Lisbon Treaty Referendum 2 - Return of the Gombeen Man

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well no, that isn't discussion - but then neither is this. You could of course try bringing up some substantive discussion and seeing how that goes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You could stop bullying users and see how that goes also? I would be more inclined to post substantive discussion (although I'm sure our views would differ on that also) if the bullies took a day off. Alas, I'll think I'll take thehighground, and funnily enough, do as he suggests, and not bother posting here anymore. You three (sink, scofflaw, oscarBravo), do more than any no campaign could ever do to drive someone to voting no. Soon enough you'll have driven all the 'no' posters from the forum and you three can argue among yourselves about who is more right about the 'yes' campaign. Thanks; I'll know where to send someone who hasn't completely made up their mind on what way to vote in any potential second referendum. Cheers

i-bloodhound wrote: »

You could stop bullying users and see how that goes also? I would be more inclined to post substantive discussion (although I'm sure our views would differ on that also) if the bullies took a day off. Alas, I'll think I'll take thehighground, and funnily enough, do as he suggests, and not bother posting here anymore. You three (sink, scofflaw, oscarBravo), do more than any no campaign could ever do to drive someone to voting no. Thanks; I'll know where to send someone who hasn't completely made up their mind on what way to vote in any potential second referendum. Cheers

It's strange that in a couple of years posting in the Religion section, in often violent disagreement with the theists, I have never been accused of bullying. Yet up pops a new user here with apparently a sole agenda - to accuse me and a couple of others of bullying - and who, having done that, will now leave in a dramatic huff. I will miss them, and their deliberate imitation of my signoff.

Politics is a curious thing. One might almost think there was some group of people out there who had an issue with boards.ie not being as rabidly eurosceptical as politics.ie.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

I'm not suggesting we repeal them. I'm suggesting that we find away of making the E.U work again and if that means simplifying its powers so be it rather than further integration. If it works as, fair enough, leave it. I'll be happy with that. So I don't specifically want to go backwards. I simply do not want to take their path forward and I've been told we can't stand still. Therefore I'm only left with 1 option.

I still would be keen on a two tier system but can't understand why we would be expected to adopt rules in areas we're not involved in. They would very much be STILL under our own jurisdiction. I dunno how the Norway situation works but I'd rather be completely out than have people make laws outside of their jurisdiction for us, which is ridiculous. Before you quote me that's not to say I'm demanding we leave the E.U Ok?
But the options I've been shown so far are: leave, accept further integration whether I like it or not or stay where we are but not really stay where we are as somehow we'll still have to accept E.U law in new areas even though we rejected it (and therefore are becoming more integrated anyway!).... Given those choices I'd take out as with any ultimatum.

As for the euro skeptic thing, as I said I don't WANT us to go backwards though I'd prefer it to Lisbon. On the being "open to further integration" issue again where does that stop? Extremely hypothetical as it is again I put the horrorfying(sp?) idea (to me atleast) of a European super state. Say we've been "open to further integration" right to the point where this is the next step. Am I still a Euro skeptic at that point for not being open to further integration?

Whats the ground between not wanting to be in the E.U and wanting the E.U to be a state of it's own (final integration)? If it's Euro-Skeptic, fine, I'll get my badge and membership for the next meeting

You've raised a lot of interesting points. I'll try to address them as best I can. On the issue of the EU not working effectively I would agree in a different way as I'm not sure what you think is broken, this is what I think is broken.

Foreign policy is muddled, there are too many positions without clear lines of jurisdiction between them. You have the 'President of the Commission', 'President of the European Council', 'Commissioner for Enlargement', 'Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid' and the 'Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy' all acting in a foreign relations capacity. It's confusing to outside observers. For instance if a candidate country in the Balkans is trying to restructure it's police force and requires EU help who would they contact? Theoretically it would be in the jurisdiction of all 5 of these people when in reality one could effectively handle it better. Who gets to handle it then?

The Lisbon treaty would have discarded two of these positions and amalgamated the foreign relations commitments of the other two into the final position. That seems like a reasonable way to sort out the problem. The only other way is to get rid of the foreign relations capacity of EU. In that case the EU would no longer be a force for spreading democracy and rule of law. It is far too simple to say it's not working because of too much integration and we should back peddle, when in fact it's not working because there is not enough centralisation.


I think we all agree that if we left the EU we would still want access to the common market, yes? The EU frames and passes all legislation for the common market. Everyone who wants to remain part of the common market has to adopt this legislation. The legislative areas of the EU need reform as they were designed for 15 members not 27. The Lisbon treaty would have reformed these areas by capping the parliament at 750 members and giving it more power and restructuring the voting system in the council. Ireland would not have lost a relatively significant amount of power in either legislator.

The only other option to solve the issues of the legislators besides reforming them is to abandon them as you suggest. By leaving the EU and joining EFTA we are simply leaving the tables where the legislation is made while still having to adopt it all. Not exactly an increase in sovereignty. The only other option is to leave the common market and sacrifice our entire economy which is reliant upon it. So in this instance it's either move forward with reform, do nothing (with a less than functioning legislator), leave the EU and just have a fax democracy or leave the common market and sacrifice our economy. On reflection which of those options do you think is best?

Other areas such as 'justice and policing' and 'security and defence' it would be easier to go it alone than the common market. There are many benefits to remain part of these areas but it would not be disastrous if we left. For instance the recent cross border coordinated gun and drug seizures here in NI and the Netherlands were largely facilitated by the 'justice and policing' structures of the EU. If we left we still could have bi-lateral agreements between us and the 26 other states individually but that would over complicate things and make it easier for criminals to hide.

There was a good article in today's Irish times about how opting out of the EU security policy could harm the Defence Forces and Ireland's foreign influence.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0909/1220629652922.html

There are issues in these areas that can be fixed either through further integration or abandoning them altogether. The Lisbon treaty would go along way towards fixing the issues through further but not significant integration.

i-bloodhound wrote: »

You could stop bullying users and see how that goes also?

Scofflaw is far from a bully. In fact I would deam him to be one of the most reasonable and informed here, so much so that between himself and sink they played a large role in my change from No to Yes before the referendum. This was purely down to the fact that they conversed and discussed in a logical and decent format providing sources for their positions etc.

ShooterSF wrote: »

...rather than further integration..

Can I ask Shooter, in the interests of promoting relevant and reasonable debate, what exactly you mean by "further integration"? Additionally why do (or indeed do you) believe that the EU should be led by the wishes of 850k (approx) Irish people? Based on our result should that miniscule number of people (by comparison to the total population of the EU) really have the power to fundamentally alter the course of the EU?

utick wrote: »

so if someone doesnt want to continuously give more powers to the eu that makes them an eu skeptic.

well seeing as iam not a yes man, i guess that makes me a proud eu skeptic then

Eh that's not what was said at all. If someone doesn't want the EU to move forward from this point, but would in fact rather see it regress then they are Euro-skeptic. You can't take the first half of that definition and classify it as the full thing.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I appreciate that vote of confidence! I could certainly see where i-bloodhound was coming from in respect of the occasional tag-team effect, but it's absolutely not deliberate.

appreciatively,
Scofflaw

Multiple replies ffrom different people on a topic is to be expected on a bulletin board though and would only constitute bullying if the person in question was very, VERY sensitive! Many No voters have replied in similar manners, i.e. one after the other. For example aurellio and djbarry are regular contributors and have often posted one after the other to a single post. If what you guys do is bullying then so is that, but it isn't.

turgon wrote: »

You deliberately make it sound like all the other EU citizens actually voted on this, which they didn't. When every EU citizen gets to vote, and the Irish spoil the pot by being the only state against the grain, then you can go on about us putting a spanner in the works. Until then your skating on thin ice.

Since we're standing on the point of legality that passing an EU treaty requires state-by-state unanimity, it seems extremely cheeky to simultaneously decry the point of legality that other member states ratify according to their own constitutions. Having our cake and eating it, much?

amused,
Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Exactly. That is why, if you read my post again, I did not decry any legality. I simply stated that molloyjh's post gave the impression that the Irish referendum was only one of a number of others (that indecently had said YES), thus apparently the Irish people were blocking the intentions of the other European people ('the EU'). This is not the case - the intentions of the other European citizen's are not known; who knows what these people want?

Which is a fair point...but...

turgon wrote: »

And before anyone says something about their parliaments voting YES; the very presence of an Irish NO vote in the face of an overwhelming Irish parliamentary YES shows that there is a divergence between people and reps.

...this, on the other hand, is sliding rapidly back towards the "have the cake and eat it" position. Their governments voted Yes, and that's the way they ratify things. If the various peoples of Europe aren't happy with their systems, they could, and should, have changed them themselves.* If they are happy with them, then how they might have voted in a referendum they didn't have is irrelevant, and that they didn't have referendums is their choice.

* In saying that, I am not saying that referendums on the Treaty would not have been popular. I am saying that, even while popular, they do not seem to have been important enough to produce any serious public pressure. While there were pressure groups calling for referendums - which should have served as the nuclei and focal points for such public pressure - their support seems to have been measured only in handfuls, despite the polls that showed people would like a referendum if that were an option. Sometimes it is necessary to distinguish between the will of the people and the whim of the people - the latter being stuff they say they'd like but can't actually be arsed doing anything about.

turgon wrote: »

Well all Im saying is that this "minuscule" amount of people were the only ones to express their view on it. At the end of the day, imo, the EU is a state of citizens, not a state of states. These Irish citizens who voted NO dont seem to have blocked any European citizens who voted YES, simply because there were no such votes.

Once again the cake problem. The EU is not a state of anything, but a union - and it is undoubtedly, and explicitly, a union of states, not citizens. Otherwise, we would have had a single EU-wide referendum on the Treaty, or the Treaty would have required only majority ratification by QMV rules. Neither of these things is the case - the Irish No prevents the entry into force of the Treaty because the EU is a union of states, and any state can block the Treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw