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

oscarBravo

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Thats how I feel, a failed one term mans last attempt at what he percieves to be greatness.

The naivete comes from the belief that every EU government is pushing hard to implement one man's vanity project. Occam's razor, anyone?

Freeborn John wrote: »

I have provided a coherent explanation for why state boundaries are drawn around the contours of national community worldwide...

While carefully avoiding any discussion of how your "coherent" explanation is deeply flawed.

...why international organisations only preserve democratic legitimacy when taking serious decisions binding on their membership through decision-making by unanimity...

By redefining "democratic legitimacy" and "serious decisions" to suit your argument - in other words, arguing from your conclusion.

...and why the EU has been shedding democratic legitimacy for decades while increasing the powers of the EU Parliament.

According to your carefully-crafted definitions, which brook no argument or discussion.

My explanation fits the observed facts all around the world so has to be more than my personal opinion.

Your explanation fits those facts you choose to observe, and glosses over those that are inconvenient.

According to you there is no link between states and peoples...

See, now you're just making stuff up.

The definition of stupidity is repeating that which you know not to work. I hope all can see that Lisbon is a stupid treaty by that definition.

Allow me to stupidly repeat a question that you've repeatedly refused to answer: what decisions, arrived at by QMV, are being suffered through by populations who are deeply opposed to them?

Oh yeah, and has the art auction business imploded in the UK since 2001?

oscarBravo

Freeborn John wrote: »

I have provided an explanation that describes the following real-world observations:

1. The link between states and national communities that we see worldwide through the formation of more and more nation-states.

While refusing point-blank to accept that there are states composed of multiple "nations".

2. That international organisations taking serious decisions binding on their membership (e.g. WTO, NATO, etc.) retain democratic legitimacy through decision-making by unanimity.

Based on your carefully-circumscribed definition of "serious decisions" and "democratic legitimacy".

3. That the EU is the only international organisation taking serious decisions that has foresaken decision-making by unanimity (beginning with Maastricht) and is the only one to have experienced a legitimacy crisis. Furtermore the growth in its legitimacy crisis can be dated to the point (maastricht, 1992) when it abandonded unainimity.

Based on your assertion that there even is a legitimacy crisis.

Now you are ASSERTING that i am wrong. But you are not providing any alternative explanation for these observed facts. Since this is a discussion forum and not an assertion forum i ask that you to provide your explanation for these observed facts or withdraw your unsubstantiated assertion and accept that my explanation is the correct one.

You don't get this whole discussion thing, do you?

Freeborn John

oscarBravo wrote: »

While carefully avoiding any discussion of how your "coherent" explanation is deeply flawed. By redefining "democratic legitimacy" and "serious decisions" to suit your argument...

My explanation is not flawed, and is based on that of the best known political scientists studying the EU legitimacy problem.

Saying that i have used specific terminology to make my case is a strength and not a flaw. Please point out the flaws as you see them or accept that i have a coherent explanation that fits the facts and you do not. I strongly suspect you will not be able to do this and all will be able to see Lisbon supporters for the empty vessels they are.

Freeborn John

oscarBravo wrote: »

Based on your assertion that there even is a legitimacy crisis.

There is an veritable mountain of academic literature on the EU democratic legitimacy crisis. The fact that your opening gambit is to deny the very existence of the problem says something about your knowledge on EU matters, but nothing about the problem itself or why Lisbon would make it worse.

You cannot win this debate by sticking your head in the sand.

Macha

Freeborn John wrote: »

My explanation is not flawed, and is based on that of the best known political scientists studying the EU legitimacy problem.

Resorting to "higher authority" just means you can't argue your case on the facts. It's basically saying "I'm right! Because...because...that person over there says so!" very lazy debating, to be honest.

Who are these "best known political scientists"? I'd love to know who they are.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Freeborn John wrote: »

My explanation is not flawed, and is based on that of the best known political scientists studying the EU legitimacy problem.

Freeborn John wrote: »

There is an veritable mountain of academic literature on the EU democratic legitimacy crisis. .

Let's see them so...

sink

The argument that nation states are the perfect democratic unit and anything else is illegitimate is patently wrong when looked at from the historical anthropological perspective.

