A second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty for Ireland?

David Boothroyd

The first referendum produced a very close vote which went narrowly against. However, it is patronizing for British eurosceptics to assume that everyone who voted 'No' was root and branch opposed to Lisbon in every circumstances. How about asking them? Some were opposed only to the way it was likely to be implemented, and if that can be changed to remove their doubts it does seem reasonable to do so and then consult the Irish people again.

The idea that a 54-46 vote in one small member state can veto a Treaty approved and wanted by 26 others seems to me to be an extreme example of the tail wagging the dog.

John

These Evil Union crooks will stop at nothing until they get their own way.

"One wonders what will happen if a second referendum delivers a second 'No' verdict." - The Irish have a long tradition of election fraud. (Hint.)

Austin Barry

Given the massive unpopularity of the government, presided over by a Taioseach whose unfortunate face seems to epitomise all the venality and corruption of the political class, any second referendum will be 'No' with bells on it.

Faceless Bureaucrat

Shame on you, Brian Cowen.

And still they wonder why the EU is so distrusted...

Anoneumouse

So here is a question Cowen should ask with regard to military neutrality:

Could the research and technological developments contained in Article 179 of the Lisbon Treaty include the military use of space, and could the joint undertakings contained in Article 187 of the Lisbon Treaty be undertaken in the area of military use of space?

Denis Cooper

They'll be reluctant to make any changes to the legal substance of the treaty, as even the slightest change that would mean that all the other EU member states would have to re-ratify.

That includes the addition of any protocols, which would be as legally binding as the main body of the treaty.

Instead, the Irish will be offered political declarations, which have no legal weight whatsoever, but with the promise that they would be converted into legally binding protocols attached to a later treaty, such as the treaty for the accession of Croatia.

One might ask, just how much trouble would it be for EU leaders to convene a brief inter-governmental conference to draw up a short treaty incorporating legally binding provisions to address Irish concerns?

And just how much trouble would it be for the other EU member states to then ratify that supplementary treaty?

Very little trouble at all.

But this is the EU, and it seems to be part of its nature that the devious, crooked path will always be preferred over the straight road.

RODEST

This is th EU implementing the ambitions of 1930s Nazi Germany.

It appears that the tyrants of the EU have their own version of Democracy and only give it credibility when the result they require is achieved.

At least the people of Ireland had the opportunity to vote unllike Britain.

Brown and his corrupt sidekick Mandy have the same ambitions as Blair, to become the uncrowned President of Europe.

Publius

A second No vote? Then there'll be a third vote of course... on and on until the Irish finally learn who's master. But there will be so much EU (i.e., taxpayers') money thrown at this that it will take almost superhuman resistance to relentless propaganda to vote No a second time.

Denis Cooper

They'll be reluctant to make any changes to the legal substance of the treaty, as even the slightest change that would mean that all the other EU member states would have to re-ratify.

That includes the addition of any protocols, which would be as legally binding as the main body of the treaty.

Instead, the Irish will be offered political declarations, which have no legal weight whatsoever, but with the promise that they would be converted into legally binding protocols attached to a later treaty, such as the treaty for the accession of Croatia.

One might ask, just how much trouble would it be for EU leaders to convene a brief inter-governmental conference to draw up a short treaty incorporating legally binding provisions to address Irish concerns?

And just how much trouble would it be for the other EU member states to then ratify that supplementary treaty?

Very little trouble at all.

But this is the EU, and it seems to be part of its nature that the devious, crooked path will always be preferred over the straight road.

jean baker

Publius - the Irish have been applauded by democrats for upholding their rights. There's no point in any voting process without freedom of choice.

Ireland's clearly suffering 'commercial' pressure following 'inexplicable' findings in animal feed. EU won't take 'no' for an answer according to reports.

Mark

They are desperate to get the Irish to vote yes before there is a general election in the UK.

But presumably the treaty will stay the same - otherwise it would have to be ratified again in all the other EU states. It will be a protocol or something, I think.

Rob C

With any luck, subsequent votes will deliver bigger and bigger majorities for the 'no' camp. Perhaps the EU will then finally start to realise that the public throughout Europe are waking up and that the 'EU project' is well past its 'Best Before' date...

Verity

Hmmmmm ... I dunno ... the Irish are bolshie and unpredictable. On the other hand, when there are vast amounts of money involved, almost everyone in the world becomes extremely predictable and cooperative.

Claus Martin

Very few in Germany see the danger of an undemocratic EU hypergoverment, since most of the press is already 'gleichgeschaltet' pro EU. There is no public discussion about the changes the Lisbon Treaty will bring. My only hope: The Irish will vote NO again.

Denis Cooper

Mark, it's always been the case that protocols annexed to an EU treaty are as legally binding as the articles in main body of the treaty, as explicitly recognised in Article 311 of the present Treaty establishing the European Community, pdf page 180 here:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2006:321E:0001:0331:EN:pdf

"The protocols annexed to this Treaty by common accord of the Member States shall form an integral part thereof."

Declarations attached to an EU treaty are not given the same status; they are just political statements of a view or an intention, without any legal value.

This is in line with normal practice, eg see this UN guide to terms commonly used in relation to treaties:

http://untreaty.un.org/english/treatyhandbook/glossary.htm

"A protocol, in the context of treaty law and practice, has the same legal characteristics as a treaty."

On the other hand, under "declaration" there are several types listed, but the only ones which are legally binding are those which a state is required to make, or may choose to make, under the terms of the treaty itself, which obviously would not apply in this case.

Some Irish commentators are well aware of the difference between a protocol and a declaration, eg see in this recent article in the Irish Independent:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/creeping-power-of-eu-is-phantom-that-scares-me-1556209.html

"The report is short on bold recommendations and on the crucial issue, granting Ireland certain protocols which will protect national law and policy from EU interference in areas such as neutrality and the socio-ethical issues, it utterly fails to grasp the nettle. It recommends no protocols. The report steers away from them on three main grounds. The first appears to be that a declaration here or there will do the trick. It won't, because such declarations have no legal standing.

The second is that adding protocols would require the countries that have so far ratified the treaty to re-ratify it. The only proper response to this is, so what? Do those countries want Lisbon passed or not? If they do then they should be prepared to give us the protocols and re-ratify the thing. If they don't, then they should stand well back and watch as the treaty sinks, Titanic-like, beneath the waves to rust forever at the bottom of the ocean."

Augustus

Welcome to the EUSSR, the schizoid brother of Eurabia. Jim Roche is simply massaging the facts until all his colleagues and all the other European ministers get the result they want. If only we were Irish. I'd love a second chance to say 'no', but our brand of democracy doesn't work that way. It makes you wonder exactly whose constitution one ends up with. After five decades of left-wing political positioning towards a European superstate they aren't going to let a bunch of Irish citizens spoil their master plan. Let's hope the Irish are brave enough to keep putting a spoke in the wheels of this juggernaut until someone realises that 'no' really does mean 'no'.

George Laird

Dear All

I feel that the Irish if pressured into a second vote will simply vote as before.

David Boothroyd states;

"The idea that a 54-46 vote in one small member state can veto a Treaty approved and wanted by 26 others seems to me to be an extreme example of the tail wagging the dog".

It's called democracy!

Perhaps David favours, the removal of all decision making from governments and the establishment of the european superstate?

Why allow the people a voice at all David?

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

mac

Augustus,

Apparently, we're in favour of it.
Boothroyd says so.

David Boothroyd

George, I wonder whether the right to be criticized for what one has actually written (as opposed to what one's critic wishes one had written) is part of the human rights you are campaigning for?

What about the rights of the 26 other member states who have all either ratified the Lisbon Treaty or are taking steps to do so?

The fact is that a vote against the Lisbon Treaty as it was due to be implemented on 12 June 2008 is not necessarily a vote against all possible ways of implementing the treaty. If it can be altered in such a way as is supported by a majority then you can't really claim this is a negation of democracy.

mac

Boothroyd,

And the FACT is that in this 'member nation' Labour promised a referendum and reneged on the promise.

Now why might that be?

Rhoda Klapp

Having a referendum on a treaty which nobody has read, with both sides lying about the content, and some of that content highly suspicious in terms if what it says rather than what it means, well that isn't good democracy. ~However, only the Irish got a vote. Everywhere (except Germany?) else it was ratified without the population having any say.

And it was the rule that all countries had to ratify, ie that if only 26 did, it wasn't going to happen. You cannot use this rule as a way to enforce compliance.

Denis Cooper

David Boothroyd asks:

"What about the rights of the 26 other member states who have all either ratified the Lisbon Treaty or are taking steps to do so?"

The answer to that question is perfectly clear: the 26 other member states have previously agreed, in writing, that they do NOT have the right to impose any amendments to the present EU treaties on the 27th state.

The present EU treaties, the treaties which have been ratified by all 27 member states and which are actually in legal force, are here:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2006:321E:0001:0331:EN:pdf

Page 34 - Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union:

"The government of any Member State or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties on which the Union is founded ...

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

It is also worth recalling that while it is perfectly legal under the EU treaties for any nation to veto proposed treaty amendments, it would be totally illegal to discriminate against that nation for having done so.

Page 48 - Article 12 of the Treaty establishing the European Community:

"Within the scope of application of this Treaty, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited."