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

Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

Options
1…3536384041…127

Comments

  • Options
    #1112
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Can you give me one example (other than the EU) of an international organisation taking 'serious' political decisions binding on their membership by majority vote?

    The WTO and NATO are examples of bodies taking serious decisions, binding on their membership which use unanimity.

    The UN General Assembly is an example of an international organisation using majority votes, but that is why its powers must be so limited to prevent it imposing 'serious' decisions on its membership.

    The EU crisis of democratic legitimacy only began in the early 1990s when majority voting was intrdouced. It has grown and grown and grown since then, and would get worse under Lisbon which simply perpetuates the same old policies that created the current mess.

    I don't know if other international organisations do it and I don't see how it's relevant. Them not doing it doesn't mean that it's illegal or undemocratic.


  • Options
    #1113
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    The powers of the EU should be reduced until they no longer overload its legitimacy base.
    So you're a garden-variety Euroskeptic. Just so we know.


  • Options
    #1114
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Indecently your little polemic would have been more accurately titled

    'A basic lesson in democracy according to Freeborn John for PopeBuckfastXVI seems in order'


  • Options
    #1115
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Can you give me one example (other than the EU) of an international organisation taking 'serious' political decisions binding on their membership by majority vote?
    Can you give me one example of an EU political decision that was imposed on the membership by majority vote, rather than by consensus?


  • Options
    #1116
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Doesn't it? I had thought that the EU represented exactly a people united, and agreeing to live under the majority will in those areas which the EU has authority.

    Obviously there is no such united European people.
    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

    Would you say that National organisations cannot take serious political decisions binding on counties, because if they do they will be forcing the counties in the outvoted minority to do things that their county majority is opposed to?

    Counties are regions. The people who live in different regions are part of the same nation and will agree to live under the national majority. You cannot arbitarilly group regions together. Would the people who live in the counties of Longford and Lancashire agree to live under their combined majority?

    If you mix up regions and nations you cannot even begin to understand the EU democratic legitimacy problem.

    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

    No you wouldn't because you have placed the 'Nation' on a pedestal above all others, however this is just your own personal value system, and doesn't necessarily objectively apply to others, even though you speak as if it does.

    I speak for all of humanity on this, because the nation-state is the preferred form of governance world-wide, and the only one compatible with democracy.
    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

    Hang on... the 'democratic deficit' would have been solved by now, because the EP has increased in powers. But the EP hasn't reached the end of the road in how much power could be given to it, so you are saying because something hasn't completely happened, it doesn't mean it has improved, vis-a-vis what has gone before. This is a logical fallacy.

    You appear to be suggesting that putting all political power in Europe in the hands of the European parliament would make the EU democratic. There were multi-national parliaments in parts of Europe in the 19th century (including the Westminster parliament which ruled Ireland, and the Austrian imperial parliament). All these institutions were replaced by the nation-state because it is only within the context of a people united by the strong bond of national identity that decision-making by majority is accepted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1117
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Obviously there is no such united European people.



    Counties are regions. The people who live in different regions are part of the same nation and will agree to live under the national majority. You cannot arbitarilly group regions together. Would the people who live in the counties of Longford and Lancashire agree to live under their combined majority?

    If you mix up regions and nations you cannot even begin to understand the EU democratic legitimacy problem.




    I speak for all of humanity on this, because the nation-state is the preferred form of governance world-wide, and the only one compatible with democracy.



    You appear to be suggesting that putting all political power in Europe in the hands of the European parliament would make the EU democratic. There were multi-national parliaments in parts of Europe in the 19th century (including the Westminster parliament which ruled Ireland, and the Austrian imperial parliament). All these institutions were replaced by the nation-state because it is only within the context of a people united by the strong bond of national identity that decision-making by majority is accepted.
    Yes that is all well and good but we are still in many ways an island off the mainland off Europe. And as such we are probably not as open to outside influences as the mainland. Remember places like the Aran Islands still maintain their old ways from the mainland in terms of language so it should be expected that Ireland would also claim to have different customs from the mainland in Europe. And to me it still seems that some Europeans dont fully understand our ways as they continue to make comments about our Neutrality and abortion laws and such.


  • Options
    #1118
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    I speak for all of humanity on this...
    Not for me, you don't, and it's arrogant in the extreme to claim to speak for anyone but yourself.
    ...because the nation-state is the preferred form of governance world-wide, and the only one compatible with democracy.
    It's certainly the preferred form of government of nationalists.

    Unfortunately, the definition of any given "nation" has been the source of non-stop bloodshed for centuries. Say what you will about the EU, it doesn't start wars.


  • Options
    #1119
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    bayviewclose wrote: »
    And to me it still seems that some Europeans dont fully understand our ways as they continue to make comments about our Neutrality and abortion laws and such.
    The sum total of the EU's comments on our neutrality and abortion laws is: "suit yourselves."


  • Options
    #1120
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I don't know if other international organisations do it and I don't see how it's relevant. Them not doing it doesn't mean that it's illegal or undemocratic.

    Of course it is relevant. The EU is unique in the world in suffering a severe crisis of democratic legitimacy. There is a reason for that, which is that the peoples of Europe are not one united community that would agree to live under their majority, but the EU has set up institutions and decision-making rules that presuppose this is the case.

    The EU is the only body experiencing this problem, and Lisbon perpetrates the same old federalist agenda that created the problem in the first place. It is inevitable that Lisbon would that problem worse.


  • Options
    #1121
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Not for me, you don't, and it's arrogant in the extreme to claim to speak for anyone but yourself. It's certainly the preferred form of government of nationalists.

    So just to be clear on this, Oscar, you're actually saying that you DON'T think national sovereignty is important? Because if that's the case you've just blown all your credibility in my view and I won't have to bother arguing with you anymore.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1122
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Not for me, you don't, and it's arrogant in the extreme to claim to speak for anyone but yourself. It's certainly the preferred form of government of nationalists.

    Unfortunately, the definition of any given "nation" has been the source of non-stop bloodshed for centuries. Say what you will about the EU, it doesn't start wars.

    A glance at any political map in the world will confirm i am correct. The nation-state is the preferred form of governance world-wide, because the desire for self-government is part of the human condition. All new states in the world are nation-states, and they often replace undemocratic multinational states such as Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia or the USSR of the type which the EU aspires to become.


  • Options
    #1123
    rumour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 836 ✭✭✭rumour


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    ...having already agreed to clean it. Now look what you did: you broke the analogy.

    The EU is an organisation of member states. The member states, through their elected governments, agreed on the Lisbon treaty. All the member states but one have ratified the treaty through their respective ratification processes.

    There are 27 members of the EU, not 500 million.

    It's the direction lots of people want to take the EU, including those of us who are not federalists. Voting against something just because some of the people who agree with it have an agenda you disagree with is far from logical. That's just a bog-standard Torygraph-inspired caricature of the EU. If that's how you see the EU, then we shouldn't be a member of it at all.

    What a convincing way to sell something, insult your client!!. Why is so much of this debate so critical of the 'no' opioion. Having a look through this thread and see how many people 'yes' advocates support this treaty on the basis of what the treaty delivers and particularly what it delivers for ireland. Very few, most of them are made up of condecending nonsense directed at peoples valid concerns. It would if you were of the 'no' persausion only solidify the view that these type of condecending people are what we would be agreeing to for the future.
    Personally I think it is positive with regard to energy policy but arguing that it is democratic is complete and utter tosh.
    1. Why does Ireland need this treaty?
    2. How will it make daily life better?
    3. What will this treaty give that is dinstinctly different (pros and cons) from what we have now?


  • Options
    #1124
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Of course it is relevant. The EU is unique in the world in suffering a severe crisis of democratic legitimacy.

    Who's doing what now?


  • Options
    #1125
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    rumour wrote: »
    What a convincing way to sell something, insult your client!!. Why is so much of this debate so critical of the 'no' opioion.

    I would argue it's because >90% of the no opinion is based on fantasy and a further 5% on hatred of Fianna Fail


  • Options
    #1126
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Can you give me one example (other than the EU) of an international organisation taking 'serious' political decisions binding on their membership by majority vote? ...

    I will, just as soon as you give me one example of an international organisation with democratic structures like an elected parliament, a commission comprising members from each of the member states, and a council comprising representatives of each of the member states.

    The EU is a unique type of arrangement. Comparison with any other body is necessarily limited.


  • Options
    #1127
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Indecently your little polemic would have been more accurately titled

    'A basic lesson in democracy according to Freeborn John for PopeBuckfastXVI seems in order'

    No. It is basic lesson in democracy as practiced worldwide and which is certianly relevent in Ireland. Democracy (from 'demos' = people, 'kratos'= rule by) requires a people, and the EU does not have one.

    Majority votes at international level are just a means by which the more populous comminity can dominate smaller ones. Was the Stormont parliament democratic during 1921-1972 when it only ever passed one measure introduced by the minority catholic community? That is what happens when you have majoritorian political institutions like the European parliament ruling multiple distinct communites.


  • Options
    #1128
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I will, just as soon as you give me one example of an international organisation with democratic structures like an elected parliament, a commission comprising members from each of the member states, and a council comprising representatives of each of the member states.

    The EU is a unique type of arrangement. Comparison with any other body is necessarily limited.

    I provide the example of 50 years of the Stormont parliament ruling over two national communities in Northern Ireland. It was modelled on the 'mother of parliaments'. But was it democratic? And if not, why not.


  • Options
    #1129
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Freeborn John,

    You continue to define your word as truth, and inarguable, including redefining existing words like democracy to suit your argument.

