June 16, 2008
When No doesn’t really mean No
In the Orwellian world of the European Union, no does not really mean no, a treaty pronounced dead by popular vote is still alive and the bloc’s parliament rejects the popular vote as undemocratic.
Ireland may have rejected the Lisbon treaty, which requires the approval of all 27 member states to become law, but the EU’s leaders have vowed to press ahead with ratification.
Perhaps most baffling of all is the European parliament’s reaction. The speaker of the people’s elected assembly, Hans-Gert Pottering, said: “It is of course a great disappointment for all those who wanted to achieve greater democracy, greater political effectiveness and greater clarity and transparency in decision-making in the European Union that the majority of the Irish could not be convinced of the need for these reforms of the European Union.”
I’ll let you read that again. Yes, these citizens were wrong. Through exercising their democratic right to vote they have delivered a blow to democracy. What Pottering really means, and he has a point, is they have delivered a blow to the expansion of the powers of the parliament. It was the biggest potential winner of this reform.
At the moment around two-thirds of legislation has to win the approval of parliament. Under the treaty it would get new powers over farm policy, trade, justice and other areas. This could be a good thing but the problem is that too often the 785 MEPs, unheralded in their own countries and dependent on party patronage for their seats, get captured by special interests.
Parliament’s agriculture committee features more farmers than a barn dance. Trade debates tend to be dominated by members briefed by NGOs. Things are improving slowly, with the parliament fighting stirring battles on civil liberties issues and holding member states to their promises on environment and energy. Yet they will not improve fast as long as the people do not care. The next elections in 2009 could see turnout across the bloc fall below 50 per cent.
The assembly, which has already adopted the trappings of the dead constitution such as playing the Ode to Joy to visiting heads of state, threw its usual fit of pique when meeting on Monday in Strasbourg. It was “inconceivable” that the EU could expand further without reform, it said. In other words, what was good enough for those who got in early is not good enough for the latecomers: blackmail.
Paul Van Buitenen, the whistleblowing auditor whose revelations of corruption and nepotism brought down the commission in 1999 and who is now an MEP, sums up the dilemma well.
The EU has become frozen in transition from national states to a supranational system. National parliaments now mostly implement rules decided in Brussels yet they are where most citizens believe power lies and where most media attention is focused. The Brussels institutions make most of the laws but nobody pays them much attention.
“We cannot continue with this halfway house. Either we move forward to having a proper European parliament with real powers to hold the executive to account. Or we return power to national parliaments and continue as separate nation states,” he told me recently.
The Irish seem to have opted for the latter. Pottering has not: “We must now calmly reflect on how to proceed. The reform of the European Union is important for citizens, for democracy and transparency. Therefore I hope that it will be possible to find a solution so that reforms can come into force by the time of the European elections in June 2009,” he said.
Let’s have a vote on it.
Talking of votes, the house will vote on Wednesday on whether to approve Jacques Barrot’s move from transport to justice commissioner and Antonio Tajani of Italy as his replacement.
It should go reasonably smoothly. Indeed, there could barely have been a dry eye in the civil liberties committee on Monday night at Barrot’s hearing. “As a child I was impressed by Robert Schuman, who was a friend of my father, while my adult years have been marked by all the struggles to advance the European project,” he intoned.
WHY I VOTED ‘NO’ …I would like the Irish Government and the EU elites to know that I Voted No to the Lisbon treaty in the Irish referendum because of our current Tax System in Ireland of Tax Individualisation that penalises married couples with one income (where one spouse goes out to work and the other stays at home to raise the children) by up to €7,000 per annum compared with married couple where both spouses go out to work. This is SOCIAL ENGINEERING and it was introduced in our 2000 Budget in response to EU POLICY and requirements to get mothers into the workforce and children into creche’s with no regard for the terrible long term social and economic consequences for our country. It has been tradition in Ireland that women had the choice whether to stay at home and raise their children or go out to work but now the EU through the Irish State have taken away that choice through the tax system, even though the family is highly regarded and protected in our constitution this is being ignored by our Government leaders.
Posted by: Cath | June 16th, 2008 at 8:20 pm | Report this commentI wonder what proportion of MEP candidates sitting at the top of their party’s lists are pretty much guaranteed to become MEPs barring a catastropic collapse in support for their parties?
Surely everyone at the top of a main party’s list in each region is pretty much a shoe-in. That’s 36 candidates ‘automatically’ elected out of a possible 78 MEPs for starters. Even the second place candidates for certain parties in various regions are fairly safe. So how much influence does the public *really* have in who ‘represents’ them in the EU’s only directly elected body?
The Irish vote is making very clear the anti-democratic mind-set in those driving the EU project. Something we should all be very concerned about indeed as the EU gains more and more power yet little real accountability.
I’m starting to ask myself: does the EU really represent progress, or is it in fact driving Europe back to a grim, pre-Enlightenment feudal past? Time, surely, for something better.
Posted by: Mike Hanlon | June 17th, 2008 at 1:23 am | Report this comment“Surely everyone at the top of a main party’s list in each region is pretty much a shoe-in. That’s 36 candidates ‘automatically’ elected out of a possible 78 MEPs for starters”.
You’re right.
Richard Corbett for example - probably the most disliked British MEP of them all in his own constituency - will retain his plum job in Brussels even if he gets fewer votes than any of the other main party candidates. We have no control over who is selected to “represent” us (and I use the word “represent” lightly) and are stuck with this man in perpetuity, it seems.
Perhaps the public should be encouraged not to vote in EU elections at all, and to ignore the whole farcical exercise altogether until some proper democratic and legitimate accountability is introduced into the system.
Posted by: Josephine White | June 17th, 2008 at 5:32 am | Report this commentThe was posted on Buiter’s blog — however, after reading this one, I think that it is a beter fit here.
First of all, the size of the document is over 240 pages too long. Its length is similar to earlier editions of the US tax code. Can you imagine how it will look 50 years in the future? How about 1,000 pages? A new version should be no longer than 25 pages (and that is too long, as it is).
Further, why shouldn’t members of the EU be able to directly vote for the president?
Lastly, regarding representation, why should a country not have any representative 33% of the time!! (Members only have representatives 10 out of 15 years.) The way the present document is written serves to ensure that EU members be slaves to the EU elite-o-crats.
Great for the Irish — they have beautiful women, songs, beer (and brains too)!
Posted by: Blair | June 17th, 2008 at 7:51 am | Report this commentI think that Ireland’s ‘no’ vote means for the EU treaty the same that Easter Monday, April 24th, 1916, meant for the British Empire. Disintegration of BE was effectively started in Dublin, not in India, in other words when the first colony could not be kept within the B.E. ranks how could the others.
Posted by: Martin Tér | June 17th, 2008 at 9:14 am | Report this commentMaybe there should be - before any new discussions - another referendum together with the next EP elections on what people want …
The result would be a wishlist on which to base discussions/negotiations for a future treaty.
Then, at least that work will not be in vain as it was now, where things were vetoed after all the work had been done.
…it should also ensure a high turnout at the EP election for once.
- if the result is clear, there should not be a problem with ratification afterwards (as one can use the argument: “this is what you wanted”).
- if the result is unclear, then the politicians get a free hand with the argument:
“well you had a chance to express your wishes and you gave us contradictory/unclear instructions”;
- if turnout is low than one can afterwards argue: “well not a lot of peole actually seem to care what the result is”, so ‘here is something we prepared earler …”
(^_^)
Posted by: Opinionated | June 17th, 2008 at 10:19 am | Report this commentIn my book, the Irish voters have a legitimate right to decide their nation’s approval or rejection of an EU treaty since a constitutional interpretation gives them the power to decide.
But surrendering the fate of Europe and the rest of the member states to the voters of Ireland is an absurdity in need of rectification.
If the rest of Europe has the will to move ahead, the means have to be found, even if it means the establishment of a new Union.
Posted by: Ralf Grahn | June 17th, 2008 at 11:42 am | Report this commentWhen will the not just undemocratic, but ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, EU accept that “No” means “No”! It was the Irish people who voted “No”, not the weasel-mouthed Irish government. And if the Irish people say “No”, that should be the end of the Lisbon Treaty. If not, then Britain should have its own referendum too! After all, VOX POPULI, VOX DEI!
Posted by: Liberty Valence | June 17th, 2008 at 12:12 pm | Report this commentLiberty Valence,
There is nothing democratic in the Irish voters wrecking EU reform for the rest of Europe. They have a mandate to decide for Ireland, because of a constitutional quirk specific to that country.
Without Irish ratification (and perhaps a few others) the Lisbon Treaty is dead, in its present form.
The willing EU member states have to find legal ways forward according to their ambitions and democratic rules.
Possibly they have to establish a new European Union to overcome the deadlock you seem to attribute divine inspiration.
Actually the EU is more of an object than a subject in these matters. The intergovernmental conference consists of representatives from the member states, and the national parliaments ratify (or not).
Posted by: Ralf Grahn | June 17th, 2008 at 12:40 pm | Report this commentDear Andrew,
You seem to question the representativity of our MEPs. Rightly or wrongly, I leave this to you. I just would like to point out that the judgement you insinuate on Barrot’s hearing is based on a single sentence from a two-hour hearing… Do you really think this is representative?
Posted by: JayJay | June 17th, 2008 at 2:01 pm | Report this commentBest,
JJ
Whichever way the EU tries to spin this, the facts are that the only countries who have had a referendum on this constitution, have rejected it out of hand. This should send a clear and unequivocal message to Brussels that the PEOPLE of Europe (not the governments of Europe) are against any further political integration. If the “colleagues” don’t listen this time .. there WILL be blood on the streets. I’m sure no-one wants that.
Posted by: Josephine White | June 17th, 2008 at 2:52 pm | Report this commentEnough is enough. No more.
500 million Europeans are taken in hostage by 862,415 Irish (less than 0.2% of the European population) – in the name of democracy. According to the elitist representative democrats this is the direct democrat’s fault, i.e. the “uneducated and unteachable people”. This disrespect makes the current EU-catastrophe even worse.
Because: in a democracy the tool democracy can only be always right. In Ireland it was however employed wrongly. For voting for a purely internal-Irish problem without European dimension an Irish referendum would doubtlessly have been the correct instrument. For a pan-European concern however, only the pan-European referendum can be the correct means. This would be the correct level, and only then the right sovereign is speaking. No matter what the result will be, YES or NO, only via this way the right has spoken the right.
In the EU the sovereign are the 500 million Europeans – and not a slight Irish referendum’s majority. Regarding the current archaic principle of unanimity it could even appear more bizarrely: even Malta or Cyprus could by their 315,000 resp. 500,000 eligible voters bring the EU to a final halt. Good gracious!
No matter whether for or against the EU: we should not be lead by a handful of nationalists. For important matters we do need a pan-European referendum! The Treaty of Lisbon would have given us this power! Although its fate is uncertain at the moment, we have to become active for the EU’s future, i.e. our future. Let us demand a pan-European referendum for all important EU-matters, such as enlargement, environmental issues, the future election of EU president etc. There is the possibility to stand up in an organized way and to vote at the citizens’ platform: www.we-change-europe.eu.
Posted by: mBaf | June 17th, 2008 at 3:08 pm | Report this commentMr. Grahn,
Please take care when you talk in terms of “Irish voters” and “the rest of Europe.” I think it is important to make the distinction between the populace of the rest of Europe and its politicians.
Posted by: Cormac | June 17th, 2008 at 3:18 pm | Report this commentLet’s put the treaty to a vote in a few of the other countries before we decide Ireland is the only to be against it.
