The EU’s ongoing love affair with the Treaty is an act of political necrophilia. But the body is beginning to stink and, the longer it is unburied, the worse the stench is going to get.
Oddly enough the description was described as inappropriate by Hans-Gert Pöttering sitting in the chair. OK maybe a tad unparliamentary, but apt don't you think?
7 comments:
In no way is anyone going to disregard the Irish decision to say no to the Lisbon Treaty.
Presently the treaty, as signed is legally dead.
Naturally the Irish have no moral right to dictate to the ratifying member states, 18 and counting, how to improve the European Union.
Thus, if the will is there, legally sound means are available to let the substance of the Lisbon Treaty become the next step of EU reform.
Ralph
Presently the treaty is legally dead, you say. Then why do the powers that be keep saying otherwise?
The Irish have a moral right however to expect that the rule of law remains paramount. Not something that in the light of the behaviour of the European Elite in this and other cases.
What would be the legally sound ways in which the rejected Treaty, or more acurately the substance of the rejected Treaty could come into European law. Wouldn't moves to do that be underhand and dishonest in the light of the three rejections?
Gawain,
The Irish have a right to decide for themselves, but no moral justification to stop other member states from furthering their own interests.
Personally i find referendums to be flawed instruments in almost all circumstances, but as you surely remember the present score is only 3 - 2 for rejection if we include the Constitutional Treaty, which you evidently did.
I have discussed options and background from different perspectives on my blog, but let me say that the options may vary depending on the situation:
a) amicable solutions based on mutual respect or
b) a new European Union based on the ratifying and willing member states, with the substance of the Lisbon Treaty as initial foundation.
The decisions will be taken openly, subject to the member states' constitutional requirements and international law, so in no way will underhand and dishonest enter the picture.
Agreed to point one, National interest must remain the mainspring of the actions of a national government.
Agreed with you point. Would be interesting if those countries that were denied a promised referendum also held one, but I would have to wait until hell freezes over for that to happen.
Both your sugestions are to me far, far better than those ideas that I suspect will be being discussed this week in Brussels.
Gawain,
We seem to have some common ground, but please tell me what you suspect will be discussed in Brussels.
If I understand my own a) and b) points correctly, they cover most of the available options, so if anything 'worse' is on the table, I would be interested to know.
The current gossip here is the following.
Salami slice what can be got through under either the Nice Treaty - with regular and slightly dubious usage of the general purpose article, that is article 308, or Flexibility Clause.
What canot be got through via that method - President etc. will instead be put together in a short - and this time I mean short - appendix to the Croatia Accession Treaty in 2010. There has never been a referendum on an acession treaty and anybody who suggests one will be seen as a very bad egg indeed who wishes to keep little Croatia out in the cold.
It is late after a long day. The details are far more substantial than those I sketch here but I am sure you get my drift.
That should do the trick!
Makes you wonder why they didn't think of that before, avoid all the fuss.
Post a Comment