    There's no point in arguing, as you don't even accept the terms of the argument, or reality, instead substituting your own.

    I've merely pointed out, for the benefit of anyone else watching, what you are doing.

    People, unfortunately for you, can make up their own minds.


  • Options
    #1130
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    No. It is basic lesson in democracy as practiced worldwide and which is certianly relevent in Ireland. Democracy (from 'demos' = people, 'kratos'= rule by) requires a people, and the EU does not have one.

    Majority votes at international level are just a means by which the more populous comminity can dominate smaller ones.
    Which is why the voting system is specifically designed to prevent that.
    Freeborn John wrote: »
    That is what happens when you have majoritorian political institutions like the European parliament ruling multiple distinct communites.

    The Irish government rules over multiple district communities too. The people of Blanchardstown voted for Joan Burton but they were ignored because the people of Castleknock voted for Brian Lenihan. How undemocratic :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1131
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    rumour wrote: »
    What a convincing way to sell something, insult your client!!. Why is so much of this debate so critical of the 'no' opioion. Having a look through this thread and see how many people 'yes' advocates support this treaty on the basis of what the treaty delivers and particularly what it delivers for ireland. Very few, most of them are made up of condecending nonsense directed at peoples valid concerns. It would if you were of the 'no' persausion only solidify the view that these type of condecending people are what we would be agreeing to for the future.
    Personally I think it is positive with regard to energy policy but arguing that it is democratic is complete and utter tosh.
    1. Why does Ireland need this treaty?
    2. How will it make daily life better?
    3. What will this treaty give that is dinstinctly different (pros and cons) from what we have now?
    I think what this treaty does if anything else is question how we view our role within the EU. As said before EU i think is fairly strong on legislation but I would have issues with it.
    But have we been "too" dependant on Europe.
    Did it lead us to over borrow.
    Do we need to go back to basics and learn to be self sufficient again and become strong in the ways of self sufficiency.
    Is the Switzerland model a way forward to us.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1132
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    So just to be clear on this, Oscar, you're actually saying that you DON'T think national sovereignty is important?
    No, I haven't said that. I disagree with absolutist positions like claiming that nation-states are somehow pre-ordained by God Almighty as the One True Perfect form of governance, and that any attempt to dilute that God-given sovereignty is a form of blasphemy. I credit human beings with the intelligence to be able to evolve and learn to create new forms of governance that transcend what is effectively a slightly evolved form of tribalism.

    Nation states are second only to religion as the greatest source of strife and bloodshed throughout the history of humanity. If supranational organisations can find ways for nation states to work together in ways that don't involved killing each other by the million, I'm willing to give them a try.
    rumour wrote: »
    What a convincing way to sell something, insult your client!!.
    My what now? Who did I insult, and how much are they paying me?
    Why is so much of this debate so critical of the 'no' opioion.
    Because much of the "no" opinion is based on either groundless fears or outright lies.
    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Majority votes at international level are just a means by which the more populous comminity can dominate smaller ones.
    Hi. Remember me? I'm the one who asked you for an example of an EU political decision that was imposed by the majority of member states on an unwilling minority.


  • Options
    #1133
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    People, unfortunately for you, can make up their own minds.

    I am fighting for their votes, such that they can make up their minds in the future AND that the majority decision of the Irish people can become politically effective. This will be less and possible in the EU under Lisbon where the supremacy of EU law will mean that the Oireachtas will be able to legisislate in fewer and fewer areas as time progresses and the volume of EU law builds up without end.


  • Options
    #1134
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    I am fighting for their votes, such that they can make up their minds in the future AND that the majority decision of the Irish people can become politically effective. This will be less and possible in the EU under Lisbon where the supremacy of EU law will mean that the Oireachtas will be able to legisislate in fewer and fewer areas as time progresses and the volume of EU law builds up without end.

    its_a_conspiracy1.jpg


  • Options
    #1135
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No, I haven't said that. I disagree with absolutist positions like claiming that nation-states are somehow pre-ordained by God Almighty as the One True Perfect form of governance, and that any attempt to dilute that God-given sovereignty is a form of blasphemy. I credit human beings with the intelligence to be able to evolve and learn to create new forms of governance that transcend what is effectively a slightly evolved form of tribalism.

    Nation states are second only to religion as the greatest source of strife and bloodshed throughout the history of humanity. If supranational organisations can find ways for nation states to work together in ways that don't involved killing each other by the million, I'm willing to give them a try.

    So that IS what you're saying then, you don't mind giving away our national sovereignty to a wider organization. Yes or no?

    I'm not a nationalist because I don't like people from other countries, I'm a nationalist because it's obvious that the bigger the group of people a government represents, the less democratic that government becomes. The fewer people voting for each position, the more accountable the elected has to be to the individuals who elected him / her.

    As I said before, it's like EuroMillions vs. The National Lottery. Which are you more likely to win? Obviously the National Lottery, because you are competing against far fewer people.
    Hi. Remember me? I'm the one who asked you for an example of an EU political decision that was imposed by the majority of member states on an unwilling minority.

    Well given that both Nice and Lisbon were rejected by the only populations which had a chance to voice their opinions on them...


  • Options
    #1136
    rumour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 836 ✭✭✭rumour


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I've been listening to people who work in Brussels and they've been saying that the opinion of Ireland in the EU was badly damaged by the last no vote. Not because we voted no but because we voted no for mostly BS reasons that had nothing to do with the treaty. Another no vote without good reason will damage our reputation further. Business is all about perception and a reputation as the people who keep voting down treaties because they're too lazy to read them is not one that is conducive to investment

    I would agree with your colleagues. However the 'yes' campaign did all the analysis and presented it to Europe. I believe it was done focusing more on covering their own ineptidude rather than considering that people may have taken this vote seriously and put some intellectual thought into their decisions.
    It is plausible and consistent with a view I have encountered across europe that creating an institution of this magnitude without complete transparent support of the people is not the best way to proceed. That does not mean everyone is anti-europe it just means that the current drafters of this treaty were not good at there job. Europes history is plagued with people trying to create the european empire this has generally lead to war. Why is it so imperative we have this treaty and why now? Why do all the people of Europe need this?
    Asking the administrators would they like to vote for yet another administration is what has been done generally in the major countries of europe. This appears like a little club designed to keep the administrators happy. The parliament has been taken care of by being given a few extra rights however the primary construct is that power will reside with 'comissioners'. They will have a say across the whole of europe and who elects them?
    Ireland may have retained a commisioner but I am sure he/she will never ever see the important comissions.
    What is wrong with telling Europe that we don't see this Treaty as the best way forward for Europe. What is wrong with saying that this treaty appears like a stage in the European Process and it is unclear where it will go next?
    Instead we have told Europe that Ireland is afraid of abortion/neutrality etc. Details like this or couse do not make media headlines.


  • Options
    #1137
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    So that IS what you're saying then, you don't mind giving away our national sovereignty to a wider organization. Yes or no?
    I don't mind pooling sovereignty with a wider organisation where it makes sense to do so, no.

    Are you trying to narrow the debate down to a decision between patriotism or Euro-skepticism?
    I'm not a nationalist because I don't like people from other countries, I'm a nationalist because it's obvious that the bigger the group of people a government represents, the less democratic that government becomes. The fewer people voting for each position, the more accountable the elected has to be to the individuals who elected him / her.
    That's an argument for sovereign villages - hell, sovereign households, not sovereign nation-states. By that argument, Cuba is orders of magnitude more democratic than the US.
    Well given that both Nice and Lisbon were rejected by the only populations which had a chance to voice their opinions on them...
    Are you under the illusion that that's an answer to my question?


  • Options
    #1138
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Hi. Remember me? I'm the one who asked you for an example of an EU political decision that was imposed by the majority of member states on an unwilling minority.

    QMV is used very frequently in the EU. Ireland has certainly been outvoted in numerous issues (e.g. rules on art auction houses). It would be the norm under Lisbon, not just in minor matters of common market rules, but in almost the entire range of politically sensitive fields with just a few exceptions for foreign policy and defence. With the irish representatives having just 1 to 2% of the votes in the EU Parliament and Council of Ministers, this would be very bad for irish democracy.


  • Options
    #1139
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    As I said before, it's like EuroMillions vs. The National Lottery. Which are you more likely to win? Obviously the National Lottery, because you are competing against far fewer people.

    The number of people playing the lotto does not effect your chances of winning in any way. You have a ticket with 6 numbers on it and 6 numbers are drawn. Whether someone else has bought a ticket or not does not change the numbers on your ticket or the numbers drawn. The only way it can effect you is if someone else has the same numbers, then you don't win as much

    What effects your chances of winning is that ours goes to 42 (I think) and the euromillions goes to 50 and uses the lucky stars idea


  • Options
    #1140
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    rumour wrote: »
    What is wrong with telling Europe that we don't see this Treaty as the best way forward for Europe.
    Buggered if we know why it's not the best way forward, or what the best way forward is, but y'know, just sayin', is all...

    Yeah, that's a constructive response.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1141
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    QMV is used very frequently in the EU. Ireland has certainly been outvoted in numerous issues (e.g. rules on art auction houses). It would be the norm under Lisbon, not just in minor matters of common market rules, but in almost the entire range of politically sensitive fields with just a few exceptions for foreign policy and defence. With the irish representatives having just 1 to 2% of the votes in the EU Parliament and Council of Ministers, this would be very bad for irish democracy.

    Ireland has never used its veto as far as I know. Can anyone confirm that?


Advertisement