I want to make my personal webpage, can you help me?,

Europe has the burden of ethnicity and nationality still being linked - and having been artificially linked, thanks to America's Wilson and the fatigued governments after WWI. The problem in this post-Hansa age is that government has become ethnic rather than dynastic - and the only modern example seems to be the US, with an entirely different development history.

If the US were building the 60 or so military bases we're setting down in Iraq in Europe, the Europeans would quickly come to agreement in order to regulate both the benefits and disadvantages of that colonial occupation - they were well on their way so long as our bases in Western Europe were chock-full of troops; without that defining occupation they fall back into ethnic identity and nationalism.

___Many Europeans would be happy to share more sovereignty, but Europe needs a more democratic regime before people will trust it.

Wich one exsactly?

Many Irish voters voted against the treaty because they wanted representation in the European Commission. Clearly the European Commission needs to be replaced by some Senate-like body from which an executive council is elected (the latter having no more than one-year terms).

Allow all European voters the chance to vote on constitutional changes. This will ensure that amendments serve the interests of the people, not just unelected Brussels mandarins. Many Europeans would be happy to share more sovereignty, but Europe needs a more democratic regime before people will trust it.

"Ireland has been more welcoming to immigrants than any other EU country, and continues to be so."

The only reason Ireland has been "welcoming" of immigrants is that the United Kingdom was going to allow access to workers from the newly admitted eastern European states and if Ireland did not then it would have had to introduce full immigration and border controls between the UK and Ireland for the first time ever, an almost impossible task.

Indeed according to post referendum polling it appears that an unspoken backlash against the influx of eastern Europeans played a part of the multifaceted rejection of the Lisbon Treaty even if many No Voter \s wish to disassociate themselves from the neo-fascists (COIR) and ultra-nationalists (Sinn Fein). I guess it’s actually quite European in way!

Bomb throwing by Konstandaras certainly doesn’t help the Pro-Lisbon Treaty Irish (48% of the Vote!) defend advance and explain the issues involved.

And yet again the EU has no powers that national governments DO NOT confer on it.

"Ireland has been more welcoming to immigrants than any other EU country, and continues to be so."

The only reason Ireland has been "welcoming" of immigrants is that the United Kingdom was going to allow access to workers from the newly admitted eastern European states and if ireland did nt then it would have had to introduce full immigration controls between the UK and ireland for the first time ever an almost task.

Indeed according to post referendum polling it appears that a unspoken backlash against the influx of eastern Europeans played a part of the multifacted rejection of the Lisbon Treaty even if many wish to associate themselves from the neo-fascists (COIR) and ultra-nationalists (Sinn Fein). I guess its actually quite European in way!

Bomb throwing by Konstandaras certainly doesnt help the Pro-Lisbon Treaty Irish (48% of the Vote!) defend advance and explain the issues involved.

And yet again the EU has no powers that national governments DO NOT confer on it, so if you Euroskeptics have got issues take it up with your ELECTED leaders!

I agree wholeheartedly with Nikos Konstandaras. Whining and complaining while enjoying the benefits is the cowards way. Get in all the way or stay out!

What rubbish! Bashing the Irish, when they were the only people in Europe who had a choice on the new EU treaty, which erodes and limits home-rule and national sovereignty. What about the UK, where a referendum was denied, even though the PM publicly said at first that the people would get a say? What about all the other countries where the people had no say in the treaty?

It seems the entire exercise of the EU, it's leadership and it's treaties, is to remove accountability from the system. Remove direct democracy, individual liberty, and self-rule. For that, the Irish are right to reject the treaty. If other people had the chance, the ruling elite of Europe might see a wholly different outlook.

As this new constitution would have it, the EU would be undemocratic. Lacking legitimacy in the eyes of the peoples of Europe it would be doomed in the long run. We must ask ourselves why this piece of unreadable paper was written in the first place. if we want a United States of Europe, which i do, then let us get together and write something we can all agree on. We could take the example of the original American Constitution which allowed considerable autonomy to the states. The President should be elected even if only by the prime ministers from each country. That is not too much to ask. As for cultural matters, of course each state must retain the right to decide the practices that are legitimate, abortion etc.. Economic and environmental issues should be left to the Union and its central bank. As for foreign policy, the issue is tricky, but ultimately, it is the Union that must decide major issues whatever the composition of the deciding body (possibly a Security Council elected by the foreign ministers of each country). These are just a few suggestions re how to make the Union legitimate, for without this there can be no United States of Europe.

A number of years ago while in college I wrote a paper discussing the problems the EU might face while negotiating between the individual national identity and the greater European identity. I wish I had had your comments at the time. I agree with you completely. You can't lead a people in a great international movement when you're only half-committed.

Europeeans are suffering a very high level of sovereignity feeling. Moreover, they stick to the particularism of Nation-State build up.
Thus,Europe full integration requires still more time to mature.
We, here in the Maghreb, we have inherited from France the same hyper-sensitivity to sovereignism, which up to day prevents the Maghreb Union be implemented.

I could not agree more with Mr Kostandaras. As I am myself Finnish and Mr Kostandaras, I understand, Greek, it simply shows that we can have something in common: that we quite like the EU and hope it to move forward as fast as possible.

The recourse to a referendum does not, as such, make the process of ratification any more democratic in comparison with the usual parliamentary procedure. The point of having elected representatives in the parliament is the delegation of power. We are not organizing referenda on state budgets or the level of interest rates, why should we have one on Europe?

If the Irish feel that the EU does not share their values (whatever they may be, since the Irish seem to be divided evenly between reactionaries and progressives), they can always leave. Indeed, the new Treaty provides for this option, while the old ones do not; this obviously does not mean that cannot be done, since it has happened before (Greenland exited the EU in 1985). For those who hold out for a "better deal" (whatever that might be, since the Irish political class is quite happy with the Reform Treaty), one should simply say there will be no better deal. Negotiations are not conducted by popular vote, as any mature person can understand, and this simply because it is impossible, as there would be no consensus amongst the electorate what would be a "better" deal. Again, this is why countries have parliaments.

Sadly, the discussion seems to oscillate between contempt and fear. Many in the English-speaking world either belittle the EU and expect its sudden demise or harbour irrational fears about it. Some seem to do both. Few bother to read something of substance on the Union and instead prefer to listen to fearmongerers and conspiracy theorists, be they of the left or the right. Not that it really matters, since the EU is an astounding success and will continue to be. The Lisbon Treaty should be and will be ratified, with Ireland either in or out.

To quote Winston Churchill: there will be a United States of Europe.

to Kevin, Ireland:

can you please tell me who is paying you for reposting here?

The author would really need to re-read what he has written, and ask himself whether he is a democrat or a fascist. His disregard for the democratic voice of, in this case, the Irish voters, speaks for itself, and underlines the European problem.

My view is entirely different. Why were the Irish voters the only ones who were asked? (The answer of course, is that our Constitution required it). Why were other EU citizens NOT asked? That is the question that they should be putting to their public representatives.

Forcing new governance measures on a people will not work in the long-run - the author should understand this more than most. But he has not learned the lessons of history.

A majority vote of the whole population of the EU would have credibility and acceptance among those of us concerned with the lack of democracy in the EU. Ignoring the voice of the small section of the population who were asked, will just lead to more concerns about who really controls the EU. The 'strong leadership' suggested by the author is highly suspect. Choosing to ignore the result will have serious long-term consequences.

And, by the way, it is not a case of Ireland preserving its prosperity at a cost to other, Eastern, nations. Ireland has been more welcoming to immigrants than any other EU country, and continues to be so. Our population ahs grown by 25% in 10 years, while many other nations are in decline. We have genuine reservations about this Treaty (some of which are dubious), but the voice of the (Irish)European people has been heard. What about the voice of the (Greek) European people, mr. author?

We have already heard the voices of the (French) Europeans and the (Dutch) Europeans - lets not ask them again, in case they say NO.

That's the problem with referenda. If democratically-elected representatives from a country say "NO" to a proposed treaty, then their colleagues from different countries who make up the majority opinion, will ask them what their problems are with the treaty, what kind of solutions they'd like to see etc.

But with referenda such a discussion cannot take place. The No-voters do not have a single motive and sometimes loudly accuse those who maintain the other position of being immoral and anti-democratic. The NO of the people is absolute, no attempt is made to find a solution for real existing problems. No attempt is made to find a middle-ground between yes and no-voters. The no is difficult to interpret as well; is a majority of Irish against their countries membership of the EU? Do they just have a problem with certain particulars in the proposed treaty?

Referenda, rather than helping democracy, stifle the debate instead. Electing representatives to negotiate complex multilateral treaties is not anti-democratic.

Obviously the Irish, French, and Dutch are a bunch of fools that don't know what's good for themselves. "Europe" needs to decide by the fiat of the few what is good for the masses.

I enjoyed the author completely disregarding the valid concerns that people across the continent have with the draft constitution. People legitimately feel that too much power is being given to a largely unelected bureaucracy. They fear the loss of their national identity. Many feel that the EU's economic handcuffs are too tight and the larger, older members flaunt the rules when necessary and the smaller members are denied that flexibility. And on and on,,,

There are plenty of legitimate gripes that need to be addressed. This author's lack of respect for the democratic process is indicative of one of the primary failings of the EU that is giving people pause.

"Now is the time for EU leaders to lead their people, not pass the buck to them."

So now is the time for the EU to ignore democracy because those ignorant sheep don't know what's best for them.

Go Eire!

Your article and the EU, is garbage. When is Turkey going to be included in your utopian organization?

I've just read Nikos' article above, and quite frankly, what I read there is more of the liberal "we like the U.N." kind of stuff that undermines national sovereignty every chance it gets and uses the "tyranny of the majority" to enforce its own rules. For example, Nikos claims that the Irish have held up the EU's reform treaty, and that is true, but he doesn't explore any of the reasons why the Irish voted that way--you can't just make sweeping generalizations and hope to get away with that, you have start by stating the facts/reasons first and then you analyze those facts/reasons to see if anything can be done to bring the Irish into the fold with the rest of the EU. Did he ever ask why they voted that way? Of course not--he just blames them for holding up Europe's progress in an uncertain and rapidly changing world.

He presents the Irish with two choices--to leave the EU or forfeit their representation on the EU, but of course their obligations to the EU wouldn't be dropped. Sounds kinda like "taxation without representation" to me, and that's a phrase that most Europeans should be quite familiar with, if they know their history. Then he says that may seem harsh (may??), but how can 3 million voters hold up 500 million voters? The answer is this: no nation should be asked to sign onto a treaty that they cannot stomach in all good conscience, and the Irish have done this. (That's why the U.S. didn't sign onto the Kyoto Protocol, in case you've forgotten, and it's why several EU nations haven't either, by the way--or they signed it and haven't done anything yet about observing it, which is the same thing.)

And why is there no Plan C? If plan B didn't work, are you all just going to give up and WAAAH like babies? Cry me a river, please!! Or are you going to do the right thing and try to come up with a solution that all parties to the treaty can live with? You state that their abortion stand might have something to do with their vote--hello, they're Catholic, and you're crazy if you think you can make them forget their strongly-held moral values just for the sake of going along to get along. If it's that important to get consensus from everyone in Europe to allow them to sign onto the treaty, why isn't there another attempt at meeting with the Irish and hashing out the details that would satisfy them? I guess "voting your conscience" is only a bad thing if you're an Irish Catholic that's dealing with the EU.

Ironically, Nikos ends his article by saying, "There are times when achievements have to be defended at all costs so that civilization may not slide backward. This is one of those times." He's exactly right, and that's why the U.S. is in Iraq right now, b/c of UN Resolution 1441 and the threat of WMD's, which we know Saddam used against his own people--the proof for that is incontrovertible. This was the same reasoning that President Bush used to go into Iraq, so I find it incredibly ironic that Nikos uses that same justification in his attempt to force the Irish to live with the reform treaty. How can you criticize the U.S. for its war in Iraq, and yet use that same logic to force the Irish into the EU fold? Dude, you can't have it both ways!! Tell me that's not the tyranny of the majority speaking and I'll laugh my head off!! And please don't forget that two of your EU countries were found to have been dealing arms to Saddam, arms that are killing U.S. soldiers--how embarrassing is it to be caught redhanded selling arms to a despot? That might explain why neither of those countries joined with the U.S. in Iraq, b/c they didn't want to threaten their arms sales. But I'm sure that you'll come up with another rational/plausible EU explanation as to why they didn't join us in the war against terrorism in Iraq.

There are many who are involved in Bible Prophecy who believe the EU( aka The Revived Roman Empire)has a major part in History during the 7 year Tribulation that will come. The EU will have a part of the Peace negotiation with Israel. We also believe a world leader will come from this region.
The Book Of Danial and Revelation talks about events to come. Danial in particular talks about King Nebakanezer's dream about a statue which represented different kingdoms in which have came to past or will come to pass.
The EU will be in the forefront during this period of time. But I'd rather be with Jesus when this come to pass Because this world is going through The Great Tribulation in the second half of The 7 year Tribulation.

Nikos, you know very well that the Lisbon treaty was a blatant attempt to shove the already rejected Constitution into the throats of the people without the referendum. Thanks to Ireland, this Soviet-style scheme failed. Your references to democracy lack sincerity if not understanding of the concept. Your time would be better spent on reading your ancestors than writing propaganda articles.

Mr Konstandaras writes a convincing opinion piece yet I think he makes one mistake, common to many pro-EU-ists in Europe (an apology to my friends in the EU parliament), and that is to assume that it's just a matter of national leadership that causes the lack of europeanness. It is not. People do agree with the EU stand on death-penalty and human rights, but those are just values and not the same as being or feeling european - which is more connected to history.

The EU has an enormous legitimacy problem. If people in the US mistrust their central government, just imagine how far away the EU feels for the average European.

Dear Nikos,
As you can see, nobody in the USA cares about Europe! Which is natural, since the majority of Americans don't care about nothing behind the horizon of their bellies. So, nobody comments.

Besides that I totally agree with your post. Not only. For what I learned of speaking with people and reading what they post around in the NET, the European populace, fat of more then 60 years of peace and prosperity, thanks to the Schumann ideal, don't care too about nothing that goes behind the horizon of their bellies. Incredibly, someone even called Europe a fascist state!!!! WOW! This shows how ignorant and stupid the peoples of Europe have become, being so idiots as to compare a fascist state with this Europe.

Let them do it. Sometimes it seems that some generations need a shake-up, to learn again what life really is. If they really want to destroy what was accomplished, so be it. Sincerely, I just lost all hope in these generations! They only think about their GSMs, their cars, their PCs, and don't know nothing about live.

Mr. Konstandaras's knowledge of popular feeling in Ireland is hugely flawed if he believes that the Irish voted to reject Lisbon on the basis of "local gripes and current domestic politics." I am an Irish citizen and like many of my fellow countrymen, I wrestled with my decision to vote no right up until I stood before that ballot and ticked the box. It was not a matter of domestic politics that made me choose No. As any current opinion poll will show, the Irish people are happy with our government at present. Indeed, it was difficult for most voters to vote with the likes of Sinn Fein and the Socialist Party who were condoning a No vote. We, in Ireland, are fully aware of the debt we owe to the European Union. However we are equally aware of our Constitution which expressly protects Irish sovereignty, something which is still very new to us. Membership of the European Union requires us to make enormous concessions to this sovereignty in order to enjoy the benefits of the EU. The Lisbon treaty may not directly affect this sovereignty, however the bullying and the threats made by many European foreign ministers causes alarm bells to ring in the minds of the Irish people. We take democracy very seriously as a nation. It is difficult for us to hand over so much power to politicians who we didn’t elect, who we know very little about, but who can then determine political policy in our country.

The Irish people would like to make our own decisions as much as possible, thank you very much, and when the likes of Konstandaras comes out with this kind of misinformed and ignorant understanding of the Irish position, I, for one, feel vindicated in choosing not to have our future determined by people who simply don't know what they are talking about.

We don't want to weaken Europe. The European Union has been wonderful for Ireland. We just want to ensure that it remains that way.

Hang on- The French rejected it, the Dutch rejected it and now the Irish rejected it, a clear decision which cannot be dismissed as easily as you might like. Polls indicate the British would reject the treaty, and that's not an isolated view. Bear in mind that this is to all intents and purposes the constitution of Europe, which really should be put to a referendum across the whole EU. Absent of this, at what point, in your opinion, does continuing with the treaty become undemocratic?

I suspect that Nikos Konstandaras is a "progressive", opposed to the execution of people who have committed murder, and very tolerant of the killing of unborn who have done no harm. OK, that is his choice of values. But others may have different values. I think countries have the right to ask, "Shall we follow our own morals and rule our societies by them, or shall be allow important decisions to be made by progressive bureaucrats?" There is a slogan coined by Nehru, I believe, "Unity in diversity." Different groups of people can have a common currency, common foreign policy, a "sort of" common attitude towards what "human rights" mean. People can subscribe to human rights without interpreting the term "human rights" the same way. But will the EU respect this diversity while pursuing unity? Central governments have a tendency to keep extending their reach. The Irish are right to fear this, perhaps they want to continue to live by Catholic values. And if so, that should be their choice. The solution for the EU is to pull back, and make sure that the autonomy of individual states in social issues is not threatened by bureaucrats living hundreds of miles away.

if your precious constitution or whatever you want to call it today is so great, how come it keeps getting rejected when voters are able to vote? If it went to a vote in France again it would probably lose again and what do you think the UK would do with a vote? Your remark about a few hundred thousand people is misleading and very wrong, but you probably knew that when you wrote it. Outside of parliaments there are more than a few hundred thousand people who are against this and you know it.

This process was rushed so go blame the idiots who thought it made sense to add in Eastern Europe before this was locked down. It would have made much more sense to resolve the constitution first. Part of the problem is that people are concerned about losing jobs to the East where labor is much cheaper. Western governments ignored this fear (which is real) and thought they could just force the issue so go whine to them about not addressing those fears.

Many of the "no" voters aren't against the EU and its values and beliefs. They are against the constitution or against the Lisbon treaty. Let's not get carried away and smear people for having legitimate concerns that are different from yours.

Ireland certainly as benefited from the EU money, as has Greece. (I'm sure you're familiar with the many criticisms from around the EU about Greece sponging money from Brussels.) There's no need to attack Ireland because (a) that's how democracy works, since you forgot and (b) the "no" vote is how millions of others feel about it but never had the opportunity vote since their governments jammed this down their throats. It's attitudes like yours that are the problem, not Ireland or France or Holland. Greece may have created democracy but despite that history the idea seems to be dead, at least with people like you.

I am an Irish citizen who voted 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty last Thursday.

Like most others who voted No, I am pro-European but do not believe that the EU must necessarily evolve into a United States of Europe, with its own (unelected) President, Diplomatic corps and Foreign Minister.

I believe it is fundamentallly undemocratic that countries would not have a Commissioner for 5 years at a time. We did not vote against Europe or against the EU, we voted for a more democratic and accountable Europe.

Let's have a bit less of the anti-Irish rhetoric please and a bit more intelligent and accurate analysis of the facts.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here? I was just pointing to some of the issues in the Irish referendum debate, which commentators like this simply ignore when they classify the Irish no as anti-European.

For example, the trade union, Unite, came out against the treaty exactly on the basis that it "would set back workers’ rights in Ireland and across the continent" (note that this was not an anti-European sentiment). Equally, the Technical Engineering and Electrical Union (TEEU) argued that Lisbon was part of a general trend in the EU against workers’ rights and in favor of big business. Finally, the largest union SIPTU said they would only support the treaty if they got a commitment for the government to introduce domestic legislation to guarantee collective bargaining rights for workers, in the face of Lisbon free-market ideology.

Certainly the issue came up. I'm not saying it was the only issue, but an issue that does go to the heart of what our vision for the EU should be.

Your opinion has merit. However, I seriously doubt the USE (United States of Europe) will ever happen. We in the USA had a common foe that caused us to subjugate our individual priorities and differences in order to unite against a common master in Britain.

You may grouse about George Bush and Americans but we don't really control you. Perhaps if Hitler or Stalin had succeeded, you would now have a better chance.

From West Virginia, USA

Lisbon was good for business, but was it good for workers?

seriously dude, have you even tryed to read it?

Nikos Konstandaras has confused Irish voters with UK Eurosceptics. The majority of Irish voters are neither anti-European nor nationalist reactionaries. They have proved that in referenda in the past. Equally, the outcome of the Irish referendum was not down to 'local gripes'. The current government is riding high in opinion poles under its new leader. The main opposition parties also supported the treaty. What happened is that many Irish people take the right of voting in referenda seriously. Changing a country's constitution is not something you should take otherwise.

Lisbon was designed to streamline European institutions, to make the Union more democratic. What it actually created was a more oligarchic Union. The parliaments of member states would have more control over EU decision making, but what difference does it make to ordinary people whether bills are debated in committee in Brussels or in Dublin. Lisbon was the first treaty that actually set back the growing importance of the European Parliament sitting in Strasbourg (a body where national governments can never exercise a veto).

What Europe needs is a vision. The Lisbon treaty does not present a vision of Europe. Nicolas Sarkozy does not represent a vision of Europe. When he talks about tax harmonization, for example, he is doing so not because he has a grand plan for 'ever closer union' but because this is French national policy. Equally, setting up a European Defense Force is not a vision of Europe that many European citizens (unlike the governments of France and Germany) are comfortable with. The principle behind the formation of the original Coal and Steel Community (the precursor to the EEC) was, after all, to demilitarize Europe after WW2. And has social justice completely disappeared from the European agenda? Many in Ireland welcomed that facet of the EU, as evidenced in the Forum for Europe held after Ireland's initial rejection of the Nice Treaty. Lisbon was good for business, but was it good for workers? These are issues that were debated in Ireland, where the future of Europe is envisioned as more than the grubby compromise of Lisbon.

The problem with the EU is the attempt to provide it with legitimacy via rubber stamp, be it a referendum or parliamentary nod or party platform commitment.

The way the discussion is framed itself reveals that a rubber stamp cannot confer legitimacy but merely recognize it.

The writer talks about EU values, but human rights and opposition to the death penalty - as admirable as they might be, are hardly the stuff that will "effect a more perfect union". And, er, all European Union citizens already have human rights. This lowest common denominator approach to defining "what we stand for" exposes how little we do stand for that can justify a more integrated EU.

Indeed, the hole at the heart of Europe is the hole at the heart of every contemporary Western society: a lack of inspiring vision. The modern state was born out of a powerful, optimistic, humanistic vision of the perfectibility of man (and woman)and a strong sense that individual liberty was important because it would release the human potential - the sky was the limit. If that sounds like a naive assessment of how powerful Enlightenment ideals were, just remember how almost every modern state was born of revolution or civil war with those ideals on its banner.

That vision today has clearly fallen on hard times. Our societies increasingly appear to anti-humanistic: regulation rather than liberty and realizing potential is the defining logic in an age (and not just the Irish) that tends to view the future with trepidation (environmental disaster, scarcity, over-consumption). A society defined by a sense of limits and terminus rather than the boundless potential of people can convince citizens that they need constant shepherding for safety's sake, but it cannot inspire and unite them.

If EU politicians are afraid of making the case for the EU, it's because they know they haven't got one... beyond human rights (which Europeans enjoy with or without the EU).

The bureaucratic, anti-popular attitude of many people, like the writer, is evident in their frustrated determination to find some mechanism to circumvent any unwanted ("wrong"?) referendum outcome. The call for another vote (until the voters make the "right" decision) is an example of this patronising outlook. It reminds me of Tony Blair's revealing statement, that "Our job is to give citizens the information they need to make the right decisions." Blair defined "right", of course. Well, that's exactly what people are fed up with.

You say the Irish can "find a way to leave" the EU? As I understand it there is no exit clause. I doubt that the Irish or anyone else in Europe has fully considered that the American Civil War came about because of different philosophical outlooks between the pastoralists in Virginia and the industrialists in New York. The American federation first began to crack when Adams removed civil liberties with the Alien and Sedition Acts and Jefferson and Madison began writing secession papers for Virginia and Kentucky in response. Jefferson knew then that the New Yorkers would not allow them to leave even though he had written an exit clause in the Virginia Constitution at the beginning of federation. He expected a northern invasion as early as 1897. Now that the Irish pastoralists begin to face philosophical differences with their big industrial masters, Germany and France, they will find the same thing.

I am not well informed as to the rules for becoming or admitted to the European Union. Based on my American history studies, I assume that a country in Europe , and now Turkey which is half European and more than half Asian,submits an application to join. I also assume that before a country submits such application, it is put on a national referendum where the people of said country vote whether they would like to be part of the EU. Once the referndum is approved by the people, their elected government submits this application for acceptance. Once the country is admitted, it must conform with the rules and regulations of the EU. It seems to me to be similar to what we got here in the US. States joined the Union at different times based on the wishes of their population. Once the Union was formed, then all the states had
certain obligations towards the Federal Union.Once a state is part of the federal union, it is legally binded to accept the Laws of the Union, and also establishing their own laws that are in conformity with the Federal Laws. So, why the big deal now for the EU countries to vote for another referendum? If tomorrow Delaware decides to with draw from the Union should it be allowed to do so? If not why then the EU countries need to be voting over and over? Like I said at the beginning, there should be some sort of rule that clearly defines the responsibilities of its members, otherwise, any one country can hold hostage the whole Union. I wish that Mr, Kostandaras would have enlightened us with the basic principles of the EU constitution or whatever they call it.

One has to respect the choice of the Irish. First of all, they did not reject "Europe", they rejected a specific treaty. This treaty was rejected by the french voters as well, then shoved down their throat through a backdoor process (having a fake new version being approved by the parliament). One has to realize that there is no such thing as "European Identity". We have different languages, cultures, history or even political education and perspectives, the only common denominator between European countries might be christianity (and then it is either reformed, catholic or orthodox). The big problem with the EU is that it ahs very little democratic representation, the fact that french voter rejected a treaty that was afterwards enforced by the french governement is the smoking gun indicating that in Europe, voter's choice will not matter. European view the EU as a political union led by a small group of technocrats who think that they know what is best for them, and showing spite for the Irish vote would only reinforce that belief.

I am an Irish citizen who voted Yes to the treaty, and am now rapidly coming to regret it.

I voted yes because I felt that the treaty, though highly flawed, was probably necessary to allow the EU to continute to function correctly despite its recent doubling in size. Unlike the premier of Ireland, I actually took the trouble to read the document, which seemed to be almost designed to confuse the ordinary reader (unlike, for example, the US Constiution, which despited being 200 years old is a model of concision).

My country rejected the treaty for a number of reasons. The rejection was based in large part on fears that the broader EU would attempt to coerce this country on issues where it holds ideals outside the mainstream of European opinion, specifcally our long-standing views on abortion, military neutrality and taxation policy. Many Ìrish people fear that the larger countries in Europe (with France a particular suspect) will force Ireland to accept laws that are anathema to us. Given that the French government has essentially disenfranchised their own populace by using a legal maneuver to void the results of their referendum, we would be ill-advised to place much trust in their assurances to us.

We also note that when France and Holland raised objections to essentially the same treaty, they were treated with kid gloves, and the entire process had to be revised. Now when Ireland has similar objections, we hear threats of expulsion. It would appear that there is a two speed Europe already.

Ireland's No vote has opened my eyes. Statements by "intellectuals" such as Mr. Konstandaras have shown there is a minority in Europe who will accept integration at practically any price, and led me to believe that perhaps the fears of my fellow citizens were no as ill-founded as I first thought. I now believe that Ireland should not ratify the treaty until the specific objections raised by our voters have been satisfatorily addressed.

After all, what else can we do, since it appears we are the last functioning Democracy in Europe

One minute there Rob T the only reason the people of Greece had to suffer for sooo long under a dictatorship was because the "superpowers" at the time (and your wonderfully democratic Great Britain) decided that god forbide they give Greece (which had endured ages of oppression under the ottomans)back to its citizens to democrtatically rule (like they had wanted to) instead they placed a dictator in charge to "protect" the greeks from themselves when really all they wanted was to make sure they maintained control over yet another country...i'm sorry not everybody enjoys having a kings to rule them which is exactly why they had a massive revolution to finally overthrow these oppressive dictators and make a government of their own...so why dont u SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP

Nice work, repeating "Europe" fifty times. As if that would unify your lot any further. Give it up, any current notion of European unity is a myth. Your Greek countrymen in general would likely find no more meaning in your calls for a unified European cultural identity than the Irish. Don't belittle their "domestic" concerns; they do not necessarily share your values, or your obvious aspirations toward some kind of global identity to rival the US as a "nation." The French, Dutch, and Irish resistance is based in a real resistance to your "Europe." It is no fluke. How many states' majorities must make themselves clear before the very legitimate resistance to your idealized "Europe" goes through your thick, academic head? I see a new Domino Theory emerging, one in which each criticized state gradually drops out of the increasingly irrelevant EU. Good luck, "Europe."

If you really supported democracy you would be calling for Greek voters to be allowed a say on this vast expansion of unaccountable undemocratic governance from Brussels. The political elitists in Europe are goosestepping all over the rights of its own people to have a say. The authoritarian tactics are vision of the Eurocrats in Brussels smack of mentality of the last two people who tried to unite Europe - Napolean Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler.

Let the people speak on this critical issue, not the isolated and out of touch political elite, and let that freedom ring throughout Europe. Otherwise, Europe will have little more democracy than Zimbabwe.

Rather than blame the democratic wishes of the the Irish, perhaps the author should grow a backbone and suggest that Greece, the birthplace of democracy, trust its citizens and allow them also to vote on the issue.

I'm not familiar with all the details but it would seem the best thing to do with a vote as important as this, is to have all Europeans vote one time. Then evevryone in the Union gets to vote and the result is the result. Isn't that what a democracy would do?

Not everyone wants a strong union. In some ways a weak one has its advantages. You urge strong representatives in hopes that change will come. I urge weak, waffling politicians instead so that change will not occur. Since elections seem to result in the wafflers more often than not I guess I can relax. ;-)

I have to agree with you about what Europe's leaders must do to save the union. As an American who has a basic understanding of history, I have to admit the sum of a union's parts is better than any one part alone. Everyone has seen how rich and powerful our country became once it unified. The same can be said for Europe. I believe that once Europe completely unifies, my country, that I love so much, will become an after thought. We have allowed ourselves to become divided across various lines. Thus, we've weakened.
Do not let that happen to the European Union. In the small time the union has existed is has already matched, if not surpassed what took the US 50 years to amass. If that is not proof enough that this union is deserving of trust I do not know what will.

The fault is not with the Irish. The vote on the treaty to further unify Europe should be left up to the voters not the politicians. Why is that the voters MUST be wrong it was rejected by the french and dutch the first time around and now the only country that got to vote said no. What does that say about the leaders of the E.U. The voters voices need to be heard especially on such an important decision. The E.U. tried to fast track a treaty no sane person could fully understand, so the only people that could speak did the Irish didn't say no to the E.U. they said no to treaty that is littered with holes.

