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
Comments
-
Eleven out of fifteen member states already had such an arrangement in place. The directive allows the original artist to benefit from the appreciation in value of something that they created.Freeborn John wrote: »I do not want to get into a discussion of the logic of the art auction rules, but the reason they were proposed by France is that it has a high number of artists that would benefit. Nothing more. Would you think it such a good thing to buy a house, or 2nd hand product of any type, if the original constructor got a slice of every subsequent sale?
The fact is that it's no such thing. QMV wasn't used in this case. The proposal was modified, and it was passed unanimously.The fact is that this is an example of Ireland being outvoted under QMV...
Negotiation and consensus. I know it's not as sexy as nation-states going to war, but it's a lot cheaper.0 -
What's particularly interesting about that observation is that it's a much more accurate assessment of Irish representative democracy than it is of European, particularly in the context of the European Parliament.bokspring71 wrote: »Another interesting thing to ponder is the nature of a representative democracy. the word "representative" is interesting as it used to mean the elected member represented his constituents in parliament. However, this is no longer the case as the elected member now toes the party line, even if that is in direct contrdiction to what his constituents want. Obedience to party is now mor important that representing ones constutuents and, sadly, some think that is democratic.0 -
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »I think what Sam is saying is basically:
Let Ireland ratify using her own constitutional methods, and afford the same courtesy to all other EU states, with no impositions from anywhere.
You have the right to disagree with other member states ratification methods, you absolutely do not have the right to change them.
Exactly. Think that is a better summary that the "being afraid of democracy" point.
For all we know, some countries maybe happy enough with representative democracy!Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
bokspring71 wrote: »thanks for clarifying that.
My position is that I favour democracy and think its more democratic to allow individuals to vote on treaties which give more power away. Your argument seems to be that you don;t like that, and think its better that the people are denied the right to vote and that, somehow, their governments are better placed to decide what the people want withouth asking them.
What you need to do in that case is to campaign for every country in Europe and I think every western democracy to drop their system of government and adopt a direct democracy system whereby the people decide on everything and the governments are taken out of the equation.
The government is going to implement NAMA without a referendum, something which will place Ireland €90 billion in debt which will probably take decades to pay off. Why all the fuss about a treaty that is 99.5% boring procedural changes?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »QMV wasn't used in this case. The proposal was modified, and it was passed unanimously.
Negotiation and consensus. I know it's not as sexy as nation-states going to war, but it's a lot cheaper.
QMV was used in that case, and it would not have passed without it.
It is sometimes the case that a government knows it lacks enough allies to block measures which are against the national interest, and so enters into some log-rolling deal to scarfice that issue to gain support for another. It does not mean these measures have unanimous support or suddenly become in the national interest simply because they cannot be blocked.
50 years of decision-making by majority in the Stormont parliament did not lead to peace now did it? Negotiation and consensus followed by imposition of the majority will on a community to small to block it leads to mounting political frustration that may ultimately burst out in to political violence.
Your argument seems to be that QMV is never used because all the governments of Europe are miraculously of the same opinion on every issue (no matter how the peoples of Europe vote!). And that therefore it is OK if Lisbon makes QMV the default in future because they will never disagree on anything in the future. According to you there would be no point in holding any elections or votes on anything at all. It is such obvious cr@p that it barely deserves a reply.0 -
Advertisement
-
Not according to the PDF that you linked. If you have a source that actually shows that QMV was used, please produce it.Freeborn John wrote: »QMV was used in that case, and it would not have passed without it.
No, that's your caricature of my argument. It's not even a particularly clever caricature, because it doesn't even vaguely resemble the original.Your argument seems to be that QMV is never used because all the governments of Europe are miraculously of the same opinion on every issue...
Tell me, has the art auction house industry imploded in the UK?0 -
No one is saying you have to go back. But have we lost our competitiveness by relying too much on begging bowl tactics.P. Breathnach wrote: »We used to have a policy of self-sufficiency. In those days, we had a motor assembly industry that was inefficient; we had protected "infant industries" that never grew up; we generated electricity from hydro-electric stations and from burning turf; bread was stodgy because we would not import good milling wheat; we failed to produce oranges. We were an economic and political backwater. I'm old enough to remember when one could not buy Mars Bars (and, if they were available, many people could not afford to spend 5d on a confectionery product).
I don't want to go back there.
How much do we export. How much do we import. Are we fully utilising our own natural resources.
What were the circumstances that led to us so depending on the construction industry and banking industry to that the point that when the two fell over like adjoining dominoes, the country went down the tubes.0 -
No, we have lost our competitiveness by allowing wage inflation to get out of control.bayviewclose wrote: »No one is saying you have to go back. But have we lost our competitiveness by relying too much on begging bowl tactics.
What natural resources?How much do we export. How much do we import. Are we fully utilising our own natural resources.
Shoddy government, for the most part.What were the circumstances that led to us so depending on the construction industry and banking industry to that the point that when the two fell over like adjoining dominoes, the country went down the tubes.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
Freeborn John wrote: »QMV was used in that case, and it would not have passed without it.
I have posted a link that strongly suggests otherwise. If it is incorrect please show me otherwise.It is sometimes the case that a government knows it lacks enough allies to block measures which are against the national interest, and so enters into some log-rolling deal to scarfice that issue to gain support for another. It does not mean these measures have unanimous support or suddenly become in the national interest simply because they cannot be blocked.
.
Hi John have you met my friend the Real World?
Are we ignoring the fact that the above just as equally applies to votes that require unanimity.50 years of decision-making by majority in the Stormont parliament did not lead to peace now did it? Negotiation and consensus followed by imposition of the majority will on a community to small to block it leads to mounting political frustration that may ultimately burst out in to political violence.
.
Yes Stromont was famed worldwide for its culture of negotiation and consensus.Your argument seems to be that QMV is never used because all the governments of Europe are miraculously of the same opinion on every issue (no matter how the peoples of Europe vote!). And that therefore it is OK if Lisbon makes QMV the default in future because they will never disagree on anything in the future. According to you there would be no point in holding any elections or votes on anything at all. It is such obvious cr@p that it barely deserves a reply.
Strawmanning of the highest order. Where did anyone say that?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Not according to the PDF that you linked
The text clearly shows the decision was taken under QMV with the countries opposing the EU legislation (which included Ireland) being unable to form a blocking minority.
"The legislative proposal of the European Commission was immediately opposed by four member states not levying the droit de suite (the UK, Ireland, Austria and the Netherlands), which feared for their art markets (Sotheby’s, Christie’s, etc., in London, the Dorotheum in Vienna, the Maastricht Art Fair, etc.). London at the time hosted 72 per cent of the EU’s art market. The four countries were supported by Luxembourg and some Nordic countries, but they failed to assemble a blocking minority. As they could not beat the others, they decided to join them – first of all Austria and the Netherlands, then Ireland and, finally, with some minor concessions, the UK."0 -
Advertisement
-
How many countries voted against the proposal?Freeborn John wrote: »The text clearly shows the decision was taken under QMV with the countries opposing the EU legislation (which included Ireland) being unable to form a blocking minority.0 -
marco_polo wrote: »Are we ignoring the fact that the above just as equally applies to votes that require unanimity.
If decision-making by QMV is used, states in the minority which oppose a measure can be picked off one-by-one with concessions aimed at separating them from their allies. There is thus an institutional dynamic that compels these states to seek concessions on measures they are not actually in favour of.
If decision-making by unanimity is used then states are actually able to block measures which they are opposed to. This is essential if the resulting agreements are to have majority support in each of the countries where they will (permanently) apply. Other international organisations, such as the WTO, are able to retain democratic legitimacy through the use of unanimity even with a much larger membership (153 states for the WTO, 28 for NATO). The EU could too, when taking political decisions in areas beyond the common market, and if it did it would not have suffered the deepening crisis of democractic legitimacy that began with Maastricht, has got worse with every EU treaty since, and would be made yet worse by Lisbon.0 -
Your "deepening crisis of democratic legitimacy" seems to be predicated on the idea that a veto is more democratic than a process of negotiation and consensus.Freeborn John wrote: »If decision-making by QMV is used, states in the minority which oppose a measure can be picked off one-by-one with concessions aimed at separating them from their allies. There is thus an institutional dynamic that compels these states to seek concessions on measures they are not actually in favour of.
If decision-making by unanimity is used then states are actually able to block measures which they are opposed to.
Words fail me.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »No, we have lost our competitiveness by allowing wage inflation to get out of control. What natural resources? Shoddy government, for the most part.
- Wage inflation was facilitated by unions begging from the government and acquiescence from a political establishment that knows no better. Begging in Europe in the 80's & 90's and begging in the states in the 90's on the back of northern ireland was all our government did in addition to one little cute whore move of dramitically reducing our corporation tax to make it the bargin basement of europe. It all stems from begging, rather than hard work.
- We don't have any natural resources because we don't use any intellect in going to find them. Again we would sell our potential reserves rather than look for them, the quick buck. Better to borrow and pay a public sector in Dublin and get some votes than pay for some drillers and a boat in the atlantic. Similarly we will let hydroelectric stations become defunct rather than invest in modernising. We build an interconnector to the UK to buy nuclear power, rather than deal with problems at home such as getting natural gas onshore. Again better to pay a public sector in Dublin than invest in Donegal, Mayo or Limerick, where are the votes in that? And as will be the case when our stupidity goes full circle,when we are at the end of the gas and power networks some problem will arise. What will we do then? Beg again I suspect.
- Shoddy Government. I think we agree here. It is us however who accept this and continually expect our governments to go begging and provide the unobtainable because we are not mature enough to deal with harsh realities.
0 -
Freeborn John wrote: »If communities can be separated geographically into their own nation-states then it is far preferable to what happened in Northern Ireland. This is what allowed the formation of the Irish state.
Separating communities geographically into their own nation-states is an unnecessarily verbose term for ethnic cleansing.Northern Ireland is a special case in that the two national communities are living side-by-side with each other in the same streets and towns and therefore cannot easily be separated into their own states.
In other words, ethnic cleansing is not always easy to conduct. They managed a good deal of it at local level in NI.It is however an excellent example of the what happens when you let majoritorian political institutions (such as the EU Parliament) take decisions by majority vote binding on multiple communities. Anyone who thinks giving more powers to the EU parliament is a good idea should carefully consider where 50 years of decision-making by majority at Stormont led to.
The reach of the EU into everyday life is qualitatively different from that which Stormont had. I cannot imagine the EU taking a hand in the allocation of social housing, for example (which was the type of issue that triggered the conflict in NI in the 1960s).
On the other hand, I do not see that the Roma living in Hungary and the Scots-Irish living in NI should need different product safety standards. That's the sort of thing the EU does.The different national communities in Europe are largely separated geographically such that they can have their own nation-states without the need for an undemocratic Stormont-style parliament.
Every European state has significant ethnic minorities. In many cases, they have been there for centuries; in some cases they were designated as minority groups simply by the re-drawing of frontiers. Add to that the further groups present as the result of migration. We do not have ethnically-pure states.The 'more sophisticated system' is called the nation-state. Lisbon undermines that system.
That's not more sophisticated. It's simple, and it's crude, and can create conflict. Have you noticed what happened in the Balkans in the past 15 years?Total junk that has no connection with reality. If what you said was correct then we would see states formed in the world by political persuasion, with a 'socialist state' in one part of the world, an 'environmental state' in another part of the world, etc. with people moving to the one of their choice. In the real world we see nation-states.
Clearly you are blind to any point of view other than your own. My point was quite the opposite to your absurd interpretation.People with different political views are still part of the same national community, and agree to live under majority decisions of that community so long as it is held-together by the strong bonds of national solidarity that keep nation-states together in the presence of political controversy. That solidarity exists within nations, but not between nations. When those bonds do not exists (as for example between the Irish and British peoples in the 1920s, or between Hindu and Muslim communities in India / Pakistan, then you will naturally see the different communities each wanting to be governed by their own political institutions.
How do you link India and Pakistan into this discussion? They were partitioned on the basis of religion; both states involve multiple ethnic groups.
As for your point on national solidarity: I am not convinced that it is an unquestionable good. Nationalism has a factor in many political differences, and has triggered hugely-destructive wars. I'll happily cheer for an Irish football team, but would not want to cheer an Irish army as it marched to war (okay, it's improbable that with our army we could go to war, but translate that idea to France or Germany or Britain, and my meaning might be more obvious).0 -
Freeborn John wrote: »If decision-making by QMV is used, states in the minority which oppose a measure can be picked off one-by-one with concessions aimed at separating them from their allies. There is thus an institutional dynamic that compels these states to seek concessions on measures they are not actually in favour of.
If decision-making by unanimity is used then states are actually able to block measures which they are opposed to. This is essential if the resulting agreements are to have majority support in each of the countries where they will (permanently) apply. Other international organisations, such as the WTO, are able to retain democratic legitimacy through the use of unanimity even with a much larger membership (153 states for the WTO, 28 for NATO). The EU could too, when taking political decisions in areas beyond the common market, and if it did it would not have suffered the deepening crisis of democractic legitimacy that began with Maastricht, has got worse with every EU treaty since, and would be made yet worse by Lisbon.
Yet I think we only used our veto once, so your point would seem to equally apply to unanimity.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Freeborn John wrote: »The text clearly shows the decision was taken under QMV with the countries opposing the EU legislation (which included Ireland) being unable to form a blocking minority.
Can I ask again whether this was the best example you could come up with? Again I would say that this is an example of a decision which if put to a referendum in Ireland would have passed pretty easily.
We would have had lots of arguments in favour by poor artists and some arguments against by auction houses. In fact the artists would have pressed for better compensation and I'm sure they were very disappointed by the concessions that the British won. It's interesting to note that Britain won those concessions, according to the article, at the very end, at a point when the EU did not have to make any concessions. Obviously this was done in order that the vote was unanimous, but it does suggest an organisation very inclined towards consensus rather than one seeking always a hard majority.
It puzzles me therefore that you assume on much more sensitive and difficult issues that the EU will be bulldozing over the concerns of any state in the minority.
You are right that states do some trading of favours in discussions like this. That's how diplomacy is done. Why assume that this is always against our better interests? In this particular case I suspect we were not really sure which benefitted us more.
Ix.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Your "deepening crisis of democratic legitimacy" seems to be predicated on the idea that a veto is more democratic than a process of negotiation and consensus.
Words fail me.
I think your problem runs much deeper than word selection. I have explained here that decision making by majority is not accepted outside the context of the nation, because it is national solidarity that provides the glue that allows outvoted minorities to agree to go along with what the majority wants. Decision-making by majority is not accepted at international level, anywhere on Earth, when taking serious decisions, which is why we have nation-states in the first place! Why else was the Irish state created other than to assert that the Irish nation would not agree to be governed by a British parliament in which the wishes of a majority of irishmen were frequently overwhelmed by those of more populous Britons?
The real world with all its nation-states must be totally inexplicable for you. Can you provide an explanation for why we see so many nation-states in the world? If not, i would suggest you are close to clueless on the issue of representative goverance, and that it is this ignornace and not your difficulty in choosing words which accounts for your support for Lisbon.
You have no coherent explanation for the lack of democratic legitimacy of the European Union institutions. I presume that you do not deny that the EU lacks democratic legitimacy? If you do not deny it, then how do you explain that this democratic legitimacy problem exists, and has indeed been growing for the last 30 years during which time the EU Parliament has been given more powers? If you cannot explain why the problem has grown during a period when the powers of the EU Parliament have been increased, then why would Lisbon solve the problem when it is just doing what has been done for 30 years (giving the EP more power) without success?0 -
Freeborn John wrote: »IDecision-making by majority is not accepted at international level, anywhere on Earth, when taking serious decisions, which is why we have nation-states in the first place!
The UK consists of 3.5 nations, they take many very serious decisions (going to war is about as serious as you get) by straightforward majority, using a FPTP parliamentary system.
There are many states which consist of various ethnic or cultural 'Nations', such as the UK as mentioned above, the USA, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, to name but a few off the top of my head.
The fact is you are claiming as absolute truth that your world view is the only correct world view, repeatedly. When asked for justification, all you can provide is because it's 'obviously' so, that's not argument or debate, that's just a closed mind shouting in the dark.0 -
What you need to do in that case is to campaign for every country in Europe and I think every western democracy to drop their system of government and adopt a direct democracy system whereby the people decide on everything and the governments are taken out of the equation.
The government is going to implement NAMA without a referendum, something which will place Ireland €90 billion in debt which will probably take decades to pay off. Why all the fuss about a treaty that is 99.5% boring procedural changes?
It's kind, if a little patronising and missing the point, to assume that. "What you need to do....." Hmmm. Maybe you think free unasked for advice is the sort that is welcomed by others. I disagree. As someone who has started off many businessess, and who gets things done, one thing other people in my situation agree is that the one thing we hate to hear is someone coming up and opening a conversation with the words " Do you know what you should do...." It's always from someone who has not, in fact done it themself.
I don't need to do anything "in this case" as this is a discussion forum.0 -
Advertisement
-
It puzzles me therefore that you assume on much more sensitive and difficult issues that the EU will be bulldozing over the concerns of any state in the minority.
I assume it because it is clearly the purpose of the Lisbon Treaty in making the community method the default decision-making mode in the EU in future. You appear to be suggesting that the most important change in Lisbon (that to 'collapse the pillar structure' such that the community method is the default in the EU in future even in political fields) will never be used!
According to you no government will ever be outvoted in the EU in future. But at the same time you are urging the acceptance of a treaty whose main change is to make it easier for the preferences of national electorates to be over-ruled at EU level! You cannot have it both ways. If you want to avoid the policy preferences of national electorates being overruled, then the best way to ensure it does not happen is to vote down the EU rule changes by voting NO to Lisbon on October 2.0 -
Freeborn John wrote: »I think your problem runs much deeper than word selection. I have explained here that decision making by majority is not accepted outside the context of the nation, because it is national solidarity that provides the glue that allows outvoted minorities to agree to go along with what the majority wants. Decision-making by majority is not accepted at international level, anywhere on Earth, when taking serious decisions, which is why we have nation-states in the first place! Why else was the Irish state created other than to assert that the Irish nation would not agree to be governed by a British parliament in which the wishes of a majority of irishmen were frequently overwhelmed by those of more populous Britons?
The real world with all its nation-states must be totally inexplicable for you. Can you provide an explanation for why we see so many nation-states in the world? If not, i would suggest you are close to clueless on the issue of representative goverance, and that it is this ignornace and not your difficulty in choosing words which accounts for your support for Lisbon.
I think you need to be reminded of why the EU was set up. It was because people learned that nation-states involve nationalist sentiment, nationalist sentiment leads to beliefs about national superiority (or, at least, giving the "needs" of one's own nation more priority than the needs of other nations), and that can lead to conflict, conflicts as serious as the wars of 1914-18 and 1939-45. The EU was set up largely to counter such dangers.You have no coherent explanation for the lack of democratic legitimacy of the European Union institutions. I presume that you do not deny that the EU lacks democratic legitimacy? If you do not deny it, then how do you explain that this democratic legitimacy problem exists, and has indeed been growing for the last 30 years during which time the EU Parliament has been given more powers? If you cannot explain why the problem has grown during a period when the powers of the EU Parliament have been increased, then why would Lisbon solve the problem when it is just doing what has been done for 30 years (giving the EP more power) without success?
On what basis do you suggest that the EU lacks democratic legitimacy? I don't feel that way about it. I have other reservations, but the lack of democratic legitimacy doesn't even appear as a dot on the horizon.0 -
Freeborn John wrote: »I think your problem runs much deeper than word selection. I have explained here that decision making by majority is not accepted outside the context of the nation, because it is national solidarity that provides the glue that allows outvoted minorities to agree to go along with what the majority wants. Decision-making by majority is not accepted at international level, any where on Earth, when taking serious decisions, which is why we have nation-states in the first place! Why else was the Irish state created other than to assert that the Irish nation would not agree to be governed by a British parliament in which the wishes of a majority of irishmen were frequently overwhelmed by those of more populous Britons?
Times have changed. The world has changed. Last week I listened on the radio to farmers say that they were losing money producing food and that this could not continue. They were asked if the government needed to do something, and the first response from the farming representative was "It has to be done at an EU level" and "The commissioner is already looking into it."
We should pause and think about this because it's a microcosm of the world. What the guy is saying correctly is that because of how our world is interlinked, decisions taken here in Ireland are not going to solve the problem. It has to be addressed by European wide action.
We see the same thing if we look at... Energy security. State security (terrorism/people and drug trafficking. Finincial security. Environmental protection. Pretty much every area of our lives.
We can argue that the world was better off with it's independent nation states mostly living in isolation from each other, but that's not the world we live in any more.
For those areas where we want something and don't get it, we are likely no worse off than if we were independent. What will happen is that we could not drag the EU in the direction we wanted, but we had the opportunity. The alternative is that we have no influence at all on the EU. Those on the no-side seem to entirely mis-interpret the point of the EU and pooling of sovereignty. It is not about convincing the EU to allow us to do something for ourselves. It's about convincing the EU as a whole to do something which benefits us and them. All these things/policies/agreements we want are no good in our world unless the others agree to them and do them too. Everything is interconnected.
You do raise a valid concern about whether people can accept international decision making. However my belief is that we must because this is the only way we can influence what's going on. I think people are smart enough to understand this. That farmer on the radio understood... get the government to look at the issue?... no go straight to where it matters... the EU. Why? Because in our modern world it does not matter in many areas what decisions are taken at a national level. It primarily matters what happens at an international level.
Ix0 -
[quote=bokspring71;61650867
Another interesting thing to ponder is the nature of a representative democracy. the word "representative" is interesting as it used to mean the elected member represented his constituents in parliament. However, this is no longer the case as the elected member now toes the party line, even if that is in direct contrdiction to what his constituents want. Obedience to party is now mor important that representing ones constutuents and, sadly, some think that is democratic[/quote]oscarBravo wrote: »What's particularly interesting about that observation is that it's a much more accurate assessment of Irish representative democracy than it is of European, particularly in the context of the European Parliament.
Yes, i agree. The EU model is not set up in such pure terms to be a representative democracy, and the parliament of the EU is not sovereign, but only part of the the decision making process. in fact, there is a school of thought that we should abandon our parliament which has done so much harm to this country, and apply to the EU to rule us directly. the assumption is that they can't do a worse job than our parliament has in teh last 80 years. its an interesting point of view and I haven't made up my mind on it yet.0 -
bokspring71 wrote: »It's kind, if a little patronising and missing the point, to assume that. "What you need to do....." Hmmm. Maybe you think free unasked for advice is the sort that is welcomed by others. I disagree. As someone who has started off many businessess, and who gets things done, one thing other people in my situation agree is that the one thing we hate to hear is someone coming up and opening a conversation with the words " Do you know what you should do...." It's always from someone who has not, in fact done it themself.
I don't need to do anything "in this case" as this is a discussion forum.
Excellent advice, particularly for anyone who is thinking about opening a discussion with e.g. France along the lines of 'Do you know what you should do is to have referenda on EU treaties...'0 -
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »The UK consists of 3.5 nations, they take many very serious decisions (going to war is about as serious as you get) by straightforward majority, using a FPTP parliamentary system.
There are many states which consist of various ethnic or cultural 'Nations', such as the UK as mentioned above, the USA, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, to name but a few off the top of my head.
The fact is you are claiming as absolute truth that your world view is the only correct world view, repeatedly. When asked for justification, all you can provide is because it's 'obviously' so, that's not argument or debate, that's just a closed mind shouting in the dark.
Since the real world consists almost entirely now of multiple nation-states each formed around the contours of national identity i have every right to point to this as evidence to support my case. Those arguing against me here have no explanation for the existence of the democratic states that we see in the real world. If Lisbon supporters have no explanation for the real world, nor for the EU crisis of democratic legitimacy, nor for the apparent paradox that increasing the powers of the EU Parliament over 30 years has coincided with growing perception that the EU is undemocratic, then it is totally fair of me to say that they should be written off in this debate as clueless.
p.s. The UK consists of the British nation plus the complex two-naiton (British and Irish) situation in Northern Ireland. Scotland and Wales are not nations. Both have voted in the last dozen years by referendum to approve their constitutional arrangements within the UK. Contrast that to the Irish asserting they are not a region of Britain by forming their own state.0 -
You haven't explained it, you've claimed it.Freeborn John wrote: »I have explained here that decision making by majority is not accepted outside the context of the nation...
I reject your premise. What is the glue that allows outvoted minorities in the UN General Assembly to go along with what the majority wants?...because it is national solidarity that provides the glue that allows outvoted minorities to agree to go along with what the majority wants.
You have unilaterally decided that the nation-state is the upper limit of legitimacy. You state this as if it were self-evident, without adducing any evidence to support it. Argument by repetition isn't convincing, I'm afraid.
I'm not denying the existence of nation-states; I'm questioning your assertion that they are ordained by divine right to be the ultimate and unquestioned boundaries of democratic legitimacy.The real world with all its nation-states must be totally inexplicable for you. Can you provide an explanation for why we see so many nation-states in the world?
I'm clueless and ignorant because I don't subscribe to a belief which you proclaim as self-evident and for which you refuse to offer any supporting evidence? Puh-lease.If not, i would suggest you are close to clueless on the issue of representative goverance, and that it is this ignornace and not your difficulty in choosing words which accounts for your support for Lisbon.
Of course I deny it. I reject your premise out of hand, and will continue to do so until you provide some evidence other than arguing from your conclusion.You have no coherent explanation for the lack of democratic legitimacy of the European Union institutions. I presume that you do not deny that the EU lacks democratic legitimacy?
Does the UN lack democratic legitimacy? Does NATO? Does NAFTA? Does ICTU?If you do not deny it, then how do you explain that this democratic legitimacy problem exists, and has indeed been growing for the last 30 years during which time the EU Parliament has been given more powers? If you cannot explain why the problem has grown during a period when the powers of the EU Parliament have been increased, then why would Lisbon solve the problem when it is just doing what has been done for 30 years (giving the EP more power) without success?
Define democratic legitimacy, and explain - without reference to your creed of the almighty nation-state, please - how it can be won or lost. Then we have some chance of having an actual discussion on the topic.0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »On what basis do you suggest that the EU lacks democratic legitimacy? I don't feel that way about it. I have other reservations, but the lack of democratic legitimacy doesn't even appear as a dot on the horizon.
Nobody says the EU has democratic legitimacy, including the German constitutional court in its recent ruling. If you feel differently, it is because you do not understand what democratic legitimacy is, or why the EU has been shedding it for 20 years. But on the basis of your misunderstanding you are proposing to continue the failed policies (which is what Lisbon is) that led directly to the current failure, and so which would only make them worse.0 -
Freeborn John wrote: »I assume it because it is clearly the purpose of the Lisbon Treaty in making the community method the default decision-making mode in the EU in future. You appear to be suggesting that the most important change in Lisbon (that to 'collapse the pillar structure' such that the community method is the default in the EU in future even in political fields) will never be used!
According to you no government will ever be outvoted in the EU in future. But at the same time you are urging the acceptance of a treaty whose main change is to make it easier for the preferences of national electorates to be over-ruled at EU level! You cannot have it both ways. If you want to avoid the policy preferences of national electorates being overruled, then the best way to ensure it does not happen is to vote down the EU rule changes by voting NO to Lisbon on October 2.
Did I say no government will ever be outvoted? Please don't mis-quote me. Of course states will be outvoted. However experience of the EU operating with QMV in many areas for many years has shown that in areas of disagreement as a body it does everything possible to achieve consensus, and grants consessions to try to keep everyone happy (or happier than they might have been) even where such consessions were made unnecessary by the majority.
The point I made in my last post is relevant here also. The reason why national electorates should accept being overuled sometimes (and it seems this is rare) is because the areas they get overruled on are usually areas which require the entire EU to make a decision. The alternative is worse. Having complete independence to decide our own fate within our borders, even though our fate is inextricably linked with what is going on outside our borders outside our influence.
Ix.0 -
Advertisement
-
Freeborn John wrote: »... The UK consists of the British nation plus the complex two-naiton (British and Irish) situation in Northern Ireland. Scotland and Wales are not nations. Both have voted in the last dozen years by referendum to approve their constitutional arrangements within the UK. Contrast that to the Irish asserting they are not a region of Britain by forming their own state.
The Welsh and the Scots have as strong a claim to nationhood as have either of the factions in NI. The fact that most of them consent to form one state along with the English does not alter that fact.
It is either foolish or dishonest, after the discussion we have had here, to persist in conflating the idea of nation with the idea of statehood.0
Advertisement