Yes to Lisbon = Goodbye Constitutional Republic

democrates

The yes campaign have been busy berating people for being uninformed about the Lisbon treaty, but that discussion is actually a relative sideshow, the most critical change we're being asked to vote for is not in the Lisbon treaty at all, but in the 28th Ammendment of the Constitution Bill 2008, IE the changes to our own constitution Bunreacht na hEireann.

This ammendment arrived in a boring looking orange and white leaflet (without the words 'Lisbon' anywhere on the front or back covers), posted out *seperately* to the Lisbon treaty leaflet, but it shows the changes we are being asked to make to our own constitution in order to pass not just Lisbon, but in one fell swoop any future EU laws, acts, or measures.

The second paragraph on this excerpt from page 1 is the real kicker:

10° The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty
on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Com-
munity, signed at Lisbon on the 13th day of December 2007, and
may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of
that Treaty.

11° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts
done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the
obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in
subsection 10° of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or
measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions
thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this
section, from having the force of law in the State.

If this goes into our constitution, we will have rendered our constitution subordinate to any laws, acts or measures adopted by the EU or by Dail politicians on behalf of the EU.

That is the end of our republic right there. A republic is supposed to hold it's constitution as the prime legal document which can only be altered by we, the people, and all legislation must comply with OUR CONSTITUTION. If we pass the 28th ammendment as suggested, we subordinate our constitution to the EU, give up our final say as citizens on anything emanating from the EU and hand it to politicians both local and foreign.

That's going way way way too far people and it's completely unnecessary.

We don't have to accept this, and here's a plan B: an EU in which we retain our national sovereignty as a constitutional republic where we the citizens have final say on the laws of our land, and co-operate with our fellow Europeans where we agree it makes sense to co-operate.

Scofflaw

Why are people claiming this is new? We inserted the first version of this clause when we joined the EC. You either haven't read our Constitution, or are spinning a line.

This is what's currently in there:

Bunreacht wrote:

10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

And this is the "new" version:

11° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10° of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.

If it is not clear that the new version has identical force to the old one, then I suggest rereading it.

Why don't people read the ruddy Constitution? HERE IT IS. Go and fecking read it!

irritated,
Scofflaw

Gobán Saor

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why don't people read the ruddy Constitution? HERE IT IS. Go and fecking read it!

irritated,
Scofflaw

That would require effort and rationality. MUCH better to throw out groundless scare stories. Why confuse the issue with facts??:rolleyes:


All the same, its amazing the attachment people profess to a document they've obviously never read:rolleyes:

democrates

Thanks for pointing that out and for the link to the 2002 version, I was working off my old blue hardcopy so hands up , this one is not down to Lisbon.

Still, it rankles that this (sticking with the proposed rewording which I accept is just a name change) :

11° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts
done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the
obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in
subsection 10° of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or
measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions
thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this
section, from having the force of law in the State.

would seem contrary to Article 15:

2.1° The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is hereby vested in the Oireachtas: no other legislative authority has power to make laws for the State.
2° Provision may however be made by law for the creation or recognition of subordinate legislatures and for the powers and functions of these legislatures.

It seems to me article 29 does a deft end-run around article 15, and I am not amused.

I've read a bit more after the well deserved scolding and discovered a key point that means Lisbon is not in fact the last chance motel (which I'm surprised no well read boardsie raised). Lisbon introduces Article 49A which sets down how a member can leave the EU:

The following new Article 49 A shall be inserted:
"ARTICLE 49 A
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

So in fairness after Lisbon that option is at least explicitly defined, and while it should have been in earlier treaties I can't slate them for including it now.

That said, leaving would be the nuclear option, we'd take an awful lot of hardship before going that route. I've other issues but I'll stick to discussing them in situ.

To re-iterate for scanners: I was wrong on this one, consider this thread a mistake.

Scofflaw

And fair dues to you for saying so!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Gobán Saor

Scofflaw wrote: »

And fair dues to you for saying so!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, indeed, fair dues.

