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

[Louis VI the Fat]

Section II, Article 20, Line 2. Point on the matter. The lack of a referendum may not be unconstitutional, but the Treaty itself?

The government should ask the people. They should care. Merkel doesn't - and she certainly won't receive my vote.

the German Federal constitution has no provision for referendums. The constitution will have to be amended to allow for a referendum.

Alas, Section II, Article 20, Line 2 does not provide for a referendum at the federal level. At the provincial level, referendums are provided for.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

the German Federal constitution has no provision for referendums. The constitution will have to be amended to allow for a referendum.

It is rather ironic that the provision that was supposed to save us from a totalitarian transition has led us to accept one without choice.

Alas, Section II, Article 20, Line 2 does not provide for a referendum at the federal level.

Yes, you are correct. However, it does practically make the entire Lisbon Treaty unconstitutional.

Don't be daft EMFM, no one was stopping you from getting elected to Chancellor

Who knows, perhaps I'll consider running.

[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 (now worth 27 Trln ZD's).

[LittleGrizzly]

Who in their right mind would pick #1? The maybe 5% one-worlders, perhaps, is my best guess.

The vote was fairly close so obviously quite a few people

I have never got the whole why would you want to be ruled by Brussels comment.... As if somehow londoners or dubliners are much better equipped

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?

I thought it was on the lisbon treaty itself, which is why the thing is being reworked, if they had said no oto a europoean constitution because it wasn't thier own the rest of the eu could have just gone ahead as ireland obviousoly didnt want in.... though im not sure....

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

This annoy's me, plenty of people have said it so its not a go at you kurki

Does Washington dictate to all of america ? or is it simply where the political houses are housed ?

Brussels doesn't decide the direction of the eu, the eu does that through eu parliment and european leaders, obviously you give up a portion of control to be part of this union, i suppose you could call the choice this... direct control over your little power or shared control over a far greater power...

That being said you probably lose some control by not being a member, think usa to britian, were greatly affected by your huge power but have no influence over it, or we could have a small influence on it but lose some control over our own power....

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Brussels is simply an alternate phrase for the European Parliament, just as Ottawa is for the Canadian Parliament, Washington for the American Congress, Berlin for the Bundestag/Bundesrat, and Moscow for Russia.

[JAG]

Hopefully they get it right this time.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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 (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.

[KukriKhan]

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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).

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Daft, but their choice

Daft indeed.

As for 'their choice', let me give you all my careful, balanced opinion about Irish free choice. How shall I phrase it so as not to come across as too crass? Ah, here you go:

Edit: The previous statement here was, upon reflection, not a good idea. Edited to 'the rights of Irish women are my concern'.

I am too pro-choice to consider it NOT their choice, that is, of individual Irish women. To repeat my old argument: the rights of women are always relegated to second rank. In this case, to inflated demands of national sovereignity.

Human rights anywere in the world are the concern of all. Saudi-Arabia can not give a raped teenage girl the lash. Ireland can not lock up raped fourteen-year old girls either.
I do not remain silent in the face of religious fundamentalism. Five hundred threads about evil Muslims on the .org but when it happens in the EU, apparantly we must remain silent or we'll be accused of being undemocratic, imperialist, fascist and arrogant.

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?

Nope.

Ireland is rich because it understood its position in 1985: an English speaking country, with a well-educated workforce, combined with low-wages and full acces to the world's largest market. How good can it possibly get?
Any direct EU subsidies merely served to make a 'take-off' possible, and to speed up development.

Irish corporate tax regime is intimitately connected with its position within the EU. It can not be understood outside of it. Switzerland's banking secret can not be understood outside a context of Switzerland's neutrality, stability, geo-political position and the existense of a world outside of Switzeland. The absense of income tax in Monaco, the tax regime of the Caymans, none can not understood without their outside working.

[Sarmatian]

My weekend? Ireland has ruined my century.

Weekends for the Irish. They'll have to do it until yes wins. So, 6 months from now again they'll have to go out to vote if they say no etc...

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'?

Yep, completely wrong. It probably would have had a major effect some 5 years ago when I wanted western Europeans to accept us from the "Orthodox Balkans" as you put it, and was actually always making an effort to leave a good impression, either in person or on the internet. You know how people are fond of stereotypes, so my logic was if I'm the first Serb they met or talked to and I leave a good impression, they'll generally extend that favourable impression to all Serbs. But, now, I couldn't give an intercourse what western Europeans think about Serbs or Serbia and I'm against Serbia becoming an EU member, for many reasons... So if Serbia ever gets close to becoming a member, I would be the guy on the streets demanding a referendum about that (if politicians suddenly decide that only a parliament decision is enough) and spend much of my time convincing people to vote No. Free trade, free flow of ideas, capital, all that stuff can be achieved without becoming a member...

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.

There are certain thing in motion and things are gonna have to change. European nations are falling behind, and it's going to continue. The only remotely sustainable solution is greater federalization of Europe. It might not be my or your thing, but it has to happen and most probably it's gonna happen. Considering limits, I have a bit of a "De Gaullic" view of Europe - from Atlantic to the Urals. Any kind of unification of Europe not involving Russia and to a much lesser extent Turkey is flawed. That doesn't mean that Russia has to be a member per se, but some kind of close cooperation will have to exist. Seeing EU as something to limit or entirely remove Russia's influence is flawed and unsustainable and will bring more problems than it solves.

[JR-]

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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?

[Jolt]

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

[JR-]

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.

[Husar]

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.