Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

Chunky Monkey

Yes you have confused me more, thank you scofflaw

Would a privatised service promote universal access and equality of treatment though? It doesn't seem to in the US.

Unless of course that includes means testing though to be honest that has me churning in the stomach too cos who will develop the system and will they do it properly without the money signs glowing in their eyes and 'screw the poor' bubbles above their heads.

Scofflaw

Chunky Monkey wrote: »

Yes you have confused me more, thank you scofflaw

Would a privatised service promote universal access and equality of treatment though? It doesn't seem to in the US.

Unless of course that includes means testing though to be honest that has me churning in the stomach too cos who will develop the system and will they do it properly without the money signs glowing in their eyes and 'screw the poor' bubbles above their heads.

Well, that is a bit of an entirely separate discussion (which I'd be perfectly happy to have), but sticking within the question of Lisbon - if the Irish government decided in a mad fit that the Irish Health Service should be based on the idea of equal treatment for all, free at the point of service (as per the NHS), that would be OK under Lisbon. If on the other hand they decided to base things on the US model of unequal treatment, improbably expensive at the point of treatment - that would also be OK under Lisbon, but competition rules would apply.

Some people have argued that we should vote No because the Lisbon Treaty doesn't mandate socialised public services of the NHS kind - but since they're also arguing that we should vote No rather than let the EU 'meddle', I don't pay much attention to that argument.


cordially,
Scofflaw

jawlie

IRLConor wrote: »

Both you and I agree that universal suffrage* would be a better way of selecting the commissioners. Arguing that I don't is either a misunderstanding on your part or mudslinging. I hope it's the former.

How about I make a little table to make it more clear:

                    jawlie         IRLConor
Universal suffrage: Best method    Best method
The current method: Unacceptable   Acceptable, but non-optimal

* Note suffrage, not sufferage. The word has nothing to do with suffering (thank $DEITY).

lol - thanks for the spelling of suffrage - it was irritating me as I knew it was wrong and I was too lazy to get my dictionary...!

I wasn't trying to personalise an argument and my position is that i find it quite extraordinary that there are those who think that to appoint a commissioner somehow amounts to the same thing as the commissioner being elected by those over whom he holds power. It was to their argument and position I was directing my point, and not to you personally.

I find it inexplicable that there seem to be those who are incapable of understanding the value of universal suffrage and can dismiss the necessity for it so lightly when it comes to electing those who will have politicial power over us.

IRLConor wrote: »

Yes, I fully agree with you. Where we disagree is that I don't believe that voting No on the Lisbon Treaty will bring us any closer to a more democratic EU, nor will it force any such democratic reforms to be considered.

You are right that this is where we disagree as I think it likely we will never have democracy when it comes to electing commissioners unless we stop granting them more and more powers. By meekly always agreeing to transfer more and more powers, there is no incentive for the EU to make this necessary reform, and there will only be an incentive if we refuse to grant the commissioners more powers.

By voting "NO" to this treaty we will retain something they want which gives them an incentive to change their ways and become democratic. By meekly voting "yes" that will not change.

Vote "NO" until such times as the commissioners, who hold political power of all of us, are elected by universal suffrage.

Chunky Monkey

Scofflaw wrote: »

Some people have argued that we should vote No because the Lisbon Treaty doesn't mandate socialised public services of the NHS kind - but since they're also arguing that we should vote No rather than let the EU 'meddle', I don't pay much attention to that argument.

That's a good point.

Galliard

That cuts both ways.

Some want us to vote Yes to increase the say the Dail has over draft EU laws. Others want us to vote Yes to take power away from our corrupt political system and give it to the one in Brussels.

Some say we should vote Yes to 'strengthen our neutrality' and some want us to vote Yes to get rid of neutrality.

Some want us to vote Yes to improve workers' rights and others want us to vote Yes to strengthen the hand of employers.

Some want us to vote Yes to make us more attractive to US investment. Others want us to vote Yes so we can detach ourselves from our ties to the US.

And so on.

Scofflaw

I would be very interested to see some links here...

Galliard wrote: »

Some want us to vote Yes to increase the say the Dail has over draft EU laws. Others want us to vote Yes to take power away from our corrupt political system and give it to the one in Brussels.

Who is arguing for the latter, exactly?

Galliard wrote: »

Some say we should vote Yes to 'strengthen our neutrality' and some want us to vote Yes to get rid of neutrality.

And who is arguing for the former?

Galliard wrote: »

Some want us to vote Yes to improve workers' rights and others want us to vote Yes to strengthen the hand of employers.

These are not contradictory, unless you believe that the whole point of being an employer is to reduce your workers to rights-less slaves. Not that there aren't people who argue that, but they're nearly all on the No side.

