Regards, Ivan
Posted on 10/20/2002 11:43:35 PM PDT by MadIvan
One wonders whether any of the European leaders rushing to hail Ireland's "yes" to Nice has actually read the treaty. Across the Continent, commentators have described the result as a vote in favour of enlargement. Yet Nice barely mentions enlargement.
It is true that a small part of the text deals with the number of MEPs and Commissioners which each applicant country would get, but these clauses will in any case have to be rewritten as part of the accession treaties when the new states join.
Three previous EU enlargement rounds were agreed without triggering an Irish referendum. The reason that Nice had to be put to the people was that it involved a further transfer of sovereignty from the republic to Brussels.
Nice abolishes the national veto in 39 areas, creates a mechanism for the most federalist countries to push ahead without the support of the less enthusiastic members, provides for more harmonisation in the field of justice and home affairs, allows for recalcitrant states to have their voting rights suspended and calls for pan-European political parties. The Nice summit also agreed on more moves towards EU armed forces and a European constitution.
The Irish referendum also makes it so that any questions regarding further integration are referred to the parliament (Dail) than to the people in any further referendums - Ivan
It is simply inaccurate to describe Nice, as the BBC invariably does, as a "treaty on enlargement". The best one can say is that it sets out one particular model of EU expansion, whereby widening is accompanied by simultaneous deepening. It represents a power grab by Brussels, aimed at ensuring that the applicants are presented with political union as a fait accompli.
Under the circumstances, it is a little odd that these states should have been so militant in their support for the "yes" campaign: 10 of their ambassadors appealed jointly for a "yes" vote, and barely a week passed without some Eastern European minister pleading his case in Dublin. It may simply be, of course, that politicians and diplomats in the applicant states, like those in the West, have become disconnected from their electorates on the European issue.
Saturday's vote was truly a victory of the elites over the people. Bertie Ahern was determined to overturn the verdict of the first referendum. He did so by sneakily changing the rules on referendums so as to advantage the "yes" campaign, rushing the Bill through all its Dail readings in a single day, just before the Christmas recess. Not content with this, he also rigged the question, rolling in the vote on Nice with a vote on non-participation in an EU army, so pushing many neutralists into voting "yes".
Tony Blair will have been watching all this closely. He, too, has passed a referendums law which is potentially advantageous to the "yes" campaign; and he, too, may be tempted to fix the phrasing of the question. Above all, Ireland's experience will have taught him that, where European integration is concerned, the people's verdict need not be final. "No" campaigners need to win every time; "yes" campaigners need only win once.
Regards, Ivan
Regards, Ivan
I don't care what the Blak Helikopterz Krowd around here says: Americans would not cotton to suborning our national soveriegnty to a bunch of ex-Hitlerjugend bankers and Frog surrender monkeys. The Irish and the British have, unfortunately.
Oh well, everyone in Europe will live in the Happy Times!
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.