Nicolas Sarkozy plans to bypass Irish no vote

nobody · June 2008

please don't pretend those referemdums (IRL, NL, FRA) were some kind of us against them victory for democracy. hardly half of the people having a right to vote actually bothered to go to the booth. and the parties opposing the future european integration most vehemently are right-wing, nationalist and/or religious groups. there simply is the fact that the traditional EU structures don't work anymore for the new EU with 27 countries. politicians (goverment AND oppositions) have made it a (bad) custom to blame brussels for everything that doesn't work in their countries, yet they (out of the public eye) are the ones making european policy. the new contract is trying to make EU policies more open for the public. aside from points like europe won't have a "soul" anymore (whatever that means) what exactly are the reasons for the heavy resistance against the contract. i don't understand the concernes about power being taken away from national states (i rather see that as a positive thing), as long as eurpean people are given direct control over eu policies, which the new treaty actually ensures a great deal better than the ones before.

m.

Rhinocerous Surprise · June 2008

nobody wrote:

please don't pretend those referemdums (IRL, NL, FRA) were some kind of us against them victory for democracy. hardly half of the people having a right to vote actually bothered to go to the booth. and the parties opposing the future european integration most vehemently are right-wing, nationalist and/or religious groups. there simply is the fact that the traditional EU structures don't work anymore for the new EU with 27 countries. politicians (goverment AND oppositions) have made it a (bad) custom to blame brussels for everything that doesn't work in their countries, yet they (out of the public eye) are the ones making european policy. the new contract is trying to make EU policies more open for the public. aside from points like europe won't have a "soul" anymore (whatever that means) what exactly are the reasons for the heavy resistance against the contract. i don't understand the concernes about power being taken away from national states (i rather see that as a positive thing), as long as eurpean people are given direct control over eu policies, which the new treaty actually ensures a great deal better than the ones before.

m.

If the Lisbon Treaty was supposed to inspire confidence in the EU body of power, then the Lisbon Treaty should have been legible to anyone without seventeen law degrees. If the Lisbon Treaty was supposed to inspire confidence in the EU body of power, then the Lisbon Treaty should have been put to a referendum in every EU country. If the Lisbon Treaty was supposed to inspire confidence in the EU body of power, then the EU body of power shouldn't be looking to bully Ireland into accepting it - that's hardly a victory for democracy.

What I see when I look at the Lisbon Treaty is a shadowy, vague document that plenty of government officials don't understand. I see a treaty that gives those in power the opportunity to amend the treaty to give themselves more power.

I'm proud that we voted no on it. I'm proud to have stuck a spanner in the ridiculously arrogant mindset of Sarkozy and his brethren.

Kann · June 2008

nobody wrote:

please don't pretend those referemdums (IRL, NL, FRA) were some kind of us against them victory for democracy. hardly half of the people having a right to vote actually bothered to go to the booth. and the parties opposing the future european integration most vehemently are right-wing, nationalist and/or religious groups. there simply is the fact that the traditional EU structures don't work anymore for the new EU with 27 countries. politicians (goverment AND oppositions) have made it a (bad) custom to blame brussels for everything that doesn't work in their countries, yet they (out of the public eye) are the ones making european policy. the new contract is trying to make EU policies more open for the public. aside from points like europe won't have a "soul" anymore (whatever that means) what exactly are the reasons for the heavy resistance against the contract. i don't understand the concernes about power being taken away from national states (i rather see that as a positive thing), as long as eurpean people are given direct control over eu policies, which the new treaty actually ensures a great deal better than the ones before.

m.

Actually a referendum is the only vote where abstension has no meaning. If you don't vote at a presidential election it means you do not find what you are looking for in the choices given to you for example, if you don't vote at a referendum it doesn't mean anything except you don't care and leave the choice to others. As for the the rest, I agree with most of what you said, except that passing a law against the popular vote is undemocratic. And a EU built on undemocratic basis is not what I was voting for in the first place.

nobody · June 2008

I simply think referendums don't work on the level of high politics, especially european politics. this is just hypothetical, but had there been referendums since the planning phase of the european union, there would be no european union. you think a popular vote would have lead to a treaty between france and germany after WWII? you think we would have a common currency? you think the eastern countries would have been able to join?
as people have said elsewhere: there is an elected parliament to make decisions like this one. and I sincerely doubt the treaty is the result of some isreali-superrich-power hungry conspiracy that some people hint here, and that will leave the european goverments as mere marionettes of the all powerful elite in brussels. i don't mind having a common european foreign secretary or even a common military. i agree with reorganising decision making in the process of european policy. as a matter of fact the treaty was supposed to give more relative power to the vote of countries like Poland. and I also support common guidelines in working conditions and working security as well as comparable laws in punishment (like the strict exclusion of the death penalty) and minority protection. in short: the stagnation in reforming the eu has been going on long enough. the treaty might not be ideal, but it's better than a orientation- and powerless body. if some countries (proudly) decide against the new framework: more power to them, but if other countries want to go ahead, they have my support.

m.

Rhinocerous Surprise · June 2008

nobody wrote:

I simply think referendums don't work on the level of high politics, especially european politics. this is just hypothetical, but had there been referendums since the planning phase of the european union, there would be no european union. you think a popular vote would have lead to a treaty between france and germany after WWII? you think we would have a common currency? you think the eastern countries would have been able to join?
as people have said elsewhere: there is an elected parliament to make decisions like this one. and I sincerely doubt the treaty is the result of some isreali-superrich-power hungry conspiracy that some people hint here, and that will leave the european goverments as mere marionettes of the all powerful elite in brussels. i don't mind having a common european foreign secretary or even a common military. i agree with reorganising decision making in the process of european policy. as a matter of fact the treaty was supposed to give more relative power to the vote of countries like Poland. and I also support common guidelines in working conditions and working security as well as comparable laws in punishment (like the strict exclusion of the death penalty) and minority protection. in short: the stagnation in reforming the eu has been going on long enough. the treaty might not be ideal, but it's better than a orientation- and powerless body. if some countries (proudly) decide against the new framework: more power to them, but if other countries want to go ahead, they have my support.

m.

We were actually constitutionally obligated to have a referendum on this.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/government-in-ireland/irish-constitution-1/constitution_introduction

One of the most important Articles of the Constitution is Article 15.4, which states that the Oireachtas must not enact any law that is repugnant to the Constitution and that any such law is invalid. This means, that the law set down in the Constitution is superior to all other law, including legislation. If a proposed new law is repugnant to the Constitution, it cannot be enacted without first changing the Constitution by a constitutional referendum.

So for the Irish government to ratify Lisbon, which supercedes the Irish constitution on certain laws, they needed to have a referendum. Otherwise, the Lisbon Treaty would have been illegal.

And to further clarify the importance of this article, it's because of this need for a referendum that our neutrality is in the hands of the people rather than the government. If we had ratified the Lisbon Treaty, which is self-amending, it would have given our government control over our neutrality and any other constitutional law they saw fit to meddle with.

JordyWordy · June 2008

nobody wrote:

I simply think referendums don't work on the level of high politics, especially european politics. this is just hypothetical, but had there been referendums since the planning phase of the european union, there would be no european union. you think a popular vote would have lead to a treaty between france and germany after WWII? you think we would have a common currency? you think the eastern countries would have been able to join?
as people have said elsewhere: there is an elected parliament to make decisions like this one. and I sincerely doubt the treaty is the result of some isreali-superrich-power hungry conspiracy that some people hint here, and that will leave the european goverments as mere marionettes of the all powerful elite in brussels. i don't mind having a common european foreign secretary or even a common military. i agree with reorganising decision making in the process of european policy. as a matter of fact the treaty was supposed to give more relative power to the vote of countries like Poland. and I also support common guidelines in working conditions and working security as well as comparable laws in punishment (like the strict exclusion of the death penalty) and minority protection. in short: the stagnation in reforming the eu has been going on long enough. the treaty might not be ideal, but it's better than a orientation- and powerless body. if some countries (proudly) decide against the new framework: more power to them, but if other countries want to go ahead, they have my support.

m.

i note the word "hypothetical" at the start of your post. I am VERY pro-EU. Im not a nationalist, right-wing or extreme in any way. But the practical remifications of Lisbon gave what seemed to me to be an unnecessarily large amount of power to EU officials with no other reason than expansion and to build an army. Why do they need to change the perogative of the Organization just because it has new members??
its been getting new members continuously for the past fifty years, its not a new problem!!! I just dont want a single federal government for Europe. Not many people do!!!

The biggest problem i had with the Lisbon Treaty itself was that it made the internal decision-making process a co-decision one, and thus removes the safeguard of the current system (one body proposes, the other approves/rejects, etc) . It also lowers the minimum requirement to pass laws.

Its also important to note that the political parties that supported Yes in Ireland would have about 90% of the votes in general elections between them, but couldnt put up clear reasons or simple discussions of what was going on here to convince people why they should vote to change what seems to be a well-functioning EU to Irish people. The politicians here were lazy about it (on both sides of the debate).

And Ireland has had referendums on EU issues before and passed them, so its not unrealistic to let people vote on such matters as you suggested. Are you genuinely standing by the underhand moves of a democratic body to remove the "problem of" democracy (the citizens votes)??

nobody · June 2008

well, it doesn't matter what you are. on average it was mostly conservative/religious/right (or very left) groups that mobilised against the treaty, as it would have made abortion easier or granted more rights to homosexuals.

and yes there have been expansions of the EU to include 15 countries over a span of 50 years. then 12 countries were added in ONE year. you really want to call that a well-known development?

and since then the eu doesn't function as well as you might think. having that many members it is basically impossible to come to terms and get anything done under the old way of decision making. that's why a new design is needed, where less votes are necessary to make a decision (note that only 25% of the irish voters were enough to reject the treaty). and the treaty includes explicit clauses that allows countries to not follow decisions they don't support.
your so called safe-guard guards you from any decision, cause 27 countries never will be all united in one question (as you can easily see right now). the new system would actually make it more transparent who (which government) voted for or against certain policies, and they wouldn't be able to pretent anymore that it is evil states like germany and france that are responsible for all the problems at home. that doesn't sound so bad to me.

not that the new treaty would create a federal european state, but I don't generally oppose it: as long as I can elect its parliament and thus influence how the "goverment" is going to look like. right now, the european commision mainly makes the decisions, which is not elected by anyone. how can you say the eu in its common form is so much more democratic than the eu that would come out of the new treaty?
and just a sidenote: I very much prefere a european army to 27 single national armies...don't you?

m.

ps. I support referendums on a local level where people are able to have a full overview of the problem at hand. for high politics (like european policy) there's a body of elected officials to make decisions. and if there are referendums fo higher issues, there should be a requierment that at least 85% of the voters must have attended in order for it to be valid.

Heineken Helen · June 2008

spiral out wrote:

It was never going to be any other way. The only thing is there more blatant about it now, as the people are more unaware or just don't care.

I don't know... one of two things will come from this... either they'll ignore our vote completely OR this WILL awaken people to how they operate in Europe... judging by the people I spoke to in Cardiff at the weekend, the latter is certainly happening. I think if they ignore us, there will be plenty of anger throughout Europe :(

Heineken Helen · June 2008

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

I joke, but I'm majorly pissed about this. If they actually do bypass the Irish veto, that just proves us right on everything we were afraid of with this treaty.

Exactly! I'm more positive now than ever that we did the right thing. A yes vote would have given them the go ahead to operate even more strongly like this. A no vote means they'll still go ahead probably but at least one country will have seen through it :(

Heineken Helen · June 2008

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Word is that Gordon Brown's gonna call for the Irish veto to stand - because if it gets to the point where the solution is a two-tier Europe, Britain will be in the second tier. They'll most likely still go ahead and ratify it to look good to Brussels though.

Unfortunately... we find ourselves in the familiar position... our future probably depends on the support of Britain!

There's still some hope in the Czech Republic though. If ONE country would stand up with us and say no, it certainly would NOT be ignored. The risk is much smaller for them to do so now that it's already been done... they will not get the blame.

Heineken Helen · June 2008

JordyWordy wrote:

if 26 ratify and Ireland dont, theyll probably find ways to get through cos the ECJ (EU Court Justice) wont make a decision thatd throw the future of the EU in doubt (if EU tries to leave Ireland behind- itd be a violation of EU law, but EU law is ridiculously complicated & the ECJ is ridiculously unpredicitable in its decisions.......

and they wanted us to vote on something that was even MORE complicated

and that's not because I'm ignorant or stupid... it was a ridiculous document and is open to all kinds of interpretation.

nobody · June 2008

the treaty might take away the decision from the irish peolple to directly decide about their neutrality, and thus they have a good right to be against it. yet, condemning the whole piece of work as an attempt to enslave europe in the interest of big business is delirious.
for europe as a whole the treaty strengthens (representative) democracy as it gives more power to the european parliament which, comparable to national parliaments, consists of elected representatives from each EU country that are voted for by every eu citizen. formerly the european commision and council, which are not democratically elected (in their function for europe) had the major say in european policy which in great parts happened outside the public eye.
i don't see how this is the evil monstrum that people try to evoke here.
smaller countries are given more votes than they would have relative to their population. there need to be a certain number of countries for vetos. this is the only way to ensure that one or two single countries can't bring the decision making process to a complete stop out of self interest. yet there is a sufficient possibility for countries to oppose to policies in a coalition (democracy at its best)
if, in consequence of the irish rejection of the document, the decision is made
to start afresh with a smaller number of countries that are willing to engange in a more advanced integration. both groups of countries are perfectly respected.
the eu never a tool to make farming or getting to PJ concerts easier as people have pointed out elsewhere. it started as an economic cooperation mainly between france and germany that now has expanded to incluce countries in the (former) european periphery like portigal, greece, ireland, poland, or estonia for MUTUAL benefit. that those countries (some more than others) after centuries of warfare and economic battles try to get closer also in social and legislative matters is a step i most warmly welcome.
I am not an economist and neither am working for a big company but people need to stop blaming economic interests for all the wrongs in the world. sheer economic cooperation can be and often is the starting points also for a closer social interaction. there always has to be something in it for people to get in contact.

m.

Heineken Helen · June 2008

nobody wrote:

the treaty might take away the decision from the irish peolple to directly decide about their neutrality, and thus they have a good right to be against it. yet, condemning the whole piece of work as an attempt to enslave europe in the interest of big business is delirious. .

where are you getting that idea from? Nobody suggested that... although Lisbon left the POSSIBILITY of that happening. Like a lot of the scaremongering stuff on the no side... it's highly doubtful it will happen but who knows what state the world will be in in 20 years time and who's in charge.

nobody wrote:

for europe as a whole the treaty strengthens (representative) democracy as it gives more power to the european parliament which, comparable to national parliaments, consists of elected representatives from each EU country that are voted for by every eu citizen. formerly the european commision and council, which are not democratically elected (in their function for europe) had the major say in european policy which in great parts happened outside the public eye..

Yes I know how it works... but I think we're seeing a HUGE lack of respect for democracy in play right now.

nobody wrote:

i don't see how this is the evil monstrum that people try to evoke here.
smaller countries are given more votes than they would have relative to their population. there need to be a certain number of countries for vetos. this is the only way to ensure that one or two single countries can't bring the decision making process to a complete stop out of self interest. yet there is a sufficient possibility for countries to oppose to policies in a coalition (democracy at its best).

Hmm... forget about opposing and vetos... it also makes it easier for a few of the bigger countries to just get a couple of little countries onside and run away with the whole thing themselves. See there are too many gaps... too many problems with this treaty!

nobody wrote:

f, in consequence of the irish rejection of the document, the decision is made
to start afresh with a smaller number of countries that are willing to engange in a more advanced integration. both groups of countries are perfectly respected..

So we split europe? Simply cos the people didn't like the 'advancements' they were putting forth? That's ridiculous.

nobody wrote:

the eu never a tool to make farming or getting to PJ concerts easier as people have pointed out elsewhere. it started as an economic cooperation mainly between france and germany that now has expanded to incluce countries in the (former) european periphery like portigal, greece, ireland, poland, or estonia for MUTUAL benefit. that those countries (some more than others) after centuries of warfare and economic battles try to get closer also in social and legislative matters is a step i most warmly welcome.
I am not an economist and neither am working for a big company but people need to stop blaming economic interests for all the wrongs in the world. sheer economic cooperation can be and often is the starting points also for a closer social interaction. there always has to be something in it for people to get in contact.

m.

