What I was trying to say about Ireland and the EU

Blogging on my Treo sometimes results in problems like the ones resulting from my post on Ireland's vote down of the EU reform treaty. Thumbing incentivizes minimal content, and that can be misinterpreted, which we see in some of the comments on the post itself and a recent response on Chicago Boyz. For my part, I'm sorry I didn't communicate clearly.

Consider our own adoption of the Constitution: once a super-majority of nine states was reached, the Constitution went into effect for those states. Rhode Island (where I used to live), dragged their feet and weren't in the first nine. They eventually did come in, but they didn't have to. And their non-ratification didn't scotch the whole process.

(Note: Smitten Eagle has the ratification process in his first parenthetical paragraph, and it's a pretty major point.)

The current EU treaty is for reform. This is roughly analogous to amending our Constitution. The way we do it: once you're in, if 3/4 of states ratify an amendment, you're stuck with it and beholden to it.

That's what I meant WRT to Ireland: allow a non-unanimous process of amendment or make some kind of way for nations to opt back out. What are the odds of amending the treaty with unanimity required? The Irish weren't incentivized at all to approve the treaty. Enough of them didn't want to change their constituiton that they could simply vote no. They get to stay with the status quo with no consequences whatsoever.

All I really meant was that unanimous ratification of amendments will almost always result in no amendments, and that seems like a pretty bad plan.

Beyond that, Smitten Eagle (where do these pseudonyms come from?) and some of the commenters on my post draw conclusions based on something I wasn't trying to say at all. I don't think they apply, so I'll just leave them be.

(I am on the record many places as not valuing democracy as the end-all and be-all of healthy nation status, but that is a different discussion.)

Comments

[stuart abrams]

My point in my comment to the original post was that the original US constitution was essentially a failure, since it took a civil war and a radical redefinition of national citizenship in order to create a Westphalian-style American nation-state, as the 14th Amendment created a concept of national citizenship that did not previously exist. A major impetus behind secession was the fear that unless slavery was permitted to expand, there would be a sufficient number of non-slave states to enact a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. Perhaps there is not an issue of a magnitude comparable to slavery facing the EU today, but on the other hand, it is also a much more diverse union than the original US; and after slavery was abolished, the US became a pretty homogeneous union. I don't think that an EU that would permit significant constitutional changes on a non-unanimous basis would work. The EU is a post-Westphalian political entity, and it is exploring uncharted waters.

[Mystery Meat]

Unanimous approval of the treaty was required by EU rule. If they want to pass such acts with super-majorities, they can change the rules.

BTW, about a month before the vote, EU president Barossa said the Irish "would pay" if they voted "no" on the treaty. Presumably that means the Irish were put on notice they had something to lose.

You say you are on the record many places as not valuing democracy as the end-all and be-all of healthy nation status. It's pretty clear that democracy is the last step when a non-integrating gap country has developed sufficient institutions and done the groundwork to make a democratic state possible. In your opinion, does that apply to the EU too? They don't have to be democratic now because they are building institutions that will result in more democracy later?

In PNM, you predicted a U.S. annexation of much of Latin America and Canada within 50 years. Should the citizens of those countries be allowed a vote on whether or not that should happen?

[Galrahn]

"where do these pseudonyms come from?"

Specifically, they are a reflection of personal background. Generically, I'd suggest the origin is very relevant to the discussion at hand of Constitution ratification.

In a name... Publius!