I agree, while I don’t see a theoretical problem in multiple referenda, especially in the case of close votes, this kind of attitude is tantamount to bullying. With all the will in the world, the Irish people were never going to care enough about the Lisbon Treaty that, if they were threatened with a referendum every 6 months until they voted yes, they wouldn’t eventually vote with the government. And given the timing there is more than a slight hint that the idea of replaying the referendum until the “correct” answer came out was exactly the plan.

It’s scandalous not because it’s anti-democratic in it’s own right, but because as a tool it has been used as such to beat the people of Ireland in to conforming.

It’s good to see some left-wing opposition to the EU. If the EU was just a free trade zone there would be nothing to stop individual member states adopting socialist policies with the exception of tariffs.

Unfortunately I suspect the reason many on the Left are muted when it comes to criticising the EU is because they don’t want to be seen as on the same side as the Daily Mail and right-wing Tories. There are democratic and anti-centralisation arguments against the EU and it is around these twin pillars that Left and Right-wing opposition to the EU should coalesce.

Brilliant to see a post like this here. After all, you don’t have to be some wild-eyed libertarian to hate the EU’s recent attitude towards developing its institutions, just a democrat of any sort.

“Not to mention that the two political parties which campaigned for a no vote have neither the manpower or resources”

One of them is actually the wealthiest party in the country, by some distance.

“It’s good to see some left-wing opposition to the EU. If the EU was just a free trade zone there would be nothing to stop individual member states adopting socialist policies with the exception of tariffs.”

Unfortunately, there isn’t much of it. It’s ironic that soixante-huitards like Danny Cohn-Bendit, who used to claim to be the romantic revolutionaries and lovers of liberty, have now become the dogmatic spokesmen of remote Eurocratic power. Look at his disgusting bullying of Vaclav Klaus (disturbingly reminiscent of Hitler’s bullying of Emil Hacha) Meanwhile rightists, who are derided as supporters of dictatorship and closet ‘fascists’, are the real revolutionaries.

However much value you attribute to the democratic process, it has recently been used by the executive of each individual EU state as the exercise that legitimises its authority. That is why it is vaguely worrying to see the European executive appropriating power without appearing to pay even lip service to the idea that the views of the citizens of the states from which it is taking that power are relevant.

Of course it is highly probable that a pan-European referendum would be won by the centralists and if you are comfortable with the notion that the European executive will exercise their future power appropriately and in the interest of the common good it doesn’t much matter.

Given the past record, I’m not.

It would appear that the penny is dropping for libertarians of whatever pursuasion. Well done Sunny for publishing this this article .

Of course I agree with the thrust of the argument.

Though it seems to imply that if in a parallel universe the EU were a socialist project then its anti-democratic behaviour would be OK?

There is a reason that Dan Hannan and Tony Benn agree on this: they both believe that ultimate power should reside in national parliaments which can be held accountable.

Is there any coherent Left argument against the EU out there? I certainly haven’t heard one of late. Or is it simply the case that any argument against the EU, whether Left or Right will inevitably be of a nationalist, even xenophobic nature? Certainly from a Left viewpoint it would be extremely difficult re. internationalism.

It’s unfortunate that the anti-foreigner right has absolute dominance of this issue and this so pisses me off because there are threats to our democracy from an ever creeping bureaucracy in Brussels and this needs to be addressed but I’ll be damned if I’ll ever start hanging out with the likes of UKIP, the BNP and most of the Tory party, never mind the scumbag press.

So here’s a simple starter for ten: can you be an internationalist and still be opposed to the EU?

“So here’s a simple starter for ten: can you be an internationalist and still be opposed to the EU?”

I remember Scargill making the point that by joining the EU we were effectively replacing national protectionism with continental protectionism – freezing out or putting unfair levies on Asia and Africa – which I thought was a good stab at it.

I voted for it. But then, I voted for it the first time. Weird that.

I always get confused whether England is actually in Europe or not. Perhaps the comments here validate this confusion. The EU has many problems but to think that the EU could work as a trading zone and nothing more is a rather naive formulation in the age of globalization. If you live in a cave you won’t have to worry about any of this so please disregard my comments.

