POLL - how would you vote in a re-run Referendum ?

Yes, Zhou, I agree with you that fear is healthy if it is based on a real danger that is properly understood. If been in situations when people have stood around when a fire alarm rings, and also seen people move very quickly when there has been an emergency. Sometimes panic causes a disaster that needn't have happened. The right reaction can make the difference between life and death.

Fear based on groundless threats and scapegoating is not appropriate fear, in my book.

I always read your posts with a lot of interest Edo, because you put your money where your mouth is and you have heard what a lot of people have to say. But different groups of people read the Treaty differently and have different class interests. It may well be that the average Fine Gael voter would get some advantage from the Lisbon Treaty, but the people who voted No were not in the main from that group. There are certainly a lot of people who don't have that much to lose, and they are less likely to be swayed by fear of "consequences" of not being at the heart of a post Lisbon europe.

There is a lot of anger about the government's blatant failure to represent the majority view on this since the Referendum. Irish people have a right to put their view of Lisbon to the EU, not just as Irish citizens but also as EU citizens who want to take part in shaping the EU.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Edo wrote:

Anyway all that is a long long way away - ask me in December again.

No way José , you're getting asked now !

I for one was fairly torn by this and see what you are saying about the more you read it the more you are inclined to want to vote yes. It depends on what you read though. And on what you hear.

What might be on a lot of people's minds is the idea of a Community that is more like a business enterprise but until they had heard others expressing it, people were afraid to say "this is not what I have in mind deep down - there must be something better, more immediate, more intelligible and more inclusive and wholesome".

It looks as though this was how the Architects approached it with the Laeken thing but then d'Estaing ignored that for some reason ... Maybe the Socialists have another scheme for Europe - it would be interesting to hear that too, now.

Have you seen the Laeken Declaration Edo and what is your opinion of it and how and why do you think the Lisbon Treaty falls short of it ?

http://www.saxonbooks.co.uk/laeken_declaration.htm

Thanks for that Auditor #9. I've been meaning to read it. Here is a bit of it:

Quote :

What is Europe's role in this changed world? Does Europe not, now that is finally unified, have a leading role to play in a new world order, that of a power able both to play a stabilising role worldwide and to point the wayahead for many countries and peoples? Europe as the continent of humane values, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the French Revolution and the fall of the Berlin Wall; the continent of liberty, solidarity and above all diversity, meaning respect for others' languages, cultures and traditions.The European Union's one boundary is democracy and human rights. The Union is open only to countries which uphold basic values such as free elections, respect for minorities and respect for the rule of law.

I'd be willing to vote for that. The Heads of Government seem to have forgotten that last bit.

There's also Bruce Arnold writing recently in the Indo

Arrogant Europe must take share of blame for 'No' vote

Quote :

IT is neither the 'Yes' voters nor the 'No' voters that are to blame, except in the ways they treated each other. Theirs was a sovereign right, in our democracy, to vote in accordance with their views and judgments and it will be a sad day when such a freedom is brought under non-democratic control.

No, the fault was Europe's. The European Union has distanced itself so far from the people that their ruling junta is no longer liked nor trusted by the people. They do not understand its laws. They do not even understand its language which, though in English, is largely a form of gobbledygook.

And he goes on to talk about Laeken too there...

Where's Edo ?

I think the referendum will be passed if they go again with it. I myself may vote No on principle even though I think the Treaty is an improvement on the current EU structures. However, if the referendum as passed then it will be valid and will rightly overrule the previous referendum. We have the right to change our minds on this referendum just as we have the right to change other constitutional provisions in relation to divorce and abortion.

One way or the other, this is quite likely the last time we wil get to hold up the rest of the EU in its efforts towards closer integration. The next post-Lisbon Treaty we vote "No" on will contain provisions allowing the rest of the member states to proceed.

In fact, I would be surprised if we were not first (i.e., pre Croatia's accession) presented with a referendum allowing the Oireachtas to ratify Treaties subject to certain limitations (e.g., defence, direct taxes).

Quote :

In fact, I would be surprised if we were not first (i.e., pre Croatia's accession) presented with a referendum allowing the Oireachtas to ratify Treaties subject to certain limitations (e.g., defence, direct taxes).

That certainly has been suggested - the Croatian accession Treaty could well be the third attempt to pass the Constitution. Martin Mansergh seems anxious to get the Referendum requirement removed. But surely that itself would require a Referendum?

Yes, it would require a referendum. I think it would be hard to get it passed.

If we don't get rid of the referendum requirement then we can expect to be on the second track of a two speed EU upon rejection of any further treaties. We will lose influence but that may not be the worst thing in the world. It may be worth a loss of influence in order to get out of the ratchet effect of EU integration.

What would be bad for us would be if our East Asia strategy failed because we became a second rate trading partner. I am not sure if that is another day's work or not.

Auditor #9 wrote:

There's also Bruce Arnold writing recently in the Indo

Arrogant Europe must take share of blame for 'No' vote

Quote :

IT is neither the 'Yes' voters nor the 'No' voters that are to blame, except in the ways they treated each other. Theirs was a sovereign right, in our democracy, to vote in accordance with their views and judgments and it will be a sad day when such a freedom is brought under non-democratic control.

No, the fault was Europe's. The European Union has distanced itself so far from the people that their ruling junta is no longer liked nor trusted by the people. They do not understand its laws. They do not even understand its language which, though in English, is largely a form of gobbledygook.

And he goes on to talk about Laeken too there...

Where's Edo ?

Im back (some of us have to work for a living around here!)

Ok - Laeken - yes of course I have read it and a fine document it is too. But it was only a declaration a mission statement so to speak. How many of you have worked in companies where the mission statement is up on the wall on a shiny plaque for visitors to admire and employees to have a good snigger at now and again ( must have been a fair few reefers being passed around the boardroom the day they came up with that!)

IMHO - Laaken is a mission statement - somewhere we would eventually like to arrive at - but it won't be done in one fell swoop -

A) for a start it would totally out of character for the EU which likes to move in carefully callibrated small steps

B) anybody who wants the EU to remain a primarily intergovernmental instrument would be puking in their shoes reading it.

C) and that is essential dilemma at the heart of the EU - the intergovernmentalists versus the Federalists - its a very real one and is constantly ongoing.

The initial constitution was kiboshed by the French domestic economic concerns and stagnation under Chirac and by the Dutch -who, apparently, have had enough and have drawn a line in sand over EU intergration - according to a few of my Dutch friends, primarily over the fact that the increasing muslim and non european populations in the Netherlands has polarised the country and as usual the EU is a convenient scapegoat for this - they are fearing a loss of identity - something that has far more to do with how us Europeans have handled immigration from non-Eu countries than anything to do with the EU - but it is much easier to blame foreigners and "foreign rule" than it is for us to point the finger at ourselves and the electoral choices we make domestically.

For me - Lisbon was a good first step towards Laeken - it had to take into account the fact that the consitution was rejected and also why it was rejected in France and the Netherlands - (bearing in mind that 18 countries actually ratified the constitutional treaty by parliament and referenda) - this a problem with referenda - the more complicated the issue - the easier it is for them to be hi-jacked by issues,events and blackmail and the associated hysteria which can cloud the entire arguement - maybe thats a risk with democracy - but it doesn't do democracy any favours either. Also Ireland and Britain were probably the only 2 countries that had the same government in place with started the process in 2001 and ended at Lisbon in 2007 - different governments have different priorities and different outlooks and that further complicated the process of getting agreement.

Is all very well for Bruce Arnold and the like with all their talking of "ruling juntas" (Total over the top bolloxology that has been a characteristic of his growing hysterics over the EU recently) to hurl from the ditch and pick holes here and there and turn molehills into mountains and proffer unbelievably simplistic solutions that have more in common with a Young FG debate than anything to do with the real world and how life actually operates - (I mean , electing a commissoner - so we are going turn a technocrats position into a popularity contest - gimme a break mate )

For Lisbon was a start on the road towards Laeken - it put the foundations in place and it was a case of lets see how it goes and we'll do a bit more or change that a little or make this change or that change further down the road. Thats what I liked about the Famous self amending Article 48 - it allowed the EU to take one issue and change it according to unanimity and each countries desired method of changing -ie Ireland - public referendum - but it would make it clear what was being changed or not - one issue at a time rather than a whole new fucking treaty which as we can see now has the ability to bamboozle the bejasus out of nearly everybody and allow mischief makers a great deal of room to plant their disinformation . I really liked the simplicity of that Article and procedure - ironically one of the first to fall victim to various camps on the No side - who knew damn well what it meant and moved quickly to smother it in disinformation (ie if its only one issue that needs to be changed - the decison and opposing arguments will be clearcut and there would be little room for all the spurious nonsense that was inflicted on us over the last few months). I also liked the farming out of the drafting of proposals to the national parliaments - ok it was no Eureka moment - but it was a start and various other small foundation stones.

Bear in mind all the time that the EU is treading a tightrope between the intergovernmentalists (me) and the Federalists (Declan Ganley) and it tries to pull everybody along together - Lisbon addressed this dilemma - but it was a start - not a final destination and any further ammendments would be clearcut and completely visible under Art 48.

Still think its a good deal and would probably vote for it again - if there is a mandate and popular will for a revote.

I dont fear what I dont immediately understand - I get into it and make it my business to understand - and I dont live in a perfect symmetrical world of my ideological choosing - apart from the fact it would be one fucking boring place to hang out - it simply isnt realistic - I'll do a deal anyday.

Quote :

and that is essential dilemma at the heart of the EU - the intergovernmentalists versus the Federalists - its a very real one and is constantly ongoing.

- Edo

This is part of the deal. The other dilemma is the extent to which EU structures are or are not democratic. If we are voting away competences that are currently under democratic control at National level, it becomes very important to know that the Federal authority is at least as democratic as the National. If the system is democratic, I could live with a few things I don't understand or that I disagree with. If its not, the ball game is altogether different.

People who voted No did not do it for stupid reasons apart from a few. On the Yes side there were people who voted Yes without a clue what they were voting for, "because the EU was good for us in the past". It doesn't advance anything to pick holes in the softer elements of each vote.

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

and that is essential dilemma at the heart of the EU - the intergovernmentalists versus the Federalists - its a very real one and is constantly ongoing.

- Edo

This is part of the deal. The other dilemma is the extent to which EU structures are or are not democratic. If we are voting away competences that are currently under democratic control at National level, it becomes very important to know that the Federal authority is at least as democratic as the National. If the system is democratic, I could live with a few things I don't understand or that I disagree with. If its not, the ball game is altogether different.

People who voted No did not do it for stupid reasons apart from a few. On the Yes side there were people who voted Yes without a clue what they were voting for, "because the EU was good for us in the past". It doesn't advance anything to pick holes in the softer elements of each vote.

You put your finger on it - I dont associate pooling sovereignty on competences with "giving it away" - we are the EU too - as are the other 26 countries - there will always be an Irish voice at the Table of the of the Council of Ministers which remains the pre-emminent decision making forum of the EU and long may it continue to be like that - I think the Left in Ireland like the idea of the more federal EU as it would allow them get around the national parliament where they havent a snowballs chance in hell of being in a position to implement policy this side of the next century - so thats why they are in favour of all this bloody "democratisation " - I vote in the national election - the leader of the winning faction becomes Taoiseach and he or she and his or her ministers represent and exercise sovereignty on my behalf and take those decions on my behalf in the EU - thats good enough for me - if I wasn't on the winning side in the election (which I haven't been for 25 years) I still trust the government of the day to take into account the wishes and desires of the majority of the electorate - which by and large they do - for all the thanks they get for it.

There is no Federal EU - doesn't exist and wont exist as long as there is a breath left in my body.

Edo wrote:

C) and that is essential dilemma at the heart of the EU - the intergovernmentalists versus the Federalists - its a very real one and is constantly ongoing.

I've just got "The Great Deception" this last week and that has emerged as a central theme. Federalists like Jean Monnet wanted national sovereignty to be washed away in a United States of Europe while the British wanted a more intergovernmental Europe where sovereignty was safeguarded and respected.

So you think that the Lisbon Treaty is actually quite good for intergovernmentalists and is actually a road-block to the idea of a Federal Republic of Europe in which Ireland would merely be a prefecture? It would be nice if it was since I think Europe works best as a community of equal nations rather than a federation.

Convinced of it - my federalist party colleagues and friends were disgusted with it - about 50% voted against - thinking like the No camp - that a better deal could be done - and 50% held their noses - thinking it the best deal on the table at the moment and that a Federalist vision might regain momentum in the future.

These 2 visions of what the "EU" could be are the reason the EU moves so slowly and a lot depends on the members and leaders of the national governments. I was happy with Lisbon as it was very much balanced in favour of the Council of Ministers ,thus by default , the national governments -tho I dont have a problem with the EP getting more supervision over the commission , which by the way, is the accursed bogeyman of the EU, falsely in my opinion.

The world is changing and we will need to work more closely together and we do have many mutual interests - but a fully Federal state just wouldn't work - nationstates working together in a common framework does. There is no democratic deficit in my opinion - the EU is a relationship between nationstate - not a federal state. It is a unique experiment and those there is no cookie cutter template for us to follow - there will be times when we appear to coming together much more on matters - allowing member citizens to move between the different states to live and work is a good idea - because Europe is a small place and it allows labour shortages to be alleviated by people who would share reasonably common values - once the new accession countries come up to the same cost of living as the EU average - our immigration "problem" will disappear - if it ever existed in the first place - many are passing thru - like we did in Germany,the USA and the UK and many other countries if we were any good at learning other peoples languages. But until the curse of nationalism disappears - which is highly unlikely outside of a nuclear war or an alien invasion - then a federal Europe is off the cards for the forseeable future.

Funnily I would consider myself a European first who comes from a region called Ireland - have no problem with that and I speak 4 other languages and am working on a few more - But I know that cosmopolitian outlook is shared by less than 2% of my fellow Europeans.

BTW - The Great Deception is a good read - but be wary - it is totally Anglocentric and is written by 2 daily mail writers who would be on eurosceptic french hating side of the British political spectrum - but that said it is well researched and will probably give you a good idea of what is going on inside Declan Ganley's mind!

Edo wrote:

Convinced of it - my federalist party colleagues and friends were disgusted with it - about 50% voted against - thinking like the No camp - that a better deal could be done - and 50% held their noses - thinking it the best deal on the table at the moment and that a Federalist vision might regain momentum in the future.

Would Gay Mitchell be one of those FG Federalist types? He strikes me as one. I don't know why any Irish person would be a Euro-federalist, we'd be completely irrelevant in a European Federation. The only way we could have influence is if we were like Iowa or New Hampshire in that European political blocs would need us to build momentum for campaigns like EU president or General Elections or whatever. I'm much happier with the EU remaining a club of sovereign states.

Quote :

These 2 visions of what the "EU" could be are the reason the EU moves so slowly and a lot depends on the members and leaders of the national governments. I was happy with Lisbon as it was very much balanced in favour of the Council of Ministers ,thus by default , the national governments -tho I dont have a problem with the EP getting more supervision over the commission , which by the way, is the accursed bogeyman of the EU, falsely in my opinion.

Indeed. Since we're going to be voting on a second referendum again(that's the only way out as I see it), I'll be looking at that in much more detail. It sounds promising.

Quote :

The world is changing and we will need to work more closely together and we do have many mutual interests - but a fully Federal state just wouldn't work - nationstates working together in a common framework does. There is no democratic deficit in my opinion - the EU is a relationship between nationstate - not a federal state. It is a unique experiment and those there is no cookie cutter template for us to follow - there will be times when we appear to coming together much more on matters - allowing member citizens to move between the different states to live and work is a good idea - because Europe is a small place and it allows labour shortages to be alleviated by people who would share reasonably common values - once the new accession countries come up to the same cost of living as the EU average - our immigration "problem" will disappear - if it ever existed in the first place - many are passing thru - like we did in Germany,the USA and the UK and many other countries if we were any good at learning other peoples languages. But until the curse of nationalism disappears - which is highly unlikely outside of a nuclear war or an alien invasion - then a federal Europe is off the cards for the forseeable future.

I understand that the EU is different, it is indeed a sui generis political structure, but it could do with having a lot more public consultation and interaction. I feel that the EU limits itself to its grand buildings in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg. It has done a horrendous job of communicating the work it does, how their country is engaging in it and how it is worthwhile. If EU bureaucrats actually spent some time articulating why we need to vote Yes to these things, a lot of fear would go away. It needs to have lots more public meetings and to advertise its work more broadly.

Quote :

Funnily I would consider myself a European first who comes from a region called Ireland - have no problem with that and I speak 4 other languages and am working on a few more - But I know that cosmopolitian outlook is shared by less than 2% of my fellow Europeans.

I myself would consider myself Irish first, but European second. I feel that Europe is like an extended family and we are one nuclear family branch of that. I feel we are at once distinct and related to others in the European continent.

Quote :

BTW - The Great Deception is a good read - but be wary - it is totally Anglocentric and is written by 2 daily mail writers who would be on eurosceptic french hating side of the British political spectrum - but that said it is well researched and will probably give you a good idea of what is going on inside Declan Ganley's mind!

It is, every page is ended with copious sources and everything seems quite well backed-up. I eagerly devoured its preface on the long bus journey home from Town and the convergence of Anthony Coughlan, Jens Pieter Bonde, Eurosceptic businessman Paul Sykes and so on made that much pretty clear to me. You are indeed right that it is a inside look on the Eurosceptic mind. I look forward to talking to you about it in the future.

You know what Ard - in a way Im hoping that we don't rerun the referendum or that if it is held - it is defeated.

I think we should tell the rest of the EU - listen lads we need to take a timeout here - you guys tear on there - and we might see yis later.

I seriously think we need some time out - particularly to address the chronic democratic deficit we have on our own doorstep , before we can even contemplate a structure as finely balanced and callibrated as the EU in its next incarnation.

While the economy will always be the highest priority for most people - until we get good working local democracy and that the citizenry start to feel that you can have some influence and some connection with their locale outside signing up to a political party - then all our aspirations will come to naught.

This has been coming a long time - but the Lisbon referendum campaign went off like an air raid siren in my brain on the issue.

Gormley's reforms are piecemeal and totally politically motivated tinkering around the edges - there is no use asking the established political parties to start this process - they are too comfortable with the status quo and terrified of change in this regard.

Like everything in this country - our political and civic infrastructure is due a dramatic overhaul and it maybe the most difficult piece of infrastructure to modernise and make relevant again.

When we have sorted ourselves out in that regard - then we should look at getting back on board the EU.

I thought I had mistakenly wandered into the "Parallel Universes" thread. But no.

I'm all in favour of taking time when people need it. At the moment though so much is changing so quickly in terms of peoples' perceptions of the world and what it can and can't do for us that I don't think we can assume that the old order will ever be comfortable again.

Did you see that there was a successful raid on a vehicle moving at 60 m.p.h. in Germany today? That is how I envisage the opportunity for parties to have an interaction with people.

Interesting to note that 20 of the Agricultural Ministers are opposing Mandelson's WTO proposals - in fairness, it sounds right enough that the food production crisis should be taken into account.

Welcome Anto! Great to meet you. That is a very interesting opinion
that you have on the European Union. However, perhaps it would be
better made if you managed to avoid vulgarity when delivering it.

Deleted Anto's thread due to vulgarity. Anto - If you want to appeal against proposed banning on grounds of your being a silly troll, please make your case asap.
(mod - cf)

expat girl wrote:

I might abstain... I'm really jarred off with the way Europe has treated us since the no vote (although I personally voted yes) and I also had huge caveats about no-one else in Europe getting a vote

On the other hand, I am also hugely jarred off that either or both of the US/UK/Nato's vested interests have been plugged to the max by Libertas, so maybe I'd vote yes again... I dislike the war mongers more than an undemocratic Europe and I also think our energy security issues would be better served in a united EU

Unless the nearly-governing Tories would like to cut us a deal on North Sea oil and gas.....

There are scoundrels on all sides to be sure. But I'd tend to put that all aside and vote Yes because I think the treaty is a good deal for Ireland.

There is a lot of talk about Sarko and co trying to force their views on us against our will, but isn't the fact that they haven't been able to do that a testament to the truly democratic nature of the Irish and European systems?

evercloserunion wrote:

expat girl wrote:

I might abstain... I'm really jarred off with the way Europe has treated us since the no vote (although I personally voted yes) and I also had huge caveats about no-one else in Europe getting a vote

On the other hand, I am also hugely jarred off that either or both of the US/UK/Nato's vested interests have been plugged to the max by Libertas, so maybe I'd vote yes again... I dislike the war mongers more than an undemocratic Europe and I also think our energy security issues would be better served in a united EU

Unless the nearly-governing Tories would like to cut us a deal on North Sea oil and gas.....

There are scoundrels on all sides to be sure. But I'd tend to put that all aside and vote Yes because I think the treaty is a good deal for Ireland.

There is a lot of talk about Sarko and co trying to force their views on us against our will, but isn't the fact that they haven't been able to do that a testament to the truly democratic nature of the Irish and European systems?

No doubt there is great stuff about the EU which would or should aid and mutually benefit us but a lot of obvious stuff is left lacking that I would see as fundamental. As far as I know there are no great programmes for language integration and learning - you get local places twinning and Erasmus exchange students and EFL teachers moving around but nothing much else of an institutional nature at any real level I'm aware of. Maybe I've missed other programmes now but a part of the bureaucracy has to be language-oriented. Spanish and English need to be aimed at as first languages for everyone (in my opinion) and then French or Italian and then German. This should have been changing as we integrated more East Europeans.

English is very popular for everyone but it seems to miss the Spanish, Portugese and other Latinos. There must be a big failing in policy which should be designed to promote language learning between North and South Europe. I really think there is problemmatic deficit between the two. Language is the basic lubricant for the whole machinery in my vew.

In an economic crisis, it seems all bets are off. The Growth and Stability pact can be breached, the UK can unilaterally pull the plugs on Iceland, Ireland is on its own in deciding on the Bank Guarantee (mistake on the part of the ECB ?) and so on. Now the G20, rather than the EU, seems to be the relevant body for trying to address the crisis.

As the EU was primarily and still is primarily an economic union, doesn't this beg a few questions?

Auditor #9 wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

expat girl wrote:

I might abstain... I'm really jarred off with the way Europe has treated us since the no vote (although I personally voted yes) and I also had huge caveats about no-one else in Europe getting a vote

On the other hand, I am also hugely jarred off that either or both of the US/UK/Nato's vested interests have been plugged to the max by Libertas, so maybe I'd vote yes again... I dislike the war mongers more than an undemocratic Europe and I also think our energy security issues would be better served in a united EU

Unless the nearly-governing Tories would like to cut us a deal on North Sea oil and gas.....

There are scoundrels on all sides to be sure. But I'd tend to put that all aside and vote Yes because I think the treaty is a good deal for Ireland.

There is a lot of talk about Sarko and co trying to force their views on us against our will, but isn't the fact that they haven't been able to do that a testament to the truly democratic nature of the Irish and European systems?

No doubt there is great stuff about the EU which would or should aid and mutually benefit us but a lot of obvious stuff is left lacking that I would see as fundamental. As far as I know there are no great programmes for language integration and learning - you get local places twinning and Erasmus exchange students and EFL teachers moving around but nothing much else of an institutional nature at any real level I'm aware of. Maybe I've missed other programmes now but a part of the bureaucracy has to be language-oriented. Spanish and English need to be aimed at as first languages for everyone (in my opinion) and then French or Italian and then German. This should have been changing as we integrated more East Europeans.

English is very popular for everyone but it seems to miss the Spanish, Portugese and other Latinos. There must be a big failing in policy which should be designed to promote language learning between North and South Europe. I really think there is problemmatic deficit between the two. Language is the basic lubricant for the whole machinery in my vew.

I agree with you there, language policy needs to be reformed (or maybe even formed in the first place?). As someone who is hopeless at learning new languages, I have a kind of selfish concern about the lack of English in the EU. I think we are in a somewhat awkward position here because, though English may be the most popular language in the EU, it's not nearly as popular as all the other languages combined, which are all closer to French than to English. But in general, I don't think this is a reason to vote No to Lisbon. Lisbon brings through a lot of positive changes, and no document is perfect.

For all Wallstrom has said no renegotiation, there seems to be a consensus that Commissioners will be kept for all countries. I guess that the Irish vote has shaken things up more than is admitted.

It would be better to admit with grace, that Lisbon was very imperfect, and that there needs to be more subsidiarity, democracy and transparency. The nature and role of the Commission really needs to be addressed.

At ground level, we really need to start watching what our MEPs and Cabinet members are voting on, and letting them know what we think about it.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Edo wrote:

C) and that is essential dilemma at the heart of the EU - the intergovernmentalists versus the Federalists - its a very real one and is constantly ongoing.

I've just got "The Great Deception" this last week and that has emerged as a central theme. Federalists like Jean Monnet wanted national sovereignty to be washed away in a United States of Europe while the British wanted a more intergovernmental Europe where sovereignty was safeguarded and respected.

So you think that the Lisbon Treaty is actually quite good for intergovernmentalists and is actually a road-block to the idea of a Federal Republic of Europe in which Ireland would merely be a prefecture? It would be nice if it was since I think Europe works best as a community of equal nations rather than a federation.

I agree with that, with one small adjustment; I'd rather see a community of equal peoples than of equal nations. I think a nation as separate from its people has very little worth, it's just an abstract concept. Furthermore, categorizing people as nationalities rather than people tends to stoke tensions. Europe is a Europe of peoples rather than of nations, and a system that acknowledges this will be a better system than one that doesn't. Lisbon took us closer to a Europe of the peoples in a number of ways. Probably the most striking example of this is the increased role of the European Parliament in the legislative process through the extension of codecision. The change in voting weights also reflects the move towards a Europe of equal peoples; voting weights become more proportionate so that every person's voice will have equal weight regardless of their nationality, while an improvement of the QMV system ensures that less populous groups are not overlooked.

cactus flower wrote:

For all Wallstrom has said no renegotiation, there seems to be a consensus that Commissioners will be kept for all countries. I guess that the Irish vote has shaken things up more than is admitted.

It would be better to admit with grace, that Lisbon was very imperfect, and that there needs to be more subsidiarity, democracy and transparency. The nature and role of the Commission really needs to be addressed.

At ground level, we really need to start watching what our MEPs and Cabinet members are voting on, and letting them know what we think about it.

That can't possibly happen unless we reverse Nice, which would be unwise. I'm not sure the fact that a largely irrational No vote has thrown a spanner in the works and could potentially force unintelligent and unhelpful moves is something to be proud of.

cactus flower wrote:

For all Wallstrom has said no renegotiation, there seems to be a consensus that Commissioners will be kept for all countries. I guess that the Irish vote has shaken things up more than is admitted.

It would be better to admit with grace, that Lisbon was very imperfect, and that there needs to be more subsidiarity, democracy and transparency. The nature and role of the Commission really needs to be addressed.

At ground level, we really need to start watching what our MEPs and Cabinet members are voting on, and letting them know what we think about it.

This is the kind of remark that makes me go "aargh!". Lisbon introduced the following:

1. a specific mechanism of subsidiarity to allow national parliaments to reject EU legislation - more subsidiarity

2. an increase in the powers of the directly elected European Parliament - as well as the above - more democracy

3. public voting by the Council of Ministers, scrutiny of upcoming legislation by national parliaments (not governments) - more transparency

The nature and role of the Commission has been much reduced over the last decade. It's not the legislative power in the EU, it is the legislative drafting centre. The only reason the member states are prepared to accept the idea of not always having a Commissioner "of their own" is because the Commission is not as important as it was originally.

Finally, MEP voting records are relatively easily got - I'm trying to assemble them into a site at the moment - we don't have Council voting records, but we would have done under Lisbon!

So nearly everything you're asking for in your post - and which constituted a good part of the reasons I supported it - was in the treaty you opposed.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

For all Wallstrom has said no renegotiation, there seems to be a consensus that Commissioners will be kept for all countries. I guess that the Irish vote has shaken things up more than is admitted.

It would be better to admit with grace, that Lisbon was very imperfect, and that there needs to be more subsidiarity, democracy and transparency. The nature and role of the Commission really needs to be addressed.

At ground level, we really need to start watching what our MEPs and Cabinet members are voting on, and letting them know what we think about it.

This is the kind of remark that makes me go "aargh!". Lisbon introduced the following:

1. a specific mechanism of subsidiarity to allow national parliaments to reject EU legislation - more subsidiarity

2. an increase in the powers of the directly elected European Parliament - as well as the above - more democracy

3. public voting by the Council of Ministers, scrutiny of upcoming legislation by national parliaments (not governments) - more transparency

The nature and role of the Commission has been much reduced over the last decade. It's not the legislative power in the EU, it is the legislative drafting centre. The only reason the member states are prepared to accept the idea of not always having a Commissioner "of their own" is because the Commission is not as important as it was originally.

Finally, MEP voting records are relatively easily got - I'm trying to assemble them into a site at the moment - we don't have Council voting records, but we would have done under Lisbon!

So nearly everything you're asking for in your post - and which constituted a good part of the reasons I supported it - was in the treaty you opposed.

I know what is in it Ibis, partly thanks to you.