Economist Article

nesf · 09-05-2008 1:40pm #1

This week's Charlemange column discussed the Lisbon Treaty Referendum in Ireland: http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11328647

It's a fairly balanced article commenting on the Yes and No campaigns and the implications of a "No" vote for Ireland and the EU.

Scofflaw · 09-05-2008 2:12pm

nesf wrote: »

This week's Charlemange column discussed the Lisbon Treaty Referendum in Ireland: http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11328647

It's a fairly balanced article commenting on the Yes and No campaigns and the implications of a "No" vote for Ireland and the EU.

Good article. Very well put - acknowledges simultaneously that there will be negative consequences and that there shouldn't be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

johnnyq · 10-05-2008 2:33pm

I recommend that people read the comments too.
This one in particular got the most recommendations:

stu99 wrote:

Why is Ireland the only country holding a referendum?

Shame on the cowardice of every other EU government for refusing to ask voters. And above all, shame on the lame people of Europe for being so un-bothered.

An article from Time magazine also has an interesting slant on the future direction of the EU.

Duffman · 10-05-2008 2:38pm

Has anyone seen the "one child" leaflet they mention? Would like to have a look at that

Scofflaw · 10-05-2008 3:19pm

johnnyq wrote: »

Why is Ireland the only country holding a referendum?

It's interesting that this one crops up so often. The answer is that it's how we ratify EU treaties. The Danes are the only other who usually have one, but their constitutional experts decided there wasn't anything in the Lisbon Treaty that justified a referendum (yes, yes, I know you all disagree with them).

johnnyq wrote: »

Shame on the cowardice of every other EU government for refusing to ask voters. And above all, shame on the lame people of Europe for being so un-bothered.

Dang voters, eh? Anyone would think the French and Dutch were happy this time round...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Duffman · 10-05-2008 3:33pm

It's a political requirement more so than legal one at this stage. It's not at all clear that we actually needed to have a referendum this time, imo we didn't.

johnnyq · 10-05-2008 3:49pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's interesting that this one crops up so often. The answer is that it's how we ratify EU treaties. The Danes are the only other who usually have one, but their constitutional experts decided there wasn't anything in the Lisbon Treaty that justified a referendum (yes, yes, I know you all disagree with them).

Dang voters, eh? Anyone would think the French and Dutch were happy this time round...

cordially,
Scofflaw

For the record, those were not my words as you quoted but those of the reply that got the most recommendations.

I think it highlights how those people want a more direct say in the future direction of europe that they are being reprived of.

nesf · 10-05-2008 4:14pm

johnnyq wrote: »

I think it highlights how those people want a more direct say in the future direction of europe that they are being reprived of.

Yeah but the important question is are these people the majority of people or just a very vocal minority?

johnnyq · 10-05-2008 4:18pm

nesf wrote: »

Yeah but the important question is are these people the majority of people or just a very vocal minority?

I guess the other countries should have a vote to find out..... oh wait

nesf · 10-05-2008 4:23pm

johnnyq wrote: »

I guess the other countries should have a vote to find out..... oh wait

lol

They do get a vote, they can massacre their sitting MEPs at the next European elections and take the things more seriously next time and ensure that they're putting candidates in there who'll do what they want. You, know, it's what democratic representation is all about.

johnnyq · 10-05-2008 4:29pm

nesf wrote: »

lol

They do get a vote, they can massacre their sitting MEPs at the next European elections and take the things more seriously next time and ensure that they're putting candidates in there who'll do what they want. You, know, it's what democratic representation is all about.

Okay then, let's see if Ireland didn't have to vote which party would voluntarily have the treaty put to a vote....
Fianna Fail - Nope,
Fine Gael - Ha, definately not
Labour - probably not
PD - :rolleyes:
Green - maybe in the past but they have been tamed now
Sinn Fein - I'm not voting for former terrorists

Wow, that leaves me with some choice!
Somehow your argument rings hollow to me.

nesf · 10-05-2008 4:34pm

johnnyq wrote: »

Okay then, let's see if Ireland didn't have to vote which party would voluntarily have the treaty put to a vote....
Fianna Fail - Nope,
Fine Gael - Ha, definately not
Labour - probably not
PD - :rolleyes:
Green - maybe in the past but they have been tamed now
Sinn Fein - I'm not voting for former terrorists

Wow, that leaves me with some choice!
Somehow your argument rings hollow to me.

If a majority of people were against the EU do you think all the major parties would be for the treaty? They ain't that stupid, if there was a sizeable voter base for a Euro-sceptic party one of the main one's would be stepping in to fill that void but in reality in this country most people don't seem to care much about it. Politicians, especially opposition politicians keep a very close eye on this kind of thing, if they felt that hammering the Government over this would get them more seats in the next election I can assure you Labour would be doing it (maybe not FG) but they aren't which tells you something.

johnnyq · 10-05-2008 4:41pm

nesf wrote: »

If a majority of people were against the EU do you think all the major parties would be for the treaty? They ain't that stupid, if there was a sizeable voter base for a Euro-sceptic party one of the main one's would be stepping in to fill that void but in reality in this country most people don't seem to care much about it.

But that's the whole point - why must I be branded a euro-skeptic to want to have a direct vote in the future of europe???

What's wrong with being pro-Europe and pro direct democracy.

If politicians were so confident that they were reflecting their citizens wants for the new direction of Europe, why not put the treaty to a vote.

Why must the voting reform measures for more efficiency be bundled with the militarised element???

If citizens want a militarised Europe they should be able to vote for it.

nesf · 10-05-2008 4:52pm

johnnyq wrote: »

But that's the whole point - why must I be branded a euro-skeptic to want to have a direct vote in the future of europe???

I was using the term in its broadest sense here (ie to include everything from rabid IRA tattooed muppets to reasonable people who are unhappy with the organisation structures within the EU for various reasons). I wasn't trying to label you or pigeon hole you into a narrow stereotype.

johnnyq wrote: »

What's wrong with being pro-Europe and pro direct democracy.

Nothing, except direct democracies are very rare in Europe for the most part and there are good reasons for this (it's off-topic for here though).

johnnyq wrote: »

If politicians were so confident that they were reflecting their citizens wants for the new direction of Europe, why not put the treaty to a vote.

Because referendums are expensive, disruptive things and we have representative Governments so that we can avoid having them too regularly?

johnnyq · 10-05-2008 5:06pm

nesf wrote:

Because referendums are expensive, disruptive things and we have representative Governments so that we can avoid having them too regularly?

But surely you accept that this treaty is important?

Allowing a European President and Foreign Minister (under different names of course) as figureheads of the European ***** (whatever they want to call it) which are not to be elected is fairly important and something I personally would like a say on, like the other millions of europeans I'd imagine.

If this treaty was only about 'efficiency' as we are constantly told well then you may have a point, but it's not.

nesf · 10-05-2008 5:10pm

johnnyq wrote: »

But surely you accept that this treaty is important?

Yes, but just because something is important doesn't mean it needs a referendum. The Budget is an extremely important document, should we have a referendum on it each year?

johnnyq wrote: »

Allowing a European President and Foreign Minister (under different names of course) as figureheads of the European ***** (whatever they want to call it) which are not to be elected is fairly important and something I personally would like a say on, like the other millions of europeans I'd imagine.

I don't think they will actually represent "us" as figureheads of Europe, they'll be figureheads of the bureaucracy not "us" the people. Similar to how a head of the civil service doesn't represent the people per se.

johnnyq · 10-05-2008 5:19pm

nesf wrote:

Yes, but just because something is important doesn't mean it needs a referendum. The Budget is an extremely important document, should we have a referendum on it each year?

If the budget was proposing new figureheads of europe and an integrated military/foreign policy and a total new direction for the future of europe then yes

Also this treaty is not annual. In fact, once ratified it will never go back, so the idea of kicking out the politicians that ratified it a few years later will be of little consolation.

nesf wrote:

I don't think they will actually represent "us" as figureheads of Europe, they'll be figureheads of the bureaucracy not "us" the people. Similar to how a head of the civil service doesn't represent the people per se.

You don't *think*, who in fact has any idea of what this person will and won't do? The treaty certainly doesn't outline it simply anyway.

I also thought this person was to represent the head of the council of ministers instead of the rotating presidency, not the commission (or the civil service of europe, which is the Barrosso's job)

Also, I remember reading somewhere in the treaty (can't remember where) where the foreign minister commissioner would be involved with those eu states sitting on the UN security council. Can't remember the exact details but that certainly is a representative role I would say.

nesf · 10-05-2008 5:26pm

johnnyq wrote: »

If the budget was proposing new figureheads of europe and an integrated military/foreign policy and a total new direction for the future of europe then yes

Also this treaty is not annual. In fact, once ratified it will never go back, so the idea of kicking out the politicians that ratified it a few years later will be of little consolation.

You merely asked if it was important, my answer underlines that I don't consider something being important as being enough to hold a referendum.

johnnyq wrote: »

You don't *think*, who in fact has any idea of what this person will and won't do? The treaty certainly doesn't outline it simply anyway.

I think a lot of the problems stem from the word "President" rather than anything else. We're not ceding sovereignty to the person or anything.

johnnyq · 10-05-2008 5:32pm

nesf wrote: »

You merely asked if it was important, my answer underlines that I don't consider something being important as being enough to hold a referendum.

Okay then, 'important in determining the future direction of Europe'.

nesf wrote:

I think a lot of the problems stem from the word "President" rather than anything else. We're not ceding sovereignty to the person or anything.

Yes, it's the old chestnut from the failed EU state constitution, which really should be done away with in the next vote on the treaty in order to bring forward the new efficiency proposals.
But wait it's a *job for the boys*, so it probably will still be there :rolleyes::rolleyes:

It would be no harm to separate out the military proposals too while they're at it.

oscarBravo · 10-05-2008 5:34pm

johnnyq wrote: »

If the budget was proposing new figureheads of europe and an integrated military/foreign policy and a total new direction for the future of europe then yes

I'd say each year's budget has a much greater impact on our day-to-day lives than anything in Lisbon is likely to have.

nesf · 10-05-2008 5:35pm

johnnyq wrote: »

It would be no harm to separate out the military proposals too while they're at it.

Well one of the better points of the Treaty is that future amendments can be dealt with on a one by one basis which will make things a lot handier tbh.

johnnyq · 10-05-2008 5:37pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd say each year's budget has a much greater impact on our day-to-day lives than anything in Lisbon is likely to have.

Sure the budget has a greater impact on our day-to-day lives than our own constitution it could be argued.

But that's not the point.

What constitutions (*cough* treaties) do is set the ground rules.
People should be able to vote on the fundamentals.

johnnyq · 10-05-2008 5:39pm

nesf wrote: »

Well one of the better points of the Treaty is that future amendments can be dealt with on a one by one basis which will make things a lot handier tbh.

We need that kind of forward thinking right now!!!!

But wait, by voting yes to this *enlightenment* we must first commit to increasing our military capabilities amongst other things.

A big oops i'd say.

nesf · 10-05-2008 5:47pm

johnnyq wrote: »

We need that kind of forward thinking right now!!!!

But wait, by voting yes to this *enlightenment* we must first commit to increasing our military capabilities amongst other things.

A big oops i'd say.

Welcome to bureaucracy, it takes them fecking ages to get to anything. It's still a damn good idea though and something that'll definitely improve the functioning of the EU in my opinion and all individual urgent amendments can be pushed through quicker without having to put together a whole new "treaty".

johnnyq · 10-05-2008 5:50pm

nesf wrote: »

Welcome to bureaucracy, it takes them fecking ages to get to anything. It's still a damn good idea though and something that'll definitely improve the functioning of the EU in my opinion and all individual urgent amendments can be pushed through quicker without having to put together a whole new "treaty".

Well they'll have some time to work it out after the flawed treaty is rejected.

Important things like this need time and thought, not as a trojan horse for european militarisation.

oscarBravo · 10-05-2008 5:54pm

johnnyq wrote: »

Important things like this need time and thought...

...and, as we all know, the Lisbon Treaty was knocked up in about four hours by a junior civil servant.

No time, no thought. No siree.

johnnyq · 10-05-2008 6:11pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and, as we all know, the Lisbon Treaty was knocked up in about four hours by a junior civil servant.

No time, no thought. No siree.

Well I for one are delighted how YFG are taking this campaign so seriously. All those 4 hours of hard work by that talented young eurocrat certainly didn't go to waste!

linky

YFGLisbon%2520female.jpg

Scofflaw · 10-05-2008 6:41pm

johnnyq wrote: »

You don't *think*, who in fact has any idea of what this person will and won't do? The treaty certainly doesn't outline it simply anyway.

I also thought this person was to represent the head of the council of ministers instead of the rotating presidency, not the commission (or the civil service of europe, which is the Barrosso's job)

Hmm. Actually, it's relatively trivial to pick out all the bits of the Treaty that deal with the President of the Council. Sorry this is long:

Treaty of Lisbon wrote:

If the European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, adopts by a simple majority a decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments, the President of the European Council shall convene a Convention composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament and of the Commission.

A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties. The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The President of the Council and the Commission shall report to the European Parliament on the results of multilateral surveillance. The President of the Council may be invited to appear before the competent committee of the European Parliament if the Council has made its recommendations public.

Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance to the Member State concerned. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decision taken.

As long as a Member State fails to comply with a decision taken in accordance with paragraph 9, the Council may decide to apply or, as the case may be, intensify one or more of the following measures.....The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decisions taken.

The Council shall, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Central Bank and the Committee referred to in this Article, lay down detailed provisions concerning the composition of the Economic and Financial Committee. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of such a decision.

The Council may, acting by a qualified majority either on a recommendation from the European Central Bank or on a recommendation from the Commission, and after consulting the European Central Bank, in an endeavour to reach a consensus consistent with the objective of price stability, adopt, adjust or abandon the central rates of the euro within the exchange-rate system. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the adoption, adjustment or abandonment of the euro central rates.

Where the European Council decides by vote, its President and the President of the Commission shall not take part in the vote.

The Council shall meet when convened by its President on his own initiative or at the request of one of its Members or of the Commission.

A vacancy caused by resignation, compulsory retirement or death shall be filled for the remainder of the member’s term of office by a new member of the same nationality appointed by the Council, by common accord with the President of the Commission, after consulting the European Parliament and in accordance with the criteria set out in the second subparagraph of Article 9d(3) of the Treaty on European Union

The Council may, acting unanimously on a proposal from the President of the Commission, decide that such a vacancy need not be filled, in particular when the remainder of the member’s term of office is short.

The President of the Council and a member of the Commission may participate, without having the right to vote, in meetings of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank. The President of the Council may submit a motion for deliberation to the Governing Council of the European Central Bank.

If, within three months of receiving the European Parliament’s amendments, the Council, acting by a qualified majority: (a) approves all those amendments, the act in question shall be deemed to have been adopted; (b) does not approve all the amendments, the President of the Council, in agreement with the President of the European Parliament, shall within six weeks convene a meeting of the Conciliation Committee.

Legislative acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure shall be signed by the President of the European Parliament and by the President of the Council.

If, within forty-two days of such communication, the European Parliament: (a) approves the position of the Council, the budget shall be adopted; (b) has not taken a decision, the budget shall be deemed to have been adopted; (c) adopts amendments by a majority of its component members, the amended draft shall be forwarded to the Council and to the Commission. The President of the European Parliament, in agreement with the President of the Council, shall immediately convene a meeting of the Conciliation Committee. However, if within ten days of the draft being forwarded the Council informs the European Parliament that it has approved all its amendments, the Conciliation Committee shall not meet.

Regular meetings between the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission shall be convened, on the initiative of the Commission, under the budgetary procedures referred to in this Chapter. The Presidents shall take all the necessary steps to promote consultation and the reconciliation of the positions of the institutions over which they preside in order to facilitate the implementation of this Title.

Not very exciting stuff, I'm afraid. Chairing meetings and speaking to the other EU institutions. It's a well-understood role, since it's exactly what the current rotating president does.

johnnyq wrote: »

Also, I remember reading somewhere in the treaty (can't remember where) where the foreign minister commissioner would be involved with those eu states sitting on the UN security council. Can't remember the exact details but that certainly is a representative role I would say.

The EU Presidency and the current High Representative can already address the UN Security Council where invited to do so on an issue where the EU has an agreed policy. This is in addition to national statements made by each member. Lisbon makes no changes to that arrangement.

hope that helps,
Scofflaw

turgon · 10-05-2008 9:08pm

Comment from the Economist Article wrote:

"But one question remains: what to do if the Irish really decide to veto the treaty? Personally I am not willing to wait for them. The Union should go ahead without the Irish. They can always (re)join when or if ever they feel ready to it."

This is absolutely ridiculous. Made even more ridiculous by the fact we are the only nation having a vote: in other words if a majority of the populace don't want it, eject said majority and ignore what happened. Great plan.

I'm telling you, I will respect a Yes vote, but if there is a No vote and some hairy political dealings afterwards I will be protesting. I get the impression that there are many people, home and abroad, who would have the same opinion as that person I quoted.

Scofflaw · 10-05-2008 9:49pm

turgon wrote: »

This is absolutely ridiculous. Made even more ridiculous by the fact we are the only nation having a vote: in other words if a majority of the populace don't want it, eject said majority and ignore what happened. Great plan.

I'm telling you, I will respect a Yes vote, but if there is a No vote and some hairy political dealings afterwards I will be protesting. I get the impression that there are many people, home and abroad, who would have the same opinion as that person I quoted.

While I appreciate what you're saying (and agree), let me put it to you another way. Say you're a member of a club. The club decides it needs to change premises, or make some other serious change. Everyone agrees that it's necessary but you. Is it completely outrageous that the other members of the club should suggest that you might be "happier elsewhere"?

Or, take a group of 27 people who take lunch together, and decide unanimously where they will go. If one person starts making a habit of refusing to accept the choice everyone else agrees, will they continue to be asked along?

Does the European Union need Ireland?

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8 · 11-05-2008 12:55am

Scofflaw wrote: »

Does the European Union need Ireland?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Here we go with the threats again. Of course we are free to vote which way we want, it is a democracy. Just once it's a yes vote.

Economist Article

Comments