It's a shame ... since Ireland is that country which probably benefited the most from European subsidies!
The histrionics of the thread title aside, this just re-emphasises the same message the EU received from the Dutch and the French. You can't hand shit like this down as though it's an edict from God. You have to sell it. The "Yes" campaigns in all three referenda that saw the Lisbon Treaty and its forerunner defeated behaved as though their task was to get a truculent child to eat its greens. That doesn't sell well anywhere, even in places where the EU has been a vital factor for positive change. Although continually being reminded of that probably also turned a lot of Irish voters off. No one said when the money started flowing "oh by the way, these subsidies come with a set of condi..., well no, not conditions, but you know ... there's an understanding here, right? I mean, if there was, like, ever a vote or something about, you know, EU stuff, then we'd be looking for particular answers, you know? You get what I'm saying?" It will be interesting to see what happens next.
From a PR perspective, it probably didn't help that an EU Commissioner campaigning for a 'Yes' vote, admitted that, ummm, he hadn't actually read the Treaty. And then the Irish PM also said that while people should vote 'Yes', he too hadn't read the Treaty from 'cover to cover,' but had read the salient points and knew what was in it. More than the Commissioner, I suppose, in fairness. Not exactly stunning endorsements.
Indeed - and symptomatic of the top down attitude. "Never mind what's in it, just vote for it!". Still ... at least the Irish people were actually given a say.
Nice to see they've learnt their lesson and decided to go on a charm offensive... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/14/eu.ireland2
Yeah ... typical. Thing is, most of what's in the Lisbon Treaty is perfectly legitimate, sensible reorganisation of a growing body of nations. There are also lots of cumbersome, pointless and wilfully bureaucratic initiatives from the Valerie Giscard d'Estaing school of Europiffle, but that shouldn't detract from what's worthwhile and sensible. It's the EU's continual insistence on cobbling the two entirely irreconcilable impulses together all the time that does the overall project so much harm.
Actually, no. Direct democracies are meant to be annoying, as the electorate can voice it's opinion on certain issues more precies than is possible in elections. In the case of the EU I think most of Europeans are annoyed because the EU has so much to say but the citizen so few to say in the EU (ie the parliament of Europe has not enough say in the decision making process. Therefore, indirect democracys should not be that annoyying the EU, as it is at the moment, is annoying for many, though. To put it drastic:
I don't care about this treaty one way or the other, it probably won't affect a lot in the large scheme of things, but the way the EU has gone about forcing it through puts me right off it. The general attitude is 'We're in charge, we're the politicans, and you're all idiot prole scum who can barely even read, so we're putting through this treaty whether you like it or not. We know best so ******** you.' Then there's the Labour government, who said 'Elect us, and we'll give you a referendum'. Then they win the election, turn round and say 'We're not having a referendum after all, because we might lose. But don't worry, Brown knows best, you're just scumbag voters.'
The Treaty required a change to the Irish Constitution; to ratify this treaty about 15 paragraphs had to be added. Not the longest, most obtuse or pedantic of which was: "The state may agree to the decisions, regulations or other acts under Article 2.67 (in so far as it relates to subparagraph (d) of Article 69A.2, the third subparagraph of Article 69B.1 and paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 69E on the Functioning of the European Union)." Why am I thinking of the Marx Brothers?
I don't get it, Old Bertie notwithstanding. Direct democracy is a referendum. Indirect democracy is parliamentary representation. Neither is "annoying". It's perhaps annoying that many proponents of indirect democracy seek to deny the practice of direct democracy (politicians here even call referenda "undemocratic" on a logical basis I have yet to come to grasp), but individually, neither is annoying. They're just the voice of the people and, as such, a good thing.
Do you think the President or the members of Congress read the bills they vote on? Of course not, they're told how to vote. In all seriousness, this just shows how unworkable a constitution/written document of rules is nowadays to push through for so many different groups. Even the U.S. Constitution was illegal when it was pushed through. The previous document, the Articles of Confederation, required unanimous consent. When the Constitution was passed, it only required the consent of 9 out of the 13 colonies. So the Constitution as originally proposed was an illegal document. However, the framers knew they couldn't make it unanimous cause people would always stand against it if they knew they could stop it for reasons of bargaining and negotiation. My state of North Carolina along with the state of Rhode Island initially rejected the Constitution, mainly due to the lack of a Bill of Rights. This was made moot when a Bill of Rights was added and then both states approved, but still, that shows the amount of horse trading that had to be done back 220 years ago, and the only people that could vote back then were white male landowners. Now take the EU, where everything major has to be unanimous, otherwise a country will get pissed off that something passed and their country was against it from the get-go, and there's universal suffrage with many people from a very wide degree of backgrounds. It's a completely impossible task for Europe. Rhode Island had never fought a war against New York and they couldn't get along back then. Ireland has fought 14 wars against Britain throughout history and you expect them to agree on everything on a new document that binds both of them? It's insanely idealistic and foolish. The European Union is too large for its own good. You can see this with the euro. Germany needs the interest rates for the currency to go up, Spain and Ireland need the interest rates for the currency to go down. You can only go one direction, and then people on the other side are going to get hurt, and then they are going to wonder, "why are we a part of this thing again?" I wish Americans would ask what benefits does our state get from being part of our union, but we've been together for so long that people don't think that way.
I don't think that's the real problem. I think the real problem is the lack of representativity of the European institutions. EU Parliament has very little power compared to national parliaments. Here in Spain, it's seen as a graveyard for politicians who are way past it. Yes, your example is quite valid, but I think that those difficulties are secondary tho what I mentioned earlier. You could, or should, always reach a compromise between the divergent needs. If the EU Central Bank had any legitimacy/representativity, that is, instead of being what it is today. EU directives, for example, have forced my country to be fiscally responsible, so we can now withstand the crisis better. Also, while I'm directly hurt by the high interest rates -to the point that I might end up unemployed for the whole 2009-, I also have the alternative of migrating to another EU country. What we need are European intitutions that are more legitimate and work in a simpler way, the creation of an European public opinion (shouldn't be difficult in the Internet era), Europe-wide political parties and an effort to have something that resembles a common defense and foreign policy. Anyway, I sort of partially agree with you: IMHO we should've focused on setting up all that before starting the last big ampliation of the union.
I am an American, so of course I have no vote. But had my grandparents stayed in Naples, in between trying to dodge between 6 months of garbage in the streets, I would be against the treaty. I agree with dmar that a large part of the problem is the lack of representative democracy though the recent attempts have been at least partially to adress that. However, the whole European project was originally meant to be a free trade agreement, the idea being that if the economies of Germany and France were intertwined, they would stop going to war with each other. Along with NATO's contribution to that cause, that obviously has been a big success. The 63 years since the surrender of the Flensburg government is the longest period since before the 30 Years War that French and German armies have not been marching around looking for each other. The European Project though has gone far beyond that. And it has been successful but it is one thing to talk about free trade and open economies and another to try and build a European "nation". There is currently no European national idea. Like it or not, people are still connected to their home countries. Europeans should ask themselves this question -- if someone invaded Malta tomorrow, would you send your sons to go and throw out the invaders? If someone invaded Haiwaii, I would send my sons (though to be sure, at 3 and 5 they are a little too young for service). If you are not ready to send your sons to die for Malta, it is hard to say you belong to a European nation. If I were European, I would want the EU to return to its free trade roots, though also with a stronger European wide military alliance. Maybe someday, it will be something more, but not right now.
Because of the lack of unanimity, Rhode Island [IIRC] claimed that the rest of the country seceded from them. But you are right, there was a huge amount of horse trading. The big difference is that Americans feel they are part of an American nation, despite the size of the country. And while there are regional differences (though these are disappearing to be sure), an American feels just as much at home in Florida as in Seatle. Americans have always been restless and move around a lot. So unless you are in a completely backwoods area, you find people from everywhere, well, everywhere. It is not the case with Europe. While that is changing somewhat, a Dane living in Portugal is still a foreigner, even though the Dane has the right to live there.
one of the big problems is that national politicians blame everything bad that happens on the eu as if it were an independent and superior political entity. all major decisions by the eu have to be approved by democratically elected representatives of all the member states. they all have a veto right. politicians then go back home and blame everything bad on the eu, as if they hadn't agreed to it. that gives the eu a very bad image in most of Europe. and regardless of that most europeans don't want more and stronger political integration. there is even a strong minority that don't approve of the economic integration. that is of course what the eu should focus on and forget about the dreams of a federalist europe as a global superpower. concentrate on a a efficient and functioning free trade area which is obviously crucial for the continents prosperity.
Let me say that I do agree with the idea of a federal Europe, including with its own armed forces. On the contrary, I'd be less than mildly interested in the EU as just a free trade area.
What gives the EU a bad image, is the outright disgust of democratical principles that is displayed by overweight, overpayed politicians who make no secret of their disdain of the common man who has severe doubts about the direction the EU is headed in. Just shut your trap and let us do our job, seems to be the thought on their minds. The further we get from home, the more they seem to forget who should be working for whom.
Odd, as several nations (among which the NL) have poured millions and millions into Spain without getting jack in return. I think this is quite a claim, coming from Spain. I reject the notion of a federal state. The world does not need more centralization. For my country, nothing good can come of it.