Irish thoughts

Henry writes:

In particular, German parliamentarian Axel Schäfer’s comment that “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,” would
have a bit more credibility if, you know, the majority of the majority
of the majority had been given a chance to vote on the Treaty

I can imagine a few other lessons:

1. Give people a referendum on a big question and they will use it as a chance to voice their general displeasure with many other matters.  New Zealand made that mistake on electoral reform.  The Irish vote was strongly divided among rich-poor lines.

2. According to polls, the Irish are not especially Euroskeptical.  I guess that is "Eurosceptical".  In any case multilateralism has limits.

3. The option under consideration *was* Plan B.  There is no obvious Plan C.

4. It worked last time (2002) to ask them to vote again.  Few people think that gambit can be played a second time.

5. One Irishman opined: ""We’re told we can vote no, that the system requires unanimity. But
when (a `no’ vote) actually happens, every time, the EU tells us: You
really only have a right to vote yes," said Dublin travel agent Paul
Brady, who voted against the treaty.

6. Some deluded soul in the EU read a copy of John Calhoun instead of Buchanan and Tullock’s Calculus of Consent.  Hadn’t they remembered the history of 17th and 18th century Poland and decided that a unanimity rule is a bad idea?

7. If European nations demand a unanimity rule (which I can well imagine), is that not a sign that they have a free trade area but nothing close to a real political union?


Comments for this post are closed