No to a Eurostate

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

If we give up more vetoes we will increasingly have more EU laws foisted upon us that may not suit the needs of this country. That is coercion, not cooperation.

No, it’s compromise. Even were there no EU we would still be forced to negotiate with other States and we would be forced to accept conditions that would not suit the needs of this country.

Also should Kerry break away simply because Dublin may foist upon it laws that may not suit it’s needs? No, it would undoubtedly use it’s representative and lobbing power to reverse, amend such laws or - knowing Kerry men - get something in return. Of course, this is the kernel of the debate on the EU, the reason why I can make such a comparison and to you the same is an alien concept. It ultimately is not a question of economics or political power to Eurosceptics but nationalism.

As such it’s ultimately pretty difficult to argue with you (I and others have repeatedly rebutted your economic and political arguments here), as you’ll ultimately retreat to a little islander position, regardless of global realities.

Gurgle

New_Departure06 wrote:

Leave things as they are, or return some of the vetoes to the State.

You're vagueing it all up again.
What vetoes have we lost?

New_Departure06

The Corinthian wrote:

No, it’s compromise. Even were there no EU we would still be forced to negotiate with other States and we would be forced to accept conditions that would not suit the needs of this country.

Also should Kerry break away simply because Dublin may foist upon it laws that may not suit it’s needs? No, it would undoubtedly use it’s representative and lobbing power to reverse, amend such laws or - knowing Kerry men - get something in return. Of course, this is the kernel of the debate on the EU, the reason why I can make such a comparison and to you the same is an alien concept. It ultimately is not a question of economics or political power to Eurosceptics but nationalism.

As such it’s ultimately pretty difficult to argue with you (I and others have repeatedly rebutted your economic and political arguments here), as you’ll ultimately retreat to a little islander position, regardless of global realities.

The comparison with Kerry is ludicrous. Kerry is part of the Irish homeland. Brussels isn't. We are not part of the same nation as Brussels. There is no such thing as a European nation. There are 25 nations in the EU.

And yes, I admit I am a nationalist. I offer no apology for this and I never will. It is a perfectly legitimate ideology in its mainstream form.

I don't want to have to seek "compromise" with other EU countries to set our education or taxation policy. Why should we? What business is it of theirs?

What vetoes have we lost?

Around 90% of national vetoes have been given up. Instead of unanimity, these issues are voted on at the Council of Ministers by Qualified Majority Voting, requiring a weighted majority of 62% of the weighted vote and a majority of the states. Issues affected by this include agriculture, industrial policy, internal market, social-welfare, social-security etc. France is pushing for Justice and Home Affairs to join this list.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

The comparison with Kerry is ludicrous.

Which was why I said that such a comparison would be an alien concept to you.

Kerry is part of the Irish homeland. Brussels isn't. We are not part of the same nation as Brussels. There is no such thing as a European nation. There are 25 nations in the EU.

Brussels is part of the European homeland. There is no such thing as a European nation just as there was once no such thing as a Germany or an Italy - both were simply geographical terms that also denoted a vague ethnic and historical commonality, just as Europe is viewed today. Britain is even more of a construct, as is Spain (formed as a result of a royal marriage). As such a European Nation, in one form or another is probably only a matter of time.

In short the idea of a European nation is just as valid as any of these, just because you don’t like this idea does not change that fact.

And yes, I admit I am a nationalist. I offer no apology for this and I never will. It is a perfectly legitimate ideology in its mainstream form.

Then I suggest you stop trying to use economic and political arguments because I’ve observed you have a tendency to lose them. And anyway they’re not the real reason you oppose European integration anyhow. So you’re better off sticking to what you know.

I don't want to have to seek "compromise" with other EU countries to set our education or taxation policy. Why should we? What business is it of theirs?

Tough. It is the nature of Real Politik to seek compromise in international politics and being in or out of the EU makes very little difference to that. Unless you hadn’t noticed, your precious neutrality has been pretty heavily compromised in the last few years down in Shannon - with no input from the bogyman of a European army as you earlier suggested.

Around 90% of national vetoes have been given up.

I wasn’t going to bother with commenting on this, as I’d happily accept that vetoes have been given up and in some cases proposed to be given up, but seriously 90% - where did you pull that figure from? I genuinely want to know. Is it based on facts or do you actually make this up as you go along?

