Irish seek new EU deal
The Irish foreign minister has said at a meeting in Brussels that the Irish government has not taken a decision on holding another Lisbon Treaty referendum. I'm sure that is technically true. But it's not the buzz around town, nor was it the thrust of his speech and the question and answer session afterwards. 
Micheal Martin was speaking at an event organised by the European Policy Centre. He said the Irish government was in the midst of an intensive set of negotiations that would lead to a "roadmap" suggesting a way forward that both respected the results of the No vote in the early summer and what he called "the widespread desire across Europe to see the treaty come into effect". I travel quite a lot around Europe and it never strikes me as that widespread a desire, so I guess he means the politicians of other European countries. But he said he didn't feel bullied by them.
I am told that the plan is that by the end of this week's summit the Irish government will declare that it intends to ratify the Lisbon Treaty by this time next year. In return other countries will agree to legally binding statements making it clear the treaty does not affect three main areas of concern to No voters: abortion, neutrality and taxation.
For wonks, this would be a "decision" which avoids reopening ratifying Lisbon in other countries. It would be turned into a legally binding "protocol" later, probably bolted onto the treaty that would be needed when Croatia joins the EU.
There would also be an agreement to address a fourth main worry - the potential loss of influence through the rotating loss of a commissioner. If the Lisbon Treaty was in place, the plan to slim down the commission could be killed off if all 27 countries agreed. At the moment this is quite a serious sticking point because Belgium and Luxembourg don't like it.
By Friday night, if he's very lucky and doesn't face any hard ball interviews, the Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen may not actually be made to utter the words "second referendum", but this is what it is all about. Mr Martin said: "Does it require a second referendum? I am not a constitutional lawyer, there are potentially other ways, fraught with risks, that one could perhaps pursue, other than a referendum, but when we looked at this initially, the clear advice at the time was that it required a referendum and that's why we had one earlier this year. So I think that's ultimately the way, if certain things were agreed, one would have to go."
I asked him how he would answer those who said that it would be an insult to ask people to vote again. "In a democracy I don't believe it is ever an insult to go to the people to seek a decision. That's it, and I firmly believe that."
Mr Martin said the most important thing was to listen to the people. His aim was to find a way to "reconcile the decision of the people with the overall desire of the people to play an active role in the European Union".
There is clearly a belief by the Irish government that the Irish are not against the EU, not against its direction of travel, and not against the general thrust of the treaty.
That may turn out to be true, but it's a heck of a risk to take.
Welcome to my 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~10~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
Martin says: "In a democracy I don't believe it is ever an insult to go to the people to seek a decision. That's it, and I firmly believe that."
Fair enough. I assume, therefore, that member states who have voted in referenda for the Lisbon/Constitutional Treaty will offer their citizens the opportunity to reconsider.
Or maybe not.
It's funny how 'democracy' is acceptable to the EU only when it furthers the aims of federalists and EUrofanatics.
Complain about this comment
Mark, this is a fascinating insight into how you think Brian Cowan and his Irish political partners are thinking but, if I may say so, it is a convoulted and tortuous read.
I am sure that this is because you are trying to explain the logic behind what Brian Cowan and his cronies are thinking based upon what he and Micheal Martin are not openly saying.
Brian Cowan says, "In a democracy I don't believe it is ever an insult to go to the people to seek a decision. That's it, and I firmly believe that.". Would he be saying that if the Referendum result had been "Yes" to the Treaty of Lisbon? I hardly think so!
Micheal Martin said the most important thing was to listen to the people. His aim was to find a way to "reconcile the decision of the people with the overall desire of the people to play an active role in the European Union". Only if they vote "Yes" in a second referendum and then clearly, once the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified and implemented, the Irish and the rest of humanity living in Europe can forget about Mr Cowan's comment about "In a democracy I don't believe it is ever an insult to go to the people to seek a decision."
I personally have doubt that these politicians will ever let the people have a real say in the future of the EU ever again if they can manage to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon with or without a second Irish referendum.
As someone who would actually like to see an integrated and strong European Union of Nations, I find these convoluted and tortuous processes used to deliver the people unto an end result defined by politicians a shame and and a disgrace.
When Europeans are delivered a bound and gagged EU designed by the politicians, the people will have been so firmly disenchanted by the process that the EU will fail as a democratic organisation as the people will not particpate in it. I await the May 2009 MEP election results with anxiety as I expect the voter turnout will fall yet again. This is a direct result of the politicians disengaging themselves from their electorates whilst they pursue a dream that they wish to impose upon their voters.
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell elaborates more widely here, but on the 'Today' programme on BBC Radio 4 this morning he made only one point which was that those against the treaty are the same ones who complain about a large Commission! I think the BBC need a new Europe editor.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Mark, a balanced viewpoint, particulalrly found relevance in the comment
'what he called "the widespread desire across Europe to see the treaty come into effect". I travel quite a lot around Europe and it never strikes me as that widespread a desire, so I guess he means the politicians of other European countries'
Spot on and fits in with what I am increasingly witnessing.
Complain about this comment
So, here we are! No more deceit! Straightforward venal, undemocratic stifling of the RIGHTS of the COMMON MAN.
An alternative version of a Stalinist DDR is alive and treading on its Citizens even more thoroughly! Afterall, the DDR never held 'referenda', but the EU does, and then repeatedly, categorically denies the results!
The EU of "it doesn't matter what you little, ordinary, individual Citizens want and even less does it matter what opinion you have officially expressed, we the all-mighty, cleverer than clever, superior beyond superior EUrocrats know better".
I.e. another Ballot is around the Eire corner and this time "CITIZENS WILL vote as you have been told"!
Ye Gods on high!
We are at that critical stage: A Bureaucracy denying any course other than that suitable to itself, a Political class materially enriched and morally impoverished, a Business system that fails but carries on regardless, a Democratically shackled People of some 360,000,000 cowed and stunted by regulatory authority, and most fundamentally dangerous of all, an obsequious, subservient, unquestioning Media!
Is it still possible for Media such as the BBC to stir itself from institutionalised self-aggrandizement and lethargic, insipid reportage? Could the BBC start to make an impact by representing the views of the 60%+ European Citizenry (rising to 80%+ in the UK) who time and again have expressed "NO CONFIDENCE" in this EUrocrat monolith?
Is there one BBC Editor with the integrity and honesty to at least attempt a report on the utter feelings of impotence of ordinary Citizens in the face of this threat to to the individual human rights of all Europeans?
Are the terms 'even-handed' and 'unbiased' reporting so completely lost on the BBC that the 'Majority Public' view must only be given equal or less time with the PREVAILING RULING CLASS' view of Europe's future?
When I listened to my father's first-hand account as a British soldier of the scenes at Belsen and later heard a recording of the Dimbleby Broadcast from that Camp I never imagined in my most fiercesome nightmares that a magnificent nation (the UK) and an institution so immensely powerful (the BBC) could so lose their way that those ordinary CITIZENS for whom my father's generation fought and Dimbleby so poignantly reported would have their democratic rights trampled underfoot without a reflective murmur of protest by either on behalf of the PEOPLE!?
Complain about this comment
Personally, I think it is okay to have several referenda on the same subject. In Ireland throughout the eighties, there was much debate about divorce, which was constitutionally banned. Several referenda later, it is now legal, and battered wives can legally separate themselves from their husbands.
Do the British Eurosceptics think it was wrong for successive governments in Ireland to push the divorce question because it failed initially?
Incidently, I find the British Eurosceptics' commentary on Ireland's European travails a bit ridiculous and totally ignorant of what actually goes on in Ireland. There is no support in Ireland for the British (English?) brand of Euroscepticism. As proof, I cite the "Irish" Daily Mail's ever-falling circulation. You can't make British Euroscepticism relevant to Ireland simply by sticking a shamrock on it.
Complain about this comment
No surprise there then.
As far as I'm concerned there is something very wrong with a political organisation that does not require a democratic mandate to operate.
I just don't see how can we trust an EU that is happy move on without that basic democratic consent from each nation - more specifically the people of each nation.
I don't see how we can trust our government that doesn't even asks our opinion and blatantly breaks their promises on the issue.
With this lot the "people who matter" are career politicians and bureaucrats - not the people who matter - the people.
Regardless of actual day to day operation of the EU the whole concept is made shifty at best and conspiratorial at worst by the continued denial of our vote.
At the moment it's all looking like a conspiracy to take us into a federal European Union without our consent - which sounds just like a dictatorship.
Our government talks the talk of democracy, from the comfort of it's thrown.
--
I think the Irish will see this for what it is - the EU saying you got your last referendum wrong - do it again until you provide the right answer.
If I was an Irishman would I trade my constitution and my independence for an organisation that thinks like that?
Not a chance.
Complain about this comment
Re post 6, I would have no problem with the referendums in Ireland on divorce, but the facts may help. In 1986, a first attempt to remove the ban on divorce was made which was rejected by voters. In 1994 ( 8 years later) a second attempt was made and this time it was succesful.
I do not class two referendums, 8 years apart as several. I believe it would not be unreasonable to allow the Irish voters another chance to vote on the Lisbon Treaty after a sufficient passage of time to allow people and attitudes to change. If we say 8 years that would take us up to 2016. What is not reasonable is to give the same question to the voters so shortly after they rejected if the first time.
Complain about this comment
What a scandal. So he's trying to do the dirty on his own people. When will these discredited politicians learn to respect the democratic mandate? When? Never I guess. Hope he gets booted out of power.
Complain about this comment
Fair point Jordanbasset - there were only two referenda, eight years apart (three if you count the Constitution itself, and this would mean even longer gaps between the votes).
I think what I was trying to say is still valid: Fine Gael got the wrong answer the first time, tried again, succeeded, and today, very few people would say what they did was wrong.
Your point about attitudes changing is right. I only remember the second divorce referendum very slightly, being a nipper. My parents were very much against the change, and voted no. I remember them complaining about the first result not being "right", so the government tried again. Curiously, 13 years later, they are super-liberal and anti-Catholic.
Complain about this comment
I cannot help wondering if "the widespread desire across Europe to see the treaty come into effect" isn't widespread fatigue at the whole process, a grudging acceptance that it is going to foisted on us anyway and a desire to simply get it over and done with so that we can move on.
The pity of it all is that it is not a bad treaty. It's just been so badly mishandled by politicians watching their own backs that it's credibility is falling away. Meanwhile, the Irish are in a very difficult position. If they find a mechanism to circumvent a further referendum, they raise doubts about their democratic credentials, if the go forward to a second one and lose it, the process dies and if they get all the concessions they want to get it through, some of the other smaller countries will want to revisit it too.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Ireland, you were knights in shining armour last time. Now we need your heroism again.
Please don't let us down. You're all we have.
Complain about this comment
What part of the word "no" do the Eurocrats fail to understand?
Complain about this comment
#8, jordanbasset,
Interesting point about waiting a few years, after all 2014 is quite a waterfall in the EU as the financial budget has to be renegotiated, so waiting say 6 years would give time for the voters to see how much the wasteful EU is going to change (or not). I saw last week that in an EU meeting the French have already started their campaign to maintain the CAP asis and whilst they thankfully didn't get an agreement it will be discussed again shortly with their proposal being a presidential recommendation. Thankfully they won't be presidential much longer!
As for Ireland getting a second vote I tend to agree it would be an insult being so quickly after the first and should they vote yes after having been 'bought' by several concessions then the 'peoples' of the EU will have little respect for them in the future. After all if it is the politicians fault everyone just shrugs their shoulders and says 'damn politicians they're all as bad as each other', but when it's the people it's different as that's the voice of the nation.
Complain about this comment
turirimiocht:
I live in Ireland, I will never vote to join the EU, neither will any person I know.
We know we are being pressured to give the EU what it wants, they will use sticks and bribes or whatever they think will work.
It Will Not Work.
By the way I most definately do not support Sinn Fein, never have.
We do not need to be told what way to vote from anyone.
Maybe you should be voting on this the Government is meant to work for the people is it not?
Try standing up for yourselves.
Complain about this comment
Machinehappydays...the idea that you will never vote to join the EU is unbelievable,
(outside of the obvious point that you are already a member)
Where are you going to get a job? abroad like the terrible 1980's!? So you want our country to suffer economic decline?, you want your country to become the next Hungry or Iceland. I hope you do not believe that the Irish economy is so strong, because it is not.
Today, the Irish government spends about 40b euro each year on health, education etc, out of that 40b about 10b comes from the multinational sector through direct and indirect taxes, who is going to fill the gap when they leave because they no longer have access to the European Market? We are, in higher taxes.
You talk like someone who is willing to jeopardise everything just to make some point about standing up to government. How about you think what it would like to require a visa to go to France, our have our own currency ruined by currency speculators, to have to accept all EU rules without having one say in their formulation, to be isolated to the extent that no one would even care about you. Are you still so strong? You, most certainly are not.
Ireland needs Europe far more than they need us. Think!
Complain about this comment
"I live in Ireland, I will never vote to join the EU"
Too late, mate, Ireland already had a referendum on EU (EEC) membership:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland
Passed with over 80% of the vote.
Machinehappydays, I didn't say you had to be a Shinner to be a Eurosceptic; rather I said that to be a Shinner you have to (almost always) be a Eurosceptic, since this is part of the classical Sinn Fein mix of socialism, insular nationalism and baby-killing. All A are B does not imply that all B are A.
Further, I know that not all Eurosceptics in Ireland are on the loony left. Indeed, you don't have to have any political spectrum affiliation to be afraid of the European Union. However, in the past, most of the opposition to the EU has been from leftist groups with absolutely no understanding of the real world, and social conservatives who want the old days back, you know, when battered women couldn't divorce their abusive husbands.
As for the more recent trends in Irish Euroscepticism, well, the one good thing to be said for Declan Ganley is that he adds a bit of libertarian spice to this mix. And at least he sounds vaguely coherent.
And that concludes my "official Ireland" rant.
Complain about this comment
Re post 16, machinehappy days, so you do not support Sinnfein, the suggestion some seem to imply on here means that only leaves you being a sexist or a racist, or perhaps a racist sexist. Or I suspect, the more difficult answer for some, is that you are an intelligent independent minded person who has looked at the issues and made their own decision.
Complain about this comment
Every time I check out this blog I am astounded by the sheer bigoted xenophobic views expressed by the little Englanders on the EU, which they despise, not so much because of what it does but because of what it represents - the fact that Johnny Foreigner can work toghether and that the Old Grey Fox Britain is incapable of playing them off against each other as they have done for centuries, and that maybe just maybe people can treat each other first as human beings and then as citizens of members and/or states...Their whines and complaints chewed like stale vomit is no different to those primitive cavemen hunched in their caves not willing to venture out and trust other people from another cave or village because they grunt a bit differently and have diffeent manners.