You raise an interesting issue about the "conflict" between Atricles 15 and 29. The Constitution is full of such conflicts. For instance, one person's right to freedom of expression conflicts with another's right to his good name. Both are constitutionally guaranteed rights. There is buckets of case law about how the Courts have resolved such conflicts and the principles of interpretation they use to do so. The difficult bit is that the principles themselves change from time to time, from judge to judge and from case to case. The Supreme Court even overrules its own previous decisions from time to time. The currently popular view appears to be the "harmonious" interpretation, whereby the provisions of the document must be seen as in harmony with each other and interpreted in the light of the "common good" and the principles of "prudence, justice and charity" mentioned in the preamble. If you think this is all a bit woolly, you are right! In effect, it allows the Supreme Court to make it up as they go along. This leaves the ordinary citizen in a difficult position as to how to ascertain what precisely the Constitution is deemed to mean at any time. While the Constitution itself is a short document, the leading textbook on it (The Irish Constitution - Kelly and Hogan) stretches to 2275 pages.

It also leads to people seizing on one particular provision (usually one that they like!) and insisting that this is the definitive position while ignoring (or being unaware of) conflicting or qualifying provisions elsewhere in the Constitution.

democrates

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Yes, indeed, fair dues.

You raise an interesting issue about the "conflict" between Atricles 15 and 29. The Constitution is full of such conflicts. For instance, one person's right to freedom of expression conflicts with another's right to his good name. Both are constitutionally guaranteed rights. There is buckets of case law about how the Courts have resolved such conflicts and the principles of interpretation they use to do so. The difficult bit is that the principles themselves change from time to time, from judge to judge and from case to case. The Supreme Court even overrules its own previous decisions from time to time. The currently popular view appears to be the "harmonious" interpretation, whereby the provisions of the document must be seen as in harmony with each other and interpreted in the light of the "common good" and the principles of "prudence, justice and charity" mentioned in the preamble. If you think this is all a bit woolly, you are right! In effect, it allows the Supreme Court to make it up as they go along. This leaves the ordinary citizen in a difficult position as to how to ascertain what precisely the Constitution is deemed to mean at any time. While the Constitution itself is a short document, the leading textbook on it (The Irish Constitution - Kelly and Hogan) stretches to 2275 pages.

It also leads to people seizing on one particular provision (usually one that they like!) and insisting that this is the definitive position while ignoring (or being unaware of) conflicting or qualifying provisions elsewhere in the Constitution.

Yes, the devil is in the detail as they say, and in fairness if the Lisbon treaty attempted to prescribe for all possible future scenarios it would likely run far beyond 27 times larger than Kelly and Hogan, and pro rata the negative public reaction if asked to consider it.

So it's fair to say that some disputes over Lisbon may similarly end up being resolved as case law by the ECJ, but that's not a criticism of Lisbon itself, more an observation of the reality of constitutions and treaties. The bottom line is that a level of uncertainty is always there, and we've seen it with our own constitution on a few occasions where loopholes were created by rushed ammendments in the heat of hoi polloi and we had to go back and ammend it.

Irish and Proud

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why are people claiming this is new? We inserted the first version of this clause when we joined the EC. You either haven't read our Constitution, or are spinning a line.

This is what's currently in there:



And this is the "new" version:



If it is not clear that the new version has identical force to the old one, then I suggest rereading it.

Why don't people read the ruddy Constitution? HERE IT IS. Go and fecking read it!

irritated,
Scofflaw

Ok, you're probably right in what you say, but I can tell you this much: If I was voting in 1973 on EEC membership and this clause was being inserted into our constitution, I'd certainly have voted NO!

Also, if all the versions of the text are similar and have no varying legal implications, why change the wording, and what's more, why are we voting on it if there's no change involved - after all, it's part of a constitutional amendment.

