.. according to a live broadcasting of Euronews, it looks like Ireland has just rejected the Lisbon Treaty (they are still waiting for the official result announcement), throwing the EU into a new crisis.

What went wrong? Many things, but no doubt the EU lack of communication is the most important factor. Once again, the European Institutions are rushing in, without trying first to obtain if not the agreement at least the opinion of the ‘masses’. Or making sure they do really know what they are voting for.

Most of the European citizens are not really informed on EU matters, so when they have to make a decision they feel they are pressured to vote according to others’ interests, not to their own, and the natural reaction is ‘NO’, no matter what.

Conclusion - don’t treat them as sheep, if you want them to sing like birds.

Later edit: it’s official, it’s a ‘NO’. I think it was 53% NO and 47% YES (I do not know Irish language;strange that Euronews did not have particularly today an Irish translator. No wonder the small countries feel ignored). I just hope the European Institutions have learned their lesson and try a different approach, like addressing to common people, too, not only to the politicians (who, anyway, are not trusted in their countries).

PS. I tried to see the breaking news on Romanian channels. Fat chance! Nothing beyond the football match with Italy and here and there something about the local elections. Unfortunately, I don’t think Romania is an exception. QED.

“Even if less than five per cent has changed, … your DNA differs by only two per cent from that of a monkey, but the difference is still fundamental,”

… this was the reply of the VVD house leader Han Ten Broeke, talking about the idea that the treaties (Constitutional Treaty and the Reform Treaty) were the same.

So, after three years ago the people of Netherlands said “NO” to the Constitutional Treaty, yesterday evening The House of Commons in the Netherlands said “YES” to the Lisbon/Reform Treaty. However, the Senate still has to approve the Treaty.

Now it’s Ireland’s turn, which has to vote the Treaty next Thursday.

Monsieur Valéry Giscard d’Estaing is making in his blog (yes, he had started a blog at the age of 81, and, as you can see, the venerable is very active) a detailed comparison between former (or should I say ‘the late’?) Constitutional Treaty and the present Lisbon/Reform Treaty.

(I really like how it sounds in French: ‘billet’, it reminds me somehow of Arghezi’s ‘Bilete de papagal’)

On Thursday, after two years, the European leaders finally reached a deal on the new ‘Reform Treaty’.
Now all we need is the ratification, pretty difficult, since the governments in several member countries are pressured to organize a referendum on the revised text.

Some key provisions of the new treaty are:

* A full-time Council president, for a two and a half year, renewable term.
* A clearer, fairer and more transparent voting system based on the “double majority” system.
* A smaller Commission capped at two-thirds the number of member states from 2014.
* A stronger foreign policy representative, creating the post of High Representative for Foreign Policy by merging the roles of the Council High Representative and the commissioner for external action.
* An extension of majority voting to 50 new areas, most of them minor, and most notably concerning cooperation on fighting terrorism, crime and immigration.
* The Charter of Fundamental Rights will become legally binding, though only on European legislation.
* A stronger role for national parliaments, who now have the right to challenge European legislation that they consider unnecessary.

Is seems that President Nicolas Sarkozy - France and Prime Minister Gordon Brown - Great Britain are backing Tony Blair to be the first to fill European Union presidency.

(Should I comment the picture? Or not? …not this time :D)

N.B. I was asked why I want a referendum in Romania - everybody knows that the result will be certainly a very clear “yes”. Because the Romanians will finally have the chance to talk and debate on European issues. I don’t think they will be wasted money.

The European Union and Bulgaria are arguing about how to spell the word euro.
The problem lies with Bulgaria’s Cyrillic alphabet (the third alphabet in EU, after the Latin and the Greek ones), under which the common European currency is spelt “evro” rather than euro.
This discussion threatens to block the signing of an EU accord with Balkan state Montenegro. Bulgarian diplomats said they could only sign the document if euro is spelt correctly in the Bulgarian version of the agreement:

“This is part of our national identity. We brought the third alphabet into the European Union and it’s a matter of respect for linguistic diversity,”

Bulgaria is presently the only EU member to widely use the Cyrillic alphabet but it is also used in Balkan countries that are lining up to join the EU.
Other countries where the euro is pronounced differently, including Slovenia, have tried to obtain a different spelling of the common currency, but they have failed. Except for Greece.

Unlike Slovenia which uses the Latin alphabet, Greece had put forward its different alphabet as an argument - something that Bulgarians are trying to do as well.

The European Central Bank insists that the name of the common currency must be the same in all the official languages of the EU. On the other hand, the existence of different alphabets should be taken into account - opinion also supported by Multilingualism Commissioner, Leonad Orban.

Of course, for some it looks like a minor and ridiculous matter, but Bulgaria brings the same arguments as Greece. Why “yes” for Greece and “no” for Bulgaria?

Once again the citizens of EU will pay with their fundamental rights the price for so-called war against terrorism. The East-European nations have seen this before –in the name of the national security a lot of stupid and dangerous rules are implemented, and when the people will finally realize that the authorities went too far, it will be probably too late for an amiable solution.
So, according to the new EU-USA agreement, our private information will be held by American authorities for 15 years (so they say; let me see: after 15 years what really happens?).
Many European states have expressed their concern on this matter, The European Court of Justice rejected the first issue of the agreement ….so what?!
Is it me or the situations in which the European authorities don’t bother to take into account the opinions of the member states are more frequent every day? – they just give another form to the agreement (with almost the same result) and get what they want.
The fact that the same strategy is used for the European Constitution (not any more called ‘Constitution’, but in many respects still with a similar legal value), that the referendum is avoided (let’s be serious: if not for this kind of treaty, than for what on Earth does the referendum even exist?!) should be a very serious signal for European citizens. The fact that European Institutions are going too far will probably cause many anti-integration movements, and I don’t think European Union is ready for a civil crisis. Somebody is playing with fire.

Autoritatile de la Bruxelles recurg la tot felul de stratageme pentru a se asigura ca noul Tratat va fi ratificat; de exemplu, au transmis parlamentelor nationale doar o varianta in franceza a Tratatului, desi reglementarile europene spun ca in prima faza trebuie transmis cel putin in engleza, franceza si germana, urmand ca ulterior sa fie tradus in fiecare limba a Uniunii (nu-i vorba, nu cred ca pe parlamentarii romani ii deranjeaza…sau intereseaza). Totusi, cam prea multe compromisuri si ocolisuri legate de acest Tratat ca sa nu aiba repercusiuni in viitor, deja populatie europeana manifesta reticenta, si nu degeaba.
Daca pentru fiecare lege care nu trece de referendum se recurge la alte solutii, de ce se mai tin referendumurile?