Proponents of such ideas so far have failed to put them in any sort of rudimentary historical context. Modern homo sapiens at 200,00 years are a very young species in evolutionary terms (crocodiles have remained relatively unchanged for 200 million years), who left their native continent of Africa and populated what is now Europe only 10,000 - 12,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. The speed at which human populations migrate, adapt and develop is staggering and a true force of nature.

The ending of the last ice age was the trigger which set off the development of human civilisation through the migration of humans to new lands where they had to learn to exploit new resources resulting in a flourish of new ideas and technologies. From that point on the entire development of human civilisation from hunter gather to the dawn of agriculture and the birth of cities can be measured by a steady increase in the level of cooperation and interdependence between ever larger populations. Technology has been the main driver behind this progression and in turn the increasing level of co-operation has driven technological advancement accelerating the cycle.

There is nothing to suggest that the pace of change of our lineage is going to slow or stop any time soon. The recent technological explosion started with the industrial revolution (enabled by the agricultural revolution) has carried on accelerating tenfold into the present information revolution effecting massive technological leaps forward within single generations. With the resulting radical shift social orders and modern lifestyles it far more logical to conclude that the pace of civilisation development is accelerating. Observation of the modern world confirms this through the increasing levels of cooperation and interdependence on a global scale colloquially known as globalisation.

This increasing level cooperation has pushed the development of ever larger social structures encompassing greater populations and the nation state is only a point along the curve of this progression, with the next point clearly being supra-national global governance.

So to propose that nation state is the zenith of civilisation development and that no further progress can or will take place would require some rather strong evidence. So where is it?

Freeborn John

sink wrote: »

The argument that nation states are the perfect democratic unit and anything else is illegitimate is patently wrong when looked at from the historical anthropological perspective.

Proponents of such ideas so far have failed to put them in any sort of rudimentary historical context. Modern homo sapiens at 200,00 years are a very young species in evolutionary terms (crocodiles have remained relatively unchanged for 200 million years), who left their native continent of Africa and populated what is now Europe only 10,000 - 12,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. The speed at which human populations migrate, adapt and develop is staggering and a true force of nature.

The ending of the last ice age was the trigger which set off the development of human civilisation through the migration of humans to new lands where they had to learn to exploit new resources resulting in a flourish of new ideas and technologies. From that point on the entire development of human civilisation from hunter gather to the dawn of agriculture and the birth of cities can be measured by a steady increase in the level of cooperation and interdependence between ever larger populations. Technology has been the main driver behind this progression and in turn the increasing level of co-operation has driven technological advancement accelerating the cycle.

There is nothing to suggest that the pace of change of our lineage is going to slow or stop any time soon. The recent technological explosion started with the industrial revolution (enabled by the agricultural revolution) has carried on accelerating tenfold into the present information revolution effecting massive technological leaps forward within single generations. With the resulting radical shift social orders and modern lifestyles it far more logical to conclude that the pace of civilisation development is accelerating. Observation of the modern world confirms this through the increasing levels of cooperation and interdependence on a global scale colloquially known as globalisation.

This increasing level cooperation has pushed the development of ever larger social structures encompassing greater populations and the nation state is only a point along the curve of this progression, with the next point clearly being supra-national global governance.

So to propose that nation state is the zenith of civilisation development and that no further progress can or will take place would require some rather strong evidence. So where is it?

The nation-state is 250 years old. So i think you can leave the apes out of it. Political instituions and philospohy are not something which technoloigcal progress obsoletes any more than they obsolete Shakespeare in literature. Montesquieue, Locke, J.S. Mill, Madison worked the major principles out centuries ago and remain the reference.

sink

Freeborn John wrote: »

The nation-state is 250 years old. So i think you can leave the apes out of it.

And 250 years is the blink of eye, what makes you think it will last another 250 years given the current pace of change?

K-9

Freeborn John wrote: »

My explanation is not flawed, and is based on that of the best known political scientists studying the EU legitimacy problem.

I think that maybe the problem. You seem to be arguing a democratic deficit but I think you let it slip in that post.

Freeborn John

sink wrote: »

And 250 years is the blink of eye, what makes you think it will last another 250 years given the current pace of change?

There is no pace of change in representative political instituions. The factors which underpin national identity (e.g. language, political culture, history, etc.) are highly resistant to change, and once established national identity is self-reinforcing.

Freeborn John

sink wrote: »

You cannot be serious?

There are no new types of political institution in the world. The EU is only a throwback to the undemocratic multinational states (e.g. Austrian empire, etc.) that existed in Europe before the rise of the nation-state.

Freeborn John

K-9 wrote: »

I think that maybe the problem. You seem to be arguing a democratic deficit but I think you let it slip in that post.

Let slip?

The only problem here is the low grade of EU supporters on boards.ie.

P. Breathnach

Freeborn John wrote: »

I have provided an explanation that describes the following real-world observations:

1. The link between states and national communities that we see worldwide through the formation of more and more nation-states.
2. That international organisations taking serious decisions binding on their membership (e.g. WTO, NATO, etc.) retain democratic legitimacy through decision-making by unanimity.
3. That the EU is the only international organisation taking serious decisions that has foresaken decision-making by unanimity (beginning with Maastricht) and is the only one to have experienced a legitimacy crisis. Furtermore the growth in its legitimacy crisis can be dated to the point (maastricht, 1992) when it abandonded unainimity.

Now you are ASSERTING that i am wrong. But you are not providing any alternative explanation for these observed facts. Since this is a discussion forum and not an assertion forum i ask that you to provide your explanation for these observed facts or withdraw your unsubstantiated assertion and accept that my explanation is the correct one.

Do you refuse to read my posts?
1. I have challenged your identification of state with nation, and pointed to the UK, which comprises a number of nations, to India and Pakistan, both of which comprise a number of ethnic groups, and to the general phenomenon of ethnic minorities in European states, with the Balkans highlighted as an area with many problems.
2 & 3. I have pointed out that the EU differs from other international arrangements, and mentioned some of the points of difference.

You are wrong. I say that on the basis that I have shown how your assertions do not accord with the facts. Call it an assertion if you like, but it is an assertion backed up with argument.

And I note that you still have not apologised for or withdrawn your personal attack on me.

dresden8

sink wrote: »

This increasing level cooperation has pushed the development of ever larger social structures encompassing greater populations and the nation state is only a point along the curve of this progression, with the next point clearly being supra-national global governance.

Does discussion of the New World Order not get you thrown out to the Conspiracy Theory forum?

marco_polo

Freeborn John wrote: »

Let slip?

The only problem here is the low grade of EU supporters on boards.ie.

Still have't produced the evidence for QMV being the norm in the EU since this afternoon I see?

sink

Freeborn John wrote: »

There is no pace of change in representative political instituions. The factors which underpin national identity (e.g. language, political culture, history, etc.) are highly resistant to change, and once established national identity is self-reinforcing.

That is a laughable assertion. "language, political culture, history, etc." are the most rapidly changing component of humanity. Take a look at manuscripts written no more than 400 years ago (Shakespeare for example) and compare it to modern languages and tell me again language does not change. Political culture has progressed massively sine the birth of the nation state. Once the exclusive domain of nobility, then wealthy male landowners to all men, to all women and men, to all minorities. The fact that your even trying to argue such points is telling of your lack of historical knowledge and perspective.

Freeborn John

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Do you refuse to read my posts?
1. I have challenged your identification of state with nation, and pointed to the UK, which comprises a number of nations, to India and Pakistan, both of which comprise a number of ethnic groups, and to the general phenomenon of ethnic minorities in European states, with the Balkans highlighted as an area with many problems.
2 & 3. I have pointed out that the EU differs from other international arrangements, and mentioned some of the points of difference.

You are wrong. I say that on the basis that I have shown how your assertions do not accord with the facts. Call it an assertion if you like, but it is an assertion backed up with argument.

And I note that you still have not apologised for or withdrawn your personal attack on me.

You have made all these points before and i dealt with them all before. No need to add anything.

You cannot explain why the world is converging on the nation-state as the preferred form of governance, why the EU is alone among serious international organisations in suffering from an acute crisis in democratic legitimacy, why that legitimacy crisis dates from the early 1990s when it abandonded unanity that the other international organisations have stuck with and retained their legitimacy, or why increasing the powers of the EU Parliament since 1979 has resulted in a GROWING problem of democratic legitimacy. You have no alternative explanation for these observed facts, and resort instead in endlessly repeating 'you are wrong'. You an empty vessel.

P. Breathnach

Freeborn John wrote: »

You have made all these points before and i dealt with them all before. No need to add anything...

No need to apologise for a personal attack?

Freeborn John

marco_polo wrote: »

Still have't produced the evidence for QMV being the norm in the EU since this afternoon I see?

Still can't find out the basics of the Lisbon treaty for yourself i see...

---

Article 289
1. The ordinary legislative procedure shall consist in the joint adoption by the European
Parliament and the Council of a regulation, directive or decision on a proposal from the Commission.
This procedure is defined in Article 294.

Article 294.8. If, within three months of receiving the European Parliament's amendments, the Council, acting
by a qualified majority:
(a) approves all those amendments, the act in question shall be deemed to have been adopted;

K-9

Freeborn John wrote: »

Let slip?

The only problem here is the low grade of EU supporters on boards.ie.

OK pointed this one out twice ages ago and you ignored it.

We have only used our veto once so your argument about QMV would also apply there.

Freeborn John

sink wrote: »

That is a laughable assertion. "language, political culture, history, etc." are the most rapidly changing component of humanity. Take a look at manuscripts written no more than 400 years ago (Shakespeare for example) and compare it to modern languages and tell me again language does not change. Political culture has progressed massively sine the birth of the nation state. Once the exclusive domain of nobility, then wealthy male landowners to all men, to all women and men, to all minorities. The fact that your even trying to argue such points is telling of your lack of historical knowledge and perspective.

All the major European languages are thousands of years old. Caeser described various nations 2000 years ago, including Belgae, Gauls (french), Germanic tribes, Hellenic (swiss), Hispanniens (Spaniards) and Britons and their languages with a map of Europe recognisable today.

sink

Freeborn John wrote: »

You have made all these points before and i dealt with them all before. No need to add anything.

You cannot explain why the world is converging on the nation-state as the preferred form of governance, why the EU is alone among serious international organisations in suffering from an acute crisis in democratic legitimacy, why that legitimacy crisis dates from the early 1990s when it abandonded unanity that the other international organisations have stuck with and retained their legitimacy, or why increasing the powers of the EU Parliament since 1979 has resulted in a GROWING problem of democratic legitimacy. You have no alternative explanation for these observed facts, and resort instead in endlessly repeating 'you are wrong'. You an empty vessel.

Is the world converging on the nation state? Or does the emergence of international organisations such as the UN, EU WTO, IMF, ASEAN, African Union, Arab league and Union of South American Nations amongst others in that last half century indicate a shift away from the independent nation state model towards a world governed by large international bodies?

These organisations could well be described as proto-supranational organisations and all current trends show their growing relevance to the lives of individuals everyday. This trend is only going to continue and as these organisations have ever greater impact upon peoples lives demand will grow for them to become more democratic.

You are mistaking the present backlash against the EU as one against the growing levels of cooperation, but in reality it is a backlash against the lack of transparency and democratic controls which Lisbon goes some way towards rectifying.

sink

Freeborn John wrote: »

All the major European languages are thousands of years old. Caeser described various nations 2000 years ago, including Belgae, Gauls (french), Germanic tribes, Hellenic (swiss), Hispanniens (Spaniards) and Britons and their languages with a map of Europe recognisable today.

In which time many many more languages including Caesars own have disappeared completely. And the descendents of those languages which have survived are change so completely you need to be a doctor of linguistics just to translate them into their modern counterparts.

In fact a quick browse of Wikipedia tells me that Italian, French, Catalan, Romanian, Spanish, and Portuguese are not separate but in reality descendents of Latin. So if language doesn't not change please explain how that is possible?

marco_polo

Freeborn John wrote: »

Still can't find out the basics of the Lisbon treaty for yourself i see...

---

"The ordinary legislative procedure shall consist in the joint adoption by the European Parliament and the Council of a regulation, directive or decision on a proposal from the Commission"

Your statement was that voting rather than consensus is currently the norm in those competancies where QMV is applicable and the proceeded to give an example of the British Government sticking up for Sotherbys, and no evidence that a vote was even taken.

And you were not able to give a single examples of any issues that people might actually care one jot about.

marco_polo

sink wrote: »

In which time many many more languages including Caesars own have disappeared completely. And the descendents of those languages which have survived are change so completely you need to be a doctor of linguistics just to translate them into their modern counterparts.

In fact a quick browse of Wikipedia tells me that Italian, French, Catalan, Romanian, Spanish, and Portuguese are not separate but in reality descendents of Latin. So if language doesn't not change please explain how that is possible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Leone_Krio_language

Freeborn John

sink wrote: »

Is the world converging on the nation state? Or does the emergence of international organisations such as the UN, EU WTO, IMF, ASEAN, African Union, Arab league and Union of South American Nations amongst others in that last half century indicate a shift away from the independent nation state model towards a world governed by large international bodies?

These organisations could well be described as proto-supranational organisations and all current trends show their growing relevance to the lives of individuals everyday. This trend is only going to continue and as these organisations have ever greater impact upon peoples lives demand will grow for them to become more democratic.

You are mistaking the present backlash against the EU as one against the growing levels of cooperation, but in reality it is a backlash against the lack of transparency and democratic controls which Lisbon goes some way towards rectifying.

The UN and IMF have barely changed in 60 years. The IMF is a keysian fund and not a world government.

The arab leage and african union (previously organisation of african union) are empty talking shops and in any case these are hardly democratic parts of the world. South America is no democratic role model either. ASEAN is a trade body. None of these backward areas can be a guide. NAFTA shows that economic cooperation is possible without undemocratic supranational institutions designed to lead to a superstate.

Lisbon does not rectify the democratic legitimacy problems of the EU. It would make them worse. If you were correct then the peoples of Europe would have embraced Lisbon. Instead they have seen through it, and rejected it, whenever asked.

Freeborn John

marco_polo wrote: »

Your statement was that voting rather than consensus is currently the norm in those competancies where QMV is applicable and the proceeded to give an example of the British Government sticking up for Sotherbys, and no evidence that a vote was even taken.

And you were not able to give a single examples of any issues that people might actually care one jot about.

QMV is currently used in common market regulations, including (as i did show) in the art auction case. You have no grounds for saying that votes were not taken on that issue, when i showed 6 nations against initially that was whittled down over time.

There are loads of examples where the EU takes decisions by QMV that are politically sesnsitive, the Working Time Directive being one example.

Lisbon would make QMV the norm in almost all policy areas, and changes the QMV rules to make it harder to form a blocking coalition. With the expansion of EU membership each countries voting weight has laready been watered down making it more difficult to block measures contrary to the national interest. The voting threshold should have been reduced in the EU to compensate for this watering down due to more members. Instead it has been raised in Lisbon, which will lead to a rapid centralisation of power in brussels.

Freeborn John

sink wrote: »

In which time many many more languages including Caesars own have disappeared completely. And the descendents of those languages which have survived are change so completely you need to be a doctor of linguistics just to translate them into their modern counterparts.

In fact a quick browse of Wikipedia tells me that Italian, French, Catalan, Romanian, Spanish, and Portuguese are not separate but in reality descendents of Latin. So if language doesn't not change please explain how that is possible?

I didn't say language does not change. I said it (and other elements that underpin national identity) are etremely resistant to change. Spanisards, Potugese and italians can talk to one another in their own langauge if they choose their words carefully showing that these langauges have not chnaged much from the time of the roman empire 2000 years ago.

The nations of Europe are not going away. There have been 30 new nation-states in Europe since 1989 alone many of them brining democracy to their people for the first time in their long histories. Indeed it is likely that we will see more and more nation-states emerging in the world this century as state boundaries in africa and parts of asia that were drawn by imperial cartogrophers are redrawn to reflect the wishes of indigenous communities.

K-9

For the third time you refuse to deal with my point.