Back to Brussels Blog homepage
Brussels faces the mother of all political crises
June 13, 2008
At 12 O’clock on Friday, after three hours of counting in the Irish referendum, it is starting to look as if Irish voters have rejected the European Union’s Lisbon treaty - and, to borrow a phrase from the late Saddam Hussein, touched off the mother of all political crises in Europe.
“We’re not calling it, but it looks like it’s going to be No,” one senior government official told the Financial Times.
“It looks like a majority have voted No,” confirmed Lucinda Creighton, director of the referendum campaign for Fine Gael, the main opposition party, which supports the Lisbon treaty.
And this is also pretty much the view of the reporters for the state broadcasting network RTE who have fanned out across Ireland and who are watching the local counts. They are saying that the No vote on Thursday was especially strong in urban working-class districts and in rural areas.
If it really is No, Ireland’s three main political parties - the ruling Fianna Fáil and the opposition Fine Gael and Labour - will have a lot to answer for. Despite agreeing on the need for a Yes vote, they often sniped among themselves about how effective each party’s pro Lisbon campaign was.
It did not help that Bertie Ahern, the former Fianna Fáil leader, was forced to resign last month because of the negative effect of continuing public inquires into his personal financial affairs. Brian Cowen took over as premier but it may have been too late to make a difference.
As for the rest of Europe, it looks as if even if Ireland has voted No, the French, Germans and everyone else will say; “The ratification of Lisbon must go ahead.”
The question that will really need looking at, though, will be: “Why does the EU find is so difficult to sell itself to the voters?”
Ireland decided that it values national sovereignty over the possibilities it would have inside a united Europe. While I do not agree, this is certainly a decision we should respect.
But now all parties should do face the truth and do what is necessary. Ireland has to leave the EU. I think that a new status for Ireland should be established, they should definitely be able to stay inside some type of free trade zone (especially because the use the Euro). But it is obvious that they decided against being a full member of the EU.
These steps might seem drastic to some, however I simply think that we should also respect the decision of the 26 other countries which decided to form a Union based on the Lisbon treaty.
Posted by: rz | June 13th, 2008 at 1:17 pm | Report this commentThe probable Irish “No” may mark the end of a prolonged period of wrangling with Europe’s constitutional set-up. Although “Lisbon” was an ugly text, there is a real need to make decision-making more effective, democratic and transparent.
It is clear that difficult issues such as legislative competences, procedures and voting rights are not suitable for referenda, let alone on a single-State instead of a Europe-wide basis: the question of ratification becomes mixed up with domestic political issues and a lot of misunderstandings about the document put to the vote.
The novel method of drafting the failed EU Constitution - of which Lisbon was a messy re-write, covering up the constitutional elements by copying most of its provisions into two separate treaties - was based on popular input: a Convention drafted that text, with citizens being able to submit comments and suggestions through the internet. A new way of drafting amendments to the current Treaties is needed which combines this openness of procedure with an EU-wide method of adopting the result. If a referendum is needed, it should be on elements in the constitutional document, not on the entire text and be conducted simultaneously across Europe with a clear advance indication of what an individual State’s rejection would mean.
Polls consistently indicate there is EU-wide political support for strong powers in respect of, e.g., the environment and foreign policy. Increased powers for the European Parliament will also likely be adopted. In this manner, a way forward may be found.
Politicians should be wise now and, whilst agreeing on the need for constitutional reform, not reject the sensitivities of Irish (French, Ducth) voters, whilst showing leadership and convince the electorate that clear and strong powers for Europe are needed. The fact that we share a single currency with Ireland should make us prudent in our actions: the euro should come out of the present turmoil unscathed.
Posted by: René Smits | June 13th, 2008 at 1:48 pm | Report this commentThere is no reason for the Irish to leave the EU or be worried about what comes next (assuming it indeed ends with a no-vote majority). Ireland is the only country where the population actually got to have a vote on this.
If other European governments berate the Irish government for saying no, I’d suggest the Irish look them straight in the eye and say:”at least our population got to have a vote, you didn’t even have the courage to ask yours”.
Furthermore, why can’t we use the current treaty for a while longer? Its functioned well enough in the past few years. I don’t see the EU project progressing if the leaders keep pushing further and further ahead and losing support among their populations. Time to really stop pushing forward all the time with new areas of policy. Give the people time to get more comfortable with current EU-policies before trying to rush through more.
