Charlie McCreevy claims today that most EU countries would reject Lisbon

conchubhar1 · 26-06-2009 8:27pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

When I was a baby, I was about two foot high. By the time I was 15 I was about six foot. Logically, I should now be 14 foot high.

logically,
Scofflaw

that is not the same thing - and you know it

Scofflaw · 26-06-2009 8:38pm

conchubhar1 wrote: »

that is not the same thing - and you know it

It is, in fact, a reasonable enough analogy. Simply because something is a "logical progression" doesn't mean it will happen. A better analogy might be that someone is first a seminarian, then a priest, then a bishop - the logical next step is Cardinal, but that doesn't mean he will get there.

Whether you feel that a federal union is a logical next step (arguable in itself) is entirely irrelevant to whether it actually happens. That there are people who would like it to happen is equally irrelevant. Until the governments, parliaments, and people of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom all agree to becoming a federal state, it will not, and cannot happen.

EU treaties don't write themselves, nor are they written by the EU. They are negotiated by the governments of the member states, who are answerable to their parliaments, and to their people. The governments will not write themselves out of meaningful existence, and would face parliamentary (and probably popular) revolts if they did so.

rather definitely,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1 · 26-06-2009 8:41pm

it is not an equal or reasonable analogy

my staement wasnt really a statement at all i merely listed out the progression so far and stated a possible next step and stated this is not impossible and not a huge jump

is that not so?

on your point of writing themselfs out of existence - much like american politicians at a federal level dont have a job?
yes there most likely would be revolts

but this is all hypothetical

conchubhar1 · 26-06-2009 8:45pm

conchubhar1 wrote: »

steel union

economic community

union

federation of states......... sure thats an illogical step and will never happen

it is not illogical - but that does not state it is logical (just merely possible)

and will never happen - does not mean i state it will happen - just that the possibility is there and is not a huge leap by any means

RandomName2 · 26-06-2009 8:47pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Until the governments, parliaments, and people of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom all agree to becoming a federal state, it will not, and cannot happen.

Please provide an argument that it is not already a federation.

Scofflaw wrote: »

They are negotiated by the governments of the member states.

I think my definition of tautology already covered that.

oscarBravo · 26-06-2009 8:49pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

If the EU does not create EU treaties, who, pray, creates them?

Which of the EU's several bodies create or creates treaties? The Parliament? The Commission?

The treaties are negotiated by the members. Modification of treaties or introduction of new treaties is not an EU competence. If you knew anything about that which you oppose so vehemently, you'd know this.

You would be 14ft (or thereabouts) if there was not a biological inhibiting force on the continued generation of HGH. There is no obvious cap on the number of ammeding constitutional treaties that the EU can produce (which may be a good or a bad thing depending how it goes).

Subtle goalpost move, but not subtle enough. The question is not how many treaties there will be, but what their effect will be. There is no appetite among the member states for a federal superstate, so it's not gonna happen.

If such an appetite should become widespread amonth all the members, then maybe it will happen at some point in the distant future - but if such is the will of the members, then so be it.

The EU isn't actually a union at the moment, but it is actually a federation (or a federal union if you want to be pedantic).

That's a long way from a federal superstate - unless you're going to try to pull a semantic trick like pretending that the common etymological roots of "federation" (which the Union is not, but could loosely be described as) and "federal" (as in "federal republic", which is what we're talking about, and the EU is a long, long way from being a republic).

oscarBravo · 26-06-2009 8:50pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Please provide an argument that it is not already a federation.

Is it your contention that "federation" and "federal superstate" are perfect synonyms, completely interchangeable with absolutely no difference in meaning?

If not, please stop asking people to provide arguments to back up your conclusions rather than theirs.

conchubhar1 · 26-06-2009 8:58pm

is it not a collection of countries - with a parliament and court and money and flag and anthem?

RandomName2 · 26-06-2009 9:03pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is it your contention that "federation" and "federal superstate" are perfect synonyms, completely interchangeable with absolutely no difference in meaning?

If not, please stop asking people to provide arguments to back up your conclusions rather than theirs.

gack! :pac: why does 2+2 always equal 5 with you?

federal = of or relating to a form of government in which power is divided between one central and several regional governments

super = placed above another

state = a soverign political power or community

federation = a political unit which is federal

Less hyperbole, more substance. Sorry for the semantics, but you did explicitly ask for it (although you can backtrack and say that by saying that you asked for it, you were in fact talking about a flying spagetti monster)

Scofflaw · 26-06-2009 9:04pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

It does - you should remember what comprises the 'EU'. If the EU does not create EU treaties, who, pray, creates them? National governments working together in a federal body? Yes, this is a tautology.

It's bolloxology, not tautology. The EU is an institutional framework - that people use "the EU" as shorthand for the member states is mere sloppiness, not some kind of definition.

To claim that the EU writes treaties that grant it powers at the expense of the member states is totally false, because the EU is a creation of the member states, the treaties that govern it are the creation of the member states, and there is no mechanism by which "the EU" (the institution) can grant itself powers through the treaties.

RandomName2 wrote: »

You would be 14ft (or thereabouts) if there was not a biological inhibiting force on the continued generation of HGH. There is no obvious cap on the number of ammeding constitutional treaties that the EU can produce (which may be a good or a bad thing depending how it goes).

Except the fact that it's not desired, except by a small minority - and spare me the Monnet quotes, the man's dead and buried. Unless his animated corpse is in charge of the EU, his original intentions are irrelevant.

RandomName2 wrote: »

The EU isn't actually a union at the moment, but it is actually a federation (or a federal union if you want to be pedantic). Though its name is the European Union, this is in many ways as arbitrary as the Lisbon Treaty being called after the Portuguese Capital [the location of the signing hardly has much bearing on the content].

It's not generally accepted as being a federation at all, or a federal union, whether one is being pedantic or not. It is generally regarded as sui generis, and attempts to pigeonhole it as something else usually serve a political purpose, as I suspect they do here.

RandomName2 wrote: »

And if the EU isn't fundamentally about 'the economy, stupid' what is it about? Political centralisation? If so, to what end? The legislative superstructure has outgrown its macroeconomic origins and has come to resemble a giant Country Council, albeit with vastly inflated powers. It exhibits a fundmental distrust in the capacities of individual nation states, particularly as determined by the electorate, whilst it instead attempts to safeguard the interests of the structure of the EU itself [this is the explicit role of the Commission].

It's about political cooperation, and always has been. Centralisation would be one possible way of doing that, but the two are not synonymous. An ever-closer relationship and unity between the peoples and states of Europe has always expressly been the purpose of the EU, all the way back from the ECSC, whose purpose was quite overtly the prevention of war between Germany and France - a political purpose. The economic instruments, common control of coal and steel, were chosen only because they were the sinews of war - the economic value was secondary. The EU is, and always has been, political - it's not NAFTA. Even the common market was constructed with the aims of the EU in mind - "preserve peace and liberty and to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe". It's not there for fun.

RandomName2 wrote: »

So, in relation to the thread title, whenever McCreevy speaks 'for Ireland' he is contradicting his sworn duty to disregard national interests and instead pursue supranational agendae. The supranational interests have deemed that the Lisbon treaty is too important to risk public rejection - so any noises that someone like Charlie makes which undermines this chosen method is in direct conflict with his role as European legislator.

Making a tit of himself would be the shorthand version.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo · 26-06-2009 9:13pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

federal = of or relating to a form of government in which power is divided between one central and several regional governments

super = placed above another

state = a soverign political power or community

Is the USA a country?

Is Florida a country?

Is the EU a country?

Is Italy a country?

The answers to these four questions should make it clear to anyone who's actually interested in understanding the difference that the EU is not a federal country (super or otherwise).

federation = a political unit which is federal

I guess the National Federation of Group Water Schemes is next in line for superpower status, so.

BlitzKrieg · 26-06-2009 9:27pm

is it not a collection of countries - with a parliament and court and money and flag and anthem?

by that logic wouldnt the UN be a federation? it has a flag, courts, a intenational assembly. THere is an anthem/hymn for the UN but its not officially recognised as the UN anthem. THough to be fair to the EU the european anthem is shared with the Council of Europe (which adopted it first).

conchubhar1 · 26-06-2009 9:28pm

does the un have a parliament? an actual anthem? a proposed constitution?

Morgans · 26-06-2009 9:35pm

So which country came up with the idea of the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty?

Is it one specific country who decided that the EU was getting too unwealdy for its own good and decided to come up with a draft for negotiation with the other countries leaders? Maybe that countries govt ran out of things to do locally and in their spare time concentrated on Europe.

Or

Was it decided by a pan-national bureaucrats who for whatever reason felt this was the next best step, with the finishing touches to be decided on and approved by the national govts?

The idea of hiding behind the technicality that the EU doesnt create treaties is ridiculously one-eyed. That one country comes up with the drafts without consultation is ridiculous. There can be absolutely no criticism or hint of an argument that could be construed as a criticism with some.

I also think its ridiculous to think that there is no one in the EU who doesn't want a Federal EU. Isn't one of the more persuasive arguments for closer co-operation is the development of a European power block?

Interesting to see how this thread has moved away from McCreevy's comments.

oscarBravo · 26-06-2009 9:40pm

Morgans wrote: »

Was it decided by a pan-national bureaucrats who for whatever reason felt this was the next best step, with the finishing touches to be decided on and approved by the national govts?

Have you considered the possibility that it was decided by the national governments in the first place?

That one country comes up with the drafts without consultation is ridiculous.

Just as well nobody's arguing that that's the case, so.

I also think its ridiculous to think that there is no one in the EU who doesn't want a Federal EU.

Again, I haven't heard anyone suggest that that's the case either.

Did you have anything to bring to the discussion other than straw men?

RandomName2 · 26-06-2009 9:44pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is the USA a country?

Is Florida a country?

Is the EU a country?

Is Italy a country?

If you said state instead of country it would be yes to all of the above (apart from USA). By definition the eu has to be federal - don't blame me, blame the english language if you want. Or the eu (as you profess not to like the idea of a federal europe). I believe that your objection to the term is due to potential negative connoctations associated with it, or possibly it doesn't fit with your view of what the eu is (which is what? A european governmental tea-party situated in the vacinity of Brussels?)

To Blitzkrieg: The UN doesn't have any citizens or legislative government.

Morgans · 26-06-2009 9:53pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Have you considered the possibility that it was decided by the national governments in the first place? Just as well nobody's arguing that that's the case, so. Again, I haven't heard anyone suggest that that's the case either.

Did you have anything to bring to the discussion other than straw men?

Good so we are agreed that treaties are developed by pan-national agencies. And there are those in the EU who wish to see a Federal EU, dare I say along the lines of the US of A. Good we've established something here.

RandomName2 · 26-06-2009 9:53pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's bolloxology, not tautology. The EU is an institutional framework - that people use "the EU" as shorthand for the member states is mere sloppiness, not some kind of definition.

I say: the framework within which the member states are incorporated.
You say: sloppiness
I say: EU = EU
You say: bolloxology

Scofflaw wrote: »

To claim that the EU writes treaties that grant it powers at the expense of the member states is totally false, because the EU is a creation of the member states, the treaties that govern it are the creation of the member states, and there is no mechanism by which "the EU" (the institution) can grant itself powers through the treaties.

The EU does write treaties that grants it powers at the expense of individual member states. If it did not, it would cease to exist. It is, if you will, a Social Compact made between the national governments (you should understand what I mean by this, but I will spell it out if necessary).

affably,
RandomName2

P.S. You seem to have a problem admitting that EU member states surrender some soverignty, yet you immediately admit that such a surrender was one of the principle purposes behind the creation of the ECSC (for the benign, if superficial concern of a possible war between West Germany and France).

I imagine that your hesitancy to admit the soverignty issue stems from the fact that it is the basis of many anti-eu attacks. I suggest that, seeing that this is your viewpoint, and I imagine that you place a certain value upon truth, that you roll with the implications and merely argue that on the whole it is beneficial. To deny it and admit it, however, does little for the strain of your analysis.

congenially,
RandomName2

BlitzKrieg · 26-06-2009 9:56pm

conchubhar1 wrote: »

does the un have a parliament? an actual anthem? a proposed constitution?

it has an assembly but a proposal for a parliament has been given and it is currently being debated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Parliamentary_Assembly,) no it does not have an official anthem, but an anthem was written for it and performed at numerous key events. and it has the Charter of the United Nations.

conchubhar1 · 26-06-2009 10:06pm

so your previous argument is baseless

the un and the eu can not be equated.....

BlitzKrieg · 26-06-2009 10:18pm

conchubhar1 wrote: »

so your previous argument is baseless

the un and the eu can not be equated.....

I think I might have grabbed thw wrong end of your comment. I assumed (the mother of all mistakes) that you running off your previous comment and were using the elements such as courts/flag/parliament as justifcation that the EU was a federal or becoming a federal system.

And I was saying that there are equivilent structures in other international organisations, such as the UN, there's a flag, an assembly (and a parliament currently proposed, does the UN have asperations of being a federal superstate?) and courts.

If your comments were not linked to the prior federal discussion then I apoligise.

conchubhar1 · 26-06-2009 10:32pm

the un does not function in the same was as the eu

it did not have a constitution nearly put through and it does not have a parliament

comparing the two is not appropriate

as i have stated before - the jump to federal states is possible

oscarBravo · 26-06-2009 10:56pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

If you said state instead of country it would be yes to all of the above (apart from USA).

So the US isn't a "federal superstate", but the EU is?

By definition the eu has to be federal...

It's federal in nature, yes - as is the National Federation of Group Water Schemes. Neither is a state, never mind a superstate.

Morgans wrote: »

Good so we are agreed that treaties are developed by pan-national agencies.

No, we're not. The treaties are developed by national governments.

And there are those in the EU who wish to see a Federal EU...

There are also those in the EU who wish to see a fourth Reich, as well as those who wish to see the dismantling of civilisation and a return to self-sufficient agrarian living.

What's your point?

RandomName2 wrote: »

The EU does write treaties that grants it powers at the expense of individual member states.

No, the EU's member states create treaties that grant the EU powers at their own expense. It's a subtle but important distinction.

P.S. You seem to have a problem admitting that EU member states surrender some soverignty...

I'll take the liberty of speaking for Scofflaw by saying that it's blatantly dishonest of you to suggest that he has any such problem - he, along with the rest of the pro-EU posters here, has never made any bones about the fact that the member states surrender sovereignty. If you have to dishonestly characterise someone's position to make your point, then your point is dishonest and has no place in rational debate.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

as i have stated before - the jump to federal states is possible

So is the jump to anarcho-capitalism, but I don't see it as an immediate threat.

conchubhar1 · 26-06-2009 11:04pm

again - pointless comments of little relevance

i never stated it was a threat and definitely never said an immediate threat, or indeed is it a threat at all?

if you continue the attitude of dismissing everything because anything is possible and dismissing everyone because they can or cannot be credible what is the point of discussion?

oscarBravo · 26-06-2009 11:08pm

conchubhar1 wrote: »

if you continue the attitude of dismissing everything because anything is possible and dismissing everyone because they can or cannot be credible what is the point of discussion?

I'm dismissing things that are "possible" because the fact that they are "possible" doesn't make them likely enough to be worthy of discussion. It's "possible" that there's an invisible pink unicorn in orbit around the moon, but it's not particularly likely, so it's not going to be considered very seriously on the Astronomy forum.

If you think a federal EU superstate is a realistic prospect (despite the fact that there is absolutely no appetite for it among the member state governments), then please explain why. If you can't explain why it's a realistic prospect, then can you explain why we should waste energy on discussing the remote possibility of it happening?

Scofflaw · 26-06-2009 11:18pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

I say: the framework within which the member states are incorporated.
You say: sloppiness
I say: EU = EU
You say: bolloxology

The EU does write treaties that grants it powers at the expense of individual member states. If it did not, it would cease to exist. It is, if you will, a Social Compact made between the national governments (you should understand what I mean by this, but I will spell it out if necessary).

affably,
RandomName2

P.S. You seem to have a problem admitting that EU member states surrender some soverignty, yet you immediately admit that such a surrender was one of the principle purposes behind the creation of the ECSC (for the benign, if superficial concern of a possible war between West Germany and France).

I imagine that your hesitancy to admit the soverignty issue stems from the fact that it is the basis of many anti-eu attacks. I suggest that, seeing that this is your viewpoint, and I imagine that you place a certain value upon truth, that you roll with the implications and merely argue that on the whole it is beneficial. To deny it and admit it, however, does little for the strain of your analysis.

congenially,
RandomName2

This:

"The EU does write treaties that grants it powers at the expense of individual member states."

is a very deliberate conflation of the two senses in which the phrase "the EU" is used. It's not an argument that means anything, because, as you point out, it's also (in certain senses) tautological - and I'm sure you're well aware that you can't build anything on a tautology.

Taking it to bits, we have:

1. "The EU does write treaties"

2. that grants it powers

3. at the expense of individual member states."

Statement 1 there is true as long as "EU" there refers to the member states, but not if it refers to the institution. Statement 2 is deliberately ambiguous. Statement 3 is meaningless unless Statement 1 refers to the member states - but that collapses the phrase into:

"The EU member states grant the EU powers at the expense of themselves" - which is arguable. Regrettably, you're not arguing it - you're simply relying on the confused nature of the whole claim. It can be true but arguable, or untrue and inarguable, and the ambiguous wording deliberately conflates the two options to lend the weight of the true-but-arguable option to the untrue-and-inarguable one.

