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
Who are the EU elites?
Options
Comments
-
And is that important? The point I am making is that the anti-Lisbon side will have increased representation in this EP, and that in that context, cannot and should not be written off as a fringe-element of European public opinion. When the EFD comes officially into place, that leaves around 3 non-group MEPs.I'm glad you've corrected that, although it doesn't change any of the other gross errors in your post. Indeed it makes one more obvious - there are still apparently no independents in your Parliament.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »And is that important? The point I am making is that the anti-Lisbon side will have increased representation in this EP, and that in that context, cannot and should not be written off as a fringe-element of European public opinion. When the EFD comes officially into place, that leaves around 3 non-group MEPs.
Well, yes, it's important, because the numbers you've cited don't add up (literally), nor would they show what you're claiming even if they did. You've effectively counted the movement of eurosceptic MEPs into their own groupings as an increase in the numbers of eurosceptic MEPs, even though all that happened is that eurosceptic MEPs left something you counted as "pro-Lisbon" and moved to something you counted as "anti-Lisbon". You have simply reclassified a number of MEPs from pro to anti, and claimed it as a 'significant increase' in the number of antis.
Say you had 20 apples and 80 oranges, all in bags marked 'apples' or 'oranges'. What you've done is start with 10 of the apples in a bag marked 'oranges', moved them to a bag marked 'apples', and proclaimed the result as a doubling in the number of apples.
Not, of course, that you actually gave a comparative breakdown of the previous Parliament.
Really, it's dreadful pseudo-maths, made worse by basic arithmetical errors.
politely,
Scofflaw0 -
bokspring71 wrote: »No one else has been allowed to vote, so we can't claim to know what the rest of the EU's people think or want.
Exactly, so we should all shut up mouthing off about them and worry about ourselves.0 -
-
No, the point of this site is discussion. Blogs are for mouthing off.0
-
Advertisement
-
BlitzKrieg wrote: »is EU elites another word for... THE MAN?
No, it's another word for "LIZARDS, MAAAN"0 -
The Brussels Bourbons have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. No means no.0
-
The elite being talked about is the Bilderberg group along with the ruling Illuminati banking families, Rothchild etc. They call the shots not the politicians.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/leaked-agenda-bilderberg-group-plans-economic-depression.html
Some interesting reading here but as it is on a so called conspiracy site and not the controlled media its probably all made up lies. I'd just call it investigative journalism myself and worth as much of a look as anything else.0 -
granite man wrote: »The elite being talked about is the Bilderberg group along with the ruling Illuminati banking families, Rothchild etc. They call the shots not the politicians.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/leaked-agenda-bilderberg-group-plans-economic-depression.html
Some interesting reading here but as it is on a so called conspiracy site and not the controlled media its probably all made up lies. I'd just call it investigative journalism myself and worth as much of a look as anything else.
You might, but not here. If you want to discuss conspiracy theories, do so in the Conspiracy Theories forum. This is your only and final warning.
moderately,
Scofflaw0 -
OK, will do.0
-
Advertisement
-
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »To my eyes, the EU elites are the ruling-classes of society in the fields of politics, media, business, unions, celebs etc.
So the "EU elites" are all those who have been successful and have achieved something.
I know I would rather take advice from a success than from a failure. No offense Future Tea-shock but I am not putting you in the success category.0 -
That's pretty much it. No campaigners have a slightly schizophrenic attitude. On the one hand, they have erected "democracy" (aka the No vote in the first referendum) to the status of a minor deity, but on the other hand all the competences that have been given to the EU have been given with the democratic agreement of the Irish people, and the EU in general enjoys greater levels of popular trust and goodwill than national governments.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Does it? Do you have evidence for that or is it simply a personal opinion? If so why did the Dutch and French vote against the EU Constitution? Was that not an indication of lack of trust in that they didn't want to give the Eurpoean Commission any more powers? I suggest that it's possible that because many national governments have lost much of the trust of their peoples that those peoples might be increasingly suspicious of the EU given their governments support for it. If someone is perceived as having lied to you can you then have trust in another whom he has recommended or to whom he has committed you without consulting you?
I feel there is much greater depth in this issue than the nebulous "EU Elite" college versus the Eurosceptics. I am not convinced that people trust either their own governments or the EU, but the reasons why they don't are bound to to vary between states according to their cultures and histories. In short trying to simplify issues to "Elites" and "Sceptics" is simplistic and doesn't identify the problem. Opposing Lisbon is not necessarily the same thing as opposing the idea of the EU.
And in answer to the question of why people vote for the governments they do if they are distrustful of Europe, in the case of Ireland what choice did they have? All the main line parties were in favour of the EU and Lisbon, so what does a voter do? The alternative seems to be not vote at all or to waste his vote on some lunatic organisation that will never form a government or play any meaningful role in public life0 -
Does it? Do you have evidence for that or is it simply a personal opinion?
It's a regular poll question in the Eurobarometer polls - trust in EU institutions, trust in national institutions. In general, the EU institutions manage a 'trust' of about 50%, whereas national institutions manage somewhere around 25%.If so why did the Dutch and French vote against the EU Constitution? Was that not an indication of lack of trust in that they didn't want to give the Eurpoean Commission any more powers? I suggest that it's possible that because many national governments have lost much of the trust of their peoples that those peoples might be increasingly suspicious of the EU given their governments support for it. If someone is perceived as having lied to you can you then have trust in another whom he has recommended or to whom he has committed you without consulting you?
I would imagine there is currently a general distrust of all political institutions, and everyone involved in the political establishment, on foot of the enormous collapse in economies.
However, that wouldn't apply to the Dutch and French votes, which were much the same kind of grab-bag of different reasons as ours. I doubt they indicate any realistic assessment of 'how far' Europe has gone, and in turn I doubt they're any kind of meaningful indicator that people feel it's gone 'far enough'. Aside from anything else, most people would be hard pressed to tell you what competences Lisbon or the Constitution added to the EU.
I'm not sure why you single out the Commission specifically, though.I feel there is much greater depth in this issue than the nebulous "EU Elite" college versus the Eurosceptics. I am not convinced that people trust either their own governments or the EU, but the reasons why they don't are bound to to vary between states according to their cultures and histories. In short trying to simplify issues to "Elites" and "Sceptics" is simplistic and doesn't identify the problem. Opposing Lisbon is not necessarily the same thing as opposing the idea of the EU.
Indeed, that's obviously a perfectly possible position. On the other had, it's pretty rare to find anyone who does oppose Lisbon while not opposing the EU. When people say they "support the idea of the EU", they rarely turn out to mean the one that exists - instead they usually mean some completely different arrangement with the same name. A bit like saying "I support the Irish government", and meaning by it that one actually supports the idea of an Irish government constituted as a worker's soviet. Technically correct, but extremely misleading. There are people who say they "support the EU" but actually mean that they support a sort of European Free Trade Area without any joint decision-making.And in answer to the question of why people vote for the governments they do if they are distrustful of Europe, in the case of Ireland what choice did they have? All the main line parties were in favour of the EU and Lisbon, so what does a voter do? The alternative seems to be not vote at all or to waste his vote on some lunatic organisation that will never form a government or play any meaningful role in public life
Which begs the question of why none of the mainstream political parties here are opposed. God knows they'd do almost anything else to get a vote, so if there were votes in being eurosceptical, they'd presumably do it. The Tories in the UK are a mainstream soft eurosceptical party, and likely to form the next UK government - if we don't have that option here, the most obvious reason is that we don't particularly want it. After all, we've tried "national self-sufficiency" relatively recently, and we also know (or most of us do) that in a Europe of raw competition between nations, we have all the clout of a gnat's fart. The general view of the Irish political classes is, I think, that sovereignty is only meaningfully defined as the ability to make our own decisions for the best for Ireland and to carry them out, and that, paradoxically, our ability to do that is greater within the joint decision-making framework of the EU than by going it alone. I have to say that I consider that a very rational position, even if it is emotionally unappealing.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
... After all, we've tried "national self-sufficiency" relatively recently, and we also know (or most of us do) that in a Europe of raw competition between nations, we have all the clout of a gnat's fart. The general view of the Irish political classes is, I think, that sovereignty is only meaningfully defined as the ability to make our own decisions for the best for Ireland and to carry them out, and that, paradoxically, our ability to do that is greater within the joint decision-making framework of the EU than by going it alone...
