Support grows for EU reform treaty

[Darsh]

REUTERS - A new poll showed growing support for the European Union's reform treaty in Ireland as its main backers clashed on Sunday about the best date to hold a second referendum on the accord.


The Irish Times/TNS mrbi poll showed 51 percent would vote "Yes", an increase of eight points since November, with 33 percent saying "No", a drop of six points, the newspaper's website said in a preview of the poll to be published on Monday.


Sixteen percent said they did not know how they would vote. When undecided voters were excluded, the "Yes" side had 60.7 percent, with 39.3 percent in the "No" camp. That compared with last June's referendum result of 53.4 percent against and 46.6 percent in favour.


Earlier on Sunday, Ireland's main opposition party Fine Gael urged the government to hold a second referendum on the treaty in April, months earlier than previously proposed, to help deal quickly with economic woes.


The government reiterated the vote would happen before the end of October but it would not set a date until it agreed with European partners on the details of guarantees promised in exchange for holding the re-run.


An alliance between Fine Gael, the fellow opposition Labour Party and the governing Fianna Fail, which together represent an overwhelming majority of the electorate, failed to obtain a "Yes" vote in the first Lisbon Treaty referendum last June.


The treaty, aimed at streamlining decision-making in Brussels, must be ratified by all 27 EU member states. Ireland's constitution requires a referendum, stalling the whole process just as EU backers say the bloc needs to show it is capable of quick and coordinated action to tackle financial crisis.


Ireland said in December it was prepared to hold a second ballot on the basis of concessions secured from EU counterparts, which it hopes will sway opinion towards a "Yes" vote this time.


The concessions include allowing Ireland to keep a permanent commissioner and on sensitive areas of its traditional military neutrality, taxation policy and workers' rights.




Guarantees

"The conclusions of the December European Council state that work on the guarantees should be concluded no later than mid-2009," the foreign ministry said in a statement on Sunday.


Once the guarantees are agreed, the government will call a second vote before the current European Commission leaves office at the end of October, the ministry said after Foreign Minister Micheal Martin met Czech Deputy Prime Minister Alexandr Vondra to discuss the treaty and the economy.


The Czech Republic holds the EU's rotating presidency.


The Irish government has been focusing on a bailout of Ireland's largest banks, which has been overshadowed by a series of scandals. It has now made an overhaul of its financial regulatory system its next top priority.


Ireland became the first euro zone country to enter recession after the bursting of its property bubble and is running one of the highest budget deficits in the EU. Its problems have been compounded by a series of bank scandals.


The Irish Times/TNS mrbi poll was conducted last Monday and Tuesday, among a sample of 1,000 voters, whom it asked how they would vote "in the light of the commitment to allow Ireland to retain an European Union commissioner along with legal guarantees on other Irish concerns about neutrality, abortion and taxation".


In response to another question, whether it was better to be part of the EU in light of the economic crisis, 80 percent answered "yes".

http://www.france24.com/en/20090216-...y-ireland-poll

[IrishHitman]

If it came down to a vote, it would be a very close Yes.

Ireland is one of the laziest countries for voting, and the No camp are better voters.

[antares24]

mmmm i don't know if it is wise to accelerate the vote, sure, the sooner the Lisbon treaty is approved the better, but i wouldn't run a second referendum so soon, if it is rejected again, even if by close margins, what happen then?

A third referundum will be a bit of a stretch, and kicking Ireland out in the middle of a severe recession wouldn't be nice for the Irish (even if many will say they asked for it in case of second no ).

Better to push the poles and the czech to ratify it soon, i mean even the brits have ratified it before them, that's shameful

[gojira]

You fellas have no idea what this "treaty" stands for. This is de facto:
The abolishment of all the federal states represented by the EU. We do not want a superstate, ruled by supercapitalism, eroding our social welfare systems, loss of democracy, no influence whatsoever on what the newly european council would decide.

ANYONE, who just read about that treaty, that is a constitution in disguise, MUST REJECT IT BY ALL MEANS.

The mere fact, the Irish shall be forced to vote AGAIN, is a scandal.

this mothering EU and all of its fascist supporters throughout the media and political class.

You wanna be ruled by THAT kind of people???:




"Europe's nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguisedas having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."

-- Jean Monnet (Founding Father Of The EU).


The EU will become the sort of police state, the US is today. The naiveness of the EU supporters is breathtaking, after all is so obvious and warned of- especially this "treaty", its breathtaking how many are still asleep or drunk by the fairy tales they told us.

What about the Euro? Any advantages for you personally? Doubt it. Everything got more expensive and EU policy destroys the middle class.

Breathtaking.

[wilting]

The abolishment of all the federal states represented by the EU.

The EU isn't federal. This most basic mistake shows what a total lack of understanding you have of the basic nature of the Union.

bla bla bla

This Union isn't as democratic as it could be precisely because it isn't federal, as I have explained countless times on this forum.

The Lisbon Treaty makes no radical changes to the nature of the Union and maintains national-centric Governance which is why it is a bad treaty.

You can quote Monnet all you like (and what his views really were are disputed), the fact is the Union is fundamentally intergovernmental in nature. Which is what is wrong with it.

As for the poll, I can only say 'meh', the damage of a no vote has already been done.

What about the Euro? Any advantages for you personally? Doubt it. Everything got more expensive and EU policy destroys the middle class.

What nonsense.

1) No inflation has been caused by the Euro. This is a myth.
2) Benefits...hmmm, let me think. OH YEAH ALL THOSE STATES I CAN USE IT IN.
3) As if by magic, I somehow remain middle class.

Got to love the EU's version of democracy. If you don't vote the way we want we'll just keep making you vote again until you do.

Are you suggesting that voters shouldn't change their minds?

And remember, this has nothing to do with the EU. It's up to member states how to ratify treaties.

[antares24]

Got to love the EU's version of democracy. If you don't vote the way we want we'll just keep making you vote again until you do.

no one will force the Irish at gunpoint to vote yes york
if they don't like the Eu they can simply say goodbye, no one force no one into it.

You fellas have no idea what this "treaty" stands for. This is de facto:
The abolishment of all the federal states represented by the EU. We do not want a superstate, ruled by supercapitalism, eroding our social welfare systems, loss of democracy, no influence whatsoever on what the newly european council would decide.

LOL my friend do yourself a favor , search for the treaty on internet, and read a bit of it. There is a summary of the main points on wiki too. Just to point out, there isn't any abolishment of the national states. But it's true that in many issues it's very similar to the so called constitution. Meh somehow people were scared by that word....

[Zadig]

Wow, great speach!

[gojira]

@Wilting:
I said, the union would destroy the federal states--> national souvereignities that are still left.
Which renders 80% of your reply useless.

The other stuff: If you havent figured out yet, whome the EU serves, and whome not:

The reason why the Irish now change their opinions is easy: The crisis.
Nonetheless the EU is a sinking boat, a missconception and a massive fault.

I laughed hard about your: i can buy everywhere with the same currency argument, HAVE YOU ANY CLUE WHAT U LOST FOR THIS? Your country, wherever you came from, gave up FUNDAMENTAL aspects of money policy. Ask the European Central Bank what rights they pulled out of your government´s pocket for more detail.
If they bring this treaty through, we will lose the rights our former generations lost their blood for- out of pure lazyness or- in your case- a naive perception of the eu parliament.

Here´s a phrase you seriously should thinka bout:

The biggest threat to liberty, are governments.

Who developed that constitution? Isnt a constitution created under transparent circumstances usually? Isnt it the people, that votes on a constitution? Who is this right granted: Not all of us, only those, that have a strong democracy implemented. the rest of the close to 500mio eu citizens dont have a chance to express their opinions. Great democracy, really.

Screw the EU and its Euro Hoodlums.

[IrishHitman]

You fellas have no idea what this "treaty" stands for. This is de facto:
The abolishment of all the federal states represented by the EU. We do not want a superstate, ruled by supercapitalism, eroding our social welfare systems, loss of democracy, no influence whatsoever on what the newly european council would decide.

ANYONE, who just read about that treaty, that is a constitution in disguise, MUST REJECT IT BY ALL MEANS.

The mere fact, the Irish shall be forced to vote AGAIN, is a scandal.

this mothering EU and all of its fascist supporters throughout the media and political class.

You wanna be ruled by THAT kind of people???:




"Europe's nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."

-- Jean Monnet (Founding Father Of The EU).


The EU will become the sort of police state, the US is today. The naiveness of the EU supporters is breathtaking, after all is so obvious and warned of- especially this "treaty", its breathtaking how many are still asleep or drunk by the fairy tales they told us.

What about the Euro? Any advantages for you personally? Doubt it. Everything got more expensive and EU policy destroys the middle class.

Breathtaking.

Actually, I do want a superstate. A far looser one than the US, but a superstate nonetheless. It is arguably already a "superstate".
The supercapitalism point is sort of out the window, supercapitalism got bit in the ass recently, in case you haven't noticed.

The Lisbon treaty and the constitution are indeed very similar.
However, the constitution itself isn't all that effective.
It does very little, for the massive textual size it had.
It merely consolidates existing practice in a lot of cases.

Ireland chose to vote again, Ireland isn't being forced.
The democratically elected parliament of the Irish Republic decided to have another referendum. It is their right to.

Farage is arguably the greatest danger to Ireland that has existed since the British Empire. His party represents all that was wrong with the British Empire, and he is seeking to restore it.
His sidekick Kathy Sinnott represents all the wrong sections of Irish society.
She's a bigot, fundamentalist loon who will be rightly ousted from her EU seat, hopefully by an Irish Labour Party candidate.

The EU won't become a police state unless there is an excuse to do so.
As Europe is on good terms with all except Russia and a couple of Islamic extremists, we'll be alright on that front. Hell, the EU could even counter the CCTV obsession that the Brits seem to have.

[Yorkshireman]

Ireland chose to vote again, Ireland isn't being forced.

I bet the majority who voted "NO" in the referendum did'nt choose to vote again.

[Erik]

Actually, I do want a superstate. A far looser one than the US, but a superstate nonetheless. It is arguably already a "superstate".

If the EU (non-)consitution passes, the USE will most likely become a lot tighter than the USA.

The USA at least has this in their bill of rights:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

There is absolutely NOTHING in the EU's proposed (non-)constitution that will limit the EU's own power.
With the abolishing of the veto powers, a simple EU majority has the power to overrule almost any national law they want, raise any additional EU-level taxes they want, and expand almost any EU power they want.

This is what is so worrying about this proposal.

[Yorkshireman]

Got to love the EU's version of democracy. If you don't vote the way we want we'll just keep making you vote again until you do.

[Musthavename]

It's probably because of the whole recession thing happening right now. That, and wasn't there a bunch of issues such as abortion laws that were convincing people to vote no (where the Treaty really wouldn't have affected them).

Though, i'd urge the Irish to vote No. Not because if you think the treaty is good or bad, but because the rest of Europe are being denied their own referendums. If people got them and they voted Yes, I wouldn't care then. What I care about is this being forced through rather undemocratically (considering a lot of it is just a carbon copy of the "Constitution").

[SorelusImperion]

The democratic and modern history of Europe has been extremely irreligious/secular

I can't agree with that. Christianity (and Islam through indirect influence -> noveltys brought back to Europe by crusaders, Muslim philosphers' influence etc.) played a large part in the developement of our cultures, values and political systems. Only in the last 50 years Europe became as secularized as it is now. This developement should not be reversed however as it would be a betrayal of the European idea.

[IrishHitman]

I can't agree with that. Christianity (and Islam through indirect influence -> noveltys brought back to Europe by crusaders, Muslim philosphers' influence etc.) played a large part in the developement of our cultures, values and political systems. Only in the last 50 years Europe became as secularized as it is now. This developement should not be reversed however as it would be a betrayal of the European idea.

Modern history started in the 1800s.
Europe became democratic at the end of WWI/II, depending on whether you count the fascist experiments of the 30s/40s.

The 1800s, compared with the previous centuries, was extremely progressive in terms of secularisation. A massive increase in atheism in urban areas during the industrial revolution caused a church building spree by various faiths. The secular trend has continued to this day, where we now find it threatened by the rise of Islamism.

If you want to find the source of the modern European world, look no further than Republican France.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Seriously, if Ireland vetoes this again, they should be kicked from the Union.

[6th Vigil]

Seriously, if Ireland vetoes this again, they should be kicked from the Union.

Why? It's their choice surely? At least thats what i thought democracy was........

P.S i apologise if you're being sarcastic.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Why? It's their choice surely? At least thats what i thought democracy was........

P.S i apologise if you're being sarcastic.

Well, it's sarcastic enough that nearly 1% of the EU population get to decide the fate of the remaining 99% who would like to see the change. As funny as this situation is, most of the voters are not able to correctly evaluate the constitution and make a deliberate decision based on rational arguments and precise information. Just take a look at post #4 in this thread as a taster of the stupid propaganda that was spread in Ireland.

[6th Vigil]

Well, it's sarcastic enough that nearly 1% of the EU population get to decide the fate of the remaining 99% who would like to see the change. As funny as this situation is, most of the voters are not able to correctly evaluate the constitution and make a deliberate decision based on rational arguments and precise information. Just take a look at post #4 in this thread as a taster of the stupid propaganda that was spread in Ireland.

That would be justified apart from the fact that most of that 99% have not had the chance to vote on the treaty. So there is no knowing how many people want the reforms but if there was a referendum, which there hasn't, then the treaty would not have been ratified.

Theres bad propaganda on both sides though that 4th post was a tad strong.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

That would be justified apart from the fact that most of that 99% have not had the chance to vote on the treaty. So there is no knowing how many people want the reforms but if there was a referendum, which there hasn't, then the treaty would not have been ratified.

Theres bad propaganda on both sides though that 4th post was a tad strong.

All countries have their own ways of accepting an EU treaty. Some countries chose to ratify it by their parliaments - parliaments which are elected by the people. It's called indirect representation, and it's DEMOCRATIC. If people would get to vote over every international treaty their government signs, there would be a vote basically in every month, not to mention that - as I mentioned earlier - most of the people are not well-informed enough to make a deliberate decision in these matters. Ireland chose that it will accept EU treaties through referendums. It was Ireland's decision, not entirely reasonable, but the EU has to live with it. Nonetheless the other methods are still viable and democratic.

I wonder which country do you live in, and does it have a written constitution. Well, if it has - did you vote for it? Did you approve of it? If not, what's the problem with the EU constitution being approved by your elected representatives? I hope you see my point.