C'mon Ireland, you know you want to...

For information, the 2009 date is the deadline being set for the Irish government by the EU leadership.

There are some concessions being offered that may make the Lisbon Treaty more palatable. Until I see what these are, I cannot make much of a comment.

Louis is right though - there is no reason why a new referendum cannot be held if a newly amended treaty is being proposed. Like the British rebate, this may prove to be in our favour. However, from my personal point of view, I shall still be looking for a substantial increase in democratic accountability.

Unfortunately for the pro-European camp this attempt, whatever its merits, will be advocated by the most unpopular Taoiseach in modern history. And a re-run referendum will inevitably anger the electorate and if there are good changes, these will be lost in the fury and sound-bite politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The German constitution does not provide for a referendum. The German people express their democratic wish through other means. This does not mean that Germany isn't a rock-solid democracy by even the highest standards.

---

when the nation state wishes to give away to a third party the authority i grant to it to act in my name then i do indeed expect to ask my consent via a referendum.

Personally, if I was an Irishman, I'd be insulted. As an Englishman, I'm insulted.

The EU doesn't do itself any favours by acting like this.

*pictures Louis chuckling like a mad de Gaulle on acid*

From the Gruniads CiF...

Quote:

---

I agree with tomper2. Why don't they just be honest this time and leave the "no" box off the voting form?

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

There are some concessions being offered that may make the Lisbon Treaty more palatable. Until I see what these are, I cannot make much of a comment.

---

Now then , if there are concessions being offered does that mean that the treaty is being altered in some way which would mean that the countries that have already ratified will have ratified a treaty that no longer exists and will have to (in the interests of democracy:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:) have to re-ratify the new amended amending treaty ?
Will they ever get the message that as the original treaty was rejected , the amending treaty was also rejected and the proposed new amended amending treaty stands a good chance of being rejected if it gets put to the vote , that perhaps its time they realised their treaty is bollox and they should start again ?
Or will they just repeat the same old crap that they have worked really really hard and the people are just being selfish by saying the product on offer from their work is rubbish ?

That's a very good point Tribes. :laugh4:

I myself wish for the Lisbon Treaty to pass, but I'm outraged by what is a complete lack of democracy practice in terms of approval of the Treaty. That said, I don't think the treaty should pass until every single country does a referendum on such an important matter such is the delegation of key sovereign powers of dozens of nations in Europe.

To be honest I think the treaty itself should provide for europe-wide refferendums on important issues and provide for Stat-wide refferendums on its adoption.

Tribes makes a good point, if the treaty is changed it needs to be ratified again by everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Now then , if there are concessions being offered does that mean that the treaty is being altered in some way which would mean that the countries that have already ratified will have ratified a treaty that no longer exists and will have to (in the interests of democracy:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:) have to re-ratify the new amended amending treaty ?
Will they ever get the message that as the original treaty was rejected , the amending treaty was also rejected and the proposed new amended amending treaty stands a good chance of being rejected if it gets put to the vote , that perhaps its time they realised their treaty is bollox and they should start again ?
Or will they just repeat the same old crap that they have worked really really hard and the people are just being selfish by saying the product on offer from their work is rubbish ?

---

I don't take issue with anything you wrote - particularly in the challenge to my poorly worded statement.

However predictable the likely presentation, I'd still like to know what the proposals may be before making my mind up. Though as you point out, the substantive changes I would lke to see would require a new treaty and thus a new round of ratification. I stand by my original argument that a new treaty, put to the consent of the people of Europe, is the only way forward.

Quote:

---

As an Englishman, I'm insulted.

---

I am quite sure that England is insulted that Ireland might not do as England pleases (those pesky, uppity Irish!). But I am afraid that any hurt feelings of English nationalism* will not be very high on the list of considerations for the Irish Republic during the referendum. ~;p

*England. Not the UK. England mistakes English nationalism for British nationalism. The Scots, the Welsh, and across the Irish Sea, other national narratives prevail.

Quote:

---

*pictures Louis chuckling like a mad de Gaulle on acid*

---

It's funny that England now wishes it had listened to De Gaulle, and had stayed out. Now it is too late. :beam:

De Gaulle is dead. Meanwhile, we have grown fond of England. The better we are aquainted with it, the more we like it! Their kicking and screaming, their little obstructionist plans - every week a new one!, their toy soldier nationalism, it is simpy adorable! We're never going to let go of you ever again. It's all way too sweet! Like a cute cuddly kitten, you can't escape my embrace no matter how much you struggle. :smitten:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

It's probably splitting hairs, but I'm curious: Wasn't the reason for the referendum in Ireland for the people to decide whether to amend their own constitution, which would inturn allow adoption of Lisbon - not a "yea" or 'Nay" on Lisbon itself?

If I got that right (and I'm not sure I have) that method of ratifying the treaty seems doomed from the start.

"Would you rather: 1) give up all sovreignity over your own affairs, in favour of Brussels dictating? Or

2) Keep everything the way it is now?"

Who in their right mind would pick #1? The maybe 5% one-worlders, perhaps, is my best guess. If Ireland's leadership wants to get this thing passed, their gonna have to figure our a better way of framing the question.

My :2cents: (now worth 27 Trln ZD's).

---

You are right that 'Lisbon', and all other treaties, can only gain effect after they have been ratified by each EU member. This means two things:

1) The EU can not proscribe anything. Each country can and must decide through its own, and its own alone, democratic process whether the Treaty will be accepted. There is no dictate.
2) The Treaty must be ratified by all. 26 to 1 means the treaty is off. So in daily speech, it is said that a 'no' vote is a no to the Treaty and its follow-ups.

Doomed from the start, then? Possibly. But there is no other way for a democratic union of 27 democratic states. The EU takes painstaking care not to intrude on the democratic prerogatives of its member states. Not because the 'EU' wants to, but because the EU does not wield any meaningful power itself. The EU is a collection of 27 independent states, each one jealously guarding its own position and interests.

This, btw, is one of the great hidden functions of the EU. National strife, nationalist aggression finds a means of expressing itself within and against the EU. It's a pressure valve, a jousting arena. The EU is a contuining process. This continuing process is the goal itself, instead of reaching any permanent state of integration - if the EU ever it achieves its goals, I want it immediately disbanded, to start the whole process back from the beginning.
To put it differently: when Europeans believe in an almighty kabal of Brussels bureaucrats, they don't believe in almighty Jews. So long as Berlusconi can put up his xenophobe shows in Europe, wave his fist in the air a bit, insult the people above the Alps, the Italians are satisfied - 'boy, did we show them good!!1'. This prevents, 'deflates', any impulse to invade Albania again. Likewise for the Poles, who had the opportunity to take out their frustration over their 20th century in the EU, instead of against internal scapegoats or external enemies.
Sheer bliss. ~;)

So yes, let Ireland stall EU integration for another fifty years. Because that's another fifty years of peace in Europe. Another fifty years of nationalist sentiment, of outrage, of paranoia that's blissfully diverted and deflated like a tire with too much air.


As for giving up sovereignity to the EU, let me use the example of NATO. Does a NATO member state 'surrender' its sovereignity, or does it protect and maintain its sovereignity through NATO? Surely, sovereignity over one's defense, the ability to wield independent militair power, are the first means and object of independence? Or...could it be that perhaps because members share a bit of their sovereignity that they are able to maintain it? That cooperation it is the very instrument through which they safeguard their democracy and independence?
Peculiarly, for defensive matters people will accept this mechanism. When it comes to the economy, agriculture, environment or the very stability of our democracies, the argument is strangely never accepted.

Hmmm... political treaty as subliminal pressure valve against (natural?) aggressive nationalism/expansionism.

I never thought of it that way before. Thanks, Louis.

Louis:

Just as an aside, the other 12 democracies forming the United States had to practically besiege Rhode Island before they would ratify. So it is not impossible for something good to come from a beginning that involved a bit of strong-arming (though I concede that this would NOT be the ideal tone).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

This, btw, is one of the great hidden functions of the EU. National strife, nationalist aggression finds a means of expressing itself within and against the EU. It's a pressure valve, a jousting arena. The EU is a contuining process. This continuing process is the goal itself, instead of reaching any permanent state of integration - if the EU ever it achieves its goals, I want it immediately disbanded, to start the whole process back from the beginning.
To put it differently: when Europeans believe in an almighty kabal of Brussels bureaucrats, they don't believe in almighty Jews. So long as Berlusconi can put up his xenophobe shows in Europe, wave his fist in the air a bit, insult the people above the Alps, the Italians are satisfied - 'boy, did we show them good!!1'. This prevents, 'deflates', any impulse to invade Albania again. Likewise for the Poles, who had the opportunity to take out their frustration over their 20th century in the EU, instead of against internal scapegoats or external enemies.
Sheer bliss. ~;)

As for giving up sovereignity to the EU, let me use the example of NATO. Does a NATO member state 'surrender' its sovereignity, or does it protect and maintain its sovereignity through NATO? Surely, sovereignity over one's defense, the ability to wield independent militair power, are the first means and object of independence? Or...could it be that perhaps because members share a bit of their sovereignity that they are able to maintain it? That cooperation it is the very instrument through which they safeguard their democracy and independence?
Peculiarly, for defensive matters people will accept this mechanism. When it comes to the economy, agriculture, environment or the very stability of our democracies, the argument is strangely never accepted.

---

I totally agree, it does act as an excellent pressure valve, and i agree one that functions best while the EU remains an evolving inter-state process between 27 separate nations.
One comment: Jolly good and please carry on, but the UK doesn't need it.

NATO is a defensive alliance, what we face with the EU is a common foreign policy. If Britain wants to invade somewhere I absolutely do not want it to have to ask permission to do so from Javier Solano.

The flaw, Louis, which you did recognize, is that one day the European Union will exist as a state. Then, where is the outlet? Conflict. What we have now may be alright, but what will we have in the future?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

If Britain wants to invade somewhere I absolutely do not want it to have to ask permission to do so from Javier Solano.

---

But you never did, nor does your particular opinion really care. It is one of the bad things of Representative Democracy. All it has to happen is for Gordon Brown to ask permission. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

I totally agree, it does act as an excellent pressure valve, and i agree one that functions best while the EU remains an evolving inter-state process between 27 separate nations.
One comment: Jolly good and please carry on, but the UK doesn't need it.

NATO is a defensive alliance, what we face with the EU is a common foreign policy. If Britain wants to invade somewhere I absolutely do not want it to have to ask permission to do so from Javier Solano.

---

I get the impressions that for you the whole EU issue always boils down to your great imperial right to kill people all over the world. :dizzy2:

An extensive poll study shortly after the Irish no vote revealed the following:

73% of the Irish consider EU membership to be a good thing.
63% of the 'no' voters consider EU membership to be a good thing.
(The European average is 52% in favour of the EU)
Only 18% of the Irish electorate wants to be less involved with the EU.

Yet, 53% of Irish voters voted 'no' to the Lisbon Treaty.

This is why there is every reason to try to reach a settlement. Even among the no voters, two-thirds are of the opinion that the EU is beneficial to Ireland. Yet, it is also clear that the EU can not function properly without a streamlining of its institutions and functioning.

The EU went from fifteen to twenty-seven members in 2004. Simultanously, to help the EU cope with this, a new set of treaties was supposed to go into effect. The first happened, the latter didn't. This is the heart of the problem.
If one is against the EU, there is reason to support this ongoing situation, whereby the EU can not function properly. If one is in favour of the EU, as three-quarters of the Irish are, then there is every reason to try to find a way out.

Preferably, what we need, is a new Irish government, with new energy and charisma, that enjoys the support of the electorate. One that can a) negotiate for Ireland the main provisions and concessions that are sought by the no-camp. And, b) that can on the basis of this present a clear and coherent argument for a yes vote based on the Irish interest in a functioning EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

There are some concessions being offered that may make the Lisbon Treaty more palatable. Until I see what these are, I cannot make much of a comment.

---

The problem is that Ireland, the no-camp, does not have one or two clear demands that can be negotiated over. There's a whole array of demands, not all of them straightforward:

Quote:

---

The farmers, who have received two thirds of Ireland's EU subsidies, argue that their handouts will be drastically cut, devastating rural areas.

Pro-life groups say Ireland will be forced to relax its abortion laws, pacifists say Ireland's cherished neutrality will be in danger because of provisions for a European army, and patriots say Ireland will be giving up the independence it fought so hard for less than 100 years ago.

On top of all that, there are fears that a centralised taxation system will mean the end of Ireland's favourable 12.5 per cent corporation tax (compared with the UK's 28 per cent), which has helped attract so many businesses.

---

Most of these can be negotiated over. Other countries have received specific exemptions too. For example, the UK and Poland demanded that European human rights must not be applicable to their subjects, so they were given exemption status. Likewise, if Ireland fears for liberal abortion laws, then maybe Ireland can seek exemption status from women's rights provisions.

However, any concession over each of these issues, will also reduce the support for the 'yes' camp. If the EU promises more handouts to Irish farmers, it will lose support too. Even so, there seems to be no other option but for concessions.

If I were a pro-EU strategist, I would urge the EU to remain completely absent from any Irish debate.

Instead, I'd invite in all the no-camps from Europe. Bring in the UKIP, let them tell the Irish that they should vote no. Bring in the Polish nationalists, let them spout threats to any Irishman who even considers voting yes. The 'no-camp' must be made to look to be the camp of vested interests, of foreign interference, of arrogance, to be the camp telling Ireland what to vote. Whereas the 'yes-camp' should present itself as the calm, rational, Irish camp that has formulated clear, traditional Irish interests and that seeks to maintain them in the face of foreign interventions.

This in a reversal of what happened during the last referendum. Where the no-camp managed to spin the referendum into an 'arrogant foreigners telling Ireland what to do' versus 'Irish resistance'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

But you never did, nor does your particular opinion really care. It is one of the bad things of Representative Democracy. All it has to happen is for Gordon Brown to ask permission. :P

---

but that will change with a common foreign policy.

Quote:

---

This in a reversal of what happened during the last referendum. Where the no-camp managed to spin the referendum into an 'arrogant foreigners telling Ireland what to do' versus 'Irish resistance'.

---

Damn , and there was me thinking that what the no-camp were able to spin was the yes camp saying vote "yes" but not being able to say why because they hadn't even read the bloody treaty , and then following up with the idiocy of "The EU as it was set up has been beneficial to Ireland , vote yes to change the way it is set up" .
So when you add that to the aftermath of the last second re-run of a referendum vote where the majority who I have met who voted "Yes" loudly complain about what has happened due to that treaty and where they didn't have the faintest idea what they were voting for but were bamboozled by the governments "neutral and balanced representation" where yes meant no which means yes and no and no means no but yes and no .
So it isn't so much the arrogant foriegners Louis it is the arrogant gobshites in the Irish government .

I am Pro-EU. And it is because I am Pro-EU that I vote no in the French one (referendum). Referendum superbly ignored by Sarkozy the 1st mind you.
If Chavez would have done that, it would have been a blockade and big and long speeches at the UN to condemn this.
But, nothing.... What a good example of democracy and good governance we try to sell to the rest of the world… Ignore “vox populi vox dei” these plebeians ignore what is good for them.
I was dreaming of other Europe.

I'm a bit surprised no one opened a thread about the irish gov's decision to make people vote again for (or against) the EU constitutionnal treaty.

To my eyes it's a shame to try to push laws down the throat of the population and definitely hope our fellow hibernians will tell their technocrats to p*** off.

Just my two cents....

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=110348

:wink:

Opinion noted. Threads merged. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

I vote no in the French one (referendum). Referendum superbly ignored by Sarkozy the 1st mind you.

Ignore “vox populi vox dei” these plebeians ignore what is good for them. I was dreaming of other Europe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristuskhan

To my eyes it's a shame to try to push laws down the throat of the population and definitely hope our fellow hibernians will tell their technocrats to p*** off.

---

Pft. Ever since 2005 and all the way up to the election Sarkozy made it abundantly clear that he would strive for a mini-treaty, to be ratified by parliament. He was duly elected. This is the democratic legitimation. It's got nothing to do with Europe. You guys simply lost the national elections.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperSarko

Je proposerai à nos partenaires de nous mettre d’accord sur un traité simplifié qui reprendra les dispositions du projet de traité constitutionnel nécessaires pour que l’Europe puisse se remettre en marche qui n’ont pas suscité de désaccord majeur durant la campagne référendaire.

Ce traité simplifié, de nature institutionnelle, sera soumis pour ratification au Parlement. Il permettra de faire en sorte que nous puissions de nouveau parler ensemble, décider ensemble, construire ensemble.

---

Sarkozy's European programme in brief. The phenomenal thing about Sarkozy is that he's a politician who outlined in great detail exactly what he intended to do once elected. Everybody knew what he was about. What's more, after the election he actually went and did all that he said he would do. This gives him a tremendous mandate and political legitimization.

Je suis vraiment désolé, mes amis! https://img242.imageshack.us/img242/6087/cul2ua1.gif

Meh, what a bunch of :daisy: guarantees are offered to Ireland. Continued tax haven status for corporations, avoidance of military obligations and a near complete ban on abortion. :shame:


Here are my thoughts on them:

It's 2008, not 1922. Just join NATO, like other responsible and developed democracies.
It's 2008, stop prosecuting raped fourteen year-olds who seek to abort their uncle's baby as if you're Saudi Arabia.
It's 2008, get to the fact that bending over backwards to the whims of corporations has got the capitalist world into major trouble.


Oh well, whatever it takes.

Quote:

---

as regards all member states, nothing in the Lisbon treaty makes any change of any kind to the extent or operation of the Union’s competence in relation to taxation;

the Lisbon treaty does not prejudice the security and defence policy of member states, including Ireland’s traditional policy of neutrality, and the obligations of most other member states;

a guarantee that the provisions of the Irish constitution concerning the right to life, education and the family are wholly unaffected by the conferral of legal status on the EU charter of fundamental rights by the Lisbon treaty and by the justice and home affairs provision of the treaty.

---

Well, Irish are gonna be asked to vote until they get it right, which means until they say yes. Better do it now and get it over with or it's gonna ruin more of your weekends...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

This is the democratic legitimation.

---

Not really. Voting for someone doesn't mean you automatically agree with all of their policies. If someone did, I would actually be rather frightened. It would prove that people actually do decide based on political advertisements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

It's 2008, not 1922. Just join NATO, like other responsible and developed democracies.
It's 2008, stop prosecuting raped fourteen year-olds who seek to abort their uncle's baby as if you're Saudi Arabia.
It's 2008, get to the fact that bending over backwards to the whims of corporations has got the capitalist world into major trouble.

---

Daft, but their choice
Daft, but their choice
Still labouring under the wrong-headed idea that ireland is rich because of EU subsidies, which they then ungratefully throw back in the faces of generous continental taxpayers by undercutting them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Well, Irish are gonna be asked to vote until they get it right, which means until they say yes. Better do it now and get it over with or it's gonna ruin more of your weekends...

---

My weekend? Ireland has ruined my century. ~:mecry:

Also, would I be completely wrong in assuming that you are still a trifle dismayed over my qualification of the Orthodox Balkan world as 'Mars, from where we're sitting'? ~;)

Maybe my deliberately inflammatory qualification buried the thought-provoking point there. Namely, that unless one is a proponent of a global government, there must be geographical and political limit to the EU. Even we internationalists have one, that is, you and I both. My EU ends at the Mediterranean, the Bosporus and the Russian border. Politically, it ends at a confederation. Your EU ends somewhere too. I shall assume you do not want a full federation with Pakistan and Sudan.
The point is, that we can discuss the desired extent of the political and geographical limits. But we can not discuss their existence itself, or claim any moral highground against those with smaller geographical or political limits to the EU.