After the proposed EU Constitution was soundly defeated by the people of Europe in 2005, promoters repackaged it as the Lisbon Treaty. This extraordinary anti-democratic move was intended to secure passage without public referenda. The Irish Constitution however, provided requirements that led to a referendum on the renamed constitution anyway. Not surprisingly, the proposed constitution / treaty met defeat once again. (55% - 45%)
The propaganda campaign in Ireland followed the same pattern as the European campaign in 2005. The YES campaign lacked any reason for Europeans to accept the dictatorial power structure that the constitution / treaty would create. So they avoided discussion on the actual content of the treaty and instead claimed passage would create an idyllic Europe – up to and including improvements in the weather. Naturally, they misrepresented their opposition as well; describing them generally as a small fringe group with ulterior motives and possibly influenced by foreign powers. In addition, they claimed rejection would throw Europe into crisis. (Three hours and counting; the sky over Europe hasn’t fallen yet.)
No sooner than the Irish NO was being reported, than pundits began describing the next effort at passage. Ireland is such a small country, says one Stockholm University professor, that it should not stand in the way. It would be different if Germany or France rejected the treaty. She expects Brussels to put pressure on politicians to change the Irish constitution to allow passage without a referendum, as has been done in other European states.
The comments characterize the typical disdain for truth and democracy that has been shown throughout the process. France did indeed reject the proposal in 2005. So did The Netherlands. Because passage requires acceptance by every state, these rejections were final. Other states had no reason to take continuation of the process seriously.
Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy has likened the EU process to that of the former Soviet Union. Rather than accept the result of the democratic process, they will continue to ask the question until they get the answer they want. What we have seen in Europe is even more extreme than his description. If the people reject it, the powers in Brussels will do everything they can to pass the measure without asking again.
Rate this post:
(10 votes, average: 4.5 out of 5)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
Stoney said,
June 13, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Roger F. Gay said,
June 14, 2008 at 6:49 am
Stoney said,
Good thing our Founders were careful to invest most power in the states, and to warn us to avoid entangling foreign alliances. How brilliant is our Constitution, that restricts the power of central government! As long as we in America heed the wisdom of our fathers, our way of life is safe.
And I have used up my quota of sarcasm for this hour.
June 15, 2008 at 6:13 am
Roger F. Gay said,
The EU does need to consider federalism rather than Soviet style centralization. It is the one solution that would seem to satisfy all legitimate sides of the argument. But of course, it’s very difficult for critics of the US to consdier the fact that the US Constitutional model is in fact the one they actually need.
June 16, 2008 at 7:10 am