Lisbon not done deal for Irish
So a harsh, tax-raising budget from the deeply unpopular Irish government. I wonder how this will impact on the planned autumn referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. The consensus view in Dublin and Brussels is that the economic crisis will reverse last summer's "No" vote. I am doubtful. The logic goes that Ireland would have been much worse off outside the euro and the EU and so people will deliver a vote "for" the EU. The first is open to debate of course, but I have seen few disagree strongly. I would be grateful if any of you can point me to those who argue against the feeling that the euro was and is a good thing for Ireland.
The second half of the proposition seems to me much more contentious. In most referendums voters will take the opportunity to give an unpopular government a good kicking, whatever the question on the ballot paper. Can the Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, really buck the trend?
Then there is the assumption, common in the EU establishment, that you can't be "for" the EU and against the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish people may not agree.
As the referendum grows nearer voices will be raised again suggesting that if the Irish say "No" then the rest of the EU will move ahead without them. Aside from the morality or wisdom of this I am not sure it has any meaning. Sure, an Irish "No" might mean a lot of ill will from from other member countries' governments at a time when Ireland needs all the friends it can get. Certainly some EU countries can proceed to "ever closer union" while others decline to take part, the euro and the passport-free area being the most important and obvious examples.
But Lisbon is not like the euro or the Schengen agreement. How on earth could 26 countries operate under Lisbon while Ireland operates under the Nice Treaty? So most nations would be represented, as per Lisbon, by a new president of the European Council while Ireland sticks with the old system of a six-month rotating presidency by nation states? And Ireland keeps 27 commissioners but the others reduce their numbers? It doesn't make sense. I am not one to wish summer and spring away, but autumn in Ireland will be fascinating.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~33~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I have to agree with you on this one, Mark. I can't speak for the Irish but we (Netherlands) are in a similar position. EU and euro membership saved us during this economic recession (our financial sector is huge and the Guilder would never have held up), but very few people seem to be impressed by that notion.
At the end of the day, it doesn't make the other worries (ever more expansion, [perceived] eroding national sovereignty) go away.
If we were to hold a new referendum ourselves, I don't think it would receive a YES on this occasion either.
I wonder what some of the Irish readers have to say about this.
Complain about this comment
The assumption that you can't be pro-EU and against the Lisbon Treaty is only tenable on the basis that the Lisbon Treaty is the only game in town; and if it falls then the EU will be weakened.
The trouble is that this is often the only argument presented in favour of the Treaty: and it is not enough. It amounts to little more than a statement by unpopular, if not discredited, political elites that they should be trusted to have got the best deal.
On the other hand, I do not agree with the suggestion, implied in #1, that the Treaty is a further erosion of sovereignty. Sure there are provisions that can be presented as such; but, for example, alarmist claims that the Treaty gives EU Law supremacy over National Law ignore the fact that this has been so from the beginning and was the case on Irish/UK Accession.
In fact, both this Treaty and the Nice Treaty before it were deliberate attempts by Member States - not least France - to retain their National sovereignty and their control over an enlarged EU. I don't see why a Europhile should support this, except that it is the only game in town.
For what it's worth, I think the EU should stop trying to give every aspect of policy an EU dimension, and would be better off doing what it was established to do - namely, ensuring that national policies and Regulations are harmonised so as to ensure the free movement of "goods, persons, services and capital". That way people could easily understand what it is, and what it is not - and then they might vote for it.
Complain about this comment
I thought that the Lisbon Treaty had to be ratified by all E.U members to become active?
If Ireland vote No a second time (which I hope they will) then I don't see how Lisbon can legally be implemented by the rest of the E.U (providing Germany overcome there own constitutional issues)
"Certainly some EU countries can proceed to "ever closer union" while others decline to take part, the euro and the passport-free area being the most important and obvious examples."
To my mind Mark is being slightly misleading with this statement. You can opt out of parts of a treaty over which you have a veto. It is surely a different situation when you refuse to sign the treaty all together.
The Lisbon Treaty (imo) is not the right Constitution for the E.U. The people have not been consulted yet with are being saddled with this sub-standard document.
Please Please if you object to the way the Lisbon Treaty has been forced on the peoples of Europe vote for an Anti-Lisbon or Anti E.U MEP in the forth comming European Elections. Lets make our voices heard the only legal way we have left.
Complain about this comment
I am Irish and probably like the rest of Ireland too busy trying to survive till Autumn to worry overmuch about the Lisbon treaty. I think & hope that the only way to avoid another No vote as a protest to our present incompetent government is to hold a general election at the same time. This will require the green party to remember it's principles and resign from goverment as Finna fail will never go unless pushed.
I would say however that there is recognition that without the euro things could have gone the way of Iceland but there is also the realisation that without the euro we could devalue like the British have and ease our problems.
Complain about this comment
"EU and euro membership saved us during this economic recession "
Interesting article of faith. I mean, I had thought Ireland was NOT saved. Hence, the collapse of economy. Rising unemployment. Etc etc.
But now I learn how much WORSE it must have been if not for the Euro. And in fact, it is GOOD. The Irish economy is in great shape. It has been SAVED by the Euro.
All this economic conjecture about the fate of the Irish economy, but the underlying faith is that things are better in the euro zone. I am curious to learn how much of Irelands boom time was, like eastern europe and Iceland, fundamentally the result of uncontrolled lending to companies with no real future outside of such a crazy credit environment.
Because the debate about the credit markets still has not matured to a debate about how much economic growth can occur without the artificial stimulus of cheap, uncontrolled credit. And more nastily for smaller states, what are the relative roles of the regions within the EU if the political and economic structure change?
Ireland has built a lot of its wealth by operating as a tax haven. That is, if you define a tax haven as somewhere offering low taxes to individuals operating through companies. If a mono-EU political culture turned left of centre to protect the economies of the bigger central players at the expense of the regional smaller players, these tax advantages could easily be deemed "illegal". Then what, for Irish economic growth?
Anyway, this process of asking the same question repeatedly until the desired response is obtained is going to go down as the EU's great leap into democratic process. For the next twenty years EU officials who owe their position and influence to party membership and business connections will be pointing at the second Irish referendum and moaning endlessly about the glory of true democracy, gifted to the people of europe by the benevolent EU.
Talk about hiding an elephant under a tea cosy.
Complain about this comment
It is vital that the Irish vote NO.
We already have an unelected PM and a series of unelected government ministers, we do not need an unelected President of Europe. What on earth has happened to DEMOCRACY?
Complain about this comment
“In most referendums voters will take the opportunity to give an unpopular government a good kicking, whatever the question on the ballot paper.”
Following this logic, you could also argue that the people are too stupid to have a political opinion and that only a few elites or even just one person, a führer, should be given a voice. Then it would be kind to inform us about the new nature of European politics. I spent a great deal of time reading the constitution in French and English and I read many measures that I simply couldn’t accept. The Lisbon treaty is not a real constitution but a political program pushed forward by a political elite and lobbyists. That’s why contrary to a constitution, there is an awful lot of pages dictating the political decisions for decades. This pre-acceptance of a political program corresponds to an abolition of the usual political process of a democracy.
“you can't be "for" the EU and against the Lisbon Treaty”
I partially agree with that. I felt I couldn’t vote against an EU constitution so I choose not to vote… However, the decisions of Europeans (by referendums, not parliaments, which are more easily corrupt) on the treaty are: acceptance by Spain and Luxembourg, and rejection by France, Netherland and Ireland.
“if the Irish say "No" then the rest of the EU will move ahead without them”
If the Irish say “No”, like the majority of Europeans who could give their opinion, then the EU elites will indeed move ahead: alone.
Complain about this comment
NoMoreBoomandBust
What on earth has happened to DEMOCRACY?
We foolishly believed that elected representatives would work for our best interests rather than lookin after their own.
It time for a discussion about a greater degree of Direct Democracy not just in the U.K but across the E.U
Complain about this comment
ddLiot
I felt I couldn?t vote against an EU constitution
You like the Idea of an E.U constitution but you don't like this one?
A the referendum was not about an theoretical idea but and actual written document , Voting no to a spectific document would not mean you reject the Idea of a constitution just the one that you were actually presented with and find unacceptable.
Complain about this comment
Do not worry. If the Irish say "No" again, then it is just a protest vote against an unpopular government. Only if they say "Yes" can it be the true democratic will of the people. The Euro Project will continue in a manner suitable for the elite, no matter what the peons say.
Complain about this comment
Maybe the Irish government should come out for the No campaign then they might get a yes vote.
Complain about this comment
I would like to say that I find it highly undemocratic to foist another vote on the Irish: in a democracy, the people's will counts, and it is my view that the Treaty shouldn't have been put to a referendum anyway, given that the Irish people (just like most EU citizens) are not qualified to make a judgement on issues of such significance.
Indeed the main reason most of them cited for voting No was along the lines of 'the Yes camp failed to explain to me what the Treaty was about, so I wasn't sure, so obviously I voted No'. Enough said.
Complain about this comment
What the Irish need to do is the right thing by Europe and vote for moving forward.
This requires them to actually vote on the merits of Lisbon treaty and not on domestic problems. If they do that then perhaps they can get it right next time round. Libertas, the Irish refusal to allow the Lisbon democratic reforms is worse than dispicable- both developments.
All this does is pander to the anti-EU lobby here in the UK, as it is certianly true that we must never have a plebicite on the issue as our voters seem to hold to a Redwood-like consensus that the EU equates to evil incarnate; not exactly a very reasonable possition quite frankly.
Complain about this comment
@ 5
"I mean, I had thought Ireland was NOT saved. Hence, the collapse of economy. Rising unemployment. Etc etc."
The eurozone would indeed undermine the Irish ability to respond if the zones interest rates were counter productive to the Irish economies requirements, and at present the all-time low of 1.25% rate is both helpful and not in any way counter-productive to the Irish economy.
The Irish are in such a mess beause their tax base was so dependent upon the housing market (now collapsed) thus they have had over 20% fall in tax income. This is hardly a Eurozone exasperated problem, in fact the Euro has helped boulster the Irish ability to gain reasonable credit; as the euro is a sound and trusted currency. The Euro is beneficial, and hardly counterproductive.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
Your first sentence "So a harsh, tax-raising budget from the deeply unpopular Irish government. " says it all with regard to the pro's and con's of the Euro. As has been said many times before the Euro removed one of the two vehicles that any government has for controlling the economy, namely the ability to change interest rates. That left only taxation which is why the unpopular Irish government have little option but to commit political suicide by raising taxes. Luckily for the Irish they don't have a Gordon Brown type in their government as it is always possible that they could recover with good governance despite being unpopular.
Complain about this comment
Deanthetory @ 13
"This requires them to actually vote on the merits of Lisbon treaty and not on domestic problems. If they do that then perhaps they can get it right next time round."
What makes Voting "yes" the right thing to do? Regardless of your views the right thing to do for the country is what the majority decide, unless of course you are against Democracy?
Just because someone disagrees with your view point doesn't make them wrong.
The Irish need to vote for what is best for Ireland, if thats the Lisbon Treaty then so be it. However just because they voted no does not make them wrong, the majority thought the best thing for Ireland was to reject the treaty, and in a democracy that makes it the right choice. Just a Yes vote would be the right choice if the majority voted for it.
Just really hate people saying something is wrong because it doesnt agree with them. Its like you can have democracy only if you think and do as i think and do.
Complain about this comment
If, as you say, Ireland votes "no" again and the rest stride 'ahead' without them all I can say is "so much for unity!" You can buy the Lisbon Treaty, it does cost you 27 quid but you can read it. It is an horrendous document, written to be as difficult as is humanely possible for anyone to read and make sense of being just a LIST of amendments to the other Treaties. You need all the others open to check what the Lisbon is changing in the others. Something obviously nobody, including our elected politicians can be bothered to do despite the fact that it takes away everything Britain used to control for its Subjects.
Complain about this comment
Its entirely undemocratic to keep puting this question until the right answer is received, that should be obvious. I'm also very glad that our constitution requires us to give our say for or against. From the day the result was announced the politicians were setting the stage for a do-over, de-legitimising the no vote by labelling the no camp as people who simply didnt comprehend what was being asked and claiming they would "listen". Nothing about respecting the will of the people...
