Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What the papers say (part 2)

Options

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Jip
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,418 ✭✭✭Jip


    What's the gist of the Le Monde article, I see there's lots of comments on it so I'd be interested in what the French readers of it are saying. Babel Fish tells me in very poor English that alot of people are happy with the result with a couple of the preidicable ungrateful Irish comments thrown in too but it seems be mainly positive.


  • Options
    #3
    Ponster
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,912 Mod ✭✭✭✭Ponster


    Jip wrote: »
    What's the gist of the Le Monde article, I see there's lots of comments on it so I'd be interested in what the French readers of it are saying.

    Large % of French people were hoping that Ireland voted "No" based on recent polls and the comments in both Figero and Le Monde blog-sites. They see it as a re-hashed treaty of the one they already refused 3 years ago.


  • Options
    #4
    Zube
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,502 ✭✭✭Zube


    Via Google, somewhat tidied up by moi:

    In the early reckonings, the "No" is leading in Ireland Friday, June 13, following the referendum on the European Treaty of Lisbon. Officials of the count told Reuters that the No was at the top in five districts of the capital, Dublin, which represents about one quarter of the electorate in the country.

    The Irish Minister of Justice, Dermot Ahern, said it "seems that it is No" that prevails in the referendum on the European Treaty of Lisbon, during an interview with public radio and television RTE. " We must wait for confirmation of the full results but it seems that it is No that wins," said Ahern, speaking from his constituency of Dundalk. "It's obviously disappointing." In his own constituency, the "no" is leading with 58% of the vote, he said. "I do not see how this could be reversed," said Ahern. The Irish Minister for European Affairs, Dick Roche, acknowledged that "it does not show well" for the yes camp after the first trends. Public service broadcasting RTE, the early trends show that the "yes" in difficulty ". In his constituency of Wicklow, south of Dublin, "it is neck and neck," said Roche. "And from what you are told Wicklow is one of the best districts" for a victory for Yes, he stressed. According to Mr. Roche, workers urban areas and rural constituencies have not voted yes while Yes is doing better in urban areas of the middle class.

    Joan Burton, number two in the Irish Labour Party, supported the treaty, said that the capital seemed on track to reject the treaty: "It seems now that the vote 'no' is in the lead. I believe that, overall In Dublin, working-class districts are voting 'no'. " "The vote 'yes' seems strong in some areas more' middle class', but honestly I do not think it is strong enough to compensate for the size of the 'no'," she told Reuters.

    The countdown began at 9 am local (10 hours in Paris). According to the Irish Times, in the counties south-west, north-west, centre and north-east of Dublin, No wins with 60% of votes. In County Dublin south-east, failure would be 70%.

    In the county of Limerick west, not the win with 59%. In the southern county of Tipperary, yes get 50.3%, its northern neighbor would see the yes and no to 50%. The Galeway west would not prevail with 56%, Galeway is being 50-50. In other counties, Sligo-Leitrim, Roscommon south, south-west of Donegal and the north-east of Donegal, the first trends are also not the majority.


  • Options
    #5
    Zube
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,502 ✭✭✭Zube


    Also:

    France and Germany will react jointly to a referendum in Ireland on the European Treaty of Lisbon, said President Nicolas Sarkozy,Friday, June 13, . "I will wait for the final results," said the the president on the sidelines of a visit to the hospital in Bourges. "In addition we have agreed with German Chancellor Angela Merkel that we would be making a common response. At this moment we will say what we think," he said, without specifying exactly what form this would take common response. Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel have agreed on a joint initiative for Ireland during their meeting in Bavaria Monday, June 9.


  • Options
    #6
    VoidStarNull
    Closed Accounts Posts: 148 ✭✭VoidStarNull


    Jip wrote: »
    What's the gist of the Le Monde article, I see there's lots of comments on it so I'd be interested in what the French readers of it are saying. Babel Fish tells me in very poor English that alot of people are happy with the result with a couple of the preidicable ungrateful Irish comments thrown in too but it seems be mainly positive.

    The article itself is purely factual and just reports the situation, as on RTE and other sites.

    The comments are split between those saying that it's stupid to ask people to vote on this sort of thing, and complaining about the money Ireland received from the EU, and those saying that this is democracy, Franch voted no too, don't blame the Irish. Pretty much like the boards, actually. :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Der Spiegel

    Worth reading through

    Extract.
    Ireland shot down the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum held on Thursday. Already, EU politicians are branding the Irish as ingrates. But it is exactly that kind of arrogance which helped lead to the Irish "no" in the first place.

    In 2004 -- at a time, ironically, when Ireland held the rotating European Council presidency -- the process resulted in a European Constitution. But in 2005, the constitution idea was rejected by the French and the Dutch. Still, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was able to breathe new life into the EU reform last year. On Friday, though, with most of the results in from the Lisbon Treaty referendum held in Ireland, it looks like the process has once again been dashed.

    Brussels is disappointed -- and furious. When France and Holland rejected the EU constitution three years ago, it sent the alliance into two years of soul searching. This time around, EU functionaries thought they had satisfied doubts about the depth of democracy in the EU -- and about concerns that too much power was being centralized in Brussels.

    So far, accusations of Irish ingratitude have been muted. But it likely won't stay that way for long. Already on Monday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, a diplomat not always known for his diplomacy, said that Ireland itself would be the first victim of its own referendum. "They have benefited more than others," Kouchner said on RTL radio. "It would be very, very awkward if we were not able to count on the Irish, who have often counted on Europe."

    At first glance, Kouchner has a point. The island nation of 4.3 million has received billions of euros worth of subsidies from Brussels during its 35-year-old membership in the European Union. In recent years, Ireland's economy has enjoyed rapid growth -- indeed, the so-called "Celtic Tiger" will even soon become a net payer to the European Union. Instead of people flowing out of Ireland looking for work, Europeans from all over the continent are now flowing in.

    But there is more to it than that. Kouchner's comments assume that anyone who is pro-Europe must necessarily be in favor of the Lisbon Treaty. At the same time, Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen and others from the pro-treaty camp have complained that the "no" camp in Ireland often focused on issues that had nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty. So was the vote about the document at hand? Was it about Ireland's membership in the European Union or the future of the EU itself? Or was it about something else entirely?

    Listen to the Irish themselves and it becomes clear that they remain, for the most part, committed Europeans. In the run up to Thursday's referendum, though, the country posed two questions born of pragmatism: Is this treaty good for us? And: Are we happy with the current development of the EU? Both questions are ones which many millions of Europeans would likely have responded to with "no." Had they been asked.

    Mike.


  • Options
    #8
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Czech prime minister says the treaty is dead. Of the remaining countries they are probably the most likely to not ratify the treaty.

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKL1382274920080613


  • Options
    #9
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    By way of contrast to the Der Speigel article here is the view from the inside

    http://euobserver.com/7/26325
    EUOBSERVER / COMMENT - Ireland has said "No", but there are 26 other member states whose opinion matters too.

    It is inconceivable that all of the others will simply say "too bad - one country has said ‘No' to the package as it stands, so let's forget reform and stick with the current system for evermore."

    All member states want reform. Even the ‘No' campaigners in Ireland claimed they want to negotiate a better package.

    So, what is to be done? First, Ireland must have a profound internal debate to identify precisely what it is they don't like about the Lisbon Treaty. Presumably it is not the extra powers for parliaments, nor the clearer focus on combating climate change, but some other aspects. If they can identify what those are, then they can ask the other member states for help in addressing their concerns.

    Like Denmark

    This, after all, is precisely what Denmark did after their initial rejection of the Maastricht Treaty. They said to the rest of Europe that they didn't want to blow up the whole edifice, but that they would come back with proposals to find a way out.

    They identified four items in the Maastricht package that they didn't like, the other member states were able to meet their concerns (without, by the way, needing to change the treaty to do so) and Denmark then approved the treaty by a comfortable majority in a new referendum.


    Several concerns raised in the Irish debate can easily be met, not least because they were unjustified fears.

    The treaty does not affect Ireland's abortion laws, it does not change their ability to set their tax rates, it does not oblige them to send troops to a European army and it does not change the EU's negotiating stance on agriculture on the WTO.

    Such fears can be assuaged without needing to change the treaty, by clarifying declarations or, if necessary, additional protocols.

    Loss of a Commissioner

    Other concerns might be more difficult. The loss of an Irish Commissioner (for one Commission out of three, as of 2014, as for every member state) was an issue, but special treatment for Ireland would be difficult.

    After all, they and the other small countries were victorious on that point in the negotiations on the treaty in ensuring equal rotation, irrespective of the size of countries.

    Note that the current treaties, if left unamended, would anyway require a smaller Commission - but without an agreed rotation system and already in 2009.


    Whatever the issues are, it should not be impossible to address the bulk of Irish concerns.

    If this can be done without having to alter the treaty - which would require a new IGC and renewed ratification in all the counties (now nearly 20) that have ratified already - then so much the better.

    New referendum

    Nor should we accept the bleating from Eurosceptics that there is somehow something undemocratic about a new referendum.

    It is perfectly reasonable to address a divergence in the positions of the 27 EU countries by asking the minority of one to think again - especially if its concerns have been addressed. What would be undemocratic would be to allow the one to prevail over the many.

    Of course, no-one relishes the prospect of still more debate and negotiation on the minutiae of the composition and functioning of the EU institutions.

    Achieving a solution acceptable to all 27 countries may not be easy. But an even worse solution would be to abandon all reform.

    A poorly functioning EU, failing to deliver on behalf of its citizens, is in no-one's interest.

    Sweeping the necessary reforms under the carpet because you can't even be bothered to explore the possibility for a compromise would do nobody any favours.

    The author is a UK Labour MEP

    Mike.


Advertisement