Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
What will McKenna say about Polish No?
Read more about: Lisbon Treaty
If Ireland took the most democratic route to ratification, arguably Poland did the opposite. The parliament elected by the people voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. But ratification could not procede because a single person was against it - their President. The President says he won’t sign because the Irish voted No. That cannot be true - there is nothing in Lisbon which says that the ratification process should stop if a single voice says No. Instead the text simply says that if after a certain period of time only four fifths of the states have ratified then there is a Council meeting to discuss etc. True, ratification cannot be completed without assent form all. But that is not the same as saying ratification should stop. And the precedent is that if the thing has enough momentum ratification should continue (Maastricht, Nice) after rejection and then discuss how to procede in a way acceptable to all.
So Patricia McKenna bemoaned that we were the only people asked to voice directly. A broad based demoractic mandate was required for the Treaty. So she must be horrified that a single person in Poland can decide. I’m sure she will say as much and say that the Polish outcome should be ignored because of the thinness of the democratic mandate.
Worse still, unlike the Irish broad based rejection for a variety of reasons, it is clear that President Kaczynski is playing politics with the future of the Union. His party has been suffering and his twin lost power in Parliament. He is now playing to the eurosceptic gallery of his conservative party. This kind of opportunism is a huge reason in favour of abolishing the notion of veto at the heart of the Union. There are genuine reasons why unanity should be preserved - but the Polish antics are a strong reason against. The Irish No is legimate at least. (Despite the issues with campaigns being influenced by misleading information or being skewed by money - these are factors in any democracy and of course we should strive to eliminate them).
I am looking forward to hearing the main voices in the No camp on this issue.
Tomaltach, I dont know wbaout McKenna but the Sinn Fein Web site covers the topic with an initial statement
“Ms McDonald said:
“The Lisbon Treaty is finished. I note with interest today’s news that Germany and Poland’s ratification process is now in doubt. Regardless of the outcome for these two countries the fact remains that Irish people have spoken. Ratification must cease and the process of a new negotiation begin.”
http://www.sinnfein.ie/news/detail/31306
Poland, with president Lech Kaczynski going against crushing parliamentary majorities, is an uncertain case, but perhaps the final straw needed to abolish the unanimity rule if the (new) European Union wants to survive and prosper.
Czech president Vaclav Klaus is a near identical populist.
But it is misleading to interpret the deferred signature of the German president, as requested by the Federal Constitutional Court until it has given its verdict, as ‘crisis’, ‘trouble’ or anything of the kind. Horst Köhler shows deference to the judicial branch, that’s all there is to it.
Looking at a translation of the newspaper article that most people seem to be reacting to, what President Kaczynski seems to have actually said was that it was pointless signing the agreement if Ireland would be brought in at a later date having won further concessions when Poland might want the same.
Admittedly, no one has ever not accused President Kaczynski of being a supporter of the Lisbon Treaty. However, there has to be a difference between him expressing an opinion on the sense of approving parliament’s decision in these circumstances and any outright refusal to do so.
The latter may well be how this turns out in time. However, if the newspaper article is the only source of information for this story, then I think that many people are putting one and one together and coming up with a higher number than two.
I wouldn’t imagine that a man who thinks homosexuals should not be teachers really understands democracy. And as for his knowledge of Lisbon, we’re talking about a man who opposed it on the grounds that it would lead to gay marriage. Perhaps he should get back to his party’s favourite pastime - investigating the sexuality of fictional children’s TV characters.
Tomaltach I would guess that McKenna will welcome it. Using the old adage the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But it is another example of elites deciding the faith of the people. Recent opinion polls had it passing in Poland in a referndum.
Take the chance. Vote online about the EU at http://www.FreeEurope.info !
pointless s pointless is pointless
Our recent experience of 12th June ought to prompt caution from those tempted to label the wishes of the Polish Parliament as representative of the will of the Polish people. Most polls I have seen from there and Poland supporting Lisbon came before the Irish no, which itself might have increased opposition in those countries just as happened after the French and Dutch no’s.
As a regular reader of this site and an “outsider” from UK it is amusing but disturbing to read how the Irish Europhiles are now forming to deliver a stealth campaign to overturn Irish democracy. Just how many definitions does the word NO have in Ireland? Why is this sherade still going on? The Lisbon Constitution, because that’s what it was is gone lets get back to the original senseable arrangement proposed by the EEC to co-operate in trade and ensure that we the “allies” dont have to take up arms again against the Euro fatheads.Come on Ireland you saved Europe from a fate worse than death. Don’t let the power hungry clowns conn you into voting again. No means No.
A Fate worse than death? Euro fatheads? And since when is a national referendum considered stealthy?
You’re living on Planet Murdoch mate.