The Lisbon Treaty

In 2005 the EU Constitution was rejected in France (by 55% of voters) and in the Netherlands (by 60% of voters). Referendums in other EU countries were quickly cancelled and the constitution was scraped. In December 2007 the Lisbon Treaty was signed. The new Lisbon Treaty is almost the same as the previous constitution but because it is not called a constitution 26 of the 27 EU countries do not have to have a referendum on it. Because of the 1986 Crotty Case the Republic of Ireland must have a referendum.

The Lisbon Treaty alters two existing treaties: the Treaty on the European Union (1992 Maastricht treaty, amended by the treaty of amsterdam and the nice treaty) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (previously the Treaty Establishing the European Community). It also includes the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

[For non-EU members] Every five years the people of the European Union vote in the Members of the European Parliament. The parliament passes or rejects laws and the bigger countries get more MEPs. The members of the European Commission are chosen by the national governments. They write the laws of the EU. The heads of each nation-state meet as part of the Council of Ministers. The European Court of Justice works on the basis of EU treaty policy.

The Lisbon Treaty gives the EU competence over 32 new areas and gives it the power to decide a common position with organisations like the International Monetary Fund or the WTO for countries using the Euro. In 18 existing areas of lawmaking and in 49 new or extended legal bases decisions switch from unanimity in the Council to Qualified Majority Voting *. The veto is also gone. Germany will have 16.7%, France 12.8%, Italy and Britain 12% each and the RoI less than 2% of votes in the council. With less need to look for consensus amongst all member states this means the biggest countries can decide things for themselves that affect everyone.

* The proposed QMV means 55% of member states (in otherwords 15 states) and 65% of the population need to agree.

In accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Justice the treaties and laws adopted by the union have primacy over national laws so the EU law will have primacy over national law. There will be a post of EU president and Foreign minister. Every year out of three a country will lose its commissioner.

According to the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU the EU's aim is to have 'an open market economy with free competition' (art 105). This new treaty enshrines competition - even in cases of education and healthcare. The treaty adds nothing about stopping climate change. The treaty calls for all member states to increase military spending; reinforces links with NATO; includes a clause about states being obliged to come to each others aid.

As I said 55% of the French electorate voted against the constitution but 90% of its assembly voted for it. There have been protests and anger about how so few people get to decide on the future of so many people. Here is the Irish Government's website on the treaty (http://www.reformtreaty.ie/) and the one from the Campaign Against the EU Constitution (www.caeuc.org). So I here are my questions:

1. What parts of the treaty are you in favour of?

2. What parts of the treaty are you against?

3. What are your feelings about the fact that the citizens of the EU (except in the Republic of Ireland) are not getting a chance to vote on these changes?

4. If you are from outside the EU, how do you feel a more more pro -militarisation and -privitisation EU will affect you and our country?

And, of course, what the MODs say goes.

Personally, I am opposed to this Treaty, it seems to me that the EU and the Irish government have little respect for the wishes of their citizens. The renaming/slight change of the EU Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty should come as no surprise after the Nice Treaty Referenda some years ago. For those outisde the EU, this was a prior EU Treaty on which Ireland voted, the Treaty was rejected by the people and was put to them again, unchanged, 18 months later and was accepted. Seems to me the policy is very much like a much more serious variation of Henry Ford and the Model T "You can have any colour you want as long as it's black", except in this case, "You have your right to vote, but if you don't vote yes, it's happening anyway." Also, there have been protests in the UK, I don't know about other countries, about the lack of a referendum on the issue. I'm not keen on the centralisation of power, militarisation and the decision-making processes being taken further from individual countries.

This is an interesting topic, makes me even happier that I'm back home in Cork so that I'll have a say in this.

My first impression is that I really don't like the idea that the bigger countries will have more of a say on what happens to the smaller countries. While the EU is good and does work to a point, it does seem to be becoming more about the big guys. I'm going to have to go & read a bit more about it from your links, but at the moment I'm feeling negative towards it.

By the way what happens if we (the Irish voters) say no? Will it change anything?

By the way what happens if we (the Irish voters) say no? Will it change anything?

Apparently not. According to the website for the no campaign TheInvisibleF linked to, MEP Jonckler has said in parliament that it will make no difference if the Irish electorate says no, it will still proceed and Ireland will just have to opt out or proceed at a slower rate. Seems it provoked quite a reaction in the parliament from people criticising his lack of respect for democracy.

Apparently not. According to the website for the no campaign TheInvisibleF linked to, MEP Jonckler has said in parliament that it will make no difference if the Irish electorate says no, it will still proceed and Ireland will just have to opt out or proceed at a slower rate. Seems it provoked quite a reaction in the parliament from people criticising his lack of respect for democracy.


The thing is though that the Irish government will have to go by the vote of the Irish people, so if it's going to go ahead anyway will we just be shooting ourselves in the foot?

So if the other 26 countries do not have to have a referendum have they all signed it already? Sorry - I've been in Australia for the last 9 months so I've been a bit out of touch with the EU :)

The thing is though, that if the Irish reject the treaty it gives the citizens of other countries more power to demand referendums from their own governments. At a debate in our university Enda Kenny [leader of the biggest opposition party for anyone not from Ireland] kept stressing how this treaty will make the EU more efficient with 27 states. Now from what I know of the Nice Treaty it was the exact same argument used at that stage. But anyway what it means is that 'efficiency' will be gotten because the biggest countries in Europe won't need the other countries to agree with them so as to get something passed.

At one meeting I went to it was mentioned that all Irish foreign aid is sent without strings but after the treaty foreign aid will be decided by Qualified Majority Voting so rules in relation to how aid is sent are ope to being changed. However, that person worked for an NGO and I can't get in contact to find out where in the treaty it is mentioned.

Are there people out there from any of the other 26 countries with an opinion on the treaty?

Mariebeth: The EU can't penalise us for not signing up to things. I believe Denmark has rejected other treaties (possibly Maastricht) and gets on grand. What will most likely happen is that we will get opt-outs in relation to certain things which is what I believe Denmark has done on several occasions. But, for example in the case of being involved in military subgroups we would still have to pay for EU militarisation. For all the government's talk of the NO side's fear campaign they're the only ones I've seen talking about economic ruination and being thrown out of the EU!
So far the parliaments of Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Malta, Romania and Slovenia have ratified the treaty.

Actually it's not as much about making the EU more efficient, It's about keeping it functional at all. It simply isn't possible to achieve anything if 100 % consensus among 27 states is needed for every decision. I don't see why we should allow our union to remain unable to defend itself against Berlusconisierung.

Abandoning the consensus principle does not only make small states unable to block decisions, it will make big states unable to do it too.

Actually it's not as much about making the EU more efficient, It's about keeping it functional at all. It simply isn't possible to achieve anything if 100 % consensus among 27 states is needed for every decision. I don't see why we should allow our union to remain unable to defend itself against Berlusconisierung.

Abandoning the consensus principle does not only make small states unable to block decisions, it will make big states unable to do it too.So no country can block something. But if 55% of states with 65% of the population are needed it means it is a lot easier for the countries with the biggest populations to decide something rather than the 15 smallest states wanting something.

And was the Treaty of Nice not passed (well in our case rejected then passed) so as to make the EU functional for 27 member states? That was why vetoes were given away in the first place I thought.

I got the impression that you were as much against the Nice treaty too. :)

Wel to be fair I was twelve so I didn't have much to do with it. I just remember it was something to do with a veto.:whistle:

Is there any site that gives a good breakdown of the treaty & what it all involves without pushing for a yes/no vote? Just wondering the government website doesn't seem to have any (tbh I didn't look that hard :lol: ) and I want to get a good idea of the treaty from an unbiased point of view as well. Just so that I can make up my own mind on it :)

So no country can block something. But if 55% of states with 65% of the population are needed it means it is a lot easier for the countries with the biggest populations to decide something rather than the 15 smallest states wanting something.
But the smaller nations will still have a disproportionately large say - the population of the RoI is one twentieth of the UK whereas under the treaty it will have one sixth of the vote. I wonder why France gets a larger vote than the UK when the population is the same? The Europhobes here could make hay with that.

So no country can block something. But if 55% of states with 65% of the population are needed it means it is a lot easier for the countries with the biggest populations to decide something rather than the 15 smallest states wanting something.

Not really. It sounds very much like the system for Australian referenda where a proposal needs a majority of votes in a majority of states so that even if most of the population overall votes "yes" it will only succeed if a majority of states have a "yes" vote. Which is why so few referenda are passed here.

But the smaller nations will still have a disproportionately large say - the population of the RoI is one twentieth of the UK whereas under the treaty it will have one sixth of the vote. I wonder why France gets a larger vote than the UK when the population is the same? The Europhobes here could make hay with that.

I'm really getting stuck on this point at the moment - how would Ireland have one-sixth of a vote in the EU?

I'm really getting stuck on this point at the moment - how would Ireland have one-sixth of a vote in the EU?
According to the first post the UK has 12% of the vote and the RoI 2%. When I was at school 2 was one sixth of 12.

According to the first post the UK has 12% of the vote and the RoI 2%. When I was at school 2 was one sixth of 12.

I understand what you meant now.

I'm trying to find something that will explain the Treaty in ordinary terms, of what everything means & how it will affect people properly. I did see somewhere that the Irish Government hasn't set an official date yet - although they did say something about the second week of June. They also haven't sent out information to houses or anything about it - I guess they're trying to not inform people so that we'll all say yes. But the more I read the more I'm leaning to the no vote - but I still have to find a wonderful site that will explain it all & explain how it impacts people.

Is there any site that gives a good breakdown of the treaty & what it all involves without pushing for a yes/no vote? Maybe this could help?
http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/take/index_en.htm

Maybe this could help?
http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/take/index_en.htm

Thanks for that Alastor - it's swayed me back a bit in opinion of a yes vote - particularly on the issue of the charter for fundamental rights. I definitely believe that the EU is doing a great job - to a point, but the whole double majority issue, doesn't sit very well with me. If they want to make the EU more efficient & effective, they could easily set a timetable for how soon votes need to be in - 1 month, 2 months, 3 months etc. It doesn't take that long to inform a public (in Ireland's case anyway if we have to have a referendum) In any case there doesn't seem to be much informing going on by the government - I've been home from Australia for 3 weeks & this thread was the first I heard about a referendum or the Lisbon Treaty! It seems as though the government is hoping an uninformed public will go in & vote yes...

I don't have a problem with the proposals for the European Commission - it seems fair that everyone will have an equal amount of participation in it so that Ireland which is pretty small will have one commissioner and so will France. It is a bit worrying though that every third commission we won't have representation - what if something big comes up in the commission & we won't have a say?

From the website Alastor gave I found a couple more interesting ones from the point of view of Irish MEPs. The first (http://www.europarl.ie/lisbontreaty_meps.html) is a link to see what Irish MEP's are saying about the Lisbon Treaty

Also this is the website for Fine Gael (http://www.finegael.ie/treatyoflisbon/index.htm) which gives some good information on the treaty. They're the main oposition party at the moment but they're also pro-treaty of Lisbon.

Overall both sides are making good arguments, so I'm going to be thinking about it for awhile before I come down on either side.

But the smaller nations will still have a disproportionately large say - the population of the RoI is one twentieth of the UK whereas under the treaty it will have one sixth of the vote. I wonder why France gets a larger vote than the UK when the population is the same? The Europhobes here could make hay with that.Maybe they're working on the same basis as new the EuroVision voting? But anyway, the Parliament is already done on a proportional basis (e.g. of the 785 MEPs Ireland elects 13, Britain & France elect 78 each, and Germany elects 99) and I have no problem with that but if you have the parliament with proportional voting should there not be a place where all elected officials have an equal say without caring for their size?

Thanks for that Alastor - it's swayed me back a bit in opinion of a yes vote - particularly on the issue of the charter for fundamental rights. If you are voting because of the Charter there is a bit on the CAEUC website (http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/10) about it being the Charter of Conditional Rights not Fundamental Rights. Dick Roche TD has said publicly that the Charter does not give citizens of the EU any new rights. You might be interested with this:
Should the Lisbon Treaty come into force we would rely on the European Court of Justice to rule in favour of citizens or workers if a dispute arose between them and their government regarding the interpretation of any of the measures proposed in the Charter. In this instance the court would become the forum of last resort, and its findings would have force throughout the European Union. However, the European Court of Justice has already made it clear in at least two cases that
"the fundamental rights recognized by the Court are not absolute, but must be considered in relation to their social function. Consequently, restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of those rights, in particular in the context of a common organization of the market, provided that those restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the Community" . . .[1]
and in a later case stated that
"it is well established in the case law of the Court that restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of fundamental rights, in particular in the context of a common organisation of the market . . ."[2]
It is clear from these precedents that the “fundamental rights” that would be conferred on us by this renamed Constitution[3] would not be fundamental at all but could be varied or restricted in the interests of a “common organization of the market” or to advance “objectives of general interest pursued by the Community.”
[1] . Hubert Wachauf v. Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft, C-5/88, summary, para. 2, and grounds, para. 18.
[2] . Kjell Karlsson and Others, C292/97, grounds, para. 45.
[3] . The Lisbon Treaty or renamed Constitution was created by amending the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty Establishing the European Community, now known as the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union (TFU). The two documents, with their declarations and protocols, comprise the Treaty.

But anyway, the Parliament is already done on a proportional basis (e.g. of the 785 MEPs Ireland elects 13, Britain & France elect 78 each, and Germany elects 99) and I have no problem with that but if you have the parliament with proportional voting should there not be a place where all elected officials have an equal say without caring for their size?
Of course you have no problem with it - Ireland is one of the countries that benefits. The point I was making is that all the talk about large nations being able to 'run' Europe without taking into account the interests of small is [staff edit]. Europe is constitutionally biased in favour of countries with small populations.

Of course you have no problem with it - Ireland is one of the countries that benefits. The point I was making is that all the talk about large nations being able to 'run' Europe without taking into account the interests of small is [staff edit]. Europe is constitutionally biased in favour of countries with small populations.

But isn't it just as unfair if countries like France or Germany have a deciding vote on things that will impact the smaller countries??? That's my one real problem with the EU - it works good from an economy point of view, but it feels at times that they are making decisions for people that they don't have a clue about, that a decision someone from France can help make will affect me and every other Irish person.

I did see somewhere that the Irish Government hasn't set an official date yet - although they did say something about the second week of June. They also haven't sent out information to houses or anything about it - I guess they're trying to not inform people so that we'll all say yes. .

That really bleepin gets to me that they does this. they dont want a Nice again so just not tell us anything and the sheep will vote for it! Grr!!! I hate that!!
See that justs makes me want to vote no. It makes it seems like their hiding something and I trust the government about as far as I could throw them.

I know very little about Lisbon but now Im gonna find out all I can because I want to be informed when voting. Not that my vote will make a bit of difference. :grumble:

edit: haha a quick google and I found out one of my old lecturers is big up on the no vote campaign...

That really bleepin gets to me that they does this. they dont want a Nice again so just not tell us anything and the sheep will vote for it! Grr!!! I hate that!!

I agree - it is ridiculous. I was laughing earlier today because they were mentioning on the radio about the new government emergency plan that is being sent to every house in Ireland - yet there has been nothing sent out about the Lisbon treaty. It's utter ridiculousness at the moment - no wonder Bertie is stepping down before the referendum! I don't even know if there is a date set yet!

I agree - it is ridiculous. I was laughing earlier today because they were mentioning on the radio about the new government emergency plan that is being sent to every house in Ireland - yet there has been nothing sent out about the Lisbon treaty. It's utter ridiculousness at the moment - no wonder Bertie is stepping down before the referendum! I don't even know if there is a date set yet!

Apparently its June 12th though I dont know if thats set in stone, I wish it was, Im going away June 13th and Its the principle of it that Im now determined to vote!! I dont want to not be able to because of holidays..grr..

A little less usage of words like 'ridiculous', please!

We finally got some literature about the Lisbon Treaty in the post today :) At the moment I'm trying to read it but I figured I can summarise what I've read as I go along :) You can actually find the booklet on the website: www.reformtreaty.ie if you are interested in reading it.

One thing that struck me right off is that the booklet does say that the Reform Treaty/Lisbon Treaty is 'based very substantially on the draft EU Constitution' (that would be the Nice Treaty), which is something that I have seen the 'No' side of the debate mentioning on a few occasions on other sites that I have visited.

From the booklet that we got on the treaty there seems to be 6 main provisions for the reform treaty. (my opinions are in italics)


more democratic control

National parliaments will have a more direct input into any EU legislation. Basically if there is a proposal put forward for a change of legislation within the EU parliament then national parliaments will be given the right to offer 'reasoned opinions' as they put it. And if enough parliaments object then the proposal will be amended or withdrawn. Personally I think this is a good idea - it seems already that the EU can make new legislation whenever they feel like it and at least this way national politicians will be able to have a say in new proposals. I for one would be willing to lobby my local politicians if they were giving their opinions on proposals that I didn't agree with.

The role of the European Parliament will change - they will have an increased role in lawmaking and budgetary issues. It will also be capped at 751 members with seats being distributed in a way that gives smaller countries more seats than their population should warrant. while this may not seem fair to the countries with larger populations, IMO it is fair. the smaller countries deserve just as much of a say on issues that will affect them as the bigger countries get. It also means that our elected MEP's will have more of a say in legislation and they will have a bigger voice for us.

