David Miliband

Foreign Secretary

FCO Logo
« First Monitors into... | Main | G8 plus 5 »
Monday 16 June, 2008

All eyes on Luxembourg

EU Foreign Ministers meet in Luxembourg today. There is one unplanned item on the agenda – the rejection by Irish voters of the Lisbon reform Treaty.  We will do our business from Kosovo to Zimbabwe but all eyes and ears will be trained on the next steps on the Treaty. It’s not pretty but it is necessary for the EU to give Ireland first of all time to take stock of how they want to respond to the no vote and what they want to do with their ratification process.  Instant answers are not usually thoughtful answers in this area. It is clear that if the Irish do not ratify the Treaty then the Treaty will not pass into law.

 I don’t understand the argument that the Irish vote means we should abandon our ratification. We need a view. The Irish have said they think we should carry on. I spoke on Saturday to foreign ministers from Sweden, Spain and Holland, all of whom are part way through their ratification process, and all of whom plan to proceed with ratification. Last Wednesday’s debate in the House of Lords included powerful speeches from Lord Howe, Lord Brittan and Lord Patten  about the virtues of parliamentary accountability except in unusual cases of major constitutional change. 

I have not detected a great drive either to exclude the Irish or to enter a new institutional negotiation or to revive an ‘inner core’ of European countries. In fact I have detected a great sucking of teeth; there really was not a plan B in a cupboard. I explored this on the Marr Programme yesterday

Posted at 10:49 16 June 2008 by David Miliband  |  Comments[16]

  • Share this with:
Comments:

god. How is anyone who sits in the House of Lords in a position to preach about parliamentary accountability? They weren't elected by the people and so have no mandate to speak on behalf of the people. The House of Lords should be aboloshied and replaced with a democratically elected upper chamber of parliament. When your PM, do us a favour and get rid of the House of Lords will ya? ta.

Posted by Justin on June 16, 2008 at 12:15 PM BST #

What is the point of continuing with ratification if Ireland has already rejected it? The fact that countries are pressing on with ratification shows what disregard the EU has for the public it serves and how it intends to push this through through the back door.

Posted by Justin Williams on June 16, 2008 at 01:01 PM BST #

The argument that ratification should be abandoned is this. As you say: "if the Irish do not ratify the Treaty then the Treaty will not pass into law." Several Irish ministers and leading 'Yes' campaigners have said over the weekend that there will be no second referendum. As far back as March, Dick Roche Irish European Affair Minister was saying on his website: "The idea that we can reject this Treaty and have another Referendum as happened with the Nice Treaty is a dilusion. That cannot and will not happen." So if the Irish are not going to vote again and so cannot ratify, yet the treaty cannot become law until all 27 *do* ratify, then surely the treaty is dead. So why not say so, and stop wasting Parliamentary time proceeding with it? And why not take the opportunity to avoid the political damage of appearing to anti-democratically ignore the legitimately expressed views of the Irish people?

Posted by Stuart Coster on June 16, 2008 at 01:35 PM BST #

Robert Mugabe: "I will not allow the MDC to rule in Zimbabwe. If they win the presidential run-off I will join the "war veterans" in the bush." Various EU leaders: "We cannot allow the Irish "no" vote i.e. the only freely expressed opinion of the people anywhere in Europe to derail the European project." Spot the similarities. You may well know what is best for us, David, and we may well all be ignorant, xenophobic, little englanders, but in a democracy, sometimes the great and the good, such as yourself, have to accept the will of the great unwashed. Every indication and that's all we have to go on as your government has neither the decency nor courage to consult the people on its vision for Europe is that the people of the UK do not share your desire for ever greater European integration. So why don't you give it up or do the honourable thing and let the people decide on an issue that will shape the UK one way or another for the foreseeable future?

Posted by Paul Buddery on June 16, 2008 at 02:33 PM BST #

Aha! We have another treaty that is dead in the water if even one of the member states rejects it but the powers that be have suddenly decided to change the rules. Reading some of the comments from EU politicians, it looks as if the Irish are being threatened and bullied e.g. "We think it is a real cheek that the country that has benefited most from the EU should do this. There is no other Europe than this treaty. With all respect for the Irish vote, we cannot allow the huge majority of Europe to be duped by a minority of a minority of a minority." - Axel Schäfer. Duped? Them's fighting words Axel! Why then are we, the British, ratifying a dead piece of legislation unless of course, the Irish result means nothing and Europe intends to press on regardless with it? Wouldn't that be flying in the face of democracy? Why hasn't there been a proper pan European referendum on the matter?

Posted by Paul Everest on June 16, 2008 at 03:10 PM BST #

Well done, Eire, from the remainder of Europe. None of us wanted the constitution, none of us want this treaty either. Unfortunately, we are not allowed a say, so thank you for saying it for us. To Mr Miliband - How many times do the people of Europe have to say "No" before we are listened to? Or are you just going to go ahead and ignore our opinions again?

Posted by Dave Bowell on June 16, 2008 at 03:24 PM BST #

Perhaps you could explain why it was that, after the French and Dutch 'No' votes back in 2005, the then Foreign Secretary went to Parliament and said that the ratification process would be halted. Should the fact that you will not do the same for the Irish 'No' vote be taken as a signal that small countries don't matter in today's EU? Thus confirming one of the main concerns of those who voted 'No' last Thursday. Perhaps it's just because the treaty is much further in the process through Parliament, so you think you can get away with it this time? Ah, what it must be to have a 'moral compass' ...

Posted by Mike Hanlon on June 16, 2008 at 06:59 PM BST #

Well done

Posted by yourway on June 17, 2008 at 02:47 AM BST #

The only reason Ireland got a referendum is because their constitution hasn't been dismantled sufficiently yet. This was never about consulting the people for their opinion - it was an unavoidable legal necessity. The response from the various muppets in power "they said no? whatever - full steam ahead" only underlines this fact. They know perfectly well that the majority will say no and it's not because the majority are ignorant. On the contrary, more is known about the truth than "they" are happy with - hence the endless soothing non-words uttered by Pro-EU types. According to one Scandinavian MEP I heard, the Lisbon Treaty is a major power grab - a self amending treaty that allows for those to whom it refers to alter anything in it without recourse to anyone else. It is, to all intents and purposes, the end of sovereign national authority and national identity - little wonder so few were prepared to tell the truth. Little wonder the Irish No vote has been sneered at and described as "confused mutterings over abortion". Welcome to the future. Your toil and money is required, your opinion is not.

Posted by dave hands on June 17, 2008 at 10:04 AM BST #

852,000 people voted against a treaty involving 490 million. After being showered with gold from Brussels and being transported from a not very good economy into a very cheerful one. That tap will now be turned off and Ireland will revert to what it was. Ingrates deserve such. But what is the UK government's stance on ratification, now? I didn't see it outlined in the above article. Surely the FCO have a view?

Posted by john problem on June 17, 2008 at 10:08 AM BST #

Why can't it be that we all are allowed to express our views in a common referendum at the same time, whether it is about the Euro, or about the Lisbon reform treaty? Why are persons in different EU countries treated differently?

Posted by Philippe Ohlund on June 17, 2008 at 10:22 AM BST #

Firstly, John Problem, do you really believe that had the rest of the 490 million EU subjects voted, they would have voted 'yes' to a man and a woman? I don't know the answer to that question, but since no other countries were prepared to trust their people to vote on this fundamental constitutional treaty, we shall never know. Secondly, you seem to think that if politicians shower people with money, those people should respond by voting how the politicians want them to. What a bizarre notion of democracy. Such behaviour is referred to as pork barreling. Thirdly, you think it is entirely appropriate that politicians who don't get their way, are fully entitled to "punish" the naughty votes by withholding public money from said voters. You seem to believe that, rather than being the representatives of the people, politicians should be able to tell people what to think and dispense public money not in the public interest but in that of the politicians'. With such warped ideas regarding the functioning of a democracy, you either already work for the EU or they have a job waiting for you.

Posted by Paul Buddery on June 17, 2008 at 01:57 PM BST #

It would be possible for the Bill to have received the three readings in both Houses but then for the Govt to request The Queen not to assent. If my memory serves me right, She would not veto a Bill but merely says that She will consider it in Norman French. Acting on a request from the Govt would not cause any constitutional improprietory, and might strengthen HMG's hand in the discussions. The other more radical option is one I put to Govt when the Constitutional Treaty was in its final stages, namely an EU wide referendum to give an emphatic democratic legitimacy to the EU.

Posted by stephen rickitt on June 17, 2008 at 02:19 PM BST #

There is an e-petition on the PMs website at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon/ It has gathered 10k plus signatures in less than a day. I don't think the moderators of this blog are going to stop this mailing with what is, after all, a democratic process whereby the people can ask the PM to do something.

Posted by Paul Everest on June 17, 2008 at 08:02 PM BST #

John Problem is clearly far from alone among the EU's supporters in thinking that money given to Ireland was not about 'solidarity' or 'economic development' as described, but about buying their obedient continued transfer of power to EU institutions. Does the same apply to Eastern Europe today? At last we are seeing the true nature of those supporting the EU project, and the sad reality of much-vaunted 'enlargement'. True pro-Europeans cannot support today's EU and its evident financial, as opposed to old-style military, imperialist tendencies.

Posted by Mike Hanlon on June 18, 2008 at 01:17 PM BST #

pIt is interesting to follow the link that you have provided to the debate in the House of Lords. The first speech is by Lord Howell of Guildford who is very clear on his views./pp"As we have argued and debated our way through the text of the treaty and the Bill, most of us can see—and it becomes clearer page by page—that the words are almost identical to those of the former constitutional treaty. In most places they are absolutely identical. The constitutional treaty met a sticky end when it was voted down in referenda in the Netherlands and France some years ago. The mystery is this: if our eyes can see the identical words, how is it that—while we see one thing—Ministers insist on seeing something quite different? Of course, the answer requires no detective work at all. We do not need Hercule Poirot to see exactly what has happened. The treaty drafters and this Government have rather cleverly achieved an illusion by using a methodological device to argue that the constitutional concept has been abandoned. That is the position of the Government as I understand it."/ppLabour promised a referendum in its manifesto. Can you please advise when this will take place?/p

Posted by Dave Bowell on June 18, 2008 at 03:57 PM BST #

Post a Comment:
  • HTML Syntax: NOT allowed