New_Departure06

Okay here is some information on the loss of vetoes and sources. In relation to the Nice Treaty:

http://www.forumoneurope.ie/index.asp?locID=210&docID=520

Q. Will we lose our veto on key EU decisions?

A. Some decisions of the Council of Ministers must be unanimous; others may be taken by Qualified Majority Voting (QMV). At present, 62 weighted votes out of a total 87 are required for a proposal to be carried. If Nice is ratified, this will become a total of 237 votes, with 169 required as a "qualified majority". In an EU of 27 member states, 255 weighted votes would be required out of 345. Nice proposes to extend QMV to 30 new areas of decision-making, such as the appointment of members of the Commission. But there are some areas where unanimity will still be required, e.g., taxation and the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

Another 20 vetoes are given up under the EU Constitution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_Majority_Voting

Here are the voting weights under the QMV voting system:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1215000/images/_1218494_eu_power3_300map.gif

111 vetoes were scrapped under the Maastricht treaty and 12 under the Amsterdam Treaty. http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacentre/index.live?article=107

We will have hardly any left if this continues.

I recall reading about around 90% of our votes being gone a few years back in a newspaper discussing the Nice Treaty referendum.

Our needs will not always be compatible with those of other countries. We could have nuclear power forced on us if we get a Eurostate. No No No!

The Corinthian

Thank you for the list of lost vetoes which is not what I asked you about. However, at the end you finally answered my question:

New_Departure06 wrote:

I recall reading about around 90% of our votes being gone a few years back in a newspaper discussing the Nice Treaty referendum.

In other words yes, you do make this up as you go along.

Our needs will not always be compatible with those of other countries. We could have nuclear power forced on us if we get a Eurostate. No No No!

On what basis are you coming up with this? Again, are you simply making this up as you go along?

democrates

New_Departure06 wrote:

And yes, I admit I am a nationalist. I offer no apology for this and I never will. It is a perfectly legitimate ideology in its mainstream form.

I don't want to have to seek "compromise" with other EU countries to set our education or taxation policy. Why should we? What business is it of theirs?

I don't think anyone has attacked national identity or suggested it be given up, rather, to put it into perspective. There's nothing wrong with pride in ones country if it's about being comfortable in your skin and enjoying the traditions and culture of your ancestors, few people want to see a homogenous global culture replace our rich diversity. It's also one level at which we pool our individual sovereignty in common interest.

But national identity is not the be all and end all, it's an arbitrary level of aggregation. We have identities from me, my family, neighbourhood, townland, county, region, nation, continent, and planet. Also sex, age, height, weight, hair colour, eye colour, taste, talents, recreational pursuits, religion, life experience and so on. Even with all these differences, we each have much in common with the rest of humanity, we all want to survive in health and hapiness.

If national pride becomes a view that we are better than them as the germans did, beware. Scratch such a nationalist and see a fascist. Celebrate diversity by all means but avoid differencism. Without accusing you of that, I note you refer to other nations as imperialists. Is that 100% of the people 100% of the time, or is reality more complex?
I guess that's really anger at what you see as outside interference. Your view reminds me of what President Mitterand once said "The French don't like anything imposed". But that fails to address the issue that globalised markets are imposed without mercy.

I don't see nationalism as an ideology. Nation-states evolved when tribal chiefs decided they weren't just in charge of the 'x' people, but all people on 'y' patch of land. The greater stability of permanent settlements allowed civilisation to develop. But let's not imbue arbitrary lines on maps with any magical significance. I don't like borders that restrict my freedom. But I understand their practical necessity until we have global socio-economic cohesion.

Since you have no issue with co-operation you must concede that in negotiating relationships there needs to be compromise on some things. You have red line issues, and grievances about the current eu setup, fair enough, absolutely legitimate and I share some of them. But that doesn't translate into no further co-operation, particularly when the wider life and death issues facing humanity require it. I take it you're in favour of solving the worlds problems through greater co-operation?

You're not alone in your views, and I think that's down to national governments and media failing to engage people on the eu, the eu failing to be sufficiently transparent and accountable, the eu taking an eu perspective instead of global and simply playing competition at a larger level, leading people to identify the eu with the asymmetric globalisation problem.

We must grasp the importance of greater co-operation, and work out how best to proceed. Yes the eu has problems, but the answer is to fix them. Unless we do we will continue to wage economic war ever more fiercely, divided and conquered masses of corporate battery hens. Why go down such a bad road.

Calina

New_Departure06 wrote:

Our needs will not always be compatible with those of other countries. We could have nuclear power forced on us if we get a Eurostate. No No No!

Yeah, well we had equality legislation regarding pay and conditions for women forced on us by Europe. And we have had certain environmental considerations forced on us by Europe, such as water quality standards, for example. Oh and they ploughed billions into our economy to help us drag ourselves out of the stone age into something approaching modernity. I don't agree with everything that comes out of Brussels but on balance, I believe we're better off now than we would be if we tried to go it alone.

Regarding nuclear power - we're looking at putting ourselves in a position to buy electricity from the UK via an interconnector. Do you seriously think none of that will be generated by some one of their nuclear power plants, or will it just not matter because it's over there?

New_Departure06

Calina wrote:

Yeah, well we had equality legislation regarding pay and conditions for women forced on us by Europe. And we have had certain environmental considerations forced on us by Europe, such as water quality standards, for example. Oh and they ploughed billions into our economy to help us drag ourselves out of the stone age into something approaching modernity. I don't agree with everything that comes out of Brussels but on balance, I believe we're better off now than we would be if we tried to go it alone.

Past performance is no guarantee of future performance, as they say with shares. Just because we have benefited in the past does not mean we will continue to do so, and just because dealing with some issues collectively in the past was to our benefit, does not mean this is applicable to all policy areas. I think we've pretty much come to the limits of the erosion of the veto. Leave things as they are. This permanent revolution of the EU institutions is making people across Europe deeply suspicious of where it's all leading. If the powers than be want a Eurostate then let them come before their electorates and tell them that, and ask for a Yes or No, and see what answer they get...

Regarding nuclear power - we're looking at putting ourselves in a position to buy electricity from the UK via an interconnector. Do you seriously think none of that will be generated by some one of their nuclear power plants, or will it just not matter because it's over there?

The issue is that it shouldn't be over here. The prevailing wind between Britain and Ireland blows from the southwest and that would offer some protection in the event of a nuclear accident in Britain (provided the prevailing wind were blowing at the time). I see no reason - especially given that nearly all of Belarus is contaminated by Chernobyl fallout (and they are bigger than we are) - to build a plant here and would, like most Irish people, be infernally opposed to any attempt by bureaucrats in Brussels to impose nuclear plants on us.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

Past performance is no guarantee of future performance, as they say with shares.

No, but it is an indicator and neither does it imply negative performance. Less of the FUD more of the facts, please.

I think we've pretty much come to the limits of the erosion of the veto. Leave things as they are.

I think you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’ve repeatedly (for pages at this stage) come up with ‘evidence’ and arguments against, yet none of these have stood up to any scrutiny. Yet you keep on coming out with these unsupported conclusions.

This permanent revolution of the EU institutions is making people across Europe deeply suspicious of where it's all leading. If the powers than be want a Eurostate then let them come before their electorates and tell them that, and ask for a Yes or No, and see what answer they get...

That’s ridiculous. Even the most enthusiastic Europhile will tell you that the idea of such a ‘Eurostate’ and what form it may take is decades away. If and when we do get to that stage, I would however agree that if and when we eventually get to that stage it should be put to the people rather than the individual governments.

The issue is that it shouldn't be over here. The prevailing wind between Britain and Ireland blows from the southwest and that would offer some protection in the event of a nuclear accident in Britain (provided the prevailing wind were blowing at the time). I see no reason - especially given that nearly all of Belarus is contaminated by Chernobyl fallout (and they are bigger than we are) - to build a plant here and would, like most Irish people, be infernally opposed to any attempt by bureaucrats in Brussels to impose nuclear plants on us.

FFS, where are you getting this bizarre notion that Brussels could impose a nuclear plant on us? World you care to back any of your outrageous claims with more than hearsay?

New_Departure06

FFS, where are you getting this bizarre notion that Brussels could impose a nuclear plant on us? World you care to back any of your outrageous claims with more than hearsay?

The Nice Treaty surrendered the veto over industrial policy and that could be used to force it on us.

