Agreed. But that’s no reason to stop trying.

As for the referendum in other member states: I think the “overall strategic goal” is to put this (or any other) treaty into effect. Personally, I think Lisbon is dead and the sooner we start working on a new treaty, the better. Maybe the Irisih might even change the constitution, who knows.

But if any other referenda are called, so be it. If any of the governments can’t take the heat, maybe they don’t deserve to be there.

What I’m trying to say is that the buck stops someplace. And I think it should stop with individual governments, while the Commission (which is - as you so aptly note - in a unique position) should double its efforts on closing the gap between itself and “the base”. Either directly or via the national governments.

# alcessa Says:
June 19th, 2008 at 1:32 pm e

Poulette: thx for commenting, I checked the term “federalism” and found out that I had meant “federalism” in its German usage, rather than its EU-usage, as explained in Wikipedia: In Europe, “federalism” is sometimes used to describe those who favor a stronger federal government (for example, with governance under the European Union) and weaker provincial governments. In federal nations of Europe (such as Germany, Austria and Switzerland) or South America (such as Argentina or Brazil), the term “strong federalism” usually means sub-national states having more power than the national (federal) government, in contrast with a centralist system.
As for the “unionists”, it now turns out the term is not only non-existent in this field, it is also not necessary.

The interesting thing about the L-Treaty is that it is supposed to give more power “to the people”, i.e. national parliaments, possibly pushing some of the responsibility in the direction of people’s chosen representatives?

“But in this case, EU leaders knew Ireland will hold a referendum, knew the turmoil a rejection can create and had previous experience with Irish refusals. And still they a) let the referendum fail and b) turned out to have no contingency plan.”

- a)Ireland held a strong campaign, but explicitly - and rightly so - asked the EU not to get involved. The referendum is part of Irish internal affairs and it is not on the EU to spread its propaganda (which is exacatly how it would have been perceived had it done so).

- b) I wouldn’t be so sure about that. But obviously nobody is going to talk about a plan b until it is certain that one is necessary, for obvious strategic reasons. And I believe the HorseManure scenario isn’t as far-fetched as it may seem.

So the people never read most of the treaty. Why should they?

-My point exactly, why should they? And in a similar vein, why should they be asked to take a decision on it, when we have elected politicians who’s job it is to do so in the first place? Irish law requires this, so be it. But I just don’t get some of the other commenters on this blog who feel Slovenia and other member states should have done thesame.

- But it’s a two way street and if people reach out towards the EU, maybe the EU should reach out towards people in general.

If only it were that simple. I’m not defending the EU’s communication policy (well, there is no such thing really - there is an EP communication policy, a Commission communication policy and to a degree, a Council communication policy. But they don’t relate to one another or overlap in any way), in fact, I think both the efforts of the Parliament and the Commission in this area are lamentable, to put it lightly. That said, they are in a very unique position. Whenver the EU does something that is positive, the governments of Member States like to take the credit. And whenever there is a problem, they’re just as quick to point their fingers at the EU (hence the “I’m sory ma’am you can’t do that any more. You know - EU regulations”). I don’t say I blame them, it’s the name of the game and the easiest solution if you want to get reelected. However, it means that no matter how ambition a communication policy the EU sets out for itself, it will always remain but a drop in the ocean.

And you are quite correct, member states can do whatever they want - ever ratify a treaty which was shot down by another member state.

I think the Irish vote is being treated differently because this is the second time a rejection has happened, and EU leaders still stick to the same rhetoric. French and Dutch rejections were as much a matter of internal politics as anything else. But in this case, EU leaders knew Ireland will hold a referendum, knew the turmoil a rejection can create and had previous experience with Irish refusals. And still they a) let the referendum fail and b) turned out to have no contingency plan.

So the people never read most of the treaty. Why should they? Do you carefully read policy outlines of every party before you cast your vote in an election? I doubt it…

I’m not saying that every nation should hold a referendum. In fact, I’d much rather see the treaty ratified.

As for simplyfing: It was the Irish who simplified things. Not me. They said no. That’s basically it. We can all pretend that Lisbon can be salvaged, watered-down again and put on another referendum, only to see the whole thing repeat itself - this time perhaps in the UK or in Denmark.

My point is - it is time for EU leaders to think outside of the box. I’ve no idea how (not yet, anyway) but that IS why they were elected. The idea of a representative democracy is not that the people vest unlimited power in their elected officials, but that this power can be checked and overruled if necesary via established procedures such as a referendum.

I also agree that it was an uphill battle and that the supporters were up against a whole lot - but that’s just the way things are… There is no easy way out. If EU wants to build an ever closer union it will have to put its back into it and stop taking things for granted.

I for one am prepared to do my share. But it’s a two way street and if people reach out towards the EU, maybe the EU should reach out towards people in general. You see, the main problem is that the EU is not felt on the ground. Or rather (and I’m speaking stricly for Slovenia here), whenever it is felt, it is usually in a sentence “I’m sory ma’am you can’t do that any more. You know - EU regulations”.

This is not only EU’s doing, but it is mostly EU’s problem. And it is high time it starts dealing with it.

@Venera: you should know that as an apostle I am only interested in sinners.
Repent and thou too shall see (the movie).

- The reaction of EU leaders to the Irish “no” is no different than what it was to the French and Dutch “no” to the Constitution. Indeed, a number of Member States continued their ratification of the Constitution AFTER the French voted no. Since we’re on the subject of democracy, member states who have not yet ratified the Treaty are sovereign free to continue this process if they so wish. In this sense, I don’t see how you can claim the Irish are being treated any differently than the French/Dutch. That said, since Ireland signed the Treaty, it is duty bound to find a way to move forward.

“If this treaty went down badly in Ireland, imagine what the result of such a referendum would be in France or the UK, or any other “old” member state, whose people have long ago fallen out of love with the EU.”

Which is exactly why such a Treaty has no business being put to a referendum (unless the law demands so, as is the case in Ireland). And I mean this in the most democratic way possible: we elect our politicians to read through complex legal documents on our behalf and expect them to take the best possible decisions for us. I don’t think we should be expected to do this work for them. The Treaty is NOT a Constitution and can not be simplifed because it represents the entire body of EU legislation. One can not vote for or against it based on whether certain aspects of EU membership are making our lives less comfortable. Indeed, the Irish “no” campaign had a very simple but powerful slogan: “If you don’t know, vote no” - who can argue with that? You can be sure that 99% of those who turned up at the referendum never read the Treaty.

Alcessa: federalism is basically the opposite of what you claim. I don’t think I’ve come across the term “unionism” in reference to the EU.

I hope what I wrote makes sense, am in a bit of a rush…

It might be a bad thing for the EU political classes. Whether it’s a bad thing for the European on the street remains to be seen.