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

Political union for European states - pros and cons

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    FutureTaoiseach wrote: »
    The constant, endless stream of treaties every 5 years or so smacks of an agenda of federalism to me. The core of federalism is an overarching authority over the constituent member states. At least with the "Ireland project", we have a constitution we can change ourselves via referenda. We can't do that if we find an existing, ratified EU treaty to be in some way harmful to this country, because to change a treaty you need unanimous ratification of such changes in all (presently 27) member states. Which is better?
    You're entitled to your view. I don't understand a philosophy that is suspicious of something that has been shown over several decades to be a benign and beneficial process, just because there's a slight chance that it might at some point in the future have drawbacks.

    You're wrong about one thing: "we" can't change our constitution by referendum. What we can do is choose to allow the government to change it - or not - but only the government can initiate the process of change.

    Y'know, the same government that negotiates EU treaties on our behalf.


  • Options
    #33
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    FutureTaoiseach wrote: »
    Didn't know there were that many politicians in the EU. :rolleyes:
    There are more than three politicians in the EU. You're still a helluva long way from showing that federalists are not in a minority - and that's leaving aside the fact that your Giscard d'Estaing quote doesn't mention federalism.


  • Options
    #34
    FutureTaoiseach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭FutureTaoiseach


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    There are more than three politicians in the EU. You're still a helluva long way from showing that federalists are not in a minority - and that's leaving aside the fact that your Giscard d'Estaing quote doesn't mention federalism.
    The question is who the burden of proof should be on when approaching this question: those making the accusation, or those against whom it is made? Do not actions matter more than words?
    You're wrong about one thing: "we" can't change our constitution by referendum. What we can do is choose to allow the government to change it - or not - but only the government can initiate the process of change.
    Which is better? Being twice removed from the process (in the case of the Irish Constitution) or being 27-times removed (as with the Charter of Fundamental Rights should Lisbon go through)?


  • Options
    #35
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    FutureTaoiseach wrote: »
    The question is who the burden of proof should be on when approaching this question: those making the accusation, or those against whom it is made? Do not actions matter more than words?

    I completely agree that the burden of proof rests on those who claim the EU it is moving toward the utimate creation of a Federalist superstate. (Or is it an oligarchy, it's hard to keep up)


  • Options
    #36
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    FutureTaoiseach wrote: »
    The question is who the burden of proof should be on when approaching this question: those making the accusation, or those against whom it is made? Do not actions matter more than words?
    The burden of proof is on the accuser. You're accusing the EU of moving in a federalist direction. You're doing so on the flimsiest of evidence, extrapolating wildly. I've moved from Westmeath to Mayo in the past, but that doesn't mean that I'm inevitably going to move to Canada.
    Which is better? Being twice removed from the process (in the case of the Irish Constitution) or being 27-times removed (as with the Charter of Fundamental Rights should Lisbon go through)?
    The question is predicated on the assumption that the other member states are malevolent forces waiting for us to fall into the trap that they've carefully laid for us.

    A steel door with a high-tech locking mechanism would be "better" from a security standpoint than the three-point locking wooden front door on my house. I don't need a steel door. The world just isn't that scary a place.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    FutureTaoiseach wrote: »
    Didn't know there were that many politicians in the EU. :rolleyes:

    Indeed, but there are at least 8-9,000 current national parliamentarians in the EU, which does still leave 2 as something of a minority.

    amused,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #38
    tlev
    Closed Accounts Posts: 320 ✭✭tlev


    It seems to me that Europe in its current state has to evolve in order to keep up with the States and China. Federalism may achieve this.


  • Options
    #39
    FutureTaoiseach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭FutureTaoiseach


    OscarBravo wrote:
    The question is predicated on the assumption that the other member states are malevolent forces waiting for us to fall into the trap that they've carefully laid for us.
    I don't see them as malevolent - just wrong with respect to Lisbon. I am making the point that it is better to have our rights codified in our Constitution, which we can change by referenda, rather than in a Charter of Fundamental Rights that will be impossible for us to change on our own, but which will nonetheless bind this generation and perhaps many others indefinitely. An example of what can happen when you have a codification of rights that is prohibitively difficult to amend can be seen in the US with respect to their gun-laws. We don't know for sure what - if any - similar anomalies may arise from ECJ interpretations of the Charter in the future. But we should learn from the experience of the US Constitution in order to avoid potential pitfalls.


