Ireland holds vote today that could determine EU's future

Re: Ireland holds vote today that could determine EU's futur


Well, people like these political reporters never learn.

This has been said about the former project of European constitution.

The sword felt and nobody was killed.

It's happening again and, if the Irish vote against the Lisbon treaty, some other solution will be found.

Should I remind that this problem is a no-problem?

EU can live without this treaty. Obviously it would work better with it.

But if there is no treaty, the EU will continue with the current ones..

Eventually another solution, maybe a better one, will be found.

... or the Irish will vote in a new referendum - as they did before.

Ireland said NO.

The sword felt.

No blood...

At least Ireland was allowed to vote - that is more than most of the EU countries allowed, which shows that EU is not as democratic as it should be.

The EU didn't allow nor forbid anything - it's all national laws.

So if you want to blame someone, then do it correctly.

In Germany, it would be our constitution.

I said EU countries NOT EU itself. I know it is the decision of every individual country. We are allowed to vote about .things within our countries but not about certain things going on within EU. That is not very democratic.

Change your country's constitution or the relevant laws.

Europe struggles to keep reform plans alive after Irish reje
Europe struggles to keep reform plans alive after Irish reject treaty
By John Lichfield in Paris and Vanessa Mock in Brussels
Independent UK
Saturday, 14 June 2008

Political leaders across Europe were trying desperately last night to keep EU reform plans on track after Irish voters overwhelmingly rejected the Lisbon Treaty.

The French and German governments led calls for the other 26 EU nations to push ahead regardless with the ratification of the treaty. But senior officials in Brussels accepted that - unless Ireland could be persuaded to stage a second referendum next year - seven years of painful negotiations to simplify and streamline the governance of the EU had come to nothing.

The European Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, called on the Irish government to suggest possible "solutions" at an EU summit in Brussels next week. He said: "I believe the treaty is alive. Eighteen member states have already approved the treaty and the European Commission believes that the remaining ratifications should continue."

However, another senior European commissioner, speaking off the record, said: "There will be no repeat vote in Ireland. That means the treaty is dead. It's part of a general disenchantment with the EU. We would have had similar results if there had been referendums in other European Union states."

A group of countries, led by France, which assumes the EU presidency next month, is expected to try to minimise the importance of the Irish "no" vote. If other countries ratify the treaty, they argue privately, Ireland will be obliged to have a second vote.

Other countries could agree on declarations, they say, guaranteeing respect for Irish neutrality, or on Ireland's low business tax status. The Irish electorate might then in a second referendum vote "yes" as they did with the Nice Treaty in October 2002.

And if Ireland refuses? Legally, the new treaty must be ratified by all 27 member states to come into force. Officials in some capitals, notably Berlin, argue that Ireland, with 4 million people, is too small to be allowed to hold up the plans of governments representing almost 500 million people. Dublin would have to be bullied into accepting some kind of semi-detached European status, like that of Norway.

Officials in Brussels said they doubted whether that could work. In any case, they said, why should Ireland be menaced with de facto expulsion when France and the Netherlands escaped any threat after their popular "no" votes in 2005? Besides, the officials said, it would be dangerous to ride rough-shod over a popular vote.

EU capitals are confronted with a depressing conundrum. The peoples of the European Union - even those who have manifestly benefited from the enterprise such as the French and the Dutch and now the Irish - feel threatened, rather than inspired or protected, by their membership of the enlarged EU.

The Lisbon Treaty is not, as sometimes claimed, a blueprint for a federal united states of Europe. In some respects, it buried that idea for ever. The treaty is an absurdly complex attempt to try to make an absurdly complex system, designed for six countries, work better - or simply work - with 27 countries.

In truth, officials recognised, EU governments have only four options.

First, they can agree to renegotiate the treaty (again) to take account of the Irish electorate's disparate objections. This is practically a non-runner.

Second, they can press ahead with their own ratification processes. When 26 countries have signed up, they can turn to Ireland and ask for a second referendum. A few rhetorical concessions could be made to Dublin in annexes or declarations. Third, Ireland, as the only non-signatory, can be asked to leave the EU.