Then maybe in say a decade or so, the EU can try a new reform-package, and hopefully then the EU will have the courage to actually put it to the people of the EU, instead of ratifying treaties against the will of their own populations.
Posted by: Mal | June 13th, 2008 at 2:01 pm | Report this commentEurope finds itself difficult to sell to voters because it deals with quite boring issues in a quite boring way, and there isn’t yet a European political space.
Posted by: Anthony Zacharzewski | June 13th, 2008 at 2:06 pm | Report this commentIs RZ suggesting that the French and Dutch should also leave the EU?
Posted by: Brian Mac Domhnaill | June 13th, 2008 at 2:18 pm | Report this commentRZ seems to have a bee in his bonnet about democracy. While I am pro european myself, I feel that the stance taken by Irish voters reflects a real fear among voters EU-wide that this treaty will impinge in a very real way on national sovereignty. Do the law makers in Europe propose to chastise the Irish because they had the courage to follow the democratic process on this point? Let us not forget that the Dutch and the French have already voted against in similar referendums and they have not even been allowed a vote this time around. The EU is not something that should be imposed on its people, it is something that should be given time to take root, especially at a time when the Union itself seems to have no boundaries and seems to expand relentlessly, even into areas not traditionally thought of as being in Europe.
Posted by: Cas | June 13th, 2008 at 2:35 pm | Report this commentThe EU Politicians need to listen to their citizens. Only Ireland had the right to vote on this because the politicians felt that the people would not make the right decision. The elite know best so lets not ask the people. This is an unstainable position and the politicians should be very cautious in ignoring their citizens.
Posted by: Don | June 13th, 2008 at 2:42 pm | Report this commentI’m delighted the Irish voted no to the Lisbon treaty. I hope this will enable the electorate in I’m delighted the Irish voted no to the Lisbon treaty. I hope this will enable the electorate in the UK to have its say on the issue. Making decision-making more efficacious is short-hand for more unaccountable interference from a body that has no legitimacy. People, in short, voted against because they are suspicious of technocracies. The EU should start doing as little as possible, stop the grandstanding, and leave nations to decide their future for themselves. I’ll be drinking a Guiness today. Anyone to join?
Posted by: Alex Story | June 13th, 2008 at 2:51 pm | Report this commentKick Ireland out of the EU. As a net recipient of EU funds, it will soon realise which way its bread is buttered, and be less frivolous with its choices in future.
Posted by: eurofederalist | June 13th, 2008 at 2:55 pm | Report this commentAs a resident of those messy American states over the pond from Europe, I agree that democracy is both a necessary and a messy evil.
This NO vote by the Irish seems hinged on the real fears that working class folks there have about what will happen to ‘them’. It is, as most democratic ideals are, a very self interested view. And self interest is something we the people all have in common.
My take on this is that the goals of the EU policy makers are somehow deeply and intrinsically at odds with the self interests of the populations who are voting.
This seems both understandable and a mystery.
Aren’t the policies of the EU supposed to be in line with the aspirations and goals of the population?
I might think this is the crux of the NO vote adn the mystery is why this has come about so early into the voting process.
Posted by: pensive | June 13th, 2008 at 3:01 pm | Report this commentThe success story of the EU bites the hand that feeds it.
The EU has to focus much much more on marketing its image in the UK and Ireland. There is a wall of ignorance and misunderstanding pervading these countries about the role of the EU, and zero understanding of the benefits.
The EU has to take much of the blame for not countering the gargantuan misperception that is now choking its development.
Posted by: Sam | June 13th, 2008 at 3:11 pm | Report this commentThe reason why large majorities despise the EU and its supporters can be summed up in Eurofederalist’s comment above. “As a net recipient of EU funds, it will soon realise which way its bread is buttered, and be less frivolous with its choices”.
Posted by: Alex Story | June 13th, 2008 at 3:21 pm | Report this commentCas:”While I am pro european myself, I feel that the stance taken by Irish voters reflects a real fear among voters EU-wide that this treaty will impinge in a very real way on national sovereignty.”
That is exactly what I acknowledge in my post. It is completely legitimate that Ireland rejects the treaty. But I also think that different countries should be able to move at different speeds when it comes to integration.
Posted by: rz | June 13th, 2008 at 3:29 pm | Report this commentThe outcome of the Lisbon referendum in Ireland is no mystery. We joined, and are very happy with, economic and monetary union, and we have from the start been enthusiastic participants. Irish people are intrinsically pro-EU. Lisbon is all about political union which is a different agenda altogether. We are not that long free of the last political union into which our then political class sold us.
Also, the arrogant comments and threats coming from Brussels and Paris about the outcome of the Irish vote being irrelevant drove many otherwise positive people to vote NO.
Posted by: jd | June 13th, 2008 at 3:30 pm | Report this commentDon: “The EU Politicians need to listen to their citizens. Only Ireland had the right to vote on this because the politicians felt that the people would not make the right decision.”
Unfortunately in a negotiation of a new treaty all 450 mio. citizens of the EU can’t sit at the table. This means the (democratically legitimized) politicians of each country come together and make a deal. This deal then still has to path the (democratically legitimate) legislatives of each country. Sounds rather democratic to me. A deal as technical as the Lisbon Treaty should not be put to a referendum. It is to easy to misrepresent what it says.
However, I agree that at some point there has to be a fundamental Europe wide referendum on what the EU should be. To do so I think one would have to create a short set of point which define the EU and make a referendum on it.
Posted by: rz | June 13th, 2008 at 3:40 pm | Report this commentjd:”We joined, and are very happy with, economic and monetary union, and we have from the start been enthusiastic participants. Irish people are intrinsically pro-EU. Lisbon is all about political union which is a different agenda altogether.”
Good point. That is exactly where I am getting at. Ireland should definitely stay part of the monetary union and some type of economic union.
Posted by: rz | June 13th, 2008 at 3:45 pm | Report this commentBut the other countries should be able to go ahead with a stronger political union.
I voted Yes but we ‘Yes’ voters have to acknowledge there is a huge democratic deficit in Europe (and increasingly in individual countries). If those who believe in the European project want it to advance they need to
Posted by: Jer | June 13th, 2008 at 3:53 pm | Report this comment1) get rid of the non elected commissionars,
2) have a directly elected ‘president’ (one could argue over the most appropriate title)
3) Be seen to matter on the world stage in areas that affect peoples lives such as energy, the environment, civil rights (the Laval, Vaxholm, raises many concerns
4) do more to promote a ‘European’ identity, at the moment we only have the Eurovision, and it is not going to endear Europe to anyone in Western Europe, never mind the British Isles anymore
The Irish no can only encourage those who after years of experience see the discrepancy between EU citizens and EU institution. The Council of Ministers launching grand visions without popular support. The Commission, a dysfunctional mammoth saddled to do the Council’s bidding, long on words, but short on action and packed with petty-minded syncophants.The European Parliament - a bunch of far-flung embezzlers mostly representing on one, but their own interests
While in favor of European cooperation and limited integration, my main objection is that alternative ways and setup to reach European cooperation has never been discussed, but always persued in an outdated Napoleonic mould.
Posted by: Frederik Hesse | June 13th, 2008 at 3:55 pm | Report this comment“I voted Yes but we ‘Yes’ voters have to acknowledge there is a huge democratic deficit in Europe (and increasingly in individual countries).”
Ok, true.
“1) get rid of the non elected commissionars,
2) have a directly elected ‘president’ (one could argue over the most appropriate title)”
these are really bad ideas! We do not need an American style president. What we need is more power in the parliament.
Posted by: rz | June 13th, 2008 at 4:00 pm | Report this commentFrederik Hesse:”While in favor of European cooperation and limited integration, my main objection is that alternative ways and setup to reach European cooperation has never been discussed, but always persued in an outdated Napoleonic mould.”
Nice Idea. But can you give a short examplet of how such an alternative way should look like?
Posted by: rz | June 13th, 2008 at 4:03 pm | Report this commentRZ, you state: “we should also respect the decision of the 26 other countries which decided to form a Union based on the Lisbon treaty.” But look at the process that was followed in the UK. The electorate voted for a party that promised a referendum on a new constitution. Since the constitution was rejected by the electorate in other countries, a treaty was approved by parliament without any referendum. Technically, the Labour Party kept its promise but, as you note, the electorate often lacks understanding of such technicalities.
You say that the Treaty is too technical to be put to a referendum; maybe so. But then the constitution - about which we would have had a referendum - was no less technical.
