More than a tad bit ironic that the same article that takes the Irish to task for not reading and/or understanding what they were voting against spends all of a single sentence explaining it. Not sure what exactly a "proper president" is, but apparently that, along with a minister of foreign affairs, is what Europe has missed out on. Thanks for that wonderful bit of clarification, Anne Applebaum.

Any chance that after two world wars last century, many Europeans are a bit apprehensive regarding having foreign policy dictated to them? And if the EU is going to do foreign policy on their own, wouldn't that make member nations governments a bit redundant? (And if their foreign policies conflict, who wins that game of rock, paper, scissors?)

The EU has done some positive things, but the Irish and everybody else are right to be distrustful of it. Just like every bureaucracy, the EU is very interested in feeding itself. There's little doubt if this latest treaty had sailed through there would have been yet another within a year or two, seeking still more power and control; at some point, moving from asking for a "proper president" to demanding a "proper military" and the ability to forcibly put down any disagreeable government who stands in its way. Because keep in mind, this isn't the debate we're used to in the U.S. over states rights and federal control. This is an outside entity seeking to override national governments, which is a far different animal entirely.

You can read all 270 pages of it yourself:

<link>

(Isn't that an easy URL to remember?)

My favorite bit: Protocol on the Decision of the Council relating to the implementation of Article 9c(4) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 205(2) of the Treaty on the Functionning of the European Union between 1 November 2014 and 31 March 2017 on the one hand, and as from 1 April 2017 on the other

Ahem... Clearly they learned nothing from the Constitutional Treaty referendum. How many pages is the US constitution, which has lasted for over 200 years? By making these treaties kitchen sinks, they doom their failure. The EU may or may not need streamlined decision making. If it does, say so. That would take maybe 5 pages at the most, and everyone would understand.

Valery Giscard D' Estaing a French Political figure made the following quote in relation to the Lisbon Treaty "public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals we dare not present to them directly". This was a major reason why the treaty was opposed by the electorate in Ireland .

Best response on the vote!

Anyone who follows Member State politics is very aware of the fact that national governments routinely use Brussels as a scapegoat for their own shortcomings;

Constantly blaming Brussels for the loss of Member State “sovereignty” is both wrong and short-sighted. However imperfectly, the EU is attempting to maximize Europe’s collective role in the world. Strength in numbers is not merely a slogan, it is a fact.

By any measure the standard of living of the citizenry of every Member State has risen since the accession of each into the Union, and the benefit to the Irish of EU membership has been among the most dramatic.

The historical origins of the EU might seem as irrelevant to anybody under 50 as Charlemagne or Brian Boru.

Nevertheless, every member state except Britain, Sweden and Ireland has emerged from foreign occupation or domestic dictatorship within living memory.

The European project is far from perfect. It requires constant reform. But with all its boring, bureaucratic, Byzantine faults, it is about the possibility of individual citizens of the countries of Europe, controlling their own futures — at the trans-national level where the actual decisions are made and within political institutions accountable to both a european electorate and to national governments.

The politics of the next decade will be the politics of what Europe as a whole can do to make the planet on which we might want our grandchildren to live.

Anyone who follows Member State politics is very aware of the fact that national governments routinely use Brussels as a scapegoat for their own shortcomings;

Yes, which is what makes it all the more pathetic when these same politicians turn around and expect voters to find it obvious that they should vote "yes" in EU referendums.

Given the self evident benefits that Ireland has accrued from EU membership it was utterly pitiful that the politicians who representing 80% of the electorate could not sell the Lisbon Treaty not withstanding it’s obtuseness to the Irish public.

I just got back from Ireland and the entire city of Dublin was just covered with signs about the treaty. Every single pole and post had at least one (if not 4-5) signs on it urging people to vote yes! or vote no! I looked up some of the websites when I got back--interesting stuff. Our tour guide in Dublin said even the politicians admitted to not reading the whole treaty. He said no one really understood what was going on. As I read all the news coming out in the wake of the rejection, I keep remembering what he said when we asked him how he would vote. He said he was going to vote yes because they would just make them vote again later until they got the result they wanted--might as well get it over with.

marcparis:

Anyone who follows Member State politics is very aware of the fact that national governments routinely use Brussels as a scapegoat for their own shortcomings;

Yes, which is what makes it all the more pathetic when these same politicians turn around and expect voters to find it obvious that they should vote "yes" in EU referendums.

<link>

EU Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso hit back Saturday at recent criticism of the EU executive, with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and French President Nicolas Sarkozy notably to the fore.

"It's not with populist slogans that we will succeed in renewing confidence among European citizens," said Barroso, a former Portuguese prime minister.

Berlusconi made a typically boisterous return to the EU summit stage in Belgium this week, saying he was calling for action at the next EU summit in October to change "the attitude of the European commissioners, who leave governments in difficulties with their declarations."

The Commission has turned up the heat recently on Berlusconi's government, launching an illegal state aid probe into an emergency 300-million-euro (465-million-dollar) loan aimed at saving flag carrier airline Alitalia from bankruptcy.

The Commission said it might be "incompatible" with EU public aid rules.

Barroso said those who accuse the Commission of a "democratic deficit" were plain wrong, highlighting the fact he is just one of several former national premiers in its ranks, and underlining that each of the commissioners had been elected by the European Parliament.

"There is no point in falling into the populist temptation of depicting the European Commission as the expression of bureaucracy and technocracy," he stated.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has also had EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson in his sights this week, accusing him of playing a role in the Irish "No" vote in a referendum on the bloc's reforming Lisbon Treaty.

"It is not possible to criticise Brussels from Monday to Saturday, and then on Sunday, ask your citizens to give a favourable vote for Europe," Barroso also said, although it was unclear exactly who he was referring to.

Of Ireland's rejection, Barroso said he had to "respect the decision of the Irish people" but that equally he had to "respect the will of other countries who want to ratify the treaty."

After a judge in London blocked British Prime Minister Gordon Brown from completing the legal ratification process awaiting a ruling on a referendum challenge, Barroso said parliamentary ratification was every bit as democratic as the results of a referendum.

"Governments of these countries not only have the right, but also the obligation to respect decisions they have taken," Barroso added.