I and everyone I spoke to, knew damn well why we were voting against the treaty of Lisbon and on principle I will vote no again. I'm all in favour of cooperation but I do not want to be part of such an undemocratic European superpower as I frequeuntly hear EU politicians calling for. "We need a militarily that can compete with the USA" said one prominent Irish yes campaigner and I heard many similar comments from around Europe.
If Europe decides to go on without us, fine with me. Money isnt everything, I've been broke most of my life, it doesnt scare me and if "friends" will punish us for exercising our democratic rights, they are not real friends.:o)
Complain about this comment
The Euro is a good thing for the Irish economy if it wants to abide by the standards of the stability agreement in the Euro zone. If it cannot or will not abide and instead wishes to boost up the economy through debts beyond the stability agreement – and this is an economic counter argument, however not from market radicals, the Euro is a problem for Ireland. The demands of the stability agreement will be eased during this crisis, but the question is if the Irish voters are satisfied with that. And with all respect to the Irish: How many voters understand this problem?
Now to some political aspects: Those here on the blog, who thinks the Lisbon treaty will not go through the German system misunderstand the situation in Germany. The process here is to be understood as a (short) delay by the opponents: There is a vast majority in the German parliament for the treaty, and it will NOT be overturned in Germany. This means that only the Irish or the Czechs or both can overturn the treaty.
If it happens Germany and France have already said that they will block the enlargement of the Union. It will block many other things, and I believe the Irish government will be asked the same question the Danish government got in 1992, when the Danes through a referendum blocked the Maastricht treaty: Will you block that we (the rest of the union) will go down the road we find necessary?
Whatever the British press writes about this and whatever the British opposition in parliament says: It will be a problem for the British government too. It will face the possibility the UK is drifting further away from the centre of the union and will finally have to explain to the British voters why the country is a member of the union. The Irish politicians should do this. If they don’t know, they should leave the union.
Mathiasen, Danish citizen, Berlin
Complain about this comment
Lisbon will probably be dead in the water if the Irish vote No. Vaclav Klaus has indicated that he will not sign the instrument of ratification if the Irish vote No. The Austrian Socialists have said they want a referendum on it. Neither on its own is likely to effect the eventual outcome but it could drag it on until summer 2010 when there has to be a UK parliamentary election which, if the Tories win it and honour their current position, will mean a UK referendum. If that happens and there is a 'no' vote, there are only 2 possible outcomes. Lisbon dies or we end up with a two speed Europe.
Complain about this comment
Article 10 (If and when the Lisbon Treaty comes into force)
1. The functioning of the Union shall be founded on representative democracy.
2. Citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament.
Member States are represented in the European Council by their Heads of State or Government and
in the Council by their governments, themselves democratically accountable either to their national
Parliaments, or to their citizens.
3. Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions
shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.
4. Political parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness and to
expressing the will of citizens of the Union.
Complain about this comment
Deanthetory
"What the Irish need to do is the right thing by Europe and vote for moving forward."
you meant the right thing for the E.U elites not Europe. The right thing for Europe wouild be to vote no and kill the Lisbon Treaty dead in the water. What we need is a constitution that is accepted understood and for the good of Europe. Not one that centralises power even more that has no legitimate support from the people of the E.U.
Complain about this comment
Lisbon is the least of Irelands problems at the moment. Its only of interest to the political classes & a few media luvvies.
Complain about this comment
ZoonPol
3. Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.
Brilliant that clearly means referendums on everything, direct democracy promised in the Lisbon Treaty. I think not.
Complain about this comment
Paul Krugman (2008 winner of he Nobel prize for economics) had a recent article in the New York Times describing the problems of the European economy. He describes the problems of Spain (which are very similar to those of Ireland) as follows, making clear that there is a link between euro membership and cuts to wages and jobs. He writes:
"In the past, Spain would have sought improved competitiveness by devaluing its currency. But now it’s on the euro — and the only way forward seems to be a grinding process of wage cuts. This process would have been difficult in the best of times; it will be almost inconceivably painful if, as seems all too likely, the European economy as a whole is depressed and tending toward deflation for years to come."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/opinion/16krugman.html?_r=1
If you fix the currency, then the real economy has to go up and down instead. The Irish economy has become a yo-yo thanks to euro membership, moving from Celtic Tiger to the deepest recession anywhere in the developed world as the economic cycle turned. The long Irish (and Spanish) property boom was fuelled by eurozone interests rates that were set with Germany and France in mind, but were too low for Spain, Ireland and several other nations, leading to a bust of a severity that has been avoided by the UK.
Krugman seems to suggest that Europe-wide institutions modelled on those of the US are needed in Europe, but such European institutions could never be democratic when Europe is (unlike the US) home to multiple nations with their own distinct economic and political cultures and languages. Indeed what marks Ireland out is that is has gone further than almost anywhere else on Earth to create what another American, Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Tom Friedman, has called the "Golden Straightjacket"; the idea that the political economy should be de-politicized to allow a maximally free enterprise system to operate. Ireland has done this through a combination of its own low-tax business environment (which is popular at home) and the undemocratic political zone of the EU institutions. The problems of the "Golden Straightjacket" are that it is very uncomfortable during an economic downturn and that to preserve the undemocratic political zone requires expanding (e.g. via the Lisbon Treaty) the areas that are protected from "politics" until politics loses any serious meaning. Politicians pretend that there is no alternative to the expanded undemocratic political zone codified by the Lisbon Treaty, but when politicians impose this choice on electorates even in defiance of referendum results in France, the Netherlands, Ireland etc. they are making a conscious political choice to pursue their own interest in exercising power without democratic constraints, which is an interest fundamentally at odds with that of society as a whole. That is why there is a gulf between governed and governors in Europe, and why it is vital that the Irish persist in rejecting Lisbon.
Complain about this comment
@ 16
"Just because someone disagrees with your view point doesn't make them wrong."
In democracy we are all allowed a voice, or so we are told.
When a matter come to referendum then the view of the majority will be accepted as the view of the entire nation.
Unfortunately this does not mean that the majority is always 'right'.
In many circumstances the majority have been wrong. Ill informed or out to score against the government.
During the first Lisbon vote the Farmers Association of Ireland encouraged their members to vote against the treaty. This was to punish the EU over Peter Mandelsons' handling of WTO negotiations. This can hardly be considered a valid reason for voting no when it was admitted that the content wasn't the problem.
Hence, why it is favourable to elect officials to make decisions on our behalf and prevent single minded organisation from putting their interests first. We must be able to put our faith in our government to do what is best for the nation in the long run...... If only it was so simple right?
Complain about this comment
I have the feeling that if the Irish referendum would have been postponed one year, they would vote now a big YES to Lisbon.
One more thing: In Spain no one blames the Euro for the deep crisis that is striking the country. Neither this is happenning in Ireland.
On the contrary, many economic analysts are urging Eastern European countries to adopt the Euro, even if they don't comply with the criteria, in order to be more protected against the financial downturn.
Another sample? Look at what's doing Iceland: getting fast-tracked into the EU and the Euro as a safeguard for its ailing economy.
The global recession is not favouring the Eurosceptic political or economical reasons, I'm afraid.
Complain about this comment
WhiteEnglishProud @25
We live in a Parliamentary democracy in the UK where Parliament is supreme not the people: Parliament gives a voice to the people via representative democracy. Its not the Union that you have a beef with but your own government! Parliament may of course explicitly repeal the European Communities Act 1972 but the Lisbon Treaty now writes into the Treaty of the EU a formal exit from it:
Article 50
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2...
Complain about this comment
I don't want to leave the E.U I want to change it into a more acceptable form. We may live in a Parliamentary democracy in the UK.
However if the E.U is ever to gain any legitimacy it must draw that power from the suport of the people otherwise it is nothing other than an imposed power structure. The will of the people must be considered. Representative Democracy does not work as it is neither representative nor Democratic.
Complain about this comment
If representative democracy does not work you may as well blow up Parliament - although the last attempt failed: are you called Guido by any chance?
What would you call for the EU to be more democratic then?
Complain about this comment
#27 - betuli
The idea that eastern European currencies should adopt the Euro without meeting the criteria was floated by the IMF. The ECB greeted it with a flat and very strongly worded rejection so it looks as though it will not happen, even if it is desirable.
#25 - Freeborn-John
Paul Krugman also wrote in October last year in the WP ". . . the Brown government has shown itself willing to think clearly about the financial crisis, and act quickly on its conclusions. And this combination of clarity and decisiveness hasn’t been matched by any other Western government, least of all our own". He may be right about Spain but infallible he is not.
#22 - WhiteEnglishProud and Deanthetory.
The only resposible thing for the people of Ireland is to vote the way they believe best suits Irish interests. There is no moral obligation to take the view of other EU nations into account one way or the other.
Complain about this comment
#12 DannyCool170
" .... Indeed the main reason most of them cited for voting No was along the lines of 'the Yes camp failed to explain to me what the Treaty was about, so I wasn't sure, so obviously I voted No'. "
+++
If I was not sure, I would also vote no.
Why would anyone vote for something they do not understand?
The way the UK was not given a choice on this makes me very suspicious about the underlying motives and the real EU agenda. This was pushed through by Bliar and countersigned by Bruin. Makes you think!
Complain about this comment
threnodio
Your right they have no obligation other than to themselves as individuals and as a nation. However Maybe as an E.U member they do have a responsibility to do what they believe is best for the E.U and imo that is vote no.
Complain about this comment
Certainly Cowen cannot deliver a Yes vote to Lisbon Take II as it would certainly be a measure of no confidence in his government. The fate of his government and the EU are not so inter connected he needs to take the Democratic way and call an election in Ireland this summer. Otherwise I see it impossible for him to deliver Lisbon. It's clear that he and some elements in the EU forget that Europe is a democratic entity and the people will have their say one way or the other it's either him or Lisbon. which is it Mr Cowen?
Complain about this comment
No valid reason has been put forth for ireland to ratify this unreadable treaty beyond the fact that they want to ratify a constitution they couldn't get by France and the Netherlands. let it be known enough time has elapsed in France for a revote to take place there too. people in ireland are not impressed that eurocrats are singling us out for misbehaviour while at the same time are desperate to avoid putting forth referenda in their own countries.
Europe's intentions may be noble, but if they contine to clumsily trample over democracy to achieve this ever closer union, they'll harm those very ambitions.
Complain about this comment
re: #29 WhiteEnglishProud.
Good posting. Agreed.
As for the Dutch, they are probably a little more pro-EU that the Brits and the Irish, but they are indeed sceptical about the seemingly insatiable desire by the EU ministers to "do things" and "govern things", irrespective of the (National) democratic desires.
The EEC should retract back to a EEC - ECONOMIC.
Nothing less, nothing more. The way that it was always meant to be.
Complain about this comment
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2009/gb2009047_076363.htm
pro-EU puppets are in denial.
There is no EU, there is only charlatans.
the old 1/10 Taxes have become 5/10 today.
Does Vatican prints money? Do they produce anything?
Why other countries dont follow Vatican way, and prosper?
Who is subsitizing those do nothing people in Vatican? the brainwashed, or the system :)
Are our elites, bankers, pro-EU payrolls same the pope? a do-nothing person.
who brings our food on the table? is it god? or the farmers?
this is the system today.. a bunkrupt society, which is a do-nothing society and still wants food on their table.
you cannot have it this way.
go out on the street now that there is still food, because later you will be hungry and powerless.
Complain about this comment
re # 36. expatinnetherlands
One day it will be clear to a large number of people that economy, growth, consummation and ecology are connected. I prefer we have common European standards in this field, the same goes for consumer standards.
Later this year the world will meet in Copenhagen to discuss the climate problem (renew the Kyoto protocol). I have no doubt that the European voice in these difficult political negotiations is stronger as a continental instead of national voice. The latter will leave small countries with few possibilities to influence on the matter.
Mathiasen, Berlin
Complain about this comment
Whatever the logic, votes such as referendums are more about emotional "feel". I guess the Irish are feeling pretty bad right now? And someone has to be made to pay. The Irish Government, through loosening credit controls and lowering taxes played a strong part in the present crisis - so it looks like they will be the ones who should be made to pay.
The Lisbon Treaty is a bit like the curate's egg, good in parts. But, unlike the curate, I don't like the good bits enough to swallow the "less good" bits. The EU desperately needs sorting out, but the Lisbon Treaty isn't the solution.
NB Freeborn John. Paul Krugman has his good and less good side, too. eg I'm not sure he has understood the way the "european economy" is run. In fact, there is no single economy. Maybe that's the problem? What most outsiders call "the european economy" is, I suspect, the Rhineland model, as seen mainly in France and Germany (the best exponents). However, it is clearly different from the Nordic model: and even more different from the Anglo-Saxon model. This latter is broadly spread, including some mid- and eastern-european countries, as well as (obviously) the UK and Ireland. Although some claim a further, Iberian model, I believe Spain in particular has moved so close to the UK model, that it is difficult to define the difference.
At the G20 meetings, the EU nations showed a willingness to cooperate on economic matters that years of negotiating at EU level failed to arouse. If only they would carry that cooperative attitude into the EU arena. Perhaps they might even cooperate on achieving something better than Lisbon ....? I can dream ;-)
Complain about this comment
re. Marks request for info on those who argue against the feeling that the euro was and is a good thing for Ireland, the following article appeared in Ireland's Sunday Business Post on the 29th of March:
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2009/03/29/story40622.asp
snippet:
"The conceit of EMU is that by joining it, exchange-rate volatility simply disappears. But the volatility associated with exchange-rate movement doesn’t disappear - it just takes another form. With currency flexibility gone, the burden of economic adjustment falls upon employment levels and property prices. Having seen both dramatically outperform our international peers over the decade 19972007,we risk seeing them dramatically underperform from 2007-2017."
Complain about this comment
Don't you watch Newsnight, Mark? John Redwood was on last night and explained precisely how Euro membership has been bad for Ireland. Essentially, Euroland interest rates were far too low for Ireland (and Spain), which fuelled a construction boom which destroyed the Irish economy. Now interest rates (and the exchange rate) are much too high, which is making the recession even worse.
Read the argument for yourself here: http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/04/08/should-we-join-the-euro-2/
Complain about this comment
As a Dutch citizen, if a new referendum was held today, the Dutch would STILL vote NO, the same as last time, even though our government ignored the results of the referendum and signed the treaty.
Poster 1, claims that if we still had the guilder our economy would not have stood up?, where is your proof for this claim?, since the introduction of the euro are country has gone backwards not forwards, this combined with a huge influx of immigrants has seriously weakened the Dutch identity.
So I say to the Irish, go ahead and vote NO, and then lets see how the Federalist EU commission attempt to explain the result away !!.
Complain about this comment
Would it be possible for everyone that uses the offensive term 'anglo-saxon model' to reflect on how ridiculously reductive and petty this is? If economic orthodoxies MUST be reduced to race- or tribe-labelling, then could it at least be called the "Anglo-saxon-celtic-iberian-western slav-asian-african american-americohispanic" model? A very large number of American and British adherents to the original Reagan-Thatcher model were not anglo-saxons, and the many nations who enthusiastically adopted it certainly were not. Apart from anything else, there are many tens of millions of "anglo-saxons" in the world who detest neo-liberalism. I would imagine many of the Irish would join us in encouraging the avoidance of this silly phrase.
Complain about this comment
I wish someone would ask us British what we think about the Lisbon (aka Constitutional) Treaty.
We were promised a referendum, but then told that manifesto promises are actually 'aspirations'.
If the British people continue to be ignored it will all end badly.
Complain about this comment
i love the concept of the EU. I think it would be very good for Europe, but not if does away with Europe - the multicultural,multilingual society that it is. And it seems that's what's going on, an enterprise to cobble together a group of nations into one nation instead of a union of nations. That's why the Lisbon Treaty may have to go, or at least we must come up with a constitution that anybody can read not just lawyers, politicians or retired people with time on their hands to read a 300 page monstrosity.
As for the economy, i don't believe anybody knows what really happened or will hapen, and to say that Ireland would have been worse is like saying that the flu i got could have been worse, it means nothing and only shows thos who utter those words really do not know what they are talking about. Because, if they did know then our "leaders" would have been prepared for this disaster. Instead, they all were caught with their pants down and now try to look dignified with postures and platitudes that us poor folk must swallow because we are so stupid.
Complain about this comment
Ireland may yet save the UK, IF they vote "NO" to the Lisbon Treaty.
WhiteEnglishProud #3 has summed up the ideal EU scenario (if there is such a thing). Some countries will go for closer bonding, others will be happy to stick with the "status quo", and some will look for a partial withdrawal from the present degree of integration.
We, in the UK, need to withdraw to the initial EEC concept of a Euro ECONOMIC Community, where the EU would have no say in UK legal matters, territorial waters or human rights. Our membership would be of a commercial nature only.
When successive UK governments took us further and further into Europe they did it for political self-aggrandizement. Note by note and word by word, they effectively shredded the last line of "Rule Britania" - "Britain never never never shall be slaves" - to the EU or anyone else !
Complain about this comment
artydodge wrote :
“let it be known enough time has elapsed in France for a revote to take place there too.”
Our president Nicolas Sarkozy said that this treaty could not be put to a referendum in France because we would again vote against it.
So it’s left to the Irish to vote against this blatant power abuse.
As for the people who say the euro is a good thing, there are many people here who feel the crisis is actually exacerbated by the lack of elbow room this has led too in the various countries of the EU. They could not react individually in time. Furthermore, the European authorities, who mindlessly worship unfettered liberalism, ordered the abandon of stringent bank regulations which could have prevented this American crisis from spreading into Europe.
The last G20 meeting resulted in more of the same. They have been unable to address the fundamental causes of the crisis: banking without rules, and uncontrolled opening of boarders to cheap goods from countries with low social standards and taking advantages of unrealistic exchange rates. Money was invented to simplify commerce. Now the society has become enslaved to money.
As for the IMF, their mode of operation is to lend money to a country in trouble, on the condition that all viable industries of the country be turned over to American ventures (think of Argentina). Using tax money to allow the IMF to expand that plundering business is a shame.
What they did is similar to giving antibiotics to someone who got pneumonia because he is malnourished, but failing to improve his diet.
Complain about this comment
Furthermore, the European authorities, who mindlessly worship unfettered liberalism, ordered the abandon of stringent bank regulations
This is amusing, because someone from the low countries or Britain sometimes complain that the EU is too socialist. Surely the EU can't be both socialist and liberal?
Complain about this comment
20. At 1:31pm on 08 Apr 2009, threnodio wrote:
"Lisbon ...The Austrian Socialists have said they want a referendum on it. ..."
Are you sure of that? I might be wrong. I was wrong once, but I read two Austrian news sites most days. I understood that the Austrian Socialists (SPOe)had promised there would be referenda on FUTURE treaties i.e. not on Lisbon. I further understood that having got into a coalition with the conservatives (OeVP) they had agreed that they would only propose a referendum if the OeVP agreed. Since the OeVP had expressed their opposition to a referendum, it was certain that they would not agree, which seemed to me like a betrayal (yet another one!!!) of the voters. I am not totally confident of the latter point as I did not give it that much time. I am fairly confident of the former point. It is of course possible that the OeVP has had yet another change of policy and that I missed it. If so, then I would be grateful if you could point me to a website in German of English. Sorry! No Hungarian! No insult intended!
Complain about this comment
"Then there is the assumption, common in the EU establishment, that you can't be "for" the EU and against the Lisbon Treaty."
That is a very illogical position. Articles in the Irish Times by Irish academics specializing in this field indicate that even the learned ones cannot agree on the implications of the Lisbon Treaty. An Irish person who finds the treaty confusing is therefore not being stupid. He or She is in very good company. It is perfectly reasonable to refuse to accept a treaty or a contract the meaning of which is not clear.
Complain about this comment
"Then there is the assumption, common in the EU establishment, that you can't be "for" the EU and against the Lisbon Treaty."
Surely it would be perfectly reasonable to think that integration had gone far enough, that people had wanted cooperation but not a European Superstate and that the Lisbon Treaty was clearly about the creation of said Superstate and the fact that Merkel was for it was almost a guarantee that it was.
Complain about this comment
44. At 8:28pm on 08 Apr 2009, MaxSceptic wrote:
"I wish someone would ask us British what we think about the Lisbon (aka Constitutional) Treaty.
We were promised a referendum, but then told that manifesto promises are actually 'aspirations'.
If the British people continue to be ignored it will all end badly."
How right you are!
Complain about this comment
27. At 2:13pm on 08 Apr 2009, betuli wrote:
" ...
One more thing: In Spain no one blames the Euro for the deep crisis that is striking the country. ... "
So they have a deep crisis despite the fact that they get loads of dosh from the ridiculous "EU" !!!
Complain about this comment
30. At 2:43pm on 08 Apr 2009, ZoonPol wrote:
"If representative democracy does not work you may as well blow up Parliament - ..."
No! If my car doesn't work, I don't blow it up. I don't know what you do in that situation. I get it repaired or get another one.
Complain about this comment
13. At 12:24pm on 08 Apr 2009, deanthetory wrote:
" ... as it is certianly true that we must never have a plebicite on the issue as our voters seem to hold to a Redwood-like consensus that the EU equates to evil incarnate; not exactly a very reasonable possition quite frankly."
WOT!?!?
"NEVER!!"
So we cannot have a referendum because the fact that we disagree with you makes us "unreasonable" !
Thank you for giving us an insight into the mind of an "EU"-lover. Yet another "EU"-lover with an anti-democratic mind. It is clear to me that people like you could never build a democratic "EU."
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#49
"It is of course possible that the OeVP has had yet another change of policy and that I missed it."
Whoops Sorry, Threnodio, I meant SPOe not OeVP in this sentence.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
How on earth could 26 countries operate under Lisbon while Ireland operates under the Nice Treaty? So most nations would be represented, as per Lisbon, by a new president of the European Council while Ireland sticks with the old system of a six-month rotating presidency by nation states? And Ireland keeps 27 commissioners but the others reduce their numbers?
Simple answer....You can't operated it in this format....
~Dennis Junior
Complain about this comment
"In most referendums voters will take the opportunity to give an unpopular government a good kicking, whatever the question on the ballot paper."
This is a fact and is extremely logical if you bother to start to think about it.
Of course you should expect everyone to make an educated decision in any ballot/referendum/election, but most people don't, often because they are either not interested in the issue or not interested in politics at all. Complex issues (like EU treaties) are hard to understand for everyone. Those people will base their vote on other factors; causing trouble for the government is a major one.
Complain about this comment
The wonderful EU, I wished to transfer money from my bank account to someone else bank account (both accounts are with the same bank), my account is in the Netherlands, my friends account is in Belgium. Could I get my bank to perform this transaction?, no, the reason?, EU banking regulations.
It seems that walking into the bank and asking them to transfer the money is not acceptable, however, if I had internet banking then everything would have been fine?, the bank staff were very apologetic and mentioned that the fault lies with the EU, and let not forget that I was attempting to transfer euros between two countries that use the euro as their national currencies.
Paradoxically, if I wished to transfer the money from a UK account this would have been perfectly acceptable.
Complain about this comment
#60 Just make it clear: I have no problem in transferring across the border of the Euro zone.
It is amazing to see how EU is made responsible for all the troubles people have. In this case the banks are responsible. It has nothing to do with EU, which is only interested in a problem free money transfer. Sigh.
Mathiasen, Berlin
Complain about this comment
Casio_Nova wrote:
"Its entirely undemocratic to keep puting this question until the right answer is received, that should be obvious."
Sort of. It is only partly right to suggest that repeated voting on an issue is un-democratic. In fact, people should be able to vote on what they want to vote upon, when they wish. That would be true democracy.
The question is simply who has the power to initiate law via referendum. In the UK, it is parliament. In the EU, the commission. In Switzerland it is the people. In the UK the process is for members of major parties to debate the pro's and cons of a potential law, and vote on it. In the commission, senior members of major european political bodies instruct their nominated commission members to draft legislation for stamping by the council of ministers. In Switzerland, anyone can get the required number of signatures and submit a demand for a public vote on an issue.
