The "gun to the head" Lisbon option

Kovik

While not a pretty title, this option was floated around on Questions and Answers tonight by Jim Power (I'm pretty sure).

Basically, he suggested that following the ratification of the treaty by the 26 other states (assuming the Czech Republic does indeed ratify) that a new referendum be held before the treaty comes into effect asking whether or not the Irish people are happy to proceed as a member of EU under Lisbon terms or leave it altogether.

I don't especially like giving my own views in an opening post (I'd rather not be accidentally defending the premise for nine pages) so what do you guys think?

zig

Kovik wrote: »

Basically, he suggested that following the ratification of the treaty by the 26 other states (assuming the Czech Republic does indeed ratify) that a new referendum be held before the treaty comes into effect asking whether or not the Irish people are happy to proceed as a member of EU under Lisbon terms or leave it altogether.

Only the other day i was joking to someone about that situation arising, my friend who happens to be a no voting politician said to me that he reckons if it did, about 80% of the population would say yes(including himself).

Scofflaw

This is from an FT article on the subject:

"An alternative would be a referendum with a differently worded question, such as: “Do you want to remain in the EU on the basis of the Lisbon treaty?” Of course, this bundles two questions many people would like to answer separately. Yes, stay in the EU, No to Lisbon. But folding the two into a single question is politically more honest because it is Ireland’s only real-world choice."

Frankly, I don't think it's an outside chance.

cordially,
Scofflaw

VoidStarNull

Apparently some British euro-sceptic politicians have been overheard discussing the option of allowing us back into the Commonwealth if we continue to vote NO...

marco_polo

VoidStarNull wrote: »

Apparently some British euro-sceptic politicians have been overheard discussing the option of allowing us back into the Commonwealth if we continue to vote NO...

Do they not realise that any such suggestion will put any Yes vote through the roof :pac:

sink

Kovik wrote: »

While not a pretty title, this option was floated around on Questions and Answers tonight by Jim Power (I'm pretty sure).

Basically, he suggested that following the ratification of the treaty by the 26 other states (assuming the Czech Republic does indeed ratify) that a new referendum be held before the treaty comes into effect asking whether or not the Irish people are happy to proceed as a member of EU under Lisbon terms or leave it altogether.

I don't especially like giving my own views in an opening post (I'd rather not be accidentally defending the premise for nine pages) so what do you guys think?

The most likely situation is that the 26/25 countries implement the Lisbon agreements under enhanced co-operation and Ireland at some point in several years time holds a referendum on joining them. This is still very bad for us as we will have little influence in the EU and it will take years for us to build back up what we threw away. Holding the gun to the head of the country is too risky politically, any party that did it would become deeply unpopular even if it passes.

SkepticOne

Kovik wrote: »

While not a pretty title, this option was floated around on Questions and Answers tonight by Jim Power (I'm pretty sure).

Basically, he suggested that following the ratification of the treaty by the 26 other states (assuming the Czech Republic does indeed ratify) that a new referendum be held before the treaty comes into effect asking whether or not the Irish people are happy to proceed as a member of EU under Lisbon terms or leave it altogether.

I don't especially like giving my own views in an opening post (I'd rather not be accidentally defending the premise for nine pages) so what do you guys think?

How could Ireland be forced to hold a referendum on this? Only the Irish government can hold a referendum. The only reason the recent one was held is that the government wanted to ratify the treaty but could not do so without going to the people.

sink

marco_polo wrote: »

Do they not realise that any such suggestion will put any Yes vote through the roof :pac:

VoidStarNull wrote: »

Apparently some British euro-sceptic politicians have been overheard discussing the option of allowing us back into the Commonwealth if we continue to vote NO...

We've ironically already made the choice to distance ourselves somewhat from Europe and to draw ourselves closer to Britain, but the majority of people did not realise it when they made the decision. Any future referendum would likely be held at a time when the tories are in power, they are likely to distance themselves too and we could end up moving closer to our former colonial masters.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

How could Ireland be forced to hold a referendum on this? Only the Irish government can hold a referendum. The only reason the recent one was held is that the government wanted to ratify the treaty but could not do so without going to the people.

By being offered it as a re-accession deal, with the alternative not being re-accession...the government would not be 'forced' to put it to the people, except in the sense that there would be no other realistic choice.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gollem_1975

Kovik wrote: »

Basically, he suggested that following the ratification of the treaty by the 26 other states (assuming the Czech Republic does indeed ratify) that a new referendum be held before the treaty comes into effect asking whether or not the Irish people are happy to proceed as a member of EU under Lisbon terms or leave it altogether.

If I was an Irish politician considering our countries recent experience with referendums I wouldn't take the chance !

definitely not before the end of the 2008 anyway.

ixtlan

gollem_1975 wrote: »

If I was an Irish politician considering our countries recent experience with referendums I wouldn't take the chance !

definitely not before the end of the 2008 anyway.

Indeed certainly not this year, but a year is a long time in politics. Maybe 2009, but even then... even if it passed it might disillusion the Irish public even more against politicans.

A few interesting comments in Q&A.

MEP elections are in June 09. If Lisbon is not ratified the old numbers remain in place...

Czech leader, praised here for his support for the "no", was quoted by John Bowman as saying "Social Europe is dead". Just to clarify... that was because Lisbon was dead which was a good thing, he thought.

Also, my impression was that Richard Boyd Barrett, of Peace before Profit, was somewhat flustered when put under pressure about other countries proceeding with Lisbon and spoke about "what should happen" and refused to discuss what was likely to happen.

Ix

Lemming

I don't really think this particular scenario is likely for two reasons


1. By essentially forcing Ireland to either kertow or leave, the EU sends all the wrong signals out to the masses. And whilst the EU institutions may not particularly fear the masses; national political parties most certainly do. In essence the message sent would be "Do as we want or else ... ". Needless to say such a message would severely undermine - if not outright destroy - whatever faith in the EU the masses have and such an opinion could not be ignored by national politicians.

For an entity trying to assert itself as a viable democratic player this is suicide.


2. Any such move would also utterly undermine the EU's desires to be taken seriously as a single entity on the world stage (which it very much wants to do)

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

By being offered it as a re-accession deal, with the alternative not being re-accession...the government would not be 'forced' to put it to the people, except in the sense that there would be no other realistic choice.

How is Ireland going to be kicked out so that they have to re-accede?

marco_polo

ixtlan wrote: »

Indeed certainly not this year, but a year is a long time in politics. Maybe 2009, but even then... even if it passed it might disillusion the Irish public even more against politicans.

A few interesting comments in Q&A.

MEP elections are in June 09. If Lisbon is not ratified the old numbers remain in place...

Czech leader, praised here for his support for the "no", was quoted by John Bowman as saying "Social Europe is dead". Just to clarify... that was because Lisbon was dead which was a good thing, he thought.

Ix

Wonder what the "Workers rights" no campaigners will make of that statement.

It is an interesting oddity of the EU that it can look like a Socialist nanny state to some and a pro big business capitalist empire to others and all at the same time. No wonder people can get confused. I certainly do.

sink

marco_polo wrote: »

It is an interesting oddity of the EU that it can look like a Socialist nanny state to some and a pro big business capitalist empire to others and all at the same time. No wonder people can get confused. I certainly do.

It's because the EU is in the centre. It's neither extremely capitalist nor is it extremely socialist. Which imo is the way it should be.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

How is Ireland going to be kicked out so that they have to re-accede?

I have no idea, and I am certainly hoping it doesn't come down to that. However, the general idea that Ireland will be asked to accept some kind of alternative legal arrangement to full membership has certainly been floated, and where there's a will there's often a way.

Obviously, that would make something of a mockery of the Union's guiding principles, and play extremely well with what much of the No side were saying. That doesn't make it impossible, though - it just means we've succeeded in forcing the EU to move in a direction we would prefer it not to, probably permanently, since the other members would probably prefer not to go through this again.


cordially,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

I have no idea, and I am certainly hoping it doesn't come down to that. However, the general idea that Ireland will be asked to accept some kind of alternative legal arrangement to full membership has certainly been floated, and where there's a will there's often a way.

Obviously, that would make something of a mockery of the Union's guiding principles, and play extremely well with what much of the No side were saying. That doesn't make it impossible, though - it just means we've succeeded in forcing the EU to move in a direction we would prefer it not to, probably permanently, since the other members would probably prefer not to go through this again.

I agree that the EU going against its own principle doesn't make it impossible. After all, it has already done that with the failed constitution. What might make it impossible is the a lack of legal support for this particular move. I might be wrong but I don't believe there's legal provision for kicking out Ireland. I stand to be corrected should someone manage to dig up the relevant legislation.

What there is legal provision for, on the other hand, is that the treaty can't go ahead without Ireland's ratification.

The_Minister

ixtlan wrote: »

Richard Boyd Barrett, of Peace before Profit,

It's People before Profit. It's a front for the Socialist Workers Party.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

I agree that the EU going against its own principle doesn't make it impossible. After all, it has already done that with the failed constitution. What might make it impossible is the a lack of legal support for this particular move. I might be wrong but I don't believe there's legal provision for kicking out Ireland. I stand to be corrected should someone manage to dig up the relevant legislation.

It's unlikely to be in the EU treaties. I would look at international treaty law - in particular at "good faith". It would be quite possible to claim that the Irish government signed the Treaty in bad faith, in that they were signing up to a commitment to ratify that they then didn't deliver on, and perhaps had neither the capacity nor the will to deliver on. They could therefore be removed as signatories.

If Ireland is removed as a signatory from the Lisbon Treaty, then it cannot be a member of the European Union as constituted by the Lisbon Treaty. Since, as has been interminably pointed out, this is in effect a "new" EU (or at least it can be interpreted that way), Ireland thereby comes unstuck. It is still bound by its obligations under the Treaty of Nice, but the others aren't - which means we are obliged to implement EU law (or perhaps not), but have no powers in respect of any of the institutions. We would be members of the EC, but that would have ceased to exist. The only way out of that legal limbo back into the EU is ratifying Lisbon.

International law on treaties is, of course, very much in the domain of realpolitik. I'm sure Ireland could challenge the legality of any exclusion from the EU, thereby upping the ante, and probably permanently queering its relationship with the EU. Assuming we did that, and were successful, our only real hope would be that we could form some kind of eurosceptic bloc with, say, the UK (and maybe Denmark and the Czech Republic) - which is to say, moving back into the British orbit that EU membership allowed us to escape.

Let's be honest, though - this is very unlikely to become a question of law, really. What will happen is that Ireland will be asked to take some kind of second-tier status or 'pause for reflection' while the other members go ahead with implementation - and Ireland will accept, because it will probably be made clear that if we don't like the velvet glove option of accepting, we can have the iron fist option of being kicked out instead as per the above.

I'm not sure we've been very clever here, really (alright, I actually believe we've potentially been fantastically stupid, in both senses of 'fantastically'). We've essentially put ourselves in a position of relying on the benevolence of the EU - a position I would definitely prefer not to be in, given we've just given them a nice kick in the reform process, and a position I would much rather we had not put them in, because playing hardball with bolshie smaller members could become a habit, and still we couldn't afford not to be part of the EU.

SkepticOne wrote: »

What there is legal provision for, on the other hand, is that the treaty can't go ahead without Ireland's ratification.

Indeed. Lucky, that, eh?

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

ixtlan wrote: »

Also, my impression was that Richard Boyd Barrett, of Peace before Profit, was somewhat flustered when put under pressure about other countries proceeding with Lisbon and spoke about "what should happen" and refused to discuss what was likely to happen.

Darling, Peace before Profit don't stoop to actually discussing reality. Don't be silly.

force eleven

Scofflaw wrote: »

This is from an FT article on the subject:

"An alternative would be a referendum with a differently worded question, such as: “Do you want to remain in the EU on the basis of the Lisbon treaty?” Of course, this bundles two questions many people would like to answer separately. Yes, stay in the EU, No to Lisbon. But folding the two into a single question is politically more honest because it is Ireland’s only real-world choice."

Frankly, I don't think it's an outside chance.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well, given that choice, which is blackmail of course, I vote No. Another referendum on anything related to Lisbon means democracy is dead in Ireland and the EU.

ixtlan

force eleven wrote: »

Well, given that choice, which is blackmail of course, I vote No. Another referendum on anything related to Lisbon means democracy is dead in Ireland and the EU.

I'm concerned at the continuing attitude that "anything related to Lisbon" is unacceptable. There are many ways out of this crisis and I'm sure our EU colleagues are going to do their best to accommodate Ireland. However for those that think something radically different from Lisbon is going to be agreed, I think they need to wake up and smell the coffee.

As for blackmail, it should it noted that at least one Euro politician said the same thing about Ireland (maybe I'm paraphrasing). If Ireland continues to say no, despite some concessions/declarations, and we refuse to allow the others to move unless we get more, is that blackmail?

Ix.

Kovik

nesf wrote: »

Darling, Peace before Profit don't stoop to actually discussing reality. Don't be silly.

Excuse me, but without them the Booterstown nature reserve* would have been done away with a long time ago.










*by this I mean the swampy field next to the DART station.