No to a Eurostate

New_Departure06

I regret having voted for the Nice Treaty. I also note that there is nothing in the 1916 Proclamation on a Federal Europe.

I support the Euro and the EU, but we will have no real independence left if we go further with EU integration. The men and women of 1916 would be shocked at us giving up independence that countless have died to achieve for our nation.

What is your view? Should EU integration stop? Why can't we stay with what we have now? Holland, Denmark, France, and Sweden were not thrown out of the EU for their No's to the EU Constitution or the Euro. I bitterly regret calling for a Yes vote on the radio after the first No vote. I will ne'er again be fooled.

oscarBravo

New_Departure06 wrote:

I also note that there is nothing in the 1916 Proclamation on a Federal Europe.

There's nothing in the US constitution about invading Iraq, but there ya go.

New_Departure wrote:

I support the Euro and the EU, but we will have no real independence left if we go further with EU integration.

Independence from what? For what?

New_Departure06 wrote:

The men and women of 1916 would be shocked at us giving up independence that countless have died to achieve for our nation.

I'm curious about this argument. Let's project into a hypothetical future, 500 years from now. Every country in the world has merged into one (broadly peaceful and prosperous) superstate.

Would you still be fighting to remain independent, crying "remember '16!"?

New_Departure06 wrote:

Should EU integration stop?

I don't see why.

New_Departure06 wrote:

Why can't we stay with what we have now?

Change is the only constant.

zuma

New_Departure06,

If it were not for the EU then Im pretty sure Europe would have collapsed into another major war!
The closer we tie ourselves together then the better for all.....remember its original idea was to tie the coal/steel industries of France & Germany tighly together so that they could not be used as a means of aggression!

1916....what????.....In 1916 Europe was in the middle of the "Great War" and the idea of an EU was as distant as the idea of man walking on the moon!

C_Breeze

I say YES to a united europe! ....except for the french ...they smell like cat food
......damn frenchies

BuffyBot

The men and women of 1916 would be shocked at us giving up independence that countless have died to achieve for our nation.

For dead people, they seem to get pulled out to support this and that.

Unless you've travelled back in time, or brough them forward, you really don't know what they would think about it. Indeed, given that the EU is generally "socialist" in nature, some of the might even think it's a great thing - but that's just speculation mind you..

New_Departure06

Independence from what? For what?

Do we want a re-run of the 700 years? Why should we risky subjecting ourselves to that again? For what? We have bitter experience of why we need to protect our independence.

I'm curious about this argument. Let's project into a hypothetical future, 500 years from now. Every country in the world has merged into one (broadly peaceful and prosperous) superstate.

No I am totally opposed to this idea. It would only benefit the fatcats and the rich. We are not just markets. We are nations too. The nation state has proven itself as the primary focus of allegiance for the peoples of Europe. 98% of Germans polled opposed the EU Constitution according to reports in the media from last year.

European integration is about taking power from the local level and sending it to Brussels. It makes the power-elites even more remote from the people and indifferent from their concerns. In the UK, Ireland was represented in the House of Commons by 106 seats out of around 600. We were unable to get the British govt to listen and help us during the Famine. So why do some people seem to think having a pathetic 13 seats in a European Parliament of 737 MEP's would do any better? We are a tiny voice there.

The European Commission is unelected and chosen - without any reference to the peoples of Europe - by elected govts. They do not have to consult with the plebs to decide who the Commissioners should be. The Commission has the sole power to propose EU laws. Once they do so, in the majority of policy areas the said law can be forced on Ireland against her will by a vote of the French, Germans etc. under QMV and then only the European Parliament - where we are a puny minority - can block it.

Now the EU Tax Commissioner Lazlo Kovacz is demanding a common EU corporation-tax base. The needs of Irish people were ill-served by a parliament at Westminster, so how can you be so sure they will ultimately be well-served by a Parliament and Commission and Council of Ministers in Brussels?

New_Departure06,

If it were not for the EU then Im pretty sure Europe would have collapsed into another major war!
The closer we tie ourselves together then the better for all.....remember its original idea was to tie the coal/steel industries of France & Germany tighly together so that they could not be used as a means of aggression!

I am not opposed to the EU. I support membership but oppose taking integration any further. I regret voting for Nice last time. I will not be fooled again. Economically we do indeed need market access to the EU, but I cannot understand why giving up all our independence should be part of that. We need to separate the need for market-access from the question of political-union. I want a Europe of nation states - not a European superstate run by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels issuing dictats and directives. What would be the point in holding General Elections in Ireland if the politician could no longer do anything?

The reprimand to Charlie McCreevy in 2001 illustrates the greeneyed monster is alive and well in Brussels.

seamus

Independence means different things for different people.

Personally, I define independence as a state's ability to provide freedom for all of its people.

As far as I'm concerned, the EU already pretty much is a superstate, and that's not a problem. Somebody making decisions about our economic policy from Brussels isn't a loss of freedom to me. All you really have to do it look at the US. Texans are still Texans. New Yorkers are still New Yorkers. So no matter what happens in Europe over the next few hundred years, Irish will always be Irish, and we'll be as well treated as everyone else.

Think about how ridiculous it is that some people are actually seriously interested in Cork becoming a People's Republic. Why is it so ridiculous? Now, what's the difference between Cork being ruled by Dublin and Ireland being ruled by Brussels? None. Zilch as far as I'm concerned.

robindch

> We have bitter experience of why we need to protect our independence.

As somebody said above, independence from what? Most of our economy is based upon Europe -- what is it? 40% with the UK, another 35% with other European countries or something like that. And you'd like to remove us from a position of political influence over how 75%-or-so of our economy is dealt with?

> The Commission has the sole power to propose EU laws.

Yes, it's called "separation of powers" or the "balancing of powers" and it's one of the guiding principles in the design of democratic institutions. As all of this quite subtle, I suggest you read up on how resilient democracies are designed, and then come back and adjust your opinions. Alexis de Tocqueville's excellent Democracy in America is a good place to start.

New_Departure06

(Deleting this because of an accidental double post)

New_Departure06

robindch wrote:

As somebody said above, independence from what? Most of our economy is based upon Europe -- what is it? 40% with the UK, another 35% with other European countries or something like that. And you'd like to remove us from a position of political influence over how 75%-or-so of our economy is dealt with?

The %'s you talk about relate to the proportion of our exports going to various countries. This is already happening and we do not need to give up control over taxation or anything else to maintain this - indeed arguably your admission as to how much trade is with other EU countries backs up what I am saying. We already have these markets. So why not leave things as they are? Why do we need to give up more control, as in the EU Constitution? I am not proposing removing us from market access and the EU or even the Euro. I am asking that we leave things as they are regarding the balance of power between the EU institutions and national ones. What is wrong with that? We still have control over taxation. Why should we lose that? Remember that 51% of our exports are by multinationals, attracted here by our low corporation-tax rates. Other EU countries have historically pressed us to harmonise corporate-tax rates, accusing us of "poaching" investment from them. If we give up control of taxation, then multinationals will leave and unemployment will rocket.

Yes, it's called "separation of powers" or the "balancing of powers" and it's one of the guiding principles in the design of democratic institutions. As all of this quite subtle, I suggest you read up on how resilient democracies are designed, and then come back and adjust your opinions. Alexis de Tocqueville's excellent Democracy in America is a good place to start.

We have seen democracy in America at Florida in 2000. Even in the US, at least the people have some input into choosing the President, unlike the European electorate.

zuma

New_Departure06 ,

I have heard a lot of your arguments from the British Conservative party....you a member ?

Honestly though, from reading some of your previous posts in other threads its not difficult to see that you are a very nationalistic person and nothing said in this thread will change your mind and its whole purpose was to find those who agree with your views and debunk/ignore those that challenge it.
700 years of opression/1916....etc have nothing to do with what the EU is becoming.....a Federation!!!

Federalism has worked rather well is Spain/Germany/Canada/US....and I dont see them complaining much?
Why you ask....well you view Europe moving in a direction of centralised government like here in Ireland...I see it moving in the firection of a Federation with a weak Federal government with charge over external matters such as trade/military but leaving much of the day to day work up to each statesnational governments.

As I said earlier....no one here is going to change your mind and the idea behind this thread was to source out more like minded individuals anyway.

Dirk Gently

Sorry, have to jump in there on the remark about Europe being socialist.
While most of the parties are members of the Socialist political group in the E.U. they are not exactly socialist in the true sense of the word and really just pay lip service to socialism. Would you call Tony Blair a socialist even though his labour party are members of the socialist group? Even our own Bertie stood up in the Dail and declared himself a socialist. In my opinion you can't be socialist if you don't want to do away with the capitalist system.

I don't agree with bringing up the "what would the men of 1916 think" argument. 1916 was 90 years ago and you have no idea what they would be advocating. Speaking of socialists James Connolly was one of those men and he was very much an internationalist. The problem is not about integration and closer ties, it’s about the type of integration. If the policies are wrong then closer integration is bad but if the policies are right then closer integration can be a good thing. I don’t mind being part of a greater Europe as long as it’s based on equality, freedom, democracy and human rights. I would like to see much more emphasis put on these issues. I have issues with the present E.U. not least how business is done and the lack of transparency, but given the right conditions, in theory am not worried about any surrendering of power. As was pointed out Ireland will always be Ireland, just because we co operate with other nations won’t take away from that as long as it’s done democratically with the support of the people.
I think in Ireland we are guilty or else the government and media is guilty of not informing people on what the E.U. actually is. Whether it is people not giving a **** and not bothering to inform themselves or whether it is a lack of information from the government and media, either way, most Irish people know less about the E.U. than our European neighbors. On mainland Europe, European elections are taken very seriously by people but over here they are seen as not very relevant by Irish voters. We should learn more about what it’s all about and how we can influence Europe rather than following an isolationist path.

BuffyBot

Note I said "socialist", not socialist

Dirk Gently

Ahhh "understood” I didn’t register the inverted commas when I originally read your post.
Apologies.

sceptre

New_Departure06 wrote:

I also note that there is nothing in the 1916 Proclamation on a Federal Europe.

One could argue that it might have been in the first draft but they left it out due to deciding a few things would have to be dropped so they could finish the speech before the nasty men with guns arrived.

Seriously though and I'm not being condescending, you could find a better foundation to build the anti-federalist argument upon. Probably almost anything else to be honest. Mind you, given that the discussion appears to have moved beyond this, I'd propose ignoring the crap foundation in favour of discussing the other possible issues that have been introduced.

New_Departure06

New_Departure06 ,

I have heard a lot of your arguments from the British Conservative party....you a member ?

Nope. I disagree with them on the Euro - I favour it. I also disagree with the idea of renegotiating EU membership. I just don't understand the need to give up any more control from national government and the Dail.

You only have to look at football teams to see where the real emotional loyalty of most Europeans lies. Noone is crying out for a European soccer team. The primary focus of loyalty lies in the nation state.

I think in Ireland we are guilty or else the government and media is guilty of not informing people on what the E.U. actually is. Whether it is people not giving a **** and not bothering to inform themselves or whether it is a lack of information from the government and media, either way, most Irish people know less about the E.U. than our European neighbors. On mainland Europe, European elections are taken very seriously by people but over here they are seen as not very relevant by Irish voters. We should learn more about what it’s all about and how we can influence Europe rather than following an isolationist path.

RTE has brought in a program called European Parliament Report which shows the workings of the European Parliament. I agree there historically was a lack of focus on the workings of the EU in RTE and by politicians beyond the "vote Yes or we lose our subsidies" argument. That begs the question - what were the politicians hiding from us?

The European Constitution is potentially worse than the Act of Union in the long term.

We have different ideas from other European countries on an economic and social-model. We do not need France and Germany's 10-12% unemployment. There exists an obsession in mainland Europe - demonstrated most vividly in the French demonstrations recently - with a failed social and economic model that has given these countris 10% unemployment. We are constantly being nagged by other EU govts to agree to harmonise corporate tax rates. So there is a legitimate question as to whether a common EU taxation policy is to our benefit. This is where a federal Europe would lead - look at the US.

Speaking of socialists James Connolly was one of those men and he was very much an internationalist.

Internationalist does not necessarily mean agreeing to a United States of Europe. Comparing Ireland to Texas or New York in the US is not comparing like with like. They don't have the long history as a separate culture that Ireland had.

oscarBravo

New_Departure06 wrote:

Do we want a re-run of the 700 years?

I don't want a re-run of the last year, never mind the last 700. The past isn't the future, unless you live there.

New_Departure06 wrote:

No I am totally opposed to this idea. It would only benefit the fatcats and the rich. We are not just markets.

Um. You're opposed to peace and prosperity?

New_Departure06 wrote:

European integration is about taking power from the local level and sending it to Brussels.

Nation-states are about taking power from the provincial level and sending it to capital cities. County councils are about taking power from residents' associations and sending it to Áras an Chontae.

I wasn't around before Ireland joined the EU, but from all I've heard we're better off now. Forgive me if I want that trend to continue.

New_Departure06 wrote:

Economically we do indeed need market access to the EU, but I cannot understand why giving up all our independence should be part of that. We need to separate the need for market-access from the question of political-union.

Two things: (a) you want the benefits of EU membership, but none of the perceived downsides, and (b) you've yet to make it clear to me exactly what it is you want to be independent of.

oscarBravo

New_Departure06 wrote:

Noone is crying out for a European soccer team.

And yet, there will be substantial support for a European golf team in Straffan very soon...

Dirk Gently

New_Departure06 wrote:

Internationalist does not necessarily mean agreeing to a United States of Europe. Comparing Ireland to Texas or New York in the US is not comparing like with like. They don't have the long history as a separate culture that Ireland had.

I agree but the point im making that he was not an isolationist. I doubt Connolly would be in favour of the E.U. we have today but in theory, a Europe that works well and champions the rights of workers is welcome. This is not what we have today but id be more inclined to influence and change the E.U. model than simply giving up and retreating within our own narrow boarders.

I don't agree with seeking the approval of the 1916 leaders anyway. They lived in different times and were by no means united politically except for the fact that they wanted an end to British rule. They ranged from rightwing Catholics to leftwing socialists. Connolly was kidnapped by other leaders before the Easter rising in an effort to convince him and his citizen’s army to join the nationalists because Connolly was prepared to go it alone with an uprising using the citizen’s army. He was more concerned with ending explotation rather than an having Irish government exploit the people in the same way as a British government.

What would the 1916 leaders think about genetic engineering / Gm crops / the scandals in the modern church / nuclear power / international security and so on? We have to analyse our own situation ourselves because we are the ones living in this time.

New_Departure06

Two things: (a) you want the benefits of EU membership, but none of the perceived downsides, and (b) you've yet to make it clear to me exactly what it is you want to be independent of.

(a) We have already made huge sacrifices. The vast majority of the vetoes are gone at the Council of Ministers. Sovereignty is priceless. All that glistens is not gold.

(b) I want us to remain as independent from other countries as we are now in terms of the ability to make decisions at national level. Integration has gone far enough. I like the EU but like Ireland more. Ireland's interests will always come first with me - not Germany or France's.

To paraphrase the Irish Citizen Army, "I serve neither Brussels or Berlin - but Ireland".

Dirk Gently

But what kind of Ireland do you serve.

Are you happy for our government to make decisions you don't agree with just because you have an Irishman shafting you?
In reality we have democracy for one day in every four or five years when election time comes around again. In the mean time Irish politicians are making decisions which affect you and there’s nothing you can do about it.
At least in Europe there is a history of protest and the people generally make their feelings known when governments act against their wishes. Here in Ireland we tend to accept everything that gets thrown at us and just moan about it in the pub.
Sovereignty to me is about the government of the day implementing the will of the people. If we withdrew from Europe the Irish government would still go about their own business and not pay much attention to the concerns of the Irish people, except to pay lip service to our concerns in the run up to the one day of Democracy. Untill we have ordinary people actively involved in decision making at a local and national level we will never be sovereign and democratic. We will just have the illusion of Democracy with IBEC and the World Bank calling the shots.

New_Departure06

It is hard enough getting public-opinion through to politicians here on various problems without having to win around French, German, Italian, British and other govts.

bonkey

New_Departure06 wrote:

You only have to look at football teams to see where the real emotional loyalty of most Europeans lies.

By this logic, we should reunite ourselves into Great Britain, given our proclivity for supporting English and/or Scottish football teams far in excess of the support we give to our own.

Clearly, our emotional loyalty is thus to a United British Isles.

Up the UBI!!!!

jc

New_Departure06

bonkey wrote:

By this logic, we should reunite ourselves into Great Britain, given our proclivity for supporting English and/or Scottish football teams far in excess of the support we give to our own.

Clearly, our emotional loyalty is thus to a United British Isles.

Up the UBI!!!!

jc

That's different because they are not national teams and because many Irish players are in those teams. It is the Irish players they are cheering for imho.

bonkey

New_Departure06 wrote:

That's different because they are not national teams

Really? You have noticed there is no British soccer team? What does this comment on the unification of Great Britain as it currently stands?

Or how about the Northern Irish rugby (also a form of football, no?) team? When's the last time you saw that?

and because many Irish players are in those teams.

If you only consider Celtic, Man. Utd. and Liverpool, sure.

It is the Irish players they are cheering for imho.

I think your "ho" is wrong. People didn't just start supporting Chelsea when Duff signed on board. They didn't stop supporting teams who had few/no Irish players when Liverpool had practically half the Irish squad back in Charlton era.

Football teams, or sporting teams in general, are simply a ridiculous yardstick by which to gauge something like the want for unification. You may be able to find handy correlations, but they're "meaningful" only as long as you then blithely dismiss all the non-correlating and correlation-contradictive points.

oscarBravo

New_Departure06 wrote:

Ireland's interests will always come first with me - not Germany or France's.

Isn't that precisely the same phenomenon we castigate as "parish pump politics" when it happens on a smaller scale?

My point is that a nation-state is a very arbitrary place to draw the line around what you consider a collection of people whose interests concern you.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

The men and women of 1916 would be shocked at us giving up independence that countless have died to achieve for our nation.

Oh, I don’t know, they were pretty cosy with Berlin at the time so I don’t think they were too Eurosceptic.

We have seen democracy in America at Florida in 2000. Even in the US, at least the people have some input into choosing the President, unlike the European electorate.

I’ve never really understood the logic behind Eurosceptics when they trot the old “Europe is undemocratic” argument, because the lack of democracy at the centre of Europe is a direct result of the fact that to introduce real democracy it would erode in power of the national member governments.

So, if we were to turn around and give real legislative and political power to the European Parliament (which, just in case you’re not paying attention, is a democratically elected body), you and your ilk would most likely jump up and down about souvernty, even though you would have achieved the very democracy in the EU you’re complaining about now.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

New_Departure06 wrote:

That's different because they are not national teams and because many Irish players are in those teams. It is the Irish players they are cheering for imho.

Bo77cks!

I am a LIVERPOOL fan irrespective of how many Irish players they have (one)
My friends are MANCHESTER UNITED fans, irrespoective of how many Irish players they have (two, one of whom hardly ever plays) ARSENAL fans, irrespective of how many Irish players they hae (zero). The Chelsea fans don't count because they're bandwagon hoppers.

I don't give a **** about who's Irish and who's not. It's FOOTBALL. NOT POLITICS

New_Departure06

I’ve never really understood the logic behind Eurosceptics when they trot the old “Europe is undemocratic” argument, because the lack of democracy at the centre of Europe is a direct result of the fact that to introduce real democracy it would erode in power of the national member governments.

The context is one where the "demos" is considered the nation rather than the peoples of Europe being one entity. The demos is losing power to bring certain policies to fruition by voting in their home countries. That is my criticism. To a certain degree in the past, membership of a trading bloc may have justified some of this in the past e.g. agriculture, but it should not encroach any further. Otherwise Dail Eireann will be a rubber stamp like the National Peoples Congress in Beijing.

So, if we were to turn around and give real legislative and political power to the European Parliament (which, just in case you’re not paying attention, is a democratically elected body), you and your ilk would most likely jump up and down about souvernty, even though you would have achieved the very democracy in the EU you’re complaining about now.

I am not opposed to the EU, but am critical of aspects of it. I am open to listening to proposals on reform of the parliament. I have no objection to strengthening the range of policy areas where EU-wide laws can be vetod by it. What I am opposed to is sneaking in other measures on the back of it, like the loss of vetoes, the vague Charter of Fundamental Rights (part of the EU Constitution) which the ECJ could interpret in an unpredictable way due to the sensibilities of the countries of origin of most of its judges, andthe loss of control of health and education. What is the point of us voting for the Dail if it ends up with no power?

Far Corfe

Europe was the most united its ever been in the summer of 1942. United Europe was a Nazi invention, still is. We have tied ourselves to a corpse.

oscarBravo

Far Corfe wrote:

Europe was the most united its ever been in the summer of 1942. United Europe was a Nazi invention, still is.

I call bullshit. My definition of union doesn't include a further three years of bloody and horrific war to undo the "unification" of the previous three. Europe is the most united it's ever been right now, and there's no fascism (or any other form of totalitarianism) in sight.

Far Corfe wrote:

We have tied ourselves to a corpse.

I don't know what that means. It's the type of reply that just bugs the crap out of me. It's thrown out there as if it's some sort of profound statement of fact, when it's nothing more than an enigmatic statement of unsupported opinion.