Now that is a particularly well-made point.
The EU involves a voluntary pooling of some aspects of the sovereignty of the member-states. In effect, the opportunity we get to influence the behaviour of our fellow-members is far greater than what we cede to the collective.
In addition, there is a gain for all member-states in that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.0 -
It's a regular poll question in the Eurobarometer polls - trust in EU institutions, trust in national institutions. In general, the EU institutions manage a 'trust' of about 50%, whereas national institutions manage somewhere around 25%.
One could read many things into such a statistic, and maybe one that conspiracy theorists would claim is that it is good propoganda for the Lisbon Treaty in that it suggests the people would support a reduction in the powers of state governments in favour of increases in the powers of the EUI would imagine there is currently a general distrust of all political institutions, and everyone involved in the political establishment, on foot of the enormous collapse in economies.
However, that wouldn't apply to the Dutch and French votes, which were much the same kind of grab-bag of different reasons as ours. I doubt they indicate any realistic assessment of 'how far' Europe has gone, and in turn I doubt they're any kind of meaningful indicator that people feel it's gone 'far enough'. Aside from anything else, most people would be hard pressed to tell you what competences Lisbon or the Constitution added to the EU.
I'm not sure why you single out the Commission specifically, though.
Going by the way trust in our government has collapsed I am sure you are right with your opening comment. The economic disaster has demonstrated just how incompetent some governments have been.
I singled out the European Commission because they mainly create legislation rather than it originating by political initiatives. Not always, I accept -- the EU Parliament can propose legislation but can't enact it. At least that is my understanding of how it works but I don't pretend to have any expertise in the matter.Indeed, that's obviously a perfectly possible position. On the other had, it's pretty rare to find anyone who does oppose Lisbon while not opposing the EU. When people say they "support the idea of the EU", they rarely turn out to mean the one that exists - instead they usually mean some completely different arrangement with the same name. A bit like saying "I support the Irish government", and meaning by it that one actually supports the idea of an Irish government constituted as a worker's soviet. Technically correct, but extremely misleading. There are people who say they "support the EU" but actually mean that they support a sort of European Free Trade Area without any joint decision-making.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I am an opponent of the Lisbon Treaty, but I can clearly see the merits of the EU, particularly for a small country like ours. My problem with the Treaty and the way the EU is developing is its structure, so your second point is valid. If it was structured such that its management was in the hands of elected representatives in a central parliament, and the Commission was essentially a non political civil service, then I would happily support moves towards a federal Europe since it would then resemble the United States - a democracy and federation that has stood the test of time. That would be much more difficult to achieve in Europe, I imagine, due to cultural and language differences, but there is no reason why it could not evolve and benefit all member states.Which begs the question of why none of the mainstream political parties here are opposed. God knows they'd do almost anything else to get a vote, so if there were votes in being eurosceptical, they'd presumably do it. The Tories in the UK are a mainstream soft eurosceptical party, and likely to form the next UK government - if we don't have that option here, the most obvious reason is that we don't particularly want it. After all, we've tried "national self-sufficiency" relatively recently, and we also know (or most of us do) that in a Europe of raw competition between nations, we have all the clout of a gnat's fart. The general view of the Irish political classes is, I think, that sovereignty is only meaningfully defined as the ability to make our own decisions for the best for Ireland and to carry them out, and that, paradoxically, our ability to do that is greater within the joint decision-making framework of the EU than by going it alone. I have to say that I consider that a very rational position, even if it is emotionally unappealing.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Your first point in this paragraph is intriguing. Yes, all of our politicians would sell their grannies for a vote, so when the people rejected the Lisbon Treaty did not more of them immediately become eurosceptics? I find it hard to believe that they didn't because they are utterly convinced of your second argument. Logically if one supports a steady move towards federalism (and I would argue that's what the proposed Constitution was intended to achieve) then one must be prepared to forfeit much of one's decision making authority in one's own state. Perhaps it's more a question of safety in numbers irrespective of the consequences, and maybe that's why the UK is so eurosceptic. It's a much larger country and economy with a long history of going it alone. They don't see themselves a needing EU membership whereas we do.0 -
