EU Treaty

Damian O'Loan (Paris): Bastille Day in France was the first to be celebrated under President Sarkozy. M Sarkozy celebrated his first as President of the EU, and the day was a rare success as the Mediterranean Union was inaugurated. A busy day in a busy time, but what does all this mean across the Channel?

It is no secret that Sarkozy was bitterly disappointed by the Irish No, that his plans for the presidency were thereby irrevocably altered. Opinion in France itself is deeply divided on Lisbon; the opposition Socialist Party were unable to hold a line in the parliamentary vote on ratification. There are contradictory reports on whether the treaty would pass or not if there were a French referendum.

Catherine Reilly continues her coverage of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. You can read the rest of the series here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here and here and hot off the press there is an overview of the Irish 'no' on openDemocracy by Joseph Curtin and Johnny Ryan and a European view from John Palmer

Catherine Reilly (Dublin, Metro Éireann): It has come as a slight relief to me that my own constituency - Dublin North - was among ten out of the 43 constituencies across the Republic of Ireland to vote for the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. I say ‘relief’ as I had erroneously guessed, in this most public of spaces, that Ireland would vote Yes. This predication had been partly based upon a reasoning that my own area, with its urban-rural and population socio-economic mix, would be a fair barometer of how the treaty result would pan out generally - and I thought the local indications were that we were headed for a yes. Well, my credibility (what’s left of it, anyway) has enjoyed a tiny reprieve in that I was right about my neighbours, but not about the rest of the country.

Interestingly, it looks like Dublin’s commuter belt constituencies such as my own Dublin North and Meath East, for example, alongside staunchly middle class electoral areas like Dublin South, were the Yes crew. Indeed, in regional terms, the result was closest in Dublin, with the No side winning by 51% to 49%. Always too close to call.

Overall, the Lisbon Treaty was defeated by a margin of 53.4% to 46.6%.

The more discernibly working class electoral areas, and rural communities, are being credited with swinging the pendulum. Why? To me, the economy’s current shaky period is probably more than a clue.

Interestingly, listening to radio discussions today, it seems that some voters were confused (yes, more confusion) about the ballot paper itself. In recent weeks, they have heard of nothing but ‘Lisbon’, and it has been easily forgotten that the Irish vote was actually on the proposed amendment of the Constitution - in order for Lisbon to be ratified by the Irish parliament. Indeed, there was no mention of ‘Lisbon’ or ‘Europe’ on the ballot paper.

In any case, if you want to feel like you are stuck in the middle of an almighty family row that the neighbours can hear through the walls, tune in to Irish television tonight (www.rte.ie) The mood among Ireland’s political ruling elite is dark, dank and depressing. Politicians belonging to the main parties have been described by reporters as ‘ashen faced’, and the Irish public is being warned that their vote will have consequences. There is a ‘blank’ before consequences which no-one really knows how to fill.

Excellent, calm overview by Joseph Curtin and Johnny Ryan in an oD article.

John Palmer (London, author): This time it really is serious. The rejection by a majority of Irish people voting in the referendum to ratify the European Union Treaty of Lisbon has thrown not merely the fate of the treaty but the longer term prospects for European integration into the unknown. At the very least it will mean that most of the elementary reforms the EU needs to manage its affairs with an ever growing membership and an ever expanding array of global challenges will have to be put on hold – maybe for years.

As a highly embarrassed Irish prime minister, Brian Cowen, publicly accepted the verdict of the Irish referendum, a total of 18 of the 27 EU Member States had already approved the Lisbon Treaty through their national Parliaments. All the other countries – seemingly including the British – have now pledged themselves to continue with the ratification. By the end of the summer there is every prospect that 26 of the 27 will have approved the Lisbon Treaty.

Catherine Reilly (Dublin, Metro Eireann): Just days before he left office on 7th of May, former Taoiseach (Irish prime minister) Bertie Ahern told an audience at Harvard University that rejecting the Lisbon Treaty would be an “act of lunacy” by the Irish people.

For a man lauded for his so-called common touch, and ear to the ground, it was an odd choice of expression. Irish people don’t like being told what to do. Irish people don’t like being tagged potential lunatics. This sense of being patronised was, I believe, a factor in Ireland’s initial rejection of the Nice Treaty in 2001, quite aside from concerns over neutrality. 

Interestingly, new Justice Minister Dermot Ahern TD - who was promoted from his foreign affairs brief in last week’s cabinet reshuffle - has constantly played down the implications of a No vote, adopting a stoical ‘life would go on’ message (this, despite the fact that he resoundingly supports a Yes vote). Just like the dad who tells his teenage daughter that she can go to Friday night’s disco, but he won’t be paying for it, it has been a clever tactic.

Taoiseach Brian Cowen TD has been similarly circumspect. Since taking office, he has placed full emphasis on the benefits that EU membership has wrought for Ireland, linking a Yes vote as a fitting return from a self-confident, modern Ireland. He has also played on Ireland’s current sense of economic uncertainty, as the country begins to come to terms with the fact that the boom is no more. “It is very important that we get a Yes vote,” Cowen said last Saturday. “It is critically important to our strategic interest and to our national interest.”

Catherine Reilly (Dublin, Metro Eireann): The shadow boxing is winding down. The gloves are off. Use whatever lazy boxing metaphor you want. The Irish debate on the Lisbon Treaty is about to get real (or perhaps just a little more real than it has been).

Thus far, observing the build-up to this strange contest has evoked a sensation vaguely similar to the feeling of anticipation prior to a big match involving teams you don't support: curiosity about the team line-ups, a mild sense of childish excitement ('this one could go either way'), confusion at team selections ('why's he out on the left wing') and the cathartic relief when the ref blows the whistle.

Catherine Reilly (Dublin, Metro Eireann): Burying bad news: never really a good idea, is it?

Just ask the former British government spin doctor who infamously called 9/11 a good day to "bury" bad news. She lost her job. Or indeed the Irish footballer who, in order to avoid international duty after his girlfriend's apparent miscarriage, ‘killed off' not one but two grandmothers when the media smelled a rat. Those terrace chants and nightclub wind-ups will follow him for life.

This report from the bulletin of the hard working OpenEurope on yesterday's Fabian Society meeting in the House of Commons.  It makes you wonder about all those fine words on the sovereignty of parliament. Perhaps it has now become the sovereignty of passerelle.

At a meeting of the Fabian Society in the House of Commons last night, Labour MPs Michael Connarty, who is Chairman of the EU Scrutiny Committee, and Gisela Stuart debated whether or not there should be a referendum on the EU Lisbon Treaty.  Michael Connarty said he was against a referendum in principle, despite conceding that "It's not that much different from the Treaty for a Constitution".  He also said he had three outstanding reservations about the Treaty, which the Committee will be investigating - on the opt-ins on Justice and Home Affairs, on the yellow card system and on the passerelle clause.  He said he wanted Parliament to have a role in deciding whether or not the UK should opt in to future JHA initiatives which will be decided on by QMV.  He said: "We want the Government to have a procedure that puts that in the hand of the Parliament, because that is what parliamentary democracy is about - it is not left to a deal in the Council, but it is left to a debate that will go to the floor of the House.  People will say the Government will whip it in or won't whip it in - if it's not right you can argue against it, and I think, if it's really bad, you can get 30 members of the other side to vote... and turn it over."

Jon Bright (London, OK): Mark Mardell's excellent euroblog has a post asking whether Ireland could vote no to the Lisbon treaty. He says it's too early to assume the "yes" is set in stone:

Some are already suggesting the foundations for rejections are there.

Hugo Robinson (London, Open Europe): As widely predicted, the Government - aided by a three line whip, together with a combination of threats, concessions and promises to Labour backbenchers - won the Commons vote on the Treaty of Lisbon. But has it won the argument?

As I have argued before, there is no consensus and no democratic mandate for the further centralisation of power that the revised EU Constitution represents. And when yesterday's events are reflected on in years to come, it is likely they will be regarded as a pyrrhic victory that damaged the long term legitimacy and stability of the EU.

Suzy Dean (London, The Manifesto Club): Following last Wednesday's demonstration outside Parliament for a referendum on the EU constitution (Lisbon Treaty), by the aptly named ‘I want a referendum' campaign group, debate continues this week in Parliament over whether the new treaty should be put to referendum or not - finishing in a vote tomorrow.In 2005, shortly after the French and Dutch rejected the EU constitution in a referendum, all parties promised the UK a referendum as well. But now, some three years later, Labour are arguing that the Lisbon treaty is substantially different from the 2005 constitution and so no referendum is necessary. They maintain that Parliament should have the final say, while the Tories, along with a number of Liberal and Labour MP's continue to push for a referendum on the basis that the 2005 and 2008 EU constitutions are almost identical.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): If like me you are in favour both of more democracy and of the European Union and that the EU should become more democratic, what argument is there against a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon except the fact that it might be lost? But wouldn't it be better for it to be lost and then to have it out on whether we are European or not, than to carry on in bad faith? The Lib-Dem argument that there should be a referendum on membership as such would be convincing if it would indeed lance the boil (better metaphor needed - it is much more fundamental than an abscess). But it wouldn't. The campaign for a referendum's local polls suggest that over 80 per cent of voters want a referendum including those like myself who would vote 'yes'. UK Polling Report's analysis is a bit grudging but it confirms that huge majorities of those polled would like to have a referendum. Of course it is not an issue of high salience at the top of peoples' concerns. Yet. But the growing repugnance with the way Westminster politics is conducted presses in. Politics can't be "renewed" and "trust restored", etc, if, when push comes to shove, voters are so blatantly not trusted. Like all great issues this is about more than it seems to be about.

From the Open Europe press summary:

"Furious" Geoff Hoon threatens pro-referendum Labour MPs with expulsion

The Sunday Times reported that three Labour supporters of the I Want a Referendum campaign face suspension from the parliamentary Labour party unless they distance themselves from the group, which plans to stoke the debate on the Constitutional Treaty by running mini-referendums in the seats of anti-referendum MPs, including that of Europe Minister Jim Murphy.

Jon Bright (London, OK): The EU treaty, on which debate in parliament starts next Monday, is going to be the very epitome of a political football, and Fraser Nelson has a superb match preview in the Spectator. All three teams parties will be trying to score some political points whilst keeping their back line intact: Brown will be hoping to prevent backbenchers in marginal seats defecting to protect their own slender margins, Cameron will have to decide what he would do if the treaty is ratified (2010 will be far too late for a referendum) - and make enough concessions to the Eurosceptics in the party to keep them in line, and Clegg will have to justify Menzies Campbell's original decision not to support a referendum on the treaty (which was promised in the last Lib Dem manifesto), whilst instead pushing for a more fundamental referendum on whether Britain wants to be in or out of the EU.

Peter Facey (London, Unlock Democracy): 2008 is set to be an important and busy year for democratic reformers, but it will also be a mixed one with some real opportunities, but also great dangers.This contrast is at its clearest in relation to our rights and freedoms: we have the real possibility of making progress on a proper Bill of Rights (which may come in January / February - though this, like all other dates given here, is merely guesswork); but at the same time we have the continued dangers of ID cards, the database state and government plans to extend detention without trial from an already too long 28 days to 42.

Jon Bright (London, OK): I must admit, I'm a bit stumped on this one. Why didn't Brown rearrange either the UK Parliament Liaison Committee, or move back the signing of the Euro treaty itself? He is, of course, putting it down to a simple 'diary clash' - but the point of keeping a diary is that the important things don't end up clashing.

Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): The House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee has issued a further report (opens pdf) on the EU Reform Treaty. The committee has become increasingly critical of the government over this issue of late. There has been a breakdown in relations between the two, partly because Margaret Beckett, when Foreign Secretary, refused to hold a meaningful discussion with it over the planned UK barganing position in negotiations leading to the treaty, nor would she provide it with relevant information. The Committee is calling, not unreasonably, for a debate on the floor of the House about jurisdiction in justice and home affairs before the treaty is signed. No doubt the content of the committee's report will be seized on by those seeking to rubbish the integration project as a whole. Perhaps the lesson for the government here is that it is better to involve Parliament properly and early in major issues of diplomacy, in order to avoid disputes further down the line. When framing its proposals for involving the legislature in treaty ratification, it should take this requirement into account.

Moderator: This is part of an ongoing exchange between Jonathan Church of the Federal Trust and Hugo Robinson of Open Europe. You can read Jonathan's initial piece here and Hugo's response here.

Hugo Robinson (London, Open Europe): In an earlier posting, Jonathan Church at the Federal Trust suggests the Government's refusal to hold the promised referendum on the revised EU Constitution is justified on the grounds that "this particular broken manifesto pledge" should not be elevated above others - and that this means there is no need for Gordon Brown to keep his word.

Jon Bright (London, OK): Lots and lots of roaring and slavering still over the EU treaty. This from the Open Europe newsletter, on an article called "Beware the grip of the Euro monster":

The Sunday Times noted that Andrew Duff, one of the three MEPs who helped to draft the treaty, has called the UK's ‘safeguard' on the Charter into question. "I am surprised the British feel so confident they have a cast-iron guarantee. It is not the view over here. "The charter obviously has to be tested in the courts and it lies with the courts to decide. There are some circumstances where it [the opt-out] could work and some where it wouldn't."