@ Weston Bay. “the workers will own and the owners will work”. A sentiment you will probably tend towards agreeing with. It is a quote from the BNP 2005 manifesto. Are you now going to change any belief in public ownership of the means of production because you dislike the BNP? The belief in the soverignty of national Parliaments fits ill with unintelligent tribalism; to do so places you in the same camp as fundamentalists and literalists the world over. I find Socialism as abhorent as you seem to find Conservatism, but surely we can find common ground in the common cause of demanding primacy for our national elected Parliament? Once we have gained that, then take off the gloves and start swinging once more.
As to your anti-foreigner right, Baroness Warsi has articulated the majority Tory opinion which Sunny had the courtesy to post on this blog. The maunderings of the National Socialist BNP are more than adequately balanced by feelings in the working men’s clubs in Labour heartlands. Xenophobia knows no political divide.

@atropos. You’re not one of these prize bores who believe the BNP is a ‘left wing party’ are you? And where the hell did I mention public ownership?

The question I was asking was is it possible to be both internationalist and anti-EU at the same time. I was also asking whether a sound case against the EU can be made by the Left without resorting to nationalist rhetoric, protectionism and the usual tabloid drivel we seem to get on this issue. Of course the answer may be an emphatic no and that’s fine if it’s a considered opinion.

@11 Of course you can be an internationalist and oppose the EU. What a silly question. It’s not like the EU has a monopoly on all forms of international engagement, particularly from the point of view of the workers’ movement. There is a vast gap between the fine Italian coffee-drinking suited bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg and the links between labour activists in different countries.

@15 I don’t know how the BNP found their way into this argument. The BNP can indulge in all the rhetoric they want, but when elected, they vote for cuts to local services. They are just as anti-worker as any of the three main parties. That is, when their elected representatives can be bothered to turn up to their jobs.

I think it is worth pointing out that the “No” vote in Ireland was strongest in its most working class constituencies – where the Socialist Party argument got a wide hearing, and where fascists like the Irish version of the BNP were nowhere to be seen. So I reject the caricature of “No” votes as either being openly xenophobic or being in sympathy with such a loathesome bunch of twats as the fash.

The opposition of socialism to the European Union is not that we wish to see the primacy of a national parliament; it’s that the EU cannot and will not ever be used “for” socialism; it is set up explicitly for the purpose of buffering capitalism and undermining the workers’ movement – something national parliaments can still do, but, exercising less power than such a huge state covering such a disparate economic area, can’t do quite so effectively.

@14 – you may not have spotted that the two richest countries in Europe (Switzerland and Norway) are more than happy outside the EU

Why exactly could the EU not work as just a trading zone?

And why should there be an EU-only trading zone anyway.
Why not remove all barriers to trade?

Of course you can be an internationalist as still be opposed to the EU, as currently constituted. Heck, you can even be in favour of the EU in general and opposed to the Treaty of Lisbon. It’s kind of like asking whether you can be in favour of the general idea of government, but opposed to the current one, or opposed to certain specific policies.

@16 A skilful avoidance of the question. Stay locked in your tribalist compound, little man, blinding yourself to reality is obviously necessary for your positive self-image.

Hi Dave,

Agree in general about not doing referendum after referendum, but there is something slightly exceptional about the Irish case – the economic crisis did materially alter the situation, after all.

The poor Irish.

Their euro membership meant they had much-too-low German interest rate levels, which led to the property boom.

Now the boom has bust they are stuck with a rising currency when they need (like us) a falling one.

The EU has stuffed them…

“much-too-low German interest rate levels, which led to the property boom.”

Ah, those poor banks, forced to lend money by the evul EU…

@20 – actually Don, the Irish economy has been slowing gradually since 2003 or before. The government saw this trend well in advance, as can be seen when reading the social partnership agreements of the period.

And the first referendum was held in 2008; well into the economic recession. So I hardly think that the “changed” material conditions mean very much. Even at the time, Brussels was pouring money into the Irish economy.

The other thing is that, changed circumstances or not had nothing to do with it. A second referendum was held over Nice in 2001 when the first one got shot down. A second one was held over Lisbon when the first was shot down. Not seeing a trend?

@19 Oh well, please enlighten me as to what the real question is, that I’ve avoided. Lend us the benefit of your years of political experience and detailed knowledge of all the issues.

@22 – no-one forced anyone to do anything, but when you have negative real interest rates, as Ireland had thanks to the one-size-fits-all euro interest rate, as night follows day you get speculation.

Now they need a lower exchange rate…which they cannot achieve of course….

Ireland is a textbook case in favour of interest and exchange rate flexibility against the euro.

Yes, I know rates were too low here too….

As others have commented, I think this is a really good attempt to do a really difficult thing – to provide a leftwing analysis of the EU, and specifically the Lisbon Treaty, in differentiation to the dominant rightwing rejection of it on other grounds.

While the reasons given here for the need to reject both the process of ratifying and the actuality of the Lisbon Treaty are sound and don’t need repeating, what we also need to start to do is to set out the hypocrisy behind much of the right’s rejection of it.

The right’s reasons are of course largely centred both on a narrow but populist xenophobia – the insistence that no johnny foreigner of any ilk shoulde be involved in decisions about the way the English get to drink their warm beer, watch cricket and enjoy curved bananas.

If it were able to get beyond this blind prejudice, though, what is being proposed under the Lisbon Treaty, and more generally in the development of the EU, should actually be music to its ears.

For what the Lisbon treaty seeks to do is to firm up and embed, within distant and complex institutions, is the rule of neoliberalism. The Treaty seeks to ensure indefinite executive control over competition laws which effectively enforce the driving down of terms and conditions of workers, and over trade policy.

In relation to the European Central Bank, it conveniently pussy foots around regulation of Euoropean financial markets, with only specific and narrow actions allowed, with no potential this side of a rewriting of the Treaty (and more referenda) for major banking reform, and with insurance undertakings specifically excluded from any regulation. At the same time, while much is made by proponents of the Treaty about the enlarged power of the EU parliament, in the case of banking regulation, any change will require unanimous decision by the Council, but The the European Parliament is downgraded from giving its assent to ‘offering its opinion’ (Article 127(6)).

Meanwhile, at Article 127 we get the codified control of the European System of Central Banks, uinder which they shall all ‘act in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition, favouring an efficient allocation of resources, and in compliance with the principles set out in Article 119.’ As such the ESCB will have the power to ‘define and implement the monetary policy of the Union’, ‘to conduct foreign-exchange operations consistent with the provisions of Article 219′ and ‘to hold and manage the official foreign reserves of the Member States’.

That, for me, is the embedding in law and in undemocratic institutions of the basic tenets of a neoliberal economy, and should therefore be welcomed by rightwingers who favour, let’s say, the Conservative plans for an Ultraquango, the Office for Fiscal Responsibilty; they will deal very nicely with the ESCB, I’m sure.

Calling out the right on their mixture of blind xenophobia and hypocritical approach to what’s actually in the Lisbon treaty, deliberately unreadable document that it is, is a really challenge for the left, but I’m glad Dave’s made a start.

Out of interest I can’t seem to locate anything telling me either how much holding this referendum cost or who stumped up the cash. So the Irish were essentially told that they’d keep holding a referendum until they return the result EU wants and that they may well be paying for it every single time – nice.

There is a reason that Dan Hannan and Tony Benn agree on this: they both believe that ultimate power should reside in national parliaments which can be held accountable.

Or even in Town Halls that can be held accountable.

As for whether it is possible to offer a left wing critique of the EU, I’d recommend anyone to read Hugh Gaitskell’s speech in 1962. Prescient in a lot of ways, and still relevant. For example:

I plead at the start for tolerance, tolerance in particular between those who hold the more extreme views in this controversy – those who, on the one hand would like to see Britain enter Europe whatever the conditions, and those who, on the other hand, are opposed to Britain entering Europe on any conditions. I suggest that they would do well to tolerate one another, because they both have some strange bedfellows. If one attacks the other because of its allies, retaliation is extraordinarily easy!

But then Gaitskell was attacking the EEC on both nationalist and internationalist lines:

We must be clear about this: it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say ‘Let it end’ but, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought. And it does mean the end of the Commonwealth. How can one really seriously suppose that if the mother country, the centre of the Commonwealth, is a province of Europe (which is what federation means) it could continue to exist as the mother country of a series of independent nations? It is sheer nonsense.

It’s a good speech, and just goes to show that Labour went downhill when the stopped electing Wykehamists to the leadership (cf Cripps)…

I’m sorry, but I find all this hand-wringing about “independence” and “sovereignty” tedious and of dubious merit. State sovereignty has never been entirely independent – the very concept requires some sort of supra-national agreement in order to exist in the first place. There is an entirely legitimate argument to be had regrading what level certain types of decisions should be made at, but to pretend that “independence” was or ever could be absolute at the level of the nation-state is absurd.

Nobody thinks that international trade agreements should be negotiated by parish councils, or that the refuse collection schedule in Hackney should be set by the WTO. Between those two extremes lies a very wide range of legitimate opinion.

@29 Is anyone here making that pretence? I’m certainly not, and even the populist Left generally has some very stinging critiques of the role of international organisations such as the IMF and World Bank constrain internal political decision-making.

Good post, Dave, and some very good points regarding the bribery of Irish business to the Irish people.

The Irish Finance Minister, Brian Lenihan, was interviewed by RTE at the referendum count, and was asked by a presenter: “Was it the promise of jobs that swung the Yes vote?”. To which Lenihan responded: “We never promised jobs as a result of the Yes vote.”

@29 Is anyone here making that pretence?

I was more speaking in terms of the general debate, but was prompted by the quote from Hugh Gaitskell at #28, specifically: “We must be clear about this: it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history.”

@31 – which is a flagrant lie. Even the quickest of google searches reveal posters promising jobs, and the IBEC website set up to campaign for a yes vote promises jobs in about seven different ways.

State sovereignty has never been entirely independent – the very concept requires some sort of supra-national agreement in order to exist in the first place.

Oh – I thought it merely required the nation could be violent enough to keep out those it didn’t want.

@34 that’s sort of the system pre Westphalia and it doesn’t work. Like with Hobbes’ state of nature there will always be a group powerful enough to gang up on you.

A lot of Lisbon is about foreign policy, though, with the creation of a High Representative for Foreign Affairs (or somesuch). For the EU to be united on matters of foreign policy.

And with the arguments with Vlad, that could be of some significant importance.

It’s not at all good, really, that matters of employment and matters of foreign policy are all thrown together in one treaty that gets only one referendum… that’ll prevent people voting their conscience on some issues, sadly, for the sake of convenience.

I would say the ability of an individual to have an effective say in their government declines once the legislature represents more than 5,000 people, the size of a large village small town. Historically we have parish, borough and county councils which effectively divide the UK land mass into manageable units to which people feel an emotional identity. However, even borough councils can become very remote from the interests of people. With the UK system for MPs it is not too difficult to arrange a meeting and they have enough time to deal with an individual’s complaint. The MEP based in Brussels is too distant to be held accountable. In the UK we have a tradition of Common Law based upon precedence whereas in Europe it is largely Roman Law. The tradition of a central authority issuing laws rather than developing through precedence will reduce our freedoms.

Many people agree with an European Economic Community but the EU is becoming like the The Roman or Holy Roman/ Charlemagne’s Empire and the age of empires is over. Structures which are too rigid tend to be brittle are likely to shatter if they suffer a shock. The looser arrangement of the EEC probably means it would survive longer than the rigid EU which is in danger of following the mistakes of many large institutions, that of over reach. The EU is legislating on far too many issues , which are best left to individual countries or their regions.

I cannot see how as the EU becomes larger,centralisation of decision making and harmonisation of rules can only reduce the freedom of the individual. The EU will also favour large organisations which can afford to pay lobbyists to influence decisions over the individual and small local organisations. If we look at the USA, large organisations and their lobbyists have greatly reduced the power and freedom of the individual. Increasing the number and complexity of rules benefits politicians, civil servants and lawyers. If only large organisations can afford the lawyers to navigate a complex and expnsive legal system, then it will favour the rich over 95% o the population. As they say in the USA, it has the best legal system money can buy.

