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
expansion
Options
Comments
-
My opposition to the Treaty is based on the contents of the Treaty. But this thread is about Enlargement, and hence I posted on the impact Enlargement (imho) had on this country's economy. I am pro-European, but I refuse to be a compliant European. Democracy depends on dissent. Uniformity and democracy are not compatible. I am concerned about the democratic-deficit and I do not believe any political-organisation has a right to sacred-cow status, to be places above criticism. That includes the EU.BlitzKrieg wrote: »My god you have got to have the quickest turnaround I have ever seen from a *pro european but anti lisbon* voter I have ever seen.
Tuesday night you say:
By tonight you have borderline come out and attacked pretty much every aspect of the EU, rarely backing any of your points and soapboxing to your hearts content and yes its still pathetic that even after being told the different institutions twice you still mix them up. and you have been debating Lisbon for ages on Politics.ie how the hell do you get away with it?0 -
In the short-to-medium term, enlargement is usually good for the new members and bad for the old ones, but in the long run everyone will prosper from the security and larger markets. But enlargement isn't just about what is good for the economy; it's about trying to bring people together, and this I think is worth the economic ups and downs.
Regarding Turkey specifically, it does present many problems, most of all IMO the fact that it is a more conservative country than even Poland, and with a voting weight similar to Germany, it would be a very loud voice in the EU opposed to gay rights among other issues. As it stands, civil liberties in Turkey, notably the freedom to criticise the state, are not up to scratch. That being said, they have made progress recently and I'm not intrinsically opposed to their membership, just not soon. Maybe in 30 years.
There are also many benefits that having Turkey would bring. A market of 70 million people would open up for one. We'd also get land boarders with several middle-eastern countries, which would make them more accessible.0 -
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »My opposition to the Treaty is based on the contents of the Treaty. But this thread is about Enlargement, and hence I posted on the impact Enlargement (imho) had on this country's economy. I am pro-European, but I refuse to be a compliant European. Democracy depends on dissent. Uniformity and democracy are not compatible. I am concerned about the democratic-deficit and I do not believe any political-organisation has a right to sacred-cow status, to be places above criticism. That includes the EU.
Nothing should be above reasonable criticism, but emotive and irrational criticism is not only not useful, but actually counter-productive, since it polarises the debate. There are probably only handfuls of people who are blindly supportive of the EU, but I suspect that your personal experience is that people who are pro-EU are uncritical of it. Have you ever wondered why that might be?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Since I am pro-EU but anti-Lisbon, I don't share the analysis that those who are pro-EU are uncritical of it.Nothing should be above reasonable criticism, but emotive and irrational criticism is not only not useful, but actually counter-productive, since it polarises the debate. There are probably only handfuls of people who are blindly supportive of the EU, but I suspect that your personal experience is that people who are pro-EU are uncritical of it. Have you ever wondered why that might be?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »Since I am pro-EU but anti-Lisbon, I don't share the analysis that those who are pro-EU are uncritical of it.
I don't think that was what Scofflaw was getting at.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Advertisement
-
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »Since I am pro-EU but anti-Lisbon, I don't share the analysis that those who are pro-EU are uncritical of it.
Well FT, offhand, you don't seem to accept any of the principles the EU is based on much less any of its institutions.Indeed, you don't give the impression that you'd have voted Yes in refenda on the original ECSC/EAEC/EEC Treaties nevermind any of the subsequent modifications to those treaties.
It would appear to an abuse of the English language to describe yourself as being pro-EU, unless by doing so you mean pro-"A hypothetical EU that doesn't exist", as opposed to the more usual understanding of the phrase as in pro-"this EU" (imperfect as it maybe).
Do feel free to enlighten me as to how you are pro-"the post-Nice EU"...0 -
Only I know how I voted in those referenda and I always voted yes until Lisbon I. Do the math. 860,000+ voted no to Lisbon, compared to the usual 500,000 that vote no in EU referenda. Clearly many felt as I do, that the Lisbon Treaty takes the EU in a direction that displeases them. For my own part, I would put it like this: If I condemn the current govt for its mismanagement of the economy, does that mean I am "anti-Irish"? Of course not. So it is with the EU. If I condemn decisions the EU has made, the culture of corruption in Brussels as found by the suppressed Galvin Report on the European Parliament expenses system - a report suppressed by a decision of the EP Budgetary Control Committee - does that mean I am "anti-European"? Of course not. I am merely holding the EU institutions to account just as I and others do with respect to our institutions here in Ireland.Well FT, offhand, you don't seem to accept any of the principles the EU is based on much less any of its institutions.Indeed, you don't give the impression that you'd have voted Yes in refenda on the original ECSC/EAEC/EEC Treaties nevermind any of the subsequent modifications to those treaties.
It would appear to an abuse of the English language to describe yourself as being pro-EU, unless by doing so you mean pro-"A hypothetical EU that doesn't exist", as opposed to the more usual understanding of the phrase as in pro-"this EU" (imperfect as it maybe).
Do feel free to enlighten me as to how you are pro-"the post-Nice EU"...
Sometimes it takes the coming into force of a measure to impress on someone that the measure was wrongheaded in the first place. In particular, it has become apparent to me that the unelective status of the Commission has contributed to the democratic-deficit in Europe. EMU, which seemed a good idea at the time, has contributed to the Irish recession by imposing an excess of cheap-credit on the Irish economy which fuelled a construction-bubble and made an eventual crash inevitable, with or without a global recession. I can accept the concept of a common currency, but have reservations about the common interest-rate. So much water has gone under the bridge, constitutionally, to roll it all back and I am not calling for it to be. What I want to know from our political-leaders is "where is this leading?". The Irish electorate do not want a Federal United States of Europe, whether in name or otherwise, and a perception that we are being bamboozled into one, at the cost of everything sacrificed for in 1916 and the War of Independence undoubtedly was a factor in the no vote. If the political-elites want to create a Federal Europe, then let them come out with it and tell us straight. Then we debate that question and have a referendum on it. I believe that is where Lisbon is taking us and were I and the people to accept this destination, it would mean that 1916-21 and centuries of struggle to gain independence were for nothing - an appalling prospect from my point of view.
The rejection of changes in the rules governing the EU do not necessarily constitute a belief in the perfection of the status-quo. Rather, I consider the latter to be preferable to Lisbon, for several reasons. I am opposed to the new "ordinary legislative procedure" because I am concerned that it makes the Big States too powerful. A blocking-minority of 4 member states including over 35% of the EU's population means that 4 Big States will effectively have a veto on measures decided by Qualified Majority Voting/ordinary legislation procedure. A particular cause of concern in relation to this are the passerelle-clauses of Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union as amended by Lisbon, which allow for the further transfer of competences from unanimity to QMV. The fact that the rotating-presidency of the European Council is being abolished in favour of a 2.5-year presidency that will be an office for which the candidate will be chosen by QMV effectively gives 4 Big States the power to block all candidates that do not please them. It symbolises the drift of power from the small states to the Big States and concerns me as an Irish citizen as to the risk of renewed dominated by Big States as in the past. I am most opposed to the provision of Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union which states that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is enshrined into EU law with the same legal-value as the Treaties. I oppose this because in the light of recent rulings in particular, I do not trust the ECJ to interpret this in a manner that respects the principle of subsidiarity. I regard the Chen and Metock cases as examples of this.0 -
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »he culture of corruption in Brussels as found by the suppressed Galvin Report on the European Parliament expenses system - a report suppressed by a decision of the EP Budgetary Control Committee
A report that has been dated since 2005:A common salary for MEPs
A single Statute for Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) was approved in June 2005 by an overwhelming majority.
From June 2009, all MEPs are to earn around €7,665 a month, thus ending the wide pay disparities that result from the current system of MEPs earning the same as national MPs in their home countries. The rules set MEPs’ salaries as 38.5% of the salary of a European Court of Justice judge.
MEPs will pay income tax to the EU budget, though Member States also retain an option to apply in addition taxation up to the level of national rates.
The agreement allows for a transition period during which, for MEPs elected by its citizens, each Member State may continue to apply different rules from those of the Statute. Current MEPs who are re-elected may also opt to continue their existing national arrangements.
More transparency on expenses and pensions.
The new Statute will also change the way in which MEPs' travel expenses are refunded: rather than a flat-rate tariff, reimbursements will reflect only the costs actually incurred.
MEPs will also join a common pension scheme, with contributions paid by Parliament. All payments from Parliament's budget to MEPs are made monthly in euro or, (at the MEP's request), in the currency of the Member State where he or she is domiciled.
New rules on assistants' pay
New rules on MEPs' allowances for paying assistants will also take effect for the new Parliament, to address weaknesses identified in the system.
From June 2009, the contracts of MEPs' assistants working in the Member States will be managed by certified paying agents, specialising in fiscal and social security aspects of employment contracts, who will be responsible for compliance with the relevant national social security and tax provisions. It will be possible for an MEP to use up to 25% of the parliamentary assistance allowance for services such as research studies or other advisory work.
Brussels-based assistants, meanwhile, will be covered by a new addition to the statute which covers EU officials and other employees. The contracts of and salary payments to the assistants will be handled by Parliament's services, but the MEPs will be entirely free in their choice of assistants, the tasks to be assigned to them and the duration of the labour contracts.
The EP has also decided that in future, MEPs may not employ close family members as their assistants.
Mandatory public register of lobbyists
A mandatory public register of lobbyists, common to the Council, Commission and Parliament and providing for "full financial disclosure", was proposed by the European Parliament in May 2008. Lobbyists would need to register only once to have access to Parliament, the Commission and the Council. The three institutions have set up a joint working group to prepare a proposal on the common register as soon as possible.
from here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/thematic_note_page/008-46723-019-01-04-901-20090120TMN46722-19-01-2009-2009/default_p001c009_en.htm
While personnally I wouldnt agree with the supression, I can bloody understand why when maroons like yourself, libertas and any other person with a bone to pick with the EU would use a report which the EU had already addressed and solved but had to wait until the new term to apply the changes. But hey we wont let that get in the way of a good auld rant now will we?0 -
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »Only I know how I voted in those referenda and I always voted yes until Lisbon I.
The only referenda Ireland held on the original ECSC/EAEC/EEC Treaties was the Accession referendum held in 1972. I presume you aren't hold enough to have voted in it and I find it hard to believe you'd have voted Yes in it since you object to so much about the EU.FutureTaoiseach wrote: »If I condemn the current govt for its mismanagement of the economy, does that mean I am "anti-Irish"? Of course not. So it is with the EU. If I condemn decisions the EU has made, the culture of corruption in Brussels as found by the suppressed Galvin Report on the European Parliament expenses system - a report suppressed by a decision of the EP Budgetary Control Committee - does that mean I am "anti-European"? Of course not.
This might be a credible analogy were it not for the fact that your "condemnations" of the EU are not just condemnations of policies that you disagree with, rather they are frequently attacks on the concepts that underlie it and the actual institutions of it - by which I mean, their powers, composition and arguably even their existence
For instance, you:
- are completely hostile to the "ever closer union amongst the peoples of Europe" concept,
- don't accept the principle of free movement of EU citizens within the EU (to which EU citizenship is directly tied),
- have frequently referred to the ECJ, EP and EC as "foreign" institutions - which is not a position you would adopt if you accepted either that once we agreed to join the 3 European Communities in 1973 those institution became our institutions, or, the idea of common EU citizenship,
- don't accept judgments of the ECJ as being acceptable/valid even when the ECJ is just doing its job of interpeting the actual explicit text of the Treaties,
- use phrases such as decisions being "imposed" on Ireland, which clearly implies Ireland had no say in the matter - whereas the decisions made are frequently made with the consent of Ireland and in accordance with standard EU legal procedures,
- frequently seek to compare Ireland's continuing voluntary membership of the EU with it being forced into having English/British rule where the option to leave peacefully was completely denied - such an analogy can't be just dismissed as mere over excitement on one occasion on your part either since you have repeatedly used it
Hence, I believe, it is pretty clear you don't accept the basic principles or form that the EU has. As such, if you dislike and disagree with the EU so much, why do you claim to be "pro-EU" (as in the current, not some hypothetical EU)?0 -
I was old enough to vote for Amsterdam, Nice I, II and Lisbon I, and Lisbon I was my first no vote.The only referenda Ireland held on the original ECSC/EAEC/EEC Treaties was the Accession referendum held in 1972. I presume you aren't hold enough to have voted in it and I find it hard to believe you'd have voted Yes in it since you object to so much about the EU.
It depends how that term is interpreted. I favour an ever closer union in terms of social-interaction and mutual understanding between the peoples of Europe. Political-union is another matter entirely.This might be a credible analogy were it not for the fact that your "condemnations" of the EU are not just condemnations of policies that you disagree with, rather they are frequently attacks on the concepts that underlie it and the actual institutions of it - by which I mean, their powers, composition and arguably even their existence
For instance, you:
- are completely hostile to the "ever closer union amongst the peoples of Europe" concept,
I accept it with respect to countries that are similarly wealthy as ourselves, and in a context where what one country allows in this respect is the same for all. What I reject in particular is a situation whereby our govt chose to be one of just 3 EU-15 countries to open our labour-markets to the EU-10 countries that acceded to the EU in 2004. As Hillary said (approximately) years after voting for the war in Iraq, 'when the facts change, I change my mind'. So it is with me. I think freedom of movement worked before Enlargement in 2004. Since 2004, it has become a rule that we are expected to abide by while Germany and Austria - and for many years the rest of the EU other than us, the UK and Sweden - did not abide by. Granted, the Accession Treaties allow for this transition period. But I can produce the exact quote in which Dick Roche, as Europe minister in the Nice II referendum, claimed that it was "inaccurate" for the no side to claim that Ireland would be one of only 3 member states to open our klabour markets to the new member states. Well it turned out to be true. For the first time in the history of EU referenda, the no side had been proven correct on a major prediction on the impact of an EU treaty. I am very sure that played a huge role in the no to Lisbon I. It certainly did for me. I also believe the issue became linked in voters' mind with the race to the bottom in wages and conditions as typified by the Irish Ferries dispute.- don't accept the principle of free movement of EU citizens within the EU (to which EU citizenship is directly tied),
I'm not sure I referred to them as foreign so much as that I may have mentioned they were primarily run by foreign officials. I am not opposed to the concept of EU citizenship provided it doesn't displace national citizenship or supersede it.- have frequently referred to the ECJ, EP and EC as "foreign" institutions - which is not a position you would adopt if you accepted either that once we agreed to join the 3 European Communities in 1973 those institution became our institutions, or, the idea of common EU citizenship,
Several EU elder statesmen, including former German President Roman Herzog, and former Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen and former Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schussel have condemned the ECJ for encroaching on national competences. I am far from alone with respect to this matter. The reality, which we have learned from bitter experience in cases such as the C Case and the X Case, is that when the letter of the law is vague, the judiciary will decide what it means. Hence we end up with rulings handed down from the activist-court such as Metock and Chen. The fact that Ireland was supported in Metock last August by govts such as those of Germany and the UK underlines that we are not alone in terms of feeling that the ECJ is encroaching too much in national affairs. And yet the same govt which defended itself against such encroachment in Metock and Chen is now asking the Irish people to further expand the jurisdiction of the ECJ via measures such as the enshrinement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law, and the EU acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights. It is clear that the way is being cleared for an eventual merger of the ECJ with the ECHR. That is the only way we can logically interpret the effective enshrinement of the ECHR into EU law via the EU acceding to the ECHR. The Charter and the EU acceding to the ECHR constitute the final steps on the road to the ECJ becoming a Federal Supreme Court. Such a transfer of power to unelected bureaucrats in the ECJ is, for me, the main problem with the Lisbon Treaty. I would go as far as to say that, had Ireland a UK/Poland-style optout from the Charter, I would seriously consider voting yes.- don't accept judgments of the ECJ as being acceptable/valid even when the ECJ is just doing its job of interpeting the actual explicit text of the Treaties,
I assume you mean the 2.1% "say" under Qualified Majority Voting, reduced to a 0.9% population-weight under Lisbon. In any case, the fact that the veto is rarely used by the Irish govt doesn't mean it shouldn't be. In any case, the existence of the veto, and the possibility of it being invoked, constitutes considerable leverage in negotiations in Brussels on proposed legislation, and we would be foolish to give it up via the surrender of 34 vetoes and the possibly surrender of 16 more if the govt invokes its prerogative under the Twenty Eighth Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2008 to surrender them in favour of QMV. Dermot Ahern has publicly stated when he was Foreign Minister that the govt intended to "review" the Protocol that allows us to opt out/in on a case-by-case basis within 3 years i.e. 2011.- use phrases such as decisions being "imposed" on Ireland, which clearly implies Ireland had no say in the matter - whereas the decisions made are frequently made with the consent of Ireland and in accordance with standard EU legal procedures,
I would contend that the requirement of a Qualified Majority for agreements on secession from the Union constitute a de-facto veto to other member states, when the complications of leaving the Union with respect to trade etc. are borne in mind. I have no wish to leave the Union, but it is reasonable to compare the lack of influence of Ireland in the House of Commons, where we had 20% of the seats, with that of Ireland in Europe, where we are a mere 2.1% of the vote presently in the European Parliament and a mere 0.9% on the Council of Ministers under Lisbon. For me, however, the most convincing analogy to make is between the motives e.g. patronage, money of those who voted in Grattan's Parliament for the Act of Union in 1800, and the possible motives of some in Dail Eireann who support Lisbon. Already, names including Irish figures are being floated as possible Commissioners or President of the European Council etc.- frequently seek to compare Ireland's continuing voluntary membership of the EU with it being forced into having English/British rule where the option to leave peacefully was completely denied - such an analogy can't be just dismissed as mere over excitement on one occasion on your part either since you have repeatedly used it
I like the EU, but despise the Lisbon Treaty and the anti-democratic response to the French and Dutch no votes. I like Ireland too, but I dislike the corruption exposed in our politics in the Tribunals and the mismanagement of our economy by the present govt. Does that make me anti-Irish? If not, then I have every right to proclaim I am pro-European.Hence, I believe, it is pretty clear you don't accept the basic principles or form that the EU has. As such, if you dislike and disagree with the EU so much, why do you claim to be "pro-EU" (as in the current, not some hypothetical EU)?0 -
Advertisement
-
Free movement is part and parcel of EU membership.free to prosper wrote: »What are the arguments against Turkish accession?
Here are some of them:
• It could lead to mass immigration, job displacement of Irish workers…
Indeed; working conditions in this country have deteriorated quite drastically since we joined the EU.free to prosper wrote: »• Workers from poorer countries take jobs from richer ones causing a race to the bottom in working conditions.
This point is somewhat moot, seeing as the CAP is in dire need of reform anyway. Personally, I don’t think a reduction in subsidies would necessarily be a bad thing.free to prosper wrote: »If Turkey joined the number of farmers in the EU would double overnight, therefore CAP payments would roughly half.
I would say that’s a pro-Lisbon argument right there.free to prosper wrote: »• Turkey would wield huge political power because of its 80 million population…0 -
Probably because it’s not going to happen any time soon, so arguments about current conditions (social, economic, etc.) in Turkey are somewhat meaningless.FutureTaoiseach wrote: »I can't see Turkish EU membership for the forseeable future.
He did what now?FutureTaoiseach wrote: »However, Sarkozy pushed a law through the national assembly some months ago reversing a constitutional amendment that required a referendum on Turkish EU membership…
So which is it? Enlargement of the EU or political (mis-)management of the economy? Personally, I’m going to go for the latter.FutureTaoiseach wrote: »At a personal level, I believe the last Enlargement has been a disaster for the economy, though I blame the politicians for that.
Pandering to racism doesn’t strike me as a sound basis for long-term decision-making.FutureTaoiseach wrote: »There is also a risk of racial-tensions if Irish people interpret another influx as posing the risk of displacement in the context of a recession.
You claim that, prior to Lisbon, you voted ‘Yes’ to every other EU treaty? Perhaps you could outline some of the reasons why you voted ‘Yes’ in the past? Seeing as how your not “anti-EU”, there should be quite a few reasons.FutureTaoiseach wrote: »If I condemn decisions the EU has made … does that mean I am "anti-European"? Of course not.
Maybe, but hardly a significant factor.FutureTaoiseach wrote: »The Irish electorate do not want a Federal United States of Europe, whether in name or otherwise, and a perception that we are being bamboozled into one, at the cost of everything sacrificed for in 1916 and the War of Independence undoubtedly was a factor in the no vote.
That is an obvious concern, particularly given the history of France, Germany, Italy and the UK agreeing on absolutely everything at EU level.FutureTaoiseach wrote: »I am opposed to the new "ordinary legislative procedure" because I am concerned that it makes the Big States too powerful. A blocking-minority of 4 member states including over 35% of the EU's population means that 4 Big States will effectively have a veto on measures decided by Qualified Majority Voting/ordinary legislation procedure.0 -
I accept it with respect to countries that are similarly wealthy as ourselves, and in a context where what one country allows in this respect is the same for all. What I reject in particular is a situation whereby our govt chose to be one of just 3 EU-15 countries to open our labour-markets to the EU-10 countries that acceded to the EU in 2004.
Ireland had a disproportionately large influx for two main reasons: We're small, so influxes are more noticeable, and we were one of only three countries to open our boarders. I'm very proud of the fact we did, and the new countries of the EU won't forget that we welcomed them when other much larger countries which should have been more able to absorb them did not. I would have harder feelings towards Germany and France than towards Poland or our own country over the immigration. If every country in the old EU-15 had opened their boarders, we'd have fewer eastern Europeans here and thus fewer perceived problems.0 -
Can someone point me to the survey done by the European Union on Turkeys entry into the EU.
I can't find it, I know it exists somewhere because I've read it before.
Cheers0 -
bill_ashmount wrote: »Can someone point me to the survey done by the European Union on Turkeys entry into the EU.
I can't find it, I know it exists somewhere because I've read it before.
Cheers
This is the most recent Eurobarometer that included the question - Autumn 2006.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Yes, the French changed their Constitution in 2008 to remove the requirement for a referendum on Turkish EU membership:djpbarry wrote:He did what now?Euractiv.com wrote:The French Senate voted on Tuesday (24 June) to drop a constitutional requirement to hold a popular vote before a new country can enter the EU, removing a key irritant in its relations with Turkey.0 -
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »The only referenda Ireland held on the original ECSC/EAEC/EEC Treaties was the Accession referendum held in 1972. I presume you aren't hold enough to have voted in it and I find it hard to believe you'd have voted Yes in it since you object to so much about the EU.
I was old enough to vote for Amsterdam, Nice I, II and Lisbon I, and Lisbon I was my first no vote.
Interesting that you don't dispute my comment that I find it hard to believe that you'd have voted Yes to the original ECSC/EAEC/EEC Treaties (or its proxy here - the Accession referendum).
The freedom of movement principle was there in those treaties. So was the ECJ. And European Political cooperation on CFSP issues had first begun in 1969 (which eventually was formally included in the SEA). All issues/institutions you seem to have problems with.
So, would you have voted No?FutureTaoiseach wrote: »For instance, you:
- are completely hostile to the "ever closer union amongst the peoples of Europe" concept,
It depends how that term is interpreted. I favour an ever closer union in terms of social-interaction and mutual understanding between the peoples of Europe. Political-union is another matter entirely.
Since no one is actually proposing that we decide today what the final form of an ever closer union is, the issue can be left aside for a future decision. It is not for us today to say to future generations (or even ourselves in the future) "No, you shall not do this" in relation to future possible EUs. As such, the phrase is a compromise.
Your position is a bit akin to someone circa 1910 taking issue with the the concept of "An independent Ireland" because it might mean a socialist Ireland.FutureTaoiseach wrote: »
In other words, you don't accept the free movement principle even though it is a corner stone of the EU.FutureTaoiseach wrote: »What I reject in particular is a situation whereby our govt chose to be one of just 3 EU-15 countries to open our labour-markets to the EU-10 countries that acceded to the EU in 2004.
All of which happened because the FF/PD government excerised Ireland's sovereign right to make an "independent" decision - and copied what the British did.
So this is not an EU issue, hence your anti-EU sentiments in this area are baseless.FutureTaoiseach wrote: »For the first time in the history of EU referenda, the no side had been proven correct on a major prediction on the impact of an EU treaty.
Even stopped clocks are right twice a day. All of which would be okay, if the the freedom of movement principles was something new introduced in Nice. It wasn't though.FutureTaoiseach wrote: »- have frequently referred to the ECJ, EP and EC as "foreign" institutions - which is not a position you would adopt if you accepted either that once we agreed to join the 3 European Communities in 1973 those institution became our institutions, or, the idea of common EU citizenship,
I'm not sure I referred to them as foreign so much as that I may have mentioned they were primarily run by foreign officials. I am not opposed to the concept of EU citizenship provided it doesn't displace national citizenship or supersede it.
Without checking, I believe you have referred to the institutes as foreign on repeated occasions. It is hard to see how you could be said to accept the concept of EU citizenship, if you regard the staff/members of the EU's institutions as "foreign officials" (And I would imagine those EU citizens working there who also are Irish citizens would not appreciate the insult).FutureTaoiseach wrote: »- don't accept judgments of the ECJ as being acceptable/valid even when the ECJ is just doing its job of interpeting the actual explicit text of the Treaties,
Several EU elder statesmen, including former German President Roman Herzog, and former Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen and former Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schussel have condemned the ECJ for encroaching on national competences.
It is perfectly reasonable to have arguments over what should be an EU competence or not - ultimately though that (political) decision rests with the member states. Offhand, I can't think of any ECJ rulings (or the basis thereof) that the member states subsequently changed. Can you?FutureTaoiseach wrote: »- use phrases such as decisions being "imposed" on Ireland, which clearly implies Ireland had no say in the matter - whereas the decisions made are frequently made with the consent of Ireland and in accordance with standard EU legal procedures,
I assume you mean the 2.1% "say" under Qualified Majority Voting, reduced to a 0.9% population-weight under Lisbon.
No, I don't mean that. If Ireland agrees to (or has agreed) decision making procedures for the EU, then either you accept those decisions are valid or not (even if you as an individual don't always like them).
As such the use of phrases such as "imposed decisions" would seem to imply that you don't accept the validity of the decision making process (either under post-Nice or proposed post-Lisbon rules).FutureTaoiseach wrote: »- frequently seek to compare Ireland's continuing voluntary membership of the EU with it being forced into having English/British rule where the option to leave peacefully was completely denied - such an analogy can't be just dismissed as mere over excitement on one occasion on your part either since you have repeatedly used it
I would contend that the requirement of a Qualified Majority for agreements on secession from the Union constitute a de-facto veto to other member states, when the complications of leaving the Union with respect to trade etc. are borne in mind.
There is already precedent for a state leaving the EU. Greenland did so in the 1980s (albeit slightly delayed due to incompetence on the part of the Oireachtas) when they acheived home rule.
This stands in complete contrast to Ireland's relationship with the English/British where independence wasn't even countenanced by the British for literally hunderds of years.FutureTaoiseach wrote: »
:rolleyes:FutureTaoiseach wrote: »I like Ireland too, but I dislike the corruption exposed in our politics in the Tribunals and the mismanagement of our economy by the present govt. Does that make me anti-Irish?
You are confusing proper attacks on mismanagement, bad policies, normal politics etc. with attacks on the institutions of the state where you either question their legal right to make decisions or even exist.
Offhand, I don't recall you as having ever attacked the institutions of the state in the same manner as you attack the EU's. Were you to do so, I would think that in the absence of an alternative label - such as, rejectionist maybe, or modern day Irish Unionist or some such - then "anti-Irish" probably would be justified.0
Advertisement