Fourth, the EU can forget the whole thing (for now) and continue with its existing rules.

There will be some voices - maybe including British ones - suggesting that the EU should now concentrate on practical problems which directly concern its citizens - climate, globalisation, immigration, terrorism - rather than continue to argue about itself.

This may be the de facto outcome, whatever governments say in the next days and weeks. Whether the old EU rules will permit any progress to be made on practical issues is open to doubt.

Brown vows to press on

Gordon Brown will reject pressure to halt the passage of the Lisbon Treaty through Parliament following Ireland's rejection of the blueprint.

The Irish "no" vote provides a headache for Mr Brown, who has adopted a low-key approach to ratifying the treaty in an attempt to avoid alienating public opinion and Britain's Eurosceptic newspapers.

Ironically, his "softly softly" approach had almost worked. The Bill implementing the reform of EU institutions is due to complete its passage through Parliament next week. But the Europe issue reignited again yesterday as the Tories and Liberal Democrats urged the Government to think again.

But ministers said the European Union (Amendment) Bill would receive its Third Reading in the Lords next Wednesday, and will receive Royal Assent.

What is The Lisbon Treaty?

*The Lisbon Treaty would replace the aborted draft constitution voted down by French and Dutch voters in 2005.

*The 50-article charter contains a list of well-established rights, including freedom of speech and religion. Britain and Poland obtained opt-outs.

*The EU would get a president and a foreign policy chief to control the EU's aid budget and its extensive network of diplomats and civil servants.

*The European Commission would be cut from 27 members to 18 as of 2014. Commissioners would be selected on a rotation system among the states, and will sit for five-year terms.

*The European Parliament would win more power to influence or reject EU legislation. MEPs capped at 751 members from the current 785.

*To streamline decision making for 27 states, decisions would be taken by majority rather than unanimous voting in 50 new areas including judicial and police co-operation; Britain and Ireland had negotiated opt-outs in these.

qe

It is not always a question of the constitution or the laws but how the parlament decides. If they think it will be a result against their wishes there will be no election.

Re: Europe struggles to keep reform plans alive after Irish


These reporters are good in making up things.

What BS is "only" four solutions?

Should we have more, isn't it enough?

I thought we had no solution, according to the previous article..

Usually, such it is defined in the constitution when and if a referendum has to be hold.

And parliamentary decisions are mostly laws - but even if not: the constitution .... see above.

Isn't it ironic that Ireland would vote against the Lisbon treaty,
after having received billions of Euros in EU subsidiaries. Ireland
benefited the most from the EU so far.

Most countries in the EU don't demand popular consent to EU actions for a very good reason, if the leaders had left it up to the masses the EU would have never happened, and it never would survive. The people need to be lead in change of this magnitude, they must have faith that their national leaders know what will be best, and they must give their leaders some rope. Otherwise all progress would get stifled.

EU leaders will never be surprised when referendums put to the people fail, change will always be resisted. However, almost anyone who knows anything who has looked at it agrees that the EU was necessary, and they know that they must do what it takes to move it along. It will be up the the Irish leaders to get this problem solved, either by convincing the masses or by moving with out referendum if the laws allow it.

Re: Europe struggles to keep reform plans alive after Irish



When you look at the report ...






... there are a few more. :wink:

I am not sure that the masses understand how much Ireland has benefited from EU wealth redistribution. I certainly don't think they understand how important modernization is to the future of Ireland, and that with out the EU this would be impossible.

Re: Europe struggles to keep reform plans alive after Irish

Yes, but it is obviously beyond the grasp of the reporters.

Hey, Saab, come here and talk to Hawkeye!!

On the other hand: that's democracy.

Voters, whether just badly informed or because they simply have a bad day or are bad tempered, they've the right to elect the Kaczynski brothers, Silvio Berlusconi and neo-Nazis - or to say "NO" like now.

Walter, what should happen now in your opinion?

Angela Merkel wants to continue...