Members' Room
The Manifesto Club supports |
No, Nein, Non, Nee - Messages of support to the Irish People
Email messages (in any European language) - in support of the Irish vote, or analysing the meaning of the no-vote and the future of European democracy The Irish referendum has been a James Larkin moment. The monument to this great Irish democrat stands on Dublin's O'Connell Street. On it is inscribed: "Les grands ne sont grands que parce que nous sommes à genoux: Levons-nous. Ní uasal aon uasal ach sinne bheith íseal: Éirímis. The great appear great because we are on our knees: Let us rise." Today two sides are emerging in Europe: Us versus them. The progressives versus the reactionaries who believe that EU referendums should only have one answer, Yes. The Irish have spoken, and struck a blow, for all of us, Britons, French, Dutch, all of us Europeans, who are sick of the way we are ruled. It does not have to be the way our rulers tell us it is. Once, politics was about left and right, today a new division is opening up between those accept the elite view of the world and those who demand something different. We are on the side of the Irish. People get a bit confused about what is at stake when looking at some of the No campaigners, especially the cranky ones, the anti-abortionists, fascists or animal rights types. The elites know that what is at stake in the No vote. José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission President, sees the problem not as the Treaty or the EU but the failure of Irish people to grasp what their betters tell them. "The No vote in Ireland has not solved the problems that the Lisbon Treaty is designed to solve," he said. "I believe the treaty is alive." "The Treaty of Lisbon intends to solve specific problems. The No vote in Ireland does not solve the problems. When 27 governments decided to adopt the Treaty of Lisbon they did not just do it for fun. They have done it because there is a problem and we should find a new way of working together in an enlarged EU. The problem is still there." French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel made a joint statement along the same lines. The EU knows best. "We take note of the democratic decision of the Irish citizens with all due respect, even though we regret it," they said. "We hope that the other member states will continue the process of ratification. We are convinced that reforms contained in the Lisbon Treaty are necessary." The EU is not a system of representation or a public authority. It is a set of institutions and relationships for convenience for national state bureaucracies organised on the basis of mistrust of the people. The last 20 years has made it very clear that our current system of parliamentary representation, which has always been corrupt, has failed to represent the people. The collapse in the ability of political parties or governments to be able to mobilise people is. We cannot trust MPs on Europe, or civil liberties or many other issues to represent principles that run contrary to the status quo. The elites, their political parties and MPs have failed to uphold representative democracy and the principles that underpin it. The rise of the EU is proof of this. Progressive politics can and should be built on mistrust of our rulers. The EU's operational reality, mirroring and enhancing that of national states, is principally mistrust of the people. Many Irish voters instinctively grasped this. The root of Ireland's No lies in the dismissal of the capacities of the people by our rulers. The climate that diminishes the role assigned to people has fostered the EU alongside the explosion of petty officialdom's interference into our personal lives and the rise of the surveillance state across Europe. The Irish No is a rebellion against politicians who can no longer inspire or lead us and instead cajole and threaten us with the necessity to bow to global threats such as climate change or terrorism. The Irish No, like the French and Dutch EU rejections of three years ago, is massively significant. It is an embryonic glimmer of a new politics of opposition. The Irish have rejected their own government and the EU's account of the world. We are on their side. Sean O'Casey on Larkin: "He talked... not for an assignation with peace, dark obedience, or placid resignation, but trumpet-tongued of resistance to wrong, discontent with leering poverty, and defiance of any power strutting out to stand in the way of their march onward." Bruno Waterfield, Brussels The Irish vote can provide inspiration for all European democrats. The vote did not seem to be primarily an endorsement of the specific politics of the ‘no’ campaign, with its combination including economic nationalism and Catholic anti-abortionism. Instead, it was the ‘yes’ camp that lost it: they started in the lead, and the longer the campaign went on the more voters they lost. And they lost because they exhibited all the contempt and decadence of a technocratic elite, which instructed people how they should vote and did not try to win them. The radical content of the ‘no’ vote is the simple refusal to affirm the elite as requested. It lies in the slogan, ‘Don’t be bullied, Vote No’, or the comments of many who said they voted ‘no’ because ‘I haven’t been convinced’. A vote with only one answer is not democracy, and citizens cannot be carted to the ballot like serfs. ‘Brussels’ is revealed now as not a clan of distant technocrats that foists plans on the nations of Europe; instead, we can see how Brussels legislation is part of the modus operandi of national politics now. In all European countries, politics is a matter that is done behind closed doors in elite negotiation, it happens in a different world to the world in which people live. In no European country does popular pressure determine the issues and decisions made in parliament. As a result, national elites feel more at home with European politics, with their dealings with other members of political elites over coffee, than they do in the estates and yards of their own country. That is why they are all continuing to push the Lisbon treaty through their parliaments, and have all said that the response to the Irish vote should be ‘business as usual’. The ‘no’ votes in Holland, France and Ireland were in some respects quite different, but what was common was the rejection of the politics of the elite, and it was a democratic spirit that reverberated around Europe in the summer of 2005 when the French ‘no’ got its echo in Holland. The political elites from all over Europe are now moving to isolate the Irish, and present the no-vote as their ‘problem’ for which they have to find a ‘solution’. Citizens from across Europe should show solidarity with the Irish voters. During the run-up to the Irish vote, groups picketed Irish embassies across Europe with banners saying 'Vote for the people, not the elites’ and ‘On 12 June we are all Irish'. Ratification is due to happen over the summer in national parliaments including Spain, the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, and Belgium (for a full list, see ‘Ratification’ on Wikipedia). Ratification starts on 17 June, in the British House of Lords, where a motley collection of unelected peers will pass the Treaty into UK law, as if the Irish vote never happened - a fitting end to the sorry process of European policymaking. In the absence of referenda in other European countries, we should call for this ratification process to stop. No should mean no, and votes should have consequences. Democracy was a European ideal once and could be so again. Josie Appleton, London Politicians said yes, and the three peoples who were given a chance answered "No" to a European Treaty. But which part of "No" don't we understand? In all three countries the No campaigners came from a variety of political affiliations. We have to read into two letters different and, indeed, opposite, reasons for rejecting more European integration and devolution of power to a central European command. Not easy. This much seems clear, however. The French said "no" out of fear. They do not distrust the Union as much as the future. The articles in the Treaty negatively referred to by the public were the more free-market ones. Brussels would open national borders to intra-European migration (the "Polish plumber" syndrome), to GM-foods and to more globalised economic competition; it would put an end to France's "cultural exception", and its "social charter" was deemed not social enough. The coalition of leftists and nationalists, who had voted "no" in France, loudly acclaimed the Dutch referendum a few weeks later. It was not an expression of fear, though, but of the Netherlands's self-confidence in its progressive way-of-life (despite Theo van Gogh's assassination and Ayaan Hirsi Ali's tribulations). The Dutch No campaign raised the prospect of Brussels banning same-sex marriages and cannabis cafes (which have the French right and left brandishing garlic and crucifixes), whilst nothing in the proposed Treaty about globalisation, competition, free movement of people within Europe, the Social Charter, American films and seeds technology seemed of much concern to Dutch voters. And now, the Irish. "Jamais deux sans trois." The Irish want to retain what the French want Brussels to ban: religion in the public sphere and tax competition. So we have three resounding "Nays", but they are implicit "Ayes" to conflicting propositions. With gross oversimplification we may draw an axis going from "regressive" to "progressive" on which the EU Treaty and its morphed version would stand in the middle, with the French vote on the regressive side and the Dutch and Irish votes on the progressive one. I do not vote as a matter of principle (as I like to say, I am not much of a democrat, I prefer freedom), but with a gun to my head, being French, I would have supported the EU Treaty. Brussels has forced some very positive developments on my country. Wearing Irish or Dutch colours, though, (or a Union Jack for that matter), I would have voted "no". How do politicians intend to unify peoples with such different worldviews, I don't know. Christian Michel, Parisian The Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty is not, as EU officials and their supporters would have us believe, an expression of nationalism, xenophobia or Catholic reaction. It is a display of self-respect, a demand to be treated as adults, a big fat "No" to the paternalism of the faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. We should support this positive democratic resistance to the technocratic politics of the EU. The EU elite and its supporters seem to have two views of the Irish: they see them as children who need to be cared for, or as a treacherous people who have no right to question the EU's writ. One report warned that if the Irish rejected Lisbon they would be seen as "the truculent and ungrateful child of Europe". When the Irish dared to reject the EU's Nice Treaty in 2001, a French newspaper declared: "The best pupils of the European class have spat in the soup." Because the Irish have received EU subsidies worth 40 billion Euros over the past 35 years, their rejection of EU treaties is described as "all the more treacherous". Children or traitors... the Irish have been discussed in similar terms before. Their British colonial rulers likewise saw them as overgrown, sub-intelligent children who had to be governed from London, or as traitors if they dared to stand up to their foreign masters. It is not surprising that the Irish people - like the French and Dutch before them - did not take kindly to being treated as a stage army whose only job was to rubber-stamp decisions made on their behalf in Brussels. Instead of using their vote to give the nod to EU technocrats, they used it to assert the fact that they cannot be bought off and that they expect a bit more from the political process than handouts and wooden, pre-agreed constitutions. This is a great day for the democratic spirit over the soullessness of empty EU elitism. Brendan O'Neill, editor of spiked, London (see For Europe, Against the EU!) It is rare indeed for the entire EU oligarchy and political class to join together with the media, the trade unions and the Catholic Church to take on the people. Even the poor old Pope got in on the act: he tried to provide some moral support to his mates in Brussels and Dublin in the run-up to the Irish referendum by giving a speech on the importance of the EU for countries like Ireland. This display of elite unity is probably unprecedented; such unity was not achieved during the referenda in Holland and France. During previous referendum campaigns, things were a lot more confusing; they lacked the clarity of what took place in Ireland, where the people were on one side and virtually all of their ‘representatives’ were on the other. The cultural dissonance between the elite and the people was on full display during the Irish referendum. It’s worth noting that those media commentators who denounced the rag-tag army of ‘No’ voters happily overlooked the rag-tag army of elite interests behind the ‘Yes’ campaign. Another striking thing about the Irish experience is how clearly – crystal clearly – it showed up the anti-democratic impulse behind the EU project. In previous times, the EU’s public relations machine had some success in confusing the debate, with its representatives suggesting that it was the opponents of the EU who were a threat to democracy. Officials and commentators frequently argued that ‘No’ campaigners in Holland and France were motivated by a base hatred of foreigners; their campaigning and their voting choices were denounced as ‘xenophobic’ and ‘anti-immigrant’. Frank Furedi, professor of sociology, University of Kent There is no doubt that the Irish No vote was a great moment. Perhaps the most exciting thing about it was the sense in which an alternative European unity was being created: not the technocratic dream of federalists and bureaucrats but a more popular Europe united in its opposition to the politics of expertise and consensus. Excitement should not however tip over into hubris and inaccuracy. I don’t think anyone has an insight into the Irish soul, or can say with absolute certainty what the No was driven by. On what basis can we say it was really about something and not about something else? If we take the No campaign for what it was, rather than for what we would wish it to be, there are two key points. One was the role played by a generalized distrust of political elites. This was a significant addition to the previous referendums in Ireland where low turnout had given victory to more disparate groups and opinions. However, this generalized distrust wasn’t radicalized into a challenge to the political status quo. Rather, it was channelled into a language of Ireland vs. the EU, and of Ireland as a small state vs. the powerful players in Europe, like France and Germany. This was what the ‘Don’t Be Bullied’ slogan referred to. The error here was to see the matter as one of the state versus the EU but this was how the No campaign played itself out. The embryonic unity was contained within this straightjacket which is unsurprising given how weak any sense of European identity or belonging is. The direction we should take is to highlight how what is at stake is something which challenges the relationship between national elites and their own populations. This means hammering home the same point about not choosing between the state and the EU but between two kinds of politics – technocratic vs. democratic – in specific national debates. We cannot leap over the nation-states of Europe; rather, we need to show how the troubles of the EU are really the troubles of national capitals. For this reason, we should not argue for a halt to the ratification process. There is no reason why people in other European states should have their own decisions determined by the Irish vote, they live after all in sovereign states themselves. To argue for halting the ratification is to presume what doesn't exist: a European people united under a common European political will. We can only contemplate the universal message of the Irish vote through the particularist form of European politics, otherwise we find ourselves on the same side as the head-in-the-clouds Euro-enthusiasts who think the European people already exists. Christopher Bickerton, Oxford Since the decline of the Communism in 1989-91, the Irish No is the most important event in the history of democracy. The governing elite of the EUSSR only allowed to one small people in Europe to openly express its opinion, in the hope that this small people would not have enough courage to reject the elite's proposal. But it had. Therefore, all 500 Mio Europeans, who are deprived from the freedom of speech, must be grateful to the Irish. The studies performed in other European countries clearly indicate that if referenda were conducted, the negative result would be more distinct than in Ireland, perhaps except Spain. In Germany, at least 60% (and probably, up to 70%) people would say No, in contrast to "merely" 53% in Ireland. It is NOT IMPORTANT why the Irish answered No, and why most other Europeans would answer in the same way if they were asked. The point is not whether arguments for the Yes-alternative or the No-alternative are better. The point is that peoples must be permitted to choose between the alternatives! The choice as such is a value, more valuable than the economic or military power. The argument of the Brusselian autocrates "to get a strong Europe, we should withdraw from a free choice" is the same argument suggested by all dictators in the history from Sulla to Hitler and Stalin. But the battle has not yet been won. Now the bureaucracy will surely try to solve the problem in the simplest way of enforcing the Irish to vote again and again until one result is some 51% yes / 49% no, which can happen on purely statistical reasons if the referendum is repeated several times. Thus we should clearly state that the present result is a final one. B.Kotchoubey Well I'm really just speechless - I mean what is wrong with these people in Brussels, and politicians in general - why do they think they should do whatever they want regardless of what people on the ground think? The Irish vote was fantastic. I think this organisation needs to think about how it could start working with newspapers and others to build a much larger groundswell of vocal opinion about what is going on. It's not as if most of the people who would vote 'no' are against Europe - most people are not - they are against the way in which things are being done, Most of us have nothing against French, Germans etc as people or their way of life, but we are against having our way of life taken away from us and being forced to submit to alien ways of government, democracy etc and being part of an even larger corrupt organisation - we have enough corruption of our own and lack of democracy in our own government without importing even more of it from Europe - this is what we are against. We need to get someone - it almost does not matter who - to stand up and campaign on a platform of 'no more' - lets fix the issues with Europe that exist right now by rolling back the clock on 'democracy', sorting out the corruption etc and then in many years time we can look at whether anyone really wants a United States of Europe. Bernard Cadogan, Leamington Spa I never read the treaty. Ergo I do not understand it, still I am dead against it. Pace Sarkozy, Zapatero et al. I don't like Sex in the City the movie because I don't like Sex in the City full stop. So while we have been assured this latest effort in the EU elite love-in is just about loosening our administration so we can accomadate more members, and whatnot, I and hundreds of thousands of Irish voters couldn't give a fiddle. 'Yes' the vote was not against the treaty per se but 'Yes' also it was a decided blow against the EU. The EU elite said 'Yes, yes change your constitutions to better fit our members' but on being refused a fiddle and on being struck by the other kind of blow it is them who are f*cked. Now if we could just drive the point home, perhaps rupture and finally discard this corpse atop of us... who's for a vote on the EU? Simon Lawrence What happened to my chance to vote "NO"? These scheming villains need to be told straight that we will not accept the EU. Philip Howarth We're lucky that Ireland had their referendum, as other countries (most obviously Britain) refused Lotte Meteyard, London I’m for worldwide integration of all people in the world – including European integration – which is why when countries such as Ireland vote ‘no’ it seems like a backward step for international democracy. However what are the Irish – indeed all of us Europeans – supposed to be voting ‘yes’ to? If the European leaders haven’t won the arguments and the votes to convince Ireland, those leaders should change their political arguments and the EU itself rather than ignore the democratic will of the Irish people. Those in Ireland may well want the world to unite too, but not on any terms. I’m for solidarity with Ireland and also for advancing new, less bureaucratic arguments for European and international integration. The urgent question is: what kind of united Europe do we want to argue for? Tessa Mayes, journalist and author, London, UK As a professional scientist, I have had much fruitful contact with colleagues from other European countries and became and still am essentially pro-European. The EU's role in encouraging these contacts was very positive, but I have become somewhat disillusioned with its enforcing of environmental standards. Some of these have been necessary, but many more are of questionable validity. The nitrate standards form a notable example. The EU treats nitrate as a toxin, but recent medical research has shown that nitrate is produced within the human body, contributes to the body's defenses against gastroenteritis, helps to prevent strokes and heart attacks and tends to lower blood pressure. All the signs suggest that it will be difficult to get the EU policy reviewed; resistance to change is built into the system. The essential problem seems to be that the EU sees itself on a hierarchical plane above the individual countries and higher still above their voters. Hence the immediate reaction to ignore the Irish no-vote. Given this problem, and the endemic financial scandal in the EU, perhaps it is time, very regretfully and with due apology to Jean Monnet, to suggest a 'root and branch' review of the activities of the EU? Tom Addiscott [Letter sent to the Financial Times on 16 June] Prominent Germans like Foreign Minister Steinmeier should pause before they deliver any more menacing lectures to the Irish for utilising their popular sovereignty to deliver a verdict on the EU's Lisbon treaty [Wolfgang Munchau, 'Europe's hardball plan B...', FT Comment page, 16 June]. Such heavy-handedness resurrects memories of how Otto von Bismarck threatened those dukedoms and principalities which tried to avoid being absorbed by Prussia in the 1860s. German politics have known many travails since then and it would be commendable for Germans to reflect that Ireland preserved its democracy despite grinding poverty, civil-war, and loss of territory while regretfully Germany didn't. Finally, I would humbly suggest that the former Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder's decision to wreck the common energy policy which drove the EU project forward since the 1950s, by signing a bilateral gas deal with Russia, was a far greater violation of EU solidarity than anything the Irish have done.Schroeder has not been anathemised by EU grandees or Berlin politicians who still uphold his treaty with Vladimir Putin. So it is time for some Germans to lighten up and for many more to project the democratic values which the EU is supposed to represent, both eastwards and also inwards so that no voters will need to fear their liberties being swallowed up by a Brussels behometh. (Prof) Tom Gallagher, National Endowment for Democracy, Washington DC I have rejoiced when the news came in. I am not a nationalist and I am not against the Union of European states. I felt that the Irish No could have been given on my behalf, I am not allowed to have a say. The reasons include my dissatisfaction with, in our case, of being under four layers of governing administrations, each worse that the next, including the ever expanding bureaucracy in Brussels. The cost of us being governed rises dramatically year after a year. Consequently, the Irish No opens the possibility of streamlining the two layers of government: European and national. After all, the European governing body could be made up from the national ones, e.g. no need for the separate European Members of Parliament, and no need to have two seats for the European parliament. The Irish No was probably less focused on particular parts of the treaty than expected. It could be simply a blank distrust to a product of the political elite, and as such a critique of the way the European Union handles significant problems. I am also not satisfied with the treaty, what I know of it: it does not clearly and courageously improve/decrease the administration nor does it change some of the economic rules/principles that are outdated and as such harmful to the well being of ordinary people. If people are asked to vote on something as vast and difficult to grasp, it puts the omen on the makers/ writers of it, not on the voters. I find this wholly symptomatic of the arrogance I observed amongst far too many politicians over a long time. The Irish No is not the problem for the voters, it is the problem for the political elite who failed the citizens, not the other way round. I agree that there is an urgent need for change, for improvements, but this treaty falls short of our expectations. Dr S. Sverakova, UK The Irish 'No' vote is fascinating, not only because it was a dramatic manifestion of popular will against the overwhelming odds and establishment pressure, but because of the sinister reaction it has provoked. This is very revealing and helpful to the forces of democracy across Europe. The more brazen, outspoken the post-democrats become the better. In addition to the usual, grandee EU elitists, making their usual post-referendum defeat noises about the need to continue to implement the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty/.... (whatever they will be re-naming it after the next EU summit), we also have witnessed some very sour Third Way types revealing a rather, to put it politely, 'ambiguous' attitude at best to the democratic principle itself. Check out the recent post-referendum comments of Peter Hain, Denis MacShane (of course), rising New Labour star Andy Burnham, Will Hutton and from France, Danny Cohn-Bendit MEP (that alleged exemplar of the democratic spirit of May '68). Now that Red Danny has entered late middle age he doesn't seem quite so keen on mass political movements that threaten his current (political) class interests. His grumpy warnings to the Irish that they would 'live to regret' having the audacity to vote 'No' sounded reminiscent of an old Nineteenth Century Tory speculating to reforming Liberals about the horrors of extending the franchise to women and the working classes. What is becoming increasingly clear is that, with a few honourable exceptions, the mainstream left - as well as their counterparts on the continental, Christian Democrat centre right - now profoundly fear democracy and are using the supposed need for supranational government to tackle, yes you guessed it, 'climate change', 'international terrorism', the trafficking of small children, you name it, to justify ignoring (suspending) inconvenient electoral outcomes. If the EU elite succeed in by-passing the Irish referendum result we will be moving into a state of post-democracy, if not outright authoritarianism. Just take a look at some of the measures being cooked up in Brussels and by the governments of some member states regarding state surveillance of databases, freedom of speech, ID cards and other measures. The task facing Europe's democratics is to now put the case for a revival of the nation state, the only jurisdiction compatible with proper public accountability and responsible, modernist, government. We have to show how it is compatible with international co-operation and explain why the suprantional state does not have the answers to the various challenges - some real, some hugely exaggerated - it identifies. This is a battle bewteen the forces of Enlightenment modernism, on the one hand, and post-modern, post-democracy on the other. Marc Glendening, UK The result of the Irish referendum is great news for democrats and progressives everywhere. But it should not determine whether ratification of the Lisbon Treaty goes ahead or not in other countries. If Ireland is a sovereign nation, so too are the other countries waiting to ratify Lisbon. There is no reason that Irish voters should determine what happens in other countries. To hold to this view would be to accept the EU for what it pretends to be: a pan-European polity. Ratification of Lisbon should be decided by every country for itself. What appears to be a clash between nation-states and the EU should be turned into what this is really about: a clash between peoples and their own technocratic political leaders. The problem is not in Brussels but at home, and that is where the political battle should be fought. Philip Cunliffe, London While I agree that there is something progressive in the Irish 'No' vote, I think the campaign's emphasis is wrong, and potentially undemocratic. The progressive, democratic position is not against a continued ratification process. Instead of calling for this process to come to a premature halt, give each national people a chance actively to reject their representatives' desire to alienate political power and to avoid political responsibility and accountability. After all, the Irish don't speak for all of Europe, so why should their No vote be a reason from preventing other countries from making their own choice about joining or not joining the EU? Instead, the democratic lesson of successive No votes is that, in Ireland, as in France and the Netherlands, the people's national representatives do not speak for the people when it comes to the most fundamental issues. The democratic position is not for or against continued ratification, but rather to demand that continued ratification take place as a series of referendums, and then to organize for each country to vote 'No' to this technocratically organized, non-choice. If we trust people to make decisions, then argue for letting each national people to choose, and try to persuade them to vote no. After all, what the pro-EU elites are now aiming for is a continued ratification process that bypasses the referendum process - ie one that passes through the elites rather than the people. Arguing for a continued process based on national referenda is a way of getting around the problem of substituting the will of the Irish for Europe, while also emphasizing that this whole process has been undemocratic, or at least organized in a way that communicates distrust of the people. Calling for national referenda would also mean that the campaign avoids reifying the EU into some political structure independent of the national representatives that created it. The underlying problem with the EU is not that of nations v. EU but of the people vis-a-vis their own representatives, who wish to put power even further from the reach of popular control. Moreover, I think the Manifesto Club, if it calls for continued national referenda has the opportunity to take the lead on this issue, rather than just follow election returns. The central point being about trusting people to make decisions. The Manifesto Club also has the chance of distinguishing itself from the right-wing, nationalistic elements of the populist No vote by making the issue one of democracy, and by making the democratic campaign for national referenda a trans-national movement, rather than one that appeals to national pride, culture, xenophobia or fear of change. Alex Gourevitch, New York At least the Irish appear to have both sufficient intelligence and awareness to see how the world's populations are being used and their assets usurped for the sole benefit of a ruthless dominating cartel. My Irish forebears would be so proud of their outstanding "NO" response to the bureaucrats. Mike Godfrey MBBS Tauranga, NZ Since the Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty we have heard numerous comments from European, and United Kingdom, leaders to the effect that 'time / space should be given to Ireland to sort this out'. Let it now be loudly and firmly said by all European politicians who value the democratic process, and in particular by the British Conservative Party leaders, that the Irish demonstrably HAVE had 'the time / space to sort this out' and have syated their clear conclusion. It is an outrageous flaunting of the democratic process in the EU to ask them to do any more in this matter. The political leaders who are the most obvious and effective people to put this point to Europe's leaders are the British Opposition leader and his Shadow Cabinet; so far he has not been nearly clear or emphatic enough, and consequently has made no impact on the British Government, and has left his party's supporters impatient and discouraged. He said - rather briefly, shortly after the news of the Irish verdict - that now the Treaty should be 'dead'; but he should now say so again, much more emphatically, and should at the same time gather the support of the political forces and their leaders in France and Holland who gave the resounding 'No' vote to the proposed European Constitution. Harry Newbridge, London Good for the Manifesto Club, tackling the Europe problem. How can we try to persuade the Middle East to be democratic, or criticise Robert Mugabe for bullying his opposition, if we accept the myopic attitude of the EU bureaucrats? England needs to have a referendum on the Lisbon 'treaty'. No further work should be done on this document until that has happened. Irene Coates I'm not sure about this. The EU is a beneficial organisation that sets a new model for international relations. I'm not sure if we need the treaty and I'd prefer to advance the beneficial parts of the the EU by the English (Oakeshottian) method of constitutional development by evolution of institutions. The biggest problem is of grandstanding politicians whether in advancing or opposing the mutual integrationist thrust of European development. We need to address the democratic deficit in Europe. I certainly don't think that the Irish should be made to vote again. Its for the professional politicians to tidy up the various legal things that apparently need fixing. Europe should focus on being a commercial, social and legal entity. Farm subsidies should be banned and replaced with environmental measures. A unified foreign policy would be nice but hardly possible as long there is no real threat to European security or prosperity. I have a distaste as so many of the no campaigners are such horrible single issue nutters. Toby Mottram 'Shocking' is not the word. It's predictably, wearily sad. This moment is a gift for anyone trying to demonstrate how the political elite, whatever their hue, supposedly the servants of the people, continually and cynically betray the trust of those who have elected them to power. And they call this Democracy. Somebody buy these people a dictionary. Leo Carlyon, Brixton, London Just one sentence about the already dead and buried European Constitution, dug out of its grave and revived with a 3rd class magician trick with a new name by that sick self-elected and self-referential elite called European Commission: NOT IN MY NAME. Don't you dare to disregard our will and our voices. Angry people can turn into a killer mob, swarm en-masse onto your golden plated EU offices and hang your domination dreams upside down. Beware, this happened before. All my support to the Irish, from a fellow (albeit adopted) Scot. N.B. Maybe an extreme idea, but a national campaign to boycott any next EU election could have a huge success. What you think? Corrado Mella, MBCS As a new Irish citizen, the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty has been a breath of fresh air in the stale party (non)politics of the Celtic Tiger. What has impressed me most about the events of the past month has been the popular character of genuine scepticism of the Lisbon treaty. Whilst the political establishment in the South unquestioningly endorsed the Lisbon treaty as the only way to manage the expansion of the EU, the general public were roused by the inspidness and cowardice of their argument to accept Lisbon as a Faustian bargain in exchange for inclusion in the EU. Family members, friends and colleagues not normally known for their interest in dreary technical legal tomes did read it (it's true, and I'm still amazed) and had questions they wanted answered, and were annoyed further by the presumptuous counsel of all the main parties that there was no alternative. This refusal to accept the narrow limits of the official Lisbon "debate" is probably the single most decisive break with the recent political past. Predictably, Joan Burton [Irish Labour party] insultingly blamed the NO result on confused and frightened voters: "Although there was a lot of misinformation by the no camp in this campaign, the message from this result is that whenever the EU draws up a treaty they should make it intelligible to ordinary people. That was one of the biggest problems of this campaign – thousands and thousands of people couldn't even understand what the treaty was about." Contrary to the claims of Joan Burton, there was no shortage of Irish voters asking their elected representatives to shed some light on the benefits of Lisbon. The voters were simply uninspired by the responses of the Republic's cross-party coalition. Fringe issues like abortion, drugs and homosexuality may well have been deciding factors for the NO majority. However, not in the way that is commonly attributed by the Yes camp. Whilst it is clear that these issues still animate a small but vocal group in Ireland, their hold on the rest of us is weak. The cheap shots against the revolting anti-abortion group, COIR, and the dishonest attempts to link a NO vote to anti-immigrant or homophobic sentiment may well have served to discredit the YES campaign. The Irish public are more sophisticated than the politicians would have us believe. Political and economic sovereignty were the most popular gripes of ordinary voters. Astonishingly, the deathly dull subjects of military neutrality [isolationism] and tax harmonisation [economic nationalism] – not the fear of abortion clinics and gay marriage – were the subjects that concerned most, not least dear old Bridie [my feisty but endearingly conservative Gran]. The selective attacks on anti-abortionists and Catholic fundamentalists by the YES campaign underlined the anti-democratic impulse of a YES vote. The inability of Ireland's political class to reassure voters that we would retain sovereignty in such disparate areas as agriculture, trade, taxation, and foreign policy led Irish voters to implicitly choose that they would prefer the laws of Ireland to be contested, warts and all, by bigoted Irish campaign groups like Coir than be drafted on high by the King Solomons of Brussels. This is clearly something that democrats in Ireland and throughout Europe must nurture. I feel at this point there is an important distinction necessary. Does the Irish vote symbolise a defiant rejection of the managerial ethos of Irish Politics or a less than convincing shout of "not in my name" to the [Irish] all-party Yes campaign for Lisbon? It is here that I think we should be open to the ambiguous and ill-defined preferences of the NO vote. There is undoubtedly an element of cynicism in the NO victory, and it will be important that this anti-political trend is not conflated with the democratic spirit of defending individual sovereignty and sovereign equality. The individual desire, demand even, to influence public life as an equal is the basis of democratic accountability. Ireland's NO vote was certainly inspired by this democratic impulse and concurrently influenced by disillusionment with the political process per se. The lesson of the Irish vote must be to challenge the spinelessness of national elites, all across Europe. I agree with comments above that this means that it is important that the ratification process must be contested by domestic opposition. The Irish NO vote must not become an excuse for the Lisbon treaty to be shelved without debate in European capitals. The ratification process offers an opportunity for Europeans to impose the democratic will of the people and challenge their respective political elites to ditch technical solutions to social questions. The technocratic impulse of Lisbon is based in the domestic preference of European elites for 'good governance' as opposed to democratic accountability. We should take a leaf out of Irish voters' books. The opportunity to debate Irish Republicans who romantically defend Irish neutrality, self-made entrepreneurs who fear the end of public subsidy and Catholic fanatics who condemn women for unplanned pregnancy and to expand public debate is where the future of Irish democracy lies. A campaign to reject Lisbon should invite national elites to grapple with domestic citizens in the pros and cons of popular campaigns, even if that means we all have to roll up our sleeves and enter the ring of public opinion at our own risk without a helping hand from European judges or technocrats. If the elite haven't the mettle to engage or inspire us. We do. Steve Daley, County Mayo, Irish Republic People generally believe that the Third Reich died at the end of World War 2, however, many of us can see that the Third Reich is alive and well and it's principles are put into practice by many present day dictatorial Prime Ministers and Heads of State. Gordon Brown and his French and German counterparts are the latest examples of the type of people never to be allowed into any type of government where democracy is to be preserved. They believe that they can jackboot their way to autocratic power by having complete disregard for any democratic rights of anyone who is not a cronie and this is the ONLY reason there is a problem with the EU vote. The solution is very simple, the people must get rid of such so called leaders from government and thereafter be vigilant in keeping them out. I believe that Gordon Brown will ultimately turn us into freedom fighters because he cannot understand that we will never be dominated by any type of EU state. Eric Tweedie The Irish nation alone has been consulted about the Lisbon Treaty. They voted "no" - and by no narrow margin. Previously, the French and Dutch, again the only nations consulted, rejected the proposed EU Constitution. It's about time the EU elite stopped ignoring popular opinion and, instead of trying to find ways around it, faced up to the fact that there is a groundswell of opposition to this neocon, neoliberal project. Nigel Hall I agree a no is a no other wise what is a point of a vote. Siggi G Jokumsen I am so delighted you are running strongly with this. I have been anti EU for a long time. Could this be a moment of Europe-wide solidarity in an unofficial spontaneous (internet) referendum? David Buckingham Definitely and emphatically No, Non, Nein etc. The horrendous steamrollering over sovereignty and democracy must be stopped. Michael Coates In 1996 I was attending a four-month human rights training at Birmingham Law Faculty, sponsored by the Council of Europe, and an extra month, practical stage, in Belfast, Northern Ireland. After coming home I wrote an extensive essay on Ireland, which was published in 10 installments in the Sarajevo daily "Oslobodjenje". In brief, I can describe myself as a pro-Irish. In the context of Irish "No!" to the Lisbon Treaty, referendum was perfectly legal and legitimate. What matter in particular are motives for "No" votes. Anxiety caused by real or possible danger of cheap manpower from Eastern Europe and the Balkans countries, as was seen on some banners, or it was maybe another kind of anxiety - no chance for a superstate under God, implying that most of Irish people insists on clear reference to Europe's Christian heritage to be included in the text, be it Constitution or the Treaty. Some even speculate that Ireland is playing a proxy role: the US secret agenda is to kill the project of the European superstate. Whatever, I do adore the Emerald Isle... Dusan Babic It’s easy to blame the EC for the Irish vote or to blame the Irish for being not grateful enough for Europes blessings. The point is - there is a sort of imperial overstretch of the EC which has been revealed by this vote. Neither TINA - There is no alternative - to a European superstate won't help, neither a I-told-you-so blaming. I assume there are much more alternatives. Let’s take into account that the European Union since the European Coal and Steel Community was forced to rely on multilateral treaties, legal compromises of separate nation states. With the Irish decision, this has come to a limit, a technical boundary and I doubt neither of the popular remedies will work. As you said People should take care about those who govern them. I would prefer as well to have it more obvious who does belong to whom. Instead of a lukewarm legal compromise and a nontrackeable entity, Europe should be real stuff, a recogniseable legal body with (as well for the general public) adjustable relationships to the Europeans and their various governments. However the (continental) vision of a future United States of Europe based on the American role model will not come true. Imagine instead a genuine European solution - a setup of the European Union as a separate legal body instead - similar to the Vaticano or Order of Malta. The European Union would have its own (very small and dispersed) territory (Parliament, Court, Representations, Bank) and own money via a Europe Tax in the Union states. The relationship to the European nationstates would be ruled by bilateral contracts and mandates. This entity could and should have a sort of Charter or constitution. It needs to have an internal check of balances. It should act as full member at the UN etc (like the Holy See does for the Catholic Church). Whoever works for the EC, would be as well a real European citizen, with a transborder European passport and citizenship till European payment and social security. Delegates to the European parliaments still would be elected in the memberstates but being transferred to "real Europe" during their term. A further step would be to allow companies to build up European structures, e.g. in dedicated industrial areas e.g. close to harbours and airports - there could be as well truly European security mandates as well. It might sound somewhat technical - but I assume such a organizational setup and solution might help to divide between real existing faults and advantages of the European Community compared to other administrative bodies and NGOs and the litany about politics and leadership in general. Friedrich Heckmann, Germany As an ordinary individual who has worked for the government (MoD) and a daughter/sister of a regiment, I deplore the suggestion that Eire recind there vote or become a second string to the treaty. The government has sold us out by not giving us our right to vote - what the Germans and French have tried to do over the years, Blair and his cronies are doing - that is being beaten politically and by stealth instead of by war. What have the British men and women fought for in past wars and protected this country for - freedom and our way of life. What are those supporting the EU getting out of it? Are they to be held accountable and their accounts scutinised? Margaret Gardener This unexpected rejection has triggered a wave of panic amongst EU and national political elites, with politicians and commentators falling over themselves to proclaim the dangers of rejecting Europe and seeking to brand this as anything other than a rejection of the Lisbon Treaty itself. The furore in the aftermath of the vote and the differing reactions to it are illustrative of the machinations of power within the EU and its member states and raise many larger issues which are of significance to us all. The Irish referendum has shown that, despite the best efforts of the Euro elite, bribery is not always enough to get your way, even when it is combined with bullying. The French Foreign Minister Bernhard Kouchner, founder of Medicins sans Frontieres and no stranger to trying to bend other countries governments to his will, warned darkly that the Irish would be the “first victims” if they voted no. Having branded the No campaign as an unholy alliance of nutjobs and fundamentalists, the decisive vote came as a shock to many, with the initial reaction among many of the Euro power elite being to pretend that it hadn’t happened, didn’t matter or that the Irish had indeed rejected something, but not the treaty itself. This follows the same course as the reaction following the last EU train-wreck, the rejection of the constitution in 2005. The No! vote provides the platform for a reinvigorated campaign for a peoples’ Europe rather than a corporate Europe, a Europe from the bottom up rather than from the top-down. This should be a rallying cry for a new kind of democracy in Europe that recognises the need for post-nationalism and a post-power politics, but engages people in creating this rather than trying to strongarm or bamboozle them into it against their will. Benjamin Tallis, Prague A No is a No and the contract requires unanimous approval - so we uphold that and oppose all attempts to circumvent the verdict - but perhaps without waxing lyrical about that vote as you appear to do. The fact that every time the issue was voted on, the verdict was a resounding No indicates it is time for EU to be put to the vote everywhere - in both national and EU elections. Referenda were from the start an attempt to combine abiding by national constitutional requirements, while not really providing scope for open debate about the substantive issues (which are, of course, rarely put to the electorate in national election contests too). The fact that referenda produce a clear expression of popular sentiment about political developments where elections do not is indicative of the demise of the democratic process: in regular national elections, local and party loyalties persuade voters to put their mark by a party name, which tends to obscure the real level of disengagement between party leaderships and people. That is the good thing about the referendum -it shows up what is really the case. But this does not mean that we should call for more referenda. We should take any action we can instead to help make sure that the real issues get on the regular voting agendas. Our own No should, in particular, refer to the plan to forge ahead and make the contract enter into effect as planned in April next year (a date chosen, of course, to preempt any connection between that and the EU elections two months later). Why have a referendum, receive a No and then go on regardless? This is not only undemocratic - it simply makes no sense and can only further denigrate politics as a whole. That is a point that we felt will strike a chord among people concerned about the state of political life - not just today or tomorrow, but over the next year (which will see a hell of a lot of elections here in Germany as well as the EU parliamentary poll). Sabine Reul, Frankfurt Freedom started disappearing when the European Union was formed. They are now trying to get rid of the borders between the U.S. and Canada and Mexico. The Irish must have caught on. Like Papa Bush said in one of his speeches, we are headed for a one world Government. They use war, both large and small to keep control. Smoking bans, booze and fat bans are on the way. A socialization of everything we take for freedom is going to be controlled. They are using Health to restrict our freedoms. Crazy thought? Maybe not. Virgil Kleinhelter I completely support the Irish vote! Whether they’re right or not, the fact is the constitution says the laws cant be changed without the approval of the Irish people. Brussels Back Off! Arlene Tobin, London [Quotes from assorted Europeans, taken from the Yahoo question: Should we all thank Ireland for voting no on the new European treaty?] I am french. I voted "no" two years ago. Many french are grateful to Eire because she save our vote. Nicolas Sarkozy didn't listen french people.....Eire saved the french and netherlands vote. thanks to this proud people to show to all european people that european politic can only be done by european citizens! Well done Ireland for voting No in the face of so much attempted bullying from France and the Irish Government. Hurrah! Yes we most certainly should, because this will create a domino effect and others will soon follow. Further more it will strengthen the people in the U,K, pressing for the referendum that they were promised, and which the government has now withdrawn. Thanks to the courageous Irish. |
The Irish 'no' vote on the Lisbon treaty has plunged European politics into crisis. In rejecting the Treaty, the Irish have dealt a blow to political elites across Europe who prefer to rule through a Brussels machine rather than through the support of their own people. As European leaders line up to say that the ratification process will go on without them, we express our support with the people of Ireland, and say that no should mean no. Against European bureaucracy; for European democracy!