Why hate Libertas

RandomName2

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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

Ho humm...

I don't even know how to answer this. Maybe a smiley face....

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

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

The legitimacy is conferred upon it by those very same nations.

Where is the legitimacy for a suprapersonal body (Dáil Éireann) to legislate for individual persons?

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

The legitimacy is conferred upon it by those very same nations.

Where is the legitimacy for a suprapersonal body (Dáil Éireann) to legislate for individual persons?

Is this rhetorical? If not read Hobbes and then Rousseau if you actually don't know.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Is this rhetorical?

I'll give you three guesses.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll give you three guesses.

What? You mean if I guess 'no' I can guess again? With or without concessions?

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

What? You mean if I guess 'no' I can guess again? With or without concessions?

You can do whatever it is you feel you need to do to avoid addressing my point.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

You can do whatever it is you feel you need to do to avoid addressing my point.

What is your point? That you don't understand Western philosophy? I don't actually think you actually had a point - but you can say I am avoiding the issue if you like [what issue ?]

Do you actually want me to give you an extended anaysis of the basis of democracy through recourse to the Leviathan and Social Contract? You seem to need it, but I would want to be paid to do so. If you believe that I will do whatever I feel necessary to avoid give you tutoring for free, you are correct.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Do you actually want me to give you an extended anaysis of the basis of democracy through recourse to the Leviathan and Social Contract?

I'd actually rather you participated meaningfully in the discussion here. I realise that may be a lot to ask.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd actually rather you participated meaningfully in the discussion here. I realise that may be a lot to ask.

I don't mind meaningful conversation. But, again I must provide your answers for you. In a paraphratic manner you have said that you weren't just being rhetorical. okay. But I don't even know where to begin to answer your question - if I assume knowledge on your part you will say I am avoiding the question, if I go to the trouble of a detailed explaination you will probably say I am being codecending [and then say I am avoiding the question].

I would probably start with the basis for state boarders - the conferring of authority onto the body of the Leviathan by the Social Compact, the nature of representation of the people and soverign accountability. Urk... maybe I'll just quote Lincoln again... 'of the people by the people for the people' - a bit ambiguous when you get to the EU. But look at the previous posts. Maybe that will give you some idea of my position

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

...where is the legitimacy for a supranational body to legislate for individual nations?

oscarBravo wrote: »

The legitimacy is conferred upon it by those very same nations.

Where is the legitimacy for a suprapersonal body (Dáil Éireann) to legislate for individual persons?

Allow me to dissect and explain my reply for you. The first sentence is a reply to your question, which you chose to ignore. That's the refusal to engage in meaningful discussion I've been talking about.

The second sentence is a very obvious and perfectly transparent analogy. I'm sure someone of your obvious intelligence is aware of what an analogy is; I'm just surprised you were unable to spot that one, given that it's worded almost identically to the question of yours to which it was analogical.

If you feel the analogy is flawed, feel free to explain why, but stop insulting my intelligence by pretending to be too stupid to recognise it for what it is.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Allow me to dissect and explain my reply for you. The first sentence is a reply to your question, which you chose to ignore. That's the refusal to engage in meaningful discussion I've been talking about.

The second sentence is a very obvious and perfectly transparent analogy. I'm sure someone of your obvious intelligence is aware of what an analogy is; I'm just surprised you were unable to spot that one, given that it's worded almost identically to the question of yours to which it was analogical.

If you feel the analogy is flawed, feel free to explain why, but stop insulting my intelligence by pretending to be too stupid to recognise it for what it is.

okay - well your first statement is correct, as far as it goes, which is not terribly far, particularly when you attempt to clarify how far that legitimacy extends; and that can just be a matter of opinion. It was a statement that did not lead to an obvious reply......... ....... but I suppose it might have deserved one...

As for the ironic analogy -

You attempt to undermine my question about suprantional government by pointing to national governance. All well and good, even if it did look rhetorical, and thus puerile. Indeed, [I presume] you didn't really want the question within the analogy answered.

Whether it is an accurate analogy? I've already pointed out in a roundabout fashion that legitimacy in Western states is typically bestowed directly by the people onto a body which will control them. The sticking point is whether the representatives of the people can bestow legitimacy on a body over themselves and thus the people as a whole. I don't think that they can as there is not a direct link between the people and the state - the middleman of the national government is required. Ultimately the authority lies with the national government.

But what's the problem? After all the national government is answerable to the public. Well there are two: first the national government can make changes which will affect the structure of the supranational body - even simple economic agreements - which cannot be retrospectively altered which affect the public: and being able to vote out the national government in a fit of pique afterwards is not much use. Second, who gives a damn about the representation of the government? I care about the representation of me - not the bizare process whereby:

My neigbourhood votes FF.
FF votes Bertie Ahern Taoiseach
Bertie Ahern votes Charlie McCreavey as Commissioner
And... post Lisbon... Charlie votes for Tony Blair or whoever as President.

This is not really democratic - but it seems to be hard to say that in this forum. Anyway, the governmental body is an imaginary entity created by the public which only has power because every member of the public agrees to suspend some liberty to establish the Leviathan. The ability for the imaginery body to establish an even more powerful imaginery body merely because other imaginery bodies are in agreement with it is a bit bizarre - but is argued as necessary as Europe could not be a unified state. If that is the case why give this pseudo-state the capacity to create laws that are internal to those states when the people of those states have not formed to create the body that is legislating for them? Although the EU Parliament does provide a modicum of redress, in a somewhat clumsy manner, its power is limited in very much the style of the Reichstag of the Second Reich.

sink

RandomName2 wrote: »

My neigbourhood votes FF.
FF votes Bertie Ahern Taoiseach
Bertie Ahern votes Charlie McCreavey as Comissioner
And... post Lisbon... Charlie votes for Tony Blair or whoever as President.

You've got that wrong.

Your neighbourhood votes for TD's
Your region votes for MEP's
The TD's votes for the Toaseach (from the body of directly elected TD's)
The Toaseach picks a cabinet of ministers (from directly elected TD's)
The Toaseach and the MEP's votes for the Commission (The Commssion does not vote on anything)
The Toaseach votes for the President of the European Council (Who has no executive power and just organises meetings etc)
The Ministers (under the direction of the Toaseach) and the MEP's vote for all EU legislation.

At no stage does anyone who was not directly elected by the people from across Europe actually vote for anything. Only elected TD's and MEP's get to vote and pass any and all EU legislation together with their compatriots from across Europe. So let me ask you this, what's the difference in legitimacy between Ministers and MEP's voting in Europe and TD's voting in the Dail?

conchubhar1

the dáil legislates for ireland

irish meps help legislate for the good of 400 odd europeans - ie whats good for some is not good for all

im all for us coming together helping each other, committing to climate change etc etc

but there is no need for an extra government structure on top of our own existing one

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

but there is no need for an extra government structure on top of our own existing one

:eek:

What are you on about? Even the politically weakest economic union needs something to actually run the thing and make up the rules which govern it.

So you're essentially saying, yeah well and good about all that climate change stuff, but sure we don't actually need the EU like, sure we'll be fine on our own...

sink

conchubhar1 wrote: »

irish meps help legislate for the good of 400 odd europeans - ie whats good for some is not good for all

The exact same can be said of the Dail!

conchubhar1 wrote: »

im all for us coming together helping each other, committing to climate change etc etc

but there is no need for an extra government structure on top of our own existing one

So now your true colours show. You are anti-EU, the EU is a supranational governing structure, you can't be against an "extra government structure on top of our own existing one" and pro-EU as that's what the EU is.

You may not be anti-European co-operation but that's different to being anti-EU, that is the same position that UKIP take. It's a legitimate position to hold and there are many arguments you can make to bolster your position. But please don't try to cover it, you're a eurosceptic and there is nothing wrong with that.

RandomName2

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

:eek:

What are you on about? Even the politically weakest economic union needs something to actually run the thing and make up the rules which govern it.

So you're essentially saying, yeah well and good about all that climate change stuff, but sure we don't actually need the EU like, sure we'll be fine on our own...

If you agree there should be economic integration and free trade then have suprantioal legislation on trade. Even currency. Sure. Anything else is superfluous [two and a half pillars of the EU].

P.S. This is the fundamental difference between the EEC and EU.

RandomName2

sink wrote: »

You've got that wrong.

Your neighbourhood votes for TD's
Your region votes for MEP's
The TD's votes for the Toaseach (from the body of directly elected TD's)
The Toaseach picks a cabinet of ministers (from directly elected TD's)
The Toaseach and the MEP's votes for the Commission (The Commssion does not vote on anything)
The Toaseach votes for the President of the European Council (Who has no executive power and just organises meetings etc)
The Ministers (under the direction of the Toaseach) and the MEP's vote for all EU legislation.

At no stage does anyone who was not directly elected by the people from across Europe actually vote for anything. Only elected TD's and MEP's get to vote and pass any and all EU legislation together with their compatriots from across Europe. So let me ask you this, what's the difference in legitimacy between Ministers and MEP's voting in Europe and TD's voting in the Dail?

Commissioners are appointed, subject to Parliamentary approval. The EU Parliament is not able to create Bills, merely pass or reject laws, subject to some tinkering. As far as I know it is the Commissioners who elect the president - who will be far more than a token figure.

conchubhar1

sink wrote: »

The exact same can be said of the Dail!


no it cant - it deals solely with ireland....

So now your true colours show. You are anti-EU, the EU is a supranational governing structure, you can't be against an "extra government structure on top of our own existing one" and pro-EU as that's what the EU is.

yes, but we are in the eu - i dont disagree with it as it is now

but going from a coal group to a economic community to a union - only one guess where the next step is......

You may not be anti-European co-operation but that's different to being anti-EU, that is the same position that UKIP take. It's a legitimate position to hold and there are many arguments you can make to bolster your position. But please don't try to cover it, you're a eurosceptic and there is nothing wrong with that.

thanks, why do i get that ''your gay accept it'' tone from your post


for example i dont want or need a flag, anthem or motto

co-op is perfect and needed - but it is more like a country of federal states every year
if the constitution passed
it would be one pretty much in all but name

Hitman Actual

RandomName2 wrote: »

Commissioners are appointed, subject to Parliamentary approval. The EU Parliament is not able to create Bills, merely pass or reject laws, subject to some tinkering. As far as I know it is the Commissioners who elect the president - who will be far more than a token figure.

The European Council elect the president by QMV. Also, member states have the right in some areas to initiate legislation. Not many areas though (just a couple of chapters in JHA).

Edit to add- I'm talking about the President of the European Council, not the President of the Commission.

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

for example i dont want or need a flag, anthem or motto

co-op is perfect and needed - but it is more like a country of federal states every year
if the constitution passed
it would be one pretty much in all but name

How lucky for you the constitution was scrapped then.

RandomName2

sink wrote: »

The exact same can be said of the Dail!

quote]

True... but I have just made an extended argument whereby the normal rules of a state do not apply in the EU - the idea that the majority holds sway cannot work with large ethnic or cultural minorities - with 27 members, the EU, taken as a whole is full of them! This is one of the primary reasons why the EU cannot truly be democratic as might is right would prevail in terms of voting strength - gack :pac:

Hold on... in that case why are we doubling French MEPs? Doesn't matter I suppose - it's all EPS ALDE EPP anyway. So the same as before, just with more French, English and German members... yawn.

sink

RandomName2 wrote: »

Commissioners are appointed, subject to Parliamentary approval. The EU Parliament is not able to create Bills, merely pass or reject laws, subject to some tinkering. As far as I know it is the Commissioners who elect the president - who will be far more than a token figure.

No. The President of the Commission is nominated by the European Council (the 27 heads of state) and then either confirmed or rejected by the European Parliament. Then each member state nominates a commissioner with the agreement of the President. Once the entire Commission is selected it is subject to a single vote of approval by the Parliament.

The parliament can sack the entire commission as happened to the Santer commission in 1999. The commission can only propose legislation, it has not vote. The Council of the European Union and the European Parliament are the only two bodies who vote on legislation and both are directly elected.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

okay - well your first statement is correct, as far as it goes, which is not terribly far, particularly when you attempt to clarify how far that legitimacy extends; and that can just be a matter of opinion. It was a statement that did not lead to an obvious reply......... ....... but I suppose it might have deserved one...

So you asked a question, but you didn't want to hear the answer. Sounds about right.

As for the ironic analogy -

You attempt to undermine my question about suprantional government by pointing to national governance. All well and good, even if it did look rhetorical, and thus puerile. Indeed, [I presume] you didn't really want the question within the analogy answered.

For all your fancy rhetoric, you seem to have trouble grasping the concept of this forum, which is discussion. You prefer to preach. I suggest you read the forum charter, specifically the section on soapboxing.

The sticking point is whether the representatives of the people can bestow legitimacy on a body over themselves and thus the people as a whole. I don't think that they can as there is not a direct link between the people and the state - the middleman of the national government is required.

You "don't think that they can"?

Do you have the first concept of what representational democracy is?

Are you aware in whom our Constitution vests the sole authority for entering into international treaties?

But what's the problem? After all the national government is answerable to the public. Well there are two: first the national government can make changes which will affect the structure of the supranational body - even simple economic agreements - which cannot be retrospectively altered which affect the public:

In common with the vast bulk of your contributions to this forum, that statement is factually inaccurate. You're wrong, and I'm pretty sure you know it.

EU treaties can't be retrospectively altered? What, pray tell, do you think each amending treaty does?

Second, who gives a damn about the representation of the government?

Once again, I'll draw your attention to our constitution, and the powers it vests in our government concerning international relations.

I care about the representation of me - not the bizare process whereby:

My neigbourhood votes FF.
FF votes Bertie Ahern Taoiseach
Bertie Ahern votes Charlie McCreavey as Comissioner
And... post Lisbon... Charlie votes for Tony Blair or whoever as President.

This is not really democratic - but it seems to be hard to say that in this forum.

It's all too easy to say things are undemocratic. Fully half the posters in this forum believe that voting is undemocratic. It seems that "undemocratic" has become one of those malleable words, available for use as a general-purpose insult without any troublesome references to the actual, y'know, meaning of the word.

Anyway, the governmental body is an imaginary entity created by the public which only has power because every member of thepublic agrees to suspend some liberty to establish the Leviathan. The ability for the imaginery body to establish an even more powerful imaginery body merely because other imaginery bodies are in agreement with it is a bit bizarre...

Bizarre, why? Because you say so?

You seem to be arguing that the government doesn't have the authority to enter into supranational agreements - but that authority is explicitly granted to the government by the constitution. Furthermore, any dilution of sovereignty proposed by the government must be ratified by the people in referendum.

If you want, you can argue that the constitution shouldn't grant such power to the government, or indeed that people shouldn't vote to modify the constitution to allow for the dilution of sovereignty. It would at least demonstrate some intellectual honesty on your part.

- but is argued as necessary as Europe could not be a unified state. If that is the case why give this pseudo-state the capacity to create laws that are internal to those states when the people of those states have not formed tocreate the body that is legislating for them?

Again, you seem to misunderstand the concept of representative democracy. And again, if you have a problem with representative democracy and feel that direct democracy is always and invariably superior, you could at least have the intellectual honesty to make that case plainly.

conchubhar1

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

How lucky for you the constitution was scrapped then.

yes but the flag flies in dublin - the anthem is still there

in fact there is a declarartion by hald the states that they still hold the flag, anthem and motto as symbols of unity

coal and steel union - economic union - political union

next step - outright union of states? its not a large uncalled for jump or a crackpot guess of where it is going.. in fairness

oscarBravo

conchubhar1 wrote: »

next step - outright union of states? its not a large uncalled for jump...

Yes, it is.

conchubhar1

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, it is.

never know if you are serious or not


that is where i see it going.

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

next step - outright union of states? its not a large uncalled for jump or a crackpot guess of where it is going.. in fairness

Maybe not the next one, but hopefully, somewhere down the line, when this passing fad of nationalism was worn out.

Ever Closer Union...

conchubhar1

so replace love of ones own country

to love of the eu of federal states


nice, slick.

sink

conchubhar1 wrote: »

thanks, why do i get that ''your gay accept it'' tone from your post

I'm pro gay marriage too, doesn't mean I have to do so myself, each to their own. :P

conchubhar1

haha - that was there to describe the vibe, the use of that concept was arbitrary

word to your two moms