Two-speed EU?

[Joe Harker]

I'm well aware of what other european powers are going to do about the rejection, as the article says, they are going to go ahead and keep ratifying in other countries. But why wasn't this done when the constitution was rejected by the Dutch and French? It shows for me a lack of respect for what is, although small, a sovereign state. The argument that the opinion of 2 million is scuttling the wishes of 498 million is not valid, because it isn't happening in a state of 500 million - its a group of 27 sovereign states that have to come to an agreement that ALL agree to.

The difference between the Constitution and the treaty is that A) only one nation was to vote on the treaty and B) Everyone else agreed to it.
Therefore only one nation disagreed with it and the rest could push on although how they are i don't know.

The constitution was voted out by two nations, including the most important one in the EU and was to be voted on in many other more Euro skepkical countries such as Britain, it just wasn't going to get past the voters, which is why it is now in the form of a treaty because they can bypass the voters and just agree on it. Becuase only one country has disagreed with it then there is still the chance of getting it though with other nations.

I don't like it niether like you, it is not very nice the way they have done it saying that they will bypass it when the Irish said no, it does seem like this is out of our hands now, which actually plays into the NO campagin.

I do support the treaty, i just hate the way the EU are pushing this through

 

[Shekwan]

I do support the treaty, i just hate the way the EU are pushing this through

Exactly how I feel. You say France are one of the primary countries in the EU, and I agree, so are we already seeing a two speed EU? The Dutch and French opinions are cleary worth more than the Irish or any other small nation that disagrees with the "big boys", if they insist on pushing through this treaty unaltered from its rejected state.

 

[scy12]

Exactly how I feel. You say France are one of the primary countries in the EU, and I agree, so are we already seeing a two speed EU? The Dutch and French opinions are cleary worth more than the Irish or any other small nation that disagrees with the "big boys", if they insist on pushing through this treaty unaltered from its rejected state.

I think the rest of Europe is of the feeling that the treaty was not rejected for an important reason. I think that the Irish (= The Irish goverment and parliament) should be allowed to speak their minds but as i don't think they rejected the treaty for a serious reason , it was just usual Euroscepticism from the masses then their will be optimistic results. (The population of Ireland also has the right to speak but i think that it's representatives are more qualified to choose it's future . Anyway whatever your opinion is on this Europe should also be able to choose it's future.).

 

[Shekwan]

Yes europe should be able to choose it's future, a future all can agree on.

 

[REDY]

It was refuse, doesnt matter for which reasons. If will be Irish no ignored, it would be sign for other small countries which still havent ratified treaty...and it would be not good sign.

 

[scy12]

Yes europe should be able to choose it's future, a future all can agree on.

The thing is , who disagreed here ? In my world view relations between countries are seen by the difference in interests. Such differences the leaders of Ireland should defend. But in this case i may be seeing them having a different opinion than the referendum's results.

 

[Shekwan]

The leaders of Ireland represent the people on a world stage. They are obliged to defend the interests of the people in international negotiations with the EU. The people have shown that they disagree with their representatives personal beliefs, so the members of parliament must accept that and move forward in a direction that all te EU countries can make a consensus about.

I don't agree with the opinion of the majority of my countrymen, does that mean I should pretend the no vote didn't happen. The Irish government with the help of the EU needs to figure out why NO was majority and adress the problems.

 

[scy12]

The leaders of Ireland represent the people on a world stage. They are obliged to defend the interests of the people in international negotiations with the EU. The people have shown that they disagree with their representatives personal beliefs, so the members of parliament must accept that and move forward in a direction that all te EU countries can make a consensus about.

I don't agree with the opinion of the majority of my countrymen, does that mean I should pretend the no vote didn't happen. The Irish government with the help of the EU needs to figure out why NO was majority and adress the problems.

I guess here the most important issue is the reasons the treaty had a NO vote in the referendum. I do agree with you that it is the duty of the Irish leaders to defend the important reasons on why the populations didn't ratify it. I disagree that they should pay attention to the irrational reasons and consider them important on their talks abroad.

If there is no important reason for the population to be against then the wise thing to do for the leaders would be to ignore them as mindless masses. And be punished after four years if the population wants that afterwards. But if they are important reasons against the treaty they must discuss them with other Europeans to reach a solution.

From a European point of view if the Irish Leaders prove to be extremely negative in an irrational faction on the constitution think one should expect to make moves which would not sacrifice future for the negativity.

But yes discuss the important reasons to be against if there are such. If there aren't try to pass the treaty whatever the case is.

 

[DNK]

B) What one should accuse is the opinion that some hold ( i won't say Irish because if a not Irish said it , it would not change the statement) that the opinion of the Irish counts more than the opinion of everyone else combined.

This is pure fascism. And as Hitler was brought up in the discussion i am sure he believed he and his 'Pure"(Yeah right) race was the only ones who could make a decision and not the majority of Europe.

I'm having a bit of a time figuring out your position and making sense of these posts. Are you saying that because Ireland voted "no" it's being fascist because everyone else voted "yes"?

The Lisbon treaty has several articles that have to do with the creation of more centralized and powerful representatives of European foreign policy , counter terrorism and more specifically a European military force.

This in a turn guarantees Eu a more interdependent role from the one it has currently being the subject of US due to it's unwillingness to pay for it's defense and have powerful central command.

I fail to see how this will really help Europe. What does it need a better defense for if no one is invading it? What is it going to do with this defense?

This can be negative when US chooses to support non European countries or not European interests in favor of other allies. It also makes a European No to a US plans on the middle east and the rest of the world much more powerful.

Why?

A lot of European countries have gone along with, and continue to go along with, US plans in Afghanistan. I don't recall it being an unpopular decision at the time.

On Iraq, it wouldn't make much of a difference, as the US has done that for the most part single-handedly. I highly doubt Europe would be able to really stop such a US action, but maybe you have a coherent way to do so in mind?

And what if some countries have different foreign policy goals than others in terms of involvement with the US? Wouldn't this just make each individual country's foreign policy far less representative, and take away almost all of its sovereignty in its most important foreign role: offense (defense)?

The treaty helps all Europeans in addition to the Irish , if they wish to be in the same category as Europeans.

"You're with us or against us?" I didn't realize G.W.'s influence had spread to Europe now. He really is, for better or worse (worse), one of the most influential people of our time...

 

[scy12]

I'm having a bit of a time figuring out your position and making sense of these posts. Are you saying that because Ireland voted "no" it's being fascist because everyone else voted "yes"?

No . I am talking about how one should accuse a statement , irrelevant from whom it was said.

It is perfectly understandable.
"
B) What one should accuse is the opinion that some hold ( i won't say Irish because if a not Irish said it , it would not change the statement) that the opinion of the Irish counts more than the opinion of everyone else combined.

This is pure fascism. And as Hitler was brought up in the discussion i am sure he believed he and his 'Pure"(Yeah right) race was the only ones who could make a decision and not the majority of Europe."

I fail to see how this will really help Europe. What does it need a better defense for if no one is invading it? What is it going to do with this defense?

I already said in that paragraph that it would be able to say a bigger No to wars it does not agree with , for instance. Are you arguing that you are no able to see the benefits of a more indepented , unified and strong Europe ?

You are also ignoring the situation in some member states which have differences with not European countries which do not hold national law.

A lot of European countries have gone along with, and continue to go along with, US plans in Afghanistan. I don't recall it being an unpopular decision at the time.

On Iraq, it wouldn't make much of a difference, as the US has done that for the most part single-handedly. I highly doubt Europe would be able to really stop such a US action, but maybe you have a coherent way to do so in mind?

And what if some countries have different foreign policy goals than others in terms of involvement with the US? Wouldn't this just make each individual country's foreign policy far less representative, and take away almost all of its sovereignty in its most important foreign role: offense (defense)?

Well. The reason many countries choose US is because it is the more powerful country in the world. Moving such power from across the Atlantic into Europe will enhase the influence of European powers over the World.

Now for you it may not seem different into who is ruling the pie in Europe , but as this stage as a European i would rather Europeans to do it.

nd what if some countries have different foreign policy goals than others in terms of involvement with the US? Wouldn't this just make each individual country's foreign policy far less representative, and take away almost all of its sovereignty in its most important foreign role: offense (defense)?

