It is No, then. I’m pleased, I must say. It’s not that I’m a Eurospectic: I’m not. Actually I think most of the content of the Treaty is perfectly reasonable. Why I would have voted no, and why I’m glad this has happened, is because I’m deeply frustrated by the arrogance of the leaders of the EU – Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy and the rest – in seeming over the last three years to want to press ahead with the Constitution regardless of the wishes of the people they serve. The only leaders I’d acquit of this arrogance are the Spanish: they put the Constitution to a referendum and the Spanish said yes.
It’s high time that European leaders realised that these No votes are the result of people’s feeling that they have no influence over Europe: they are lashing out and punishing the politicians for not listening to them before now. They are demanding that politicians come to heel, in effect, and recognise who’s the boss. So will they? I’m not a conservative, but I have to admit that David Cameron, in his reaction to the news from Dublin, seems to have understood what’s happening and is reacting appropriately. This is now an ex-Treaty and should be buried. It is absolute nonsense to say the EU will seize up without Lisbon – it won’t. Laws are still being made in Brussels as we speak.
If politicians now refuse to accept this completely, then opposition, resentment and anger toward the EU will increase and deepen, and frankly I fear for the future of the Union because I think it would make the eventual departure of some member state – maybe the UK, maybe France, maybe Ireland – more likely. Today will be a truly great day for Europe if politicians get the message, stop empty rhetoric about bringing Europe closer to its people and do something to make that a reality.
In practical terms? I don’t think it matters whether the UK ratifies or not; declining to would show a correct understanding of what’s happening, but the Treaty can’t come into effect, so it’s irrelevant. Anyone who talks of a second Irish referendum is endangering Europe’s future: anyone who suggests it an arrogant fool, and no real friend of European integration. The best thing would be for EU leaders simply to draw a line under this – not contemplate negotiated alternatives or “ways forward”, all of which sound like a desire to ignore the Irish – abandon the Treaty and have a period of silence on Treaty change. Ten years would be a good round period for that I think although if politicians begin to act more humbly people may be able to accept modest proposals before then.
As for Treaty change some time in the future? I think any future changes should be made piecemeal: each specific reform – changing voting weights, for instance – needs to be put to all the people of Europe individually, and get assent from a majority in every member state. Yes, it sounds demanding, but then democracy is demanding. It’s the only way to create a really democratic Europe and stop the growing Euroresentment that’s far from just a British or Irish phenomenon.
I couldn’t agree more – the arrogance of the eurocore is breathtaking. “We know best, what is good for you is Ever Closer Union”.
And of course the clunking fist insists he’ll go ahead and ratify this dead treaty in the UK – even though they promised a referendum in their manifesto.
We have a lot to thank the irish public for tonight.
We have to respect the verdict of the Irish electorate with regard to their future in relation to European integration (whatever the No means in positive terms).
But it would be arrogant to disregard the clear will of 18 ratifying states (and the later ratifications) to scrap treaty reform.
If the integrationist countries want to continue and if they have the political will, the Lisbon Treaty needs only a few technical amendments to enter into force between them.
This would then open up the perspective of future treaty reform to advance towards democratic governance at the European level.
So what happens about all the things that the EU has already done in anticipation of ratification? These are now illegal. Will they stop, will they give us our money back etc? No, of course not.
Well, I wouldn’t say they’re illegal, Brian.
Ralf: come off it! If you think those 18 countries all have a “clear will” to ratify, then you either have no political antenna or you’re deceiving yourself. You must know that the UK government is intending to ratify against the wishes of its people. And my impression from my visits to Austria is that most people there are very cynical about not having had a say, and would probably vote No if given a chance, in much the same way the Irish have. You’re simply showing you’re as disconnected from reality as the European Council has been.
As for your reference to future treaty reform – that’s very revealing, Ralf! You don’t, then, see Lisbon as definitive change built to last, but are already looking forward to the next change after that (confirming the suspicions of Eurosceptics).
And if you want democratisation at EU level, why not insist it happens now, rather than at some future date?
Head of Legal,
Great Britain is not among the 18 ratifying member states, but it has to arrive at a conclusion according to its own rules on ratification.
As I have said, I prefer parliamentary ratification of international treaties, including the ones pertaining to the EU, because it offers better chances for deliberation of long term interests.
(If I understand correctly, international treaties were a royal prerogative still a short while ago in the UK.)
Yes, the Treaty of Lisbon is a meagre compromise, although an improvement on the Treaty of Nice.
I see European integration as an evolving process, leading to an improved union, under the rule of law, with these three characteristics: effectiveness, democracy and solidarity.
Why not insist on everything at once? Because the Lisbon Treaty is the best deal on offer right now. Evolution is the word.
Briansj,
I expect most of the EU countries to continue ratification if they have not done so already and to prepare for implementation of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, including the necessary amendments when one or possibly a few states opt out.
Some good stuff here – putting a few questions to electorates at the time of European Parliament elections is an interesting one. Perhaps with a double majority system needed? 50% of the population and majorities in 3/4 of the states for example?
As for whether the Lisbon Treaty should be buried or not: it depends on how you interpret the Irish No. What was it actually a No to? Towards political elites? Towards the EU as a whole? The Treaty itself? Have a read of this article by Fintan O’Toole – sums things up quite neatly.
I think there’s something wrong and disrespectful about trying to interpret the Irish result, Jon. No one would have tried to interpret a Yes vote. “What does it really mean? Should we really go ahead with the treaty?” No, no. They would simply have thought it meant “yes” and gone ahead with bringing in into force. In the same way, the only proper response is to accept what actually happened as meaning “no”, and not bring it in. It really is as simple as that.
Yes, I think simple individual treaty change proposals should be put forward at European election times, but I’m sorry to say I think political leaders are currently so out of control at EU level that the threshold must be a majority in each and every member state. They really do need that kind of discipline – as the reaction to the Irish vote shows.
What’s disturbing in all of this is the fact that the EU agreed/imposed the rules of the game and now, having suffered defeat, is trying to subvert or ignore its own rules.
What does that tell us of the integrity of those involved in drawing up and agreeing those rules?