So... Is there any damn country whose population is actually Pro-EU? Cause from what I'm reading it seems the governments of most nations are shoving it through in the face of popular dislike and dismay.Just 25% of Irish citizens polled in a survey say they would vote Yes in a referendum on the new EU Reform Treaty.
The TNS mrbi poll, commissioned by the Irish Times, indicated a sharp drop in Yes voters compared with a poll on the now defunct EU Constitution in 2005.
Some 62% of Irish respondents said they were undecided on the EU Reform Treaty, agreed in Lisbon last month. The poll showed 13% intending to vote No.
If Irish voters reject the treaty they could throw EU reforms into disarray.
Ireland is constitutionally bound to hold a referendum - and is expected to be the only EU state to do so. The Irish government plans to hold the vote in mid-2008.
All 27 member states have to ratify the new treaty for it to come into force.
Ireland in EU spotlight
The TNS mrbi opinion poll was carried out a week ago with 1,000 adults in all of Ireland's 43 European election constituencies. Support for the Yes camp was strongest in Dublin.
French far-right politician Jean-Marie Le Pen is among the Eurosceptics expected to campaign for a No vote in Ireland.
EU governments are aiming for the treaty to come into force in early 2009.
The treaty retains many of the elements of the ill-fated EU Constitution, which was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005.
The treaty aims to streamline decision-making in the enlarged EU of 27 nations.
In 2001 Irish voters rejected the Nice Treaty, which prepared the ground for EU enlargement. But another Irish referendum in 2003 reversed that vote, after the insertion of a treaty clause clarifying Irish neutrality.
The Irish Times says Bertie Ahern's government can draw some comfort from the fact that Green Party supporters appear strongly in favour of the new treaty.
The Greens led the No camp in previous Irish referendums on EU treaties.
The UK, alongside Denmark and the Netherlands, is among the countries whose governments oppose a referendum.
British Eurosceptics want the government to hold a referendum on the treaty, arguing it is no different to the constitution.
Few Irish back EU treaty in poll
Moderator: frigidmagi
-
frigidmagi
- Dragon Death-Marine General
- Posts: 14757
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:03 am
- 19
- Location: Alone and unafraid
#1 Few Irish back EU treaty in poll
BBC
"it takes two sides to end a war but only one to start one. And those who do not have swords may still die upon them." Tolken
#2
Going by the way EU politics are handled, it's really not that surprising. The pro-EU lot has not the best strategy in politics.
For one thing, the EU politics is highly elitist: as you say, the leadership tends to cram down people's throats what they think is best for everyone. Yet, the issues under the discussion are rather dry and uninteresting. There seems little clear incentive for the average person to take an interest in the debates, which is rather unfortunate, since the trade enabled by the EU has greatly benefited people: it's just not an issue that would motivate or interest Joe Six Pack. Not that the bureaucrats that be mind that in the least. There is quite simply a dangerous disconnect between the rulers and the ruled.
This is compounded by the fact that the issues under discussion regarding the EU are for the most part, not just dry and uninteresting, but also largely about the EU itself. Imagine if federal politics in the United States revolved around issues pertaining to the powers and limitations of the federal government, the number of votes such and such a state gets in Congress, and little else besides but the technocratic and bureaucratic aspects of trade issues: in that environment the politics revolves around squabbles between pro-Federalists and States Rights advocates, (the latter being on steroids processed from radioactive spiders), with no clear political vision or overarching political agenda for the federal government itself as such. The federal government would not simply be taken for granted, which is necessary for enabling it to focus on clear political objectives.
Combine the above with an absence of overarching political parties for the EU -- it's alliances of political parties of member countries, which means that the powerful countries run the show behind the scenes -- enter more elitist management.
Combine the above with the fact that the EU has evolved and and fused from a hodgepodge of treaties and there is very little consensus on what it is really supposed to be: a glorified trade alliance, a commonwealth, a loose confederation or a United States of Europe. The Anti-EU crowd obviously doesn't like the latter two (and some don't like the former two either), they moreover see the lack of clear definition and gradual power creep as a danger.
Combine the above that these countries have spent centuries hating each other's guts, and have only stopped doing so for decades (EDIT: and then only officially
).
Combine the above with all the different languages.
Alas, the very treaty modification under discussion here would make things more streamlined, democratic and efficient, but the EU version of "States Rights" politicians don't want a streamlined, democratic and efficient EU: if that were to happen, it might actually begin to have a political relevance in the eyes of the people. As for the people, they just see this as more bureaucratic EU rubbish that no one is interested in. And the pro-EU crowd want the people to shut the hell up and take their medicine.
For one thing, the EU politics is highly elitist: as you say, the leadership tends to cram down people's throats what they think is best for everyone. Yet, the issues under the discussion are rather dry and uninteresting. There seems little clear incentive for the average person to take an interest in the debates, which is rather unfortunate, since the trade enabled by the EU has greatly benefited people: it's just not an issue that would motivate or interest Joe Six Pack. Not that the bureaucrats that be mind that in the least. There is quite simply a dangerous disconnect between the rulers and the ruled.
This is compounded by the fact that the issues under discussion regarding the EU are for the most part, not just dry and uninteresting, but also largely about the EU itself. Imagine if federal politics in the United States revolved around issues pertaining to the powers and limitations of the federal government, the number of votes such and such a state gets in Congress, and little else besides but the technocratic and bureaucratic aspects of trade issues: in that environment the politics revolves around squabbles between pro-Federalists and States Rights advocates, (the latter being on steroids processed from radioactive spiders), with no clear political vision or overarching political agenda for the federal government itself as such. The federal government would not simply be taken for granted, which is necessary for enabling it to focus on clear political objectives.
Combine the above with an absence of overarching political parties for the EU -- it's alliances of political parties of member countries, which means that the powerful countries run the show behind the scenes -- enter more elitist management.
Combine the above with the fact that the EU has evolved and and fused from a hodgepodge of treaties and there is very little consensus on what it is really supposed to be: a glorified trade alliance, a commonwealth, a loose confederation or a United States of Europe. The Anti-EU crowd obviously doesn't like the latter two (and some don't like the former two either), they moreover see the lack of clear definition and gradual power creep as a danger.
Combine the above that these countries have spent centuries hating each other's guts, and have only stopped doing so for decades (EDIT: and then only officially
).Combine the above with all the different languages.
Alas, the very treaty modification under discussion here would make things more streamlined, democratic and efficient, but the EU version of "States Rights" politicians don't want a streamlined, democratic and efficient EU: if that were to happen, it might actually begin to have a political relevance in the eyes of the people. As for the people, they just see this as more bureaucratic EU rubbish that no one is interested in. And the pro-EU crowd want the people to shut the hell up and take their medicine.
Last edited by The Minx on Fri Nov 09, 2007 10:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
frigidmagi
- Dragon Death-Marine General
- Posts: 14757
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:03 am
- 19
- Location: Alone and unafraid
#3
From what I've read the people seem quite happy with the trade and willing to put up with the Euro, even if they don't necessarily like the damn thing. It's when the elites start jabbering about putting more power into the EU or things like "common foreign policy" or "common laws" and such that national populations get antsy.
At least that how it seems to me.
At least that how it seems to me.
"it takes two sides to end a war but only one to start one. And those who do not have swords may still die upon them." Tolken
#4
Yes, there are a lot of people who are suspicious of that.frigidmagi wrote:From what I've read the people seem quite happy with the trade and willing to put up with the Euro, even if they don't necessarily like the damn thing. It's when the elites start jabbering about putting more power into the EU or things like "common foreign policy" or "common laws" and such that national populations get antsy.
At least that how it seems to me.
However, this suspicion is increased among those on the "middle ground" if the powers that be don't appear to be making the EU processes more democratic at the same time. However, if they were to try to make it more democratic, the canny Eu-skeptics would realize that some of the objections people have to giving the EU more powers would be redressed.
So, it's a bit of a pickle for the pro-EU crowd.