And what if some countries have different foreign goals than others in relation to Nato . Etc ,Etc. Sovereignty is always sacrificed in exchange for being guaranteed sovereignty(National interests) by other powers. You think this does not make sence ? Basically stronger countries force everyone else into join us or be weaker stance. And If Europe won't dio it,US will or others. I do believe that Europe has done into the benefit of multinational people human rights and situation , and i do think that they should have such place of power than others. You say that you are against this stance but the reality is you can't be against this stance as is followed by everyone constantly.

What does this mean ? In today's world countries have those interests. In a EU centric world in regard to Europe , European countries will adapt accordingly. And almost all have already made the decesion. .

You are against this stance only in relation to the EU. or to the Eu and the US , etc .(I doubt this though) You can't realistically expect the world to not form coalitions and being ruled in relation to how each countries believes it's interests would be better served by bigger countries and alliances. This is just a decision by Europeans to shift the power balance of how Europe acts into Europe.

I guess the question is , why you are against Europeans being the ones who will better choose their interests ? In this case when it is they that have chose it. And they did in an organization that has matured over a very big period of time.

The answer is the only reason you have is that you would rather the shift of power to stay at it is , no matter what Europeans want , because it fits your interests.

"You're with us or against us?" I didn't realize G.W.'s influence had spread to Europe now. He really is, for better or worse (worse), one of the most influential people of our time...

I don't need to use such rhetoric. I would much rather the : 1If you are with us , 2you are not with us. What , is it a repetition of the same thing twice ? Yes , because apparently some think that the first does not necessarily conclude to the second one.

 

[Shekwan]

I guess here the most important issue is the reasons the treaty had a NO vote in the referendum. I do agree with you that it is the duty of the Irish leaders to defend the important reasons on why the populations didn't ratify it. I disagree that they should pay attention to the irrational reasons and consider them important on their talks abroad.

Most of the reasons why it was rejected were irrational. They should definately not ignore them. If you're going to reassure the population you've got to focus on all their fears irrational or not. The convoluted nature of the treaty allowed the no campaigners to strike fear into the populace. In their talks abroad, it is important too to focus on the causes of these irrational fears and attmept to clarify the section of the treaty that allows the no campaigners to stir them up.

If there is no important reason for the population to be against then the wise thing to do for the leaders would be to ignore them as mindless masses. And be punished after four years if the population wants that afterwards. But if they are important reasons against the treaty they must discuss them with other Europeans to reach a solution.

Are seriously suggesting that a politician give a big f*** you to the electorate and ignore them, and lose their seat in parliament?! If you believe a politician will do that you are truly living in a fairytale world. It may be wise from a pro-lisbon aspect, but unworkable in the minds of any sane politician

From a European point of view if the Irish Leaders prove to be extremely negative in an irrational faction on the constitution think one should expect to make moves which would not sacrifice future for the negativity.

Irish party leaders are anything but negative about Lisbon. I believe the true problem is the convoluted nature of the treaty that allows the no campaigners to raise issues that voters hold dear (but are irrelevant) and strike fear into them. We'll have to see what workable solution to this is.

But yes discuss the important reasons to be against if there are such. If there aren't try to pass the treaty whatever the case is.

What I believe the specific problem with the treaty was that it was unreadable. This allows no campaigner to sow the seeds of doubt. Its far easier to scare a populace than reassure. But heres the problem - if all the other states ratify, it's going to be harder to go back to the drawing board.

All this said I can see whats going to happen if all other states ratify. Another referendum will be held here. The government will have to pull out all the stops to get it passed though...

 

[DNK]

scy12, it's fair to say that direct democracy isn't necessarily better than representative democracy in most cases, but surely there are some cases where the direct will of the people should be heard, or at least where it wouldn't be excessive to have it heard. I see no logical problem with using referendums in extreme cases, or even smaller ones.