The thing to remember is that any old dictator can use referenda as a public relations tool. There is nothing inherently democratic about selective use of referendum results. Either the constitution gives the power to initiate lawmaking by public vote to ordinary people, or it gives this power to a select group, or even to an individual.
Complain about this comment
SuffolkBoy2,
Wouldn't you be better off on praising the British police performance in the G-20 protests? or commenting their last antirerrorist blunder?
Complain about this comment
SuffolkBoy2
I was working from memory and I either misunderstood or my info was out of date. I am not an expert on Austrian politics but the situation as I now understand it is that SPOe demands there should be referenda on future treaties of the European Union, the FPOe is for a referendum for the Lisbon Treaty, and even wants a referendum for EU-Withdrawal. However, the BZOe is in favour of a referendum about the Lisbon Treaty but against an EU-Withdrawal.
Complain about this comment
We can talk and talk but the Lisbon Treaty is the last in a series of amending treaties that transforms the European Community into a European Union that started in 1993 at Maastricht and then 1999 in Amsterdam. At present we are working to the 2003 Nice model that made the appropriate changes to the Treaties (Treaty establishing the European Community nee Rome and the Treaty on European Union).
If people would actually refer to the consolidated versions of the Treaty on the European Union & the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (post-Lisbon) in their language, then compare and contrast to the NO/YES propagandists then we can have a good debate.
For the record the High Court ruled that a referendum was not required for a reforming treaty for even though it made be reforming constutional rules its not a constitution. England is a common law country and technicaities count.
Complain about this comment
#61, Mathiasen, and #60, Rustigjongens,
You probably fell foul of the so called EU anti money laundering regulations which are a cover up for the Finance ministers of each country to increase their tax take. They want to know every source of money everyone has and especially if it comes from outside their jurisdiction in case they can invent some reason to tax it. However I'm not sure why you could do it online and not in person as the only difference is in the need to prove identity if in person, maybe your bank in the Netherlands was afraid to take the chance that your identity could be challenged. Probably you were better advised to use one of the world services that can send money as you're unlikely to get the anti money laundering third degree interrogation about why you want to send it and for what reason.
#59, JohaMe,
That's called Democracy, when a government continually upsets their voters eventually they receive the well deserved kick, and if it means something important is lost then that's the fault of the government in question in that it did not reflect the wishes of the majority of its electorate in previous issues. There is no alternative to this as not allowing a vote on the basis that the government knows best is dictatorship, more transparency is what is needed and more referendums on issues that are particularly contentious. If the Lisbon treaty (constitution) is to ever be adopted it should first be re-written in plain unambiguous language and then put to the electorate of the EU. For such a treaty (constitution) to ever work it must truly be supported by the electorate, politicians do not know best in such important matters, they simply reflect their paymaster's wishes and the elite that run the show.
Complain about this comment
#62:In Switzerland, anyone can get the required number of signatures and submit a demand for a public vote on an issue.
Under the Lisbon treaty anyone can get the required number of signatures and submit a legislation proposal at the commissioner. Do the Swiss have this with their Federal council?
Complain about this comment
#67, Ticape,
I hardly think that "under the Lisbon treaty anyone can get the required number of signatures and submit a legislation proposal at the commissioner" is going to make squat difference, it is a toothless tiger. Importantly there would be no vote as under the Swiss system, which leaves the commissioner the easy option of just dismissing the request on any feeble excuse that springs to mind. It would be no more than Prime Ministers question time or private members bills in the UK, whose sole purpose is maintain the illusions of democracy and openness.
Complain about this comment
@ WhiteEnglishProud:
"I don't want to leave the E.U I want to change it into a more acceptable form. We may live in a Parliamentary democracy in the UK."
Read post 28, (ZoonPol) again, and again, and again, and again ... and then if you still want to change the EU into a more acceptable form for YOU, read it again.
You fall into the circular trap of the Tory policy on the EU. Your sentence above summarises this Tory policy with 100% accuracy. Yet, you and they fail to realise that 'your' and 'their' acceptable form for the EU may not be the same as the one that most other countries want to follow.
For starters the vast majority of EU countries, 26 out of 27, are part of the euro and the border union (aka Schengen), or at least one of these pillars. The UK is the only EU country that is outside both.
Since both these EU pillars are absolutely anathema for the Tory party, the second one being anathema for the whole of the British political establishment, the logical conclusion would be that for the Tories (and you) to be able to change the EU into a more acceptable form then they would have to convince these 26 EU countries to bring back their old currencies from the dead and to put up again their picket fences with border police to 'protect' themselves against each other, as the UK does.
Well, good luck to you and the Tories is all I can say.
Methinks article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty might be an easier route than perennial head banging.
Complain about this comment
#68. Oh I agree it's a toothless tiger not because commissioner will be refusing it unless the legislation proposal doesn't cover the EU competence. It will be a toothless tiger because citizens won't be using it as they don't know the law is there. :p
Complain about this comment
It is so amusing for me as an outsider to watch this farce play itself out. The entire concept of the EU is like one gigantic political Maginot line. Even if it weren't a Rube Goldberg of a construct, it would never work. How could it? At it's core it is quintessentially French. I'm reminded of their Deux Chevaux automobile, an underpowered utterly crude paradoy of a car bouncing down the road as though suspended on bedsprings. It was a miracle that it worked at all which is about all you could say for it.
Complain about this comment
I think it is a good article Mark, though you miss one vital piece: fear. Ireland is in the middle of what it strongly believes is a fight for its economic future. Whether you want to go crazy and say the Irish economy was built on sand etc is all irrelevant from the fundamental fear that is palpable if you walk down any street in Ireland.
Ireland will vote yes and I believe quiet strongly. (think :60:40 yes) This time around we know that we are a weak member who needs the EU far more than anyone else in Western Europe. The Euro saved us (please remember that without the euro our banks debt which is in euro's would be deemed foreign debt and that would have brought down the banks, and the country with it as our currency collapsed - plus we never had monetary independence - linked to sterling up until 1979 and the ECU until the Euro in 1999. We are always at the mercy of other peoples economic performance and thus the strength or weaknesses of their currency) plus who is going to bail us out if things go really badly?
So yes it will be incredibly fascinating, how a nation, in the depth of a deep recession, being hit by record increases in taxes and cuts in expenditure are going to support their government, on paper you would expect a big no, in fact the irish people know this is about survival and will back the government on this, but slaughter them in 2012. As many know we have a long memory and will never forget such government failures. Roll on yes and then roll on the general election in 2012!. Will never vote Fianna Fail in my life.
Complain about this comment
Ref: JorgeG1 @ 69
Could you explain what point you were trying to make?
I was just pointing out that UK HM Government pledged to have a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty that was to replace all other Treaties of the Union and NOT on the Lisbon Treaty that amends the Treaties of the Union. Slight of hand maybe but significant in a common law Nation where an Act of Parliament is but one source of many of the UK's written constitution. The proposed Article 50.1 is simply reaffirming that under the UK constitution, Parliament can exit stage left by explicitly repealing the 1972 European Communities Act.
Complain about this comment
#60,#61
From experience I can say Mathiasen is probably right;
I moved money between bank accounts in several countries many times
(both with and without using internet banking; both Euro countries and non-Euro countries) and never encountered any problems.
The bank employees probably blame their own failures on the EU, probably because they assume people trust banks more than the EU. I assume some people still do...
Complain about this comment
#72, jwwhite021,
If fear of the unknown is the reason a lot in Ireland might vote 'Yes' then that's far more disturbing than people voting 'No' because they don't understand the hieroglyphics that the document is written in. The inference of a 'Yes' vote would be that only the new treaty and the evolved EU are the way to go since you hope and pray that Ireland will then be bailed out of its problems. Anyone who believes that a yes vote will ensure that is well, daft, Ireland will get what the mandarins decide not to waste elsewhere and no more, if it suits their purpose that you sink, you will sink.
I would say by all means look forward to 2012, just as the English are waiting anxiously for Gordie to put his neck in the noose, but base your vote on the Lisbon treaty on more than fear. If you don't like the treaty or can't understand it vote no as ignorance of a law is no defence in a court of law. If you're happy with what the treaty entails then vote yes, it's the choice of the Irish people and highly regrettable that we can't also share in your ability to pronounce our views on this treaty and/or the way its been written.
Complain about this comment
Breaking news for MAII,
It seems that a small town near St Louis has re-elected their dead mayor for a fourth term, I don't know why this merits media reporting over here since you've been electing brain dead politicians for years over there.
Complain about this comment
Please, please, please EIREAN Citizens do it again!
Send the EUrotocracy the same courageously independent message you sent the UK/English century after century: Eire is not for the taking by any over-mighty, over-bearing and definitely over-burdening Lisbon treaty.
Not last year, not this year and not any year soon!
Complain about this comment
We tend to quietly put up with injustices. Fianna Fail will probably be reelected in whatever election despite complete and utter incompetence and ineptitude.
We will see Lisbon and the EU as being the same thing and vote for it out of fear. I know many people whos only reason for voting yes was to spare us from embarassment. Personally I think Lisbon is a complete shambles of a legal document, and am against its ideas, and voted no, but in these circumstances, shamefuly, I think I might actually vote yes so not to lose economic goodwill for when the time comes. It is absolutely ridiculous that an institution with so much potential for good built its entire "legitmacy" from blackmail.
There isn't much else to say on the matter. Very depressing times.
Complain about this comment
73, ZoonPol
"JorgeG1 @ 69 Could you explain what point you were trying to make? "
A very simple one really but it seems it is like quantum mechanics for so many people, not only the anti-EU brigade.
It is this: WEP said that he wants to stay in the EU but changing it *into a more acceptable form.*
I said that this is the Tory EU policy to the dot and then asked if this *more acceptable form* would involve kindly, but firmly, demanding all EU countries that have opted in to both the euro and the border union or either of these pillars (i.e. all EU countries except the UK) to bring back their old currencies and their picket fences 'protecting' them from each other.
I was asking this because obviously the euro and Schengen are not included in the acceptable form of the EU that WEP and 99.99% of EU sceptics would find palatable. How could they be when they are not included in the acceptable form of the EU for even a significant part of those (Britons) who claim to support the EU, starting with the other two major parties?
So rather than trying to square the circle, i.e. trying to create a more acceptable form of the EU that would only be possible by convincing 26 countries to go back to the 1980s, it might be simpler to opt for the article of the LT that provides for the exit route.
Simple really...but no, head banging here we come...
Complain about this comment
MariaTee @47,
on IMF mode of managing countries in trouble.
That is true; God save that country in trouble who is managed by the IMF.
We in Russia had that and were going vertical down throughout whole IMF management period. Economically from bad to worse to worser.
When they lend you money they lend on condition that country's Central Bank policy, monetary policy, emission, rates, all financial handles are controlled by them.
IMF time of managing Russia became classics later in MBA schools (here), in universities on macro-economic specialities, a "case study" case, LOL.
Mind it, nobody blames IMF here on ruining us economically on purpose; that far no one here had advanced. Simply from best intentions, understanding nil in economics and finances and how markets work :o)
they every time turned the wheel in the direction opposite to survival.
When IMF were fighting our inflation, they fought it so well (and all here adhered to their advice/demand, charmed by the new "Western ways", were supposed to be new and ununaderstandable to us, so we simply watched in awe to the financial guru-s) that banknotes were changed twice in some hilarious way, can't even say they were cancelling zero-s -- as it happens with extra-orbital inflation in "normal" places - they were adding them! I had salary 30 roubles, then 300 roubles, then 3,000 roubles and it still meant the same.
They instructed the whole collapsed USSR - independent states - all to who they lent money - and they lent to all - to keep rouble.
Most don't know it, but USSR didn't exist and all kept rouble. While all wanted own currencies - but IMF said flat no!
They were simply not wanting to bother understanding and figuring out and managing 15 various currencies - honestly!
No other explanation but the laziness to figure out the diff. btw Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan, etc.(That one is steppe culture people and the other is moslem.)
This free circulation of Russian rouble in countries who were managing far worse than Russia did - was dragging Russia down by the weight. Imagine - all had our rouble but we could do nothing to manage it!
Belorussia I think revolted first, they began printing own money underhand from the IMF, that circulated for a while in parallel! Extraordinary nice multi-colour like candy wrappers money with rabbits and hares! Called "Belorussian bunnies" since that.
We were simple sinking all of us for 10 years , unable to communicate or stay connected anymore, unable to take own measures to fix yourself country by country - and all tied into one IMF rouble!
Jesus Christ if oil didn't jump up, we paid out immediately the first thing - debts to IMF - ahead of absolutely all things needed else in the country - and broke free - we'd be dead by now if still under their management.
There was a period, for about 5 years, when there were not enough cash roubles in the circulation. And Russia lives on cash, still. And the total amount - in the "virtual format - was also not enough.
Forgot the number but far smaller in percentage to normal countries.
Well, yes, we were abnormal, but all enterprises were suffocating from the absence of money in the circulation. And IMF instructed to cut the amounts more, and more, and again, until the whole country - began working on barter! Nobody applied barter in the world history with the same ingenuity that Russian enterprises under IMF!
The chains btw 2 companies, one wanting to buy spare parts from another, included 15 to 34 in-between! Going round to Kazakhstan and Ukraine and returning back in Mobius tapes, the "planning economists" became the most popular staff in enterprises - who planned nothing - only swaps in barter btw enterprises and building the chains, to get the circle completed. So that 15 institutions within it all get what they want, and it is all delivered by railways and trucks across huge distances, and new long-haul trucks set off, and all goods travel and finally somebody gets metal the other one aluminum the third one is a bread factory who swapped flour with somone who provides trucks to deliver, who takes its pay in the form of ready lorries, the maker of lorries gets 1/2 of metal, and round and round.
We lived like at communism! With IMF! Old dreams came true! Money basically cancelled!
And all of it sure ended by the financial pyramids of extraordinary quantity and height built up, under wise IMF management, and the one who gambled was the state, issuing state bonds un-provided for by NOTHING. All banks grabatised them as "the only sure investemnt" and all got bankrupt. And those he didn't have a single state bond - also declared themselves bankrupt, in the spirit of the day, and their directors relocated abroad having transferred there first all depositors' money.
A charming peculiarity of IMF is also they are very inclined to give loans to people on who there is "nowhere to put a stamp anymore". As many times they were to money lenders bought and sold, like a golden ring. For who cuffs and prizon striped pyjamas and arm chains are simply crying!
In full knowing the money are transferred to the West the next day, that not a dollar of it will settle in the country, that all will be stolen - they still gave loans! Last 2 IMF transhes to Russia, of 800 mln dollars and 450 mln dollars were sent I think day before the crisis and one day during it. Nobody - till this day - knows this money fate. Who received them? The state secret. Nobody even asks anymore. No investigation. There was a shout in the beg., but then it was forgotten. They left IMF, didn't enter budget or State Bank - simply vanished on the go.
Were added to the state debt to IMF, and duly paid out as a debt to IMF later on, when oil rised up in price. Like all previous other IMF transfers. That were of great help, no doubt, to some unknown interesting people.
What the rest of the country got from IMF - were bare instructions and directions. Money went in parallel, and to the parallel world.
Sell all, pull belts tight, don't eat only drink pure water - but don't get under IMF management.
Complain about this comment
May be IMF is good. For country who has honest government and transparent systems and the arrangement kind of, when the tops can be held accountable (by the bottoms). :o)
In this lay-out a country would get not only "wise" IMF guidance (of the God Father category - an offer which is impossible to turn down. Or else. no money to the government personal pockets), but also some money.
But if you are a real good wild place - rest assured you'll get only debts for the folk combined to pay in future, all IMF transfers will be pocketed even before they reach your native ground by your own unknown people who you never met and never will again. And IMF will be eagerly lending you more and more. And giving more and more "instructions".
Will never forget how the barter years affected me (alongside with many either shiny periods) - I worked in the first foreign-managed hotel in Russia, Swedish, as a marketing manager - and they didn't pay me salary. They paid me in coupons to go to some designated shop later (at tims half a year later) - to pick up my salary in the form of various things. I was paid in:
- Phillips irons (3)
- Panasonic washing machine (awful disaster, like a plastic basin with water rotating inside, unable to suck in water and neither to pour it out. You simply poured water in it, then bent the machine and poured the water out. Then added clean water by a pan and continued. May I note that even USSR makes didn't require me to add water in by a pan, and then to pour water out. The USSR ones could even spin!!!
- 2 of them.
- One parka (men's, Chinese, size XXXL, white). That was good I wore it as a long coat 11 years.
- TV - 3
- Video-recorders - 3.
If anyone of the guests staying in our hotel had ever asked me am I happy in the new "democratic life style" - in fact many did. And I replied steadily in the negative. Only nobody ever asked me what my salary is, in-decent question btw Westerners. I guess they thought that a marketing manger is paid well. LOL!
Complain about this comment
And our hotel's Purchasing manager was trading in places known only to him bed linen sets from the hotel for fish and meat for the hotel restaurants.
Complain about this comment
79 JorgeG1
Understand now.
I often recall a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson:
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
Even if the percentage is 80:40 the 40% will always call it a tyranny and the ironic point is the more the majority wills it the more the minority will believe its a tyranny.
Complain about this comment
You comment on countries opting out of the Euro and Schengen. Ireland has embraced the EU wholeheartedly (until now perhaps). The one part it doesn't is the free travel zone (Schengen passport union). My understanding is that Ireland would have preferred to be a full member of all EU institutions including Schengen, but that UK refusal to participate made this impossible due to the problems it would have caused in the north of the Country, where presumably the border would have had to be controlled in the same way is the UK now does with the rest of Europe and the outside world.
The current method of operating the EU - particularly with the rotating presidency etc is ludicrous. Lisbon may not be perfect, but it seems a much better option than the status quo. If Ireland were to reject it again it could simply be seen as pandering further to the Eurosceptic UK.
Complain about this comment
#42, Rusigjongens:
It's rather amusing that you demand that I prove a claim when you, in the same paragraph, produce a whole truckload of statements without any evidence whatsoever. Nevertheless, I shall oblige/entertain:
1) Our country has not gone backwards since the introduction of the euro. Our economy has always thrived on our trade with Germany - which has increased more since the introduction of the euro than it did during the final decade of the Guilder.
2) The euro has not made everything more expensive, this is an unfortunate myth. Inflation has stayed mostly the same.
3) Our financial sector is huge. Much bigger than Iceland's compared at the level of value per head of the population. The Guilder, meanwhile, was an insignificant currency in comparison to the major international reserve currencies. At the very least, the Guilder would have devalued by some 50% - vastly more destructive than our economy would have been able to handle. Our economy has always thrived on a STABLE currency - a devaluing/imploding currency would have had disastrous effects.
4) You can't bail out banks and savers with a devalued currency. The government initially needed some EUR 10 billion to bail out ING. That's 22 billion Guilders. If the currency (Guilder) had devalued by some 50%, we suddenly would have needed over 44 billion Guilders to bail out ING and the State would have gone bankrupt. There's no way we would have also been able to bail out the Icesave victims, Fortis and other banks and institutions. Those businesses would, in turn, also have gone bankrupt. We would be in complete chaos right now. People would be lining up outside their local bank to get their savings - only those savings would no longer have existed.
5) Immigrants? Dutch identity? What has any of this to do with the economy? Answer: nothing. I would also like to point out the Dutch immigration policies are Dutch, and not European. So blaming the EU for immigration is a rather silly thing to do.
If you still fail to understand that the euro is all that stood between the Netherlands and complete bankruptcy over the past few months then you, sir, have absolutely zero understanding of advanced economics.
Have a nice day.
Complain about this comment
@ 84 jbssussex
Your understanding is spot on.
This is stated black on white in the Treaty of Amsterdam:
First in the "Protocol on the application of certain aspects of Article 7a of the Treaty establishing the European Community to the United Kingdom and to Ireland", which in layman's terms states that notwithstanding the incorporation of the Schengen acquis into the framework of the EU, the UK shall be entitled to maintain its picket fences between itself and the rest of the EU in order to 'protect' itself from foreign elements, i.e. to "exercise at its frontiers with other Member States such controls on persons seeking to enter the United Kingdom as it may consider necessary..."
It goes on to recognise the common travel area between the UK and ROI (a CTA that HMG is determined to obliterate) and then states that for that reason the provisions of the protocol will apply to Ireland "as long as they [the UK and ROI] maintain such arrangements" (i.e. the CTA)
If this wasn't clear enough, there is also a declaration by Ireland ("Declaration by Ireland on Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland"), which again in layman's terms says that Ireland would have liked to join Schengen but cannot do so without breaking the CTA.
The reason why all this is so widely unknown is that British politicians and the media seem to have agreed a wall of silence on the issue...mind you, I think if you ask most British journalists (present company excluded) about Schengen they will ask you if Schengen was one of Hitler's concentration camps.
So Mark, your comment :
"Certainly some EU countries can proceed to "ever closer union" while others decline to take part, the euro and the passport-free area being the most important and obvious examples."
...is misleading, I'm afraid. It may apply to the euro, as there are three EU countries that have opted out of this "closer union", but it cannot apply to Schengen, as the UK is the only EU country that has refused to participate. In this case, it is not "some EU countries" that have "proceeded to ever closer union", but the entire EU (plus EEA or EFTA countries Norway, Iceland and Switzerland) except the UK (with Ireland being forced to follow suit).
Complain about this comment
Ticape wrote:
"#68. Oh I agree it's a toothless tiger not because commissioner will be refusing it unless the legislation proposal doesn't cover the EU competence. It will be a toothless tiger because citizens won't be using it as they don't know the law is there. :p"
Buzzet is right. Giving the commission the power to accept legislative proposals is very far from giving people the right to have them brought before the public for voting. The issue is not one of possible forms, but rather of raw political power. We have to ask what happens when people disagree, not what might happen when everyone is on the same page as the king, or pope, or publisher, or whatever.
If the people can go to courts and the judges there say that their constitution gives them the right to enforce direct democracy, the very role of government changes profoundly. Instead of being a voice of authority and instruction, government becomes a body of professional clerks, listening and preparing documents that reflect the ideas and will of the public. This process of changing what government is and what it does is profoundly important when we discuss the influence of huge financial entities on established political parties.
The Swiss grew up with the very first corporations in Europe. These were the independent churches who were restructured by Papal decree to operate as "incorporated bodies". As these proto-corporations evolved in tandem with varieties of local Swiss democracy, Switzerland itself evolved a process and constitution that took into account the dangers posed to representative rule if huge private entities were able to operate as keystones of political power.
Corporations today want the best of every possible world. They want private conduct, civil laws and private profit for investors who owe no extraordinary duty of care to the people with whom they interact. But at the same time, they exert a profound and deliberate influence upon the behaviour of people who are selected to be representatives of ordinary people.
Now you can either take away the capacity of companies to influence political parties, which is extremely problematic for all sorts of legitimate reasons, including free speech and fundamental human rights of privacy and association, or you can take away the concept of representatives whose opinion if a keystone to be influenced by corporations.
By moving legislative authority from the few representatives and placing it in the broader public, the raw political power is diffused amongst the masses, and this takes away the very factor, the crucial element, which creates undue corporate influence on our westminster party system of representative democracy.
Direct democracy did not evolve in Switzerland because that society was somehow protected from the evil influence of private companies masquerading as saviours whilst operating as businesses.
Direct democracy evolved precisely where these predators on democratic power operated most intensely, and it did so as an expression of the will of the people to be heard.
Complain about this comment
As an Irishman, I don't think there's anything undemocratic in re-running the general election. Just because the last time was only two years ago doesn't mean we can't have another go at getting the right result.
Complain about this comment
Michael_Walsh, I'm with you. I think we should do the same here in America. A little more time, a little more rope for our new el Presidente' to hang himself with and perhaps we'd get the right outcome on the second try too.
Complain about this comment
89 Poor disappointed MA. Offended all and now all offend him. :o)
MA, it's simply that "passions" Friday. Mind it - it only may be seems to you it's even that. By Rus calendar - a week later. :o)
To cheer you up:
Soutern Koreans got very disappointed when they saw leader of North Korea in public. To the last minute they were hoping that he flew away in the rocket. :o)
Moldavian president Voronin complains to Zuganov (leader of Russian communists)
- Gena, tell me, what for O why it is happening to me, all these troubles with the opposition?!
