Worried their country would compromise its independence, Irish voters rejected the Lisbon treaty in a referendum last week.
This was a serious setback for further integration of the EU. I wonder what insights the “internationally orientated” government of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) will derive from this important development.
The EU has continuously worked to expand its territory and deepen the power of the EU bureaucracy. This has worried a lot of people in EU states who feel they never see the benefits of this growth.
Although unresolved problems — such as employees feeling threatened by cheap labor from eastern European member countries and rapid price increases resulting from the introduction of the euro — are closely related to people’s everyday lives, the bureaucrats in Brussels don’t appear concerned with these issues.
Instead, top officials criticize the public for not supporting the ideal of a united Europe and blocking the progress of integration with referendums.
This gap between high-level political operations and public opinion only widened further after France and the Netherlands voted against the EU constitution in their respective referendums in 2005, essentially killing plans for a European constitution.
The EU leaders hoped to resuscitate the plan and push through a mini-constitution in the form of the Lisbon treaty. They wanted to avoid putting the treaty to a referendum in member countries, instead asking parliaments to pass it.
However, they were hindered by Article 46 of the Irish Constitution, which says: “Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution shall be ... submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people.”
And so Ireland was the only EU member country that turned to its citizens fairly and held a referendum.
The Lisbon treaty thus stumbled over yet another referendum, inspiring a lot of unhappy Europeans who think that the EU equals Brussels and the euro. It was heartening for those who have doubts about the shrinking independence of member states and about giving over some of their countries’ national rights to the EU bureaucracy.
Most EU member states rely on referendums to decide on their country’s relationship with the EU — like whether the country should join the union, use the euro or ratify the EU constitution — in order to obtain the full authorization of the public.
Although Ireland has greatly profited from EU subsidies in the past, the Irish public blocked the Lisbon treaty in a referendum just as it blocked the Nice treaty in 2001.
Ma promoted an EU-style union with China during his election campaign, but now that he has entered office, he is adopting a two-handed strategy, sidestepping the issue of Taiwanese sovereignty when talking to China while wishfully thinking that he can leave it to China to fix Taiwan’s economy.
I hope the Ma government will learn from Ireland’s example.
Steve Wang is a director of the European Union Study Association.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS