Could the Irish scupper the Lisbon Treaty?
I watched several MPs in the Commons argue that there shouldn鈥檛 be a referendum because people wouldn鈥檛 read the Lisbon Treaty.
It鈥檚 something I discussed on the Jeremy Vine Show and it鈥檚 certainly true that it鈥檚 a difficult and abstruse document.
But clearly credits its people with more intelligence and has published legislation to go ahead with a vote on the treaty.
No date yet, but the rumour is will announce it during next week鈥檚 European summit.
While European politicians were most nervous about the prospect of a British referendum, an Irish 鈥淣o鈥 is not an impossibility.
Of course, . The Irish government broadly blamed it on a lack of time spent campaigning and will not make the same mistake again.
Although after the Nice 鈥淣o鈥 , I am pretty sure that would be impossible in the current climate.
So an Irish 鈥淣o鈥 would be a very serious business. It would surely kill off the treaty of Lisbon, as surely as the .
Which would leave the leaders of the EU is a very tricky position: would they really spend the next two years trying to tweak the text again so that it looked sufficiently different, to go through the whole process again?
Rejection signs?
Some are already suggesting the foundations for rejections are there.
that shows 33% of voters are undecided.
lists more factors that could encourage a 鈥淣o鈥 vote: from the investigation into the financial affairs of Bertie Ahern, which may make the government unpopular, to the Irish Independent reprinting articles from the Daily Telegraph (although it wrongly states the Telegraph doesn鈥檛 have a correspondent in Brussels).
In Ireland, the argument is already underway. campaigning against the treaty. Its arguments are not the traditional British ones about sovereignty and an increase in the power of 鈥淏russels鈥 but about hard economics.
Their argument is the contention that: 鈥淭he threat of the Treaty provisions is that the EU could force Ireland to behave like a 鈥榬ich鈥 economy in terms of regulatory and other breaks for Foreign Direct Investment. The implications of this are potentially devastating.鈥
Tax veto
has hit back, saying the Reform Treaty preserves the existing treaty arrangements whereby taxation matters must be decided by unanimous vote.
He says taxation matters are and will remain a decision for member states: any member state can veto any proposal on taxation.
He adds: 鈥淲e need to ask ourselves what message a No vote would send to the US boardrooms where investment decisions are made. If we are seen to park Ireland in some Eurosceptic backwater, what message will we be sending out?鈥
but things always get more lively when a whole nation is involved, and this is going to be an interesting debate to watch.
I鈥檓 Mark Mardell, the 大象传媒's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Ireland say "no"! We are counting on you! The Uk are not able to have our
referendum!
VOTE NO!
The Irish govt is required to hold the referendum. It has nothing to do with giving the population credit to decide. They'd avoid doing it if they could.
Please Ireland - help save British Sovereignty. (Oh, the irony of it all!)
The European Union needs reform. A rejection of the Lisbon Treaty will create a political crisis as never seen before in the last decades. However, I don't think that the Irish voters will reject the Lisbon Treaty. The European Union has generated and is generating a lot of the welfare in Ireland. Because of the Union Ireland is rich.
The problem with a referendum is that people often don't now what they are voting about. For examle: the main reason why the Dutch and French voters rejected the constitution was because they were unhappy with their governments. They were not against the constitution. As long people do not now what's actually in the Lisbon Treaty they should not have a vote on it.
It's not a case of the crediting the
people with more intelligence; a
referendum is a constitutional obligation
the government would no doubt prefer not
to have.
The Irish government is obliged by the Irish Constitution to hold a referendum on issue like this - it's not a matter of political choice as implied above. The way it's put above implies a direct slight on the British public by their government.
Hi Mark. Glad you liked the piece. FYI: its the _Centre_ for European Reform. Hugo
Whatever the result of the Irish Referendum, it will make no difference to the european project, they have already thought of that and have determined with a vote of MEP's including the British Conservatives, who are pro european to the core, that the Lisbon Treaty will go ahead, with or without the Irish voters.. nothing stands in their way.. One President,One Foreign Policy and no chance for any region, like Britain , to leave. Provinces that once again wish to determine their own futures and tax levels, will have to apply to leave, and be voted out by the other regions, Just what level of bloodshed they would consider as being enough to warrent expulsion, they don't stipulate.
This Lisbon Treaty is the last slice of the salami, it has the string still attached to hang Westminster by.
Here is the vote;
The basis of the debate was the so called "Corbett-de Vigo Report on the Lisbon Treaty", and there were amendments to this report, which had to be voted on before the whole treaty was put to a vote.
One of these amendments - Amendment No. 32 - asked that the European Parliament "undertake to respect the outcome of the referendum in Ireland."
In other words: Should the European Parliament respect the result of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, which is likely to be held in June 2008?
This amendment was rejected by 499 MEPs. Only 129 voted in favour of this motion and 33 abstained.
iTS AMAZING THAT THIS IS NOT ON EVERY FRONT PAGE.... PERHAPS NOBODY NOTICED THAT THEY LOST THEIR ENTIRE COUNTRY.
[I'm not sure if this went through the first time. So I'll try it once more. My apologies if you get it twice.]
The argument that "The People are all too stupid and wouldn't read the fine print" is one that is often trotted out by those opposed to democracy.
However, in practice, directly democratic systems operate in the same way as parliamentary systems. In a parliamentary system it is not feasible for every backbencher to study every issue in depth. Instead parliamentary committees and party committees study issues and make recommendations to members of their party on how to vote.
This is precisely how directly democractic systems work. Parliamentarians do the same job of studying issues and making public recommendations to the voters. Indeed, under Article 139 of the Swiss constitution, Parliament is obliged to make such a recommendation before every referendum, and in practice the various parties make their own. Voters - just like backbenchers - use these recommendations to help inform their decision.
The "Stinking Masses are too stupid" argument also suffers from a more philosophical flaw. It presupposes that there are "right" and "wrong" answers to questions of this type. In reality, contentious issues do not have right and wrong answers; the are matters of opinion. This mat be seen from the fact that even Parliamentarians vote in opposite ways.
There is no Cosmic Teachers's Guide - with all the "right" answers in the back - which is handed to the professional politicians, but not to the People.
If the People wanted professional politicians to have a monopoly on political power, they could vote for such a thing in a referendum. But, in all of British history, there has never been such a referendum.
It is important to point out that it is not the Irish Government that decided to hold a referendum, but the Irish Constitution. I believe that Irish people will educate themselves to the contents of the treaty and make up their own mind based on sound judgement, rather than rampant scepticism about the EUs institutions, borne from constant suspicion driven by the media (as we see in Britain). That is why it is a good decision to not allow a referendum on the treaty in the UK.
If the Irish are looking to the US for investment are they not looking the wrong way? I have been lead to believe through press "coverage" that the new money is either Chinese, Indian or Russian.
I say yes there should be a referendum on the condition that both texts are published in full & the differences between them are highlighted.
I have downloaded both documents & find them almost totally incomprehensible as I cannot directly compare them.
To my mind this suggests fire obscured by a lot of smoke.
The message that an Irish 鈥渘o鈥 vote would send to US multinationals is that Ireland is the last democratic state in Europe with a constitution inspired by the same principles that guided James Madison to ensure the legislative power of the American people cannot be transferred outside Congress. The Irish state was formed in 1921 to assert that the Irish people are a nation that would not be subject to majority decisions in Westminster that they as a people do not agree with. The fundamental issue at stake now is the same, i.e. if the Irish agree today that henceforth they will in almost all policy areas agree to be bound by majority decisions of the EU Council of Ministers including those that a majority of the Irish are against.
Even in those few areas where a national veto remains Dick Roche is incorrect to say that decisions will remain a matter for nation-states. This is because once an EU decision is taken under unanimity subsequent changes can only be initiated by the EU Commission meaning Irish voters will permanently lose the ability to shape that policy area through the ballot box. The French have elected two presidents (Chirac and Sarkozy) with a mandate to reduce Value Added Tax on restaurant bills which neither has been able to implement due to an earlier EU decision agreed to by their predecessor, President Mitterrand.
The Irish will be subject to intense pressure to persuade them that the whole of Europe wants them to approve this treaty. This is an outright lie propagated by the political elites. If the Irish vote this treaty down the Guinness taps will run dry from Glasgow to Athens and the peoples of Europe will be dancing Irish jigs of joy in the streets.
There is no doubt the EU-philes will lie, intimidate, harass and bully the Irish into voting yes. The EU-philes are not going to abandon their plan to eliminate national parliamentary democracy and establish rule by decree by an unelected unaccountable class just like that.
But there is still some hope for democracy, freedom and liberty. Ironically enough it comes from the British upper house which could also block this anti-democratic treaty. Folks our parliamentary democracies are still alive!
Come on the Irish - as least show the UK that your politicians honour their promises. Even better - please vote 'NO' to scupper the EU again
Whether the Irish get it right or wrong depends upon your point of view but they at least will have had an opportunity to influence their future. That liberty has already been denied to the vast majority of EU residents.
When MPs are ordered how to vote then we have gone past the post-democracy stage and are rapidly heading towards the sort of despotic regime that we purport to deplore in other parts of the world.
When will the Irish (or indeed any other nation) be given another chance to vote again on any of the treaties or the Euro, to which they have said Yes?
You never know, this time they might say No!
It seems that de'mock'racy in the EU is one way only - and you are allowed as many votes as necessary to get it 'right' and then never allowed to vote on that issue again
I do not know anything about this treaty other than I read in the newspaper or hear on the news.
It is fairly obvious that we are no longer living in a free democracy as we are bering dictated to and not governed.
We should have been allowed to voice our views.
When the next Election the government should pay the price.
The new leader of the of the Liberal Democrats also appear to want to dictate.
Things need to get back to some sort of normality.
What irony!
The Irish Republicans spent so many years fighting to free themselves from London rule and are now about to sign up voluntarily to be ruled by an even more distant Brussels!
De Valera must be spinning in his grave at the thought of being under the thumb of an undemocratic continental master.
How even more ironic if A Blair Esq. becomes their 'real' president.
How long before the Irish people wake up to the full ramifications of this 'treaty' and the bits to follow that haven't been decided yet . . .
Quote: "But the Irish government clearly credits its people with more intelligence and has published legislation to go ahead with a vote on the treaty."
This is a completely misleading statement and I am surprised at Mark Mardell for making it. It smacks of a cheap shot at the British government actually.
Having a referendum has nothing to do with the intelligence of us Irish voters. The Irish government simply doesn't have a choice in the matter. Our constitution mandates a referendum for such treaties. We have voted on every treaty change since we entered the EEC in 1973.
Believe me, at this stage if the Irish government could have avoided this they would have. Because the article is correct in saying that this vote could be used by people as a way of expressing their disapproval with the current government whose ratings have dropped hugely in the six months since they were elected.
I still think the treaty will be passed though but the margin may be quite tight.
The referendum is not being held out of choice, or high esteem of the ability of the voters to understand complex issues. A Supreme Court decision about 20 years ago effectively means that we have to have a referendum for every EU amending treaty.
Irish people tend to be individualistic, against authority, and are easily swayed by UK eurosceptic type headlines to nurture an undefined resentment against Brussels. Now that we are a high-income country, there are not the high levels of cash coming from the EU. There is a very high risk that it will be defeated.
Mark,
You are quite correct in saying that we will be having a referendum on the Lisbon Reform Treaty here in Ireland - however, the reason for this referendum is that it is a constitutional requirement - hence the reason we have had national referenda on the Single European Act, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and now Lisbon. On the issue of opinion polls, most polls are somewhat premature as we still don't have a date for the referendum - however, the last opinion poll published showed 46% in favour, 23% against and 31% undecided - somewhat different to Euractive's data.
Regarding issues of sovereignty in the economic sphere, unfortunately, certain groups, on both the right and the left, are trading on scare mongering that has no basis in the Treaty itself. The issues that are being trotted out are the same issues that we heard prior to Nice and every other referendum. There are claims that Europe is undemocratic, that the treaty gives too much power to Brussels, that it is a bad deal for Ireland, that it gives the green light to tax harmonisation. These claims are as groundless now as they have been in the past: with regard to corporation tax, for instance, Ireland specifically retains its right to veto any incursions in this direction.
The Lisbon Reform Treaty is not very exciting. It is, ultimately, about efficiency; about the procedures with which the European Union will operate as an entity of 27 members with different cultures, different aspirations, different economies, different styles of government.
For the European Union to survive and prosper in the long term, and for Ireland to continue playing an integral part in that prosperity, the institutions that govern the Union must be reformed to operate efficiently, practically, economically and effectively. The Treaty of Lisbon is an ambitious, balanced deal, comprehensive and durable deal.
I don't think that "the Irish government clearly credits its people with more intelligence" - I think they're bound by their country's constitution to hold a referendum. I wonder if boatloads of UK eurosceptics are about to descend on Ireland, I guess they'd have to hold their noses when paying for stuff in euros...
PS did you hear David Davis (or is it Davies) admitting that he hadn't read the treaty but still jknew he didn't like it?
But the Irish government clearly credits its people with more intelligence.....
Actually they dont credit us with more intelligence they are forced to have a referendum under Irish law due to a case called the Crotty Judgement if they had their way they would,nt bother.
You can cast iron guarantee that if the Irish say no and temporarily halt the euro gravy train juggernaught then it WILL come back in a few years in almost exactly the same form
That is what the EU do !!!
They need to find a reason to exist, to justify all the freeloading MEP's and their army of thousands entourage and champagne and truffle dinners. Most of which are either failed or washed up politicians from their own countries who were rejected and end up on the door at Brussels ( The Kinnock Family, Peter Mandleson, John Prescott etc... the list goes on )
If they don't like the answer they get back from the proles then by hook or by crook they will get their own twisted way in the end as " we didn't vote the 'correct' way the last time "
The Irish are only holding a referendum because they are constitutionally bound to, something which won't happen again on such matters, as the Lisbon treaty allows the EU to amend old and introduce new treaties without anything having to be ratified by member states
That isn't democracy but dictatorship in my book as the electorate will have no say in such matters and all national parliaments are effectually just a pantomime theatre stage show, merely acting out to each member state the dictat from Brussels.
Free trade between member states is always a good thing and what was originally signed up for, we didn't sign up however to having 80%+ of all laws passed coming from an unaccountable, corrupt, faceless regime based overseas.
A quick look at any history book will quickly tell you that no regime that ignores it's people and rides roughshod over them is destined for long as I fear will happen with the EU.
Come on the Irish - at least your politicians will give you a say. It will be even better if you say 'no' and reject this stepping stone towards a federal, unelected and unaccountable eu.
Every French person got a free copy of the constitutional treaty which arguably was much easier to read than the Lisbon treaty text (and much better explained to them in a very long campaign).
Still, they voted no and almost everyone agrees that this no was not based on anything in the treaty. It was a wild combination of factors, largely unrelated to the question asked. There was even a significant part of no-voters who found the treaty lacking ambition - they wanted more European integration!
This is the dilemma of referenda: They can never be about complex issues as there are no simple answers to complex questions (as Norbert Wiener has scientifically shown).
Obviously, the future of Europe IS a complex question. The poor Irish have an impossible task. This is why some people are trying to make the thing very simple: Yes or no to Irish neutrality, yes or no to tax harmonisation etc..
But none of this flows from the Lisbon treaty and we will see a vote that does not allow us to conclude anything (except whether the treaty is dead or not).
I would have two pieces of advise for the Irish voters:
1. Do you think that Ireland has profited from the EU or not? Base you vote on this simple assessment.
2. Do you think that the Irish people with the same population as the City of Berlin have the moral right to decide alone on the future of 500 Million Europeans?
It is not that the Irish goverment credits us with more intelligence, rather the goverment is obliged by our constitution to hold a referendum on any matter which would lead to changes in that same constitution. As far as I know we are the only EU country with this obligation and hence the only country holding a popular vote on the Lisbon treaty.
As for the likely outcome - well we Irish are essentially a very pragmatic people!
The Irish governement does not have a choice on whether to hold a referendum, under the Irish constitution it must. No don't it would prefer for domestic reasons not to go to the peolpe to decide, as referenda are notoriously difficult to get people to focus on the question in hand. As case in point the first No vote for the Nice treaty.
The Irish Governemnt is not having the referendum out of choice but is compelled by virtue of a Supreme Court decision about twenty years ago.
While Bertie Ahern was, like Tony Blair for many years, much more popular than his party, his unbelievable explanations for large amounts of cash he received in the '90s have undermined his authority and his credibility. It will also make it difficult for the other political parties to cooperate with him in getting the Treaty approved.
Now that Ireland no longer receives the substantial cash transfers from the EU, a large number of people take a typically individualistic attitude to the EU. While Irish Euroscepticism is different to the UK variety, it responds to the same anti-Brussels media stories.
There is quite a danger that apathy, dislike for the government and a parochial attitude to the EU will cause another fine mess.
It's not Bertie Ahern's belief in the intelligence of the Irish Public that is allowing for this referendum, but the written constitution. As the treaty is an addition to the constitution, it must be approved by a referendum (as do all constitutional amendments). I'm sure if Bertie had his way it would be ploughed through parliament as well..
Mark - when you say the Irish government is crediting its people with more intelligence, I think you are confusing a legal constitutional requirement to hold a referendum with a voluntary decision to do so. In his present predicament - and with his own hopes of Euro-preferment - a referendum is the last thing the Taoiseach wants!
Mark Mardell said:
"Its [i.e. Ireland's Libertas organisation] arguments are not the traditional British ones about sovereignty and an increase in the power of 鈥淏russels鈥 but about hard economics."
What tosh you write - have you even bothered to look at the Libertas website?
It does what the UK failed to do: it publishes real information about the Machiavellian nature of the EU beast.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
- Sir Winston Churchill
Politicians are elected for their supposed ability to sort these things out for us. I'm pretty sure that most people voting in a referendum wouldn't really have the first clue about what they were really voting about. With the Eurosceptics always using the politics of fear to try and rubbish Europe and with a print media that is largely anti-EU, I am glad that we will not have a referendum in Britain. Such a vote would have been amidst a totally biased argument in which virtually every newspaper bar perhaps two would be urging people to thwart the opportunity to progress the greatest political project in the world since the end of the Second World War. I hope The Treaty of Lisbon will be approved by the Irish people though I presume this largely depends on the popularity of the present government there.
Nevertheless, I am glad Gordon Brown did not take us down the road of a referendum. Referendums are often the hidden thorns of democracy.
"In Ireland, the argument is ... not the traditional British ones about sovereignty and an increase in the power of 鈥淏russels鈥 but about hard economics."
"Their argument is the contention that: 鈥淭he threat of the Treaty provisions is that the EU could force Ireland to behave like a 鈥榬ich鈥 economy in terms of regulatory and other breaks for Foreign Direct Investment. The implications of this are potentially devastating.鈥"
Actually the two arguments are one and the same. Sovereignty confers the power to tax. When control over the power to tax is ceded, so is sovereignty and visa versa.
So when you are no longer poor but are now rich, the principle of robbing from the rich to give to the poor doesn't look so attractive anymore. That's how the European invention of socialism and re-engineering of society began, with Robin Hood, wasn't it? Ireland's philosophy seems to be; do unto others and then don't let others do unto you, especially when you finally have some gold in your own pot at the end of the rainbow. Better watch it Ireland, looking out for numero uno may get you a reputation of thinking like those rich Americans. Now we wouldn't want that to happen, would we?
Surely any cynical discussion surrounding Ireland's beneficial relationship with the EEC to EU is wasted air as it has been such a mutually beneficial relationship, both politically and in measure of expertise shared.
Most continental European partners would embrace Ireland's rise to modernity on the barge or Euro-Gallic stewardship. And Ireland remains a great friend of Europe in it's ever post-colonial freedom from Britain. Let them vote, let them find 'a' way...
Surely any cynical discussion surrounding Ireland's beneficial relationship with the EEC to EU is wasted air as it has been such a mutually beneficial relationship, both politically and in measure of expertise shared.
Most continental European partners would embrace Ireland's rise to modernity on the barge or Euro-Gallic stewardship. And Ireland remains a great friend of Europe in it's ever post-colonial freedom from Britain. Let them vote, let them find 'a' way...
In answer to "Hughes Views", yes, I did hear David Davies say that he hadn't read the treaty but still knew that he didn't like it. I also heard Ken Clarke, some time ago, boast that he hadn't read the Maastricht treaty, but he still voted for it. And can "Hughes Views" tell us how many MPs who voted for or against the referendum, have read the Lisbon treaty?
When did the British (and I use the term loosely) become so obsessed with referendums? Could it just be that the Europhobes have little to complain about in the actual Treaty so they are harping on about processes instead. At least with Maastricht there was some genuine debate.
I must admit though, I do find it tremendously ironic that some British people are telling the Irish that they need to vote "no" for their own bigoted reasons. It would be interesting to see how the Irish react to UKIP using their rights of free movement to come and tell the Irish what to do...
I dont think that there will be much of a protest vote against Ahern in the treaty referendum as the treaty has the support of all the main parties bar Sinn Fein. The main reasons for people voting no are usually about neutrality but the tax sovereignty issue is becoming more prevelent.
But the key to the referendum will be the turnout. If it is low then a defeat is possible. In the first referendum only 30% or so of people voted and the turn out much higher in the second referendum. The number of people who voted no was roughly the same in both referenda.
What more proof could anyone need that Europe is NOT in any real sense ruled by democracy than that not only won't governments allow a public referendum on a matter as crucial to their interests and welfare as how they are governed, who governs them, under what laws, and who has a say in making those laws but that there is no public debate among the politicians, no insistance among the large masses of voters that there must be a public debate and a vote, and many are either indifferent or agree with the notion of ceding what little local control they have over their own fate to others far removed from knowledge of their desires and needs or their own best interests.
This is why Europe will be in perpetual conflict with the US. Americans reject the entire philosophy Europe is and always has been governed by in one way or another and would impose on America on an international scale. Were it not for the common threats of the past, fascism, Nazism, Communism (many West Europeans didn't even recognize Communism as a threat to what little democracy they had) and now militant Islam, the US would likely be at war with Europe. And in many ways such as trade, it already is.
Find any English bank account for Bertie and scupper the treaty.
"Ronald Gr眉nebaum wrote:Do you think that the Irish people with the same population as the City of Berlin have the moral right to decide alone on the future of 500 Million Europeans?"
Let me ask this, do the elected representatives of 500 milion have the moral right to decide on the future of the Irish?
Say'NO'to the EU and save yourselves a world of heartache. Irish Independence happened over 80 years ago. Remember the pain caused to get home rule. Don't yolk yourselves to the EU. It will keep taking until there's nothing left, while they hand a fraction of your own money back to you like some grace and favour from on high. Put parties aside and your country first: Stay free.
Haha, I wonder how many of the above posters actually read the discussion before they post.
Incidentally, did you know it is not the Irish government that decides to have a referendum? They are obliged to by the constitution!
I hope Ireland votes no. I am unable to vote because I am in Catalunya, and unable to vote here also. And even though it is not cool or trendy to say it, I would vote no because I disagree with the tightening of civil liberties, the right-wing drift in politics, and the super-state-mentality of Europe. We should be associates not siblings.
I want to be able to live in a world where I can do more or less what I want so long as I don't hurt anyone. What is so wrong with that? People love to pick apart other people's dreams, but these things are possible. Please don't buy into "the politicians said" stories. Use your brain. You do have one.
If this article has the right of it, then there is little point in an Irish referendum beyond showing the EU for what it really is:
Please scroll down to:''EU Parliament votes not to take any notice of the people's wishes'' To read the article.
1) Even if I am an ignorant little slob who has no intention of reading the new constitutional proposal (oops, sorry, it's a treaty), I'm still supposed to get a vote. By the way, how many of the MPs have read it? Not that it matters since they are going to be whipped into how to vote anyway.
2) I am broadly in favour of Europe as an economic unifying force, but I just don't want my any more of my dwindling rights handed to a self-perpetuating bureaucracy.
33. At 12:49 AM on 08 Mar 2008, Justin wrote:
"I am glad that we will not have a referendum in Britain. Such a vote would have been amidst a totally biased argument in which virtually every newspaper bar perhaps two would be urging people to thwart the opportunity to progress the greatest political project in the world since the end of the Second World War."
Spoken like a true democrat, without a hint of irony and no semblance of a denial that it is a political project and not the Trade club we signed up for. Truely there can be no debate with EU visionaries such as yourself.
The EU's total lack of legitimacy will be its undoing.
Mark, you write:
鈥 But the Irish government clearly credits its people with more intelligence and has published legislation to go ahead with a vote on the treaty. 鈥
Which is a bit na茂ve. The Irish government is bound to have a referendum by the Irish constitution and its supreme court, which decreed that any treaty transferring any powers to the EU (as the Lisbon treaty, which I am all for, does), has to be put to a referendum.
And this is why every EU treaty was put to a referendum in Ireland. They simply have to. It鈥檚 not a matter or 鈥渢rusting the people鈥.
This is typical. The English telling the Irish what to do - again!
Ireland has done really well out of the EU. It has been at the fore of the EU with far more gusto than the pessimistic UK, it would even be in Schengen if it wasn't for UK's allegiance to a none existent Commonwealth. If it gives the yes vote - then what?
@Christopher Boot (#42)
The answer is yes. The elected representatives of all Europeans should decide for all Europeans. Obviously, only on matters where the decision power has been conferred to the EU level. The Irish can still keep their local political folklore where appropriate, but they cannot decide for others on matters that concern all.
Democracy for the EU cannot be the summary of 27 separate democratic processes. This way we will never get anywhere.
I believe that the most significant aspect from a democratic point of view is that the British people have been denied a vote on the EU Constitution after being promissed by Labour, Conservatives and Liberal parties that a referendum would be held. Labour, the ruling party, should have honoured this commitment in the name of democracy. The government did not even allow a free vote of MP`s in house.
I voted to join the EEC in the believe that it would benifit the UK.
British farming,fishing,and manufacturing have almost disappeared and the British government over the years has been unable to negotiate with the EU to stop the decline in our industries.
Mrs.Thatcher did try but now all the concessions she won have been lost.
The British people have a choice.
We must force our politians,at the next election, to take the public seriously. We must decide either to continue to place all our hopes and trust in the EU as they are now,in effect, our government. Or we must decide to negotiate out of the EU.
If we choose the former then we do not require the present Parlimentry system with all the MP`s and MEP`s and can adopt a slimmed down version which rubber stamps EU regulation.
If we choose the latter then we do require our own state and Government.
If we believe that democracy is important and vital to the continuation of the British way of live then we must conclude that this will not be possible if will stay in the EU.
The present government has shown that it does not honour its pledges, the British people, or democracy.
The British people must make sure at the next European Election that any
MEP elected respects the wishes and concerns of the British people and does not just follow the Government or Party line.
At the next General Election the British people need to carefully choose the person that represents them in Parliament. The time for voting on party( Labour, Conservative,and others) lines has gone. In order to restore democracy we must choose the most genuine and talanted MP`s that we can find and dump all those with slease, weasle words and dishonerable pasts and actions.
Roland Gr眉nebaum says 鈥渢he elected representatives of all Europeans should decide only 鈥 on matters where the decision power has been conferred to the EU level鈥.
The Irish referendum is not about deciding on a matter already transferred to Brussels. It is about deciding if more such powers should be conferred on the EU.
The EU is not a state. It does not have a sovereign people from which to draw the limits of its own authority so therefore the powers it exercises are merely conferred powers. You claim that the right to self-determination of the Irish people 鈥 i.e. to decide if the laws they live under are set by a parliament of their choosing or are conferred to Brussels - can be denied if there is a majority in more populous countries wanting to do so. What you argue for is nothing but the right of populous counties to take over smaller ones whenever it suits them.
Roland Gr眉nebaum says 鈥渢he elected representatives of all Europeans should decide only 鈥 on matters where the decision power has been conferred to the EU level鈥.
The Irish referendum is not about deciding on a matter already transferred to Brussels. It is about deciding if more such powers should be conferred on the EU.
The EU is not a state. It does not have a sovereign people from which to draw the limits of its own authority so therefore the powers it exercises are merely conferred powers. You claim that the right to self-determination of the Irish people 鈥 i.e. to decide if the laws they live under are set by a parliament of their choosing or are conferred to Brussels - can be denied if there is a majority in more populous countries wanting to do so. What you argue for is nothing but the right of populous counties to take over smaller ones whenever it suits them.
At least the Irish people have agreed in previous referendums (sometimes after being told to vote again) to exchange 100% of the power to decide their laws in exchange for 0.89% of the votes in the EU Council of Ministers. Whether they were wise to strike that bargain is not for me to say, but if they do not like what Brussels decides under rules they voted for then they do not have much reason to complain. But the British people are in a completely different situation. We have never had a chance to authorise these transfers of power even though all polls have shown that Britons would have rejected every treaty on European Union if they had been put to referendum. As far as I am concerned nothing agreed by the EU under the terms of the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice or Lisbon has any legitimacy in this country and the people you elect Roland should have zero say in the determination of the law I live under in any area beyond the common market.
Auditors have not signed off on The EU accounts for over a decade. I cannot see handing more power to the EU when they cannot get their financial house in order. The idea of giving them the power of "dictat" over member conuntries when they can't even balance their own books is ludicrous. All member states should either ignore or put on hold any EU legislation until such time as they get their own house in order.
France, has already rejected the EU constitution, Original Edition. This means that any revised editions, must be approved by the French electorate, before the new revised Edition can become law. The Constitution of France has already been breached by Sarkozy's decision to push the Lisbon Constitution through the National Assembly.
It is the same with respect to mandate of the electorate of the Nethelands.
The Irish are the only hope that is left for Democracy in Europe. This entire process has been completely, and entirely, undemocratic and illegal.....
If there was another Referendum in France, the rejection would be even greater this time. The French politicians have insulted the intelleigence of the people. Incidentally the right has been most prominent in this regard. Perhaps they are looking for a new Vichy type arrangement with compliant politicians, to co-exist unde the new EU superstate ????
"It鈥檚 something I discussed on the Jeremy Vine Show and it鈥檚 certainly true that it鈥檚 a difficult and abstruse document."
One of the main issues are coming from this fact, because
the Lisbon Treaty was *intentionally* made difficult and complex so that in each country the governments could deny referendums by referring to this difficulty. Jens-Peter Bonde Danish EU parliament representative in one of his briefings tells the story that Europe's leaders agreed to rewrite the old EU Constitution in a new form, in the form of amendments rather than straightforward series of articles and provisions, keeping the legal substance and only omitting the flag and the anthem. Removing the state symbols served the same purpose: in lack of these to deny referendums. Nonetheless the Lisbon Treaty is the same as the EU constitution, with the same legal significance and implications.
Several EU leaders have stated or confirmed above facts (Barroso, Merkel, Sarkozy and d鈥橢staing, who was the author of the former EU Constitution. 鈥濺eform treaty: cosmetic changes to avoid referendums, says Giscard d鈥橢staing鈥).
What the EU leaders deny are the logical conclusion following from their statements.
Fact 1. The content of the Lisbon Treaty is the same as the content of the former EU Constitution. (they agree)
Fact 2. The EU Constitution has laid down the foundations of a European superstate, in which the member states would have given up their sovereignty. (they agree)
3. Conclusion from 1. and 2: The Treaty of Lisbon being equal with the EU constitution would lay down the foundation of a European superstate, and with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty the member states would give up their national sovereignty. (they deny this conclusion)
For the above reasons the foundation of this superstate the EU, are laid upon a blatant lie, and as such is a major insult against and unconstitutional power-grab over Europe.
Because the two texts are the same, as the leaders themselves admitted, it would be the absolute constitutional requirement to hold referendums in each member state, not only in Ireland.
Because a country can have only one constitution at a time, each parliamentary ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, and the denial of referendums, is an arbitrary power-grab and an unlawful act of overthrowing constitution.
The idea that some-how the European Union will become a super-state is just complete nonsense. This is repeated a every referendum campaign and it beggars belief how anyone still believes it. The little boy cried wolf four or five times already!
Please,Please Good Irish People vote NO to the Lisbon Treaty.
The European Union today is a vast, corrupt, unstopable gravy train, that gives the good life and excessive salaries to all it's third rate and failed MPs and administrators. For it's employees, long may it last, sponsoring extremely expensive causes, which it has no power to fulfil, but look good to the unquestioning public eye.
I am British, never a supporter of the EEC and even less political Union. It is reasonably arguable that British government at its worst, is superior to that of any other European Member State; our legal system too. Why should British people allow our government to give away all its powers, to an unwealdy European conglomerate.
We the people have no say in the matter; Mastricht was forced though Parliament by the tiniest margin by John Major, then holding the presidency of Europe. British people are not alone in being Eurosceptic; I have lived in Italy, speak the language and can tell you many Italians are Eurosceptic too, What about the French,Dutch,Danish and Germans . I note that one writer considers it unfair that an Irish NO vote could scupper the European Ship and the hopes of 500 million people.
If member states amount to 500m people, give or take 50% are Euroscptic. The European Union has already grown to an unmanagable size, more like a baking of buns than a cake. I believe one of the benefits of the Lisbon Treaty is, that it makes it easier for a member state to leave the Union. I can understand that the British government like those of other member states , feel a sense of loyalty towards the European Union and would not like to be seen as rats deserting a sinking ship.
I think that Britain should have joined forces with the English speaking nations. If we must be part of Europe , the Union should have been a Confederation of Nation States, with little integration and none of the vast administation and wasteful bureaucracy. I doubt that it matters which way the Irish vote, the commission will find a way out of the impass as now, replacing the constitution with the Lisbon Treaty. I give no allegiance to the European Union, like many other people across Europe, I see myself as the enemy within.
I am happy to say that I now live thousands of miles away in Thailand; but I still worry for Britain and the British people, who feel as I do .