Why hate Libertas

Hitman Actual

RandomName2 wrote:

At last, a sensible poster. Some concrete examples of this 'flasehood' would be useful though. Note - concrete.

Also, here's their full list of reasons to vote No. Do you have the ability to argue that any of them are true?

Edit to add: Your use of the phrase "Note - concrete" does indeed make me believe that you are a Libertas shill.

Edit 2: On a re-read of those Libertas' reasons, a couple of them are true, but the more important claims can be easily proven to be incorrect.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Well from a quick glance at their website here's one...

'33% - the percentage of time we will have no voice on the commission'

This is not true. Under lisbon, as is the current case Ireland has a voice on the commission 0% of the time.

Commissioners represent and speak for the Union, not the nations. They're the only branch of the EU which does. In fact if a Commissioner used his 'voice' in favour of his Nation he could be removed.

Either COIR doesn't understand the EU, or they do and they are deliberately misleading people.

Either way they should be ignored.

sink

RandomName2 wrote: »

Incidentally, is everything that COIR say false as well?

http://www.lisbonvote.com/

I don't have time to refute every point on their website but after a quick browse I can say with confidence that there is very little truth in most of their claims. If you have particular issue with one or two I can address them but i'm not going to spend all afternoon researching and writing. It's sunny outside and i'm to go wash my car in a bit.

turgon

Coirs short guide to Lisbon

1 - The EU already has this right to "undermine" Irish law. What would be the point in being in the EU if we could just overrule every law they passed?
2 - Untrue, tax harmonisation has to be decided unanimously, asfaik?
3 - True, we will have coherent EU immigration policy. Saying we dont have any "say" in this is untrue. Coir act as if we have no representation in EU.
4 - Utter utter bollox. There is no "voting weight" in parliament ffs.
5 - We were voting on the Charter of Rights, so I dont see their point. Either way its a neo-con point they attempt to make.
7 - Oh please, the EU is not a federal state. Once again Coir exhibits its poor understanding of the EU. Also apparently the decision makers such as the council of ministers are not elected. Do they realise Brian Cowen is a member? Or do they honestly think he wasnt elected?
8 - Once again having a commissioner does not give Ireland "a voice," commissioners are legally obliged to act in the EU interests.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

2 - Untrue, tax harmonisation has to be decided unanimously, asfaik?

Insofar as the EU has powers over taxation (and it has none over direct taxation) they are unanimous if they are applied at an all-EU level. The argument here is that CCCTB will be introduced via 'enhanced cooperation', which would allow a group of member states to harmonise their tax base (it's not about the rates).

However, it has nothing to do with Lisbon - the necessary capabilities for CCCTB have been with the Council (not the Commission) since Maastricht, while enhanced cooperation was introduced at Nice. Despite that, CCCTB has been on the drawing board since 2001, and it remains firmly lodged there despite all the fearmongering.

Anyone claiming that tax harmonisation is first made possible in Lisbon should be asked a simple question - what article in Lisbon makes it possible?

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

At last, a sensible poster. Some concrete examples of this 'flasehood' would be useful though. Note - concrete.

A little one but one that is very easy to follow and a personnal favourite of mine (I made a brief youtube video on it)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60045438&postcount=87


Libertas accuse British MEP's of voting themselves a 27% pay rise, when the vote they took was in 2005, where at the time the amount they agreed on would have brought their earnings down, but because of the sterling going to crap the pay scale changed naturally via exchange rates.


My hate for libertas comes from primarily the same reason as Sink, I wouldnt consider myself an intelligent person, so the fact that 2 minutes research by myself shows gaping holes in their policy is pretty damning in how much they outright lie. Also I have personnally met Caroline Simons and have found her to be one of the most unlikable people as a person and her political policies I have ever met (and I have met a fair few Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein politicians via work.)

but no, the blatant lieing is the primary issue that drives me up the wall about them. They shout for democracy, but as was shown the other night, they do not even have democratic system in their party, its rather horrific.

molloyjh

RandomName2 wrote: »

At last, a sensible poster. Some concrete examples of this 'flasehood' would be useful though. Note - concrete.

1. Lisbon will allow the EU to dictate our Corporate Tax:
Corporate Tax is a form of direct taxation. Direct taxation is not a competency of the EU. Therefore they cannot pass any legislation on it. Lisbon does not change that. Libertas argue that there is a back-door through the ECJ however the only thing the ECJ would be rule on is in the event that companies from different member states are being charged different rate in Ireland. The EU is built on partnership and equality in these matters and the ECJ would be able to tell us to charge the same rate across the board. They could not tell us what rate that should be and cannot interfere in corporate tax in any other way.
Tax Harmonisation is something the French and Germans are after. However to change the competancies of the EU would require unanimity and the English and ourselves are firmly opposed, as well as Malta, Sweden and a few of the Eastern European countries. It's fairly well accepted that, although the big 2 founding states want it, it's not going to happen any time soon, if at all.
This is an example of Lisbon's half-truth misrepresentation approach.

2. Lisbons "self-amending" article will allow the EU to modify the treaty without it going for a referendum here:
This is another example of the misrepresetation they are so good at. To make any changes in the EU at the moment requires another Treaty. This would also be the case in future should no modifications be made in this area. So it is possible that we could end up with dozens of treaties all referring to one another and making understanding the EU all but impossible.
So the "self-amending" article allows the EU to modify the existing Treaty. We would not hold a referendum on the Treaty itself in this case, however for the change to be passed in Brussels it must be ratified by all member states. Where referenda would be required here we would still get it, but on the change and not the Treaty.
When you look at Lisbon as it is and the actual Constitutional change we are voting on, we are voting on a minute part of it. This article would allow other changes that do not really require referenda to go ahead, therefore increasing the EUs effeciency.

