Disreputable sentiments in Europe

FionnMatthew

ixtlan wrote: »

True, in a literal sense. However the other states thought that the Irish government was representing Ireland.

What do you mean by the "other states thought" X?

Do you mean the governments of the other states thought X?

And frankly, to advocate aggressive political action on the basis of the thwarted misrepresentation of the Irish electorate is hasty, to say the least.

peasant

DeVore wrote: »

So instead you simply enforce it on the people? Because the politicians know better then their ignorant and pesky plebisites?

DeV.

Well ...to a certain degree, yes.

That is the job description of a politician. To make policy. To see the big picture. To devise a plan for the future.

Even the ancient Greeks and Romans had that one sussed when they came up with the concept of elected tyrants and dictators.

Someone, who after having heard all sides, made up their mind, put an end to the neverending discussion, bickering and self interest and made a decision (hopefully) for the greater good.

As we can see from todays interpretation of tyrant and dictator, that idea wasn't entirely full of merit either, as it is a human pre-disposition to abuse postions of power.

But somewhere there has to be a workable compromise between every Tom, Dick and Harriette expressing their own interest and someone "upstairs" simply dictating which route they deem best.

Neither the plebiscite nor the dictatorship in its pure form are ideal. That's why we have a parliamentary democracy. Every now and then the people get to choose their "dictators", other democratic organisations keep them in check.

But in the meantime, we should let them get on with things.

Putting something as complex as the Lisbon treaty before the people is bound for failure. The people haven't been part of the creation of that treaty. Nobody really knows what it is all about, so nobody can make an informed decision. Unless you want to put every single little piece of EU legislation/guideline/directive ever devised in front of every EU citizen, the process will never be truly democratic.

We did not get to vote on whether or not the NCT should be implemented ...it was an EU directive and it was implemented, full stop.

Why then should we get to vote on something as complex as the Lisbon treaty?

We voted already ...for the very politicians that helped negotiate that treaty.

Rb

bug wrote: »

With all respect for the Irish vote, we cannot allow the huge majority of Europe to be duped by a minority of a minority of a minority.

-Axel Schafer

Thanks Axel,
That's fine, I'll stay legislated by a state that gives me a vote and where it matters.
I think they may find that this minority grows and I hope that us putting ourselves in the line of fire on behalf of those who didnt get a direct vote allows them a voice.

Indeed. After our result was announced, Gordon Browne came under fire about not allowing the UK citizens to voice their opinion. I think it's safe to say if he continues to ratify and doesn't hold a refendum, that will be his politicial career finished. Every paper in the UK is putting pressure on him, the opposition parties are too (David Cameron almost immediately released a statement on it targetting Browne), including The Sun which had previously been very pro-Browne. If he doesn't, one can only imagine the sheer amount of damage they can do to him when it comes to the next elections.

As I've posted previously, since our result was made public the Czech Republican President has came out and said the treaty must be dropped and that ratification cannot continue, backed by the biggest political party in the country and the Senate. I believe the Czechs will soon finalise it and say they're not ratifying it, which will put them in the same boat as us.

What will Barrasso and the French say then? To continue to press on and ratify regardless?

Sarkozy needs to thread carefully now, I believe, as his citizens have already rejected the constitution and weren't given an option this time, depending on how he treats this and our decision he could well end up killing his parties future in France.

ixtlan

FionnMatthew wrote: »

What do you mean by the "other states thought" X?

Do you mean the governments of the other states thought X?

And frankly, to advocate aggressive political action on the basis of the thwarted misrepresentation of the Irish electorate is hasty, to say the least.

Fionn, I am certainly not advocating "aggressive political action". Also I agree whole-heartedly with your comment "frankly, it is unprofessional of diplomats and officials to vent frustration in a public forum in so profuse and intemperate a manner."

All I was trying to do was show that they had a right to be frustrated, though I agree that the job of a diplomat is to resolve the problem rather than suggest blame. And when I say "have a right to be frustrated", I would add that as politicians and diplomats they should not let this frustration have any effect except to strengthen their efforts to find a resolution, and they should realise that frustration is an unhelpful emotion here. Sometimes however people cannot help being human.

As for the other states, yes I meant the governments of the states. We can debate whether that really means the people, but I would say that unless there is a popular view in their country against their representations, then they do represent the public in actual fact. Whereas the Irish government is now seen not to represent the Irish people.

You can argue that is good, or bad, but there's no doubt that it makes treaties very difficult.

Look at Kyoto. If we abide by the rules it looks like it will cost us hundreds of millions in fines. If it went to referendum there is no way we or probably anyone would have passed it. Was it wrong for the government to approve?

If a whole new treaty is drawn up and presented in 5 years or 10, which some would advocate, there will be a shadow hanging over it during the negotiations, along the lines of... "no matter what we agree to... it may not be enough for the Irish"

Maybe this is a good thing, but I am doubtful.

Ix.

Scofflaw

bug wrote: »

With all respect for the Irish vote, we cannot allow the huge majority of Europe to be duped by a minority of a minority of a minority.

-Axel Schafer

Thanks Axel,
That's fine, I'll stay legislated by a state that gives me a vote and where it matters.
I think they may find that this minority grows and I hope that us putting ourselves in the line of fire on behalf of those who didnt get a direct vote allows them a voice.

That is the fundamental reason for my own ambivalence in respect of the result. I argued for a Yes vote because I think that was overall the better decision, and it would certainly have been the better decision if we had arrived at it democratically.

There are several levels to the decision.

First, there is the question of whether the Treaty in itself represented a good thing, given one supports where the EU project is going - and my answer to that would be Yes, which was the basis on which I voted, because I am in favour of the EU project. It isn't perfect, but it is good, and I cannot see a better alternative.

Second, there is the question of whether voting Yes represented a good idea in terms of European realpolitik. The answer here again is Yes - the other European governments support the Treaty, with more or less reservation depending on how strongly they support the EU project, and how good a deal they felt they were getting. While we may have gained some support from the No demographic in other EU countries, we will have made far less of a good impression on other governments.

On that subject - while we may personally enjoy the back-slapping from other EU citizens who wanted a No, we have made as many enemies as friends, because there isn't a majority in Europe opposed to the EU. Further, they won't be carrying the can - we will.

Third, there is the question of whether the EU project is going in the right direction, and whether those who believe it isn't can contribute constructive opposition as a minority. Here is the fundamental divide. The EU is a profoundly anti-nationalist project - that is its raison d'etre, because European nationalism is a deadly force - so those to whom emotive nationalism is a vital component of their outlook, it can never be anything other than antithetical. As long as those who require Westphalian style national sovereignty - untrammelled sovereignty based on territorial integrity, national cohesion, and the rigid exclusion of external forces including supranational actors - are in a minority, the supranational EU project remains feasible. If they become the majority, the EU project is no longer feasible, and should be abandoned.

Since the majority of arguments against the EU have a subtext of such nationalism, the majority of such arguments are not constructive. Such nationalism contributes nothing to the EU project except to act as a brake on its progress - so nationalists like Sinn Fein cannot contribute anything positive to the project as nationalists.

However, there are arguments - like those put forward by Democrates - which are constructive. The question is whether these arguments are being sufficiently taken into account in the structures of the EU. I feel, on balance, that they are taken into account quite well in theory, but poorly in practice - that the EU does not suffer a structural democratic deficit (or at least wouldn't have after Lisbon), but an operational one. The EU bureaucracy is divorced from majority of the EU citizenry - as bureaucracies always are - and the taunt of "euro-elite" wouldn't sting so much if there wasn't truth in it. Again, though, these are unavoidable consequences of bureaucracy - and the smaller the bureaucracy and the wider its sway, the more of an elite it will feel itself to be.

Obviously, I'm still thinking about this...

cordially,
Scofflaw

bug

Scofflaw wrote: »

That is the fundamental reason for my own ambivalence in respect of the result. I argued for a Yes vote because I think that was overall the better decision, and it would certainly have been the better decision if we had arrived at it democratically.

because there isn't a majority in Europe opposed to the EU. Further, they won't be carrying the can - we will.

Thanks for the reply.

My problem is...
How do you know that there isn't a majority opposed to the direction in which the EU is going though?

Scofflaw

bug wrote: »

Thanks for the reply.

My problem is...
How do you know that there isn't a majority opposed to the direction in which the EU is going though?

Regular surveys carried out across Europe, the fact that eurosceptics are a minority in European elections, the exit poll reasons from the French and Dutch rejections of the Constitution, and even the polls done on No voters here.

As they say, it's quite possible to be pro-EU and anti-Lisbon, no?

cordially,
Scofflaw

limklad

If other governments within the EU claim this treaty is right for the EU and its citizens then, Why don't they put it to their people in a referendum?

bug

Scofflaw wrote: »

Regular surveys carried out across Europe, the fact that eurosceptics are a minority in European elections, the exit poll reasons from the French and Dutch rejections of the Constitution, and even the polls done on No voters here.

As they say, it's quite possible to be pro-EU and anti-Lisbon, no?

Yes, If Lisbon is where Europe is going. I personally dont want any part in it.

Lisbon has transformed me into a Euro skeptic, I hope they ask me to participate in a survey

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

If other governments within the EU claim this treaty is right for the EU and its citizens then, Why don't they put it to their people in a referendum?

Because they have no constitutional mechanism for doing so, because they have a constitutional bar on doing so, because the citizens of those countries think referendums are a bad way of doing this kind of thing.

People really need to get over the idea that other countries stopped their citizens having a referendum - and over the even dafter one that the EU stopped member state citizens having referendums. It isn't the case.

wearily,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think we should concern ourselves with whether something "supports one camp or the other". That ended 10pm Thursday - we are all No voters now.

Sorry, I can't resist suggesting a parallel on the idea that after this vote we must all (yes and no) defend ourselves from the ill-judged comments of some European politicians.

Scofflaw, forgive me, I'm not sure if you intended it but I read "we are all No voters now", and was immediately struck by the post-911 "We are all Americans today" phrase which I think was a French comment?

That worked well for a few months, but we soon started saying "actually no... we would rather not be Americans, considering what happened later...". Similarily, we should repect the no vote, but that does not mean we need to abandon the EU, or indeed Lisbon, if the issues that concerned people can be addressed. I would not necessarily take the view that all no voters want the whole treaty gone forever. Perhaps we urgently need some detailed surveys? I assume they are on the way? Maybe even tomorrow?

Ix.

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

On that subject - while we may personally enjoy the back-slapping from other EU citizens who wanted a No, we have made as many enemies as friends, because there isn't a majority in Europe opposed to the EU. Further, they won't be carrying the can - we will.

Just to add France and Holland have not made enemies in Europe for objecting to the virtually the same treaty( EU constitutions) in their Referendum. Sound like to me the French politicians have reject their people advice or should I say afraid of been rejected again in a Referendum. I believe our objection will motive sleeping people in Europe to relook at Lisbon and decide for themselves if this what they really want? They will want to know why we objected and they will be lots of lies in their press and from their own politicians claiming they know why we voted no. They like simple answers like Ireland is Anti-EU etc to explain our NO vote. If European politicians wants a more integrate/reform Europe then they needs to prove themselves. At the moment news and comments from them is not good. Let see if they abide by and respect current treaty agreements!

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

Because they have no constitutional mechanism for doing so, because they have a constitutional bar on doing so, because the citizens of those countries think referendums are a bad way of doing this kind of thing.

People really need to get over the idea that other countries stopped their citizens having a referendum - and over the even dafter one that the EU stopped member state citizens having referendums. It isn't the case.

wearily,
Scofflaw

Just because they do not want referendum does not mean they can undermines our democratic principles of the people to decide how they are governed or else you stating that people are stupid we will rule you. Dictators’ got their way by fooling the public to get into power and then undermine democratic system in that country to stay there.
Other Big EU States claim to respect the right of Minorities. There do not respect ours with their comments and attach on our decision. We have current treaties with them and they do not respect that.

La Madame

Europe doesn't need the Irish to carry on.

Rb

La Madame wrote: »

Europe doesn't need the Irish to carry on.

Officially, yes they do.

Y2J_MUFC

FionnMatthew wrote: »

There will be calls in the EU to ensure that a few thousand Irish voters do not hold up half a billion European citizens who want this treaty.

-Antonio Missiroli

With all respect for the Irish vote, we cannot allow the huge majority of Europe to be duped by a minority of a minority of a minority.

-Axel Schafer

Ah yes. We wanted to be controlled by people who care so deeply about us. Justification for the No vote IMO.

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Third, there is the question of whether the EU project is going in the right direction, and whether those who believe it isn't can contribute constructive opposition as a minority. Here is the fundamental divide. The EU is a profoundly anti-nationalist project - that is its raison d'etre, because European nationalism is a deadly force - so those to whom emotive nationalism is a vital component of their outlook, it can never be anything other than antithetical. As long as those who require Westphalian style national sovereignty - untrammelled sovereignty based on territorial integrity, national cohesion, and the rigid exclusion of external forces including supranational actors - are in a minority, the supranational EU project remains feasible. If they become the majority, the EU project is no longer feasible, and should be abandoned.

Of course the idea that the raison d'etre of the EU project is anti-nationalist and aimed at limiting sovereignty would never be something that the Yes side would want to promote. For the most part the Yes campaigns argument has downplayed the anti-nationalist side and emphasized those things we will retain rather than hand over to Brussels.

Rb

Rb wrote: »

Officially, yes they do.

There was a discussion on this at Lunchtime on radio one.
All they have to do is re-present the present treaty to their parliaments with a new line containing the words "ratify without Ireland" and they are away.
Simple.

Whether they will do that or not I don't know.T'will be interesting to see what it is they do decide.

If the 25 do go ahead in that way,we (Ireland) would be entering the realms of a type of quasi associate membership.
I say 25 because it's not known if the Czech Republic will go along with the treaty either as it is going to court over there.

Sophievdp

haven't only 18 states ratified it? what's to say that the rest of them will? Now that we've voted NO, the countries that still have to vote may start rethinking about the treaty and if it really is such a good idea..It doesn't look like the Czechs will..

sink

I am an ardent anti-nationalist. That is probably why I am such a fan of the EU. As far as I can see throughout history nationalism has caused more wars than religion and resources combined. It is unfortunately all too prevalent throughout today's Europe and the wider world. Once upon a time there were no international borders they are an invention of man and are held up by some like holy relics requiring daily worship. If the human race is ever to evolve we need to throw of the yoke of primordial nationalism.

I am a proud Irish man, but I am proud citizen of the world first!

irish_bob

cornbb wrote: »

Lets say we had a referendum on the Budget every year. It would never pass. Everyone would scratch their chin at it, see a fraction of it that might affect them, and reject it based on one or a few issues, whether perceived or real. This is essentially what happened with the Nice Lisbon referendum.

A referendum on something like divorce or abortion is easy. There is one issue at stake, one that everyone can understand, and the message sent by the electorate is crystal clear. Its not that easy voting on something as complex as a 200-odd page treaty.

Having the people delegate certain decisions to elected representatives is part and parcel of every democracy on the planet. Electing someone into public office involves placing a certain amount of trust in that person, and it enables them to make certain decisions on your behalf. Thats why we have governments, after all. All this doesn't weaken democracy, its just a different layer of it, its a very important part of it. If we referred every decision to the people nothing would get done.

expertly put

limklad

La Madame wrote: »

Europe doesn't need the Irish to carry on.

They will need a new treaty. If they do they will create a fractured Europe which will divided Europe into two speeds and not create a unity which they claim the EU is for.

Dirk Gently

sink wrote: »

I am an ardent anti-nationalist. That is probably why I am such a fan of the EU. As far as I can see throughout history nationalism has caused more wars than religion and resources combined. It is unfortunately all too prevalent throughout today's Europe and the wider world. Once upon a time there were no international borders they are an invention of man and are held up by some like holy relics requiring daily worship. If the human race is ever to evolve we need to throw of the yoke of primordial nationalism.

I am a proud Irish man, but I am proud citizen of the world first!

I share your sentiments. Boarders are lines on maps, inside which nationalism and other harmful ideals can be concentrated.

Do you not think however that a strong EU is a voice for european nationalism, competing against the likes of US / Russia / India / China and so on. That is the aim after all, a stronger voice on the world stage.

I feel a looser co-operative of Europen states is more in line with a boarderless, less nationalistic and ultimately more free and democratic europe.

limklad

cornbb wrote: »

Lets say we had a referendum on the Budget every year. It would never pass. Everyone would scratch their chin at it, see a fraction of it that might affect them, and reject it based on one or a few issues, whether perceived or real. This is essentially what happened with the Nice Lisbon referendum.

A referendum on something like divorce or abortion is easy. There is one issue at stake, one that everyone can understand, and the message sent by the electorate is crystal clear. Its not that easy voting on something as complex as a 200-odd page treaty.

Having the people delegate certain decisions to elected representatives is part and parcel of every democracy on the planet. Electing someone into public office involves placing a certain amount of trust in that person, and it enables them to make certain decisions on your behalf. Thats why we have governments, after all. All this doesn't weaken democracy, its just a different layer of it, its a very important part of it. If we referred every decision to the people nothing would get done.

Giving our government the freedom of choice in how to governs us is a very very very bad idea! There is a huge difference between budget and changing the government structures in governing us. We cannot leave the door open for abuse of democracy by our politicians.

Scofflaw

ixtlan wrote: »

Sorry, I can't resist suggesting a parallel on the idea that after this vote we must all (yes and no) defend ourselves from the ill-judged comments of some European politicians.

Scofflaw, forgive me, I'm not sure if you intended it but I read "we are all No voters now", and was immediately struck by the post-911 "We are all Americans today" phrase which I think was a French comment?

That worked well for a few months, but we soon started saying "actually no... we would rather not be Americans, considering what happened later...". Similarily, we should repect the no vote, but that does not mean we need to abandon the EU, or indeed Lisbon, if the issues that concerned people can be addressed. I would not necessarily take the view that all no voters want the whole treaty gone forever. Perhaps we urgently need some detailed surveys? I assume they are on the way? Maybe even tomorrow?

Ix.

Actually, it was more a play on the slogan "In France, we are all Irish". The intention is to recognise that with a majority (or, rather, plurality) of us having voted No, Ireland has said No. We are all in that position - all in the same boat.

I wouldn't suggest at all that we should either abandon the EU or Lisbon if concerns can be addressed - and as you say, the trick will be finding out what those concerns are.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

There is a very interesting interview on ireland.com of Steven Collins the political editor. He thinks that people voted no because they resented being asked to vote in the first place. He also thinks they voted no because they're sick of politicians and the whole political system.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0614/breaking16.htm

eoin2nc

sink wrote: »

There is a very interesting interview on ireland.com of Steven Collins the political editor. He thinks that people voted no because they resented being asked to vote in the first place. He also thinks they voted no because they're sick of politicians and the whole political system.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0614/breaking16.htm

Well I have heard many the person saying they voted no because the government wanted a yes vote. Sad, but true, picture of peoples attitude to politicans.

irish_bob

the completly spurious reasons for voting no suggest we have a lot of rebels without a cause in our tiny little country

as someone wrote in the indo the other day , paddy will vote no because he can

turgon

irish_bob wrote: »

the completly spurious reasons for voting no suggest we have a lot of rebels without a cause in our tiny little country

as someone wrote in the indo the other day , paddy will vote no because he can

Are you saying, irish_bob, that you see no valid reason people voted no?

limklad

limklad wrote: »

They will need a new treaty. If they do they will create a fractured Europe which will divided Europe into two speeds and not create a unity which they claim the EU is for.

Well if they go down that road ,they'd be countering your argument there by saying those that were going down that road were the EU and were unified going down it.

The only bit that would be fractured off to an extent would be Ireland and perhaps the czech Rep.
25 countries Vs 2
They don't need a new treaty either and I'd imagine since this one took 7 years of negotiating to formulate,they can race ahead with a new line in the text that simply says as I pointed out earlier "ratify without Ireland".