Shekwan
Kim Chi Quaffing Celt
Its not Irelands fault that EU procedure is that each state has to ratify for success. We need a referendum to ratify, we had one, we didn't agree with the rest. Deal with it.
Two-speed EU?
- Thread starter Winner
- Start date
Cullyn
red ones go faster!!
scy12
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 5,181
There are two issues here. A) It is Irelands fault for not changing procedures so that it can avert a negative vote. But let's say that there may be some reasons to forgive the inaction of it's leaders. Forgiveness by the rest Europe which supported the treaty and believed it was the best. Politics are not build on forgiveness , however , forgiveness should be granted when it is politically the best option. If you are of the A crowd , ok , i guess. You could also believe that Ireland had many silent allies on the issue and so it did nothing wrong.
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.
Cullyn
red ones go faster!!
Yeah, everyone will deal with it. In a multi-speed Europe.
No one country gets to decide the direction Europe takes. It been tried before, particularly by the Germans and French it didn't work. Consensus is the only game in town, without it there is no Union. Ireland voted against the treaty, therefore it cannot be ratified. End of Story.
Now a new consensus must be reached, but thats why we pay the diplomats and the politicians so much money.
Cullyn
red ones go faster!!
It is the Law that insists that we have a referendum. No one is saying that the Irish have a bigger voice that the Germans, we have an equal one. If Germany ratifies the treaty fine, but respect that we can't. The treaty must be ratified by the 27 member states, equally. Not based on population, size of anything other than all 27 saying yes. as things stand, 1 has said no. The treaty is dead in the water.
In saying that, it is more of an Irish problem about where to to go know. It is up to our government get the solution.
scy12
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 5,181
Indeed , it is the law. And that law has several advantages and disadvantages. My target was less of the law and more of those who take advantage of the law to say that the Irish have a bigger or a more democratic voice than the Germans or the Cypriots.
If you think noone has said that , then i have nothing else to say , lets agree to disagree and evaluate what has been said already to see of who is correct.
There is also the issue of saying No to something which the other 26 members agree for an important reason. That is what is efficient and if the law is not efficient , it must be changed.
It is a European problem.
Shekwan
Kim Chi Quaffing Celt
Oh I here comes the inevitable Hitler comparisons, end of intelligent discussion as far as I'm concerned. But I'll humor you.
The EU ratification process allowed such a small country to scupper the treaty, not our ratification process. I'll give you a hint as to why the politicians couldn't chang ethe procedure - it's not in their power as given to them by the constitution. Perhaps if they had acted outside of their constitutional power ( as you would want them to ) they would be more hitler-esque in their behavior?
See, I can make Hitler comparisons too
The EU ratification process allowed such a small country to scupper the treaty, not our ratification process. I'll give you a hint as to why the politicians couldn't chang ethe procedure - it's not in their power as given to them by the constitution. Perhaps if they had acted outside of their constitutional power ( as you would want them to ) they would be more hitler-esque in their behavior?
See, I can make Hitler comparisons too
MamboJoel
Cool.
In the future suggest we use the referundum differently:
Yes and the treaty is adopted
No and the country retires from the EU
And yes, I think the founder states should move on without the others.
Yes and the treaty is adopted
No and the country retires from the EU
And yes, I think the founder states should move on without the others.
scy12
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 5,181
Oh I here comes the inevitable Hitler comparisons, end of intelligent discussion as far as I'm concerned. But I'll humor you.
The EU ratification process allowed such a small country to scupper the treaty, not our ratification process. I'll give you a hint as to why the politicians couldn't chang ethe procedure - it's not in their power as given to them by the constitution. Perhaps if they had acted outside of their constitutional power ( as you would want them to ) they would be more hitler-esque in their behavior?
See, I can make Hitler comparisons too
Are you referring to me ? If you did then you should have had the wisdom to check that my Hitler reference that you referred to , actually referred to a past Hitler referrance made by supporters of "Ireland vote is the only one which counts because it is democratic". And my statement showed the Irony of it.
If you think that it is now that the intelligence of the discussion has died i must say to you this.
I didn't say that Ireland should have necessarily changed it's constitution on the issue of having a referendum for the treaty like maybe other countries did. I said that Europe must study the behavior of Ireland which could be motivated by it's interests and act accordingly.
Most constitutions of most countries of the world have changed over the time. I guess there where many changes also due to the Eu. If the change was in favor of democracy (giving rights to women , blacks , religious groups that they didn't have in the past) such changes are as far away as Hitler behavior as possible. if such changes are not in favor of such rights or appear to be but while they give a class more rights they deny the right of others they are similar to such Behavior.
Not changing a constitution when such thing is needed is also something which people like Hitler wouldn't have a problem with if such constitution is liked by them.
Anyway my analogy was the answer to "We make Hitler analogies about democracy and say our democracy counts more than others " types . Why do you feel the need to answer ? The fact that you are Irish is irrelevant.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
I agree. Or in case of a no, the country gets severely limited benefits from the EU. The current system is simply not working.
Don't kid yourself into that illusion. You think the pro-integration camp will stop wishing a more integrated Europe? They may finally become more realistic and recognize that this is not possible with 27 members. So yes, it's very likely that the rules proposed by the Treaty will not have any effect on Ireland and other countries. But some will still adopt them and other rules in a different framework. It may be not the thing we hoped for but it's still gonna happen.
If you take a look the different reasons for the No in France, the NL and Ireland, you'll see that it'll be close to impossible to find a new consensus.
Shekwan
Kim Chi Quaffing Celt
How does the Lisbon treaty allow more rights for Irish people? We're already legally bound to the ECHR so the Human Rights section is redundant IMO. So by rejecting this you think basic human rights are being denied...
As for changing the constitution for the EU, yes it has been done and should be. But you'd still have to have a referendum to remove the right to a referendum. Do you honestly anyone will vote for that apart from political scientists and political elites who want to see an and to ''mob rule''?
As for changing the constitution for the EU, yes it has been done and should be. But you'd still have to have a referendum to remove the right to a referendum. Do you honestly anyone will vote for that apart from political scientists and political elites who want to see an and to ''mob rule''?
Joe Harker
1st in the Premiership!
Yes, i guess i am in favour of a two speed EU, because with the problems so far and if they contiue I suspect France and Germany and other nations, may spilt off entirely from the EU just because the situation has got to a standstill. If this allows countries that want more intergration, while supporting other countries needs of taking for the people to get use to it, then it is a good idea.
Also one of the reason it has failed in Ireland is that no-one really knows whats in it entirely, I don't know, i know some of it, but there is alot of grey areas which i can't find much information on. And if i, who has tried within reason to understand, can't find out, what hope do you give people who only vote what the paper tells them, instead of finding out themselves.
Also one of the reason it has failed in Ireland is that no-one really knows whats in it entirely, I don't know, i know some of it, but there is alot of grey areas which i can't find much information on. And if i, who has tried within reason to understand, can't find out, what hope do you give people who only vote what the paper tells them, instead of finding out themselves.
deanjack
Ruler of the Universe
Can we have an option for scrapping the EU all together? Firstly I must applaude the Irish for making what I believe to be the wisest decision. As part of my SG Modern Studies course I have discovered just how much money the UK gives to the EU and how little is returned to us. Personally i blame the former CAP policy, which I am led to believe has been renamed or made defunct. The UK has a very small percentage of people working in Agriculture since at least the 1800's, and it has decreased further since then, as part of the industrial revalution. Thus, the CAP was of no use to us as our farming thechniques are modern. The UK's is a "servicial economy", not agricultural. Countries like France are still industrialised and have a large "servicial" sector but have enogh farmers to make the CAP worthwile, whereas the UK does not. I am openly Eurosceptic and I want the UK out of the EU pernamently. Personally, I would support more trade with the commonwealth of nations and the USA. I am not some member of the BNP, or, heaven forbid, the conservative party. I want to be out. The Lisobon treaty should never have came as far as it did. A united Europe will hopefully never happen, and if it doas, i will apply to emigrate to Canada, as i want no part of Europe. And another thing, UK foreign policy will should not be handled by any other government other than Westminster.
There, I have had my anti-Eurpoe rant for the day.
There, I have had my anti-Eurpoe rant for the day.
scy12
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 5,181
Referendums are not necessary to change the costituition. If they where i doubt that at certain period of times men would vote for example to grant women/Blacks/Other religious groups rights. There is no reason to believe that representive democracy is less effective than direct democracy , at least when you put down the data and wonder where are those successful direct democracies in the world ?
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.
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.
The treaty helps all Europeans in addition to the Irish , if they wish to be in the same category as Europeans.
I wonder what the rest of Europe is thinking right now : http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/irel-j16.shtml
WSWS : News & Analysis : Europe : Ireland
European powers to continue with Lisbon Treaty despite Ireland “No” vote
By Steve James
16 June 2008
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
"
The major European powers, led by Germany and France, have made clear they will seek to defy Ireland’s rejection of the Lisbon Treaty in the referendum held June 12. In a 53 percent turnout, 53 percent voted “No” while 46 percent voted in favour.
The vote should have torpedoed the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, which requires unanimous backing by the European Union’s 27 member states. But José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, said, “Eighteen member states have already approved the treaty, and the commission believes the remaining ratifications should continue to take their course. I believe the treaty is alive.”
German Chancellor Angela Merkel insisted, “We must carry on,” while Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said, “We’re sticking firmly to our goal of putting this treaty into effect. So the process of ratification must continue.” A senior German government spokesman told the Irish Times, “Ratification will continue and either Ireland votes again or we try to come up with a new text.”
France takes over the rotating EU presidency next month and French President Nicolas Sarkozy has urged EU countries to continue ratification of the treaty. France’s Europe minister, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, said that “specific means of cooperation” could be invoked to deal with Ireland. “The most important thing is that the ratification process must continue in the other countries, and then we shall see with the Irish what type of legal arrangement could be found.”
The Labour government in Britain is also continuing with its ratification process. On Wednesday, the Lisbon Treaty is due to receive its third and final reading in the House of Lords. Europe Minister Jim Murphy said that it was now up to the Dublin government to come up with proposals to salvage the treaty. “The Irish government need to come to the European Council meeting this week to tell us, the UK and other governments in the European Union how they think we should be taking this forward based on the sovereign decision of the Irish people,” he said.
The European Council meets in Brussels later this week and Germany and France are leading an effort to isolate Ireland and push through ratification. They continue to threaten the creation of a “two-track” EU when faced with objections. This places maximum pressure on Britain to stand firm, which has always feared such an outcome. They will also seek to ensure that those parts of Lisbon that can be implemented without treaty amendment are swiftly adopted.
A propaganda campaign has been mounted to claim that a vote by less than 1 percent of the EU’s 490 million population should not scupper a treaty already ratified by 18 member states. Axel Schäfer, the German Social Democrats’ leader in the Bundestag committee on EU affairs, insisted, “We cannot allow the huge majority of Europe to be duped by a minority of a minority of a minority.... We think it is a real cheek that the country that has benefited most from the EU should do this. There is no other Europe than this treaty.”
Italian President Giorgio Napolitano said, “Now is the time for a courageous choice by those who want coherent progress in building Europe, leaving out those who despite solemn, signed pledges threaten to block it.”
These responses epitomise the undemocratic character of the entire EU project. The reality is that ratification was designed to prevent popular scrutiny, let alone a vote on the issue. Only the Irish government was constitutionally obliged to hold a vote because Lisbon required changes to Ireland’s constitution as participation in EU defence and security projects ended its formal position of neutrality. That the vote went against acceptance in a country that has supposedly been a major beneficiary of European largesse shows how widespread hostility is to the EU throughout the continent.
This places seemingly insurmountable difficulties before those urging a second Irish referendum, as happened previously in 2001-2002.
The Lisbon Treaty, signed December 2007, essentially continued—with some cosmetic changes—the European constitution rejected by voters in the Netherlands and France in 2005. Both treaty and constitution represented an effort by the European powers to forge a political, diplomatic and military apparatus for the EU trade and currency bloc to rival its major competitors in the United States, Russia and China.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the European powers have repeatedly been frustrated in their efforts to project EU influence by the absence of foreign policy coherence and a military capability concomitant with the trade bloc’s vast economic weight. To overcome this, the treaty agreed to a “High Representative for the Union in Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,” leading a “European External Action Service,” a president of the European Council, consolidated policy making on security, justice, energy policy, research, and territorial cohesion.
The treaty also included measures to ensure that the EU’s “big four”—France, Britain, Germany and Italy—dominated decision-making in a bloc. National vetoes would be removed. In the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq war, European foreign policy was hamstrung by US efforts to organise a “new Europe” of former Eastern bloc countries and Britain, against the “old Europe” of the continental powers.
The treaty also built on existing measures to tear up national service industry regulations in the interests of the largest and rapidly expanding EU utility corporations.
The “No” vote came as a shock to much of the Irish political establishment, who as late as the close of polls on June 12 were still predicting a close result in their favour. It is a major setback for newly installed Taoiseach (prime minister) Brian Cowen, who replaced Bertie Ahern six weeks ago after he resigned over allegations of financial corruption.
A coalition of the ruling Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, and the Labour Party all campaigned for a “Yes” vote, pointing to the substantial handouts directed towards Irish economic development over the years by the EU, describing it as a “patriotic duty” and even proof that the Irish people were “good Europeans.” Pope Benedict XVI even took the opportunity during a mass at St. Peter’s Square to describe Ireland’s Saint Columbanus as “one of the Fathers of Europe,” who could even be called a “European saint.”
The “No” vote expresses a deepening alienation of working people from both the Irish political elite, opposition to the undemocratic measures contained in the treaty and to the EU as a whole. Initial analysis of voting patterns suggested that in a broad sweep of urban and rural working class areas, the “No” vote was higher than in more prosperous areas, although turnout was lower. An Irish Times/ MRBI poll prior to the vote on the Lisbon Treaty showed that the “Yes” vote registered a majority only among the better-off ABC1 voters, while in the working class C2DE category there was a big majority for a “No” vote.
EU leaders might point to the subsidies directed towards once impoverished Ireland as an expression of the benefits derived by Ireland from the EU. But these subsidies were primarily spent on infrastructure and corporate grants to facilitate Ireland’s development as an export platform for US corporations seeking access to Europe and European companies looking for a low-tax regime close to the continent.
Many of these operations are in now the process of relocating to even cheaper areas in Eastern Europe. Simultaneously, a building boom and property speculation bubble are rapidly coming to an end. Two days before the referendum, figures showed that unemployment had passed the 200,000 mark for the first time since 1999. In the year to May 2008, unemployment rose 31 percent, with nearly 1,000 workers a week joining the dole queues. Unemployment increased 22 percent in one month in Dublin, while in County Wexford in the southwest of the island, another building hotspot, the increase was 40 percent.
Price inflation is also increasing, with an annual overall rise of 4.7 percent recorded in April. Food prices went up 8 percent, fuel costs 23 percent, and home heating oil increased a massive 47 percent. Overall, retail sales are down 3.2 percent since the start of the year. Mortgage costs, already crippling large sections of workers, increased 2 percent in one month alone. Residential mortgage debt now stands at 75 percent of Irish GDP, up from 24 percent in 1997. The Breugel think tank warned that the economic situation in Ireland had “darkened dramatically recently, amid severe downturns in the housing market.”
Another component of the “No” vote was the desire to uphold Ireland’s constitutional neutrality, which expressed, in a partial and distorted way, antiwar sentiment and opposition to the Irish government’s participation in the US and British war effort in Iraq by allowing military refuelling at Shannon airport.
But while the “No” campaign benefited from such sentiment, it was made up of groups that in no way articulated the social concerns and political interests of the Irish working class. The “No” campaign included many Catholic groups anxious to keep abortion illegal in Ireland and found its most prominent spokesman in pro-US businessman Declan Ganvey and his Libertas organisation. Both Ganvey and Sinn Fein, the only party in parliament calling for a “No” vote, opposed the treaty from the standpoint of upholding Ireland’s right to set corporate taxes independently of the EU, which presently stand at 12.5 percent, in order to retain a competitive advantage in attracting global investment. Many of the groups involved, including the Unite trade union, supported the EU and Ireland’s continued membership, differing only on the treaty itself.
A “No” vote, while expressing legitimate disaffection and opposition, is clearly inadequate—as the plans to continue with ratification demonstrate. The working class is in a political struggle against the major institution of big business in Europe and it needs its own political programme and leadership in order to take this forward. A significant role in preventing such a development is played by Ireland’s left groups, the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party, both of which were active in the “No” campaign. It is they who ensured that workers were given no opportunity to delineate their stance from Libertas and its ilk, and who never elaborated anything amounting to an independent perspective on the central issue of Europe’s integration.
The Socialist Party centred its campaign on a series of statements from Joe Higgins, a member of the Dáil Éireann, the Irish parliament until he lost his seat last year. Higgins had promised in January 2008 that the Socialist Party would outline its perspective “counterposing a democratic, socialist Europe of workers to the capitalist club that the EU is.” But this was never elaborated in its published campaign material.
Higgins’s column on the eve of the vote, “Why you should vote No to Lisbon,” listed opposition to wage lowering, the European Court of Justice, to the attacks on public services and to militarism, but did not oppose the EU itself. Instead he intimated that the EU could be reformed, stating that he saw the Lisbon Treaty as a lost opportunity: “Lisbon should have been an opportunity to exclude public services once and for all from the rules of the market and international trade.”
The Socialist Workers Party made similarly vague criticisms of the EU, with its “Vote No” web site noting that the Lisbon Treaty makes “little provision for a social Europe,” “does nothing to address the lack of democracy” and “forces countries to increase military spending.”
Its reply to frequently asked questions on the Lisbon Treaty also explicitly advocates reform of the EU, stating, “The European Trade Union Confederation calling for an amendment to the Treaty. But any amendment to the treaty can only come about by an Irish No Vote forcing renegotiation.”