Left Outside @35, thanks

Oh – I thought it merely required the nation could be violent enough to keep out those it didn’t want.

That’s autonomy, not state sovereignty, and it can operate at any level it can get away with – see, for example, the Lordship of the Isles up to 15th century, or perhaps the Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities today. Being a state is entirely dependant on the recognition of others, as in the Treaty of Westphalia.

The EU is legislating on far too many issues, which are best left to individual countries or their regions.

Or that should not be the subject of legislation at all.

Being a state is entirely dependant on the recognition of others, as in the Treaty of Westphalia.

Well, there might be a touch more to it than that. Is Taiwan a state? There are shades of grey in international relations.

Well, there might be a touch more to it than that. Is Taiwan a state? There are shades of grey in international relations

True. But the general principle stands – you can’t just get up one morning, decide that you’re an independent state, and expect anybody to take you seriously. Statehood depends on mutual recognition, therefore no state can ever really be completely independent, and all this moaning about how ratification of this or that treaty means “the end of Britain as an independent European state” is (generally) overblown. I’m quite sure that there’s no shortage of better grounds to object to the Treaty of Lisbon, if anybody could (a) be arsed to read the damn thing, and (b) actually make some sense of it.

Sorry, it’s an issue that’s been pissing me off recently, mostly in relation to people claiming that Scottish political “independence” is completely meaningless as long as we’re “in Europe”. But that’s another argument for another day…

42 – I suspect that’s right, although it is literally and intentionally impossible to read the Lisbon Treaty as, instead of replacing existing treaties, it amends them all. In order to read it, therefore, you need every other European Treaty in front of you, and be able to flip between them.

There’s an easier way to work out what’s in it though. Read the draft Constitution. There’s no real significant difference between the two documents other than presentational style.

Wouldn’t it be nice to have a proper, national debate as to the merits of EU membership without all skeptics instantly dismissed as “bent banana loonies”? If anyone wants to argue in favour of the EU, fine, but it would be great to see a consultancy run a proper cost benefit analysis and to have the results discussed in the mainstreme arena in a mature fashion. Mail and Telegraph aside, I have always thought it to be a bit weird that EU-skeptics get so quickly painted as ‘extremists’ etc

@42 @43

Tim’s right that it’s unreadable, and that the draft consitution is a pretty good alternative (and I note from his blog that he’s been there and done that, and may have the grey hair to show for it)

Another handy resource, for people trying to get to grips with the key bits, is this somewhat dry, occasionally slightly elliptic, but still decent analysis of the most crucial bits, across several posts around October 2008, by Ralf Grahn – see http://grahnlaw.blogspot.com/

Did anyone see Peter Hitchens’ contribution to the debate by comparing the EU to Nazi Germany?
There is a reason why many eurosceptics are seen as ‘bent banana loonies’

This article makes two fundamental errors
1. And if the people of Ireland had rejected the Treaty? Well then there would have been another referendum, or the question would have been folded into a General Election where it would have been obscured by fifteen other concerns.

You cannot argue ‘what might have beens’ when talking about the here and now. None of us have the capacity to predict then test alternate realities.

2. Leaving aside the politics of whether or not the Treaty is a good thing or a bad thing, the fact that yet again, the government held a second referendum because it didn’t like the answer of the first one is scandalous.

The argument for the rerun of the referendum was that the public were ill advised first time round and the economic climate had changed, whether or not you agree with this is irrelevant. It is hardly undemocratic to deny a second vote when it was widely perceived there were problems with the first. There is ample precedent for the rerunning of elections and referendums.

The argument for the rerun of the referendum was that the public were ill advised first time round and the economic climate had changed, whether or not you agree with this is irrelevant. It is hardly undemocratic to deny a second vote when it was widely perceived there were problems with the first. There is ample precedent for the rerunning of elections and referendums.

Yes, but the evidence for them having been ill-advised was that they voted no. And it is notable how the re-running of elections and referendums only seems to work one way. If it’s a yes, we will say ‘on we go’; if it’s a no we will say ‘we proceed’.

Best of three?

48. Utterly specious reasoning. The evidence for them being ill-advised was that the lack of information caused them to vote no, on the rerun, with more information available they voted yes. There is no campaign for another rerun from either side, unlike the first time round. This is why the Irish will proceed. The people have spoken, their representatives have accepted their decision. End of the matter.

The evidence for them being ill-advised was that the lack of information caused them to vote no, on the rerun, with more information available they voted yes. There is no campaign for another rerun from either side, unlike the first time round. This is why the Irish will proceed. The people have spoken, their representatives have accepted their decision. End of the matter.

And you wonder why people criticise the EU for their undemocratic tendencies? You’re not citing evidence at all – merely repeating that when the Irish voted no they were ill-informed, and when they voted yes they had been better informed. That’s not evidence, that’s a pathological inability to accept the will of the people, unless it accords with what you want.

The Irish people have indeed spoken, and their representatives refused to accept their decision. So they spoke again, and this time got the right answer.

There is a consolidated version of the Treaty, by the way. But I doubt our beloved leaders have read that either.

Gimpy,

The argument for the rerun of the referendum was that the public were ill advised first time round and the economic climate had changed, whether or not you agree with this is irrelevant.

If the economic climate changes again, would it be OK to hold another referendum?

51. They changed their minds Tim J, is that really such a bad thing? Shouldn’t electorates be allowed to change their minds? That the process of approving the Lisbon Treaty was the subject of a referendum in one country but not others is extremely unfortunate and the system should be changed for consistency. But it’s just silly to argue that rerunning a vote is undemocratic. There was no fraud involved in the process, only the giving of a second chance. Even in Britain you have parties arguing for referendums to be rerun, the SNP for example. Is this undemocratic?

52. That would be a matter for the Irish government to decide.

Interesting article. @16 – what Irish version of the BNP? I always believed (perhaps wrongly) that Ireland had no significant extreme right party.
The whole issue of referenda/democracy raises several interesting questions. It is incredibly patronising to tell a nation that they voted the wrong way because they were ill informed (just as it is patronising to assume they only changed their mind/voted the “wrong” way again because they have been “scared” into submission) (c.f all the coverage of the irish referendum as the irish having “bowed to pressure”/cry for help etc..)
But referenda can be quite problematic – esp. re:the EU. EP elections are widely believed to constitute “second order” elections (i.e they are fought over national level stuff rather than EU, satisfaction with gov etc..) and to an extent EU referenda can be the same. The 2005 french “non” was partly a rejection of the gov. at the time, and a french “non” to turkey joining the EU, despite that issue having nothing to do with the proposed constitution…

There was no greater amount of information released second time around. In the first referendum, concurrent to the campaign leading up to it, there were information campaigns galore – all aimed at the “hot-button” topics like the idea that Ireland would be forced to accept the right to abortion and so on. The only difference the second time round was that the Yes campaign was even further funded up the arse by business and even the unions.

Also there’s the small matter of the lies: such as IBEC promising jobs which they are in no position to deliver. Better informed? Give me a break.

“what Irish version of the BNP? I always believed (perhaps wrongly) that Ireland had no significant extreme right party.”

Violent ubernationists have generally been well represented.

@50 – Do you read what you’ve written? What you are essentially saying is that the consensus of the Irish Government was that a well-advised electorate would have voted Yes, the fact they didn’t proves that they were ill-advised and therefore a second referendum had to be held.

Now I know you don’t like what-if’s but do you really think that all things being equal had the first vote been yes that the ill-advised electorate and change in the economic situation would have led to a second vote?

I’m normally the first to say the devil’s in the detail but this isn’t true about the Lisbon Treaty.

There is only question not being asked of the people of Europe…except stupid Ireland, who required two goes to get it right….lesson – never let the Catholic Church write your constitution.

The question is, Do you want to create a new country made up of the existing members of the EU?

Not difficult is it. After all this is the slowest coup d’etat in history.