So what now? Start from scratch and have the 500 million heard let the people vote on it, for it is they who will be most effected by it. The treaty needs to be kept simple and flexible to change. Slow and steady over time the simple document will get stronger.

Democracy is a slow process to keep radicals in check, like the failed treaty.

The problem with all the European efforts to create a constitution is that they do not set clear limits to European authority. Although Europeans are in favour of the EU they fear loss of control. This needs to be addressed. The US constitution is primarily an instrument to limit the powers of the central government, detailing those areas it should be involved in and very significantly leaving all others to the member states. Such an undertaking would provide Europeans with the confidence to go forward. Those in favour of a strong, far reaching and invasive central European authority need not despair, as the evidence in Washington indicates that any protection given the member states can be eroded over time.

Mr. Konstandras undermines his own arguement when he says:
"This may sound harsh, but then isn’t it even more harsh when a few hundred thousand voters should determine the fate of hundreds of millions whose parliaments said “yes” to closer European cooperation?"

The EU leaders attempted to bypass the will of all the people by passing this 'substitute' Constitution through Parliment, instead of letting it stand for referendum in each country where the will of the people would be truly felt.

Rome was not built in a day. The European Union will take time to establish and along the way there will be many pitfalls. The people of the several nations have to move from a sense of identity that is confined to their own nation in order to become Europeans with a common identity. Displacement will take time.

When countries like the USA and Australian Federations were formed the people of several states owed their allegiance to their own state before any allegiance was owed to the Federation. An concept of what it means to be a Greek (or Italian or Irishman etc) and a European will develop over time. This new identity will have to be formed in the onds of people before it is embraced as overriding national identities.

Please tell me who are these unelected "appartchiks in Brussels" oh please enlighten me? or rather is the truth is far more prosaic.

The executive body of the EU is the "Council of Europe" made up of the representatives from the ELECTED governments of each member nation.

Under Lisbon it would SHARE power with the European Parliment who members elected through proportional representation ( a highly representative voting system neither used domesticly in the US or UK) are drawn from all the member states.

All of this under Lisbon would be underwritten by a Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The European Union has no powers except that willinglly agreed to and shared by member states.

Boring stuff huh.

If the English really want to see who is undermining their "freedoms" they can look no further than their own government in London rather than some caricature in Brussels.

It is their own government who could be said to undermine what are thought of as of traditional English civil liberties with ubiquitous CCTV surviellence, Anti Social Behavior Orders, Official Secrets Acts, not that the UK even has a written Bill of Rights or a Constitution.

Most European nations have in living memory been through domestic dictatorship, war, terrorism, and military occupation, There is a world of difference between that tragic history and the Orwellian fantasy Brit Euroskeptics wish to project on the EU.

Wow. I don't believe that you could have crafted a more perfect example of why people can't stand the condescending and paternalistic idiots of the european upperclass, who know best because they know best. Instead of bemoaning the fact the Europe's leaders have made a mockery of self-determination and principles of democratic rule by trying to shove a massive power grab down their citizens' throats by fiat, you criticize the citizens of Ireland for having the temerity to act as though they may actually know better than their leaders. If you consistently cannot convince the people of a fact that to you is self-evident, then perhaps the problem is not with the students but with the teacher. In short, perhaps instead of attacking the patheticly small democratic fig leaf left to the citizens of the EU, perhaps you should look in the mirror and at the "treaty" itself, an incomprhensible mishmash that was rejected because it could not be understood and seemed to permanently sacrifice the rights of self-determination to unelected appartchiks in Brussels.

I wonder if Mr. Konstandaras fully understands one simple fact: Ireland was the only country whose citizens had the chance to vote on the Lisbon Treaty. It takes courage to be the one. Now the citizens of each and every other country in the EU should have the right to vote too. It's called democracy, and I believe it originated in Greece.

well let me to tell you a truth:

1: it was not a "VOTE" it was a "REFERENDUM".
2: Ireland is only one country wich want vote for a change of constitution. its a big question when Ireland needs a change if it has laws wich are a same like in Lisbon.
3: European citizens do have a vote and they did it in a democratic way. because European Union is not a Union of all citizens of EU its a Union of all Nations of EU. now go and learn a differences.

You belive? how old are you again? and why do you belive instead to "know"?

Thank, you, Anonymous. A vote IS a referendum, you idiot. Yes, Ireland's contstiution requires one for approval of the treaty. I'm sorry if that gets in the way of your version of democracy. As for 'knowing' versus 'believing' that democracy originated in Greece, I didn't want to insult the reader's intelligence. It's amazing how many people are called 'Anonymous'. The future of Europe.

What do Europeans have in common asides from membership in the EU, well lets see there's Greco-Roman civilisation, two thousand years of Christendom and well over a thousand years of fraticide!

These days thankfully it more the likes of UEFA, Eurovison, and the Irishman probably has a holiday home in Greece while the Norwegian has an Estonian plumber. Nobody is looking to create a nation but perhaps a confederation of mutual benifit especially in this globalising transnational world.

What do Europeans have in common asides from membership in the EU, well lets see there's Greco-Roman civilisation, two thousand years of Christendom and well over a thousand years of fraticide!

These days thankfully it more the likes of UEFA, Eurovison, and the Irishman probably has a holiday home in Greece while the Norwegian has an Estonian plumber. Nobody is looking to create a nation but a confederation of mutual benifit especially in this globalising world.

Oh, hell. Leave the Irish alone to their thoughts. I'm sure the European Union will do just fine. Get a grip.

What do Europeans have in common asides from membership in the EU, well lets see there's Greco-Roman civilisation, two thousand years of Christendom and well over a thousand years of fraticide!

These days thankfully it more the likes of UEFA, Eurovison, and the Irishman probably has a holiday home in Greece while the Norwegian has an Estonian plumber. Nobody is looking to create a nation but perhaps a confederation of mutual benifit especially in this globalising transnational world.

I could not agree more with this author. The idea that the Irish have vindicated democracy by voting No on the Lisbon Treaty is utter nonsense. Citizens of any nation rarely vote on the contents of treaties, that is why we have representative democracy. Having the Irish vote on the complexities of Lisbon, which is nothing more than an effort to modify the MANY treaties which have, over time, created the EU in its present form, is about as absurd as, say, allowing individual Americans to have had a vote years ago on the contents of the various nuclear disarmament treaties to which the US was a party. The EU has its problems, to be sure, and the leadership of the Union ought to, indeed, deal with those. But to allow the Irish to torpedo the entire Union enterprise is not democracy, it is stupidity.

Welcome to the world of identity politics. The US had a similar problem with uniting its states behind a common purpose at one point. You may have heard of it. It was the American Civil War.

Europe is a wonderful dream -- but after fifty years it is still only that and no more. 28 countries with different cultures, histories, civilizations, languages, art, music, taxes, laws, social services, and customs do not make a nation. Let us be honest for a moment -- what does an Estonian have in common with a Portuguese? What an Irishman with a Greek, or a Norwegian with a Maltese? No nation on Earth was built in this manner.

The author of this piece clearly displays his ignorance of the referendum in Ireland. He makes it seem the Irish government used a referendum to hide their own anti europe agenda, this is false. The referendum was a constitutional requirement. The Irish republic requires all changes to its constitution to be put to referendum. Lisbon required this. Are countries that are too democratic not allowed in your European Union Nikos Konstandaras?

O'Brien:

---The EU is a two step forward one step back process, and apparently according to recent polls the majority of the “No” voters thought Ireland could get a better deal not that they wanted out of the EU.

dear O'Brien, you should understand that this Referendum was not about "irish". it was about "irish europeans", who live inside of HUGE EU. together with other people from other nations and oversea departments. We must understand very clear a difference of being a part of only own nation and being a part of european colective(Union/Federation) of nations.

---This is something to work with, I am sure some but not all European leaders would find themselves in a similar situation had they had to face their electorate too and we need to face the fact that the EU has a problem with the “vision thing”.

i think you lost a very important thing.. whole Lesbon teatry is not about "irish people vs european leaders/burocrats" it about "irish people inside and with other european nations". it is completly different perspective.

when you are saying "european leaders" i hear germans, french, italians, greece, polish and, and.. there are no "elites" in EU. EU is not a local goverment where little poor guy can make little "revolution" to force "those on a throne" to fix something.

European Leaders cant fix it. they just can come to your leaders and to talk with them or try to force them with a help of other nations. thats how EU works.

__However it is hardly the totalitarian ogre as portrayed in the British tabloids just ask an eastern European what dictatorship, censorship, death sentences, secret police and collectivisation looks like.

agree. its realy ironic to see british dumbheads crying about "freedom" when London has nogo-areas, police cameras every 10 meters and medias wich are in 2-3 oligarch hands.

__Perhaps something like the Lisbon Treaty’s Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union might be a good place to start.

That was a thing why it was going to be after all. "equal duties and rights for all EU-people inside of EU." (not "british have more rights inside of Britain and are second class losers inside of other nations. btw. Britain is only a country wich wants equal rights for own people but not a same for other EU-citizens.)

This comment board is in English and of the Washington Post. So most of the commentators are naturally from English-speaking countries, especially the U.S.: The United States, a notoriously isolationist hegemonic power whose people despise and distrust membership in ANY supranational organizations, such as the United Nations; the United Kingdom, an infamously anti-Continental monarchy with a long history of balance-of-power, or divide-and-conquer, foreign policy; and Ireland, the country whose people rejected the EU Lisbon Treaty in the first place. So don't expect any pro-Europe or pro-EU rationalization here!

"""Yes, those damned Irish voters! How dare they try to usurp the will of all those other governments who bypassed their own people.

soo. Are you sure about to know their will and their "bypass"? because i am sure you to much of idiot to understand them.

"""Perhaps if the powers that be within the monstrous bureaucracy that is the EU had been a little more honest and dealt with the previous failure of their bloated constitution in an open manner rather than this thinly veiled attempt to bypass the people whom they would rule, then there might be a little more willingness on the part of those same people to give the Union the benefit of the doubt.

I know you are just some dumb british idiot, who knows absolutly nothing about European parliament and other european organisations(wich btw. are working for 500 millions of EU people. your stupid head inclusive).

But just in case: britsh paliament and british burocracy is much more expensive and inefective then european. how about you try to fix it inside of your own home before you are going to tell europeans how to make it?

"""If you find it hard to sell the idea of yet another (and this one largely unelected) government for the people of Europe to serve, then perhaps it's because it isn't such a good idea. Drop the grand plans and work around the edges with smaller, less grandiose plans.

yup. its realy hard to sell good ideas against dumb oligarch financed populists and idiots who do not want to learn.

inb4 you are starting to bi,tching about bad europeans; most of your british people with brain are living inside of french and other EU-countries.(you know that "hollyday house" in Normandy, or Portugal) It will be realy great news when all british sc,um will be send home from EU just to remember how much of your stupid ars,es are saved by EU last time.. inb4 you can survive alone without EU. think be4 you answer, my dear dumb idiot.

Nikos Konstandaras

This board will not let me comment to your article about the Irish vote.

I agree with the irish but disagree with your refusal to post my comment.

Certainly the tone of this article could be better, I am tempted to say something about Mediterranean temperament but I am Irish!

The EU is a two step forward one step back process, and apparently according to recent polls the majority of the “No” voters thought Ireland could get a better deal not that they wanted out of the EU.
This is something to work with, I am sure some but not all European leaders would find themselves in a similar situation had they had to face their electorate too and we need to face the fact that the EU has a problem with the “vision thing”.

However it is hardly the totalitarian ogre as portrayed in the British tabloids just ask an eastern European what dictatorship, censorship, death sentences, secret police and collectivisation looks like.

Perhaps something like the Lisbon Treaty’s Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union might be a good place to start.

Yes, those damned Irish voters! How dare they try to usurp the will of all those other governments who bypassed their own people. Perhaps if the powers that be within the monstrous bureaucracy that is the EU had been a little more honest and dealt with the previous failure of their bloated constitution in an open manner rather than this thinly veiled attempt to bypass the people whom they would rule, then there might be a little more willingness on the part of those same people to give the Union the benefit of the doubt.

If you find it hard to sell the idea of yet another (and this one largely unelected) government for the people of Europe to serve, then perhaps it's because it isn't such a good idea. Drop the grand plans and work around the edges with smaller, less grandiose plans.

The Irish have the right to a referendum, and they exercised it. It is just the type of bullying that you exhibit rhetorically from which the Irish want to protect themselves.

The Irish have the right to a referendum, and they exercised it. It is just the type of bullying that you exhibit rhetorically from which the Irish want to protect themselves.

I must say I am amused at the irony; that a citizen of Greece - which was ruled by a brutal Fascist Military Dictatorship (The Regime Of The Colonels) as recently as 1974, should get on his high horse to berate the citizens of a free democratic republic excercising their free democratic rights, because they are unhappy with certain aspects of a treaty.

i woundering what are you trying to say.. that britain is more free that Greece? lol.. just look on all those funny police cameras in Londonistan

Return to your roots or Eurabia is your future

-- Bingo.

Kick Them Out:

You have nothing intelligent to post so you have to resort to insulting a country and its people.

If you were not such a fool you would realise that the funding received from the EU was not the only factor that contributed to Ireland's economic success. Also the fact is that Ireland have repaid much of the money it received anyway.
Has it ever occurred to you where the EU gets the money?

The people posting here are having an sharing intellectual opinions on this article so it may be a bit much for you.

I must say I am amused at the irony; that a citizen of Greece - which was ruled by a brutal Fascist Military Dictatorship (The Regime Of The Colonels) as recently as 1974, should get on his high horse to berate the citizens of a free democratic republic excercising their free democratic rights, because they are unhappy with certain aspects of a treaty.

Democracy is messy, things don't always go according to plan, people don't march in lockstep. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, democracy is a flawed system of government,but as flawed systems of government go - it's absolutely the best one we have. If The EU is truly as progressive as the author claims, it should be willing to listen to what the people of Ireland are saying.

By the way - I support the treaty, but I truly dislike the arrogant, high-handed, "do what we say - or else" tone of this article.

Return to your roots or Eurabia is your future

The writer merely shows his own total ignorance of BRitain. It is sad to see him advocating the dismissal of Britain from the EU merely for having the temerity to vote for what they felt was best.His approach, rather than uniting europe are further evidence of the democratic deficit which is the main cause of concern for citizens of the EU.Before preaching about the british situation he should get his facts straight. Britain is a proud european state that has contributed vastly more to europe than it has received.Sadly the writer's arroganct and ignorant myopia prevents him from seeing this. He can rest assured that ireland having defeated a previous evil empire will not surrender to him or others ignorant attitude.In the meantime he should read james joyce,oscar wilde, wb yeats, seamus heaney and try to gain some insight into the british-nazi soul before he dares to understand British.

dumb copypasta fixed..

"Half a billion people enjoy a standard of living and social justice that are unparalleled and are the envy of the rest of the world."

Unparalleled? How about the United States, Canada, Australia, Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand, Japan? On the UN's Human Development Index these countries are all at the top, along with some EU countries. All of these non-EU countries were more highly rated on the index than Greece.

The writer merely shows his own total ignorance of Ireland. It is sad to see him advocating the dismissal of Ireland from the EU merely for having the temerity to vote for what they felt was best.His approach, rather than uniting europe are further evidence of the democratic deficit which is the main cause of concern for citizens of the EU.Before preaching about the irish situation he should get his facts straight.Ireland is a proud european state that has contributed vastly more to europe than it has received.Sadly the writer's arroganct and ignorant myopia prevents him from seeing this. He can rest assured that ireland having defeated a previous evil empire will not surrender to him or others ignorant attitude.In the meantime he should read james joyce,oscar wilde, wb yeats, seamus heaney and try to gain some insight into the irish soul before he dares to understand Ireland.

That's right, just kick everyone out that doesn't accept the EU's mandate of involuntary inclusion.

Who said those little Irish peons could ruin our Master Plan? Don't they understand that they are completely unable to think for themselves? All they know is beer and potatos, for crying out loud! Why can't they see how much better it is to have a foreign centralized gov't doing all the thinking for them?

Ahhh, Greece...just hasn't been the same since the Romans left, has it? Give me Caesar or Give me Death!

I wonder what would've happened if the citizens of the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands or Sweden had been given the opportunity to have their voices heard on this EU Constituti.... sorry - the Lisbon Treaty - rather than having said Treaty being forced upon them by their governments.

I suspect that if other citizens of the EU's constituent countries had been able to voice their opinions, the brave Irish wouldn't be standing alone in the "NO" column.

Yes! Perfectly well said!

I think it is shameful and disgraceful that so many people in Ireland voted against European unity, even though the EU is essentially what lifted Ireland out of its poverty and degradation to become the economic powerhouse it is today. It certainly looks to me like most of the Irish just want to "take the money and run"! Disgusting.

If the Irish, or anyone else, hates the EU so much, then they should just get out. But that will never happen, because greed and laziness will always keep them coming back for more EU funds. Maybe the EU should just kick out all the worthless ingrates, and see how haughty the expelled Irish and other anti-EU nations will be then!

Okay - you tell us when and where we can smoke. You tell us what we can and can not drive. You tell us what we can and can not say. You tell us what we can and can not eat. You tell us who can and can not stay in our countries. Now you will tell us what kind of country we can and can not live in.

The fascism is subtle. The totalitarianism is sly. But in the end, the Eurocrats are all about control and reducing choices on every issue down to a single choice. For the idiot who stated parliamentary elections are democratic elections - balderdash. Parliamentarians are professional politicians. It's all they do. They are, in fact, elites, whether you mock the statement or not. No doubt, then, that they are behind the treaty. How about before the next treaty vote all parliamentarians must re-run for their station as either for or against the treaty. You will suddenly see a phalanx of politicians declaiming the treaty - and getting elected for it. The governing elite in Europe are all about control. The people are helpless against it.

Oh yes, let's get rid of that inconvenient democracy. Such a nuisance! Much better for everyone to hand over their rights to an unelected bunch of foreign bureacrats, who of course know what's best for everyone. Good Job Ireland!!!!!1

irony is that Britain is he next one who will decide about ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. another irony is that it was EU who saved Britain from going bankrupt again back in the 90'ens. i just remember how many builders were comming to germany and other EU countries for a job.

was it realy a bad thing to help them?

O'Brien:

i gree with you.

i am not from Ireland but i dont blame irish.

A problem will became now because many other european goverments will decide to make "2 speed EU". that means that some european nation will fall back and their suport from EU will be cut for other countries wich are going a "first better way without stones in the way". and most bad thing there is that european democracy will became a first class and secod class Thing. first class will decide about new laws and second only about to acsept them or not.

What took so long for somebody to brand those who wish for greater EU integration with the “elitist" epithet?

Irish voters, make up a fraction of one per cent of the population of the European Union, the Lisbon Treaty is a treaty between governments to amend the workings of the EU;

it is quirk of the Irish constitution that in all of the 27 member countries it had to be put to a referendum.

18 of the 27 EU member states have already ratified it through their parliaments which are democratically elected!

Ireland was basket case in 1973 I am grateful to the European funding that paid for my college education the agricultural supports for our family farm for roads that I drive on, the opportunities to travel and work across Europe.

When it was time to give something back for the greater European good 27% of the eligible electorate baulked while 47% could not be arsed to go the polling station at all!

How bloody ironic the likes of Sinn Fein (do they even recognise the Irish constitution?) found themselves on the same side as the Murdoch owned British tabloids or that the Irish Peace campaigner votes where aligned with a billionaire business man that owes his money to the US military.

But most of all I am furious at the incompetence of the government and the YES campaign in not being able to selling the self evident benefits of being at the heart of European project. I can only imagine how they are going to manage the coming Irish economic recession.

I wonder if Mr. Konstandaras fully understands one simple fact: Ireland was the only country whose citizens had the chance to vote on the Lisbon Treaty. It takes courage to be the one. Now the citizens of each and every other country in the EU should have the right to vote too. It's called democracy, and I believe it originated in Greece.

well let me to tell you a truth:

1: it was not a "VOTE" it was a "REFERENDUM".
2: Ireland is only one country wich want vote for a change of constitution. its a big question when Ireland needs a change if it has laws wich are a same like in Lisbon.
3: European citizens do have a vote and they did it in a democratic way. because European Union is not a Union of all citizens of EU its a Union of all Nations of EU. now go and learn a differences.

You belive? how old are you again? and why do you belive instead to "know"?

One has to wonder what does it say for Irish "democracy" that the Anit-Lisbon campign was primarily funded by a single billionaire business man euroskeptic and neo-liberal Declan Ganley through his Libertas organisation, or that the British media through its Irish editions primarily Rupert Murdochs tabloid press editorialised so heavily against the Treaty.

Nikos, I would put it to you like this.

If I were a scpetic and I face a majority for integration and ever closer union, I would accept their view, despite the fact they disagreed.

If I were in favour of ever closer union, and found that I was in a minority, I would not feel happy to impose my view on others.

I am a true democrat. The problem with many major constituent countries of the EU is that my father is older than their democratic systems.

It is the British centuries old and evolved democratic system that is most valuable to the EU at this time, and yet it is being brushed aside.

You refer to the Irish 'no vote' as a reaction to Irish politics, this is presumptuous, and wrong.
It is a 'no' to further ever closer union, at this time. The majority view held across un balloted Europe.

As a final point; you Euro-fanatics need to address the ability of the EU to present audited accounts of its finances and corruption to the EU populations. Until the EU can actually do its own books I suggest running an organsiation with international legal personality is simply beyond them. Deal with corruption first this will then qualify the EU to deal with the next big C: Constitution.

The Irish 'no vote' will be ignored and euro fanatics will continue until they actually break the Union.

Most British people would rather be the next State of the USA than several sub-regions of the new State of the EU.

Nikos,

Other EU gov'ts are in no position to scold the Irish voters - precisely because they denied voice to their own voters and thus lack adequate authority on the subject.

so typically arrogant that the Irish are asked (indeed, forced) to accept a treaty that in a similar form was rejected by others.

Can we say 'bigotry'?

The EU ministers want only Government to decide what is good for the people of the EU, all while the people of the EU have no say whatsoever. The Irish were the only people that were allowed to vote on Lisbon when ALL should have been allowed to voice their opinion via the ballot box.

Why? What does Brussel fear-that others may have reservatios about a EU government that is unelected and undemocratic.

I am appalled at the disregard for democracy evidenced in this article by Mr Konstandaras. "Now is the time for EU leaders to lead their people, not pass the buck to them" - surely the very basis of a democracy is that when there is a decision to be made of such importance with respect to the populace that they have a right to express their choice? The ideals of a democratically governed society are in danger when it is regarded as a retrograde step to involve the public in decision making. The democratic choice must be respected, not dismissed as a mistake due to the ignorance of the electorate or . This has not always been the case in Europe, and must not be repeated simply because things are not going the way EU leaders planned.

If the future of the EU is put to the population vote one should not be surprised when it will get more "no´s" than "yes-es".
The poorer countries will vote “yes” to get the free money while the richer countries will scratch their heads and question the use and results of the money are paying.
I will go even further to say that some countries will want to belong to EU while are receiving help , when times comes for them to return the favour and start sending funds towards the newest members they will stop wanting to belong to EU.
This EU was started all wrong by uniting the politicians first, not the population.
It has bigger issues to resolve, like Inter-European racism and discrimination, immigration, standardization etc, before will be truly be a union.
By the way things go now I would like to know when Israel will get invited to belong to EU (seriously, I won’t be surprised), and why not? Turkey is being considered.
Kudos to the Irish to put their money where their mouth is.
Right know I would rather be an American than a Euro(pee)on (I was born in Eastern Europe).

This does not give a good reflection that the people who drafted up the treaty are aware of what it is or its consequences.

The level of democracy within the EU is also questionable. When people are afforded the opportunity to vote on any matter they are either ignored(France and Holland 2005) or threatened(Ireland 2008). Could this not be compared to the present situation in Zimbabwe? .

I was unable to vote in the election as I am only 17 but would like to take the thank to people who did vote No.

As a European living in the United States, I share Nikos Konstandaras' views wholeheartedly. It is a pleasure to observe, from afar or on annual extended trips to Europe, how much progress has been achieved because of integration. It fulfills an economist with malicious joy - that famous Schadenfreude - to see how wrong those were who predicted that monetary integration could never work (for example, because there would be no optimal currency area). The problem of Europe is what the Greeks called "akrasia" - weakness of the will, or acting against one's better judgment. Politicians without vision committed to populism instead of principle and purpose then spend a career trying to disprove Socrates' dictum (in the "Protagoras") that one never chooses to act poorly or against one's better judgment. The Lisbon Treaty intends to reduce the effect of akrasia, by allowing Europe-wide majorities, not national minorities of 1.5% of the EU population, set policy. The process must - and will - go on. For akrasia can be mastered; but it must never degenerate into aboulia - lack of will or initiative. The latter is indeed a pathological symptom.

I have never seen such disdain for the democratic principle of "government of the people" as I have in the days since the Irish vote.

Watching the rest of Europe bemoan the fact that Ireland's leaders had the courage to create laws that ensured their citizens had a voice in this debate is a shocking reminder how easily democracy can be eroded and undermined. As if the real tragedy here is not that the treaty was rejected or that it's supporters did a lousy job selling it, but that the Irish people were given a say in the matter in the first place. Apparently democratic ideals aren't as secure in Europe as I thought.

But that wasn't the only alarming part of this whole fiasco. The prevailing attitude, so aptly expressed by Mr. Konstandaras, that Ireland needs to go along with the treaty regardless of the concerns of the Irish people simply because the EU has been good for them is despicable. That is an open invitation to corruption of every sort.

And the suggestion that the Irish voters rejected it out of ignorance or inability to understand it is offensive and a a sad example bigotry, nothing more, nothing less. Where was this same outcry when the French or Dutch rejected the EU Constitution? It didn't exist.

So quick to blame the irish and not the beaurocrats in brussels, lets face 2 simple facts

Lisbon is a dressed up EU Constitution which was already rejected by the dutch and french

Secondly, the lisbon treaty merely used legal jargon to get around there having to be referendums in other countries. Only the quality of the irish constitution protects the irish rights in such matters.

I think its a testament that 95% of our politicians wanted a YES yet the population voted NO.

This means that if our constitution did not protect us we would have been forced with a YES that we did not want.

Also this is democracy, just because we said no does not mean we become a second class european nation or have to leave, the EU rules state a treaty must be ratified by all nations, maybe they should think about respecting their own rules.

Or lets make it simpler, lets give the other european people the chance to hold their own referendum on the matter, if 26/26 Vote Yes then i think ireland should go along with it

But if as i think would be widely expected by EU Chiefs the general population would largely reject this treaty i think the irish might be given a bit of credit for doing for europe what the MEP's in brussels DENIED the european population, and that was a voice.

We just gave europe back its voice, Ireland is all for europe, its all for reform, but the treaty is too complicated, contains a constitution which if a spade was called a spade and they named it as a constitution there would be mandatory referendums then ireland wouldnt need to be the voice of the european people and definitely would not be getting the stick you are giving us.

When you and your great nation have the balls to fight and speak up for what you believe in maybe then you can speak ill of the irish. Until that day i hope that one day you will comprehend the massive favour the irish populus has done for europe has a whole.

Forget the past, Forget the money, were not anti europe and we know we have benefitted from membership, but all the money in the world wont make us sign a contract we dont understand nor believe benefits us.

When the EU enlarged to 25 countries Ireland was one of the very few countries to open it's country and labour market to the new countries - the result was a couple of hundred thousand polish, lithuanians ect. living and working in Ireland , enjoying some of the highest wages in Europe and repatriating untold wealth back to their home countries. We put our money where our mouth is and owe you nothing unlike you and the backward club med countries who never practise what they preach.
When the Irish Constitution, which gave you a little taste of real democracy last Thursday, was being written in the 1930's most of Europe was busy goose stepping over peoples freedom.

Neither King nor Kaiser my elitist greek friend.

The author could have summed up his article quite simply.

"You will vote to join us, or you will join us."

A perfect slogan for the treaty - and a perfect chapter title for Orwell's 1984.

I wonder if Mr. Konstandaras fully understands one simple fact: Ireland was the only country whose citizens had the chance to vote on the Lisbon Treaty. It takes courage to be the one. Now the citizens of each and every other country in the EU should have the right to vote too. It's called democracy, and I believe it originated in Greece.

If the author of this article had bothered to carry out any research regarding some of his opinions expressed in his written piece he would have found out that Ireland have already paid back over a third of the money received from the EU.

It is also interesting to read about his dismal of Ireland wanting to protect there own control over determining our taxation policies especially as he stated in his article his close association with Greece another country like Ireland who were also heavily subsidized by the EU. It should have been quite apparent to the author that economic strategy plays a important role in determining a country's economical strength and people such as yourself are astonished as to why we hold such an issue as important. Reflect on what the people of Greece would have done should they have been in our position.

There are many other issues with the failings of the EU that you are failing to examine. When questions were posed to our government regarding some of the issues of the treaty they responded one way while we were subjected to media reports of the same question been answered differently by political figures of some other member states. Cont

The author suggests 500 million Europeans suffer because of puny Ireland's rejection - as though every other person in every other country supports the "EU reform treaty" 100%. But they don't. Resounding "no" votes are actually quite consequential regardless how our author would like to shove them down people's throats. You can't proclaim your desire for an uber-democracy by circumventing democratic means and democratic voting results. Many of those 500 million want nothing to do with a powerful super state. They are seeing their countries and cultures diminished by the day without European integration and the relinquishing of their remaining sovereignty to an amorphous, bureaucratic behemoth. To suggest 3 million Irish undermine 500 million is disingenuous jingoism. It’s not true. There is wide resistance to the treaty. A tiny country like Greece shouldn’t force a tiny country like Ireland to join something its majority wants no part of. The way this is all going down has more the whiff of Marxist-totalitarianism than independent democracy.

__And don't forget to arrest the plane-spotters. Europe is not a single nation of people!

wait!

are you trying to atack him because greece police followed NATO unstructions like good NATO-nation?

inb4 everyone will arested for plane-spoting now after 9/11.

it is an issue of values, an issue of identity. Already, the world knows where the EU, as a whole, stands on human rights, on the death penalty, on tolerance, on the need for consensus and progress.

well, someone of european presidents said that EU is about to care for each other in a good and respectfully way. i think this a term, wich bescribes at best european feelings now.

In varietate concordia

And don't forget to arrest the plane-spotters. Europe is not a single nation of people!

So the prevailing opinion here is: "take it as it is or get out?"

If you have any respect for democracy, you must accept that the will of the people (or some group of the people) goes contrary to what you would like. Berating the Irish for exercising their constitutional right is immature and wrongheaded.

Perhaps drafting a straightforward treaty / constitution that people can agree on should be a higher priority than pouting, whining, and threatening because the people applied their suffrage thoughtfully and came to a different conclusion than you would have liked them to.

An anti-democratic screed if I ever read one. Rather than blame the three million Irish voters, how about giving the other miliions of European voters the opportunity to voice their opinion? Konstandras should be ashamed.