We need a more questioning debate on the EU in this country. For too long Yes has been the only acceptable answer to our rulers, as evidenced by how the kept asking us on Nice until we gave the 'right' answer.

Calina

I would have assumed that the question of nuclear generators would come under the question of energy policy, not industrial policy.

Anyway...what really intrigues me is where you came up with this fear that we could be forced to have nuclear energy? More likely are renewables like wind and tide given our location.

In response to your earlier point "the value of your investment blah blah", I have only this to day: we'd have been worse off without Europe than we are. Nothing - and I mean absolutely NOTHING - you have said suggests that there is going to be a sudden about-turn in this respect. To be honest, given where we would be without Europe in the past, I'd prefer to take my chance with Europe in the future than without. I get the impression you fear change.

Incidentally, I find it hypocritical to say it's alright to buy nuclear generated power and also say "but it's not alright for us to generate it". Making other people carry the risk for your benefit?

New_Departure06

Calina wrote:

I would have assumed that the question of nuclear generators would come under the question of energy policy, not industrial policy.

Anyway...what really intrigues me is where you came up with this fear that we could be forced to have nuclear energy? More likely are renewables like wind and tide given our location.

In response to your earlier point "the value of your investment blah blah", I have only this to day: we'd have been worse off without Europe than we are. Nothing - and I mean absolutely NOTHING - you have said suggests that there is going to be a sudden about-turn in this respect. To be honest, given where we would be without Europe in the past, I'd prefer to take my chance with Europe in the future than without. I get the impression you fear change.

Incidentally, I find it hypocritical to say it's alright to buy nuclear generated power and also say "but it's not alright for us to generate it". Making other people carry the risk for your benefit?

I agree that we have benefited from the EU, but I question the extent to which the EU is responsible for the current boom. I think it's part of the reason. But please not that for 20 years after joining the EU we had mass unemployment and hundreds of thousands were leaving the country. It was only when we brought in the low-corporation tax rate, more flexible labour laws etc. that unemployment started to fall and growth rates picked up. That would seem to indicate strongly that while the EU has helped, that it is by no means the sole reason for the Celtic Tiger. Indeed it may not be the main reason. If it were, then why do most EU states have rampant unemployment? Tell a Frenchman or a German how the EU is helping them get a job.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

The Nice Treaty surrendered the veto over industrial policy and that could be used to force it on us.

Rubbish. Nothing in the Nice Treaty can be used to force a member state to build a nuclear power plant on their soil against their wishes. What makes you think it can?

New_Departure06

The Corinthian wrote:

Rubbish. Nothing in the Nice Treaty can be used to force a member state to build a nuclear power plant on their soil against their wishes. What makes you think it can?

We were supposed to get a single market and we got VRT.

Stromecek

democrates wrote:

I don't think anyone has attacked national identity or suggested it be given up, rather, to put it into perspective. There's nothing wrong with pride in ones country if it's about being comfortable in your skin and enjoying the traditions and culture of your ancestors, few people want to see a homogenous global culture replace our rich diversity. It's also one level at which we pool our individual sovereignty in common interest.

But national identity is not the be all and end all, it's an arbitrary level of aggregation. We have identities from me, my family, neighbourhood, townland, county, region, nation, continent, and planet. Also sex, age, height, weight, hair colour, eye colour, taste, talents, recreational pursuits, religion, life experience and so on. Even with all these differences, we each have much in common with the rest of humanity, we all want to survive in health and hapiness.

If national pride becomes a view that we are better than them as the germans did, beware. Scratch such a nationalist and see a fascist. Celebrate diversity by all means but avoid differencism. Without accusing you of that, I note you refer to other nations as imperialists. Is that 100% of the people 100% of the time, or is reality more complex?
I guess that's really anger at what you see as outside interference. Your view reminds me of what President Mitterand once said "The French don't like anything imposed". But that fails to address the issue that globalised markets are imposed without mercy.

I don't see nationalism as an ideology. Nation-states evolved when tribal chiefs decided they weren't just in charge of the 'x' people, but all people on 'y' patch of land. The greater stability of permanent settlements allowed civilisation to develop. But let's not imbue arbitrary lines on maps with any magical significance. I don't like borders that restrict my freedom. But I understand their practical necessity until we have global socio-economic cohesion.

Since you have no issue with co-operation you must concede that in negotiating relationships there needs to be compromise on some things. You have red line issues, and grievances about the current eu setup, fair enough, absolutely legitimate and I share some of them. But that doesn't translate into no further co-operation, particularly when the wider life and death issues facing humanity require it. I take it you're in favour of solving the worlds problems through greater co-operation?

You're not alone in your views, and I think that's down to national governments and media failing to engage people on the eu, the eu failing to be sufficiently transparent and accountable, the eu taking an eu perspective instead of global and simply playing competition at a larger level, leading people to identify the eu with the asymmetric globalisation problem.

We must grasp the importance of greater co-operation, and work out how best to proceed. Yes the eu has problems, but the answer is to fix them. Unless we do we will continue to wage economic war ever more fiercely, divided and conquered masses of corporate battery hens. Why go down such a bad road.

Absolutely well said, couldn't have put it better, interesting though that it has been completely ignored

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

We were supposed to get a single market and we got VRT.

Stop trying to squirm out of the question by changing the subject - you made a claim that the EU would force us to put a nuclear power plant on our soil and when challenged to back this up you cited the Nice Treaty. How does the Nice Treaty enable this?

Either you can back up your claims or you're bluffing. Or are you just going to try and change the subject again?

Calina

New_Departure06 wrote:

We were supposed to get a single market and we got VRT.

And that implies that nuclear power stations can be imposed on Ireland how?

VRT was the Irish government's way around European legislation and you're blaming Brussels for this?

New_Departure06

The Corinthian wrote:

Stop trying to squirm out of the question by changing the subject - you made a claim that the EU would force us to put a nuclear power plant on our soil and when challenged to back this up you cited the Nice Treaty. How does the Nice Treaty enable this?

Either you can back up your claims or you're bluffing. Or are you just going to try and change the subject again?

Just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. The loss of the veto on industrial is something I fear could be used to force nuclear power on us.

Now I don't pretend to have a crystal ball but I think we are entitled to apply the precautionary principle with regard to future transfers of power from Dublin to Brussels. The men and women of 1916 would ask "what was it all for" if they could see the politicians tripping over themselves to hand over the sovereignty they died for to Brussels. I have no problem with cooperation between nations indeed I support it where it is in Ireland's interests. I will put Ireland's interests first though.

I oppose a Federal Europe. I believe abolishing more vetoes would bring that closer.

And that implies that nuclear power stations can be imposed on Ireland how?

VRT was the Irish government's way around European legislation and you're blaming Brussels for this?

But the point is that we were told we would get free trade and we got this. How can we believe what they tell us the next time, e.g. about the Constitution?

Calina

New_Departure06 wrote:

Just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. The loss of the veto on industrial is something I fear could be used to force nuclear power on us.

Now I don't pretend to have a crystal ball but I think we are entitled to apply the precautionary principle with regard to future transfers of power from Dublin to Brussels. The men and women of 1916 would ask "what was it all for" if they could see the politicians tripping over themselves to hand over the sovereignty they died for to Brussels. I have no problem with cooperation between nations indeed I support it where it is in Ireland's interests. I will put Ireland's interests first though.

I oppose a Federal Europe. I believe abolishing more vetoes would bring that closer.



But the point is that we were told we would get free trade and we got this. How can we believe what they tell us the next time, e.g. about the Constitution?

Firstly - the men from 1916 are dead and gone. What they would want, I am afraid, is of no relevance to conditions today. If you live your life by your signature then you will always be looking backwards. You say you put Ireland's interests first. All that you have convinced me is that you put your nostalgia for Romantic Ireland (the bit that Yeats said was dead and gone) first.

Secondly - this "they" that you are talking about are not Brussels. They are the Irish Government. Tell me - given that you trust them so little to tell you the truth, why are you suggesting we should solely rely on them to lead and guide us. We got free trade. We also got our government - not Brussels - looking for a way around it. You blame Brussels for it - I can only assume you want to blame Brussels for it. It is not, however, where the blame lies. The ones lying to you are not the ones you are trying to villify.

You believe many things. You have signally failed to convince me a) that increased federalism is bad or b) that the loss of more vetoes would lead to increased federalism. You also have not proven that we will be forced to implement nuclear generators by Brussels - your response amounted to nothing more than scare mongering. You also did not respond my comment regarding the hypocracy of buying nuclear generated electricity from another country while refusing to accept the risks involved.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

Just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. The loss of the veto on industrial is something I fear could be used to force nuclear power on us.

How? Seriously, do you even know what the veto in question refers to? How can you jump to such conclusions if you don’t even understand the question?

Now I don't pretend to have a crystal ball but I think we are entitled to apply the precautionary principle with regard to future transfers of power from Dublin to Brussels.

Oh, but apparently you do have a crystal ball as you’ve made numerous predictions about the EU forcing nuclear power plants and wars on us without being able to explain where these predictions stem from.

As for the precautionary principle, you’re simply using that as an excuse. The precautionary principle is useful to remind us that we should look before we leap, but it does not mean that we should not leap. And time and time again you’re only been able to make unsubstantiated claim after unsubstantiated claim with the apparent hope that if you though enough paranoid inventions at it some may stick.

The men and women of 1916 would ask "what was it all for" if they could see the politicians tripping over themselves to hand over the sovereignty they died for to Brussels.

Did you ask them using an Ouija board? Who made you their interpreter and spokesman?

But the point is that we were told we would get free trade and we got this. How can we believe what they tell us the next time, e.g. about the Constitution?

I still can’t understand how you can blame Brussels for a fiscal slight-of-hand that the Irish government has carried out. It’s bizarre.

New_Departure06

I still can’t understand how you can blame Brussels for a fiscal slight-of-hand that the Irish government has carried out. It’s bizarre.

I'm not but I am making the point about the credibility of our politicians the next time they come to us with another EU treaty.

Calina

New_Departure06 wrote:

I'm not but I am making the point about the credibility of our politicians the next time they come to us with another EU treaty.

these same politicians, would they be the local politicians that you want to run the place in the future under your run things locally ideal, yeah?

New_Departure06

Calina wrote:

these same politicians, would they be the local politicians that you want to run the place in the future under your run things locally ideal, yeah?

At least we can replace them unlike most of the Commissioners or the members of the European Parliament.

Calina

New_Departure06 wrote:

At least we can replace them unlike most of the Commissioners or the members of the European Parliament.

1) our record on doing so is abysmal
2) the Commissioners are nominated by elected governments
3) we can replace a number of members of the European Parliament. Unfortunately, our voter turn out in European elections is pitiful. That is not Europe's problem, it is ours.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

At least we can replace them unlike most of the Commissioners or the members of the European Parliament.

Other than the fact that these Commissioners are picked by the national governments, who in turn are elected by us, I and others have already said that the lack of democratic accountability in the Commission should be reason to reform it rather than simply use it as an Eurosceptic excuse.

Every time this is pointed out you go silent, I’ve noticed.

democrates

Stromecek wrote:

Absolutely well said, couldn't have put it better, interesting though that it has been completely ignored

Thanks stromecek, you decent skin you, a telling observation indeed.

But despair not, this thread has 9 times more readers than posts, and I keep that in mind. Also I don't judge the op, on principle, but particularly because I once walked a similar path, albeit more extreme and dangerous, trust me, I was that angry. But I've grown older, wiser, less hasty to judge, or particularly to act in the negative.

Ultimately if only one person gets value out of a post, it's totally worth it.

New_Departure06

The Corinthian wrote:

Other than the fact that these Commissioners are picked by the national governments, who in turn are elected by us, I and others have already said that the lack of democratic accountability in the Commission should be reason to reform it rather than simply use it as an Eurosceptic excuse.

Every time this is pointed out you go silent, I’ve noticed.

I have no objection to changes in how the Commission is chosen. What I object to is the using of this as a trojan-horse to push through further integration. The 2 issues should be separated. In the Nice Treaty much was made of the European Parliament's increased role in scrutinising EU legislation via the co-decision procedure (which I welcome) but little was said by the Yes side about the abolition of 30 national vetoes at the Council of Ministers. Again this boils down to the complaint I have made before about how electorates are told to accept everything or nothing, rather than being allowed to pick and choose which bits they like. In that regard can you blame me for being suspicious of the European integration project?

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

I have no objection to changes in how the Commission is chosen. What I object to is the using of this as a trojan-horse to push through further integration. The 2 issues should be separated.

Yet you are the very one who is using the lack of democratic transparency as an argument against further integration.

Let’s recap on what you’re now saying; further integration is bad because the EU lacks democratic transparency, however you’re now objecting to improving this democratic transparency is it leads to further integration.

In essence you’re against further integration regardless of the question of democratic transparency in the EU - it’s simply a convenient excuse or argumentative device; if you fire enough Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt at the question, enough may stick to convince people to your point of view which is not based upon any of these reasons but upon a far simpler motivation.

In the Nice Treaty much was made of the European Parliament's increased role in scrutinising EU legislation via the co-decision procedure (which I welcome) but little was said by the Yes side about the abolition of 30 national vetoes at the Council of Ministers. Again this boils down to the complaint I have made before about how electorates are told to accept everything or nothing, rather than being allowed to pick and choose which bits they like. In that regard can you blame me for being suspicious of the European integration project?

But it’s not a question of you being suspicious but quite openly hostile. As with the question of democratic transparency, the European Parliament's role or how electorates are told to accept everything or nothing are purely convenient hooks for you to hang that hostility. Even if they we dealt with these issues or they were not there you still would be quite openly hostile to the European integration.

Ultimately this hostility is based upon your idea of nationalism and nothing else, which is why your political and economic arguments have consistently been shot down in this discussion.

New_Departure06

The Corinthian wrote:

Yet you are the very one who is using the lack of democratic transparency as an argument against further integration.

Let’s recap on what you’re now saying; further integration is bad because the EU lacks democratic transparency, however you’re now objecting to improving this democratic transparency is it leads to further integration.

But improving the democratic accountability of the EU does not require further integration. What it requires is for the peoples of the EU to be given greater control over decision-making in the EU.

In essence you’re against further integration regardless of the question of democratic transparency in the EU - it’s simply a convenient excuse or argumentative device; if you fire enough Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt at the question, enough may stick to convince people to your point of view which is not based upon any of these reasons but upon a far simpler motivation.

But they are separate issues. We do not need further integration to improve democratic-accountability within the EU. I believe we can have one without the other. I consider taking integration further to be incompatible with improved democratic accountability.

But it’s not a question of you being suspicious but quite openly hostile. As with the question of democratic transparency, the European Parliament's role or how electorates are told to accept everything or nothing are purely convenient hooks for you to hang that hostility. Even if they we dealt with these issues or they were not there you still would be quite openly hostile to the European integration.

Ultimately this hostility is based upon your idea of nationalism and nothing else, which is why your political and economic arguments have consistently been shot down in this discussion.

Yes I am hostile to further EU integration, because those areas where the veto remains, including aspects of Justice, Defence and Taxation policy are about as sensitive to national sovereignty as it gets and removing vetoes on those would make my vote in Ireland almost irrelevant as the real decisions would be taken elsewhere. Note that I am not totally opposed to everything that has happened so far. I agree with the Euro currency, since on the ground, it was really the speculators who were determining exchange-rates. I agree with free-trade. I agree with the CAP. These issues were market related and nation states - especially small ones - had little real control over issues relevant to them on the ground. But justice, defence, foreign policy, taxation are a very different story. We should keep national vetoes on those issues especially as we already have in the main, control in fact rather than just in theory over this issue. I am not opposed to the EU. Indeed I am pro-EU.

What I am opposed to is pushing the peoples of Europe to a destination to which they do not want to go. Ireland was the only country having a referendum on the Nice Treaty. Had the Constitution not been stalled by the welcome French and Dutch "No" votes, then the vast majority of EU states were still publicly intent on going ahead with the Constitution without consulting their electorates via referendum on it. Already we have seen most of the EU states have ratified the Constitution via their national parliaments. This shows contempt for the decisions taken in France and Holland. Without unanimity the Constitution cannot come into force. So why proceed with it? It's more of the arrogance we saw when the bureaucrats in Brussels were bullying us into voting Yes in a second Nice referendum to make sure we gave the 'right' answer! I bitterly regret voting Yes both times last time and I will never be deceived again. The fact that neither France and Holland have been thrown out of the EU for voting No has dealt what I believe will be a fatal blow to future attempts to warn Irish voters they will be "thrown out of the EU" if they do not comply with the dictats of Brussels regarding future EU treaties. Gr8!