But what really get me is the offhand comments that some of them make..example:
"Could the BBC start to make an impact by representing the views of the 60%+ European Citizenry (rising to 80%+ in the UK)"
The second part of the comment is correct, but the first part is a blatant lie! I've travel quite a lot round europe and while people dislike and distrust the EU like any other beureacratic organisation, in Italy, France, Germany, Spain at least from my knowledge od speaking to normal people on the street they are quite happy for futher integration to take place, a general idea of a common european destiny. Even french citizens, who voted against the constitution, (while belligerent in keeping perfidoius anglo saxon practices out of their country) broadly accept the ideas of greater unity.
Its time a referendum in Europe was put forward yes... On one day at one time for all european citizens to vote on the issue of political integration, because this is ridiculous the willingness for unity cannot be hijacked perpetually by a small number of people who desire to cling to outdated caveman views of the world!
Complain about this comment
"machinehappy days, so you do not support Sinnfein, the suggestion some seem to imply on here means that only leaves you being a sexist or a racist, or perhaps a racist sexist."
For the record, I never said that any one here supports Sinn Fein. Comment 19 is a combination of an ad-hominem attack and a straw-man argument. Just because you are an Irish Eurosceptic does not mean that you support Sinn Fein.
What I was pointing out was the delicious irony that sees little Englanders use the language of Sinn Fein to attack the European Union. Please read the posts.
Complain about this comment
I wonder if the Irish and Brits have considered swapping Michael Martins :-)
Complain about this comment
Re #20 Ford Mondeo
Is that a wind up or are you serious? Isn't it strange that bloggers like you don't use the expressions 'little Scotlanders' or 'little Irelanders' when they criticise the EU. Your first paragraph is little more than spiteful bile against people who raise geniuine concerns against the attempts to create the United States of Europe.
I wonder if Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler also raged against us little Englanders (after all, I have got a 28ins inside leg!)
Complain about this comment
jwwhite021 (17): The Lisbon treaty is not about economics. It is about creating an undemocratic political union by deceit.
Complain about this comment
Ford Mondeo wrote:
Every time I check out this blog I am astounded by the sheer bigoted xenophobic views expressed by the little Englanders on the EU
The main problem that most people I have with the EU is that we don't really see much benefits.
Membership for the UK is very expensive, and we aren't seen to be getting value for money.
Europhiles try to portray the English as xenophobic just because they don't bother to listen to their concerns (it is far easier to portray them that way i.e. "It's not our problem it's the English").
When there was talk about the UK joining the single currency the biggest benefit given was that we wouldn't have to change our money at the borders - wow! sign us up! There was no answer to the concern that losing the pound would also hand over control of interest rates etc. to a European bank that would have to balance multiple economies (very topical now as many of Brown's plans to save our economy might not have been possible if we were part of the Euro).
Was this concern portrayed - no the Europhiles only trumpted the "Look the backward English don't want to lose the Queen's head on their notes" concern.
The Human Rights Act - should be a winner really? Well... um no, for the majority of people there has been no change, but all we hear in the papers is how criminals etc. are using it to sue the state for not having fluffy pillows (true this is more a fault of our courts then the law) but it ends up seeming as something negative from Europe.
The free movement of EU citizens is another issue - the majority don't get to benefit from living in other European countries (for many it is too expensive to relocate) so it just appears that the result of this is the country gets swamped by Eastern Europeans.
If the media portrayed something from Europe that we clearly benefit from then perhaps the "English" will look more favourably on the EU.
Complain about this comment
I would like to submit the following comment for publication, in place of the other, more offensive one that caused some trouble to the moderators:
I did not suggest that all Irish Eurosceptics are supporters of Sinn Fein. What I meant was that many supporters of Sinn Fein are in fact Eurosceptics. This fits in nicely with their rather quixotic brand of socialism and insular nationalism. Furthermore, the utterances of the little-England brigade on this forum are reminiscent of the rhetoric of Sinn Fein with regard to the EU. I find this hilarious.
I do have some ideas about Irish Euroscepticism. Some of it of course involves the independent-minded types like Machinehappydays. In the past, however, Eurosceptical discourse in Ireland has been dominated by left-wing groups with little or no understanding of real life. One example would be the Democratic Left party at the time of the Maastricht referendum. This force, ironically, always joined up with social conservatives, who wanted to keep Ireland "safe" from divortion (the twin issues of abortion and divorce).
Nowadays, these two august forces are joined by the libertarian critique. I dislike the latter, but at least they have make a more reasoned case than the other two groups. Unfortunately, or rather fortunately for the europhiles, their view is again, not grounded in any understanding of reality.
Finally, there are independent-minded people like machinehappydays, who will defy left-right categorizations and who, for this reason, I respect.
Complain about this comment
Re post 21, tuarimiocht, having re read your post 12, you said
'If you were an Irishman and talking like that the chances are you would be member of SinnFein'
It would appear to me to be more than a suggestion on your part that people who hold such views, if Irish, would be a member of SinnFein.
Having re-read the original
post 7 of Englandrise, if that is what SinnFein stands for they will do well! But cant help feeling the thoughts expressed by englandrise are not extreme and only state what democracy should be about. That is why I was surprised at your suggestion that people who hold such thoughts would be Sinn Fein supporters, seemed strange to me.
Perhaps it would help if you tell me what person of what was said in Post 7 was exclusive to Sinn Fein
Complain about this comment
Ford Mondeo @ 20 wrote:
"Its time a referendum in Europe was put forward yes... On one day at one time for all european citizens to vote on the issue of political integration, because this is ridiculous the willingness for unity cannot be hijacked perpetually by a small number of people who desire to cling to outdated caveman views of the world!"
Until there is a pan-European 'demos' there cannot and should not be a pan-EUropean referendum.
To be blunt, I honestly don't give a tinker's cuss what the citizens of Austria, Belgium, Czech Rep., Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, etc. etc. want or vote for, the only referendum that has any legitimacy or validity in this country is that of the British people.
Do feel free to call me a Neaderthal if it makes you feel any better.
Complain about this comment
"It would appear to me to be more than a suggestion on your part that people who hold such views, if Irish, would be a member of SinnFein."
It was a suggestion that there is a **good chance** that people who hold the view in question, if Irish, would be a supporter of Sinn Fein. I stand by this comment. Please note the underlined terms.
To me it appears that you are trying to equate me with that kind of person who equates dissent with one's own view with affiliation to an "undesirable" organization. That, in my mind, is the ad hominem attack, not my innocent assertion that the language of little-England eurosceptics is very similar to the rhetoric of Sinn Fein.
But this is not the point. I don't actually care what political party Irish Eurosceptics belong or do not belong to. Yes vote or no vote, no one cares what I think, so why should I recipcocate? All I can do is sit back and enjoy the entertainment, with the amusement provided by the curious bedfellows that little Englanders and Irish Eurosceptics make. You will of course tell me that it is all about democracy and expediency but I still find it hilarious.
Complain about this comment
't wold be nice if someone / anyone / mr. Mardell went out and found out what the existence of the EU actually changed.
This for the man in the street (and there's lots of streets in the EU), for the people who provide the rest of us with jobs and for the countries of the EU which can, on many issues, work as a block rather than as single and easily ignored nations.
Or in other words: how did individual aspects of our own lives become easier (like travel), how did doing business become easier (import-export, common currency, easy access to the EU-market), and the international aspects.
All of which are reasons why no serious politician anywhere in the EU advocates leaving it, or disbanding the group.
Complain about this comment
freedom-john - no it is about economics!, it is about jobs, prosperity, and a brighter future than would exist if we isolate ourselves. The no campaign loves to talk about deceit, how others are not getting a vote, how we must stand up against government etc...who is thinking of the 2 million or so private sector workers who relies on the European market for their monthly pay check? Who is thinking about the future prosperity of their country? Who is going to pay to build roads/rail/ invest in health, education we do not have any money? We are incredibly reliant on the EU market. To not even consider the economic impact is reckless.
Wouldn't we be great, to stand up and say NO! We want a more democratic EU so rather than working with our EU partners to solve any concerns we will leave the EU and throw our prosperity away. We would not be great in that scenario we would be the biggest fools ever put on this planet.
People need to think ECONOMICS!
Complain about this comment
ps, Irish Eurosceptic means you are either a neo conservative, Sinn Fein supporter, or have unlocked yourself from Shannon airport where you were protesting about the War in Iraq, they are likely to be government employed or not working and therefore cannot possibly understand the full ramifications of rejection or even worse they think they are not affected by it! Strange bunch really but freedom of speech is unfortunately allowed and respected.
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell commented "I am told that the plan is that by the end of this week's summit the Irish government will declare that it intends to ratify the Lisbon Treaty by this time next year".
What arrogance! The decision is for the Irish people and if the Irish Govt does make such a declaration, they wil be treating the Irish electorate with contempt. I hope and trust that the Irish electorate would deliver another NO vote if asked to vote again.
Any chance of a thread on the rioting in Greece? The breakdown of law and order and the widespread contempt for the police must be a matter of concern as it threatens to reduce a fellow member of the EU to a state of anarchy.
Complain about this comment
Woaaah did I just hear the sounds of caveman knuckles dragging. Strange that when the europhobics troll and flame these blogs, venting their wrath at further European Integration and or the very existence of the EU, they believe that their deranged comments are perfectly acceptable and that they can voice opinions, that just like the Tabloid gutter press, would be considered xenophobic, had it been directed against a nation or a state in the developing world. French Germans and Italians are fair game! and the EU composed a amalgamation of all of them drives them into a rabid fury!
But hold a mirror to their very nature by responding in kind and watch them swing their clumsy club of righteous indignation (usually a copy of the daily mail, the sun or the telegraph)
Come off it guys! If the EU was reformed into a genuinely democratic organization, lean in it?s day to day operations, with the bloated CAP reduced and its research funding quota increased? and operated on a fair subsidiary decision making process, with EU laws being applied as they should, not being goldplated by national governments?each and every state contributing its fair amount to the common purse, not one Euro more or less?..you would still dislike the EU. And its simply because you dislike continental Europeans, or the possibility that they could run aspects of your day today lives, as if the stoats in Westminster were actually any more moral or concerned for the common man (at least they?re our stoats they cry!), For Europhobics foreigners either 1) speak English (Australia, Canada) and therefore not really foreign 2) Are too powerful to be cowed or bullied or tricked (America) or 3) A human market to be exploited (sweatshops in whichever developing country Tesco or Primark can get a cheap labor force). Europe is none of these? and they hate it!
Complain about this comment
jwwhite021 (31): There is nothing in the Lisbon treaty about economics. It is mainly about increasing the voting weight of large countries, adjusting voting thresholds to make it easier for the Franco-German couple to block what they do not like, and extending undemocratic decision-making methods designed for the common market to areas of general policy such that in future your vote will have as little influence there as it did on June 12.
BernardVC (30): The EU is not necessary for any the things you mention. We have had cheap transatlantic travel for many decades without the EU, such that flying from London to Los Angeles has normally been cheaper than flying from London to Nice. The old claim of EU supporters that the UK would lose influence outside the eutzone has been discredited by the reality that the UK has recently set policy direction for the eurozone and countries as far afield as the USA and South Korea, while countries like Ireland that have lost the ability to set appropriate interest rates have suffered a run-away boom that they were unable to nip in the bud with a risein intrestrates, and now unable to get out of by emulating the low-interest rates in the UK. The Eurozone has been the slowest growing part of the developed world during its entire existence, with Germany being first into the current recession. No doubt it will also be the last to recover.
The issue here is whether it is legitimate to keep forcing a country to keep voting on something which it decided by referendum just a few months ago. Can supporters of the EU not see that you are destroying the legitimacy of the organisation by refusing to accept the verdict of voters? How can anyone have confidence that powers transferred to Brussels will be exercised as we would wish when the powers themselves are seized against our wishes?
Complain about this comment
What was so wrong with trading with the EU I wonder.
We do not need to be rulled by EU.
Too many EU's making too many decisions for too many countries.
Rules and regulations, handed out to the working people, human rights benefiting the criminals, no, the answer must be no.
Trade OK, Superstate NO.
Complain about this comment
33. At 3:48pm on 09 Dec 2008, busby2 @33 asked:
"Any chance of a thread on the rioting in Greece? The breakdown of law and order and the widespread contempt for the police must be a matter of concern as it threatens to reduce a fellow member of the EU to a state of anarchy."
Greece has long been a corrupt and chaotic basket case. I'm still confused as to how they ever got to join the EU, let alone the Euro.
Complain about this comment
Ford Mondeo @34, wrote:
"Woaaah did I just hear the sounds of caveman knuckles dragging. Strange that when the europhobics troll and flame these blogs, venting their wrath at further European Integration and or the very existence of the EU, they believe that their deranged comments are perfectly acceptable and that they can voice opinions, that just like the Tabloid gutter press, would be considered xenophobic, had it been directed against a nation or a state in the developing world. French Germans and Italians are fair game!"
Willful misrepresentation - or perhaps just ignorance.
The fact that I don't care what the citizens of other countries think with respect to Britain's political decisions doesn't make me xenophobic. In fact, I love Europe - it's nations, peoples, languages and cultures (but 'Europe' and the 'EU' are not synonymous - and never will be).
I would never dream of telling the French, Germans or Italians how they should run their sovereign affairs - and I expect the same courtesy in return.
Complain about this comment
There is still hope for those not wanting theEuroConstitution/LisbonTreaty/Exemptions foisted upon them:
There are a number of countries who have not ratified it , Germany for one.
If this Treaty was so good for us, could we not be presented with the details. If it was really that good we would all vote for it, yes?
Complain about this comment
ugh. slimming down the commission was one of the best things in the treaty. pork barrel wins again..
Complain about this comment
34. At 3:50pm on 09 Dec 2008, Ford Mondeo wrote:
Woaaah did I just hear the sounds of caveman knuckles dragging.
Wow I certainly did call it with my earlier comment:
Europhiles try to portray the English as xenophobic just because they don't bother to listen to their concerns (it is far easier to portray them that way i.e. "It's not our problem it's the English").
Come off it guys! If the EU was reformed into a genuinely democratic organization, lean in it?s day to day operations, with the bloated CAP reduced and its research funding quota increased? and operated on a fair subsidiary decision making process, with EU laws being applied as they should, not being goldplated by national governments?each and every state contributing its fair amount to the common purse, not one Euro more or less?..you would still dislike the EU.