There will be a citizen's initiative also, whereby any petition with at least one million signatures from a number of EU countries can be used to request the EC to propose new EU legislation. This is a great idea IMO as it gives ordinary citizens a voice if their elected officials don't listen.

reforming the decision making process within the EU

setting out the powers and limitations of the EU

Charter on Fundamental rights

the EU's external role

equality between member states


sorry guys it's getting late here & this post could go on for a long time yet - so I'll stop for now cos I need to go to bed! but if anyone wants me to go on with my commentary I'll do so tomorrow :)

What I especially dislike about the "Yes" campaign, (apart from the fact that they are glossing over the fact that this treaty is essentially the European Constitution, repackaged), is the dire warnings that "it would not be good for our relations with Europe to vote no/dire consequences etc, etc. Strikes me as being a lot like blackmail. Or, a more wordy version of a six year old telling another "I won't be your friend if you don't pick me/play the game by my rules". Just to be clear, I know these claims are coming from the Irish yes campaign rather than Europe. France and the Netherlands voted "No" to the Constitution and they didn't see dire consequences in their relations with the EU.

What I especially dislike about the "Yes" campaign, (apart from the fact that they are glossing over the fact that this treaty is essentially the European Constitution, repackaged), is the dire warnings that "it would not be good for our relations with Europe to vote no/dire consequences etc, etc. Strikes me as being a lot like blackmail. Or, a more wordy version of a six year old telling another "I won't be your friend if you don't pick me/play the game by my rules". Just to be clear, I know these claims are coming from the Irish yes campaign rather than Europe. France and the Netherlands voted "No" to the Constitution and they didn't see dire consequences in their relations with the EU.This whole bullying by the yes side is really getting to me. I know several people who are voting no purely because they think that if all the yes camp can do is name call and threaten then they mustn't have any real points. Did this type of thing happen in the French and Dutch referendums before? Were they told they would be kicked out of Europe for rejecting the constitution?

Well I never came back & added to that post about what the referendum booklet was saying...oops! It's irrelevant to me at this stage, because the no side has swayed me over for a number of reasons. The main reason is that I refuse to vote yes to something that I really don't understand. I've also been swayed by the no side because of the fact that under the Lisbon treaty, any law made by the European Parliament will overrule any national law. So if the EU passed a law bringing back capital punishment, it would overrule Irish law that doesn't have capital punishment. The chances of this happening might be slim, but I still don't like the idea that people in Europe can make laws that would change how Ireland is run.

But the smaller nations will still have a disproportionately large say - the population of the RoI is one twentieth of the UK whereas under the treaty it will have one sixth of the vote. I wonder why France gets a larger vote than the UK when the population is the same? The Europhobes here could make hay with that.
I'm going to have a bit of a rant here :lol:

Thing is though, why should one country get more say at all than any other? It's constantly being shovelled down our throats that IReland is now one of the worlds more wealthy nations and certainly one of Europe's richer nations, this is despite the fact we do have a small population. Maybe it's the PollyAnna in me but fair should be fair, if some smaller countries have to make do with a floating commissioner (the visuals!) then shouldn't everyone? If we have nothing to fear from this treaty then why are all nations not the same under it? Apparently we're all European now.



1. What parts of the treaty are you in favour of? To be honest, very little of it. I'm all for European integration and things being more streamlined but there has to be a better option out there than this.

2. What parts of the treaty are you against?I'll be the first to admit that I've not read the treaty text. However, snippets I have seen and what the Referendum commission and Government have said worry me. Only today Brian Cowen said that he would "try" to push collective bargining. Although how anyone can believe our Taoiseach who wants the irish people to vote yes to something he can't fully back up and has not read....well don't get me started on that.

3. What are your feelings about the fact that the citizens of the EU (except in the Republic of Ireland) are not getting a chance to vote on these changes?I think that all nations should be able to have a vote on things that have an impact on them. The only reason we have a vote at all is because of a challenge in 1986 I think it was, I know though it does come back to every single county's constitution and how it's structured. I guess from an Irish point of view one would have to wonder if there are other countries and all that out there who would like it (the treaty) to be rejected by Ireland. It's hard to know.

4. If you are from outside the EU, how do you feel a more more pro -militarisation and -privitisation EU will affect you and our country?N/A


Edit: I am very grateful for the help Ireland has received from the EU but I still can't agree with the Lisbon treaty. It's a European Superstate by another name which in theory I'm not necessarily against but if the EU makes a law I don't agree with, the fact it preceeds my national law well I can not accept that. As MaryBeth pointed out above Capital punishment is one thing, all other laws and taxes and everything could be directly influenced by some nameless faceless politician that's not for the best interests of MY COUNTRY. And I think maybe this is what it boils down to, it's like we're being asked to choose between being Irish and being European. I don't like that at all.

Edit: I am very grateful for the help Ireland has received from the EU but I still can't agree with the Lisbon treaty. It's a European Superstate by another name which in theory I'm not necessarily against but if the EU makes a law I don't agree with, the fact it preceeds my national law well I can not accept that. As MaryBeth pointed out above Capital punishment is one thing, all other laws and taxes and everything could be directly influenced by some nameless faceless politician that's not for the best interests of MY COUNTRY. And I think maybe this is what it boils down to, it's like we're being asked to choose between being Irish and being European. I don't like that at all.

I am in 100% agreement. The EU has been a good thing, in terms of helping countries like our own to develop and become wealthy, and I'm in full support of it helping other countries to do the same. What I'm not in support of though is the idea of it becoming something like a superstate which is what this treaty looks as though it will be working towards creating. While I don't want to get into history, those posters that are around saying 'People died for your freedom, vote NO' are right and I honestly don't think that people should forget that when they are voting. Oh well, we'll find out on Thursday anyway.

Absolutely :tu: I couldn't have put it better myself. There is a huge amount of scare mongering going on here alright but I can't but think that there's an element of truth in the statement much as I dislike admitting it.

I mean would you sign a contract that you didn't understand? I don't think anyone really would.

I mean would you sign a contract that you didn't understand? I don't think anyone really would.

That's the thing, I really don't understand it - trying to read the booklets on it gives me a headache because of the way it's been written! And I'm not going to blindly go in and vote yes just because our politicians are telling us to. As a guy who rang into 96fm yesterday said - it's the first time in our state's history that all the political parties (except for Sinn Fein) are saying the same thing, so in his opinion it looks like the politicians are being given a good reason to say yes to the treaty.

The very large cynical part of me says it's a case of saving face within Europe and a view to nice roles in the future. But possibly just me.

If someone could put it to me one very good reason to vote yes, I'd do so but I've not seen anything at all yet that would tempt me out of the no camp.

I don't live in Europe and have only followed events there from afar, in a detached way. But in this day of globalization, isn't it good to have a strong, unified Europe that's an ally of the United States? We have the rising powers of China and India, we have Russia saber-rattling, we have the extremists/terrorist threat. "Together We Stand" should be our guideline.

Both in Europe itself and in the transatlantic alliance. At least that's what I think.

I'm in favour of close ties within Europe, but I'm also Irish first, just as many French people would consider themselves French first, many Polish people consider themselves Polish first etc. So, I don't want to see a situation where, as has already been mentioned, European law is superior to Irish law and takes precedence. There are cultural differences between the EU countries and things which suit one country won't suit all- one size doesn't fit all.

Also, I don't like feeling like I'm being manipualted and persuaded to vote in favour of something the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) hasn't even read, but is trying to persuade the nation is a positive thing for Ireland.

I'm not sure what it says for the democratic process that all but one of our political parties are in favour of the treaty.

The Green Party, whom I respected before the current coalition, opposed the Nice Treaty, on both occasions, now that they are in government with Fianna Fail, they're encouraging a "Yes" vote on Lisbon - what does that say about how much is genuine and how much is playing the political game?

Liselle wrote

Thing is though, why should one country get more say at all than any other? It's constantly being shovelled down our throats that IReland is now one of the worlds more wealthy nations and certainly one of Europe's richer nations, this is despite the fact we do have a small population. Maybe it's the PollyAnna in me but fair should be fair, if some smaller countries have to make do with a floating commissioner (the visuals!) then shouldn't everyone? If we have nothing to fear from this treaty then why are all nations not the same under it? Apparently we're all European now.

The treaty ensures that every nation will be without a commissioner at times. (Which is why the big countries governments won't have a referendum - there will be times when the people who actually pay for Europe (specifically Germany) have no commissioner.) I will make a small bet that there is always a French Commissioner though

Ireland is very rich per head but in total wealth rather small - total GDP for Ireland in 2007 $255 billion; for the UK $2.756 trillion (from the CIA yearbook and I doubt it's intelligence they 'massage' for public consumtion)

I still think that seeing as the parliament and the council work by weighted votes that there should be somewhere where everyone gets an equal voice, espicially as the commission is so powerful, it is the one to propose legislation the others just change it.

I saw the Channel 4 piece on our referendum and wasn't very pleased with it. It's not as if Youth Defence (anti-abortion/divorce etc) and Libertas (big business) are the only ones campaigning for a NO vote. The commissioner isn't our only problem. For example, workers are given the right to industrial action in the Charter but these can be restricted in the interests of 'the common organisation of the market'. Companies can also operate outside the laws of the country that they are providing services in. Many of us disagree with being told to progressively improve our military capabilities while not being told to improve our health or education systems. Personally, I dislike that the EU is to cosy up to NATO (Article 27).

My generation has grown up knowing that anything good in the EU came about through the EU or EU pressure. As far as I've known it has been something good but now I really like the direction it is going in.

. Personally, I dislike that the EU is to cosy up to NATO (Article 27).
With twenty three of twenty seven members also members of NATO this is pretty much inevitable.

Today's news tell that Ireland voted no.

So the union has to manage with full consensus among 27 members for any decision for years ahead.

For me, the biggest problem is that the politicians try very hard to make decisions without asking the people. That's fine if we're talking about a dictatorship, but all the EU member states claim to be democracies.

The level of hypocrisy is immense if we consider that politicians actually admitted that referendums are not held out of fear that the treaty might be rejected. If they know that the people do not agree, why do they keep writing these treaties?

At least they should state honestly that our opinion is not needed and that the Bruxelles beaureaucrats will decide everything, for our own good, of course.

Republic of Ireland creates cahos with a 109,000 majority voting NO, i dont actually understand what this is gonna do in the wide scheme of things but i read somewhere that all 27 countires neaded to ratify the treaty

That's a TBD I think. It's true we've been told that all member states need to ratify the Treaty. Ireland by virtue of the only country voting on the treaty will probably the only country not to ratify it....so what happens next is really uncharted territory. There are a couple of options I think
1) Have another referendum. This happened in Ireland with the Nice treaty and in Holland I think for Maastricht
2) Go back to the drawing board
3) Figure out what exactly are the sticky points that need to be resolved for it to be ratified here
4) Throw Ireland out/Ignore the fact that Ireland voted against.

It is hard to know what's going to happen. It could be 1 of the above scenarios or a mixture or something else entirely I've not thought of. What I've personally found very unhelpful is some of the comments from the Yes camp here where they've come out and said "Let the no camp tell us where we go next". Isn't this meant to be a democracy where all our say is important?

1) Have another referendum. This happened in Ireland with the Nice treaty and in Holland I think for Maastricht
I thought that, precisely because of what happened with the Nice treaty, the Irish PM said, before the referendum, that a second one wouldn't be held? I may be wrong though.

You could be very right on that. I'm not sure. I guess the next couple of days will give a better picture of what's ahead once the dust has settled.

I'm going to look to see if I can find an article, but I know I heard it on a radio report on Friday that they were looking at the option now of a second referendum, even though Brian Cowen had said before that they wouldn't. Of course, the radio station may have had it wrong as well :)

ETA: Here's an article (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fine-gael-tds-rejected-treaty-1410433.html) (it's primarily about a number of Fine Gael TD's who may have voted no) that states:

While Taoiseach Brian Cowen said the Government accepted and respected the verdict of the Irish people, he declined to rule out a second referendum.

I think that holding a second referendum isnt really fair or nesecarry because the government didnt get what they want the continue to keep forcing elections till they get what they want
and according to my socialist worker paper the No Vote in the republic had shifted dramitically from under 20%- 70& with around 10% not voting to 39-43% in yes favour before the vote and then after the vote No clearly coming out on top, the governments inability to argue their claims on YES, is just going to continue increasing NO voters, and eventually the EU will haev to step in to find another soloution

[QUOTE=DeathEater88;5056907]For me, the biggest problem is that the politicians try very hard to make decisions without asking the people. That's fine if we're talking about a dictatorship, but all the EU member states claim to be democracies.

Democracies, right, which is why the democratic decision of the Irish people last Thursday is being described as an "embarrassment" , the media were predicitng awkward meetings between Irish politicians and other EU politicians during the week, and our PM is refusing to rule out a rerun of the referendum, yet at the same time, claims he respects the decision of the people. (???) It really angers me that a democratic decision is being described as an "embarrassment".



The level of hypocrisy is immense if we consider that politicians actually admitted that referendums are not held out of fear that the treaty might be rejected. If they know that the people do not agree, why do they keep writing these treaties?

I hadn't heard that, where was that statement made? I had been aware that the Lisbon Treaty was essentially the same Constitution document rejected by France and the Netherlands, but I hadn't been aware that some politicians actually admitted they don't want a referendum for fear of a "No" vote. Can't say I'm surprised, though, I doubt we'd have had a referendum here were it not compulsory by law.

I'm going to look to see if I can find an article, but I know I heard it on a radio report on Friday that they were looking at the option now of a second referendum, even though Brian Cowen had said before that they wouldn't. Of course, the radio station may have had it wrong as well :)Before the referendum Cowen said he wouldn't make us do a repeat like Bertie did after Nice. But Saturday's Irish Times said other EU leaders like Merkel and Sarkozy want us to vote again. I think they are just going to make a few declarations on things like corporate tax (the fact that there was such a strong working class note suggests that wasn't a huge priority) and our neutrality (already declarations on that in the treaty, it was EU militarism that was objected to by anyone I know) and make us vote again.

[QUOTE]

Democracies, right, which is why the democratic decision of the Irish people last Thursday is being described as an "embarrassment" , the media were predicitng awkward meetings between Irish politicians and other EU politicians during the week, and our PM is refusing to rule out a rerun of the referendum, yet at the same time, claims he respects the decision of the people. (???) It really angers me that a democratic decision is being described as an "embarrassment".

I hadn't heard that, where was that statement made? I had been aware that the Lisbon Treaty was essentially the same Constitution document rejected by France and the Netherlands, but I hadn't been aware that some politicians actually admitted they don't want a referendum for fear of a "No" vote. Can't say I'm surprised, though, I doubt we'd have had a referendum here were it not compulsory by law.There were quotes floating around the place about the "period of reflection" after the French and Dutch victory about the people will be cheated into accepting something that they wouldn't agree to if everything was upfront but I can't find it so don't believe anything I say. I think it is being understood now that it was the arrogance of Irish and EU leaders in the run-up to Thursday was a big cause of the no vote. They said all 27 countries have to ratify the treaty and then when the only citizens who are given a choice say no they say they will continue with the integration. But it was that integration, that gap between citizens and politicians that we voted against.

I fail to understand what 'EU militarism' is supposed to mean. Care to explain the militaristic parts of the treaty?

Sure. Most of my thoughts are stolen from www.caeuc.org so an explanation better than what posters have probably come to expect from me is avaliable there. Maybe doing it in points will keep me on track.

-Maastricht said (don't know article) said 'which might in time lead to a common defence' now Article 27 says 'the common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy'.
-Article 27 EU defence policy will "respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)". Protocol 4 asserts that "a more assertive Union role in security and defence matters will contribute to the vitality of a renewed Atlantic Alliance".
-Article 27 "Member states shall undertake to progressively improve their military capabilities". [no mention anywhere that we shall undertake to progressively improve our health systems or education systems]
-Article 27.3 "Member states shall make civilian and military capabilities avaliable to the Union for the implementation of common security and defence policy'.
-Article 28 goes on about "joint disarmament operations, humanitarian and rescue tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, conflict prevention and peace-keeping tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace making and post-conflict stabilisation". [sounds like most of the things an army would do so many Irish anti-war people believe it is the making of an EU army]
-Article 188r.1 "The Union and its Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State is the object if a terrorist attack." [No problem with solidarity but generic 'terrorism' is a bit vague and following current wars where fighting terrorism is the cited cause I worry where it would lead our Union]

Hope that helps explain the Irish position a bit better. I suppose I should point out http://www.voteno.ie/html/war.htm even if it is by the Socialist Workers' Party.

Sorry, I don't remember exactly where I read about some politicians admitting the real reason referendums were not held. I think it was about Britain, though, and Brown's determination not to let the British vote, despite the many requests that were made.

But anyway, the only reason some changes were made to that Constitution rejected by the French and Dutch was to allow it to be ratified by national parliaments instead of referendums.

It's blatantly obvious that national leaders and major EU officials want to change the EU in an unpopular way and they intend to do it whether we want it or not. In my opinion, this attitude is totally opposed to my idea of democracy.

In fact, the politicians should acknowledge the people's choice (in this case, the desire not to reform the EU) and act accordingly. After all, they and their positions exist in order to serve the people and enforce its will. Any other option from their part transforms them into communist-style tyrants.

I agree, having politicians all over Europe making unhelpful comments like "if Ireland reject the treaty it would be met by incredulity" or "it will look bad" when we're all allegedly free citizens entitled to a vote as to how our lives will be managed. It's crazy stuff. To be honest, I do think that if most european nations were voting on the Lisbon treaty and saw some of the information that was coming out about it, other nations would have voted against it too.

Aren't we getting a little away from the whole point of the European Union which was interdependancy and common trade post the second world war?

Aren't we getting a little away from the whole point of the European Union which was interdependancy and common trade post the second world war?

This.

The fact is that our market system has and can benefit from the open trade that the EU provides, and political and social unity as a large common block allows us to help globally in climate change, the reduction of poverty etc.

However, the current Lisbon situation is an embarrassment and shows the need for a rethink of hte way our system works in regards to the EU.

The fact is that our market system has and can benefit from the open trade that the EU provides, and political and social unity as a large common block allows us to help globally in climate change, the reduction of poverty etc. It hasn't been so great for many of our public services though. Our public services are either services of general interest or services of general economic interest. The examples given by the commission of non-economic services are army, police, and air-traffic control. As far as I can discover services of general economic interest are ones where there are charges. If they can be called services of general economic interest then they are open to competitition rules so as not to distort the market. So private coprorations can come in and decide to make us pay more or decide to move services that the government had previously run to somewhere profitable to them but not to the citizen.

But this thread is about Lisbon rather than general EU-bashing. (I realise you went on to talk about Lisbon whereas I have not. Oh well)

In 2005, France rejected the European Constitution 55%-45%, the Netherlands with an even wider majority . Now Ireland has rejected the Lisbon Treaty.

I saw this poll on a French site:

Si vous aviez la possibilité de vous prononcer sur le traité de Lisbonne, vous voteriez (If you could vote on the Lisbon Treaty, how would you vote?)

Non 52.3%
Oui 42.3%
abstention 5.4%
Nombre de votants: 11534

NB: ce sondage n'a pas de valeur scientifique et ne reflète que l'opinion de ceux qui ont choisi d'y répondre
Note: This poll has no scientific value and reflects only the opinion of those who chose to respond to it.


Seems those French participants still don't want a unified Europe, though the myth of the "Polish plumber" (one main argument at the time) has been disproved. :sigh:

What is the myth of the Polish plumber?

During the campaign against the Constitution in France, the opponents to it argued that ratifying it would open the door to workers from other, poorer, European countries coming in and taking over French jobs at a lesser wage. The "Polish plumber" became the symbol of those workers, mostly because Bolkenberg (sp?), one of the proponents of the Constitution, said that when he was in his house in France, it was easier, faster and cheaper for him to get a Polish plumber to work for him than a French plumber, who would make him wait weeks to repair a leak and charge him twice the going rate in Poland.

Stopping the Polish plumber from "stealing" jobs away from French workers became the rallying cry of the opposition.

That sounds similar to an arguement from the Irish opposition. It was about Lisbon but really about the Laval judgement. It was either Laval or that other one (I will edit when I remember or find it) from last December that said workers in a foreign country could strike for the national minimum wage and no higher. In the no meetings that I went to this brought up two points. 1) That Irish wages and conditions would drop to match and 2) that it would lead to racism because Irish workers would blame the foreign workers instead of the companies who hired them or the laws that exploited them. The Charter of Fundamental Rights only assures the rights that people already have so Lisbon wouldn't help out this situation.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights only assures the rights that people already have so Lisbon wouldn't help out this situation.
You and I know that. But a number of the people who voted against it hadn't read the Constitution, the Treaty, or the Charter. Unfortunately - at least in my opinion.

I'm for a strong, unified Europe to stand with the US against the rising economic threats of China, India and what is called "emergent countries", political and military threats from elsewhere, and the very real terrorist threats. Not going to go into it now, but you know what I mean.

You and I know that. But a number of the people who voted against it hadn't read the Constitution, the Treaty, or the Charter. Unfortunately - at least in my opinion.And that included our Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, and our Commissioner, Charlie McCreevy. I'm for a strong, unified Europe to stand with the US against the rising economic threats of China, India and what is called "emergent countries", political and military threats from elsewhere, and the very real terrorist threats. Not going to go into it now, but you know what I mean.I think I know what you mean. Personally I'd be more in for a social Europe that didn't just go along with the US.

If they can be called services of general economic interest then they are open to competitition rules so as not to distort the market. So private coprorations can come in and decide to make us pay more or decide to move services that the government had previously run to somewhere profitable to them but not to the citizen.

If a public-ran service cannot compete with a private company it is because the consumer continually chooses the private company over the public. Surely this would result in better public services. I submit that these worries are far more propogated by the trade unionists.

As far as Europe goes, I again will point out that Europe does have a function especially I believe in terms of expanding open markets, a force in terms of climate change and also pan-European research into defence, the sciences, technology etc which ultimately in this increasingly globalised world is a good thing.

However, the UK government's constant flip-flopping over the treaty and the way in which they have acted to try and pass it do little but tell me that we need a referendum whereby the government can act as politicians should and actually try and sell the treaty to the public.

... it was easier, faster and cheaper for him to get a Polish plumber to work for him than a French plumber, who would make him wait weeks to repair a leak and charge him twice the going rate in Poland.
Having had to "chase" a French plumber for 6 months before I could get some repairs done in my bathroom, I kind of sympathize. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of Polish plumbers on the French Riviera where I have my apartment. ;)

Seriously, however. In 2005, I campaigned stenuously in favour of the Constitution and voted for it. Unfortunately, we were defeated. :( One of the reasons I voted for Sarkozy last year and don't regret it despite a few problems in his administration recently is that he managed to go around the "No" and slipped in the Treaty through parliamentary means. I agree with 5th that we need a strong Europe. Not necessarily on the United States' side on every issue, but we do share some of the same values (democracy, human rights) that are lacking in, say, China and a number of Muslim countries. On those issues, we should stand and, if need be, fight together. By "fight", I don't mean necessarily by military means, I should specify. :)

Given a chance I would have voted 'yes' too.
It's not possible to find an ideal solution when 27 different states are involved. If you want any improvement at all, you'll have to do with less than ideal. As I understand it, this treaty would have made it more democratic than what it is today.

And regardless of what name we use for it, I wouldn't resist making European defense less dependent of NATO either.

It's not possible to find an ideal solution when 27 different states are involved.
The EU may have grown too big too fast. It's become unwieldy. It was working fine when there were 15 members of more or less equal economic strength (or at least not such wide differences as when a group of former Eastern bloc countries joined all at one go).

I agree about NATO. :)

ETA: My passport is so old (though still valid), there were only 12 countries in the European Community - as it was called then - when it was issued. :lol:

And I'm one of the few people who did read the Constitution before voting on it. I haven't read the Treaty, however.

ETA: My passport is so old (though still valid), there were only 12 countries in the European Community - as it was called then - when it was issued. :lol:

And I'm one of the few people who did read the Constitution before voting on it. I haven't read the Treaty, however.

I'm not even going to ask how old your passport is :lol:

I haven't read the Constitution, but I don't know when that was voted on, I was probably too young to vote at that stage. I tried to read the treaty, but to be honest, I found the wording of it, even in the leaflets the Referendum Commission produced, was very difficult to understand. IMO, I don't think that it's a treaty that they want people to understand, otherwise it would have been a lot easier to read.

If nothing else the result showed that there is a need for a treaty which will stop the EU being held hostage by small states. Especially small states that have done as well out of membership as has Ireland.

If nothing else the result showed that there is a need for a treaty which will stop the EU being held hostage by small states. Especially small states that have done as well out of membership as has Ireland.
Several European papers have been very critical of the Irish vote, arguing that Ireland has indeed done well out of membership and has "turned around and bit the hand that fed it" (this is a quote, not my stated opinion - from an article published in French.)

I'll paraphrase some other articles. The gist is, the Irish "No" has dealt a blow to the construction of Europe. In my opinion, this is a pity. A strong, unified Europe can only be good for the Western democratic world. (This last is my opinion.)

I'm not even going to ask how old your passport is :lol:
Actually, not all that old. 2001. I guess the French Consulate in New York had some old blank passports left over, because the EU had 15 members at the time, not 12 - but not yet 25, let alone 27. :)

The reading of the Constitution was hard going, let me tell you. Except for some rather quirky annexes to do with summer homes in Malta (I'm serious) or some other really minor matter for Europe in general but obviously important to the country concerned. Those I got a kick out of. :lol:

A strong, unified Europe can only be good for the Western democratic world. (This last is my opinion.)
Yes, you said that earlier. And I happen to agree with you. :agree:

As for when the union got how many members and other history, looky here:
http://europa.eu/abc/history/index_en.htm

Given a chance I would have voted 'yes' too.
It's not possible to find an ideal solution when 27 different states are involved. If you want any improvement at all, you'll have to do with less than ideal. As I understand it, this treaty would have made it more democratic than what it is today.

And regardless of what name we use for it, I wouldn't resist making European defense less dependent of NATO either.But I don’t think the Lisbon Treaty made the Union any more democratic. For example, it made the ECB totally independent of any democratic influence in Article 108 “neither the European Central Bank, nor a national central bank, nor any member of their decision making bodies shall seek or take instructions from the Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, from any government of a Member State or from any other body”. By comparison the Bank of Japan is mandated to keep close contact with the government.

The Lisbon Treaty is about making things efficient for EU bureaucrats rather than democratic for its people. Our directly elected MEPs do not get to propose legislation. No transparency is brought to COREPER, the permanent committee of ambassadors and top civil servants. They decide if something is an A-point (sent en-masse to ministers who sign on the dotted line) or a B-point which is discussed. The Journal of Common Market Studies(1998) said that 70% to 90% of all decisions made were a-points. Lisbon gives parliaments eight weeks to examine EU proposals to ensure they don’t breach subsidiary instead of six, big woop.


The EU may have grown too big too fast. It's become unwieldy. It was working fine when there were 15 members of more or less equal economic strength (or at least not such wide differences as when a group of former Eastern bloc countries joined all at one go).I can’t find the quote but there certainly was a report going around that stated that since May 2004 things had been running more smoothly. And even before that there wasn’t equal economic strength: a good portion of the countries were pulling us along.

If nothing else the result showed that there is a need for a treaty which will stop the EU being held hostage by small states. Especially small states that have done as well out of membership as has Ireland.If it had been a large country that decided to reject the treaty? When France and the Netherlands rejected the constitution the whole thing stopped.

Several European papers have been very critical of the Irish vote, arguing that Ireland has indeed done well out of membership and has "turned around and bit the hand that fed it" (this is a quote, not my stated opinion - from an article published in French.)

I'll paraphrase some other articles. The gist is, the Irish "No" has dealt a blow to the construction of Europe. In my opinion, this is a pity. A strong, unified Europe can only be good for the Western democratic world. (This last is my opinion.)I'm going to say again that we didn't vote against the EU. We didn't vote against being closer to our neighbours. We voted agasint the direction of the EU.

A last point, I was watching The Daily Politics on the BBC and your man said that all the trades unions were for the treaty. I mention it because I have seen it mentioned in other places too. That’s incorrect. SIPTU is the biggest union in the country and it refused to endorse the treaty (which noting its pro-government stance since the 90s is a huge thing). UNITE and the Technical Engineering and Electrical Union campaigned against it and if they aren't the 2nd and 3rd biggest unions they are up there in the list.

But I don’t think the Lisbon Treaty made the Union any more democratic. For example, it made the ECB totally independent of any democratic influence in Article 108 “neither the European Central Bank, nor a national central bank, nor any member of their decision making bodies shall seek or take instructions from the Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, from any government of a Member State or from any other body”.

Central banks should be independent so they make decisions based as much as possible on conditions rather than political whim.

If it had been a large country that decided to reject the treaty? When France and the Netherlands rejected the constitution the whole thing stopped.


Same thing. Just that in this case it was a small country.

I'm going to say again that we didn't vote against the EU. We didn't vote against being closer to our neighbours. We voted agasint the direction of the EU.

The overwhelming opinion I got from vox pops was that many voted no because the treaty was complicated and hard to understand (which is actually a reason to abstain). It was a treaty encompassing 27 nations of course it was complex. All constitutional and international law is.

France took on the Presidency of the EU today for the next six months, and it's not starting well. Though Polish Parliament has ratified it, and the Polish President had signed it, he's now going back and says he refuses to sign. Plus, one of the Commissioners (the Brit) was unhappy about something and refused to attend the celebration dinner at the Elysée Palace.

Poor Sarkozy and his Foreign Minister have their work cut out for them, with the Irish "No" in the background too!

The only good thing (with no political value whatsoever) is that the Eiffel Tower looks really gorgeous, illuminated all in blue with gold stars, with the circle of 12 stars in the middle.

BTW, I did count the stars - never noticed it before, but unlike the ones on the US flag, the EU doesn't add stars as more members join, it seems. It still stands at 12. I'm wondering whether that's also the reason I only have 12 countries listed on my French/EU passport?

"The number of stars has nothing to do with the number of Member States. There are twelve stars because the number twelve is traditionally the symbol of perfection, completeness and unity. The flag therefore remains unchanged regardless of EU enlargements."

Europa (http://europa.eu/abc/symbols/emblem/index_en.htm)

Plus it means that they don't have to spend money updating flags and stationery.

Plus it means that they don't have to spend money updating flags and stationery.
Makes sense! :lol:

Here are 2 pictures of the Tour Eiffel in European Colors:
Showing the Colors (http://www.avenueviet.com/forums/album_page.php?pic_id=757)
and
Showing the Stars (http://www.avenueviet.com/forums/album_page.php?pic_id=758)

the number twelve is traditionally the symbol of perfection, completeness and unity.
I didn't know that. How come? Why 12? I thought 7 was the magic number... Seven Wonders of the World, Seven Deadly Sins, Seven days in a week, etc.

Anyway, if 12 is perfection, we should have stayed at 12 members. Much easier to handle! ;) (I'm joking)

The overwhelming opinion I got from vox pops was that many voted no because the treaty was complicated and hard to understand (which is actually a reason to abstain). It was a treaty encompassing 27 nations of course it was complex. All constitutional and international law is.In the Irish Times poll the weekend before the referendum 30% said they were voting NO becasue "I don't know what I'm voting for/don't understand it". However, they were allowed give more than one reason and the "to keep Ireland's power and identity" got 24%, "to safeguard Ireland's neutrality" got 24% and "don't like being told what to do/forced into boting yes" got 17%. A big feeling going around (which our media ignored so I assume the international media did too) was that it was difficult to understand in the first place and that we were being told not to even bother trying but to just trust what our government told us and take the threats from Europe.

I didn't know that. How come? Why 12? I thought 7 was the magic number... Seven Wonders of the World, Seven Deadly Sins, Seven days in a week, etc.12 disciples?

12 disciples?
That's only for Christians, and what's "perfect" about it? One of them was a traitor.

Fleur, I hope you don't mind, I copied the Tour Eiffel pictures you posted on your AV site and upthread here onto my Photobucket account and reposted them in the "What do you think of France" thread. :)

Considering the main purpose of the union, which was to create such bonds between the European nations that anything like WW II would be impossible in the future, I don't think that leaving it at twelve ever really was an option.

Anyway, venturing back to the topic, I don't think president Zarkosy telling the Irish that they need to vote again has helped in making them to change their minds. On the contrary.

Considering the main purpose of the union, which was to create such bonds between the European nations that anything like WW II would be impossible in the future, I don't think that leaving it at twelve ever really was an option.
I didn't mean leave it at 12 forever - just not expand as fast as we have. Taking in 10 countries at very different states of economic development at one go was bound to create problems. We could have taken it more slowly.

As to the risk of another world war... It's still there. We still have Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, any one of which can go "rogue" at any time. But because of that, I agree with you that we need a strong and unified Europe. Taking it one step at a time, a couple of countries at a time may have been the way to do it. We may have avoided the "Polish plumber" problem if we had.

Anyway, venturing back to the topic, I don't think president Zarkosy telling the Irish that they need to vote again has helped in making them to change their minds. On the contrary.
Sarkozy is too much of a "get-things-done-now" guy, he's impatient and impetuous. He's done some very positive things, and did them well, but now he's gone slightly off-track. He wants France's presidency of the EU to leave a good legacy (to coin an overworn phrase), with only 6 months to do so. He's too eager, and he's not going about it diplomatically enough.

He maneuvered around the French "No" to the referendum very adroitly. He may have yet to realize he can't manipulate the Irish the same way.

I fully agree that it could have been made slower. :) And the 'constitution' should perhaps have been dealt with before 27 too.

Yeah, people here are still not sure. It's almost as though they don't want to talk about it. It was all down to poor campaigning and an instance where the present government took it for granted that we would just accept it without question.

It's not that we chose to have the referendum. As Eamon de Valera made sure, this country is based entirely on a democracy. Any change to be made to the constitution must be voted for by the people. But we weren't given enough information to make sure we could vote abjectly.

There are rumours everywhere at this stage. A new vote... it will be passed anyway... We have no choice... Out of the EU... It's madness. I just don't see how any of this helps the situation, you know?

I'm a yes voter, but I did have my doubts. Lisbon was only allowed due to a tiny article in the Nice Treaty, which said that when membership reached 27 states, the commission would be downsized. I never really thought that at exactly 27 states, it would happen. it made me wonder what else we had missed that's seen as so vital.

At the moment, I suppose we don't know. But in time maybe we'll vote again. I know we look like an anti-EU branch of the organisation, but I don't think that's true, necessarily. I think it's more that we weren't sure what to do.

*bump*

Ireland is having a new referendum today. There seems to be some expectations that the 'for' side will win this time.

I'm sure that if the voters of a nation voted "no" on the treaty/constitution, they would be subjected to another vote, and another, and another until the EU supporters in government got the result they wanted.

Shame it doesn't work the other way.

It'd be nice if we, the British public, were deigned worthy enough to be asked our opinion in a nationwide vote.

Hmmmm... I am usually all for direct democracy, but I think politicians are just too cynical and manipulative about this. The EU is such a good way of blaming something else for all evils (some of which are obviously home made). In fact, I am not sure whether something coinstitutional like this really *should* be decided by referendum, especially when the debate simply doesn't allow proper scrutiny of the actual content.


In any case - however people feel about the EU, it seems to me that it needs to be organised differently, and I think the Lisbon treaty is a start. I think it's a piuty that such fuss is made over each decision, so tyhat they can't go further, make the goivernment of the EU properly democratic (which it isn't now) and properly accountable, too.

With the pointless kerfuffle (which usually sidesteps the actual issues in favour of domestic issues) in all the member states proper reform simply doesn'tseem possible.

I am realy not fussed about the absence of a referendum (I think it's a mere matter that allows politicians to make a big noise as 'champions of the people' for very little risk) - but I *am* concerned about the less than ideal constitutional structure of the EU.

I think making it easier for the EU to make decisions simply makes it easier for them to mess things up.

I'm sure that if the voters of a nation voted "no" on the treaty/constitution, they would be subjected to another vote, and another, and another until the EU supporters in government got the result they wanted.

Shame it doesn't work the other way.

It'd be nice if we, the British public, were deigned worthy enough to be asked our opinion in a nationwide vote.

People are likely to vote "yes" this time due to scaremongering regarding economic recovery from the government.

Personally, I think it flies in the face of democracy to expect people to vote again on the same Treaty after 15 months because the Irish government and the EU didn't like the democratic decision of the people.

I find it interesting that you would like the British public to have been given a decision on this. What do other EU COS Members here think on that matter? Do you think there should have been a referendum in your country? I know it's a bit late for shoulda/woulda/coulda, but what do people think? Ireland had to have a referendum, as it is a part of our constitution to consult the people on new Treaties.

My country had a referendum about joining or not joining the EU, but not about this. Personally I'm perfectly content with not having a referendum but that may be because I'm for it. Those who are against would probably have been happier given a chance to say no.

My two main reasons to be for are:
1. The consensus principle for decisions simply doesn't work with 27 member states (and more to come).
2. For all I know the EU is less democratic now than it would be after implementing the Lisbon treaty.

The Lisbon treaty certainly isn't ideal. It's the best they managed to agree upon after the first 'constitution' was shot down. If we wait for ideal solutions, we'll never get anywhere. Not one of the member states' democracies are ideal either.

Thing is - I'd realy like a *real* discussion on the EU, based on proper information and proper arguments. To be honest, I have yet to see a Eurpean country where this is possible, since the EU is such an easy target to divert criticism from national issues.

In the UK the Murdoch press doesn't help, either.

To me, Aldebaran's ost above, stating that better decision making would just mean they mess more things up, is a sign of this. The EU doesn't get everything right, but in my opinion it makes no sense to suggest that it gets everything wrong.

Of course, no-one ever shouts about the many thingsw it gets right - they just make our lives work smoothly, and we tend to forget about those benefits once we have learned to take them for granted.

I know that my life, l as someone who travels a lot in Europe, has worked on research rojects in other EU countries, and of course, is now a resident in an EU country other than her home country, this may be more apparent.



Still - I sometimes get very angry that veryone remembers the regulation about curved cucumbers (which was obviously stupid and is now abolished), but few people know clearly how much they do which makes sense for us all....

I don't want to convince everyone, but I'd like to see a proper, even-handed and less polemic debate, particlarly in Britain.


A Referendum campaign at this moment would obviously not do that.

I do not read Murdoch's tabloids or watch his TV channels. My skepticism towards the European integration movement comes from my own independent opinions on the matter.

That's fine with me - but a independently formed opinion is hardly ever just black or white. Look, I have no problem with disagreement, and I don't want to come across as interrogating you: but I'd like to know why you think the EU is so bad. I haven't read the whole thread, but so far I know that you don't trust them, and I'd be interested to hear why you think they are so bad. What do you think the alternatives would be?

As someone who follows the news in a number of countries (at least on and off), I think that in the UK it is very difficult to get good quality information about the EU (and good quality doesn't always mean positive, obviously). I am not even saying that I am as well informad as I'd like. But the thing is, the discourse in this country has never actually be interested in actual realities, it seems to me - more like soundbites on both sides, and an acceptance that the tone has to be Eurosceptic to appeal to the public. I'd say that even the BBC can't really make up for that general tone of the debate. It bugs me, because I'd like to see a proper debate, and not something so heavily tinted by that instinctive feeling of insularity that seems to pervade so much of that discourse without people actually noticing properly.....

My opinion regarding this matter isn't black and white. I do support the concept of cooperation between European nations. But I do not support the level of integration that the EU is at, nor do I support further continental integration. I say this in a British context only. If other European nations want to merge into a wider European state and economy, so be it. But I do not want the United Kingdom to be part of anything more than simple free cooperation in matters beneficial to the British people.

Fair enough - that's still failry simplistic rhetoric. In a world with a globalised economy as ours 'simple free cooperation in matters beneficial to the British people' isn't ever going to be simple.

And too much desire to stay out of close co-operation with other states out of a sense of independence actually leads to restrictions... the UK is a big country, but in a globalised world, it isn't THAT big. ...

Anyway... I think that it is easy to underestimate the complexities of globalisation, and the impact this would have on us in a dog-eat-dog world where we didn't co-perate within the EU. Britian isn't any longer a big power or even, comparatively speaking, THAT a big a country, although in people's minds (as far as I can see the discourse) this still hasn't registered entirely... Changes will come, and I can't see the world order of the Security council and the G8 which benefited the small WWII winners like the UK and France disproportionally to survive for much longer. Eurpe will almost certainly the body which will have to speak for all those countries which simply aren't on the same plane as the US or China.

And as someone who remembers things like restrictive border controls, restrictions on trade and on the movement of workers I have to say I wouldn't want to go back to that, because I believe that it made everyone worse off....

and obviously, that's my personal opinion that I am not expecting anyone to share...

The result is in and it was a Yes vote. Last year there was a 53% turnout with 46% in favour. This time it was 58% turnout with 67% in favour. It's a pretty big jump. I'll be interested to see if research is done again to find out why people voted the way they did (they did this after the last referendum).

I wasn't involved in the campaign this time (blame illness and exile) but I expected a Yes. In the first campaign there was a lot of emphasis on the actual treaty but this time the Yes side moved the campaign to the EU in general. This wasn't a tactic I really approved of because the referendum was, rather obviously, on the Lisbon treaty not on EU membership. They tried acting as if the recession was caused by the No vote in 2008. Em, no? There was the whole issue of the entire economy being based on the building sector which was running on massively inflated house prices. Not something Lisbon affected.

There was also a lot of interviews in papers and on t.v. with EU politicians who pretty much said Ireland would find it very difficult to do anything in the EU if we voted no again.

Once again there was all focus on Libertas (right-wing, pro-business) and Cóir (right-wing, ultra-Catholic) groups and what they were saying when there were large numbers of other groups who had posters, canvassed, and held meetings. I think the media really did put a spin on the crazy no groups and didn't bother to ask what the sane people or academics were saying.

So yeah, I think those things had a bigger affect than the treaty itself.

And now we wait for the presidents of the Czech Republic and Poland to finally endorse the ratifications of their countries. :relax:

As someone who follows the news in a number of countries (at least on and off), I think that in the UK it is very difficult to get good quality information about the EU (and good quality doesn't always mean positive, obviously).

I totally echo this sentiment! I can't really say whether I'm for the Lisbon Treaty or against, because I haven't seen enough neutral, detailed information on it.

Also, it really frustrates me the way that the mainstream parties fight EP elections on domestic policies, without really trying to explain to the electorate what they would do for us in Europe and what they think the benefits of the EU are.

I am relieved, I really have to say it.

I just hope they don't make Blair the President of the EU. That might just turn the UK so eurosceptic that a Cameron government might be able to think about getting us out of the EU. And IMHO that would be a total disaster.


(...)

Once again there was all focus on Libertas (right-wing, pro-business) and Cóir (right-wing, ultra-Catholic) groups and what they were saying when there were large numbers of other groups who had posters, canvassed, and held meetings. I think the media really did put a spin on the crazy no groups and didn't bother to ask what the sane people or academics were saying.



I wonder - did you (or any other Irish people here) notice the activities of UKIP (the UK Independence Party) in Ireland? They started campaigning, sending out anti-EU leaflets and so forth.

Apparently they didn't notice that a strongly British patriotic party (their logo is the £ pound sign!!!) should perhaps not presume to get involved in Irish affairs? I thought that they were being outrageous. They behaved almost as if they considered Ireland as a kind of dependency of the UK. GRRRR.

Fair enough - that's still failry simplistic rhetoric. In a world with a globalised economy as ours 'simple free cooperation in matters beneficial to the British people' isn't ever going to be simple.

To be honest, this itself sounds like rhetoric. A "globalised economy" with each country integrated deeply with others is not necessarily a good thing.

And too much desire to stay out of close co-operation with other states out of a sense of independence actually leads to restrictions... the UK is a big country, but in a globalised world, it isn't THAT big. ...

Norway manages perfectly well to maintain its independence without being part of the EU and that's an even smaller economy than the UK's

Anyway... I think that it is easy to underestimate the complexities of globalisation, and the impact this would have on us in a dog-eat-dog world where we didn't co-perate within the EU. Britian isn't any longer a big power or even, comparatively speaking, THAT a big a country, although in people's minds (as far as I can see the discourse) this still hasn't registered entirely... Changes will come, and I can't see the world order of the Security council and the G8 which benefited the small WWII winners like the UK and France disproportionally to survive for much longer. Eurpe will almost certainly the body which will have to speak for all those countries which simply aren't on the same plane as the US or China.

I don't mind Britain not being a "big" power. In military terms I'd prefer us to not get involved in international conflicts. In economic terms, "small" and efficient is also good. Britain losing its Security Council seat to a "European" collective body is absolutely unacceptable and is another factor which would increase my opposition to British participation in an EU "state"

And as someone who remembers things like restrictive border controls, restrictions on trade and on the movement of workers I have to say I wouldn't want to go back to that, because I believe that it made everyone worse off....

Again, we can have border, trade and employment cooperation without unifying into a single state.

I just hope they don't make Blair the President of the EU. I sure agree with that. But maybe for reasons somewhat different. I simply don't trust his will to work in the interest of the entire union.
Norway manages perfectly well to maintain its independence without being part of the EU and that's an even smaller economy than the UK'sThere is quite a difference between those two nations. Oil. Without that Norway would be a very vulnerable economy.

I just wonder how the rest of Europe would react to Blair as "President of the European Council". He didn't seem to be the most popular of leaders around the world due to his Iraq War role. I just can't see Europe accepting it, not that they'll have much of a say of course.

Norway manages perfectly well to maintain its independence without being part of the EU and that's an even smaller economy than the UK's
I used to negotiate in Brussels for the UK government and outside every meeting there were Norwegian and Swiss (occasionally Icelandic) officials attempting to influence the debate. As part of Europe but not of the EU they have virtually all the obligations of EU membership with none of the influence. This is the position the Europhobes here want to put us in.

There is quite a difference between those two nations. Oil. Without that Norway would be a very vulnerable economy.

True, but the fact is they have that oil, and I'm confident Norway could diversify their economy further without much problem. They also have other abundant natural resources besides oil.

To be honest, this itself sounds like rhetoric. A "globalised economy" with each country integrated deeply with others is not necessarily a good thing.

Perhaps not. But it's the reality we live in - and there is nothing we can do to put that genie back into its bottle. We can only try to live with it. And I don't think we have a reasonable chance to maintain our standard of life in such a world without very close integration with Europe.




Britain losing its Security Council seat to a "European" collective body is absolutely unacceptable and is another factor which would increase my opposition to British participation in an EU "state"

Frankly, I don't think that this has much to do with Europe. Seriously, in what world is it fair that a country like Britain or France has a permanent seat on the Security Council, and India, Japan or Brazil don't? This IS going to change - not next year, obviously, but we can't forever perpetuate a post-WWII situation which no longer reflects in any way how the world works. With what justification can this be absolutely unacceptable? What gives Britain the right to demand such disproportionate influence?

The G8 is already moving to the G20 - with the UK still in, but obviously power is being diluted. I think the UN will go the same way: it'll be more permanent members, or they have to change who the permanent members are. If the second happens, the only way in which any European states can expect a right at the table is through the EU, I'd say.

Again - these are realities which are being discussed - and the discusson has nothing to do with the EU. It comes from places like India and other states which feel left out. IMHO, these changes will happen wehther we are in the EU or not - if we are in the EU we have a better chance to keep a part of our disporportionate influence, otherewise we'll be out in the cold on our own. Unless you trust the 'spcial relationship' - but I don't find that very reliable.



Again, we can have border, trade and employment cooperation without unifying into a single state.

No-one is rermotely thinking of a single state. I assume that this is somehw related to the inaccurate 'superate' rhetoric, which seems to be today's political bogeyman.....


I used to negotiate in Brussels for the UK government and outside every meeting there were Norwegian and Swiss (occasionally Icelandic) officials attempting to influence the debate. As part of Europe but not of the EU they have virtually all the obligations of EU membership with none of the influence. This is the position the Europhobes here want to put us in.


Exactly. I remember when Austria was on the outside (we joined in 1995). Tagging along, but without the influence. It's madness to contemplate such a status.


True, but the fact is they have that oil, and I'm confident Norway could diversify their economy further without much problem. They also have other abundant natural resources besides oil.

Such as? I really am not quite sure what you are talking about here.

Is it perhaps fish? Thats a finite resource - and if one looks at current national rhetoric in a number of countries, the EU seems to be the only thing between fish and irreversible decline of all species in Eurpean waters beyond.

I support most of what Klio says here, about Europe, individual countries and the world.

In their referendum, back in 2005, the French said "No" to the Constitution, but, IMO, mostly for reasons having more to do with internal politics than with Europe itself. Nicolas Sarkozy got out of that one by putting ratification of the Treaty before Parliament and not holding another referendum. Very astute of him.

Europe needs to be united to be strong, economically and politically, especially considering the global economy and the emerging powers from Asia and South America - and the global problem of terrorism. There, too, united we stand, divided we fail (if not fall altogether).

Aldebaran Black, where did you hear of the possibility of the UK (or any of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council) losing their seats to a European collective entity? :hmm: That's news to me. I worked at the UN for over three decades, and the amendment of the Charter aiming at modifying the composition of the Council, including adding permanent members (Japan and Germany being the candidates with the best credentials and the best chance - like Klio says, we can't live in the shadow of WW2 forever, it has been over for over 60 years), has been on the table for over a decade now. But I've never heard of one collective European "nation" taking a permanent seat. However they end up doing it, they'll get it done sooner or later. They have to, for the UN to stay relevant as a political entity.

Fleur,

That was me talking about the option of somehow sharing a European security council seat, as opposed to having two nations (the UK and France) which are essentially too small and only there because of WWII holding a seat each. There is a lot of talk about such options..... As I said when I clarified my post: it's either many more members with prmanent seats, or the group of permanent members remains small and a few lose their seats.

Personally, I think keeping the permanent member group small makes sense, because if there are too many the deadlock over everything will simply be permanent. Thus, the EU comes into the discussion. As I also said, it's not something that wll happen tomorrow - it won't even be discussed seriously by tomorrow.

Frankly, I don't think that this has much to do with Europe. Seriously, in what world is it fair that a country like Britain or France has a permanent seat on the Security Council, and India, Japan or Brazil don't? This IS going to change - not next year, obviously, but we can't forever perpetuate a post-WWII situation which no longer reflects in any way how the world works. With what justification can this be absolutely unacceptable? What gives Britain the right to demand such disproportionate influence?

Nuclear Weapons.

It's got nothing to do with rights - the fact is that Britain was given a permanent seat and veto and to lose it would have to agree to it happening. No British government (or French for that matter) would refrain from vetoing any such change.

Cameron must be breathing a great sigh of relief - Lisbon will be in force by the time he gets into Downing St so he can avoid a referendum.

Perhaps not. But it's the reality we live in - and there is nothing we can do to put that genie back into its bottle. We can only try to live with it. And I don't think we have a reasonable chance to maintain our standard of life in such a world without very close integration with Europe.

I'm pretty sure we can have a good standard of living without delegating power to a central European authority. Nor do I believe that a good standard of living is dependent on EU membership. As for "the world we live" it is what we want it to be. I simply do not subscribe to the mindset of "oh well...this is how it is and we can't do anything about it".

Frankly, I don't think that this has much to do with Europe. Seriously, in what world is it fair that a country like Britain or France has a permanent seat on the Security Council, and India, Japan or Brazil don't? This IS going to change - not next year, obviously, but we can't forever perpetuate a post-WWII situation which no longer reflects in any way how the world works. With what justification can this be absolutely unacceptable? What gives Britain the right to demand such disproportionate influence?

The G8 is already moving to the G20 - with the UK still in, but obviously power is being diluted. I think the UN will go the same way: it'll be more permanent members, or they have to change who the permanent members are. If the second happens, the only way in which any European states can expect a right at the table is through the EU, I'd say.

Again - these are realities which are being discussed - and the discusson has nothing to do with the EU. It comes from places like India and other states which feel left out. IMHO, these changes will happen wehther we are in the EU or not - if we are in the EU we have a better chance to keep a part of our disporportionate influence, otherewise we'll be out in the cold on our own. Unless you trust the 'spcial relationship' - but I don't find that very reliable.

I don't mind other countries being on the Security Council permanently along with "the big five" but that membership must be given to individual countries, not regional blocs. If other EU countries want the "EU" to represent them on the Security Council then so be it, but the United Kingdom must always maintain its own seat


No-one is rermotely thinking of a single state. I assume that this is somehw related to the inaccurate 'superate' rhetoric, which seems to be today's political bogeyman.....

I don't think its rhetoric at all. The EU slowly but surely is heading towards statehood. It already has many of the trappings of a state.

Such as? I really am not quite sure what you are talking about here.

Is it perhaps fish? Thats a finite resource - and if one looks at current national rhetoric in a number of countries, the EU seems to be the only thing between fish and irreversible decline of all species in Eurpean waters beyond.

A brief look at Wikipedia will provide a decent enough description of Norway's economy. Every country has it's finite resources. That doesn't mean joining a regional bloc is necessary.

Now the last member state, the Czech Republic has approved the Lisbon treaty.

Me thinks it's time to close this thread now and move over to General European politcs (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=123047)