Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

If the people of Eire don't want it, why should they have it?

I mean, at a very basic level, they're exercising their right to political self-determination, and unanimity is important in things like jury trials, and I don't see why it shouldn't be required for certain classes of international treaties as well.

Paving the world flat isn't the answer.

..."let one country decide to run a plebiscite"? Not really. The vote was mandated by the Irish constitution. As you know, Ireland was the only state in the EU that would allow its citizens to vote yes or no. Labour in Britain reneged on its promise to allow a vote. People should be allowed to vote on whether or not their country will give up its sovereignty.

When you consider Ireland recieved $55B from the EU since it joined allowing the Irish Miracle does make you wonder how often biting the hand that fed you seems to be a repetitive occurrence in the history of nation states. I believe devolution will really help Britain in the long run and let Ireland, Scotland, Wales, stand on their own merits. Their past as English cannon fodder is no longer necessary to maintain the Thin Red Line. These countries and England can no longer thrive based on their militraries excellence or even participation. Time for them to grow up and put away militarism as a honorable tradition. Always did like the movie the "Americanization of Emily". The contest now in the EU is which country can lead the EU in becoming the best cafe society. Talk, talk, talk. Live comfortably and hope for the best. The EU membership hopes the tigers in the world prowl for prey elsewhere.

The new rules (that the Irish voted down) do allow for a qualified majority, but to pass under current rules it still needs unanimous consent. Oh well, Ireland will probably vote again (as it did for the Treaty of Nice).

It's actually a good thing that the Irish got to vote on giving their sovereignty away to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, which is what the net effect of this treaty would have been.

And, unlike our Constitution, the treaty affects multiple nations and I'd be even more revolted if the majority ruled and forced Ireland into a treaty that the people wanted no part of.

The EU, like the UN, is an organization of governments rather than people. If I was European I would also feel distrustful of a system which walls me off from power rather than empowering me. The US has our allegiance in part because we are so invested in it; it is key to our sense of who we are and where our power comes from. The EU is different. It is a bureaucrat's dream: layers and layers of separation between decision making and the people. I would vote against it, if it were me. They need a comprehensible 4 page constitution which truly makes the people sovereign. Then the EU would come alive.

The EU is currently somewhere in between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. I suspect that the European "Founding Parents" (today's non-sexist term) would like to learn some lessons from the US experience in trying to put together a multinational economic union. After all, even though US history classes elevate the "Founding Fathers" to demigod status, their Constitution did collapse into one of humanity's bloodiest civil wars some seventy-two years after it went into effect. I imagine most Europeans would like to avoid that.

As I understand it, Ireland is a model of economic reform in Europe. Reform in the sense of, moving towards free markets and away for crippling socialism. Why would they want to go back? They have tasted the benefits of free market economics.

Dan,
Also, the founding fathers had a very small percentage of enfranchised voters to persuade, and those who could vote probably tended to be fairly well educated. As an aside, I shudder to think what would happen if the U.S. held a popular vote on a treaty on anything.

But it seems to me that the biggest issue with the E.U. is that they want to establish something closer to a maximum rather than a minimum rules-set. According to Wikipedia the E.U. Constitution sets out such lofty goals as "the eradication of poverty" "sustainable development" and "solidarity and mutual respect among people" and actually has a section concerning the purchase of second homes in Denmark. We had seven articles and 5k words. They have 160k words. I think they need to go back to the drawing board and come up with 2 Sigma solution.

The "Emerld Isle." Sinn Fein was one of the leading opponents of the recent EU "treaty". Sinn Fein, now a political party, was once the non-military arm of the IRA. The IRA was formed in 1919 to be the army of the rebel Irish Republic. In 1921, when Ireland descended into civil war, the IRA went "anti-treaty" and was outlawed by the new Free State Government. That is where the term "Outlawed Irish Republican Army" came from. "Sinn Fein" translated from the Gaelic means "Ourselves Alone." As Tom knows you can't understand a situation without knowing the history. As long as Sinn Feinn exists, they will fiercely resist any attempt to allow Irish citizens to be "goverened" by officials of another country. These are tough, stubborn people. They would give back all the benefits the EU has brought to keep Ireland free of "Foreign Kings". History, history, history.

Two of the most unpredictable outcomes in recent times is the rapid collapse of the Soviet Union & the exploding economic & educational success of Ireland from their "civil war". Seeing the EU has had so many disappointments in the past fifty years, could it be they are being influenced by this surprising upstart?