I used to think that I knew what was meant by Democracy. In fact I thought that we (the collective we) were trying to spread it around the world and that it was a good thing. The EU, however, does not appear to know what it means. It certainly does not support the concept.That is why our Government and all the other Governments in the Club (Ireland excepted) do not wish their people to have a voice. The EU is an Autocracy not a Democracy and I hate it.

>>More money from the EU, a greater campaign and maybe Ireland could be persuaded to say yes? <<

It's wrong to suggest that either the Irish people or the Irish government were playing hard to get with an eye on more EU cash. The Government was very eager to have this passed first time round; the people don't want it - simple as that.

I consider myself pro EU; but this was being shoved down people's throats and that is wrong. I also haven't heard any convincing argument that Lisbon would be any major advantage for the peoples of Europe, and certainly not that it is necessary, which was being constantly claimed.

The Constitution of Ireland states that all powers of government (and, therefore, Lenihan's) derive, under God, from the people.

It declares Ireland to be sovereign and independent.

It declares the right of the Irish people to self determination.

It establishes the office of President of Ireland, who is sworn to defend the Constitution and who represents the Irish people.

Time then for Mary McAleese to tell Lenihan and his fellow ministers to accept the decision of the people and shut up.

I don't think we can have a serious discussion on a way forward until the Yes side emerge from the sulk they have been in since the result was clear.

There is no point in putting it to another vote because the result will not change. To put it simply if our membership of the EU means being part of a superstate then it's thanks very much all the same, but NO.

Given the same choice the British would make the same decision. So would the Dutch possibly the French and many others.

The question is, are the superstaters going to be allowed destroy the EU? That is the question for governments now.

A couple of thoughts from over here:

I'm astonished that only Ireland allowed its citizens to have a say in this matter.

But that having been said, I don't think that it makes any sense that any one country can veto fundamental legislation. That makes no sense at all, and is a recipe for gridlock. You now have 27 supposedly sovereign states as members - why can it be assumed that every one of them will have the same position when fundamental matters having to do with the EU arise?

The only way that you can assure unanimous votes is by allowing only the insiders --the professional politicians in the national legislatures - vote. Which is why the British, French and others very consciously denied their citizens a say.

I'd recommend two changes going forward ( and am not sure how hard it would be to enact them ):

a) there should be a requirement that each country conduct a plebiscite when matters of fundamental importance are addressed ( such as the Constitution or other matters pertaining to how the EU is structured )

b) there should be a requirement of a supermajority of countries assenting to such major matters--a two-thirds vote sounds about right.

One country should not be able to block change--that sort of principle may have been acceptable when the EU was just France and Germany and a few other countries, but is absolutely untenable when there are 27 members and more to come. But the loosening of the "single country veto" can only make sense if democracy is established.

What say you?

Democracy has no part in the Soviet States of Europe, that is why the apparatchiks in Nu-Labour made sure we would not have our voice heard over the EU constitution/treaty.

Why do we need more integration or closer political ties?

The European Union should get back to basics and concentrate in opening up trade links rather than more and more insidious political links and undemocratic intuitions!!!

Phantom -

The Irish weren't 'allowed' a say in the matter. The referendum was forced on the Irish and Euro political elites by Irish law, which states that any constitutional amendment can only come about in this way. If they could have got away without a referendum, they would have.

But that having been said, I don't think that it makes any sense that any one country can veto fundamental legislation.

Why not, if the constitution of that nation is violated by this fundamental legislation? And what is 'fundamental' legislation? In this sense the EU constitution is only fundamental if you wish to obliterate 27 sovereign nations by rendering them suzerein to a centralised, authoritarian European state.

The only 'fundamental' legislation I wish to see is the one which repeals the European Communities Act 1972, restores the sovereignty and independence of the British people and lays the path for charges of Treason against all those who ever promoted and procured foreign power in the United Kingdom.

Pete

-Irish Law--
noted

I won't say what "fundamental" legislation may be, though I guess it would include any major restructuring of the EU mechanisms

Without debating the merits of whether there should even be a EU --that's for you to decide -- I think that allowing any small country to block major legislation means that its just too hard to enact important changes.

Which is good in the case of this bad legislation, but which could be not so good in respects the next issue.

David is absolutely correct to write that Democracy is incompatible with the EU if a "no" vote on any legislation is considered obstructionist - whether it be "major legislation," (using Phantom's terminology) or minor legislation.

Oh dear, Ireland's apparent 'isolation' seems to be a reality:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/14/eu.ireland2
Germany and France today moved to isolate Ireland in the European Union, scrambling for ways to resuscitate the Lisbon treaty after the Irish dealt the architects of the union's new regime a crushing defeat.

All of which surely has this the wrong way round. As the famous Times headline once put it: "Fog in Channel. Europe Isolated."

Since the constitution has bought it three times in three referenda and would go down in most of the member states if we all held one, the isolation is clearly of the Euro elites in their Brussels bunker.

Great post David.

It's already clear that the federalists, led by Merkel and Sarkozy, intend to ignore the Irish veto. They are urging the remaining eight states who have not "ratified" to do so immediately, and that includes the UK. They will then use the fact that 26 out of 27 have "ratified" to mean that the treaty goes ahead, without Ireland, which will assume a curious limbo status within the EU as a member of the euro currency but excluded from the top table, so to speak. It will be left open to Ireland to join the club later when a future referendum gives the "right" result.

Peter

I cannot imagine such a heavy-handed, treacherous, strategy won't lead to an anti-EU backlash. Not just in small Ireland, which of course has been strongly pro-EU...but in the UK and in other countries as well.

It makes a mockery of the process of consent that had been established well in advance of this one election.

Phantom

Make no mistake - the federalists will not let the Irish referendum get in their way. They will press on regardless, and in a way I hope they do just that. The glaring "democratic deficit" in the EU will then be so obvious that there will be a backlash in several countries, probably led by the UK and Ireland, but soon followed by Holland, Denmark, Poland and perhaps others. The emperor has no clothes, and some will dare to say it openly.