EuroBillTracker

Hmm, I wonder what this will mean....

Ireland rejects EU reform treaty

All the money that went into Ireland from other countries; was it wise to do so?

I believe Ireland has more roots with the USA than with Europe.

Why can't Ireland's membership of the European Union just be suspended, after the ratification is successfully completed in (hopefully) all of the remaining 26 countries?

In my opinion it would be the most rational conclusion, although I'm pretty sure it won't be suggested by many politicians (the only declaration I heard which recalled a similar idea was that of the Italian president, Napolitano, who said that a core of member states now has to take the lead and leave back those which block further integration; but the Italian president, having no practical power whatsoever, could declare what he wants and it would still pass completely unnoticed north of the Alps).

The idea of "suspension" needs to be expanded, and I'm not an expert in the field.
First of all, the act itself of suspending a country would have to be politically accepted by all 27 member states, Ireland included: one state can't be "suspended" by the will of the other states!
This would leave enough room for wrangling about the details of the unique status of Ireland.
Being a suspended member, Ireland would not participate in the next European Parliament (or just participate as an observer, such as Romania and Bulgaria did before their official entry). On the other hand, it would continue to use the euro (of course!!!).
It would still be required to adopt the 'acquis communautaire' (the new laws voted by the European Parliament), if it wants to remain a "suspended member" and not get completely out of the EU.

In the end, in 5 years time a new referendum would have to be launched in Ireland, asking its citizens whether they want to join the Union based on the Lisbon Treaty, or leave it forever, stop minting euro coins, and so on.

I'm particularly keen to read GNUGNU's opinions about this.

WinstonSmith wrote:Why can't Ireland's membership of the European Union just be suspended, after the ratification is successfully completed in (hopefully) all of the remaining 26 countries?

In my opinion it would be the most rational conclusion, although I'm pretty sure it won't be suggested by many politicians (the only declaration I heard which recalled a similar idea was that of the Italian president, Napolitano, who said that a core of member states now has to take the lead and leave back those which block further integration; but the Italian president, having no practical power whatsoever, could declare what he wants and it would still pass completely unnoticed north of the Alps).

The idea of "suspension" needs to be expanded, and I'm not an expert in the field.
First of all, the act itself of suspending a country would have to be politically accepted by all 27 member states, Ireland included: one state can't be "suspended" by the will of the other states!
This would leave enough room for wrangling about the details of the unique status of Ireland.
Being a suspended member, Ireland would not participate in the next European Parliament (or just participate as an observer, such as Romania and Bulgaria did before their official entry). On the other hand, it would continue to use the euro (of course!!!).
It would still be required to adopt the 'acquis communautaire' (the new laws voted by the European Parliament), if it wants to remain a "suspended member" and not get completely out of the EU.

In the end, in 5 years time a new referendum would have to be launched in Ireland, asking its citizens whether they want to join the Union based on the Lisbon Treaty, or leave it forever, stop minting euro coins, and so on.

I'm particularly keen to read GNUGNU's opinions about this.

I support this idea. And apparently that's also what the majority of the Irish want, as well. Wasn't the treaty banished in Ireland because the majority of the people didn't feel like wanting to do anything that EU wants?

WinstonSmith wrote:Why can't Ireland's membership of the European Union just be suspended, after the ratification is successfully completed in (hopefully) all of the remaining 26 countries?

Apart from the question whether that would be covered by the current legal framework: Why should it be suspended? Every single EU member state does of course have the right to vote Yes or No, be it a parliamentary decision or a referendum.

Guess that, had there been a referendum in Germany for example, many people (maybe even a majority) would have voted No as well. Not because they disagree with the Lisbon Treaty, but simply because many do not agree with the way "Europe" is "run". Well, what should one expect if local politicians sell anything positive as their own success ("look what we Germans / we French / we Italians etc. have achieved") but claim that anything negative is the results from actions that "those in Brussels" have taken?

However, the Irish voted No, and that vote will be acepted. Guess that one consequence will be: no further enlargement of the European Union. Whether the euroskeptic Czech president Klaus gets it his way ("Lisbon is dead") or whether CZ and IE will at the end be the only member states that say No, remains to be seen. One mistake that the Irish government will hopefully not make would be to simply have another referendum. Re-writing the text once again is IMO not a viable option either.

the only declaration I heard which recalled a similar idea was that of the Italian president, Napolitano, who said that a core of member states now has to take the lead and leave back those which block further integration; but the Italian president, having no practical power whatsoever, could declare what he wants and it would still pass completely unnoticed north of the Alps)

Seems that such comments are heavily "filtered" by the media. (Which is another problem in the EU. Most newspapers and news sites still follow the "classical" approach - you have a domestic policy section and a world or foreign policy section. Hardly any media have a dedicated "Europe" section.) Anyway, Hans-Gert Pöttering, the president of the European Parliament, has said pretty much the same thing as Napolitano: There will (or may) be some kind of "Core EU", and Ireland and maybe a few others can simply stay out of that. A few other French and German politicians made similar suggestions.

