Ireland holds vote today that could determine EU's future

Imagine my surprise when I noticed that the treaty of Nice is still intact, and that Europe is continuing to function as it did before. The worst thing the Irish decision can mean is that Europe will remain a compact of sovereign states, that it won't develop into a single federal republic, and that this is a bad thing. Personally I'm skeptical about that last part. I like our current compact just fine. But even if I'm wrong -- where's the big catastrophe?

Had it been translated for the Irish, things could have progressed.
Instead, they remained stubborn - a trait one can still detect generations
later, right georgeob1?

The most likely scenario, our correspondent suggests, is a declaration assuring the Irish that the treaty will not affect their policies on abortion, taxation and neutrality.

06/16/2008 04:08 PM

THE WORLD FROM BERLIN

'Europe Demands More from Its Voters'

European politicians are to blame! No, the Irish are to blame! Wrong again, it's the disillusioned Europeans! Everyone thinks they know why the Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty last Thursday. German commentators give it a go as well.


REUTERS
Ireland put the brakes on EU integration on Thursday.
The shock delivered by the Irish last Thursday is difficult to overstate. By a margin of 53.4 percent to 46.6 percent, Ireland's voters rejected the Lisbon Treaty, an agreement designed to improve the efficiency of the European Union. In other words, as many observers have pointed out, a tiny minority of European citizens have blocked a reform project designed to benefit 490 million EU citizens.

But what does the Irish veto mean? Should the EU move forward with a core group willing to further integrate? Should Ireland be asked to hold a new referendum? Should the ratification process be carried forward as though nothing happened?

The ideas are myriad. But on Monday, most commentators in Germany seem to be at a loss as to what should be made of the debacle:

Writing for Die Zeit on Monday, former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer writes:

"Poor Europe. With the Irish referendum, it has thrown itself needlessly into a political calamity. Of course the EU will continue to exist and its institutions will continue to function, for better or worse, on the foundation of the Treaty of Nice. But a proactive, strong Europe capable of determining its own fate will not be in the cards for quite some time."

"What will be the consequences of the Irish referendum? First of all, a strong European foreign policy -- which, given the current state of the world, is more necessary than ever before -- was buried on June 12. Nation-states will have the foreign policy say once again. The same is true for the democratization of the EU…. The Irish decision is, given this point, especially grotesque, because it rejected exactly that which it demands."

"Secondly, the EU will stagnate. In addition, the process of enlargement will either be delayed or will be stopped completely…."

"Thirdly, the smaller and mid-sized members of the EU will pay the price for the Irish decision when foreign policy becomes re-nationalized. They will lose influence. That is nothing new if one only looks at the foreign policies of France and Great Britain. But the case of Germany is different. Germany has long seen its strategic interests from within the framework of an integrated EU. A long-term blockade of a strong EU will necessarily change this viewpoint."

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung on Monday reminds its readers of Europe's long history of violence and the role the EU has played in interrupting that cycle. It writes:

"It is easy to berate European politicians because they were unable to explain a treaty or because they were unable to awaken enthusiasm for their work. But perhaps one should be allowed to berate European citizens for once for not showing an interest in the complex political entity that has grown up around them. People would of course like things to be simpler and like to believe populists who say things could be simpler. But this treaty -- highly complicated and a masterwork of political skill -- … is not so simple. It introduces more democracy, more involvement and more control. The Lisbon Treaty is a treaty that forces the politicians in Brussels back to their voters. But it also demands more from those voters."

"Europe cannot allow itself to be slowed down by 862,415 Irish. The Irish government should study the treaty and follow its voters' wishes with a period of EU abstinence. But Europe hasn't come even close to the end of its history."

The financial daily Handelsblatt writes:

"Europe is on the knife's edge. Can the EU keep together despite the failed referendum in Ireland? Or will it drift apart into groups of those that want to integrate further and those that don't? With earlier crises, that was something of an academic question. This time, though, it is real. Because this time, the EU doesn't have the strength to hammer out a new treaty as it did after the French and Dutch vetoed the European constitution in 2005. Either Europe finds a way to get Ireland to change its mind, or we are seeing the EU collapse into a meaningless framework with a small core of tightly bound countries surrounded by a loose alliance of others."