The party’s leading Irish trade union bureaucrat, Jimmy Kelly of Unite, was more explicit, writing in an April 2008 article that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions should demand the Irish government “postpone the Lisbon Treaty to allow time to address the issue of trade union rights” (emphasis added). He complained, “The Irish Government has failed to provide a basis for workers to view this Referendum as genuinely delivering on rights in the workplace or delivering on the Social Europe as set out in the original Lisbon Treaty” (emphasis added).
The EU cannot be reformed. And there is no such thing as a “Social Europe.” The EU is a massive apparatus dedicated to the forgoing of a continent-wide trade and military bloc able to better compete against Europe’s rivals through the systematic destruction of wage and social conditions.
Unification of Europe is both a progressive and necessary goal, but it must be carried out by the working class in opposition to the all the rival cliques of capitalists and their political advocates, whether they favour greater EU integration or they oppose it.
Only the perspective of the United Socialist States of Europe, as part of a world socialist federation, opens the prospect of a peaceful, culturally and technically advanced Europe using its immense productive capacities to meet human need throughout the continent and worldwide. To take this perspective forward in Ireland demands the urgent construction of a section of the International Committee of the Fourth International."
This looks much closer to what i was saying initially and it is better than a two speed Europe with several members on each side. A one speed strong willed Europe that is able to make those initially unwilling to join not strong enough to create a coalition against it.
deanjack
Ruler of the Universe
You are correct about the SNP being elected here in Scotland, however the majority of the electorate do not support Scottish independance. The SNP were elected for a multitude of reasons. In Scotland there is some discontent about the war in Iraq. Some people decided to punish the government in Westminster by getting rid of Scottish Labour in Holyrood. Also some of the Scottish people wanted change fro m the labour run Scottish executive but didn't want to vote conservative or lib dem. The SNP's manifesto was one, with the exception of the refarendum pledge, which is pleasing to the eye with lotas of fancy promises. The promise to reduce class sizes from 30 to 20 in many classes (mostly P1 to P3) but it was revealed several weeks ago that the SNP have not put anywhere near enogh money towards this for it to be possible. It also looks like the local income tax promise may have to be re thought.
Shekwan
Kim Chi Quaffing Celt
This is the last time I'm going to type this. In Ireland you need a referendum to change the constitution! I'm sorry, but I stopped reading here as I'm fed up of repeating myself.
As for what the EU want to do about the rejection; it looks like they'll ask us to vote again. Although I voted YES, I will change my vote to NO. The EU had to accept the French and Dutch rejection of the EU constitution, so they should have to come up with an alternative to Lisbon as a result of this rejection too.
scy12
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 5,181
The reason you keep repeating your self is because you have trouble becoming aware of when one answered what you have already said and where he has answered something else.
And you have trouble on becoming aware of those things because you decided to stop reading and jump to conclusions. Not a smart thing to do when you attempt to debate. If you don't want to debate , don't.
If you kept reading beyond one sentence (like for example the whole post which is necessary to understand which is the context where the sentence is used) you would see that :
My answer was to this post.
Here it is :
Does not relate at all to Ireland but to what would be the consequence if all countries required a Referendum to change their constitution. Here necessary means as a necessay law to
If you would relate it to Ireland you would see that it was a point against the Irish law which proposes that only referendums can change the constitution (assuming you are telling the truth).
Either way choosing to stop reading because you have said that referendums are always necessary in Ireland due to law is like attempting to win the arguement by escaping it due to an excuse.
Necessary can means as necessary by law but also necessary by being the best thing of the situation.
Obviously i meant being necessary for the situation. I wonder why you didn't understand it.
Law can always be changed even if Law itself says that it will not. It is something that is decided by actions. What is necessary (Most efficient for the situation) is decided by point of view. Your necessary (Law-action) is weaker than my necessary (point of view) as a result , as yours is always able to change but mine may be always correct under my point of view for the situation.
Don't make a Hitler analogy out of this.
In regard to the complexity of Ireland's law ( your Necessary law) i posted this :
European powers to continue with Lisbon Treaty despite Ireland “No” vote
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/ju...irel-j16.shtml
I guess you also have fed up to repeating your arguement to other European powers.
i also don't get why you take it so personal and nationalistic this issue. I am not attacking your country i am just adapting to the situation. What you are asking , that we refuse to adapt to the situation for your sake is just politically unrealistic. And i think not very democratic also.
Shekwan
Kim Chi Quaffing Celt
It seems that you are making an argument mostly about why referendums shouldn't be held. You make a valid point, but thats not the issue. The situation is that a referendum HAD to be held in accordance with Irish law.
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.
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.