Such an "enhanced cooperation" of a few member states will probably work; we have done that before with Schengen and the euro for example. What I find sad and ironic at the same time, however, is that due to the Irish No the role of the European Parliament will continue to be somewhat marginal.

Christian

Also if I agree with the idea of the “core EU”, I know that is not legally possible.
The problem is that at the moment almost all the European decisions have to be taken with the unanimity; if some countries decide to form a “core”, this is a change of the status, so it have to be decided at the unanimity.
For example, some time ago, many governments tried to abolish the right of veto about many arguments, but Poland didn’t agree; someone proposed that if Poland would preserve his sovereignty no problem, all others countries will decide with majority, and those decisions will not influence Poland. Of course Poland has to exit from some tables of discussion. Poland putted the veto against this decision.
And with Ireland is the same problem: if the Lisboa treaty is not ratificated by all the countries, it has to be changed. It’s a very sad thing, but for to exit from the slavery of the unanimity, we need the unanimity.
European Union, at the moment, can’t work because it is paralyzed by opposites vetoes: the only way to make run the EU is to abolish the right of veto.
But let’s hope: we needed about 50 years for to build the euro, so in about 200-300 years we will build the European Republic, a federal republic where the sigle countries will be like the federal german landers of today
(The problem is that in 200-300 years a lot of problems can born, and they will: we can see them already from today )

claudio vda wrote:Also if I agree with the idea of the “core EU”, I know that is not legally possible.

It is doable, just not in the shape of an "institutionalized" core Union. I don't think there will, or should, be a European Union of several layers - with a fixed list of countries in the middle and the others being mere satellites. Practically however we already have varying degrees of integration - think of those member states that are not part of "Schengenland" and/or "Euroland", or have made use of some other derogations.

Christian

The constitution/Lisboa treaty could be just built from ground up.
They have the thoughts. They would only need to <b>transparently</B> rewrite it. So that every single meeting could be observed by the public.

That's the main reason why the treaty never made its way through. Its writing was led by an idiot why didn't have any trust for Europe and who wanted to make everything secretly.
The treaty will probably be torn to pieces as many times at is it written without any public observation.

The European Union does not have and will not have a constitution; guess we learned that three years ago. The Lisbon Treaty is - like the Maastricht, Nice, etc. treaties - a modified version of the EU and EC Treaties.

Judging from various arguments used in the Irish campaign, it did not really matter anyway what the Lisbon Treaty is all about - they wanted to vote No for a wild mix of reasons, and did so. As you know, the current EU and EC treaties can only be modified if all 27 member states agree to the modification. So yes, of course the Lisbon Treaty can be rewritten - just like the Constitutional Treaty was after the No from two member states - until the Irish are possibly willing to accept it. And then, oops, some other country says No, if the French, Dutch and Irish can trash the Treaty, we want a special treatment too ...

So yes, I agree, this treaty is unlikely to be accepted by each and every of the twenty-seven. Oh well, the Nice framework will probably continue to work for a while. And the current treaties allow for enhanced cooperation of some member states in cases where a consensus is impossible to achieve. Not exactly the idea I had of a European Union, but heck, it already works in some regards. Or else we would not have this website.

Christian

As long all the decisions will need the unanimity, Europe will never be a truly Union, but only a simple sum of countries.

As long Europe will remain a sum of separated countries, the decisions will be taken by conferences of governors and bureaucrats and not by European parliament.

As long decisions will be taken by conferences of governors and bureaucrats, people will feel its as far, and this make feeble the Europe.

Every day with a feeble Europe, is a lost day.

tabbs wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:Why can't Ireland's membership of the European Union just be suspended, after the ratification is successfully completed in (hopefully) all of the remaining 26 countries?

Apart from the question whether that would be covered by the current legal framework: Why should it be suspended? Every single EU member state does of course have the right to vote Yes or No, be it a parliamentary decision or a referendum.

Because it's blatant that we'll end up with 26 countries having ratified the agreement and Ireland not having done so. Ireland has the right to vote no, but the other 26 countries have the right to express their yes, too.

tabbs wrote:Guess that, had there been a referendum in Germany for example, many people (maybe even a majority) would have voted No as well.

That's why we need parliaments, and decisions can't be all made by referendum.

Besides, I read yesterday on EUobserver that a poll in Poland showed that a great majority would support the Lisbon Treaty there. This does not necessarily mean that a referendum would have that outcome, but still it shows that the results in Ireland are not to be considered representative of what any referendum in any other country would end up like.

Such an "enhanced cooperation" of a few member states will probably work; we have done that before with Schengen and the euro for example. What I find sad and ironic at the same time, however, is that due to the Irish No the role of the European Parliament will continue to be somewhat marginal.

It's perfectly okay to have an open border within some countries (25 out of 27), and a common currency only used in some countries (still 25/27 - let's remember that all the member states but UK and DK are to join the euro as soon as they comply with the economical requirements). But how can a president represent 25 countries out of 27, and the parliament have their say on specific matters in 25 countries out of 27?

It would be as if the Italian prime minister could not speak on behalf of the autonomous region of Sardinia. When s/he meets the US president, would s/he need to go together with Sardinia's representative? Would s/he have to talk about things such as "a long-lasting friendship between the United States and Italy except Sardinia"?

The actual method, parliamentarian ratifies of "minimal" treatys from the Council of European union (= chief of governments of the UE-States) will not never bring to fruition nothing.
Is necessary that the process of European integration takes totally various ways: it must be a democratic process and it must exceed the phase of maintenance of the UE as simple economic union with little and nothing of politician. At any rate, is strictly necessary to begin to argue publicly seriously about this matter, not to continue with these "minimal" treatys written in the whims and interests of the politicians.

WinstonSmith wrote:Because it's blatant that we'll end up with 26 countries having ratified the agreement and Ireland not having done so. Ireland has the right to vote no, but the other 26 countries have the right to express their yes, too.

Some politicians have already suggested to continue the ratification process. May not be a bad idea - as I wrote, the Czech Republic (parliamentary vote) might be against it too, and possibly others as well. At least we would know at the end how many Yes and No votes we have and, based on that, think about how to proceed.

Whether we like it or not, unanimity is required here - so if only one member state says No to "Lisbon", then "Nice" continues to apply. One big problem with such plebiscitary decisions is, we only know what the voters do not want. Now do the Irish want to leave the EU? Do they believe that the Nice Treaty is better than the Lisbon Treaty? In my opinion it is legitimate to ask them these questions.

By the way: There have been quite a few comments from Germany (federal government, German MEPs, etc.) that tried to single Ireland out. Seems they have all forgotten that, while both chambers of our parliament agreed to the Lisbon Treaty, our president has so far refused to sign the act. Apparently he is waiting for a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court.

WinstonSmith wrote:But how can a president represent 25 countries out of 27, and the parliament have their say on specific matters in 25 countries out of 27?

Well, without "Lisbon" the EU will not have a (Council) president anyway. But how does (or would) the enhanced cooperation work now? According to the current treaties http://europa.eu/scadplus/nice_treaty/c ... ons_en.htm it means for the Council, for example, that the member states which chose to stay out, may participate in meetings, just without a vote.

As for a "president" who does not represent the entire Union, well, Denmark for example does not participate in the judicial cooperation and defense policy either. And yet I don't think that at some international meeting regarding justice affairs, an EU representative would say "welcome to the European Union, Denmark excepted".

ART wrote:it must be a democratic process and it must exceed the phase of maintenance of the UE as simple economic union with little and nothing of politician.

Personally I have pretty much given up the hope that this European Union will ever be a political union. Trying to achieve further integration - which I basically think would be a good idea, especially if this currency union is to survive - does not make much sense if each and every attempt of finding a common base in major issues is then trashed this way.

Besides, you will always have the problem that the ultimate power is with the member states. Can you imagine a legislative assembly, at the "EU level" and elected by all EU citizens, that then writes such treaties? Even if it came to that, can you imagine that whatever such an assembly decides will then not be subject to 27 parliamentary and/or plebiscitary votes, one per member state?

Christian

tabbs wrote: Can you imagine a legislative assembly, at the "EU level" and elected by all EU citizens, that then writes such treaties? Even if it came to that, can you imagine that whatever such an assembly decides will then not be subject to 27 parliamentary and/or plebiscitary votes, one per member state?

Yes, I can imagine it, not because my fantasy is like a free horse, but because I know the Italian history.
In the XIX century there was people saying : “How can be possible that cultures very different can integrate? How is possible for Torino, Milano Genova, industrial reality, be in the same country of Firenze, where the agricultural system is based on different rules? And with Roma, a town dominated by the pope? And let’s speak about Napoli, where not only the economical system, but also the language is totally different? And the Sicily? They still have feudalism…” and so on.
After one century I am very glad that some crazy people decides to build an Italy that didn’t exist before, an Italy that also today is composed of different cultures, but that it is able also to be united.
And Europe is the same things, only a little bit bigger, but with a little difference: in the XIX century Italy was a sum of kingdoms, duchies and a theocratic state; democracy was something of very embryonic. Today I see some democracies, differents, but everyone with a welfare structure, so the integration process is simpler.
For example, here in Italy we were very interested about lasts French, Spanish and German elections and newspapers wrote about it. The same thing with last Italian elections, I read the comments on “El Pais”. I think we are ready for European parties, and not only inside the europarliament, and in fact they are rising.
So, as we vote for europarliament, we can vote also for a legislative assembly. In this assembly you will see about 5 groups: left, socialists, liberals, populars and right... and you will see, for example, Prodi allied with Zapatero or Kacinskij with Haider.

Let's put it this way: I wish I could share your optimism.

My idea of the EU used to be one of a Union that has a "common roof" (a European parliament, an pan-EU administration, etc.) with distinct competences. The member states would have the competences that have not been transferred to the Union level and, within that framework, have the organization that the "locals" prefer - a kingdom with provinces, a republic with autonomous regions, whatever.

A common currency, for example, will in my opinion not work successfully without any harmonization of the economic conditions. However, if the majority of the Europeans does not want such an EU ... well, then let it be some kind of free trade zone, or whatever minimum all 27+ members can agree upon.

Christian