The long campaign to forge a new dispensation for the European Union descended into panic and uncertainty yesterday when Ireland turned its back on its 26 EU partners and voted down the Lisbon Treaty.
EU leaders in Brussels and governments across the union, particularly Germany and France, were stunned by the Irish verdict, which amounted to a huge vote of no confidence in the way the EU is run.
The referendum in Ireland was the sole popular vote in the EU on the grand plan to give Europe a sitting president and foreign minister, and reconfigure the way the EU is governed. The result left the project severely wounded, perhaps fatally.
The Irish voted by a 7% margin, 53.6 to 46.4, against the treaty, which has already been ratified by 18 EU countries and is expected to be endorsed by the other eight.The result left Europe’s leaders with a giant dilemma over what to do next. A summit next week in Brussels was originally planned as a celebration. The Irish result is particularly painful for Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, who masterminded the new treaty last year, and for the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, who was relishing the central role of ushering in a new European era over the next six months of France’s EU presidency.
Democracy and independence are hard to swallow – for some. The big fish doesn’t always get to swallow the little fish.
Congrats Ireland!
The EU is a wolf disguised as a sheep.
I find it odd that Ireland had the ONLY popular vote in the EU for the new government. Good for them. I wonder how many more countries would have opposed the plan if the populace was allowed to vote.
Interesting to see that someone can see facism when it is staring them in the face. (Someone besides Norway and Switzerland, that is. They never joined.)
I read the link and still would like to know what happens if 26 of the 27 nations in the EU ((who knew there were THAT many?)) ratifies?
Seems to me that the EU would continue with 26 nations and Ireland would be removed from the union. Evidently, the EU can get all the potatoes it needs from Spain?
Anyhow, hard to see how voluntarily combining to gain the benefits of a larger economic and political unit (yes, with full view of the negatives that come along with it) is “fascists” in nature? Using that logic–what is the appropriate size of an association to be before it becomes fascist? America has 50 states and Puerto Rico and some islands keep electing not to join. Now, was the Civil War fascist in nature? As always, a definitional question but the label should not be accepted without a definition along with it.
>> John C Dvorak said,
>> Interesting to see that someone can see facism when it is staring them in the face.
From what I’ve seen, nobody has benefited more from the EU, than Ireland.
I’m kind of surprised they share our American paranoia for cooperation.
Good for you Ireland!! Congratulations!!
The only people who benefit from the EU are the banks and the Central Bank.
Religious paranoia wins another one.
Given the vague nature of human rights protections in the EU, the unrepresentative governmental structure, and the totalitarian meddling in every aspect of daily life that the EU legislature is already engaging in, I applaud Ireland for having the courage to say no, and I hiss at the nations (no longer) that didn’t give their people the chance to choose their fate.
Now, I don’t think that the EU is fascist. . . no, there are other powerful nations that resemble that sort of ultra-nationalism/totalitarianism far more (i.e. China, USA) but it is certainly totalitarian, and in the end the particular brand of totalitarianism is kind of irrelevant to the people living under it.
The most illuminating fact about the EU, in my opinion, is that the elites of Europe picked Europa riding the bull as their symbol.
I find it hard to believe that all of those very smart people who chose that symbol didn’t know that Europa was raped by the bull at the end of that story, and I can’t help but think that is a good illustration of the future of Europe once those elites solidify their hold on power.
#6: Ireland had a long, evil experience with English rule, and the vote shows that the country wants to avoid anything that is even slightly like that in the future. They probably see little difference between the EU and England. That should be obvious to anyone whose studied even a little bit of Irish history.
It’s good to see this story on dvorak.org. I am firmly pro-Europe, but despite that, I voted ‘No’ yesterday for two main reasons. First was the fact that EU citizens outside Ireland were denied their say from the elite’s of Europe, and to me that isn’t very democratic. Second, because the highly unnecessary focus on militarisation. That goes completely against the entire reasons the EU was set up in the first place.
The Irish weren’t fooled by this.
Lisbon’s predecessor, the EU Constitution was already put to a referendum and the people of the Netherlands and France rather inconveniently said no. They change the name it seems to “treaty” to get around them having to put it to another referendum there. Britain was promised by labor in the last election that they would get a say and then were denied after labor got in. With EU Constitution repackaged, they only needed merely to be ratified in parliament by all of the 27 EU countries except Ireland, which has to have a referendum on these things. Now its dead because all must signup to it for it to pass
So, this is not about being against Europe – its about sending a clear message that the people of Ireland (Europe) will not be governed by a bunch of unelected bureaucrats & want a constitution that is more democratic that all EU citizens can agree on.
Great, no other country has benefitted from the EU like Ireland. When they join it was a dirt poor country on the levels of Spain, Greece and Portugal. Then billions and billions of Euro were shoved up their Irish asses. Hard earned money of other Europeans, the only reason for their booming economy.
And this is their thanks… just beautiful.
I fully support Germany’s foreign secretary, who today said Ireland should GTFO of the EU.
jim and joao, great posts, both of you.
We in Canada had something similar with the “Charlottetown Accord”, which was supported by the media and all of the major political parties, but was defeated. I voted No because the proposal put too much power in government hands (the arrogation of new powers unto themselves was probably the way that the various levels of government sold the idea to each other). Others voted No for other reasons.
I saw a car driven yesterday with a full-size green-white-and-orange Flag of Ireland hanging out the driver side window. As it was not March 17th, I wondered what was going on….
On balance, Europe has been a Good Thing. And it’s good to see a hiccup in any Grand Plan.
#13
Yes, Ireland benefited from the EU. However, they got far more benefit by ending their religious war in the 1990’s and opening their markets.
#12, jim is spot on. As I understand it, the main motivation behind the EU was to create a Union of European states which could take on the economic might of the United States. They saw the US as a threat to the prosperity and culture of Europe and the Eu as the answer. After all, how many times has the EU been compared to the US in terms of population and GDP?
The dream of the EU has turned into a nightmare. Remember, the overall political mainstream of the EU is far left of America.
Europe invented the Nanny State, and this “treaty” will perfect it.
#16–Ah Yea==how has the EU turned into a nightmare?
Would the problems you list be better or worse than having another war?
well, from what i understand, GB would also voted it down in a referendum had it gone that way. the only way it “passed” was to go thru parliment with Gordon Brown figuratively holding a knife to his party’s political throats. in ireland, it’s actually the law there that treaties have to be ok’d by public referendum, if i saw that right.
Don’t feed the bobbo, he always pretends to misunderstand some minor point to disrupt discussion, then pretends that he agreed all along later when his position becomes untenable. It’s a waste of text.
Not to mention the last line of my post answers the question he posted. It’s not only a waste text but also of my valuable time.
Thanks, Li!
@#16
Not quite. The European Union came about, partially because of the War (WWII). It was the effort of reconstruction and the hope of ending Wars in Europe. First the EU was an European Community of Steel. A mere agreement between countries. But the dream of a United Europe is old. Very old. Millennia old. And things started going that direction.
In part you are right: the United States is the living proof that an United Europe is possible. Not the fact that America is a Union of States, but more the fact that it’s built out of Europeans. If it worked there, can work here too.
But it will take time. You see, the Europeans that went to the New World, went there on a act of change. They’ve cut with the past and went there to build something new. And still it took more than a Century to become a Nation. It will take more time to make Europe a Nation. And you can’t burn cycles. You just have to live it through.
And also, The Welfare State was invented by Roosevelt to get out of the Great Depression.
#20–Ah Yea==your last line is the answer? You mean the collection of EU states who’s currency is inflating in value while covering all its people with a safety net of social services? That is a nanny state? Outcompeting the USA and that is a bad thing?
Do you enjoy visiting China in order to Lord it over the Peasants and you just like the feel of walking among the uncovered multitude dependent on “private charity?”
Is that your problem bunky?
Subtle, but not invisible.
I think the plan is to ignore the will of the people ans pass everything by agreement. Getting more power into the hands of elites is the game. I don’t know why so many on this board are opposed, since that’s what the global warming push is about.
# 12 – THANK YOU!!! I was here trying to write my opinion when I realized it is basically the same as yours. Having been the only European people with a say in all this, the Irish carried an extra burden and I am so grateful to you for having made the morally correct choice. Very well done!
Once again, thank you from this Portuguese citizen.
Hillary should have tried the EU way. Keep holding votes until she wins.
Even if it passes, the EU will go Muslim eventually, and the whole thing will be undone.
#27–Ah Yea==yes, chinese food is not filling. A full post from you, and 15 minutes later, I’m hungry for a big mac. ((Thats not true, but its where the joke went–I apologize!))
You say: “The entire topic of this thread is the EU forcing the constitution down the throats of it’s citizens without their approval.” /// No, thats not what this whole thread is about. Read the Header and the Last Sentence of the OP (and all inbetween), your stated issue is not mentioned. The distinction of popular vote vs treaty vs State executive action is just barely mentioned in the linked article and only comes up within this thread in 2 or 3 posts?
Now, I think the issue you state is more existentially relevant, but its not what the EU has to wrestle with which is what should they do with a single negative vote at this stage of the process.
Then you continue with: “I.E. Those in authority who believe they are smarter than the common man forcing their beliefs on the common man.” /// Yes, thats always an issue in contention in any representative government. And actually, you use the interesting of the voting majority of the common man ONLY when you like the outcome. So, arguing process over substance is always the mark of a propagandist.
You continue the totally faulty analysis with: “Isn’t that what Big Brother is all about? Marxism/Leninism lurking in the shadows…” /// No, as stated, its a problem with representative democracy vs desired outcome. If the 136 good citizens of Maple Street vote 123 to 13 to establish their own country, is the greater state acting as Big Brother to disallow the secession? The answer is yes or no depending on definition, but there is a MEGATREND ISSUE highlighted by this topic. A natural tendency of people is to bond at smaller and smaller levels, but the stability and peace they seek can only be found at greater aggregated levels. Feelings of freedom vs Fear of Big Brother would be one way to describe it, again, all definitional and subject to propaganda rather than substantive analysis.
Bourgeoisie brother? /// I used to think so with a more scientific/technological expertise on your part. But I detect you have changed over the last few months. My memory is that at the beginning you were more of an “internationalist?” Now, you are posting like a neo-con with stock options? Congratulations on the selling of your soul. Always good to have the market reach your sell price.
More food must consist of ideas/facts, not labels and propaganda within the context of we cannot predict the future, only guess with the best of intentions.
As always, I look forward to your best ideas.
You say it’s a single negative vote, but that’s because only the Irish have voted. The Labour Party in Britain promised to hold a referendum on the EU, but now no referendum, just this Treaty which eliminates Britain as a separate country. Also, France and Denmark have voted no on the Constitution, but that has been ignore with this Treaty and no votes there. Perhaps they should just start shooting the individuals involved, and they’ll start to pay attention.
#29–Mike==thats not what I said, continue reading the full sentence.
Now, whether you choose to read/post the entire thought to be accurate, what you post is irrelevant in either version as to what the “next steps” of the EU should be.
Does anyone know? The article implies that the selection of an EU president is void. Giving each of 27 members a veto doesn’t make sense to me. Success for an organization would be for the 26 agreeing nations to continue forward.
Then as you suggest, when the EU becomes strong enough, they can invade and conquer the nay sayers to form an even greater union. Course, given their history, looks to me like they may have learned to use economic power to coerce the better position.
#30
Ironically, I think that each country having a veto on a modification of the Constitution is a better solution than in the US where only 3/4 of the States are required. The European’s should be worried about how the US turned out. Originally, the US was supposed to be a Federation of individual States much like the EU that agreed to cooperate economically and militarily and has instead created an overpowering, overbearing Federal government. I would be very skeptical if I were European. If I were a EU citizen, I would want to restrict the EU power to limited, common economic cooperation and that’s it. I would recommend they never give the central EU government any power of taxation or any centralized military power.
fuckin forgive our position on holding an actual democratic election to tell the banks and corporations of Europe to bugger off. Anyone for another useless federal republic like the USA governed by companies and the Dick Cheneys of this world? I don’t think so – and to say that Ireland hasn’t gifted or bestowed any of its superior wisdom or talent on the rest of Europe and the world is plain ignorant and stupid. And the prick that wrote about a religious war is a fuckin eejit – we still haven’t got the Brits out and when and if politics doesn’t work (Good Friday Agreement) – we’ll have another war. Onwards to the republic. Chucky ar la!
Bobbo, the other 26 states haven’t agreed. There were no votes. Basically the EU is eliminating democracy.