EU treaty - Ireland's referendum vote of "no"

In the UK we were promised a vote by way of manifesto, but when in power the nanny state decreed that it knew best for all our souls.  Thank God that Ireland did have a referendum and the ability for its nation to have a say in its future.

With 53.4% to 46.6% voting against the treaty, it's a greater majority than when the Welsh (residents and not all the Welsh; as I, like many, lived elsewhere at the time and did not have a vote, although anyone living in and registered in Wales did) voted on devolution. The move to devolution in Wales hung on to an overall 0.6% in favour, a mere 6,721 votes.

But, back to the EU treaty: in other EU areas some like to claim that Ireland speaks for them, notably the voters in Britain, as expressed through the media - it's all they have to represent them, in the end -  all denied a say in this matter.

According to MSM reporting, this treaty requires all 27 member states to ratify it, so with just one dissenting partner you'd expect the powers who be at the EU to reflect on the result.  Not so.  Earlier today we heard this from the BBC:

'European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said he had spoken to Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen and agreed with him that this was not a vote against the EU.

"Ireland remains committed to a strong Europe," he said.

"Ratifications should continue to take their course."'

But how can they, given that one of the 27 was lost today and all 27 were required?

The EU has not had its accounts signed off by an independent auditor for years.  Neil Kinnock promised to deliver on this and failed to do so.  The EU has failed on basic bookkeeping: debit this, credit that - hence the lack of a sound auditor's opinion.  And it's a major part of your taxes that sinks into that black hole of funds ...

It's a source for a bottomless pit of funds that are redistributed to the worthy, after a cream-off for those in the know (I jest, perhaps).  Just like Wales, which has seen a major benefit, post-devolution.  But, unlike Wales, and the rest of the UK, Ireland had a choice and voted on it. True democracy in action.

They had a choice and the ability to express their thoughts.  If we had the same opportunity in the UK, how would you express yourself?

Where do you stand on this matter?  And do you trust the EU?

All comments welcome.

Comments

[crimeficreader]

Bernd,

Apologies for taking so long to reply to your comment, but I've been mulling this over.

Peace is never a trivial thing, but it's something easily taken for granted over the years with younger generations being unable to empathise with another kind of life. That we have peace in Europe and alliances is a good thing.

There are changes in the world order that mean it is good to have the alliances of the EU, but some in the UK feel a loss of liberty and perhaps a loss of power to an unaccountable force. Reactions during the week to the Irish vote appear to support this fact and the Irish government could not read and understand the whole of the treaty, from what I read in the papers. No decent lawyer would suggest signing a contract without reading, understanding and agreeing to its full contents first.

There is also a lot of waste within the EU and many in the UK see those who work for it as 'on a gravy train', including and perhaps foremost their own representatives. (We see little reported on other countries in comparison.) I find the fact that the accounts cannot be signed off by auditors quite staggering. The fact that this has been allowed to continue, even more so.

I had the privilege of hearing the whistle-blowing Spanish accountant Marta Andreasen speak in London some years ago. She explained why the accounts were 'fluid' (my word) and why therefore, it was impossible to sign them off. Why is this acceptable in an ongoing fashion?

I feel it is too late to start again, but perhaps we can meet on common ground and beliefs, as well as unity in the face of threats from other nations.

In the past I have worked for both a German bank and a French bank. The cultural differences were obvious to me. Where the French tended to avoid written policies and procedures - 'because you'd have to stick to them' - the Germans sought order, transparency and accountability through the same route. I know which I'd prefer.

[crimeficreader]

Thanks for that comment krimileser. Much food for thought. I'm about to leave for the day, will think about it and reply in full tomorrow.

[krimileser]

There are several approaches to the concept of a European Union. The two extremes would obviously be either a loose impotent association of nations or the United States of Europe similar to the USA. It is not only my idea to aim to the latter.

When I was younger I was delighted with the peace process, which seems nowadays a trivial thing. But. It. Is. Not. These days I am convinced that a unified European voice is the only way to be heard in a globalized world (I thought that the Iraq adventure and the success of the Euro should have taught British people(s) that).

More often than not the EU is held responsible for something which is due to the fact that we are part of the globalized world. People often try to escape the future by embracing the old ideas. But old ideas don't design the future. It seems naive to assume that individual nations can keep a freedom of action in this world.

This has nothing to do with personal preferences. Since I first visited your island I am deeply anglophile and I don't like the French attitude. But sometimes I think that we should abandon the EU and start from scratch with a smaller number of motivated nations - which would most likely include France and exclude UK - and build the USE.