This treaty establishes a European constitution so a direct vote is not just appropriate but the only way to make it democratically legitimate.

You seem to be arguing for Referendums as the only way to measure the will of a nation or the European people.

I just ask you to consider the following two scenarios:

The first is that we have a single Europe wide referendum.

In that case Spain (population 47 million) can override Ireland (population 4.5 million) with a voting margin of 10%.
Spain approved the EU Constitution of which Lisbon is a subset by referendum 75%-25%; a margin of 50%.

The second is that each nation has a separate Referendum for each member state.

Then you are asking Belgium to replace a system of checks and balances where each of the following must assent:

- Senate
- Chamber of Representatives
- Monarch
- Walloon Parliament
- Flemish Parliament
- German-speaking Community
- French Community
- Brussels Regional Parliament
- Brussels United Assembly
- COCOF Assembly

With a simple yes/no majority rules vote.

There is a reason its a confederation and not a federation. There is no acceptable common mechanism for passing sovereign amendments except on the basis of Subsidiarity. Each State must make its own decision on how it will decide whether to ratify sovereign amendments.

You claim all previous votes show that the majority is against. Well, Spain and Luxembourg had votes and were in favour.
The majority of national opinion polls may be against, maybe even a Europe wide opinion poll. But opinion polls are not votes.
If they were we would have passed the Constitution and Lisbon already.

Your economic and social arguments are well known, and while I recognise and agree with some of your foundational points I do not agree with your developed argument nor your predictions. That may make me a “smuggie”, that is for others to decide, but I hope I give every argument a fair hearing and evaluation based on what little experience and knowledge I have or can accumulate. I’m not sure what more any citizen can do.

My overall point is that if there is to be a federal Europe then it would be better if it were decided upon in a transparent fashion.

I totally agree that in the manner of amending the Treaties, as in so many things about the EU, greater honesty and transparency is sorely needed. Unfortunately it is a political project and statesmanship is always a quality is short supply.

One point though. This Treaty is not about creating an federal Europe. In fact I don’t expect we will have to decide on the question of federalism for decades and perhaps never.

The european project is an evolving process from an intergovernmental organisation towards a federation. Right now in my opinion it is a confederation, although some would argue it is still an intergovernmental organisation.

My thinking is as follows:

It started out as an intergovernmental organisation, the ECSC, similar in structure to the UN.

It began to evolve as it transformed into the EEC, but the first really significant transformations occured (or was recognised if you do not accept that the ECJ is/was an activist court) in the 1960s

Van Gend en Loos 26/62 [1963] ECR 1

“The [European Economic] Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the [Member] States have limited their sovereign rights”.

“The Court … has the jurisdiction to answer … questions referred that … relate to the interpretation of the treaty.”

Costa v ENEL 6/64 [1964] ECR 585

Community law takes precedence over the Member States own domestic law.

They are the first court decisions that announced that joining the EEC implied pooling (or surrenduring if you prefer) legal sovereignity.

So when we joined in 1973 the principle was well established and in the referendum the People gave their consent to the transfer of sovereignity, whether they realised it or not.

But the EEC was still an intergovernmental organisation in my view.

When the European Parliament was changed from an appointed body to an elected body in 1979 that was another step towards federation as it set the EEC Parliament apart from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, (NB The Council of Europe is not the same thing as the Council of the European Union) which remains appointed.

But the EEC was still an intergovernmental organisation in my view as the Parliament was merely consulted.

The Single European Act introduced the Cooperation procedure and the Assent procedure. There can be some argument that the new European Community created by the SEA was a confederation. I’m inclined to agree as the Parliament has an absolute power to reject a proposal for which assent is required. So the Council was no longer sovereign in those areas. There is also something delicious about realising that Margaret Thatcher negotiated the Treaty that moved the european project from intergovernmentalism to confederation.

The final significant change came with the Maastricht Treaty which introduced the Codecision procedure. This has become the most common or Ordinary legislative procedure (as Lisbon would rename it). At this point there can be little doubt that the EU is a confederation as it has a directly elected Parliament that exercises significant legislative powers in the ordinary course of events.

However, changing the Treaties in a way that transfers sovereignity from the member states requires the unanimity of the member states, and that is a defining distinction between confederation and federation. That does not change in Lisbon and will not change for decades in my estimation.

If that’s the case and there is no thinking about the greater good of Europe and Me Feinism is the order of the day then by your logic the Irish electorate has Europe by the balls.

Under that line of thinking Ireland should vote No until every person in the country gets a free shiny new Merc.

Every EU country has to ratify the Treaty, by your definition every parliament has Europe by the balls but if everyone has Europe by the balls then no-one has Europe by the balls.

Irish people should vote on the Treaty on how it affects them, and this country.

Let the other Europeans worry about how it affects themselves, and deal with through their own democratic channels.

Miriam

Looking at the demographics of the voting pattern in Ireland, it now looks as if the outcome lies in the hands of 100K or so of the smuggest and most closed-minded middle class voters ever seen, impenetrably indifferent – positively contemptuous in fact – of what this will do the majority of European

Your contempt for the Irish electorate voting in an Irish election on the Irish constituition astounds me!

The result of this vote affects 500,000,000 people most of whom – according to all previous votes – don’t want the treaty to go through

The result of the ratification process affects 500,00,000 people – not just this referendum, in which only Irish citizens have say (& should have a say) on our constituition.

This is merely one internal Irish referendum. All of those people have input into the ratification process via their parliaments. Doesn’t the exemplify that there is no EU superstate? Isn’t that why you are desperately trying to pretend this is a European and not an Irish referendum?

There has never been an EU wide referendum on The Lisbon Treaty, or the EU constituition before it, or any other treaty for that matter (there is no EU superstate remember?) . If there was – the result of such, may well surprise you (remember Spain voted 75% yes in it’s EU constitution referendum).

Btw, take a look at how the parliaments voted on Lisbon, in all cases so far it has passed comfortably and in most cases the elected parliaments voted overwhelingly in favour (not a single vote against in Italy for example!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon

The result of this vote affects 500,000,000 people most of whom – according to all previous votes – don’t want the treaty to go through

The result of the ratification process affects 500,00,000 people – not just this referendum, in which only Irish citizens have say (& should have a say) on our constituition.

This is merely one internal Irish referendum. All of those people have input into the ratification process via their parliaments. Doesn’t the exemplify that there is no EU superstate? Isn’t that why you are desperately trying to pretend this is a European and not an Irish referendum?

There has never been an EU wide referendum on The Lisbon Treaty, or the EU constituition before it, or any other treaty for that matter (there is no EU superstate remember?) . If there was – the result of such, may well surprise you (remember Spain voted 75% yes in it’s EU constitution referendum).

Btw, take a look at how the parliaments voted on Lisbon, in all cases so far it has passed comfortably and in most cases the elected parliaments voted overwhelingly in favour (not a single vote against in Italy for example!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon

By the black and white provisions of this treaty we are clearly regarded as mere economic cannon fodder for the aspirations of multinational corporations whose cosy little club the EU now is. We are being sold the lie that what is good for them is good for us. The opposite is the case. While they do their utmost to turn us all into cheap labour and must pay them vast sums in corproate welfare, we have to pay more and more just to secure meagre health, education and other public services – all of which incidentally are set to be handed into the tender care of Mary Harney equivalents all over Europe. In fact the rumour is that Europe is to be her next stop careerwise. May God help us all.

These companies are set to monopolise all of our natural resources to turn profits for a tiny number of shareholders – while paying derisory taxes. They are poised to do to the real world what their counterparts have done on the financial markets. They want to dictate and monopolise the use of land and how we grow food and to force mandatory medications on us – against which they are to be indemnified. This has already begun to happen. They want to strip us of our natural human autonomy and police us ever more oppressively. To be sure, the proposition is being swaddled in acres of waffle about needing to be ‘at the heart of the EU’. But the reality is that this is a contest between big buisness, government and their militaristic/ imperialist aspirations – and an EU populace that has been gagged. Twas ever thus. The former colonial powers, instead of fighting each other, are busy forming one big colonial club.

The open-endedness of the militarisation and policing clauses is appalling. Coupled with the dictatorial nature of the obligations on member states to shut up and pay up for arming and training military and police forces who may be deployed throughout the EU, the Lisbon Treaty is poised to turn this region of the world into a grasping combatant state, a bomb and gun-toting companion for the US. This is described as ‘peace-making’ in the treaty, naturally. The EU/US is anticipating a little local difficulty about maintaining access to the Middle East’s resources for example. Army generals are saying they anticipate being there for, say, 40 years. As long as it takes for the oil and gas to run out in other words. So long as the US was going it alone France and Germany opposed the invasions. Now that some deals have been done and the big 4 have a slice of the action the EU is happy to help give the ME a kicking too. When those countries are tied down, it will be the turn of Latin America. The precursor to new invasions will be an Obama charm offensive – rapidly becoming one of the most alarming of signals in international relations.

Looking at the demographics of the voting pattern in Ireland, it now looks as if the outcome lies in the hands of 100K or so of the smuggest and most closed-minded middle class voters ever seen, impenetrably indifferent – positively contemptuous in fact – of what this will do the majority of Europeans. Among the middle class in Ireland, poverty is regarded as a personal crime no matter that they are among those chiefly responsible for it very often. (SSIAs anyone? The greatest transfer of wealth from poor to rich until the bailouts came along.) These obedient little Europeans are very quick to snarl at the citizens of other EU jurisidctions entering a plea – who are told to mind their own business, that this is an Irish matter for Irish people!!! They know that in all probability they will secure a footing among the privileged top 20% whatever happens. They are encouraged in all of this by the most obscenely biased and equally smug media coverage imaginable – whose sole objective appears to be to finesse this outrage into smug blandishments for the smuggies to smug themselves into a smug yes vote.

“There is already an EU constitution. It exists in the EU Treaties. It does not need to be a single document any more than the UK constitution does.”

I take your point but I still feel that if this is to become a federal Europe then a written constitution should be prepared and voted on. If some states are set against a referendum then let them vote on it in a way of their choosing.

My overall point is that if there is to be a federal Europe then it would be better if it were decided upon in a transparent fashion. The current method seems like so much skulking in the shadows and it denies true legitimacy, in my opinion.

If there needs to be an EU constitution then let it be printed, debated and voted on all across Europe.

There is already an EU constitution. It exists in the EU Treaties. It does not need to be a single document any more than the UK constitution does.

Any legal sovereignty governed by the rule of law has as its constitution those documents that enumerate that sovereignty.
The EU has legal sovereignty in all areas where exclusive or joint competence is conferred in the Treaties.

At every stage of amendment that constitution has been negotiated, printed, signed, debated, voted upon and ratified.

Each country has its own way of doing that.

We hold referendums when competences change.

Other countries do other things. Many have a constitutional court to decide what mechanism needs to be invoked.

Germany does not hold referendums, in fact I think they may be outlawed in their constitution, I’m not sure, I may have imagined that, but they are certainly frowned upon.

At least one other state (I can’t remember which one) requires that a constitutional bill be published and then Parliament dissolved. When the new Parliament convenes it must immediately either pass or reject the bill unamended.

Each country has its own constitutional requirements.

Imposing a common mechanism is more than just a federal move, it infringes on subsidiarity. There is no harmonizing reason why the states should decide ratification in the same way, it does not infringe on any of the common freedoms or discriminate against an EU citizen residing in another state, so subsidiarity says its up to the state to pick its own mechanism.

It may be politically and democratically more desireable in our view, but it is not our right to impose that view on any other state.

They must adopt that mechanism for themselves, using the democratic mechanisms available in their own state. e.g. by electing to government a party with a manifesto commitment to change the state constitution to require referendums.

Mack,

“This election is an Irish election, not a European election (European referenda by rights should be EU wide, not per state). The fact that that a Yes vote would upset British Tories (or that No would annoy Sarkozy) is not something we should bother ourselves with. Whatever way you are voting, better to do it because you think it benefits Irish interests.”

If that’s the case and there is no thinking about the greater good of Europe and Me Feinism is the order of the day then by your logic the Irish electorate has Europe by the balls.

Under that line of thinking Ireland should vote No until every person in the country gets a free shiny new Merc.

The decision making process in other European nation states is a matter for them, if people there are not happy with the measures that exist in their home countries they can agitate for change. It is not our place to interfere or to second guess them.

This election is an Irish election, not a European election (European referenda by rights should be EU wide, not per state). The fact that that a Yes vote would upset British Tories (or that No would annoy Sarkozy) is not something we should bother ourselves with. Whatever way you are voting, better to do it because you think it benefits Irish interests.

If you have the time, I would be interested in how would you suggest the next Treaty be negotiated (irrespective of whether Lisbon is passed)

“About the only way it could have been more consultative was if all the members of the Convention had been specifically elected for the purpose.”

Yes, your internal logic is sound.

“Actually they’re not. They’re being asked to consider an amendment to the Irish Constituition which is why this is a purely Irish affair, and why Ireland remains sovereign. The future direction of Europe was negotiated by it’s elected representatives.”

That is all very well and good Mack, but if that is the case then why is the rest of the continent standing on the sidelines and shuffling their feet nervously?

If this is, as you are suggesting, merely a prosaic parochial plebiscite, then why is there so much fuss?

The future of Europe is too great a thing to rest on the heads of so few. That’s why the electorate of Ireland should reject this referendum, thereby forcing the electorates of the rest of the union to assume their responsibilities.

Elected representatives are there to do the donkey work of the electorate, and that is why those who actually follow through are held in such high esteem. If major decisions are not down to the electorate then what’s the point?

There will either be another Convention or another IGC.

Lisbon is the grandchild of the last Convention, made up of elected representatives from the National and EU Parliaments plus ex-officio members.

About the only way it could have been more consultative was if all the members of the Convention had been specifically elected for the purpose.

Actually they’re not. They’re being asked to consider an amendment to the Irish Constituition which is why this is a purely Irish affair, and why Ireland remains sovereign. The future direction of Europe was negotiated by it’s elected representatives.

So we’re agreed there is no actual support for the doctrine of pre-emption in Lisbon. Relationships between countries are open-ended today. Lisbon could actually give Ireland a say in preventing military strikes by European countries.

The USA has the NATO umbrella which it can use to garner military support when it has been attacked first, as was the case in Afghanistan. The US does not need the EU for that.

When the USA tried to gain support for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq, it was opposed, by France and Germany, whodothunkit?

“Simply put, he argues that the question being asked by Lisbon is whether Ireland continues on a journey it first undertook back in the early 1970s, or not.”

The electorate of Ireland, unlike the electorate of any other part of the EU, is being asked to consider the future direction of Europe. My understanding is that it’s back to the drawing board if it doesn’t work out, hopefully in consultation with the people of Europe.

All this talk of the Lisbon Treaty being a vote on Ireland’s continued membership of the EU seems like fearmongering.

If Europe is as democratic and enlightened as many claim, then a No vote will trigger a bout of soul searching for all the citizens of Europe and a new beginning for all.

If, however, it is a quasi-Soviet state in the making as others claim then this too will become apparent in the fullness of time.