What you don't seem to realise is how sly politicians can be - basically, we don't know the half of it, especially with solicitors involved. When you hear the way the politicians try to browbeat us into voting for Lisbon, does that not say enough regarding what they might be up to.

BTW, I had to laugh - Brian Cowen in hot water over describing some people as f***ers - something which we'd all probably do a some stage anyway. If the opposition really want to have a go at Cowen, why not try attacking the way in which he is effectively gagging his party in relation to Lisbon. Why are all the main parties for Lisbon - because it's so good? :rolleyes:

Well, if this treaty is so good for Ireland and Europe, why do politicians have to browbeat us (the Irish people) and deny other peoples a say on something that will effectively change the status of their constitutions - Oh! and what is this opt-out withdrawal clause in relation to Ireland and policing in the EU. One has to remember the Homeland Security Bill in the US - I think, I think, I smell a stink!!! :eek:

I just don't trust any of these politicians - I'll be voting NO! I don't want a United States of Europe.

Thanks, but no thanks! - Sick!

Regards!

Scofflaw

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Ok, you're probably right in what you say, but I can tell you this much: If I was voting in 1973 on EEC membership and this clause was being inserted into our constitution, I'd certainly have voted NO!

Given the amount of play this particular issue is getting, it's slightly surprising that 35 years have gone by without any significant movement to remove that clause.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Also, if all the versions of the text are similar and have no varying legal implications, why change the wording, and what's more, why are we voting on it if there's no change involved - after all, it's part of a constitutional amendment.

The existing amendment refers to the European Communities, which Lisbon folds up into the EU - if that bit of the Constitution doesn't get changed, it will refer to a non-existent organisation. It's therefore necessary to change the amendment.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

What you don't seem to realise is how sly politicians can be - basically, we don't know the half of it, especially with solicitors involved. When you hear the way the politicians try to browbeat us into voting for Lisbon, does that not say enough regarding what they might be up to.

BTW, I had to laugh - Brian Cowen in hot water over describing some people as f***ers - something which we'd all probably do a some stage anyway. If the opposition really want to have a go at Cowen, why not try attacking the way in which he is effectively gagging his party in relation to Lisbon. Why are all the main parties for Lisbon - because it's so good? :rolleyes:

That's right - because it's a good deal. It's not a perfect deal for Ireland, but that's because there were 26 other countries involved, so we won't ever get a perfect deal.

As to "browbeating" - well, they're going for a hard sell, but certainly not more so - indeed, a good deal less so - than at election times.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Well, if this treaty is so good for Ireland and Europe, why do politicians have to browbeat us (the Irish people) and deny other peoples a say on something that will effectively change the status of their constitutions - Oh! and what is this opt-out withdrawal clause in relation to Ireland and policing in the EU. One has to remember the Homeland Security Bill in the US - I think, I think, I smell a stink!!! :eek:

OK - that doesn't make any sense, I'm afraid. Ireland (and the UK) have opt-outs on the justice and policing measures because we use common-law (Nordic) legal systems, whereas the continent uses the Roman prescriptive system. Some of the Directives would have a totally different effect under our legal regime than they would in Europe - so we are on a case-by-case opt-in.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

I just don't trust any of these politicians - I'll be voting NO! I don't want a United States of Europe.

Even if I did want such a thing, this Treaty would not be creating one for me.

cordially,
Scofflaw

is_that_so

Irish and Proud wrote: »

What you don't seem to realise is how sly politicians can be - basically, we don't know the half of it, especially with solicitors involved. When you hear the way the politicians try to browbeat us into voting for Lisbon, does that not say enough regarding what they might be up to.

I wish this kind of thing would drop out of the whole debate altogether.
Most of the "browbeating" IMO is to get us out to vote. As I mentioned on another thread turnout tends to be low , which will favour the No side.

There are many other groups in favour and against the treaty. If you do choose to vote No on the basis that all the politicians are corrupt and supporting the treaty, then you are ignoring the purpose of voting on it. It also undermines any arguments people claim to have for voting against it. Next year is bloody nose time for politicians if you want.

DVDMAN

The Constitutional Republic isnt all that. Time we moved away from this small minded thinking, I'll be voting Yes

democrates

DVDMAN wrote: »

The Constitutional Republic isnt all that. Time we moved away from this small minded thinking, I'll be voting Yes

I'm actually in favour of a world constitutional republic in the long term, but there's nothing like that on the horizon.

Right now the question is the EU after Lisbon. It ought to be a constitutional republic bound by the principle of subsidiarity. That means there should be an EU constitution which does not override national constitutions, and can only be changed by the people in a referendum.

The primacy of the people was not on offer in the changes rejected by the French and Dutch, instead we had and now have on offer again in Lisbon, a situation where the people do not have to be consulted on changes to EU governing documents.

Even in the USA the people have final say over changes to the constitution, and look how far off track they've gone. The day before 9/11 Donald Rumsfeld announced that an estimated 2.3 TRILLION dollars of the DoD budget was 'unaccounted for'.

Aside from the corruption scandal a few years ago, the last 13 EU budgets were rejected by the auditors, they couldn't sign them off as being true and fair representations of what really happened to the money. No one is being held accountable so the scandal is repeated year after year. This bad record does not inspire us to trust in integrity, and you have to wonder just how far off track the EU can go while it's not answerable to the people.

So forgive me if I came accross as a pure nationalist there, it's the rise of central unnacountable power at the expense of democracy that concerns me. Even Gorbachov had a grasp of the essentials in the three pillars of reform - Glasnost, Perestroika, and Democritizatsia (Transparency, Restructuring, and Democratic Accountability). The EU is moving on the first two, but democratic accountability has been systematically ditched.

The new petition of a million signatures from a 'substantial' number of member states and which has yet to be fleshed out in detail, can only result in a proposal (and that's fair enough because a small minority could get one put forward), so while it's a welcome measure proposals are not the same thing as either democratic accountability or the people having final say on governing documents.

I'm still leaning toward voting NO so that they have no option but to do the right thing and put the people first, not just in vague aspirational language, but in the necessary legal measures.

oscarBravo

democrates wrote: »

Right now the question is the EU after Lisbon. It ought to be a constitutional republic bound by the principle of subsidiarity. That means there should be an EU constitution which does not override national constitutions, and can only be changed by the people in a referendum.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but that proposal looks to me like a worst-of-all-worlds mishmash of the possible structures the Union could take. There is no serious move being made towards having the EU become a federal republic, and even if it did, its member states' constitutions would necessarily be subsidiary to it.

Aside from the corruption scandal a few years ago, the last 13 EU budgets were rejected by the auditors, they couldn't sign them off as being true and fair representations of what really happened to the money.

That's a misrepresentation.

I'm still leaning toward voting NO so that they have no option but to do the right thing and put the people first, not just in vague aspirational language, but in the necessary legal measures.

It never ceases to amaze me that everyone who has a specific reason for voting "no" is utterly convinced that their "no" vote will address their specific concerns.

R0C0

It never ceases to amaze me that everyone who has a specific reason for voting "no" is utterly convinced that their "no" vote will address their specific concerns.

What do you expect them to do? Vote Yes because you think voting No will make no difference? If they disagree with something in the Treaty, then they should Vote No.

If it is rejected, what do you think will happen??

democrates

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but that proposal looks to me like a worst-of-all-worlds mishmash of the possible structures the Union could take. There is no serious move being made towards having the EU become a federal republic, and even if it did, its member states' constitutions would necessarily be subsidiary to it.

I disagree. The EU doesn't have to become a single-celled political organism in order to put the people first, let us run our own countries, and co-operate internationally as much as we like.

When you say it would be the worst of all worlds, that's true for those who want centralised power over member states and their people.
Can you state for the record whether you believe the people should have final say in EU governing documents?

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a misrepresentation.

From that same page:

"The Court says it can only give positive assurance on some spending, not on the whole budget, as it has found errors in some of the payments under scrutiny."

And bear in mind the authors of that page are not the European Court of Auditors, if you download and read those pdf's (why aren't they there on web pages?) it's not such a rosy picture. From the information note on the 2006 accounts pdf (most recent A/Cs report available online):

"For the majority of spending - [areas mentioned] - the Court provides an adverse opinion on the legality and regularity."

I don't think anyone would take my representation as meaning the ECA rejected 100% of the budget as erronoeous - the ECA like any auditors only study some of the payments. But it's disingenuous to take the statement that yes, the accounts pretty much reflect the balance sheet to mean that the ECA is giving them a clean bill of health, you can't ignore the adverse opinion on payments.
Errors indeed. Money up for grabs and by mistake it is handled incorrectly. When was the last shower anyway?

oscarBravo wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me that everyone who has a specific reason for voting "no" is utterly convinced that their "no" vote will address their specific concerns.

That's not the case, I have no crystal ball to tell the future, any more than the yes side with apparent soothsayer capabilities as iron-clad assurances are issued.

That 'specific concern' is the democratic deficit which is at the root of many other concerns. Solve it and we have some chance to solve the rest.
Vote yes and the trend of cutting the people out of it remains unaddressed, in fact we make it so that ignoring 26 out of 27 member states people is the way to go in future to get what the EU political centralisers want.

oscarBravo

R0C0 wrote: »

What do you expect them to do? Vote Yes because you think voting No will make no difference? If they disagree with something in the Treaty, then they should Vote No.

If it is rejected, what do you think will happen??

I have absolutely no idea. I don't have a problem with people voting no. I have a problem with the assertion that a "no" vote will leave the EU with no option but to address whatever specific concern prompts an individual to vote against the treaty.

democrates wrote: »

I disagree. The EU doesn't have to become a single-celled political organism in order to put the people first, let us run our own countries, and co-operate internationally as much as we like.

When you say it would be the worst of all worlds, that's true for those who want centralised power over member states and their people.
Can you state for the record whether you believe the people should have final say in EU governing documents?

I don't believe there should be EU-wide plebiscites, no - largely because it would be very difficult to find a mechanism by which they could be seen to work fairly. If you work on the basis of a simple majority, the smaller countries will be utterly overridden by the larger. If you try to introduce some form of QMV among half a billion people, you've got an unwieldy instrument that will still be open to charges of being undemocratic.

The EU consists of its member states. Those states should agree among themselves what the EU's rules are. That's how it works at the moment, and it has worked quite well.

That's not the case, I have no crystal ball to tell the future, any more than the yes side with apparent soothsayer capabilities as iron-clad assurances are issued.

That 'specific concern' is the democratic deficit which is at the root of many other concerns. Solve it and we have some chance to solve the rest.
Vote yes and the trend of cutting the people out of it remains unaddressed, in fact we make it so that ignoring 26 out of 27 member states people is the way to go in future to get what the EU political centralisers want.

See above.

Scofflaw

democrates wrote:

Aside from the corruption scandal a few years ago, the last 13 EU budgets were rejected by the auditors, they couldn't sign them off as being true and fair representations of what really happened to the money. No one is being held accountable so the scandal is repeated year after year. This bad record does not inspire us to trust in integrity, and you have to wonder just how far off track the EU can go while it's not answerable to the people.

I have to pull you up on this one, which is not factually correct. EU accounts are signed off every year as being true and fair representations of what really happened to the money.

The origin of this particular euromyth is in the additional criterion the EU sets itself, which is that not only should the accounts be a true and fair representation, but that the processes in place are such that there is no other possibility.

That is not a standard audit criterion, and the EU has been criticised for setting itself an 'impossible' target that plays into the hands of the eurosceptics.

Where the processes fail to have sufficient controls in place on a day-to-day basis (rather than being checked though audit) is in the national accounts through which 94% of EU money is disbursed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

R0C0

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea. I don't have a problem with people voting no. I have a problem with the assertion that a "no" vote will leave the EU with no option but to address whatever specific concern prompts an individual to vote against the treaty.

Well, what other choice would they have??

Whats wrong with that assertion? Thats what people do when they disagree with something in these treaties.. Vote No, hope it gets addressed. Keep Voting No until it is addressed. Thats how it works.

democrates

Scofflaw wrote: »

I have to pull you up on this one, which is not factually correct. EU accounts are signed off every year as being true and fair representations of what really happened to the money.

The origin of this particular euromyth is in the additional criterion the EU sets itself, which is that not only should the accounts be a true and fair representation, but that the processes in place are such that there is no other possibility.

That is not a standard audit criterion, and the EU has been criticised for setting itself an 'impossible' target that plays into the hands of the eurosceptics.

Where the processes fail to have sufficient controls in place on a day-to-day basis (rather than being checked though audit) is in the national accounts through which 94% of EU money is disbursed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Went into more detail on that in this post, and a key quote from the ECA based on inspecting a sample of payments :
"For the majority of spending - [areas mentioned] - the Court provides an adverse opinion on the legality and regularity."

Arguing that the audit standard is too high is like arguing that crime detection is excessive.
Arguing that it's the fault of nation states is like the World Bank acting surprised when loans are embezzled, or the whitehouse acting dismayed when Iraq reconstruction funds go missing. Every dog on the street knows if there's a lot of money sloshing about you better have tight controls from the start.

We all know the history of lotto funds, the Galway race tent, brown envelopes and so on, and that's just our nation. Of course our 'representatives' will agree a loose opaque system at the EU which gives them 'options'. Again it comes back to the point that the people have to be put center stage in the EU.

democrates

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't believe there should be EU-wide plebiscites, no - largely because it would be very difficult to find a mechanism by which they could be seen to work fairly. If you work on the basis of a simple majority, the smaller countries will be utterly overridden by the larger. If you try to introduce some form of QMV among half a billion people, you've got an unwieldy instrument that will still be open to charges of being undemocratic.

The EU consists of its member states. Those states should agree among themselves what the EU's rules are. That's how it works at the moment, and it has worked quite well.

Are you suggesting that the EU can only work quite well only if we use representatives rather than representing ourselves, in fact that representative democracy is more democratic than direct democracy?

Remember I'm only talking about governing documents here if your thinking of practical convenience of day to day business, and on the basis that any international pooling of sovereignty by a member state should be agreeable to a majority of that member state.

1 out of 27 gets to vote on Lisbon and now we're hearing that giving everyone a vote would be open to charges of being undemocratic. This twist beggars belief.

Scofflaw

democrates wrote: »

Went into more detail on that in this post, and a key quote from the ECA based on inspecting a sample of payments :
"For the majority of spending - [areas mentioned] - the Court provides an adverse opinion on the legality and regularity."

Arguing that the audit standard is too high is like arguing that crime detection is excessive.
Arguing that it's the fault of nation states is like the World Bank acting surprised when loans are embezzled, or the whitehouse acting dismayed when Iraq reconstruction funds go missing. Every dog on the street knows if there's a lot of money sloshing about you better have tight controls from the start.

We all know the history of lotto funds, the Galway race tent, brown envelopes and so on, and that's just our nation. Of course our 'representatives' will agree a loose opaque system at the EU which gives them 'options'. Again it comes back to the point that the people have to be put center stage in the EU.

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/sound_fin_mgt/myths_facts_eu_accounts_en.htm

Of course, you can always say "they would say that".

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

democrates wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the EU can only work quite well only if we use representatives rather than representing ourselves, in fact that representative democracy is more democratic than direct democracy?

Remember I'm only talking about governing documents here if your thinking of practical convenience of day to day business, and on the basis that any international pooling of sovereignty by a member state should be agreeable to a majority of that member state.

1 out of 27 gets to vote on Lisbon and now we're hearing that giving everyone a vote would be open to charges of being undemocratic. This twist beggars belief.

The no camp argues that Ireland is giving up too much power and that the EU is undemocratic. Unfortunately the way I see it those two requirements are mutually exclusive. If we moved more towards a direct democracy as you suggest, then the EU would undoubtedly be more democratic but Ireland would have a minuscule amount of power. Unfortunately it would making bargaining and fighting your corner impossible because as this referendum campaign shows collectively people don't understand compromise, making small sacrifices for a larger gain and on an EU level referendums would be an unmanageable mess, nothing fair and balanced would ever pass.

democrates

Scofflaw wrote: »

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/sound_fin_mgt/myths_facts_eu_accounts_en.htm

Of course, you can always say "they would say that".

cordially,
Scofflaw

OscarBravo posted the same link in this post and I read it and went on to read more from the European Court of Auditors whereupon I responded in this post. Dealing with points would be good instead of reposting the old link as though it were the 10 Commandments and a Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Of course you can always say "I believe whatever they say".

turgon

The only solution to the problem of ratification, that could not be slated as undemocratic, would be to have referendum in every state. Not only would every state have a majority, but there would be a majority in the EU as a whole saying Yes. However the chances of getting all 27 states to say YES in a public vote is quite slim.

democrates

sink wrote: »

The no camp argues that Ireland is giving up too much power and that the EU is undemocratic. Unfortunately the way I see it those two requirements are mutually exclusive. If we moved more towards a direct democracy as you suggest, then the EU would undoubtedly be more democratic but Ireland would have a minuscule amount of power. Unfortunately it would making bargaining and fighting your corner impossible because as this referendum campaign shows collectively people don't understand compromise, making small sacrifices for a larger gain and on an EU level referendums would be an unmanageable mess, nothing fair and balanced would ever pass.

now there's some thinking from first principles.

Ireland's numbers disadvantage in EU-wide votes is only a problem if you take the EU as an entity that is superior to it's members, and we're trying to run all member states via the EU.

If on the other hand the members keep control of their own nations, we'd only be voting on whether we opt in to a given proposal. We might be more likely to agree to things like joint tendering for resources or committing some peace-keeping troops to Darfur, than say a tax harmonisation proposal.

The key is retaining your abaility to opt in or out to major proposals, which means reversing the situation where our constitution accepts EU supremacy. The EU can be a great and positive international organisation, a forum for co-operation in mutual interest, it doesn't have to continue morphing into a federation, I think that's the wrong track.

I can understand when our ministers and commissioners go to EU meetings that it's a great feeling to be in a big international entity with clout on the world stage that allows us to punch above our weight.

As pointed out elsewhere, for reasons of geopolitics, globalisation, climate change, the oil endgame, the rise of the rest etc etc. it is wise for European nations to come together.

Those things are achievable with an EU that is answerable to its people too, there's no need to submit to a central political entity in a way that leaves 26 out of 27 populations with no say like this.

This outsourcing of political power to the EU is also a distraction from getting our own house in order. in some ways we're inching down the right road, a Lord Mayor for Dublin, some reform of local democracy. In other ways like the HSE and county managers, our politicians have outsourced power to new entities which they treat as beyond democratic accountability - the untouchables.

Some of the changes necessary for nations to adapt to the changing global realities are and will be unpopular. It suits our national politicians to have less say so they can "blame it on Brussels". Meanwhile Ireland fails to meet Kyoto obligations, postponed the 0.7% GDP on foreign aid etc. etc.

It's tempting to think well yes, we need some big outside organisation to kick our politicians butts when they fail, but, have you just made the problem bigger, who's going to kick the EU level butts? It can't be the people as we've seen.

democrates

turgon wrote: »

The only solution to the problem of ratification, that could not be slated as undemocratic, would be to have referendum in every state. Not only would every state have a majority, but there would be a majority in the EU as a whole saying Yes. However the chances of getting all 27 states to say YES in a public vote is quite slim.

That's right for the Constitution and Lisbon because national politicians have gone too far with EU political union at the representative level at the expense of the popular vote and the people don't like it.
The problem is national parliaments are ratifying this whether the citizens they are elected to represent want it or not, I'm not the only one who sees this as a major malfunction.

Scofflaw

democrates wrote: »

OscarBravo posted the same link in this post and I read it and went on to read more from the European Court of Auditors whereupon I responded in this post. Dealing with points would be good instead of reposting the old link as though it were the 10 Commandments and a Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Of course you can always say "I believe whatever they say".

I beg your pardon - I didn't get time to read the other post, and apologise for dragging you back over old ground.

Having read the post now, though, it appears to me that you're highlighting certain phrases in a tendentious way:

From that same page:

"The Court says it can only give positive assurance on some spending, not on the whole budget, as it has found errors in some of the payments under scrutiny."

And bear in mind the authors of that page are not the European Court of Auditors, if you download and read those pdf's (why aren't they there on web pages?) it's not such a rosy picture. From the information note on the 2006 accounts pdf (most recent A/Cs report available online):

"For the majority of spending - [areas mentioned] - the Court provides an adverse opinion on the legality and regularity."

I don't think anyone would take my representation as meaning the ECA rejected 100% of the budget as erronoeous - the ECA like any auditors only study some of the payments. But it's disingenuous to take the statement that yes, the accounts pretty much reflect the balance sheet to mean that the ECA is giving them a clean bill of health, you can't ignore the adverse opinion on payments.
Errors indeed. Money up for grabs and by mistake it is handled incorrectly. When was the last shower anyway?

"For the majority of spending - [areas mentioned] - the Court provides an adverse opinion on the legality and regularity." for example, has certain specific meanings - was the invoice paid on time, and were all the necessary formalities complied with?

Your quote would immediately suggest to the untrained eye that the ECJ was finding that payments were fraudulent, which it was not. It was finding that the possibility of fraud existed.

The ECJ provide estimates of fraud found in the EU budgets - in 2002, for example, it was €700m out of a budget of €116bn. That rate is relatively standard from year to year, and the EU recovers most of it.

There are two aspects here.

1. Fraud exists, at a very low level, and is controlled by the usual method, which is an audit. The audit accepts that the fraud shown is the fraud that exists.

2. The possibility of fraud exists, to a greater degree than fraud is found to exist by audit. In addition, not all payments are made on time.

You are conflating the two, and arguing that a qualification on the basis of the possibility of fraud (not undetected fraud, but detectable fraud) indicates the existence of fraud, even though that fraud is not found to exist.

I appreciate I'm on a hiding to nothing here, of course, since it's technical fact fighting easy fiction. Still, I also find I can't resist challenging the "PC gone mad" myths every year.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

democrates wrote: »

That's right for the Constitution and Lisbon because national politicians have gone too far with EU political union at the representative level at the expense of the popular vote and the people don't like it.
The problem is national parliaments are ratifying this whether the citizens they are elected to represent want it or not, I'm not the only one who sees this as a major malfunction.

You mention the key factor but fail to recognise it's significance. Their national parliaments are ratifying it, not the EU. The EU has no legal basis to even ask them to hold referendums. Voting yes or no is not going to change this. I know this is not going to make you change your opinion, i'm stating this for other peoples benefit.

johnnyq

Voting yes certainly won't change that mechanism for the better

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

Voting yes certainly won't change that mechanism for the better

Or for the worse, same as voting no.

johnnyq

johnnyq wrote: »

Voting yes certainly won't change that mechanism for the better

Well obviously because we like the rest of the E.U countries are sovereign and independent.

Caller you are being very Vague.
What specefically is worrying you about Lisbon other than things military?
Things military are a misnomer as a yes or no vote will not change Nato countries military spending.
Ours will probably rise independent of Lisbon also because all parties in the Dáil (with the exception of SF iirc) and pretty much the vast majority of the people of the country are not against our participation in peace keeping.

So really this misnomer on militarisation is exactly that.