Head over to our T
Why can’t we hold up the EU?
Read more about: Democracy, Europe, Irish Politics, Lisbon Treaty, Lisbon Treaty, Referenda 
[Edit: To say hello and welcome stumblers. Take a look around and tell us what you think.]
The prevailing mantra of Irish and European politicians, still reeling at the Lisbon ‘No’ vote in Ireland, is that we as a small nation cannot hold up the EU. Apparently, if 26 nations have said ‘Yes’ the breaks should not be put on just because the one remaining nation says ‘No’.
But why not?
If it is the case that no one nation should be allowed to hold up the Lisbon Treaty, why was it decided in the first place that its ratification could only take place after unanimous support of all 27 member states? Isn’t suddenly saying that one country cannot veto the treaty akin to changing the rules of the game at half-time because you’re losing?
And if it is the case that no one country should be allowed to hold up EU “progress” when everyone else wants it, does that logic extend to legislative matters where a veto is supposed to be held? If Ireland finds itself to be the only country opposing a tax harmonisation policy, for example, will we again be told that we have no right to stop it?
It seems that Ireland has vetoed Lisbon when it was not allowed to, despite having the formal power to do so. Looks to me like all that consternation over what vetoes we maintained in Lisbon was a waste of time, so. It appears that having one is pure optics and not the kind of thing that you’d dare to ever use!
It’s a particularly strange line given the case of Cyprus — which was offered EU membership unconditionally even when there was a unification vote coming, as opposed to having membership conditioned on accepting the UN-brokered plan to reunite the island. Not surprisingly, the Greek Cypriots voted against unification knowing they would be a stronger position inside the EU in future bargaining with Turkey. Such as by completely blocking Turkish accession — and perhaps even blocking whatever associate member deal is offered to Turkey in the interim.
The Irish holdup of the EU has already taken place.
Now it is a question of for how long.
So ralf you accept that Ireland can hold up the EU by voting Lisbon and that the other nations have to stop until a solution is found?
Ireland can and will hold up Lisbon. It was due to enter force Jan 1 2009. Now it will not. We held it up. If we vote again against it or refuse to vote again on it, it cannot and will not be ratified. But the more vague idea of holding up “the EU” is entirely different. As far as I know there is nothing to prevent other nations tearing up Lisbon and drafting an almost identical treaty which says it cannot come into force until 26 or 25 states ratify it. But understandably that is the least desired option for both Ireland and the EU. The other countries do not want to have an EU that is far more multi-tiered than it is already (with Schenden in a subset of members and the euro in a subset of members and opt outs on Justice for the Uk etc etc). A further multilayering promotes this kind of evolution which encourages others to reject more they don’t like, and basically it could put the entire project at risk. Ireland doesn’t want this either.
So we need to see if some of the main reasons why people voted NO can be addressed. Frankly, while not ideal, I don’t see a democratic problem with that. Presumably people will have a free vote next time round and if their assurances aren’t met they are free to reject again. They are also free to reject again and willingly chose a second tier, if that’s what the likely outcome would be.
Simon,
What I said was that Ireland has already held up the progress of the Lisbon Treaty.
But in the real world different alternatives have to be contemplated.
Ralf previously you said.
http://www.irishelection.com/06/where-do-we-go-now/#comment-66089
As Adam pointed out.
That is the moral grounds the treaty for overriding the ratification of the other countries.
So we need to see if some of the main reasons why people voted NO can be addressed. Frankly, while not ideal, I don’t see a democratic problem with that. Presumably people will have a free vote next time round and if their assurances aren’t met they are free to reject again. They are also free to reject again and willingly chose a second tier, if that’s what the likely outcome would be.
My problem with the suggestion of Ireland not being allowed to “hold back” the EU is not that people are implying we will be forced to accept Lisbon but that we will be jettisoned if we don’t.
In that scenario, we may have a free vote but I wouldn’t call it a very fair one. Particularly so if we’re given the “In or Out” option that The Sunday Tribune suggested might happen.
Simon,
One second of insight into the common exertions since the Nice European Council 2000 to achieve a reforming treaty should convice everybody with a degree of vision that the vast majority of the member states have compelling reasons to make the EU work better.
Morally, the states which reject the outcome are entitled to decide for themselves, but not for the rest.
Legally, the member states have dug themselves into a hole, by retaining the disastrous principles of unanimous ratification and liberum veto as well as lack of EU level democracy. They are not in the general interest of EU citizens, and I am no friend of these half-measures.
The structural weaknesses are the making of our leaders, but I still deplore that solving the problems is much harder than it ought to be.
The impotence of the European Union is turning it into a laughing-stock on the international scene. Cf. EU-Russia summit.
Perhaps internal unraveling and outside derision act as a wake-up call, although I am by now afraid that by now Europe is too far gone to reverse the trend. It will sooner fade into insignifacance than mend its ways.
But more interesting than discussing words, would be to know if you (or Ireland) have a realistic plan for the future.
I have asked, but not really received any coherent answer.
Or is the answer, Nice and death?
Adam,
I see your point. And it is a valid concern. But the problem here is to view the EU as a parliamentary democracy. It isn’t (thankfully, for Ireland would have no voice in such a setup). The EU is a voluntary Union of member states. As I said, the specific details of Lisbon is that it cannot take effect unless all ratify – that’s a different matter – but no where in the Union is there a provision for a single member to stop the progress of all others if they so wish. Britain said No to monetary Union, but that project went ahead anyway. That is the political reality. The Union goes to extraordinary lengths to accommodate the concerns of the Nations: Ireland alone has a significant number of opts outs or specific clauses, small states were able to make their case for equality at commission, neutral states had a clause, most decisions are reached by consensus even if a vote is possible, and so on. It goes to these lengths not out of benevolence, thought a high level of respect for diversity has become the norm, but out of necessity. The Union would not stay together if it steamrolled the nations at every turn. But in the end the intergovernmental nature of the Union leaves the reality of geopolitics intact: the big states are dominant players and set the direction. If they persuade the vast majority, even with a certain amount of arm twisting, to go in a certain direction, then in general, the Union will go there. For Lisbon, Ireland’s leaders too agreed to go there and safeguarded what they felt was our most sensitive areas. The people didn’t buy it unless the people can be persuaded by further safeguards, the treaty dies. But make no mistake, the Union is headed in the general direction of Lisbon anyway.
I agree that the notion of a truly democratic EU would be disastrous for Ireland – we’d have 0.8% of a voice for a start. The idea of a directly elected President also made me laugh; 27 candidates all getting votes from their own nation with Germany always winning? No thanks.
(As an aside, I’m not sure why none of the ‘Yes’ campaigners made this point during the debate – instead of pointing out that a democratic Europe would kill us they tried to muddy the issue.)
That said I do question the point of vetoes if it is the case that no one country is allowed to hold up “progress”. I understand that many countries decide to opt out of certain procedures and changes, as Ireland has and will again I’m sure, but if that’s the norm then there should be no need for vetoes at all.
(Another aside – I found it ironic of the ‘No’ campaign to call for a more democratic EU while simultaneously calling for the protection of our vetoes… eh?)
I suppose my point is that if it was agreed from the start that Lisbon had to be unanimous, you cannot now say that it doesn’t need to be. Sure, you can re-write the treaty and turn it into a ‘majority wins’ scenario but they’re not even doing that – they’re just saying we got it wrong and we’d better fix it or else.
It’s just head-in-the-sand stuff and it has been since France and the Netherlands rejected the constitution.
The fact is that they’re still backing ‘Plan A’, aka the constitution, and are only looking to change the route they take to make that happen – they’ve not looked at any of the real issues that has made this so unappetising to people across Europe (how many countries would pass it at a referendum?), they’ve just changed the window dressing that has no real impact (the flag, the anthem, etc.)
I say all of this as someone who voted ‘Yes’ to Lisbon – but I can assure you that if they put it to me again I’ll vote ‘No’, even if they try to tell me a ‘No’ vote will end our relationship with Europe.
My attitude is simple – Don’t ask me the same question twice and don’t blackmail me into giving the “right” answer. There were plenty of positives they could have sold to me and plenty of ways to discredit the alleged negatives. They failed to do that so now they have to live with it. Europe may not be democratic, thankfully, but Ireland is.
It’s just head-in-the-sand stuff and it has been since France and the Netherlands rejected the constitution.
I agree. And while I acknowledge the difficulty in building popular support for a complex, remote set of institutions, I think it’s a job that leaders ought to embrace. Lisbon should be stopped, broken up, and taken in a number of phases with leaders making the case for each. That would be slow and painful but it would enhance the legitimacy deficit.
Ralf I think this sums up my feelings very well
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,560549,00.html
The solution is not some quick fix tacked on clause to lisbon. The roots of the no vote in Ireland, France and Holland are all very simular. If Europe ignores them and simple tries railroading what it thinks not what the people think then Europe is never going to big on the world stage it is never going to be able to fight anything coherently. It will just be a shambells.
Indeed.