The American Spectator : Now That Ireland Has Caved

Text Size

Now That Ireland Has Caved

By Doug Bandow on 10.5.09 @ 6:08AM

The Lisbon Treaty brigade will still have to wait until the fat (Czech) lady sings -- and watch out if David Cameron becomes Prime Minister.

(Page 2 of 2)

Alone, delay by Prague should simply slow the Eurocrats in their scramble for new high office. But behind the fat (Czech) lady lurks British Conservative leader David Cameron.

The Labour government originally promised a vote on the European constitution, but refused to hold a referendum when it ratified the Lisbon Treaty. Not all Labourites were happy: former health minister Gisela Stuart complains of Lisbon, "The nature of democracy is really at stake."

However, a parliamentary election is due next by next June. Although nothing is certain in politics, Cameron is likely to become prime minister, and he has promised to suspend Britain's ratification while holding a referendum on the treaty. The result almost certainly would be no.

So Vaclav Klaus doesn't have to refuse to sign the Lisbon Treaty forever. He merely needs to not sign until the Tories take power. After which London could push the Lisbon project off the rails. In fact, the Daily Mail reported on a letter from Cameron to Klaus: "Cameron has told Klaus that if he can hold out for a few months, he'll be right there with him."

No surprise, this possibility "is the source of much angst in Brussels and other EU capitals," notes Economist columnist Charlemagne.

Still, defeating the treaty remains a long shot. The Czech court's general secretary, Tomas Langasek, said: "The ruling will definitely take weeks and months but I can guess it will not go beyond the end of the year." If so, pressure will mount on Klaus -- whose position incorporates more ceremonial function than government authority -- to complete the process initiated by the elected parliament.

And if Lisbon goes into effect before the British election, Prime Minister Cameron will possess no veto. He says the party would reconsider a vote under such circumstances, though Lorraine Mullally of the group Open Europe points out that polls indicate a majority of Britons want to vote even then.

Mullally suggests that London "link demands for reform to the EU budget -- and link that to a referendum," since negotiations will commence next spring over the EU's seven-year "Financial Framework." But threatening to block the EU budget to force reforms to Lisbon is a nuclear option, not for the faint-hearted. Whether the Tories, busy celebrating their long-awaited victory, would be willing to so directly challenge the rest of Europe is unclear.

Thus, the Eurocrats still might win. But it could prove to be a Pyrrhic victory. It is one thing to create a government superstructure. It is quite another to create a popular foundation, a demos to sustain a new government.

As yet, no such European identity exists. The Economist notes the EU's "lack of legitimacy among Europe's voters," but the Lisbon process has not filled the gap. To the contrary, President Klaus warns of creating "a situation where the citizens of member countries would live their lives with a resigned feeling that the EU project is not their own."

The expectation that creation of a European foreign minister and diplomatic service would result in a unified continental foreign policy also likely is overly optimistic. Andrew Duff of the European Council on Foreign Relations worried: "Europe's loss of global credibility [from rejection of Lisbon] would leave China and America largely to their own devices." But deep divisions over global issues remain within the EU and European states don't want to spend enough to create a credible and deployable military. Without political unity and military capability, China and America still will be left "largely to their own devices."

The most serious flaw in the Lisbon project, however, is the threat to representative government. There is no reason in theory that Europe cannot construct a continent-wide democratic system. But it is impossible to do so by imposing such a system on an unwilling people. Bill Emmott of the Times of London is scathing: "A constitutional exercise that when it began in 2001 was supposed to make the EU more democratic, transparent and comprehensible to its citizens is doing just the opposite."

In fact, transferring power from 27 accountable national assemblies to a less accountable continental assembly, warns Siedentop, "can breed cynicism about representative government: on the one side, power without real authority; on the other, authority with less and less power. Might the European and national parliaments discredit each other?"

If the result was a freer political order and less onerous state, we should welcome Lisbon's corrosive effect. But European history suggests that such a process could just as easily move in the other direction. Indeed, the recent election of two members of the overtly racist and anti-Semitic British National Party to the European Parliament could be an ugly portent.

