What if Ireland Says No to Lisbon?

Okay. So I stole this from p.ie but only because I think it might provoke an interesting discussion here.

Green MEP Pierre Jonckheer:

"It's irrelevant how the Irish people vote. There will be no re-negotiation of the Lisbon Treaty. That's politics, that's the way it is whether you like it or not."

Link here.

Now there are lots of ways to interpret the meaning of the word 'irrelevant' but the ratification of the treaty seems to me like it's a decision based on unanimity - as many decisions are reached in the EU. Am I wrong in that presumption?

If, as posters suggest on p.ie thread the EU should and does go ahead with the ratification without Ireland and we are discretely shown the door what does that say about the willingness of the EU to engage fully with its own decision making strategies.

The article ends with a natty (but irrelevant) reference to democracy but this ratification isn't about democracy, as far as I can see; it's about unanimity and how it's valued as a decision making tool within the EU.

Any views?

Well, my view is there on p.ie! I think it's amazing the way people completely ignore context, even when it's presented to them, as it is here.

"It's irrelevant how the Irish people vote. There will be no re-negotiation of the Lisbon Treaty. That's politics, that's the way it is whether you like it or not."

It's irrelevant whether we vote Yes or No - in either case, the Treaty will not be renegotiated - that's politics.

Why are people pretending he said something like this:

"It's irrelevant how the Irish people vote. The Lisbon Treaty will go ahead anyway. That's politics, that's the way it is whether you like it or not" ??

I find it almost bewildering how people can just ignore the next flipping sentence!

Entirely ignoring the quote, is there a thread somewhere that answers Kate's basic question: is unanimous endorsement of the Treaty required before it can be adopted, or can everyone else go ahead if we vote no?
Sorry I have just realised there must be a gov website somewhere that answers that.

cactus flower wrote:

Entirely ignoring the quote, is there a thread somewhere that answers Kate's basic question: is unanimous endorsement of the Treaty required before it can be adopted, or can everyone else go ahead if we vote no?
Sorry I have just realised there must be a gov website somewhere that answers that.

Or the EU websites. EU Treaties have to be ratified by every member state, or they cannot enter into force. Each of the Treaties has a clause like this one:

Quote :

This Treaty shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Government of the Italian Republic.

This Treaty shall enter into force on 1 January 1993, provided that all the Instruments of ratification have been deposited, or, failing that, on the first day of the month following the deposit of the Instrument of ratification by the last signatory State to take this step.

If a state does not ratify the Treaty, the "instruments of ratification" cannot be "deposited", and the Treaty cannot enter into force.

So what happens, ibis?

There's no renegotiation. What happens next if we do vote no? Limbo?

I'm not ignoring the next sentence by the way, I'm just poking and extrapolating (albeit provocatively, I know) from the perspective of a few of the more bolshie reps on p.ie.

But I am curious to know what happens next in the context of a unanimous ratification, it that is the case as I understand it to be...

... and I've just read your post now, thanks. So it requires unanimity. What if we say no?

Kate P wrote:

So what happens, ibis?

There's no renegotiation. What happens next if we do vote no? Limbo?

I'm not ignoring the next sentence by the way, I'm just poking and extrapolating (albeit provocatively, I know) from the perspective of a few of the more bolshie reps on p.ie.

But I am curious to know what happens next in the context of a unanimous ratification, it that is the case as I understand it to be...

... and I've just read your post now, thanks. So it requires unanimity. What if we say no?

If we say No, it doesn't pass. No-one knows exactly what will happen then. The rest of the EU cannot pass Lisbon as an EU Treaty without our ratification, and there is no alternative mechanism by which they make changes to the EU.

So it's stalemate or limbo then. Hmmm.

Several p.ie posters suggested that the EU would just go ahead without us - and that has been the tenor if not the explicit message of some of the YesMen. There is absolutely no provision for that happening, is there?

Why should Lisbon be any different than the constitution which was re-jigged following its rejection by France and Holland?

That's the only precedent that comes to mind straight away - but it's not a treaty.

Is it a scaremongering technique in itself for Charlie et al to suggest that there will be no re-negotiation - it disenfranchises the voter immediately doesn't it? 'we'll give you a choice but no alternative?'

Kate P wrote:

So it's stalemate or limbo then. Hmmm.

Several p.ie posters suggested that the EU would just go ahead without us - and that has been the tenor if not the explicit message of some of the YesMen. There is absolutely no provision for that happening, is there?

No, because there's no provision for a country to leave the EU, and no way to ratify an EU Treaty without unanimity. The other 26 countries can't unilaterally change the areas under QMV, or go over to rotating Commissioners, because those are EU matters, which can be modified only by unanimity.

Kate P wrote:

Why should Lisbon be any different than the constitution which was re-jigged following its rejection by France and Holland?

That's the only precedent that comes to mind straight away - but it's not a treaty.

Yes, they might renegotiate - but there's no real appetite for doing so, since Lisbon is the result of renegotiating after the constitution. We'd probably be looking at a few years of drifting - much like the early 80's when de Gaulle refused to play. I don't see this as a good time for that to be happening, I have to say - I want an effective EU, not a rudderless mass.

Kate P wrote:

Is it a scaremongering technique in itself for Charlie et al to suggest that there will be no re-negotiation - it disenfranchises the voter immediately doesn't it? 'we'll give you a choice but no alternative?'

Well, no, because it accurately reflects the reality. Is it scaremongering to point out consequences? And are you really saying that the 27 nations should also have negotiated another treaty as an alternative!? Containing what, exactly? The things they didn't want?

ibis wrote

Quote :

No, because there's no provision for a country to leave the EU, and no way to ratify an EU Treaty without unanimity. The other 26 countries can't unilaterally change the areas under QMV, or go over to rotating Commissioners, because those are EU matters, which can be modified only by unanimity.

Interesting that, since passing Lisbon would create a provision by which members could leave the Union.

Quote :

Yes, they might renegotiate - but there's no real appetite for doing so, since Lisbon is the result of renegotiating after the constitution. We'd probably be looking at a few years of drifting - much like the early 80's when de Gaulle refused to play. I don't see this as a good time for that to be happening, I have to say - I want an effective EU, not a rudderless mass.

What I've heard about the period of reflection is that it was pretty ineffective and not terribly consultative, though I'm sure others will have a different view. I agree however, that this is not a time for rudderless drifting; neither is it a time for accepting what's on offer because that's all there is if it is, to quote one No group "a bad deal for Ireland" and indeed Europe.

Quote :

Well, no, because it accurately reflects the reality. Is it scaremongering to point out consequences? And are you really saying that the 27 nations should also have negotiated another treaty as an alternative!? Containing what, exactly? The things they didn't want?

Absolutely! We should have had a choice of treaties like so many pairs of shoes on a rack!

By your own admission in this post, there is a possibility of re-negotiation.
For those on the side of the treaty then to say that there is no possibility of renegotiation is either a lie, a bullying tactic or a distraction.

Pointing out consequences is fine - but denying the possibility of even discussing the discussion of a renegotiation (which I would see as the reality - can I use the word Realpolitik here? - in the event of a no vote) smacks of telling the whole class they have to stay back after school for an hour when you know that some of them have to get the bus. It's not a sanction that can be realistically imposed. It's irrational and gets people's backs up and prevents them from making informed decisions.

Hmm. Actually, what is said by the Yes side (or the spinnier bits of it, anyway) is that there is no "Plan B", which is certainly the case.

My own view is that after a period of lying around (say 2-3 years), the EU would get back into renegotiation. What would emerge would be pretty much the same thing again.

Why? Well, let's imagine for a wild speculative moment that the Yes side is telling the truth - the Treaty contains the changes to the EU that need to be made, and the deal negotiated for Ireland is the best that can be got. What renegotiation will produce, then, will be the same thing again.

So, if the Yes side thinks it is telling the truth (and I, for example, think I am), then the consequence they are pointing out is exactly the consequence of voting No - there will be no real renegotiation, because there cannot be. Every possible drop of agreement has been wrung out of every party to the Treaty.

I'd be inclined to disagree slightly, ibis.

It's entirely conceivable that the discussion of Lisbon here has brought up - or will bring up, especially if it fails - a lot of issues that the good plain folk of other nations may have concerns about; such as the loss of a commissioner, military motives, QMV, FDI, privatisation of services, whatever.

Also the newbies will have settled in a little and may have new ideas about what's acceptable to them in their worn-in state. Once they've had a flavour of the way the EU operates at the moment (ie, a commissioner) they may not want to lose it.

We may even in the intervening period come up with other alternatives that were not thought of, considered or viable when Lisbon was negotiated.

I imagine that renegotiation at a different time and historical place may not produce the same as we have now - the way the US economy is going might push us in directions unforeseeable right now.

Kate P wrote:

I'd be inclined to disagree slightly, ibis.

It's entirely conceivable that the discussion of Lisbon here has brought up - or will bring up, especially if it fails - a lot of issues that the good plain folk of other nations may have concerns about; such as the loss of a commissioner, military motives, QMV, FDI, privatisation of services, whatever.

Also the newbies will have settled in a little and may have new ideas about what's acceptable to them in their worn-in state. Once they've had a flavour of the way the EU operates at the moment (ie, a commissioner) they may not want to lose it.

We may even in the intervening period come up with other alternatives that were not thought of, considered or viable when Lisbon was negotiated.

I imagine that renegotiation at a different time and historical place may not produce the same as we have now - the way the US economy is going might push us in directions unforeseeable right now.

Except that between the rejection of the Constitution, and the signing of Lisbon, the renegotiation didn't produce a substantially different document, even though it involved new countries "settling in". The Treaty is the result of an enormous and methodical inter-governmental effort that took submissions from everyone willing to give one. All of the issues that are being raised have been taken into account.

It's a bit like watching someone endlessly drag what they consider an "unfair settlement" back into court time and again, only to achieve substantially the same result, and grumbling bitterly that it's a conspiracy.

Quote :

I imagine that renegotiation at a different time and historical place may not produce the same as we have now - the way the US economy is going might push us in directions unforeseeable right now.

The next couple of years have the capacity to utterly transform the world we live in - China rumbling, Russia grumbling, US crumbling, Middle East stumbling and Europe a fumbling rudderless mass.

Unprecedented change and all that.

Militarisation, economic, trade and aid issues might need to be looked at very differently in a new climate...

Kate P wrote:

Quote :

I imagine that renegotiation at a different time and historical place may not produce the same as we have now - the way the US economy is going might push us in directions unforeseeable right now.

The next couple of years have the capacity to utterly transform the world we live in - China rumbling, Russia grumbling, US crumbling, Middle East stumbling and Europe a fumbling rudderless mass.

Unprecedented change and all that.

Militarisation, economic, trade and aid issues might need to be looked at very differently in a new climate...

Hmm. First, all of that's been happening in the last few years while the Treaty was being negotiated. Second, and more importantly, the EU has very little to do with those things - security and foreign policy is currently a tiny element of the EU (and requires unanimity), because the EU is first and foremost a civilian entity.

Quote :

Hmm. First, all of that's been happening in the last few years while the Treaty was being negotiated. Second, and more importantly, the EU has very little to do with those things - security and foreign policy is currently a tiny element of the EU (and requires unanimity), because the EU is first and foremost a civilian entity.

But it was founded on the basis of economics and trade, was it not?

If the EU has been aware of the collapse of the subprime market for the last number of years, 'they' could at least have let us, Northern Rock and BearSterns know.

In the event of another Wall Street Crash of epic proportions caused by, oh let's say a combination of a terrorist attack and a deterioration in all the negative stuff that's going on in the The Dollar is Dead Thread, and a gobal food crisis thrown in for good measure, there's a possibility that Europe might be in a much stronger position than the American superpower and that a more outward looking treaty might be required.

Kate P wrote:

Quote :

Hmm. First, all of that's been happening in the last few years while the Treaty was being negotiated. Second, and more importantly, the EU has very little to do with those things - security and foreign policy is currently a tiny element of the EU (and requires unanimity), because the EU is first and foremost a civilian entity.

But it was founded on the basis of economics and trade, was it not?

If the EU has been aware of the collapse of the subprime market for the last number of years, 'they' could at least have let us, Northern Rock and BearSterns know.

In the event of another Wall Street Crash of epic proportions caused by, oh let's say a combination of a terrorist attack and a deterioration in all the negative stuff that's going on in the The Dollar is Dead Thread, and a gobal food crisis thrown in for good measure, there's a possibility that Europe might be in a much stronger position than the American superpower and that a more outward looking treaty might be required.

It takes at least a couple of years to negotiate a treaty, and the changes are supposed to last for decades! It can't be based on current events, and it shouldn't be. Would you say the current EU reflects the Cold War?

I haven't yet given the Treaty my full attention, but I am interested in what Kate is saying. Yes, things are changing the whole time and you have to make decisions in that environment. But at the moment many fundamentals are shifting in a way that may not have been anticipated. I also feel that things sometimes need "bedding in" time.

The long term experience I have of the EU is that the real agenda of where we are going is rarely spelled out and only after the event do we find out where we are. At the core of the EU project has been privatisation of assets that were formerly publicly owned. This was never a headline item at any stage of the debate.

The attempt at rushing a Constitution through has been that more haste has meant less speed. The EU has been elite driven and priorities and decisions are far too remote from citizens. People feel hassled, get thick out, and dig their heels in - it is intuitive rather than rational, but sometimes you have to respect the intuition of populations - that is largely what democracy is about.

Having said that, I think that we need to bring in countries that want to join the EU.

cactus flower wrote:

I haven't yet given the Treaty my full attention, but I am interested in what Kate is saying. Yes, things are changing the whole time and you have to make decisions in that environment. But at the moment many fundamentals are shifting in a way that may not have been anticipated. I also feel that things sometimes need "bedding in" time.

The long term experience I have of the EU is that the real agenda of where we are going is rarely spelled out and only after the event do we find out where we are. At the core of the EU project has been privatisation of assets that were formerly publicly owned. This was never a headline item at any stage of the debate.

That would be because the EU has had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the privatisation of our assets. It does not require, request, or promote the privatisation of public services. National governments have a completely free hand in respect of public services.

Look across the water, and you'll find that the Eurosceptic debate in the UK is focused on the socialist EU's revolting attempts to force the re-nationalisation of UK public services.

Both of these positions are complete codswallop. The decision as to whether a country's public services are placed under public ownership, or privatised, is nothing to do with the EU.

What is up to the EU is that if a country chooses to privatise its services, then the market for those services must not be distorted by the government - because aside from anything else, allowing the government to distort a market in favour of a private company allows governments to give favourite companies a sweetheart deal.

Nationalised services, you see, cannot compete in someone else's market, so they're OK. Privatised services can, so they must not be being favoured by their home government.

cactus flower wrote:

The attempt at rushing a Constitution through has been that more haste has meant less speed. The EU has been elite driven and priorities and decisions are far too remote from citizens. People feel hassled, get thick out, and dig their heels in - it is intuitive rather than rational, but sometimes you have to respect the intuition of populations - that is largely what democracy is about.

True...not exactly a good thing, but true. Still, we all have to wait and see whether those that dig their heels in are the majority or not.

Quote :

It takes at least a couple of years to negotiate a treaty, and the changes are supposed to last for decades! It can't be based on current events, and it shouldn't be. Would you say the current EU reflects the Cold War?

Strange then that since I did my Leaving Cert we've had Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice (1 and 2) and now Lisbon. Four treaties in less than two decades would seem to be the polar opposite to what you suggest.

Do you think, by the way, that there would be a single reference to terrorism in Lisbon if it hadn't been for 9/11? There may even be references in Nice which would have been even more timely. Likewise the (paltry) reference to climate change is an acknowledgement that current events of lasting import have to be considered.

Kate P wrote:

Quote :

It takes at least a couple of years to negotiate a treaty, and the changes are supposed to last for decades! It can't be based on current events, and it shouldn't be. Would you say the current EU reflects the Cold War?

Strange then that since I did my Leaving Cert we've had Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice (1 and 2) and now Lisbon. Four treaties in less than two decades would seem to be the polar opposite to what you suggest.

Not really - this treaty, and those, are part of a series...despite which, each one took a couple of years to negotiate.

Kate P wrote:

Do you think, by the way, that there would be a single reference to terrorism in Lisbon if it hadn't been for 9/11? There may even be references in Nice which would have been even more timely. Likewise the (paltry) reference to climate change is an acknowledgement that current events of lasting import have to be considered.

I accept that, but I don't think the former reference should be in there - although the latter should, since it is a problem likely to pan out over the next couple of centuries.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I haven't yet given the Treaty my full attention, but I am interested in what Kate is saying. Yes, things are changing the whole time and you have to make decisions in that environment. But at the moment many fundamentals are shifting in a way that may not have been anticipated. I also feel that things sometimes need "bedding in" time.

The long term experience I have of the EU is that the real agenda of where we are going is rarely spelled out and only after the event do we find out where we are. At the core of the EU project has been privatisation of assets that were formerly publicly owned. This was never a headline item at any stage of the debate.

That would be because the EU has had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the privatisation of our assets. It does not require, request, or promote the privatisation of public services. National governments have a completely free hand in respect of public services.

Look across the water, and you'll find that the Eurosceptic debate in the UK is focused on the socialist EU's revolting attempts to force the re-nationalisation of UK public services.

Both of these positions are complete codswallop. The decision as to whether a country's public services are placed under public ownership, or privatised, is nothing to do with the EU.

What is up to the EU is that if a country chooses to privatise its services, then the market for those services must not be distorted by the government - because aside from anything else, allowing the government to distort a market in favour of a private company allows governments to give favourite companies a sweetheart deal.

Nationalised services, you see, cannot compete in someone else's market, so they're OK. Privatised services can, so they must not be being favoured by their home government.

cactus flower wrote:

The attempt at rushing a Constitution through has been that more haste has meant less speed. The EU has been elite driven and priorities and decisions are far too remote from citizens. People feel hassled, get thick out, and dig their heels in - it is intuitive rather than rational, but sometimes you have to respect the intuition of populations - that is largely what democracy is about.

True...not exactly a good thing, but true. Still, we all have to wait and see whether those that dig their heels in are the majority or not.

I can't agree with you about privatisation. Can you suggest to me any single European initiative that has fostered the development of new State controlled assets?

But there have been a history of numerous direct and indirect european policies and measures that have steered state assets into private hands. Try this link, for one of many sources on this.

Try this link

Quote :

I can't agree with you about privatisation. Can you suggest to me any
single European initiative that has fostered the development of new
State controlled assets?

That's the point, though. It's not up to the EU.

Quote :

But there have been numerous direct and
indirect euopean policies and measures that have steered state assets
into private hands. Try this link, for one of many sources on this.

Try this link

Erm...to quote from that source:

Quote :

Article 222 confirms neutrality on ownership by stating that the commitment to a market economy 'shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member states governing the system of property ownership'.

In other words, competitive markets are favoured but this is not taken to prejudge the form of ownership that should be adopted in Member states. EU policy intervenes only when government policies are seen to be in conflict with free and fair trade within the EU.

The book in question is about privatisation in the EU as a geographic area. It devotes almost all its space to the consideration of privatisation within the individual states, because there is no EU mechanism that causes privatisation. Indeed, the EU has no formal position on privatisation.

ibis wrote:

Quote :

I can't agree with you about privatisation. Can you suggest to me any
single European initiative that has fostered the development of new
State controlled assets?

That's the point, though. It's not up to the EU.

Quote :

But there have been numerous direct and
indirect euopean policies and measures that have steered state assets
into private hands. Try this link, for one of many sources on this.

Try this link

Erm...to quote from that source:

Quote :

Article 222 confirms neutrality on ownership by stating that the commitment to a market economy 'shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member states governing the system of property ownership'.

In other words, competitive markets are favoured but this is not taken to prejudge the form of ownership that should be adopted in Member states. EU policy intervenes only when government policies are seen to be in conflict with free and fair trade within the EU.

The book in question is about privatisation in the EU as a geographic area. It devotes almost all its space to the consideration of privatisation within the individual states, because there is no EU mechanism that causes privatisation. Indeed, the EU has no formal position on privatisation.

That is not all the book is about: it also looks at the impacts of EU policies and Directives. The precise point I made was that the agenda has been effected without headlined formal positions.

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

Quote :

I can't agree with you about privatisation. Can you suggest to me any
single European initiative that has fostered the development of new
State controlled assets?

That's the point, though. It's not up to the EU.

Quote :

But there have been numerous direct and
indirect euopean policies and measures that have steered state assets
into private hands. Try this link, for one of many sources on this.

Try this link

Erm...to quote from that source:

Quote :

Article 222 confirms neutrality on ownership by stating that the commitment to a market economy 'shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member states governing the system of property ownership'.

In other words, competitive markets are favoured but this is not taken to prejudge the form of ownership that should be adopted in Member states. EU policy intervenes only when government policies are seen to be in conflict with free and fair trade within the EU.

The book in question is about privatisation in the EU as a geographic area. It devotes almost all its space to the consideration of privatisation within the individual states, because there is no EU mechanism that causes privatisation. Indeed, the EU has no formal position on privatisation.

That is not all the book is about: it also looks at the impacts of EU policies and Directives. The precise point I made was that the agenda has been effected without headlined formal positions.

That is indeed the pont you made - however, you'd need to actually show that the EU had an effect through its informal positions, and how that effect persuaded governments who otherwise would not have privatised to do so. Possibly you could summarise the conclusions in the book, if you have access to them.

I don't mean to be bolshie, but I don't see any point in making a claim that essentially reads "despite not apparently doing something, the EU actually did do it really" - not unless you're going to demonstrate how the informal position worked, and how it was more important than the formal position. It's certainly not sufficient to point to the fact that privatisation has become more common in Europe, because correlation is not causation.

Quote :

It's certainly not sufficient to point to the fact that privatisation has become more common in Europe, because correlation is not causation.

ibis

I agree with your methodology, even if unsure about your conclusions. I will have a sleep and come back when I have done some reading.