Irish minister says EU vote lost

[muriel_volestrangler]

Source: BBC

Irish Justice Minister Dermot Ahern says substantial vote tallies across the country show the European Union Lisbon reform treaty has been rejected.

Tallies are not official, but Mr Ahern says it is clear the No vote is ahead in a vast majority of constituencies.

This would scupper the treaty, which must be ratified by all members. Only Ireland has held a public vote on it.
...
The treaty, which is designed to help the EU cope with its expansion into eastern Europe, provides for a streamlining of the European Commission, the removal of the national veto in more policy areas, a new president of the European Council and a strengthened foreign affairs post.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7452171.stm

[xchrom]

1. is there a rising anti-eastern european feeling in europe? nt

[dipsydoodle]

3. Possibly some isolated examples

as in Naples at present I believe.

[Divernan]

5. There was much concern in Dublin when I visited last fall.

When the Celtic Tiger was in full roar, many Eastern Europeans were welcomed to Ireland to take the menial jobs which the young Irish no longer wanted or needed. Polish is the second most used language in Ireland now. The economy has since slowed down, and now the young Irish are competing with the eastern Europeans for jobs. There were also a fair numer of "gypsies" from Romania camping out near the airport and showing up on the streets of downtown Dublin every day to beg. They were offered free airfare back to Romania by an Irish humanitarian group, but refused it.

Re: the Lisbon Treaty vote, the rejection will influence the ratification processes of other countries and effectively kill the Treaty dead. Each member nation of the EU could choose whether to put approval of the Treaty to a popular referendum or to it's ruling parliamentary body. If even ONE country defeats a treaty vote, it fails. Last time around when the "treaty" was properly labeled as a Constitution, the popular referendums in Holland and France defeated it in 2005. This time, Ireland was the only member which decided to put the matter to a popular vote. Many Brits were already angry because Gordon Browne/Labour had promised them a referendum, but then turned around and agreed to put the Treaty through Parliament instead. The House of Commons has already passed it, and it is scheduled for its final reading in the House of Lords soon.

An international referendums expert said Ireland was unlikely to be offered a second referendum as it was when Ireland rejected the first Nice Treaty in 2001 but approved it in an unprecedented "second vote" a year later. Since individual member state governments negotiated the terms of the Treaty, the Irish reps must have misread the public sentiment of their voters.

In Ireland, many believe that the treaty's complexity and fears about losing Ireland's low corporation tax policies and military neutrality are key factors behind a surge in the opposition.

Since it joined the EU in 1973, Ireland has pocketed billions in grants which have transformed its economy. During the campaign the European Commission agreed a deliberate policy to shelve controversial issues, such as plans for an EU army.

All 27 EU countries must ratify the constitution, which was redrawn and renamed the Lisbon Treaty after French and Dutch voters threw out the original version in 2005.

[xchrom]

13. yes -- i knew about ireland --

and i think that europeans are feeling very culturally squeezed -- as well as economically.

i think immigrant fears are behind some of this as well as fear of losing jobs to poland and hungary etc.

however -- there must be some underlying notion that if europe wants to thrive in the future they need greater political and economic consolidation?

the u.s. india and china will tip influence in their own favor as much as possible -- and political and economic influence could slip away.

the world needs an effective and working europe.

[Divernan]

14. This treaty was aimed at giving the EU a larger international presence and power.

Overall, I am very impressed with what the EU has accomplished and think the quality of life in the EU is superior to the US. Of couse, the EU is not burdened with the insanely huge military/weapons costs overwhelming the US budget.

[Carnea]

21. It's more anti-gypsy than anti-eastern european overall.

Ireland always had it's Travelers which went around the countryside kidnapping and eating babies (Or so my granny explained) SO gypsy's are nothing new.

Truth be told the anti-gypsy feelings are not without good reason. While one certainly doesn't condone setting fire to their encampments and driving them to the sea. I understand the Irish need to deport them by other means.

But in reality this vote was about a lot of things esp tax policy that could ruin Ireland's economy by raising the corporate tax rate.

[LeftishBrit]

31. There is long-term anti-immigrant prejudice in Europe...

and since Eastern Europaeans are the latest large group of immigrants in Western Europe, yes; they are getting quite a lot of the brunt of it right now.

[dipsydoodle]

2. Thanks for the reminder

They'd said earlier today that the low turnout of c. 40% indicated that well may be the outcome.

Goodbye treaty.

[Peace Patriot]

4. What is the significance of this? I haven't been following it?

And why does it say that only Ireland had held a "public vote"?

[Divernan]

6. All the other member states chose a parliamentary process instead.

See my post above for details.

[dipsydoodle]

8. It woulld be more accurate to say

that the governments of all other member states chose a parliamentary process instead. In the UK that was despite a promise to do otherwise.

[Divernan]

12. Agreed.

BTW, Verulamium is now St. Alban's, right? I enjoy seeing references to the old Roman names. I recently saw an excellent play at the Public Theater in NYC: "Conversations From Tusculum" (Tuscany).

[dipsydoodle]

17. Yes indeed - near St Albans

Funny thing is that when I was at school, when the world was young...lol , I thought it was spelled Verulanium but not so. There are some Roman ruins there but just foundations. It was a good position for a city as it sits on top of a hill which commands the surroundimg area. There are parts of the road which runs due north to St Albans from Hyde Park which are still called Watling Street - it's original name.

I also have a friend near Gloucester whose cottage is on what is still called Ermine Street another Roman road. Her main home , nearby, is on an estate farm the landscape of which looks to be more or less unchanged for 2000 years or so - the ruins of a Roman Villa sit near a hilltop.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. Ermine Street near Gloucester?

Nah - Fosse Way, perhaps (Lincoln to Exeter), but Ermine Street ran from London to York. My parents live about 100 feet from where it ran.

[dipsydoodle]

23. Must confess I'd found that odd

I just checked and found it's spelled Ermin St.:

http://www.multimap.com/maps/?hloc=GB|ermin%20way#map=51.84113,-2.14542|17|4&loc=GB:51.83817:-2.13675:17|ermin%20way|Ermin%20Way,%20Gloucester,%20Gloucestershire,%20England,%20GL3%204

I'd thought the name maybe related to the ruins of the Roman Villa which is on a perpendicular below the road junction of the A46 and the Cirencester Road. Curiously the Cirencester Road becomes Ermin Way futher east.

I suppose I could've saved myself a bit time just googling ...lol

Ermin Street or Ermin Way (not to be confused with Ermine Street, which is further east) is one of the great Roman roads of Britain. It runs from Gloucester (Glevum) via Cirencester (Corinium) to Silchester (Calleva Atrebatum). Much of it is now covered by the modern A417, A419 and B4000 roads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ermin_Street

[Divernan]

26. Oh my - 2000 years old! Reminds me of Eddie Izzard's great poke at US "history"

In his comedy routine he talks about all the castles throughout England and how everyone takes such old buildings pretty much for granted and then describes visiting some US town where the locals point with tremendous pride at a building which is . . . . .
(dramatic pause!)

"FIF-TY years old!"

Almost as funny as his "Cake or Death?" line.

[Peace Patriot]

22. Thank you for that comment! It was very helpful. I asked my question before

you posted it.

South America is heading onto the EU path--with a meeting of 12 countries a few weeks ago, to form UNASUR--the foundation of a South American "Common Market," a cooperative political/legal structure, and (proposed by Brazil) a common defense. They've been moving this way for some time--among the first items being the Chavez-inspired Bank of the South (anti-U.S. dominated World Bank/IMF), also the Mercosur and ALBA trade groups (anti-U.S. dominated "free trade"), and the Rio Group (for settling disputes without U.S. interference)--spurred by the election of leftist (some center-left) governments in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Guatemala and more to come (El Salvador next year)--a leftist near-sweep of the continent, spreading north. It was Simon Bolivar's dream to form a "United States of South America" (but U.S. "Manifest Destiny" and brutal interference for the next century brought that to a halt). That dream now seems very much alive.

Do you know any details about how UNASUR compares with the EU--legally, politically, etc.? Is the EU advising/observing UNASUR meetings?

I know that EU election monitoring groups have been active in South America--along with the Carter Center, the OAS and others (and local civic groups)--transparent elections being a VITAL--nay, ESSENTIAL--component of resurgent democracy in South America and the triumph of the leftists (majorityists). I just wonder how much UNASUR is modeling itself on the EU. I don't know--nor do I know what the pluses and minuses of that might be.

-----

Some basic info:

5. South American Nations Form New Regional Grouping: UNASUR

At a summit in Brazil’s capital last Friday, 12 South American countries formally constituted the Union of South American Nations, UNASUR. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez described UNASUR as the culmination of the region’s search for unity since South American independence two centuries ago. He said, quote, "Only in unity will we later have complete political, economic, cultural, scientific, technological, and military independence." Temporary UNASUR president, Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, said the new group will help the region “contribute to the construction of this new 21st century.” The countries that make up UNASUR are Venezuela, Colombia, Argentina, Bolivia, Brasil, Chile, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Surinam, and Uruguay, with a total population of 380 million inhabitants. Nevertheless, Brazilian President Luis Inacio “Lula” da Silva assured that UNASUR is open to other Latin American countries in the region. One of the more important issues on the table of the new group is a South American Defense Council. The presidents at the summit agreed to form a commission that will come up with a council proposal within 90 days. The countries will then meet by the end of this year to officially form the council.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/audio/3497

[Divernan]

27. I can't answer re comparing EU and UNASUR

I need to learn about UNASUR, and appreciated your information. I will say that I think it is vital for the countries of South/Central America and Africa to join in EU type associations to protect themselves from further exploitation of their natural resources, domination and political interference by the governments and corporations of US, China, and India.

[dipsydoodle]

7. That's a fact.

We were promised a referendum in the UK but it was scrubbed. It was the governments of all other ET nations that had voted in favour of what in reality was just a name change from the orignal which was rejected by public referendum in both France and Denmark. Only the Ireland gave their population the final say.

BTW - Ireland refers to the Irish Republic : bless 'em.

[Divernan]

10. Nope. Denmark rejected the Maastricht Treaty in the early 90's

It was France and Holland/The Netherlands which each rejected the Constitution.
I've spent a lot of time studying the EU, just trying to get a basic understanding and overview - because its institutions and voting formulas are extremely complex. 99.9 percent of the US public have zero, and I do mean ZERO knowledge of it - which is the ultimate example of the narrow worldview of the American public.

[dipsydoodle]

18. Yes - you are of course correct..

I frequently mix up Holland and Denmark. I won't pass comment on the narrow worldview bit other than to say its getting better and doesn't apply much here on DU anyway.

[Carnea]

11. Ireland was the only country brave enough to allow the people to vote.

England in particular shamefully refused to allow a popular vote.

[CountAllVotes]

20. they have acted properly IMO

who wants to be a member of something like this. After all, Ireland is a neutral country; always has been and always will be!

ERIN GO BRAUGH!!!

:kick:

[Dutch]

24. Nothing brave about- their constitution required it.

I don't doubt for a second that Fianna Fail would have weaseled out of having this referendum if it had been at all possible.

[Carnea]

25. I know I know but it makes the rest of Europe look bad

esp. those lying duplicitous British politicians.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. The lying duplicitous British politicians are why I'd have liked this to pass

I'd rather see a bit of control of the UK go to the, in aggregate, more honest, and less right wing, European bureaucrats than any government likely to get in under the present British system.

Other countries might not be better off under greater EU control, of course.

[LeftishBrit]

32. I agree...

and I used to be a Euro-sceptic. Blair's poodling up to Bush changed my mind.

[Carnea]

9. Kick for democracy and sanity.

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:


:party: :party: :party:


:beer: :beer: :beer:

[Solly Mack]

15. I was there on the 10th and 11th...signs everywhere..people lobbying all over Dublin

mostly those against...


I got one pamphlet...that said Lisbon would "hurt our Christian identity"...I nearly barfed

but it was most educational to be in Dublin just days before the vote and I'm glad I went

[lovuian]

16. YeSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS Thank you Ireland

I love you

[New Dawn]

29. Great news.

I do not want to see Europe become a mirror image of the USA.

[LeftishBrit]

33. The EU is a bulwark against Europe imitating the USA too much right now..

I wish we could have the EU human rights legislation without all the bureaucracy; but at the moment, I'd definitely rather have both than neither.

[pescao]

30. some pre-election analysis

this vote was definitely a win for the workers

Why Ireland must say No (Morning Star, Monday June 9 2008, www.morningstaronline.co.uk - subscription, reprinted in full with permission)

FRANK KEOGHAN of the People's Movement in Ireland warns that the Lisbon Treaty would undermine democracy and workers' rights in the name of the 'free market.'

IRISH people will be going to the polls on Thursday to decide whether to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, which is generally recognised to being as near as damn it to the EU constitution which was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005.

Presently, Ireland is the only EU member state that will be holding such a referendum.

The key question for trade unionists is, will this treaty/constitution protect working people and public services or increase exploitation and impose "free market" principles above all else?

The contents of the treaty and recent rulings by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have suggested that it is more about the latter.

Part three of the old constitution, which enforces the wholesale privatisation of our public services, has been transposed into the new treaty intact and without controversy.

For instance, article III-147 of the old constitution gives the EU powers to enforce privatisation in any area of economic activity.

"A European framework law shall establish the measures in order to achieve the liberalisation of a specific service," it states.

As Dutch MEP Erik Meijer said at time: "The constitution protects freedom for enterprises and free, unrestricted competition." What this means in practice has become clear in recent years.

The treaty's charter of fundamental rights includes in its articles a "right to strike" to balance the rights of big business. However, the ECJ has made it clear in at least two cases - Laval and Viking, which effectively outlawed strike action - that "the fundamental rights recognised by the court are not absolute, but must be considered in relation to their social function. Consequently, restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of those rights."

The court has given itself the right to scrutinise the legitimacy and proportionality of any given dispute and the effect on the employer, something that even Margaret Thatcher could not achieve.

In an earlier case, it also stated that "it is well established in the case law of the court that restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of fundamental rights, in particular in the context of a common organisation of the market."

The ECJ believes that the "common organisation of the market" should be superior to the fundamental right of workers to withdraw their labour. This represents the marketisation of a basic human right.

These concerns are shared by Unite Irish regional secretary Jimmy Kelly, who warned last week that trade unionists have been "lulled into a false sense of security" over the contents of the Lisbon Treaty and should vote No.

"The charter of fundamental rights is meaningless in the context of the amendments we are being asked to vote on. Judges at the European Court of Justice will continue to favour the right of big business over the right of working people," he said.

"This Lisbon Treaty confirms the ability of these unelected officials to undo the rights earned by workers across Europe since the coming together of the organised labour movement."

The Lisbon Treaty and ECJ judgments effectively reinsert the "country of origin" principle which allows firms to provide services in other member states under the same pay and social rules as in the country in which they are based.

This so-called "principle" was supposedly taken out of the EU services directive in 2005 after huge trade union protests.

However, the verdict in the Laval case has practically reaffirmed it and given the green light to widespread social dumping.

The latest ECJ judgment in the Ruffert case - outlawing the right of the German state of Lower Saxony to demand that contractors pay Polish migrant labour German rates of pay - also means that it is now impossible to prevent unequal treatment of posted workers.

If the Laval judgment against the right to strike was a warning to workers, then the Ruffert judgment is an open declaration of war.

Irish people made clear that they do not support this unfair treatment of workers when they marched in their tens of thousands through Dublin in 2005 against a decision by Irish Ferries to sack Irish ratings and replace them with Latvian and Polish labour on much lower rates of pay.

Under the Lisbon Treaty, the ECJ would gain huge new powers and the right to collectively oppose such social dumping would be fatally undermined.

As Swedish MEP Jan Andersson recently warned: "If it becomes common that a country can go in and compete with much lower salaries, all hell will break loose."

The core of the Lisbon Treaty is the centralisation of power away from member states and their electorates, enshrining the privatisation of public services as a constitutional goal and preventing organised labour from effectively defending workers.

The Irish people have a chance to say No to this nightmare scenario on Thursday and send its architects back to the drawing board.

on the net: http: www.people.ie