Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why hate Libertas

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    :confused: never know if you are serious or not :confused:
    I'm serious. There is no appetite among the member states for a federal EU superstate. Hell, we can barely pass a bog-standard reform treaty - what chance does a fully federalised USE stand?
    that is where i see it going.
    And I believe you're wrong, and I've explained why. Feel free to show where my analysis is flawed.


  • Options
    #93
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


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

    You soapbox and then spit out factoids that go along the lines of 'you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong' - there will be one coming up soon...

    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Are you aware in whom our Constitution vests the sole authority for entering into international treaties? 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.

    Ah, there you go. Anyway, the term 'international treaty' is open to interpretation - and pretty meaningless in this context. There is the caveate that the scope of 'international treaties' is limited by international law...
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    EU treaties can't be retrospectively altered? What, pray tell, do you think each amending treaty does?

    Do you mean a constitutional amending 'treaty' - doesn't really amend the previous treaty as much as it amends the fundamental constitution of the EU. I suppose if the Commisioner issue is solved with a vote included in the Croation accession treaty [even though the two things probably shouldn't be bundled] - yeah, this would qualify I suppose...

    oscarBravo wrote: »
    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.

    Yeah- but this works both ways... as you have just demonstrated - you say that the peoples' voice is more the peoples' when others are speaking for them.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Bizarre, why? Because you say so?

    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.

    Yes, I do believe that direct democracy is preferable and that democracy was always designed as such within the limits of practicability - with maybe a second, weaker lower House established as a safeguard against an overzealous public and could block legislation - The Senate, House of Lords, etc [not democratic as such, but useful nonetheless].


  • Options
    #94
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    it is on the way there

    example 1 - post war europe - who saw france and germany in any sort of group working together
    some years later who saw the eastern block countries in the same union where there was so much trouble in the not so distant past

    it is not that far away, and far from impossible


  • Options
    #95
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Feel free to show where my analysis is flawed.
    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    it is on the way there

    example 1 - post war europe - who saw france and germany in any sort of group working together
    some years later who saw the eastern block countries in the same union where there was so much trouble in the not so distant past

    it is not that far away, and far from impossible
    Or, y'know, don't.


  • Options
    #96
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    it is on the way there

    example 1 - post war europe - who saw france and germany in any sort of group working together
    some years later who saw the eastern block countries in the same union where there was so much trouble in the not so distant past

    it is not that far away, and far from impossible

    The whole point behind the EU and most other supranational institutions is to overcome the problems associated with the politics of nationalism. What would be the point in pooling all the nationalism which causes so many problems when it's divided amongst comparatively small states, into one giant state where it can become an even bigger problem and a bigger threat to world peace?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    it is on the way there

    example 1 - post war europe - who saw france and germany in any sort of group working together

    some years later who saw the eastern block countries in the same union

    where there was so much trouble in the not so distant past

    it is not that far away, and far from impossible

    now - how do you not get the relevance of those points?

    my point being at the time of the various treaties and communites unions etc

    no one would have said it would work - the berlin wall only came down 19 years ago and germany is a leading member in the eu
    things move fast

    it is not a huge steps to federal states in a united european ''country''


  • Options
    #98
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    You soapbox...
    Excuse me?
    Ah, there you go. Anyway, the term 'international treaty' is open to interpretation - and pretty meaningless in this context. There is the caveate that the scope of 'international treaties' is limited by international law...
    My goodness, those are some seriously mobile goalposts.
    Do you mean a constitutional amending 'treaty' - doesn't really amend the previous treaty as much as it amends the fundamental constitution of the EU.
    Straight answer, if you're capable of such a thing: is it your assertion that no provision enacted by an EU treaty can ever be repealed by a future EU treat?
    Yeah- but this works both ways... as you have just demonstrated - you say that the peoples' voice is more the peoples' when others are speaking for them.
    I've never said anything of the kind. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent other people in order to make a point?
    Yes, I do believe that direct democracy is preferable...
    Invariably and unconditionally preferable under any and all circumstances, without exception?


  • Options
    #99
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    sink wrote: »
    The whole point behind the EU and most other supranational institutions is to overcome the problems associated with the politics of nationalism. What would be the point in pooling all the nationalism which causes so many problems when it's divided amongst comparatively small states, into one giant state where it can become an even bigger problem and a bigger threat to world peace?


    what does a flag and an anthem lead to or fuel - what does a union of federal states lead to

    nationlism on a large scale - not good
    nationalism was a problem in the past - not nowadays anyway - in europe

    again, im not anti eu - i am anti eu if it keeps expanding in the sense of power as opposed to frowing in pop and members


  • Options
    #100
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    now - how do you not get the relevance of those points?
    They're not relevant, any more than pointing to a sequence of numbers "1, 2, 3..." indicates that 4,662,701 can't be far away now.
    it is not a huge steps to federal states in a united european ''country''
    In the same way that it's not a huge step from CERN's work to "Angels and Demons".


  • Options
    #101
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    what does a flag and an anthem lead to or fuel - what does a union of federal states lead to

    nationlism on a large scale - not good

    I agree and hence why I don't support a federal union of European Nations. The closest I would go would be a confederation. But the Lisbon treaty is a far cry from federalism.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    right - dont reply to my posts

    do you awknowledge it was a monumental step to get italy and france working in any sort of union?
    eastern bloc countries - the same
    germany after the wall fell?

    the point being - these were huge steps, in relatively short time

    tehrefore the jump to a federal europe is not so distant


  • Options
    #103
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    sink wrote: »
    I agree and hence why I don't support a federal union of European Nations. The closest I would go would be a confederation. But the Lisbon treaty is a far cry from federalism.

    no doubt - doesnt even have relevance in relation to lisbon.

    but, eu is on that course


  • Options
    #104
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    no doubt - doesnt even have relevance in relation to lisbon.

    but, eu is on that course

    I disagree, the day's of nations are coming to a close. The world body politik will be organised along the lines of supranational institutions like the EU. The world is becoming too interconnected for clear dividing lines to continue to exists, borders will become less and less relevant. Nations are becoming an outdated concept.


  • Options
    #105
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    okay well a union of connected unbordered whatever

    it will have a border with africa and others - and will be more powerful and act as one

    what the smaller lots of land make up countries, states or places is *debateable*


  • Options
    #106
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    okay well a union of connected unbordered whatever

    it will have a border with africa and others - and will be more powerful and act as one

    what the smaller lots of land make up countries, states or places is *debateable*


  • Options
    #107
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    okay well a union of connected unbordered whatever

    it will have a border with africa and others - and will be more powerful and act as one

    what the smaller lots of land make up countries, states or places is *debateable*

    Eventually there will be no physical borders, you will be able to freely drive from western Europe to south east Asia and on to south Africa with out crossing anything more than an irrelevant line on a map. It won't happen in our life time but, I have little doubt if humanity survives long enough eventually it will happen.


  • Options
    #108
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    it will have to if we want to get anywhere (no pun intended)

    that is not to say it will happen, get to happen or if it does in a couple of genertions


  • Options
    #109
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Straight answer, if you're capable of such a thing: is it your assertion that no provision enacted by an EU treaty can ever be repealed by a future EU treat? [...] I've never said anything of the kind. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent other people in order to make a point? [...] Invariably and unconditionally preferable under any and all circumstances, without exception?

    oh I am so dishonest - you have got me bang to rights - well done.

    1. Treaty repeal - theoretically: sure! In practice: yeah, sure! :rolleyes:
    2. You have never said? You have never said you prefer representative democracy to direct democracy? Well, most of your statements are in the form of questions - a bit disengenuous, then, to get on your high horse. or should I say 'Isn't it then a bit disengenuous...?': see what I did? I didn't say it, just asked it.
    3. Unconditional direct democracy is a nice idea but hard to effect. I did give a reasonable method of curtailment though.


  • Options
    #110
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    it will have to if we want to get anywhere (no pun intended)

    that is not to say it will happen, get to happen or if it does in a couple of genertions


    Ah... but 'all politics is local'


  • Options
    #111
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    where i sthat qoute from

    no borders means no local politics? where did you get that from?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    where is that qoute from

    no borders means no local politics? where did you get that from?

    It's a common phrase -

    But without borders you cannot have local states. It would require [in the EU for instance] for everyone in Europe to feel part of a hermogenous whole - quite hard. What's more, geographically and culturally Europe easily fragments - it has done on a number of occasions - Roman Empire, Charlamange, Roman Catholicism, etc.

    And those fragmentations are seriously messy...

    Will peoples in Europe feel too insignificant without borders? The citizens of the US don't... but then there is the common nationhood of the US.


  • Options
    #113
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    It's a common phrase -

    But without borders you cannot have local states. It would require [in the EU for instance] for everyone in Europe to feel part of a hermogenous whole - quite hard. What's more, geographically and culturally Europe easily fragments - it has done on a number of occasions - Roman Empire, Charlamange, Roman Catholicism, etc.

    And those fragmentations are seriously messy...

    Will peoples in Europe feel too insignificant without borders? The citizens of the US don't... but then there is the common nationhood of the US.

    When talking about borders I'm talking about physical barriers between states, not the lines that divide jurisdiction of local government on a map. Lines which are largely irrelevant to the daily lives of citizens. The EU already has largely dismantled it's borders and yet local government still exists. But local government is limited in it's powers, all EU states have to work within the rules.


  • Options
    #114
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    unimportant on the whole - but local governments are important

    shared us outlook - slash everything in its way...

    yes, europe fragmented and was hostile for nearly all of time
    but it moves with the times - i dont see france ever declaring war on germany - eu or not, borders or not - any scenario


Advertisement