I have to say, I agree with your final suggestion - offer a fundamental referendum to all the people of the EU on what it should be, establishing general principles, and then leave elected representatives to agree on the technical details. I quite see the difficulties of directly involving 450 million citizens in negotiations. But I cannot agree that Ireland should now leave the EU. It is simply not true to say that Ireland is out of step with 26 other countries - rather, we have evidence that the political elite are out of touch with the people.
Posted by: Ben Murphy | June 13th, 2008 at 4:05 pm | Report this commentrz: “But the other countries should be able to go ahead with a stronger political union.”
What sort of ‘Union’ can it be that ignores the voice of those who disagree with it and move on, rather than confront the issues driving dissatisfaction?
rz: “these are really bad ideas! We do not need an American style president. What we need is more power in the parliament.”
So we give more political power to a corrupt Parliament which year after year ignores its own auditors and approves Commission budgets even though billions of euro are unaccounted for? The same Parliament which recently voted to conceal the expenses of it’s members from it’s electorate.
Posted by: jd | June 13th, 2008 at 4:09 pm | Report this commentRZ
Good point, I didn’t envision a US style president, more a figure-head like the Irish president.
Posted by: Jer | June 13th, 2008 at 4:15 pm | Report this comment[…] struggling to find any decent analysis of the result, or suggestions about what to do. FT has a couple of reasonable pieces. Plus the amount of people reading this entry of mine is, as ever, lousy - […]
Posted by: Jon Worth » Irish vote No - some calm respect please | June 13th, 2008 at 4:35 pm | Report this commentJer/rz- your suggestions of getting rid of the “non-elected” commissioners (appointed by national governments), a directly elected president, more power to the parliament, etc. - All great in one sense but also all actually diluting the power of the individual countries, which is particularly bad for the smaller states! Not going to persuade Ireland.
Of course the no campaign here was so disgraceful and contradictory, it wouldn’t have mattered. People voted no for reasons ranging from compulsory introdcution of abortion to not wanting to be conscripted into a new European Army. And even more voted no simply as they took up the no campaign on their “if you don’t know, vote no” line. Really annoys me, I don’t mind people voting NO for a genuine reason but I have met only a handful! If you don’t know, don’t VOTE and leave it up to people who made the effort to inform themselves.
The yes campaign was disgraceful too for bickering internally and not taking up the no campaign on all their falsehoods quickly enough. And ultimately there were more people who cared on the NO side, whether for a good or a nonsense reason; increased efficiency is a hard thing to get excited about.
As to “unintelligibility” the treaty was like any legal document amending previous treaties. Acts of parliament are just the same. There was plenty of information out there explaining the issues if people cared, but they didn’t.
Posted by: Blorg | June 13th, 2008 at 4:37 pm | Report this comment‘Kick Ireland out of the EU. As a net recipient of EU funds, bla bla blah….’ bread buttered. blah…
‘
The attitude of “eurofederalist/’Eurofacist’ ranting comments in this forum shows a healthly disrespect for democratic decisions they don’t agree with,
If this is the childish rant we get from eurofederalist and his ilke who don’t get their way. Its been a good wise day for European democracy.
Posted by: h | June 13th, 2008 at 4:52 pm | Report this commentAgain the European elite are angered by ordinary citizens trying to use their democratic rights. But who is this elite and does it have some over-riding power to decide the future of the EU undemocratically without consulting us? It would seem to me that the hidden opposition to the elite (whoever they may be!) in the modern world is now just too strong to be merely shunted aside. I noted the other day that after some 35 years working in South America, Asia and the Middle East, someone noticed I went to one of the best universities in the world - before it never seemed to matter. Alone I may have very little power to oppose our politicians, but if 100,000 of us decide to influence things, the elite should ponder whether they can really win!
Posted by: Brian Lewis | June 13th, 2008 at 4:58 pm | Report this comment“Again the European elite are angered by ordinary citizens trying to use their democratic rights. But who is this elite and does it have some over-riding power to decide the future of the EU undemocratically without consulting us?”
Yes Brian, who is this elite? Who is it? Why don’t they consult me dammit!
Elite: This is a message for you. Leave a comment on my blog, we can debate European issues there! You better don’t do anything stupid again without consulting me!
Posted by: rz | June 13th, 2008 at 5:09 pm | Report this commentThe question that will really need looking at, though, will be: “Why does the EU find is so difficult to sell itself to the voters?”
As many of the above comments demonstrate, the question that the EU will move on to is: “How can we exclude the voters from politics?”
