Aherns in the limelight
It’s not often that Irish politics reaches the Red Tops but today Bertie and Dermot Ahern get their day, not just in the limelight, but in the stronger glare of the Sun.
It always slightly bewilders me that normally the media, 91Èȱ¬ included, never seems very curious about what goes on in our English-speaking next-door neighbour. Still, that's by the by.
Foreign Minister Dermot has made it clear Ireland is likely to have a referendum on the new treaty, as it has on all recent ones. And PM Bertie has said that 90% of the old constitution is in the treaty. Both meat and drink to those in Britain arguing we should have one too.
There are three basic positions among the politicians in various countries:
- • It’s not like the constitution that our people appear not to like, therefore there's no need for a referendum
- • It’s a lot like the constitution we didn't like, so we need a referendum
- • It’s like the constitution that we liked, so we can swallow a few changes
The Aherns, who unlike the Polish couple are not twins, not even related as far as I know, are in the last camp.
I presume Blair will make a statement to the Commons later today and I'll be very interested to see how hard David Cameron goes for him. And what Gordon Brown's reactions are.
Gordon Brown taking over is one of the biggest news stories for years, so will all the talk about this drown out the "call for a referendum" story?
I’m Mark Mardell, the 91Èȱ¬'s North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Ireland has to have a referendum on the EU treaty, not because of the significance of the changes but because of our Constitution: it's a legal, requirement, not a political decision. If, like the UK, we had no written constitution and our politicians could get away with it, we probably wouldn't have a referendum either!
Mr Ahern has consistently displayed great courage and insight as Ireland's Leader. England would do well to be a little more flexable on these important matters
Catherine
Not only are Bertie and Dermot not twins, neither have they the same surname (at least in english). Their names are Bertie Ahern and Donal Aherne
Ireland has to have a referendum on the EU treaty, not because of the significance of the changes but because of our Constitution: it's a legal requirement, not a political decision. If, like the UK, we had no written constitution and our politicians could get away with it, we probably wouldn't have a referendum either!
"will all the talk about this drown out the "call for a referendum" story?"
It's up to us all to try our damnedest to make sure Brown doesn't get away with it.
Referendum Now!
The Irish have a major advantage over us Brits in that they have their own constitution which requires amendments to be ratified by referendum
Our rather frayed system relies on the government of the day wanting a referendum on a treaty that it has negotiated - which is rather unlikely if they are sure that they have got "a good deal". Our own constitution is unfurling rapidly and it's time we had a proper debate on all the issues.
And as Irish people we will be given the chance to say NO to this treaty. And a big No to the EU. People here are sick to their teeth of this behemoth of bureaucracy.
This seems to ignore the fact that Ireland is in a very different situation to the United Kingdom. In Ireland we have a written constitution, and we require referenda to amend that constitution. Referenda are relatively common in Ireland (indeed we had two on the last EU treaty); in the UK they are not. Going by the usual way things are done in the UK, why would you have a referendum on the EU treaty?
Finally, a note on British media coverage of Irish affairs; it's symptomatic of the bias of the British media towards Ireland. Indeed the 91Èȱ¬ still even on this site frequently refer to the state named Ireland (or described as Republic of Ireland) as "Irish Republic".
Referendum? I say don't bother; any hindrance to implementing this treaty is bad if you ask me.
Half the problems with the EU is over-bureaucracy; the system needs updating to a 21st century one, or nothing will actually change for the good. EU sceptics have a point that the system is far from optimal (to put it politely). The main difference between them and me is they'd rather leave altogether, whereas I'd rather see some forward looking changes - for which the treaty is a start at least. Things are changing for the better; let's not derail it yet!
Anyone who recalls the way Mr Prodi (I think it was) who said, in response to worries about the "European Army", that you don't have to call it an army, you can call it Mary, will be only too aware of how this will be explained away. No need for a referendum for Britain, that was only promised for a constitution. This isn't a constitution, it just happens to be 90% the same, but it's now called Mary (sorry - a treaty) so you don't get any say on it. Quite amazing how the British government is more than willing to expend blood and treasure fighting foreign wars to spread democracy, but is determined not to have anything to do with democracy at home. I sometimes wish that this country had a more revolutionary instinct like France. A few barricades would come in useful about now.
Just for your information, Mark; Bertie and Dermot Ahern are not related. I think we're all seeing double after Poland!
P.S. As an Irish postgrad here in England, I'm always surprised at the lack of coverage Irish news receives in the British media. The same is not true at home.
The Irish rejected the Nice Treaty in a referendum, and it nearly scuppered it in 2001. The anti campaign built support by raising the prospect of having to provide troops to EU military initiatives. The Irish government obtained an opt-out from the military aspects of Nice, and a second referendum sailed through.
This time the Irish might be worried by the loss of an independent foreign policy. They have much closer ties with the USA - economic, social and political - than the rest of the EU, as the EU's foreign policy is most likely to be anti-American in flavour, Ireeland might become exercised by the prospect and reject the Constitution for that reason.
In 2001 when Nice went through, the USA was dozing in the dot com boom era pre-9/11. This time the Americans will not be caught napping and will want to ensure that they fully represent their interests to the Irish and others.
The Americans are most anxious about the intended direction of the EU's foreign policies, and need to be working hard to eliminate the threat of the Constitution for their interests. Ireland is the natural first place for the Americans to open operations. And Britain will not be far behind.
In the UK they should direct their fire onto Rupert Murdoch. If they can threaten him with loss of TV privileges in the USA, this might help to provide a counterweight to the threat he faces from the EU's competition laws, which make him a keen secret assistent to EU power in Britain (never mind the Sun).
No doubt Gordon's entry into No 10 will be a good day to bury the bad news that he does not want an EU referendum. Our job is to ensure he does not get away with it. If need be, we should emulate those who in the past have marched for jobs, for CND and for the preservation of fox hunting and have a "Peoples' March for an EU Referendum". Is anyone with me on this...?
Labour will no dobt hope to bury this story. Even if they don't we all know they will never give the UK public a say in anything that counts.
Mark Mardell is forgettig that this is just the outline of the "transforming treaty" and that there will be more fights ab out the actual text so the push for a referendum might start to froth over again. If there is one, I hope the question will be "Do you accept this treaty which will make Britain stay in the EU or do you reject it and choose to leave the EU" ? Many continental Europeans are fed up with "Baby Doll Britain"
I might be wrong, but I believe Ireland must have a referendum on anything that affects the Constitution. Which means a referendum on all the EU treaties is required. In Ireland, sovereignty rests with the people. In Britain, it rests with the Crown in Parliament.
The problem isn't really the EU. The problem is Britain.
The fundamental difference is that Ireland has a written Constitution and the UK does not.
Any change in the Irish Constitution requires the approval of the Irish people, and as all of the EU treaties have required an amendment to our Constitution, the Irish Government are left with no choice but to hold a referendum.
This is has been the case with each EU treaty so far.
The UK Government could of course choose to have a referendum, but I know of few governments in the World that would choose to hold referenda if they can at all be avoided!!
The Irish Constitution (being a written constitution) makes any treaty changes subject to a referendum. Good idea these written constitutions ... maybe out new PM will make this change to the UK and it's unwritten constitution.
To clarify a family point, Dermot and Bertie Ahern are NOT related, although their name IS spelt the same way in English.
However, Bertie's older brother Noel is serving in the Irish government. There are therefore 3 Aherns in this goverment, making things relatively confusing to an outsider, alright...
I believe the case for a referendum is highlighted by the government agenda. Where did the mandate come from when Mr Blair told MPs:
"Over the past 10 years Britain has moved from the margins of European debate to the centre."
When were the British people asked whether we wanted to be part of a legal and political union of Europe?
It was 32 years ago that "we" voted to be a part of an economic union, and I can't find a reference to a president or parliament or court. And only those aged 50 or over had a chance to vote in that referendum.
Respect for Ireland's cobstitutional neutrality was a valid reason for allowing an opt-out clause in the Nice treaty. But the problem with all opt-outs, including those given to the U.K., they work against those exercising them. Ireland does not lose much by not having a voice in European military matters. The situation is far more serious for the U.K. which, I believe willl be more and more marginalized unless a U.K. Goverment can achieve 'opt-ins' to the Euro, open boarders, etc. I am afraid that Tony Blair brought the horse to water but could not make it drink.
Already Paris is linking up with Madrid rather than London. This is not supprising as France is well aware of the stunning progress made by Spain since it voted for democratic and regional government exactly 30 years ago and is yet more 'Spanish' than ever. New France will work very happily with new Spain for the benefit of both.
I'm a Pole born in Canada. Like the Poles, many Irish have relatives in the United States. That should not blind us to the fact that most American presidents and important politicians are British. America and Canada are British apartheid states. That's why my family -- cruelly victimized by Canadian and US governments -- is returning to Europe. In the European Union, we Europeans can be independent, rich, and enpowered.
What I think is clear is that people living in EU countries want to have their say. The more politicians put that off the more they are alienating the public from the EU and risking the future of the European project.
I'd like to point out that it is the Republic of Ireland having this referendum, not the whole island as the title suggests.
Henry,
I was very interested in your last comment regarding Rupert Murdoch. Why would the threat of EU competition laws make him keen on the EU ?
I'm Irish. One of the interesting things about the Irish constitution is that it gives politicians very little room for manoeuvre. We don't especially trust politicians and the constitution ensures that the people, who are sovereign in the Republic, have a final say on anything that affects sovereignty. That said, this gives Irish politicians a lot of leeway to argue the pros and cons of any treaty because in the long run, the decision isn't up to them. So the politicians are (or should be) freer to discuss such treaties honestly. Everything can happen in the open. Whereas in the UK.... A written treaty please, Gordon (I live in the UK!).
Its not surpirising the English press do not take much notice of Irish News - most of them (including the 91Èȱ¬) still think Ireland is part of the UK. Ireland is still referred to as a '91Èȱ¬ Country' in sport and other news some 80 years after kicking the English out. With this being the case I expect they (the press)still beliwve the Empire is intact and that we are still a great world power. No wonder they see Europe (Bismark, Napolean et al) as such a threat.
EuroBetts, if you think this treaty is going to make the EU less bureaucratic then you probably haven't read it. The essence of the EU machine is that once it has hold of something it doesn't let go - it can only get bigger and more expensive.
I don't want to live in a country called Europe and I don't think many others do - but this treaty is yet another step towards that.
Referendum please.
I personally think we would do a lot from learning from the Irish across the "puddle".
I mean whenever I'm in Ireland I'm quite shocked as how in comparison we aren't in tune with what our Neighbors are doing, however they seem to be very much the opposite.
I think it is about time that we got a Written Constitution, mainly to sharpen the protections and sort out the inequalities in our Democratic Institutions including our Relationship with Europe on a Political, Judicial and other matters of interest.
If reports in today's papers and on the 91Èȱ¬ are true about Gordon Brown planning an early election this could, at least in part, be an attempt to see off calls for a referendum. If a referendum isn't mentioned in the next Labour manifesto he could plausibly argue, more plausibly than at present after winning a fresh mandate that a vote isn't needed.
Even if this isn't part of his calculation, it may still affect his ability to pass a new treaty. A hung parliament is bound to make things more difficult even if Labour is the largest party. This could all become very interesting and possibly fatal to another European treaty/constitution.
Just to let you know the two Ahern's are brothers !
We should have a referendum. The EU works by reducing nation states through smaller steps none of which seem that significant at the time. The EU should be prepared to have different levels of integration. Britain should merely have an economic and defence union with an EU that encompasses all 50 states (inc Russia, Belarus, Israel, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan if they become democratic and want to join). If others want political union then that it is their choice.
´¡¾±²Ô»å°ùú,
Bertie Ahern is no relation of Dermot Ahern. However, Bertie Ahern's brother, Noel is a Minister of State at the Department of Finance. In fact there is another unrelated Ahern, Michael Ahern in the Government, who is also a Minister of State!!!
The campaign to get a referendum in the Netherlands has officially started! I think we have a good chance if we pressure politicians.
I urge all other countries to also have referendums, peoples must be allowed to vote on this, because this treaty goes as least as far as the constitution did (not strange since the two are eerily similar).
The treaty most certainly makes 'Europe' less democratic. It transfers further powers away from the elected parliaments to the unelected commission and council.
Euroluvvies have read the new treaty, but us eurosceptics understand it. And that's the bottom line.
Shirley Jackson (22): we in Europe have now officially lost our national democracies. The elites want to rule by decree and they will succeed if we let them. If only we had a Supreme Court like the USA this antidemocratic charade (= EU) would have been stopped decades ago.
Actually there is only ONE Ahern, the others are merely illusions created by the clever use of mirors and ventriloquism.
The EU Treaties actually conceal a much bigger issue: should Britain be a direct democracy?
At no point in the entire history of Britain have the People ever been given an opportunity to vote in a referendum for the TYPE of government they want.
This is not a decision that can be left to the professional politicians because - clearly - the professional politicians have a vested interest. They do not want their monopoly on power removed.
Nor is it sufficient to say that "Britain isn't a democracy, so it should never be a democracy." As the philosopher David Hume would have said "That is to make an ought from an is".
Clearly there are some people who do NOT want Britain to become a democracy. That is a perfectly valid personal opinion. But there is no self-evident principle, nor even a universally agreed one, by which their opinions should be accorded more weight than those of the people who do.
As for my own opinion, I'm happy to put it to a referendum and accept the verdict of the People.
Can the opponents of Democracy say the same???
I would suggest (and I'm sure Mark would agree if he thought about it) the reason the 91Èȱ¬ tends not to report much on internal Irish affairs is that it very much wants to avoid the accusation of some kind of cultural imperialism, which would no doubt come if it frequently stuck its nose into the affairs of another country. It is the #British# Broadcasting Corp after all.
i.e. the opposite to post 27 applies and that's the way it should be between two separate sovereign nations.
It's entirely up to the British citizens, err subjects, to push for a referendum on whatever (making the UK a Republic, anyone?).
However, if there is still some common sense left in Britain, two conditions should be met:
-The electorate has to prove that they know what they are voting on. A few test questions on top of the voting slip may help to weed out the completely ignorant tabloid-wielding little Englanders.
-A negative result should immediately lead to the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, because people simply have enough of a Britain that sees the EU as the half-way house between the empire and the UK's accession to the USA as the 51st state.
The reason why the Irish Republic doesn't receive much coverage in the UK press is simple - look at the population. It's just over 4 million. Or, to put it another way about two urban Manchester's worth!
The Republic receives a lot of attention considering its relatively lowly position in the world in terms of population and *clout*.
On the rare occassions it happens, I'm always surprised about agreeing with the redtops, and "The Sun" in particular. However, they're right - the UK should have a referendum on the changes to the EU treaties proposed by the European Council, and the sooner the Brown Administration embraces it as a good thing, the better.
Alternatively, Brown could always call a snap election and have this a de facto referendum on the EU having denied the country an actual EU referendum... but not sure he'd like the result of that one!
The 91Èȱ¬ just like SKY is totally obsessed with America.Just take the news today for example,some person by the name of Paris Hilton is a major news story.In many ways the British have become just like Americans.Totally self absorbed bores.We never really get any European news in this country yet we live in Europe.
91Èȱ¬ news 24 it now mimics Sky with news alerts always from America about some college shooting or a car chase in LA.Rather sad really.
How many people even know that an RAF helicopter dropped a door on a crowd during an airshow in Ireland on Sunday.It was never even covered.
This is the reason why we have a parliamentary democracy; so that MPs (that we elect) make decisions on our behalf. If they think it is in Britain's interest to stick within the EU and ratify this treaty then so be it. Did we not fight a civil war and kill a king so that we could have a parliamentary democracy? Did all those people die on the fields of Naseby in vain so that several hundred years later modern-day people could disregard the will of parliament.
Two things need to be taken into account before deciding on whether the UK should have a referendum on the new EU treaty.
One, there is no legal requirement to hold a referendum in the UK, and therefore also no general rules on holding referendums. The government (parliament) would be granting a referendum to meet a wish expressed by public opinion in this particular case, and it would be able to set the rules.
Two, the political implications of the outcome would be unclear. Eurosceptics appear to assume that a no result would mean that a majority believe that the new treaty goes too far. But federalists may vote no because they feel that the treaty doesn’t go far enough. Also, the new treaty introduces a procedure for countries to withdraw from the EU. So some people might vote no because they don’t want to make it easier for a future government to take the UK out of the EU.
That a referendum is so widely desired in the UK is an argument for holding one. But, given its ad hoc nature and the likely ambiguities of its outcome, a referendum vote should be binding on the government only if there is a clear majority, say 10 percentage points between yes and no votes, and a high turnout, say 80% or more.
Whilst I wouldn't want a referendum to lead to the UK getting sidelined out of Europe, a small part of me does want one simply because finally, the government would have to treat us all like adults and explain to us the benefits of remaining within the EU (and indeed of getting more closely involved within it). (And how about the old idea of them posting a copy of the treaty with an independently compiled, plain English translation of each section into every household in the country whilst they're at it!)
Instead, we keep on having the government of the day pussy-footing around the tabloid press and hoping that no-one will kick up too much fuss about things and they can then do "what's best for us", without (a) asking us or (b) even telling us!
Vincent (41)- I *did* hear about the helicopter door incident (on the 91Èȱ¬!) but I agree with you that the focus on all things American by the media of this country is getting worse and worse and goes a long way to explaining society's current ills(i.e. the litigious society, the obsession with "celebrity", etc. )
The incoming Brown with his "Atlanticism" (apparently) doesn't do anything to re-assure me that things will improve any time soon....
Bertie and Dermot might get their referendum, but it was rejected by the majority of people as a crock because thats exactly what it was. The Irish people dont want t be part of some anonymous super state - which is what the new ( and old )document is purporting to create. Hopefully this one will go the same way - and our neighbours will see it for what it is too.
Yeah, we had a number of referendums, referendii or what ever you want to call them, in order to pass this EU constitution. Firstly the Irish people voted NOT to ratify the EU constitution. Then Bertie told us that we would keep voting till we got it right and on the next ballot we were given 2 choices:
Vote 'Yes' or we'll cancel all future Paddy's days.
Vote 'No' and we will cancel all future Paddy's days.
Which was fair enough. The Ahern Twins are they like the new Coen Brothers? I think I've seen their films 'Far to Go' and 'No Country for Old Men or the Sick'
Ireland did not reject the European consitution.
We voted to reject the Nice Treaty. The main reason it was rejected was fears to Irelands neutrality.
We do not really fear being part of some anonymous super state as we have lived that dream under the British Empire!
Do most Brtish fear the European Union because they believe it to enfringe on their rights or because they fear the UK does not have enough control/onfluence in the orgonization?
Are the British people afraid of being ruled from outside like the rule they forcefully imposed on other nations through their so called Empire.
@ adam wilson (42): your parliament has surrendered most of its privileges to an unaccountable structure in Brussels called EU. Former German president Roman Herzog estimates that more than 80% of legislation in EU countries now comes from Brussels.
And parliaments CANNOT change that EU legislation, under any circumstances. The power therefore is indeed, in the hands of the unelected. A political EUSSR has been established. And of course, no popular mandate was ever given to any politician to surrender those powers.
One thing to remember is that only two countries (France and the Netherlands) rejected the last treaty, and probably only the UK would have done so as well.
The greater problem is that these types of referenda have little to do with the actual treaty, which is difficult to understand even for students of European integration. A rejection of the treaty is more often a rejection of the distant Brussels bureaucracy, which would ironically be REDUCED after the acceptance of a new treaty.
@Marin (50): a reduced EU bureaucracy because of this 'treaty'?
Don't make me laugh. The new treaty hands more than 40 policy areas FROMm the member states TO the EU. It would increase EU bureaucracy and reduce national democracy.
Europhiles seem to have switched to outright lying.