.png){kind=spacer}
There might just have been an argument to support the Lisbon Treaty (LT) in the 2008 Irish referendum, although I do not see it myself, but it is impossible to make a valid case to vote in favor of the LT in the forthcoming October 2009 referendum, as this second referendum in itself is a massive betrayal of the democratic will of the Irish people. At the 2008 referendum, which took place a year ago last June, the Irish people rejected the Lisbon Treaty. The main reason for the no vote was the EU’s lack of democratic accountability, not the idea of the Union itself, as the Irish majority are far from hostile to the EU.
It was the democratic deficit that made a majority vote no or abstain from voting, the deciding factor was that not a single senior EU figure, whether Commissioner or bureaucrat, is placed into office by the democratic vote of the tax payers who pay their over inflated salaries. If this treaty is ratified, this lack of democratic accountability will be set in stone, as Lisbon provides for an unelected President of the European Council, with a term of two and half years and an EU Foreign Minister who will go by the bureaucratically Ruritainian title of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs.
(Almost unbelievably, the UK political elite, their supporters in the EU member States and their media gofers, have already pencilled in the war criminal Tony Blair to fill the post of EU President.)
By insisting the Irish government call a second referendum a year after their electorate rejected the Lisbon Treaty, tells one all one needs to know about the sheer arrogance and the absolute contempt which Europe's political elite hold not only the Irish people in, but also the people of the 26 other member States, for if the treaty gains a yes vote in Ireland, it will become law throughout the EU.
Imagine for a moment if the Irish electorate in last year’s referendum had voted in favor of the Lisbon Treaty; and a year later a campaign was mounted by those on the loosing side, which gained minority support and a delegation from these folk went over to Brussels and knocked on the EU Commissions door and politely asked,
“We are unhappy about the 2008 Referendum result, can we have round two please, after all you got two bites of the cherry when the Nice Treaty went down, it is only fair we get the same? On your bike an EU commissioner would yell, steam coming out of his ears. Security! He would cry, show these undemocratic trouble makers off the premises, we do not need the likes of them about the place, they are as bad as the Taliban in their refusal to accept the will of the people as demonstrated in a democratic ballot.”
For me this is the core of why the Irish people, without hesitation should vote no come October, for to call a referendum just one year on, is the equivalent of the EU’s political elite pouring excreta all over the Irish peoples democratic decision to reject the Lisbon Treaty in June 2008. The demand for another referendum has not come from within Ireland, nor from the people of the 26 other EU States. No, the demand for a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty has come from within the Brussels bureaucracy and the political Chancellories of the 27 member States.
I am not anti EU, far from it, but until the democratic and social building blocks are in place throughout the EU infrastructure, only a fool, a charlatan, or a politician on the make, would attempt to further centralize and empower the European Union’s elite; and this should certainly not happen without first asking in a democratic ballot, the entire electorate of the 27 member States.
No taxation without representation must be our watch words. If the EU political elite believe there is a need to increase the Union’s powers, or place an unelected EU president and foreign minister in Office, lets have none of this sneaking legislation through the back door without EU wide democratic accountability. As I have already aforementioned, the people of every EU nation must be given the chance to vote in an EU wide referendum on whether they wish to move in this undemocratic direction.
With this second totally unnecessary referendum, the cart before the horse springs to mind; if the EU elites continue to steam roll through legislation which will change the very nature of the European Union, without taking its citizens with them, the whole project will eventually stall and crash ignobly.
Posts
14 comments:
Assuming the Lisbon Treaty is again voted down by the Irish people, will that be the end of it for the forseeable future or will the political elite keep holding referenda each year until the people finally vote the "right" way? Are there any limits on repeated referenda or is the only check that eventually the elites look absolutely absurd after the third or fourth vote trying to keep forcing this down the people's throats?
NCM
Interesting question, which I do not know the answer to. There should not really have been a second referendum as when the treaty was drawn up it said if it falls in one EU country it falls in all.
However these people have no shame, although I doubt if there had been a referendum in Germany or say France, and it fell, there would have been an immediate re-run. Of course once the big States saw how the wind was blowing all talk of a referendum went out the door and the treaty was rubber stamped though their parliaments via a government majority.
At least Ireland is more democratic than most in that they have[I think] to hold a referendum. As to the UK, these days we put up with almost any crap our politicos stick up our rear ends.
The idea that this treaty is being forced down our throat is a farcical one.
The last referendum was defeated by 53.4%.
The top 5 reasons why people voted against it included-
-Abortion (The status of which is not affected by LT)
-Conscription (There is no army to be conscripted to)
-Taxes (Which are, even under the LT, the sole competence (or incompetence in the case of FF) of the dail)
- Neutrality (We have an Opt out, the EU have always respected our Neutrality, since we joined, not a single comment or draft proposal has been made challenging this, it is enshrined by our triple lock system, which is interlinked with the UN.)
An EU army (There is no such thing, here is the kind of thing the EU has done in the past, and anyone aware of the brutal massacre of Chadian civilians, would surely agree that an intervention was imperative.
As Peter Takirambudde, of Africa director of Human Rights Watch said, "You may have thought the terrible situation in Darfur couldn't get worse, but it has, Sudan's policy of arming militias and letting them loose is spilling over the border, and civilians have no protection from their attacks, in Darfur or in Chad."
I for one think that was one instance where it is not OK to sit back and let that happen. Our trust in the legitimacy of humanitarian interevention has no doubt been eroded by the hiijacking of the concept by George Bush's war on terror.
But that is not usually what the EU security and defence policy does- usually it trains judges and reduces corruption in places like Iraq. Here is a list of the kind of thing the EU has been engaged with in the past, I don't see why they would start doing anything objectionable in the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESDP_missions
I think people who morally object to humanitarian intervention have a reason to vote no. I don't think everyone who did vote no for reasons of an EU army had such a reason. There was a lack of clear info available.
So of all of the people who voted no for the above reasons- surely they would amount to more than 3.4%.
If you were mislead to that degree a contrct signed would not hold up in court. Why should it hold up here in the social contract?
That is not democratic, that the actual will of the people is not represented.
This is a referendum about making a system designed for 6 countries work for over 30. It isn't about the above.
And just finally to address the main point of your article- the democratic accountablility.
Under lisbon but not under Nice the European parliament gets more power. They are directly elected.
Under Lisbon but not under Nice you can take a citizens initiative to have something brought to the parliament. that is direct participation
I care about this country, and I share concerns about democratic deficits. But there is no great big faceless eurocrat scheme that they are trying to trick us into handing over our power.
The european project has removed conflict from one of the most conflict ridden regions throughout history.
The European project is a beautiful thing - it is time we reconise that we are a part of it.
Barry Cahill
Some argued that dispatching the British army to the six counties was a humanitarian intervention of sorts but once they arrived their first task was to find out who wasn’t so keen on their presence. A similar scenario would arise in Sudan and, like Ireland, they would be perfectly right to resist any foreign army of occupation.
Ireland’s neutrality is continually being flouted by the US army at Shannon airport, where is this ‘triple lock system’ you talk of? One is instead reminded of that John Donne poem ‘The Triple Fool’.
First off, just because a law is broken doesn't make it a bad law, taht is poor enforcement.
Second, Sudan and N. Ireland are not comparable. How objective is a unilateral intervention by a territorially defensive amry versus a concensus force of peace keepers in a country that they are not 'defending'.
And what about the rest of my comment?
Where is the representation of the people who were lied to in the last election who are represented by a a referendum verdict that was given by false consent?
Surely they deserve a second chance to rectify this wrong?
And also please tell me what the big danger is of a 'centralised' EU?
What has the european project done in the past to give you these concerns?
And is it really centralised, when we are democratically at the centre of it?
One of the criticisms of the EU project is that at some point this super state will inevitably want to form a standing army. You seem to want its first expedition to be the Sudan, Barry of Khartoum.
A strange thing I notice about the "YES" side in this debate is they like to tell us what is not in the treaty but they are very reticent about what IS in the treaty.
The reason they are so reticent is obvious because this treaty is designed to facilitate/copperfasten:
1.The democratic deficit which has turned referenda into a farce
2.Corporate greed in the privatisation of public services and the free movement of goods and services which obviously suit only the multinational conpanies
3. The exploitation of labour with low wages and job insecurity
4. An American style military industrial complex forcing us to spend more on an arms industry.
Is this what we want?
I'm with Eddie on this, one only has to look at the total mess of Afghanistan, let alone Iraq to understand humanitarian intervention is a total sham, the fact that no western governments who support this philosophy have moved into Darfur proves that.
Still I digress,The massive democratic deficit within the EU is not an accident or oversight, we have been pointing it out for decades. This democratic deficit is a conscious decision by Europe’s political and business elite so they can guarantee their decisions will be put into practice. (even if it means repeat referender)
There is absolutely no reason why they could not have placed democratic infrastructure within the Lisbon Treaty, they chose not to. What type of democracy is it when the top jobs are unelected and the talking shop is, cart before the horse me thinks.
Thus only a fool or someone who is willing to gamble with their own freedoms, and those of future generations will vote yes in Octobers referendum.
By voting no, things will stay as they are, and those pompous politicians and EU bureaucrats will have to go back to the table and work all the harder to satisfy the needs of the EU’s population.
After the mess they have landed us in economically, what harm will it do to give them a flea in the ear?
Trust is a two way thing, if they do not trust us to elect our EU leaders, why should we trust them or believe they have our best interest at heart?
Vote No this October.
As the rest of the members of the EU have now ratified the constitution, it seems a little unfair to them to have to suffer another Irish "no" vote when they want to move forward. I reckon the only fair way is a "Yes" to the Lisbon Treaty, or out of the European Union; you can't have your cake and eat it, and the rest of Europe shouldn't have to sit around while a select group of Irish naysayers dilly dallies and destroys the work of the last 60 years, for better or worse.
anonymous,
Come on, at least be honest, none of the electorate in the other 26 EU nations have been given the opportunity to vote in a referendum whether they wished their governments to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. [as they were first promised.] The mainstream politicians, fearing their people would tip them bullocks went behind their backs and ratified the treaty by a simply parliamentary majority of even worse presidential diktat.
It is naysayers like you who talk of the EU crashing unless the Treaty is signed who are the problem, I made it clear in my piece this will not be the case and nor do you even believe it will be so.
If the Irish vote no, all it will mean is the EU politicians and bureaucrats will have to come up with a treaty that is acceptable to the majority of the EU's population.
Hey, that is what democracy is about, is it not? That the yes campaign is attempting to use such pitiful [blackmail] tactics, tells me why you are not to be trusted with our democratic freedoms.
iam voteing no again. the treaty is self amending, sevice directive erodes workers rights and the whole argument about neutrality, we are obliged to come to the aid of another member state if there attacked. what constitutes an attack? if russia turns of the gas is that an attack? maybe country x deserved to get attacked, pre alligned pacts are as daft as absolute neutrality, things should be taken on a case by case basis and debated, at the moment there are irish soldiers in afganistan as part of partnership for peace (nato jnr) don't remember that debate, there is a killing of our forgien policy by 1000 cuts. an independent forgien policy is the pureist manifestation of a sovergien state, Dev for all his faults knew that. if the heaven he believed in exists, i'd say he's spitting down tunderbolts at FF today.
voteing no to lisbon (again)
Mick, why do you feel all the other countries in the EU have now accepted the treaty? For me this is one of the main questions the No side must answer if we are to convince the irish people to vote no again.
Will it be credible for us to simply say, well it is the political elites simply looking after themselves.
When you look at the more advances social situations in other countries it is hard to believe that all these countries and their main opposition parties would accept the treaty if it threatened the rights of citizens and workers to the extent some people seem to be claiming.
I've tried to look around for signs of large scale european opposition to the treaty, but I can't find it.
For me if the No side is to win we need to show we have a strong vision for a future Europe that is supported by vast numbers across the EU. If we fail to do this i think people will generally say, who are we to stop what the rest of Europe wants.
Starry Plough
The reason there appears to be no large scale 'public' opposition to the treaty in many western European countries, is because people are realists, they know their governments have renegaded on their promise to have a referendum and as the mainstream opposition parities have colluded in this they would only be banging their heads on the wall.
I would bet my pension if this treaty was put to a referendum in nations like Germany, France and the UK it would fall.
Having said this I agree completely the left should be attempting to put forward a progressive vision of the EU. That we have mainly reverted to what I can only describe as a Little Englander mentality could have disastrous consequences in the future, as the political right chip away at the social EU.
I feel it is not a difficult task to be against the Treaty yet pro EU, especially if we highlight the democratic deficit which has enabled the economic No-liberal's to chip away the gains for the masses and freedoms that in my view were at the core of the United States of Europe ideal.
One does not need to be a historian to understand the EU has been a great success, due partially to the EU,a continent that spent over 1,000 years at war, nation against nation has had since WW2, sixty odd years of peace, which is not to be scoffed at.
No, once this referendum is out of the way, the left really does need to reassess its whole attitude to the EU.[of course I include SF here] After all as Marx's once said, capitalism is progressive if you place it beside what it replaced, i e feudalism, but that does not mean we should not fight to replace it with an even more progressive system. I see the EU in those terms.
Comradely regards
Vote yes and you get Tony Blair as president - hahahahaha you reap what you sow.
Post a Comment