Disreputable sentiments in Europe

greatgoal

we were given a vote,the majority said no,which is what voting is all about,now ireland is blackened by the e.u. who gave us the chance to vote in the first place..like,were we getting concessions for a yes vote? no the people have spoken and you cant blame them,we have been fleeced in taxes,prices and just about everything else for the last number of years..these cowboys in govt. tell us ,vote yes,i dont think so ,can you blame the people for being suspicous...this is just my personal opinion ,no offense.

SkepticOne

SkepticOne wrote: »

As I have said, the Lisbon treaty contains institutional changes.

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html

What they would have to do is set up parallel institutions with those changes that would have been agreed to under the Lisbon treaty. They can't force these changes on the existing EU institutions which would continue to operate under existing treaties.

Of course they can by including the phrase "excluding Ireland " if appropriate.

Kovik

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course they can by including the phrase "excluding Ireland " if appropriate.

Which, legally, they can't do. Ignore the pundits, this is an institutional reform treaty and completely unlike the small number of policy exemptions a few nations work with. There would be no legal precendent and under current terms it would be essentially an impossibility.

SkepticOne

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course they can by including the phrase "excluding Ireland " if appropriate.

Please provide backing for this.

murphaph

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course they can by including the phrase "excluding Ireland " if appropriate.

Impossible to implement the 'important' bit of Lisbon this way as already mentioned it is institutional reform. Ireland legally belongs to the EU in its current form, governed by all the previous treaties. They would have to create a new tier but leave the current situation in play for as long as Ireland wished. Totally impractical stuff. They will have to break their own laws to carry on without irish ratification which they well know....which makes the pushing ahead with ratification a sinister ploy to bully Ireland 26 -v- 1. Hopefully the czechs will also fail to ratify and things will be less straightforward. The czechs have relatively recent memories of being ruled by a far off city in an undemocratic way!

nesf

Kovik wrote: »

Which, legally, they can't do. Ignore the pundits, this is an institutional reform treaty and completely unlike the small number of policy exemptions a few nations work with. There would be no legal precendent and under current terms it would be essentially an impossibility.

The Financial Times, or at least their columnist disagrees: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8dc810e6-3ada-11dd-b1a1-0000779fd2ac.html

I'm not saying that he is right, but I wouldn't be very fast to say that there's no legal way of doing it. It's quite possible that there's some loophole somewhere that can be used to get it done.

SkepticOne

nesf wrote: »

The Financial Times, or at least their columnist disagrees: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8dc810e6-3ada-11dd-b1a1-0000779fd2ac.html

I'm not saying that he is right, but I wouldn't be very fast to say that there's no legal way of doing it. It's quite possible that there's some loophole somewhere that can be used to get it done.

If you read the article closely he says:

What if the Irish government refused to hold a second referendum? In that case I would suspect a frantic discussion about enforcing the Lisbon treaty without the Irish. I honestly have no idea of how this could work.

Basically the article is about putting political pressure on the Irish. There is nothing about legally forcing the situation or proceeding legally with implementing the treaty but without Ireland.

nesf

SkepticOne wrote: »

If you read the article closely he says:Basically the article is about putting political pressure on the Irish. There is nothing about legally forcing the situation or proceeding legally with implementing the treaty but without Ireland.

I was more getting at this bit:

I know this appears to be in contravention of European law. But then again, European law may not be quite as predictable as you may think. It is not enforced by pundits, but by an often unpredictable court.

I was trying to underline the uncertainty around whether implementation could happen, i.e. that ruling it out completely might be premature, rather than trying to say that they absolutely could implement it without Ireland.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

The Financial Times, or at least their columnist disagrees: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8dc810e6-3ada-11dd-b1a1-0000779fd2ac.html

I'm not saying that he is right, but I wouldn't be very fast to say that there's no legal way of doing it. It's quite possible that there's some loophole somewhere that can be used to get it done.

I wouldn't be at all surprised, I'm afraid. That is the realpolitik element of the EU - that it is an ongoing agreement between some very arrogant nations. Where there's a will, there's a way.

I appreciate what people are saying - and I think it correct - that it would be a breach of the principles of the EU to do such a thing. At the same time, it is practically possible and realistic for them to do so, because, for all the problem that such an EU would not be the one we wanted so much to be part of, it would certainly be one we could not afford not to be part of.

I appreciate we have, or seem to have, plenty of voters who believe that we could (and should) "go it alone". We've been there before, and anyone under 35 who thinks they know what they're talking about on the subject doesn't.


cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

Where there's a will, there's a way.

Essentially that's it really. Especially when our constitution proves so troublesome in its need to have referendums all the time to make losing us an efficiency gain of sorts.

/cynic

limklad

greatgoal wrote: »

we were given a vote,the majority said no,which is what voting is all about,now ireland is blackened by the e.u. who gave us the chance to vote in the first place.

The EU did not give us a chance to vote on it. It was the last thing in the world that the EU governments wanted.

It was our very own constitution and independent Supreme Court system (1987 ruling) that forced the government to uphold the constitution and call a referendum for each EEC/EC/EU treaty

http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/irish-eu-treaty-referendum/article-172508
Due to a 1987 ruling by its Supreme Court which stipulates that significant changes to the European Union treaties require an amendment to the Irish Constitution (which is always done by means of a referendum) before being ratified by the State.

SkepticOne

nesf wrote: »

I was trying to underline the uncertainty around whether implementation could happen, i.e. that ruling it out completely might be premature, rather than trying to say that they absolutely could implement it without Ireland.

Can we agree that to the best of our knowledge, Ireland's ratification is required for this treaty to go ahead and be implemented and this article doesn't provide any actual information to the contrary. The journalist has not even bothered to provide any basis for his suspicion that this is a possibility let alone verifiable information.

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

I wouldn't be at all surprised, I'm afraid. That is the realpolitik element of the EU - that it is an ongoing agreement between some very arrogant nations. Where there's a will, there's a way.

Scaremongering.

SkepticOne

SkepticOne wrote: »

Please provide backing for this.

Theres no precedent obviously but whats to stop them creating a new club with all the traits that they want minus Ireland.They can leave the existing set up as is,just with one country in the room whilst the others are in the new room modeled on Lisbon.
It's not rocket science to disconnect Ireland if they want.It's a road without roadblocks.

I notice today everything is pally pally over there though so who knows what they might come up with yet-A formula that doesn't involve a constitution change perhaps?I don't know.
I'd imagine they'd be loathe to tear up the existing document and start afresh throwing 7 years down the swannie.

murphaph wrote: »

They would have to create a new tier but leave the current situation in play for as long as Ireland wished. Totally impractical stuff.

All they need is a whole new entity without Ireland.
They already have the template

SkepticOne

Deleted User wrote: »

Theres no precedent obviously but whats to stop them creating a new club with all the traits that they want minus Ireland.They can leave the existing set up as is,just with one country in the room whilst the others are in the new room modeled on Lisbon.
It's not rocket science to disconnect Ireland if they want.It's a road without roadblocks.

Here's what I said earlier when you suggested that they could proceed without Ireland. You see I had already considered that scenario which, if you give it a bit of consideration, is also ridiculous. I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that this would happen.

SkepticOne wrote: »

As I have said, the Lisbon treaty contains institutional changes.

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html

What they would have to do is set up parallel institutions with those changes that would have been agreed to under the Lisbon treaty. They can't force these changes on the existing EU institutions which would continue to operate under existing treaties.

nesf

SkepticOne wrote: »

Can we agree that to the best of our knowledge, Ireland's ratification is required for this treaty to go ahead and be implemented and this article doesn't provide any actual information to the contrary. The journalist has not even bothered to provide any basis for his suspicion that this is a possibility let alone verifiable information.

It depends, as a cynic I'm inclined towards holding the view that we don't know until it's been tested in the courts. The burden of proof is on those claiming it totally illegal rather than those saying we don't know yet tbh, we've got no precedent for the hypothetical situation of the two tier Europe idea etc.

I don't think it will be tested in the courts or even tried but honestly, claiming it to be illegal is a pretty big claim considering it's not been tested legally.

turgon

They can leave the existing set up as is,just with one country in the room whilst the others are in the new room modeled on Lisbon.

In simple terms, ignore the will of the only electorate that go to vote on this.

SkepticOne

SkepticOne wrote: »

Here's what I said earlier when you suggested that they could proceed without Ireland. You see I had already considered that scenario which, if you give it a bit of consideration, is also ridiculous. I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that this would happen.

It's not ridiculous.
It's only ridiculous if everything has to include Ireland like some love affair with her.
It's therefore not ridiculous.
I do agree though that pragmatism of some kind will prevail.I just don't know the unknown at the moment,the form it will take or the disadvantages if any, much like yourself.

turgon

turgon wrote: »

In simple terms, ignore the will of the only electorate that go to vote on this.

Not really as they'd be recognising our vote to stay still whilst pointing out we have no say in what goes on in other foreign countries.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

In simple terms, ignore the will of the only electorate that go to vote on this.

That assumes that we, as an electorate, decide what happens to the whole of the continent. I'm not sure anyone else signed up for that, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

I woudlnt agree. I would say they would be just ignoring us so that they can continue on regardless, and not have to think twice. Just my opinion.

murphaph

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really as they'd be recognising our vote to stay still whilst pointing out we have no say in what goes on in other foreign countries.

It is simply unworkable to do as you suggest. The new 27-1 parliament could not do anything or amend any laws based on the old (current) system as Ireland would always veto any changes to the old laws from that room on our own! The current system is based on unanimity and Ireland would simply veto every single proposal of the 27-1 parliament in any area that it required changes to laws of the old (current) system! Our commisioner would sit there vetoing all day long. You are effectively saying that 2 parallel legal systems could somehow operate alongside each other. Which one would have primacy?

They know this to be the case, which is why I fully expect us to be asked to vote again on this bloody thing within 18 months.

SkepticOne

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not ridiculous.
It's only ridiculous if everything has to include Ireland like some love affair with her.
It's therefore not ridiculous.

This idea of setting up a parallel version of the core EU institutions, is anyone seriously entertaining this as a possibility?

cabinteelytom

The Irish electorate did not reject the EU. They voted for the EU- as it currently functions.

This point of view is not lunatic or associated only with stupid people. Today the Guardian quotes William Hague,'When people started work on this treaty, they didn't actually realise that the [ EU] would work pretty well without these reforms....there is no need for this treaty.'

Is the correct interpretation of thursday's vote as follows: 'the Irish people loved their Constitution more than they loved the vision of a reformed EU.'

(If so , we should all be worried, as the people representing us in the conclaves of the wise on Thursday don't share that value. The bullying, or 'buy-them-off' tone from Europe is a bit worrying too.)

Is the 'need for the treaty' really about geopolitical distant horizons? eg a wish to set the rules before a Turkish entry? With Turkey in what does the garbage about 'mutual defence' really mean?

The electorate and the Government had no plan B. Now we need to find them, and look seriously at the example of Switzerland and it's trade relations with the EU, and at the European Economic Area (whatever that is). These could be alternatives to continued membership of a newly-hostile EU.
Particularly neccessary if the new-look EU is incompatible with a small country which chooses to write it's own constitution.

marco_polo

cabinteelytom wrote: »

The Irish electorate did not reject the EU. They voted for the EU- as it currently functions.

Even without Lisbon the EU staying as it is in not an option on the table. With the accession of more states on the horizon reform is badly needed. Hoping that things will not change will not make it so.

This point of view is not lunatic or associated only with stupid people. Today the Guardian quotes William Hague,'When people started work on this treaty, they didn't actually realise that the [ EU] would work pretty well without these reforms....there is no need for this treaty.'

William Hague and his cohorts in the Tories will pull Brittain right back to the fringe of Europe when they win the election in the UK in 18 months time, unless some agreement is reached in the meantime. There is a grave danger that we will be out in the cold with them. I would hold them up as a great defender of current European ideals.

Is the correct interpretation of thursday's vote as follows: 'the Irish people loved their Constitution more than they loved the vision of a reformed EU.'

(If so , we should all be worried, as the people representing us in the conclaves of the wise on Thursday don't share that value. The bullying, or 'buy-them-off' tone from Europe is a bit worrying too.)

If we truely don't care about European reform then I would be very worried.

Is the 'need for the treaty' really about geopolitical distant horizons? eg a wish to set the rules before a Turkish entry? With Turkey in what does the garbage about 'mutual defence' really mean?

What is your point here? Oh no the muslims are coming? :eek:

The electorate and the Government had no plan B. Now we need to find them, and look seriously at the example of Switzerland and it's trade relations with the EU, and at the European Economic Area (whatever that is). These could be alternatives to continued membership of a newly-hostile EU.
Particularly neccessary if the new-look EU is incompatible with a small country which chooses to write it's own constitution.

Taking a step back in to the EEA is not a viable option. Particularly it shouldn't be if you hold view the EU as hostile. Do you realise that by joining the EEA you have to adopt vast quantities of existing EU legistation without any say or vote over that legislation. Do you want laws imposed on you by these 'hostile forces' without any say in their formation.

The benefit is increased control over areas like Fishing, Agriculture and Natural resourses (Of which we have very little), which is a small gain for a services driven economy.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

This idea of setting up a parallel version of the core EU institutions, is anyone seriously entertaining this as a possibility?

Nah. I think they're contemplating asking us to go outside for a while...and reflect. Heaven only knows whether that's legally or politically possible though.

I'm sure I'll be told I'm scaremongering...but the vote is over, if we recall.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Nah. I think they're contemplating asking us to go outside for a while...and reflect. Heaven only knows whether that's legally or politically possible though.

I'm sure I'll be told I'm scaremongering...but the vote is over, if we recall.

cordially,
Scofflaw

One of the contributiors on Q&A was suggesting a possible scenario where we stay outside the terms of the Treaty, opting in on certain bits that do not conflict with the constitution, untill a new accession treaty is agreed for Croatia in 2011 and then have a referendum on this new treaty to rejoin the rest fully.

I don't like the idea of being out in the cold for four years, but it would be plenty of time for reflection I suppose .

Sure there would be legal problems with this as well.

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Nah. I think they're contemplating asking us to go outside for a while...and reflect. Heaven only knows whether that's legally or politically possible though.

That is possibly slightly less far-fetched than the other suggestion with the parallel institutions.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

That is possibly slightly less far-fetched than the other suggestion with the parallel institutions.

It's been pointed out before that the EU can tolerate quite a lot of indeterminate legal status on the part of its members.

By the way, it would be nice if at some point some No poster made the gesture of accepting that we weren't 'scaremongering' before the vote, but were (and are) genuinely worried.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

marco_polo wrote: »

One of the contributiors on Q&A was suggesting a possible scenario where we stay outside the terms of the Treaty, opting in on certain bits that do not conflict with the constitution, untill a new accession treaty is agreed for Croatia in 2011 and then have a referendum on this new treaty to rejoin the rest fully.

I don't like the idea of being out in the cold for four years, but it would be plenty of time for reflection I suppose .

Sure there would be legal problems with this as well.

Apparently it's possible under enhanced co operation.

To echo Scofflaws point,if that scenario comes to pass,it would mean the yes side were not scaremongering.
Pity it appears from EU soundings that theres less ground under the No sides accusations regarding what will not happen.We'll see anyhow by the December summit.

Jim Power suggested on the same programme that a different answer would be got if the people were asked did they want to stay in the union on the basis of Lisbon if it's the only game in town or otherwise leave.

I'd agree that the answer to that would be a bluff calling wake up call affirmative yes.
Being outside the EU unable to move and shake it as we've always done or influence it's direction as we have been doing would be a disaster in my opinion.