Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Referendum on Lisbon Treaty
Options
Comments
-
Our government and 12 MEP's represents us in the EU
Most of our MEP's belong to Ireland two political parties
Yeah, in this way Ireland's voice at EU is being best represented
The fact that our MEP belong to two political parties is because the Irish people wanted that through the way they voted. For example peoples whose views differ from the present government are in the same position., within Ireland That is democracy.
You forgot to mention the council of ministers, where in some ways Ireland gets more say than it should based on populations. That is undemocratic !!
True democracy would be for all EU decisions to be taken purely based on the relative populations of each country, no rules to protect the intrest of smaller members, no national veteo on any matter. In that case Ireland would lose out. If anything the EU is undemocratic to larger member states.0 -
-
While I would like everyone in all EU countries to have a vote, or better still a single pan-EU vote.So let the French and Dutch voters vote on this treaty and see if all their difficulties have been removed.
How can we otherwise be sure that the 10% removed was the only offending part?
How the French and Dutch ratify the treaty, has nothing to do with our referendum. We should vote for how it effects us. The argument that we should vote no because the french government didn't hold a referndum strikes me as very strange, they may even have voted yes we just don't know.0 -
The EU only gets areas of competency through the various treaties. Lisbon, however, contains no new competencies for the EU.
So every competency the EU has has been voted on by the Irish people.
That is correct and a much needed check on Irish politicians.scofflaw wrote:Instead, I think your arguments are actually a dressed-up way of saying what every other No voter seems to be saying - that the only proper place for democracy is in national governments, which is something even the national governments don't agree with. However, if you do think there something particularly special about the nation-state, by all means just say so, because it's where the subtext of all your arguments is heading.
Well do you think everything that's good for Germany/Greece/Anywhere is good for Ireland? Yes, I am proud of our nation-state, what's wrong with it?
I really could go on here....Scofflaw wrote:Well, that's clear - although you haven't explained how the EU can act to be good for Germany/France but not for Ireland. If your apparent worries about the EU's self-regulation were correct, they would apply equally to the French and Germans, neither of whom directly elect Commissioners either.
Very well then.
When Ireland joined the Euro we agreed that Interest rates be set centrally.
I think that interest rates in Ireland from 98-2004 were too low causing too much inflation, growth, and borrowing which is leading to a dramatic slowdown, loss of competitiveness, unemployment, and hardship for households which are overborrowed.
Why did interest rates stay so low then? Because the French/German economies were still in the doldrums.
Don't feed me rubbish claiming that in fact we are all the same.
The only difference here is that the Irish people agreed to the Euro via Maastrict?, so I have no complaints.Scofflaw wrote:As to the idea that MEPs will automatically vote in favour of any extension of EU competencies - first,
First.... you have misquoted me I said powers not competencies.Scofflaw wrote:I've explained that the EU cannot extend its competencies in that way; second, there is no evidence that they do so, seductive as it sounds - and all MEP voting records are available online; third, MEPs are accountable to national/regional voters in exactly the same way as any other democratically elected representative is - indeed, they will be up for election next year.
I agree. The MEPs are as accountable to FF/FG as our TDs are. And I forgot they have their own European groupings to adhere to also! The sheep don't stray from the flock much, do they?Scofflaw wrote:I think you're simply trying to ignore the European Parliament because the fact that it is democratically elected doesn't fit with your claim that the EU is not subject to democratic oversight. It is, and the Lisbon treaty extends and increases that oversight. If you were genuinely worried about lack of accountability/democracy, you should be voting Yes, not No.
I am glad the MEPs will have more powers. Don't get me wrong! At least it's something.
But, this is more like throwing a sprout to catch a salmon.
These loophole clauses give the council more powers at the expense of the electoriate.0 -
Have you an independent source or reference for this claim or is it simply your personal view?Scofflaw wrote:The EU only gets areas of competency through the various treaties. Lisbon, however, contains no new competencies for the EU.
From the Robert Schuman Institute (pdf) - "the Lisbon Treaty does not grant new exclusive competences to the Union".
It is gaining "shared competences" in space and energy (where the EU has a role only when the national governments decide not to), and the capability of "support, co-ordination and complementary action" in civil protection, intellectual property, tourism, administrative co-operation and sport (where the EU will undertake support, co-ordination, and complementary actions to national programmes).
I suppose if one is rabidly concerned about any action undertaken by the EU as infringing on the sovereignty of national governments (who are the people deciding on which "infringements" happen) , then you might see the two latter types as representing some transfer of sovereignty as well.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Hi there,WillieFlynn wrote: »While I would like everyone in all EU countries to have a vote, or better still a single pan-EU vote.
How the French and Dutch ratify the treaty, has nothing to do with our referendum. We should vote for how it effects us. The argument that we should vote no because the french government didn't hold a referndum strikes me as very strange, they may even have voted yes we just don't know.
I am not trying to impose referendums on everyone! If countries want to give their representatives that much power so be it.
But a referendum would be a good test to see if the concerns about the constitution have been allayed or not.0 -
That is correct and a much needed check on Irish politicians.
Well do you think everything that's good for Germany/Greece/Anywhere is good for Ireland? Yes, I am proud of our nation-state, what's wrong with it?
I really could go on here....
I think what's good for German farmers is often good for Irish farmers - and what's good for Irish businesses (EU cutting of red tape, for example) is good for other European businesses, yes.
The way the EU operates is through consensus (can be checked with almost any media source that observes the EU). That is, what is good for Ireland can be got by trading against something that's good for Greece. If something is really bad for Ireland, our government can dig its heels in. What do you think the EU has passed that was really bad for Ireland?*
*see comments below re interest ratesVery well then.
When Ireland joined the Euro we agreed that Interest rates be set centrally.
I think that interest rates in Ireland from 98-2004 were too low causing too much inflation, growth, and borrowing which is leading to a dramatic slowdown, loss of competitiveness, unemployment, and hardship for households which are overborrowed.
Why did interest rates stay so low then? Because the French/German economies were still in the doldrums.
Don't feed me rubbish claiming that in fact we are all the same.
The only difference here is that the Irish people agreed to the Euro via Maastrict?, so I have no complaints.
The point I would make about that is that we in Ireland could have done an incredible amount of business-building with that cheap money. For the last 6-7 years we have had an absolutely unparalleled opportunity for people to start up businesses with low-interest loans - had we done so we would now have a massive indigenous base of small companies.
Did we do that? Did we hell. We poured it all into houses. Houses, ffs! Which we sold to each other at a profit to the banks. For the last 6-7 years you couldn't get anyone to lend or invest money in business startups because the "smart money" was in houses. Smart money my hole. Stupid, short-sighted, old-fashioned grasping peasant gombeen cretins with thousands of time more cash than gumption.
Er, I could go on about this for quite a while. Nor would I get any less violent about it - so just to summarise, those interest rates could have been the greatest thing for the Irish economy ever - an unparalleled opportunity to grow the economy hugely, which we instead poured into an asset bubble of our own making.First.... you have misquoted me I said powers not competencies.
Apologies! Doesn't make any difference, though, because I don't agree that MEPs automatically vote in favour of new EU powers either. I'm not sure why you think they do, when they have to answer to a home electorate, and their votes are transparently recorded and available for free.I agree. The MEPs are as accountable to FF/FG as our TDs are. And I forgot they have their own European groupings to adhere to also! The sheep don't stray from the flock much, do they?
I am glad the MEPs will have more powers. Don't get me wrong! At least it's something.
But, this is more like throwing a sprout to catch a salmon.
These loophole clauses give the council more powers at the expense of the electoriate.
No, because that relies on your assumption that MEPs automatically vote for any extension of the EU, which they don't.
Representatives being democratically elected either means something, in which case it applies to the MEPs, or it doesn't, in which case it doesn't apply to TDs either. You can't have it meaning something when it's a TD, but not when it's an MEP - that's what I mean about the subtext of your objections being that the only proper place for democracy is at the national level. Beware of your own hidden assumptions.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
On a tangent: in my bitter experience, it's next to impossible to persuade a bank in this country to lend money to a small business. 105% mortgage on a house? No problem. Three grand overdraft for a small business with over half a million turnover per annum? Forget it.For the last 6-7 years we have had an absolutely unparalleled opportunity for people to start up businesses with low-interest loans - had we done so we would now have a massive indigenous base of small companies.
I have personal credit cards with a combined credit limit of seventeen-odd grand, and can't get a company credit card with more than 1300, unless I sign a personal guarantee.
Don't get me started...0 -
From the Robert Schuman Institute (pdf) - "the Lisbon Treaty does not grant new exclusive competences to the Union".
It is gaining "shared competences" in space and energy (where the EU has a role only when the national governments decide not to), and the capability of "support, co-ordination and complementary action" in civil protection, intellectual property, tourism, administrative co-operation and sport (where the EU will undertake support, co-ordination, and complementary actions to national programmes).
...
cordially,
Scofflaw
Your initial claim was a blanket assertion that the Lisbon treaty contained no new competencies for the EU. When asked for your source to back up that claim you refer us to the Schumann document. Which I presume you had read before you made your initial claim?
This is what that document actually says, just in case anyone does not have a chance to check your 'source':
WHAT NEW COMPETENCES WILL THE UNION ACQUIRE?
WITH THE LISBON TREATY�� The Lisbon Treaty does not grant new exclusive competences to the Union.�� The Lisbon Treaty provides a certain number of new competences which fit into the
categories of:
- "shared competences" (such as space and energy)
- "support, co-ordination and complementary action" (such as civil protection,
intellectual property, tourism, administrative co-operation and sport).
The ordinary legislative procedure (codecision with Parliament and the qualified
majority in the Council of Ministers) applies in these areas.�� In addition to this the Lisbon Treaty enhances the role of the Union in certain areas,
notably in that of "freedom, security and justice" (see Sheet 6 – the Lisbon Treaty and the
area of freedom, security and justice) as well as in terms of external action and defence(see Sheet 10 – The Lisbon Treaty and the Union's external action).So Schumann says the EU does get new competencies all right, contrary to what you had claimed.
I am sure you would not say that Lisbon gave the EU 'no new competencies' if you knew that that claim was false. Yet false it is. Had you not read your source document before you made the claim? Or did you think that saying it gets 'no new competencies'' means the same as saying it gets 'no new exclusive competencies'. Or perhaps there is some other explanation?0 -
Your initial claim was a blanket assertion that the Lisbon treaty contained no new competencies for the EU. When asked for your source to back up that claim you refer us to the Schumann document. Which I presume you had read before you made your initial claim?
This is what that document actually says, just in case anyone does not have a chance to check your 'source':
WHAT NEW COMPETENCES WILL THE UNION ACQUIRE?
WITH THE LISBON TREATY The Lisbon Treaty does not grant new exclusive competences to the Union. The Lisbon Treaty provides a certain number of new competences which fit into the
categories of:
- "shared competences" (such as space and energy)
- "support, co-ordination and complementary action" (such as civil protection,
intellectual property, tourism, administrative co-operation and sport).
The ordinary legislative procedure (codecision with Parliament and the qualified
majority in the Council of Ministers) applies in these areas. In addition to this the Lisbon Treaty enhances the role of the Union in certain areas,
notably in that of "freedom, security and justice" (see Sheet 6 – the Lisbon Treaty and the
area of freedom, security and justice) as well as in terms of external action and defence(see Sheet 10 – The Lisbon Treaty and the Union's external action).So Schumann says the EU does get new competencies all right, contrary to what you had claimed.
I am sure you would not say that Lisbon gave the EU 'no new competencies' if you knew that that claim was false. Yet false it is. Had you not read your source document before you made the claim? Or did you think that saying it gets 'no new competencies'' means the same as saying it gets 'no new exclusive competencies'. Or perhaps there is some other explanation?
The context was "transfer of sovereignty", if you care to look back a couple of posts. And yes, in that context, I would happily use "no new competences" for "no exclusive competences" again, because the shared competences do not 'transfer sovereignty'.
Had I something to hide (as you are implying?) I would hardly have given the source, now would I?
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
I think what's good for German farmers is often good for Irish farmers - and what's good for Irish businesses (EU cutting of red tape, for example) is good for other European businesses, yes.
That is, what is good for Ireland can be got by trading against something that's good for Greece. If something is really bad for Ireland, our government can dig its heels in. What do you think the EU has passed that was really bad for Ireland?
Tell that to the Irish Fisherman and the rural communities that are now facing ruin. On the positive side, at least the Spannish fishermen are happy.Scofflaw wrote:The point I would make about that is that we in Ireland could have done an incredible amount of business-building with that cheap money. For the last 6-7 years we have had an absolutely unparalleled opportunity for people to start up businesses with low-interest loans - had we done so we would now have a massive indigenous base of small companies.
Did we do that? Did we hell. We poured it all into houses. Houses, ffs! Which we sold to each other at a profit to the banks. For the last 6-7 years you couldn't get anyone to lend or invest money in business startups because the "smart money" was in houses. Smart money my hole. Stupid, short-sighted, old-fashioned grasping peasant gombeen cretins with thousands of time more cash than gumption.
Er, I could go on about this for quite a while. Nor would I get any less violent about it - so just to summarise, those interest rates could have been the greatest thing for the Irish economy ever - an unparalleled opportunity to grow the economy hugely, which we instead poured into an asset bubble of our own making.
Lol gombeen cretins!
No sensible economist with Irish interests at heart would have left interest rates so low. Want you call 'unparalled opportunity' I call monetary wrecklessness that led to the economy overheating and undermining profitable business.Scofflaw wrote:I don't agree that MEPs automatically vote in favour of new EU powers either. I'm not sure why you think they do, when they have to answer to a home electorate, and their votes are transparently recorded and available for free.
No, because that relies on your assumption that MEPs automatically vote for any extension of the EU, which they don't.
Representatives being democratically elected either means something, in which case it applies to the MEPs, or it doesn't, in which case it doesn't apply to TDs either.
I am not saying that MEPs will automatically do anything. I am using simple good governance.
I don't see what their consent will achieve.
The council are equally responsible to the people as are the MEPs. By your logic no unpopular extention will occur because the council is held to the same accountability as the MEPs.
There will be/have been extensions of powers, some not popular. So it does happen.
If the council are not afraid of the aftermath, why should the MEPs? They are accountable to the same source.
There is no counterbalance. If the council agree to something *bad* there is no additional consequence for the parliament of agreeing to the measure.
I would still like to hear any arguments why I should vote for Article 308. I don't see any advantages to it, AT ALL!0 -
WillieFlynn wrote: »T
The commision is not very different to our unelected civil service and it can't do much with out agrement from the directly elected MEP and council of ministers
I have to disagree with you on this fundamental point. The commission has the power to make decisions, and have a civil service of over 25 000 people working for them to implement their decisions.
Our taoiseach and cabinet have the power to make decisions and have the irish civil service to implement their decisions.
In both cases, those with the power formulate the policy and make the decisions, and the civil services implement those policies and decisions.0 -
The context was "transfer of sovereignty", if you care to look back a couple of posts. And yes, in that context, I would happily use "no new competences" for "no exclusive competences" again, because the shared competences do not 'transfer sovereignty'.
Had I something to hide (as you are implying?) I would hardly have given the source, now would I?
regards,
Scofflaw
That is an interesting reply. Your source document says this about shared competences, which I take it you accept as an accurate comment on what shared competences mean:
Shared competences between the Union and Member States, with the States exercising their competence if the Union is not exercising its own....
So the initiative passes to the Union. That is a clear limitation on member state sovereignty.
You may perhaps believe that there is no transfer of sovereign power involved there but if you do, have you any independent source or reference to support you in that belief?0 -
Tell that to the Irish Fisherman and the rural communities that are now facing ruin. On the positive side, at least the Spannish fishermen are happy.
Hmm. That's exactly the kind of tradeoff I mean - we traded off CAP support for our farmers against opening our fisheries. Without CAP support the Irish countryside would look very different.Lol gombeen cretins!
No sensible economist with Irish interests at heart would have left interest rates so low. Want you call 'unparalled opportunity' I call monetary wrecklessness that led to the economy overheating and undermining profitable business.
Do you? Why? Businesses in startup mode need money for capital investment. The lower the interest rates, the cheaper it is to buy the use of that capital -> the easier to start a business.
Our recklessness was certainly unparalleled, but it was us who made a heap of sh1te out of a potential mountain of gold, not the EU. Nobody forced us to use those interest rates purely for consumer debt and mortgages, and there's no point pretending anyone did.I am not saying that MEPs will automatically do anything. I am using simple good governance.
I don't see what their consent will achieve.
The council are equally responsible to the people as are the MEPs. By your logic no unpopular extention will occur because the council is held to the same accountability as the MEPs.
There will be/have been extensions of powers, some not popular. So it does happen.
If the council are not afraid of the aftermath, why should the MEPs? They are accountable to the same source.
There is no counterbalance. If the council agree to something *bad* there is no additional consequence for the parliament of agreeing to the measure.
I have to say I'm tired of arguing this particular one, because you simply don't accept that democratic accountability means anything to MEPs.
Your view of the EU as some kind of homogeneous system that only answers to itself is complete rubbish. The Commissioners answer to their national governments, and to the Parliament. The Council answers to their national electorate (because they're elected ministers). The Parliament answers to their electorate, which means you and me. And they answer to us on exactly the same basis that TDs do - 5 year terms. You see that as magically* different, I don't.
*I assume magically, because you haven't explained how it is different, other than to say "but they're the EU, they'll do what the EU wants".I would still like to hear any arguments why I should vote for Article 308. I don't see any advantages to it, AT ALL!
It allows the EU to get on with carrying out the responsibilities they have been tasked to carry out by the national parliaments of Europe. Since they're doing it on our behalf, it's of benefit to you that they have the necessary powers to actually do what they've been told to do.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
That is an interesting reply. Your source document says this about shared competences, which I take it you accept as an accurate comment on what shared competences mean:
Shared competences between the Union and Member States, with the States exercising their competence if the Union is not exercising its own....
So the initiative passes to the Union. That is a clear limitation on member state sovereignty.
You may perhaps believe that there is no transfer of sovereign power involved there but if you do, have you any independent source or reference to support you in that belief?
Am I being paid to answer your questions, Galliard? Give me a definition of "transfer of sovereignty" - and I suspect you'll find that when you have defined it to your own satisfaction, you'll have something that tells you that shared competence does involve such 'transfer' - but that will have nothing to do with me.
I'm perfectly willing to debate any substantive point you may wish to make about the Treaty, but this referendum is not about my definitions of this or that. Don't waste my time with lawyer's tricks.
Scofflaw0 -
Why are you so defensive all of a sudden? It was you who brought in the phrase 'transfer of sovereignty' into your explanation. I am happy to go with any definition of that you might have yourself. I presume you have one?0
-
Asking for proof that something doesn't exist is the height of sophistry. If you believe it exists, you prove it.You may perhaps believe that there is no transfer of sovereign power involved there but if you do, have you any independent source or reference to support you in that belief?0 -
Why are you so defensive all of a sudden? It was you who brought in the phrase 'transfer of sovereignty' into your explanation. I am happy to go with any definition of that you might have yourself. I presume you have one?
My definition would be that sovereignty is transferred to the EU when the EU is given exclusive competence. I think that was rather clearly implied in my posts.
Does that help?
Scofflaw0 -
The Commissioners answer to their national governments, [/SIZE]
That is, quite simply, untrue.
Once "appointed", the commissioners are specifically excluded from pursuing a nationalist agenda on behalf of their governments. Their allegiance is to the EU, and to the commission, and they are specifically excluded from taking orders, or being responsible, to any national government.
And, once "appointed", the government who has appointed them, has no power over them. They can't dismiss them, they can't discipline them, and they can't even influence them over policy.
The commissioners answer to the president of the commission and, to an extent, to the EU parliament.
Additionally, the commissioners do not have to answer to the electorate of the EU over which they hold power, and we have no ability to vote them in to power, or to vote them out of power.
That is why we should vote "no" to the Lisbon treaty which gives them power over additional areas and takes that power away from national democratically elected governments and hands it to unelected commissioners.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Asking for proof that something doesn't exist is the height of sophistry. If you believe it exists, you prove it.
Well that is an interesting intervention. Have you read the recent posts where I was asking scofflaw to back up his claim that the Lisbon treaty contained no grant of competences to the EU? Do you think that is something that he should not be challenged on OB?
If it is permitted to challenge him on what seems like an important claim, then you might allow me to refer to his answer. Namely that he actually meant there was no transfer of sovereignty in the areas which will now be made areas of shared competence. His phrase not mine. You now say that for some reason I should prove that there is a transfer of sovereignty? Fascinating logic at work there. In my opinion.0 -
Advertisement
-
My definition would be that sovereignty is transferred to the EU when the EU is given exclusive competence. I think that was rather clearly implied in my posts.
Does that help?
Scofflaw
Yes that is a very helpful - and quite novel. I have to admit I cannot see it implied in your posts. We know what you meant now anyway. Do you know anyone else who shares your understanding on this?0 -
That is, quite simply, untrue.
Once "appointed", the commissioners are specifically excluded from pursuing a nationalist agenda on behalf of their governments.
And, once "appointed", the government who has appointed them, has no power over them. They can't dismiss them, they can't discipline them, and they can't even influence them over policy.
The commissioners answer to the president of the commission and, to an extent, to the EU parliament.
Additionally, the commissioners do not have to answer to the electorate of the EU over which they hold power, and we have no ability to vote them in to power, or to vote them out of power.
That is why we should vote "no" to the Lisbon treaty which gives them power over additional areas and takes that power away from national democratically elected governments and hands it to unelected commissioners.
We've been over this.
The Commission answers to the Parliament, first.
Second, the individual Commissioners are put forward by their national governments, so a Commissioner who is not satisfactory will not be put forward again - and since everyone seems to assume that once they have their snouts in the EU gravy they think of nothing else, that's accountable.
Third, the Commission President can dismiss an individual Commissioner (with the agreement of the other Commissioners) so all a national government has to do is request the dismissal of their Commissioner.
Fourth, it would be extremely unlikely that a Commissioner would hang on if asked to resign by their national government, since the national government is responsible for putting them forward in the first place, and they are almost invariably national politicians.
wearily,
Scofflaw0 -
Yes that is a very helpful - and quite novel. I have to admit I cannot see it implied in your posts. We know what you meant now anyway. Do you know anyone else who shares your understanding on this?
It is implied, quite clearly, by my saying that I only saw the exclusive competences as involving a transfer of sovereignty.
If you have a different definition, feel free to put it forward. Since you've made this about my definition, I'm afraid don't see any need to support it by reference to anyone else. What would the relevance be (not that that seems to worry you)?
Scofflaw0 -
As I said, I am glad we understand what you mean. That is progress. I was just wondering if you know anyone who shares your understanding or is it all your own work like?0
-
Yes, I do, and for precisely the same reasons. He had already responded before I could intervene earlier.Well that is an interesting intervention. Have you read the recent posts where I was asking scofflaw to back up his claim that the Lisbon treaty contained no grant of competences to the EU? Do you think that is something that he should not be challenged on OB?
So, back to the point: if you believe something exists, produce documentary evidence for it, and be prepared to defend it.0 -
I am happy to go with any definition of that you might have yourself.
So, when you said you'd be happy to go with Scofflaw's definition, what you meant was that you'd be happy to challenge him to back up his definition with reference to other people's definitions?As I said, I am glad we understand what you mean. That is progress. I was just wondering if you know anyone who shares your understanding or is it all your own work like?
Do you intend to discuss the treaty at some point in all of this?0 -
Well OB I could ask you if you intend to discuss the treaty at all in this exchange but I won't because I think that would be unwarranted.
Here is the thing:
A poster says the treaty contains no new competences for the EU. That is an important claim. It might be true, it might not. Either way it matters. If it is true, we do not need to have a referendum at all. If it is not true, we need to know so that we can do two things. One is figure out what else he might be mistaken about and the second is figure out what exactly it is that we are giving to the EU in approving the treaty.
Now he helpfully explains, after a bit of prodding, that he thinks that there is only a transfer of sovereignty if we give the EU 'exclusive competence' in an area.
I never heard anyone offer that explanation before, and the poster seems to me to be unique in his opinion.
There you go. We have a vote on this precisely because we are giving away some of the control we have as Irish people over what our government does. In my opinion.0 -
Well OB I could ask you if you intend to discuss the treaty at all in this exchange but I won't because I think that would be unwarranted.
Here is the thing:
A poster says the treaty contains no new competences for the EU. That is an important claim. It might be true, it might not. Either way it matters. If it is true, we do not need to have a referendum at all. If it is not true, we need to know so that we can do two things. One is figure out what else he might be mistaken about and the second is figure out what exactly it is that we are giving to the EU in approving the treaty.
Now he helpfully explains, after a bit of prodding, that he thinks that there is only a transfer of sovereignty if we give the EU 'exclusive competence' in an area.
I never heard anyone offer that explanation before, and the poster seems to me to be unique in his opinion.
There you go. We have a vote on this precisely because we are giving away some of the control we have as Irish people over what our government does. In my opinion.
Which is to say that you have a different definition of 'transfer of sovereignty' from me. Congratulations.
Perhaps you would care to share your implied definition - second time of asking, by the way, since we're talking about 'prodding'.
Scofflaw0 -
You may have missed this in my last post scofflaw - which reflects my understanding of what is meant by a transfer of sovereignty.
We have a vote on this precisely because we are giving away some of the control we have as Irish people over what our government does.0 -
Advertisement
-
You may have missed this in my last post scofflaw - which reflects my understanding of what is meant by a transfer of sovereignty.
We have a vote on this precisely because we are giving away some of the control we have as Irish people over what our government does.
Ah, so it is OK to have an implied definition as long as you're doing it? Fair enough - I know where I stand then. You don't want to debate anything substantive, you want to debate "definitions", on your terms.
Wake me up when you want to debate the Treaty, rather than the vagaries of those who debate it.
bored now,
Scofflaw0
Advertisement