Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
A Tale of two letters | 24 comments (24 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: A Tale of two letters (none / 0)
Such sweeping assertions without any specific justifications have been characteristic of the No side.  Basically anything you were unhappy about could be blamed on the EU/Brussels bureaucrats/Irish Government/political establishment/Lisbon Treaty and now the Nice Treaty.  Take your pick.  If they wanted it, then this was a good opportunity to give them a good kick up the backside by voting no.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jul 9th, 2008 at 09:50:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: A Tale of two letters (4.00 / 3)
If they wanted it, then this was a good opportunity to give them a good kick up the backside by voting no.

That is actually a good point. In my opinion it is also important that people feel that they can give "the elites" a kick without any negative consequences for Europe, because "the elites" will drive forward the European Project anyway. This has the double effect of people feeling powerless, but also don't feel any responsibility.

by rz on Wed Jul 9th, 2008 at 10:02:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: A Tale of two letters (none / 1)
The NO side succeeded in portraying a No vote as a vote for the status quo, with no negative consequences, and thus a risk free way of giving the elite a kick up the back side.  Sinn Fein explicitly campaigned on the basis of negotiating a better deal for Ireland - I.e they were not against the Treaty per se - just that they would be better at negotiating a deal more favourable to Ireland's interests.

It is the job of an opposition party to hold the Government to account - and implicitly or explicitly claim that they would do a better job if given the chance.  In this case the fact that there is no prospect of Sinn Fein being in Government in the foreseeable future also relieved them of the responsibility and risk that they might actually end up having to do so and deliver on their promise.

My guess that -after a lot of huffing and puffing - a new referendum will be held next June at the same time as the EU Parliament and Local Government elections.  This will have the effect of:

  1. Increasing turnout still further
  2. Allowing negative sentiment to be expressed in terms of who is elected to the Parliament and local councils - mid term elections are a traditional vehicle for protest votes that don't actually change the Government.
  3. The negative consequences oh a second NO vote will be much more clearly spelled out - e.g. a two speed EU, enlargement without Ireland into the first tier, a sense of being left behind and no longer at the heart of the project.

By next June  the national economic situation will be much more serious still.  People will start to fell nervous that perhaps we need the EU to be more effective and dynamic after all - and have mnuch less faith in Ireland's ability to solve its problems on its own.

The incoming EU Parliament could be elected with a specific mandate to review the "democratic deficit" within the EU and perhaps write a new simplified constitution with greater direct electoral accountability throughout the EU.

After all, the left component of the NO vote often wanted greater EU integration not less - and complained that the EU wasn't doing enough on the environment, human rights etc.

So one strategy could be to split the left and right components of the NO vote by allowing this to become a possibility in a future Treaty.  The problem is that the Right/nationalist component of the NO vote probably outnumbered the left component by (say) 5:1, and so long as the debate is conducted on purely nationalist terms, the EU ideal just cannot win.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jul 9th, 2008 at 10:25:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: A Tale of two letters (4.00 / 2)
The NO side succeeded in portraying a No vote as a vote for the status quo, with no negative consequences, and thus a risk free way of giving the elite a kick up the back side.

And is that wrong?

I am more concerned with people who would argue that the vote was really a vote on EU membership.

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

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 9th, 2008 at 10:56:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: A Tale of two letters (none / 0)
Migeru:
I am more concerned with people who would argue that the vote was really a vote on EU membership.

There has been quite a lot of comments which (whether those making it realised it or not) actually questioned Ireland's membership of the EU per se.  Thus Dana Rosemary Scallan and others argued that the NO vote reaffirmed the primacy of Ireland's constitution over that of the EU.  As an unpublished letter of mine pointed out - and as a letter published today pointed out - the Irish constitution lost this primacy when we joined the EU - and thus to oppose Lisbon on this basis is actually to oppose the EU membership per se.

I think this is in fact exactly how the Government will play any re-run of a referendum - as a referendum on continued membership itself - and thus seek to bully the electorate into accepting Lisbon for fer of losing membership altogether - something 90% of people don't want.

Of course this is a demagogic tactic, and one I do not support, and it will probably have mixed results and negative long term consequences.  However my suspicion is that a Cowen Government with a Roche minister for European affairs will resort to such a tactic - and use fear of losing everything has a goad to force people into voting yes.

Having said that there has also been a fundamental dishonesty on the NO side - some of the No campaigners were against the EU per se but couldn't say so because they knew they couldn't win on that basis.

A lot depends on what "Europe" is on offer at the time of any future referendum.  If the other 26 Governments make it clear that they are moving ahead on Lisbon leaving Ireland on its own in a shell "Nice EU" you wouldn't see the Irish electorate for dust in their rush to embrace the Lisbon EU.

The real question is: What choice will the electorate be offered? Will the status quo be an option - if so, it will always be the soft option for many.  The question is whether the other 24-26 Governments be prepared to give a veto to a small minority or whether they will forge ahead with a new Lisbon based EU of their own.

As usual I expect that issue to be fudged.  The other 24-26 will not want to be seen to bully Ireland, and will seek to preserve a sense of collegiality.  But what writing will Irish people be reading between the lines?

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jul 9th, 2008 at 12:00:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: A Tale of two letters (none / 1)
Thus Dana Rosemary Scallan and others argued that the NO vote reaffirmed the primacy of Ireland's constitution over that of the EU.  As an unpublished letter of mine pointed out - and as a letter published today pointed out - the Irish constitution lost this primacy when we joined the EU - and thus to oppose Lisbon on this basis is actually to oppose the EU membership per se.

I would actually be interested in knowing how that argument goes, because the EU remains, constitutionally, an intergovernmental treaty organization. Sovereignty is (so to speak) jointly and severally (emphasis on the severally) with the member states. I don't know that any other EU member state goes as far as Spain in allowing the transfer of competences to the EU

Section 93
1. Authorization may be granted by an organic act for concluding treaties by which powers derived from the Constitution shall be transferred to an international organization or institution. It is incumbent on the Cortes Generales or the Government, as the case may be, to ensure compliance with these treaties and with resolutions originating in the international and supranational organizations to which such powers have been so transferred.
but sovereignty remains with the Spanish people and the government cannot enter into treaties that contradict the constitution.

The primacy of national constitutions has never been in question and I challenge you to quote an EU document that contradicts me on this.

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

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 9th, 2008 at 02:12:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: A Tale of two letters (none / 0)
There have been previous letters to the Irish Times by European law experts on this topic, but unfortunately the new irishtimes.com site design seems to make it impossible to view previous editions.  The thrust of their argument, if memory serves, is that every treaty transfers or pools some sovereignty to the high contracting parties or to the institutions they thereby set up.

Of course the Irish people retain sovereignty in those areas not pooled or transfered and any new treaty, transfering/pooling additional powers, has to be ratified by referendum.

Each referendum is on a specific amendment to the Irish constitution and so it could be argued that the Irish constitution retains primacy insofar as it codifies what powers are transfered. However these amendments generally just refer to the transfer of powers "as provided for by the Lisbon Treaty".  So who is the final arbiter of what that Treaty entails?  My understanding is that it is the European court - but I stand to be corrected on this.

Where this gets tricky is if a dispute arose, between Ireland and the EU, on e.g. standardising the basis (as opposed to the rate) of corporate taxation.  Which court would have the final say - the Irish Supreme Court or the European Court - as to whether competence in this area had been transfered?

It gets even trickier if the EU were to decide that e.g. "abortion services" are covered by the services directive, and should therefore be freely available in all member states.

To my knowledge no such dispute has ever arisen and I am not personally competent to give an opinion on this - although it was raised as an issue during the Lisbon campaign by the NO side who argued that it could allow abortion into Ireland by the back door - particularly as the European Court is seen as an activist body keen to extend the remit of European law.

This is where a codicil or protocol stating explicitly that the provision of e.g. abortion services in Ireland is Governed by Irish law might be helpful in allaying fears of "EU law scope creep"

Of course, if you did include such a protocol us libruls would have to vote against...:-)

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jul 9th, 2008 at 03:04:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: A Tale of two letters (none / 0)
The negative consequences oh a second NO vote will be much more clearly spelled out

While it is necessary to do this, it should be done in a very careful way, otherwise it will just harden opinions.

I think that it is time that finally anti-Europe talk is followed by anti-Europe action. A prime example for this are the British Tories. They bitch day and night about the EU but in the end Cameron has not really made clear where he stands. To give voters a clear choice he should state clearly that he intends to withdraw Britain from the Union.  

by rz on Wed Jul 9th, 2008 at 10:57:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A Tale of two letters | 24 comments (24 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: