Saying NO across the spectrum
The 26 Counties is set for a debate that could fundamentally affect the future of the EU this year.
After the people of France and the Netherlands killed off the European Constitution by voting No in 2005, the project was rebranded as the Lisbon Treaty in 2007. Member states have until 2009 to ratify this new version or it too will fall. However, European leaders openly conspired to deny people their voice, recognising the Treaty would be rejected and only Ireland (part of anyway) seems set to have a referendum.
The majority of the political establishment in the south is openly endorsing the treaty, with even the Greens adopting a strange position where the parliamentary party will support the treaty while the rest of the membership can campaign how they choose.
At present there are two major campaigns in opposition:
The Campaign Against the EU Constitution (CAEUC) which incorporates a range of left wing opinion and groups – Communist Party of Ireland, Community Action and workers Group, éirígí, National Platform, Peace and Neutrality Alliance, People Before Profit, People’s Movement, Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party, Workers Party – along with SF and elements of the Green party including former MEP Patricia McKenna.
and
Libertas, a right leaning campaign with major input from politics.ie supremo David Cochrane, backed by former FF donor multimillionaire Declan Ganley and receiving legal advice from Michael McDowell.
As yet the date for the referendum hasn’t been set but Europe’s eyes will be increasingly fixed on Ireland as it approaches.
Good luck to both of them. I’m surprised the Republic is the only country legally bound to have a referendum on this though. Does that mean there are 23 nations with written constitutions which didn’t think to cover the issue of handing over sovereignty to foreign or supra-national bodies?
Communist Party of Ireland, Community Action and workers Group, éirígí, National Platform, Peace and Neutrality Alliance, People Before Profit, People’s Movement, Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party, Workers Party – along with SF and elements of the Green party including former MEP Patricia McKenna.
All good reasons to vote yes.
Is that fella who went to the neo-nazi rallies taking part this time too?
I’ve read somewhere that anti-treaty politicians from all over Europe, among them virtual nazi Jean-Marie le Pen from France, are going to descend on Ireland to try and whip up the “no” vote, and it will be interesting to see which of our own dissenting parties invite them over.
Le Pen is not coming, even to see the small group of student controversialist students at UCD despite what pro-Treaty papers like The Times continue to say. Though those wanting to conduct the debate on the Treaty through smear and innuendo over substance will always raise it just like the irrelevant Neo-Nazi remark and content free contribution from Parnell above.
Le Pen isn’t welcome, he isn’t being invited and lots of people don’t know what Godwins law is.
Not just Monsewer Le Pong but also the British National Front are trying to come over to help Sinn Fein etc whip up the NO vote . There’s nothing that that shower of right and left wing gobshites would’nt do to drag all of europe back to it’s past ethnic rivalries . Understandable of course because that’s the only kind of atmosphere in which they can breathe !
Ireland will be saying NO to the no f***ers no question ! Ask any Pole or Jew what happened to Europe the last time the Fascists and Communists got together for an ‘opportunity’ alliance . 55 million dead later and still the gobshites never learn
The debating skills on display from the Yes camp here are stunning. Vote No and it’ll be death camps and gulags, Hitler and Stalin, WWIII.
Any chance of joining reality for a few minutes?
‘Greenflag’ ought to have a nice lie down in a dark room. While there he might consider the possibility that one can have legitimate doubts about the EU project without being either a Nazi or a Communist.
‘he might consider the possibility that one can have legitimate doubts about the EU ‘
Believe it or not the possibility was considered by GF and there are some – but on balance and after much consideration I’ve considerably more doubts about the ‘benefits’ of communism or nazism .
BTW remind me what again is the NO argument ? Would it be something meaningful and tangible like say Paisley’s 40 year NO ?
The EU socialists want your ass. They want to tell you what to do and say. Good bye Ireland, hello Eurabia. Don’t you get it ? Germany
France
This is happening. no smoke, no mirrors..
Tsk, tsk.
I suppose this would be a good moment for Bertie to ask for some Euro-dosh!!
Ok; so how many of the commenters here have actually read the proposed treaty?
I’m still learning a bit about this but as I understand it, opposition from the far left and far right is, unsurprisingly, based on separate objections.
The left fear that the treaty is paving the way for an ultraliberal superstate, and that there will be few grounds for national governments to prevent the slide.
The far right fear loss of soveriegnty. Rather than call for a referendum though, its position is outright rejection via a referendum. The grounds for outright objection seem to be more nationalistic in origin.
Again, I’m far from informed, so excuse me if these are innaccurate charicatures of the objections.
In an interview with French newspaper Liberation this week, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, who drafted the failed Constitution, said a No from Ireland would not stop the project. He said twenty six or twenty seven ratifications would be enough to carry it with European democracy intact. This would leave Ireland in an interesting position.
The absence of balanced, informed debate on this in the media is ridiculous, given the import of the project. And I would say it shows in this thread. Perhaps someone could give more detail?
caricatures, excuse me
Fascism or Communism awaits us if the treaty is not voted through, Ahaaa please. I was hoping those who support the Lisbon treaty might put up some sort of argument, not the aforementioned guff.
Myself I support a United Europe and the sooner the better, but I tend to think we need a bit more democratic accountability within the EU before we become mired in a debate as to what kind of constitution the EU ends up with, so if the free state Irish decide to vote the LT down, I will not be loosing any sleep.
Although if and when a referendum is held on this in the south,
it will once again highlight the democratic deficit the people in the north live under. So much for British democracy.
Mark, just to be clear all EU states must support the LT for it to pass into law?
What are the rules in the RoI for referendum campaigns can they accept donations from outside the country?
Damian,
What kind of detail do you want? Both the No campaign sites above give their reasons for rejection. A drier article by article discussion I’ve been enjoying (not really the right word) is Ralf Grahn’s blog.
Mick,
The treaty must be ratified by every member state but d’Estaing has already been pushing the idea of those that fail to ratify should move into a 2nd tier Europe while others take his project forward.
A balanced critique of the treaty, not arguments against it, or interpretations to serve those arguments. Pointing me towards two ‘no’ sites isn’t the answer I’d hoped for – I find it hard to find any analysis that isn’t from an entrenched position. Since I don’t yet have one, I need dispassionate critiques.
Damian,
Try reading through Grahn’s blog or the Staewatch analysis if you dare!
These things are designed to be intelligible or accessible.
Just halfway through the Grahn blog, much better, thank you.
‘The EU socialists want your ass’
Germany-France
Eh ? Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel is CDU , and new French President Sarkozy defeated the left wing candidate in the recent election!
‘The absence of balanced, informed debate on this in the media is ridiculous, given the import of the project. And I would say it shows in this thread.’
True enough . The ‘complexity’ of some of these europe wide referenda is such that the mass media either fall asleep and or can’t be bothered . They have advertisers to please . I’m sure that we will all be better informed once a date is set for the referendum . Despite Valery D’istains comment the result of Ireland’s referendum will be crucial
‘ when a referendum is held on this in the south,
it will once again highlight the democratic deficit the people in the north live under. So much for British democracy. ‘
When you don’t have a written constitution like Ireland then you inevitably have to rely on your representatives in Parliament to make the decision . Let’s face it some of these European referenda can be extremely complex and seem to be too far removed from people’s daily lives to rouse interest . The British traditionally have not favoured ‘referenda’ as a means of deciding issues . They place all their trust in Parliament . We Irish and presumably the Scots too should have a memory of what an unrestricted Parliament can do -particularly when there is lotsa money on the table . Anybody remember how the Acts of Union were passed in both countries ? Had both Unions been subject to decision by referendum the result would probably have been different !
The EU is bringing to the surface the underlying tensions that exist between purely representative democracies and democracies which allow for more direct popular participation like Ireland and Denmark among others .
The Economist did an extensive analysis from both sides 3 or 4 months ago. Might possibly be available on-line.
A Lisbon treaty the Shinners could support, from today’s Irish Times.
Article 1
The new name of the European Union shall be “The 26 Countries”.
Article 2
For the purposes of this new name, plus other purposes, the United Kingdom shall no longer be recognised as a country.
Article 3
The 26 Countries shall have a single legal personality, in addition to its numerous illegal personalities.
Article 4
MEPs will receive only the average industrial wage, where the industry in question is fuel smuggling.
Article 5
Member states shall promote the free flow of DVDs and cigarettes across their borders.
Article 6
The difference between the European Council and the Council of Europe shall be no greater than the difference between Northern Ireland and the North of Ireland.
Article 7
The Council of Ministers shall not include any Free Presbyterian ministers.
Article 8
All new directives shall be preceded by a telephone warning.
Article 9
The sovereignty of national parliaments elected in 1919 shall be respected. Other parliaments may be subject to approval.
Article 10
Qualified majority voting shall be introduced on qualification that the majority is not Protestant.
Article 11
The 26 Countries shall adopt a charter of fundamental rights, equalities, inclusions, communities and so on (offer excludes south Armagh.)
Article 12
Everyone shall have a charter of responsibilities, especially the media.
Article 13
The President of the 26 Countries shall have absolute authority. And a beard.
The President shall hold office for two and a half years or life, whichever is the longer.
Article 14
James Connolly shall continue to spin in his grave on a six-month rotation.
Article 15
The 26 Countries shall have a High Representative for Foreign Affairs, especially during “sightseeing” trips to Colombia.
Article 16
The 26 Countries shall have a common securocrat policy.
Article 17
Member states shall invest in their armies. Certain armies shall then invest in Bulgarian timeshare apartments.
Article 18
The 26 Countries shall have a single private army, but it may only be deployed on peace process keeping missions.
Article 19
Nothing shall prejudice the neutrality of Ireland unless it involves Cuba, Israel, Venezuela or the Basque Country.
Article 20
The European Parliament shall have no say over national fiscal policy, except the €500 tax on Donegal holiday homes, which shall be abolished.
Article 21
The European Central Bank shall keep at least £26.5 million on deposit at all times.
Article 22
The 26 Countries shall maintain a whine lake.
Article 23
The 26 Countries accept that it is undemocratic to hold referendums repeatedly until you get the “right answer”.
Except in the case of Irish unification, obviously.
Quaysider,
I don’t think Newton Emerson having a go at SF really adds anything at all to the debate.
Quite funny though, although not as funny as Mary Lou McDonald banging on about the horrors of militarism.
That should be all the Pavlovian responses covered now – Nazis! Commies! Shinners! – fullhouse. Is the nonsense out of everyone’s system now so we can stick to actually discussing the Treaty?
The CDU wants Turkey in the EU asap. Enough said on that one. Sarko doesn’t like referendums and his upcoming EU presidency will set us all straight on his EU plans. The EU will be bad for independent thinking people, proud of their heritage and country. The sheep and the lemmings will stampede. Islamic birthrates doom you all.
“There’s nothing that that shower of right and left wing gobshites would’nt do to drag all of europe back to it’s past ethnic rivalries .” – Greenflag
So you think that Europe is post-nationalist entity? There is no such thing unless you nominate an airport arrival/departure lounge as the entity. The aim of the socialists who are engineering Europe is to create a socialist nation state. In order to do that, they have to convince the citizens of the various nation states within Europe that the nation state is a bad thing which causes war, disharmony, etc, and should therefore be forfeited to a central authority, along with all of the powers of the nation state. What they don’t tell you is that they are creating a nation state, not eliminating the concept. Indeed, since 95% of the world’s population live in nation states outside of Europe, the new nation state of Europe will be pitted against them. In regard to war prevention: creating a superstate of Europe will not prevent Europe from engaging in war. The only difference will be that all of the former nation states within Europe will be involved in Europe’s war without having any option. As individual nation states, they can presently resist wars by other European member states, so all they are changing concerning wars is the power to object to them and stay neutral. So, that’s the two myths the proffer: that Europe isn’t aimed at creating a European nation state at the expense of its current member nation states, and that Europe as one nation state (which pretends it won’t be a nation state) won’t create wars.
Apart from that, Europe is utterly corrupt. It’s auditors have refused to sign off its accounts for 13 years in a row. You shouldn’t trust these gangsters with your taxes, never mind your future.
Mark,
Your problem is that you are being backed by the fascists and the commies. And kicking sand in the air doesn’t negate that fact.
Though, for what its worth I’d vote no if you could get the sticks and the provies on the same platform. In fact I’d join the campaign if I thought I could help plan it.
As they say in Dublin, it’d be gas.
=====
PS The two moments that give me hope for the future of the North were the yes votes in 75 and 98. In both cases the public showed they had far more sense than many of us have given them credit for.
‘So you think that Europe is post-nationalist entity? ‘
No . It will always be an amalgam of nations which have voluntarily come together as one common market. I don’t share your anxiety about a war-like Europe . On the contrary the more Europe is united the less likely will it be to engage in ‘war’ . Nation States are not the cause of war per se and the same applies to an amalgamation of nation states such as the EU.
‘Apart from that, Europe is utterly corrupt’
I know – Italy and Brussels
‘ It’s auditors have refused to sign off its accounts for 13 years in a row.’
Why haven’t the auditors been fired ? This is the accountability deficit mentioned by Mick Hall above . How do they get away with it ? No oversight -no accountability – hidden slush funds no doubt .
“On the contrary the more Europe is united the less likely will it be to engage in ‘war’ .”
What are you basing this assumption on? Clearly, the former nation states within the new superstate of Europe will not be in a position to engage in war on any of the other former member states due to Europe having one army under its control, with none of the former nation states having an army – making war a tad difficult for them to wage. However, there doesn’t seem to be any present indication that any of the nation states were considering waging war on each other, so I don’t quite see how removing the option from them is needed to prevent it.
On the contrary, removing the option from member states and granting it exclusively to the new superstate will have the effect of ensuring that citizens from all of the members states of the new superstate will be involved in all wars waged by Europe. It will also have the effect of silencing all effective opposition within Europe to all wars waged outside of it. In addition, a superstate of Europe will seek to use its army in much the same manner as the USA (which would be the same size as the superstate of Europe) uses its army: belligerently and to further its own selfish interests.
Since folks see war prevention as a key reason to transfer nation state power to Europe, perhaps they should think that one through before giving up something that may simply serve to increase the frequency and intensity of the thing they seek to reduce rather than reduce it?
In addition, there will be widespread dissent and disenfranchisement within the new socialist superstate of Europe when people of the former nation states begin to understand why it is that people should make decisions in the interests of the people, reflecting the local circumstances and particular culture of a people, rather than have a raft of generic ‘one-size-fits-all’ policies imposed upon them by unelected others? These people will be entitled to use force to assert their right to self-determination, leading to heavy handed repression (something socialists are good at) and resulting levels of increased disenfranchisement and seperatist violence. There really is no point saying ‘Oh but if that happens, a member state can withdraw’ because we are talking 20 years down the line when there is no option to withdraw – when it, like all other nation state powers, is taken away by gradation.
The logic of integration only goes one way and that’s it.
I understand that people can be for or against the European Union. I personally am for the EU, the Euro etc.
I can see no evidence whatsoever of the EU being some sort of socialist conspiracy. And where is the slightest bit of evidence for claiming that the EU is a belligerent warmongering entity? I don´t belief that for a minute.
OK, may I pose a question, in the coming years there will be three large super states and economic powerhouses in the world who will be calling the shots, the USA, Russia and China. If the current comparatively prosperous EU States are to maintain their economic position in the world can they do so as individual nations?
Or If the EU were to deal with its democratic deficient etc etc, could it become the forth super state. [After all despite all the nay sayers the euro has managed to find its feet]
Do we have a viable alternative to a European federal state and if we pass the opportunity up to create one, are we destined to become a group of individual nations known as the has beens?
I am not passing an opinion just asking a question.