With the Irish vote, Europe has taken a major step towards consolidated government. But the fat (Czech) lady has yet to sing. The future of representative government in Europe may depend upon President Vaclav Klaus willingness to stand firm.

Page: < 12

topics:
European Union, Lisbon Treaty, Vaclav Klaus

About the Author

Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and the Senior Fellow in International Religious Persecution at the Institute on Religion and Public Policy. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Beyond Good Intentions: A Biblical View of Politics (Crossway).

Letter to the Editor View all comments (19) | Leave a comment

Sean in Ireland| 10.5.09 @ 8:35AM

God, if I here one more American Conservative witter on against the EU my head will explode. As a Conservative, the only rational position on Europe is to support it. That's why all European conservative parties support it and are usually it's strongest supporters. Bar one, the narcissistic British Tories who dream of the days when they had the biggest dick and could piss on everyone else. The only other people on the right who oppose it are head-bangers like Le Pen, Haider, Wilders ect.

The EU is an institution which promotes free trade, has a good currency(healthier than the dollar) underpinned by borrowing limit of 3% of GDP and has rules against big governement competition stifling subsidies and protections. It's been a great help in cracking down on unions and controlling the borders too.

So boys, ignore the idiot British Tories(who actually brought the UK into the union) and get your talking points from the 26 other conservative parties in Europe.

PS. The Lisbon treaty was not defeated in Ireland for conservative reasons, it was defeated because of a torrent of lies and disinformation. There were two main groups on the right who opposed it, neither were very big, or had any members of parliament both had non-Irish funding and were filled with crooks and cranks(the two mainline conservative parties who have 127 out of 166 seats of whom one, Fianna Fáil, I am a member supported the treaty). The Lisbon treaty was to me, in a phrase, about cutting red tape, that's what I call conservative.

Tim| 10.5.09 @ 10:20AM

I'm sure that the EU will be better masters than the English.

Etiquette Man| 10.5.09 @ 10:39AM

Lost in Translation:

In Europe, Sarkozy is a conservative. Here, he would be a blue-dog Democrat (at best).

In Europe, Berlusconi is a conservative. Here, the till-emptying, media-stifling (and comely-lass-stiffing) septuagenarian comes across as a spliced-DNA hybrid of Huey Long and Bill Clinton (both Democrats).

In Europe, Frau Angie is a conservative. Here, she would be a left-of-center version of Hillary! Clinton.

The choice in Europe (and increasingly here, as well) is between those who think that the government should control 70% of your life, versus those who think it should control 90% of your life.

Thus is much lost in translation.

Cordially,

P.S. If you're really afraid of your head's exploding due to Eurobashing conservatives, try HuffPo or DailyKos. You may feel more at home there.

Kevin, Meath| 10.5.09 @ 11:47AM

On the whole your point is correct, trying to take 'labels' from one country to another can be misleading, (republican means you believe in the rule by the people, there's a 'republican' party in the UK, it wants to abolish the monarchy. Democrate means you believe in democracy.)
Sarkozy is French their political parties are different to everyone elses, Berlusconi well he is just mad and seemingly very popular in Italy.

The most conservative countries in Europe are Britain and Ireland. Britain has the 'stalinist NHS' and a state broadcaster, the BBC ( who probably produce the best TV in europe). If you call someone a liberal in the UK it wouldn't be viewed as an insult, in fact most British like to think that they are a bit liberal. Winston Churchill was in the 'Liberal' party for a time ,although many would say Churchill was always in the one party - his own.
i often read on this and other sites Obama called a 'Nazi', ye right. Now the BNP they are 'Nazis'.

John| 10.5.09 @ 1:54PM

Sean, Fianna Fail a Conservative Party? Please do not mislead those outside Ireland with such rubbish. Fianna Fail is a populist party, for whom loyalty to the party comes first (as very recently stated by Brian Cowen) with an overarching desire to be in power. I do not think the construction of social partnership, massive expansion over the past decade of the welfare state and their foremost leader of the past fifteen years who referred to himself as a socialist are the hallmarks of a 'conservative party'.

You have shown yourself however to be an exemplary follower of your party, by imitating their deceitful polemics against the Lisbon Treay opposition through spiteful vitriol and lies in order to distract from the truth. From my travels around the country in the run up to the referendum, I observed most 'Yes' posters beseeching us to remain in Europe etc! I am sorry but it was not a refendum on whether we wanted in or out of the EU, but on an International Treaty, the terms of which involve a transfer of powers out of our hands - how dare you demonise those who would seek to dispute the dilution of our hard won sovereignity.

In Ireland, lamently we have no strong left/right parties. Instead we are left with the relics of a civil war divide - Fianna Fail (power at all costs) and Fine Gael (with slightly better credentials towards been conservative) - which continue to bedevil and impoverish our nation with their parocialism and mediocrity.

To finish - I have never heard of Fianna Fail refer to themselves as a conservative party, only ever as the 'Republican Party' - the irony!

Kevin, Meath| 10.5.09 @ 2:49PM

Dear John,
(always wanted to start a comment with that sorry) you forgot to mention that the Fianna Fail party leader and Taoiseach (Prime Minister) was asked by a a planning Tribunal to explain unaccounted for payments into his bank account he answered 'that he'd won it on the horses' and the 'complex/confusing' nature of his finnances was because he didn't really understand such complex issues. a litte worrying considering he had also been minister for finnance and was a trained accountant.
The 'Yes' side did desend into fear tactics, sound bites etc but so did the 'No' side eg if you say yes the EU will introduce the conscription of children into an EU army!
Its exactly the sort of name calling that other countries worry would happen if they had vote on the treaty. You might answer thats democracy and you would be right. What did Churchill say about democracy, something like 'Bloody silly way to run a country -- but better than all the alternatives'.

Kevin, Meath| 10.5.09 @ 9:41AM

One of the main problems of the EU is all countries had the veto, trying to get all 27 different countries with very different political outlooks, historic conflicts and sheer bloody mindedness in some cases to agree on every decision no matter how small is a nightmare. The treaty is an attempt to make the EU more efficient, more democratic and simply work better so some majority vote issues are introduced.
One of the main features of the 'No' camp was that Ireland would be forced to abondon its traditional neutrality as countries are required to aid another EU member if they are attacked and to maintain an effective armed forces. The EU insisted that Irelands Neutrality would not be compromised. I would have thought most in the USA would have agreed with a country being forced to take at least some responsibility for its own defence, especially as Ireland expects the UK/USA to provide sea and air defence.
Cameron doesn't particularly want to run a referendum, they are very rare in British politics, because if he does he may well get an anti europe vote and that will put him in a difficult position with Britains main trading partners. He will also fear supplying those lovely people in the BNP fuel for more xenophobic rants and even allow them a higher and respectable public profile. They are all ready to be given air time by the BBC because they have 2 MEP's.

jd| 10.5.09 @ 1:11PM

Your comment that the treaty is an attempt to make the EU more efficient, more democratic and simply work better sounds good in theory. In talking with my husband's relatives in Belgium, things are not more democratic and the bureaucracy on everything is unbelievable. Don't know how you can convince me, a conservative in the US, that it works better. Like you mentioned, party labels mean different things in different countries. I would also argue that the definition of "democracy" means something different between the US and European countries as well.

JAH666| 10.5.09 @ 10:44AM

If Doug Bandow has upset readers of American Spectator with his analysis, well, were not there, you folks are. The effort to form a continent-wide government from so many countries with so many different outlooks and national agendas seemed a very daunting task when first proposed. These latest developements show that the peoples of Europe still have many difficult days ahead of them before all is settled. Americans can only wish all those involved good luck. This is the biggest governmental change to be proposed on your continent (probably ever) and there are bound to be many, many roadblocks and compromises yet to come. Hang in there euros, and don't give up your freedoms just to get consensus.
E Pluribus Unum

S.L. Toddard| 10.5.09 @ 10:55AM

I find it tragic that the Irish would vote in favor of handing that sovereignty they fought so long and so hard for to European bureaucrats.

Son Of Sam| 10.5.09 @ 11:44AM

I couldn't agree any more strongly; what's more, I take the view that any union which is achieved without consulting the people must in the end be an undemocratic one. What's the point of achieving unity at the expense of liberty?

stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com

JP| 10.5.09 @ 12:56PM

Sean,
As it stands, Europe is in the early stages of decay. All across Europe the populations are becoming older, young people with the means are emigrating, and the only option available to most national parliments is to import large islamic minorities that overall do not assimulate. On the contrary, it is the EU cities that are assimulating to larger and larger minorities diktats.

You do have a point concerning the US, its finances, and the dollar. But I might add that since 1988, the US has more and more been morphing into some EU style social insurance state. Spending, large defecits, increased regulations concerning health care, finance, the enviorment and labor have been the main stay of the US since George H W Bush took office in 1989. But, the US is not Europe (at least not yet), and there remains a rather large minority (or as some suggest a majority) who prize freedom over comfort, liberty over equality (we'd rather have the equality of means than the equality of results), and we never totally bought into entitlements such as social security and Medicare.

Ireland, in the throes of a severe financial crisis is doing the opposite; it is going for short term comforts over long term liberty. As the late Gerald Ford once quipped, "A government that can give its people everything can also take everything." Including one's freedom. The EU is a very complex set of unelected, permanent bureaucracies that set "trans-national standards" from everything to schools to the size of shoes. Once in, it is almost impossible to get out. And with the continent being Islmafied, I would be very worried. One day, Muslim clerics holding permanent offices within the EU bureaucracy will be setting new "standards". One that day comes, an Irish family would rather be living in some dusty isolated corner of West Texas than in County Cork. In West Texas he will be free.

jd| 10.5.09 @ 2:57PM

Well said!

Sean in Ireland| 10.7.09 @ 6:05PM

I agree whole-heartedly that Europe is in deep long term trouble but I don't believe that the EU is a cause or symptom of this. The EU is serving as the same force as Christianity did in the Late Roman Empire; holding together something which should have collapsed long ago. In the EU I am fairly confident that the days of double-digit CPI are gone and as a citizen of a small country I see the EU as a countervailing pressure to the desire to cartelise the economy among the politicall connected as happened for much of the pre-EU period. The thesis that the EU is conservative is by no means a categorical imperative, but is much more a friend than foe.

S.L. Toddard| 10.5.09 @ 1:04PM

I'd ask Mr. Bandow (as well as Son of Sam and Dr. Phillips, if he's around) how they feel about the idea of the Anglosphere and Bennet's policy prescriptions with regards to it:

http://www.pattern.com/bennett.....rimer.html

For any conservative concerned with conserving, maintaining and cultivating our American culture (and by definition every "conservative" is), I cannot recommend highly enough that you read that primer. I am not sure I agree with all of Bennet's recommendations, but surely conservatives must recognize the significance of the Anglosphere to world and American history, and the common link we share with the other nations of the Anglosphere. More so than the somewhat amorphous "West", America is foremost part of the Anglosphere, and it is in the Anglosphere first that any supra-national affection should reside.

HD| 10.5.09 @ 6:57PM

The EU is likely doomed to failure simply because it is an artificial construct. The member nations share no common language and it's unlikely that this could be forced on them by fiat. Also, the Euro, while doing well at the moment, could serve to hamstring the members that now see capitalism, instead of socialism, as the way forward. These intrepid Europeans could find themselves subsidizing nations with less will to strike out on the journey to prosperity. In any case, the common currency holds down nations that see a future in having a strong economy, which the European Parliament will undoubtedly work toward redistributing to lazier member states. We have yet to see what the actual benefits to the citizens of EU members are, although the imagined benefits are trumpeted loud and long.

joseph mailander| 10.6.09 @ 1:33PM

"George," I had an even less charitable thought when I saw that damn Malkin popup. Here's this challenging, rigorously researched and fairly balanced article, and it's fronted by a pop-up from one of the most reactionary clowns in American media. Please, AmSpec, if you want to engage serious issues, get rid of the clown endorsement.

California Is A Dream| 10.6.09 @ 3:12PM

The English should never under any circumstances join with the EU or any other transnational organization. They should remain the independent people they have always been, viewing the Continent as it always has been...a source of turmoil and warfare. The Czech President is to be commended as one of the only free thinkers who sees the world realistically and practically, not caught up in the dreams of the left.