- Well, you see, Vladimir, with communists, the very position of a president, is kind of originally not by Fen-shui. :o)
Moldavian opposition showed their government in 1 day how to create hundreds of new working places in the building and construction sector.
And VVP (Putin), by the way - mind it, didn't let Morar (leader of Moldovian opposition) into Russia at once! (we refused her visa yrs ago). Didn't want to join Romania...
Armenian radio is asked: What will it be, if N.Korea will launch into space a rocket with cosmonauts?
Armenian radio answers you: A batiscaf.
;o)
Armenian radio is asked: Why N. Koreans were delaying and delaying their rocket launch?
Armenian radio answers you: Couldn't find matches, to light the fuse.
If prayers don't help you - it means you live an un-licenced version of life.
To the question "Who is Garry Kasparov" - 33 people replied he is an American provocateur, 3 said he is a representative of the independent opposition, and 1 said that he once played chess. :o)
A foreigner is asked of his impressions ab Russia.
- What can you say ab St. Petersburg?
- Oh, wow, White Nights, embankments, draw bridges, Hermitage, wonderful!
- And about Kizhi?
- Oh wow, wonderful Nordic islands, rare ancient wooden architecture samples, so nice people, wonderful!
- And what can you say ab Moscow?
- Oh wow, Moscow, Gorky steet, Kremlin, the city is so vibrant, changed so much, wonderful!
- So, what's your impression of Russia overall?
- Disaster.
(LOL!)
- Have you fed Fluffy?
- Sure.
- With what?
- With whiskas, of course, what else.
- And have you fed Rex?
- Sure.
- With what?
- With what with what! With Fluffy, of course.
- Well... I am even scared to ask. Have you eaten, yourself?
LOL!
Complain about this comment
If they are unwilling to comply – throw them out of EU. Miserable minority should not blackmail 99% of the rest... Majority rules and that's the nature of democracy – weather some likes it or not. Irish are ungrateful, minor nation gaining all its wealth from the EU.They should comply or chuck them out (I guess they think they will be better off out of EU - give them a chance to try...they have a short memory, it looks)....ungateful lot...
Complain about this comment
The original intent of European co-operation to achieve greater prosperity through standardized commerce and banking regulation has been usurped by power-craving individuals who saw an opportunity to supplant the democratically elected representatives of nations that joined for purely economic reasons. The EEC was, and should be, the limit of integration.
Granting larger or more economically depressed nations a blind fiat over one's national government and personal wealth is accepting robbery and enslavement.
Complain about this comment
I voted no and I shall vote no again with relish and so shall my country.We are a small country, whom if we voted yes, would suffer greatly and have absolutely no say in anything, just because we are small.We will however, not be bullied by war mongering France or Cowen in the matter and the more pressure they press on us, the more determined we will be in voting no.Lisbon screams discrimination for us because it places us at an unfair disadvantage.The euro was a disaster and something we should have had a choice in.Everything is so expensive because of the euro.
Complain about this comment
Michael_Walsh , we DID get the right result the first time round.
Complain about this comment
I'm sorry, Mark but Lisbon is a done deal for the Irish.
We voted, we said NO, NO was not the answer that the 'EU Elite' wanted, we have to vote again and we are told that YES is the only acceptable answer.
We are told that it's all about strengthening democracy in Europe.
It's all very clear to me. We have no choice but to vote YES.
Otherwise, we will be shot.
It's that simple.
Complain about this comment
I am also Irish and the fact that we are been asked to vote on the Lisbon treaty again is a sorry day for democracy.now Europe and our own government are trying to black mail us into voting yes.If history has thought us anything, it is that the Irish don,t respond well to threats.
Complain about this comment
Maybe the Irish have learnt that by voting 'no' the first time they get a better deal for the second try. It's what happened with the Nice treaty referendum. They rejected it the first time round, partly due to concerns over compromising Irish neutrality. As a result, the Irish received more assurances that they would not need to co-operate in a Common European defence policy, and subsequently the referendum result was reversed the second time (with a much higher turnout). I guess the moral of the story is, always vote 'no' the first time. It gives you a better bargaining position.
Complain about this comment
What guarantees does the Lisbon treaty give to a country that the EU will look out for their interests? In contrast, the US will not favor Mexico over Texas. In the EU we have had many examples where the EU sided with a 3rd(non-EU) country AGAINST an EU one.
Complain about this comment
I do not think another referendum on the same question can be a wise move.
I have been thinking about both possible outcomes, and neither seem very inviting. on the one hand, you have the irish voting "no" again. At that point, Europe is divided and STOPPED. Some people will be overjoyed, some will be relieved, some will be angry and frustrated.
The last time Europe looked like "stopping" (the french empty chair), a new procedure was developed. This allowed groups of like minded states to form blocs that integrated with each other, separate to other member states. I forget the euro-babble term used to describe this process.
So that is likely to be what happens if Ireland says "no" again. Certain countries within the EU, driven by politicians with longstanding agendas to fulfill, with promote a two or even a three speed europe. And for reasons that others have dealt with at length, that doesn't a durable way forward for the EU.
Now the other scenario, where the Irish vote "YES", well that doesn't seem very rosy and positive either. Sure, the EU gets what it wants. But what a price!
The price of obtaining this "yes" will be credibility. The price will be goodwill. The price will be tolerance.
Everyone who hates the EU now is going to hate it tenfold if the Irish are forced to say yes when they have already said no. This increased hatred will be fed with fear. If people who already distrust the EU see it force its way through a negative referenda, the fear and hatred will very likely amplify and focus themselves.
The same people who said "We must say NO!" are hardly going to keep saying that, are they? They'd look like total fools. They already do look like fools.
And if saying NO doesn't work, what is left on the table, as far as options to resist go?
And so I fear the outcome of a second referenda, regardless of the outcome. It cannot be good.
Complain about this comment
The biggest single reason for the Irish "no" was ignorance about the Lisbon Treaty. The same survey which produced that finding also showed that even after 35 years of membership, most Irish people do not know how the European institutions work.
The Ireland which rejected Lisbon out of ignorance was still surfing on the crest of an almighty (and as it turned out unsustainable) borrowing binge. The Irish have since seen how Euro membership has helped cushion the fall from the dizzying heights of unreality the borrowing binge had induced. They have noticed that it is largely non-Euro members of the EU who are going to the IMF with their begging bowl out.
A devaluation of the currency is tantamount to the confiscation of savings - at least in a very open economy. Before joining the EU Ireland's dependence on the UK was such that it essentially had no currency independence: it was still a sterling colony. EU and Euro membership have helped Ireland reduce its dependence on the UK. The devaluation of sterling still hurts Ireland's exports - but Ireland no longer has to confiscate its own citizens savings through devaluation in order to survive (though it does have to bring order to its public finances).
Having sobered up from the borrowing binge, will the Irish look at Lisbon differently - and even take an interest in its real contents, instead of the fantasies successfully peddled last time round by the curious collection of "no" supporters?
No one wants to leave a member State by the wayside but the harsh reality is that Ireland needs Europe a lot more than Europe needs Ireland. Irish people are beginning to understand that harsh reality.
That is not a reason for taking the result of the second Lisbon referendum for granted. Hopefully, Irish people will be given a better opportunity to understand Lisbon and the European institutions than they were offered the first time - and hopefully they will seize that opportunity and realise that for all its imperfections, Lisbon does help the EU to move forward.
If the Irish say no again? The Lisbon Treaty is dead. However, those countries which did ratify Lisbon would still have good reason to try to move the EU forward although the task would be made much more complicated in the absence of Lisbon. If the British Conservatives reneged on Britain's ratification, that would return Ireland to its status as a dependency of the UK and the two countries would become de facto associate members of the EU.
Britain tried unsuccessfully to kill the EEC (or dilute it to a simple free trade area) at its birth in 1958 and Britain's unwillingness to commit to Europe forced its then quasi-colony Ireland to remain outside the EEC until Britain joined. An Irish "no" to Lisbon would simply take Ireland, and then Britain, back 50 years, at a time when both countries should be contributing to the development of a Europe that can meet the challenges of the 21st century, instead of re-creating the relationships of the 19th.
Complain about this comment
I think Manofiona is right, except to say that the issue is beyond the control of the EU now. The issue was, originally, the Lisbon treaty. Now the issue... THE issue.. is the democratic process. Or the perceived lack of it.
And Manofiona is also right to point out that a lot of countries have ratified this constitution, and so why should they be denied their democratic destiny because of a few million irish voters? That is true. The referendum process that requires every referenda in every state to pass.... that is a very high hurdle. Surely a Europe wide referenda would have been easier to pass, and faster?
But the issue has become ugly, because the democratic process itself has been exposed as a mere fraud. The EU has made it manifestly clear that it exists to create law that is then presented to european people by whatever means is necessary to make it stick. The EU doesn't care about democracy. Where is the money in that?
Complain about this comment
# 101 Democracy threat
'The EU has made it manifestly clear that it exists to create law that is then presented to European people by whatever means is necessary to make it stick. The EU doesn't care about democracy. Where is the money in that?'
But who are the EU? You talk about the EU as 'them' but in fact it's all of us. Maybe you're talking about the Commission, but the Commission can only make proposals which, in general, have to be approved by Parliament (directly elected by us) and the Council (indirectly elected by us via our Member State governments). The Commission is just wasting its time if it makes proposals which are likely to be rejected by Council and Parliament (who will always have one eye on the next election).
Yes, the democratic process is imperfect, but that is the case in many Member States. In my own UK parliamentary constituency, I might as well have stayed in bed for the last couple of general elections since my vote has made no difference whatsoever. I don't just mean that my candidate lost, I mean that the votes for my candidate counted for nothing, and would have done so even if he'd won just a couple of votes less than the winner. I'm not pretending that all PR systems are perfect either, but I don't think we're in a position to preach democracy to the 'EU' if we have such major failings in individual Member States.
Complain about this comment
I voted Yes last time but will vote No if the referendum is repeated. The fact is the people have spoken and Lisbon in Ireland and therfore the EU has been rejected. The notion that it can be simply repeated in a year or two and all will be well is stupid. The fact is the EU cannot afford Lisbon now anyway, as a continent we are broke. The Irish are on the whole good Europeans, we took in the floods of new Europeans workers from Poland and other new accession States while the UK, Germany and others left their borders closed. So we don't need any lectures from Brussels, Berlin or London - thank you.
Complain about this comment
You say that most people would disagree that Ireland would have been better off if it had not been a member of the Euro, but I think you might find professor Tim Congdon agree that it would have been. At least in his speech on quantitive easing at the Bruges Group he states that Britain has benefited because it has had the financial independence to act according to its position.
If it had joined the Euro then all members including itself would have had to act together, and what medicine is good for one country is not so good for another. This is because different countries are at different points in their economic cycles, and they have different representations in the various economic sectors and so on. We have had to drop interest rates to avert a collapse in the housing market and we were able to do that.
I should say the same logic applies to Ireland, even though maybe they don’t know it or that maybe because the restrictions in monetary policy will be acting as a kind of slow burn on their economy, that will only show up in years to come. Although changes in interest rates can have quite an instant effect, other economic changes often only manifest themselves after much longer. We saw this with Tory economic policy; it seemed to peak sometime after Labour got into power, and Labour’s economic policy is only now taking effect. Ireland does have the benefit of receiving more funds from the EU than it pays out though, which is the opposite position that Britain is in, so there is a difference there.
Complain about this comment
Membership of the Euro is not really an issue to most Irish people. Since the Free State was formed our currency has never been independent. Linked directly (even the same size and shape of coins) to Sterling until black Wednesday in 1992. The Punt was then linked, in all but name, to the German Mark (about 2.54 Marks to the Punt). The natural follow on from that was the Euro. Flucuation of Sterling against the Euro is of course a major problem as the UK is still our biggest trading partner in all sectors of the economy from milk to microchips.
Complain about this comment
IMHO people here haven't suddenly become Euro-sceptic as has been claimed by some and there were a number of factors which led to the "No" vote.
A lot of people here didn't understand what the vote was about and decided to vote no "to be on the safe side". There was very little sense of we're voting to decide for the rest of Europe so we'd better make an effort and find out.
Compounding this was the fact that the Irish Govt. is prevented by a ruling on the constitution which means that it cannot advertise for a "Yes" vote for a referendum it is proposing. There are however no restrictions on other groups so we end up with a very wishy-washy campaign from the govt. and a very focussed, well-organized one from some of the No groups, resulting in a rather unbalanced campaign.
The No campaign used FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) to persuade people that they should vote no because they didn't know what they were agreeing to and managed to persuade people that a no vote simply maintained the status quo and so there was no harm in it.
There were also blatant lies from some no campaigns: I saw a campaign poster from a left-wing group in Tallaght, Dublin, that Ireland would be forced to adopt a private health care system if the referendum passed(!). There were also claims that we would be open to conscription into a European army in the future, that taxes would be increased, etc. none of it with any firm explanation of how this would happen.
And I think the final, major factor was that the current government has lost a lot of its credibility through inept policy and corruption scandals to the point where voters voted against them even though all major political parties were supporting the campaign.
The govt. has probably lost the battle to restore its credibility but a properly organized yes campaign would go a long way to helping secure a yes vote in the Autumn.
Complain about this comment
#103: the UK did not close its borders to the new accession states. We also didn't do it out of kindness, we did it because, at the time, we needed the workers.
Complain about this comment
iantownhill wrote:
"But who are the EU? You talk about the EU as 'them' but in fact it's all of us. Maybe you're talking about the Commission, but the Commission can only make proposals which, in general, have to be approved by Parliament (directly elected by us) and the Council (indirectly elected by us via our Member State governments). The Commission is just wasting its time if it makes proposals which are likely to be rejected by Council and Parliament (who will always have one eye on the next election). "
That is absolutely not correct, Ian. It is hugely misleading to claim that "in general" the European parliament has a power of veto over commission proposals. And this phrase "directly elected by us", what does that mean? Have you seen the rules and regulations surrounding party operations in the European parliament? Have you? There is nothing direct about the European parliament selection process.
But the most significant error in your claims is that the Commission must suffer the scrutiny of the parliament when it makes laws. This simply not the case, in an increasing variety of circumstances. The reality is that the EU commission can draft laws and take them to the Council of Europe for approval. It can declare the law to be within a heading under which the commission has exclusive powers to legislate without parliamentary approval, and then what?
This isn't conjecture, Ian, this happens. It happened recently with internet privacy and security laws being declared part of Commission competency, even though security appears to be well off the commissions powers under the treaties of the EU.
What you must ask yourself is not whether the process allows nice laws to be made by a democratic process, but rather whether nasty laws can be made WITHOUT any influence from a democratic process.
Any form of government can make nice laws by democratic processes if they so choose, from time to time. North Korea could hold a fair and open referenda on whether 8 year old girls can wear pink dresses on tuesdays, and that would be wonderful and democratic and nice. But it would define North Korean regime as democratic, or nice.
The North Korean regime is defined by a group, a PARTY, who hold exclusive rights to exercise political and military power without any intervention by a legitimate and reasonable democratic process.
The issue for the EU is therefore not whether the EU structure allows good laws to be made. It is whether the democratic structure that check the abuses of power by political parties are effective, and fit for purpose.
I put it to you that the current EU does not possess democratic checks and balances on party based power, and that this fact is becoming increasingly evident to the people of Europe. A huge amount of law is being made behind closed doors, and it looks like what it is.
The EU is a party creation. It was made by the party professionals, for the party professionals. It is an abomination, with respect to legitimate democracy.
Complain about this comment
#108 Quite correct, under the constitutional treaty every decision would have been a co-decision with no exception but then the Dutch and French didn't like this idea. Under the Lisbon treaty it's only 99% of the cases, which is not enough.
#100 Sadly enough I would have to point out that the Irish aren't the only ones who voted No (or equally worse Yes) out of ignorance the same can be said about the Dutch, French, Spaniards and Luxembourgers.
Complain about this comment
#108 Democracythreat
'It is hugely misleading to claim that "in general" the European parliament has a power of veto over commission proposals.'
I'm talking about the co-decision procedure which is the most common procedure used in community law. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codecision_procedure.
'And this phrase "directly elected by us", what does that mean? Have you seen the rules and regulations surrounding party operations in the European parliament? Have you? There is nothing direct about the European parliament selection process.'
I'm not going to get involved in a discussion about party lists. However, if you want to select, or stand as, an independent candidate that option is there. I have an independent MEP in my SE England constituency. I don't agree with a word he says, but I accept his legitimacy in being there.
'But the most significant error in your claims is that the Commission must suffer the scrutiny of the parliament when it makes laws. This simply not the case, in an increasing variety of circumstances. The reality is that the EU commission can draft laws and take them to the Council of Europe for approval. It happened recently with internet privacy and security laws being declared part of Commission competency, even though security appears to be well off the commissions powers under the treaties of the EU.'
You 'll have to give me a more precise reference on that. As far as I'm aware this is covered by 95/46/EC and 2002/58/EC which are both Council and Parliament Directives which can only be amended by Council and Parliament unless there are specific provisions which say otherwise (which, as far as I can see, there aren't)
'The EU is a party creation. It was made by the party professionals, for the party professionals. It is an abomination, with respect to legitimate democracy.'
I have some sympathy with that view regarding the European Parliament, but I fail to see how that argument can apply to the Council, which is composed of the heads or representatives the Member States. Are you implying that these all belong to the same party? So if the Conservatives replace Labour on the UK seat next year it will make absolutely no difference ?
Complain about this comment
Iantownhill wrote:
"I have some sympathy with that view regarding the European Parliament, but I fail to see how that argument can apply to the Council, which is composed of the heads or representatives the Member States. Are you implying that these all belong to the same party? So if the Conservatives replace Labour on the UK seat next year it will make absolutely no difference ? "
OK, let us leave aside the commission as the creation of political parties, and look at the council. Am I implying that government heads of European states all belong to the same party?
Well that has two aspects to it. The first is whether there are pan european parties who might be reasonably expected to find that they have a significant representation across the spread of member states governments who make up the council at any given time.
The answer to that question is yes, certainly. These pan european organisations are the CDP and the SDP, or the Catholic Democratic Party and the Socialist Democratic Party. The catholic democrats are conservative, and the socialists are left of centre. These two bodies have found like minded bodies in every state in europe, and over time these two parties have come to define the european political spectrum.
This may shed some light on why countries with low catholic numbers and yet conservative governments (UK, Norway, Switzerland) have been slow to join the EU, whereas countries with a strong socialist and catholic base have been very swift and eager to join (germany, italy, france, spain).
In fact, every single leader of the European Commission has been a member of either the social democrats or the catholic democrats. A card carrying, nominated member. So in this respect, yes, I am absolutely implying that the EU was created to house the members of "the same party". But at this party, both the Catholic democrats and the socialists are welcome. And the are treated as though they all belong to the same big party. If you consult the record of of who has lead the commission over the life of the EU (and remembering that the commission drafts the law) you will find that the european catholic democrats and the european socialists have been sharing the role fairly between themselves. It goes back and forth between these two parties, like a pendulum.
But don't take my word for it. Go read the history of the commission.
And by the way, I am aware of the co-decision procedure. I know where it applies, and where it does not.
That is why I say, with conviction, that the EU parliament is a toothless dog that was never meant to wield any real influence. It has no power over money bills, it cannot veto law that is simply declared to reside under a head of competence for the commission, and it has no way to check the ECJ, or the direct actions of the council.
The EU parliament turn up to watch, and even then they are not shown anything they do not already know.
Complain about this comment
#111 'democracythreat'
Unsurprisingly, I don't share your view that it's all part of a Catholic conspiracy. Yes, the CPD and SDP have been strongly represented over the years (though I see you've redefined the word 'party' so that both CPD and SDP can be included in the same 'party') The fact is, it's perfectly natural that in a large democratic grouping, the centre of gravity will shift back and forth between the centre left and centre right over the years, and it's also natural that the Council and Parliament will appoint a Commissioner they can work with (I'd be very surprised if a predominantly right-wing Council and Parliament appointed a socialist head of Commission).
However, it's not always a cosy relationship between the Council/Parliament and the Commission. For example, in 2004, during the Parliament's hearings of the proposed Commissioners MEPs raised doubts about some nominees with the Civil liberties committee rejecting Rocco Buttiglione from the post of Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security over his views on homosexuality. Despite Barroso's insistence upon Buttiglione the Parliament forced Buttiglione to be withdrawn. Parliament were doing more than 'turning up to watch'.
Complain about this comment
Iantownhill wrote:
#111 'democracythreat'
"Unsurprisingly, I don't share your view that it's all part of a Catholic conspiracy."
Thank you for the suggestion that I believe in a catholic conspiracy because I refer to the behaviour of a registered entity called the Catholic Democratic Party. I don't.
I was specifically referring to this party as one of two dominant and increasingly pan european political organisations.
Iantownhill wrote: " Yes, the CPD and SDP have been strongly represented over the years (though I see you've redefined the word 'party' so that both CPD and SDP can be included in the same 'party')"
They haven't been "strongly represented". They have shared the position of president between them, and nobody else has ever had a chance to be represented at all. It has gone back and forth between the two parties like the proverbial yo-yo. CDP, then SDP. Then CDP, then SDP.
And yes, the inference I wish to draw from this pattern is that the office so traded between these two organisations was in fact set up specifically by these organisations, and was fostered by these organisations.
That isn't a "conspiracy theory". It is a historical institutional analyses. I offered you the chance to verify the particulars, which you have done. You then accuse me of proffering a conspiracy theory, as if I have no sources for what I am claiming. To be clear, I am describing the history of a public organisation. NOT a hidden conspiracy.
Iantownhill wrote: "The fact is, it's perfectly natural that in a large democratic grouping, the centre of gravity will shift back and forth between the centre left and centre right over the years, and it's also natural that the Council and Parliament will appoint a Commissioner they can work with (I'd be very surprised if a predominantly right-wing Council and Parliament appointed a socialist head of Commission). "
So it is "perfectly natural" that in a "large democratic grouping", the centre of gravity will swing between two political parties with the regularity of a pendulum?
Look, we are not talking about a "large democratic grouping". We are talking about a very small executive grouping. The commission presidency is appointed from a shortlist of candidates. that shortlist is created and circulated among the heads of major European political parties BY THE POLITICAL PARTIES.
You can't just use these words like "democracy" as if they have no meaning. You also can't refer to the European parliament as though it has been around for a significant period of time.
I do not think you actually understand how the EU came to be. Go read about it. But ask yourself this:
IF...... the pan european catholics and the pan european socialists were to start circulating a short list among european political parties..... for any purpose whatsoever..... does it not stand to reason that they will have more votes for their preferred candidates simply because they are, as the most most widespread european groups, axiomatically more widely represented across all member state governments, taken as a whole?
The EU did not sprout out of the ground in Belgium, and nobody dug it up out of a sacred hole.
The EU was created by the professional politicians from two dominant and widespread political parties on the European continent. They were the Catholic democrats, and the Social democrats. This was not NATURAL. It was a man made, political act. It was designed to solidify political power in the hands of these political parties by shifting European power into a structure they these parties had they themselves designed.
That is NOT a conspiracy theory. It is simply what happened.
Now you put it to me that I was redefining the word "party" to include two parties.
No, I wasn't. I was implying that these two parties could be collectively described as one party. This is a matter of choice, and choice of terminology.
I prefer to catagorize both these parties as professional political parties, both operating according to predictable and documented patterns. As such, they are both part of the same set, and this set might be useful if it had a name.
Now these parties seem so identical to me... and I stress not merely similar, but rather indistinguishable.... that I see less difference between their policies than I saw when looking at the various policies created by various branches of the soviet Duma in the 1980's.
Now, if it is good enough for us to call the soviet system a phoney democracy that was ruled by a single party, it seems good enough to call our structure the same thing, if it indeed behaves the same way.
And it seems to me that representative democracy in the modern westminster system is identical to soviet communism. It is staged managed, utterly phoney, utterly meaningless show and pomp. The people who supposedly compete for elections are shortlisted by "the party", and no matter who you vote for, you always get someone from the party.
The only difference, it seems to me, is that we have a single ruling party with two brand names. In soviet union, you could only buy coke. In the west, we have coke and cola. But cola is made, owned and sold by coke.
The smoking gun, as far as I am concerned, is the way "the party" has come to dominated the political economy of the west. The party was all powerful in the soviet union, and it has become all powerful in the west.
The great dangers of "parties" is that they can straddle the traditional divisions between the judiciary, the parliament and the executive. Thus they can circumvent the separation of powers, and make a mockery of the rule of law.
This distinction used to be what separated the English system of rule from tribal party theocracies and feudal aristocracies.
Complain about this comment
Although the question you're raising is an old one, Mark, it's still interesting.
I don't think that anyone will disagree that in the scenario that the Irish vote No, the EU will be in a crisis that has probably no equivalent in the EU's history, since it is more or less 'beyond the control' of governments. How many times can you ask a people to vote on a proposal before you cease to call the voting process democracy (regardless of whether a referendum is truly democratic at all, but that's a different discussion). Twice is apparently still acceptable. Three times? No, I don't think so. So it would be a big crisis and the end of Lisbon. It would not be the end of the EU, still it would be such a heavy blow to those promoting a deepening of integration and/or federal European state, that we won't see the EU develop through deepening.
However, with all the efforts that have gone into the story of which Lisbon is the latest chapter since 2001, it is hard to conceive how the more powerful countries of Europe will simply accept the result of the Irish vote and let Ireland de facto impose on them a decision outcome that these countries do not support. Can Ireland dictate Germany and France what their Europe policy should look like? Not in a thousand years. France and Germany are way too powerful within Europe for that and they will make a deeper integration come around. For them the question will be: with or without Ireland. If not with, then without Ireland.
The history of Europe and even of the EU tells the story of powerful states that used their power to shape the kind of international regime they wanted. The current interests of the powerful European states are such that they want a deepening of integration and I am very much sure these states will get their way.
If they must, they might even set up a new organization to rival the EU, just like they did with the Council of Europe back in the 1950s. At the same time the other states would effectively abandon the EU as a forum for internal European law-making, although likely before then, Ireland would probably be forced to resign from the Treaties, after which the EU would continue with only 26 states.
I think the Irish should have no illusions about the EU: they need Europe a hundred times more than Europe needs them. Ireland must grab what it can get and be glad with it.
Complain about this comment
Caspar_Heetman wrote:
"I think the Irish should have no illusions about the EU: they need Europe a hundred times more than Europe needs them. Ireland must grab what it can get and be glad with it."
Here you are absolutely wrong, Caspar. Ireland is an Island, more or less. It has a long history, a proud history, and a people who have been indentified and who have indentified themselves as Irish for well over a thousand years.
The "Europe" you speak off doesn't even exist, except in the mind of a few people who earn salaries working for the institutions of the EU.
Like everyone who likes the institutions of the EU, you like to call them "Europe". But they are not Europe, and nobody needs them. Nobody needs them one little bit. The only people who need these institutions are the people who get money from these institutions.
If the institutions of the EU are buried in a deep hole and forgotten by the living, the Irish will still be invited to play football in European Cups, and people from other continents will still call Ireland part of Europe.
And they will be as happy as they were when the EU institutions were taking their taxes and giving it to people from the right political parties.
Complain about this comment
#113 democracy threat.
OK, so any party = 'The Party'. And you are not a conspiracy theorist. People will judge for themselves.
Complain about this comment
You don't give much change for a tenner of conversation, do you Ian?
Complain about this comment
Ian, I'm curious.
If what I say is wrong... i mean, factually wrong. If I am just raving on about conspiracy theories... so how do you think it all came about?
The EU institutions, i mean?
I am fascinated by the idea that talking about factual historical events is conspiracy theory. So what ISN"T conspiracy theory?
How did the EU come to be? Did god pop down to earth and rip it out of his forehead? Did the Queen knock her magic staff on the ground and PRESTO!, one EU!, ?
And yes, I am absolutely convinced that in the modern system, any party you choose is usefully described as THE party. They are all exactly the same, as far as I can tell.
I mean what are the differences? They all have precisely the same corporate sponsors. They all have the same foreign policy, the same attitude towards the military industry of the realm. They all promise the same things. They even promise them the same way, in hazy language that is calculated to mean as little as possible.
You may believe the parties are different, but a rose by any other name doth smell so sweet. You seem to insist that they are different options for the voter.
In what sense does the voter have a choice? Like Ford, where you can have any colour you want, as long as it is black?
Complain about this comment
Democracythreat #117 and 118
My response at 116 may have been short, but it has clearly still succeeded in winding you up.
History of the EU? I may be being very conventional here but I believe it started with the European Coal and Steel Community which was set up to help economic growth and cement peace between France and Germany – I don't think it was really the creation of some Orwellian 'party'. The EU has of course developed over the years, including the creation of a democratically elected (sorry!) European Parliament in 1979. Obviously, within the context of a European Parliament it is unsurprising (and not at all sinister) that alliances will be forged between national parties of various Member States who think and believe along the same lines.
You seem to be implying that everything is a 'top-down' dictation from 'The Party' I would say that is more bottom-up. If you take the Green movement, this had its origins in the 1970's as ecological pressure groups evolved into political parties and eventually formed cross-border alliances. It was popular support that fuelled the green movement. They now have a fairly strong representation in the European Parliament, and they certainly don't just turn up to watch! They have a record of strengthening, or bringing forward the timetable of, environmentally-based legislation, and even the traditional parties are seeing the need to adapt their policies to avoid losing votes to the green movement. I'm not sure if any Green party members contribute to this blogsite but I would be interested to know their reaction if you insist that their party is really one and the same as the Christian Democrats, or perhaps Vlaams Belang.
Complain about this comment
Democracythreat # 115.
Come on Democracythreat, you may have your eurosceptic opinion, but if you state that "nobody needs [the institutions]", you ought to present some evidence.
I'll tell you why you are undoubtedly mistaken on that point. First, let's look at Ireland's economic performance. Ireland used to be a poor country in Europe. I don't have access to data to come up with exact numbers, but feel free to check it out. Prior to the 1990s, the Ireland had a relatively low GDP per capita, and in 1973, when Ireland joined the then European Community, poverty was widespread.
After 1973 that situation gradually changed. Ireland received billions of Structural Funds Aid from the European Commission. I've been in Ireland a couple of times, and I've seen for myself how many a road has a sign saying that it was built with money from the EU. Experts agree in general that unlike Greece, Ireland has spent the EU money wisely and has for that reason profited incredibly. There can be no doubt that thanks to these investments, the Irish infrastructure was prepared for the economic boom of the 1990s.
Ireland is an open economy. It does not have many natural resources and as such Ireland has traditionally not relied on industry. The industry that is present in Ireland is dependent on imports. The products produced in the industry are mainly high-tech products, like those in the ICT branch and are produced for export. This is also true for the other sectors of the Irish economy: agriculture (predominantly meat) and services, such as tourism. Like many small European countries Ireland is a typical export-economy.
Given the nature of the Irish economy it is not surprising that Ireland's boom took place after the installation of the European Monetary System and after the completion of the Single Market. These developments have been especially beneficial to small export-economies like Ireland, because other than say Germany back then, such economies were dependent on foreign markets rather than their own, and the ability to easily and freely export to them. Developments in the liberalization of trade do in part explain why the ICT boom of the 1990s, from which Ireland profited like no other country, could take place at all. The EU played a very important part in this.
Today as well Ireland is heavily dependent om the EU for a different reason than that it is Ireland's most important market for exports. In order to export, Ireland, like other export-economies needs stable exchangerates. Without those, the hard-earned profits could easily vanish into thin air because of changes in the exchangerates between the national currency and foreign currencies. Alternatively, in an unfavorable exchangerate situation, an economy could see the costs of its imports become higher than the earnings of its exports. In an open economy that is dependent on imports for its export products, this means that production of goods and services for export is no longer sustainable. Companies go bankrupt and personnel faces unemployment. Such a situation is presently going on in large parts of the British manufacturing industry. Thanks to the Euro, Ireland has been able to avoid such problems and it needs no saying that this has greatly benefitted Ireland's ability to export and as such its impressive economic growth rates of the past 10 years.
At present experts have estimated that had Ireland not been within the Eurozone, there would have been no doubt or it would have gone exactly the same way as Iceland. As you might recall, recently there has been speculation of Ireland being forced out of the EMU by speculators who go short at the stock echange on poor economic performances. These pressures did not ease before Germany, seen as the foundation under the Eurozone said to support the Irish economy in any case. Without that and without Ireland within the EMU, this crisis would have set the Irish back many years in time.
What you should not misunderstand is that I respect the Irish and I have great sympathy for a people with a strong sense of identity, as long as it is a positive sense of identity of course, such as the Irish. During my trips to Ireland, both the East and the West, I have learned a bit about Irish history as well. With my own eyes I saw the prison in Dublin where the British kept the political prisoners during the struggle for independence and I know the roots of that struggle and the painful chapters in the history of the British occupation of Ireland, such as the Potato Famine.
However, pride and a strong sense of identity are not enough to keep one standing in this world of today. It may be an extreme example, but look at the pride you find with peoples in Africa. Once would do well to respect their pride, but their pride cannot hide the swollen empty stomachs they have. It cannot hide the pain on the faces of mothers and father who have lost many children to disease, hunger, war, and so on. Ireland is fortunate to be not in such a postition anymore, but it has been once during the Potato Famine. It is extremely unlikely that anything like that should happen again in the foreseeable future, but it is important to be reminded of it.
What's more, pride is also not enough to maintain independence. You could remark cynically that it is the EU that eats at Irish independence, but that would do no justice at the EU. It is because of external factors in the world that are simply too big, too powerful for a small nation like Ireland to defend it with that it turns to the EU and other organizations, as I explained above for the economic part.
Nations do not become neutral in their military cooperation because of their strength. It is traditionally out of weakness and fear that they do not choose sides so as not to offend one side for picking the wrong partners. A nice example of that is the Netherlands in both World Wars. The second time the Germans did not buy the idea. Sweden was more lucky, but had to bend very deeply.
Today, Ireland is not a member of NATO, but its own military would not be able to defend the homeland in case of a war. And it is completely inconceivable that in case any country would attack Ireland, NATO would stay aloof, saying: Ireland is not a member, so it's not our business. De facto, Ireland is shielded from the threat of war by NATO and as such Ireland relies heavily on NATO for its security, even though it is not a member. Independence? Formally, yes, effectively, no.
It is illustrative for anything you can say of especially small European countries these days. Even without the EU, to which they have delegated large parts of their sovereignty, they are only independent in name. Like the homeless person on the street, who is formally free, but whose life is in practice ruled not by what he really wants, by what he dreams, but by his biological need to eat and sleep, by his fear of being robbed or killed.
Ireland is not independent and so are most countries in Europe, if not all. It cannot go alone in this world. Those small countries that do tend to suffer terribly. Even Her Majesty's proud United Kingdom of Great Britain cannot afford to go alone in today's world and precicely for that reason is the UK so keen to emphasize its 'Special Relationship' with the US and does no member of the major political parties there even think for a second of stepping outside the EU. They, just like yourself, may not be completely happy with it, and some may argue that the UK is perfectly capable of doing things on its own, at the end of the day, they are oh so happy that they are a memberstate and that they are part of treaties that put them behind the backs of powerful allies that shield them from harm.
Hence, it makes me smile when I see people proclaiming proudly how their country will prove the world to be wrong. Pride is a beautiful thing as long as you don't act accordingly.
Complain about this comment
greypoliglot, still Mark is away so far, life kind of stopped. The latest Strasbourg thread is of course un-touchables, I quite agree.
So what if we transfer the chat-room here temporarily? :o) it is quiet here, cool, and by the way quite interesting, if you read the post above again.
The borderline with Finland fluctuates! I need to tell gedguy thank you for pints and gallons (Thank you very much, gedguy). Moldova is still to be divided :o), flu rages, stellarBeloved brother un-clear how, picnic victuals / rendezvous with ikamaskeip un-set, I mean! And now Georgia - again! :o)
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS