Irish Referendum result
June 16, 2008
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
I went to the meeting of Foreign Affairs Ministers today in Luxembourg with the reverberations from the Irish NO vote ringing around Europe. This was of course the major talking point here and will be at the European Council meeting later this week in Brussels.
First let me say that I respect fully the NO vote from Ireland. The turnout was relatively high and the issues were discussed and debated. I have no complaints, although I am of course disappointed. The issues which this Treaty was designed to help resolve have not gone away: In particular, how can 27 countries take decisions using a system designed for 12? Especially when the decisions needing to be taken relate to such complex issues as globalisation, oil and food prices, energy supply, climate change, migration, terrorism and numerous other international problems which require international solutions.
I have seen some heated debates on both sides, with pro-Europeans arguing that Ireland should be punished in some way and even anger that a country which has benefited so much from the EU chose to vote NO to the Treaty. The anti-EU camp has also been describing the result as a vote against the EU. For me, both camps are completely out of order. This was not a vote against the EU. It seems that even Sinn Féin and many other No campaigners in Ireland argued that a better deal could be secured for Ireland, not that Ireland should leave the EU. It is also perfectly possible to be both pro-EU and against an aspect of a particular Treaty. Other countries have voted No in referendums before.
Should the ratification process continue? Would it be ignoring the Irish vote if countries continue? This is something only Heads of State and Government can decide and they have the opportunity to discuss all of the ramifications this week. My view is that we should wait for the dust to settle before reaching any conclusions. Eighteen countries have ratified the Treaty and others have ratification in the pipeline. A great amount of political energy and capital has been invested in the process. It became clear during today’s discussions that most of those Member states that have not yet ratified will carry on as planned. Let’s see what the Irish Prime Minister has to say and what other Heads of State have to say. The fact is that all Treaties have to be ratified unanimously so as things stand it is not possible for the Lisbon Treaty to come into force as foreseen. Surveys in the coming days, including one by the Commission, will examine the Irish result, looking at the reasons why people votedYes and No. This will give us more information and a basis on which to analyse the implications in a more considered manner.
Print This Post
Email This Post
June 16th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Margot - you just can’t bring yourself to say it, can you? Legally the Lisbon Treaty is DEAD! Which part of DEAD don’t you understand? Therefore the ratification process must STOP because no country can ratify a DEAD treaty! Ratifications already received should now be declared NULL AND VOID - they died with the Treaty…
Now most of us know this isn’t going to happen… Many of us know why!
June 16th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Great news…good old Ireland.
June 16th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
how many more countries do you want to say no?
June 16th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
you have changed this since this morning….i wonder why?
June 16th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
The conclusion to this blogpost has changed in the last couple of hours - very curiously. For instance, the sentence that says “it is not possible for the Treaty to come into force” has, I think, had the words “as foreseen” added to it. What happened, Margot? Did you regret your sudden honesty? Have you been told by the colleagues not to be so negative about the Treaty?
Just as strangely, you have also blocked a comment I made two hours ago.
I am a journalist in London - I work for the Mail and the Guardian etc - I presume you won’t mind me mentioning the very peculiar alterations to this blogspot, in an article, to illustrate the mindset of the European Commission.
Thanks.
June 16th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
No is all you need to know, however to maintain a level of progression, the reform treaty should not include any new competencies and should be what it was said to be - reform of existing treaties.
A referendum must be held in all member nations on new competencies which can be drafted into a new treaty.
Get the Tippex out and get democracy in.
June 16th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Dear Margot,
Although, as you know, I’m a keen Eurosceptic, I’ll try to be constructive.
There are three possible ways forward:
1. Press ahead without Ireland.
This will alienate Ireland and some other more ‘independent’ countries and lead to a two (or more) tier EU and, ultimately, the break up of the EU. (A result some would applaud – though lengthy and painful – and not, I trust what the EU wants).
2. Force Ireland to vote again until they come up with the ‘right’ answer.
As an Englishman I know that the Irish don’t take kindly to being bullied and any ‘re-vote’ is likely to be counter-productive at best. Furthermore, other countries (especially small ones) will not agree – and will express this by halting their ratification process (I’m thinking of the Czech Republic and the heroic Vaclav Klaus).
3) Scrap the Lisbon Treaty and start again.
This will provide an opportunity to do what you originally suggested in June 2005: PLAN D – but this time for real!
Ask all the peoples of the member states what type of EU they really want. Forget the ‘noble’ ideals of the 1950s and find out what type of EU they want for the 2020s and beyond. Maybe the peoples of Europe don’t actually want ‘ever closer union’ and prefer a modified free trading area (with a single currency and free movement in some areas)? How do you know we don’t? Ask us? Build it from the ground up – Don’t impose it from above [the writ of God as interpreted by the Euro-Elites].
Sure this process may take years – or a decade. But the European ‘Community’ (I won’t say ‘Union’) that emerges will be honest and transparent in its construction.
In spite of Barroso’s contemptuous statements about the Lisbon Treaty being ‘still alive”, I’ll accept your suggestion to ‘let the dust settle’, but meanwhile will you move for the discontinuation and removal of measures taken by the EU in anticipation of Lisbon Treaty now that they have no legal basis?
Finally, I’ll repeat something I wrote in a previous post: Unlike some other EUrosceptics I believe that you are sincere in your quest for more democracy and openness. I fear, however, that a time may soon come when you’ll need to decide whether to be loyal to your principles or to your boss.
Good Luck!
Max
June 16th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
“In particular, how can 27 countries take decisions using a system designed for 12?”
This old saw again! The EU is not operating under the system designed for 12 states!
You have had several treaties since that time, the last being Niece 2001, which was supposed to prepare for the enlargement by changing system. Also the EU is not grinding to a halt it is still managing to produce quite a fair amount of legalisation without too much trouble.
Professor Anand Menon, the Director of the European Research Institute said recently:
Even under the procedures of the Nice Treaty, the enlarged European Union is functioning fine [...] Voting in the Council indicates that the EU has not slowed down at all. It is producing legislation with the same speed as before. There isn’t an institutional crisis to be addressed,” In terms of decision-making, there is no evidence that it has slowed down.
June 16th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Hello Margot,
“Should the ratification process continue? Would it be ignoring the Irish vote if countries continue? This is something only Heads of State and Government can decide…”. How is it that only Heads of State and Government can decide to whether or not to ignore the result of a referendum? Either you have referenda and honour the results (even if they return the “wrong” answer) or don’t have them and dispense with any
veneer of a democratic process.
“Eighteen countries have ratified the Treaty…” without bothering to ask the electorate of those countries, especially the filthy swine of the British Labour Government (so-called), reneging on a manifesto pledge, the dishonourable bastards.
Excuse my French…
Cheers,
Captain Fatty
June 16th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Dear Commissioner Wallstrom,
The result of Ireland’s vote on the EU Constitutional treaty effectively and unequivocally renders this treaty defunct, and on NO ACCOUNT should the British government be allowed to proceed with ratification of this treaty. There should be no further attempts to foist the European treaty on the good people of either Britain and Ireland, however I suspect that the Brussels beaurocrats will resort to bullying tactics and changing the goalposts in order to push this through.
Please do not be under the mis-apprehension that the Irish voted “no” because they didn’t understand the treaty; they, just like the vast majority of the British public who have been denied the opportunity to vote in a referendum, do NOT want to see any further transfer of their country’s sovereign powers to a bunch of fraudulent, unelected, unaccountable crooks in Brussels.
Yours sincerely
John Mills
June 16th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
I posted this comment earlier today on the “silly season” thread just because it was the most recent one that seemed remotely appropriate, but I’ll re-post it here since this is where it really belongs…
Dear Margot,
When are those providing the political face to the EU (and you in particular as Commissioner for Communication) going to realize that there is a vicious campaign of manipulation of public opinion against the EU waged through the press? It is most obvious in the UK, but you just saw the result of much the same process in Ireland.
Until you understand the nature of the opposition you can’t effectively fight the battle to communicate Europe to the citizens. It’s not just about providing information - it’s primarily about fighting and winning a battle over narratives and frames. And about knowing what the real obstacles are and who the enemy is.
June 16th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Europa is democracy in action!, this vote is the proof of democratic success and evolution … the People want a better Treaty , and because Democracy works in Europa, we must try again and again until we get it right !
a) Now let’s design a simpler, easier and more transparent Treaty.
b) Most everybody wants to choose the President, the Foreign Affairs executive and other top officials directly, we must find a way to do so without the usual “political campaign donation” corrupt system, let’s figure out how to elect these top EU executives directly without the “Money Interests ” having any influence, and with economic transparency, all appointees must show that their bank accounts don’t grow while in office, besides their salaries and expenses of course…
c) Many people ( = the taxpayers that pay the salaries of the elected officials ) were outraged when Sarkozy , Kouchner and others started to talk about them selecting a group of “wise men” to make decisions behind close doors for the rest of Europa, like ” pre-selecting ” Tony Blair or others as executives of the EU , when this is exactly why the Idea of an European Union was invented, to never go back to the “behind close doors” deal making !!!
France and the rest of Europa deserves a lot better judgment than this un-democratic nonsense.
d) Voters want to see a total division between officials of the EU and the 2.500 lobby’s already in Brussels and other EU sites,pushing for more oil , gas and nuclear only , more banking, more special loans, more military contracts, more favors, more pet projects to benefit “this group or that group”, more gold watches , diamonds and cocktails ,just more corruption…. all the relations between the Lobby’s, advisers, their lawyers and the EU must be transparent 100%.
Europa is a brilliant idea , Europa is about changing the world for the better,building a better society, more rational ,human and practical, with less stress, with Energy Independence and Security, with more good jobs, better foods,healthier citizens and more peace,Europa must be the test bed for new social formulas, new energy formulas, new working formulas, new education ,training and family formulas … Europa deserves the best possible Treaty, let’s keep on working on it until we get it right!
June 16th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Dear Mrs Wallstrom,
The Commission should be the conscience of Europe. It should care for every citizen among our nearly 500 million. Its reputation with Europeans is totally dependent on its being an impartial, experienced honest broker. People will give it no credit if it is the lap-dog of the Council, the Parliament or other European institution. It will certain lose it rapidly if it becomes the tool of party politicians. In the treaties it is for the Commission to make honest and just proposals for the people of Europe to which the Council can jointly reply if this is governmentally acceptable. Civil Society should also have an active democratic role in this as the treaties say.
When the Council produces a Treaty which it says is a Constitution, the Commission should say: Nonsense, it is a treaty and needs to be ratified as a treaty. When the Council produces an obscure list of amendments to existing treaties, which it calls the Lisbon Treaty, it should publish a comparison, in parallel columns. It would be honest to say that, when put in a consolidated form, this list of amendments turn out to be practically the same thing as the ‘Constitutional Treaty’, (minus a song and a flag). An honest independent institution should say such things clearly in a democratic debate, not try to hide them from the public. When the Council ministers say that its purpose in preparing the ‘Reform’ treaty in this way is so the voters cannot understood it, as many of its politicians/architects have said quite publicly without blushing!, I would hope the Commission would this is not an honest approach.
When the politicians say they want to control the Commission by making the President and members exclusively biased towards the ideological majority in Parliament (which they can control through unfair elections), I hope the Commission will reply that the Treaty says the Commission should be completely independent of party, government, commercial interest or pressure group. They should say that Commission Presidents and members are drawn from all sections of society, not just parties. When the politicians (since the time of de Gaulle) have denied the elections of non-political Civil Society to the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions, I hope the Commission will say this is unjust. And when the Council still distorts the elections to the European Parliament because for six decades it has not allowed direct elections under a single statute (a requirement dating from the treaties of Paris, 1951 and Rome, 1957), perhaps the Commission could remind the Council that the Community system is about the rule of law and creating a democratic system for all European national democracies at European level.
I hope, Mme Commissioner, that the Commission will use this coming period to remind all Europeans about European democratic history and also how its democracy was attacked in the past. They should recall that brave politicians like Joseph Luns demanded direct elections while others refused to do so. I hope specifically that this re-education can be started under the French Presidency but it is the responsibility of the Commission as much as all the member states. All citizens should learn about the fight for European democracy. They should know what the founding fathers planned. Only with a full knowledge of European values and democratic struggles will we be able to surmount the present European and global problems (Energy, Climate Change) to achieve real European democracy for our citizens. An abbreviated list of unfulfilled treaty obligations of governments and institutions can be found on http://www.schuman.info.
Do we want to tell our children and our grandchildren that politicians forced this generation to accept a treaty that was already democratically refused many times? How does this make Europe look, compared with USA and its open debates at Philadelphia more than two centuries ago?
Yours sincerely,
David H Price
Schuman Project
http://www.schuman.info
June 16th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Dear Margot
Would it not be a better idea to invite Declan Ganley to the meeting on thursday?.
I wonder if Norway could award him a noble prize for services to european democracy.
The next couple of years will be crucial to the eu in how it copes with this vote.
Will it go the whole hog from democratic deficit to democratic denial?. Knowingly turning the majority of its citizens in all countries against it inorder to achieve its goals?
You could very easily begin to look like fanatics.
mungo
June 16th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Dear Margot
Another consequence is that your blog site could get bombarded by even more citizens from more countries giving you an ear full of free speech.
Come on Margot speak for the people,make a stand,the time is right,seize the moment,make history,speak for the democratic rights of the people.we need you.
mungo
June 16th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Dear Margot,
It’s your prerogative to find the result disappointing. But I might remind you that it can not have come completely unexpected to you.
Three years ago, you wrote this:
You were right. We should have been looking for other solutions instead of doing an intransparent re-run of a slimmed-down ‘Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe’.
The problem was with the very heads of state that we now have to hope will come up with a balanced and considered response. But I’m betting it will be more likeWeekend at Bernie’s 2.
June 16th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Margot, from your post it seems you and your undemocratic EU pals are gearing up to ignore yet another referendum result. I’m sure the analysis of the information from your surveys will fully justify this decision! Next time there is a referendum in an EU country, why not have an EU official interview each voter at the polling station, with the official then casting the vote on behalf of the voter? This method would remove the danger of people voting the wrong way because of any misunderstanding of the issues involved.
No means no.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Of course it should continue, it is a very different situation if only one country out of 27 doesn’t ratify it, compared to 9 countries not ratifying it. Maybe if the House of Lords ratifies it on Wednesday Gibraltar can derail it for the whole UK, or Åland for the whole of Finland.
Besides, the Council must have already agreed that ratification by 3/4 of the member states is enough to justify not abandoning the treaty, since Article 48 of the Consolidated Treaty of Lisbon (to which, again, all the Heads of State or Government have already agreed, says
We have until December 2009 before we have to start worrying about whether we have 22 ratifications…
Calls for the ratification process to stop come from Eurosceptics such as the UK Tories and Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who don’t want to be shown to be the odd ones out in case people got the idea to press ahead without them.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:04 am
No the ratification process should not continue, because you people clearly stated that only unanimity could pass the Lisbon Treaty. And this unanimity is now impossible, unless you people are planning to cheat.
I still want my dutch referendum which I was promised by the manifestos of the political parties that have the majority in Netherlands parliament. R-E-F-E-R-E-N-D-U-M.
For the benefit of Margot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No
NO is an English/Old English word indicating rejection, disagreement, refusal or making a negative response or exclamation. It is the opposite of yes.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Dear Ms Wallström,
I hope you are keeping well and will take the Irish reminder of the need “to improve the way we communicate ‘Europe’ to citizens”.
This is a wonderful opportunity.
You have an important job but do remember that true communication must be two ways. You will not find the reasons why we voted NO from our Taoiseach (Brian Cowen) – he belittled and dismissed us as “lu-las” and hence cannot understand our antipathy and disquiet.
We Irish are instinctively pro-European but not blindly pro-EU institutions. There is a feeling that, by stealth, there will be a creeping EU to which we did not consent and which is not clearly better for Ireland, Europe or the world. EU insiders are de facto pro-EU institutions; it is only natural on their part to listen attentively only when people agree with them. For reasons of political expediency our politicians also hoodwink us – “best only tell the children what they need to know”. Suspicions are confirmed when a Prime Minister states that Lisbon and the Constitution are (in essence) the same… and they decided to proceed with Lisbon despite the Constitution being voted down twice.
Legitimacy for the EU project can easily be got. You simply have to ask the people, not the parliaments, what they want in a clear way. Each person, in every country, must be asked (votes on) what level of integration they want. There can be a simple series of intelligible questions. These will then guide the politicians, etc. For instance it can state:
Re Military :
I am generally in favour of
-a full EU military
-greater coordination and militarization of the EU
-as things are
-less EU involvement in military affairs
Re Energy Policy …. Re Taxes, … Re Subsidiarity, etc.
Even the Irish know there are no ‘free lunches’ in this world and that it is important to give as well as received and that sometimes shared sovereignty is enhanced sovereignty.
The people of Europe are at different levels of readiness for greater integration. Let the EU reflect the true views of its people, not its politicians. If the core is better many will want to join; but if it is rotten …
Enjoy figuring out the Irish ‘issue’,
All the best,
Dr Louis Crowe.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:54 am
Margot Wallström, allvarligt talat, hur kan du tro på det här?! Odemokratiskt så att det bara stänker om det! Och det vet du om./
Margot Wallström, seriously how could you belive in this?!
This is n o t democracy.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4291770489472554607
June 17th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Ms Wallstrom
The problem is that we all want a united Europe, but are baffled by the complexities of the various treaties.
We need a charismatic leader to propose that something similar to the US Constitution be applied to Europe. Such a proposal would be overwhelmingly supported.
I have a feeling that you might just be that chrismatic leader.
John Ryde.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Margot
I don’t mean to be rude - really, I don’t - but I don’t think you understand the role which the media played in this debate, and are likely to continue to play in future.
In your April 28th entry you listed headlines from a media ’silly season’.
Of course these headlines are ridiculous - to you. To people who know little or nothing about the EU - which at this moment means virtually everyone who isn’t a professional politician or journalist - these headlines are not light entertainment.
They’re not just taken seriously, they’re taken literally.
How many EU citizens can name all of the countries currently in the EU? How many understand the difference between the parliament and the commission and all of the other entities? How many know what the President does, what the parliament does, what MEPs do, who sets foreign policy, who defines the EU’s regulations?
How many citizens understand how regional funding works?
As I said - I don’t mean to be rude - but what have you been doing for the last few years, if a typical EU resident feels so disconnected and remote from the EU that they have no idea what they’re a part of?
If you think this is exaggeration, ask citizens these questions in your surveys.
No one will vote for an organisation if they don’t understand what it’s for - not just in terms of a grand political theory of united or loosely affiliated statehood, but in direct, personal, everyday terms.
By leaving this question open, by abdicating the media space to the tabloids, and by failing to make direct personal contact with the populations whom you would like to support you, you have made it far too easy for the sceptics and the yellow press to push a poisonous narrative of EU bureaucracy and remoteness.
Camps not just in Ireland but across all of the EU will remain ‘out of order’ until you reclaim the media space with a more positive and inclusive message.
Please don’t underestimate the threat. The yellow press, especially in countries like the UK, has every intention of derailing the EU project in its entirety. Over the last few years there has been a relentless onslaught of hostile and sceptical reporting both in the tabloids and the business press. The political reality now is that if the EU doesn’t address these issues quickly and directly, the EU project will stall, and quite possibly die, replaced with the petty nationalisms and racism which the tabloids are always happy to peddle.
While you are ‘analysing the implications in a more considered manner’ these people will continue to mutilate and brutalise your public image.
It could be wise to consider that this may not be an entirely positive thing.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Dear Margot,
When you commission your survey, don’t forget to include the following question:
Q. Which of the following concerns influenced your vote the most?
* That the EU would turn me into a zombie
* That the EU would microchip my child
* That the EU would draft me into a European army bent on nuclear war
* That the EU is a Satanic conspiracy like the UN, designed to take away my rights
June 17th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Good for Ireland.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Dear Margot,
It is indeed up to the EU member state governments to decide what to do next. But I sincerely hope the Commission, and in particular its communication staff, led by yourself, will step up even further our efforts to ensure an EU-wide public debate on what kind of EU the people themselves want. A lively debate in the media, online and in cross-border public conferences etc.
This was the purpose of “Plan D”, of course, but I wonder how many readers of this blog know that Plan D is being followed up by a new Commission initiative entitled “Debate Europe”. In my view, that debate should be the primary focus of all our efforts - and the member state governments should support it and use it as an unmissable opportunity to find out what the citizens of 27 countries really think and want.
As you yourself have said on more than one occasion, our aim should not be to “get the people on board” but to put the people in the driving seat. The EU has to become a bottom-up, democratic project, not a top-down, elitist one.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:34 am
John Ryde says:
Can we stop it with the glorification of the US Constitution? Or, for that matter, of Charismatic Leadership?
The US had a charismatic leader, namely George Washington (and others: Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin…). It didn’t make Constitutional ratification all that easy.
US Constitution 1.0 (the Articles of Confederation) took 4 years to ratify (from 1777 to 1781) and that was only with 13 states. And then, once ratified, they decided they needed to toss it out.
US Constitution 2.0 took another 3 years to ratify (1787 to 1790) and none of the States used a referendum, but a vote of the State Legislature.
Also, the US constitution was agreed to come into effect when 9 of the 13 states ratified it.
So it would be good for people to stop comparing the EU Treaties to a mythical US Constitution which was never the way they imagine it. The EU has been involved in major treaty revisions and membership expansion for the better past of the past 20 years, with comparably good results.
On this note, however, I would like to point out to the Commissioner that the EU political class is dropping the ball on this issue, big time. Look what had to happen to get New York State to ratify the US Constitution 2.0:
You, Margot, are the EU’s Communication Commissioner. This is part of your job, and it doesn’t just involve aseptic “information” and “safe” press releases, but polemic engagement and a bit of spine. What have you been doing sine 2004?
Hopefully the next College of Commissioners will take this issue seriously enough.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Dear Margot,
I’m sorry to say but I don’t believe your comment - “First let me say that I respect fully the NO vote from Ireland.”. Sorry, just don’t believe a single word of it.
Your comment about the Yes, and No campaign, I believe is right. This was not a vote about Yes or No to the EU. And I sincerely believe that in many cases when people say No to the EU, its No to a particular route that is being laid out, not No to the basic idea. The truth is Ireland is a very pro EU nation, as is France, and as is indeed Holland. I’ll add something else. The truth is that even many skeptics are actually not wholly anti EU, they just don’t agree or like how its turned out and many people hold an honest and deeply held view that change is required. I know you have little acceptance or patience with this, so I won’t say more on it.
The reasons ‘why people voted no’ are a total irrelevance, at least in terms of this treaty. You tried once before in making claims about why various people made various choices in France and Holland. What you did afterwards, was made changes, but you did not take these changes and have another vote with the people. No, you backdoored the changes, and made dirty deals and changed the method of voting.
The absolute base problem here, is that EU does not change. It does not listen. It does not adapt to democratic feedback. All that seems to happen, is you talk in closed session, come up with a dirtier plan than last time, and then the process of pushing ‘The project’ onwards proceeds. No, its not the dead parrot sketch from Monty Python, because at least that was funny. This is not.
While I understand that people feel they expended a very great deal of time crafting this ‘treaty’, people have said no on multiple occasions now. And thus, You either respect the No vote, or actions speak otherwise. You say that 18 have ratified. Thats irrelevant. The process was supposed to end if someone said no, and we now have multiple nations continuing to attempt to ratify against their people’s wishes. This is wrong, and cannot continue.
Oh, and by the way, when will the EU Commission halt the illegal implementation of Lisbon Treaty machinery. Its time that was halted with immediate effect.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Would it be possible to organise a referendum in each Member State and ask the citizens the following question: “do you want your country to stay in the EU and have its membership based on the Lisbon treaty”? I am pro-EU and think it’s time that we re-establish popular support for the institution and the integration process.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Margot, it doesn’t matter how much “political energy and capital has been invested in the process”, as you put it. Boo hoo. Ultimately, It failed the democratic process, and that’s all that’s all that matters. The arrogance of the EU elite is breathtaking. Firstly, they profess to respect the result of the referendum, and then immediately opine about why ratification should continue.
So the EU commission will now “analyse” the result? What is there to analyse? They voted NO. Why does the EU have such difficulty with this word?
June 17th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Here we go from the EUrophile side trying to explain away the rejection of the Con/Lisbon/Reform treaty in Ireland.
These are supposed to be the excuses;
They didn`t understand the treaty
The press influenced them
The No side frightened them into voting No
They were making a protest vote against the establishment
They`re holding out for something better
The Yes side didn`t do a good job explaining things
The Yes side was complacent
They`re not really bothered about the EU
They think other matters are more important than this treaty
Inefficient decision making (?)
Then we have the “it`s unfair for the Irish to say whether the treaty goes ahead ” “a lot of time has been spent on the treaty” “we`ll carry on ratifying it for now ” “Ireland is ungrateful to the EU”
For the future it`s
Continue as before for now, ratifying the treaty
Expel the Irish
Make them have another referendum
Bodge the accession treaty of Croatia,so that most of the Lisbon treaty is there and make the Irish sign up to it without a referendum
Bring in the Treaty by piecemeal, slower and under their radar
Bribe them
Give them opt outs but make them sign
Have a two speed EU (no problem with an eight speed and reverse for me)
Make the Irish choose between all in or all out.
Best would be just to break the bloody thing up and start again, for those that want it.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
The words “as foreseen” don’t alter the meaning of your original statement, especially because we know all about your unacknowledged edit. It’s all over the internet. Perhaps you should do the proper thing and resign from your position on the gravy train. Do what is decent and leave now. After all, you are not very good at your job, are you?
June 17th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
John Ryde,
You say we all want a united Europe !
I suggest you read the internet, newspapers watch television news and listen to the radio.
I dont know how long you`ve slept, but Ireland just voted NO to the Con/Lisbon/Reform treaty.
The Nederlands and France did previuosly.
Todays date is at the top of everyones post.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
An important question is why did the Irish vote no?
I can’t speak on behalf of all the no voters, but I can explain my own reasons for voting no.
I am pro-Europe, and all for Irish involvement at the heart of Europe. However I want a more democratic, simpler, cooperative and collaborative EU, actively listening to its citizens and working towards common goals. I don’t want a powerful centralized EU seeking to be a superpower.
I feel most EU citizens probably have similar desires but have been denied a debate or a vote, and that therefore the Irish had a responsibility to vote on their behalf. The (deliberately obfuscated) treaty seems relatively fair for Ireland, so this was not a selfish vote by the Irish. On the contrary, the Irish have risked becoming the ostracized scapegoats of Europe, by trying to speak on behalf of their fellow European citizens.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Migeru,
The EU has turned the senior British civil servants into zombies
Judging by how some want it to act in stealth, the rest will follow in time.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
‘how can 27 countries take decisions using a system designed for 12?’
How come there are 27 countries in a system designed for 12? Why did’nt you reform the Treaty before enlarging?
June 17th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
If the Pope thought that the Lisbon Treaty was so good he should make the Vatican state join the EU
June 17th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
My €0.02:
- Keep in mind that only two countries approved the Treaty/Constitution in a referendum so far and three have rejected it. Ratifications in parliament don’t count, since parliaments are notoriously out of touch with their constituents.
- A no to the Treaty is basically a no to ALL earlier treaties that were not put before the people in a referendum. It’s basically the aggregated opinion of all of them.
- Illegible treaties are an insult to the voter and deserve only one fate: to be voted down.
- Believe it or not, but no one is interested in an arrogant, undemocratic, wasteful, anti-american, pro-palestinian Europe. Qualifications as Eurabia and EUSSR come to mind.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
L.S.,
Wallström may not have a problem with this referendum, but I sure do. They’re bad, because they involve people voting against their own interest, for all the wrong reasons. (To be clear: there are good reasons for voting no, even though I’m not convinced. But the problem is that too many people vote No for all the wrong reasons, and that in many cases their explanations of what they want would lead one to conclude that the vote that fits their preferences best is a Yes vote. Or vice versa…)
From Mark Mardell’s blog:
Why politicians hate referendums
Mark Mardell 16 Jun 08, 01:00 AM
It was a long Friday the 13th.
The last broadcast on the Irish “No” out of the way, we wearily made our way back home from Dublin Castle, though Temple Bar, the area of Dublin filled with clubs and bars.
A group of young men, pints in hand, tattoos on their necks, having a quick fag outside a Chinese restaurant wanted to shout “No, to Lisbon!” into our camera. Too late, the day was done.
One of them asked, “Is it really true they would have re-introduced the death penalty if we’d voted ‘Yes’?”
This is, of course, why many politicians hate referendums. People will vote on many issues, some nothing to do with the issue at hand, some pure fantasy.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I object to this in this blog who attack the British and Irish.
I don’t expect you to understand, but in both cases, those people’s have shared idealism on freedom and in democracy.
Neither looks kindly upon what is being imposed upon them, usually with at best cursory access to the ‘plan’ and neither people are evil for being resistant to some new dictatorship being created. Europe does not need a new dictatorship - PERIOD. Its had plenty of top down dictators in the past and Europeans should be bright enough to know and understand this quite clearly.
The British press forever will remain critical and pose serious opposition to ‘The Plan’ because ITS WRONG. Bitterly whining about this makes YOU look stupid. British people AGREE IN the MAIN with their press critique about the core EU problems, AND they share the press anger at the refusal of REFERENDUMS in the UK on the subject of the EU.
Now, if you REALLY wish to build a top down dictatorship, BY ALL means Kick the UK, and its free people and press out. It would be your loss not ours.
Perhaps if you can’t agree to that, then try listening to what you are clearly being told and change the PLAN instead of whining about the press.
My People NEVER signed up to some new Elite corrupt and dubious bunch of cronies to create yet another European Dictatorship and ensuing disaster, and no we won’t sit idle while its being built. The ONLY people in the UK in favour of this garbage now is a Prime Minister with the lowest rating in our History, and a Government that is failing and who’s popularity sinks by the day.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Martinedd:
“But the problem is that too many people vote No for all the wrong reasons”
They are, of course, balanced out by all the people who vote YES for all the wrong reasons… But I guess you don’t count those…
Given your elitist logic (I use the word in its widest sense!), I’m surprised you want to allow any of we mere proles to vote at all!
June 17th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I’m from Ireland and I voted no for a few reasons and not because I didnt read up on the treaty and didnt know what it was about. It was an informed decision.
When our own Commissioner and our own Taoiseach comes out and admits that they didnt read the document, it doesn really give you the confidence to vote yes and I’m sure there were some people who voted no because of this but I wasnt one of them as I had made up my mind a few months ago to vote no.
After the result on Friday, I sent Commissioner Wallstrom a message and explained to her the reasons I voted no as I felt that our Government would just give the reasons they think people voted no without asking the people themselves. I wanted her to know the reasons I voted no and I also emailed the Taoiseach and advised him of the same thing and suggested he find out from the people themselves.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
L.S.,
@John R. Walker: Why would you assume that the errors balance out? What I wrote in my previous comment is the short version of a spatial voting model, which is a tool in political science that allows researchers to describe in as much detail as possible the wishes of the voter and the platform of the party/candidate to see whether voters really vote for the party, candidate, etc. that is “closest” to them. Of course, this only captures part of why people vote the way that they do, since they might simply want to avoid voting for a sleazebag, but particularly in a referendum this seems like a good way to look at it. So why would you assume that the errors balance out?
Generally, look at this column by the chairman of the Robert Schumann foundation:
If the people say no – let the people speak!
Europe: proposal to avoid the crisis
The Irish “NO” in the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty makes the upcoming French presidency of the European Union more difficult and also more important. Nicolas Sarkozy sees himself pushed to the front line with the support of Angela Merkel. His task is now even more vital to the future of the institutional reforms.
All the Union Member States have the right to express their opinion on the reform of the institutions and the Irish vote will not interrupt the on-going procedure. It will only be when each of the countries has expressed its opinion that we shall see the reality of the situation and find the legal and political means to face this. In any case Ireland will have to say what it does not want in this Treaty and what it wants for Europe.
However we would be wrong not to take any note of this new referendum result even if it were just to say that Europe has a problem with its population.
Evidently the people of Europe are not against the unification of the continent. But they take up any opportunity provided to them by national approval procedures with regard to European decisions to express their discontent. This may involve their governments, the worries about rapid change, their misunderstanding of decision making methods and the running of the Union or more simply their criticism of European politicians. In other words it not as much the final goals of the European Union than its mechanisms and politicians that they condemn.
We might say it is more a lack of knowledge and a lack of explanation. This is true but it is not enough. Indeed the Union has reached a political stage of development much more quickly than originally planned by its founders. It must now become political – it has to debate and confront public opinion – listen to requests and expectations and be able to answer in real terms.
This is not easy given its nature. The European Union is still both a union of voluntary independent States and a union of people who have already elected a European Parliament which enjoys almost federal powers. It must now show that it is possible to respect national identity and yet build a
supranational democracy.
A good way of succeeding in this task would be to give Europeans an opportunity to say together what they think of a particular political issue. Why not take advantage of the next European Parliament elections in June 2009 to offer them this chance? The election would just have to be personalised and Europeanised by announcing the choice of a leader to head allied national lists and who would be devoted to chairing the Commission if his/her list won; we should turn this election into an opportunity, which will necessarily be organised in all Member States to ask each European to say what his choice is in terms of a president for the European Council.
In the first case the European campaign would be undertaken following real European political programmes.
In the second instance a European referendum, which might even be consultative since the decision of appointing a president belongs to the Heads of State and Government, would help greatly in politicising the election and in obliging candidates to define themselves according to political choices of European interest.
The Europe-wide campaigns would almost certainly be the focus of lively debate. These elections would be the source of a more direct European democracy. They would create a feeling of belonging amongst a political democratic body across the entire modern world.
I like this idea. It doesn’t require an amendment to the treaties. Under the existing treaties, we could simply organise a Europe-wide referendum/election on who should be the President of the Commission, although I’m not sure about how Giuliani imagines the connection with the EP election. (It could and should of course be done on the same day, to be sure.) This would improve the democratic imput at the European level, and allow for EU citizens to be come more informed about EU policies and practices. What percentage of EU citizens could, at present, even name the President of the Commission?
June 17th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Dear Commissioner Wallström,
Yesterday you wrote: ‘The fact is that all Treaties have to be ratified unanimously so as things stand it is not possible for the Lisbon Treaty to come into force.’ I was heartened to read that at least one commissioner understood the legal implications of the Irish ‘No’ vote. I printed your blog entry. Today I noticed that the words ‘as foreseen’ have been added. What do mean by these words and why did you feel it necessary to change your blog after it was posted?
June 17th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
# martinned Says (and Mardell too) in “”:
June 17th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
“Wallström may not have a problem with this referendum, but I sure do.”
YOU only have a problem because they happen to disagree with you. Had the vote been a yes, you’d be lauding it as a victory for democracy, and a hundred other joyous outpourings.
“They’re bad, because they involve people voting against their own interest, for all the wrong reasons.”
In YOUR Opinion. I’ve seen multiple people say WHY they voted no, and in many a case, they had damn good reason, and no this was not against their own interests.
“(To be clear: there are good reasons for voting no, even though I’m not convinced.”
You’d never be convinced. You seem to have advocated the destruction of nations and states, and people’s. I asked you to withdraw, and you have not done so, based on that, does what you think matter? Its like arguing with Hitler or Stalin, their theories on elimination of nation states, people’s culture, - I have no truck with it. And I doubt I could convince them, just as you remain unconvinced.
“But the problem is that too many people vote No for all the wrong reasons, and that in many cases their explanations of what they want would lead one to conclude that the vote that fits their preferences best is a Yes vote. Or vice versa…)”
People voted no for REAL reasons. The question YOU might actually like to try and answer, was why would anyone vote yes? How did anyone make a good case given the total case of a document created by the elite to intrinsically hand them power while being as obstructive and unreadable as its possible to make something.
“From Mark Mardell’s blog:”
This is an error. Mark works for the BBC. Its a disgustingly Pro EU puppet media outlet in the main, and I have yet to see this man, who IS from a country where the EU support is in minority status, AND where the PUBLIC have repeatedly demanded and asked for a referendum.
“Why politicians hate referendums
Mark Mardell 16 Jun 08, 01:00 AM
It was a long Friday the 13th.
The last broadcast on the Irish “No” out of the way, we wearily made our way back home from Dublin Castle, though Temple Bar, the area of Dublin filled with clubs and bars.
A group of young men, pints in hand, tattoos on their necks, having a quick fag outside a Chinese restaurant wanted to shout “No, to Lisbon!” into our camera. Too late, the day was done.”
Thus implying these no doubt peasants should never have been allowed a view, let alone a vote, right? Herein really lies the Elite unspeakable hatred of democracy, actually having to ask these ‘peasants’ what to do. How dare we ‘Elite’ have to bow to these people who are beneath us. We know what’s best for them, we should never have let them vote.
“One of them asked, “Is it really true they would have re-introduced the death penalty if we’d voted ‘Yes’?””
Why would anyone ask Mardell ANYTHING? Seriously? The man plays the fool whilst enjoying his share of fine wine and food while rattling off pointless rubbish about the EU.
“This is, of course, why many politicians hate referendums. People will vote on many issues, some nothing to do with the issue at hand, some pure fantasy.”
The problem with this garbage, is that the YES vote had to create fantasy, because their ‘document’ presented created a ‘you have no idea what you’re signing up to’ - by design. At very late stages, you even rolled out the French who made threats to the Irish - dare they vote no. Well, that went well, didn’t it.
And lets REALLY get into this. The Irish actually have a very fine constitution, one well drafted, understandable, reasonable, and greatly held in regard. The yes lot turned up with this garbage, and having failed to make a real and I mean REAL case (The problem is there really is no case to make, it does not really exist. Its only created by idiots furthering claims of ‘reasons why they need their federal empire), whereas the No side were able to craft multiple cases as to why to vote NO.
People don’t need to EXPLAIN why they voted no. It does not matter if it was 500 different reasons, because if those 500 come directly, or EVEN indirectly, each one is right.
And the Irish are not a stupid people. They can see a bad deal when its being made, and being left as a district of a new empire with 1% of the populace, and about less than that in real terms of voting power, or even influence, its very clear why issues like defense, neutrality, and religion, the abortion laws and frankly EVERY area of their lives start to loom as being handled elsewhere, and enforced upon them.
The Irish have done well out of the EU. The would do less well in the post Lisbon period, and they are not stupid to think so.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Dear Margot,
Please ramp-up the positive communications!
Recent statements made your colleagues towards the Irish People are an absolute disgrace.
You know that we Irish are pro-EU, as do most people. But there are concerns - a mixed bag will find their way to your desk I’m sure.
We have enshrined the right to have a say on matters relating to our sovereignty, but are now burdened with blame for what is essentially a badly constructed treaty.
All the people of Europe deserve a vote on a coherent document, and are being denied the right to exercise this fundamental tenet of democracy through what is perceived to be political sleight-of-hand.
First the French, then the Dutch, now the Irish, have rejected the same concepts. Who will be vilified the most?
It is a sordid affair and a real shame for the EU and Ireland.
I worry about what happens next, not because people have opinions which may be vastly different, or even wrong, but because of the EU’s intransigence to accept and account for these in a system that is workable, transparent, and strives for social justice over all. Dare to imagine!
It’s not going to happen overnight, it may take ten years and cost billions, but it is what the peope of the EU deserve, not a constant stream of teaties, each with is promises of doom-and-Gloom if rejected.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Martinned,
You always say that a referendum is bad, because people cant be trusted to vote wisely over a single issue.
Why then, do you think it is right for people to vote in general elections over multiple issues ?
I say it`s because you are not really happy with democracy.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I can solve the mystery of the two blogs. I had sent a draft written by Margot before the External Relations Council to my colleagues in Brussels telling them that I would post the final version later if I could get access to the server (I was also in Luxembourg with Margot and am currently in Strasbourg). They misunderstood my message and posted it. The final version was written by Margot after the Council and posted by me.
June 17th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
First, why are some stating that “democracy” is only about referendums, as if referendums are the only form of “democracy.” I’ve said this once, but I’ll say again: Those 18 Member States that ratified the treaty through a parliamentary process did so through why is an acceptable practice for western democracies.
There should also be a question as to whether it is “democratic” for a minority of people in Ireland to essentially kill a treaty that was ratified in 18 other Member States that represent millions of other EU citizens. This is actually VERY undemocratic and a tyranny of a minority over the majority of Europe’s citizens. The only remedy for this undemocratic situation over the Irish vote is state the the Treaty IS NOT dead and allow the remainder of the Member States their say. Unanimity is very undemocratic.
Why does direct democracy have to be viewed as the “cure all” for Europe’s perceived “democratic deficit?” A Europe-wide referendum would be utter chaos and you’d see people in different Member States voting “yes” or “no” for different articles of the treaty and for different perceptions. And - European treaties are often 200 pages long and intended to amend the previous treaties.
I might be off, but wasn’t the IGC for the constitutional treaty opened to some public participation? Other solutions need to be sought for the “democratic deficit” perception other than the narrow and problematic focus on reforms as some “cure all.” And - why the “cure all” in the area of European treaties?
This preoccupation and obsession with referendums on the Treaties is really narrow and bogging down the Union and its public!
June 17th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
L.S.,
@Robin: Democracy involves balancing competing principles. In the Volokh Conspiracy thread, I made an analogy with the law on informed consent in medical procedures. On the one hand, the patient needs to be informed, because otherwise their consent is meaningless. Without consent, operating on them is nothing short of battery, in other words very very wrong. The problem is that they cannot properly evaluate what the doctor is telling them unless they’ve studied medicine themselves. So in the end what happens is that the doctor gives the patient all the information, they consent to be treated because they trust the doctor, and everybody goes about their business.
When it comes to discussing alternative versions of democracy, such as direct democracy versus representative democracy, similar issues crop up. The only way to really know whether your MP is doing what you’d like them to, is to read all the parliamentary documents they are. The next best thing to that is to carefully read the papers, but even that is already compromising. So on what basis are voters meant to judge whether the MP they elected the last time deserves to be re-elected? On what basis are they meant to judge whether the promises a candidate makes are a good idea? On what basis are they meant to vote yes or no?
The principle at stake is first and foremost that people are by nature free, and taking that freedom away from them without their consent is supreme evil. On top of that there is the problem that politicians can only be trusted as far as they can be thrown, and the less so the more power they have. (Just last sunday I re-read the section in the Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy about the man who secretly, without knowing it himself, rules the universe. It’s so sadly true that it almost isn’t funny anymore.)
The trick is to design a system that balances the principles involved against the realities of the kinds of knowledge voters can be expected to possess. As far as I’m concerned, the way to do that is to have them vote for people not referenda, and have them vote based on who they trust and based on who shares their general outlook, values, etc. (For a politician to break their promises sure seems like a good reason to trust them less, but then again, they might have a good excuse.)
None of this would be a problem if it wasn’t for the fact that voting is not simply an act of self-determination, but also an exercise of power by one voter over all other citizens. If your vote only mattered for yourself, you could be as foolish as you liked, but since one person’s vote also affects all others, they have a moral duty to vote wisely.
@Anonymous: Please breathe, before you have a heart attack.
Breathe…
Now to clear a few things up: I didn’t say that all no-voters were wrong, or even that a majority were. Just too many to make the referendum a good measure of what the citizens of Ireland want, even assuming that they can be said to “want” anything. (Look at the informed consent story above for an example of the connection between information and the notion of consent.)
I admit, my day would have been a whole lot better last Friday if the Irish’d voted Yes. But I hardly think that makes me a hypocrite. If they’d decided to make the ratification decision based on a toin coss instead of a referendum, I would have been against that, too. But in that case, too, I would have been quite happy to see the coin come up heads. (Heads has to equal ratify in this hypothetical, surely.)
If you’re such a big fan of the Bunreacht na hEireann, tell me what it means. Please, do. With print preview, Internet Explorer has it covering 61 pages of A4. How many people in Ireland do you think have ever read it? Have you? What does this mean? All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good. Does this clause require that referendums are held? Or doesn’t it? (To be clear, the requirement of holding referendums is stated explicitly elsewhere in the Constitution, but it is interesting to speculate whether this clause, art. 6(1), would require referenda in the absence of an explicit clause.)
What does this mean?
The President may be impeached for stated misbehaviour.
Or this?
For the purpose of the exercise of any executive function of the State in or in connection with its external relations, the Government may to such extent and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be determined by law, avail of or adopt any organ, instrument, or method of procedure used or adopted for the like purpose by the members of any group or league of nations with which the State is or becomes associated for the purpose of international co-operation in matters of common concern.
How many Irish citizens do you think could figure out what this means?
1° The State may consent to be bound by the British-Irish Agreement done at Belfast on the 10th day of April, 1998, hereinafter called the Agreement.
2° Any institution established by or under the Agreement may exercise the powers and functions thereby conferred on it in respect of all or any part of the island of Ireland notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution conferring a like power or function on any person or any organ of State appointed under or created or established by or under this Constitution. Any power or function conferred on such an institution in relation to the settlement or resolution of disputes or controversies may be in addition to or in substitution for any like power or function conferred by this Constitution on any such person or organ of State as aforesaid.
Check out this gem. Is there any way of knowing what it means without consulting the case law of the Irish Supreme Court?
The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.
This one is my favourite in the entire constitution. It is not very difficult to understand, in and of itself, but I dare you to tell me whether it affect the legal position of Irish citizens, and, if so, how:
1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.
There is a limit to how simple you can make the law. In any case, it is going to require advanced reading comprehension that many citizens, even adults, do not possess. Just start with how many dyslexics there are… Of course, such laws can be explained, but not very easily. It requires patience on the side of the audience, which is difficult if they’d rather watch the football. (I would, and I don’t even like football very much.)
And before you bring up the US constitution: Yes, that’s fairly simple. (Well, I’m getting 33 pages of A4 for the Findlaw version.) However, that constitution means less than nothing unless you look at the annotations, which summarise the Supreme Court’s caselaw. Only a small part of US constitutional law can be derived unambiguously from the text of the Constitution. Which is OK, don’t get me wrong. The choice between a more common law approach to constitutions and a more civil law approach is an interesting question, and not easily resolved. It just means that pointing to the simplicity and understandability of the US constitution is misleading, because the text of that constitution is only a small part of the story.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Martinedd:
“Why would you assume that the errors balance out?”
I was simply treating your comments with the contempt they deserve! In a democracy, something you have shown near total contempt for, there is no such thing as a right or a wrong reason to vote… Each individual votes for their OWN reasons - they are never right or wrong. You may agree or disagree but you do not have the right to describe an individual’s reasons as right or wrong.
As for your political science - put it where the sun don’t shine! Political science shows that political science can be made to show anything you want it to show!
Now - why don’t you stop throwing out red herrings and concentrate your legally trained mind on the fundamental question - is the Lisbon Treaty legally dead or not? YES or NO, please - if the concept isn’t too demeaning to you!
June 17th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
martinned,
The key phrase in the document you quoted is: “Evidently the people of Europe are not against the unification of the continent.”.
Really?! How do they know? The people of Europe have not been asked.
All the rest is based upon the false assumption that a ’supra-national democracy’ exists - or is even desired, and the notion that there is a ‘European people’ whose votes in pan-European referenda would be valid.
As I’ve repeated said: there is no ‘European People’, and the only votes that have any validity with regard to constitutional changes in Britain are those made solely by the British people themselves.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
“This was not a vote against the EU.”
It was a vote against the elites. It was a vote against the elites’ drive towards “ever closer union”. It was a vote against powerlessness. It was a vote against nation-killing.
These things, Margot, you cannot finesse away with a special exemption here and an opt-out there. You cannot do anything to assuage contempt for your own political class and all its workings.
We want to control our own destiny. We want you out of a job.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Margot,
You list what you call complex problems and ask how they can be solved by 27 countries in a system designed for 12.
Are these problems only within these 27 countries ? What about before 2005 ?Were these problems only in the 15 states that were in the EU ? If Turkey and Croatia join you will be saying that you need a new system to deal with these problems for a 29 nations. Ukraine, Serbia, Makedonia it will be you need a system to solve these problems for 32 countries. If Norway and Switzerland take leave of their senses you will then want a system that solves problems for 34 countries.
So it seems these problems are multiplying as the EU enlarges.
I have a cunning plan.
As the problems are in relation to the size of the EU, we should cut it down. To one country. Then you wont have all these problems and they will only affect one country. Which country should it be /
Well it should be a really enthusistic pro EU state.Since the Pope wanted the Irish to vote for the Lisbon treaty, lets make it the Vatican.I know it`s outside the EU now, but the usual fudge and stealth can overide that.
So there you have it. The EU should be made of one country, at present not in the EU but prepared to interfere in its workings.
The Pope can be the president and foreign minister and go off to talk to Turkey about accession.He can bribe it with EUvatican funds and promise it will be first in the EUrovatican song contest. He can sing the Ave Maria and come second.
Now, would anyone like to join a free trade area ?
June 17th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
The treaty cannot be ratified without the assent of all member states.
The assent of Ireland, without another vote, is denied.
Therefore, in order to attain assent, you must make Ireland vote again.
You’ve done this before, to Denmark and to Ireland, in order to push things through.
This indicates one thing: that if we do not vote (those of us who are allowed to vote) as you wish, we shall be made to vote again.
This, and this alone, is reason enough to rebel against all that you stand for, because you do not respect democracy.
I do not dislike the EU for its ideas (union stipulated in the Treaty of Rome, for example, does not bother me in the general sense) but your attempts to force us to accept whatever treaty you have written must and will stop. This is what I hate about the EU; not your CAP, not your inefficiencies, not your centralist ideals.
We will not stand for your anti-democratic actions, and the backlash will destroy much good that the EU brought us.
Your choice is this: accept the democratic will of the EU citizens that are allowed to vote, allow anti-EU feeling to take hold and destroy you, or (worst of all) create a super-government that ignores votes habitually.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:29 am
How many votes from the 500,000,000 EU electorate did Walstrom get in this DEOMOCRATIC EU? 250?
June 18th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Bilderberg 2008 meeting, interesting
http://cryptome.info/bilderberg08/bilderberg08.htm
June 18th, 2008 at 12:50 am
I do not think the Lisbon treaty should be ditched.
But, I do believe that reintroducing it (to the European public in general and to the Irish public in particular) would necessitate a change to it. A big change, something that can recapture the imagination of the people, and give them the feeling of being part of a democratic community once again.
The change I am thinking about is a directly elected commission president. This would give a second referendum something to focus on. Something exciting, fresh, and good for Europe. It would be the start of rebuilding public trust and feeling of closeness to the EU.
I would certainly feel closer to the commission, and the EU establishment in general, if I were to vote for it (directly, not only via the parliament). It’s as simple as that. And yes, it’s a bit unfair (as we don’t necessarily have a direct vote for our governments, and still we don’t think of them as undemocratic), but the commission is held to a higher standard by the European citizens, like it or not. And as long as it’s not directly elected, it will be tagged as undemocratic and bureaucratic by too many of them to ignore.
Thank you for listening.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:31 am
“Most everybody wants to choose the President, the Foreign Affairs executive and other top officials directly, we must find a way to do so without the usual “political campaign donation” corrupt system, let’s figure out how to elect these top EU executives directly without the “Money Interests ” having any influence, and with economic transparency, all appointees must show that their bank accounts don’t grow while in office, besides their salaries and expenses of course…”
I have to tell you now, that “most everybody” in the United Kingdom does not want a President, a Foreign Affairs “executive” or any of the
other trappings of a European state. The only reason you quite reasonably do not know this now is because none of us has yet been asked.
Our dying government promised to ask us, but then a clever chap changed the name of the thing they’d promised to ask about, and we were denied the vote
simply because the name was changed (although the whole content of this discussion here and elsewhere makes it perfectly clear that the effect was Constitutional
and our Government simply lied to keep in with the others).
That was a bit short-sighted: as a result of this lie, when finally we are asked, and we shall be, the results will be that much worse.
It is made worse by trying to brow-beat the Irish electorate or suggest they are ignorant or simply stupid. They said no. Get over it.
Here’s the thing: if they’d said “Yes” would there be lots of extended analysis to decide just what they meant by that?
How intellectually dishonest are you and your fellows? I’d really like to know.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:50 am
Why does no-one mention the referendums in Spain and Luxembourg? Remember what they said? They said YES.
June 18th, 2008 at 6:42 am
No means NO.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:13 am
mmm. Moderator,
I think you are insulting our inteligence
June 18th, 2008 at 10:19 am
You can think what you want, that’s what happened.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Martinned,
I quickly read your article and sound as it is, it does not negate the fact that referenda are the powerful arm of the ordinary people in deciding what they want.
Your thesis seems good in principle, but it seems mainly geared towards an indian tribe rather than the complex societies we have now, and one aspect you haven`t mentioned are the powerful lobbyists and pressure groups that invest the machinery of government both local (the national governments) and in Brussels.
Take for example crime and punishment. Most people want the punishment to fit the crime, and for it to be a deterrence. Here in the UK though, we dont have that. We have groups like the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prison Reform Trust having a speed dial to the ministry and the biased BBC.What we have is not what we want, which is why I advocate locally elected police chiefs, judges and magisrates. They cant do a worse job than the ones we have now (actually the indian tribes had several chiefs for different functions,one for hunting, one for war etc).
The biggest indication that your way isn`t working is the Irish referendum. The powers that be wanted to sign the treaty. The people didnt want to. The powers that be would have gone against the wish of the majority. That is not democratic.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Elisabeth,
That is why some of us advocate not just a two spedd EU, but with reverse gear as well.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Erin LaPorte,
We agree with you. If there was more democracy in the EU it would be in utter chaos. Best to scrap it.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
If you give people a choice, then we’d be back to the same ol’ power politics that caused centuries of bloody wars and strife on the continent. Given that most Europeans don’t know or care that they are also EU citizens, and that they usually identify by national identity, why should we leave the future of the Union to referendums when parliaments can decide on treaties better than the public can..?
We should actually prefer the existence of the European Union, with all its problems, and continue the necessary work of the European project, than to return to the ol’ days when millions were butchered in stupid wars in Europe. It is better to continue the European Union with all its faults even if people want to “vote it out of existence.”
June 18th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
@John R. Walker: People can be legally dead. The question whether a treaty is legally dead or not is a question with no meaning, as I already explained in response to Max Kaye. The Lisbon Treaty has never been legally alive, that’s as close as I can come to answering the question.
As for the field of voting analysis, and even though I beg to differ about whether or not there are right and wrong reasons for a certain vote, the more interesting question, the question that I raised, is whether people vote for the right reason for the wrong alternative. Especially in a referendum, it should be possible to list what a voter wants, and compare that with the alternatives provided. So given what the voter wants, do this voter vote the way one would expect? This is not a matter of judging their motivations, but only of looking at whether their motivations actually align with what they end up doing.
Last year, two colleagues of mine did this kind of thing with respect to European Issue voting in national elections. They wanted to know whether European issues are an important determinant of how people vote in national elections.
If you’re going to insist on bashing academic research on general principle, it’s not my fault if we find ourselves unable to agree. Watching the news, etc., I get the distinct impression that there are more and more people who consider their own “common sense” to be the ultimate touchstone of all knowledge, above, for example, people who study a certain problem for a living. Such an attitude makes it extemely difficult to ever agree with anyone. (Or to ever get anything done, for that matter.)
June 18th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Every country should have been allowed a referendum.
The majority of Irish people and we are very intelligent took on board the information that was given to us and made a decision.
From talking to those who were still a bit confused, they adapted the ‘if in doubt, vote no’. The majority of people I spoke to just among work colleagues, friends and family were well informed and knew what the treaty meant for our country but still voted no to it.
I’m on other blogs as well and I was talking to someone from Malta who was delighted with the Irish no vote. I’ve talked to a number of friends that I have around europe and they were all delighted that Ireland voted no and even said that they have alot to be thankful to for the Irish people.
It is unfair that the Irish people are being made scapegoats and the fact that before we went to the polling stations, we were being bullied into voting yes.
There were a number of reasons I voted no and even though no one called to my door, the Yes Campaign didnt do enough and I still had concerns about the same reasons.
Its like someone said. The treaty would need to be drastically changed or Ireland given certain opt outs in order for us to have another referendum if that is an option being considered and for the population to vote yes.
People are a bit sore over the Nice Treaty and felt we werent listened to and were forced to vote on the second referendum. How many would we have been forced to do in order for the EU to have received the yes vote. The correct answer in their eyes.
The people of Ireland have spoken, the Commmissioners and everyone in Brussels needs to respect that and listen to us. Let our voices be heard and please dont disrespect us. We are pro EU but we felt the treaty wasnt for the greater good of our country. Help us find a way forward and listen to our concerns.
June 18th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Martinned,
I am not at all surprised you don’t like this:-
“This one is my favourite in the entire constitution. It is not very difficult to understand, in and of itself, but I dare you to tell me whether it affect the legal position of Irish citizens, and, if so, how:
1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”
The political indoctrination to make mothers work, and thus strengthen the hand of ‘The State’, and weaken the ‘Family’ is born out of leftist idealogy. Its sold to the public on the basis of equality, but in fact, its merely a move to weaken the family bond, and gain power over both the mother and her siblings. This is really the core of why you are so offended by this. Nothing more, nothing less. Getting your hands on the Children early means you get real access to brainwash them. Handy.
As for your fury over the 61 pages of the Irish constitution, you once more miss the point. Your attack on the Irish constitution, and apparent anger that it dares to be 61 pages of A4, along with the rest of your drivel is once more, a smokescreen. I challenged you simply, how could the YES side really sell such a bad document. And this is your best repost? Is this really the best you can do, Attack the Irish constitution. Surely you still actually realise that your attack on 61 pages is hilarious. The EU constitution by design, was meant to be a stupid, unreadable, unwaorkable pile of crap, no one was meant to understand it, but it was meant to allow enormous powers from nations to this new state. Being 231 pages of complete drivel, yes, as I said, damn difficult to sell it to a populace that actually has a good constitution.
Yet, your smokescreen effort is just antagonistic. You don’t even have the courage to step up and admit that the document was in fact un-sellable. It was unreadable, and was so by design, and worse, by purpose. Even were I to concede, which I do not, - that the document was only for parliamentarians to read, and consider, any such document should have been well thought out, clearly defined, reasonably easy to comprehend, and absorb. Not every member of parliament is a legal eagle, and as such, any such document would still have to reach these basic requirements.
Given you don’t like the Irish constitution, globally regarded as a good one, and yet you being so enlightened that your desperation in trying to support the diabolically dire drivel pitched by people like you, I just find it strange that your answer to the problem is to attack the Irish constitution. Still unable to actually accept this was a document that not even parliamentarians could read and comprehend. Most did not, which goes to the core of the despicable act many did by voting and not even reading the document.
The base reason for referendum in that constitution exists for one purpose, its by design meant to force a referendum should the democracy attempt for instance, to hand itself over to a dictator(ship). And to that ends the Irish constitution remains brilliant, because its worked exactly as it was designed. It was designed to always, or as near to always as can be made, that they, and no one else gets the choice in this.
You are a funny fellow I must admit. In these pages, you have thus far attacked parliaments, people, referendums, and good constitutions. You also detest and hate nation states, and you happen to believe that mechanics are good when you get a yes, and bad when you get a no. In fact, mechanisms that give a no vote to you should be abolished. The only thing for sure we know is that you like the Law, but again, your offended by Irish law and the it’s constitution. You claim respect for the law, and yet you’ve made an amazing attack on the Irish, their referendums, and their law. You say its unacceptable for you to accept referendums, but you missed the point. Its the law. So you don’t actually respect the law at all. Ahh, but let me guess, that law was made by an evil nation state, thus it has no value, let us wipe it from the map eh?
No doubt I will have to watch now, as the elite pose the question, what part of the unreadable, unworkable, by design and purpose document is it that you dislike. If we can find 3-4 passages of unworkable, unreadable, junk, perhaps we can rip it out. There is enough elsewhere in the document to shaft you lot anyway, so ripping a little out here or there is meaningless, so we still get to move one step forward towards the new ‘Fatherland’.
In the case of Ireland, you might, MIGHT, be able to whip out a couple of sections on Military, or on Abortion, or religion, or other things, but you miss the point. That document, which remains a pile of junk is not worth the paper its written on, and hands Ireland over like a kipper to the EU, even without the few paragraphs people might attempt to focus on.
Now, how about we focus on the question of the EU working better. Might I just ask, why would I want something which gets in my way, annoys me, makes stupid interference in my life, work ‘Better’. I feel like I’m playing Oliver Twist and I’m the one having to walk up and say ‘Please can I have more? Why exactly would I welcome the EU moving from demanding we don’t eat bendy bananas to invading somewhere, or deploying Irish troops on a war mission. Yes, I know, I’m being non factual, and making fun, but who cares. Why would anyone in their right mind actually WANT to give the corrupt gravy trainers, and dubious ex national politicians in Brussels more powers anyway? Why exactly, and I mean exactly, would an Irish person remove much of their own constitution, replace it with this pile a rubbish, and end up being a small district in the new empire, with about ‘district’ level of clout?
Why would I EVER consider giving Mandelson, a person twice unfit to be a member of OUR own Government powers FAR beyond? WHY ? DO I LOOK STUPID? Am I crazy? How about the man who is going to be heading Justice in the new EU? A Frenchman with a criminal past. Great. You hardly inspire me to think giving you more power is a clever idea. No, lets be clear, The Irish might have ended up with no Commissioner, they only have a tiny minority vote in the parliament, not that that matters on jot, the parliament is just a side show anyway, and the rest.
I say this because it highlights the exacting issue of the Lisbon treaty. Europeans in general have had enough integration and gravy training. When actually asked, people do not want it, don’t favour it. The truth is, The Irish have gained greatly from the EU, but they too have no real wish to take it further. The only people today who want to do this, is the elite, and the top governments who see it as a method of actually working how they want. Not as servants of the people, but as the overlords.
People like you scream at the IRISH, ‘But YOU’VE taken the money!’. You make me laugh, because they took what was on offer, they never offered themselves as some form of sacrifice on the alter of greater-EU-ism. This state of mind only exists in the federalist mindset. As for anyone else, bleating on this - The Luxembourg and Spanish yes votes and referendums were taken with clear understanding. If anyone says no, its a dead thing.
Maybe if you have a problem with this, and some of you do, you should have put the caveat in’ No matter what, this is the dead parrot sketch - we march onward, anyone saying No will be taken outside and shot, ahem, I mean, we will make them vote again until they come up with the right answer, vote yes in confidence’. People voted in this thing KNOWING that anyone turning it down meant it would not pass, so how about you just respect that instead of mocking democracy. The Luxembourg people voted Yes, knowing in total clarity that anyone saying no would kill it. As did the Spanish. Only they were being lied to. We are all being lied to each and every day. Its just part of the plan.
June 18th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
“Our Constitution is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the greatest number.”
- Thucydides, removed (by the Irish presidency) from the preamble to the draft EU constitution, 12/06/2004
As foreseen, the EU elite will do everything they can to ensure power remains firmly in their own hands, far from the hands of the greatest number.
This whole shameful episode in EU history has been underhand and undemocratic from start to finish.
Commissioner Wallström, how can the EU purport to be a beacon of democracy in the world when it resorts to such disgraceful tactics - against its own citizens?
If 3 countries voting no in referendums cannot block the constitution/treaty, please explain how exactly it can be democratically rejected by EU citizens.
Elisabeth: The constitution/treaty must be unanimously passed by all member states. That’s the legal EU process; these are the EU’s own rules.
Erin LaPorte: Enough already with your ludicrous argument that we either accept anything the EU proposes or launch World War III. Do you really think the only thing preventing Germany from invading Poland is the EU?! It’s raving nonsense.
June 18th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
# Erin LaPorte Says in “”:
June 18th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
“If you give people a choice, then we’d be back to the same ol’ power politics that caused centuries of bloody wars and strife on the continent.”
——————————————–
Yes, you are not alone in peddling this absolute garbage. When Hitler took away choice, I presume you think its clever. How about Stalin. I’m getting sick of you people peddling this ABSOLUTE GARBAGE. Europe has peace when it has democracy and democracies. It does not have peace when its ‘an empire’ or when some small grouping overthrows the rest, by force or politics. The Power politics being played are not being played by people who oppose the direction of the EU, they ARE being played by people like you.
“Given that most Europeans don’t know or care that they are also EU citizens, and that they usually identify by national identity, why should we leave the future of the Union to referendums when parliaments can decide on treaties better than the public can..?”
—————————————————————-
Did you ask them if they wanted to join your little empire. No. Did you ask them if they agree for their parliaments to hand over the powers to the EU. No. Its because they identify themselves how they do, that they deserve to be asked fully and appropriatly about this process.
And why the say no, you might try listening.
“We should actually prefer the existence of the European Union, with all its problems, and continue the necessary work of the European project, than to return to the ol’ days when millions were butchered in stupid wars in Europe. It is better to continue the European Union with all its faults even if people want to “vote it out of existence.””
———————-
Really, we should eh? And why is that? Because people like you merely happen to say so, even though you seem unable to comprehend what you actually want follows a historical path that leads to disaster. Perhaps you’ve heard of the saying, the road to hell was paved with good intentions. I’m really sick in you people also claiming that people want to vote it out of existence. This is a lie and yet another fabrication. Most people merely want to express a view on the fact that this EU is not what they want, and that they in fact do not want a closer union of the Elite, and they do not want more power sliding toward an unaccountable bunch. I’m British, I may well if I EVER get a chance have to vote to end the EU, but that only happens because it and people like you refuse to actually listen to anyone else but your ignorant stupid selfish selves. Claiming the Irish wish to end the EU is an outrage, but what’s new? Its not like you and people like you interfere with referendums by making public threats against them, or worse yet, make them vote again until they say yes.
Its amusing to see all this, the behaviour of the skeptic side is often held up in ridicule, and in chastisement, but the behaviour of the YES side and the eurofanatical is distgusting, unethical, disturbing, and undemocratic. You seem wrongly to believe that you can and do further your own ends, and falsely and stupidly believe that the ends justify the means.
The villification and abuse, and public whipping of the Irish is disgusting, wrong, incoherent in a modern, free democratic europe and should stop. Now. You put your case to them, and they said no. Show some damn respect.
June 18th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
# Gerlaldine Says in “”:
June 18th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
“Every country should have been allowed a referendum.”
Given the enormous changes and power moving to Brussels, you are absolutely correct.
“The majority of Irish people and we are very intelligent took on board the information that was given to us and made a decision.
From talking to those who were still a bit confused, they adapted the ‘if in doubt, vote no’. The majority of people I spoke to just among work colleagues, friends and family were well informed and knew what the treaty meant for our country but still voted no to it.
I’m on other blogs as well and I was talking to someone from Malta who was delighted with the Irish no vote. I’ve talked to a number of friends that I have around europe and they were all delighted that Ireland voted no and even said that they have alot to be thankful to for the Irish people.”
We have a very great deal to be thankful for. I know many Irish people voted no because others were denied a vote. And that is perhaps the greatest reason of them all, and a good reason in itself.
“It is unfair that the Irish people are being made scapegoats and the fact that before we went to the polling stations, we were being bullied into voting yes.
There were a number of reasons I voted no and even though no one called to my door, the Yes Campaign didnt do enough and I still had concerns about the same reasons.
Its like someone said. The treaty would need to be drastically changed or Ireland given certain opt outs in order for us to have another referendum if that is an option being considered and for the population to vote yes.”
The bulldozing and bullying is under way. I’m sorry for this, but thats how they play the game
“People are a bit sore over the Nice Treaty and felt we werent listened to and were forced to vote on the second referendum. How many would we have been forced to do in order for the EU to have received the yes vote. The correct answer in their eyes.
The people of Ireland have spoken, the Commmissioners and everyone in Brussels needs to respect that and listen to us. Let our voices be heard and please dont disrespect us. We are pro EU but we felt the treaty wasnt for the greater good of our country. Help us find a way forward and listen to our concerns.”
I wish you well in that regard
June 18th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Elisabeth So far that make two for and three against but that is hardly the point, all countries must vote yes, if one votes no then the treaty falls.
Those are the rules under which the other treaties were agreed, if you wish to change those rules it would need a change in the treaties. I think Lisbon does in fact introduce a simplified method of treaty change but for that to have any force would of course mean that all countries ratified.
The rule that there can be no changes unless all agree is simply a veto on treaty change reserved by countries, and in Britain has been used by the government to assure opposition that we would be in charge of any further change, thus the rule has been instrumental in getting treaties through the British Parliament. Sort of thus far and no further concept.
Erin LaPorte, I think you will find that if an EU treaty changes the contusion of a country then it would be understood in a democracy that it could not simply be left to the parliament to decide. Because they would be either dispensing with the power under which they were elected or changing the power of the voter in some way. Hence the idea of a referendum to gain public approval for the change. Of course in Ireland this concept is written into its constitution, so the Irish government had no choice.
There really is nothing undemocratic about the Irish vote, for couple of reasons the first has been mentioned several times, and is also above here. Therefore it really does not matter how many people are claimed by each side, the Irish Referendum trumps them all because the Irish people have refused to give their government the authority to ratify the treaty. The other reason is that Ireland was actually the only country to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, the people against all expectations voted NO so who is to argue that the rest of the countries parliaments actually have the backing of their citizens for this treaty change. Several EU leaders make the claim but they have no intention of offering any proof, or offering their people a voice.
June 18th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Elisabeth @ June 18th asks:
“Why does no-one mention the referendums in Spain and Luxembourg? Remember what they said? They said YES.”
A simple answer: according to EU rules, all 27 countries have to say ‘Yes’.
June 18th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Dear Margot,
The attitude of EU leader towards Ireland is moving from contemptuous to obscene,
I know that you are greatly concerned with what today are called ‘women’s issues’.
If a woman, confronted by an over-excited male, said ‘No’ and the man continued nonetheless with his unwanted advances, then he would rightly be accused of attempted rape.
How do you think the Irish feel?
‘No’ means ‘No’.
I still believe that you also share this view - please make your colleagues see sense.
June 18th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I too wish to transfer a previous post of mine to the right thread which didn’t exist at the time, but haven’t been able to get around to it until now. (The original was posted on the America gives a lead? thread on 15 June.)
Margot,
I saw your interview with Gavin Essler on Newsnight following on from the NO result of the Irish referendum and its implications for your second attempt to force an unwanted fugly eeyoo constitution past the peoples of the member states.
It was good to see you in the flesh. I found the manner of your response, and your responses themselves, very informative. I have accordingly revised my opinion of you. One question in particular that Essler asked you was what people could possibly do to reject your nation-killing constitution given that the only people in the eeyoo to get a say were the Irish and that their rejection of it will not stop you forcing it through regardless of what people want—and indeed even against your own ‘unanimity’ requirement. Well, so much for your regard for democracy and even for your respect of your own legalities, especially if you discover that they get in your way. And so much for your responses that Essler had to ask the question a few times. And each time you completely evaded it, so he never did get an answer. But we did. Your answer was very clear and easily inferred from your evasion. It was this: “Nothing if we can possibly help it.”
As I say, I have revised my opinion of you. Given the tabloid-level style and content of your blog entries, one could easily be forgiven for thinking you to be a deluded, fluffy bunny type. But I can see now that that idea is deeply mistaken. You are deluded all right—no mistake—but there is nothing fluffy about you, nothing fluffy at all.
You are pure poison, my dear.
P.Ss.
To W. Martins: Do come back get upset again. I’d enjoy the encore.
To Max who wrote “Unlike some other EUrosceptics I believe that you are sincere in your quest for more democracy and openness.” Steady on there, Max.
June 18th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Erin LaPorte Says: “If you give people a choice, then we’d be back to the same ol’ power politics that caused centuries of bloody wars and strife on the continent.”
Great: Let’s not give people any choice. Let’s decide for other people. Yes - let’s have a dictatorship! And, ofcourse, I’ll be the dictator. (Why do you think, Erin, that you’ll have any say in the matter: when we start to ignore people’s freedoms and tear up civil liberties horrible things happen - what makes you think you personally won’t be a victim?
So then, when I’m dictator, you’ll not be put against the wall - just exiled to somewhere cold, concrete and highly bureaucratic. You be given the job of junior parking attendant - that will suit your bossy tendencies quite nicely.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
L.S.,
@Anonymous: I just wrote you a long response in the Obama thread. Here, I’d just like to remark that I did not mean to “attack” the Irish constitution, since on the whole it is a pretty good constitution, but rather I meant to illustrate that all constitutions are difficult for Joe Ordinary in the street to understand. That is why we should not organise referendums about them. That was the extent of my argument. (I notice you haven’t answered my example question: Does art. 41 (2) (2) of the Irish constitution, which you also quoted in your reply, grant a right that an Irish woman can claim before the courts or not? Would it be possible to answer that question without looking at the case law of the Irish Supreme Court?)
Also, I’m not sure where I’ve attacked parliament… And I certainly wouldn’t attack good constitutions…
@Robin: The biggest indication that your way isn`t working is the Irish referendum. The powers that be wanted to sign the treaty. The people didnt want to. The powers that be would have gone against the wish of the majority. That is not democratic.
Well, no offense, but that argument is circular. If “the people” could genuinely be said to “want” anything, in the sense that they have a preference based on a bare minimum of knowledge, there wouldn’t be any reason to be against referendums in the first place. To be sure, there is some evidence that there is a structural difference between the people and their representatives, even if you correct for the difference in knowledge.
(You mention the example of criminal justice. Here in NL there is a perpetual discussion about whether we should introduce juries or lay magistrates, the way most other countries have them. Part of the argument in favour is exactly what you’re saying. So research has been carried out to see what would happen, and they’ve concluded that people tend to become more lenient towards the defendant as they are given more information from the dossier, but in the end they still tend to advocate a more severe punishment than the judge in fact imposed.)
I would say that in most cases direct democracy is not the answer to the problems of representative democracy. Electing some officials seems to be a sensible idea, although I would be very much against electing judges, except maybe in a system where they are elected once and then get to keep their jobs until their pensions. The impartiality of the courts is too important to risk hurting it by forcing judges to stand for re-election.
Finally, I would like to point out that democracy is only one of the three ingredients of our system of government, the other two being civil liberties and rule of law. The very purpose of civil liberties is to protect the minority against laws made by the majority. Safeguarding the balance between the three can be a legitimate reason for doing things that are “undemocratic”. (Such as having unelected judges.)
June 18th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Statement on the current EU Crisis by members of the network “Citizens of Europe”
June 18, 2008
They, the people?
The Irish no-vote has caused heated debates all over Europe and threw the European Union into yet another crisis.
We have always been in favour of reforms in order to secure the Union given its current size and the challenges ahead and we have campaigned for democratic elements such as the European Citizens’ Initiative included in the Lisbon treaty. However, at this point we are deeply worried about the course of debates.
Therefore, we as Citizens of Europe firmly address the members of the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Representatives of the member states, and the Slovene as well as the future French EU presidency in particular:
1. Know where we stand
Activists of the no-campaign and many Irish people state that their No was caused by the intransparency of the text they were to decide upon and by the arrogant and patronizing attitude of the classe politique towards them.
In our point of view, the first reactions of European politicians and the results of the meeting of Foreign Ministers on Monday are ignorant towards democratic procedures and we are realising that many people around ourselves share this perception.
We are about to lose the support of many convinced Europeans for the project of European Union. If the EU responds wrongly, the European Project could be damaged beyond repair.
2. Admit what went wrong
It is about time to accept that the previous strategy of avoiding public debate has failed. Admit to yourself and citizens that overcoming criticism by putting the content of a lengthy, intransparent and rejected Constitutional Treaty into a completely unreadable Lisbon Treaty was undoubtedly a mistake.
In addition, diplomatic compromise has lead to complex institutions, which can be even confusing to scholars of the EU. For example, the division of responsibility between the President of the Council, the “Foreign Minister” and the President of the Commission remains unclear.
3. Consolidate the democratic camp
We believe that the following points should be obvious for democrats:
• Controversial debates are normal and desirable in democratic and pluralist societies. Thus they must be possible on the European as on any other political level.
• Meaningful elections are one of the key characteristics of democracy. One cannot accuse voters of irresponsible decisions if there were no clear and reasonable options presented beforehand.
• Any patronizing rhetoric is highly counter-productive. Presuming a lack of information and understanding instead of reacting on the arguments of political opponents disqualifies any statement.
A large part of the people opposing the Lisbon Treaty is seriously concerned about democracy in Europe. They are natural allies in building a better, more democratic European Union.
We urge you as our representatives: Do not carry on trying to push through reforms against the doubts of significant numbers of citizens. Take your time to rethink the current approach to EU reform.
We suggest appointing a small team of respected Europeans who, within two or three months’ time, should present suggestions to the European Council about how to proceed. Such a group of mediators should analyze the reasons for the No votes without any ideological assumptions, define the European consensus existing and suggest further steps and measures.
Whatever steps you take now, they must be as inclusive as possible, based on dialogue and mutual respect, transparency and flexibility. There are more people who care about Europe than you think. Do not dismiss them.
Frank Burgdörfer (Berlin), Gert Röhrborn (Dresden), Andreas Heindl (Heidelberg), Florian Bieber (Kent), Dániel Fehér (Budapest/Bruxelles), Olha Byalyk (The Hague), Nicoletta Incze (Budapest), Alessandro Fava del Piano (Roma), Sonja Bader (Roma), Lucía González (Madrid/Berlin), Rui Montez (Lisboa/Berlin)
This statement is available also in other languages at:
http://www.citizens-of-europe.eu/
June 18th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
If Margot posted her own blog entries we wouldn’t be having this discussion…
June 18th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Did you check the participation figures in the Spanish referendum? Under 40%. It was taken for granted.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
John Archer wrote: “To Max who wrote “Unlike some other EUrosceptics I believe that you are sincere in your quest for more democracy and openness.” Steady on there, Max.”
John, I have, even at this late date, my own reasons for this belief. I hope that I am not disappointed.
Meanwhile, having been disappointed by our House of Lords, I’m hoping that Vaclav Klaus and the Czechs will hold steadfast (and forgive us for forsaking them in 1938….).
June 19th, 2008 at 12:01 am
I dispair,
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/06/18/2044243.shtml
Europe slides more into darkness.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
# Max Kaye Says in “”:
June 18th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
“John Archer wrote: “To Max who wrote “Unlike some other EUrosceptics I believe that you are sincere in your quest for more democracy and openness.” Steady on there, Max.”
John, I have, even at this late date, my own reasons for this belief. I hope that I am not disappointed.
Meanwhile, having been disappointed by our House of Lords, I’m hoping that Vaclav Klaus and the Czechs will hold steadfast (and forgive us for forsaking them in 1938….).”
Not going to be enough. The Irish have provided a pause, and that is all. If anyone reading this cares at all in any way about their freedom and their democracy, you have to redouble every effort and draw upon every ounce of energy now. Write to your MP, your MEP, join any grouping you happen to favour, so long as it shares your democratic view. We cannot leave the Irish and Czechs to stand alone. Europeans, speak out, now. There is no other day to wait, there is no more time to ignore what is going on.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:27 am
The following link is to some good people trying to influence the Tories. They need your financial support.
http://www.global-vision.net/
Of course, you may consider any attempt, however sincere, to influence a mainstream political party to be misguided.
Especially one that sends a member of its inner circle to Bilderberg.
June 20th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Martinned,
LS and La la,
The people were not ignorant. They voted with information given to them. Why claim they voted out of stupidity ?
You have so much faith in “elites” that you cannot see that the people can reach a conclusion because they have information the elites dont have. I have already mentioned the lobbyists, but worse for democracy are the senior civil servants giving “confidential” (for that read SECRET) talks to the ministers, some of the advice bordering on the bizarre.As I say ,your preferred system works well for a small indian tribe, but not for us now, and especially not in the EU, with all the horse trading that goes on.
You also mention rule of law. What do you think about the law that all member states have to ratify this treaty, and the circumnavigating of that rule that is going on now ?
(Dont forget it`s the elites that are doing it, against the wishes of the people )
June 20th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Erin LaPorte,
Please tell us what nations would have waged war but for the EU ?
June 20th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Robin,
Martinned seems to believe in some strangely fashioned ideal, containing The Law, Civil Liberties, and Democracy, but he advocates that any one of them can be used to bash the others over the head as and when he sees fit.
So to surmise, what he means is, he ignores what suits him, when it suits him. He’d make a fine addition to the EU machine.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:57 pm
L.S.,
@Robin: In a small indian tribe, direct democracy would work fine. (And historically, in many cases it did.) I claim that the voters lack/lacked knowledge because that is what every survey of voter knowledge is telling me. And while I agree with you that it is quite sad the way Ireland is being pressured now, that isn’t a problem of rule of law.
O yes, why do you bring up this old canard again of asking people about specific wars that did not happen? As I explained in the past, you’re asking the impossible. (Unless of course we build an alternate universe machine.)
@Anonymous: I’m sorry if my strange ideals upset you.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:14 pm
“Would it be ignoring the Irish vote if countries continue? This is something only Heads of State and Government can decide”
Exactly this kind of attitude shows the democratic deficit of the EU, and the lack of understanding of the principles of democracy by its elitist leaders.
The Irish - who were the only ones to voice their opinion - said NO. The treaty was not ratified by all members, ergo, it is dead. It is not given to the “Heads of State and Government” to discuss how to ignore this referendum.
June 23rd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Martinned,
The canard is “the EU brought us peace “. If you EUrophiles stop saying that I will stop asking how, when, where and who.It`s that simple. stop claiming credit for something you haven`t done.
If voters lack knowledge about one issue put before them, they will lack for even more when a multitude of issues are put before them won`t they ?
You cant claim they are too ignorant to vote in a referendum but knowledgeble to vote in a general election. They are either capable of doing both or not at all.
June 24th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
L.S.,
@Robin: Just because it is physically impossible to describe wars that never happened, doesn’t mean that the EC did not contribute to peace and stability in Europe. Of course it did.
In General Elections, voters vote not based on issues, but based on who they trust, who they like, and who shares their general outlook on how the country should be run. The latter is illustrated with issues, which communicate the extent to which a politician is interventionist or a proponent of free market, conservative or progressive, left or right, etc. To the extent that someone, once elected, deviates from their campaign promises without an adequate explanation, this may be construed as him having misrepresentation of his position in the first place. So elected politicians should keep their campaign promises as long as a change in circumstances does not force them to decide differently. (As far as information goes: how many voters actually notice if a politician breaks her promise on a given dossier? Seriously…)
June 24th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Martinned,
LS and Buy One Get One Free.
“Of course it did”. Prove it.
In general elections voters do vote on issues, otherwise Margaret Thatcher would never have got into power in the UK. Very often the “nicer” candidate loses to a more ruthless one, who is seen by the populace as the one who will attain results.
Voters notice how Gordon Brown has renaged on his election promise to hold a referendum on the EU. This will be recalled at the next election even though all three main parties are tainted by their association with the EU.
August 1st, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Pourquoi l’Europe n’opte-t-elle pas pour faire voter tous les pays le même jour sur la même question, et si possible de la même façon?
La plus démocratique serait un référendum, mais les pays qui ne le peuvent pas comme l’Allemagne, pourrait voter le même jour par le biais des parlementaires, en attendant que sur les questions européennes les référendums soient possibles pour eux.
Pouvez-vous faire en sorte que cela devienne possible?