The weekly Die Zeit, which comes out on Thursday, wrote in an online editorial this weekend:

"The extreme absurdity of using a referendum to decide on such a complex entity as the European Union has become abundantly clear. The minority of one country -- in the Irish example, just 45 percent of registered voters cast their ballots -- can vote on the fates of the majorities of 27 countries. Referendums may very well make sense in those situations where the fate of one's land is in question. But when the future of other countries is involved, it is the wrong instrument."

"It would be the wrong move to re-write the Lisbon Treaty yet again. It would be better to continue the ratification process. Then we would see who else falls by the wayside: England? Czech Republic? Poland? Those who ratify the treaty, however, should formalize an agreement among themselves, allowing them to create a core Europe -- without the half-hearted and disruptive members -- leading to closer cooperation and increased integration."

"Such a process would not take place overnight. But just having it as a goal could help restart the sputtering motor of Europe."

The center-right daily Frankfurter Allgemeine writes:

"Maybe it is time to look at reality head on: The European Union will always be faced with the mistrust of its citizens, and this mistrust may very well grow the more powerful the EU becomes. That can't be changed simply be handing the European Parliament new powers because this body is totally alien to most European citizens and is seen as much less important than national parliaments. It is also likely that the EU will not become the homogenous actor on the world stage as many would like it to be. The path to the United States of Europe is one which the Irish, Brits, Poles and Czechs don't want to follow…. In other words, attitudes toward integration in Europe won't change in the near future and neither will Europeans' loyalty to the EU."

"There is, however, a path -- that of differentiated integration…. Each country can decide in which areas it would like more integration and which it would for now like to remain apart. It isn't the easiest path and it makes things even more complicated. But it reflects the principle of European diversity without torpedoing integration or overtaxing traditionalists. There is even a successful blueprint: that of the euro."

-- Charles Hawley; 3:15 p.m. CET

Op-Ed Columnist
The Muck of the Irish


By ROGER COHEN
Published: June 19, 2008
Europeans have spent a lot of time in recent years asking Americans how they could be dumb enough to make the same mistake twice in electing George W. Bush. But when it comes to sheer electoral crassness, it's hard to beat what the Irish have just done.

I can't think of a country that's benefited from European Union membership more than Ireland. It has catapulted itself in a few decades from beer-soaked backwater to the Celtic Tiger whose growth rates, foreign investment and rags-to-riches story were the envy of every languishing small nation with a thirst for a makeover.

Enormous E.U. farm subsidies, access for foreign investors to the E.U. market, and the liberation from a Britain complex afforded by new European horizons all contributed to the rebranding of Ireland. Dublin was suddenly hip; the peat bogs were passé. No wonder the Irish adopted the euro with élan while the British shrunk from "the Continent" and stuck with sterling.

Yet here we have the Irish, in a fit of Euro-bashing pique worthy of the worst of little-Englandism, rejecting the renegotiated Lisbon treaty essential for the functioning of an expanded 27-member E.U. Biting the hand that feeds you does not begin to describe this act of bloody-mindedness.

The Lisbon Treaty is essential. It alone can create a streamlined decision-making mechanism for a 27-member union. It alone can forge the meaningful presidency and foreign-affairs posts that will give the E.U. the increased political clout that its economic weight demands. At a time of flux in global power, with the United States overextended and China and India emergent, Europe needs coherence to count.

I know, the Irish, like the rest of us, were looking for someone to blame for soaring gas prices and food inflation and unresponsive politicians and new economic pressures, and what better opportunity than a referendum on a still impenetrable E.U. treaty that was once billed as a "constitution" and is now the downsized nightmare of every Brussels bureaucrat?

Still, what the Irish did was unconscionable. It makes me despair of a Europe that should be proud of what it's achieved in absorbing the freed former vassal-nations of the Soviet Union in Central Europe. But instead of rejoicing at a Europe "whole and free," Europeans have been in a funk of which the Irish "No" is the latest expression.

Yes, it's more complicated running a 27-member E.U. than a cozy 12-member club. Yes, Polish plumbers might show up in Western Europe and take a job or two. Yes, European institutions can seem remote. But measured on any sensible historical scale, the pettiness of Europeans confronted by the need to reform a post-Berlin-Wall E.U. has been mind-boggling.

Who cares about Yalta or the Gulag when you can rail at some Brussels functionary trying to regulate the contents of beer or the permissible curve in a banana?

It's been interesting watching this European drama from Turkey, a country that has been on the European Union membership waiting list for close to a half-century, and has become disillusioned with the whole process. Enthusiasm has given way to almost universal mistrust of European intentions.

