Ok, now please leave EU

MeatProduct

limklad wrote: »

But the EU is built on unanimous agreements because of different politics throughout the EU, without unanimous agreements, what is the point of staying in the EU?

Unanimous means an agreement of all, not limited to the governments' agreement. In the case you put it, if I am understanding you correctly, unanimous means the percentage of the voting population that is deemed necessary to make that agreement. In our case that was 53%. So at worst a unanimous agreement is 51% of the populace for that agreement and at best it is 100%. However we don't see these figures in the EU presently as we are not hearing the peoples' voice. We can try to insuinate that the government giving the peoples voice is accurate but that's just speculation.

As a perfectly tuned machine democracy can discount the interests of up to 49% of the population. Of course nothing in this world operates without frictional losses and inefficiencies. Politicians have their own agendas just like you an I do. Who do they put first in their lives? Who do they remember on their deathbeds? You and me? They remember the people they had personal contact with, people who touched their lives, i.e. not you and I. So with this in mind we have a loss of pure information that should be communicated from the people, through our government and out to the world. This distortion filter lies betwwen the interests of the people and those of the politician. How that mixture gets composed is dependent on the politician has a human being, their life experiences. The polarities being GWB and Gandhi, as examples. GWB takes the interests of the people and those of his personal interests and blends them with a heavy weighting towards his personal interests whereas Gandhi would have gone the other direction, and I haven't seen any Gandhi's in politics recently.

Democracy on a large scale is not suitable for the human condition.

limklad wrote: »

If Aland Islands had rejected the treaty, Should we or France, or UK or Germany interfere with their sovereign politics?

The EU as a common trade entity is adequate, as a political entity it is unnecessary. Except if you are a politican.

We have strayed off topic.

Nick

limklad

MeatProduct wrote: »

Unanimous means an agreement of all, not limited to the governments' agreement. In the case you put it, if I am understanding you correctly, unanimous means the percentage of the voting population that is deemed necessary to make that agreement. In our case that was 53%. So at worst a unanimous agreement is 51% of the populace for that agreement and at best it is 100%. However we don't see these figures in the EU presently as we are not hearing the peoples' voice. We can try to insuinate that the government giving the peoples voice is accurate but that's just speculation.

No EU agreement/treaty rules for ratifying means that all EU countries government must agree first 100% (unanimous) and then ratified within their own legal rules. Any road blocks here means the agreement/treaty is dead.

In our case more than 50% in a referendum vote + >50% Dail + >50% Senate.

In France they need 50% to pass upper and lower house of their version of the parliament or whatever their legal requirements to pass EU treaties.
In Belgium, It is more complicated because the was their country is made up.

MeatProduct wrote: »

Democracy on a large scale is not suitable for the human condition.

Dictatorship type rule is not the answer either. We have seen from other countries experience where large groups of minorities or majorities are push aside for the few. At least with Democracy there is some hope. Not great but some. As I said before Democracy is ever evolving process only through agreements with others. Only together can we move forward but not before issues and concerns are sorted first.

MeatProduct wrote: »

The EU as a common trade entity is adequate, as a political entity it is unnecessary. Except if you are a politican.
Nick

agreed on this point.

MeatProduct

limklad wrote: »

Dictatorship type rule is not the answer either. We have seen from other countries experience where large groups of minorities or majorities are push aside for the few. At least with Democracy there is some hope. Not great but some. As I said before Democracy is ever evolving process only through agreements with others. Only together can we move forward but not before issues and concerns are sorted first.

I am not advocating dictatorship. I do advocate government on a very localised level as we seem to have a deeply ingrained need for governance. The need for larger polulation governance creates more disillusionment, misrepresentation and potential for corruption. Why do we need it?

What are the key advantages to mass governance? Improved trade, living standards, communication? How do these impact on the life of an individual in a way that improves their life experience? I would like to know how increased governance from the EU will improve the life of the individual. What is the goal here and when will the EU project have reached it's goal? When we are all in a state of democratic EUtopia where 51% are in a magical state of accordance with our government and the rest are manically depressed?

limklad wrote: »

agreed on this point.

I agree with this agreement.

Nick

limklad

MeatProduct wrote: »

I do advocate government on a very localised level as we seem to have a deeply ingrained need for governance. The need for larger polulation governance creates more disillusionment, misrepresentation and potential for corruption. Why do we need it?

What are the key advantages to mass governance? Improved trade, living standards, communication? How do these impact on the life of an individual in a way that improves their life experience? I would like to know how increased governance from the EU will improve the life of the individual. What is the goal here and when will the EU project have reached it's goal? When we are all in a state of democratic EUtopia where 51% are in a magical state of accordance with our government and the rest are manically depressed?
Nick

People have a need for governance for common issues, security & Protection, services such as water, electricity, food, trade, travel etc.

They do not need a type of government that will change the rules in which they can govern, at their own free will (Without the People stamp of approval). Good changes take time by discussing the implications of it and cannot be rushed, that is where mistakes are made and we lose our power to possible corrupt governments.
We need to be careful before choosing. Wars and revolutions were fought because of bad government/dictators/kings who when against the will of the people or bad mistakes of the people out of ignorance (too trusting of politicians without sussing out their true intentions and implications are).

When we fail to learn from history mistakes, we are doomed to repeat them

Be careful of wolf/s in sheep clothing for they come in many shape and sizes

Good things come to those who wait (have patience)

It is better to make an informed decision before voting Yes. By voting Yes, you are agreeing to terms and conditions of others.

nacho libre

sopranos wrote: »

Good luck with your interview. You're probably right, I'm too much pissed off about the whole thing.
By the way, I don't like Guinness. I prefer Czech beers.

if the Czech parliament don't ratify the treaty will you stop drinking Czech beer?

MeatProduct

limklad wrote: »

People have a need for governance for common issues, security & Protection, services such as water, electricity, food, trade, travel etc.

They do not need a type of government that will change the rules in which they can govern, at their own free will (Without the People stamp of approval). Good changes take time by discussing the implications of it and cannot be rushed, that is where mistakes are made and we lose our power to possible corrupt governments.
We need to be careful before choosing. Wars and revolutions were fought because of bad government/dictators/kings who when against the will of the people or bad mistakes of the people out of ignorance (too trusting of politicians without sussing out their true intentions and implications are).

It is better to make an informed decision before voting Yes. By voting Yes, you are agreeing to terms and conditions of others.

I agree with your post but I was looking for advantages of large government structures being more effective/useful than smaller scale ones. As all of the points you illustrated above can apply to both with varying degrees of effectiveness. Perhaps you are not an advocate of large government, e.g. EU as a political entity.

Nick

limklad

MeatProduct wrote: »

I agree with your post but I was looking for advantages of large government structures being more effective/useful than smaller scale ones. As all of the points you illustrated above can apply to both with varying degrees of effectiveness. Perhaps you are not an advocate of large government, e.g. EU as a political entity.

Nick

I am in favour of having EU as a political entity. It is already a political entity. I have no problems with the type of governance that stands at the moment. It protects smaller states from the likes of Starkozy and more, who will want to change our laws etc, to suit them and he is the type of person if Lisbon is passed that will do it. EU was built upon full cooperation and if anyone has a problem it is dealt with fairly and with respect. I do not want a leader that has no respect for its citizens or any other country citizens to satisfy the bigger nation’s government.
95% of Lisbon Treaty is already in place in EU countries laws., therfore we are protected.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/721421/part_3/irelands-eu-referendum-will-be-no-walkover.thtml]

Most of the policies and institutions that would have been authorised by the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty have been implemented anyway:
the Charter of Fundamental Rights,
the European External Action Service,
common rules on immigration,
a pan-European magistracy

That 95% of the Lisbon Treaty is in place, so why are we voting on it if its already in place? The point above was more distraction for us to vote for it as the above was already in all EU countries in statues Law.

From the same link above.

As for the remaining 5 per cent — chiefly the new voting weights, the smaller Commission and the single presidency — these will be agreed at a miniature inter-governmental conference in a year or so. We shall be told that there is no need for any referendums, since the changes represent a rearrangement of the furniture, not new powers for Brussels.

They should have only presented this to us to cut out the jaron!! and made the treaty much more readable. It is better to read 5% than 95%

They used the other facts which was already implemented to hide or distract waht in 5% or less.

lisbontreaty2008.ie wrote:

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_eu.html#f
F. Solidarity Clause

This is a clause in the Treaty which states that Member States are obliged to assist each other if one is the victim of a terrorist attack or a natural or man made disaster. The precise details of this co-operation would have to be agreed unanimously by the Council.

Most country has the title ministry for Defence not ministry for war. Defence is a word used for Self Protection nor to wage war. English is a very vague language and can be interpret many ways.
US and UK went to war on a possible terrorist attack from Iraq with so called WMD. Another country attacked and we saw what happen there when the truth came out. There are still there as we all know well.

lisbontreaty2008.ie wrote:

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html
Proposed Changes - Power to Change the Treaties

At present the Treaties governing the EU are amended only by the Member States agreeing to an amending treaty which must then be approved by the Member States in accordance with their own constitutional traditions. In almost all cases this involves parliamentary approval. In some cases, for example in Ireland, a referendum may be required.
The Lisbon Treaty now proposes to give the European Council (Heads of Government) the power to propose changes to certain parts of the governing Treaties. Any such changes cannot increase the competence of the EU. Any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council. This means that any national government may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, then in order for it to come into effect, it must be ratified by the Member States in accordance with their own constitutional traditions. This may require a referendum in Ireland as happens at present.

The Lisbon Treaty also proposes to give the European Council the power to amend the Treaties so as to allow Qualified Majority Voting to operate in certain areas where unanimity is now required. It will also give them the power to apply the Ordinary Legislative Procedure in certain areas where a Special Legislative Procedure applies at present. Any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council.

This means that any national government may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, any national parliament may prevent these changes coming into effect. Under the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Ireland the approval of the Dáil and Seanad will be required for Ireland to agree to such proposed changes. Such changes would not require a referendum in Ireland.

The power to change from unanimity to Qualified Majority Voting or from the Special Legislative Procedure to a Ordinary Legislative Procedure does not extend to military and defence issues.

It could apply, for example, to taxation where unanimity is required at present. However as outlined earlier in this website, any such proposed change could be vetoed by the Irish government.

Much of the language is a red herring as government hold power in their parliaments. So government and parliaments powers are one of the same as governments are greater than 50% of parliaments.
I have a big problem with may & could as they are a grey word in the English language.
Also Using Citizens’ Initiative can be used to distract people on other unwanted changes from the people point of view.

Cow Moolester

http://www.infonegocio.com/xeron/bruno/italy.html

Solair

sopranos wrote: »

You're the only country geographically separated from the rest of the Union and you probably don't understand what means being European today, on 2008. You didn't have a post war dream, you didn't try to slowly build the future of a whole big nation without any more inside wars. You didn't see the excitement of a wall teared down, or the joy of thousand of eastern Europeans joining EU in 2004, after an half century of communism. You don't know what does it mean living today in cities like Berlin, Paris, Vienna or Varsaw.

Your contact with Europe is a plastic 20euro RyanAir flight seat which brings you to some remote cheap hangaar out of the big European cities. The same flight which maybe carries a "goodbye British" or "ciao Alitalia" advertising on his fuselage.

But it seems you didn't dislike EU when millions of euro of investments arrived, when a poor last-of-the-list country rose up to one of the most modern technology centers of Europe. The same laws which spoils your pints of Guiness have broughts wealth, worker rights, economy control, stability and security. And moreover, today we do have a voice in the world. Just 20 years ago Russians and Americans controlled everything.

That's Europan Union today, take it or loose it.

ciao, soprano

I've a few rather serious issues to take with your post.

1) What is all this nonsense about geographic seperation? It's 2008, not 1808, we have planes, fast boats, telephones, television, radio waves, fiber optics, satellites and the internet... It's not like we're cut off and don't speak to the rest of Europe. Ireland's part of Europe, however you seem to be discriminating against us because we're not part of CONTINENTAL Europe. Short of physically relocating the island, which I think is an impossibility, I don't think this situation is likely to change. Also, what has living in Paris, Warsar, Prague, Berlin etc have to do with anything, the vast majority of Europeans don't live in big cities. Most of us live in small to middle size cities and towns. Many Irish people have lived in London, Paris, Barcelona, Madrid, Berlin, Prague etc... I don't understand your point ... perhaps you could explain?

2) What have you got against Ryanair ? Ireland's Ryanair pioneered low fares flights that have provided connections to parts of Europe that were previously very difficult to access. So, before you slag off Ryanair, think of how many places that are now very accessible that were previously far flung and difficult to reach. Sure, they fly to obscure airports in bigger cities like Paris and Berlin to reduce costs, but at least you can damn well get there thesedays. I really don't see why the fact that we access Europe by plane makes any difference. Let's face it the experience isn't a whole lot worse than several hours in a plasticy train... It's a bit more environmentally friendly, but at the end of the day it achieves the same result gets you from A to B..

3) No we didn't have to deal with communism (thankfully), but yes we did have to deal with the aftermath of WWII which pretty much killed our economy. Following a period of being an oppressed collony, and a huge famine in the 1800s which saw our population decimated we had a major war with the UK in the early part of the 20th century and a horrendous civil war immediately afterwards. We then sank into deep poverty for most of the 1930s, 40s, 50s and into the 60s. Experienced mass emmigration. Then we had the whole Northern Ireland 'troubles' to contend with for the 1970s, 80s and 90s... So, I really don't see how our experience was much different to the rest of Europe in most regards. We all had our conflicts and all had our serious difficulties.

4) Why should we leave the EU? France and Holland also rejected this treaty under its previous incarnation as the European Constitution, yet I didn't hear any one asking for France to be immediately kicked out at that time. Did you?

5) The EU has flaws, these failing referenda in various EU countries (including Ireland) are just showing up that there's a huge communciations problem between the EU and European Citizens. Irish people cherish their democracy and fought very long and hard to achieve it. Many people genuinely do feel that democracy is being erroded by the EU as it is at the moment. The institutions are blatently undemocratic and there has been no serious move to address this. Yes, Lisbon improves things, but it doesn't go nearly far enough.

Why should we just blindly accept absolutely everything that the EU offers without any questions. That isn't democracy and it's not how you end up with a good system for Europe in the end. Yes we received structural funding, but we're now a net contributor to the EU budget and in time those structural funds will end up being paid back anyway through our funding of regions of Europe that need money via the same cohesion fund system!

Problems NEED and MUST be resolved now. Simply sweeping annoying referenda under the carpet isn't a sollution.

Frankly, I think you've a vastly over simplistic view of the situation. This isn't about pure ideals, it's about pragmatism and creating a good, sensible and stable Europe going forward.

The EU may need to reassess where it's going with this project and get a measure of what the people of Europe actually want it to do.
If it ploughs on blindly it will just end up damaging itself and becoming less relevant. The EU must have popular support of European citizens. it's quite possible that deeply integrated federal political union isn't a desirable end for many EU Citizens.

It's also possible the EU is moving too fast and too soon. Lets not forget that the EU is a totally unprecedented project, hurtling head first into more and more integration and rapid expantion without any time to absorb what's already happened is not going to achieve a very stable system either.
People need time to adapt and take on board these changes.

Thankfully, I think most of the serious EU leaders recognise that there are major problems and are willing to look at doing something about them.
You're adopting the attitude of a blind Europhile who simply cannot see that there are bumps on the road, that we need to know where the road is going to and that everyone on board needs to be in agreement.

As benevolant and well meaning as the EU is, people need to know what exactly is going on and where this project is leading to.

Corniger

Solair wrote: »

As benevolant and well meaning as the EU is, people need to know what exactly is going on and where this project is leading to.

Europeans outside of Ireland can clearly see where this is leading to. Certainly not to more democracy, but disinformation and strenghtening the Elite (no Dasvid Icke remarks, please). The EU seems to consists mainly of France and Germany, those who would clearly win the power struggle through the Lisbon treaty.
How dare you, Soprano, speak of more democracy, after so many people's democracy has simply been ignored. How can ANYONE...