Mick,
That’s the question you have to ask yourself, especially as a Socialist. Is the current system reformable, is the proposed treaty making things more or less accountable to and responsive to peoples’ needs, will the Treaty make an egalitarian and fair Europe more likely, will it make progressive reform more or less likely.
For me, the current system is very unlikely to be reformed as capital is its central concern, the proposed Treaty disenfranchises the people further and pushes them further down the list as the needs of capital are met more completely. Therefore, I don’t see equality being a likely by-product and given the structures being proposed progressive reform is less likely subsequent to the Treaty.
I’d like to hear how a socialist sees positives in it.
BfB,
You say:
The CDU wants Turkey in the EU asap.,/i>
Ronald Pofalla, General Secretary of the CDU says@
“Turkey is, despite the noticable reform moves of recent years, is still far away from full religious freedom. Accordingly, the CDU is against Turkey’s accession to the EU. A privileged partnership arrangement is the correct solution.”
Angela Merkel on Turkey and the EU? “Privileged partnership”.
I’ll believe Pofalla and Merkel if it’s alright with you. Unless of course you can back up what you claim.
The EU is the largest economic bloc in the world and the one which is expanding at the fastest rate. In a world where the corporations can run the government of the world’s only military superpower there is a need for economic blocs, and for independent states and we ourselves are exploring new ways of devolving power to more locally based entities to cope with local peculiarities.
There’s no doubt that global warming and even more the expansion of acess to atomic technology proves the need for a strengthened UN. Can we really go on letting one nation or group of nations claim the right to act as world’s policemen? Will that then be a world government? Probably yes, in some areas at least.
No one set of loyalties will be sufficient for the future. Instead we will all have to accept the reality of multiple identities. It was different before democracy came along but now we can’t delegate all reponsibility to our betters and have to take some at least to ourselves. That will mean creating the machinery by which our voices can be heard and nothing I have heard from either side of the debate has convinced me of their committment to democracy.
George
One of the main reasons for France slapping the EU was and is Turkey. “Privileged partnership” is the camels nose under the tent, a politicians peanut to an EU fantasist. Turkey has every intention to be in the EU by 2014. Turkey’s Demiralp is already making veiled threats about EU attitudes towards his oppressive craphole of a country. Pofalla and Merkel want people like you to believe them. The CDU has made a statement to “honour the promise” and are simply waffling in the face of member states pressure. Their ass is in a sling with the amount of Turkish raiders already on their soil and the social problems caused by their refusal to integrate. I prefer Sarko to his predecessor. He has mentioned a ‘Mediterranean Union’ and his “Privileged partnership” takes on a whole new slant as far as Turkey goes.
The EU is bad enough as it is, but allowing an association with a trouble maker is utter folly. They have maritime, air, and territorial disputes with Greece in the Aegean Sea, they are in it with Syria and Iraq about the Euphrates. They are killing Kurds in Iraq as we speak. They are at it with Armenia as well. Oh, ya…90ish percent muslim…..A great addition to the peaceful, forward thinking EU.
The Campaign Against the EU Constitution (CAEUC) which incorporates a range of left wing opinion and groups – Communist Party of Ireland, Community Action and workers Group, éirígí, National Platform, Peace and Neutrality Alliance, People Before Profit, People’s Movement, Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party, Workers Party – along with SF and elements of the Green party including former MEP Patricia McKenna.
Mark,
I would point out that the above is a coalition of people who (in the RoI) are strictly fringe movements and don’t actually have any kind of mandate worth talking about. I mean, Communist Party of Ireland ? I’m sure their membership probably fits into a telephone box these days.
I appreciate that it is a bit weak to say “the fascists and communists want to drag us backwards” but when you have to cite the support of the above non-entities to make your case, it’s not going to do much to advance your cause.
BfB:
The CDU wants Turkey in the EU asap. Enough said on that one.
I think having Turkey in the EU is a fine idea. Then again, I don’t have an inexplicable foaming-at-the-mouth hatred of muslims, unlike most of those who express the opinion that you just did.
Turkey’s Demiralp is already making veiled threats about EU attitudes towards his oppressive craphole of a country.
I’d been keen to point out that this is a country considered in the USA (by the the President you rather consistently defend) to be an ally.
The EU is bad enough as it is,
What’s wrong with it ?
They have maritime, air, and territorial disputes with Greece in the Aegean Sea, they are in it with Syria and Iraq about the Euphrates.
As opposed to the peace-loving USA which has never gets into disputes with anyone ? The USA have bombed two out of the above three countries within the past fifteen years.
They are killing Kurds in Iraq as we speak.
Bit of a joke coming from a Bush defender.
Oh, ya…90ish percent muslim…..A great addition to the peaceful, forward thinking EU.
And you’re a religious bigot as well. I think that paints a pretty clear picture.
I dunno if any one remembers past Euro referenda in Ireland, ie the Maastricht Treaty, the Nice Treaty, etc… but the doom and gloom brigade were out preaching ‘No’ saying that the country would fall apart if we voted ‘Yes’; that we’d lose our neutrality, that we’d lose our say in European affairs, etc.. But it never happened, instead we had a boom, and we are all still here to tell the tale.
It is strange however that no other country is having a referendum regarding this treaty and it is only Ireland with her constitution that ensures that we have one.
Also there is an appallling lack of information about this treaty for the general public to mull over. Is this to encourage appathy among voters?
Also, regarding the Shinners, the Greens, etc, for all their past negavity to referenda in Ireland, they sure know how to enjoy all the trappings of the political big time, just like the other political parties.
BfB,
you have still failed to provide any evidence to back up your claim that the CDU wants Turkey in the EU.
I have supplied quotes from some of the party’s main protagonists clearly stating they don’t. The quotes I supplied were approved by a majority at the CDU annual conference in Hanover just two months ago.
You have supplied nothing other than a view swimming around in your head. So could you provide hard evidence to back up your view that the CDU supports Turkey’s entry to the EU please.
Otherwise, I will continue to believe the majority of the CDU who said the contrary in December.
Mark, can you provide a list of organisations that are or will be supporting a YES campaign.
Greenflag, will you be taking the trouble to vote this time round – or will you be staying in the cave?
Apathy is the last thing they need – the reason Nice I was voted down was because a dedidcated, idealistic No campaign got out the vote while an apathetic, soft Yes vote stayed indoors. Current indicators suggest a 2 to 1 majority in favour of Lisbon despite the fact no-one has read it, with a huge number of Don’t Knows.
As I understand it, Lisbon is about streamlining decision-making and allowing more qualified majority voting in an enlarged EU of 27++ countries. Ireland (RoI) wouold still retain her veto on tax harmonisation, there would be no great advance in the federal project, but there would be a permanent Commission President and Foreign Affairs representative, and an end to the 6 month rotating Presidency of the Council of Ministers held by the different nation states in turn.
Real power would still be retained by the Council of Ministers (i.e. the club of nation states) which should suit those of us who like a strong counterweight to centralising federalists, however each country would no longer be entitled to a permanent EU Commissioner – Commission posts would be limited, which means every nation state would have to take their turn in rotation at having a Commissioner.
The real disappointment to me is that there has been no attempt to get the balance right between “states rights” and central authority in a transparent and accountable way. In the US Congress, a much more federalist structure, each state is entitled to two Senate seats, regardless of population size, as a counterweight to the House of Representatives.
I feel that rather than reducing the size of the Commission they should have given each Nation State two commissioners, to be directly elected by the population of their country, who would either serve as an executive of the Commission or on oversight and scrutiny committees to tighten up corruption and review legislation proposed by the EU Parliament. These commissioners would then elect their own President by open ballot, rather than the Byzantine process of haggling within the Council of Ministers which produces the President today.
Of course it could be argued that this would increase the overhead of central EU bureaucracy, but if we needed to do this in a cost-effective way I would be happy to see the monthly shuttle to Strasbourg from Brussels bite the dust……
From the December 2007 entry on the blogsite of one Nigel Farage who is the leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP):
“Our big discussion of the day is the Irish referendum, which will probably take place in May. The UKIP MEPs make a commitment to give a substantial sum of money towards the campaign. Our Irish colleague, Kathy Sinnott, is very pleased indeed. Ireland is the only country where a referendum on this wretched treaty is guaranteed and we shall do all that we can to help when the campaign is on. I agree with Kathy that I will advertise for UKIP members to go to Ireland to help.”
How can the NO side expect to have credibility when it is being helped and bankrolled by the likes of these Little Englanders?
“Why haven’t the auditors been fired ? This is the accountability deficit mentioned by Mick Hall above . How do they get away with it ? No oversight -no accountability – hidden slush funds no doubt .”
A statement from a WORLD CLASS IDIOT
The Auditors “hear” (Audio Audire etc anyone?) the accounts and agree that they are accurate and give a “true and Fair view”.
The Auditors, year on year, refuse to to accept the accounts as such and correctly refuse to ratify them. –They are the good guys.
The Councils of Minister (who are in charge) ignore the auditors report because their snouts and the snouts of the EC civil servants they sponsor are jammed in the trough.
Sack the Auditors no– sack the fucking shower of ministers and hangers on.
Mark,
Have now read Grahn and the first part of the Statewatch, on Justice and Homeland Security.
Thoughts so far would be that it does appear that amendments to treaties to appear to be becoming easier to perform. Whether this is a cynical move to ‘finish off’ the Treaty at a later date, or a response to bureaucratic difficulties in Brussels is debatable. I would imagine the course depends on the national administrations in place, constantly in flux.
However, the level of agreement required to make any changes is still stringent. With the current trend against sicialist governments where one may expect to find them(France and Germany notably), I would certainly not see this as a veiled socialist superstate. The idea of a communist USSR style dictatorship is absurd – where will the communism come from, since they are a minor force in almost every single Member state, and certainly not a major force in four-fifths.
The removal of border controls and freedom of movement is appealing. It would appear though, that everything is subservient to the ‘Internal Security’ of each Member State. I would worry about this being the argument used for a raft of anti-muslim measures. I would worry about the agreement required to accept asylum-seekers; whether this would mean that an efficient response to a humanitarian disaster would be possible. It seems that, as we have seen on National basis, the Internal Security argument could be used to justify a gruesome hypocrisy, particularly in foreign policy. And I don’t see this Treaty as being the end of national foreign policies, not at all.
As regards immigration, some concerns. The need for such a large level of agreement could inspire an over-cautious approach that is counter-productive. We presently use immigration to fill low-paid jobs, and on this basis of limited opportunity tacitly reinforced by racist attitudes such as those seen on occasion here, wonder why integration is not a reality. I wonder if this would not be worsened.
Haven’t got stuck into the trade parts yet – will post again once I have. Thanks for your links, very useful.
As an aside, the French parliament has voted to allow M Sarkozy to ratify.
By the way, the issue with the audited accounts is not corruption in Brussels but in the member states. The auditors cannot guarantee that money given to the members states has been spent in the specified way.
I note that Mark has given up denying he’s backed by the fascists and the commies.
I will vote no despite being pro-EU. It gives the Big States too much power, increasing the combined weighted vote under QMV from 49% to 70%. The loss of our Commissioner and the loss of the vetoes on 68 areas including transport, energy, data-protection, the statutes of the ECJ and ECB etc. will lead to the Big States dominating the small, and forcing laws on us we do not want. Article 48 will deprive us of the right to referenda on future EU treaties. The loss of the veto on the powers of the European Defence Agency and Article 28 will mean the death-knell for Irish neutrality. The Charter of Fundamental Rights will allow the ECJ to dictate Irish asylum law.
“By the way, the issue with the audited accounts is not corruption in Brussels but in the member states. The auditors cannot guarantee that money given to the members states has been spent in the specified way. ”
If that is so, then why was the whistle-blower against EU accounting-practices that were susceptible to corruption, Martha Andreasson, sacked by the Commission for ‘failure to show sufficient loyalty and respect’?
Brian Boru,
Marta Andreasen was a Commmission accounting officer. Different thing. She is now UKIP Treasurer. Enough said?