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

What message were you trying to send? [Not "why did you vote No?"]

Options
1…6781012

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    BMH wrote: »
    I hope you're not suggesting that the EU force member states into holding referenda, a clear encroachment on national sovereignty?

    Yes your right, the EU never has encroached on national sovereignty.
    Fair enough, turgon, but in your case it seems like you want a radical change of the EU.

    Well if you want to call it radical. But asking for increased democracy and accountability in Europe should be such a big ask? I mean these are the guys who take their "inspiration" from it.


  • Options
    #273
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,022 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's a simple answer, in that it doesn't take long to write it out, but is it simple in practice?

    Suppose it's re-negotiated, and 22 member states ratify through referenda. Then one rejects it.

    So it's re-negotiated again. This time the fourth member state to be asked rejects it because of an unpopular national government.

    So it's re-negotiated again. The first three countries, pissed off at having their "yes" answer repeatedly overturned by bloody foreigners, vote "no" in protest.

    So it's re-negotiated again...

    Am I the only one who sees the problem?
    It's only a problem if you don't like the will of the people. If an argument is powerful enough it will override petty squabbling and protest votes. If it is not powerful enough to do so it is unlikely to be all that advantageous to ordinary people.

    I believe the constitution should have been persevered with and amended until it was passed by popular vote in each and every member state. Perhaps the 'great and the good' of the EU should have done this 20 years ago before trying to expand without the proper framework (constitution!).

    People, essentially, have NO IDEA where the EU is headed and that concerns them quite rightly.


  • Options
    #274
    Voipjunkie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Voipjunkie


    oscarBravo wrote: »

    This is why we have opt-outs for the bits that don't suit us. With respect, that's just a soundbite: you can't add a "democracy worth talking about" clause to an international treaty.

    What exactly do people mean by introduce some democracy

    Bearing in mind that Ireland is less than 1% of the population of the EU.

    If we are to have a voice that is commensurate with our weight then that is partly what this was about

    If they mean that we as Ireland should have a voice equal to all other members in a club of equals is that democracy

    If they mean more power for the EU parliament then democracy would suggest that we have about double the number of MEPs that we should have in a democratic fair system.

    Just wondering what people mean exactly by more democratic EU I hear it all the time but no one ever explains what they mean


  • Options
    #275
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    As regards what Cowen should say?? Trying to fool people by structuring the treaty as an amending treaty didn't work: people wont agree to anything when they feel theres something fishy going on. Not that there was, but the whole idea of making the treaty ultra-complicated backfired - severely.


  • Options
    #276
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    turgon wrote: »
    Yes your right, the EU never has encroached on national sovereignty.
    You're completely twisting my words and ignoring the fact that you want the EU to force countries into holding referenda on issues like this. What about Germany where referenda are illegal by an article in their constitution? You're making broad ideological statements that have no realistic foundation whatsoever.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's a simple answer, in that it doesn't take long to write it out, but is it simple in practice?
    Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise you wanted an answer that was simple to implement. On a continent where every country's borders have been defined through two dozen centuries of inter-nation warfare, including two world wars, where we have at least four separate language roots (let alone the number of actual languages deriving from them), where we see four main religious viewpoints with a dozen or more sects apiece spread all over the continent, and where we're trying to integrate 22 seperate judicial and governmental systems.
    Hang on a minute there and I'll whip one up.

    Or - and here's a thought - maybe the idea that doing that kind of task is simple is just one we ought to forget?

    Suppose it's re-negotiated, and 22 member states ratify through referenda. Then one rejects it.
    So it's re-negotiated again. This time the fourth member state to be asked rejects it because of an unpopular national government.
    So it's re-negotiated again. The first three countries, pissed off at having their "yes" answer repeatedly overturned by bloody foreigners, vote "no" in protest.
    So it's re-negotiated again...
    Am I the only one who sees the problem?
    No, but you seem to be seeing it as a problem. To my mind, it'll take forever, we'll have loads of rounds of debates, we'll all get *sick* of it, and it maybe my grandkids who are the first people to see the EU resolve this problem. But the advantage is that you can only have one round of debate with a 60mm howitzer shell, and you rarely enjoy the process.
    Talking out a solution, especially with the history of conflict resolution that our little continent has, is the better way to do it even if it could take a lot of time. Losing lifetimes to this is better than losing lives.

    Or maybe it's just never meant to be in the first place. Which would be a shame, but still a better option.


  • Options
    #278
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Voipjunkie wrote: »
    Just wondering what people mean exactly by more democratic EU I hear it all the time but no one ever explains what they mean

    Thought this would be a no brainer. Ever heard of the EU commission?

    BMH, the politician were so smart that they got only one country to have a referendum. Im sure they'd be smart enough to have more refernda if they really wanted.


  • Options
    #279
    Hitman Actual
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    turgon wrote: »
    Well if you want to call it radical. But asking for increased democracy and accountability in Europe should be such a big ask? I mean these are the guys who take their "inspiration" from it.

    Sorry, "radical" is a bit of an exaggerated description. I was referring to your initial post, which is quite different to what Lisbon was about, imo. So quite a few changes which would need a long time at the table, and some which are in opposition to the aims of the union, as far as I can see (e.g. common defense).
    turgon wrote:
    The message I want to send to Europe, well...

    I want no EU army. I want no common defense. Why do so many every man made organizations find some reason to bring guns into the issue?

    I want a real shakeup of democracy in Europe, not like some half arced attempts in Lisbon (such as the Citizens Initiative) designed only for us to say yes. Real movement towards a full democracy.

    Further to this I want the accountability of the EU UP UP UP.

    I want the snaky dealings to go. By this I mean the way in which French and Dutch voters said No to constitution - that we thought would be the end of it, but now they have ratified 90% of it. The excuse that ratification is not an EU issue just those not float. The way in which individual nations deal with European issues reflects on the EU as a whole.

    Included in the above is the structure of the Lisbon Treaty - specifically designed to make it hard to understand. What was that quote again - "people will be made to adopt the measures thy would not agree to normally"??


  • Options
    #280
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    lenny_leonard wrote: »
    Okay, you're confusing me now. We voted No, the EU will want to know why. Surely that's obvious.
    Oh yes, that's perfectly obvious. What I wanted to know was where we agreed we had an obligation to provide an answer, because I know I never saw that before the vote...


  • Options
    #281
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    Also, if the EU Commission, which currently acts for the good of all the nations of the EU, rather than for the good of each commissioner's state, were to be changed to some form of democracy, we would, if the system were completely democratic, have a 1% say. Germany would have around around 15%, and other large states could gang up to pass resolutions completely in their favour (we are assuming of course that this pure democracy will accept the wishes of the majority, as in 50%+1).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    Sparks wrote: »
    Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise you wanted an answer that was simple to implement. On a continent where every country's borders have been defined through two dozen centuries of inter-nation warfare, including two world wars, where we have at least four separate language roots (let alone the number of actual languages deriving from them), where we see four main religious viewpoints with a dozen or more sects apiece spread all over the continent, and where we're trying to integrate 22 seperate judicial and governmental systems.
    Hang on a minute there and I'll whip one up.

    Or - and here's a thought - maybe the idea that doing that kind of task is simple is just one we ought to forget?
    I thought that the complexity of the Treaty was a cause for concern for many of the people?


  • Options
    #283
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Sparks wrote: »
    No, but you seem to be seeing it as a problem. To my mind, it'll take forever, we'll have loads of rounds of debates, we'll all get *sick* of it, and it maybe my grandkids who are the first people to see the EU resolve this problem. But the advantage is that you can only have one round of debate with a 60mm howitzer shell, and you rarely enjoy the process.
    Talking out a solution, especially with the history of conflict resolution that our little continent has, is the better way to do it even if it could take a lot of time. Losing lifetimes to this is better than losing lives.

    Thats lovely.

    "aims of the union" - I think you mean "aims of the Unions' politicians". That maybe dont altogether represent the will of the people...(oh but of course the old yes side argument: we voted for them at the ballot box and now they do everything we think should be done). Maybe a major program should be undertaken to see where the citizens want to go.


  • Options
    #284
    Hitman Actual
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    Sparks wrote: »
    Oh yes, that's perfectly obvious. What I wanted to know was where we agreed we had an obligation to provide an answer, because I know I never saw that before the vote...

    You do realize how silly that sounds, right?


  • Options
    #285
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    turgon wrote: »
    BMH, the politician were so smart that they got only one country to have a referendum. Im sure they'd be smart enough to have more refernda if they really wanted.
    You're still not answering the question.
    Do you want the EU to force the member states into holding referenda?
    Bear in mind that this is constitutionally illegal in some member states, and that in all others, it would be viewed as a clear breach of EU competency.


  • Options
    #286
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    BMH wrote: »
    Also, if the EU Commission, which currently acts for the good of all the nations of the EU, rather than for the good of each commissioner's state, were to be changed to some form of democracy, we would, if the system were completely democratic, have a 1% say. Germany would have around around 15%, and other large states could gang up to pass resolutions completely in their favour (we are assuming of course that this pure democracy will accept the wishes of the majority, as in 50%+1).

    Well done BMH, just take and extreme option and label it as the only one.

    Other option: let each country vote for the commissioner they will be represented by. One country, one commissioner. And before being labeled as undemocratic: that would be giving voices to the minorities (ex Irish)


  • Options
    #287
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    BMH wrote: »
    You're still not answering the question.
    Do you want the EU to force the member states into holding referenda?
    Bear in mind that this is constitutionally illegal in some member states, and that in all others, it would be viewed as a clear breach of EU competency.

    Yeah If they really didn't like the "breach" they would vote no, wouldn't they? Constitutions can be altered.


  • Options
    #288
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    turgon wrote: »
    oh but of course the old yes side argument: we voted for them at the ballot box and now they do everything we think should be done
    Could you provide a list of things that governments may do, and a list of things that require an expensive referendum to do? Keep in mind this list will have to cater for every member state, but just to keep it simple, do one just for Ireland, because I'm genuinely curious why you think that this is more important than other Oireachtas matters, eg, budgets.


  • Options
    #289
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    turgon wrote: »
    Well done BMH, just take and extreme option and label it as the only one.

    Other option: let each country vote for the commissioner they will be represented by. One country, one commissioner. And before being labeled as undemocratic: that would be giving voices to the minorities (ex Irish)
    And who decides what portfolio is given to who? I'm sure you don't want us stuck with Sport and Culture?


  • Options
    #290
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    lenny_leonard wrote: »
    You do realize how silly that sounds, right?
    About as much as you realise how offensive your comment was I think.


  • Options
    #291
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    turgon wrote: »
    Yeah If they really didn't like the "breach" they would vote no, wouldn't they? Constitutions can be altered.
    I don't understand what you're saying here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    BMH wrote: »
    I'm genuinely curious why you think that this is more important than other Oireachtas matters, eg, budgets.

    Because it effects the way we are governed.
    BMH wrote: »
    And who decides what portfolio is given to who? I'm sure you don't want us stuck with Sport and Culture?

    Rotation. But I don't think such petty issues should be a bar to democracy.


  • Options
    #293
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    where's johnnyq where you need him...*sigh*



    Turgon can I try paraphrasing your message into somewhat practical solutions?
    I want no EU army. I want no common defense. Why do so many every man made organizations find some reason to bring guns into the issue?

    You want to see the common defence policy removed from the Lisbon Treaty and put into a seperate treaty which does not force states to accept it as being part of the EU. Therefore there will be the EU the organisation, and then there's the seperate military wing which is optional (essentially Nato without the US) all military language will be removed from the treaty and does who do not sign both treaties will not be required to provide any service to the military doctrine, nor recieve any of its benefits. Hopefully allowing the security the new eastern european states need while also allowing western neutral states can remain uninvolved in any manner.

    I want a real shakeup of democracy in Europe, not like some half arced attempts in Lisbon (such as the Citizens Initiative) designed only for us to say yes. Real movement towards a full democracy.

    Direct democracy should be provided in some form to a number of key positions created in the Lisbon Treaty. Naturally the President of the European Council could be a valid position to have this for. Though there are obvious difficulties present, perhaps a electorial college system can be established (that one is for Johnnyq).
    Further to this I want the accountability of the EU UP UP UP.

    Sadly even I cant come up with a practical paraphrase for this, at the moment we cant address the accountability of our own politcians let alone politicians of other states or MEP's Until we've sorted our own house I cant think of any advice I can give to the EU to sort theirs?

    I want the snaky dealings to go. By this I mean the way in which French and Dutch voters said No to constitution - that we thought would be the end of it, but now they have ratified 90% of it. The excuse that ratification is not an EU issue just those not float. The way in which individual nations deal with European issues reflects on the EU as a whole.

    We want to address how the treaty/constitution system is being handled, perhaps an requirement that any treaty or constitution that is brought down in a vote should be required to be rebuilt from scratch. The EU will make a request that every nation should if possible put each new treaty/constitution to a referendum where possible. It will not and can not force it on any state but will make the request regardless.
    Included in the above is the structure of the Lisbon Treaty - specifically designed to make it hard to understand. What was that quote again - "people will be made to adopt the measures thy would not agree to normally"??

    All international treaties will be required before being presented to the public to have two supplements provided with it, delegalized version produced by the EU to make the language and changes easily readable and accessable. Secondly a *national response* version of every treaty will be produced outlining the changes will have in relation to the member state, this will be the responsibility of each individual government, therefore allowing people to understand the effect of the treaty on national issues such as abortion and neutrality.


    There...

    This is the sort of thing I believe is being asked for here, I'm sorry Turgon if I got the wrong impression from your post, but that is the most practical way I can think of to provide solutions to those issues, Now I know there is probably clear legal faults with those ideas but since I dont want to throw this thread off topic once we now have example of the sort of response I would like to hear from people could anyone who see's clear legal fault or problems PM me their opinion instead. Thank you.

    Once again congratulations to the No campaign, hopefully something will come of it...


  • Options
    #294
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    turgon wrote: »
    Rotation. But I don't think such petty issues should be a bar to democracy.
    A 27-year rotation system, with 9 erroneous cabinet places, sounds like a perfect way of getting things done. At least it's democratic, with Ireland having the same representation as Germany...oh wait...


  • Options
    #295
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    turgon wrote: »
    Because it effects the way we are governed.
    So would the introduction of several new cabinet ministries.


  • Options
    #296
    bug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,204 ✭✭✭bug


    I personally don't want to be part of a "European Empire" I never did, I voted No to Nice I & II and No to this treaty.

    They are continuing the ratification process. It didnt matter. Welcome to the new democratic EU.

    But for one day in european politics, the people had a say.


  • Options
    #297
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    bug wrote: »
    I personally don't want to be part of a "European Empire" I never did, I voted No to Nice I & II and No to this treaty.

    They are continuing the ratification process. It didnt matter. Welcome to the new democratic EU.
    How is it not democratic? We voted to exclude ourselves from the treaty, and that's exactly what will happen.


  • Options
    #298
    gordon_gekko
    Closed Accounts Posts: 412 ✭✭gordon_gekko


    we live in a brave new world now , with the rise of china , india and the energy giant that is russia , i believe we need a strong europe when deals need to be hammered out with the great powers of the world , the countries of europe are by themselves quite small ( ireland is very very small ) but as a unit , the eu is a powerfull bloc , if ireland thinks that by isolating itself from europe , we strengthen our possition when it comes to brokering a deal for gas with russia or hammering out a trade deal with china or india or the usa , we are kidding ourselves , ireland on its own would be swatted away like an tiny annoying insect , the russians , the chineese dont give a **** about individual rights , i think the eu has been a pretty benign force throughout its existance and we are foolish to have nit picked over such simple attempted changes within its constitution


  • Options
    #299
    Hitman Actual
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    Sparks wrote: »
    About as much as you realise how offensive your comment was I think.

    Look, I'm just stating a simple fact: the statement you made is nonsense. But I guess I'll leave it at that, as I've no intention to cause offense.


  • Options
    #300
    How Strange
    Registered Users Posts: 6,339 ✭✭✭How Strange


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    Wait, what? You expected the EU to grind to a halt because we've voted No? Or are you implying that lisbon can be ratified without us, becuase both as stupid statements.
    Tee hee hee, not quite stupid statements. Both are real possibilities. I suppose at this stage you've seen Barrosa's speech.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    How Strange
    Registered Users Posts: 6,339 ✭✭✭How Strange


    raido9 wrote: »
    The clear message is that the general public can't be trusted to inform themselves with the content of the treaty before voting on it. People would rather listen to misinformed scarmongers than reading the factual documentation given out by the referendum commision because its "too complicated".

    There's a reason 26 / 27 member states didn't have a referendum.
    Dear lord, we'd be only two steps away from fascism if politicians were allowed to act on views such as this.

    So if the general public can't be trusted to give the correct answer perhaps we should entrust some remote, unaccountable institution should do it for us.


Advertisement