Galliard wrote: »

Some want us to vote Yes to make us more attractive to US investment. Others want us to vote Yes so we can detach ourselves from our ties to the US.

And neither are these - we want to stop Europe being a US satellite, certainly, but that doesn't mean their money isn't welcome. We would welcome Indian investment, but I don't have much interest in moving into India's 'orbit'.

Galliard wrote: »

And so on.

Not a very good showing - and hardly one that suggests there's much more in the pot! Not only that, but there's a lot more contradictions in the No side that I hadn't yet bothered to point out. They're mostly fairly obvious, though - the treaty will result in a communist-style Europe, the Treaty will result in a neo-liberal Europe - it's totally left-wing (Libertas), it's totally right-wing (SF) - and so on, as you say.

Funnily, the Yes side speakers don't seem to have the same problem sharing a platform with their fellow-travellers as, say, Libertas and Sinn Fein do.

amused,
Scofflaw

jawlie

Scofflaw wrote: »

Funnily, the Yes side speakers don't seem to have the same problem sharing a platform with their fellow-travellers as, say, Libertas and Sinn Fein do.

amused,
Scofflaw

I wasn't aware either Libertas or Sinn Fein have a problem sharing a platform with their fellow travellers. Its a shame we can't all stick to the arguments rather than attempting to slur each other.

Even if someone does have a problem sharing a platform, what of it?

Why can't we deal with the arguments involved in the discussion?

Scofflaw

jawlie wrote: »

I wasn't aware either Libertas or Sinn Fein have a problem sharing a platform with their fellow travellers. Its a shame we can't all stick to the arguments rather than attempting to slur each other.

Even if someone does have a problem sharing a platform, what of it?

Why can't we deal with the arguments involved in the discussion?

It seemed a fair response to Galliard's post - and Declan Ganley of Libertas apparently refused to share a platform with Sinn Fein, I would presume because what they're saying about the Treaty is contradictory (which was the point).

Besides, I see you didn't even address my points about how the election of Commissioners would make them beholden to their 'constituencies', so rendering them partial rather than accountable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jawlie

Scofflaw wrote: »

It seemed a fair response to Galliard's post - and Declan Ganley of Libertas apparently refused to share a platform with Sinn Fein, I would presume because what they're saying about the Treaty is contradictory (which was the point).

Besides, I see you didn't even address my points about how the election of Commissioners would make them beholden to their 'constituencies', so rendering them partial rather than accountable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Democracy means being accountable to ones constituency. What you call beholden others call accountable. If you feel democracy is a bad idea because it makes politicians beholden to their electors, that is your choice. It might be churlish to point out that that makes you a bedfellow of, amongst others, Stalin, Mugabe and Amin, who also felt, as politicians, no need to be beholden to their fellow citizens, I make no apologies for being a democrat.

That seems to be the difference between us.

Scofflaw

jawlie wrote: »

Democracy means being accountable to ones constituency. What you call beholden others call accountable. If you feel democracy is a bad idea because it makes politicians beholden to their electors, that is your choice. It might be churlish to point out that that makes you a bedfellow of, amongst others, Stalin, Mugabe and Amin, who also felt, as politicians, no need to be beholden to their fellow citizens, I make no apologies for being a democrat.

That seems to be the difference between us.

Hmm. That's a rather pointless allusion to dictatorships, which don't usually limit themselves to 5-year terms, allow themselves to be appointed by other people, or allow themselves to be dismissed by Parliaments. Judges would be a better analogy.

Commissioners are supposed to be impartial in respect of the EU member states - which is why they are not elected by EU member states. Your point might have some validity if the elections were EU-wide, but I can't see that as very functional.

Is that what you're aiming for - removal of the "national" system of Commissioners, and their election in EU-wide elections?

On a side-note, would you favour the election of people like judges and doctors?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Victor

jawlie wrote: »

Democracy means being accountable to ones constituency. What you call beholden others call accountable. If you feel democracy is a bad idea because it makes politicians beholden to their electors, that is your choice. It might be churlish to point out that that makes you a bedfellow of, amongst others, Stalin, Mugabe and Amin, who also felt, as politicians, no need to be beholden to their fellow citizens, I make no apologies for being a democrat.

That seems to be the difference between us.

But Stalin, Mugabe and Amin, are accountable to their constituencies, they were just limited constituencies.

jawlie

Victor wrote: »

But Stalin, Mugabe and Amin, are accountable to their constituencies, they were just limited constituencies.

Lol, that made me laugh because of course it is also true!

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. That's a rather pointless allusion to dictatorships, which don't usually limit themselves to 5-year terms, allow themselves to be appointed by other people, or allow themselves to be dismissed by Parliaments. Judges would be a better analogy.

Many people are, of course, appointed. Only this week I appointed a new cleaner for my house, for example.

It's important to recognise the difference between those with political power and others. Judges, or domestic cleaners, do not have political power over us.
Perhaps it is a good idea to discuss the merits or otherwise of electing judges, although it might be better to start off a new thread as this thread is comcerned about the Lisbon treaty and the point that commissioners, and the president of the commission, who have political power over us, and are not elected.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Commissioners are supposed to be impartial in respect of the EU member states - which is why they are not elected by EU member states. Your point might have some validity if the elections were EU-wide, but I can't see that as very functional.

In so many ways commissioners are like our own government ministers, who are supposed to be impartial to their own constituency, who elected them, and are supposed to consider the good of the whole country.

I can't understand why you seem to be so opposed to universal suffrage to elect those who hold political power over us.

You seem happy that we do not get the chance to vote for this group of politicians (the commissioner and the president of the commission),whereas I am not happy that they (or any politician who holds political power over us) are not subject to election by universal suffrage.

I am a democrat and believe in this basic tenet of democracy, and had always assumed that that view was shared by most people in this country. It is unusual to find someone who appears to believe it neither necessary or desirable to elect those who hold considerable political power over us.

Scofflaw wrote: »

On a side-note, would you favour the election of people like judges and doctors?

I am concerned that we live in a democracy and that those who hold political power are elected by those over whom they hold an exercise that power.

If a judge, or a doctor, wants to become a TD or a commissioner, then of course I favour them being elected by the people over whom they will have political power.

oscarBravo

jawlie wrote: »

In so many ways commissioners are like our own government ministers, who are supposed to be impartial to their own constituency, who elected them, and are supposed to consider the good of the whole country.

I have to say, this is a really cleverly structured paragraph. It looks almost exactly like a response to Scofflaw's point. Unfortunately, it totally sidesteps it.

Yes, our government ministers are supposed to be impartial to their own constituency. Can you say, hand on heart, that they are?

A commissioner elected by the people of Ireland would inevitably become Ireland's commissioner, as opposed to the commissioner for <whatever>. If two potential commissioners were running for election, one of whom was promising the sun, moon and stars for Ireland and the other promising to do a fair and even-handed job for all countries in whatever portfolio was assigned to him - which do you think would be elected?

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote:

A commissioner elected by the people of Ireland would inevitably become Ireland's commissioner, as opposed to the commissioner for <whatever>. If two potential commissioners were running for election, one of whom was promising the sun, moon and stars for Ireland and the other promising to do a fair and even-handed job for all countries in whatever portfolio was assigned to him - which do you think would be elected?

I don't actually expect jawlie to engage with the points - we all know that Ministers do favour their own constituencies, and I think we probably all accept that the same thing would happen if Commissioners were elected by national constituencies. If anyone thinks that might get a good deal for Ireland, perhaps they should bear in mind that 26 out of the 27 would be favouring their own countries rather than Ireland.

I notice jawlie also didn't answer as to whether he favoured the abolition of national mandates to prevent this kind of problem....there's a further question, of course, which is: who gets what commissionership?

Assuming we have, say, 6 candidates for Irish Commissioner, so that to win one only need represent 20% of the Irish electorate...all well and good (apparently)...but which Commissionership will they be elected to?

cordially,
Scofflaw

jawlie

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't actually expect jawlie to engage with the points - we all know that Ministers do favour their own constituencies, and I think we probably all accept that the same thing would happen if Commissioners were elected by national constituencies. If anyone thinks that might get a good deal for Ireland, perhaps they should bear in mind that 26 out of the 27 would be favouring their own countries rather than Ireland.

I notice jawlie also didn't answer as to whether he favoured the abolition of national mandates to prevent this kind of problem....there's a further question, of course, which is: who gets what commissionership?

Assuming we have, say, 6 candidates for Irish Commissioner, so that to win one only need represent 20% of the Irish electorate...all well and good (apparently)...but which Commissionership will they be elected to?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think we'll have to just accept we disagree on this point - I am in favour of democracy to elect those in positions of political power, and you seem to prefer other methods of putting them in power as you think democracy is flawed.

Scofflaw

jawlie wrote: »

I think we'll have to just accept we disagree on this point - I am in favour of democracy to elect those in positions of political power, and you seem to prefer other methods of putting them in power as you think democracy is flawed.

Jawlie, you're simply avoiding any discussion of whether direct election is the best method of selecting Commissioners.

Commissioners are subject to the oversight of directly elected MEPs, and of the directly elected members of the national government. Directly electing the Commissioners themselves introduces more problems than it solves.

It's all very well repeating the mantra that you're in favour of democracy and I'm not, but it's meaningless - you can't show why direct election is best, and how you avoid the problems that have been pointed out to you.

Democracy does have flaws. It takes a bit of thought to overcome such flaws - and unfortunately you appear to think it doesn't, or to be unwilling to do the necessary thinking.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jawlie

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's all very well repeating the mantra that you're in favour of democracy and I'm not, but it's meaningless - you can't show why direct election is best, and how you avoid the problems that have been pointed out to you.

Democracy does have flaws. It takes a bit of thought to overcome such flaws - and unfortunately you appear to think it doesn't, or to be unwilling to do the necessary thinking.

I really can't add anything useful to my previous post and think it's best expressed by Winston Churchill ;

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965), Hansard, November 11, 1947

Scofflaw

jawlie wrote: »

I really can't add anything useful to my previous post and think it's best expressed by Winston Churchill ;

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965), Hansard, November 11, 1947

That would be the same Churchill who was Prime Minister of a democracy which uses a different voting system from us, and which at the time had an entirely unelected aristocratic upper house and a monarchy?

Do you understand at all that "democracy" does not simply mean "direct election of everybody"? We live in a democracy, but we do not elect our judges (as they do in the US, which is also a democracy), we do have referendums (which are illegal in the German democracy, and rare in the UK), we do not have an unelected monarch (as the Spanish, Dutch, and British democracies do, for example), and there is no life membership of the upper house (unlike several other democracies).

If you want to make a case for direct election of the Commissioners, you'll have to actually make a case - simply repeating your claim that "it's democracy" and they you're "more democratic" than me is not really very persuasive.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jawlie

Scofflaw wrote: »

Do you understand at all that "democracy" does not simply mean "direct election of everybody"? We live in a democracy, but we do not elect our judges (as they do in the US, which is also a democracy), we do have referendums (which are illegal in the German democracy, and rare in the UK), we do not have an unelected monarch (as the Spanish, Dutch, and British democracies do, for example), and there is no life membership of the upper house (unlike several other democracies).

I am not calling for the direct election of everybody. I am calling for the election of politicians who hold political power over us.

It is a red herring to bring in judges,referenda, unelected monarchs and life membership of upper houses. What we are discussing is the election by universal suffrage of the EU commissioners who do hold political power over us.

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you want to make a case for direct election of the Commissioners, you'll have to actually make a case - simply repeating your claim that "it's democracy" and they you're "more democratic" than me is not really very persuasive.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't agree that anyone has to make a case for electing those who hold political power over us. That's called democracy, and I am a democrat.

Scofflaw

jawlie wrote: »

I am not calling for the direct election of everybody. I am calling for the election of politicians who hold political power over us.

It is a red herring to bring in judges,referenda, unelected monarchs and life membership of upper houses. What we are discussing is the election by universal suffrage of the EU commissioners who do hold political power over us.

Many of those do wield power over people's lives - as do the unelected heads of quangos here. Indeed, I'd enjoy watching you define "political" power as opposed to any other.

jawlie wrote: »

I don't agree that anyone has to make a case for electing those who hold political power over us. That's called democracy, and I am a democrat.

As indeed am I - the difference is that I am a thinking one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jawlie

Scofflaw wrote: »

Many of those do wield power over people's lives - as do the unelected heads of quangos here. Indeed, I'd enjoy watching you define "political" power as opposed to any other.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm not sure what your argument is. Is it that because you judge some people who have power over us who are not elected, then that is a good argument not to elect politicians?

Or are you arguing that quangos should also be elected?

IRLConor

Scofflaw wrote: »

Many of those do wield power over people's lives - as do the unelected heads of quangos here. Indeed, I'd enjoy watching you define "political" power as opposed to any other.

In fact, one could argue that Supreme Court judges here hold considerable political power given their ability to decide what the constitution means with little or no oversight.

Scofflaw

jawlie wrote: »

I'm not sure what your argument is. Is it that because you judge some people who have power over us who are not elected, then that is a good argument not to elect politicians?

Or are you arguing that quangos should also be elected?

Mmm...no. My argument was set out several posts ago. I did wonder if you'd actually read it.

Elected Commissioners would produce the same problem as with elected Ministers. Ministers are not supposed to favour their home constituencies, but do so, because it boosts their chance of being re-elected.

If we have an election in Ireland to determine who will be the Irish Commissioner, with several candidates standing, how do you propose to avoid this 'partiality' problem?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

IRLConor wrote: »

In fact, one could argue that Supreme Court judges here hold considerable political power given their ability to decide what the constitution means with little or no oversight.

As I said, I'd be interested to see what jawlie defines as 'political power'. I would certainly include the ability to interpret the Constitution under that heading - after all, such an interpretation in the Crotty case is the reason why we're having a referendum...

cordially,
Scofflaw

WillieFlynn

Scofflaw wrote: »

Is that what you're aiming for - removal of the "national" system of Commissioners, and their election in EU-wide elections?

Now that would be a good idea......

It would remove the 'partiality' and democracic deficit arguments in one go....

Scofflaw

WillieFlynn wrote: »

Now that would be a good idea......

It would remove the 'partiality' and democracic deficit arguments in one go....

It would be interesting, but it would have the problem that (a) you probably wouldn't know who the the candidates were apart from the one(s) from your own country; (b) there's very little chance, as a result, that people would vote for anyone but the candidates for their country; and (c) the system of voting would have to be extremely complicated to avoid the large countries electing virtually the entire Commission - to the point where effectively the votes would simply become national elections again.

Maybe in a hundred years!

cordially,
Scofflaw

rowlandbrowner

If somebody could point me towards a simple little FAQ for the Lisbon treaty explaining what it does and what it doesn't do I will be grateful.
It seems to me the general opinion of the pro-treaty partys is that we the people shouldn't decide on this type of treaty for the fact that we can't comprehend it and hence we elect them to make these type of calls for us, but I will be deciding this so some of the questions I’d love a straight answer to are....

Will this effectively end Irelands policy of neutrality? & Will this grant political power to people who can’t be removed by the people of European/relevant member state?

IRLConor

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

If somebody could point me towards a simple little FAQ for the Lisbon treaty explaining what it does and what it doesn't do I will be grateful.
It seems to me the general opinion of the pro-treaty partys is that we the people shouldn't decide on this type of treaty for the fact that we can't comprehend it and hence we elect them to make these type of calls for us, but I will be deciding this so some of the questions I’d love a straight answer to are....

There's a bunch of links in another thread.

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

Will this effectively end Irelands policy of neutrality?

No. If you have a look at the proposed amendment to our constitution it opts us out of the common defence portions of the treaty.

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

Will this grant power to people who can’t be removed by the people of European/relevant member state?

No. All EU politicians are removable one way or another.

The European Council/Council of Ministers is made up of national politicians (either ministers or heads of government) and hence they are all answerable to their relevant member states.

The European Commission is made up of political appointees and can be removed by the European Parliament. (The EP did this in 1999 to the Jacques Santer Commission.)

The European Parliament is directly elected by the people of the EU. You can remove them (i.e. refuse to re-elect them), but since they're elected on 5 year cycles you might be waiting a while for them to go.

jawlie

IRLConor wrote: »

The European Commission is made up of political appointees and can be removed by the European Parliament. (The EP did this in 1999 to the Jacques Santer Commission.)

.

The EU commission is where the real power of the EU lies, just like the real power of our Dail lies in the hands of the Taoioseach and his ministers.The commissioners are responsible, and have direct powers to;
• propose new powers and initiate legislation,
• to enact delegated legislation,
• to represent the EU in external relations
• to implement EU policies and supervise their implementation by the member states.
Additionally, the president himself (much like our taoiseach), selects which commissioners will hold which portfolio.
• The commission sets the overall budget for the EU
• The president of the commission has an important and influential position, being responsible for policy initatives,
• shaping overall commission policy,
• coordinating commission policy,
• has the power (just like our taoiseach) to "request" a member of the commission to resign.
• Like our taoiseach, he can reshuffle his commission on a whim.

Just to be precise, the commissioners, and president of the commission, are empowered to make decisions and political judgments on our behalf. They are not equivalent to our civil servants who carry out the decisions and policy made by our taoiseach and ministers, the commissioners make the decisions and policy, just like our elected taoiseach and ministers, and have their own civil service to implement them.

The difference is that, while the president of the commission and the commissioners have considerable political powers over us all, they are not elected and not accountable to us as an electorate.

This is the reason why anyone who values democracy has to vote “NO” to the transfer of more powers to these unelected politicians until such times as they are elected by universal suffrage.

oscarBravo

A few questions, jawlie:

• Do you think that a commissioner should be elected by each country? If so, how do you avoid the problems of clientelism?
• If, on the other hand, you believe that commissioners should be elected across the EU, how do you avoid the problem of larger countries dominating the polls?
• How should the President be elected, and by whom, and how do you avoid the same problems as those involved in the election of commissioners?

I would appreciate answers to these, if, as you claim, you're genuinely interested in debate.