Lino Debono, Xewkija
Effects of the Irish vote (1)
It is rather ironic that of the 27 countries in the European Union only one has to abide by a provision in its Constitution of holding a referendum on matters which may affect its citizens' way of life. This is why the people of Ireland voted recently in a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty - and rejected it.
The other 26 countries, including Malta, opted for ratification by their parliament and basically ignored their people's views on the Lisbon Treaty.
Obviously, following the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty by French and Dutch voters in a referendum, Brussels thought it wiser to play it safe and have the Lisbon Treaty approved by parliaments.
The Irish were always known for their staunch support of the EU, so the outcome of the referendum should not have been in doubt - or so the European Commission thought.
Yet the people of Ireland thought otherwise and rejected the new Lisbon Treaty. The result, as we know, threw the EU leaders into a panic.
However, even though the unanimity of the 27 EU states is required for the treaty to take effect, a number of EU leaders are insisting that the ratification process should continue in the other seven states which have not yet approved the treaty.
Their argument is that the 1.5 million Irish who voted in the referendum should not stop the implementation of the treaty.
As far as Malta is concerned, our only regret, it seems, is that we will not get our sixth seat in the European Parliament, as per the Lisbon Treaty.
Such reasoning goes against the principles of democracy which some politicians think should apply only when their objectives are achieved. How is it that certain individuals believe that they know better than what the common citizen feels?
Irish voters, for their own reasons, said no to the Lisbon Treaty. Everybody should respect this decision. Malta and other countries should not regret the loss of the sixth seat or that the treaty has to be renegotiated. This is all part of the democratic game.
I wonder what would have happened if all 27 EU states had held a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Would this have been approved by each country? But as I said, some people think they know better than others what ordinary people should do. Except for the Irish.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
24 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Darren M
Jul 8th 2008, 22:42
Im Irish and I voted no.
Despite what some people think about the no voters being tricked into voting against the treaty that simply wasnt the case.I read all information about the referendum and made up my own mind.I did not listen to the campaigners.. I listened to the facts.(Which were very confusing and misleading) The facts did simply not suit our country.It was a bad deal for the Republic so we will not be bullied into apologizing, nor should our leaders have to be grilled behind closed doors in Brussles because we did what was best for OUR country.Besides.. Im sure nearly half of the 27 would have voted against it given half a chance.
RESPECT THE IRISH VOTE
Robert Scullion
Jun 26th 2008, 20:32
@Darryl Gauci
Perhaps you should look at Section 15, Article 9A, Point 2 of the Lisbon Treaty where it states:
"The European Parliament shall be composed of representatives of the Union's citizens.
They shall not exceed seven hundred and fifty in number, plus the President. Representation of citizens shall be degressively proportional, with a minimum threshold of six members per
Member State. No Member State shall be allocated more than ninety-six seats."
http://bookshop.europa.eu/eubookshop/FileCache/PUBPDF/FXAC07306ENC/FXAC07306ENC_002.pdf (page 19)
It does actually help if you back up your points rather than making wild statements with no back-up.
Maybe you could point out where in the Lisbon Treaty it states that the EU will take control over every country's military ....
Darryl Gauci
Jun 26th 2008, 08:16
@Robert Scullion
I apologise about the number of states, I was tired and added one state instead of removing (I meant to say, the other 49 states).
About the army - don't beat around the bush like the EU leaders are doing. Common defence policy is the same thing and every one here knows it. Of COURSE they would not mention 'army'. The same way that NOTHING was mentioned other than the wonderful '6th seat in the European Parliament' in Malta.
If this is something you can't understand...then I'm afraid it is you who cannot get, what you call, 'complicated' facts right and I'm sorry for you.
Robert Scullion
Jun 25th 2008, 20:22
@Darryl Gauci
Also you might want to check the number of US States, shame you can't even get simple facts correct (never mind the more complicated ones)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_States
Robert Scullion
Jun 25th 2008, 18:56
@eric saliba
In relation to the EU Budget .. this is officially audited every year. The main failings highlighted are a failure of either the auditors taking small samplers or member states failing to properly control/follow spending.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6140498.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6078982.stm -- might help (but I doubt it to the Eurosceptics) shed some light
@Darryl Gauci
In relation to defence matters -- Having searched through the Treaty I failed to find the word army within the text. Perhaps you can point it?
http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/faq/index_en.htm#15
http://bookshop.europa.eu/eubookshop/FileCache/PUBPDF/FXAC07306ENC/FXAC07306ENC_002.pdf
Darryl Gauci
Jun 24th 2008, 21:44
Robert Scullion, I'm afraid you somewhat incorrect. The treaty did not expressly remove neutrality or legalise abortion, prostitution et al. However, it allowed the EU to do such things.
For example : It gave the EU control of all member nations' militaries. This means that if a few countries in the EU decided to go to war, all members would have to support this war. This means no neutrality. (Compare to the USA - A man from Texas decided to go to war in the name of people from California and 51 other states. Same situation.)
With regards to abortion and other issues. The treaty would have removed national vetoes in around 50 policy areas. Meaning if a vote on the legality of abortion went to vote and the majority of countries supported, all countries would have to introduce it. Same for other issues.
It's not about what they WOULD have done, but what they WOULD have been allowed to do. Both of the above points and other effects of the Lisbon treaty are listed in the petition I linked below.
eric saliba
Jun 24th 2008, 20:34
@ r scullion...describing the EU parliament & commission as very open shows a lack of understanding of what really goes on in brussels. do you know they cannot even get their budget officially audited?? the only thing they agree on is the gravy train. for some of them the EU is paradise found.
do you realise how much ireland's neutrality would have counted with one overall foreign minister?? the irish were always depicted as stupid in the various jokes told by the brits. if only the rest of us EU citizens were given the opportunity to determine our future !!
Robert Scullion
Jun 24th 2008, 13:57
I have read .. however there is nothing in the Lisbon treaty which affects the neutrality of Ireland.
Also it's very easy to talk about faceless bureaucrats in brussels, however all the Commissioners are appointed by democratically elected governments and all decisions raised by the Commission have to be approved by the EU Parliament or the Council of Ministers .. hardly faceless and very open
eric saliba
Jun 24th 2008, 09:45
@ robert scullion
you still haven't read what john smith wrote have you ??
you don't appreciate how much the irish care for their nuetrality and how they dread, like we too should, to be totally controlled by faceless bureaucrats in brussels.
Robert Scullion
Jun 23rd 2008, 23:25
I'm not crying foul
All I'm saying is that due to an ineffective campaign led by the Government, the no side managed to hood-wink a section of the people into believing things that simply weren't true.
For example -- the no side claimed:
Abortion would be legalised
Prostitution would be legalised
Children would have to undergo extra exams and at a younger age
Ireland would be forced to submit troops to an EU army against it's will
Public services would be privatised
Social security payments would be cut
eric saliba
Jun 23rd 2008, 19:16
@ robert scullion.
i read what you wrote and also what john smith did (further down).
i am sure that persons in their right senses, without political blinkers, can draw the right conclusions.
why is it that, when things don't go the way you want you always cry foul ?!?!?
Darryl Gauci
Jun 23rd 2008, 15:34
@Stephen Piccinino
I agree. But I would prefer that they work on a new one rather than try to sneak this one past us. New treaties may have potential but the Lisbon treaty most definitely does not.
The petition, found online, focuses on first abandoning the treaty, but the EU will not do that unless they know we're ready to listen to new, viable ideas. Ideally, we make do without any new treaties but if a decent proposal for a new treaty is made, I would be willing to hear them out.
Stephen Piccinino
Jun 23rd 2008, 15:04
@ Daryll Gauci
I'm afraid we don't need a new treaty/constitution. Although it is wise to be democratic and recognise the decision of the Irish, it does not mean that there has to be a new treaty in place. The European Union has been working without this treaty for more than 50 years.
The key to moving ahead is rather to scrap the treaty altogether, although this measure is highly unpopular. The Economist itself labels it as "a messy compromise, and privately disliked by many countries". It would also be undemocratic to persist with the same treaty.
Changing the text is not possible, because every country would be forced to ratify it again. It would be better if precious time and energy is saved and reallocated towards better social and economic convergence.
Robert Scullion
Jun 23rd 2008, 14:19
The referendum campaign in Ireland was full of lies and distortions by the No camp. The yes side ran a fairly in-effective campaign and as a result the lies by the No camp stole the day.
The no side should be ashamed for misleading the people.
Darryl Gauci
Jun 23rd 2008, 09:14
A petition has been started which, apart from informing people about the treaty would have done, attempts to make the European Union recognise the Irish vote and begin working on a new treaty instead of pushing one which is already dead. http://www.petitiononline.com/NoLisbon/petition.html
philip pace
Jun 23rd 2008, 02:33
Welcome to the circus.
I proudly voted NO in the referendum and if those wise guys who sit in Parliament would had the honest decency to let us vote for this I would have proudly voted NO again.
The EU is losing the democratic touch and it veers on the path of illegality.
If the Irish voted no then all the work of this undemocratic treaty SHOULD STOP IMMEDITATELY.
ANY ATTEMPT TO PERSUE THIS FURTHER ON IS UNACCEPTABLE FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN FREEDOM.
Dear Members of Parliament, I would have never stepped so low as you all did in order to gain the sixth seat, I would have stopped the citizens (who elected me) from having the fundamental right to vote for this treaty.
Where was your sense of fairness in that three hour debate when this treaty was approved?
Just remember that you are elected by the people to serve the people not some utopian dream which is the EU!
The Irish did the most sensible thing that a freedom loving nation can do. They flushed the whole treaty down the toilet!!
Brussels stop this madness and respect the Irish decision now!
Throw those sprouts away!
John McCann
Jun 22nd 2008, 21:34
In referring to “the Irish” please remember that the “no” vote was won by a single-digit majority on a voter turnout of only 53%. There are also many Irish citizens living in other countries who did not vote. Further, in saying that “Ireland, a country which has benefited enormously from its European Union membership” it is implied that Ireland became the second-richest country in the EU merely on the strength of EU handouts. Ireland became wealthy because its education policies, English language use, low taxes, and membership of the Euro currency zone made it an attractive place to invest. Some of it was investment that would have gone to the UK had they not foolishly stayed out of the Euro zone. Hopefully the “no” vote will not prove to have been equally self-prejudicial.
Tom Breslin
Jun 22nd 2008, 20:46
While the people of Ireland like Europe, they do not want to hand
control of their country away and now with talks of a second referendum
it makes you think about European democracy, You can vote any way you like, as long as its "yes".
Malcolm Seychell
Jun 22nd 2008, 20:00
I voted proudly yes for EU. But will vote surely NO for the treaty.
I don't want to give away my country to Brussels.
With the treaty Malta will lose the presidency which could have been vital for us to tackle certain problems like immigration.
With the treaty we will also use the power of the VETO.
These 2 are much more worth then the sixth seat.
John Smith
Jun 22nd 2008, 18:36
Hi, I'm Irish, I knew what the Treaty Of Lisbon was about, I voted 'NO'. I am a proud Irishman and I don't believe that it is necessary to give the EU a legal status as a governing body, the very nature of Europe is that it is made up of a number of cooperating governments working together to achieve a common goal. I don't believe we need to Americanise our system of government by creating States answerable to a central governement. It is further unacceptable to hand over the sovereignty of our Country, Ireland has been a free-state for only 80 odd years, the scare tactics and threats coming from some of the big and apparentley civilised EU countries after the 'NO' vote says it all .... The treaty is unacceptable, it cripples the voting power of smaller countries ... how dare a small nation like Ireland say they are displeased with the QMV voting system, or that we would like to protect our neutrality and not participate in an EU Army ............ I have voted NO before ....... I will vote NO again.
David Johnson
Jun 22nd 2008, 17:43
It's not a matter of "who knows best" (which is totally subjective anyway), it's simply a matter of people would prefer to be *asked* and not told what should be done with their power by their civil servants. This country chopped off a man's head for government treachery such as this. People should not be scared of their governments, governments should be scared of the people. We don't want it - what part of "No" can't you understand?
Charles Camilleri
Jun 22nd 2008, 17:39
Lino, unlike your leader Joseph you are still sceptical about the EU. You still belong to the KMB camp. But still Joseph loves you and wants you back.
Kathy Healy
Jun 22nd 2008, 17:36
Alas, the true victims here are the "common citizens" of all the EU nations. They know only what they are told, and they are told by the media, which has, in recent years, become increasingly sensationalist and biased at both extremes of the political spectrum.
MP
Jun 22nd 2008, 16:48
The Irish said themselves they did not understand the treaty and therefore voted NO. Apart from that they based their decision on lies which they now start to understand. So how can you say that certain individuals do not know better than what the common citizen feels?