After all, whenever they are allowed to vote, they vote wrongly.
Posted by: ad | June 13th, 2008 at 6:27 pm | Report this commentIsn’t it strange, that those who praise the democratic rights being exercised, always seem to assume that votes in the more populous states would be in their favour in any way?
Germany had its share of demagogues and its constitution was designed as to NOT have direct votes.
As a german citizen i am well aware that EU-enlargement was sold to our public as being manageable through the ill-devised agreements on voting mechanism of Marseille.
A citizen of a small nation has much more voting power than a citizen of more populous countries. Would the advocates of more democracy care to explain why vetoes should be used at all?
The EU should continue in a new form only with the countries that can agree on a set of rules, the rest could stay a associated trade zone. Opt in to the Euro should be possible but without voting rights at the ECB. A common currency without common policy is ridiculous at worst.
Posted by: TS | June 13th, 2008 at 6:55 pm | Report this commentEverybody is free to leave the common table, but only the ones willing to commit should decide among themselves.
The way forward for Europe is to set some ground rules. A good first step would be to guarantee that the citizens of all member states get to vote on the powers granted to the EU. Set it’s stall out as a fundamentally democratic project.
As it stands the EU is a technocratic project deeply out of step with democratic opinion in it’s member states. They openly talk about how to get the agreements past the citizens who don’t want it. They know that the result would be exactly the same in very many EU states were it put to a vote. The arrogance is astounding. A little democracy would go a long way.
Posted by: idij | June 13th, 2008 at 7:02 pm | Report this commentJust as the Soviet Union collapsed because it did not listen to the will of it’s people, so the European Union is destined to go the same way. I was someone who campaigned for a ‘yes’ vote in the 1970’s, because i believed the politicians who told us that joining the EEC (Yes, i’ve got that right!) would have no effect on our sovierenty. We were lied to and betrayed by those politicians, Ted Heath in particular.
Every country in Europe should be free to adopt it’s own laws as it sees fit, not have them imposed by unelected faceless people in Brussels. Now i wish i had campaigned for a ‘no’ vote all those years ago. This may explain why the people of England do not trust Europe. We have been continuously misled and lied to by Europe. It is a fallacy to say that most countries have ratified the Lisbon Treaty. It has been ratified by the politicians who dare not put the issue to the people because they are afraid of the result. Ireland only did so because they were bound by their own constitution. Europe has got what it deserves. A real case of the biter bit!! Well done Ireland!
Posted by: Colin Barker | June 13th, 2008 at 7:59 pm | Report this comment@Brian and rz
rz wrote:
“Yes Brian, who is this elite? Who is it? Why don’t they consult me dammit!
Elite: This is a message for you. Leave a comment on my blog, we can debate European issues there! You better don’t do anything stupid again without consulting me!”
We’re sorry, rz and Brian. Next time we’ll ask for your opinions. Or maybe,..even better: give us a call, whenever you have something to say: 01800-666-ELITE.
We hope to hear from you,
Posted by: Elite | June 13th, 2008 at 10:26 pm | Report this commentEuropean Elite
I think if the document was reduced to, say, 26 pages (1/10th of the present document) it would be more understandable and acceptable.
As an American, the size of the document reminds me of the internal revenue (tax) code — nobody understands it. This leads to the logical consequent of having confusion and riches for lawyers.
Going out and saying that one does not have the right to vote for the president, and you only get representation 66% of the time is just unacceptable for a true democracy.
Of course, if one wants their life run by a bunch of EU elite-o-crats, then vote for it on the next go-around.
Posted by: Blair | June 14th, 2008 at 8:05 am | Report this commentPosted by: Frederik Hesse | June 13th, 2008 at 3:55 pm |…
[quote]
‘…these are really bad ideas! We do not need an American style president. What we need is more power in the parliament….’
[/quote]
———————————————
might i make a small addition to your excellent comment? ok… here it is…
What we need is more power in a democratically elected and transparent parliament.
Posted by: pensive | June 14th, 2008 at 4:27 pm | Report this commentThe one question the EU never asks is
Posted by: Hal | June 15th, 2008 at 8:58 pm | Report this comment‘Do you wish for political union ?’ but that is what is happening and that is what the Irish voted no to. A country’s sovereign status is a special thing. Why would anyone ever vote to hand over power to a more distant regime?, it just doesn’t make sense. How ironic, we now need a Lifeline out of Brussels to smuggle out, instead of British Airmen, the few disaffiliated beaurocrats before they become seduced altogether by the unelected and unaccountable power bestowed upon them
All this nonsense explaining away the Irish vote. Refer to the opinion poll on the NO vote by the Irish Times. The number one reason was SIMPLY that the treaty was unintelligible, and therefore a blank cheque. In light of the treaty’s self-amending properties the electorate was presented with a single chance to say no. Who would sign a check of that sort?
Yes, there were many other axes to be ground, but that was the number one reason. The Irish constitution, in contrast, is a model of intelligibility. The EU could do a lot worse than call a halt and turn over the business of rewriting the treaty to the Irish.
Posted by: Eats Wombats | June 15th, 2008 at 10:01 pm | Report this commentOf course, I’m not suggesting that the treaty is a constitution (rright). Just that the Irish have an expectation of being able to understand the law.
BTW one aspect of the referendum I’ve not seen it commented on elsewhere: given the fact that Ireland was the only country to have a vote and is English speaking, it was descended on by English speaking euroskeptics from across the EU who joined the public debate. This may not have mattered greatly in terms of the outcome but its an interestingly asymmetric dynamic, given the emergence of English as a common language, and something that would have been hard to imagine when Ireland joined the EC.
Posted by: Eats Wombats | June 15th, 2008 at 10:22 pm | Report this commentI cannot see why it is rude to remind Ireland that is was very much the poorest member of the EU when it joined. Why should the EU continue to fund all these shiny new roads and gleaming infrastructure if that is the way its munificence is being repaid ?
And if this is a debate about sovereignty, what have many decades of nation-statehood brought Ireland, exactly , apart from relative poverty, sub-standard infrastructure a large number of its citizens forced to expatriate themselves to improve their standards of living, and a low key civil war along its border?
And it is not just a matter of Ireland — what has nation-statehood done for Europe in the 20th century ? Nothing but wars, genocide and relative ecomonic decline compared to the US and other nations.
Nation-statehood has been tried and has failed - Time for something new.
Posted by: eurofederalist | June 16th, 2008 at 5:50 pm | Report this comment[quote]
‘…wars, genocide and relative ecomonic decline …’
[/quote]
i think it is the fundamental right of citizens to have states, absent the wars and genocide and decline. they do this in the USA all the time.
one can depict the inner city ghetto high death rates in the USA with a sort of genocide if one wishes to be blunt about the facts.
is the treaty an absolute guarantee that it will absolve this deadly trio? do the voters get a their old states as they were guarantee if the treaty fails in say 5 years? do they get their funds back if the taxes paid don’t generate the expected outcome?
isn’t this all a grand experiment?
is an unintelligible treaty what we must evolve into?
don’t blame the Irish. blame the burearcrats and the other anonymous political agents who get comfy jobs and pensions at the cost of the taxpayers. blame them.
i myself would prefer something ‘else’.
Posted by: howard | June 16th, 2008 at 8:41 pm | Report this commentThe defeat of the Lisbon Treaty by the Irish is not the end of the world for the EU. Work out some face savers for the Irish politcal establishment, that are already being discussed, tact them on for a re-vote, after getting some of way outs on board, such as Sinn Fein, and then have another referendum. If that does not work, have yet another one. The only people that will look stupid are the Irish, if this failure to go along with a united Europe is protracted. Jerome Wilson, EU supporter from America.
Posted by: Jerome L. Wilson | June 17th, 2008 at 2:12 am | Report this commentAs an Irish voter i voted no and this is the right decision for our country.It is not the Irish to blame that we are the only nation which had a vote this time around, therefore if other nations feel we should not represent the population of Europe, prehaps they should lobby their own governments into given their people a vote instead of blaming the Irish. And for those people who are asking for a second referendum in Ireland and are continuing to bully and isolate Ireland due to the democratic no vote, this will only result in a second no vote from the Irish people. its ironic that Europe want a democratic structure yet refuse to accept a democratic vote
And its rich that people can call Ireland ungrateful and so on….. and feel we should no longer be part of Europe considdering the people of their country havent actually had a vote therefore they do not know whether their citizens would actually be in favour of lisbon, it is very easy to say that Ireland is the root of all problems considering the lisbon treaty is actually a plan B, as the plan A was rejected by the French and the Dutch without consequence
Posted by: kateM | June 18th, 2008 at 4:58 pm | Report this comment