  • Options
    #40
    Purple Gorilla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 865 ✭✭✭Purple Gorilla


    tlev wrote: »
    It seems to me that Europe in its current state has to evolve in order to keep up with the States and China. Federalism may achieve this.
    Why though? The Eurozone is treated as one economy and it is currently the second biggest in the world. As more EU countries join, it'll be the biggest. I support being counted as a single entity in some areas. EG- If EU were the ones to negotiate oil supply/prices as a single entity instead of 27 small states negotiating separately.


  • Options
    #41
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Purple Gorilla wrote: »
    Why though? The Eurozone is treated as one economy and it is currently the second biggest in the world. As more EU countries join, it'll be the biggest. I support being counted as a single entity in some areas. EG- If EU were the ones to negotiate oil supply/prices as a single entity instead of 27 small states negotiating separately.

    a single united energy policy is one of the main points for voting YES to Lisbon


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Purple Gorilla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 865 ✭✭✭Purple Gorilla


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    a single united energy policy is one of the main points for voting YES to Lisbon
    ..I know..I didn't mention Lisbon in my post though?


  • Options
    #43
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    freedom of info wrote: »
    a very good argument, but would that not be a worst case scenario, as a small country, i think any involvement in any potential war would be minimal, on the plus side, would greater economic involvement prove to be beneficial

    Well, the conscription argument is only an example, though. The general principle is what's important - that the EU as a body can proceed only by consent, because it has no legitimate control over the member states as individual nations except by their consent. It's the difference between being a member of a team and being a member of a military unit.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #44
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    FutureTaoiseach wrote: »
    I don't see them as malevolent - just wrong with respect to Lisbon.
    Yup, everyone's wrong except the paranoid few in Ireland.
    I am making the point that it is better to have our rights codified in our Constitution, which we can change by referenda, rather than in a Charter of Fundamental Rights that will be impossible for us to change on our own, but which will nonetheless bind this generation and perhaps many others indefinitely.
    You seem to be under the illusion that the CFR was handed down from heaven on stone tablets.

    If the Charter turns out to be actively harmful, it can be changed by consensus. That's how the EU works.

    Your point seems to be that we shouldn't allow our laws to be framed by anything other than our own Constitution. That's another way of saying that we shouldn't be in the EU. That's an opinion that you're entitled to, but that I disagree with, as do most of our compatriots.
    An example of what can happen when you have a codification of rights that is prohibitively difficult to amend can be seen in the US with respect to their gun-laws. We don't know for sure what - if any - similar anomalies may arise from ECJ interpretations of the Charter in the future. But we should learn from the experience of the US Constitution in order to avoid potential pitfalls.
    First, the NRA and their Republican hangers-on suffered a landmark defeat last week. Second, can you point to a provision in the CFR that you can see being as controversial as the second amendment?


  • Options
    #45
    tlev
    Closed Accounts Posts: 320 ✭✭tlev


    Purple Gorilla wrote: »
    Why though? The Eurozone is treated as one economy and it is currently the second biggest in the world. As more EU countries join, it'll be the biggest. I support being counted as a single entity in some areas. EG- If EU were the ones to negotiate oil supply/prices as a single entity instead of 27 small states negotiating separately.

    It's treated as one economy but in reality isn't it the 27 different economies of all the member states? And this is the thing, people want the benefits of being in a federation without actually having to sacrifice anything. I want this but not this etc.

    The reason I said that the EU is stagnating, in my opinion and I may be wrong is that China and India have the cheap labour power, China also have massive reserves and are a country that is growing, the USA still are the largest superpower in the world. What do Europe have to offer? Cheap labour? Large of amounts of natural resources? Cutting edge technologies? Like I said I may be wrong but Europe needs change.


  • Options
    #46
    worldrepublic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 227 ✭✭worldrepublic


    tlev wrote: »
    It's treated as one economy but in reality isn't it the 27 different economies of all the member states? And this is the thing, people want the benefits of being in a federation without actually having to sacrifice anything. I want this but not this etc.

