However, RTÈ think turnout is slow.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Denunciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article 42 of The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that "termination of a treaty, its denunciation or the withdrawal of a party, may take place only as a result of the application of the provisions of the treaty or of the present Convention"[1]. Article 56 states that if a treaty does not provide for denunciation, withdrawal, or termination, it is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless: it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty. Any withdrawal under Article 56 requires 12 months' notice. The Vienna Convention does not apply to all nations; the United States, for instance, is not a Party [2]. This makes it unclear exactly how much notice the U.S. must give when withdrawing from treaties lacking a termination clause. For example, on March 7, 2005, the U.S. announced that it was withdrawing from the Consular Convention's Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, a treaty that lacks a termination clause.
Article 42 of The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that "termination of a treaty, its denunciation or the withdrawal of a party, may take place only as a result of the application of the provisions of the treaty or of the present Convention"[1]. Article 56 states that if a treaty does not provide for denunciation, withdrawal, or termination, it is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless:
Any withdrawal under Article 56 requires 12 months' notice.
The Vienna Convention does not apply to all nations; the United States, for instance, is not a Party [2]. This makes it unclear exactly how much notice the U.S. must give when withdrawing from treaties lacking a termination clause. For example, on March 7, 2005, the U.S. announced that it was withdrawing from the Consular Convention's Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, a treaty that lacks a termination clause.
Then we have the numerous referendums in which the people voted NO, only to be ignored. Of course, they were ignored because our political elites know what's best for us.
Then we have Kouchner's threat to the Irish that they'll become victims if they don't vote YES. Euro bullying from a Marxist, turned Trotskyst turned pro NATO Sarkozyst... nothing but an opportunist.
But really, what is Europe about if not business and international power-projecting?
It makes the European Parliament ... normal.
Using a Daily Telegraph article to criticize anything European is like using La Croix to criticize abortion. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Remember 2005? Referendums in France and The Netherlands. The democratic vote is against Europe as presented by the political elites. Does the people's vote change anything? No.
So my conclusion that Europe doesn't stand for democracy. It stands for promoting business interests and projecting those interests internationally. Whether that's good or bad for European society is a different question altogether.
The European Union assembly's political establishment is pushing through changes that will silence dissidents by changing the rules allowing Euro-MPs to form political groupings. Richard Corbett, a British Labour MEP, is leading the charge to cut the number of party political tendencies in the Parliament next year, a move that would dissolve UKIP's pan-European Eurosceptic "Independence and Democracy" grouping. Under the rule change, the largest and msot pro-EU groups would tighten their grip on the Parliament's political agenda and keep control of lavish funding.
Richard Corbett, a British Labour MEP, is leading the charge to cut the number of party political tendencies in the Parliament next year, a move that would dissolve UKIP's pan-European Eurosceptic "Independence and Democracy" grouping.
Under the rule change, the largest and msot pro-EU groups would tighten their grip on the Parliament's political agenda and keep control of lavish funding.
It is true that with the recent increases in the total number of seats in the Parliament it makes sense to do this. What I personally have disagreed with for a long time is the fact that the non-inscrits (those MEPs who are not part of a group) face draconian limitations to their procedural rights (for instance compared with the Spanish parliament). The rules were written on purpose to encourage MEPs from different countries to form political groups.
There are eurosceptic parties already in EP parliamentary groups - for instance the one that includes the Polish Law and Justice party and the Irish Fianna Fail.
You may remember with the accession of Romania and Bulgaria the xenophobic parties managed to form a group, which later dissolved when the number of countries represented in it dropped below the threshold. The EP plenary had an ovation when this was announced. I don't fault them.
The Torygraph is presenting fascist and xenophobic parties as eurosceptic and making it look like the new rules will be ideological. We have a [Torygraph Alert] for a reason. 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
Fianna Fail
It stands for promoting business interests and projecting those interests internationally
If you think the EU is bad in terms of promoting a free market agenda, you should try living in the US. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
4 Million Irish citizens blocking the expressed wishes of 27 Member Governments representing 400 Million people is not necessarily an ideal example of democracy.
Its kinda funny that the Irish political landscape (with 1 exception Sinn Fein - correct me if I am wrong) is sooo Yes, and, its people is soooo... 50/50 (or so it seems at this time).
It makes me wonder if the other 400 million are being represented in their will by their Govs (which don't want to consult the said people - funny).
Do you think that here (I am UK based) the government represents the will of the majority on this issue?
I would say that your reasoning is a bit overstretched, to be honest.
Also I don't care that much if the "European elites" are a bunch of welfare saints as they seem to be pictured (I actually don't believe that - there is a good deal of "pro unregulated market" ones). They could be god on earth, but I want the decision power to be in the hands of citizens (even if citizens make mistakes - as opposed to those oh-so-fantastic elites).
I don't have an instrumental view of democracy, but a principled one: between a wise dictator(or "elites") and a stupid people I take my chances with the stupid people.
The problem here seems to be the transfer from national (read more democratic) governments and parliaments to a center that is for a big part unaccountable. Even if the treaty EU is more democratic than the EU before-treaty, there is still a transfer of power from states (more democratic at its core) to "Brussels".
Transfer all the power to the parliament (to which I vote), or to a commission chosen by the parliament (low level of indirection from votes) and, from my part, problem solved.
For now, I hope the Irish vote no. At least they (still) can vote.
PS - I could give a few examples of neoliberal decisions by the "European elites": tax competition on VAT and IRS. Deregulation/liberalization of markets (aviation - to which I agree, but that is besides the point, future liberalization of trains...)
What we have now in the EU is the risk of paralysis where a tiny minority - in this case 1% of the EU population - can block a proposal that is supported by the vast majority. Sure - let France and the Netherlands vote against something - the weighted majority system would mean that a proposal could still pass if most of the other members supported it.
I don't see how more members - e.g. in the Balkans can be admitted into the EU until this changes. I also don't see how the EU can become a significant balancing force to prevent the US neo-con political elite treating the world as their playground - until the EU has more effective leadership and decision making processes in place.
Most people who whine about the democratic deficit in the EU are also working actively to try to stop it becoming more democratic - because they don't want the EU at all. And if that happens, the US and Global Capital will rule the world unhindered by any democratic sensibilities whatsoever.
For all it's faults, the EU is a lot better than the alternative - a lot of small and medium size countries being railroaded and ridden roughshod over by the US military industrial complex and by global capital. And that is the real alternative to the EU which is currently on offer - not some idealised democratic nirvana. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
The EU is a confused political mess, and Lisbon hasn't helped this is any way. There's no clear sense of what the EU is, of what it's trying to be, or of why it might be a good thing for countries to belong to it.
There are plenty of hints and suggestions available for the few people who take an interest in EU politics, but they're not necessarily consistent. The Commission likes to doodle neoliberal economic schemes, the ECB largely supports that, the Parliament is more liberal and open.
None of this is obvious to outsiders, who seem to believe there's a single monolith called the EU, and it wants to eat their babies. So the bottom-up reality is that from the outside, the EU political process is almost completely opaque.
I'm sure it's possible to sell the EU project, but the EU pols seem to resent the idea that they should have to.
You can't run a power bloc like this. There's no point trying to expand indefinitely if the home populations aren't solidly supportive and enthusiastic.
Then have an official explicit EU-wide referendum.
Time for me to peddle my mini treaty again?
1. The EU bill of rights (Title II of the current treaty). 2. Union membership rules (Title IX of the current treaty, including Article I-60 on Voluntary withdrawal from the Union) 3. The 2009 European Parliament will be a constitutional assembly 4. Referendum rules: The treaty shall be put to a vote by referendum simultaneously in all EU members states. The result of the referendum will be binding if at least 50% of all EU citizens cast a valid vote in it. The treaty shall come into force only if at least 50% of valid votes in a binding referendum support the treaty. In that case, An EU member state shall be considered to have approved the treaty if it is supported by at least 50% of valid votes in that member state, and the number of valid votes in that member state is at least 50% of the eligible voters. An EU member state where the treaty is not approved shall hold a second referendum within 5 years, with the choices being approval of the treaty or withdrawal from the EU according to the provisions of the treaty. A transitory institutional regime shall apply as long as there are any remaining EU Member States which have not approved the treaty and have not yet held a second referendum.
The result of the referendum will be binding if at least 50% of all EU citizens cast a valid vote in it.
The treaty shall come into force only if at least 50% of valid votes in a binding referendum support the treaty. In that case,
The problem is that all 27 countries would have to unanimously agree to this as there is no constitutional basis for holding such a referendum at the moment. And in a purely EU wide referendum the smaller countries would be swamped, and therefor wouldn't agree to it. That is why we have a slow moving fudge - from unanimity to qualifies majority voting in more and more areas - the "qualified" majority being designed to ensure that larger countries can't railroad smaller ones, and that large majorities are required for changes. This is an improvement on unanimity, but even that small change has now been rejected and vetoed by 1% of the EU population. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
You can't have (our usual kind of) democracy without the appearance of an explicit mandate. People really don't like it if you try to take that away from them, no matter how irrelevant it is in practice.
So given that Lisbon has been crafted to avoid the need for a formal popular mandate, it was never going to be acceptable.
The silliness about chipping babies and drafting them into the EU Child Zombie Flesh-Eating Radioactive Army would have been background noise if Lisbon had had a solid populist foundation.
(Not that I think that would help bringing such a referendum about. No doubt it would still be hard to achieve unanimous agreement amongst the 27 nations. But an EU-wide referendum does not have to mean straight up or down majority popular vote. However, such a plan would run into trouble with the German constitution, which I believe disallows referenda.)
such democracy, the better. My problem is with the unanimity rule which requires that something major can only happen if it is unanimously supported by all members - which gets patently absurd the larger the EU grows.
I agree with you totally. But this solution is far from optimal even in that respect. "Bullying" a country will only create resentment. I actually think that a "multispeed" EU would be a better approach in that respect. So the UK wants to opt out of almost everything? Go ahead, but let others integrate more deeply if they want to.
I don't see how more members - e.g. in the Balkans can be admitted into the EU until this changes.
I would suggest that your beloved EU bureaucracy made a major blunder in expanding to 25 before changing the rules.
I also don't see how the EU can become a significant balancing force to prevent the US neo-con political elite treating the world as their playground - until the EU has more effective leadership and decision making processes in place.
The neocons have currently enough problems inside the US. And again, that idea that our beloved EU bureaucrats are a bunch of social democratic saints is something that I do take for granted. Actually the current EU commission president is the biggest neocon lap dog I could think off (I still remember of pictures of him, as prime minister of Portugal, in the Azores summit where the Iraq invasion was "legitimized").
I respect your opinion, but I actually think it is the other way around: political power detached from the vote will more easy to be corrupted by money/media power. Direct voter accountability, (near) proportional parliament systems and control of campaign financing are cornerstones of assuring that political power will not be hijacked.
For all it's faults, the EU is a lot better than the alternative - a lot of small and medium size countries
Your argument that there are only 2 alternatives is flawed: Lisbon is not the only way to conceive the EU. Their are other alternatives to Lisbon. Had we had decent leadership, more sensible alternatives could have been purposed.
not some idealised democratic nirvana.
The "idealized democratic nirvana" that some of us are talking about is not idealized (it exists, see most of the EU nation states) and is not a nirvana (it has many flaws, but at least it is still reasonably democratic).
beloved EU bureaucrats are a bunch of social democratic saints is something that I do take for granted. Actually the current EU commission president is the biggest neocon lap dog I could
Sorry, I meant: "I do NOT take for granted"
I always find it remarkable how much the hard left take their "facts" and language from the Tory Eurosceptic right.
Although I am far from being "hard left" (and thus cannot give an answer from that perspective), I have no problems in using Tory (or whatever) words if they seem to be an accurate description of reality.
I would actually invert the argument altogether: do you have any problems in using other people's keywords just because those people are "far away" from you? So casual agreement with the "other side" is a substantial (negative) argument for you?
But, from an intellectual perspective, I would argue that people sometimes refuse an argument just because it is made from the "other side". That doesn't seem healthy.
From a media/narrative perspective I see your point.
Far from being the representative of big business, the "EU elite" are actually bitterly opposed by US neo-cons, Liberal economic business interests and a plethora of xenophobic, nationalist and religious groups.
That American biznizmen are opposed to the EU does not in and of itself mean that the EU does not pander to bizniz. Just not the same bizniz as the US panders to.
Class solidarity has its limits, even for fatcats.
Now, if you want to argue that the EU is better at opposing oligarchic bizniz - whether in the forms of local robber barons or trans-national robber barons - than the individual member states, be my guest. I think that there is such a case to be made. But you haven't been making it lately.
The election results are in now. Can we snap out of campaign mode, please?
Very true. And countries can do it, too. Just the other day, we had the strange situation that Sarko and Merkel beat out a 'compromise' on car CO2 emission levels that is rather generous to (and was greeted by) carmakers, while the EU Commission wasn't amused. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
This is a proposal by Richard Corbett (PSE) which has not yet passed. It is opposed by a lot of parties in the European Parliament.
Besides, the eurosceptics would not be banned. They would just require more Members of European Parliament to count as a group within the EP. Given that the EP has 785 members, a requirement of 30 MEPs would be a threshold of 3.8%.
I do oppose Corbett's proposal. But this is typical over the top reporting by the British press.
Vote counting is entirely manual in Ireland (following a comical attempt to introduce computerised voting)
Be glad it is manual. At least you won't have to wonder about a Diebold style "program for victory," like we (may have?) had in Ohio in the 2004 presidential election. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
I'm all for computerisation of most things - particularly high volume, repetitive transactions, but voting is such an occasional thing, it doesn't make sense to build a complex and expensive system to accommodate it.
Besides - the manual vote counting process is one of the great ceremonies of Irish politics and draws in a lot of people - counters, observers, party supporters etc. to create a party atmosphere - and often a lot of real tension. I'm not one for spending time in a bookies office, but for many there is real entertainment value in watching democracy in action.
We tamper with that spirit of sociability and participation at our peril. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Thus if this referendum is actually passed, it will have more to do with the nature of the opposition. Many people may not wish to associate themselves with Sinn Fein, Libertas, Coir (a nebulous organisation made up of social conservatives who have previously opposed Divorce etc, in Ireland) and a plethora of small political parties and Union Leaders who have generally opposed all referenda on the EU. This is not a good omen for Democracy within the EU. Proposals should be debated and passed on their merits and not based on who is for and against. I hope we never again see a referendum in Ireland on such a poorly drafted document. It's time we had a real EU Constitution which actually articulates what the EU is about.
This is not a good omen for Democracy within the EU. Proposals should be debated and passed on their merits and not based on who is for and against. I hope we never again see a referendum in Ireland on such a poorly drafted document. It's time we had a real EU Constitution which actually articulates what the EU is about.
Democratic legitimation of the European Union has always suffered from the fact that there is low public understanding, low interest, and low participation. By making the voting weights in the Council more transparent and proportional (somewhere in 2014 or so) and by providing that the European Parliament elections will also determine the President of the Commission, the Lisbon treaty will likely lead to greater public involvement in the European Union, and might well make the EU more political. We'll see how it works out.
As for a Constitution, that has been tried (though it was not really much more of a constitution than the existing treaties). If I could get the kind of constitution that I would like, of course I would approve of trying again. But I don't know if that is possible, or if some Member States are always going to obstruct it for some obscure pretended reason because in reality they see a threat in a more smoothly functioning Union.
So, baby steps.
This is a bit overdrawn. The Irish referendum is not the only lens through which we should look at the Lisbon Treaty.
It is, however, the lens which matters right now - particularly if Lisbon is defeated. If that happens it will not be because the Irish are anti-EU, but because they have a real problem with passing into their constitution a series of proposals to complex and opaque, that even the experts have difficulty in deciphering the exact meaning, intent, and effect of the document.
If anything, this unfortunate campaign has given a platform for every tendency hostile to the EU ideal and given very little concrete to those who support it to work with. Ireland will probably be less pro-EU as a result of this unfortunate experience - even if the Treaty is ratified - because a degree of trust has been lost, and a great deal of cynicism has been justified. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Ireland will probably be less pro-EU as a result of this unfortunate experience - even if the Treaty is ratified - because a degree of trust has been lost, and a great deal of cynicism has been justified.
Exactly. Somehow the "marketing" of the EU must have really gone horribly wrong, if they can't sell a reform treaty even in a "eurofriendly" country like Ireland.
I think if referenda had been mandatory in every member country, and a "NO" would have meant immediate withdrawal of that member country, the local governments probably would have done a much better job in "selling" the treaty.
The problem is that nowadays nobody sees the huge advantages of an economic union anymore, because everybody has so gotten used to easy travel, business across country borders without exchange rates and tariffs and all those things. If Ireland would lose the economic advantages of membership from one day to the next, probably most of those Euroskeptics would be the ones to complain loudest of all ...
If Ireland would lose the economic advantages of membership from one day to the next, probably most of those Euroskeptics would be the ones to complain loudest of all ...
Some would be quite happy to retreat to an older, more conservative, religious, monocultural and "pure" Ireland. Some imagine the can secure more power and influence within the nation state than they can within the EU as a whole. Some see the EU as part of the global capitalist conspiracy to take over the world. Some are "following the money" and ingratiating themselves with their US masters. Most are just pandering to the frustrations that many people feel in a rapidly changing society. The problem is there isn't a coherent set of "NO" issues which can be addressed, and therefore no obvious solution to the impasse in EU development. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
While looking at the Independence and Democracy group page, I found the following press release pertaining to the rumour about European defence which has been used by the no side in Ireland over the past week.
Independence and Democracy: MEP Kathy Sinnott calls on the French government to release the suppressed French white paper on defence (11/06/08)
Kathy Sinnott MEP, Ireland South today called upon the French Government to release their white paper on defence immediately. "It has been ready for release since May but the French government are withholding it until after the Irish referendum. It is clear from Mr. Lequiller's comments in their European Affairs Committee that the intention is to not release this publishable and very relevant document until after our referendum. To try and prevent a NO vote in Ireland." She continued "It is reasonable for inquiring minds to wonder what is in this Paper that would delay its publication thus far and why it is thought to effect the chances of Lisbon passing on the 12th of June?" Deputy Sinnott also rejected government obfuscation on the Lisbon Treaty's implications for Irish defence spending. When asked about defence expenditure on RTE's "Week in Politics" program on Sunday night, Minister Lenihan changed the subject and repeated the claim that our neutrality is protected under Lisbon. Minister O'Dea likewise says that the commitment from Lisbon should not mean extra expenditure.
She continued "It is reasonable for inquiring minds to wonder what is in this Paper that would delay its publication thus far and why it is thought to effect the chances of Lisbon passing on the 12th of June?"
Deputy Sinnott also rejected government obfuscation on the Lisbon Treaty's implications for Irish defence spending. When asked about defence expenditure on RTE's "Week in Politics" program on Sunday night, Minister Lenihan changed the subject and repeated the claim that our neutrality is protected under Lisbon. Minister O'Dea likewise says that the commitment from Lisbon should not mean extra expenditure.
(born September 29, 1950 in Chicago, Illinois, USA) is a disability rights campaigner and politician representing Ireland. She is secretary of the Hope Project. She stood successfully for election as a Member of the European Parliament for Ireland South in the 2004 European elections. She campaigned on disability and education issues, and to a lesser extent Euroscepticism and social conservatism, espousing much of the agenda of the Christian Right, particularly in regard to abortion. She had stood before in the 2002 general election for a seat in Cork South Central, and narrowly missed out on the fifth and final seat to Fianna Fáil. Her subsequent attempt for a Senate seat also ended in defeat.
She stood successfully for election as a Member of the European Parliament for Ireland South in the 2004 European elections. She campaigned on disability and education issues, and to a lesser extent Euroscepticism and social conservatism, espousing much of the agenda of the Christian Right, particularly in regard to abortion. She had stood before in the 2002 general election for a seat in Cork South Central, and narrowly missed out on the fifth and final seat to Fianna Fáil. Her subsequent attempt for a Senate seat also ended in defeat.
THE RESULT of the Lisbon Treaty referendum will be declared this afternoon amid considerable concern in other European Union countries about the impact of the decision by Irish voters. By the time polls closed at 10pm last night, around 50 per cent of the three million people registered to vote are understood to have cast their ballots. Last night, the Yes camp expressed confidence that it would win, although those on the No side insisted that the result would be close. Just before midnight, sources from the major parties said there appears to have been higher-than-expected turnout in key areas. In Dublin north-east 54 per cent of eligible citizens had voted, sources said. Other early turnout figures were: Waterford city 60 per cent, Dun Laoghaire 61 per cent, Co Clare 48 per cent, West Limerick 40 and Gorey and Greystones 55 per cent. Polling stations in middle-class districts are known to have enjoyed high turnouts with one in Celbridge, Co Kildare, registering 50 per cent by 7pm, and parts of Co Wicklow reporting tournouts of 55 per cent by 9.30 pm The French and German governments are expected to issue a joint statement later today once the Irish verdict is known. The outcome will be discussed by EU foreign ministers, including Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin, when they meet in Luxembourg on Monday. Counting will begin at 9am today, although early tallies should give a clear indication of the likely final result by lunchtime - unless the gap between the two sides is very tight. Results from each of the 43 constituencies will be notified as they are completed to the Dublin Castle referendum count headquarters and a final result should be complete between 3.30pm and 5pm. If there is a difference between the Yes and No sides of fewer than 10,000 votes, there will be a total recount in all constituencies and a result declared by 9pm, the Department of the Environment has said. Expressing confidence in a Yes outcome, Taoiseach Brian Cowen said as he cast his vote in Tullamore with his wife, Mary: "I've led it in the very best way I possibly could. I've done it from the front. I've gone all over the country. I've put the issues." Insisting he had run "an honest campaign", he added: "I can safely say I don't think that was replicated on the other side, given the level of misrepresentation and worries that people were articulating to me." Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny, who voted in Castlebar, Co Mayo, said he believed that public opinion had changed in the last 10 days of the campaign. Labour leader Eamon Gilmore, who voted in Shankill, Co Dublin, said questions about the conduct of the Yes campaign should be left "for tomorrow or for the postmortem". Sinn Féin MEP Mary Lou McDonald said as she cast her vote that she believed today's count would be "very tight", adding that a No result would place "a huge responsibility" on the Government. The founder of Libertas Declan Ganley, who campaigned for a No vote, voted with his wife Delia at Brierfield National School near Horseleap Cross in north Co Galway, near his home. Expressing a confidence that a No vote would send "a clear message to Brussels", he said: "Whatever the outcome, this is the voice of the Irish people speaking and it's a good day for democracy here in Ireland". One of the country's leading bookmakers, Paddy Power, decided within minutes of the polls closing to pay out early to those who had bet that the Yes campaign would win.
THE RESULT of the Lisbon Treaty referendum will be declared this afternoon amid considerable concern in other European Union countries about the impact of the decision by Irish voters.
By the time polls closed at 10pm last night, around 50 per cent of the three million people registered to vote are understood to have cast their ballots.
Last night, the Yes camp expressed confidence that it would win, although those on the No side insisted that the result would be close.
Just before midnight, sources from the major parties said there appears to have been higher-than-expected turnout in key areas. In Dublin north-east 54 per cent of eligible citizens had voted, sources said. Other early turnout figures were: Waterford city 60 per cent, Dun Laoghaire 61 per cent, Co Clare 48 per cent, West Limerick 40 and Gorey and Greystones 55 per cent.
Polling stations in middle-class districts are known to have enjoyed high turnouts with one in Celbridge, Co Kildare, registering 50 per cent by 7pm, and parts of Co Wicklow reporting tournouts of 55 per cent by 9.30 pm
The French and German governments are expected to issue a joint statement later today once the Irish verdict is known. The outcome will be discussed by EU foreign ministers, including Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin, when they meet in Luxembourg on Monday.
Counting will begin at 9am today, although early tallies should give a clear indication of the likely final result by lunchtime - unless the gap between the two sides is very tight.
Results from each of the 43 constituencies will be notified as they are completed to the Dublin Castle referendum count headquarters and a final result should be complete between 3.30pm and 5pm.
If there is a difference between the Yes and No sides of fewer than 10,000 votes, there will be a total recount in all constituencies and a result declared by 9pm, the Department of the Environment has said.
Expressing confidence in a Yes outcome, Taoiseach Brian Cowen said as he cast his vote in Tullamore with his wife, Mary: "I've led it in the very best way I possibly could. I've done it from the front. I've gone all over the country. I've put the issues."
Insisting he had run "an honest campaign", he added: "I can safely say I don't think that was replicated on the other side, given the level of misrepresentation and worries that people were articulating to me."
Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny, who voted in Castlebar, Co Mayo, said he believed that public opinion had changed in the last 10 days of the campaign.
Labour leader Eamon Gilmore, who voted in Shankill, Co Dublin, said questions about the conduct of the Yes campaign should be left "for tomorrow or for the postmortem".
Sinn Féin MEP Mary Lou McDonald said as she cast her vote that she believed today's count would be "very tight", adding that a No result would place "a huge responsibility" on the Government.
The founder of Libertas Declan Ganley, who campaigned for a No vote, voted with his wife Delia at Brierfield National School near Horseleap Cross in north Co Galway, near his home. Expressing a confidence that a No vote would send "a clear message to Brussels", he said: "Whatever the outcome, this is the voice of the Irish people speaking and it's a good day for democracy here in Ireland".
One of the country's leading bookmakers, Paddy Power, decided within minutes of the polls closing to pay out early to those who had bet that the Yes campaign would win.
We don't do exit polling on Referenda in Ireland, but if Paddy Power is paying out early on a yes victory, you can take it that it is odds on the Lisbon will be carried. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Ballot boxes are being opened around the country, and while it is far too early to be definitive, the Yes side are not too happy with the early indications.Advertisement Working class areas of the capital are reported to be voting two to one against Lisbon, while the vote is more evenly split in middle class districts. In Donegal North East, with 10% of boxes opened, not one has a Yes majority, while in Tipperary North, political sources are predicting that the result will be very close, and in Wicklow. However, it is very early days, and these are only tallies rather than actual results.
Ballot boxes are being opened around the country, and while it is far too early to be definitive, the Yes side are not too happy with the early indications.Advertisement
Working class areas of the capital are reported to be voting two to one against Lisbon, while the vote is more evenly split in middle class districts.
In Donegal North East, with 10% of boxes opened, not one has a Yes majority, while in Tipperary North, political sources are predicting that the result will be very close, and in Wicklow.
However, it is very early days, and these are only tallies rather than actual results.
If I can be a discordant voice, this level of working-class anxiety seems to signal more than the effect of the most shrill No campaigners.
The final official result is expected to be announced late this afternoon, but tallies from the 43 constituencies should give a good indication of the likely outcome late this morning. Each constituency counts its own votes separately, and then sends the result to the Referendum Returning Officer in Dublin Castle, who will announce the overall result.
Each constituency counts its own votes separately, and then sends the result to the Referendum Returning Officer in Dublin Castle, who will announce the overall result.
UPDATE at 10.45 AM by Frank. Early tally returns - based on very small samples - suggest a significant NO vote - possibly by as much as 60:40. This cannot be blamed on apathy or a low turnout. It marks a sea change in Irish politics as far as the EU is concerned.
Although samples are still small, and some areas are coming in with a YES majority, I can't see the overall trend being overturned at this stage. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Bookmaker Paddypower has admitted it made a mistake, after paying out more than €80,000 in bets on a Yes vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum. As polls closed at last night, the bookmaker made a decision to pay out punters who had backed a Yes vote after unofficial exit polls indicated a late surge in support for the treaty. The blunder means the bookmaker will be forced to pay out over €180,000 in referendum bets. In a statement, Paddy Power said: "Last night, there were rumours of an exit poll showing the Yes side in the lead and all the late betting suggested a swing in support for the treaty." "It's an unlucky Friday 13th for Paddy Power but a lucky one for our punters," it added.
Bookmaker Paddypower has admitted it made a mistake, after paying out more than €80,000 in bets on a Yes vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
As polls closed at last night, the bookmaker made a decision to pay out punters who had backed a Yes vote after unofficial exit polls indicated a late surge in support for the treaty.
The blunder means the bookmaker will be forced to pay out over €180,000 in referendum bets.
In a statement, Paddy Power said: "Last night, there were rumours of an exit poll showing the Yes side in the lead and all the late betting suggested a swing in support for the treaty."
"It's an unlucky Friday 13th for Paddy Power but a lucky one for our punters," it added.
Hey there IS an opposition in Ireland after all. This is a rejection of almost the entire political class in the country! The people just don't trust them.
Or possibly it shows that US right-wing style disinformation and propaganda works nicely in Ireland, especially when backed up by the British media that dominates a large chunk of the market here.
The problem was that there were a dozen spurious reasons to vote No, and very few compelling ones to vote yes, and that the main political parties fumbled the whole thing anyway, have been fumbling the whole thing for a decade or more.
the main political parties fumbled the whole thing anyway, have been fumbling the whole thing for a decade or more.
It's also true that democracy just doesn't work in the face of media control and manipulation
Yep.
media control and manipulation doesn't work in a democracy, redefining democracy a little perhaps!
simply giving un- or misinformed people a vote is not full democracy, methinks, and if people are allowed and encouraged to follow, observe, critique and participate more, (which is happening at a rapid rate), then politicians get away with spinning and psywarring, and the public are continually buying a pig in a poke.
an uninvolved electorate is a sign of luxury in a society, that things are going so (sink or) swimmingly in material terms that people cast but a shallow lookaround at the big wheels turning overhead.
in harder (and better informed) times, i think politicians will have to be a lot more real and accountable, cognitive dissonance is already at snapping point,recent world events making it ever more obvious how much we've been played for fools. ~Government budget deficits are not nearly as dangerous as the deficits we have created in vital and complex natural systems.~ Naomi Klein.
oops, i meant until people... ~Government budget deficits are not nearly as dangerous as the deficits we have created in vital and complex natural systems.~ Naomi Klein.
I do believe I'm going to puke listening to the spin the anti-EU side are going to put on this.
However, it could have been a vote against the entire EU political class that gave us this Treaty. Would that be more acceptable as a reason? 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 the problem is the lack of compelling reasons to vote yes. Just making life easier for the politicians when they want to make things happen in Brussels is not compelling for anyone other than the politicians. 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
YES campaigners are blaming:
A lot of UK and european politicians have been on the radio here in the last while and this is the main point they keep making. If other states had referendums they too, like the french and dutch votes on the constitution, would vote against it.
They are still as I speak (I mean presenters on national broadcaster) shouting down no campaigners who point that out.
As for commenteer above who is saying that the media were biased towards a NO. That's a joke really. It was the exact opposite.
I was always against Nice and Lisbon because they are at least partially about forcing europewide competition in ancillary health and education services. All oppositional left groups campaigned on this basis.
Hope they don't make us vote on it again like they did on Nice.
This is interesting on that front: About the possibility that this was a colour revolution job: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87311
Indymedia overall is a great resource for seeing what left campaigners are doing on the ground. There are sites in most European countries and they are very strong in south-america.
Indymedia Ireland: Libertas: US Military Contractors Against Lisbon!
Firstly, from the above, it is clear that they do not hold the positions that Libertas has raised against Lisbon. They simply aren't pacifist, pro-lifer, fundamentalist democrats. It is also clear, from their willingness to use scaremongering about abortion and tax harmonisation, that they are trying to maximise the No vote and don't really care on what basis people reject the treaty. The use of arguments that are directly contradictory to one another is convincing evidence of this. So, why are they trying to defeat Lisbon? Given their intimate relationship with the US intelligence and military community, it is reasonable to ask whether this might provide any clues to their underlying motives. And it proves to be a fairly fruitful avenue of enquiry. In order to properly understand the context, we must briefly touch upon the major strategic divide amongst the world's business and political elite on matters European. To put it simply, there are two visions of European integration amongst the Western elite. One of them sees the EU as a common market, lacking any real political component beyond whatever is needed to keep the wheels of competition well-oiled and lacking any capacity for autonomous strategic action. The other vision is of a European super-state, with sovereignty over the member states and the ability to take collective and coherent military and strategic actions on the global stage.
So, why are they trying to defeat Lisbon? Given their intimate relationship with the US intelligence and military community, it is reasonable to ask whether this might provide any clues to their underlying motives. And it proves to be a fairly fruitful avenue of enquiry. In order to properly understand the context, we must briefly touch upon the major strategic divide amongst the world's business and political elite on matters European.
To put it simply, there are two visions of European integration amongst the Western elite. One of them sees the EU as a common market, lacking any real political component beyond whatever is needed to keep the wheels of competition well-oiled and lacking any capacity for autonomous strategic action. The other vision is of a European super-state, with sovereignty over the member states and the ability to take collective and coherent military and strategic actions on the global stage.
That's a very good article, but I would say that, wouldn't I, being French.
A Spaniard living in Britain who wants to be French? So what have you got against being Irish? "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
French is the new communism
Interesting insight.
We need a neologism now : What about "neocommie" ? maybe "neocomm" ?
They were wrong. There is no such "forcing."
The choice you get to vote on is: Lisbon or Nice. Not Lisbon or nothing. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
After the French, Dutch and Irish referenda the taboo on enhanced cooperation is lifted. 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 mean a much more explicitly two speed Europe. Nice represents the default position (slow lane) for all EU members. The new faster speed inner community will be driven by Germany, France, Spain? and Benelux
I would argue that that is good (at least for the countries that will go ahead).
Not having to negotiate with, say the UK, will allow for compromises will less "anglo disease". A Benelux, France, Spain, Germany union as a bigger probability of having stronger social components.
Being optimist, maybe they will set up an example - in the long run - of a development model with less neocon/neolib elements on it.
I just hope that they stop trying to nuke democracy, but on that front I am not optimist at all.
TITLE V PROVISIONS ON A COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY ... Article 27a(8) 1. Enhanced cooperation in any of the areas referred to in this title shall be aimed at safeguarding the values and serving the interests of the Union as a whole by asserting its identity as a coherent force on the international scene. It shall respect: - the principles, objectives, general guidelines and consistency of the common foreign and security policy and the decisions taken within the framework of that policy, - the powers of the European Community, and - consistency between all the Union's policies and its external activities. 2. Articles 11 to 27 and Articles 27b to 28 shall apply to the enhanced cooperation provided for in this article, save as otherwise provided in Article 27c and Articles 43 to 45. Article 27b(9) Enhanced cooperation pursuant to this title shall relate to implementation of a joint action or a common position. It shall not relate to matters having military or defence implications. Article 27c(10) Member States which intend to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves under Article 27b shall address a request to the Council to that effect. The request shall be forwarded to the Commission and, for information, to the European Parliament. The Commission shall give its opinion particularly on whether the enhanced cooperation proposed is consistent with Union policies. Authorisation shall be granted by the Council, acting in accordance with the second and third subparagraphs of Article 23(2) and in compliance with Articles 43 to 45. Article 27d(11) Without prejudice to the powers of the Presidency and of the Commission, the Secretary-General of the Council, High Representative for the common foreign and security policy, shall in particular ensure that the European Parliament and all members of the Council are kept fully informed of the implementation of enhanced cooperation in the field of the common foreign and security policy. Article 27e(12) Any Member State which wishes to participate in enhanced cooperation established in accordance with Article 27c shall notify its intention to the Council and inform the Commission. The Commission shall give an opinion to the Council within three months of the date of receipt of that notification. Within four months of the date of receipt of that notification, the Council shall take a decision on the request and on such specific arrangements as it may deem necessary. The decision shall be deemed to be taken unless the Council, acting by a qualified majority within the same period, decides to hold it in abeyance; in that case, the Council shall state the reasons for its decision and set a deadline for re-examining it. For the purposes of this Article, the Council shall act by a qualified majority. The qualified majority shall be defined as the same proportion of the weighted votes and the same proportion of the number of the members of the Council concerned as those laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 23(2). ... TITLE VI PROVISIONS ON POLICE AND JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS ... Article 40(16) 1. Enhanced cooperation in any of the areas referred to in this title shall have the aim of enabling the Union to develop more rapidly into an area of freedom, security and justice, while respecting the powers of the European Community and the objectives laid down in this title. 2. Articles 29 to 39 and Articles 40a to 41 shall apply to the enhanced cooperation provided for by this article, save as otherwise provided in Article 40a and in Articles 43 to 45. 3. The provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Community concerning the powers of the Court of Justice and the exercise of those powers shall apply to this article and to Articles 40a and 40b. Article 40a(17) 1. Member States which intend to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves under Article 40 shall address a request to the Commission, which may submit a proposal to the Council to that effect. In the event of the Commission not submitting a proposal, it shall inform the Member States concerned of the reasons for not doing so. Those Member States may then submit an initiative to the Council designed to obtain authorisation for the enhanced cooperation concerned. 2. The authorisation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be granted, in compliance with Articles 43 to 45, by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, on a proposal from the Commission or on the initiative of at least eight Member States, and after consulting the European Parliament. The votes of the members of the Council shall be weighted in accordance with Article 205(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community. A member of the Council may request that the matter be referred to the European Council. After that matter has been raised before the European Council, the Council may act in accordance with the first subparagraph of this paragraph. Article 40b(18) Any Member State which wishes to participate in enhanced cooperation established in accordance with Article 40a shall notify its intention to the Council and to the Commission, which shall give an opinion to the Council within three months of the date of receipt of that notification, possibly accompanied by a recommendation for such specific arrangements as it may deem necessary for that Member State to become a party to the cooperation in question. The Council shall take a decision on the request within four months of the date of receipt of that notification. The decision shall be deemed to be taken unless the Council, acting by a qualified majority within the same period, decides to hold it in abeyance; in that case, the Council shall state the reasons for its decision and set a deadline for re-examining it. For the purposes of this Article, the Council shall act under the conditions set out in Article 44(1). ... TITLE VII PROVISIONS ON ENHANCED COOPERATION Article 43(19) Member States which intend to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves may make use of the institutions, procedures and mechanisms laid down by this Treaty and by the Treaty establishing the European Community provided that the proposed cooperation: (a) is aimed at furthering the objectives of the Union and of the Community, at protecting and serving their interests and at reinforcing their process of integration; (b) respects the said Treaties and the single institutional framework of the Union; (c) respects the acquis communautaire and the measures adopted under the other provisions of the said Treaties; (d) remains within the limits of the powers of the Union or of the Community and does not concern the areas which fall within the exclusive competence of the Community; (e) does not undermine the internal market as defined in Article 14(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, or the economic and social cohesion established in accordance with Title XVII of that Treaty; (f) does not constitute a barrier to or discrimination in trade between the Member States and does not distort competition between them; (g) involves a minimum of eight Member States; (h) respects the competences, rights and obligations of those Member States which do not participate therein; (i) does not affect the provisions of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union; (j) is open to all the Member States, in accordance with Article 43b. Article 43a(20) Enhanced cooperation may be undertaken only as a last resort, when it has been established within the Council that the objectives of such cooperation cannot be attained within a reasonable period by applying the relevant provisions of the Treaties. Article 43b(21) When enhanced cooperation is being established, it shall be open to all Member States. It shall also be open to them at any time, in accordance with Articles 27e and 40b of this Treaty and with Article 11a of the Treaty establishing the European Community, subject to compliance with the basic decision and with the decisions taken within that framework. The Commission and the Member States participating in enhanced cooperation shall ensure that as many Member States as possible are encouraged to take part. Article 44(22) 1. For the purposes of the adoption of the acts and decisions necessary for the implementation of enhanced cooperation referred to in Article 43, the relevant institutional provisions of this Treaty and of the Treaty establishing the European Community shall apply. However, while all members of the Council shall be able to take part in the deliberations, only those representing Member States participating in enhanced cooperation shall take part in the adoption of decisions. The qualified majority shall be defined as the same proportion of the weighted votes and the same proportion of the number of the Council members concerned as laid down in Article 205(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in the second and third subparagraphs of Article 23(2) of this Treaty as regards enhanced cooperation established on the basis of Article 27c. Unanimity shall be constituted by only those Council members concerned. Such acts and decisions shall not form part of the Union acquis. 2. Member States shall apply, as far as they are concerned, the acts and decisions adopted for the implementation of the enhanced cooperation in which they participate. Such acts and decisions shall be binding only on those Member States which participate in such cooperation and, as appropriate, shall be directly applicable only in those States. Member States which do not participate in such cooperation shall not impede the implementation thereof by the participating Member States. Article 44a(23) Expenditure resulting from implementation of enhanced cooperation, other than administrative costs entailed for the institutions, shall be borne by the participating Member States, unless all members of the Council, acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament, decide otherwise. Article 45(24) The Council and the Commission shall ensure the consistency of activities undertaken on the basis of this title and the consistency of such activities with the policies of the Union and the Community, and shall cooperate to that end.
PROVISIONS ON A COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY
...
Article 27a(8)
1. Enhanced cooperation in any of the areas referred to in this title shall be aimed at safeguarding the values and serving the interests of the Union as a whole by asserting its identity as a coherent force on the international scene. It shall respect:
-
the principles, objectives, general guidelines and consistency of the common foreign and security policy and the decisions taken within the framework of that policy,
the powers of the European Community, and
consistency between all the Union's policies and its external activities.
2. Articles 11 to 27 and Articles 27b to 28 shall apply to the enhanced cooperation provided for in this article, save as otherwise provided in Article 27c and Articles 43 to 45.
Article 27b(9)
Enhanced cooperation pursuant to this title shall relate to implementation of a joint action or a common position. It shall not relate to matters having military or defence implications.
Article 27c(10)
Member States which intend to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves under Article 27b shall address a request to the Council to that effect.
The request shall be forwarded to the Commission and, for information, to the European Parliament. The Commission shall give its opinion particularly on whether the enhanced cooperation proposed is consistent with Union policies. Authorisation shall be granted by the Council, acting in accordance with the second and third subparagraphs of Article 23(2) and in compliance with Articles 43 to 45.
Article 27d(11)
Without prejudice to the powers of the Presidency and of the Commission, the Secretary-General of the Council, High Representative for the common foreign and security policy, shall in particular ensure that the European Parliament and all members of the Council are kept fully informed of the implementation of enhanced cooperation in the field of the common foreign and security policy.
Article 27e(12)
Any Member State which wishes to participate in enhanced cooperation established in accordance with Article 27c shall notify its intention to the Council and inform the Commission. The Commission shall give an opinion to the Council within three months of the date of receipt of that notification. Within four months of the date of receipt of that notification, the Council shall take a decision on the request and on such specific arrangements as it may deem necessary. The decision shall be deemed to be taken unless the Council, acting by a qualified majority within the same period, decides to hold it in abeyance; in that case, the Council shall state the reasons for its decision and set a deadline for re-examining it.
For the purposes of this Article, the Council shall act by a qualified majority. The qualified majority shall be defined as the same proportion of the weighted votes and the same proportion of the number of the members of the Council concerned as those laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 23(2).
TITLE VI
PROVISIONS ON POLICE AND JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
Article 40(16)
1. Enhanced cooperation in any of the areas referred to in this title shall have the aim of enabling the Union to develop more rapidly into an area of freedom, security and justice, while respecting the powers of the European Community and the objectives laid down in this title.
2. Articles 29 to 39 and Articles 40a to 41 shall apply to the enhanced cooperation provided for by this article, save as otherwise provided in Article 40a and in Articles 43 to 45.
3. The provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Community concerning the powers of the Court of Justice and the exercise of those powers shall apply to this article and to Articles 40a and 40b.
Article 40a(17)
1. Member States which intend to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves under Article 40 shall address a request to the Commission, which may submit a proposal to the Council to that effect. In the event of the Commission not submitting a proposal, it shall inform the Member States concerned of the reasons for not doing so. Those Member States may then submit an initiative to the Council designed to obtain authorisation for the enhanced cooperation concerned.
2. The authorisation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be granted, in compliance with Articles 43 to 45, by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, on a proposal from the Commission or on the initiative of at least eight Member States, and after consulting the European Parliament. The votes of the members of the Council shall be weighted in accordance with Article 205(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community.
A member of the Council may request that the matter be referred to the European Council. After that matter has been raised before the European Council, the Council may act in accordance with the first subparagraph of this paragraph.
Article 40b(18)
Any Member State which wishes to participate in enhanced cooperation established in accordance with Article 40a shall notify its intention to the Council and to the Commission, which shall give an opinion to the Council within three months of the date of receipt of that notification, possibly accompanied by a recommendation for such specific arrangements as it may deem necessary for that Member State to become a party to the cooperation in question. The Council shall take a decision on the request within four months of the date of receipt of that notification. The decision shall be deemed to be taken unless the Council, acting by a qualified majority within the same period, decides to hold it in abeyance; in that case, the Council shall state the reasons for its decision and set a deadline for re-examining it.
For the purposes of this Article, the Council shall act under the conditions set out in Article 44(1).
TITLE VII
PROVISIONS ON ENHANCED COOPERATION
Article 43(19)
Member States which intend to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves may make use of the institutions, procedures and mechanisms laid down by this Treaty and by the Treaty establishing the European Community provided that the proposed cooperation:
(a)
is aimed at furthering the objectives of the Union and of the Community, at protecting and serving their interests and at reinforcing their process of integration;
(b)
respects the said Treaties and the single institutional framework of the Union;
(c)
respects the acquis communautaire and the measures adopted under the other provisions of the said Treaties;
(d)
remains within the limits of the powers of the Union or of the Community and does not concern the areas which fall within the exclusive competence of the Community;
(e)
does not undermine the internal market as defined in Article 14(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, or the economic and social cohesion established in accordance with Title XVII of that Treaty;
(f)
does not constitute a barrier to or discrimination in trade between the Member States and does not distort competition between them;
(g)
involves a minimum of eight Member States;
(h)
respects the competences, rights and obligations of those Member States which do not participate therein;
(i)
does not affect the provisions of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union;
(j)
is open to all the Member States, in accordance with Article 43b.
Article 43a(20)
Enhanced cooperation may be undertaken only as a last resort, when it has been established within the Council that the objectives of such cooperation cannot be attained within a reasonable period by applying the relevant provisions of the Treaties.
Article 43b(21)
When enhanced cooperation is being established, it shall be open to all Member States. It shall also be open to them at any time, in accordance with Articles 27e and 40b of this Treaty and with Article 11a of the Treaty establishing the European Community, subject to compliance with the basic decision and with the decisions taken within that framework. The Commission and the Member States participating in enhanced cooperation shall ensure that as many Member States as possible are encouraged to take part.
Article 44(22)
1. For the purposes of the adoption of the acts and decisions necessary for the implementation of enhanced cooperation referred to in Article 43, the relevant institutional provisions of this Treaty and of the Treaty establishing the European Community shall apply. However, while all members of the Council shall be able to take part in the deliberations, only those representing Member States participating in enhanced cooperation shall take part in the adoption of decisions. The qualified majority shall be defined as the same proportion of the weighted votes and the same proportion of the number of the Council members concerned as laid down in Article 205(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in the second and third subparagraphs of Article 23(2) of this Treaty as regards enhanced cooperation established on the basis of Article 27c. Unanimity shall be constituted by only those Council members concerned.
Such acts and decisions shall not form part of the Union acquis.
2. Member States shall apply, as far as they are concerned, the acts and decisions adopted for the implementation of the enhanced cooperation in which they participate. Such acts and decisions shall be binding only on those Member States which participate in such cooperation and, as appropriate, shall be directly applicable only in those States. Member States which do not participate in such cooperation shall not impede the implementation thereof by the participating Member States.
Article 44a(23)
Expenditure resulting from implementation of enhanced cooperation, other than administrative costs entailed for the institutions, shall be borne by the participating Member States, unless all members of the Council, acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament, decide otherwise.
Article 45(24)
The Council and the Commission shall ensure the consistency of activities undertaken on the basis of this title and the consistency of such activities with the policies of the Union and the Community, and shall cooperate to that end.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Voting in the Council of the European Union
To pass: Majority of countries (50% or 67%) and votes (74%) and population (62%) ... The population requirement is almost always already implied by the condition on the number of votes. The rare exceptions to this happen in certain cases when a proposal is backed by exactly two of the five most populous member states but not including Germany, that is, two of France, UK, Italy and Spain, and by all or nearly all of the 22 other members.
The population requirement is almost always already implied by the condition on the number of votes. The rare exceptions to this happen in certain cases when a proposal is backed by exactly two of the five most populous member states but not including Germany, that is, two of France, UK, Italy and Spain, and by all or nearly all of the 22 other members.
You're right. It does not roll back what has already happened (Nice) but the ongoing 'forcing' of privatisation part is correct. I researched it with a number of others in a lot of detail during the 2nd Nice referendum and our analysis was adopted by the Greens, Sinn Fein, Socialist Party and many Trade unionists during the campaign.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article133/?redirect=article133
Our viewpoint was systematically suppressed during that debate/referendum. I didn't have the heart to get involved this time round but am happy with the result and am now interested to see what ramifications it has for WTO trade negotiations.
This article is where I'm starting
https://www.indymedia.ie/article/87694
It's in Nice but the agenda is advanced significantly in Lisbon. Some subtle changes in the rewrite: The below is a short extract from my friends research: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87694
It is very detailed but worth a read.
"The Lisbon Treaty: All Automatic Vetoes Gone
Having established that existing EU law, rules out the ability of Member States to veto and say no to international free-trade deals in goods, commercial aspects of intellectual property and all but five special services, what changes are proposed in the Lisbon treaty and now does it remove our existing no-quibble veto on international free-trade deals in Educational services, Health services, Social services, and, Cultural and Audiovisual services?
In Lisbon, that entire public services protection paragraph of the Nice treaty quoted above (Article 133(6)) starting "In this regard ...", is deleted. Gone is the `shared competence', gone is the `common accord' and gone is the `concluded jointly'. Indeed, if Lisbon is accepted, things could get `much more efficient' for the EU's ability to sign global free-trade agreements. The Lisbon treaty not only drops the automatic veto on the five special services areas, it changes the name of Article 133 (9) as follows:"
The Irish people were given a choice with no real downside - except perhaps the status quo - and no real upside either. Nanne spoke of the EU progressing by bay steps. It is time for the Baby to grow up and make some major decisions about future direction - and that will mean hard choices with real down and upsides attached to them. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
I am increasingly of the view that the era of "eurofudges" may be over and that the time has come for a much simpler and clearer statement of where the EU is going, and how it is to be governed.
Is this a bad thing?
Who knows - if the statement were clear enough and positive enough, people might even vote for it.
I mean, you're in the Euro and you're not in Schengen only because of the open border agreement with the UK. 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
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)
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
The has been a large increase in unemployment recently - mainly due to a collapse in the building industry. This has left huge numbers of working class people fearing unemployment, whilst it has yet to effect the vast majority of middle class people at all. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
a resounding rejection of a treaty virtually no one read or claimed to fully understand.
All this on the strength of a single individual in a vox pop broadcast this morning on the radio.
I suppose it avoids them having to confront the fact that the population have every reason not to trust them on maintaining our neutrality.
Will this be the excuse for a re-run? Government ministers are refusing to rule a re-run out.
The Irish times poll results on reasons for voting no - which don't mention conscription! but do mention resentment at being told how to vote on something incomprehensible - are here: http://www.ireland.com/focus/thelisbontreaty/analysis/polls/no.jpg
I'm looking forward to the referendum on children's rights whenever it comes up. I'm thinking of founding my own personal think tank to campaign for a no vote on some spurious basis so that I can get lots of free time telling lies on TV. Maybe I'll become a traditional Catholic and argue that 14 is a suitable age for marriage or something.
The national elections were a joke in that regard as it was apparent to voters that no combination of parties would reverse the situation. After all the party that was most vocal in opposition to it - Greens - went into government without insisting on CIA planes passing through ireland being checked or on any change in the situation.
Maybe this is partially fallout from that. There is no trust on the part of a lot of people about there being a willingness to support neutrality in the political classes - and military neutrality is still a very popular notion in Ireland.
Rule: 1. Do what suits us when it suits us.
Rule 2. Refer to rule 1. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
This is an extract from: http://www.irishantiwar.org/node/189
"Irish participation in the Nordic Battlegroups was slipped through the Dail at midnight on July 4th 2006 after only a few hours of debate. Twelve TDs voted against - the Greens, Sinn Fein, 3 Independents and Joe Higgins. The Labour Party abstained! Referring to these Battlegroups, that hardly raised an eyebrow in Irish media circles, BBC correspondent Paul Reynolds stated: "The EU has quietly acquired what might be described as a standing army."
And now part of that "standing army" - including an Irish Battlegroup, but with a much greater French contingent - finds itself in the former French colony of Chad. We are all aware of the dangers that lie there, especially as France has over the past couple of years been supporting the President of Chad, a dictator, in his battles with rebels ( or will they soon be described as "terrorists"). The Irish troops are there to protect refugees, but the fear is they will be sucked into the bigger conflict between the rebels and the regime in Chad.
What the human cost of our participation in this "standing army" remains unknown. But one thing is sure, the financial cost will be prohibitive. The Irish Defence Budget for 2008 is a whopping €1.078 billion. It is estimated €60 million of this will be used to fund our adventure in Chad. And if the authors of the Lisbon Treaty have their way Irish "defence" spending is certain to increase. Article 28(3) of the Lisbon Treaty states: "Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities". More money for warfare means less for health care."
Irish participation in the Nordic Battlegroups was slipped through the Dail at midnight on July 4th 2006 after only a few hours of debate.
(and sorry for posting last comment in wrong place - was replying to Frank (?) who said Lisbon had nothing to do with neutrality. What a thread eh! Is 200 comments long for here?
Of course there is an honest opposition, but I'm afraid it's a relatively small part of the electorate, or the debate wouldn't have been run in terms of lies and fear-mongering.
I assumed you lived in Ireland Colman. And I don't want to be coming across like I am in a position to know better than others interested in this issue. I like this site - usually lurk - and only stick my nose in when I think I have something to contribute that isn't being contributed already.
Sorry, I'm grumpy today. Extra grumpy in fact.
What did get my goat was the way in which a well funded front for two businessmen with close links to the US security establishment were able to get equal time and space to almost all the political parties with about 90% of the vote in all of our general elections.
We were bough for a couple of million quid and a clever appeal to nationalistic instincts.
However the Left element of the NO vote probably only accounted for perhaps 5% of the vote (I count Sinn Fein as more fascist than socialist) and the major portion of the no vote was made up of wildly disparate groups and reasons almost none of which had much to do with the Lisbon Treaty itself.
Don't get me wrong. Ultimately the political establishment have got to take the responsibility for putting a very poorly drafted and explained proposal to the Irish people. The days of blind trust (or when Fianna Fail could put a donkey on the ballot paper and still win) are long gone.
My big concern is not that things will not now change, but that they will (from an Irish perspective) change for the worse rather than the better as a consequence of this vote. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Indeed. But the EU has nothing to do with that. (See: Shannon.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
A lot of FOLLOW LEADER LEADER going on there too and that is not always good.
The politicians are really really furious and the barely concealed contempt for the no vote is something to see at present.
If anything, they are hypocrites of high order. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
With results in from 33 of the 43 constituencies, the Lisbon Treaty is being beaten by a margin of 53.7% to 46.3%.
17:13 The Lisbon Treaty has been rejected by Irish voters sparking a crisis for plans to reform European Union structures. A total of 53.4 per cent voted to reject the treaty, while 46.6 per cent voted in favour. All but seven constituencies rejected the treaty, with a total of 752,451 voting in favour of Lisbon and 862,415 votes against. Turnout was 53.1 per cent.
Lara Marlowe, a very respected irish Journalist (Irish Times) got some reaction from someone in paris who she said 'speaks for' sarko. She spoke about it on the radio in last little while.
I'll paraphrase: 'We are sure that the Irish government can put the treaty to the voters again and are in a position to do what it takes to got them to vote yes the next time'
Not very diplomatic to say the least!
So turkeys do indeed vote for Christmas. Ireland has destroyed the one really good thing it had going for it at a time of growing global crisis - the goodwill of its European neighbours. It is laughable for DANA ROSEMARY SCALLON to claim that she "represented the hundreds of millions of EU electorate who never got the chance to express a democratic vote" (Letters, June 14). They have their own 26 democratically elected Governments to represent them - and don't need a collection of Irish Sinn Feiners and Me Feiners to tell them how to run their countries. They will now also set about continuing to the develop the EU without Ireland - if necessary as a "two speed" union with "variable geometry" as provided for by the rules on enhanced cooperation within the EU. What this means, for the slow learners amongst us, is that they will now move on to develop the EU without the Eurosceptic Tories and Republicans on these Islands. There will be no more successful pleadings for special treatment for Ireland North and south under the various EU development programmes. If Sinn Fein thinks it can negotiate a better deal for Ireland, it had better turn to their new found friends in American business - Declan Ganly and Ulick McEvaddy who are very well connected with the US defense establishment indeed. Perhaps they can negotiate a place for us as the 51st. state of the USA.
They will now also set about continuing to the develop the EU without Ireland - if necessary as a "two speed" union with "variable geometry" as provided for by the rules on enhanced cooperation within the EU. What this means, for the slow learners amongst us, is that they will now move on to develop the EU without the Eurosceptic Tories and Republicans on these Islands. There will be no more successful pleadings for special treatment for Ireland North and south under the various EU development programmes.
If Sinn Fein thinks it can negotiate a better deal for Ireland, it had better turn to their new found friends in American business - Declan Ganly and Ulick McEvaddy who are very well connected with the US defense establishment indeed. Perhaps they can negotiate a place for us as the 51st. state of the USA.
NB Sinn Fein in Irish means "we ourselves" and highlights it's anti-colonialist roots. "Me Feiners" is an Irish colloquialism for people who are only in it for themselves. DANA ROSEMARY SCALLON is a former Eurovision winning singer (1970), a former MEP (1999 -2004) and a conservative catholic activist on social and moral issues. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
I have been thinking a bit on what narrative the no-referendums end up in, and it is nearly always "stupid people voting wrong". I do not think we want that, or rather I think that is hindering in building a common democratic EUrope. EU needs more, not less confidence in its people, do get the structures and the needed trust, that is necessary for a more democratic structure.
Who do we want to blame for this failure? I say the council, our national executives working in common, and doing a lousy job of it. Because we want to lessen the councils power.
So forget the referendum, it is over now. Blame the council in order to get better treaties in the future. 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!
Blame the irish excutive government for failing in its part of the Councils duty to deliver a clear enough treaty that it can be widely understood and debated on its merits. Through that incompetence the door was left open for the US financed scare-mongers in Libertas, etc. 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!
Actually I'm not that interested in getting into blame games and want to point a way forward. The "slow learners" bit was an ironic reference to Seamus Mallon's famous quote about the Good Friday Agreement being "Sunningdale for slow learners". This was a caustic reference to Unionists taking 30 years to agree to power sharing which finally gave us peace. I was trying to draw a parallel with the Republic - also taking some time to realise that you have to share power with Europe if you want to achieve peace and prosperity.
Obviously I need to make that reference more explicit, "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
I would tone it down and rebuild it along the following lines.
I think the idea of a snap election is very interesting and the one thing that stands out in your letter / comments. It's not something I have heard floated in the media or papers here. All of your other points are being howled by similarly angry government members at Sinn Fein all over the radio today. I suggest putting a letter together around that as a central point woyuld be provocative. (I too think an election here would be a healthy thing at present if for different reasons)
I have to say that considering the Ganley/Libertas impact on the campaign - the well documented record of these people as US aligned - there is little discussion of that. The irish state is very 'Boston Not Berlin' still and I'd say is very much in a quandry - being attacked by astroturfers wotrking for a 'friend' who they have proved themselves unwilling to upset in any way in the past.
I was speaking to my dad too today (ex-pd)about the whole thing and we agreed that part of the vote is a total unease with a political class who are unwilling to straightforwardly explain the problems facing Ireland as the price of oil and food heads for the stratosphere and the building boom collapses, and, that the vote may be a harbinger of more serious political conflicts in the country in the coming period.
"So turkeys do indeed vote for Christmas," a senior civil servant of my acquaintance with extensive experience of the sharp end of EU negotiations was moved to remark at the success of the NO campaign. If Sinn Fein think they can negotiate a better deal, they had better link up with their new found friends in Libertas with their extensive links to the US security and military establishment. We have a better chance of becoming the 51st. state of the USA than we have of getting a better deal from the EU. We have destroyed the one really good thing we had going for us at a time of growing global crisis - the goodwill and support of our partners in Europe. It is laughable for DANA ROSEMARY SCALLON (Letters, June 14) to claim that she "represented the hundreds of millions of EU electorate who never got the chance to express a democratic vote". They have their own 26 democratically elected Governments to represent them - and these governments don't appreciate a collection of Irish Sinn Feiners and Me Feiners telling them how to run their countries. They will now proceed to develop the EU as a "two speed" union with "variable geometry" as provided for by the rules on enhanced cooperation within the EU - if necessary, without the Eurosceptic Tories and Republicans on these islands . Seamus Mallon once famously described the Good Friday Agreement as "Sunningdale for slow learners." When will WE learn that we also have to share power if we want to live in mutual peace and prosperity with our neighbours? Most of the reasons given for voting NO have little to do with the Treaty itself. However there is one provision which is unpopular even in other countries - the loss of a Commissioner by all countries, some of the time. Perhaps our Taoiseach can propose to the European Council that this provision should be scrapped. Other countries might also not be unduly concerned if Ireland sought an opt-out protocol on the Common Defense and Security Policy - we don't make a significant contribution anyway. One thing is clear: The NO vote was a vote of no confidence not only in the Government, but in our political system as a whole. Brian Cowen needs to grasp the initiative - and fast - by making some concrete proposals to the European Council before their goodwill and support is entirely dissipated. Failing that he should call a general election to seek a new popular mandate. His existing mandate just went up in smoke or - to continue the metaphor employed by the senior civil servant - his goose is cooked...
It is laughable for DANA ROSEMARY SCALLON (Letters, June 14) to claim that she "represented the hundreds of millions of EU electorate who never got the chance to express a democratic vote". They have their own 26 democratically elected Governments to represent them - and these governments don't appreciate a collection of Irish Sinn Feiners and Me Feiners telling them how to run their countries.
They will now proceed to develop the EU as a "two speed" union with "variable geometry" as provided for by the rules on enhanced cooperation within the EU - if necessary, without the Eurosceptic Tories and Republicans on these islands . Seamus Mallon once famously described the Good Friday Agreement as "Sunningdale for slow learners." When will WE learn that we also have to share power if we want to live in mutual peace and prosperity with our neighbours?
Most of the reasons given for voting NO have little to do with the Treaty itself. However there is one provision which is unpopular even in other countries - the loss of a Commissioner by all countries, some of the time. Perhaps our Taoiseach can propose to the European Council that this provision should be scrapped. Other countries might also not be unduly concerned if Ireland sought an opt-out protocol on the Common Defense and Security Policy - we don't make a significant contribution anyway.
One thing is clear: The NO vote was a vote of no confidence not only in the Government, but in our political system as a whole. Brian Cowen needs to grasp the initiative - and fast - by making some concrete proposals to the European Council before their goodwill and support is entirely dissipated. Failing that he should call a general election to seek a new popular mandate. His existing mandate just went up in smoke or - to continue the metaphor employed by the senior civil servant - his goose is cooked...
Other countries might also not be unduly concerned if Ireland sought an explicit opt-out protocol on the military or defence parts of the Common DefenseForeign and Security Policy - we don't make a significant contribution anyway.
I am trying to create a sense that the NO vote wasn't simply preserving the status quo - it does have a downside and we need to move quickly to repair that damage. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
I have no doubt they would cut it - if they publish it at all - but it is hard to predict which bits they would cut - and so I might just leave the choice up to them. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
There are mentions of a "common defence policy", but the treaty contains a specific section on a common security and defence policy within the common foreign and security policy. 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 Irish Government is currently playing a very cagey "need time for reflection" game and trying to keep all options open - whilst being dutifully respectful towards the electoral outcome.
Other EU Governments have toned down the early "we'll carry on without the Irish" rhetoric and seem to be willing to give Cowen some time to come up with "an Irish solution to an Irish problem" (to quote a former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey).
Coming up with a viable solution will take all of Cowen considerable political skills. Sinn Fein and Libertas have moved fast to maximise and consolidate their gains and Sinn Fein has asked for a meeting with Cowen to discuss their views on the way forward - as if they had "ownership" of the NO vote.
At the moment the NO side need to be careful not to overplay their hand. They don't have much of an electoral mandate yet and many NO voters are embarrassed at the company they are now keeping.
For those interested I am also participating in a blog on Timesonline where Terry and the gang are spouting their usual neo-con or Eurocceptic bile at all things EU.
Charles Bremner has published my post criticizing the Sunday Times for refusing to publish pro-Treaty articles by it's own correspondents (whilst acknowledging privately that it is against editorial policy). This is a small example of the problems we are going to have getting a pro-EU narrative out there. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
You did a pretty nice profile of Bertie Ahern on the occasion of his exit. Can I invite you to write a diary about Cowen's "considerable political skills"? 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
15 votes - 83 %
3 votes - 16 %
