Reasons being given by NO voters for there vote include: 1. Concern about jobs because of slump in building industry - and foreign workers taking them
2. Concern that Irish people might be conscripted into a European Army
3. Anger at government inaction at high fuel prices
4. Loss of Commissioner and relative voting weight within EU
5. Generalised concerned at a lack of democracy and accountability within the EU
6. Anger at the fact that both Taoiseach Brian Cowen, and Commissioner Charlie McCreavey had admitted to not having read the Treaty
7. Concern at a variety of comments by European leaders that the Treaty text had deliberately been drafted as abstrusely as possible.
8. Harmonization of corporate taxation - was not as big an issue in predominately working class areas which voted NO by large majorities.
9. Anger amongst farmers at extremely intrusive EU regulation
If we do decide we need to have a second referendum, that is one concrete change that could be made to justify it - to give every country back "their" Commissioner - would be a popular move and could help to justify having a re-run in Ireland. It could be presented as a positive outcome for the no side without disadvantaging anyone else in Europe. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
I'd support such a change as well. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
5. Generalised concerned at a lack of democracy and accountability within the EU The Treaty of Lisbon is an improvement.
The Treaty of Lisbon is an improvement.
There is a "fallacy" here: You are comparing the EU before and after Lisbon, but that is not the correct comparison. You also have to factor in the loss of power of the nation states to the EU.
I have no love for the nation states, but they are arguably more democratic than the EU.
The Lisbon treaty expands the power of the Parliament and introduces citizen initiatives and citizen petitions, among other things. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
No, they are not. The major source of "undemocracy" in the EU is the Council which represents the governments of the member states. The Lisbon treaty expands the power of the Parliament and introduces citizen initiatives and citizen petitions, among other things.
The Lisbon treaty expands the power of the Parliament and introduces citizen initiatives and citizen petitions, among other things.
Their might be (or not), a misunderstanding here. I am not saying that Lisbon is less democratic than before with regards to the EU.
What I am saying is that there is a transfer of power from nations (where "democracy rules") to the complex hoodge poodge of the EU (partially democratic, partially "distant from voters").
If you think the "Lisbon EU" is more democratic than composing nation states, then I think there is a real disagreement in interpretation (I don't see it that way).
PS - my Lisbon treaty knowledge is wikipedia based (not read it), but I have no reason to believe that that is insufficient (correct me if you think I am wrong)
nations (where "democracy rules")
"nations" (where " "democracy" "rules" ")
Bizarre. Kind of scary really.
I don't think he's right, though. People tend to take any referendum as a confidence vote on the political establishment, and "representative" democracy is in a real crisis of legitimacy. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
What is the Government and opposition to do now that their chosen policy has been voted down? Have another general election? Allow Declan Ganly to take over? Which of the many conflicting no campaign issues should it take up as new official Government policy? Keeping the one commissioner per country rule is one of the few No campaign issues that actually relate to the Treaty itself, so that might be the place to start. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
What I am saying is that there is a transfer of power from nations (where "democracy rules") to the complex hoodge poodge of the EU (partially democratic, partially "distant from voters"). If you think the "Lisbon EU" is more democratic than composing nation states, then I think there is a real disagreement in interpretation
If you think the "Lisbon EU" is more democratic than composing nation states, then I think there is a real disagreement in interpretation
There is a real disagreement because you are not comparing like with like when you are comparing the Eu to its constituent member states. By definition the EU is larger, more complex, and more distant from individual citizens - precisely because it is not made up of citizens, but of member states - with direct participation of citizens - bypassing member states - only coming in slowly via the directly elected EU parliament and direct citizen initiatives.
By rejecting Lisbon, the Irish electorate are essential saying they want it to stay that way - with more say for states and less direct say for citizens. This will suit nationalists everywhere - and the those outside the EU who want it to remain an essentially weak and inchoate conglomerate of economies with little coherent, combined political power.
A better analogy would be with those workers who chose not to join a union and negotiate directly with their employers - in this case as represented by Global Capital. Some will possibly be better off - but will workers (= member states) be better off as a whole - particularly the smaller weaker ones? "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
"Nations" themselves represent a complex hoodge poodge where power is transferred from lower levels of smaller territorial units. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The contraction of the territorial reach of the central power of the state of Hungary is something separate from the relationship of it and smaller units. (Prior to 1001 AD, we can't speak of real centralised power; in the Kingdom, there were a number of local autonomies later abolished; the Hungary part of Austria-Hungary was the union of multiple provinces of the Habsburg Empire; the once strong autonomy of the shires was progressively eliminated through the 19th and 20th century; the personal income tax share of local governments was reduced steadily to the benefit of the central government since 1990, etc.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
And in many nations, feodal and post-feodal autonomies where nominally, and often really, given by a central authority. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
My larger point is that nations as confederations of smaller unit is not a given : France never was a union of region, but the kingdom of the strongest noble among the Franks, who decided to give autonomy and take it back ; and who conquered , lost and divided among sons, his land Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Also, during feudalism, local fiefdoms often had more de-facto autonomy than modern confederated states (see again Burgundy), in France, it was done away with progressively only after the 100 Years War (peaking in Louis XIV's de-facto taking hostage of aristocracy by binding them in his own court). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
And Burgundy wasn't autonomous, it was pretty much independent until the middle of the second millenia, if I'm not mistaken. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
You say "Choosing one of the points of centralisation of power as the formation of the French State is a bit abusive", but I thought that's my point! You are trying to connect the different past centres of power centralisation into a single coherent timeline.
Burgundy started out similarly to Aquitania: a duchy that made its own politics while nominally under the French king.
Duchy of Burgundy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From these counties would emerge both the Duchy of Burgundy and the County of Burgundy, aided by the collapse of Carolingian centralism, and the division of the Frankish domains brought about by the Partition of Verdun in 843. In the midst of this confusion, Guerin, Count of Macon, attached himself to Charles the Bald... Guerin was rewarded for his services by the King ... by being granted the administration of the Counties of Chalon and Nevers, in which he was by custom expected to appoint Viscounts to rule as his deputies. As a vital military defender of the West Frankish border, Guerin was sometimes known by the Latin term for 'leader' - Dux, or Duke.
...Robert the Pious gave the territory to his younger son and namesake, Robert; and when Henry I, acceding in difficult circumstances, found it necessary to secure the loyalty of Robert of Burgundy, his brother, he further heightened the rights given to his brother. Robert was to be Duke of Burgundy; as ruler of the Duchy, he would "enjoy the freehold thereof", and have the right "to pass it on to his heirs"; the Duke would owe allegiance only to the crown of France...
...Finally, in the final months of John the Good's reign, Philip the Bold was established as Duke of Burgundy: the King secretly created his son as Duke on 6 September 1363 (in his dual role as Duke giving his own title to his child and as King sanctioning this change in leadership)...
By 1405, ... Burgundy - to follow the custom of giving the name of the Duchy to the much wider agglomeration assembled by the Dukes - stood less as a French fief, more as an independent state, and a major political player in European politics.
...The last two Dukes to directly rule the Duchy, Philip the Good and Charles the Bold, attempted to secure the independence of their Duchy from the French crown. The endeavour failed however; when Charles the Bold died in battle without sons, Louis XI of France declared the Duchy to have become extinct, and absorbed the territory into the French crown...
Had history turned out a little bit different, today Dijon would be a 'Burgundian'-speaking metropolis and Paris would speak English. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
And the problems with the English and the Burgundian was the same indeed, nobles becoming sovereigns in provinces not part of France. Dual homage was a major instability of feudal organisation.
There is a coherent time line for "Kingdom of the French" since at least Hugues Capet at least - the kingdom stayed in the same family ! That's the France "beyond the Rhone and Escaut" that indeed started with Charles the Bald, and which included the Duchy of Burgundy.
At no single points did the French provinces decide to join and form a French state ; the centralisation was imposed from the center, or from the outside in the case of the Roman Empire. I believe few states appeared thanks to actual voluntary delegations from their constituents ; centralisation was mostly forced from the center through political pressure or force of arms... Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
"Nations" themselves represent a complex hoodge poodge where power is transferred from lower levels of smaller territorial units.
Yes, but I (I in the sense of "I, the voter") know and can replace the prime minister of my country in a fairly straightforward way (or my MEPs, by the way).
Can you tell me how can I do that in a straightforward way with some of the political powers in the EU?
Maybe we could start by replacing the idea of the EU as a collection of nations with the idea of a collection of citizens... That point of view could help...
Give political EU power to a body directly elected by citizens, and only (mostly) to that.
Want some nation representation? Have a senate, American way. Equal nation representation, directly elected.
I don't think this is a "Summer night's dream".
I think it will be a carrot and stick approach myself. A threat to exclude Ireland from a two speed Europe should start the ball rolling "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Actually, could you come up with a list of the specific things that the No camp was worried about, such as the chipping of babies? We could then put together a proposal to "amend" the Treaty. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
The other issues are not in the treaty but could be:
And it's a huge can of worms.
The rest sounds like sensible ideas. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
So far the downturn has hardly effected middle class families at all - unless they are running their own business - so life goes on as normal for the majority and the political establishment just continues playing its usual games as if nothing is happening. Some of the no vote, at least, was a protest vote against this disconnect.
The problem is that this problem will get a lot worse in the next few months, and unless the Cowen Government does something pretty dramatic about it, the level of anger and protest can only get worse. I am hoping it doesn't develop into full blown racist xenophobia directed at the huge recent immigrant population living here and am relieved that so far, it hasn't. However the Celtic Tiger cubs are growing up and now want to command their own prides, and some pretty nasty infighting could occur when there aren't enough jobs to go around.
Giving them history lessons on how the Irish, too, are a nation of emigrants isn't really going to help much - especially when those lessons are being given by the middle classes still sitting on record levels of income. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
After all, if they are unemployed, then it means that nobody is benefiting from their skills.
(Cue Mig pulling out a Keynes quote :-P)
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
There have been some noises from Cowen to the effect that this may have to be scaled back because of a sharp downturn in tax revenues, but if ever there was a time and reason to hold your nerve and increase borrowing to fund a large infrastructural programme well this is it.
I can see the Unions pressing hard for this as part of the current social partnership talks - but they may have to pay in terms of pay moderation in order to get it.
The other plus side of doing it now is that there has been huge price inflation in infrastructural projects because of the tight labour market (in the past) and - well - infrastructural bottlenecks. So it should be possible to get a lot more done for the same money now that might have been possible a couple of years ago.
Huge money has been spent on infrastructure, health etc. - tripling expenditures of c. 10 years ago - the problem has been getting value for money for the invstment spent. (Our metros cost many multiples per KM more than e.g. Madrid spent for comparable investment). A lot of this is down to to inflation at a time of huge growth, but even more to very poor project management and decision making capabilities within the public service.
For instance the M50 ring road motorway around Dublin handed even been completed when they had to start upgrading it from 4 lanes to 6 for multiples of the original cost. Now they are going to spend hundreds of millions on an electronic tolling system when a few cent on the price of petrol would bring in the same extra revenue for zero incremental collection cost.
Every private sector company I know rubs its hands at the prospect of a public contract. The initial tender price may have to be low - but the spec is always changed and then they can charge what they like. 100's of lawyers have become multi-millionaires from the Tribunals alone - work that in England would have been done by a judge and a couple of barristers in a matter of weeks.
The waste is spectacular and yet it is almost impossible to even raise the issue of poor management. (The Irish Times has never published a letter of mine criticizing any aspect of the management of public projects/services). This is why I am sometimes at odds with Jerome's paeans of praise to the French public service - if only some real accountability and management disciplines applied in Ireland. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
There is only one way I can see the government being able to hold a "legitimate" second referendum. They could resign on the basis that the electorate have rejected there advocacy of Lisbon and hence that they can no longer presume to hold the electorate's confidence. They could then campaign during the general election on the basis of re-submitting the treaty. Presumably FF and FG would campaign on such a platform and also possibly Labour. It would be a gutsy move, with about zero percent probability of ever happening.
He would have a lot of work to do in explaining to the electorate that this is his and our only best option. I was speaking to a senior civil servant this evening and he is convinced that the "turkey's have just voted for Christmas" and destroyed Ireland's standing in the corridors of power in the EU. He has been at the sharp end of a lot of EU negotiations, and so he should know.
However Cowen is a very cautious man and I can see him risking his premiership in such a dramatic move. This one ios going to take some time to sort out. Expect the media to finally do some digging into Ganly and co. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Can? Can't?
This one ios going to take some time to sort out. Expect the media to finally do some digging into Ganly and co.
Last night on the BBC, the "no" campaign was presented as consisting of LIBERTAS and LIBERTAS only. WIll he turn it into a political party? When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I think he would be very stupid to try and would be hammered. The progressive Democrats are the most comparable pro business pro US party and they have dropped down to 2% of the vote. He was given a free ride because he wasn't a politician. That would change overnight if he turned it into a political party. I hope he does - his true level of support would quickly become apparent.
The BBC must be trying to spin this as "Ireland comes around to Britain's Euroscepticism" because there is no way he remotely compares to Sinn Fein in terms of potential political support. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Never the dependency on private money for politics.
And the ideal, long term "congress" would be proportional - EU wide - single circle.
How to get there? First step: Have a treaty that reinforces the parliament (I know, Lisbon does that) and empties the non electable parts of the EU.
What I don't want to see is major policy decisions coming from unelected (or very indirectly elected) parts of the EU. Just that.
And things like tax competition, future train liberalization, come as far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) not from the European parliament but from either the commission or inter governmental agreements.
But, falling back to pragmatic reality, I would bet that the way now will be "two speeds". But lets see...
And, if you do that, how do you get the sovereigntist camp in each member state from voting no? They'de be very strong in a number of countries, actually in a majority I suspect (Ireland, UK, Scandinavia and most of the New Member States) When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
What I don't want to see is major policy decisions coming from unelected (or very indirectly elected) parts of the EU. Just that. Because National Laws are shining examples of rational and just policies and EU Directives are blockheaded. Right
Because National Laws are shining examples of rational and just policies and EU Directives are blockheaded. Right
My argument for democracy is not pragmatic but principled.
I am Portuguese, most of what can be called civilization in my country is normally the imposition of an EU directive (this is an exaggeration, but you get the point).
I am fully aware of the shortcomings of democracy. I normally am against the common/majority sense in my original country. But in the overall I cannot think of a better system (a topic for another discussion...).
The labour movement has been another powerful non-elite engine of progress.
Both seem to have fizzled out of late and a synthesis and revival would be a very good thing.
But the point is that a technocratic elite might be a good thing in a democratic arrangement.
In France, however, as I gather from Jerome's complaints, the technocratic elite has lost its public service ethos and been coopted into predatorial capitalism which is not a good thing. And as the EU Commission looks a lot like the French civil service, one should expect a similar shift there. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
So I am convinced that having two directly elected chambers is a waste. Spain's Senate definitely is useless as configured and I would much rather it be replaced with the Conference of Presidents. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I suppose you are being sarcastic, but there are many ways, a simple example:
I mean the EP already exists. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
Citizen's Initiative for new Constitution -> EP actually drafts it -> text goes through Council and Commission -> final draft goes to referendums, with citizen's initiative taking credit -> people approve,
or
EP initiates and drafts it -> text goes through Council and Commission -> final draft goes to referendums, with EP distinguishing itself from the "political class" (Counci, governments) and the "bureaucrats" (Commission) by taking credit -> people approve? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I don't think either is currently viable as things stand: the Irish just killed the right of petition though if someone gathered 1 million signatures I suppose it could still be made to happen. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
After Lisbon, using EP election to strenghten EP power
"If elected, I will not vote to elect an EP president unless the president in question agrees to hold an EP conference to draft the EPs proposal for a coherent constitution, to be approved by EU-wide common referenda before submitted to member state ratification" A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
He's pointing out that you need to get this coded into a treaty, agreed by the Council of the EU, and approved by all 27 member states. Good luck with steps 2 and 3, as we have seen. [my emphasis]
Is there any reason under international law why a number of states could not decide to mutually and consensually annex each other and establish a bigger state? And is there any reason under international law that such a superstate could not withdraw from the EU unilaterally, either after or during formation?
If this superstate encompasses all of the EU sans a few objecting minor countries (UK, Cyprus, maybe Denmark. You all know The Usual Suspects), they might even be able to transfer most of the bureaucracy reasonably intact, if that is considered desirable.
How would this differ from amending the existing treaties to make the EU a federal state (apart, of course, from being a bit smaller)?
However given that these are presumably mostly lesser commitments, and that the new elite arrangement is a superset of what the EU treaty obligations currently are - there might not actually be a problem except for hugely confusing arrangements which might be required to keep the entities separate - e.g. two commissions serving some of the same countries but not all.
However the members of the elite club could also give notice of their intention to withdraw from the existing EU and nobody could stop them. You would then have an elite club of x members - and a rump EU of 27-X members. Pretty soon they would be accepted as nonsensical by all, and, depending on the size of X, one camp would fold its tent and either go independent or join the other.
Thus if the EP drafted a radical and simplified new constitution, and say 22 members signed up for it and gave notice of their intention to withdraw from the EU (classic edition), the other 5 would realistically have to either join up or go it alone. Small countries like Ireland would have little choice but to join up. Only bigger countries like UK/Sweden etc. might decide otherwise. And everyone might decide a much more cohesive and democratic EU of say 25 members is better than a chaotic 27 member EU.
This may be the thinking behind the proposal that the Lisbon ratification process should continue. At some point the Lisbon compliant members might simply threaten to leave the old EU and continue on their own - at which point Ireland would cave in and the UK might not - but I wouldn't be surprised if even the UK would cave in at the last moment amid loud accusations of blackmail etc.
The bottom line is that the EU is the only game in town and those who threaten it are playing with fire. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Then agsain, the same goes for national politics: in theory, Colman could kick Ahern's bunch out of power. In theory, ThatBritGuy could kick Brown out of power, but as things stand other Brits will vote Cameron in. In theory, I could vote Orbán and Gyurcsány out in Hungary, except 95% of voters won't vote for anything but the two main parties. In theory, de Gondi could send Berlusconi into hot hell and vote in some leftist government without centrist blackmailers, but it never seems to work out. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Most voters didn't know Barroso's name before 2004. (And don't know him even now) Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
