No to a Eurostate

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

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.

But that’s not why you’re raising the point. You are repeatedly citing it as a reason why integration is a bad idea in the first place.

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.

But you are the one who has repeatedly not separated these issues.

I consider taking integration further to be incompatible with improved democratic accountability.

So with one breath you tell us they’re separate issues then immediately after tell us that they’re incompatible - correct me if I’m wrong but giving you’re willing to ascribe a relationship to them, that would indicate that they’re not so separate.

Which of course is before we touch on the fact that you’ve not made any case for why the two are incompatible, you’ve simply stated it as an unsubstantiated opinion.

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.

This is where you start to lose the plot. Ignoring for a start that the European Commission is still ultimately appointed by our democratically elected governments, you continuously ignore (because it is apparently a separate and incompatible) the option of democratic reform in the EU, where your vote - for a real and not so symbolic European Parliament - would not make your vote irrelevant in the least.

Yet, as you’ve already stated, this is not on the table for you - not because it addresses your concern, but because you’re opposed to further integration regardless.

Ultimately we end up going back to this point repeatedly, not that there are simply flaws in how the EU is run or even to the political or economic merits or demerits of further integration, but that even if all of the reasons you raised were dealt with you would still oppose it on no other fundamental basis than your own apparently De Valeran interpretation of patriotism.

Street Byte

I used to be absolutly pro-EU but a few things changed my mind. Chiracs comments that the smaller Eu states had their chance to keep quite and wasted it was a shocking exposure of inequality in the EU. The EU was born to be a France-German power base, not a community of equals.

Secondly their was a the revalations of Frances involvement in the Biafran war. Shocking, bloody and still being denied by the higest offices in France. Who are we cozying up too exactly?

Thirdly, the new member states have just has 40 or so years of bloody minded corrupt Communism - are they ready to integrate? I dont think so. They have a long road to re-establish their traditions and national values before they attempt to join closer with a large political union.

New_Departure06

So with one breath you tell us they’re separate issues then immediately after tell us that they’re incompatible - correct me if I’m wrong but giving you’re willing to ascribe a relationship to them, that would indicate that they’re not so separate.

What I meant by that is that we should not have to exchange more sovereignty for greater democratic accountability. We may get more of it in one sense, but end up loosing a lot more of it in net terms.

What I am saying is that we should separate out the issues of integration and further democracy. In my firm view agreeing to expand QMV into the few remaining policy areas where it does not apply (the most sensitive ones) will take decision-making even further away from Irish voters who will have next to no say over proposed laws passed in this way. The European Parliament would not even have a say over these issues unless co-decision is extended to them, and even if it was, we are 12 MEPs in an ocean of 737. What sort of say is that? At least in Dail Eireann everyone there is chosen by the Irish people. What interest will the MEP for Warsaw have in Irish issues when he/she isn't elected by Irish voters?

The Corinthian

Street Byte wrote:

Chiracs comments that the smaller Eu states had their chance to keep quite and wasted it was a shocking exposure of inequality in the EU.

Absolutely. However, that he came out with these comments is also testament to this inequality being challenged. After all, following them the smaller EU states in question did effectively tell him where to stick it.

The EU was born to be a France-German power base, not a community of equals.

No, the EU could well end up becoming a Franco-German power base (highly unlikely now with the accession of such states as Poland) but it historically was not meant to be. That it has become so has been as a largely as a result of how the larger nations - Britain, France, Germany and Italy - have interacted with it. Italy has been plagued by political infighting and relatively weak governments since the formation of the Republic in 1946, leaving her unable to exert a leading influence on the EU.

Britain on the other hand has continually had a lukewarm approach, originally by failing to join until long after the Treaty of Rome (even though she was negotiating entry even at that stage) and today by her inability to decide, let alone join, EMU. This has resulted in much the same effect as Italy’s weak governments with regard to taking the lead in Europe.

This left the European field to Germany and France, which they chose to take in apparent partnership. The accession of the new states has now essentially derailed, or at least severely curtailed, Franco-German dominance, as has Spain who has slowly been coming into her own since the end of the isolationist Franco period.

Secondly their was a the revalations of Frances involvement in the Biafran war. Shocking, bloody and still being denied by the higest offices in France. Who are we cozying up too exactly?

The political reality is that whomever we cosy up to will have blood on their hands. We’re no saints either, we’re just bastards on a smaller scale.

Thirdly, the new member states have just has 40 or so years of bloody minded corrupt Communism - are they ready to integrate? I dont think so. They have a long road to re-establish their traditions and national values before they attempt to join closer with a large political union.

I think that’s certainly true of some states (such as Romania) but not others (such as the Czech Republic). But this is more a point of the speed of expansion and integration rather on whether it should take place at all.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

What I meant by that is that we should not have to exchange more sovereignty for greater democratic accountability.

That’s not what you said - you specifically said they were incompatible. Please don’t backtrack.

We may get more of it in one sense, but end up loosing a lot more of it in net terms.

Another unsubstantiated opinion.

At least in Dail Eireann everyone there is chosen by the Irish people. What interest will the MEP for Warsaw have in Irish issues when he/she isn't elected by Irish voters?

And what interest will the TD for Donegal have in Wexford issues? Should the Republic of Wexford declare independence? Of course not, that’s simply how representative democracy works. You simply wish to limit the boundaries to one state on the basis of your definition of nationalism, so your position is purely subjective.

New_Departure06

And what interest will the TD for Donegal have in Wexford issues? Should the Republic of Wexford declare independence? Of course not, that’s simply how representative democracy works. You simply wish to limit the boundaries to one state on the basis of your definition of nationalism, so your position is purely subjective.

But that is a bogus comparison. The concern a Donegal TD might have is through a common sense of Irishness with his/her Wexford kinfolk. A patriotic impulse that is manifestly absent from the common sense of Europeanness in the EU. The EU is not like the US, where people place their allegiance to America before their allegiance to their state. In the EU, national identity is a stronger impulse than European identity - especially in Ireland according to the Eurobarometer poll. And that works against Irish interests when arguing for or against something in the European Parliament.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

But that is a bogus comparison. The concern a Donegal TD might have is through a common sense of Irishness with his/her Wexford kinfolk. A patriotic impulse that is manifestly absent from the common sense of Europeanness in the EU.

No, you don’t. The reality is a common sense of being European has been increasing for decades, a process greatly enhanced by the free movement of people throughout the EU. Increasingly we have friends and family in other European states - indeed, this is already more common than not - and increasingly Europeans are migrating and mixing with other European populations.

That is part of the integration.

The EU is not like the US, where people place their allegiance to America before their allegiance to their state. In the EU, national identity is a stronger impulse than European identity - especially in Ireland according to the Eurobarometer poll. And that works against Irish interests when arguing for or against something in the European Parliament.

That does not really follow in any representative democracy. Even in the US, if you elect a congressman or Senator they will defend the interests of their state to the hilt. And you further assume that not only is there no common identity, which even the survey you cited demonstrates, or that this identity will not grow with time.

In short your argument is based upon the premise that there is little or no common identity and that it will not grow, when even by the evidence you suggested one exists and has been growing for years.

New_Departure06

What I mean is that the vast majority of the peoples of Europe put their separate national identity before their European identity and there is little sign that is changing, despite the longings of a PC elite.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

What I mean is that the vast majority of the peoples of Europe put their separate national identity before their European identity and there is little sign that is changing, despite the longings of a PC elite.

The fact that it has been consistently increasing rather than decreasing since the Treaty of Rome would tend to throw that observation of yours out the window.

New_Departure06

The Corinthian wrote:

The fact that it has been consistently increasing rather than decreasing since the Treaty of Rome would tend to throw that observation of yours out the window.

Has it increased in Britain?

Calina

New_Departure06 wrote:

What I mean is that the vast majority of the peoples of Europe put their separate national identity before their European identity and there is little sign that is changing, despite the longings of a PC elite.

So what's your problem, exactly?

New_Departure06

Calina wrote:

So what's your problem, exactly?

That MEPs not representing Irish constituencies are hardly going to care about Irish needs when they are voting on EU legislation, and as such continuing the incremental process of removing a veto from the Dail and transferring it to the European Parliament actually makes the EU less democratic not more.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

Has it increased in Britain?

What’s your point? Because it has not in one state we should ignore all the other states where it has? The exception now proves the rule?

All of which is a bit rich coming from someone who will happily apply a double standard to national identity where it comes to the Northern Ireland.

And no, wake up and smell the coffee, it’s not different.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

That MEPs not representing Irish constituencies are hardly going to care about Irish needs when they are voting on EU legislation, and as such continuing the incremental process of removing a veto from the Dail and transferring it to the European Parliament actually makes the EU less democratic not more.

I really do find this position bizarre. As per my previous example a TD for Donegal is not going to pass up a benefit for his home county just because it’s not going to be in Wexford’s interests. Somehow, you seem to think that they will, based upon fuzzy ties of kinship or nationality. That’s naive to say the least.

Maybe you just don’t trust those shifty foreign types. They’re always up to no good, starting World Wars and singing cheesy Eurovision entries.

Pfungstadter

I think Europe has been great for everybody, even the people who hate it.

The people who don't want a euro state are the same who cry that there are too many "un-elected" people running the show. but if you say ok lets elect them then the cry that it's the start of a euro state.

also the national goverments like the power they have and the fact they can appoint people to power. So in a sense they are chosen by elected people.

I think there should be a euro state by the way. Practically is one now.

I really appreciate the ease of travel here too, I've cross many borders outside europe and the wait can be anything from ten min fifteen to three hours and more. No thanks.

New_Departure06

Pfungstadter wrote:

I think Europe has been great for everybody, even the people who hate it.

The people who don't want a euro state are the same who cry that there are too many "un-elected" people running the show. but if you say ok lets elect them then the cry that it's the start of a euro state.

Perhaps some of us take that attitude. I don't. I can live with the current system because I accept most of the integration that has already taken place. And we already have an "elected element" in the form of the ministers representing us at the Council of Ministers - with what few vetoes they have left. The process of increasing the role of the European Parliament has been largely through the co-decision process which is in turn an advancement on the old "cooperation" process. This has involved giving the Parliament a veto over more and more EU legislation. However it has been the custom in the EU treaties only to do this for policy areas in tandem with abolishing the vetos on the relevant policy areas at the Council of Ministers. This effectively amounts to transferring the national veto to the European Parliament, where equality is replaced by being 3% of the vote. This is something I would object to with respect to further policy areas.

I am not just being contrary for contrary's sake. I am not simply opposing change for changes sake. The question is the kind of change. Something that could be done to ease my concerns would be to expand the co-decision with the European Parliament while retaining the veto in those policy areas to which co-decision is extended. By doing that you retain the right of national government's to veto something they don't like, while increasing the direct electoral involvement in framing EU policies. This has the advantage of not removing further control from national parliaments and governments.

There is a confederal model for European integration and a federal model. It is PC to promote the federal model. Those who question it are demonised politically as "Europhobes/Xenophobes". Admittedly in the past I was somewhat guilty of this with respect to other EU referenda - including Nice. Yet now I - and I think most others - recognise that the No side were right in opposing Nice. The recent 1916 commemorations also remind me of the sacrifices those freedom fighters made for what we have today. Some on this thread have argued that we should ignore 1916 and effectively they seem to me to be arguing we should throw it into the dustbin of history - that it is an irrelevance with no meaning in today's world. I see it differently. I feel that when so much was sacrificed for our independence, that we should be wary of giving too much of it away. 1916 does have a relevance in today's world. It reminds us of how bad things can get when your independence is taken from you.

also the national goverments like the power they have and the fact they can appoint people to power. So in a sense they are chosen by elected people.

I think there should be a euro state by the way. Practically is one now.

I really appreciate the ease of travel here too, I've cross many borders outside europe and the wait can be anything from ten min fifteen to three hours and more. No thanks.

At least you admit you want a Eurostate. There is not quite one yet. We retain the veto over taxation. I cannot accept the loss of this veto. There has never been a single state without an army (unless the UN counts which is hardly a typical example). Do you want another Conscription Crisis a la 1918? Irish parents do not want their children conscripted to fight for Brussels in some imperial adventure. A Eurostate would more than likely have an army. Do you seriously believe the rest of Europe - most of which is in NATO - would accept an official policy of neutrality? Are you for or against neutrality and if so how do you see it surviving in a Eurostate?

The Corinthian

New_Departure06, all of the points you’re now making are simply rehashes of ones you’ve already made earlier in this thread and that have been rebutted by others and myself. Simply because a few pages have passed since does not mean they’ve risen from the dead and have become valid.

You do seem trapped in some 1916-fuelled fantasy of Ireland as a land of comely maidens doing jigs and under attack by ‘dem ferrin types’, who will steal our comely maidens and send our men folk to Flanders all over again.

You even seem to be under the delusion that Ireland is or ever has been a neutral country. Be so kind as to explain that to the troops passing through Shannon.

I really don’t know if there’s much point arguing with you at this stage.

New_Departure06

The Corinthian wrote:

New_Departure06, all of the points you’re now making are simply rehashes of ones you’ve already made earlier in this thread and that have been rebutted by others and myself. Simply because a few pages have passed since does not mean they’ve risen from the dead and have become valid.

You do seem trapped in some 1916-fuelled fantasy of Ireland as a land of comely maidens doing jigs and under attack by ‘dem ferrin types’, who will steal our comely maidens and send our men folk to Flanders all over again.

You even seem to be under the delusion that Ireland is or ever has been a neutral country. Be so kind as to explain that to the troops passing through Shannon.

I really don’t know if there’s much point arguing with you at this stage.

During the Cold War, both US and Soviet airforces used Shannon. We are neutral in that we are not siding with any one country.

Calina

New_Departure06 wrote:

During the Cold War, both US and Soviet airforces used Shannon. We are neutral in that we are not siding with any one country.

No, actually, that's not neutral. That's sitting on the fence. Neutral is when you help nobody, not everybody.

New_Departure06

Calina wrote:

No, actually, that's not neutral. That's sitting on the fence. Neutral is when you help nobody, not everybody.

That is not my intrerpretation. The Left have endlessly broadened the meaning of neutrality in recent years - sometimes even suggesting that turning a blind eye to foreign armies using our airports for refuelling constitutes a breach of our neutrality - which I reject. As long as it isn't confined to one side or the other it isn't a breach in my view. I consider neutrality breached when we take sides in a war and send our troops to fight in it.

So there is just no comparison with what I am concerned about - being conscripted into a Euro army in a European superstate or us being dragged into wars in countries of which we know little.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

That is not my intrerpretation. The Left have endlessly broadened the meaning of neutrality in recent years - sometimes even suggesting that turning a blind eye to foreign armies using our airports for refuelling constitutes a breach of our neutrality - which I reject. As long as it isn't confined to one side or the other it isn't a breach in my view. I consider neutrality breached when we take sides in a war and send our troops to fight in it.

That definition of neutrality is not modern or even leftist. Belgium did, after all, reject the German demand, in 1914, to allow troops passage through her territory on the basis of her neutrality. So your interpretation is quite incorrect, even if it does suit your purpose.

Edit: Just to underline how wrong your interpretation is, a neutral state is explicitly forbidden from allowing its territory to be used for belligerent troop movements, convoys of munitions or supplies, establishment of communications centres, or the recruitment of combatants by international law as agreed in the Hague Conventions of 1907:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague05.htm#art5

Pazaz 21

New_Departure06 wrote:

Do you want another Conscription Crisis a la 1918? Irish parents do not want their children conscripted to fight for Brussels in some imperial adventure.

Imperial Adventure WTF ???? When's the last time Europe, or any country in it, invaded another country ? Do you think if a Eurostate is formed we will decide to Colonise Africa (Been there, done that), Invade the middle east, when most of the EU was against Iraq , or invade China ?

Where exactly do you think we will be invading ? I don't say "Well some day in the future we may invade somebody, i don't know who, but maybe ?", that is scaremongering, give me an accurate assumption, with a good reason, or shut up about it !!!!!

New_Departure06

Pazaz 21 wrote:

Imperial Adventure WTF ???? When's the last time Europe, or any country in it, invaded another country ? Do you think if a Eurostate is formed we will decide to Colonise Africa (Been there, done that), Invade the middle east, when most of the EU was against Iraq , or invade China ?

Where exactly do you think we will be invading ? I don't say "Well some day in the future we may invade somebody, i don't know who, but maybe ?", that is scaremongering, give me an accurate assumption, with a good reason, or shut up about it !!!!!

I mean when there's a Eurostate. Every superpower in history has invaded other countries. China in relation to Tibet. The US in Iraq. Formerly the British for 25% of the globe. Why should a European superpower be any different?

Let's keep the EU as the mainly trade-oriented bloc with some other characteristics it is now. And apply the precautionary principle.

The Corinthian

Regurgitating points that were refuted a few pages back again, I see:

New_Departure06 wrote:

I mean when there's a Eurostate. Every superpower in history has invaded other countries. China in relation to Tibet. The US in Iraq. Formerly the British for 25% of the globe. Why should a European superpower be any different?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51292123&postcount=105

Let's keep the EU as the mainly trade-oriented bloc with some other characteristics it is now. And apply the precautionary principle.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51310242&postcount=142

I also see you’ve gone pretty quiet on your earlier point of neutrality.

Parsley

New_Departure06 wrote:

I mean when there's a Eurostate. Every superpower in history has invaded other countries. China in relation to Tibet. The US in Iraq.

Don't let the US off too easy- don't forget Mexico (1846 and 1914), Cuba (1898 and 1960), Phillippines (1898), Hawaii (1898), Haiti (1915, 1995, 2004), Nicaragua (1909, through 1980s), Panama (1989), Granada (1983), Vietnam (1945, 1965), Russia (1918), Canada (1812), Cambodia (1970s), Laos (1970s) and Afghanistan (2001). [not including invasions as part of world war 1 or 2 campaigns].

New_Departure06

Well at least the present state of affairs, we can't be dragged into wars because we have our veto on defence. Let's keep it that way.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

Well at least the present state of affairs, we can't be dragged into wars because we have our veto on defence. Let's keep it that way.

Your points have been rebutted, are you going to deal with that or continue ignoring it and hope no one else notices?

KerranJast

The current situation where Irish troops can't be involved in international action without a UN mandate is ridiculous. God forbid if there was another Balkans type conflict on our doorstep and the US was tied up with Iraq and/or other affairs. All it would take is the likes of China or Russia to veto a UN intervention and we couldn't do anything to help. We trust the Dail and the Government to run the country. Surely we can trust them to make sound military decisions without have to ask the UN for "permission". The charge that the EU is hungry for a war is ridiculous. The populations of the largest member States are generally anti-war unless it is absolutely a last resort. Given the blood soaked history of the Continental countries they have good reason not to rush into unnecessary military conflict.

As for our neutrality, since the foundation of the Republic we've never been neutral. For example during WW2 we were a covert member of the Allied forces passing intelligence and captured Axis troops onto the US and Britain.

Pfungstadter

I don't think Ireland can ever be (or has ever been neutral). It's just a facade for the goverment. If we were in Nato or anything else we'd have to increase our defence budget. But Iceland as far as I know has no standing Army and is in Nato, though it may have a reserve but I'm not sure.

No country can be neutral, ever Switzerland made a fortune from Supposed neutrality. You could be physically neutral but not in other areas, morality and economics, other areas. But any countries presence is participating in a war, Ireland was neutral in ww part deux, but acted as a buffer zone. But we also helped the brits and americans in the second world war. Sending food, weather info, air space movements, airmen back to uk after a few days in the curragh, allowing thousands of irishmen travel by train across the border to join the british army, etc etc.

Gurgle

New_Departure06 wrote:

Every superpower in history has invaded other countries.

Again:
The EU is something that has never been done before.
It has, so far, been an outstanding success.