3. 80% of our laws come from Brussels:
This figure was taken from Germany in 2004. The 80% is true as long as you ignore the 3,000+ statutory orders in Germany that year, which would actually take that figure to 21% (or thereabouts)....thanks to Scofflaw for the details in another Libertas thread.

4. Irelands voting weight will be halfed in Europe:
This has been dealt with sufficiently here I believe?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yeah, after that it will be just back to bashing the Irish electorate for being dumb when it comes to Lisbon II.

Few people have ever said dumb, we generally say ignorant. That is totally different. Most Irish people don't have an interest in the EU 99% of the time and therefore don't know all that much about it, hence they tend to be ignorant.

I hate Libertas for one reason and one reason alone. They are preying on Irish peoples ignorance of the EU, and more lately on our frustration with our existing parties. They are cynically trying to get our support using lies and half-truths and clever marketing without ever actually creating any firm policies. Basically they are a cynical and manipulative bunch using our own apathy and ignorance to gain power for themselves in a far more blatant way and a far greater level than any other party I've seen in the modern Western world.

Hitman Actual

@RandomName2: I've challenged you in two posts in this thread, and you have ignored me, as I see you do with all posts that require facts to back up your claims. Can you offer any sound arguments that Libertas don't continuously deal in "falsehoods"?It appears from your posts that you believe they don't.

nesf

RandomName2 wrote: »

At last, a sensible poster. Some concrete examples of this 'flasehood' would be useful though. Note - concrete.

I distinctly remember Ganley on Q&A on the topic of abortion. After the rest of the panel, including Mary Lou of Sinn Fein (i.e. a core No vote proponent) had agreed that Lisbon did not threaten Ireland's provision on abortion due to the special provision in EU treaties stating that Ireland's stance on abortion cannot be affected by EU treaties, Ganley said the matter was unclear.

Now, I'm sorry, of all the issues, this is simply false. It's written down in black and white in ink on EU treaties that Ireland's stance on Abortion is its own to decide, there is nothing unclear about it.

RandomName2

Hitman Actual wrote: »

@RandomName2: I've challenged you in two posts in this thread, and you have ignored me, as I see you do with all posts that require facts to back up your claims. Can you offer any sound arguments that Libertas don't continuously deal in "falsehoods"?It appears from your posts that you believe they don't.

Well, if by ignoring you, you mean that the necessity for concrete proof proves that I am a paid employee of Libertas, then you don't actually merit any reply.

But honestly I don't know whether or not Libertas are telling the truth (in an objective sense concerning their criticisms of the EU and Lisbon). I do know that there has been a considerable amount of misinformation generated by the 'yes' side. However, the nature of whether either side is telling the truth when it comes to specifics concerning the legislative strength of Brussels is a major sticking point. As it currently stands maybe... 24% of Irish law originates from Brussels, and how directly answerable Brussels is to the Irish public is questionable. Of course, Brussels is limited in what it can legislate on, thank God.

In practise whether or not Libertas is telling the truth is probably irrelevant, and in a number of ways. First, they will not be a massive party, and be fundamentally limited in strength. Moreover, whether or not the EU is a federal body has already been decided by Maastricht. So essentially, for better or worse, we have to live with it. At least Lisbon does tidy up the administration and legal nicities of it, although the prospect of an EU which is more effecient at generating laws is not one which I can warm to. Not that it will change the position of abortion in Ireland, not that I give a damn whether it does or not.

Fundamentally the issue seems to resolve around whether it is worth surrending a small amount of national sovereignty, along with the other 26 members, for the potential benefits it will bring. Why doesn't the 'yes' side put it this way instead of dancing around the issue, as they predominently do, attempting to drown out debate by watering down the discussion to a level where one has to say you are either 'pro' or 'anti' Europe? This is far worse than anything Libertas has done up until now, and you should agree with this no matter what your political allegiance, as this lack of debate has been the catalyst for Libertas to emerge in the first place.

Hitman Actual

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well, if by ignoring you, you mean that the necessity for concrete proof proves that I am a paid employee of Libertas, then you don't actually merit any reply.

No, it doesn't really bother me if you're a shill or not. That's not my point at all. You replied to sink with the following, when he posted about the 'integrity' of Libertas:

wrote:

At last, a sensible poster. Some concrete examples of this 'flasehood' would be useful though. Note - concrete.

I referred you to a thread here and to Libertas' 8 Reasons to Vote No from their Lisbon campaign, where it's really easy to see that they do deal in outrageous falsehoods, but you chose to ignore the threads.

RandomName2 wrote:

But honestly I don't know whether or not Libertas are telling the truth (in an objective sense concerning their criticisms of the EU and Lisbon).

Ah come on now. :rolleyes: Again I refer you to the two links above. And they're just two examples. nesf has posted another a couple of posts back. I also recall Ganley being asked the following question on Eamonn Keanes lunchtime show on Newstalk on the Monday before the Lisbon referendum: "Will enhanced cooperation force Ireland to change it's corporation tax rate?", to which he answered with an emphatic "Yes". This is a bare-faced, outright lie, and can be easily shown to be.

RandomName2 wrote:

I do know that there has been a considerable amount of misinformation generated by the 'yes' side.

Political spin is one thing, but the Yes campaigners, particularly the political parties, have never engaged in the despicable outright lying that Libertas engage in. Even Sinn Fein, for all their opposition to EU treaties, don't step over the line in this regard. We've given you some examples of Libertas lies; why don't you give us some examples of outright lying by the Yes side? If there was a "considerable amount of misinformation", it shouldn't be too hard for you.

RandomName2 wrote:

However, the nature of whether either side is telling the truth when it comes to specifics concerning the legislative strength of Brussels is a major sticking point. As it currently stands maybe... 24% of Irish law originates from Brussels, and how directly answerable Brussels is to the Irish public is questionable. Of course, Brussels is limited in what it can legislate on, thank God.

Why is it a "major sticking point"? The EU is a supranational organisation of 27 countries; it's absolutely necessary that some sovereignty will be pooled. The benefits of being in this organisation, particularly for a small country like us, far outweigh the price of losing some of that sovereignty.

RandomName2 wrote:

In practise whether or not Libertas is telling the truth is probably irrelevant, and in a number of ways. First, they will not be a massive party, and be fundamentally limited in strength. Moreover, whether or not the EU is a federal body has already been decided by Maastricht. So essentially, for better or worse, we have to live with it. At least Lisbon does tidy up the administration and legal nicities of it, although the prospect of an EU which is more effecient at generating laws is not one which I can warm to. Not that it will change the position of abortion in Ireland, not that I give a damn whether it does or not.

Irrelevant?! When polls show that as much as 60% of the No vote in the first referendum were due to lack of understanding and misinformation, how can you call that irrelevant?

RandomName2 wrote:

Fundamentally the issue seems to resolve around whether it is worth surrending a small amount of national sovereignty, along with the other 26 members, for the potential benefits it will bring. Why doesn't the 'yes' side put it this way instead of dancing around the issue, as they predominently do, attempting to drown out debate by watering down the discussion to a level where one has to say you are either 'pro' or 'anti' Europe? This is far worse than anything Libertas has done up until now, and you should agree with this no matter what your political allegiance, as this lack of debate has been the catalyst for Libertas to emerge in the first place.

I think you'll find on this forum that the pro-EU regular posters do appreciate that there are trade-offs in our sovereignty and the benefits of being in the EU. But the level of debate continuously gets dragged down by the anti-EU brigade who possess no sound logical arguments (e.g. based on factual info in the Treaties, etc), but only seem to be armed with nationalistic, 'little Irelander' arguments. And Libertas certainly don't enhance the debate, unless you think that giving brazen outright liars a voice is a good thing.

RandomName2

Hitman Actual wrote: »

I referred you to a thread here and to Libertas' 8 Reasons to Vote No from their Lisbon campaign, where it's really easy to see that they do deal in outrageous falsehoods, but you chose to ignore the threads.

Okay, the 'yes' side seem to take the easier course of looking at the latter arguments of those '8 reasons'. Yet, even in terms of Libertas' argument that it 'enshrines EU law as superior to Irish law' - it is hard to call that a lie. The Lisbon Treaty does not create that distinction, merely affirms it. They shouldn't really have used that as a point, mind you they do say 'enshrine' not 'create' (yes, a manipulation of the facts, perhaps)

1. Creates an unelected EU President and Foreign Minister

Both true and false. There is already a President. He is currently unelected (rotating). Lisbon creates a new Presidency. This president is not directly elected but elected by representatives themselves elected across Europe.

2. Halves Irish voting weight whilst doubling that of Germany's

Exclusive to the European Parliament, this is true (although there is a higher majority needed to pass legislation). Besides which, the EU parliament is arguably the weakest branch of EU legislative power - that would probably be the Commission.

3. Abolishes Irish Commissioner for 5 years at a time.
5 years is an outright lie, as far as I know (although this was written up prior to Lisbon I, so might have been different then). Overall this seems pretty much correct though (they do acknowledge the rotating nature of Commissioners throughout EU)

Hitman Actual wrote: »

I think you'll find on this forum that the pro-EU regular posters do appreciate that there are trade-offs in our sovereignty and the benefits of being in the EU. But the level of debate continuously gets dragged down by the anti-EU brigade who possess no sound logical arguments (e.g. based on factual info in the Treaties, etc), but only seem to be armed with nationalistic, 'little Irelander' arguments. And Libertas certainly don't enhance the debate, unless you think that giving brazen outright liars a voice is a good thing.

True, the dept of arguments provided by the 'yes' side in this forum are far-superior to that of our politicians. That is, even if you do still go in for branding anti-Lisbon folk with such nice generalisations as 'the anti-EU brigade who possess no sound logical arguments (e.g. based on factual info in the Treaties, etc), but only seem to be armed with nationalistic, 'little Irelander' arguments.'

P.S. You should get away from your dislike of the idea that the EU undermines Irish law, because it certainly does. Try arguing that it is a good thing (i.e. necessary for a supranational state, and that a supranational state is preferable to the alternative). The 'democracy deficit' gripe still stands in the election of the President and Commissioners (I still havn't heard a credible argument why there should not be direct election).

BlitzKrieg

That is, even if you do still go in for branding anti-Lisbon folk with such nice generalisations as 'the anti-EU brigade who possess no sound logical arguments

I think if you spent a few minutes looking through the threads that have appeared here since the first lisbon treaty you would find that pretty much every *anti lisbon folk* argument has been shot down because they lacked *sound logical arguments* In fact I am actually saddened that the best anti lisbon debaters have disapeared or kept generally quiet on the subject since the the first referendum

those would be Turgon and democrates (And this is the most lovey dovey positive thread you will ever see on the politics section of boards: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055311337)

Every thread since then has almost been a repeat of the one before it.

1. Creates an unelected EU President and Foreign Minister

Both true and false. There is already a President. He is currently unelected (rotating). Lisbon creates a new Presidency. This president is not directly elected but elected by representatives themselves elected across Europe.

Yes but they go on to say that his powers/role have not been decided, when they clearly have. He gets no vote on any issue in the council or in the commission. The role was designed as a bridge because technically THe European Council is traditional not part of the EU and is a seperate organisation, with the introduction of the president it allows the council to have a consistent channel of communication with the other institutions, a spokesperson if you like.

3. Abolishes Irish Commissioner for 5 years at a time.
5 years is an outright lie, as far as I know (although this was written up prior to Lisbon I, so might have been different then). Overall this seems pretty much correct though (they do acknowledge the rotating nature of Commissioners throughout EU)

Yes and it was true for Nice aswell, except with Lisbon there was an actually system in place for rotation while with nice the commissioner is simply not there. Besides the whole our commissoner aspect is untrue to begin with. If a TD is elected from tipperary north and is made minister of education does that make him tipperary's minister of education? And before you point out the old commissioner would watch out for irish interests...Commissioners have pretty much no power as to how a law is implemented. They propose a law and its the other two institutions that decide how its implemented, so there is almost no way for a commissioner to do territorial back scratching when it will find it taken away instantly by the European council and Parliment (and under Lisbon the national governments can oppose directly at the same time.)

Salome

Listening to Caroline Simons screeching like a harpie on the Last Word during the week showed Libertas' true colours - right wing extremists with a good PR machine. Let's hope the voting public don't fall for their propaganda.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

P.S. You should get away from your dislike of the idea that the EU undermines Irish law, because it certainly does. Try arguing that it is a good thing (i.e. necessary for a supranational state, and that a supranational state is preferable to the alternative). The 'democracy deficit' gripe still stands in the election of the President and Commissioners (I still havn't heard a credible argument why there should not be direct election).

Well, part the first is obvious - you cannot make common legislation for the entire EU which can be locally overridden. If national legislation is superior to the laws commonly agreed for the common EU market, then there isn't really any common legislation.

Part the second is also fairly obvious, I would think. Any elected President would be elected by one or other of the largest voting blocks, every time. He or she would then be answerable primarily to that voting block.

The same goes for the Commissioners, except perhaps with more practical effect, since the powers of the President are largely presentational. However, let's assume that of course we are electing the 'Irish' Commissioner within Ireland. First, we should note that there is currently nothing preventing us doing so, because the treaties do not specify anything other than that countries should nominate the Commissioners. It would be a little tricky, because we would actually have to elect a list, since the European Parliament has powers of refusal, but let's say we can smooth out our outrage when the Parliament rejects an elected Commissioner.

So, are there any intrinsic problems with an elected Commissioner? Again, I'd say there are, and they're obvious. Elections are a competition, but a competition judged on no objective criteria, where every legal technique is allowable. Elections, therefore, are rarely models of dignity, but are often instead a cross between an auction and a catfight. At the end of it, we will have elected a Commissioner who will represent only a section of Irish society - a plurality rather than a majority assuming there are more than two candidates. That person will, in turn, be beholden to the section of the electorate that put him or her in the Commissioner seat.

Two things are then possible - first, our elected Commissioner wants to be re-elected. In that case, the Irish Commissioner will do as much as possible to make himself popular with the Irish electorate - or at least that section of him he thinks will elect him next time. Second, our elected Commissioner does not want to be re-elected, in which case we have no way of holding him to account anyway, despite his initial election.

So, the only thing that makes it worth electing the Commissioner is when the person elected wishes re-election. Unfortunately, as pointed out, that means he's pushing the Irish agenda in Brussels, because he's elected in a competitive election. Now, pushing national agendas is not the Commission's job, but the Council's - the Commission's job is to be European. So we've already broken part of the EU - and to our own detriment, because anything other than regulatory stuff that goes through the Commission also has to go through the Council. Any attempt by Ireland to push the Irish agenda from the Commission will falter at the Council step, where it will be resisted by the other countries. And that relatively benign scenario rests on the idea that we are the only country electing Commissioners - if we assume everyone does it, then the German Commissioner will be pushing the German agenda, and so on, turning the Commission into an competition-based rather than consensus-based body.

Since what one can push will depend on which portfolio one has, we can guarantee that the good portfolios would go to the big countries - there certainly wouldn't be an Irishman in charge of a plum portfolio like Internal Markets. And there's a little more than that.

Something worth realising is that the system of national Commissioners is the result of the quite natural suspicion between European countries. Everyone insisted on keeping 'their man' on the Commission in case another country tried to push their national agenda through the Commission. That the Commission has been, instead, a genuinely European body over its existence is the reason that it was possible first for the bigger countries to give up their second Commissioner, and now for all countries to consider a Commission on which they don't have a permanent presence.

Electing Commissioners would actually reverse that, because each Commissioner would be in the pocket of the electorate that put him there - and if he were not, what would be the point of electing him?

So what seems from a naive perspective to be obviously "better because more democratic" would in fact have the effect of massively reducing Irish influence in the EU, of setting back the goodwill between the member states that is the whole point of the EU, and of turning the only genuinely European bit of the EU into another arena of national competition.

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, part the first is obvious - you cannot make common legislation for the entire EU which can be locally overridden. If national legislation is superior to the laws commonly agreed for the common EU market, then there isn't really any common legislation...

I agree with this (as well as the rest of the post). I simply want to emphasise, for those who might miss the point, that the general purpose of EU legislation or regulation is to enable markets to be as free and fair as possible. That involves having common standards for goods and services: how can you have fair competition between say, Danish and Irish pork producers if one group is burdened with the costs of health regulations that are created for the good of consumers, and the other group run a wild west operation?

And then there are wider issue to address: for example, about beef, mostly arising from the fact that the EU operates in a wider world, with WTO agreements. The EU internal market does not want beef raised with hormone injections, but that practice is considered acceptable in the US, and the US administration holds that open world markets should oblige us to accept US beef. And then we have Brazilian beef, where European farmers, particularly Irish farmers, contend that animal health standards do not satisfy European requirements. I think the IFA might have a valid point, but it must also be recognised that in making their claims, they are hardly disinterested, and their claims should be scrutinised rather than blindly accepted. Such battles are inevitable, and we try to get on the best way we can.

Yes, of course people sometimes try to slant EU rules to give their own people an edge in the market, as in the effort to ban cheeses made from unpastuerised milk. Human nature is such that we will always have such skirmishes, and they can be bothersome. But we battle on, achieving more good than bad outcomes.

RandomName2

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I agree with this (as well as the rest of the post). I simply want to emphasise, for those who might miss the point, that the general purpose of EU legislation or regulation is to enable markets to be as free and fair as possible. That involves having common standards for goods and services: how can you have fair competition between say, Danish and Irish pork producers if one group is burdened with the costs of health regulations that are created for the good of consumers, and the other group run a wild west operation?

And then there are wider issue to address: for example, about beef, mostly arising from the fact that the EU operates in a wider world, with WTO agreements. The EU internal market does not want beef raised with hormone injections, but that practice is considered acceptable in the US, and the US administration holds that open world markets should oblige us to accept US beef. And then we have Brazilian beef, where European farmers, particularly Irish farmers, contend that animal health standards do not satisfy European requirements. I think the IFA might have a valid point, but it must also be recognised that in making their claims, they are hardly disinterested, and their claims should be scrutinised rather than blindly accepted. Such battles are inevitable, and we try to get on the best way we can.

Yes, of course people sometimes try to slant EU rules to give their own people an edge in the market, as in the effort to ban cheeses made from unpastuerised milk. Human nature is such that we will always have such skirmishes, and they can be bothersome. But we battle on, achieving more good than bad outcomes.

Look, the time when Europe legislation was based singularly upon trade has long since passed. You are talking about the EC and free trade. What you are talking about is only part of one of the three pillars established by Maastricht.

ionix5891

RandomName2 wrote: »

Look, the time when Europe legislation was based singularly upon trade has long since passed. You are talking about the EC and free trade. What you are talking about is only part of one of the three pillars established by Maastricht.

what are the other 2?

P. Breathnach

RandomName2 wrote: »

Look, the time when Europe legislation was based singularly upon trade has long since passed. You are talking about the EC and free trade. What you are talking about is only part of one of the three pillars established by Maastricht.

The great bulk of European law, regulation, and administrative procedure is concerned with trying to achieve free and fair internal markets for goods, services, capital, and labour.

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, part the first is obvious - you cannot make common legislation for the entire EU which can be locally overridden. If national legislation is superior to the laws commonly agreed for the common EU market, then there isn't really any common legislation.

Part the second is also fairly obvious, I would think. Any elected President would be elected by one or other of the largest voting blocks, every time. He or she would then be answerable primarily to that voting block.

The same goes for the Commissioners, except perhaps with more practical effect, since the powers of the President are largely presentational. However, let's assume that of course we are electing the 'Irish' Commissioner within Ireland. First, we should note that there is currently nothing preventing us doing so, because the treaties do not specify anything other than that countries should nominate the Commissioners. It would be a little tricky, because we would actually have to elect a list, since the European Parliament has powers of refusal, but let's say we can smooth out our outrage when the Parliament rejects an elected Commissioner.

So, are there any intrinsic problems with an elected Commissioner? Again, I'd say there are, and they're obvious. Elections are a competition, but a competition judged on no objective criteria, where every legal technique is allowable. Elections, therefore, are rarely models of dignity, but are often instead a cross between an auction and a catfight. At the end of it, we will have elected a Commissioner who will represent only a section of Irish society - a plurality rather than a majority assuming there are more than two candidates. That person will, in turn, be beholden to the section of the electorate that put him or her in the Commissioner seat.

Two things are then possible - first, our elected Commissioner wants to be re-elected. In that case, the Irish Commissioner will do as much as possible to make himself popular with the Irish electorate - or at least that section of him he thinks will elect him next time. Second, our elected Commissioner does not want to be re-elected, in which case we have no way of holding him to account anyway, despite his initial election.

So, the only thing that makes it worth electing the Commissioner is when the person elected wishes re-election. Unfortunately, as pointed out, that means he's pushing the Irish agenda in Brussels, because he's elected in a competitive election. Now, pushing national agendas is not the Commission's job, but the Council's - the Commission's job is to be European. So we've already broken part of the EU - and to our own detriment, because anything other than regulatory stuff that goes through the Commission also has to go through the Council. Any attempt by Ireland to push the Irish agenda from the Commission will falter at the Council step, where it will be resisted by the other countries. And that relatively benign scenario rests on the idea that we are the only country electing Commissioners - if we assume everyone does it, then the German Commissioner will be pushing the German agenda, and so on, turning the Commission into an competition-based rather than consensus-based body.

Since what one can push will depend on which portfolio one has, we can guarantee that the good portfolios would go to the big countries - there certainly wouldn't be an Irishman in charge of a plum portfolio like Internal Markets. And there's a little more than that.

Something worth realising is that the system of national Commissioners is the result of the quite natural suspicion between European countries. Everyone insisted on keeping 'their man' on the Commission in case another country tried to push their national agenda through the Commission. That the Commission has been, instead, a genuinely European body over its existence is the reason that it was possible first for the bigger countries to give up their second Commissioner, and now for all countries to consider a Commission on which they don't have a permanent presence.

Electing Commissioners would actually reverse that, because each Commissioner would be in the pocket of the electorate that put him there - and if he were not, what would be the point of electing him?

So what seems from a naive perspective to be obviously "better because more democratic" would in fact have the effect of massively reducing Irish influence in the EU, of setting back the goodwill between the member states that is the whole point of the EU, and of turning the only genuinely European bit of the EU into another arena of national competition.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bravo, an unusually choherent argument.

However, there is a fundamental contradiction in all of what you are saying: the dichotomy between national citizenship and European citizenship.