They are used regularly in the United States at the state and local levels for less extreme cases (5% increase in school funding, medical marijuana, etc) than changes to the US Constitution or severe alterations to US governance. No, they aren't used for the amendment process, but I don't see anything wrong with using them in the amendment process, alongside the current legislative process. I do not know the history of every US Constitutional amendment, but wouldn't be surprised if some of the states had indeed used referendums to decide their ratification, and I believe some US states allow and have used referendums for amendments to their own state constitutions.

Many of the cases you use to discredit referendums were cases of long-standing, grassroots movements finally gaining federal, legislative traction after slow buildups of popular support over decades, if not centuries. What exactly were you trying to claim there anyway? You don't get a 3/4 approval of any bill without significant public support (in the US' case at least).

If you have issues with the average person's abilities to make decisions, maybe you should ask why people are having those issues and look at ways to improve the public discourse, rather than trying to further sideline them from the political process. That's an extremely un-democratic approach to take to governance. Progress doesn't come from giving up, nor does it come from rolling back public participation.

Edit: I'll respond to your post, this one was separate.

 

[scy12]

I believe there are instances where direct democracy is necessary but they are extremely few. Even in one such instance i only believe that because they put a subject in a referendum they shouldn't had because it was extremely obvious of what was the correct answer to it . Which not incidentally was NO. In such case the leadership was too weak to choose the obvious answer. I will answer to both of your and Shewkan posts.

Are seriously suggesting that a politician give a big f*** you to the electorate and ignore them, and lose their seat in parliament?! If you believe a politician will do that you are truly living in a fairytale world. It may be wise from a pro-lisbon aspect, but unworkable in the minds of any sane politician

They will do ? Politicians very often lie to the public but it is quite often that A) He may only discuss important issues with other European members B) does not fear losing his seat due to other reasons.

Anyway saying ignoring unimportant reasons does not mean that such experienced Politician will not attempt to appear as fighting in favor of the public or that he may not attempt to potray himself as hearing to all the public has to say.

I think politicians are perfectly able to do such thing. Although some may be worse at it.

 

[Shekwan]

I believe there are instances where direct democracy is necessary but they are extremely few. Even in one such instance i only believe that because they put a subject in a referendum they shouldn't had because it was extremely obvious of what was the correct answer to it . Which not incidentally was NO. In such case the leadership was too weak to choose the obvious answer.

Once again you're talking about right or wrong situations to have a referendum. This really isn't the issue here. We're trying to figure out the best course to take after the vote....

They will do ? Politicians very often lie to the public but it is quite often that A) He may only discuss important issues with other European members B) does not fear losing his seat due to other reasons.

Anyway saying ignoring unimportant reasons does not mean that such experienced Politician will not attempt to appear as fighting in favor of the public or that he may not attempt to potray himself as hearing to all the public has to say.

I think politicians are perfectly able to do such thing. Although some may be worse at it.

You would have to be a very popular politician or member of a very popular party to associate yourself with disregarding a popular vote in favor of the EU bureacracy. Believe me we've had blanket media coverage of this vote here and it is the number one issue, and will be in the voting publics mind for a while. Especially as this Lisbon thing is going to drag on. You're right that politicians can get stuff passed without popular support and retain popularity/seat, but in this case it will be VERY difficult. In this case too we have a new Prime Minister whose first major hurdle was Lisbon and he has failed miserably - this Lisbon thing won't be glossed over quite as easily you seem believe possible.

 

[DNK]

You are also ignoring the situation in some member states which have differences with not European countries which do not hold national law.

Well. The reason many countries choose US is because it is the more powerful country in the world. Moving such power from across the Atlantic into Europe will enhase the influence of European powers over the World.

Which powers? To what ends? Why does Europe need coordinated military and political foreign policies?

Those countries wouldn't be able to choose anything in superstate Europe. They would have their armies dragged along to any European conflicts regardless of public and political desire. Otherwise, what's the point of this? Am I misinterpreting "coordinated European foreign policy and military"? Even if this wouldn't be the effect of this treaty, it appears to be the direction, no?

And what if some countries have different foreign goals than others in relation to Nato . Etc ,Etc. Sovereignty is always sacrificed in exchange for being guaranteed sovereignty(National interests) by other powers. You think this does not make sence ? Basically stronger countries force everyone else into join us or be weaker stance.