I hope the remarks by various EU leaders & commissioners SINCE the Irish NO will help WAKE UP the other 490 million EU CITIZENS who have not been consulted directly about a treaty that has been rejected by every State that has been “allowed” a referendum.
Posted by: Ireland Den. | June 17th, 2008 at 4:01 pm | Report this commentI wish to put these leaders’ comments in the context of the concerns raised during the Irish debate on Lisbon:
1. Ireland (& every State) would lose a Commissioner for 5 out of every 15 years - the only Commissioner to come out and recognise the FACT that Lisbon is dead was the IRISH appointed Commissioner.
2. Neutral Ireland feared a great move to more militarisation with Lisbon - Sarkozy has on 17/06/08 called for a bigger military role for the EU.
3. Ireland felt Lisbons’ Citizen’s Initiative should HAVE to be taken on board by EU Institutions & not just a SUGGESTION by 1 million EU signatories - We NOW see the reaction to Ireland’s almost 1 million signatories to NO, not a good sign for the future of this Lisbon Initiative.
4. Ireland feared it would lose its VETO on Tax, Agriculture and 58 other areas under Lisbon - **THE REACTION BY OTHER EU LEADERS SINCE IRELAND’S NO & THEIR STATED INTENTION TO FORM A 26 MEMBER BLOC IF IRELAND WON’T AGREE TO LISBON SHOWS THAT IRISH VOTERS WERE RIGHT TO FEAR LOSS OF VETOS - IF IRELAND CAN’T VETO LISBON, WHAT CHANCE HAS IRELAND (OR ANY OTHER SMALL STATE) TO RETAIN VETO ON TAX, ETC?
Ok, “there ability” should be “their ability”
Posted by: rz | June 17th, 2008 at 4:53 pm | Report this commentUps, mu actual post disappeared. So here again:
Posted by: rz | June 17th, 2008 at 4:57 pm | Report this comment“Ireland (& every State) would lose a Commissioner for 5 out of every 15 years ”
The Idea that every Nation gets a Commissioner is idiotic in the first place. Commissioners should be chosen for their abilities not for their nationality.
Well if you vote no it’s no, however as normal it shows the contempt of all votes in Ireland and the rest of europe, in words of shut up your wrong and we are not listerning,
Posted by: barrie fisher | June 17th, 2008 at 6:37 pm | Report this commentIt’s like a general election and brown losing (i wish) and then saying sorry but i didn’t like that i lost, i want another go!!.
How thick are these people, keep it up Ireland you continue to show the rest of europe the meaning of a democracy.
That the Irish (and maybe the British, Swedes, Poles and Czechs) don’t want a Federal European Government, I am fine with That. But Please leave the EU then, because many other Europeans want to build an EU-Empire.
Posted by: Armando Martins | June 17th, 2008 at 11:11 pm | Report this commentEuropa is democracy in action ! Let’s make it better !
a) Direct election of President and Foreign Affairs exec. without the corrupt “political campaign donations by special interests nightmare ”
b) transparent bank accounts and income of all elected officials from before to after…
c) total separation of Lobby’s ,advisers,lawyers and representatives , special groups and special interests, etc.,from elected officials….every meeting, conference and cocktail on the boards, public…
d) we need a referendum on Energy Independence, on investing 200.000 million euros RIGHT NOW on new energies, we need solar panels and turbines on every building in the EU, hydrogen and methanol fuel-cell cars and their pumps on 100.000 gas stations in the EU , with biofuels and electric chargers in all of them ,choices and action , that’s the kind of leaders we we want!
Europa is about change , this vote is just another step in the right direction, let’s work on a better Treaty-Constitution for all !
Posted by: blogger | June 17th, 2008 at 11:24 pm | Report this commentEU TREATIES CAN HAVE MANY POTENTIAL VERSIONS… THE PROCESS USED TO WRITE EU TREATIES NEEDS TO BE FIXED!!!
The UK ought to be pushing for multi-question non-binding ‘EU-issue’ plebiscites to occur in all EU member nations!!
The EU is at a cross-roads like no other in its history. Rather than continuing its last 50 years practice floating-onwards-blindly without a publicly articulated, explicitly defined end-point to its integration & structural 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’.
(* The EU’s potential future size- entry of new countries- isn’t an issue. The powers/roles of its structure(s); member nations’ powers/roles; &
level(s) of member nations’ integration are)
How??
Via an EU-wide, FUTURE-OF-THE-EU DIALOGUE-PROCESS, followed by non-binding EU-wide “plebiscite-type”, multi-question votes.
As part of this, member nations residents would be provided with objectively-written documentation succinctly describing several possible future EU models, with each model describing- 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.
EU member nations’ residents then ought to be polled via non-binding plebiscite(s) questions similar to:
- are you for or against the continued existence of an EU parliament?
- Should the present 1 be altered (permanently limited) in structure/authorities?
- do you support the conversion of the (population-based-ratio elected system, absurdly-enormous-sized) present EU parliament into a much smaller 1 in which each EU member nation’s govt appoint “their” nation’s EU MP’s, with perhaps, equal numbers (7-10) of EU MP’s for each member nation?
- are you for or against the possibility of an elected EU Parliament president? (the EU Treaty that the Irish voted against contains a proposed extension of the term of office of the present Council of Minister’s president position from six months to 2.5 years. How long before this is extended to 4 or 5 years, and then- after the citizenry of member nations get used to this change, which, due to the Treaty’s surreptitious clauses, would not require any form of vote or approval by EU member nations- the position is ‘migrated to the EU Parliament’, and converted into an EU-wide elected position?? This, while the Council of Ministers is quietly neutered and then effectively scrapped)
- are you for or against elimination of the Council of Ministers’ “President” position, replacing this with a re-tasked, EU Commission President, (appointed by EU member nations’ govts) who would also continue his/her Commission duties?”
- are you for or 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 EU programmes/laws/treaty-clauses?
… or should there be opt-out ability in areas such as the Euro, defense & foreign policy-type initiatives?
- are you for or against EU member nations being 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?
Data obtained via what is proposed above could be used in the transparent, objective-process compilation of future EU Treaties, treaties that would in turn be put to EU member nations’ voters for approval or rejection…
How else to re-write the the present
‘Constitution-in-Disguise’ EU Reform Treaty so that it was not so surreptitious??
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 Men’s 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/
http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2007/10/wise-man-veuill.html#more
As an immovable part of its mandate, this far-too-out-of-public-view committee ought to have to ensure EU member nations’ residents’ opinions- re their preferences for how a ‘future EU’ ought to be structured, & its possible role(s) in the world- are obtained….
If the committee doesn’t do this, it will function- predictably- as another in a long list of sordid, back room bureaucrat-driven propagators of false-justifications for the EU becoming a Super State…
Roderick V. Louis,
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | June 18th, 2008 at 2:39 am | Report this commentVancouver, B.C., Canada,
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
As an Irishman who voted yes (with many misgivings) I was delighted to have had the opportunity to read the Lisbon and related treaties for the first time. I also believe if the voters in other countries are given the same opportunity many of them will be very unhappy with the institutional arrangements in the EU.
Posted by: Tom Paine | June 18th, 2008 at 9:32 am | Report this commentProfessor Buiter is a federalist and obviously supports an ultimate European Federation. I am not a federalist but in favour of a very close union of independent states who wish to share power (sovereignty) in many areas.
My main concern after reading the treaties is the lack of democracy in the very design of the institutions , particularly when it comes to the most important aspect of lawmaking. It seems all EU laws have to be initiated by the (unelected) commission. Neither the Council nor Parliament has the right to propose new laws for the EU.
These draft laws are then voted on by the Parliament (elected on population) and by the Council (with voting powers related to population).
This arrangement is very far removed from a union of independent states. Even in the US, laws are proposed by an elected President and voted on by the Senate (2 members from each state irrespective of population) and the House (elected on basis of population).
I realise it is very late in the day to go back to basics but if the EU is to have democratic legitimacy we must at some stage be able to draft a basic document ( call it a constitution or partnership agreement or whatever) that is approved by a majority of the voters in each EU member state.
The Irish said “NIL”….to the treaty. Fine. The EU is made of 27 members and it seems that if Ireland gets its way, something must then be rotten in the EU. If the other member states ( who have democratic elected representatives!!!!) ratify the treaty then the treaty should legally bind these EU states and the states that have not secured a “YES” should be offered a new status in the EU. That’s democracy. 4 million irish citizen cannot speak for 500 million EU citizens. Now, some states are thinking about sinking the treaty…that’s another problem. It appears that some EU countries do not want further integration so the best solution would be for the “integrationists” to move ahead inside the EU or outside the existing EU. Some prominent EU leaders, juncker, Steinmeier, Pöttering and ….have suggested that idea of a Inner Core EU. If the gap between those who have and those who haven’t or are now unwilling to ratify cannot be bridged, then I think the states that have ratified the treaty should go their way leaving the others behind. Such a multi speed EU already exists…;look at Britain, ireland, Sweden and …..some do not share either the euro nor the schengen agreement. If some states think they don’t want a political Europe, taht’s legitimate but preventing the others form moving ahead is not acceptable. If Ireland needs some time to rethink about the treaty, fine. But that should not take ages…they (ireland) should be given a clear deadline just like the Czechs, the Polish and the others who are now (???) thinking of derailing the Treaty. Not sure it’s the best way to prevent france, germany and the euroland states( minus ireland) from moving forward.
Posted by: pascal-pierre | June 18th, 2008 at 10:58 am | Report this commentGiven circumstances whereas 27 States within a Union desperately now need institutions able to govern the Union on pivotal topics where States fail individually (expecially foreign policy, economic agenda, energetic agenda, defence, multipolar world, increasing global turmoil, economic globalisation and increasing competition from emerging economic blocks, increasing frictions amogst different “civilisations”, etc.), it would be now fair to say that those States who vote against the Union’s reform which is passed by a majority of States is let out of the Union.
Posted by: P, London | June 18th, 2008 at 12:07 pm | Report this commentIreland has been a poor and backward country until it joined the European Union. Ireland has tremendously benefitted from membership of European Community first and European Union now; arguably it is the country which has most benefitted so far.
In circumstances where majority of Irish citizens vote “no”, then Ireland should simply leave the Union. If Ireland wishes isolationism now, welcome: will be like Switzerland if it is able to (but, arguably, why then was not able Ireland to catch up on the Swiss model alone since 1916, and got rich and developped only after joing the European Community?).
European Union is not an economic agenda, but a political one, and this has been such since the very beginning (ie Treaty of Rome in 1957).
It is clear that the “core of Europe”, ie the original six founding nations (France, Italy, Germany and BeNeLux) plus the more Europeaist nations, wish to move forward on the political agenda.
A two-speed system, where Core Europe moves into integration and the other states follow according to their path should be implemented at this stage.
This option (1) would allow the citizens of each state to express their sovereignty without impeding other States’ citizens’ one, (2) would draw attention to EU issues by implying that it is not only a win-win game, it is also a win-lose game, (3) would let Core Europe progress on their original agenda.
The EU has been an attraction to all the other States which were not the original members, and this is because it has proved a success story.
With a two-speed system, then Core Europe will pursue their best interest without the menace of other Eurosceptic countries. Core Europe will have one voice on foreign policy (so that the abusive divide-et-impera policy of Russia will find an appropriate response), on energy issues, on defence, etc.
There is no privilege without responsibility. Being in the EU is a privilege, but citizens have started to behave irresponsibly. Let each country pay for their mistake. That which does not follow Core Europe be aside and wait…in case of re-joining for each chapter it will be the existing Core Members to dictate condictions, exactly how it happens with new applicants, so that citizens will then responsibly weight whether it is more to gain or to lose in each referendums on EU.
As an Irish voter i did vote NO and proud i am to admit it!!! Firstly, Ireland as a nation are a pro European country BUT we also consider democracy a priority. Unfortunately, the lisbon treaty does not represent democracy and therefore was rejected. I am aware that a no vote is welcomed by some eu citizens while others resent that vote.
Secondly, the point which has surfaced several times since our no vote is the fact that Ireland with such a small population should not have the right to decide the fate of all european citizens. This is a fair point, however surely it is not the Irish to blame that we have had a referendum while other governments have decided to proceed without consulting their citizens, we did not decide for Europe we decided for Ireland. And it is likely that we would not have had a vote either if it were not in our constitution as many would have preferred to push this treaty through without consulting the citizens.
Although im sure a second referendum will be put to our country to ensure we give the correct answer this time, as the bullying and isolation tactics begin against Ireland, this really does show how democratic???????? the lisbon treaty would be for Europe as it clearly cannot accept a democratic Irish vote!!!!!!
Posted by: kateM | June 18th, 2008 at 12:41 pm | Report this commentAndrew, Focussing attention on the rights and wrongs of reactions to the Irish referendum serves as an invisibility cloak for truly Orwellian plans to overcome this ’setback’.
The Irish referendum result will be ignored, along with all the other naysayers. The key elements of the Lisbon Treaty will stapled to the Croatian Accession Treaty as an annex and quickly ratified by National Parliaments without a referendum.
Until then the arcane ‘passerelle’ clauses of the Maastricht and Nice Treaties will be applied to the policy areas of police and judicial cooperation, immigration and asylum, social policy and the environment.
Posted by: Central Scrutiniser | June 18th, 2008 at 2:16 pm | Report this commentCan anybody intelligently and without bias answer this? The only 3 countries (France, The Netherlands and Ireland) to democratically vote on the constitutional treaty in one form or another have rejected it. Therefore the democratic mandate is to abolish it. This treaty has no mandate - FACT. I will repeat that again. There is no democratic mandate for this constitutional treaty - FACT.
Posted by: Jake Right | June 18th, 2008 at 2:20 pm | Report this comment“The only 3 countries (France, The Netherlands and Ireland) to democratically vote on the constitutional treaty”
It were 5 countries, SPain and Luxembourg voted for it.
“This treaty has no mandate ”
Only if you take the radical position that representitive democracy is ilegitimate.
Posted by: rz | June 18th, 2008 at 2:23 pm | Report this comment“the Irish voters have a legitimate right to decide their nation’s approval or rejection of an EU treaty since a constitutional interpretation gives them the power to decide.”
But
“surrendering the fate of Europe and the rest of the member states to the voters of Ireland is an absurdity in need of rectification.”
Despite admiring some of the idealism of some eurofederalists, it is this kind of post-hoc-ergo-procter-hoc argument that I - and probably so many other “No” voters in Ireland, France, and Holland - find so frustrating and offensive.
You are assuming that your opinion (that this must go ahead) is self-evidently correct, and then try to use that to prove your opinion (that this cannot be stopped).
The legal foundation for this club, is that such new treaties must be unanimous, and furthermore, the club still exists if they aren’t ratified. You are describing the entire foundation of the club as “an absurdity”. This is what we all signed up to.
We voted on it because under the Irish Constitution, ultimate sovereignty resides in the people - not their representatives. This is not some legalistic quirk - we fought long and hard for it. We argued hard and voted against the Treaty. The Treaty is dead - long live Europe.
We do not need to be “rectified”, thank you very much; any more than the French or Dutch majorities who voted down its predecessor, before it was disguised as “Lisbon”.
Posted by: O. O\'Connell | June 18th, 2008 at 2:47 pm | Report this commentI cannot concede that “The legal foundation for this club, is that such new treaties must be unanimous, and furthermore, the club still exists if they aren’t ratified”.
Posted by: P, London | June 18th, 2008 at 3:17 pm | Report this commentAs it is argued that Ireland can say “no” to the Treaty, the counter-argument that who says yes is entited to go ahead with further integration is valid.
Besides, the veto system which is referred is obsolete: veto works when it’s a couple deciding, BUT when it’s 27 members veto is important for new admissions and is meaningless for the internal byelaws. I take O. O’Connell has been ever member of any club and can appreciate this.
Again, besides, EU is not a club, but it is a Union of States. And it is centered around a political project pursued by the six founding nations (France, Italy, Germany and BeNeLux), whose legacy “core members club” (yes, here it is more of a club of like-minded, yet) is now pusued by the Eurozone, of which Ireland has to decide as whether to be part or not, going forward.
I appreciate that being an island and having had no pain for the last two World Wars (which were essecially European Powers’ Wars, ie a sort of European civil war) allows detachment from actual issues on the table. But actual issues is having a say on a table where there is no seat for Ireland/any other EU State alone, but where only a consolidated EU perspective can gain audience and attention in Washington, Beijin, Moscow, Dehli, Teheran, etc.
one cannot leave a flying aeroplane flying without a mechanism of piloting…
Again, my argument is simple: member states which vote no to EU Treaties (Rome, Libon, Nice, etc.) should be made aware that no means out.
Then, we’d eventually get a more workable Union, as with 27 States it seems having started beeing quite crowded of countries which have joined simply for the sake of making a “fashionable gesture” rather than pursuing a common policy of integration.
Quote Cath:
“It has been tradition in Ireland that women had the choice whether to stay at home and raise their children or go out to work but now the EU through the Irish State have taken away that choice through the tax system”
WHAAAATTTT, are you on about? The EU has NOTHING To do with formulating our tax system. If you have a problem here with this then you should be on to the Irish Revenue Commissioners.
And you voted NO because of this … sigh!
Posted by: aidan o driscoll | June 18th, 2008 at 3:37 pm | Report this commentAidan
I live in Ireland and the rules were clear, all countries had to ratify this treaty or it was dead. Now, because the EU has by far exceeded it’s mandate as a free trade organisation and insidiously pokes it’s nose and fingers into all aspects of our every day lives that it has no business in, while all the while taking further decisions that voters dont like without asking them, the Irish people voted “NO”. The EU is now only going to prove that it cannot be trusted because they wont take no for an answer. This to me only goes to prove we were right not to trust these self serving bureaucrats in the first place.
How come no one ever says “the EU is too big let’s take an axe and get rid of some of it”. Turkeys dont vote for Christmas. If they stopped making yet more new rules they would be out of work. A damned good thing I’d say.
Like any government department can you imagine at the end of the year if they havent used up their budget they will not waste it in order to get a larger one next year? That’s EU citizens money not yours chaps. Where are the EU signed audits? Where is your plans to cut costs in house?
You want another referendum? Bring it on and I will pretty much guarantee you will get a bigger No vote the second time than the first. You cannot railroad through unpopular policies by keep asking the same question despite offering bribes AKA “sweeteners”. EU Bureaucrats should realise they have two ears and only one mouth because they should do twice as much listening as talking. Which part of the word NO is it you don’t understand for God’s sake?
Posted by: Geoff | June 18th, 2008 at 6:12 pm | Report this commentThe EU’s mandate is not that of “a free trade organisation”, as Geoff says. That was EFTA (”European Free Trade Association”) to which the UK belonged before joining the EC/EU. The ETFA still exixts if Ireland wishes to go back to it and leave the EU. The EFTA does not have the Euro/single currency and includes. The EU is instead a political community and it’s mandate is political and, then, economic. The EU is a supranational entity and in fact has also supranational bodies, able also to make decisions without agreement of the members. Democracy within the supranational body is guaranteed in various way, to include the fact that all EU States’ governments are democratically elected and, most importantly, via the European Parliament which is directly and democratically elected and which serves the second largest democratic electorate in the world (after India). The EU maintains that a standardised system of laws apply in all Member States and issues substantive law as any other sovereign country, it maintains also a common trade policy, agricultural and fisheries policies, and a regional development policy. It has developed an important role in foreign policy, representing its members in the World Trade Organization, at G8 summits and at the United Nations. The EU citizenship guarantees all EU citizens that each Member State’s protection and diplomatic support is granted worldwide in all the territories outside the EU. So I cannot see where Geoff refer “a free trade organisation”, unless his wish is for a “a free trade organisation” only. If it is so, I respect his point of view, and so do many other fellow Europeans who nonetheless will push forward towards a further integration within the European Union, with or without Ireland as its member state. After all, Ireland, as any other member state should know that we are at a turning point where decisions may well turn to be that to stay in or to get out of the Union.
Posted by: P, London | June 18th, 2008 at 7:37 pm | Report this commentDear JJ, I was not attempting . I thought that was his best line and shows how much fondness there is in parliament for the European ideal. And why should there not be? I am grateful for all responses, indeed it amazes me how many people on both sides are willing to engage in this debate. We Brussels-based journalists tend to assume that the constitutional writhings are rather tortuous for readers but I think this shows that people understand there are real issues of power at stake here. Some good suggestions too and thankyou rz for pointing out that Spain and Luxembourg voted in favour of the last constitution. But Europe cannot move forward without everybody on board. Perhaps it is time for it to take a long hard look at what it could do less of, and how to become more democratic, which might persuade citizens to give it more power over other things.
Posted by: Andrew Bounds | June 18th, 2008 at 8:05 pm | Report this commentThat first line should read. I was not attempting to be representative, more flippant.
Posted by: Andrew Bounds | June 18th, 2008 at 8:06 pm | Report this commentExcellent piece.
The EU reaction to the strangely undemocratic expression of our democratic will has justified the ‘No’ vote more than it ever was or could have been during the campaign. The reason for keeping the ratification process on the road is to politically isolate and economically bully us. Unfortunately this will work, unless the Czechs and Poles engage in similarly unhelpful actions.
Why did we vote ‘No’? Because at an elemental level we’re deeply distrustful of the EU and its’ motives, which stems from Nice 2 and the general condescension and scaremongering ingrained in the integrationist mindset.
So how do I fix this ‘crisis’. We avoid it. Go back to free trade and concentrate solely on economic issues. Abolish all these pointless pseudo-nationalist aspirations and institutions; the flag, the anthem, president, parliament, the common defence and foreign policy nonsense. Keep the Euro and the Central Bank, which have potential. That’s not too insane is it?
Here’s an interesting article in today’s Indo http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-mcwilliams/look-what-we-have-done-for-ordinary-europeans-1413378.html
Rant over.
Posted by: Thomas Byrne | June 18th, 2008 at 11:22 pm | Report this comment‘The Lisbon treaty is too complex’ for Irish voters to understand, we are told.
I’ll assume this is a genuine comment , and not in fact a veiled insult.
So let me, an EU supporter, put it into simple words:
Nation state-hood in Europe has been tried, and has failed.
It has failed Ireland, France, Britain, Germany, and whoever else in Europe you care to mention.
I look at the history of the 20th century Europe and see that all nation-statehood lead to was 2 world wars, and ultimately, the SS.
Never again.
It’s that simple : the EU or the SS.
To those who say that I am falling victim to the fallacy of the excluded middle, I say: Prove it. I do suggest that given the history of the last century, you have your work cut out.
Eric, Los Angeles
Posted by: eurofederalist | June 18th, 2008 at 11:51 pm | Report this commentThere is just one word for those trying to resurrect the Lisbon Treaty after they lost the only vote on it.
Posted by: John | June 19th, 2008 at 12:04 am | Report this commentCHEAT
The terms were this only comes into force if EVERY country ratifies it.
Eire said no.
What do they care?
If they propose Bush or Putin as President of Europe next year, will they accept a “No” vote from anyone allowed to vote?
Eric from Los Angeles,
Posted by: John | June 19th, 2008 at 12:21 am | Report this commentYou make me despair of American education.
Nation statehood is what led to the defeat (mostly by the UK while the USA sat on the sidelines) of dictatorial threats by Napoleon, Hitler etc
OK the USA didn’t totally sit on the sidelines - it helped Napoleon a bit.
You are not falling victim to the fallacy of the excluded middle - you are falling victim to your own delusions that have little relation to reality.
Dear Lord. Where to start P, London?
Maybe with your beautifully put “one cannot leave a flying aeroplane flying without a mechanism of piloting” formulation. Presumably this enlightened ‘Agree With Us or Get Out!’ policy would have resulted in the immediate expulsion of both France and Holland after their ‘citizens behaved irresponsibly’. ‘Then, we’d eventually get a more workable Union’. Perhaps not. Maybe an unstoppable technocracy would be more likely, necessarily underpinned by a culturally, and thus economically, enervative philosophy.
The EU is ‘political project’. So? What were its great political achievements during the brief spot of bother in the far-off Balkans? And its great strikes for civilization against growing Islamic fundamentalism, within its borders and without, over the last seven years?
And there is quite a difference between a parliamentary vote and a national referendum. Our constitution guarantees us the freedom of the citizen ahead of any governmental rights. The EU ,and its most fervent integrationists, could not countenance such a fundamentally important idea, which is ultimately why it’s now heading down a ruinous road. The citizen, and his inalienable freedom, is essential to the economic and political success
of any ‘political project’.
Second rant over.
Posted by: Thomas Byrne | June 19th, 2008 at 12:29 am | Report this commentEU Myth no.1: The EU is the sole reason for peace since WWII. Of course it is. Once you discount the massive US military presence and nuclear umbrella warding off a Soviet invasion, which was the real threat to European peace, not another Franco-German war.
There is no European demos, just as there was no Yugoslavian one, and relentless political integration, as opposed to economic co-operation, will more likely result in political disintegration (Balkanisation)in the coming decades due to the looming demographic and resource crises. Counter-intuitively we will be better equipped to deal with these issues if left to our own devices.
Posted by: Thomas Byrne | June 19th, 2008 at 12:49 am | Report this commentthomas byrne,
Posted by: mBaf | June 19th, 2008 at 10:39 am | Report this commenta european demos -which doesn’t exist, thats true- cant’ be compared whith a national one -such as the yugoslavian- the yugoslavian entity was an illusion which survived because of Tito’s authority and charism.
the european component of national demos is a reality. we can maybe reinforce it, but surely not create it artificially.
but, 50 years ago national civil societies and national governments where a kind of ok pursuing the european integration process.
seems, that we have forgive it.
http://www.we-change-eruope.eu
oops, the link is: http://www.we-change-europe.eu
Posted by: mBaf | June 19th, 2008 at 10:40 am | Report this commentFurther to all of the above, combine the fact that it is getting mighty difficult or prohibitively expensive to live anywhere you’d want to live without being in the EU, and options are limited for anyone who doesn’t agree with what the EU is doing. Since so many citizens of countries that were or will be ratified by their governments without a democratic process will agree with the Irish that this treaty is or should now be dead, I reckon the mother of all legal battles will result if they press ahead regardless. Ireland’s 3m eligible voters are not holding hostage 490m other EU citizens who are gagging to join up. They were the only ones capable of throwing a spanner in the works, and one only has to read a few website blogs to realise how grateful many citizens of those other countries are that the Irish did.
To answer P of London above, yes I do want the EU only to be a trade organisation and I for one am sick of nanny state always thinking they know what is best for everyone else. The government, or in the case of EU pseudo govt, is supposed to be elected to represent the wishes of the people. However these people are drunk on power and seems now to think the people are it’s chattels.
Yes we need government to represent our views and wishes internationally and to make sure we have roads, schools, stop crime etc but apart from the obvious issues I would like to see more freedom for the sovereign individual to run his or her own affairs. I want to visit other countries and see the differences, not one homogenised place. I want very little interference and nor do I want much from govt, but stop taking from me too. Let me be free to paddle my own canoe, and let others paddle theirs.
Posted by: Geoff | June 19th, 2008 at 4:55 pm | Report this commentNo you can’t “reinforce” or enforce any sense of identity. It’s an organic thing, stemming from an emotional reaction to a well-defined geographical place. Nobody is from the EU. This type of ignorant top-down thinking is what is driving the Union.
With cheaper travel and more inter-European tourism we are more ‘Europeanised’ or more knowledgeable about different cultures than we were 50 years ago. And yet we’re less enthusiastic about more European integration. This tells about the strength of national identity and the pointlessness of cultivating an EU-based identity.
Posted by: Thomas Byrne | June 19th, 2008 at 10:38 pm | Report this commentThe Irish no was entirely predictable and I am afraid that the only comment that I have read above that comes close to understanding the underlying problem was given by Roderick Louis from Canada.
The EU, because of its structure, is always behind the trensd of public opinion and in its attempt to emplace a Constitution, and no the Treaty of Lisbon, is attempting to entrench 20th-century thinking about a centralised, bureaucratic Europe with no effective democratic conotrol and in particular no pan-European political parties or movements.
Why? Because the EU is an association of Governements and not people. The acceptance of the “union of sovereign states” principle has the inevitab;e result that pan-European democratic institutions are emasculated.
The reason for this is that politicians, particularly in larger states like Britain, see themselves being squeezed between (what they see as) the demand for regional autonomy and any over-arching pan European Government. Why would a Scottish voter need Westminster if that voter were adequately represented in Edinburgh and Brussels?
In this view, if there is a layer of Government that is redundant it is the one in the middle and the Constitution and now the Treaty of Lisbon were designed to ensure that the large states retain their power and importance by ensuring that all the constitutional positions proposed are appointed by the heads of those states and not elected by the general population across Europe.
Elections to the European Parliament are regarded as largely irrelevant across Europe because of the lack of Democratic accountability of Europe; voters see national and regional elections as more important. If they were to see European and regional elections as more important, then the traditional nation-state upon which Europe is founded is doomed and this is exactly what the Constitution and the Treaty were designed to prevent. They seek to create a framework for managing an enlarged EU which is efficient yet does not embrace Federalism and the diminution of the status of the larger states that it would inevitably result in. This is the thorn on the rose of Europe that has frightened the member states’ national governments for decades.
As such both exercises were compromised from the very start. It is clear that Europe needs either to be a democratic, federal Europe of the people, a true Union, or a limited framework for the agreement of trade measures and little else, managed by appointed bureaucrats. The attempt to fudge the issues, in true European style, has ended in an impasse in which whenever the voters have been asked they say “no” and whenever state politicians are asked they say “yes.”
It is actually time we had a new debate and referenda across Europe– do we wish to become a truly Federal Europe with directly elected executive and legislative institutions and officers or do we wish to return to the old Common Market view of Europe as a trading cartel?
Only once that question is answered by all the people of Europe, and not the governments of the member states or their appointed trustees, can the Union genuinely move forward.
We all owe a debt of gratitude to the Irish, the French and the Dutch. It is far more important that the future nature and role of Europe is debated and decided than that governments and appointed officials continue to hoodwink us all to achieve their own goals.
Posted by: Ruairidhmor | June 20th, 2008 at 9:04 am | Report this commentIn response to the argument that a mere 862,495 Irish “Nationalists” cannot hold back the 500 million European citizens that are going ahead with ratification I can only say COP ON!
How can you even suggest that within the 500 million citizens of Europe that they are all in favour of this treaty? The reason you feel you can throw this argument at us is because you are assuming that all the other European citizens want the treaty. This is too arrogant for words.
Also you must be suffering from selective amnesia, as seems to be the case with many European representatives. France and Denmark voted with a clear majority against the constitution, the predecessor of Lisbon, don’t even dare patronise me in saying that the two documents are different.
Now shall we calculate the numbers? The democratic voice of three nations, Ireland, France and Denmark, totalling an overall population of around 84.7 million voted NO. See the numbers are growing. 15,450,279 voted no in France, 4,705,685 in Denmark and now 862,495 Irish voters, bringing the exact number of people officially against this treaty to 21,028,495.
Now I put it to you what if we held a referendum or even a poll, just for fun, in all remaining 24 states and the number of people against the treaty could be calculated, wouldn’t the number grow even further? Would the rest of Europe still be held hostage by so called “nationalists”? Of course not but because the only nation to a) officially voice their opinion and b) reject the Lisbon treaty is a country with a relatively small population you have the audacity to stand up and say “THEIR VOTE CANNOT MATTER, THEY ARE TOO SMALL!” On top of this you state it in the name of democracy.
The sad thing here is that this view is held not only by narrow minded individuals but also by leaders in Europe. Putting the treaty to one side for the moment, how can we ignore this blatant political abuse and bullying? No matter what side you take, yes or no, you cannot possibly feel that this is a democratic approach. Even if you are a staunch Yes supporter, you should be appalled by this behaviour.
The reality is that the constitutional “quirk” which gives us the right to voice our opinion is a godsend in the face of such political bullying. The Irish never asked for the responsibility of “killing” or “saving” the Lisbon treaty. We voted on a treaty which fundamentally affected our nation. It just so happens that it affects your nation as well. What did you expect us to do? Sit back and let the rest of Europe decide our fate? No thank you, Ireland has never been a submissive nation and we shall not start now. Faced with similar threats to your nation and economy I doubt you would have done differently.
A word of warning, the disrespect shown for the Irish democratic process and the Irish constitution will enrage not only the NO voters but also the Yes camp. We may be divided on the Lisbon treaty but how dare you insult our sovereign voice.
I as a No campaigner would have accepted the result of the treaty had it been yes. I would certainly not go around demanding another referendum just because the result didn’t go the way I wanted.
One last point, why is everyone so convinced that this so called progress is needed? Why do we need the EU to expand its scope? Why does it need to regulate more and more social, foreign and military policies? The EU is totally inept to decide on social problems with the member states as it will never ever be able to reach a consensus on matters such as abortion and homosexuality etc and why should it? As someone who is directly concerned with these matters and actually stands to benefit from EU intervention I still don’t want it as it is against my principles. Now why am I being branded as someone who wishes to halt progress? I love progress, I want progress but it doesn’t have to always come through Brussels. What ever happened to campaigning in ones own country? Somehow I feel this is far more legitimate. I think that it should be for the nation to decide and not Brussels. Leave the EU to its economic affairs and the successes it has managed through this and leave the rest for us.
Posted by: F.Bannon | June 20th, 2008 at 1:36 pm | Report this commentBy what warped logic exactly are non-Irish politicians obliged to respect the vote of Irish voters? Which Irish voters voted for German, French, British etc etc politicians? If the latter say the Irish voter got it wrong, they are doing something perfectly acceptable.
It really baffles me how the EU, a cooperation between European states is being held to the standards of a federation. Most of the time most vehemently by the very same people that claim to rather want to die than see that federation come about.
Posted by: H. Lagewaard | June 25th, 2008 at 12:30 pm | Report this comment