Back to Brussels Blog homepage
No camp insists victory is not a eurosceptic message
June 13, 2008
Its 3pm on a cloudy Dublin Friday, and, as the results of the Irish referendum come flooding in, it could hardly be more clear what a kick in the teeth - and possibly to another part of the political establishment’s anatomy - the Irish electorate has delivered by rejecting the European Union’s Lisbon treaty.
Tipperary North: 50.2 per cent No to 49.8 per cent Yes, on a turn-out of 58.5 per cent… Tipperary South: 53.2 per cent No to 46.8 per cent Yes, on a turn-out of 55 per cent… Waterford: 54.3 per cent No to 45.6 per cent Yes, on a turn-out of 53 per cent…Limerick East: 53.9 per cent No to 46.1 per cent Yes on a turn-out of 51 per cent.
The Limerick East result was especially significant, because its voting patterns often reflect trends at a national level.
And of course, the No campaigners are ecstatic. But they are not depicting their victory as a defeat for the EU - far from it. “this is not a eurosceptic message at all, ” Declan Ganley, the self made businessman and promient No campaigner, told Irish radio. “We want to be at the heart of Europe, but it’s got to be accountable to the will of its citizens.”
Ganley reckons that Irish premier Brian Cowen can go to the EU summit of heads of state and government in Brussels next Thursday and Friday “and look for a better deal for the Irish people” than is contained in the Lisbon treaty.
But what exactly can Ireland ask for? For one thing, Ganley proposes that Ireland be allowed to keep its European commissioner - Lisbon foresees abolishing the automatic right of all 27 member-states to their own commissioner. For another, Ganley suggests changing the new weighted EU voting rules, based partly on the size of a country’s population, that are contained in Lisbon.
Eeek! The voting rules are impossible for average Europeans to understand, but some may recall that when the Polish government was complaining about them last year it marched into a summit battle under the slogan: “The square root or death!”
What will it be this time? “The distance formula in Cartesian co-ordinates, or we’re off”?
“MULTI-QUESTION NON-BINDING REFERENDUMS/PLEBISCITES NEEDED IN ALL EU MEMBER NATIONS!!”
The EU is at a cross-roads like no other in its history-> rather than continuing the last 50 years of practice, & floating-onwards-blindly without a publicly articulated, explicitly defined end-point to its integration processes & development, EU member nations ought to jointly either:
- formally declare an intention for the EU to become a Super-State; or
- formally state an intention to complete the EU’s evolution as an association of ‘aligned &- to varying
& flexible degrees- integrated, community of nations’.
How??
Via an EU-wide, FUTURE-OF-THE-EU DIALOGUE-PROCESS, followed by a non-binding EU-wide “plebiscite-type”, multi-question vote.
As part of these processes, residents/citizens of member nations would be provided with documentation
describing several possible future EU structural models, with each stating- simply- the authorities of
member nations under that respective model, & showing basic EU operational-structures such as the Council of Ministers, Commission & EU Parliament + outlining their powers & roles in a future EU.
Residents/citizens of EU member nations then ought to be asked questions similar to:
- “do you support or are you against the continued existence of an EU parliament, or should the present
one be altered (or permanently limited) in its structure or authorities?”
- “would you support the conversion of the (population-based-ratio elected system, absurdly-enormous-sized) present EU parliament into a much smaller one in which each EU member nation’s govt appointed “their” nation’s EU MP’s, with perhaps, equal numbers (say 10 or so) of EU MP’s for each member nation?”
- “do you support or are you against the possibility of an elected EU president?”
- “would you support the elimination of the Council of Ministers’ “President” position, replacing this with a re-tasked, EU Commission President, (appointed by EU member nations) who would also continue his/her duties for the Commission?”
- “do you support or are you against the EU having “its own military”, not under the command & control of Nato?”
- “should member nations ALL have to be rigidly-aligned participants in all EU programmes/laws/treaty-clauses, or should there be opt-out ability, for these, in areas such as the Euro, human-rights interpretations & foreign policy-type initiatives?”
- “do you approve of or are you against the EU becoming a structure in which its member nations are formally & irrevocably subsumed into an EU of ‘amalgamated peoples’… an EU where individual nations’ parliaments/governments are reduced to being absolutely subordinate to the EU ‘Parliament’, with a
permanent, elected EU president operating out of this parliament?”
After over 1/2 a century of development, isn’t it about time that the citizenry of ALL EU member nations were ASKED FOR ‘THEIR OPINIONS’ REGARDING POTENTIAL FUTURE EU MODELS, IE its structures, their powers & limitations & the EU’s possible future role(s) in the world???
Even though Irish voters appear to have not allowed themselves to be hoodwinked into facilitating the subsuming of their, and other EU member countries into an EU Super State, danger still lurks in the recently created, so-called “EU Wise Mens Committee”, with its ominously vague terms of reference charging it with setting out the form of a ‘future EU’….
http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2007/10/wise-man-veuill.html?cid=87924682#comment-87924682
http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2007/10/wise-man-veuill.html#more
In order for its work to have any appearance of legitimacy, the “‘EU Wise Men’s Committee’ needs to work from a heavily and widely promoted, succinctly-articulated terms of reference… which includes the committee- as an immovable part of its mandate- having to obtain EU member nations’ citizens’ opinions re their preferences for how a ‘future EU’ ought to be structured, & its possible role(s) in the world”…
… an ‘EU Super State’ or an aligned ‘Association of Nation-State Equals’???
How?? With the facilitation of non-binding multi-question EU-issue plebiscites- in ALL EU member nations!!!!” If constructive, done more than once in each country….
The results of which could form the basis for the compilation of any future ‘EU Treaties’… Treaties which would eventually be put to ALL EU member nations’ voters in ‘binding referendums’…
The plebiscite process would need to mandate the enabling of beforehand dissemination of succinct, easy to understand ‘alternative future EU models’, facilitated by the respective nation’s govt, political-parties & interest-groups.
The plebiscite itself could ask- specifically- for opinions on the future powers, roles & limitations of existing and possible new, basic-EU-structures such as its Parliament, Commission, Council of Ministers, Court of Justice, etc.
Alternative future EU models could, & arguably ought to include:
1) an EU without its own Parliament- or at least WITHOUT AN ELECTED ONE.
This could be easily accomplished by reverting the present EU Parliament back to its 1960’s-type structure in which MP’s were appointed by EU member nations.
Under this model- to preserve the principle of EU member nation equality- all member nations could be allocated the same numbers of MP’s, perhaps 7 or 8 or less.
This would shrink the absurdly large present EU Parliament- nearly 1000 MP’s- down to a realistic size, a size which would allow legitimate discourse and debate.
It would also force the EU Parliament- & its many committees- to become sizes which would be discernible & understandable to ‘the average EU member nation citizen’.
2) an EU in which member nations’ are guaranteed- in an explicitly delineated treaty- their integrity & basic nation-state decision making apparatus, & not to be penalized for opting out of things such as the Euro, foreign policy positions, using vetoes, etc.
The world as a whole needs an EU of ‘independent’, but willingly-aligned-for-good-purposes nations, but not an ego-motivated ‘Super-State’, in which many of the EU’s member nations are effectively rendered to fodder for the international ego-driven agenda’s of a minority, & forced to participate in & contribute to purposes/projects/actions that their peoples may be adverse to…. purposes/projects/actions that- using the Continent’s consistent conflict-filled 1000-year history as a template- would be driven more by imperialistic or power (ego) motives than by altruism and world responsibility.
If constituted without an unequivocal mandate to consult with and/or obtain opinions from ALL EU member nations’ citizenry, the proposed ‘EU wise men’s committee’ will be another undemocratic, unrepresentative body that functions to repeat all-too-common EU history & deny member nations’ citizens a legitimate productive say in deciding the future structure of the EU & their country’s role within it.
In other words, it will function- predictably- as another sordid propagator of false-justifications for the EU becoming a super state.
________________
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | June 13th, 2008 at 4:50 pm | Report this commentRoderick V. Louis,
(near) Vancouver,
Canada,
rvlouis@patientempowermentsociety.com
The Irish voters have made their legitimate choice, and they need to ponder their choices for the future.
But the 18 ratifying member states and the rest should be as free to make their own choices.
Posted by: Ralf Grahn | June 13th, 2008 at 6:03 pm | Report this commentI cannot help but see the irony of the situation: the EU has drafted first the Constitution and now the Lisbon Treaty in order to make sure that the 12 new Member States do not hinder EU operations. Instead, it is pivotal Western Member States (France, the Netherlands and Ireland) that since then have completely ridiculed and blocked all substantial EU reform.
Is it time for the West to learn some lessons from Central and Eastern Europe?
Posted by: Vlad Olievschi | June 13th, 2008 at 6:27 pm | Report this commentWhen will the penny (or Euro) finally drop with the power crazy eurocrats in Brussels that the people of Europe do not want this treaty.(Which is nothing more than a re-named Constitution of a few years ago) Whenever the people are asked, they say no. Which part of ‘no’ is it that these fools in Brussels do not understand?
I suppose now that we will be faced with the Irish being forced to have another referendum so that they vote the ‘right’ way next time! The sheer arrogance! These Eurocrats are no better than Mugabe, whom they seek (quite rightly) to critisise at every opportunity. Let the people of Europe decide!!!
Posted by: Colin Barker | June 13th, 2008 at 7:38 pm | Report this commentOne reason for voting “No” might be the attempt by the “political elite” to slip their rejected constitution through without a vote by relabelling it a “treaty” despite changing less than one word in ten and even less of the meaning.
Posted by: John | June 13th, 2008 at 8:31 pm | Report this commentBlatant cheating provokes mistrust and when the “political elite” are asking for more power over ordinary people that is the last thing they should do. Maybe they assumed that as Eire was a major beneficiary of cross-border subsidies, it would meekly accept a treaty that New Labour was unwilling to put to a vote, after The Netherlands and France, two of the most Euro-enthusiastic nations had rejected the almost identical constitution.
Incidentally, the Poles were right: votes proportional to the square root of the population is the fairest option if you are going to give all of a country’s votes to its current government - there are better alternatives but the political elite and bureaucrats will never accept them
I’m french economy professor in public school.
Posted by: navajo | June 13th, 2008 at 8:34 pm | Report this commentA veritable wave of workers think irish had save the french social protection. For us it is an encouragement to continue the resist against rights falling down, against the barbarie of unrules.
Hourra for irish people.
Never we lost our social security, never it would be possible to have the principal of this market.
[…] 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 - only […]
Posted by: Jon Worth » Irish vote No - some calm respect please | June 13th, 2008 at 11:12 pm | Report this commentThose loonies in Brussels admitted Romania into the federation, about 30 years too soon. After that demonstration of bureaucracy gone mad, what could anyone expect from a democratic vote? Yes, Romania is a European country, and it (like Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus) should at some point join the EU. But not right now. Democratic voters will always reject this sort of attempt to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear. It’s sad to see today, but I look forward to the day when all our European compatriots (Ukrainians etc) are admitted to the Union as equal partners, based on a democratic vote. That’s the real test - an EU stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals, based on democratic vote.
Posted by: pytlozvejk | June 14th, 2008 at 9:56 am | Report this commentWell at the very least you gave the anti-EU brigade yet another opportunity to sound-off. Even Roderick V Luois’ suggestions showed anti-EU bias. Many of the complaints are unfounded: I suggest you check out the EU site before you post.
And, if you want criticise, then do try and be positive about it.
Ireland’s vote was an informed vote. From my observations here in France, it seems likely that the French vote (uninformed) was, at the time, a vote against the then government and its policies (or lack of). And this is the danger
Posted by: derek tunnicliffe | June 14th, 2008 at 4:59 pm | Report this comment@pytlozvejk
Posted by: rz | June 14th, 2008 at 5:26 pm | Report this commentyou make a good point. The influence of enlargement had on the opinion of the People about the EU is seldom discussed in the media. But I agree it is a really important issue. And today many acknowledge that it was to early for Romania and Bulgaria to be admitted to the Union.
I’m Irish, but was unable to vote as I’m currently in America. I consider myself a supporter of the EU, but we finally need to learn what is the future path of the EU. I don’t want to be part of some benign empire. I don’t see why we need a common foreign policy minister, we don’t need to have a common foreign policy. Foreign policy should not be part of the EU’s domain. If some member states desire closer military cooperation, achieve it through NATO. France, Britain, Spain, etc may want to regain some trappings of their empires, but this little nation doesn’t want that. Don’t blackmail us by suggesting that we should become 2nd class members of the Union due to our disobedience. No such threats were made to France or Holland following their rejection of the Constitution. Finally, I’d accept that 4 million people are unfairly obstructing the wishes of 500 million people if other countries put the Treaty to public vote. However, they didn’t. And if they did, we undoubtedly wouldn’t be the only country to have rejected it.
Posted by: David Sheehan | June 17th, 2008 at 6:06 am | Report this commentTake lessons from this rejection Brussels.
The Limerick East result was especially significant, because its voting patterns often reflect trends at a national level.
Posted by: NatureLimit | July 12th, 2008 at 9:52 am | Report this comment