If you're an avid New York Times or Washington Post reader you'll be aware that Ireland is going to have a referendum a week from today. We are going to the polls to answer a simple a question: "Do you approve of the proposal to amend the Constitution contained in the undermentioned Bill?"
Simple enough because all you have to do is decide whether you want to put your X in the 'No' or 'Yes' box. Simple. Right?
It gets a bit complicated if you want to read the "undermentioned Bill" before you decide to say Yay or Nay. The "undermentioned bill" is the Twenty-Eighth Amendment of the Constitution (Treaty of Lisbon) Bill 2009. It runs to about seven pages of legalese, but fortunately the powers that be have provided an official Explanatory Memorandum, which is only 5 pages long.
However, the bill and the Explanatory Memorandum both refer to the Lisbon Treaty, which is really what we're being asked to approve (or not). And that is about 230 pages of the most turgid language anyone could ever have the misfortune to read. And to really understand the Lisbon Treaty you really should have a good grasp of all the other EU treaties that have led up to Lisbon. The EU helpfully provides a consolidated version of all those prior treaties. Another few hundred pages of legalese.
Nobody bothers with any of that, of course. We're all too busy. For Pete's sake, the dead are too busy to read all that. No we're all just going to go to the polls next week to vote 'Yes' or 'No' to Lisbon with only a vague idea as to what we're voting on.
What's interesting about this vote next week is that - in theory - we few million Irish people are deciding whether the Lisbon Treaty comes into effect for the 330m people across the European Union. And we've actually already done that in June of '08.
However, because we voted 'No' - and, thus, frustrated the intentions of the big EU powers - we're being asked, "Are you serious?" The rest of the EU is giving us a do-over because they're not sure if we were really just having a bit of fun at their expense.
Of course it's not really just a bit of fun and those who are campaigning for a 'No' or a 'Yes' are prone to lapses into non-parliamentary language if you start questioning or doubting they're on the right side.
The 'Yes' people believe a second 'No' will be catastrophic: Ireland will be side-lined in the EU; American companies will no longer want to locate their European operations in Ireland; the cost of our exploding national debt will go stratospheric as lenders worry about our future; wokers' rights will be under threat; etc.
The 'No' people believe a 'Yes' will be catastrophic: Ireland will be forced to send our sons to wars at the behest of the British, French and/or Germans; ungodly practices will be forced on us by pagan Europeans; we'll be forced to raise corporate tax rates that help attract American
companies to locate in Ireland; a tidal wave of E. European and Turkish workers will come into Ireland, undermine workers' rights and force down wage rates; etc.Last time out the 'No' votes were 53.4% of the total. A good portion of those who voted 'No' the last time are annoyed at the fact that we're being asked the same question again. However, since the last vote the economy has collapsed and as of right now it looks like that fact might change a sufficient number of people's minds to secure the result that the government & the rest of the EU wants. Yeah sure, we were just kidding.
---------------
Comments:
jacersisityourself wrote:
I voted Yes last time - but only very very just a Yes vote. Thanks to the impartial Referendum Commission, I read much of the imortant bits of the Treaty in its 5-page pamphlet. I was not concerned about the things that the aftermath analysis of the No vote said were of concern to Ireland. I was concerned at the lack of democracy in the decision-making process that the Treaty proposes will ensue. But I thought "Ah, shucks (or something like that) - we're better in than out".
This time around, after all the appeasing sounds from Europe over what were seen as the stumbling blocks in the last rejection, I'm not so sure. Too much of threatening sounds emanating from Brussels and Leinster House's politicians areswaying me.
The issue of lack of democracy in the decision making-process under the proposed Treaty is at last getting more TV and radio time. I think I will go 'No' this time.
This time I hope the 'No' vote wins again. So what if we lose out in Europe?... Shure, to be shure, doesn't the US of A want a 51st State, one on the fringe of Europe? Lotsa Irish will probably go with that *G*
9/25/2009 7:16 PM EDT
Padraig wrote:
you honestly think it would have been voted yes in the other EU countries if "the people" were the deciding factor? I think there would have been alot more saying no.
9/28/2009 2:21 AM EDT
TheYank wrote:
Padraig
Not sure if you're asking me or jacersisityourself, but I think there was a v. good chance the treaty would have been voted down by the people in a number of states if they'd had a chance to vote. Doesn't change the fact that we're the people holding up the Lisbon Treaty now.
9/28/2009 3:05 AM EDT
Padraig wrote:
It was to you. I can only speak for my family and my friends here in Germany. The Germans would have voted no and I believe many in France would have done the same. I can't personally say I know everything about the Lisbon Treaty, but if Ireland wants to keep, or really regain investment and so many other things then a "yes" is a must. But I have a formal education in History and the US is a blue print for the EU. At first the US was suppose to be States then Federal. this was to give autonomy to the states to guard against one major ruling body, well at that time the King of England. But, now you have a strong federal government and the implied powers gives the president the powers to operate without a senate. I fear once the Lisbon is passed, the cultural identity of Europeans will not be so diversified.
9/28/2009 9:13 AM EDT
TheYank wrote:
Padraig,
Don't forget it took a Civil War and a million (plus) dead to resolve that question about federal vs state power in America.
I'm really pro-Europe, as I'm sure you are. The founding impetus - to build a more unified and, thus, less warlike Europe after WWII makes perfect sense to me.
What bothers me is that the integration movement is driven by bureaucrats in Brussels and not by any groundswell of public opinion. This means that we have a rule-based dream for lobbyists and bureaucrats and nothing like "government of the people, for the people or by the people."
You can read the American constitution in about half an hour, but in order to read the new Consolidated treaties - essentially the EU's constitution - would require weeks and even then you'd end up unsure as to what was and wasn't for you.
If we vote 'No' not only will our debt financing get more expensive and our economy suffer, but I suspect that the whole creaky EU edifice will be under threat. Ganley and others say we "can do better" and I think that's true. But, given the extent of the European big-wigs commitment to Lisbon I think we could also do much, much worse with a 'No'.
9/28/2009 9:51 AM EDT
Padraig wrote:
Yank. I agree with you totally.
9/29/2009 5:21 AM EDT
jacersisityourself wrote:
I have to say while I feel more like voting No, both The Yank and Padraig have very valid points. Maybe I'm veering into the 'Don't Know' field! *L*
I think about my children's future and the future of their families - the result of this Friday's vote will have enormous repercussions for them all. If I am to believe in the telling that a No vote will kill off the Lisbon Treaty (since all EU countries must approve it for it to come into effect) then there must be an alternative to it.
It's the alternative that has not been even talked about - all I hear is that a two-tier Europe will emerge. But hang on - what kind of two-tier Europe? Nobody has explained that to me - and my vote is supposed to matter on Friday! Hmmmm... I think I'm definitely in the 'Don't Know' field now! But I will vote one way or another on the day.
Again I ask, would a No vote mean that if Ireland becomes a second-tier country within Europe, that it might mean that we might again look to joining the US of A as its 51st State? Perhaps even as a 32-county Republic? At least it would solve the problem of all the undocumented Irish, from both the North and South, in the US... maybe.
Or would someone say to me "Shure the US of A is also governed undemocratically"? What's the diff - EU or USof A?
9/29/2009 3:13 PM EDT
TheYank wrote:
jacersisityourself
No, you never hear about an alternative to the Lisbon Treaty because - so far as the powers that be are concerned - there is none. They believe they've exhausted all possible alternatives during negotiations that led to this treaty. And, I'm sure that the politicians, bureaucrats and lobbyists for all the special interests that got their causes supported by opaque clauses did exhaust themselves. It's hard work to come up with such a muddled document, which is an extension on the muddle of all the previous treaties.
It would have been far better if each country had sent a handful of electorally selected reps to a convention to draft a new constitution for the EU, but that would have cut the professional pols and lifelong bureaucrats out of the job!
To answer your question, a 'No' would legally and officially leave everything as it is now, but I'm sure that in the event of it being 'No' all our bureaucrats and politicians would find that a lot of deaf ears are turned their way when they next seek some help on a problem or whatever.
As for joining the US of A, well, imagine all the upset when instead of a few planes landing at Shannon entire armies are based in the west of Ireland and the US Navy turns Cobh into a nuclear submarine base. No, don't see that happening any time soon.
9/30/2009 9:32 AM EDT
No comments:
Post a Comment