Personally I would be happy if the EU did that, most of the complaints that people have with the EU is that needs to be done! One concern I personally have with the EU is that it increases the size of the majority. I have heard concerns from Scots that even if all their MPs voted against an issue the English MPs could force it through - the same principle could apply to the EU but on a much larger scale.
I am not against the EU and I am not against Europeans. There are nice Europeans and selfish Europeans who are only after what they can get - sounds to me that they are the same as the British!
However, I do find it ironic, that your enter into a xenophobic rant against the "English" in order to justify your viewpoint that the "English" are xenophobic - but I gather the irony is lost on you!
Complain about this comment
To Ford Mondeo, re"... caveman knuckles dragging... europhobics... rabid fury... watch them swing their club of righteous indignation.."
I cannot speak for other Eurosceptics and obviously from your supremely smug vantage point of knowing so much more than the rest of us mere members of the public, e.g. "... it's simply because you dislike Europeans.." I really should hold my tongue and leave it to those such as yourself who understand these things.
Mind you, a few pertinent facts, from this eurosceptic: My mother is Belgian, Grandparents German - Dutch and my wife is Finnish. I am fluent in 2 of the above languages and have a smattering of them all. Now retired I did work in Belgium and Germany as well as the Far East and most recently in Scandinavia.
I am old enough to have voted "Yes" in the Wilson Referendum for a UK membership of a 'Common Market'.
Of course none of that could possibly equate with your vast knowledge and experience: Particularly as evidenced by your statement, ".. if the EU was reformed.." and ".. genuinely democratic.."
Well yes, "if" being the operative word, "reform" the requirement, and "democratic" the failed aspiration.
Unfortunately for you and those who 'know' we 'sceptics' are all suffering from delusional xenophobia about the corrupt, venal, self-serving EU Commission Bureaucracy and Parliament the reality is 'we' are aware how little of the 'if', 'reform' and 'democratic' is actually anywhere near the monolithic EU horizon.
So, yes, at least the corrupt, venal self-serving English Parliament members are "ours" and can be ousted by their electorate. By any standard measurement of Electoral Qualification No Mandate exists for EU MEPs. The disenfranchisement of the great majority of European Citizens is a remarkable development that history will record as one of the greatest wrongs of the second half of the Twentieth Century.
If you were able to pin-point even the slightest EU concern with its record 20 year failed Budget, its ongoing Federalist aggrandisement inspite of Referenda results, its colossal usurpation of National and Individual Citizens' rights by a one-size-fits-all utopian fantasy, then your infallibility would be deserving of consideration. However, you cannot, and frankly you never will because the EU is a fundamentally flawed, undemocratic colossus whose feet of EUrocratic clay will eventually fold under the scrutiny of Citizens far more astute than you give credit to at this moment.
Enough of a tirade for you, or would you like more!?
Complain about this comment
Ford Mondeo @34
I think you must really be a secret eurosceptic because the invective and insults you use can only be designed to increase opposition to the EU and all it stands for! After all, an inteligent and genuine europhile would realise that you never advance your cause by insulting those who disagree with you.
Just consider what you wrote:
"Woaaah did I just hear the sounds of caveman knuckles dragging. Strange that when the europhobics troll and flame these blogs, venting their wrath at further European Integration and or the very existence of the EU, they believe that their deranged comments are perfectly acceptable...".
You went onto say:
"Come off it guys! If the EU was reformed into a genuinely democratic organization, lean in it?s day to day operations, with the bloated CAP reduced and its research funding quota increased? and operated on a fair subsidiary decision making process, with EU laws being applied as they should, not being goldplated by national governments?each and every state contributing its fair amount to the common purse, not one Euro more or less?..you would still dislike the EU".
All that was preceded by "IF", which makes you sound like a secret eurosceptic. A genuine europhile doesn't care that the EU is undemocratic, unaccountable and extraordinarily wasteful because the european project of an ever closer union is all that counts to them.
Complain about this comment
Freedom John, while it may be about re aligning voting weights to larger countries with larger populations I look beyond this treaty and think of ramifications of a small country heavily reliant on trade for economic growth, jobs and prosperity. (btw I have no issue with the treaty our red lines of tax, neutrality and social policies were not affected in the first place but anyway)
You are too focused on this treaty alone and fail to see the wider consequences for a small country with little real influence, a weak economy and a nation protected during these turbulent times by the euro. Whether you like or not, 26 countries (both large and small) , through their own democratic way have ratified this treaty, it will be immensely damaging for Ireland to stop the progress of a Union.
I accept that there are issues that the EU must address but Ireland should not sacrifice itself for the EU. Let us discuss our concerns in Europe with Europe and not turn our backs on them.
People need to start thinking of the economy, our reliance on the EU and how much we have to gain from remaining members.
Participation or Isolation
Economic Stability or Economic Instability
In the EU or Out of the EU
Yes or No
It must be a YES! We must have another vote!
Complain about this comment
Quite likely there will be no need to wait for the Accession Treaty of Croatia: the Kingdom of Spain will be probably trying to have its Accession Treaty modified next year (2009), regarding the statutes of Ceuta and Melilla (the Spanish cities in the South coast of the Mediterranean), so any protocol could be added to the Treaties as early as that...
Complain about this comment
MAchinehappydays, the EU must standardize rules or else it would be impossible for a proper and efficient trade area to exist. You fail to see or think about the the concept of both.
Lisbon does not result in a super state!, it clarifies exactly what will be decided by member states and the areas that we should work together.
You are looking for a country that can attempt to survive on its own. As much as we may think it, Ireland is simply not strong enough, not big enough and not rich enough to turns its back on Europe. Look up Iceland's recent performance, another country that decided to embrace isolation....they are not bankrupt!
At least when we are IN we can ensure our voice is heard, outside we have no voice, and by the way, if you want your free trade area, you would need to accept all rules and regulations from the EU with NO voice at the table where these decisions on regulations are made.
Think!!!!ECONOMICS, JOBS, PROSPERITY!
Complain about this comment
@ machinehappydays.
Problem with your "trade OK, bureaucratic rules No" argument id that sensible trade requires rules - and someone to oversee them. If you want an example of what happens when rules are relaxed and overseers have their jobs restricted too much, you only have to look at how the current economic crisis came about.
Margaret Thatcher, for one, recognised the value of having single standards across the EU, rather than each country having its own. But then you say "what sort of rules".
Lawnmower machine noise was one rule the UK wanted unifying. Really. But how about Health & Safety? That includes safe and sanitary food production - to a unified standard - throughout the EU.
The EU's current Commissioners are looking to give consumers better deals: eg mobile phone calls are cheaper throughout the EU than in the US as a result of their efforts. The EU stood up against Microsoft, to gain "a more level playing field" for software manufacturers and, hence, consumers.
But they need people and money in order to do this, and more.
Most people I have talked to about the EU hardly know what it does or what it stands for. Most agree it' a colossal money-waster and heavily bureaucratic, without having a clue about what it actually costs, nor about how many "bureaucrats" there are , in reality. (NB I've given up talking to people about the EU, since I'm considered a bore, so I join in here occasionally - just to bore).
Complain about this comment
@Post 7 - the main problem for Eurosceptics is that whenever someone votes "no" to Europe they are made to vote again and again and again until they vote "yes".
I am not aware of ANY "yes" votes that have been returned to the people to say if they still want it.
The ratchet only works one way.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, but I still don't see why the EU is undemocratic, at least compared to the other EU countries (the utter lack of accountability is another issue). If it is in the sense of "direct democracy" a la swiss then I agree, but how many countries in the EU have really implemented direct democracy?
For good or bad, having unelected people making important decisions that affect our lives is commonplace in many european countries.
In the end, if the EU is such a big problem in the grand scheme of things, you can always vote for an euroskeptic party in your next election cycle (provided you can find one that you like). And so should do the irish.
Complain about this comment
jwwhite021 (44): I certainly see the larger picture which is a federal European ?super-state? where the price-tag of Irish admission is the exchange of 100% of the influence to decide the law and policy you live under for 0.8% of the influence to approve EU Commission proposals. You say Ireland would have a voice, but it would be a whisper that is easily ignored. Nor is this about Irish influence in the world, because it is also Irish influence in Ireland which is even more important. The successive treaties on European Union, when taken in their entirety, are leading to the de-facto loss of the ability of Irish voters to shape any of the policies they live under, nor change them in future elections.
What is not obvious is why you think that Ireland giving up its political independence in steps will reap some economic benefit. The real world does not work like that that. The most successful countries in the world are also those with a vibrant democratic political culture. If multinational investors are looking for drones who cannot take responsibility for their own lives, then there are plenty of low-cost authoritarian states in the world where they can locate. They do not need the Irish for that.
One sometimes hears in Ireland that the common market was good for Ireland so one should vote for Lisbon. But that is like driving a car while looking out of the back window. Lisbon is about the future and it is an undemocratic political union where the decisions that affect your life are taken by people who you have no influence over.
--
P.S. Given that Ireland has just experience an unsustainable construction boom propelled to ridiculous heights by too low Euro interest rates and now dropping from this excessive height into a recession without even the ability to lower interest rates to help recovery, it is rather amazing that you still equate the EU with economic stability.
Complain about this comment
"human rights benefiting the criminals"
WTF? The European Convention on Human Rights was to be written into the Lisbon treaty so that EU decisions would be compatible with this charter.
Now if what you mean is that this charter is a "criminals' constitution", as contended by the English (not British, I don't think) rightwing press, then truly, we have a match made in heaven, between the Irish eurosceptics and the English rightwing press.
On the other hand, if you are unaware of what European involvement has actually done for human rights in Ireland, than I suggest you start reading. Look up David Norris:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Norris_(politician)
or the ECHR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
If looking up the Lisbon treaty itself, you need go no further than the opening paragraph here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_lisbon
Complain about this comment
jwwhite021 @46 wrote:
"Lisbon does not result in a super state!, it clarifies exactly what will be decided by member states and the areas that we should work together".
Can you quote chapter and verse on this? Are you denying that the treaty does not extend the power of the EU to bring forward the project of an ever closer union?? If you are, you are in denial of the facts!
The EU has a history of dressing up changes in such a way as to cloud the real motive. This dates back to the formation of the EEC when it was dressed up as purely a Free Trade Area when the motives of the founding fathers were to found a political union disguised as an European Economic Community. Later they dropped the pretence and changed into the European Union. We didn't get a vote on this.
It is the continual push to an ever closer, less democratic, more unaccountable Europe divorced from the people of Europe that is causing so much opposition.
And we all know that the europhiles don't want the views of the electorate to get in the way of their goal for an ever closer union. That is why they want Ireland to vote again, isn't it?
Complain about this comment
iongauge, ".. if EU is such a problem... could always vote for Eurosceptic party.. Irish should.."
So, the Irish vote "no" to the Lisbon Treaty isn't enough 'euroscepticism' for you and they must find a Party to suit them too?
How arrogant is that? How duplicitous an argument? How incredibly typically EUrocratic a response!
In the last few years 4 member nations of the EU have held referendum and voted "No" to an aspect of the EU Feralist project: However, that's not enough for you in the "great scheme of things"!
Your attitude to the already declared opinion of the Majority of the electorate in each of those nations is about as insufferable an exposition of everything that is wrong with the insufferable EU.
Complain about this comment
There must be many people among the contributors here that don't know that the European Parliament is a democratically voted institution and people are there because you did (or did not bother to) vote them! The European Commission is composed by people nominated by democratically elected governments. Your representatives and your ministers are there to represent your interests. That's the way it all works. As for the EU needing Ireland to remain a member... well, I am quite sure it is the other way around, as Ireland still gets more than any other European citizen per capita...
Complain about this comment
iongauge @49 wrote:
"Sorry, but I still don't see why the EU is undemocratic, at least compared to the other EU countries (the utter lack of accountability is another issue)".
In the EU, the Commission, the unelected and unaccoutable Civil Service, has the job of bringing forward proposals for legislation and for policing the system. The unelected Council of Ministers has to approve the Commission's proposals for legislation and these proposals then go to the European Parliament who have the choice of either approving them unamended or rejecting the entire measure.
Our Parliamentary democracy is far from perfect but it is easy to see just how much democratic it is. Under our system the Civil Service draft legislation on the instructions of the elected Govt of the day. The elected Govt decides the legislative programme based on the manifesto under which they were elected, knowing that they are accountable to the electorate at the next General Election for the way they have governed. None of these features exist in workings of the EU.
Bills tabled in our Parliament can be amended as they pass through the legislative stages. Even where the Govt has not been defeated on a clause in a Bill, this Parliamentary process often puts sufficient pressure on the Govt of the day to bring forward their own amendments to meet the concerns expressed during the passage of the Bill. This Parliamentary scrutiny is entirely absent in the European Parliament as their choice is to either accept or reject the proposal as a whole.
I trust this brief run through explains the true undemocratic nature of the EU.
Complain about this comment
As someone who used to see the benefits of a European trading agreement this has now changed to a not now or ever stance....
When people wont allow me a vote i am not even going to try to balance the good and the bad its just all bad that democracy is not allowed.
I hope that for all our sakes the Irish people bloody the nose of the European dictators again.
Complain about this comment
#55 busby2
So if the EU were to be re-organised along the lines of the UK Parliament (not that it is particularly democratic given the overwhelming power of the Executive over the Legislature), would you then support the EU?
Complain about this comment
Perhaps we could be allowed just one vote.
Go on...just a little one.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat (57): I am increasingly convinced that the greatest problem with the EU is that its supporters cannot understand why it is failing, and therefore seem doomed to make proposals that would only accelerate its collapse. Greater powers for the EU parliament since 1979 have coincided with the growing feeling that the EU is undemocratic and cannot therefore be a solution to its problem of democratic legitimacy.
If the problem were one of political institutions we could simply copy an institutional design, such as that of the USA or Germany, with impeccable democratic credentials, but the 'problem' lies in the natural cleavages of national identities based on language, history and culture; all things which are not are going away. Political institutions must fit the people, and not the other way around.
--------------
"In those countries where different races dwell together ... the power of the imperial parliament must be limited as jealously as the power of the crown, and many of its functions must be discharged by provincial diets". (Lord Acton, describing the Austrian Empire in ?Essays in the History of Liberty?, 1862).
Complain about this comment
Fionavroom, "... many contributors on here.. don't know... the European Parliament is democratically elected...(or didn't bother to vote).."
You surely cannot have read the many thoughtful, factual and reasoned the 'contributions' on this topic and then concluded the authors were unaware of how the EU system is set-out!?
Then there's your inference (along with those of iongauge and Ford Mondeo) of a supposedly "democratically elected" European Parliament?
Iongauge claims it's "democratic" whilst Ford Mondeo took exception to my suggestion that Europe had "..60%+ opposition..." rising to "..80%+.." in the UK against the EU Parliament.
Of course, all 3 of you feel it is alright when you contend the electorate who used their franchise have endorsed the MEPs.
I contend that the given there is a 360,000,000 population the abysmal low number of votes cast reveals the calamity of a failing democratic procedure. At its core an unwanted, unrepresentative Union whose Parliament and EUrotocracy a majority of the public at best distrust and at worst loathe. With the exception of Austria, Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Spain in 2004 no EU member states' electoral turnout exceeded 40%. In some nations voting figures were lower than 25% of the entire adult population. Across the EU in 2004 the electoral turnout averaged 33.07% (see EU's own Electoral Commission report). In the UK 23 million people voted on a choice of Big brother winner and barely 11 million for their MEPs!
This can be taken as a measure of the dullness of the individual electorate, but, as the UK voter-participation figure rises to 65 to 75% during every General Election from Mrs Thatcher's first victory in 1979 it would suggest that it is the EU that is the problem and not the voters' apathy.
Pro-EU cannot have it both ways: It's a "democracy" or it merely contorts "democratic procedures" to suit its own ends?
Why are individual nations categoric rejection of the EU not taken into account? If only 11,000,000 vote is that an indication of "democratically elected" MEPs, or, an indication that some 30,000,000 UK voters did not want ("could not be bothered") an MEP?
Even with the Proportional Representation factored into the result, by the EU's own certification some MEPs actually took their seats with less than 9% electoral support through the Ballot box for those individuals. There are MEPs who are there by less than 700 votes in a region of 150,000 to 350,000 possible voters where barely 25,000 votes were cast: Truly astonishing "democracy"!
Similarly with European-wide electorate: Less than 1 in 3 qualified voters "bothered" to vote. An expression of satisfaction with the EU, or, as I see it a clear indicator of Voter discontent?
When the public are interested, when they are involved, when they recognise themselves as indeed 'members' of something meaningful they do Turnout in great numbers.
In EU nations' past Referendums Denmark, Netherlands, France and Eire have
voted "No" to some aspect of the EU Project: Pro-EU Ford Mondeo, iongauge and Fionavroom want those votes overturned or ignored in the name of "democracy". As I believe I have demonstrated above that "democracy" is a very one-sided affair and without the foundation of democratic principles that underscore individual National elections. Therefore, the EU is forever a weak and dangerous project as it seeks powers for which it has no Mandate whatsoever.
If the EU monolith does not dissolve itself in the next few years then there will be increasing discontent amongst the public: In particular I foresee the days of French, Spanish, Polish Police on the streets of the UK to help quell the disenfranchised majority's legitimate civil protest making the present Greek venting of frustration a damp squib!
Complain about this comment
#59 Freeborn-John
"Political institutions must fit the people, and not the other way around."
As I am a Scottish Nationalist, you wouldn't expect me to disagree with you on that!
However, I am also a European Unionist.
In other words, I have two political identities (Scots and European), and I want to see democratic structures which represent these identities.
I understand the reasons why the EU was set up in the way that it was - very difficult to create a real Common Market without over-riding the narrow state interests of each government.
However, Union with others (and we've had 300 years of our sovereignty being pooled with other nations) requires some pooling of sovereignty. The appropriate debate should be on two issues -
1. which aspects should be pooled
2. what European institutions are required to exercise that pooled sovereignty.
My impression is that many English people have not even got to the stage that their sovereignty should be pooled at all.
Complain about this comment
59. At 10:35pm on 09 Dec 2008, Freeborn-John wrote:
" ... institutional design, such as that of the USA or Germany, with impeccable democratic credentials ... "
Well, Freeborn-John it is a funny feeling for me to be disagreeing with you, but I must.
Both Germany and the USA have a Supreme Court or a Constitutional court. These courts can override the democratically elected government. It is not as if they were apolitical. Somebody has to appoint its members. As I understand it, in Germany they are nominated by the main political parties so they are hardly apolitical. In the USA they get nominated by the president, I believe.
A few months ago the Lisbon Treaty was being considered by the German Constitutional Court.
A German newspaper I read was considering how a certain judge would decide and commenting on the fact that he had doubts about the "EU". So basically, whether the Lisbon Treaty is accepted or not would depend on the personal politics of judges. They get a meaningful vote on it whilst the people of Germany do not. A supreme Court or Constitutional Court is fundamentally undemocratic.
Back to the USA. The USA refused to allow the Southern States to become independent. Again a big nasty smear across their democratic credentials. The UK did allow the South of Ireland to become independent.
Further: " ... , but the 'problem' lies in the natural cleavages of national identities based on language, history and culture; all things which are not are going away. ..."
I believe that British "Eurosceptics" are far too polite. It is not merely that the British are different from the French and the Germans. I have just met too many dictatorial people in Germany and so has just about everybody else who has had a lot of dealings with them.. Others report dictatorial behaviour from other continentals. Too many continental policemen are fascist. etc. The character of continentals, in general, is the real reason why we cannot be in a political union with them
I have met lots of very nice Germans. I want to be friendly with them. I don't want to be in a political union with them.
There are other countries who should not be in a political union with Germany, Italy ad Spain for the same reasons: Switzerland, Denmark, Norway and probably others. Being in a political union with Germany, Spain, Italy etc increases the chances that one day you will live under a fascist police state.
" ... Political institutions must fit the people, and not the other way around. "
Definitely. There are things we need to change in the UK.
Complain about this comment
Regarding the Lisbon (Constitution) Treaty, why are so-called EU experts, through the media, claiming they know why the majority of Irish voters voted NO?
I voted NO and it wasn't because of a commissioner or a Declan Ganly. ( In fact, I had never heard of this man before the referendum day)
Anyway, I voted NO because of the EU's abysmal handling of the Balkan crises since 1990 and because of EU / NATO sponsored terrorism, connivance and sordid antics in the Serbian province of Kosovo i Metohija.
Do these EU experts know that?
And look at Kosovo now! Today, almost three quarters of the United Nations members still refuse to recognise the illegally declared independence of Kosovo (by the narco-mafia regime in Pristina).
The province is now a cesspit of crime, especially woman-trafficing and drugs, and the ethnic cleansing of Serbs and Roma continues with a nod and a wink from the EU / NATO Consortium.
It all boils down to EU / US International Warmongering .
Is this life on earth? We are a Universal Disgrace!
Complain about this comment
Oldnat (61): I am afraid you are playing word games to deceive yourself again. We saw before how you have your own personal definition of 'confederal' (which is really no different n the end than what you mean by 'federal') but which seems to be a comfort blanket for you that allows you to argue for something which is ultimately incompatible with your Scottish nationalism.
Here we see another word game you play called 'pooled sovereignty'. Sovereignty is the supreme political power over a territory; it either resides in one place or another so all talk of pooling is inherently a word game designed to fool someone as to where that sovereignty really lies. In the case of the EU the word game goes by saying nation-state remains sovereign because they can leave the EU, but so long as they remains in the EU it is clear the Brussels/Luxembourg institutions are the supreme decision-making authority. Nor is there any remaining pretence that the EU derives this supreme power from the consent of the peoples it governs because even in those few cases where the people are asked for consent they are ignored when they deny it.
The powers of the EU are now excessive for an international organisation with which we identify so weakly. The simplest remedy would be to make national law superior to EU law in political areas when one nation has no real interest in what goes on in another. This would allow us to elect new national governments able to overrule the application of previously agreed EU decisions in our country as we see fit. Such reform would lead naturally to a much more flexible and legitimate EU and would preserve an area within which democratic politics can survive. The Lisbon treaty totally fails to do this.
Complain about this comment
SuffolkBoy2 (62): I only used the US and German states previously as examples of federal systems accepted as democratic within nation-states that would not be accepted if they were simply copied at EU level.
You make a point about judges allowing their personal opinions to shape their decisions. I think we can agree that such judicial activism is a very bad thing, and that when it occurs in either a Supreme or Constitutional Court it is a very serious problem that is extremely difficult to remedy. Judges are not elected and so can never claim a democratic legitimacy; their legitimacy derives from being seeing as knowledgeable as to what the law is and neutral in applying it.
The US Supreme Court has a pretty decent (but not unblemished) record of judicial restraint. In the absence of a written UK constitution, the UK Courts have no power to strike down a law of Parliament as unconstitutional. Parliament is able to correct the errant decision of any British judge by re-clarifying the law as it wants so British judges have little room to pursue a political agenda not supported by the electorate. (The British system though is totally dependent on the wisdom of MPs in not abusing this absolute power of parliament and could not serve as a model to the EU when self-restraint is not a feature of the Continental political tradition.)
The ECJ however has been able to use its independent power to clarify what the body of EU law is to rule systematically in favour of ever closer union and the supremacy of this law means that no democratic institution can correct their decisions (short of treaty change). I would say the systematic judicial activism of the ECJ in favour of ever closer union has destroyed the legitimacy of that Court.
Complain about this comment
loojeanmacloo @ #63
It is a shame the Irish Governmemt did not ask you your reasons for voting "No" in the Irish Referendum.
No doubt, if they had, the Brian Cowan would be busy asking for the other 26 EU Heads of State to agree concessions (tied up with ribbons to look pretty) to act as a bribe that look like additional protocols to the Treaty of Lisbon . . . just to meet your reasons for voting "No". These could be additional protcols to particularly benefit the Irish such as the Irsh not having to recognise Kosovo and no Irish having to help in the area of Kosovo!
You could then vote "Yes" in the 2009 Referendum with a clear conscience!
Complain about this comment
Re. #66
Oh how silly of me! That is exactly what Brian Cowan is doing.
I just hope he has enough ribbon to tie up all the Treay of Lisbon Irish Concessionary Protocols to make them look pretty for the Irish!
Complain about this comment
Freedom John - I recommend you do some research on Iceland's recent economic performance and come back to me and tell me that the EU has not provided us with stability! The debt fueled times of recent years certainly were made worse by the low interest rates of the euro, but do you think it would be better with our own currency, with the risk that it is ruined by currency speculators? record high interest rates as we attempt to defend our currency?
Also, how you can say that the multinationals can find some other low cost country to produce their goods just shows how little you know about the advanced state of the Irish economy. You are clearly left wing, do not work in the private sector and have no understanding of how the Irish economy works.
Finally, newsflash for you, even if we left the EU we would still have to implement all of the EU's rules and regulations if we wished to gain access to the EEA. So we would go from a position where we do have voice at shaping policy to one where we have no voice and no choice but to implement.
Lisbon does not result in an EU super state, it allows for greater number of areas for qualified majority voting, which seems logical, in order to make the EU more effective. It boosts the power of the EU Parliament and makes the transfer of an idea from the commission to becoming a directive more transparent and inclusive of national EU Parliaments view. It also ensures that decisions made at the EU Council of Ministers is transparent with both TV and minutes released.
So please tell me how a more effective, democratic and transparent EU is a threat to you?
Complain about this comment
#66: No doubt if they had asked the reasons people voted how they voted it would turn out to have more to do with his own impopularity than with the topic being voted on.
The Dutch voters were asked for the reasons why they voted how they did and it was often "my party is in favour" for a YES or "I do not like the current Dutch government" for a NO vote. Sad but true...
Complain about this comment
"The USA refused to allow the Southern States to become independent. Again a big nasty smear across their democratic credentials."
Indeed. As Lord Acton remarked: "I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo."
And the point is that we do not have democracy, except our our own limited way. None of us, neither British, European, American or Swiss.
We have limited democratic credentials.
But I think we can agree that democratic credentials are a noble and worthy aspiration, and if we can agree on that, then we can agree that the EU, a democratic EU that upholds the rights of common people, is a wonderful, noble aspiration.
And we ought also agree that the current EU is headed in the opposite direction, and that it cannot be entrusted with the mission of advancing our democratic credentials.
Complain about this comment
Personally, if the Irish get some concessions, I think it only right that the other 26 nations have some protocol concessions added to the Treaty of Lisbon as well.
It would be the most fair way of providing all electorates a bribe and then hiding it behind the facade of it being called a concessionary protocol!
To be fair to the EU, these protocols do have to be positive concessions. Re-introduction and double the old Duty Free allowances for people crossing the English Channel would be cool. That could benefit the Belgians, French and Dutch as much as the British!
I have no shame - I would remain a Treaty of Lisbon supporter regardless of the bribe (oops! I mean concessionary protocol!)
Complain about this comment
Oldnat, re"..I am Scottish Nationalist.. also support EU.. and a Scot + European"
So, despite those "..300 years of... pooled sovreignty..." you've no Britishness?
I consider that a pity for you and so many of England's neighbouring Scots, Welsh and Irish. But, at least in the last decade Devolution has begun to free you all from those chains to the large, overbearing southern neighbour.
Curious how in the same decade you and the neighbours have all shown resolute interest in maintaining a 'union' with Europe. Whereas, we English have slowly realised that the best effect of Devolution has been the removal of our neighbours as a ever increasing drain on our taxes.
However, your wish to see the indiviudal EU member states' democracy "pooled" and yet in the same post refusing to accept any connection to the English exactly portrays the fault-line in the EU's federalist intentions that will always lead to a chasm of distrust and hostility among its Citizens.
Some of us just don't want to get on with our neighbours that well in order to survive, share, prosper, even respect, but, never (in 300 years) "need" to be in a full 'Union' with them.
Thanks for backing your English neighbours' determination to avoid the mistake with the EU that Scotland made in 1708!
Complain about this comment
60, ikamaskeip,
I'm not sure where you got your figures on the with the exception of Austria, Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Spain in 2004 no EU member states' electoral turnout exceeded 40% but that is not quite accurate. We in Belgium are obliged by law to vote and the turnout was 90.8%, so the 10% who didn't had to have a very good reason or they were fined. The EU average was in fact 45.6% and these figures come from the European Parliaments own web site and figures on the June 2004 election see here
On your other words I tend to agree with your general comments and you reflect my views on independence in #72, should the Scottish, Flemish etc wish to go it alone that's fine by me and the sooner the better. In the case of England our friend oldnat and me have already exchanged our views on this, lol, and I think most on the receiving end of historic rhetoric would gladly since the back of communities that can't move on and forget the past, and who dwell on both real and imagined events/actions hundred(s) of years ago.
As for us English, we are by nature independent and that was shown by us being willing to transverse the globe all those centuries back, it is unfortunate that people ignore that characteristic preferring to criticise our dislike of stolen sovereignty instead and our dislike of being just sheep to be herded. Where I live in Belgium there is not the same sense of independence and sovereignty since the whole region has seen so many historical conflicts and rulers that only stability and security is the concern of most.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat: You often equate the UK state with the EU and imagine that the status of Scotland within the UK, with its separate legal system, etc. could be retained should it swap Westminster for Brussels rule. However I think that is short-term thinking which fundamentally misunderstands the differences between the political cultures that prevail in Great Britain and the Continent, and which are being clarified by the demands being made on the Irish now. The UK and Ireland have opt-outs from EU Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters, but should the Irish ratify Lisbon it is quite likely that they would drop this opt-out after three years. It may well then prove to be the case that Ireland loses its own legal system over time while and that Scotland is only able to preserve hers as part of the UK.
------------
"That a totally different system of laws, and very different administrative institutions, may exist in two portions of a country without being any obstacle to legislative unity is proved by the case of England and Scotland. Perhaps, however, this undisturbed co-existence of two legal systems, under one united legislature, making different laws for the two sections of the country in adaptation to the previous differences, might not be so well
preserved, or the same confidence might not be felt in its preservation, in a country whose legislators were more possessed (as is apt to be the case on the Continent) with the mania for uniformity." ( J.S. Mill 'Representative Government', 1861).
Complain about this comment
#54. Fionavroom
"The European Commission is composed by people nominated by democratically elected governments."
Such as the serial resigner Mandelson?
Not to be trusted!
Please can I have a vote on the Lisbon Treaty/Revamped Constitution?
Why has DC not promised one? It would get him a trainload of votes.
Complain about this comment
"In a democracy I don't believe it is ever an insult to go to the people to seek a decision. That's it, and I firmly believe that."
Excellent, then let's hold a referendum in each of the member countries. Alternatively, would the member governments have the courage to hold a binding Europe-wide referendum? I rather think not.
This whole episode is yet another fiasco that makes a mockery of the democratic process. The people in three of the few states who were given the vote sais a resounding NO. The people have spoken and that should be enough. I wonder how these governments would react if they were told to re-convene national elections because the result the voters made was unsatisfactory?
Complain about this comment
#76, RobWilkinson,
You say "I wonder how these governments would react if they were told to re-convene national elections because the result the voters made was unsatisfactory?".
It's more likely that something similar to the old communist one party system would be used whereby the only parties legally allowed to stand would have to be politically correct to the governing elite. For those who think I'm being far fetched it's already here in some countries as whilst I detest their views several countries ban far right parties from the elections and I still recall the rhetoric that followed the election in Austria of a far right party some years back when the EU elite imposed sanctions on the Austrians for daring not to vote the correct party in.
Complain about this comment
#24 Freeborn-John wrote:
"The Lisbon treaty is not about economics. It is about creating an undemocratic political union by deceit."
Can anyone think of a technical term for this crime is?
Complain about this comment
Does EU has anything to say on what's going on in Greece?
What about the Euro, will they print more Euro money for helping members in crisis?
Why EU is saying nothing?
Complain about this comment
Where to start?
Bribes are never right in politics or anyother walk of life really. But a bribe to circumvent the Democratic will of a nation is deplorable. The E.U should be ashamed of themselves, as should the Irish Government.
I also believe that asking the Irish to vote again would be the wrong thing to do at least in the short term. (Unless the Treaty is substansially changed, this would require the other 26 nations to agree also obviously)
What shoud happen is a root and branch analysis of why the Treaty is unacceptable to the Majority of the Irish and also a large number of people in the other E.U nations.
I think the largest reason for this is the perception (AT LEAST) that the Treaty is a E.U Constitution by the back door after two EU nations voted the Treaty down.
After Ireland voted no to the Lisbon Treaty the E.U should have gone away and written a new one which would be accepted by the people of the E.U. (I personnally believe that all E.U Treaties/Constitutional Amendments should be subject to Pan European acceptance via the use of referendums.)
On EUsceptic's and EUphiles everyone has the right to there opinion. However Xenophobic rants from EUphiles that i have read above are unacceptable, as all EUphiles should know there is no place in democracy for racial abuse and predudice.
Complain about this comment
Toldyouitwould:
I agree with you about Mandelson, but it is not the European Commission's responsibility to decide who will be the UK Commissioner. Mandelson was nominated by Brown, why don't you complain with him?
ikamaskeip:
It is exactly by reading the contributions here that I came to the conclusion that many contributors have no idea about the EU institutions, their operation and setup.
If people don't bother to vote in the European Parliament election it is because they are not interested in exercising their democratic rights. They do the same in any election in their countries (e.g. UK and Ireland), does it mean that they are against the state? In Ireland only a minority found the energy to go out and vote in the Lisbon referendum, the majority had better things to do...
Complain about this comment
#81, Fionavroom,
Just a thought, when you look at the turnout for the EU parliamentary elections Ireland actually had one of the very highest turnouts of all (7th) in 59.7% so in that case it shows the Irish were one of the most interested in exercising their democratic power. What a shame that the undemocratic EU elite are so anti-Ireland for voting no to the Lisbon Treaty when election turnout statistics show that they are one of the most committed EU nations (see below).
Maybe the pro European federalists would do better to ask themselves why so many in that list were only 20% or 30% turnouts, it's not only the UK that is disillusioned I can assure you as I'm hard pressed to find anyone in Belgium these days that's liking the current direction of the EU.
EU election turnout
Complain about this comment
#81, Fionavroom,
Just a thought, when you look at the turnout for the EU parliamentary elections Ireland actually had one of the very highest turnouts of all (7th) in 59.7% so in that case it shows the Irish were one of the most interested in exercising their democratic power. What a shame that the undemocratic EU elite are so anti-Ireland for voting no to the Lisbon Treaty when election turnout statistics show that they are one of the most committed EU nations (see below).
Maybe the pro European federalists would do better to ask themselves why so many in that list were only 20% or 30% turnouts, it's not only the UK that is disillusioned I can assure you as I'm hard pressed to find anyone in Belgium these days that's liking the current direction of the EU.
The turnout results are to be found here EU election turnout
Complain about this comment
Fionavroom
If people don't bother to vote.... because they are not interested in exercising their democratic rights.....they are against the state.
Your right it doesn't nessasarly mean they are against the state, it could be that they are confident that those that do vote will make the right choice. Maybe they don't feel they (themselves) were well informed enough on a particular issue, maybe they just couldn't make up their mind's.
The point is that there is no option on the ballot paper to object. Maybe if you put
MEP A,
MEP B
MEP C
MEP D
None of the above
E.U Stinks
on a ballot paper you would find out.
Complain about this comment
#81 Fionavroom
"If people don't bother to vote in the European Parliament election it is because they are not interested in exercising their democratic rights......... "
You cannot blame them. Once MP's get elected the manifesto goes out of the window and the people are no longer represented.
Complain about this comment
#84
Surely in Britain there are some candidates for the European Parliament who agree with the posters who think europe is going in the wrong direction, would it not be a good idea to vote for them? Would that not be a fair expression of your democratic right?
It could be argued that the low turnout in the euro parliament elections in britain is a reflection of their interest or (lack thereof) in the EU, and it might also go to show their ignorance of how they can effect the workings of the EU. There are many MEPs who are considered eurosceptic and vote accordingly...
As my mother always said, if you don't vote you can't complain, and if I'm not mistaken Britain has had one of the lowest turnouts in each of the EP elections. Empty vessels make most noise, if you're unhappy with your role in the EU, let the politicians know by turning out in force and voting for someone who represents your views next June...
Complain about this comment
Fionavroom: Being given a vote to the EU Parliament does not make the EU legitimate when you have been denied any vote on the treaties that define the powers that it and other EU institutions exercise.
In the UK have been denied a vote on the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon, but all would have beendefeated had such votes been held. Therefore the entire political union operates without the consent of the governed and should be altered or abolished.
---------
"to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" (T. Jeffseron, US Declaration of Independence).
Complain about this comment
How far can the EU be democratic?
If any group of independent countries look to establish stability in their relationships with each other, then the organisations they create to accomplish this require high independence from those countries. Otherwise, they won't be trusted to carry out the tasks allotted to them impartially. Thus, the EU institutions (Commission, Court of Justice, Central Bank) are formally independent of the EU member states - and, by inference, electors in general.
This is not much different from the way in which governments hand over what seems to be an increasingly large range of functions to agencies, boards, trusts, and so on. No democracy there, either.
In reality, the EU is a weak organisation, having to rely on member states in many ways. The problems in doing this are almost as great as the benefits: eg the huge mishandling of EU funds by member states causes the EU accounts to be criticised by the auditors. But having EU member state's courts (eg the House of Lords) as a major entry point for ECJ cases helps reduce their workload.
The EU has a real trust deficit. I'm not sure whether the cries for "more democracy" will put right that deficit, any more than quite what form that "more democracy" might take. But I do know that there are EMP's willing to listen to any reasonable ideas.
Complain about this comment
Thank you guys for the feedback!
Could you please tell me who are these 'undemocratic EU elite' exactly? Aren't they the people from your own country that yourself or your own government decided to appoint to represent you at EU level? Or do you think they are all those bad foreigners out there?
Buzet23: a relatively high turnout at the EP elections means that more people found appropriate to exercise their democratic rights in that instance, not necessarily that they feel particularly committed to the EU. The turnout for the Lisbon Treaty referendum was poor. If people felt so strongly about it one way or the other they didn't show it then.
Complain about this comment
#64 Freeborn-John
Our positions are not that different and, as usual in such discussions, the differences are often semantic.
On any political strand, it is seldom useful to establish particular points on a dimension as having any greater significance than others.
When you say "The simplest remedy would be to make national law superior to EU law in political areas when one nation has no real interest in what goes on in another." I am in total agreement. You are essentially describing a Confederal system. Indeed I would go further, and deny any right of the Confederal Parliament to legislate except in those areas where the member states have conferred the specific right to make law.
Similarly, on those aspects where the member states have agreed that common laws should apply throughout the Confederacy, then the state parliaments would have no power to legislate. The people (or parliaments in the case England and Finland) of each state would have agreed that sovereignty over such matters should be exercised by the wider European body politic. That is what is meant by "pooling" sovereignty in specific policy areas.
#74 Freeborn-John
Scots Law is different from English Law (and from Irish Law which derives from it). Because Oxford and Cambridge were closed to Scots students, medieval law students from Scotland normally studied at mainland European universities. Even after our 4 ancient universities were established, it was common for Scots law students to pursue their studies in Europe up until the 18th century. Hence, when Scots Law was enshrined in the Acts of Union, it had already been codified within the European tradition.
It has always been far more under threat from incompetent draughtsmanship at Westminster, than from anything that our European friends can do!
Complain about this comment
#72 ikamaskeip
Correct, in common with most people in Scotland, I'm Scottish not British.
"However, your wish to see the indiviudal EU member states' democracy "pooled" and yet in the same post refusing to accept any connection to the English"
You clearly fail to understand the point. We don't want to break the connection with the English, we simply want to be in a much wider Union with more than just the UK nations.
The UK Union worked well enough as an imperial project, but those days are long gone.
If I were a Brit, I might see some point in a UK Union, as a European, I see a lot of point in all the UK countries being in a wider European Union.
Complain about this comment
Fionavroom: The politicians elected in other countries have a democratic mandate to govern those other countries, but not anywhere else outside that country.
The turnout in the Irish referendum on June 12 was 53.1 per cent, which is higher than turnout (48.5%) for the referendum in Ireland that approvedthe Treaty of Nice. It is also higher than the 42% of Spaniards who turned out for their referendum on the EU Constitution. Should those referendums be re-run?
The margin by which the NO side won in Ireland was greater than that in the US presidential election that suppoted Barack Obama. Should that election be re-run?
I am afraid your comments are bottom-of-the-barrel attempts to justify the subversion of a democratic decision because you do not like the result.
Complain about this comment
oldnat @57 asked me
"So if the EU were to be re-organised along the lines of the UK Parliament (not that it is particularly democratic given the overwhelming power of the Executive over the Legislature), would you then support the EU?"
This is another big IF question! As you well know, there is absolutely no intention of reforming the workings of the EU to mirror the workings of the UK Parliament so it a pointless question to ask!
A better question for you to address is why there is no intention of making the EU democratic and accountable.
Why does the EU give the only power to draft and propose legislation to the unelected officials of the European Commission who can only hold their jobs because they support the European Project???? That is where the real power lies because they set the agenda and only what they propose can be voted upon and implemented.
Complain about this comment
The main reason for voting no, 42%, was that they didn't understand the treaty, the other reasons included loss of a commissioner and loss of neutrality. Not understanding the treaty was also the main reason for not voting. Also, the main reason for abstention, 46% of those who did not vote, was a lack of understanding. 63% of those who voted no think the EU is good thing for Ireland, while 10% of the no vote think the EU is a bad thing.
Considering the amount of work done on the treaty and the obvious need for reform, as well as the support for the EU in Ireland, could it really be said that a few declarations clarifying some of the issues, which are not concessionary, should not be put forward to the people?
facts from http://www.dfa.ie/
Complain about this comment
Oldnat (90): There is an enormous difference between our positions. Under what I propose no nation would have to live under any European law (beyond common market regulations) which its current government disagrees with. Under what you propose every nation in the EU would have to live under its federal law, including that law which it had voted against but lost under QMV, and EU law that previous governments had accepted but the current government does not. Surely you can see that what I propose is very flexiable and has democratic consent, where as what you propose (and exists in the EU) is a rigid system that steadily chokes the arena within which the nation-state can operate.
I would also say there is a serious incompatibility between your own two positions of Scottish nationalism and European federalism, which you are only able to reconcile (in your own mind) by calling federalism something it is not and pretending that this name-change would prevent the ever-growing volume of EU law from gradually pre-empting the body of national law.
You also kid yourself when you say that because the Scottish legal system includes an element of the civil law tradition that it would not be pre-empted by an EU civil law system. The method by which European law pre-empts national law is based soley on its supremacy and has nothing to do with whether European law is civil or common law (decided by judges). This much should be clear from the history of the ECJ which has been able to use its ruling to pre-empt national law in just the same way as legislation approved by the EU Council of Ministers. Unless an 'independent' Scotland were given an opt-out from EU Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters then the Scottish legal system that has survived 300 years within the UK would be on the way-out.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn John: we are obviously not speaking the same language! The point I make is that all countries are represented in a democratic manner at EU level, e.g. either elected directly or appointed by countries' democratically-elected government. I still don't understand who are those 'undemocratic EU elite', aliens from space?
As for the referendum, I did not say that I didn't like the result, whatever Irish people decide it is their privilege to do so. The turnout in the various election is poor in comparison to many other countries in Europe, same is the US case you mention (totally irrelevant for me as I am not a US citizen).
The conclusion is that we have a different understanding of democracy and representation. This is a forum where people can express their different opinions, let's leave it there.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps it may help those poeple who cannot understand why many are frustrated at the possibility of a second referendum in Ireland, if they consider this hypothetical situation. Imagine Ireland voted yes, but then there was an election in Irelandand a party elected who was against the Lisbon Treaty.
Th new Irish Government decide they are not happy with the result of the referndum, perhaps they commision some research to identify why people voted yes, which finds out the people really did not understand the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish Government decide to rerun the referendum, alongside a campaign costing several millions of punds explaining why they believed the Lisbon Treaty was bad for Ireland.
I know the scenario is a little unrealistic, but would any one seriously think this was acceptable. If you think it would not be acceptable then you must also be against any second referendum in the real world.
Complain about this comment
frenchderek asked @88
"How far can the EU be democratic?
If any group of independent countries look to establish stability in their relationships with each other, then the organisations they create to accomplish this require high independence from those countries. Otherwise, they won't be trusted to carry out the tasks allotted to them impartially. Thus, the EU institutions (Commission, Court of Justice, Central Bank) are formally independent of the EU member states - and, by inference, electors in general".
In a Parliamentary democracy like ours, our Civil Service is required to be impartial and to serve any Govt elected by the electorate. The job of the Civil Service is to serve the Govt and people of this country. Ultimate responsibility for the actions of the Civil Service lies with the Govt of the day as the Govt is responsible for directing the work of the Civil Service. The concept of ministerial responsibility makes the actions of Civil Service accountable to the electorate because ministers can implement changes in the way Civil Servants operate.
If you compare this situation with the civil servants in the Commission, you will see that there is no requirement for impartiality. On the contrary, they are required to support the European Project of ever closer union. As the Commission set the agenda and legislative programme for the EU, there is also no effective democratic control or accountability for their actions, unlike the situation with our Civil Service.
In our judicial system the Govt of the day appoints the judges. However Parliament can, in the light of judicial decisions, amend the law if they consider this to be justified. An example of this might be to amend the law to close a tax loophole.
We do indeed have a central bank with far greater independence than before 1997 but the Govt retains the power to direct and to change the policy of the Bank of England and to appoint the head of the Bank of England. Ultimate power and responsibility for the actions of the Bank of England therefore lies with the Govt which in turn is ultimately responsible to the electorate for the discharge of their duties.
The European Central Bank, on the other hand, has none of these democratic safeguards or the accountability of the Bank of England, as Ireland had found to its cost with the post Euro boom and now the bust. We can change policy if we get it wrong but Ireland cannot.
Complain about this comment
#93 busby2
One of the good things about blog forums, is that people have the opportunity to put forward positive proposals for change.
You are negative about the EU because it lacks sufficient democracy. Quite reasonable.
However, if you would oppose the EU, even if it were democratic by any system that you prefer, then posting about its democratic deficit is rather pointless.
So two simple questions directed to you personally.
1. Is there any constitutional structure for the EU that you would support?
2. If "yes", what would that structure be?
Complain about this comment
#95 Freeborn-John
I think that you are making the assumption that I want the EU to retain all its current areas of responsibility.
Let's take the issue on which we seem to agree that there should be pan-European legislation (I see no reason to call it "regulations") - establishing a single free trade area.
There can be no free trade area, unless all member states are subject to the same body of commercial law affecting free trade. Agreed?
If we are agreed so far, then no individual state can pass its own divergent laws. Agreed?
Laws should be passed through a democratic process by Parliamentarians elected from the whole territory to which those laws apply, rather than nominees from individual Parliaments. I suspect we may disagree at this point, since your tradition is that Parliament is sovereign, while I come from the broader European tradition that the people are sovereign.
Complain about this comment
oldnat and fionavroom, re ".. what is democratic representation.."
Quite simply the MEPs elected in 2004 were elected by between 19% and 47% of the entire qualified European Union electorate of the member states.
Thus, by your reckoning, all MEPs are there by virtue of those votes: Democratically placed in their seats.
That between 81% and 53% of the entire EU qualified electorate of member states did not participate in the 2004 election is by your reckoning, apparently an acceptable endorsement of those MEPs and a Mandate for them to represent some 215,000,000 Citizens who chose not to vote.
oldnat: I understand only too well your sophistry with the word "union"!
As a Scottish Nationalist supporter I am quite sure you long protested against the overwhelming number of 'English MPs' that drowned the voice of Scotland at Westminster.
But, apparently, you are perfectly happy with the European Union you advocate having a far less of a percentage of the 'voices' of its Citizens heard in Brussels than was ever the case of Scotland in the UK Parliament?
Fionavroom: No 'democratic elitism' in your eyes except when it suits your argument!
Staunch defender of the EU electoral process and appointments by National governments. You apparently have no objection to not one MEP sits in Brussels elected by a Turnout within 10 points of the Eire Referendum and not one MEP even had the collective percentage vote of the "Yes" section of that Referendum result.
However, that EU Parliament is not a 'democratic elite', merely an expression of the voters will, whereas the Eire vote is not?
As someone once said on another matter entirely (slave trade, so, perhaps not entirely divorced from the EU debate) : "...there's nothing more odious than political expediency in the name of freedom (other than) an odious politician's use of freedom.."
The words were directed at the rich merchants who invested in the 'trade' and hid behind the cloak of their 'freedoms'.
The EU's expedient usage of democratic principles to protect and build its venal, self-aggrandizing officiousness remind me far too much of such unwholesome people.
Complain about this comment
87. Freeborn-John:
"In the UK have been denied a vote on the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon, but all would have been defeated had such votes been held. Therefore the entire political union operates without the consent of the governed and should be altered or abolished."
I seem to recall that you're a big fan of the US and of their Constitution.
So, try this for size: The United States Constitution was adopted in September 1787 by the Constitutional Convention (note it wasn't voted on in a referendum. It was later ratified by conventions in each U.S. state IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE (note it wasn't voted on in a referendum). The vote was 1071 for and 577 against. A good good but hardly overwhelming majority. It has been amended 27 times between 1787 and 1992 (so it was far from perfect when ratified)
Why does everyone now want a referendum on everything instead of letting their elected representatives get on with things as they have done for quite a while now?
Why does your Anglosphere Constitution seek to recreate the British Empire without the black or brown bits?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2008/10/02
/an_embarrassing_example_of_anglosphere_unity
Why does the draft EU Constitution that won you a prize from the Adam Smith Institute resemble so closely the Anglosphere Constitution?
#94 at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2008/06/what_does_irelands_no_mean.html
and
http://www.adamsmith.org/publications/government/alternative-eu-constitution-200711201245/
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John:
You havev argues previously that
"In the absence of a European people EU law superior to national law imposed by a 'tyranny of the qualified majority' is too powerful a tool for the general matters of politics we have previously decided in general elections."
Who decides that there is no "European people"? You? Sorry, but I do see and recognize a "European people ".
You argue against the supremacy of EU law over purely national law but EU law is simply a specific body of international law. It has long been recognised that there is hierarchy of law running from (UK example) borough bye-law to international agreement. Each level up the scale has more force than the lower.
This normal. This is standard practice. It's what you get when you play with the big boys. International law is the ultimate trump card.
Complain about this comment
101. ikamaskeip:
"The EU's expedient usage of democratic principles to protect and build its venal, self-aggrandizing officiousness remind me far too much of such unwholesome people."
Unless this is just politically motivated name-calling please prove with factual reference "venal" and "self-aggrandizing officiousness". And when I say "prove" I do not mean quoting a Daily Mail headline or a Daily Telegraph blog.
Complain about this comment
#97 jordanbassett
I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. The research has been done and people didn't understand the Lisbon treated and they voted no because they didn't understand. Are you suggesting people might vote yes because they don't understand the treaty? Or sugggesting that the survey taken to understand the no vote doesn't reflect reality?
The point is that if Ireland votes yes it is creating positive obligations that it must stand by, by voting no everything stays the same (in the short term). Once you adopt new laws you can't turn around and say 'actually I don't know why I agreed I didn't understand it'. If in the future a government decides to have a referendum to leave the EU than what's wrong with that? A government is free to do that, thats how constitutional law works.
I think maybe one of the problems that some of the British bloggers here have is that they possibly don't understand Irish constitutional law. Abortion in Ireland has been the subject of 3 referenda and will need at least another before the law becomes sufficiently clear either way. There has been 24 amendments in the last 36 years. That's a lot, compared to the US for example, where's there's been 27 in 300 odd years. If it's an important issue a government's reputation may depend on putting forward an acceptable proposal.
Therefore if a future Irish government want to have a referendum for whatever reason, then there will be one. Remember a proposed amendment must be approved by the Oireachtas before it gets to the people.
If the main reason for voting no to Lisbon had been because of any particular provision then it would be absolutley unacceptable to ask Ireland to vote again with some form of change. However, even if the Lisbon Treaty wasn't readily understandable to the Irish public, it is easy to understand the need for reform of the EU.
People seem worried that Ireland will vote yes the second time, but who's to say the Irish public won't reject Lisbon on its merits? At least give us the chance to vote with some understanding of the thing.
(and yes the fact is that it wasn't explained properly the first time, nobody involved in the 'yes' campaign was convincing, and if Lisbon can't shake off the reputation of being incomprehensible then it will be shunned again by the public)
As for frustration about a second referendum, if you're Irish and you disagree with a 2nd referendum then vote no and moan all you like, if you're not Irish then I'm you should respect our democratic process :) I think its just jealousy, not only do we get a referendum and your 'undemocratic' contries don't, but we get two of the buggers! double the democracy ;)
Complain about this comment
#101 ikamaskeip
Things have improved since devolution, now that non Scots MPs don't determine our domestic policies (how you stomach Scots MPs voting on English issues is beyond me, and most Scots.)
I don't have a problem with MPs from throughout the UK voting on UK issues, in the same way that I have no problem with MEPs from all of Europe deciding on European issues.
I don't think you are aware that the SNP policy is not to end the union with the other UK countries, but to change it's nature to a union with a much wider group of countries.
You are way out of date if you imagine that the Scottish Nationalist movement is based on some form of anti-English Brigadoon mentality.
Scotland never stopped being a nation. We are currently exploring how our relationships with our neighbours in Europe should develop in the 21st century.
Complain about this comment
Re post 105, Ireland voted twice in the last 70 years on abortion, those two votes were 8 years apart. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. As I have said in a previous post I think it is not unreasonable to allow people anothere vote after a reasonable passage of time to allow people and attititudes to change - shall we say 2016.
My point is that there were undoubtedly people who voted no who did not understand the Treaty, equally though there were people who voted yes who did not understand the treaty. Similarly there were many people who voted for the U.K. to join the EEC who did not understand the full ramifications. However, as has been argued here before that is tough, they should of found out or those who drafted the treaty should have made it understandable in the first place. Simialrly if people choose to vote no that should also stand, it's called democracy.
Your argument that only a no vote requires a rerun of the referendum is precisely the problem with the E.U., you can't say no to it.
Complain about this comment
Re my post 107 above re divorce, if you count the vote on the constitution itseff that would be 3 votes in 71 years, if we take the average between each vote that would be even better, you could vote again on Lisbon in 2031
Complain about this comment
# 107 jordanbassett
1983, 1992, 2002, three referenda on abortion. But lets not let wrong facts get in the way of a good reply. I understand your point about the time, ie if people change their minds over time then maybe there is merit in another referendum on the same issue. Its a good point but I don't think it applies so easily to referenda on the EU like Nice or Lisbon.
I don't really want to get into it too much but I don't think constitutional referenda lend themsleves well to EU treaties. A referendum should be to allow divorce or not, to allow people born in Ireland the right to citizenship or not... these are clear questions. An international treaty is necessarily complicated, so if we're asked 'do you want to accept this whole body of laws and regulations, or not', the voter is being asked quite a lot.
I think to too closely compare a referendum on an EU treaty with divorce for example is not accurate. People can easily form an opinion whether or not they want to allow divorce, an opinion on a treaty is another kettle of fish. Its an endless argument I'm afraid...
Regarding saying no to europe, of course you can. Britain, Sweden and Denmark said no to the single currency, both Ireland and Britain have said no to Schengen... What if Ireland says no in the next referendum? It may well happen, if we get left behind then we get left behind, so be it, a two speed europe could well develop, no one is forcing any Irish person to vote yes, we have the option. Hopefully by the time we go to vote we'll have a better understanding and will have formed a more informed opinion.
Complain about this comment
oldnat @99 posted
"However, if you would oppose the EU, even if it were democratic by any system that you prefer, then posting about its democratic deficit is rather pointless.
So two simple questions directed to you personally.
1. Is there any constitutional structure for the EU that you would support?
2. If "yes", what would that structure be?"
I support the concept of a free trade area, not a European Union whose aim is an ever closer union, and I would look to the structure of NAFTA as a possible model.
The importance of self determination and the importance to govern ourselves is very well illustrated in your own post 106 when your wrote:
"Things have improved since devolution, now that non Scots MPs don't determine our domestic policies (how you stomach Scots MPs voting on English issues is beyond me, and most Scots.)"
I agree. But we do have the sovereignty to rectify this anomaly and the Conservatives would appear to be interested in doing just that if they form the next Govt after the next General Election. The key issue is where the power to implement change lies as, if we have the power to change things at a national level, we can implement those changes without reference to any other body. That is what sovereignty is all about.
Now a personal question to you, Oldnat. Can you please explain how anyone who considers themselves a democrat can possibly support the undemocratic and unaccountable EU? This question has never been satisfactorily answered by those who support the EU. All that matters to them is their desire for an ever closer union which removes power away from the people of Europe to govern their own lives through their own Parliaments and directly elected governments.
Complain about this comment
#110 busby2
Thanks for the response. I now have a clearer idea of your position.
"we do have the sovereignty to rectify this anomaly" Technically, "your" Parliament has the sovereignty to do this. You will understand our frustration that while Scottish Constitutional Law places sovereignty with the people rather than in a Parliament, the current UK constitutional settlement means that "we" can't exercise our sovereignty to negotiate the form of government best suited to Scotland.
To your question - Actually not a personal question since you ask "Can you please explain how anyone who considers themselves a democrat ....."
I can't talk for other people, but a personal response would be -
I want to see the Government of the EU accountable to the Parliament of the EU. Those matters which the states have decided should be handled at a European level should be decided by the European Parliament.
Which powers should be handled at European or state level is a matter of debate, but it is a different argument from the democratic issue.
Complain about this comment
110 - busby2
As an English observer, living outside the UK, my answer to your question to Oldnat is very simple. If you do not like the mechanisms by which you are governed, do you use the democratic process to change them or do you you take to the streets with Molotov cocktails?
The European project is not perfect but it can be adjusted from within given the political will. As someone who lives roughly halfway between the two locations, would I rather be rioting in Athens or engaged in intelligent discourse in Edinburgh?
No contest.
Complain about this comment
Irish people for the most part are pro European and the No vote was in part a slap in the face for the ruling Fianna Fail/PD/Green coalition but it was also achieved by a combination of mis-information by certain parties such as Sinn Fein and the various nationalistic and conservative religious groups and the majority of Irish farmers who were so against it because of WTO and of course Mandleson, now this bogeyman has gone and the Irish pork industry is begging the EU for a handout, I'm sure there will be many a farmer who has changed tack, the economy is in meltdown, unemployment rising so many people will see being a member of the EU as vital to the long term well being of their families. There exists in Ireland a few taboo subjects which seem to divide and harden attitudes when they are talked about. 1. Neutrality, this idea that Ireland should always be immune from defending the EU if required is nonsense, why should Ireland not be expected to contribute to European defence just like anyone else. We have to get over this and take our place amongst the rest of the states and do our bit. Ireland must be told that we will be EXPECTED to be a part of any EU defence mechanism and no opt out. We have to stop hiding behind this notion which led to WW2 being called "the Emergency" in Ireland. Spare me please! 2. Abortion, what has this got to do with Lisbon? Nothing that's what. Nothing in the Lisbon treaty is going to enforce this upon the Irish people, this of course highlights the great hypocracy of the Irish, many thousands of Irish women travel abroad to have abortions every year but as usual this fact is swept under the carpet. The catholic church and it's various offshoots were prominent in spreading lies during the last vote and will no doubt be gearing up for more of the same come the autumn 09. Abortion is an emotionally charged subject but it comes down to the woman at the end of the day, it's not for religions or religious inspired groups to be trying to make this a part of the vote, it has nothing to do with the vote on Lisbon. 3. Tax. The fear that Ireland's low corporation tax will have to rise to that of other European states is of course a big fear and it's also a big factor in why so many companies are in Ireland in the first place, I'm sure in the interests of European integration a deal will be done here, after all the impact of this on other European states is tiny overall. SO, will Ireland vote No for a second time? I don't think so because you can say one thing about the Irish, we know very well when it's in our interest to play the game and when it's not. Most people I know who voted no for varying reasons have already changed their minds and will vote yes next time around because they've made their protest and because they don't want Ireland to be left behind. There's practically no English style Euroscepticism in Ireland. You have Ganley and his UKIP style rump and then the Sinn Fein/IRA mob supported the local 'ra wannabes' who seem to have sprung in every town that shows Celtic matches and have a thing for signing their names in gaelic.
Complain about this comment
We're getting off the point a bit here, which is nicely expressed in comment 97...the point is, we voted no, that was our democratically enshrined right. Eurocrats (and our own craven government I might add) said "we respect the result of the vote"...not true. It is unacceptable and offensive that we are going to have to vote again because we didn't get the "correct" answer...."bold naughty ignorant Ireland, do it again and this time get it right"...stomach-churning stuff. Did France and Holland have to re-vote the Constitution? No. Did they even have the chance to vote on Lisbon? No. I wonder why......
Complain about this comment
The Irish people voted NO. Why won't the EU realise that their dream is over. Many countries were not given the option of a vote because their so called leaders knew what the response would be. Which is why we in the UK despite being promised one by Tony Blair will never have one. I do know the answer of course..... It is because they don't want the gravy train that they have created to stop.
Complain about this comment
How undemocratic is the EU a NO is a NO and the way plonker brosso IS talking its a done deal already what happenS if they dont win the next referendrum is there going to be a third one by this time the torys will be in power to sort out the EU .Euro elections are coming gordon pay back time
Complain about this comment
Various contributors have come out with "no means no" and "what part of no do you not understand?".
Complain about this comment
Various contributors have come out with "no means no" and "what part of no did you not understand?".
I would ask them if that is really how they lead their lives. If their boss says no to a pay rise do they just give up and walk away? If the girl they ask to marry says no do they just give up and walk away? There are many similar situations where you just don't want to accept the brutal "no" and ask again. There's nothing wrong in that. The only time "no" is unequivocal is when the next step is rape. I'll save the europhobes the time and say I'm sure that's how they feel - doesn't make it true though.
Where does this latest fad for referendums come from? I swear you'd all wish that you'd never heard of the word if your elected representatives kept running back to consult you before they voted on anything.
Why do people expect the EU to be perfect from the outset? It wasn't. It isn't. But given a chance it can be pretty good. Just recognise that it's a work in progress: a bit like your own democracy wherever you may be in Europe - including the offshore bits.
Complain about this comment
Lets not get ahead of ourselves. No means we didn't understand, an argument could be made that its incomprehensible but the no was certainly not on the facts of the Treaty.
Ireland is strongly in favour of european membership, and the EU needs reform, therefore it would be quite self destructive to put our fingers in our ears and yell 'No means no, nothing else, I don't understand and don't want to."
A 3rd referendum... don't think you realise that no politician is going to commit political suicide over this.
Complain about this comment
Additional thought on #1.
A very good point was made here about this European Union. There really isn't a Democratic process that would pass any meaningful standard. Basically, you get to vote until the measure passes. You are never allowed to re-vote to decide if you want to withdraw from the measures sponsorsed. The election seems to be fixed in favor of the people that want to surrender their countries soveigny to the EU.
When large multi-state unions, countries, empires, entities are formed they never include a peaceful exit process. Any realistic evaluation admits somebody will gain powerand somebody will lose power to form such a union. The ability to enforce ones vision of the future by political means being lost, the less rational leaders on the losing side usssually opt for a military solution. History bears this out, see the US civil war, the founding of the Soviet Union, Hitler's Balkan alliances (Europa), the wars of the Holy Roman empire over the reformation.
Anybody who doesn't believe me might want to do a little reading on William Techumpsa Sherman and his destruction of the US citizens in the South during the civil war. The aftermath called Re-construction is interesting too, because the military victor ussually attempts to strip their victim of their political power afterwards.
Ireland and Denmark may be the smartest people in Europe, free and sovereign in their land and happy to enforce it!
How much sovereignty will Poland or Germany have once Russia is admitted to the EU and don't kid yourself it will be.
Luclily, this Union doesn't have any players who have tried to take over the others power like France, Germany, Rome, Austro-Hugary. I am sure they are seeply concerned about Irish Rights. Ha! Ha!
Complain about this comment
#120
'When large multi-state unions, countries, empires, entities are formed they never include a peaceful exit process.'
Well, there's no EU exit clause at the moment, but there is one proposed under the Lisbon Treaty, see :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union
Perhaps eurosceptics ought to realise that there are a lot of babies in the bathwater of the Lisbon treaty before chucking the whole lot out.
Complain about this comment
oldnat @111
Thank you for your response.
If Scotland returned a majority of Scottish Nationalist MPs and a referendum was held confirming that the people of Scotland whether they wanted to split off from the UK, do you think the rest of the UK would prevent this?
However I think a policy of Scottish independence coupled with membership of the EU is a contradiction in terms as the EU.
Scotland has a great deal of influence over the Govt of the UK but would have minimal influence over the workings of the EU but if that is what Scotland wants...
You wrote:
"I want to see the Government of the EU accountable to the Parliament of the EU".
There are no proposals for this and it won't ever happen. The Govt of the EU ie the unelected Commission and the Council of Ministers see the role of the EU Parliament as nothing more than to rubber stamp their proposals. The EU Govt is in effect a dictatorship.
Complain about this comment
120. politejomsviking:
"How much sovereignty will Poland or Germany have once Russia is admitted to the EU and don't kid yourself it will be."
That is utterly delusional. In the same league as believing that one day China and the USA will ask to join!
Complain about this comment
threnodio @112
Thank you for your response.
You wrote "The European project is not perfect but it can be adjusted from within given the political will".
There is absolutley no evidence to show the EU is capable of reform from within. The "choice" being given the people of the EU is an ever closer union: no other options are available, as has been made clear to the Irish.
Faced with such a "choice", I want us to leave the EU and join the EEA.
Complain about this comment
124. busby2:
"There is absolutely no evidence to show the EU is capable of reform from within."
Not true. Take a look at the current action to reduce red tape and get rid of unnecessary regulations. This is a direct reaction to public criticism.
"I want us to leave the EU and join the EEA."
You're already in the EEA. You may have meant EFTA. Check news sources and you'll see that that appears to heading towards a one state enterprise - Leichtenstein.
Complain about this comment
oldnat, re ".. you are well out of date... SNP want a 'union' with other nations.. SNP not anti-English..."
What part of my comment could you have construed as inferring the Scots not liking English?
Come on now! For goodness sake, a little basic honesty.
How any SNP supporter could attempt to seriously argue that the years of SNP campaign policy for full independence is not an indicator of a dislike of England is just laughably disingenuous!?
To convince any English person of the SNP's warm regards for England would really be an epic "Brigadoon recasting" with no chance whatsoever of the SNP or English happily skipping back over the bridge and time!
As for the 'union': I've long written and argued the Welsh, Scots, Irish should all be allowed to make up their own electoral minds about EU membership.
Just so long as the English are given the same ballot box choice.
It is the only positive I can divine about England's present EU membership: The fact that it brought the United Kingdom to face its 'nationalist-devolutionary' path. Unfortunately, the only remaining nation wedded to the 'colonial-principality' cause is the backward, unrepresentative English MPs who still enjoy the perks and flummory of a blinkered Imperial-style Parliament!
You are fortunate: The SNP is a party in step for the most part with the Citizens of its nation. Likewise Welsh Nationalists and to some extent the unpleasant but publicly mandated sectarian parties of Ulster.
However, the English electorate does not have such political representation: The English do not have a 'nationalist-devolution' Party to speak of. The nearest equivalent would be UKIP which of course is all about the EU and not the salvation of the English Citizen!
Sorry, if I digressed!
Complain about this comment
#123, greypolyglot,
Whilst China and the USA are delusional prospects for joining the EU, I really would not class Russia in that list. After all it is geographically located next to several existing members and I'm sure some EU politicians see their joining as being a way to defuse the current situation with Russia over Georgia and Ukraine and maybe other states. However I do agree it is delusional to think Russia being in the EU would be a good thing as it could easily result in a new USSR since Russia would be by far the largest state with 142 million people and be difficult to overrule.
I have to admit that I was half expecting their being announced as candidates due to the French and German support they command, and it was only the Georgian war that blocked that possibility I think.
On another point, regarding the European Elections in 2004 some people have made the point here that UK is one of the worst countries regarding turnover, in fact it is 17th out of the 25 that voted last time which mean 8 countries were worse than the UK. When you look at the UK turnout with 38.9% and then look at those hotbeds of a federal EU, France and Germany, you see only 42.75% and 43% voted there respectively, hardly a ringing endorsement of their EU credentials I think. You also have to remember the countries that oblige their voters to vote, Belgium, Cyprus, Italy and Luxembourg (although the last two are actually not enforced), which means UK is very much atypical of EU voting turnout.
Complain about this comment
The point of the low turnout in the UK EP elections is that if indeed so much of the public are discontent with UKs membership of the EU and the general direction it is headed why don't they express such a view by voting in the elections? With so much complaints about the so called 'democratic deficiency' within the EU it is ironic that those who complain don't express the democratic rights that they have...
If the people of the UK really want to change the direction of the EU they should realise that voting is much more effective than negative media attention and blogging about the bad decisions and treaties negotiated by elected officials and those appointed by elected officials...
Complain about this comment
In reply to my post in which I wrote: "There is absolutely no evidence to show the EU is capable of reform from within",
Greypolyglot replied:
"Not true. Take a look at the current action to reduce red tape and get rid of unnecessary regulations. This is a direct reaction to public criticism".
I was referring to making the EU democratic and accountable, not reducing red tape and getting rid
of unnecessary regulations!!
Every Govt bureaucratic organisation says that getting rid of red tape etc is their aim but who actually achieves this? They probably spend more money and waste more time examining the problem than doing anything about it! And, in the case of the EU, they are expanding and extending their powers and this must by definition extend the bureaucratic load and control they impose.
There is no chance of of the the EU becoming democratic or accountable. The last thing they want is the electorate to given a chance to vote on such matters as the Lisbon Treaty because they may reach the "wrong decision" - as they did in Ireland.
The whole structure of the EU has NOT fallen apart since Ireland voted NO, so the treaty is NOT required in any case. Now some say it is necessary to cope with recent expansion and to provide for further expansion. But has anyone asked us, the people of Europe, if we want the EU to expand? Of course not!! Our leaders do not consider that to be any concern of ours, such is their contempt for the people they purport to serve.
Finally, I did mean EFTA and the rights EFTA members have under the EEA to have access to the single european market. I think given the choice there may be other nations whose electorate might well prefer membership of EFTA to the EU, so giving rise to a "two speed europe", those wanting an ever closer union and those wanting a free trade area.
Complain about this comment
129. busby2:
"Finally, I did mean EFTA and the rights EFTA members have under the EEA to have access to the single european market. I think given the choice there may be other nations whose electorate might well prefer membership of EFTA to the EU, so giving rise to a "two speed europe", those wanting an ever closer union and those wanting a free trade area. "
Well, I got something right then. Now, do your own research and find out, perhaps, by asking EFTA, how much EU legislation they have to comply with in order to get that "access to the single european market". I think you'll be rather surprised.
Feel free to come back and tell everyone the answer. I know that if I do it I'll be accused of telling porkies.
Complain about this comment
127. Buzet23:
"Whilst China and the USA are delusional prospects for joining the EU, I really would not class Russia in that list."
Oh, come on. In the words of John McEnroe "you can not be serious!"
Complain about this comment
danremont, re"... if so much (English) discontent... point of voting... why don't English/UK vote in EU elections..."
It is precisely because the vast numbers of 'discontented' fear their participation will be used by the EU as an endorsement of its existence.
Afterall, isn't this debate about the Eire "No" vote originating from the fact the EU will not allow that democratic vote to stand?
The French always used to describe "perfidious Albion" in Queen Victoria's time as it perceived British Governments repeatedly twist matters to suit UK ends: Nowadays, it is the Paris-Berlin-EU axis that exemplifies perfidity.
No self-respecting English (I cannot assume anything on the Scots, Welsh, Irish stance) Citizen would stoop to vote in a fraudulent election for a fraudulent organisation whose only credentials are based upon a refusal, on any pretext, to recognise results at the ballot box.
Complain about this comment
-ikamaskeip
You may see the EU as fraudulent but I'm afraid (for you) that it is legitimate, fully binding, effects your daily life and will do for a long time, whether the UK is a part of it or not.
If you refuse to face the reality of the situation and choose to just moan and not participate you have no right to complain about things.
Are you really afraid that the French will think you are suddenly in love with the EU because you vote? Do you often refrain from voting because you're afraid of what others may think of you? The only way to change things is by voting. Closing your eyes and not participating will, not surprisingly, achieve nothing. The quicker you realise this the quicker you can effect things to allow the UK's withdrawl if that is what you so wish...
Complain about this comment
14. At 12:14pm on 09 Dec 2008, observermac wrote:
What part of the word "no" do the Eurocrats fail to understand
No was never an option.
Its YES or LATER
Complain about this comment
danremont, "... do 'you' often not vote... 'you' afraid of France... quicker 'you' realise... voting can effect change.."
It must be so nice and comforting for you to know what is right for me and others who do not wish to participate in the great EU Federalist Project.
I voted "Yes" in Wilson's Referendum 34+ years ago for the UK to sign-up to a 'Common Market' for the purpose of 'reducing Tariffs' to the point where a 'Free trade' situation would exist between 9 European nations.
At no stage in the intervening 34 years have I ever been directly consulted at the Ballot Box about the Political - Social - Justice - Military - Enlargement etc. of that Common Market into full blown rule from Brussels.
It may be that you consider the General Election Political Party choices offered to Britons, especially the English, is sufficient test of the Citizens' will: I would contend that no choice has been possible whilst a first-past-the-post system prevails that prevents any but the 3 entrenched Parties from gaining substantial representation in Parliament. Proportional representation may be the selection path for MEPs but UK Citizens, especially the English do not see any merit in MEPs and therefore the majority of Citizens will not take part.
As for your presumption that the EU is legitimate, well, I'm "afraid for you" the lesson of history is that elected powers such as Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, the former DDR, Castro's Cuba, Saddam's Iraq, Mugabe's Zimbabwhe, the Peoples Republic of China, North Korea etc. all have a claim to following the 'democratic will' of the electorate.
Oh, but the EU is nothing like those places, is it!?
Well, then why will the EU not accept the 'democratic will' of the Danes, Dutch, French and Irish when it is expressed through the Ballot box? Why is it the English are denied a Referendum on EU Membership when every Opinion Poll conducted for the past 15 years has indicated between 60 and 80+% of Citizens wish to have one?
Oh, but that's not the type of 'democratic will' of the EU, or supporters like you, is it!?
I repeat, it must be so comforting for you to know that literally millions of English people do not agree with your version of 'democratic will'. You probably believe it is in our best interests as we poor ill-informed things don't really understand, but of course, in your conceit you do!?
It is a measure of your complacent disregard for peoples' rights that you can use as an argument the idea that millions of people should take part in Elections to a body for which they have no brief. The same millions denied the right to make a choice at the Ballot box about membership of that organisation.
I am not a 'little englander': This is not about daft scare stories of straight bananas nor even the demise of Imperial weights and measures (though the latter was never a CM policy). No, I am a follower and believer in the democratic will of the people.
I liked what I voted "Yes" for all those years ago: The basic argument was that by reducing economic-trade tensions Europe never again would be visited by internecine war because the nations would prosper in the fair exchange of goods and services.
So, I should have read the Brussel's EUrotocracy smallprint at the bottom of the Ballot Paper! Well I did (and with a degree in History I believe I made a fair attempt): Nothing asked me to consider whether I wanted the laws of the UK made in Brussels, nothing asked me to vote yes or no to massive extensions of borders, to foreign police able to enter this nation, nothing informed me that even when a referendum on a critical issue is held if the EUrotocracy does not like the result then there will be re-votes until it does...
Fine! You go along with all that fine-print in invible ink: I will not. And, what is more, democracy will prevail and your blinkered, disrespectful EU version of it will fall in time.
Complain about this comment
Reviewing 120
Dear simple, gentle Greypolyglot,
often one sees the reckless, the dangerous, the ill advised; we as human beings are forced by that inner spark of light that God put in each of us to care and say stop, don't run with that scissors pointed at your throat. If we speak out it is because of that inner spark of heaven and not our true nature, because 99% per cent of me and all people can enjoy watching Tom fool punching a scissors through his neck as anyone.
That said, If you think that you are going to be able to keep the biggest European power out of your bureacracy (note I said biggest and not most enlightened or gentle), when she controls your oil, your natural gas, has her own little political supporters in your country, and every country in the EU, the biggest military, the out and out support of the two biggest prime movers in the Union (Germany and France) and an excellent spy service devoted to manipulating the weak minded in your countries, then so be it, may I recommend a scissors long enough to reach the Cerebral Cortext; It would be a lot less painful than bleeding out.
By the way you are in excellent company, having crossed the pond dividing our back yards twice in the last century to stand beside Britain ( ah, Normandy in June, ce'ste bon) I would like to say that we had to admire the advanced form of the scissor runners of France, Germany and Italy.
May your Union be a long and happy one, as no doubt as Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, Tennesee, Alabama, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri find theirs, all of whom apparently exited the American Union by expressing the will of the legislature that brought them into it (Louisiana actually had a popular vote). Check my history, but that bit in the Declaration of Independence, about dissolving government bonds, didn't work to well and our Civil war was the bloodiest war in our history.
I digress, there is nothing to be learned from American history, by anybody in Continental Europe. Run on.
Complain about this comment
jaws1912: "... no means no.. payback time... tories in power.. EU elections coming... Gordon..."
Stop ruining every one of our anti-EU contributions by your lack of knowledge!
The 'EIRE' Referendum has NOTHING to do with NuLab, Conservative, LibDems etc.; it's an Irish vote in the Southern Republic for Irish Citizens.
Of course their REFERENDUM does have implications for the mainland UK and all EU memeber states and because it embarrasses all politicians of every nation that does not hold one.
All the same, please understand the basic fact: Eire is an independent nation entirely disconnected from UK Political Parties inc. Gordon Brown!
Complain about this comment
120, politejomsviking:
"When large multi-state unions, countries, empires, entities are formed they never include a peaceful exit process."
You and many others seem to have missed the fact that is precisely what is included with the Lisbon Treaty.
136 politejomsviking:
"there is nothing to be learned from American history, by anybody in Continental Europe."
Did you mean to refer to 102 rather than 120? Anyway, now you really have put me in a quandary. It would be impolite to disagree with you but equally impolite to agree. Think about it.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23, re Your post 73:
Apologies for not replying earlier. I thought I had and checking back, I hadn't... put it down to old age!
Yes, I was aware of the compulsory Belgian procedure, but, that negates its effect on Turnout: If you have to vote, it cannot be taken as an expression of the Electorates' interest/concern/willingness etc.
Beware EU "own Figures" on European Elections.
Nothing like "46%" of the EU European Electorate took part in the 2004 Parliament election.
It is typical of this corrupt institution that it amends the Turnout numbers to suit its version of the truth (much like the "no" in Referenda where Msr barrosso promptly replies, "... this is not a 'no'... it is a question for us (EU) to resolve.."
Yes, I do accuse the EU of 'amending' voting figures to suit its purpose. You may believe they would not try this trick as they are bound to be caught out: Well, check the records and you will find that even with Belgium's addition there is not even 40%+ participation in 2004. You see it all depends on which method is used to count-up the % of each nation.
Incidentally, a little aside on Belgium's "democratic" process: My Godparents are Belge, residing in Brussels. They told me how a neighbouring Morroccan Belge man explained to them he was able to vote TWICE as his wife could not read or write French/Flemish, so, by Law he was able to VOTE on her behalf!
As my Godfather Henri remarked, "Now that is a wealthy man! I am born, lived and worked all my life in Belgium, but I have ONE Vote!"
It's a fascinating 'democracy' we are presently enduring, don't you think!?
Complain about this comment
ikamaskeip
I would like to know how you see a way out of this situation for the UK if you are not willing to vote to change things in the EU and you see no choice in the UK parliamentary elections.
'Democracy will prevail' - democracy is what the people who partake in it decide it is, so unless people vote the only way to change things is through force. Similarly. if the only people who vote for EP elections are EU supporters then sure enough the actions of the EP will reflect this. A growth in the European Independence/Democracy party would have have a big effect on the EU.
Surely the gains by the UKIP in the 2004 elections show that some people who want change are willing to be heard at the ballot boxes. Alternatively people could spoil the vote, if there was 80% turnout and 40% spoiled that would surely send a strong message.
You may see my views as 'conceited' but I'm just trying to be pragmatic, I honestly don't see a way out of this situation for you unless you actively try to change things...
Complain about this comment
#140 danremont
" 'Democracy will prevail' - democracy is what the people who partake in it decide it is,"
Not true. Even those who take part in it are ignored by those who are elected, the arrogant politicians.
Complain about this comment
Well, check the records and you will find that even with Belgium's addition there is not even 40%+ participation in 2004. You see it all depends on which method is used to count-up the % of each nation.
I'm truly amazed how far reaching the scaremongering is. Reminds me of the US McCarthy era. Honestly if you believe that the figures aren't correct you can always calculate the numbers yourself it's quite simple. :)
They told me how a neighbouring Morroccan Belge man explained to them he was able to vote TWICE as his wife could not read or write French/Flemish, so, by Law he was able to VOTE on her behalf!
It is possible, in the lower countries at least, that you can have someone else vote on your behalf. No idea why such laws exist though, personally I find it highly irresponsible.
Complain about this comment
Ticape, "... truly amazed how far reaching the scaremongering is... US McCarthy era... calculate numbers yourself..."
You are correct - Truly amazing:
360,229,442 eligible EU voters in 2004.
154,317,718 votes cast in the 2004 EU Parliament election.
205,911,724 no vote cast.
Actual percent of votes cast 44.8%: 2.04% of returned ballot papers declared as "spoiled", reducing to 42.76% votes cast.
So, yes, mea culpa, I rounded things down!
2004 EU Parliament Electoral Turnout: Lowest since 1979 with 7 of the 10 'new' East Europe member States returning lower figures than the derisory EU average for 2004.
The UK (28.2%) and Poland 'stay-away' (i.e. non-voters) exceeded 70%+ of each nations eligible electoral population!
Other EU member states had voter turnouts ranging from 12% to 33% of the eligible electorate!
6 states recorded voter turnout in excess of 33%!
No EU Parliamentary Poll has exceeded a 48% total Turnout of voters since 1998.
Thus, 450,000,000 EU Citizens (in 2004) were represented by MEPs with, shall we call it 'minority voter turnout' from their European Constituencies. I.e. Not 1 MEP received Public support as expressed through the Ballot box by more than 33% of those eligible to vote!
How right you are again: McCarthyism alive and virulently well in the EUrotocracy of Brussels!
Complain about this comment
#143, ikamaskeip,
I've just looked at the EU Parliaments own figures for 2004 after what you've said about invalid votes and it's curious that for the UK, Italy, Ireland and Luxembourg there is no data recorded in all the columns other than turnout percentage. This means that unless it's available elsewhere we have little idea of how many of the 38.9% that seemingly turned out to vote in the UK actually did vote rather than spoil their papers. Where did you get your 28.2% figure above from for the UK?
#131. At 6:52pm on 11 Dec 2008, greypolyglot wrote:
You replied to my post about Russia being lined up to join the EU at some point -
Oh, come on. In the words of John McEnroe "you can not be serious!"
I'm afraid all I can add to the end of "you can not be serious!" is "if you don't believe it's plausible". There is no evidence to support that there is any limit imagined in the desire for further expansion, it's simply down to what the politicians think they can get away with concerning their empire building.
#139, ikamaskeip,
Your last bit on proxy voting is also very true in the UK, why do you think Nu-Labour expanded the use of postal voting, one of the reasons gives the same effect as you describe in Brussels, i.e. the head of the household controls the voting. Another is that often postal votes are sent out to people who either don't live at the address or have never lived at the address, are they used I don't know but I would love to find out.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23, "...voting irregularities..."
I hit 2 and it should have been the number For sure, as UK Parliamentary elections have revealed the scope for corruption/fixing Ballot is greater with postal voting.
However, I can reassure you that (curses, a compliment to EU!) postal voting is extremely tightly regulated in the few European nations that use it (it's a relatively new method in the UK).
Anyway, seasonal greetings (indeed to all Commentators): My wife and I are off to a cottage at Kuusamo (arctic); so, no more from me for this year!
Complain about this comment
Buzet23, "...voting irregularities..."
I hit 2 and it should have been the number 3 on the keypad, thus 38.2%.
This error does not alter the other figures which I got from the BBC UK EU 2004 Election Result site and from the Wikipedia EU sites & from 1 set out below..
The "spoiled" papers percent was from the European Union Electoral Commission Reports site that provides Election information on everything EU Election since the inception of the 'Common Market' Parliament.
As for the "... head of household.. controls votes... postal votes.."
It's a bit of a stretch to suggest this /head of house) is the same as the legally mandated dual-vote laws of the Benelux nations.
For sure, as UK Parliamentary elections have revealed the scope for corruption/fixing Ballot is greater with postal voting.
However, I can reassure you that (curses, a compliment to EU!) postal voting is extremely tightly regulated in the few European nations that use it (it's a relatively new method in the UK).
Complain about this comment
Buzet23, "...voting irregularities..."
I hit 2 and it should have been the number 3 on the keypad.
Postal voting is vulnerable but UK and EU are improving checks all the time.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23... Not sure what is going on, but, my comment is being published piecemeal.
Complain about this comment
Mark---
I have to say, that the Irish should seek a new EU deal and maybe the, chances of a YES on the next vote in Ireland.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS