Croatia EU membership - should we have been consulted

heyjude

I see that Croatia joined the European Union today, but I was wondering whether the citizens of the existing members should have been consulted before a new member was admitted ?

I assume that the explanation that will be given, is that either the ability to admit new members without a vote in current member states was contained in a previous treaty, or that the European Parliament voted for it or the Council of Ministers gave it the green light. But surely we should have some say ?

I pose this question not because I have any particular problem with Croatia, but every time a new country is admitted, our influence is reduced a bit more, the EU becomes a bit more unwieldy and as we are now a net contributor, the admission of new countries may carry a direct cost to us.

There also has to be some numerical limit to how many countries can join the EU. UEFA, the European Football governing body has 53 member associations and while some of these countries would not / could not apply for EU membership, could a European Union with 40-45 countries function effectively and is this where we are ultimately headed ?

oscarBravo

heyjude wrote: »

I see that Croatia joined the European Union today, but I was wondering whether the citizens of the existing members should have been consulted before a new member was admitted ?

This question comes back to the same one every time there's talk of EU-wide plebiscites: the EU doesn't have the right, nor do many people feel it should have the right, to tell its member states that they have to hold referendums. That means that it is left up to each member state to decide whether or not to consult its population on the topic.

So your question might become: why didn't the Irish government hold a referendum before voting to allow Croatia into the EU? The answer is simple: because it didn't have to. Also, to be fair, it's probably a long way down the list of things most people would want the opportunity to vote on.

Tzar Chasm

well I would have liked a say on the matter, I think we should have held off the accession until Serbia and Bosnia were ready to be admitted too. it might have gone a long way towards sorting out the remaining issues from their last war if all 3 had to cooperate before any of them could join.

Seaneh

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

well I would have liked a say on the matter, I think we should have held off the accession until Serbia and Bosnia were ready to be admitted too. it might have gone a long way towards sorting out the remaining issues from their last war if all 3 had to cooperate before any of them could join.

Serbia won't be ready to join the EU for a long while yet and Bosnia is still a fair way off. Why should those states inability to get their crap together hold back the croatians?

Tzar Chasm

Seaneh wrote: »

Serbia won't be ready to join the EU for a long while yet and Bosnia is still a fair way off. Why should those states inability to get their crap together hold back the croatians?

it shouldn't hold back the coats, if they are so capable of getting their snit together then they should be able to help the other two.

the yugoslav war was fought by all of them, so no one faction should be seen to receive preferential treatment, what does this move mean for serbs in croatia or coats in serbia, realistically the entire region has to be treated as one intertwined block.

someone will probably bring up slovenia, but that is somewhat different as their war was a ten day border skirmish which didn't involve genocide or any form of territorial expansion

The Corinthian

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

well I would have liked a say on the matter, I think we should have held off the accession until Serbia and Bosnia were ready to be admitted too. it might have gone a long way towards sorting out the remaining issues from their last war if all 3 had to cooperate before any of them could join.

How would it have done that? Which specific remaining issues from their last war? How would they have gone about doing so?

Have you ever spent any time in these countries? How much do you know about their various political set ups, economies, histories and so on?

Times like these I wonder if universal suffrage is such a good idea.

Tzar Chasm

The Corinthian wrote: »

How would it have done that? Which specific remaining issues from their last war? How would they have gone about doing so?

Have you ever spent any time in these countries? How much do you know about their various political set ups, economies, histories and so on?

Times like these I wonder if universal suffrage is such a good idea.

no, I haven't been to those countries, I did read up on the history a bit as the whole thing fascinated me,I know a few people who were there during the wars, one as a UN worker and one who went as a tourist.

there are still some issues to be dealt with from the war, the wrapping up of the warcrimes trials for a start, the destabilising croatian population in bosnia , dealing with the displaced serbs in croatia,
there was a violent and bloody ethnic conflict less than 20 years ago and Croatias involvement in the ethnic cleansing seems to be glossed over by people focused on blaming the serbs for everything.

I think its fairly obvious that the EU should hold an all or none policy on accesion for former yugoslav states

The Corinthian

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

no, I haven't been to those countries, I did read up on the history a bit as the whole thing fascinated me,I know a few people who were there during the wars, one as a UN worker and one who went as a tourist.

I've spent time there before, during and after the wars.

To begin with politically and economically (and to a lesser extent culturally) they're quite different to each other - that these differences were most pronounced in Slovenia were the reason that she was able to join the EU much, much earlier.

Croatia has managed to reform and improve it's economy far faster than the others; Serbia still hasn't fully shaken it's socialist mentality and Bosnia is an ineffectual political clusterfsck (something which is a topic of much of the humour there), which has slowed them down considerably.

Then, what you're suggesting - to block them all until all issues are resolved - is ridiculous. Effectively, if Serbia has a border dispute with Bosnia, ergo Croatia (which has no interest in that dispute) cannot join the EU. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever - it's like suggesting that Ireland should not have joined the EEC until democracy returned to Spain.

there was a violent and bloody ethnic conflict less than 20 years ago and Croatias involvement in the ethnic cleansing seems to be glossed over by people focused on blaming the serbs for everything.

They're going to be picking over all that for a very long time, just as we still pick over the old '700 years of oppression' - indeed, we managed to join the EEC, while still in dispute with our neighbour and with conflict on our doorstep. Imagine we had to wait until the NI situation had to be resolved; as recent events have shown, we'd probably still be waiting.

I think its fairly obvious that the EU should hold an all or none policy on accesion for former yugoslav states

They're separate countries now. There is no Yugoslavia any more. They've come to terms with that, so I think we can too and if so, there's nothing obvious about what you suggest.

petronius

I think some of the consequences of the ramming through of the Nice Referendum and then the EU Constitution re branded Lisbon and then Lisbon Mark 2, made expansion ok without consulting the people again.

However I am happy to see Croatia join, it helps bring them into the European community of nations, helps put the post-yugoslavian war behind europe, they are through europeans in the centre of europe and part of the historical melting pot which was the austro-hungarian empire
And I think culturally they are very like us

I would like to see Norway, Iceland, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia(FYR) and Albanian join and the Swiss

View

petronius wrote: »

I think some of the consequences of the ramming through of the Nice Referendum and then the EU Constitution re branded Lisbon and then Lisbon Mark 2, made expansion ok without consulting the people again.

None of those altered the rules on expansion of the EU or Irish procedures relating to it by one iota.

The default position set out by our Supreme Court is that EU Treaties do NOT require referenda except in specific circumstances. Admittance of new members to the EU does not fall within those circumstances hence it is entirely up to the Oireachtas.

petronius

Of course referenda are only used when EU Treaties contradict - The Irish Constitution
Every country joining the EU is making a treaty to the European Union, often with there specific clauses exemptions.
The only reason why we would have had to be consulted is if this treaty between the EU and Croatia, changed an EU treaty which impacted on our Constitution
Nice made it feasible for many eastern european nations to join, so the changes to the treaty were sanctioned by the Irish electorate so there was no issue with them joining.
Simple administration things like number of seats in the parliament (new countries need representation and there was a limit under maastrict or amsterdam) Number of commissioners since with more nationalities looking for a seat at the table so to speak it meant there was fewer to go round where as before each country had been guaranteed a commissioner.
Because of the changes in Nice Croatias accession was quite seemless. (as would Iceland or Norway if they chose to do so since they would have little impact on the numbers)
A larger nation like Turkey joining would be a different matter, or hypothetically (Russia)

micosoft

petronius wrote: »

I think some of the consequences of the ramming through of the Nice Referendum and then the EU Constitution re branded Lisbon and then Lisbon Mark 2, made expansion ok without consulting the people again.

However I am happy to see Croatia join, it helps bring them into the European community of nations, helps put the post-yugoslavian war behind europe, they are through europeans in the centre of europe and part of the historical melting pot which was the austro-hungarian empire
And I think culturally they are very like us

I would like to see Norway, Iceland, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia(FYR) and Albanian join and the Swiss

So you'd like nine referendums on permitting these countries join..... unless of course they must all join at exactly the same time rather then when they are ready and want to? Incoherent.

The Corinthian

micosoft wrote: »

So you'd like nine referendums on permitting these countries join..... unless of course they must all join at exactly the same time rather then when they are ready and want to? Incoherent.

I think this nonsensical discussion of referenda needs to be addressed.

Ireland has referenda on treaties whenever they are seen to change what we have constitutionally agreed to previously. In layman's terms, this means that if constitutionally we agree to pooling power with the EU and a treaty is seen to seek more power to be transferred than was previously agreed, then we have to change our constitution to allow this.

The accession of new states does not affect our constitutional commitment, so there's no need to have a referendum. Instead accession is agreed between the governments of the EU - including our own. The guys and gals we elect. They can block accession, just as counties like Austria are presently blocking any further progress in Turkey's application.

Now some may not like this, but that's democracy for you. If those who don't like this were more than a minority, they might actually get people elected into government who would then block such applicants on their behalf. But they are a minority, so tough crap and stop whinging about it.

micosoft

Agreed.

But there are a contingent who believe that there is a democratic deficit when they are not consulted on every pet decision by referedum when in fact it is the decision of the national law and Government whether a referendum is warranted or needed. The EU gets blamed for this when it has no say good bad or indifferent on the matter. Typically the calls for referedum come from people who have a minority view and disagree with the Goverment. Given that these posters think they represent the thoughts of the general public (I think this and everybody I associate with thinks this too (no selection or bias at work there)) that in a referendum they will "win" whatever argument it is that they believe in.

Fundementally it is a lack of understanding or respect for the representitive democracy most countries use.

The Corinthian

micosoft wrote: »

Fundementally it is a lack of understanding or respect for the representitive democracy most countries use.

I've long since given up having any respect for anyone who trots out with the old 'unelected bureaucrats' argument, for example.

The reality of the EU is that the positions are appointed by our elected national governments and thus are democratically accountable through our elected national governments.

The alternative, the only alternative, would be direct democratic accountability, which means by-passing our elected national governments and electing those positions, just as we do the European Parliament.

Each and every time this idiotically simple reality is pointed out to those who whitter on about 'unelected bureaucrats', they go quiet; because democracy doesn't sound so good when it's explained to them.

View

petronius wrote: »

Of course referenda are only used when EU Treaties contradict - The Irish Constitution

There is no "Of course" about that since we don't know if there is any contradiction between the EU Treaties and the Irish constitution.

We have had only two judgments related to EU related treaties: one related to the ESM treaty which had no problem, the other the SEA which was fine except for one clause which wasn't (The Supreme Court got upset because we had to formally consider the position of the other member states on foreign affairs matters when deciding our own - which is all very well but in foreign affairs it is in practise kind of essential to consider the positions of other countries when formulating your own policy if you are a small state like we are)