You complain that an elected President would only represent part of the electorate. This is a complaint about democracy in general - unless you agree that there are divergent national interests in the EU - which in turn would leave in question the legitimacy of a body that overrides national law. The fact that this body is a conglomerate is not the point if the national government whoose law is being overriden is being overpowered by the supranational body. The purpose of such legislation is the rub in relation to the EU as it stands. There is no democratic legitimacy to create laws on issues which are internal to the member states (e.g. criminal law). The fact that the EU was based initially upon economics that affected every member state was the reason why the body was granted legislative power in the first place.

Scofflaw wrote: »

So, are there any intrinsic problems with an elected Commissioner? Again, I'd say there are, and they're obvious. Elections are a competition, but a competition judged on no objective criteria, where every legal technique is allowable. Elections, therefore, are rarely models of dignity, but are often instead a cross between an auction and a catfight. At the end of it, we will have elected a Commissioner who will represent only a section of Irish society - a plurality rather than a majority assuming there are more than two candidates. That person will, in turn, be beholden to the section of the electorate that put him or her in the Commissioner seat.

Two things are then possible - first, our elected Commissioner wants to be re-elected. In that case, the Irish Commissioner will do as much as possible to make himself popular with the Irish electorate - or at least that section of him he thinks will elect him next time. Second, our elected Commissioner does not want to be re-elected, in which case we have no way of holding him to account anyway, despite his initial election.

Plato put it better:
'"In a democracy there is liberty and freedom of speech, and every individual is free to do as he likes, and there’s the greatest variety of individual character. I dare say most people would judge democracy the best form of society, like women and children who judge by appearance. There’s no compulsion to exercise authority or submit to authority. Politicians can come from any background provided they call themselves the peoples’ friends. This society treats men as equal, whether they are or not. Unnecessary pleasures abound in this society. Rulers call shame silliness and self-control cowardice, and banish economy and moderation.
Aeschylus: All very true.
Glaucon: An excessive desire for liberty at the expense of everything leads to the demand for tyranny.
Socrates: Democracy abuses the authorities as contemptible. There is no respect, and no difference between citizen and foreigner. A democratic society falls into three groups; energetic leaders, the Rich, and the masses, who, when assembled, are supreme, but won’t assemble often unless given a share of money. The leaders rob the rich, keep most of the proceeds, and distribute the rest to the masses. Thus the tyrant emerges from the robbed rich and becomes a popular leader by making large promises"'.

So this is back to the same old distinction between 'representative' democracy and (ahem) direct democracy. You, like Plato, argue that only the 'gold' should be allowed rule within the EU, and this is ensured by the process whereby the actual control of the EU is generated by those who have been elected. The fact that there is a vote somewhere along the chain does not make it democratic - it is the reason why the President of America is not 'elected' by Congress (because this would be termed as dictatorship). The fact that both the EU president and Commission are NOT DIRECTLY ANSWERABLE to the citizens of Europe belies the notion of an EU citizenship. The only democratic legislative body in the EU is the Parliament - and it is also the weakest.

So we have a dual process of legislation - the Irish government and the EU (the former being weaker than the latter, but legislates on far more areas than the latter). Howver, when you talk about 'Irish influence' in the EU, you actually mean the 'Irish government influence'. What is the Irish government agenda? In terms of the EU I never have to check, at least directly - generally a glance at whatever position that Berlesconi or Sarkozy hold in relation to the EU would be mirrored by Biffo (even if it does weaken Ireland or the Irish electorate ... e.g. Lisbon). I have already argued that national governments may not acurately reflect the people that they represent when it comes to the EU, but we will agree to disagree on that one.

It would be better if the hypocracy was gotten rid of: national parliaments were disbanded and, as EU citizens we actually had a direct voice in the governance of the Union, or alternately if we at least got Home Rule (where's Parnell when you need him?). This might seem a bit extreme, but until now the EU has been too badly organised to churn out legislation. However, with the constitutional amendments of Lisbon (to Brussels, not Ireland) this will not be the case. Moreover, the precendent set by legislation on 'terrorism' and 'global warming' has set a further precedent in eroding national legislative authority (for instance, with the former, the stage has been set to redefine criminal law within Brussels).

Scofflaw

Well, there's an awful lot of words in there, and references to a couple of philosophers, which is always nice, and the whole thing is wrapped up in the usual straw man - that people who do not agree that every post should be elective are anti-democratic.

So, here's the salient bit:

You complain that an elected President would only represent part of the electorate. This is a complaint about democracy in general - unless you agree that there are divergent national interests in the EU - which in turn would leave in question the legitimacy of a body that overrides national law. The fact that this body is a conglomerate is not the point if the national government whoose law is being overriden is being overpowered by the supranational body. The purpose of such legislation is the rub in relation to the EU as it stands. There is no democratic legitimacy to create laws on issues which are internal to the member states (e.g. criminal law). The fact that the EU was based initially upon economics that affected every member state was the reason why the body was granted legislative power in the first place.

First, yes, the problem of representing only part of the electorate is an issue with representative democracy. That's why we elect multiple representatives, or else narrow the race down to a couple of candidates. Here, to the contrary, we're talking about a single position, and proposing to elect to it based on an extremely diverse electorate. We're also talking about a position for which there are likely to be at least 27 candidates every single time, so the winning candidate will represent a very small electorate. Unfortunately, since that electorate is also likely to be a national electorate, and likely, in turn, to be the electorate of one of the big countries every single time, the successful candidate is likely to be seen as illegitimate by the majority of the European electorate.

Second, the problem of partial representation is not something we can simply brush off as insoluble, as you have done here. It has solutions. One solution is to use non-elective (technocratic) officials, and subject them to democratic control by a representative body. This is a perfectly standard solution, even if it is not obviously the "most democratic". It is the solution used in the case of the Commission, where Commissioners are not subject to their own personal electorate, but jointly to the Parliament, thus requiriing them to answer to the demos without putting them in the pocket of any subsection of it.

Third, the claim that there is "no democratic legitimacy to create laws on issues which are internal to the member states" is very simply wrong. First, we voted for the governments that agreed to those competences. Second, we in Ireland voted directly at referendum to allow the EU those competences. Third, of course, anything can be argued as "internal to the member states", since all laws are either made or applied by the member states. Fourth, the areas over which the EU has such competence are cross-border areas like immigration and people-trafficking. Finally, we have a democratic say in such legislation via the Parliament.


It's worth re-visiting the isue of the simplistic conception of democracy you're offering. The point of democracy is to ensure that the views of as much of the demos as possible are taken account of. Assuming we're not voting on every single issue directly, we're talking about representatives. Election in a two-candidate race gives us a representative who represents at least 50.1% of the vote. Election in a first past the post system with more than two candidates rapidly reduces the minimum share of the electorate that the representative needs represent - in a ten-candidate race, the winning candidate need only represent 10.1% of the vote.

That, in turn, is why Ireland operates a multi-seat STV system, so that the preferences of as much of the electorate as possible are taken into account. It's a good system, producing representatives who are a mathematically much closer match to the electorate's preferences than first past the post systems - but unfortunately, it doesn't work so well for single posts.

The fact that there are different theoretical systems for matching the preferences of the electorate to the eventual result illustrates that adequately representing those preferences is not simply a case of holding straight votes on every post - particularly where there are very divergent sub-electorates. Where there is a single post, and it is essential that the holder not be representative of a small section, it is better not to hold an election to the post at all - it is better, instead, to make the post-holder subject to a larger representative body capable of adequately representing the electorate.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

‘

Scofflaw wrote: »

First, yes, the problem of representing only part of the electorate is an issue with representative democracy. That's why we elect multiple representatives, or else narrow the race down to a couple of candidates. Here, to the contrary, we're talking about a single position, and proposing to elect to it based on an extremely diverse electorate. We're also talking about a position for which there are likely to be at least 27 candidates every single time, so the winning candidate will represent a very small electorate.’

Again you are just complaining about democracy, although within a specific context. The argument can be extended such to include Obama representing only the electorate of – say – Illinois, or Brian Cowan, his own constituency in Offaly. So, where’s the national outrage in Ireland or America? There were not 27 runners in the US presidential election, but rather more in the region of 60. Does this mean that Obama represents only 1/60th of America? The practical capacity to narrow down the election of individuals to a single post to a small number of front runners (by using the primary system in America, or even the two-stage method in France) is easily achievable. But even if you only take into account the presidential race in America after the primaries, do the (50 million) voters for John McCain feel disenfranchised?

This pedantry is relevant. The issue is null and void in the elections in America, or Ireland (or most other democracies) as there is a common basis for citizenship. Where there is no real common ground between various citizens of a country democracy quickly becomes bogged down in partisan politics – indeed, America is itself a good example of this when during the 19th Century Republicans and various Democrat factions came to represent northern Unionists and southern Confederates respectively. Such a marked division lay merely in the divergent economic and agricultural interests of north and south (whereby the south pursued slavery as their agricultural cornerstone, and all that followed). The threat to the legislative parity of north and south due to the introduction of more states to the senate, coupled with the election of Lincoln, directly precipitated the civil war that ensued. In recent times such divergent feelings have been witnessed in Austria-Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, post-colonial India (even to a lesser extent in Spain, Italy and Turkey). In America the divergence between north and south was solved by eliminating the economic system of the south, and by freeing the slaves. The fact that the south was able to remain in the Union without the imposition of absolutist rule is indicative of the common ground between north and south once this economic variance was removed (although ethnic tensions concerning race that was generated by emancipation has taken considerably longer to solve).

Such issues of national divergence typically lead to the breakdown of hegemony, unless a supreme ruler is able to bind the heads of the hydra like polis into a single body subject to a single legislative authority. This position of supreme ruler cannot, by its nature, be open to the competition of open democracy. Thus in the Soviet Union, People’s Republic of China, and even, albeit to a lesser extent, Bismarck’s Germany the divergent will is subordinated to that of a single post. When these hegemonies become less subject to a single will (as happened in any of the examples above) the state splits along the divisions within the polis (and when such division has no defining geographical boundaries such as in Yugoslavia and Northern Ireland, the results are generally quite unpleasant)

It is clear that the European Union is one of the most divergent hegemonies in recent history (with the exception of perhaps the Soviet Union). The solution seems to be to limit the democratic voice of the people of Europe to prevent bi-partisan politics which would threaten the structure of the Union. Thus the newly proposed presidency of the EU becomes something of a monarchical presence. In this regard the position would be akin to a cross between the Vatican, in terms of the election of the leader, and Britain’s constitutional monarchy (c.18th Century), whereby the leader is made accountable to Parliament. The powers of the president are to be limited by the EU constitution. It’s not incredibly edifying, but it works in holding together such a fractious federation, I suppose… unless euro-sceptic parties manage to increase in strength, in which case, who knows what happens? Ten years down the line, if one of the big three tries to secede, will Brussels have the desire, or ability to act against it? If it is deemed imperative for Brussels to act, maybe a Warsaw Pact reaction will be possible, given the right conditions.

I understand that Lisbon is designed to increase the powers of the Parliament, but there will be, sooner rather than later, practical limitations which auger badly for an attempted 'democratisation' of the EU. Indeed, notwithstanding the inherent problems of creating a European Superstate, the Lisbon Treaty itself highlights the problems when a single member state moves in a tangent to the 'general will' (of the member governments at least) - hence the second referendum and threats of expulsion.

Scofflaw

A long post, some of which appears to have been generated by some kind of automated process. "Such issues of national divergence typically lead to the breakdown of hegemony, unless a supreme ruler is able to bind the heads of the hydra like polis into a single body subject to a single legislative authority." is particularly good. Nor do I disagree - too much internal conflict does indeed make running a state difficult without an autocratic leader. The former Yugoslavia is, perhaps, a better example, but Northern Ireland also fits the bill, with its regular reimpositions of Westminster rule.

As far as I can tell, though, you agree that a President of the Council directly elected by the entire European electorate wouldn't actually work. On the other hand, you appear also to believe that the Parliament, which has rather a good working record, will also not work - perhaps that's because you're assuming the Parliament operates on national rather than ideological lines, which is not the case.

amused,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

My point is that whilst the position of President or Comissioner is structurally feasible to be elected directly by the public that there is a more fundamental problem lying at the heart of the EU.

The naive view professed by most of the propoents of the EU is that European nationalism will soon come to overpower the inherent divisions within the EU (and that in the meantime such a dictatorial arangement is necessary). I do not hold any flag for local nationalism - merely stating its existence as a fact, and one unlikely to be solved any time soon, if ever.

I would still suggest that the political arangement will ultimately fall apart or move further towards dictatorship as the only possible means of keeping the hegemony held together. As I said, the US is a united country because such differences could be ironed out - there was no fundamental cultural, religious or ethnic divide between the Unionists and Confederates, as there is with the peoples of Europe.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

My point is that whilst the position of President or Comissioner is structurally feasible to be elected directly by the public that there is a more fundamental problem lying at the heart of the EU.

The naive view professed by most of the propoents of the EU is that European nationalism will soon come to overpower the inherent divisions within the EU (and that in the meantime such a dictatorial arangement is necessary). I do not hold any flag for local nationalism - merely stating its existence as a fact, and one unlikely to be solved any time soon, if ever.

I would still suggest that the political arangement will ultimately fall apart or move further towards dictatorship as the only possible means of keeping the hegemony held together. As I said, the US is a united country because such differences could be ironed out - there was no fundamental cultural, religious or ethnic divide between the Unionists and Confederates, as there is with the peoples of Europe.

Well, first I would have to point out that having a President of the Council of Ministers isn't anywhere remotely close to having a Marshal Tito for the EU. Then I'd have to point out that the EU, while it occasionally stalls for a while, has not only functioned since 1952, but has functioned increasingly well, and increasingly democratically. Nationalism waxes and wanes, but there is no comparison between modern nationalism and the nationalism of the early-mid twentieth century. Nor are very many people (let alone someone like me) of the opinion that "EU nationalism" either will 'overpower the inherent divisions' of Europe, or that it is in any way desirable that it do so. One of my objections to Libertas was that they wanted a Europe that people could be nationalistic about - and I don't. I think such a concept is dangerously stupid, given the tendency of nationalism (and particularly new nationalisms) to leave behind them piles of corpses in smoking ruins.

That's a slightly long-winded way of saying that your historical analogies are suspect, your rendering of the present inaccurate, and your conclusions fanciful.

cordially,
Scofflaw

evercloserunion

I don't get the staggering variety of arguments against Libertas. For me, one was enough: they are all compulsive liars.

spank_inferno

when the reactionary masses here complain about Libertas, all I can think of is "well isnt that what FF/FG are like anyway"

Has the last 10 years not shown that FF are more in the pocket of big business interests than any party in irish history.

molloyjh

spank_inferno wrote: »

when the reactionary masses here complain about Libertas, all I can think of is "well isnt that what FF/FG are like anyway"

Has the last 10 years not shown that FF are more in the pocket of big business interests than any party in irish history.

The difference being that Libertas IS a big business interest. Look few here value FF much more than Libertas, but at the end of the day the last thing we need is more like them.

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, first I would have to point out that having a President of the Council of Ministers isn't anywhere remotely close to having a Marshal Tito for the EU. Then I'd have to point out that the EU, while it occasionally stalls for a while, has not only functioned since 1952, but has functioned increasingly well, and increasingly democratically. Nationalism waxes and wanes, but there is no comparison between modern nationalism and the nationalism of the early-mid twentieth century. Nor are very many people (let alone someone like me) of the opinion that "EU nationalism" either will 'overpower the inherent divisions' of Europe, or that it is in any way desirable that it do so. One of my objections to Libertas was that they wanted a Europe that people could be nationalistic about - and I don't. I think such a concept is dangerously stupid, given the tendency of nationalism (and particularly new nationalisms) to leave behind them piles of corpses in smoking ruins.

That's a slightly long-winded way of saying that your historical analogies are suspect, your rendering of the present inaccurate, and your conclusions fanciful.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well, you are not just a sophist, but apparently an optimistic one at that.

You miss the most importat aspect - where is the legitimacy for a supranational body to legislate for individual nations?

Look, I'll provide the answer for you: free trade. This was the purpose of the EU - it always was, even Lisbon is argued within the limits of economic consideration, even though Lisbon has nothing to do with economics.

It's clear that the EU legislates for more than that concerning free trade, or trade of any kind. Why is Brussels supposed to be a superior centre of legislation than the Reichstag or Dail?

What is even the reason for it? What is the reason? There is actually no coherent rational reason for making a central government in Brussels for anything other than creating a single european state. This is clearly [look at the details] the agenda in the construction of Lisbon.

I'm afraid that your grasp of history is flawed.

P. Breathnach

RandomName2 wrote: »

... Look, I'll provide the answer for you: free trade. This was the purpose of the EU - it always was ...

I'm afraid that your grasp of history is flawed.

Anybody who says that the purpose of the EU was and is free trade has a flawed grasp of history.