EU Fortress Enlargement

by EU Observer Tue Feb 17, 2004 21:47

Yes you're perfectly correct. The Danes did indeed have a referendum ... in fact two of them ....

And yes the Danes have in fact held a number of referenda on EU related matters - but interestingly not in relation to the Nice Treaty ...
http://www.european-referendum.org/denmark/denmark.html

However, I would argue that the exception that you've spotted more or less goes to prove the rule I was trying to establish ....

The point I was trying to make is that none of the EU BIG POWERS (particularly German and France) whose political elites are the driving force behind EU "integration" have ever held a referendum on Treaties like Maastricht, Amsterdam or Nice.

They just push it through the parliament so there is no direct participation of the population in the decision process.
And with very good reason too - they know that they would have severe difficulties in trying to pass stuff like Nice in a referendum in Germany. Look how much trouble little Ireland caused last time round (and the Danes previously).

These NO votes only rocked the boat - a NO from Germany of France would sink the ship ....

OK you caught me out - well done - and I stand corrected.

But the fact remains that referenda on EU treaties like Maastricht and Nice are the exception rather than the rule and - as far as I know - have only been held in the smaller states such as Ireland and Denmark.

The bottom line here is that there is no DIRECT popular legitimation for the "ever closer union" being forced on the EU member states (in the sense of a majority of the population of the member states approving by a direct vote) - only INDIRECT "legitimation" via parliamentary representatives .....

by hood Tue Feb 17, 2004 16:09

"This type of ratification by referendum is - to my knowledge - unique in the EU"

Wasn't there a referendum on Maastricht in Denmark in '92, in which the people voted "no", were told they had to vote again, got bullied for a few months, then voted "yes"?

seems we're not so unique...

by Fergus Mon Feb 16, 2004 20:10

Another piece of the wigsaj, no sigjaw, eh... jigsaw.
Ripped to pieces from 'The Business' 15/16 Feb.


BUT the European Commission has told 10 D[R]owning Street... that Britain must either accept workers as full citizens or join mainland Europe in denying them work permits for up to seven years.

Number 10 has been advised by the European Commission that it is illegal to grant "work only" status to migrants and asking them to pay taxes while denying use of the NHS and unemployment benefit.

Blair wants to get around this by demanding that such welfare is conditional on a social security number. There may also be a minimum work limit, to stop migrants being employed for a day then claiming the right to remain.
As a final measure, Blair will make clear that the UK parliament can introduce rapid legislation revoking the right to work in Britain if migration becomes a problem.

I presume this applies to Ireland as well.

PS
Does anyone know if/how the Good Friday Agreement effects immigration ?
Does it require Ireland + Britain to adopt similar policies on immigration ?

by pete Sun Feb 15, 2004 21:02

everythings crystal clear now

dear

by J26 Sun Feb 15, 2004 20:51

No need to be condescending though. Maybe everyone doesn't has as full information as you have.

by EU Observer Sun Feb 15, 2004 18:28

J26 the short answer is yes it's all signed an sealed and you weren't asked (neither was I) and there is nothing you can do about it.
The party is going ahead whether you like it or not.

Now - if you have the patience - let's go over everything again - SLOWLY

If you follow the attached link you will see that on 1 Jan. 1995 Austria, Finland and Sweden acceded to the EU (i.e. joined as member States).
http://www.itcilo.it/english/actrav/telearn/global/ilo/blokit/eularge.htm

Now did "we" (in Ireland) vote on that ?
NO - "we" didn't.
The accession of the Eastern European States is no different (despite what you may have been led to believe by the prattling and lies of Irish politicos).

Contrary to what you think an accession treaty does not fall withing the scope of the Crotty judgement.

Why not ? Let me try to explain.

To keep things simple we will just take one East European state, say Poland.

Let's begin by defining three legal entities:

1. The EU - which is a supra-national entity, i.e. a sort of "umbrella organisation" for the national states which make up its membership.

2. Little old Ireland - an EU-member state

3. Poland - an aspiring member State.

Now when Poland joins the EU as a member state, this doesn't directly affect Ireland, in the sense that it doesn't change the existing application of EU law to Ireland.

What it does do is to EXTEND the application of EU law to Poland.

Therefore, the accession is a matter between Poland and the EU. If the EU agrees to Poland's bid for membership and the Poilsh people vote "YES" in a referendum, then it's a done deal. The only Irish input in the whole process would be at the Council of Ministers where Biffo Cowen or his apparatchiks would state Ireland's position re. the aspiring member state (i.e. if they had any reservations about Poland's fitness to join the club) and vote on the matter.

Our famous Irish referenda only take place when an EU TREATY, i.e. a treaty revising the way the EU itself conducts its affairs has to be ratified by the existing member states.
In this case, changes to the institutions of the EU typically have some kind of implications for or impact on Irish law so this must be approved by the Oirish People in a referendum (following the Crotty judgement).

To summarise, there are two separate cases which should not be confused:

1. An EU treaty (e.g. Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice etc.) which redefines the institutional arrangements of the EU itself and which must be ratified by a referendum in Ireland (according to the Crotty judgement).

2. An accession treaty between the EU and a new member state whose effect is to extend EU law to that member state. Such a treaty does not directly affect Irish law and does not need ratification by referendum in Ireland.

As far as 1 May is concerned, all the new member states have signed their accession treaties and ratified them by national referendum.

So the deal is signed and sealed.
And the party will go ahead as planned.

And if you complain that you weren't consulted .... you're perfectly right .... but neither was I :-)

by J26 Sun Feb 15, 2004 16:09

surely an accession treaty is still a treaty, and as such would come under the auspices of the Crotty Case. The fact is that the state would have to sign a treaty on accession on our behalf. My question is do they actually have the power?

by EU Observer Sat Feb 14, 2004 19:46

The new EU "treaty" or to be more precise the new "EU CONSTITUTION" will most certainly have to be ratified by Ireland - by a referendum.

Note that a "CONSTITUTION" (a fundamental set of laws governing a political entity) is more than a mere treaty which is a formal agreement between sovereign States.

An "EU CONSTITUTION" would effectively establish the EU as a federal State in its own right.

As to what lies will be told to the electorate in an effort to "market" it, I am no wiser than the rest of ye and will refrain from further speculation on that point, apart from the fact that ye will be lied to left, right and center.
As usual the politicos will prattle on about how it is all for yeer own good, do the daecent thing now, vote YIS begob now ..... and meekly tug yeer post-colonial forelocks like the good little sheep that ye are now etc. etc.

However, it would be interesting to explore a bit more the "constitutional" implications of the whole thing ........
In particular as to whether or not this "constitution" will formally make the national constitution completely subordinate to it - i.e. whether it entails a final surrender of national sovereignty - which *could* (I am merely speculating here) effectively allow the EU to proceed with a further centralisation of power without the legal requirement for any further Irish referenda ?

In other words, the referendum about the EU Constitution might well be the last one (if it ends in a YES vote) .... but as I say this is only speculation on my part ......

by Fergus Sat Feb 14, 2004 18:02

Re. EU informer comment
- 'Nice was "marketed" to the Irish people as being about enlargement'.

Won't Ireland also have to ratify the new EU Constitution with a referendum - and again this will be "marketed" as being about enlargement.

Then when the Constitution has been ratified, the Irish govt. can start subtly blaming "welfare tourists" and begin cutting back social welfare for everybody.

And no one will kick up too much of a fuss because what respectable member of society would defend the unemployed, "scroungers" and "welfare tourists" ?

by EU observer Sat Feb 14, 2004 17:12

Just to clarify the accession and referendum issues a last time.

Think of the EU as a club with membership rules.

1. Accession
If the "board" (meaning the EU Commission and Council of Ministers) think that a new state is "fit" for membership, they invite it to join subject to the people of the state approving the move in a referendum.
All this happens without the Irish people being directly asked for their opinion (although the likes of Bertie and Cowen and their "advisors" will certainly participate and vote in the discussions about letting in the "new boys" ON YOUR BEHALF :-) ).

2. Referendums
Now go back to the image of the EU as a club with membership rules.
The referendums we have in Ireland are simply to ratify the new rules made by the "board" as they apply to Ireland, i.e. to agree that these new rules should apply to us.

"WE" (the people) get asked about this not because the politicos actually want our input but because the Supreme Court told them they have to do it.

But the process of inviting new members to join the club (accession) does not have to be ratified by a popular vote in Ireland - only in the new member state.

by EU observer Sat Feb 14, 2004 16:56

Oh and by the way, just to clear up some confusion about Irish EU referendums.

The reason we have "referendums" in Ireland - more or less as a sole exception in the EU - is because the Supreme Court ruled so in a case taken by the late Raymond Crotty back in the 1980's when the then government under Dr. Gurgle FitzGargle was trying to ratify a Nice-predecessor called the Single European Act by parliamentary vote alone.

Crotty argued that the Treaty impinged on the Constitution and therefore it required a referendum because it was effectvely the same as making a change to the constitution which can only be carried by a vote in a referendum. The Supreme Court ruled in his favour and the Irish Government has been forced to "go to the people" to request ratification of all successive EU treaties.

They do this not because they want to have YOUR input but because they are legally obliged to by order of the Supreme Court.

This type of ratification by referendum is - to my knowledge - unique in the EU. In all other countries - unless I have overlooked something - all ratification is done in the parliament - NO REFERENDUM. The only exception to this rule is the actual accession treaty which is put to a referendum. After that all EU business is dealt with via parliamentary channels.

If Maastricht, Amsterdam or Nice had been put to a popular vote in Germany or France they would very likely have been rejected.
The Germans, for example, did not on the whole want the Euro BUT THEY WERE NEVER ASKED. It was decided by a parliamentary vote.

Just so you understand a little better how EU-style democracy works .......

by EU observer Sat Feb 14, 2004 16:41

Of course "we" meaning the Oirish People didn't vote on the accession of new member states.

That's not the way the accession or enlargement mechanism works.

Read again the paragraph you cited from the Nice Treaty:
"Subject to paragraph 3, the total number of representatives in the European Parliament for the 2004-2009 term shall be equal to the number of representatives specified in ... plus the number of representatives of the new Member States resulting from the accession treaties signed by 1 January 2004 at the latest."

Now focus on the word "accession treaties".

The point is that the EU can invite any non EU state to become a member subject to it meeting the various requirements for membership. This was so way before Nice and Nice actually changes nothing about this basic mechanism.

A prospective new member state draws up an accession treaty with the EU and this is usually voted in at a referendum IN THAT STATE. In Ireland's case this happened about 1973. Prior to the latest wave of East European enlargement, there was the accession of Austria, Sweden and Finland sometime in the early nineties as far as I remember . Norway voted NO so it never acceded.

The basic point being that only the new member state votes on accession ... this has already happened in Hungary, Poland etc.

Once the prospective member state has ratified its accession treaty, it duly becomes a member on the agreed date.

In this case 1 May 2004.

It's all signed and sealed. Ireland never voted on this nor was it supposed to. It was agreed by the EU Commission and Council of Ministers ON YOUR BEHALF.

I believe that they call it "democracy" or something like that .......

PS: What you did vote on (if you voted) re. Nice was the internal administrative structures of the EU. The big states Germany, France etc. didn't want enlargement under pre-Nice structures.
Therefore they wanted a reform of the internal structures. That was what Nice was about.

In other words, enlargement with pre-Nice structures was perfectly possible (just as Austria, Finland and Sweden joined way before Nice). However it was not wanted for various political reasons.

Nice was "marketed" to the Irish people as being about enlargement ....... but hey let's be frank about it, if you believe anything a politician tells you it's your own fault ......

by J26 Sat Feb 14, 2004 14:00

I put this up on Anarchomedia nearly 2 weeks ago, and I've had no response, so I am asking the question here.


I was wondering if anyone knows when we actually voted to enlarge the EU on May 1, 2004.

As far as I was aware, the Nice Treaty was only intended to create the institutions necessary(!) for enlargement.
From my reading of the treaty (admittedly I only scanned through it - it is pretty turgid reading!) I noted Article 2.2 of Protocol A states;

"Subject to paragraph 3, the total number of representatives in the European Parliament for the
2004-2009 term shall be equal to the number of representatives specified in Article 190(2) of the Treaty
establishing the European Community and in Article 108(2) of the Treaty establishing the European
Atomic Energy Community plus the number of representatives of the new Member States resulting from
the accession treaties signed by 1 January 2004 at the latest."


This would suggest that Nice is not actually an accession treaty. If Nice is not an accession treaty, and I do not remember having the opportunity to vote on another treaty, then when did we decide to ratify this enlargement??


Articles 29.7 and 29.8 of our Constitution state;
"7° The State may ratify the Treaty of Nice amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the
European Communities and certain related Acts signed at Nice on the 26th day of February, 2001."
"8° The State may exercise the options or discretions provided by or under Articles 1.6, 1.9, 1.11, 1.12, 1.13 and 2.1
of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7° of this section but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas."


Article 28.7 is straightforward enough, but I am confused by the full meaning of Article 28.9. Still though, I don't think that this article relates to accession, and I think (I could be miles off the mark) that it relates to "enhanced co-operarion" within the EU.

I am not an expert, but I believe it would be worth getting someone who is to have a closer look to see if what I am thinking has merit. If anyone knows what the position is, I'd appreciate if they could fill me in.

I am not actually sure that this enlargement can go ahead unless there is a referendum. Can someone clarify this so I might have an opportunity to "enthusiastically endorse the enlargement in an electronic referendum".

by Fergus Wed Feb 11, 2004 20:35

After rereading - I'm reposting -

There are 2 parts to the Q - " Why does Ireland have an open policy".
1st part - "Why an open policy on WORKERS ?"
part 2 - "Why an open policy on WELFARE entitlements ?"

The answer given to the 1st part, 'officially' by the Dept. of Trade and Enterprise = "the knowledge economy" (mnc's) need bright young people for their skills.

I'm thinking instead - the primary concern of business is the need for lower WAGE costs, not just for high skilled jobs but also for unskilled jobs across the board.
IBEC the business in Ireland representative group were pretty pissed off when the govt. introduced the minimum wage increases recently. This suggests to me that IBEC were hoping immigration would reduce wage costs for business in the lower unskilled job market too.

Another point, is the ability not just of a Brain-Drain to Ireland but also of a drain East to West.

This could be the primary concern of mnc's - to send (the commodity) SKILL-ed workers East to expand their "business empires"
EU countries that impose labour restrictions don't have this option.

....phew
OK, now that leaves part 2 - "Why does Ireland have an open policy on WELFARE entitlements ?"
I don't know,
but if you follow some of the hyper links above, there's a few suggestions... not just by a disgruntled nut like me, but by bigger officialer nuts like Blair & Schroeder.

At the EU Spring Summit in Brussels on March 26th its looking like business + govt. (sipping mineral water) will be pretty much in agreement, trading kicking tips

Thanks for the comments kv.
Hows you're investigative journalist skills ? Any chance of you doing an indymedia feature on the Schengen border issue ? Keep the topic lit with a perspective from the other side ?

by kv Wed Feb 11, 2004 15:43

By the way, Fergus, thanks for keeping the discussion about this subject alive!

by kv Wed Feb 11, 2004 15:38

Yeah, as soon as the Iron Curtain came down -which prevented people from the East move to the West -, the Eu put up the Schengen borders.
The right of free movement we got back after the fall of Communism was smashed by the so-called democratic EU.

by dapser Tue Feb 10, 2004 23:51

.