    The reason I said that the EU is stagnating, in my opinion and I may be wrong is that China and India have the cheap labour power, China also have massive reserves and are a country that is growing, the USA still are the largest superpower in the world. What do Europe have to offer? Cheap labour? Large of amounts of natural resources? Cutting edge technologies? Like I said I may be wrong but Europe needs change.

    You are so right, "Europe needs change" ....but it needs "hope" as well. Change and Hope represent the future, like President Obama. That man is so sharp.


  • Options
    #47
    tlev
    Closed Accounts Posts: 320 ✭✭tlev


    worldrepublic wrote: »
    You are so right, "Europe needs change" ....but it needs "hope" as well. Change and Hope represent the future, like President Obama. That man is so sharp.

    President Obama isn't doing too well at the moment. His approval ratings are dropping due to rising unemployment and the unfeasibility of his health care reform plan. I'm all for the guy though, I just 'hope' that he hasn't bitten off more than he chew. Anyway that is OT...

    The point is that yes Europe needs hope but in order for there to be hope people need to see that things are happening and efforts need to be made so that things do change. It isn't enough that we all just get down on our knees and hope our way out of this recession.


  • Options
    #48
    worldrepublic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 227 ✭✭worldrepublic


    tlev wrote: »
    President Obama isn't doing too well at the moment. His approval ratings are dropping due to rising unemployment and the unfeasibility of his health care reform plan. I'm all for the guy though, I just 'hope' that he hasn't bitten off more than he chew. Anyway that is OT...

    The point is that yes Europe needs hope but in order for there to be hope people need to see that things are happening and efforts need to be made so that things do change. It isn't enough that we all just get down on our knees and hope our way out of this recession.

    I resent the implications. I hope you have not become tinged with the racism against Obama. Obama is totally different to Bush, but must now solve all the problems (or had you "forgotten" that part) and he must fight the War or Terror. The peace keeping work he is doing even inn Pakistan now is great. We also have some preventative measures and technologies in place within Europe now to fight the terrorist networks. This needs to be expanded thought, hopefully the Lisbon Treaty will serve as a basis for consolidation of anti-terrorist programs.


  • Options
    #49
    tlev
    Closed Accounts Posts: 320 ✭✭tlev


    worldrepublic wrote: »
    I resent the implications. I hope you have not become tinged with the racism against Obama. Obama is totally different to Bush, but must now solve all the problems (or had you "forgotten" that part) and he must fight the War or Terror. The peace keeping work he is doing even inn Pakistan now is great. We also have some preventative measures and technologies in place within Europe now to fight the terrorist networks. This needs to be expanded thought, hopefully the Lisbon Treaty will serve as a basis for consolidation of anti-terrorist programs.

    I don't like acusations made against my character. I am not a racist and made no such remark as to be imply that I am racist against Obama. I just said I like him but to blindly think that he will solve the world's problems is just going overboard. He is one man, albeit he may be a great man but he is not a messiah.


  • Options
    #50
    worldrepublic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 227 ✭✭worldrepublic


    tlev wrote: »
    I don't like acusations made against my character. I am not a racist and made no such remark as to be imply that I am racist against Obama. I just said I like him but to blindly think that he will solve the world's problems is just going overboard. He is one man, albeit he may be a great man but he is not a messiah.

    "messiah" why bring religious undertones into this. Please make straight-forward points in future, thankyou.


  • Options
    #51
    tlev
    Closed Accounts Posts: 320 ✭✭tlev


    Fine, not messiah, a shining beacon of hope that will guide the world from darkness into an era of peace and prosperity? Is that better? My point is he can bring change but not to the degree you are going on about.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    worldrepublic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 227 ✭✭worldrepublic


    tlev wrote: »
    Fine, not messiah, a shining beacon of hope that will guide the world from darkness into an era of peace and prosperity? Is that better? My point is he can bring change but not to the degree you are going on about.

    Excuse me?? "darkness". Just make a simple point, if you have one.


  • Options
    #53
    tlev
    Closed Accounts Posts: 320 ✭✭tlev


    I did. Read my whole post.


  • Options
    #54
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Handbag warning. Keep the Obama arguments for the US Politics forum, where it can be properly punished moderated.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


Advertisement