And in answer to the question of why people vote for the governments they do if they are distrustful of Europe, in the case of Ireland what choice did they have? All the main line parties were in favour of the EU and Lisbon, so what does a voter do? The alternative seems to be not vote at all or to waste his vote on some lunatic organisation that will never form a government or play any meaningful role in public life
There is nothing to stop a group of voters who are "concerned" about the EU from forming their own political party and standing for election. If the electorate share their concerns, they should do well. If not, then the electorate will have delivered its verdict.0 -
0
-
-
One could read many things into such a statistic, and maybe one that conspiracy theorists would claim is that it is good propoganda for the Lisbon Treaty in that it suggests the people would support a reduction in the powers of state governments in favour of increases in the powers of the EU
I'm sure conspiracy theorists would indeed claim that - and I'm sure, likewise, that they'd have some explanation as to how that's been kept secret for the 35 years the Eurobarometer has been running.
Assuming we're not in the realm of conspiracy theory (which we're not, because this is the Politics forum), the higher trust accorded to the EU institutions by the public remains to be explained.Going by the way trust in our government has collapsed I am sure you are right with your opening comment. The economic disaster has demonstrated just how incompetent some governments have been.
As they say, "when the tide goes out you find out who's been swimming naked".I singled out the European Commission because they mainly create legislation rather than it originating by political initiatives. Not always, I accept -- the EU Parliament can propose legislation but can't enact it. At least that is my understanding of how it works but I don't pretend to have any expertise in the matter.
Actually, it's the Commission that can propose legislation but not enact it. The Commission proposes all EU legislation, but usually at the request of the Council of Ministers or the Parliament. In turn, that legislation is debated, amended, and voted on by the Council (always) and the Parliament (usually) - without the agreement of the Council and the Parliament none of the Commission's legislation actually gets passed.I'm not sure I agree with that. I am an opponent of the Lisbon Treaty, but I can clearly see the merits of the EU, particularly for a small country like ours. My problem with the Treaty and the way the EU is developing is its structure, so your second point is valid. If it was structured such that its management was in the hands of elected representatives in a central parliament, and the Commission was essentially a non political civil service, then I would happily support moves towards a federal Europe since it would then resemble the United States - a democracy and federation that has stood the test of time. That would be much more difficult to achieve in Europe, I imagine, due to cultural and language differences, but there is no reason why it could not evolve and benefit all member states.
It would also be opposed by people like me. I support the current EU because it is a decentralised joint decision-making framework where the power lies with the member states. What you're proposing is a centralised European government, which I would oppose.Your first point in this paragraph is intriguing. Yes, all of our politicians would sell their grannies for a vote, so when the people rejected the Lisbon Treaty did not more of them immediately become eurosceptics? I find it hard to believe that they didn't because they are utterly convinced of your second argument. Logically if one supports a steady move towards federalism (and I would argue that's what the proposed Constitution was intended to achieve) then one must be prepared to forfeit much of one's decision making authority in one's own state. Perhaps it's more a question of safety in numbers irrespective of the consequences, and maybe that's why the UK is so eurosceptic. It's a much larger country and economy with a long history of going it alone. They don't see themselves a needing EU membership whereas we do.
Well, I hate to say it, but I'd need you to actually argue that there is a "steady move towards federalism", because, frankly, I don't see it - and would probably oppose it if I did see it.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Well, I hate to say it, but I'd need you to actually argue that there is a "steady move towards federalism", because, frankly, I don't see it - and would probably oppose it if I did see it.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Since I am not wholly opposed to the idea of a federal Europe, only the mechanism for achieving it and its structure, I would argue that a body that proposes it should have a constitution, a national anthem, and national flag as prescribed in the original constitution draft (I stand to be corrected, not having studied it) is moving in the direction of a federal state. If it then proposes to establish its own military arm and its own foreign office with its own foreign minister, when it already has legal precedence over individual member state legislation in many and increasing areas, then at some point it must be a federal state even if in all but name. I would find it hard to believe that anyone in the EU Commission can't understand that even if the politicians can't.
Possibly the concept of qualified majority voting is not dissimilar from national parliaments and might even work if national political parties stopped dumping their dead wood as commissioners and MEPs, as the UK certainly has done. I accept that we the electorate have the opportunity to vote for our MEPs, but they have to be rooted in an existing political party to stand much chance of election, so they end up following the party line.0 -
Advertisement
-
Since I am not wholly opposed to the idea of a federal Europe, only the mechanism for achieving it and its structure, I would argue that a body that proposes it should have a constitution, a national anthem, and national flag as prescribed in the original constitution draft (I stand to be corrected, not having studied it) is moving in the direction of a federal state.
The UN also has an anthem, a flag, and a constitution, as does the Olympic Movement, so those are equally typical of international organisations. A constitution, after all, is only the rules of an organisation - everything from companies to political parties have constitutions. The EU has a constitution, which is described in the treaties (TEC/TEU) - the reason the EU Constitution merited that description in particular was that it replaced the two existing treaties with one document, not because it was the first time the EU would have had a constitution. Lisbon is a constitutional amendment treaty.If it then proposes to establish its own military arm and its own foreign office with its own foreign minister, when it already has legal precedence over individual member state legislation in many and increasing areas, then at some point it must be a federal state even if in all but name. I would find it hard to believe that anyone in the EU Commission can't understand that even if the politicians can't.
Possibly the concept of qualified majority voting is not dissimilar from national parliaments and might even work if national political parties stopped dumping their dead wood as commissioners and MEPs, as the UK certainly has done. I accept that we the electorate have the opportunity to vote for our MEPs, but they have to be rooted in an existing political party to stand much chance of election, so they end up following the party line.
The hole in that argument are the missing institutions: the Council of Ministers (Council of the European Union) - which is where QMV actually happens (and vetoes); and the European Council (European Summit).
The former is the main decision-making body in the EU, and it's composed of the Ministers of the member states - which Minister depends on the subject under discussion. The Council are the people that "run" the EU from a legislative perspective - every piece of legislation has to be passed by them before it can become law.
The latter is the body that sets the rules and goals of the EU - the board of directors, if you like - and is composed of the heads of the governments of the member states.
Both of those bodies, those that really make the decisions, are nationally based. That makes the EU very much more similar to an international organisation like the UN than to a state, and Lisbon doesn't move the EU in a state-like direction. Again, that's not just my opinion - this is from the recent German constitutional judgement:The idea that the Member States’ own legal personality status in external relations gradually takes second place to a European Union which acts more and more clearly in analogy to a state does not is not at all reflected in a predictable tendency, made irreversible by the Treaty of Lisbon, in the sense of a formation of a federal state that would factually be necessary at any rate. The development to date of a membership that is cooperatively mixed and is exercised in parallel might, on the contrary, be a model for other international organisations and other associations of states. To the extent that the development of the European Union in analogy to a state would be continued on the basis of the Treaty of Lisbon, which is open to development in this context, this would be in contradiction to constitutional foundations. Such a step, however, has not been made by the Treaty of Lisbon.
That translation isn't quite as clear as it could be, but the four sentences above make the following points:
1. the idea that Lisbon continues and makes irreversible a trend towards the EU as a state, with the member states secondary, is false.
2. instead, the development of the EU is along the lines of a cooperative membership operating in parallel.
3. to the extent that the EU has state-like features, Lisbon doesn't develop them.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Scofflaw, I surrender:D You clearly know what you are talking about while I keep demonstrating that I don't. Thanks though for the well considered responses.0
Advertisement