The “no” vote is really about the present Government, the recession and the rising oil price etc – if we don’t understand the question, we ll say no anyway.

There will be many people outside Ireland that will research the reasons behind the “No” vote and come up with possible reasons but they won’t take into account our mentality. It is not about rejecting Europe, its about rejecting today’s “local” government!!!

If the EU is to take away Ireland’s membership, Ireland will beg for “another chance” and will say yes to anything even this Lisbon Treaty – if it happens to England, they won’t give a toss!

Rant over.

Hows you, Jon?

Your “how dare you … before replying to my post” is sadly revealing.

Feel free to browse the hundreds of blog and forum posts in three languages where I have laid out my reasoning, some with comparative aspects, but I wouldn’t dream of ordering you to do it as a prerequisite for discussion.

I just don’t feel that you are a person I wish to discuss with right now.

In this case, the “methods of representative democracy” are employed in addition to the referendum, so their superiority or otherwise is irrelevant. The referendum check prevents a temporary legislative majority on a particular question being able to entrench its position when it is unrepresentative of the electorate as a whole.

(There is a slight difference, inasmuch as constitutional amendment bills don’t require the consent of both houses, but in practice this is irrelevant – I think they go through both houses anyway)

Why should the argument that governments and parliaments learn from their mistakes not apply also the electorate as a whole?

Irrespective of the outcome(s) referendum is a blunt tool for complex questions.

Government preparation, parliamentary debate, committee work, expert witnesses, final votes … The methods of representative democracy are superior.

Call it whatever you like, but it is my considered view.

Specifically, the referendum genie refers to the difficulty to remedy less fortunate decisions. Governments and parliaments change, and change opinion, with somewhat greater ease, thereby being able to learn more easily from their mistakes.

I don’t get this argument about tax harmonisation. Most EU competences are acquired not by treaty change but by treaty violation ratified by the Luxembourg Court, which has fewer than ten times (maybe fewer than three) in fifty years decided that a particular matter was outside the EU’s competence. Not only do the Irish have to worry about competence creep and a partisan judiciary, but horse-trading. It’s no good for tax harmonisation to require unanimity if the Irish Government can make a deal in COREPER trading off Ireland’s veto for something else.

¤¤¤

How on earth do some European leaders imagine that the concerns listed could be palatably packaged and served to the Irish voters in order to ‘get around’ their No vote?

The only legitimate way forward is to treat the Irish electors as adults. Their verdict may be both deplorable and mistaken, but the only legitimate response is to take it seriously.

If they, someday, change opinion or face another question, they have the political structures in place to initiate change.

¤¤¤

Naturally, the other signatories have their own interests to tend to. If they or part of them want to forge ahead, they have to accept the necessary means.

But the lack of EU level democracy and accountability is such that the political leaders seem to push the European Union more and more against the current of public opinion, perhaps mistakenly directed, but real all the same.

The Lisbon Treaty has some merit, even from a democratic viewpoint, but pushing on regardless of public opinion seems to increase citizens’ disdain.

Are the political leaders wise, if they think that once they get the substance of the Lisbon Treaty into force, they can live a decade without treaty reform?

Or should a group of member states clearly state that as soon as the Lisbon Treaty is in force, they are going to lay the foundations of a democratic union (more or less like the US Bill of Rights was introduced)?

If no member states are ready to embrace EU level democracy, or if they are ready to be retarded by the none-speed intergovernmentalists, they have earned the increasing hostility from the EU citizens.

¤¤¤

It is hard to believe that the European Union is going to become a real success story if its institutional structures and democratic legitimacy are going to be dictated by the member state ranking somewhere like 25th in enthusiasm for reform, out of the (still) 27.

Operation manual for EU reform:

1. De-install ‘liberum veto’.

2. Install the Lisbon Treaty and EU level democracy and accountability (at least for the willing member states).