I recall a lot of European countries not following the US into Iraq. They at least had a choice with the US, and for many it was nothing more than a token force, as was made light of at the time quite regularly.

What does this mean ? In today's world countries have those interests. In a EU centric world in regard to Europe , European countries will adapt accordingly. And almost all have already made the decesion.

What interests? Define them, please. Give me specific instances of what would be accomplished here. What's the actual goal?

You are against this stance only in relation to the EU. or to the Eu and the US , etc .(I doubt this though) You can't realistically expect the world to not form coalitions and being ruled in relation to how each countries believes it's interests would be better served by bigger countries and alliances. This is just a decision by Europeans to shift the power balance of how Europe acts into Europe.

Just a few decades ago imperialism was the only realistic way to expect the world to function.

I can realistically expect the world to act more idealistically and respectfully, because that has been exactly the course of human history. I personally don't care what is "realistic", as that definition is extremely mutable. I ask the same of the US.

I guess the question is , why you are against Europeans being the ones who will better choose their interests ? In this case when it is they that have chose it. And they did in an organization that has matured over a very big period of time.

Why do you label all Europeans as a collective whole? Some do not see it as such. Some resist the label. "Europeans" might have power now, but their power is inversely proportional to the power of "French", "German", "Italian", "Spanish", "Swiss", etc, etc people.

Claiming that giving up almost all of a nation's sovereignty in foreign affairs for the sake of being able to trade a non-continental hegemon for a continental one doesn't really sound like an improvement in net sovereignty to me.

I don't need to use such rhetoric. I would much rather the : 1If you are with us , 2you are not with us. What , is it a repetition of the same thing twice ? Yes , because apparently some think that the first does not necessarily conclude to the second one.

I don't quite understand the difference between "1. you are with us or 2. you are against us" and "you're with us or against us".

 

[DNK]

I believe there are instances where direct democracy is necessary but they are extremely few. Even in one such instance i only believe that because they put a subject in a referendum they shouldn't had because it was extremely obvious of what was the correct answer to it

To you, at least. Apparently it wasn't so obvious to everyone.

 

[Steph]

The constitution was voted out by two nations, including the most important one in the EU

What? A Brit saying that France is the most important country in EU?
Are you sick? Tell me you meant it's Netherlands the most important country in EU!

About the two-speed EU: Instead of having a "core" vs "outer rim" Europe, we could have some "common policies", and let each country vote, with a referendum or not, how they integrate or not in each policy.

We could have for instance:
- Common currency (Euro)
- Common defence
- Common justice
- Common social security
etc.

That's basically what we already have with Euros, and it could be generalized and organized better.

The idea would be to use the rules proposed in the treaty to get a majority (X % of the countries and of the population), but in a given group instead of the whole EU.

For instance, if 10 countries are part of the common defence, and they want to decide if they will built a common aircraft carrier, the vote is organized within these 10 countries, the other EU countries have no say on the matter, since they decided to opt out the common defense.

 

[REDY]

Its people who are paying politicians. Its people who have decided that they wanted be part of EU and same people are againist changing EU rules. Politicians should respect it as they have respected their enter. I believe that if referendum would be held in other countries, EU people would unite againist their politicians. Thats not only Irish problem(!)..in Lisbon treaty are not any evidences which are against people interests, people will not have higher taxes or something like that. Ires should choose simple independently if they want first step for common policy and they said no.

 

[Joe Harker]

What? A Brit saying that France is the most important country in EU?
Are you sick? Tell me you meant it's Netherlands the most important country in EU!

You the most important country in terms of getting things done in the EU, certainly not the most important overall (I haven't lost my marbles yet!)

 

[really]

We already have a 2 speed europe:
Schengen
Euro
Western European Union (WEU - a military union)
Opt outs on various social issues (48 hour week etc)
Paying for the CAP (UK)

The problem with going for further and deeper integration is that with 27 different countries there will be a lot of different options.

I think that a big part of the Irish no is that we don't necessarily want further integration but that agreeing to a 2 speed Europe would weaken our influence.