The fact that the French agriculture minister, Michel Barnier, said the Irish referendum showed that Europeans were afraid of an E.U. "without borders and limits" was immediately noted. Nobody here has any illusions about what a planned French referendum on Turkish membership would mean. The French Euro-funk is just as acute as the Irish.

Of course, there have been reassuring noises from some E.U. officials about the so-called enlargement process, but Hans-Gert Pöttering, the president of the European Parliament, was probably the most honest in declaring that the Irish "No" meant further expansion was impossible, with the possible exception of Croatia.

All this is wrongheaded. Turkish membership of the E.U. is important ?- Bush is right about that ?- for historical reasons as overarching as Europe's debt to the nations Yalta imprisoned. No more important bridge could be forged at this moment between the Christian and Muslim worlds. A commitment was made back in the 1960s. It should be honored.

Europe needs to get over its funk. To come into force, the treaty requires ratification by all member states. Others must now proceed with the ratification process. E.U. history is full of acts of ingenuity that have kept the Euro bicycle from toppling. The months ahead should be used to find one to deal with the ungrateful Irish.

Failing that, the Turks could hardly be blamed for turning away from a Europe beset by institutional paralysis and a Lilliputian view of history. I suspect other nations would do the same because it would be clear that the idea of a political Europe is dead, replaced by the narrow insularity the Irish just demonstrated.

This reminds me of my favorite Bertold Brecht quote about East Germany: "Why doesn't the government dissolve the people and elect a new one?"

Indeed, though usually without Brecht's ironic humor, that is what all the authoritarian reformers of mankind have tried to do. From Lenin to Pol Pot and the many less ghastly practicioners of such atempts at the perfection of mankind, they are united in their certainty that they are right and "the people" wrong. Mr. Cohen is their cousin, though he would surely deny it.

And let me guess, you are also one who will prattle on about how the customer is always right, right?..........

Somebody needs to be educated, and it may or may not be the Irish, it may or may not be Cohen, it may or may not be me or you.

Until we are all or almost all on the same page we talk. This is what civilized people do, we don't shut down communication or demean those with other views because we are sure that we are right.

we don't shut down communication or demean those with other views because we are sure that we are right.

Yet here we have the Irish, in a fit of Euro-bashing pique worthy of the worst of little-Englandism, rejecting the renegotiated Lisbon treaty essential for the functioning of an expanded 27-member E.U. Biting the hand that feeds you does not begin to describe this act of bloody-mindedness.

Rancour in Brussels
Jun 20th 2008 | BRUSSELS
From Economist.com

A sullen summit in Brussels fails to agree on how to move on from Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon treaty

A SUMMIT that was intended to show the unity of European leaders after the rejection of their newest treaty by Irish voters has instead ended in uncertainty and rancour.

European Union leaders met a week after Irish voters said no in a referendum on the Lisbon treaty?-a sweeping set of changes to the rule book that governs the internal workings of the club. Legally, no EU treaty can come into force until it is ratified by all 27 member countries, and the leaders gathered in Brussels duly paid lip service to their "respect" for the decision of the Irish people. They then proceeded to devote most of their energies to trying to reverse the effects of that no vote, ideally by persuading Ireland to vote a second time on the same treaty early next year, in the hopes that this time the answer would be the "right" one.

However, the scale of the problem quickly became clear as the Irish prime minister, or taoiseach, Brian Cowen, declined to commit to holding a second vote on the Lisbon treaty. He listed several reasons why he felt that the treaty had been voted down, including: a sense that Ireland, a small country of 4.3m people, was losing clout in the enlarged EU; fears that EU judges might interfere in Irish laws on abortion and euthanasia; suggestions that the EU might try to impose higher tax rates on Ireland (which has done well from low corporate taxes); and fears that beefed up EU defence schemes might erode Ireland's cherished neutrality.

Mr Cowen agreed to come back in October to tell his fellow EU heads of government his sense of the way forward. He resisted pressure to make that October summit a deadline for agreeing to a solution. Ireland received unexpectedly forceful backing from the Czech Republic, which is one of several countries yet to ratify the Lisbon treaty.