So, while it's a very 'clever' little piece of bolloxology, bolloxology it remains, because in the context of these discussions, it is meaningless while sounding meaningful. The EU institutions are indeed granted powers (pooled sovereignty) by the EU member states - but since you deliberately don't add those clarifying additional qualifications to the word EU, what you have is a little play on words.

Let's be clear, so - the EU institutions (the Commission, Parliament, Council, ECJ etc) do not write treaties, and therefore cannot grant themselves powers at the expense of the member states. The EU member states write the treaties, and grant the institutions of the EU those powers which they have chosen to exercise in common. Whether that's "at the expense of" is entirely a matter of opinion - personally, I don't have a problem with decisions best made in common being made in common, but presumably you do - which refers back to my earlier points to conchubar about people who irrationally believe that decisions should only be taken nationally.

thoroughly,
Scofflaw

Morgans · 26-06-2009 11:20pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

So the US isn't a "federal superstate", but the EU is? It's federal in nature, yes - as is the National Federation of Group Water Schemes. Neither is a state, never mind a superstate.

No, we're not. The treaties are developed by national governments. There are also those in the EU who wish to see a fourth Reich, as well as those who wish to see the dismantling of civilisation and a return to self-sufficient agrarian living.

What's your point?

No, the EU's member states create treaties that grant the EU powers at their own expense. It's a subtle but important distinction.

There are all shades and colours across the EU institutions, and unlike those who they are compared to by some (those who advocate the dismantling of civilisation and the creation of a fourth reich) the federalists would be supportive of a successful political model in several states throughout the world. Yet, instead of standing up for what they believe, being labelled a federalist is some sort of criticism. Some even compare them to those who would like the establishment of a fourth reich or the dismantling of civilisation.

The European Convention was largely responsible for the development of the EU constitution. This was set up by the EU, and comprised of members from the national parliaments and the European Parliaments and Commission. It is clear that it is not national goverments who create Treaties. They sign off on them. They do not draft/create them.

Again, for some reason, the most pointless of arguments. Prefer listening to Scofflaw who at least answers the queries rather than never accepting that the opposing point of view has any merit whatsoever. Its a subtle but important distinction.

conchubhar1 · 26-06-2009 11:43pm

my statement and your not so amusing statements are not on the same level

and your use of them is idiotic at a feeble attempt at what you are trying to do - maybe we should reopen the debate forum?

Johnboy1951 · 26-06-2009 11:59pm

So we are to be asked again to vote to relinquish some of our sovereignty in the upcoming referendum.

Apparently what we must agree to is that in future EU law not only takes precedence over Irish law, but that we lose the ability to challenge any of those laws if we believe they are contrary to our constitution. At least that is how I read the details of the previous referendum.

If the above is true, then that is a mighty big concession on our part.

I am uncomfortable with that idea.

Scofflaw · 27-06-2009 12:08am

Morgans wrote: »

There are all shades and colours across the EU institutions, and unlike those who they are compared to by some (those who advocate the dismantling of civilisation and the creation of a fourth reich) the federalists would be supportive of a successful political model in several states throughout the world. Yet, instead of standing up for what they believe, being labelled a federalist is some sort of criticism. Some even compare them to those who would like the establishment of a fourth reich or the dismantling of civilisation.

The European Convention was largely responsible for the development of the EU constitution. This was set up by the EU, and comprised of members from the national parliaments and the European Parliaments and Commission. It is clear that it is not national goverments who create Treaties. They sign off on them. They do not draft/create them.

That's not really very accurate, aside from the fact that's applicable only to the EU Constitution. The composition of the Convention was as follows:

National:

15 Member State Govt Representatives
30 Member State Parliament Representatives
13 Accession State Govt Representatives
26 Accession State Parliament Representatives

EU:

16 European Parliament Representatives
2 Commission Representatives

Plus the Praesidium:

3 Government Representatives from the Presidency Countries
2 National Parliament Representatives

vs

2 European Parliament Representatives
2 Commission Representatives

That's a very strong balance (89:22) in favour of national, rather than European, representation. If we take the Convention as your model, you'd have to say that the member states had 80% of the input, which hardly reduces them to the role of 'signing off'.

Rather more relevantly, aside from the EUC, the EU treaties have been created by Inter-Governmental Conferences - the Single European Act (1986), the Treaty on European Union (1992), the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) and the Treaty of Nice (2001). Lisbon itself is the result of an IGC in 2007.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Charlie McCreevy claims today that most EU countries would reject Lisbon

Comments