
I finally found something approaching an official site at http://www.referendum.ie/current/index.asp?ballotid=78
That summarises the totals as follows:
Electorate: 3,051,278
Total Poll: 1,621,037
Percentage Poll: 53.13%
Invalid Papers: 6,171
Valid Poll: 1,614,866
Votes in favour: 752,451
Votes against: 862,415
All those numbers agree with the site I quote in #33, so the following numbers are real:
Did not cast a valid vote: 1,436,412 (47.08% of Electorate)
Did cast a valid vote: 1,614,866 (52.92% of Electorate)
Voted YES: 752,451 (24.66% of Electorate; 46.60% of Valid Votes)
Voted NO: 862,415 (28.26% of Electorate; 53.40% of Valid Votes)
Please let us know where the numbers are coming from if Mark or anyone else quotes some more.
Complain about this comment
A Europe wide referendum can not be held.
If an individual country votes YES,but its neighbours vote No (therefore a bigger number of votes goes to NO camp) how can that individual country not accept what its people have accepted in a referendum?
On what legal basis is a government to ratify a treaty that has been droped by its people in a referendum,but voted by other countries?There is no legal basis for that,if we are to have a Europian wide referendum then we first need to make Europe a State,and if we do that we wont need a referendum on the treaty.
Or we change all constitutions of European Countries into accepting that (example) what French people vote for in a Referendum has legal basis in Britain to.Ilogical.
We can only have Europian wide opinion polls,but then again politics should be influenced by opinion polls,but not decided upon them.
The thing is calling for a referendum was wrong,you can not call for referendum on treaties that are politicaly complex.You can not call for referendum on a treaty that takes so much politics and diplomatic resources,a treaty that is made up to deal with geopolitics and complex issues of power sharing canot be put into a referendum in a country were it will be decided by national politics.
I have said before,it is a lack of backbone by some politicians who are afraid to make the big decissions and pass the ball to the people, who are in turn influenced by politicians that can not bring foward any serious arguments against the Europian Union and choose to attack it by nationalistic politics.
European Union is working,and it has to be working in order to have a prosperous future.
Individual European countries simply will not be able to put up with the challenges ahead.
Europian Union is working on key issues,such as keeping inflation down,geting results against Organised Crime,Border Control etc.
But in order to have a more simple and efficent administration it has to have a basic constitution (treaty) so that duties and responsibilities are clear.
Nobody should be under any ilussion,that's gona be the future,wether we like it or not,the global conditions are going to impose this kind of close cooperation in Europe,it's not a choise,it's a necessity.
The sooner ,the better.
Complain about this comment
@Geraldmu (4)
In contact with members of the dutch parliament I have found that they do not understand the Lisbon treaty or even the functioning of the European Union itself.
Furthermore, a majority of them were elected on a manifesto promise of a referendum (which was cancelled apparently after pressure from Merkel, Sarkozy and Barrozo). They do not have a mandate to approve this treaty.
With your "ordinary citizens don't understand" attitude you are exhibiting the typical contempt that many within the pro-EU circles have for the "common people".
The EU is and always has been fundamentally undemocratic. Legislative powers are being moved bits at a time AWAY FROM directly elected national parliaments TOWARDS unelected EU commissioners (EU commission aka EU politburo). Also, through the EU council, government ministers can bypass their national parliaments. Working with the commission aka politburo, the council can legislate bypassing all national parliaments. Government ministers now hold both executive and legislative powers and national parliaments are now mere bystanders. Parliamentary democracy is dead.
Complain about this comment
@dj1979 (13)
the EU setu-up was deliberately set up in such a way that there would always be more net recipients than net contributors, thus the net recipients would always be able to outvote the net contributors (I believe the current ratio is 20 net recipients and 7 net contributors).
Your comment about Poland supporting the EU doesn't surprise me, Poland of course wants to get its hands on money from the German, Dutch and British taxpayers. You just want the benefits and expect others to pay for it. Same is true for other net recipients such as Spain.
70% of Poles would vote for the treaty? But how many would actually understand that they were voting for striking a blow against parliamentary democracy and for rule by unelected and unaccountable politicians?
And speaking of percentages, how about the 60% of Dutch who would have voted no had they been given the chance? Or the 70% of British? Or the majority of Danish, Swedish or Austrians?
Complain about this comment
Mark, you say The 52% refers to the number of those who DIDN'T vote, and their reason. Sorry.
The sources I quote in my #33 & #34 seem pretty reliable, so we now know that less than 47% of the Irish electorate didn't vote (or try to).
On reflection, surely the 52% figure must have come from the survey you quote.
In turn that means it overstated the percentage not voting by 10.6% which is surely such a substantial error that it means it cannot have polled a representative sample.
Therefore you should take all of its results with a very large pinch of salt, as should we reading this blog.
Complain about this comment
I hope that France will make good use in being in the hot seat for the next 6 months, and start
by doing reforming [i know that it will take more than 6 months].
Complain about this comment
35. At 6:46pm on 02 Jul 2008, Named-Erion wrote:
'The thing is calling for a referendum was wrong,you can not call for referendum on treaties that are politicaly complex.You can not call for referendum on a treaty that takes so much politics and diplomatic resources,a treaty that is made up to deal with geopolitics and complex issues of power sharing canot be put into a referendum in a country were it will be decided by national politics.'
What elitism! What absolute garbage. Explain to the people what the thing is about, properly, and they will decide. It's called democracy, and thank god for it.
Do you think that people are clever enough to vote for the correct party at a national election, but not for what will decide the future of not only them, but their children and grandchildren?
Your system is called political elitism, and it's where dictatorships start.
Start recognising that the majority of people, when something is clearly explained to them, understand the implications. If this is not the case, then we have already made the biggest mistake, by electing governments that cannot manage to educate our populations adequately!
Complain about this comment
P_Giles #31
As an American who truely detests Europe (I know that's hard for some of you Europeans to accept that there is someone out there who has actually lived in Europe and doesn't adore it they way you do) I was hoping the EU Constitution would be passed, then Lisbon. I was also hoping Segoline Royale would become President of France. Why? Even easier competition than it already is. What those who championed Lisbon saw as a strength, I saw as one more fatal weakness. But I'm sure they will re-invent it under another name bringing it back again and again until they finally get it passed. Tyranny doesn't give up without getting its way.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS