and you for the interesting debate.

I certainly believe the EU can enlarge some more.
All the EFTA countries are viable candidates, the Balkans look increasingly viable, Turkey, and many of the East European countries are making good progress.
Most African countries have a major barrier preventing membership – the requirement to be democracies.

Interestingly another area with which the EU has enhanced trading relationships fairs better in this regard. The Caribbean.

However there are limits to both the rate of expansion and integration possible with a confederation structure. The eastern expansion has already strained it quite considerably, and if not for the historic circumstances, it might have been better to have taken it more slowly.

Also, while expansion adds extra burdens for Union, for the applicant States the hurdle is even larger and grows more daunting decade by decade. The acquis has been 50 years in construction now, and for an application to assimilate all that law and practice in a relatively short time is a daunting burden. The evidence of that is in some of the backsliding visible in the newer members. Not that older members don’t exhibit the same problem from time to time.

So, if the Union is to continue to expand I expect longer processes and new mechanisms to allow applicant countries to have negotiating and monitoring rights before full membership.

However I think another mechanism is also worth considering.

Lets say a number of Caribbean States were interested in membership.
Rather than start them all on the process resulting in another big bulge accession, they could form their own Union along the principles of the early EEC. The EU and this Caribbean Community would form an enhanced trading block and association similar to the EEA/EFTA, lets call it the CEFTA.
As the CC developed CEFTA would be responsible for ensuring that CC and EU principles, rights, obligations and laws remained compatible. With that oversight and the European project as a model the hope would be that the CC would develop faster than the EEC did into a full Union and catch up with the EU. As it made progress some of the compatible laws could be merged and have CEFTA wide application. The final step should be obvious, the transformation of CEFTA, the EU and the CC into a common EuroCarribean Union (ECU).

If an African Community formed and joined, CEFTA would become CEAFTA, and at some point change from being an association of the EU, CC and AC into an association of the ECU and AC.

At every point the participating parties should be able to say “So far and no further”, or “I want out”, for instance the EU might split at the point of ECU formation making a CEAFTA composed of ECU, AC and rump EU.

Note that while the Unions can pursue “Ever closer union”, the Associations role is only to encourage harmonisation of the approaches. So if one of the Unions develops a new framework for (lets say) public service broadcasting, the other Unions would either adopt a compatible framework, negotiate with the other Union for changes to the original framework to keep them compatible or adopt a compatible framework with side agreements.
In other words the Associations do not originate legislation.

For whatever its worth, thats my thinking on enlargement.

I fear people may express there dissatisfaction in the worst way of all, by abstaining.

You beleive it is all a conspiracy then fair enough, question is do the electorate beleive this is significant numbers or is it other issues that animate them

Neither the EU President (Council or Commission) or High Rep are elected at the moment. I think one of them should be but thats arguing for more and deeper integration, not less.

If the people are unhappy with a second referendum they need to punish the parties who voted ot have one and reward those who didn’t want one, no sign form opinion polls or recent elections that is happening.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, I respect your views, for like you I too believe in the EU project, however I feel we must differ over Lisbon. Although my being in the no camp does not make me feel comfortable with some of the company I keep, but then I suppose that is true of both camps.

If you have the time, I would be interested in your opinion of the [seemingly] continuos enlargement of the EU. Will there come a time when the EU says enough, or can you foresee its continuos expansion, perhaps eventually even taking in all the countries that surround the Mediterranean sea?

The elected officials of this country have to stand over it. And it is rightly an element of the debate. If they had refused to hold another referendum, Lisbon would have fallen. But there was one significant change they could get without renegotiations and they went with it and some restatements and clarifications. Time will tell if it was the right decision or the waste of 18 months.

“I think you are mistaken in your belief that if Lisbon goes down it will be 15 years before we get offered an alternative, if so; so be it, but if Lisbon goes down I would bet my pension there will be another on the table within 3 years.”

I dated that 15 years from the agreement (not ratification) of Nice – so 2016. Here is my thinking:
Lisbon is the child of the Constitution which is the child of the Convention. Its been shaved to the bone.
There will be an argument for another convention rather than an IGC. (I’d support that argument, but I won’t go into that now)
A convention will likely take 2-3 years, probably more because Iceland, the Balkans, Turkey and maybe some of Russia’s neighbours will be involved.
That would normally be followed by an IGC, but now we’re into the timeframe for another round of enlargement and new elections. So my guess is the IGC will happen after the 2014 elections. Then ratification has to happen, and given our record, getting 29+ states to ratify without a second IGC is going to be tough. So, 15-20 years from Nice.

“We are either for democracy or not, there is no half measures”

There are always half measures. We do not have a democracy, we have a parliamentary democracy. We hand off control to elected representatives who hand off control to an executive. If we had a democracy Brian Cowen would not be Taoiseach today. And don’t get me started about the Seanad.
America does not have a democracy, it has a Federal Republic. The US President isn’t even elected by the people. The cabinet is full of unelected appointees.
In some European countries you don’t vote for individuals, you vote for parties.
Nearly everywhere parties have more effect on who becomes Premier than the electorate.

A Council President appointed by the ex-officio Council, and a Commission President elected by the Parliament after consultations with and nomination by the Council isn’t that bad for a confederation and a work in progress.

“You mention the US federal constitution, indeed, I have read it, why would I, or any true democrat, accept Lisbon, a will of a wisp document, when I have seen the real think.”

Because the US Federal constitution would never pass a referendum. No vetoes? Every decision subject to a simple majority vote? No guaranteed seat at the cabinet table? No veto on constitutional change?

Europe isn’t ready for federalism, indeed its not even truly ready for confederation, neither emotionally, politically nor institutionally.

We’re stuck with a confederation for now, and probably for decades. The peoples of Europe complain endlessly about the democratic deficit, yet pan-european politics does not exist. We can’t even agree on what’s most important. The French think its workers rights, the Dutch immigration, we think its the Commission. When given the choice between democratic or inter-governmental rules we demand the protection of inter-governmental. We all want opt-outs and special cases. We say one thing, but our actions belie our words.

I think I’m a true democrat, and I’ll take Lisbon as the slightly more democratic next step to a truly democratic EU.

I’m also enough of a historian to recognise the wisdom of a slow evolution of European politics, with plenty of checks and balances rather than a sudden revolution no matter how democratic, or how much I’d like to see a truly pan-european polity.

At the risk of fulfilling Godwins Law, there is a reason the Germans dislike plebiscites.

I do share your frustration though. I hope (and think) all who view themselves as both (insert nationality) and european do. Whether they come down pro or anti Lisbon.

I agree completely with you viewpoint about why the Council President and Foreign Minister will not be directly elected. As I said in my post it is time we said this is not good enough.

What is happening now is the worst of all worlds, the council is masquerading as a font of democracy when it does all in its power to restrict democratic accountability.

What is happening and what you are willing to support; is more and more power is being given to unelected officials, indeed it is worse than that as a second referendum in just over a year proves.

If elected officials had to stand over that decision to call a second referendum, do you really believe there would have been a second referendum? (come on voters get off your lazy bums and vote again, your first vote was not to my liking)

The reason the EU has never gelled in the UK is because various governments have been able to keep it at arms length due to the democratic deficit. It is time this stopped as it is doing enormous harm to the EU project.

I think you are mistaken in your belief that if Lisbon goes down it will be 15 years before we get offered an alternative, if so; so be it, but if Lisbon goes down I would bet my pension there will be another on the table within 3 years.

We are either for democracy or not, there is no half measures, and half measure is what you are asking us to accept. In the real world and especially with the current crop of politicos, half measures is what it says, i e, short changing the people of the EU.

It is time to be honest and straight, fix the democratic deficit and we can then move forward, and with a strong argument for the EU within our knapsack. As things stand vote no!

You mention the US federal constitution, indeed, I have read it, why would I, or any true democrat, accept Lisbon, a will of a wisp document, when I have seen the real think.

Best regards

It’d be great if the Council President and Foreign Minister were directly elected. It would create a pan-european polity, and do more to bring about a European Federation than any other single act. Which is precicely why it won’t happen. Because the Council (i.e. the governments) wants those two posts to be subservient to the Council. If they were directly elected, they’d have an independent mandate. They could say “In the name of the European peoples who elected me, I propose the following…”. When they are Council appointees, they have to do what the Council says. Appointed posts are about keeping ultimate power in the hands of the Council. Its about keeping the states sovereign.

Lisbon makes 3 significant (and some other) changes that redress the democratic deficit.

- Enhanced role for national parliaments.
- More (and more consistent) co-decision between Council and Parliament
- Public plenaries for Council decision making.

It may not seem like much, but the European Parliament for one has made hay of much less. The democratic credentials of the European Institutions are precicely the instruments that decrease national sovereignity. The more democratic they are, the less powerful the Council and the less sovereign the states. Because popular democracy trumps member state confederacy. Its why the USA went from a confederate style constitution in its early years to the federal constitution we’re familiar with.

Since the convention, Europe has made multiple attempts to pass the will of the convention members. At each failure they have trimmed back or tweaked the convention outcome in the hopes of getting it passed. The Irish guarantees are the latest. The significant change in them is the Commissioner, because everthing else was already a political (and in most cases, legal) reality.

Why are they so determined to pass the convention outcome? Because starting again with a new convention means it could be 15-20 years from the agreement of Nice in 2001 before it is replaced, and Nice was seen as so inadequate, the convention was set up to replace it before it even came into force. We’re stuck with it, and its being operated, but only on the expectation that it’ll be replaced.

It was an interesting exercise to watch the six o’clock news bulletin on RTÉ today. They gave so much airtime to the Yes-vote lobby yet the No-lobby’s spokesman could barely utter a single sentence before the clip was curtailed. I believe he represented a group called “Core” but it all went too fast for me.

I’d understood that RTÉ is subsidized by the Irish taxpayer, hence must be impartial. Has this changed? Orders handed down from Brussels again?

I think you would agree that politicians and politics these days has a poor name amongst the majority of the European Unions population. This is nothing to rejoice about as until someone comes up with a better idea, the democratic process is our best option if we wish to change peoples lives for the better.

When people see a second referendum less than a year after the first, which rejected the Lisbon Treaty, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of voters will understandably conclude, there is no point in voting as when you do, the politicians just ignore the results and repeat the exercise until they gain a result which is to they’re liking.

You as a ‘yes’ supporter can talk all you wish about public/private, etc. But until you openly discuss the EU democratic deficit you are part of the problem not part of the solution.

I have asked you clearly how can an unelected EU president and foreign minister be justified [Lisbon sets these unelected posts in stone] No reply from the Yes campaign. Thus people like myself, who are sympathetic towards the idea of the EU, will vote no, and say not a step further until the democratic deficit is dealt with.

Joe Higgins and co are absolutely correct to think there is a conspiracy to bring things in by the back door. One does not have to look at the sleight of hand competition laws etc, for there can be no better example of this conspiracy/collusion than this referendum.

It was concocted out of no where by the EU Brussels bureaucracy and Europe’s political elite and for no better reason than they did not like the result of the 2008 referendum. This fact is undeniable, there was no ground swell of opinion in Ireland demanding a second referendum, indeed most had accepted the result and hoped the EU would accept the democratic will of the people.

Well said.

Oh, the word “competition” is in there. So publicly provided services will now have competition. ”

Interestingly when the EU wants to give something a treaty basis like climate change or employment policy it gives it a treaty article, simple as. I know Joe Higgins and co think there is a conspiracy to bring things in by the back door. If you are that way inclined then you have to explain why the back door methodology applies solely to this area and not any other?

Mack has ably covered the respective issues between competition and privatisation…bus services in the republic for example plenty of private vs public with both of them regularly complaining which must be a good sign

Ever wonder why the standard of living in Soviet Russia was so far below that of the West?

By the way, what drove European air-fares down?

Why is Irish electricity so expensive?

What happened insurance costs when new competitors were introduced?

Why are there so many free services on the internet?

What drives technological innovation?

Why can a patient be seen in under an hour at a SwiftCare clinic but take the best part of a day under the Irish public health system?

Monopolies are scourge and facilitate the price gouging of consumers, and lax standards in customer service..

Incidentally, The Lisbon Treaty promotes competition across all sectors (in particular within the private sector). Ever wonder why prices are so high in Ireland? What happened to prices in grocery stores once customers headed north?

You can introduce competition without privatisation (see Bord Gais and the big switch competing with the ESB – reducing costs for consumers)…

Oh, the word “competition” is in there. So publicly provided services will now have competition.
Just how stupid do you think people are? We are well aware that one of the reasons that the public health care system in the south is so bad is because of this self-same “competition”.

Did the railways in Britland improve or disimprove after “competition” came in? What about their water services?

And I’d say you could think of a few other examples yourself.

The constituition still has ultimate legal primacy. The amendments to the constituition give Lisbon legal force not vice versa. Article 29.4.11 gives EU Directives extra protection (from a simple constituitional challenge) but that extra protection is still derived from the constituition.

At the end of the day, what we’re actually voting on is an amendment to the Irish Constituition – the Dail will ratify Lisbon (or otherwise). We’re not abolishing the constituition, we’re amending it in part to facilitate Lisbon and to streamline our interactions with the EU..

With respect you’re missing the point. It won’t matter what amendments are made to the Irish Constitution. Those obligations Brussels is trying to push through will override them.

Also see proposed change to constituition

Article 29.4.15:
The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to —
i. Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7 of this section, or
ii. Article 1.49 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 10 of this section, where that common defence would include the State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2008

See

http://www.politics.ie/lisbon-treaty/94844-lisbon-does-not-require-ireland-participate-common-defence-discuss.html

http://sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/comments/lisbon-myths/

http://www.fiannafail.ie/content/pages/eu-fact-v-fiction/

A little unwise to dismiss Mr Jones’s article as “nonsense”. We’ll take your rebuttals one at a time, beginning with this one:

“Ireland retains complete control of all military matters, equipment and facilities.”

According to Article I-41 (3) of the proposed Lisbon Treaty, member states ‘shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy. This is an obligation, not an option.

The noose is tightening: “Furthermore the article states that member states ‘shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities’. Again not optional but obligatory when the Treaty is signed.

“Crucially though, this is given effect in the treaty by the establishment of a European Defence Agency (EDA), which is charged, inter alia, with identifying operational requirements and, promoting measures to satisfy those requirements.

“Despite the [EU] constitution not having been ratified, this agency is now in place, and this week [22 January 2005] we have also seen another piece of the jigsaw puzzle locked into place: the European Security Research Advisory Board, which will assist the EDA in its work. The noose is tightening.”

We could start with the proposal for an unelected president and Foreign Minister. Step forward and justify this please.

As a worker I find it amusing that those who have spent much of their careers attacking our rights and living standards suddenly step forward as our guardians.

For me it is enough to see who lines up in support of the treaty, i e the very same politicians who allowed Neo liberal economics to all but destroy the economies of the EU.

If a well known terrorist sells cigarets out of the back of a lorry, one would have to be especially dim not to conclude the money will go to para-militaries. If the mainstream parties sell the EU treaty, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to realize it will mainly benefit the multi nationals whose interest these politicos represent.

To hold a second referendum only a year after the Irish people decided this issue at the ballot box, is so typical of the absolute contempt these ‘yes’ people have for the democratic processes.

Whilst they are forever gassing on about democracy, as soon as it produces a result they dislike, they manipulate it in the most shameful and blatant manner. Not once in the last year, has a sizable section of the Irish electorate called for a second referendum,

Instead of expressing ‘concern’ for workers rights, perhaps Michael could tell us why he is prepared to pour excreta all over there democratic rights.

more on this here,
http://www.organizedrage.com/2009/08/2009-irish-referendum-reject-lisbon.html

the Lisbon Treaty does give EU law primacy over Irish law (including the Irish constituition) in those areas in which Ireland has delegated competency to the EU.

That’s not the point I was arguing.

Maggie,

Here’s what could otherwise come about

Translation: here follows a selection of one man’s paranoid ramblings.