No to Lisbon

Denerick

Hmm - while it seems like the obvious answer is "yes of course!" it's not as simple as that. I agree with a lot of No voters when they point out that there's no European demos as such - which makes the democratically elected EUP a poor choice to be the sovereign institution. It's a good body to act as a democratic control or opposition to the other institutions, and that's fine by me.

If you think about it, a sovereign EUP elected by a European electorate would give the EU the form of federal state.

Yes, but I am in favour of a weak European federal state. I'd say its inevitable actually, unless Europe see's a real resurgence in nationalism. You mention the council as being democratically elected... Well yes, it is. And it is legitimate. However, who exactly are the buraucratic corp responsible to? the council? Parliament? Respective national governments? Their bosses?

1) I very much so doubt that will ever happen in Ireland so no need to worry. And I imagine if it did happen there would be a huge public backlash.

I'd rather be able to rely on solid and liberal institutions than the people. I have no faith in the people or the government to protect liberty. The word 'precedent' is a dangerous one in modern politics, it allows all manner of creeping authoritarianism through the woodwork. Government policy for sensitive issues which affect civil liberties is aimed at doing it gradually, one step at a time until you come to the stage that you don't even realise your liberties are being snatched from you - a lá the internet.

5) A Euro wide Database would be allot larger and less mobile than the British one.

I wish I could have your optimism in my fellow man (Government)

6) It's generally considered good etiquette to back up your "Facts" with sources to prove they are "Facts" and not Opinions (Big Difference), P.S it is also good etiquette to refrain from telling you opposer to "Go To Hell" as you politely called it.

Everything I've said is an opinion. As I said, I'm not writing essays and handing them back and forth on a stuffy academic journal. Everything I said is easily solved by a 2 second internet search mate.

P.s Go to hell!

Iwasfrozen

I'd rather be able to rely on solid and liberal institutions than the people. I have no faith in the people or the government to protect liberty. The word 'precedent' is a dangerous one in modern politics, it allows all manner of creeping authoritarianism through the woodwork. Government policy for sensitive issues which affect civil liberties is aimed at doing it gradually, one step at a time until you come to the stage that you don't even realise your liberties are being snatched from you - a lá the internet.

Yet again, you say the EU will inevitabley become Tolitarian, yet agin you don't provide an example. How is the internet being snatched from you ?

Everything I've said is an opinion. As I said, I'm not writing essays and handing them back and forth on a stuffy academic journal. Everything I said is easily solved by a 2 second internet search mate.

P.s Go to hell!

If it is simply an opinion and you are not trying to change the minds of others then why start a thread ?
Had you the chance how would you run the EU ?
P.S Please refrain from telling me to go to hell.

Scofflaw

Denerick wrote: »

Yes, but I am in favour of a weak European federal state. I'd say its inevitable actually, unless Europe see's a real resurgence in nationalism. You mention the council as being democratically elected... Well yes, it is. And it is legitimate. However, who exactly are the buraucratic corp responsible to? the council? Parliament? Respective national governments? Their bosses?

They're responsible to the institutions - much like the Irish civil service, really. On a day to day basis they would be responsible to their bosses, and their bosses to their bosses, until we get to the Commissioners, who are responsible to the Parliament and Council - the former having the power to dismiss and censure them, the latter to appoint them in the first place.

I'm not really in favour of a federal Europe, unless we stretch the word 'federal' so far it includes the current structure. The EU as it stands makes a lot of sense to me - a technocratic body drafting legislation and implementing it, but unable to pass it except through the Parliament, representing the citizens, and the Council, representing the governments. In a lot of ways it's a far better balanced structure than ours.

Denerick wrote: »

I'd rather be able to rely on solid and liberal institutions than the people. I have no faith in the people or the government to protect liberty. The word 'precedent' is a dangerous one in modern politics, it allows all manner of creeping authoritarianism through the woodwork. Government policy for sensitive issues which affect civil liberties is aimed at doing it gradually, one step at a time until you come to the stage that you don't even realise your liberties are being snatched from you - a lá the internet.

We need both, though. Institutions by themselves can easily be hollowed out - witness the Seanad.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

P.S Please refrain from telling me to go to hell.

Denerick, do stop. This is an otherwise interesting discussion, and I'd hate to have to terminate it simply because you think that's funny.

moderately,
Scofflaw

brianthebard

Scofflaw wrote: »

When you say "upheld", you mean the government should have taken the No as dictating their policy?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well what else is supposed to happen after a referendum?

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

Well what else is supposed to happen after a referendum?

Referendums give a simple yes/no answer to whatever question has been posed, which is invariably a constitutional one. Referendums have never dictated policy in Ireland - government policy can be (and has been) to work towards divorce even if a referendum refuses to allow the constitution to be changed to accommodate it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

brianthebard

Scofflaw wrote: »

Referendums give a simple yes/no answer to whatever question has been posed, which is invariably a constitutional one. Referendums have never dictated policy in Ireland - government policy can be (and has been) to work towards divorce even if a referendum refuses to allow the constitution to be changed to accommodate it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So either answer in a referendum is equally invalid? I didn't think we lived in a polyarchy.

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

So either answer in a referendum is equally invalid? I didn't think we lived in a polyarchy.

No, you're simply confusing the policy of the elected party of government with the actions of the government. The government - that is, the institutions of the country such as the civil service, the judiciary, etc - are bound by referendum decisions because they are bound by the Constitution. They cannot (legally) implement a law or commit an action that is unconstitutional, so it is impossible for the Irish government to allow abortion, or to ratify Lisbon.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the policies of the elected party of government, who are entirely free to work towards goals that are illegal, unconstitutional, or even impossible, as long as they do it only through those channels and instruments that are legally permissible.

Think about it this way - a party could campaign on the platform of allowing abortion. If they were elected, they would continue to have that as a policy. However, they cannot implement legislation that would allow abortion, because the Constitution prohibits it, so any such legislation would be struck down as unconstitutional.

What they would do instead is to seek to hold a referendum overturning the current constitutional ban on abortion, because that would allow them to implement legislation permitting abortion (or withdraw legislation prohibiting it). If they failed to pass the amendment that permitted them to do so, they could try again, and again, and again, because there is no term or limit on referendums. They could vary the wording, or use the same wording, as they liked.

What they would not be bound in any way to do is "uphold" the referendum No vote as policy. They could, would, and should retain the policy platform they were elected on, of seeking to allow abortion. What they could not do is pass legislation permitting abortion, because that would be unconstitutional. That is the full extent of respecting the vote that is required of the party of government - in other words, they are not required to respect the vote as such, but only to respect the Constitution. The vote itself is only meaningful in terms of how it affects the Constitution. Referendum votes are limited instruments, and their only power is to change the Constitution, or to reject changes to it.

So, here, the government of Ireland is not legally entitled to ratify Lisbon, because to do so would be unconstitutional. The party of government, however, are entitled to press for ratification of Lisbon as a policy, and to do so by any legal channel available to them, including further referendums. As long as they are not acting illegally, they are respecting the vote to the full extent that they are required to do so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ivan087

Each country has a different version of a democracy. The UK, France, the US and Ireland.

The EU is democratic.

We, the people of Europe, elect the European parliament.

Our national governments, through the various departments (education, finance, etc) come together to pass legislation. As far as I know, each country elects their own government.

The commissioners are also appointed by national governments.

Changes to the treaties are done by the governments (by a referendum in some countries).

The Lisbon treaty was to streamline the EU, to make it more democratic, and relevant.

Unfortunately, Ireland is starting to get the UK bug about the EU. We want the EU to be more democratic but we're afraid to make any steps forward. We just don't like it because we're all just nationalistic at heart. We need to stop reading the opinionated British press and just find out facts and have a deep think about it all.

I was reading a post on the BBC website and one contributer summed up the British feelings towards the EU

"Its amazing a few years ago we used to govern 1/3 of the worlds population now we pay for the privilige of the Bureaucrats in Brussels to ruin our Fishing Industry and tie our business up in red tape."

It still hurts in the UK to not be a power in the world.

This is not how Ireland should feel. We are a great, tiny little country facing a globalized world. We are competing with North America, China, India and Japan. I'm living in Korea and the only reason they are one of the few successful countries outside Europe and North America is that they have a free trade treaty with America. They have 50,000 American troops on their soil. They are at the mercy of American legislation and economy. Everything is focused to America (EVERYTHING - education, business, culture, etc.)

The EU is a club (how the hell would it ever be a country without a huge bloody civil war with so many nationalistic morons around Europe??). We have a lot of say in the EU and we need it more than it needs us!

But hell we might as well say no because..well you never know, I could be wrong and the EU is just a front for some new empire orchestrated by the undemocratic French and Germans!


They're at it again! The Germans are coming, the Germans are coming. Run for the hills!

rcecil

Here they come again, the Yes side, having been thumped solidly have now crept back from defeat to assure us Lisbon is better. These same yessers protect the gangsters and banksters that want to lower minimum wage, tax pensions, build coal fired power plants, privatize health care for profit and believe the Indo tells the truth. Ha, ha, ha, ha. Still No!

Denerick

I am not afraid of any one national group dominating the EU - Its more likely to be a collection of big countries. Nevertheless, thats not the issue. My problem with the EU's integration is that nowhere is liberty enshrined as the most pressing and fundamental value and principle in legislation. Unfortunately citizens have to be vigilent because the attitudes of some is 'Sure I didn't do anything wrong so I've nothing to worry about'. People wrongly give 'trust' to a government.

The people are a check on the power of government, and the government a check on the power of the people. We are neither a democracy or a Republic, this fusion of the two is the greatest philosophical advance of mankind, and unfortunately our naieve, spoonfed generation have lost what its all about - liberty.

acontadino

ivan087 wrote: »

Each country has a different version of a democracy. The UK, France, the US and Ireland.

The EU is democratic.

We, the people of Europe, elect the European parliament.

Our national governments, through the various departments (education, finance, etc) come together to pass legislation. As far as I know, each country elects their own government.

The commissioners are also appointed by national governments.

Changes to the treaties are done by the governments (by a referendum in some countries).

The Lisbon treaty was to streamline the EU, to make it more democratic, and relevant.

Unfortunately, Ireland is starting to get the UK bug about the EU. We want the EU to be more democratic but we're afraid to make any steps forward. We just don't like it because we're all just nationalistic at heart. We need to stop reading the opinionated British press and just find out facts and have a deep think about it all.

I was reading a post on the BBC website and one contributer summed up the British feelings towards the EU

"Its amazing a few years ago we used to govern 1/3 of the worlds population now we pay for the privilige of the Bureaucrats in Brussels to ruin our Fishing Industry and tie our business up in red tape."

It still hurts in the UK to not be a power in the world.

This is not how Ireland should feel. We are a great, tiny little country facing a globalized world. We are competing with North America, China, India and Japan. I'm living in Korea and the only reason they are one of the few successful countries outside Europe and North America is that they have a free trade treaty with America. They have 50,000 American troops on their soil. They are at the mercy of American legislation and economy. Everything is focused to America (EVERYTHING - education, business, culture, etc.)

The EU is a club (how the hell would it ever be a country without a huge bloody civil war with so many nationalistic morons around Europe??). We have a lot of say in the EU and we need it more than it needs us!

But hell we might as well say no because..well you never know, I could be wrong and the EU is just a front for some new empire orchestrated by the undemocratic French and Germans!


They're at it again! The Germans are coming, the Germans are coming. Run for the hills!

well said.

Denerick

No, not well said really, All he can do is repeat the same blood talking points we hear all the time.

sink

Denerick wrote: »

I am not afraid of any one national group dominating the EU - Its more likely to be a collection of big countries. Nevertheless, thats not the issue. My problem with the EU's integration is that nowhere is liberty enshrined as the most pressing and fundamental value and principle in legislation. Unfortunately citizens have to be vigilent because the attitudes of some is 'Sure I didn't do anything wrong so I've nothing to worry about'. People wrongly give 'trust' to a government.

The people are a check on the power of government, and the government a check on the power of the people. We are neither a democracy or a Republic, this fusion of the two is the greatest philosophical advance of mankind, and unfortunately our naieve, spoonfed generation have lost what its all about - liberty.

Have you ever even read an EU treaty?

Opening declarations of the the Treaty On The European Union.

RESOLVED to mark a new stage in the process of European integration undertaken with the
establishment of the European Communities,
RECALLING the historic importance of the ending of the division of the European continent and
the need to create firm bases for the construction of the future Europe,
CONFIRMING their attachment to the principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human
rights and fundamental freedoms and of the rule of law,
CONFIRMING their attachment to fundamental social rights as defined in the European Social
Charter signed at Turin on 18 October 1961 and in the 1989 Community Charter of the
Fundamental Social Rights of Workers,
DESIRING to deepen the solidarity between their peoples while respecting their history, their
culture and their traditions,
DESIRING to enhance further the democratic and efficient functioning of the institutions so as to
enable them better to carry out, within a single institutional framework, the tasks entrusted to
them,
RESOLVED to achieve the strengthening and the convergence of their economies and to establish
an economic and monetary union including, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty,
a single and stable currency,
DETERMINED to promote economic and social progress for their peoples, taking into account the
principle of sustainable development and within the context of the accomplishment of the internal
market and of reinforced cohesion and environmental protection, and to implement policies
ensuring that advances in economic integration are accompanied by parallel progress in other
fields,
RESOLVED to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries,
RESOLVED to implement a common foreign and security policy including the progressive framing
of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence in accordance with the
provisions of Article 17, thereby reinforcing the European identity and its independence in order to
promote peace, security and progress in Europe and in the world,
RESOLVED to facilitate the free movement of persons, while ensuring the safety and security of
their peoples, by establishing an area of freedom, security and justice, in accordance with the
provisions of this Treaty,
RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe,
in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of
subsidiarity,
IN VIEW of further steps to be taken in order to advance European integration,
HAVE DECIDED to establish a European Union and to this end have designated as their
Plenipotentiaries:
(List of plenipotentiaries not reproduced)
WHO, having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows.

It's fairly evident 'Liberty','Democracy', 'Freedom' and 'human rights' are fundamental to the EU.

Denerick

Mere words. There is no effort to create lasting liberal and democratic institutions. Sure even Zimbabwe has a Liberal constitution.

Scofflaw

Denerick wrote: »

Mere words. There is no effort to create lasting liberal and democratic institutions. Sure even Zimbabwe has a Liberal constitution.

Ah, yes, that's what I thought the response would be. Anything stated by the EU is dismissed as "mere words", even though the words of the treaties, having legal force, bind the institutions of the EU to follow those words. Equally, I suppose, we can claim the Constitution is "mere words".

sadly,
Scofflaw

Denerick

There is no law if there is nothing or no way to enforce it. Do you not agree?

sink

Denerick wrote: »

There is no law if there is nothing or no way to enforce it. Do you not agree?

True! Ever heard of the ECJ?

turgon

Denerick wrote: »

What use is there in having a democratic parliament that has no actual power or authority? Thats what the EU parliament at present is.

So your going to vote No to a treaty that gives the Parliament more power?

Explain your logic here, or just cut the crap and admit your a Kathy Sinnot adoring Euro-skeptic, so we can all ignore you easier.

Scofflaw

Denerick wrote: »

There is no law if there is nothing or no way to enforce it. Do you not agree?

Every piece of EU legislation has to be compatible with the Treaties. It's not complicated.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Denerick

In light of the way this has turned (In particular the attitude of one member) I'll not be posting on this thread anymore. Either be prepared to debate rather than throw out thoughtless lines like 'bla bla bla so we can ignore you easier' Gob****e.

Iwasfrozen

You're not posting anymore because of one member ?
Sounds like an excuse to me, report his post to a mod and we'll get back to debating.

Denerick

I'm not going to report him but thats the kind of claptrap I fecking hate in people. I'm going out on a limb expressing an opinion, its not nice when someone demeans me, the person, rather the argument. Piss all over the argument if ye want but I'm not going to stand around and be insulted while people don't bother trying to understand what I'm actually saying. (I'm not referring to you IwasFrozen by the way, you've been a gentleman.)

sceptre

Denerick wrote: »

I'm not going to report him

It's easier for me, where people have problems with posts, that they do. Would have been easier for me (and quicker for everyone else) if you had.

I've handed out a recent warning to a poster on this thread for dancing along the line of personal abuse. Everyone can feel free to carry on discussing whatever it is you're discussing without approaching or dancing along that line.

turgon

sceptre wrote: »

I've handed out a recent warning to a poster on this thread for dancing along the line of personal abuse.

Fair enough, warning taken.

What you gotta understand Denerick is that most people who give out about Lisbon are really just blatant Euro-skeptics. They are full of buzzwords like "democracy" and "accountability" and like to position themselves as the common man fighting the big EU.

In reality the Lisbon Treaty is better than Nice in terms of democracy. The parliament gets more powers, which is obviously a good thing, and there is an official mechanism for a citizens initiative.

Sorry for the outburst, its just all the frustration. I am personally embarrassed that Kathy Sinnot represents me in the EU Parl because she is a touter of this kind of half truths. I dont have any problem with people hating the EU, thats their opinion. But when people try and dodge this and con the people, that really gets to me.

Valmont

Denerick wrote: »

Piss all over the argument if ye want

I think it's deeply saturated in piss at this point.

Great thread by the way, definitely one of the more informative Lisbon threads.

BlitzKrieg

I dont have any problem with people hating the EU, thats their opinion. But when people try and dodge this and con the people, that really gets to me.

You dislike the *I support the European Union BUT...* commentators?

It might just be me, but when I hear that I always mumble to myself *I have lots of black/gay/islamic friends BUT...*

On the topic of the lisbon debate, there really is far too much of a mess both on this forum and in the general media, misinformation is rampant.

That alone would have me thinking that a 2nd lisbon referendum (and my opinion on the referendum process is well known here) should not happen in the immediate future. Though if it does, I'll still vote.

But really it shouldnt be shadowing the upcoming parliment elections.

*ahem*

My signature.

All I ask you no people, is please give us a "get out of EU" plan as to what we will do (as opposed to what we should)

I beleive that:
No to Lisbon = No to EU, thanks for the subsidies, see ya, up yours EU (the organisation, not the members) etc. etc.

Edit: read the thread. keeping my oar in though.

I personally think that leaving the EU would be a bad thing for Ireladn, but that's an opinion.

Vinegar Hill

I will be voting NO on this again. The people are scared because of the economy right now and the government are using that to their benefit to try to pass Lisbon. My opinion.....

Oh, sorry, forgot to mention. I, personally, will most likely be voting Yes.