Not at all. If rules could never be changed, you’d be in an awful situation, probably still stuck in the Dark Ages, or worse

The EU is not about to “expel” Ireland, no worry. That’s not what the EU is about

If it was, it would have disembarassed itself of non-cooperative members such as the UK long ago

I don’t think it is undemocratic to stick to the rules for altering the rules that the relevant countries all agreed to in the first place. When you start ignoring one rule about changing the rules, that sets a precedent and creates great uncertainty.

There were some very amusing pictures on the front pages of the Berlin papers of Klaus Wowereit (the SPD mayor, and thus one of Berlin’s delegates to the Bundesrat) voting no, with a sublime expression on his face, part stoicism, part demonstrative dissociation, part pained dignity.

“increasing pervasive influence of [the] Roman Catholic church”, can it get any more absurd then that statement? How do you come to such a conclusion?

as an aside to your aside, I’d point out that Bavaria’s position as a net contributor to the Länderfinanzausgleich is historical only for very small values of “historical”. Bavaria was a recipient, I believe, thorough the mid 1980s and only became a contributor in 1989. For normal values of “historical”, Bavaria was historically backward and miserably poor; in geological terms it became rich about four seconds ago.

In other words, Bavaria is analogous to Ireland. And it actually does what Finnsense, without justification, accuses Ireland of doing: now that it’s forking it over rather than raking it in, it makes noises about “revisiting” the whole inter-Länder transfer system. (Mind you, I discount most of those noises as Punch & Judy for the bumpkins; I don’t think Bavaria is seriously trying to pull up the ladder, if only because it must understand that its chances of success are nil.)

My post was written in the context of a debate. You ought to read the debate and then you would see I did not advocate the position you are attributing to me.

The anger of Sarkozy et. al. probably comes from the Realpolitik recognition that the treaty would have shifted power towards the large member states. Obviously the power politicians of these member states have reason to be angry. Eurocrats are probably frustated at the sheer tedium of EU decision making under the current rules, which in practice require virtual consensus. This takes years and years to achieve.

I have a question for Henry, Mrs. Tilton, or anyone else: where is this anger coming from?

I can certainly see the arguments for a “Yes” vote, but what I don’t see is the source of the emotional investment. What’s the cathexis?

They are also due to become a net contributor to the EU pot rather than a beneficiary (which they have been for 20 odd years – and handsomely so). It could thus be argued that at least in strictly financial terms, it is no longer in their interest to be in the EU. Given that they are in this positon because other countries like the UK, Germany and France put them there at their own cost, it’s exceptionally selfish of them to not do the same.

Wow. So few words, so much crap to unpack.

1) By your reasoning, it has never been in the interests of the net contributor member states to be in the EU. So I expect we’ll soon see you standing alongside the swivel-eyed loons urging everybody to get out of the EU, or something.

2) How do you arrive at the equation “rejected the Lisbon treaty” = “will selfishly refuse to stump up once it’s a net contributor rather than recipient”? The only way Ireland would selfishly renege on its responsibility to contribute is if it left the EU. And the only person here advocating that they do so is (ahem) you.

3) What is “exceptionally selfish” of Ireland? Not refusal to contribute to the pot, because they’re not refusing that. Rather, what you seem to be saying—no, what you are explicitly saying—is: “Because the richer EU states gave Ireland a lot of money back when it was poor, it is exceptionally selfish of Ireland not to do what Kouchner and Finnsense tell it to do now.”

It’s a bit ironic. On balance I would have preferred the treaty be accepted. I strongly support integration and want a constitution for Europe. (A proper one would be better, but I’d even have settled for this reanimated zombie corpse of Giscard’s bloated monstrosity.) And it’s deeply unfortunate that the spittle-flecked madmen, foetus-fetishists and fascists can regard the rejection as their victory. Still, the sheer wankery of those now throwing their toys from the pram because Ireland has declined to obey the commands of its betters is appalling.

Of course it is, how could it be otherwise. As to whether this is necessarily a bad thing is a different point, which is fudged by the way you have framed this. If you think that sometimes governments have to make undemocratic decisions in the best interests of their citizens, then why not simply state that?

For what it’s worth, the claim that Ireland’s no voters represent the attitudes of a majority of EU citizens (which I take to be the implicit view of those who go on and on about how the Irish are the only people who were asked) does not strike me as terribly plausible.

Perhaps, but given how the elites of the EU’s other members have made the decision not to ask their citizens in a referrendum, this does rather suggest that they don’t share your optimism. why do you think that France would vote any differently a second time, or that the UK would vote ‘yes’?

Anyway, the unfortunate truth is that some of the other states would vote no, creating all sorts of problems for the pro-treaty folk – I really do not think it was the anti treaty forces who have gone to such lengths to avoid a popular vote in each EU state. However much some of the commenters above wish it not to be so, the rejection of the constitution by France and Denmark was the genesis of the Lisbon treaty as the EU moved to create a treaty that would avoid votes being necessary in most countries. Ireland had to have one and is now being caned for daring to say no…

Read closer – no EU wide vote because that presupposes what the vote is supposed to decide. It is thus illegal (or legal but an opinion poll and not a referendum).

The Irish do not care what the EU in general thinks. They care about giving away their sovereignty – which is an Irish question.