Czech leaders resisted pressure to agree, in writing, that they were moving towards treaty approval, instead securing a separate phrase in the summit conclusions noting that the text was currently being vetted by the Czech constitutional court. The court will not rule until the late autumn. Most other countries expect the Czechs to buckle before the end of the year. They take over the rotating presidency of the EU in January 2009 for a six-month stint. It would be tricky for the Czechs to hold the presidency and also be a hold-out on the Lisbon treaty, in effect a bad boy in the club and the club chairman at the same time.

A sullen atmosphere hung over the summit. The Irish no vote prompted aggressive briefing by French officials against the European Commission and its president, José Manuel Barroso, accused of impassively standing by while European citizens protested against the pain of rising food and fuel prices. Asked, point blank, whether he blamed Mr Barroso for the Irish result, the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, said it would be quite unfair to blame the commission boss: he then turned round and heaped blame on the (British) EU trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, who became a focus of protests by Irish farmers during the Lisbon referendum campaign. Mr Mandelson was completely isolated in his desire to lower EU trade barriers for farm goods in world trade talks, he said. Those plans would lower EU agricultural production by 20%, alleged Mr Sarkozy, at a time when a child died of hunger every 30 seconds somewhere in the world.

Mr Sarkozy's stated hopes of using Europe to "protect" citizens from globalisation received their own setback at the summit. He arrived proposing tax cuts or freezes on fuel, but was rebuffed by a block led by Germany, Britain, Sweden and other countries, which said that lowering taxes on fuel would send the wrong signal to consumers, and ignore structural changes in energy markets. Mr Sarkozy will take over the rotating presidency of the EU on July 1st for his own half-year turn. Thanks to the Irish no vote, he will be navigating very choppy waters.

Letting it die, and pointing out that it is Ireland's fault, is a perfectly fine outcome. Decreasing the wealth redistribution flow towards Ireland is a perfectly fine show of EU displeasure at Ireland being unappreciative of the EU as a body. If the rest of the Eu does not want to punish Ireland that is fine as well...... democracy does not hinder the use of either the carrot nor the stick on those who don't play nice with others.

French president blames Mandelson for Irish 'No' vote in EU summit outburst
Last updated at 22:48pm on 20.06.08

Peter Mandelson was blamed by the French last night for the Irish No vote... and the world's starving children.

Nicolas Sarkozy's outburst electrified an EU summit bogged down by rows over Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty.

And it brought unlikely support from Gordon Brown, Mr Mandelson's most bitter enemy in politics.

EU leaders stayed up late arguing over how much pressure to put on Dublin to vote again, amid fears that the constitutional project could collapse.

Asked who should take responsibility for the outpouring of public hostility to the EU in Ireland, Mr Sarkozy said just one word: 'Mandelson'.

It was meant as a joke, but the French president has clashed repeatedly with the Labour spindoctor turned EU trade commissioner who is a figure of hate in France and Ireland for his tough talk against food subsidies during world trade negotiations.


Mr Sarkozy said issues which fuelled Irish concerns included euthanasia, abortion and the world trade talks - adding bluntly: 'A child dies of starvation every 30 seconds and the Commission wanted to reduce European agriculture production by 21 per cent during World Trade Organisation talks.


The EU is still reeling from last week's referendum, when the Irish voted by 54pc against the Lisbon Treaty, which was agreed last year to replace the proposed constitution.

Without the approval of all 27 member states it cannot go ahead next year as planned, prompting Brussels and EU superpowers France and Germany to try to force Ireland to think again.


Warm words in public about giving Ireland 'time and space' to consider its position could not disguise bitterness behind the scenes after it emerged that Mr Sarkozy had branded the Irish 'bloody fools'.

The French president, who takes over the EU presidency next month, threatened to prevent new countries - notably Croatia - from joining if Ireland refuses to come on board.


Mr Brown said Ireland should not be 'bullied' into a second referendum but has been reluctant to declare the Lisbon Treaty dead.

He has pressed ahead with British ratification and forced it through the Lords in time for the summit, which ended yesterday with an agreement to delay a decision to October.

But he faced a rebuff from the High Court after a judge called on the Government to put off British ratification until a legal challenge from Tory millionaire Stuart Wheeler has been decided.


The Government claimed formal ratification would not take place until the documents are deposited in Rome, where the EU was founded, and that would not take place until after the judgment is issued next week.

Last night Mr Brown went further and called for the Lisbon Treaty to be saved, saying: 'Clearly we have got to get agreement on the Lisbon Treaty, that's the next step.'

And he rallied to the defence of Mr Mandelson by praising his work on a global trade deal.


'We need this trade deal and he is pushing for it.


'We support him in the excellent work that he is doing,' Mr Brown said.

Pointedly, he brushed aside a French proposal to cut VAT on fuel to help consumers coping with soaring oil prices.

Mr Mandelson denied he was the cause of the Irish vote and said he had 'shoulders broad enough and skin thick enough to take this.'

The draft summit declaration expressed 'respect' for the Irish ballot and gave Dublin until October to come up with fresh ideas.

Shaun Ley's week
By Shaun Ley
Presenter, BBC Radio 4's The World at One




Irish voters have left EU leaders scratching their heads
I'd still like to know who the important political leader was who nearly fell out of his car in Brussels on Friday morning.

We were attending the European Council, which is the collective name for the 27 heads of government who lead the member countries of the European Union.


Reporters, camera operators and "snappers" - the men and women who take the photographs which end up on websites or in your newspaper - were corralled into a tiny area adjacent to the VIP entrance of the Council building in Brussels.

The press of bodies - the press of press, if you will - meant I was jammed between a wall and a photographer, my microphone squeezed between him and his neighbour.

The latter was using a small step ladder to achieve a better angle on the arrivals; handy since this allowed me to balance precariously on it whenever an EU luminary came into view.


The problem is that the cars sweep up to the door and deposit their passengers with such speed that it's hard to work out who's who. So I still don't know who it was who tried to step out of his car before the driver applied the brake.

Quote:

With all respect for the Irish vote, we cannot allow the huge majority of Europe to be duped by a minority of a minority of a minority

Axel Schafer

Still, it serves as quite a handy simile for recent events. The EU vehicle, which usually has big countries like Germany at the wheel, has been derailed by a bit of back seat driving.

The voters of Ireland have forced their government to jump from the passenger seat and no one is yet sure how to avoid a crash.


What surprised me in Brussels on Friday is that Ireland is far from isolated.

Of course, there are those who find it hard to disguise their irritation. Axel Schafer, who leads the SPD in Germany's Bundestag was quoted in the Irish Times saying: "We think it is a real cheek that the country that has benefited most from the EU should do this....

"With all respect for the Irish vote, we cannot allow the huge majority of Europe to be duped by a minority of a minority of a minority."


Yet a number of the newer member states plainly feel a sense of solidarity with the Irish. Lithuania's President Valdas Adamkus told me Ireland had every right to object and small countries would not allow it to be bullied by the big players.



Czech concerns were bought off on Friday by a declaration that the EU would "respect" the judgement of the constitutional court, which is currently considering whether the parliament in Prague can ratify it, but the Czech Republic is not the only member state having second thoughts.


Gordon Brown is stalling ratification pending the outcome of a court case

The Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski told me there was plenty European Union members could do even without the Treaty.

Poland's President still hasn't signed on the dotted line and Mr Sikorski suspects he may not anytime soon.


This is the reason why some countries are so anxious for the Irish to come up quickly with a solution to this crisis.

They fear delay will give time for doubts to spread and for Treaty sceptics to undermine the process.

But Ireland's Minister for Europe, Dick Roche, said the next summit, in October, which some countries would like to make a deadline for the Irish, would not present a way out.

If anything the path is getting murkier. As the summit broke up on Friday lunchtime, it emerged that a judge in London had warned the British Government not proceed with ratification until he's heard a legal challenge over whether it should have held a referendum.

British officials urged journalists to ask Gordon Brown about this when he held his news conference. Mr Brown was only too keen to stress that ratification would wait for the outcome of that court case.

All a bit odd, since it had been announced on Wednesday night that the Treaty Bill had received the Royal Assent. Surely, in those circumstances, there's nothing left to ratify.

Then again, it may have seemed wise to show your respect for the court even if you feel contempt for the case.


Seven and a half years ago at another summit in Belgium (that time in Laeken), Europe's leaders launched the search for a new treaty with the aim of the EU becoming "more democratic, more transparent and more efficient".

This week, the Financial Times warned that Europe's leaders were in danger of becoming like Bertolt Brecht's East German Communists:

"Would it not be easier

In that case for the government

To dissolve the people

And elect another"

(The Solution)


Which underlines the paradox raised by this week's summit in the wake of the Irish "No" vote: how can you respect something you want to reverse?