See that's where we split. The economic cooperation and trading bloc and the reasons the EU was set up really was a great idea... and it still is. But they're asking us to vote for a completely different Europe here. Even the States of America get to choose their own taxes! We'd be handing way too much power over to politicians.... and I simply do not believe there is any need for it.

nobody · June 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

See that's where we split. The economic cooperation and trading bloc and the reasons the EU was set up really was a great idea... and it still is. But they're asking us to vote for a completely different Europe here. Even the States of America get to choose their own taxes! We'd be handing way too much power over to politicians.... and I simply do not believe there is any need for it.

yes, but some countries want to go beyond that...why would you stop them if others WANT to join them. the irish aren't forced to do it.

m.

nobody · June 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

Hmm... forget about opposing and vetos... it also makes it easier for a few of the bigger countries to just get a couple of little countries onside and run away with the whole thing themselves. See there are too many gaps... too many problems with this treaty!

and if the smaller countries get together they can impose stuff on bigger countries. that's the way it works. right now nothing works, because if one country says it doesn't want to go along, nothing happens.

and the treaty even allows countries not to implement rulings they reject. there is still room for countries to make individual policies. maybe less than before, but that's not necessarily bad as long as I can still influence it with my vote.
that's just what I'm talking about. if not every one wants to work together more closely some will and some won't.

europe has always been split. Norway, Switzerland, Serbia, Croatia, Ukraine...all not in the EU, yet european countries...and you said elsewhere that you didn't understand why those eastern countries had to join, so what kind of split is the right one for you....west and east, rich and poor??
I rather go with working together and not working together...

m.

Heineken Helen · June 2008

nobody wrote:

yes, but some countries want to go beyond that...why would you stop them if others WANT to join them. the irish aren't forced to do it.

m.

but how do we know if they want to or not? Britain WILL ratify the treaty, yet a poll last week showed if a referendum were held, it would be defeated 50% to 21%. There's nothing democratic about Brown going ahead against those figures. If I felt Europe DID want this I would say so... but the Brits, the Dutch and the French certainly do NOT want it. The French and Dutch spoke and were ignored, the brits will not get a chance to speak

Heineken Helen · June 2008

nobody wrote:

and if the smaller countries get together they can impose stuff on bigger countries. that's the way it works. right now nothing works, because if one country says it doesn't want to go along, nothing happens.

what do you mean nothing happens? Things stay the same... but the EU has plenty of power as it is. Sure they're always giving us slaps on the wrist over this and over that... there's plenty they can do and are doing.

nobody wrote:

and the treaty even allows countries not to implement rulings they reject. there is still room for countries to make individual policies. maybe less than before, but that's not necessarily bad as long as I can still influence it with my vote.
that's just what I'm talking about. if not every one wants to work together more closely some will and some won't.

Yes, but as I've said before... look at the bullying that goes on. The Irish government are not as strong minded as the collective Irish people... if France were to make threats over our tax breaks and suggest punishing us in some other way, there's NO doubt in my mind that our government would give in.

nobody wrote:

europe has always been split. Norway, Switzerland, Serbia, Croatia, Ukraine...all not in the EU, yet european countries...and you said elsewhere that you didn't understand why those eastern countries had to join, so what kind of split is the right one for you....west and east, rich and poor??
I rather go with working together and not working together...

m.

What? where did I say that? I've NO problem with enlargement... I never said that anywhere... we voted for that in Nice... which I voted YES to by the way. I understand completely why they'd want to join and why we should let them. That's never been an issue for me anyway... and we did already vote on that so I doubt it was an issue for anyone else either.

Specifics · June 2008

nobody wrote:

yes, but some countries want to go beyond that...why would you stop them if others WANT to join them. the irish aren't forced to do it.

m.

I keep hearing this assumption from pro-euros, that the other countries WANT it.
If by referendum every country had said yes there would be no real issue to argue.
Had the Irish not had their referendum guaranteed in their constitution, their parties made it clear they would have been forced to.

Heineken Helen · June 2008

Specifics wrote:

I keep hearing this assumption from pro-euros, that the other countries WANT it.
If by referendum every country had said yes there would be no real issue to argue.
Had the Irish not had their referendum guaranteed in their constitution, their parties made it clear they would have been forced to.

We're pretty much the only country who weren't forced into anything

dunkman · June 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

We're pretty much the only country who weren't forced into anything

you were forced to have a referendum

Nicolas Sarkozy plans to bypass Irish no vote

Comments

Categories