Lisbon: Equal airtime abolished by BCI

K-9

checkbalance wrote: »

You earlier stated that we still make our own international agreements but then when I point out that only the ones we have some power left to deal with (which isn't many and will get alot less under Lisbon) you make an example of the fact that states in some federations don't sit at the UN. Not exactly refuting the point that the EU makes agreements for its member states. It's funny because you mentioned Florida, well Florida like Ireland gets represented at the WTO talks by a centralised body, theirs is the U.S government, ours is the Commission (in almost all cases).

In fairness, you brought up the WTO and Scofflaw did address your point.

checkbalance wrote:

Understanding the ceding or sharing of competences is simple to understand. It means you give the power to someone else to make decisions on your behalf, states cede and share power with their central governments in federations.

Ceding and sharing are different I think in the context you describe.

checkbalance wrote:

You asked about the major policy areas that move from unanimous voting i.e. everyone agrees, to qualified majority voting i.e. where a majority of countries agree but their voting strength depends on how big their population is. Some include the rules concerning the European Defence Agency, freedom to establish businesses, transport, European Central Bank, European Court of Justice, criminal law, energy, the EU budget. maybe you don't consider these as major policy areas. Have a look at the full list published by the Commission, it tells you exactly how much power we will lose by voting Yes.

http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/lisbon_treaty/questions_and_answers/new_cases_of_qmv.pdf

OK, your point seems to be losing vetoes in certain areas. How often is it used?

checkbalance

K-9 wrote: »

In fairness, you brought up the WTO and Scofflaw did address your point.



Ceding and sharing are different I think in the context you describe.




OK, your point seems to be losing vetoes in certain areas. How often is it used?

I only brought up the WTO in response to the statement from Oscarbravo that he didn't know any federations where the members (soveriegn countries) can enter into international agreements "but their central government does it for them" (= mistake of a tired person, time to call it a night). The WTO is an example where we often can't agree for ourselves.

Ceding and sharing are different but they both amount to the transfer of power from our national parliament to the Council of Ministers & European Parliament and as a result to the European Commission.

I was asked to name the major areas (with major implied to be minor if i read it correctly) of unanimous voting that transfer to qualified majority voting under Lisbon. I think the list and reference i gave should be proof of the transfer of powers which is more or less a big shift towards becoming a full federation.

I'm afraid we've drifted off the subject matter but I was trying to reply to some aspects of earlier arguments I disagreed with.

K-9

checkbalance wrote: »

I only brought up the WTO in response to the statement from Oscarbravo that he didn't know any federations where the members (soveriegn countries) can enter into international agreements "but their central government does it for them" (= mistake of a tired person, time to call it a night). The WTO is an example where we often can't agree for ourselves.

Ceding and sharing are different but they both amount to the transfer of power from our national parliament to the Council of Ministers & European Parliament and as a result to the European Commission.

I was asked to name the major areas (with major implied to be minor if i read it correctly) of unanimous voting that transfer to qualified majority voting under Lisbon. I think the list and reference i gave should be proof of the transfer of powers which is more or less a big shift towards becoming a full federation.

I'm afraid we've drifted off the subject matter but I was trying to reply to some aspects of earlier arguments I disagreed with.

Fair enough, but why bring up the losing our veto in certain areas.

I think we are at the crux of the issue. Yes advocates see the EU as a body that cooperates on issues and very rarely uses vetoes, so therefor does not see the ceding of powers, as you put it, as a big issue.

You don't appear to see this and see it as a threat.

I think both are fair points of view, but complete opposites!

Scofflaw

checkbalance wrote: »

You do know that lobby groups aren't meant to make the decisions for the countries at different international agreements right?

I just say that because although there was an Irish delegation at those talks but the negotiations were led by the Commission. In fact it was well publicised because the farmers were furious with Peter Mandelson, the commissioner in charge there.

The Irish delegations are usually led by the Minister. It's rather inaccurate to describe them as "lobby groups".

checkbalance wrote: »

If the area being negotiated at the talks requires unanimious voting (see response to oscarbravo) then the member states represented have negotiating power because unanimous voting means they can veto the terms if they disagree with them. However, we do not have a veto in agriculture so the Commission does our negotiating. The only way a veto could have worked there is if a part of the package of terms negotiated extended into areas where unanimous voting is required. Then the package, along with agriculture, could be rejected. Luckily for Irish farmers the Commission didn't get their way otherwise they would have needed to learn how to breed cows a lot cheaper then at present.

I'll leave you with this little quote from the WTO website

"The European Commission speaks for all EU member States at almost all WTO meetings."

http://www.wto.org/english/theWTO_e/countries_e/european_communities_e.htm

In return, you may have this quote:

The Irish delegation at the recent WTO Ministerial meeting in Cancun consisted of Agriculture Minister Joe Walsh, Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment, Michael Ahern and myself. This reflected the government’s aims in going into the conference, which were to promote a liberalization of trade, to advance the development dimension of the talks and to represent the case of Irish farmers within the agreed EU position.

Source: DFA.

The Irish delegation is present to ensure, as it says, that Irish interests are protected within the agreed EU position. That's not the same as not being there, and it's not the same as negotiating entirely separately. The EU position, in turn, is negotiated within the Council, where Ireland is also represented. The EU presenting a common position that Ireland has agreed to is not the same as Ireland not being represented.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

Fair enough, but why bring up the losing our veto in certain areas.

I think we are at the crux of the issue. Yes advocates see the EU as a body that cooperates on issues and very rarely uses vetoes, so therefor does not see the ceding of powers, as you put it, as a big issue.

You don't appear to see this and see it as a threat.

I think both are fair points of view, but complete opposites!

That is, indeed, the nub of the issue, and probably reflects underlying positions. I suppose we could distinguish several positions:

Position|EU Legitimate*|Accepts European Level**|National Interests Paramount|Balance of Interests|European Interests Paramount|Accepts National Level
Hard-Sovereigntist|No|No|No|No|No|Yes
Sovereigntist|No|Yes|Yes|Sometimes|No|Yes
Centrist|Yes|Yes|Sometimes|Yes|Sometimes|Yes
Federalist|Yes|Yes|No|Sometimes|Yes|Yes
Hard-Federalist|Yes|Yes|No|No|Yes|No
Voting|||Unanimity|QMV|Simple Majority|


* is the EU legitimate in itself?
** accepts that decisions can legitimately be made at the European level

Unfortunately for the table above, of course, there isn't any use of national vetoes on the Council, and virtually no voting either. Instead, consensus is arrived at by negotiation "under the shadow" of the vote or the veto - and where consensus is not achieved, the matter is usually shelved until it can be. There are relatively few areas, after all, where the EU has to legislate.

It would be nice, of course, if those that worry about the loss of vetoes could demonstrate that Ireland has done significantly worse in areas that moved to QMV under previous treaties.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

It would be nice, of course, if those that worry about the loss of vetoes could demonstrate that Ireland has done significantly worse in areas that moved to QMV under previous treaties.

I think that is a fair question and one I've yet to see asked here?

It may deserve a thread of its own!

x MarK x

meglome wrote: »

Irrelevant, untrue, not in the treaty. Was your intention to make my point or what?



This makes me smile. As I've said previously the No campaign played a stormer the last time out but they told a lot of porkies to do it. 'At the heart of Europe' may be a typical stupid sound-bite but there nothing terribly wrong about it, the EU has been very good for us, very good indeed.

You should possibly imagine how the Yes side feel when each and every day they have to counteract the complete fabrications from the No side. I really love the 'Voting No will get FF our of office' crap, give me a ****ing break.



Do you wonder why basically all our political parties, all our newspapers, most academics etc etc support the treaty? It must be a NWO plot there's no other explanation. :rolleyes:

The irony is wasted on you.

oscarBravo

checkbalance wrote: »

You earlier stated that we still make our own international agreements but then when I point out that only the ones we have some power left to deal with (which isn't many and will get alot less under Lisbon)...

How many now, and how many under Lisbon? If it's as few as you're claiming, it shouldn't take you long to compile a comprehensive list.

...you make an example of the fact that states in some federations don't sit at the UN. Not exactly refuting the point that the EU makes agreements for its member states.

The EU makes some agreements on behalf of its member states, with the permission of its member states as agreed by consensus.

It's funny because you mentioned Florida, well Florida like Ireland gets represented at the WTO talks by a centralised body...

Ireland sends a delegation to WTO talks. Does Florida?

Understanding the ceding or sharing of competences is simple to understand. It means you give the power to someone else to make decisions on your behalf...

Nope. It means you make decisions at the level that's most appropriate. You might want to look up "subsidiarity" also.

NATO doesn't have an army, it has many armies to draw forces from.

Let me get this straight: you've asserted - repeatedly - that a common defence policy necessarily and inevitably requires the creation of an EU army. And now you've acknowledged that NATO doesn't have an army because it doesn't need one; its member states have armies that it can draw upon.

Why does an EU common defence policy require an EU army, while a NATO common defence policy doesn't?

View

checkbalance wrote: »

A federation is a collection of states that are governed by a centralized government.

That is Imperialism, not Federalism.

In Federalism, decisions are subject to the principle of subsidiarity. They should ideally be made at the lowest possible effective level (Although opinions on what constitutes that level varies from Federation to Federation).

Hence in a Federation, there are multiple levels of government each with its own decision making rights (i.e. practical sovereignty) in its own sphere.

It is quite common in a Federation for local or regional government to run the local school system, plan roads, provide public transport etc. - Contrast that with the level of services that local government in Ireland is allowed by central government to provide if you want.

To give you an example of just how decentralised a Federation can be - look at Switzerland. There the role of the Cantons is so strong, that when a public opinion poll was carried out a few years back in which people were asked to identify the Minister-President (the Highest Federal political office, a sort of combined President-Taoiseach position), more than 70% of Swiss citizens got the answer wrong. That isn't because they were stupid, just that the Minister-President doesn't make that many decisions that directly impact the day-to-day life of the average Swiss citizen.

Hence much of the hysteria here over Federalism is misplaced...

worldrepublic

Quote:
Originally Posted by meglome

Do you wonder why basically all our political parties, all our newspapers, most academics etc etc support the treaty? It must be a NWO plot there's no other explanation.


Hi meglome -I am voting yes, but implying that no voters are alluding to an incredible conspiracy etc. is not a good strategy. I have tried it myself to undermine particular no arguments, but it really does not work:

For example, prior to the sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church, anyone who spoke about a "global conspiracy" within the church to suppress reports and perpetuate child sex abuse --well now who would have believed them? Would people have questioned your mental health for thinking such a thing? .....but then, it was all true, there really was a world-wide conspiracy, across every country, and every diocese, right up to the Vatican level.

So conspiracies do happen!

I suggest that the "call them conspiracy nuts" card, has lost a lot of currency.

Just a thought.
:rolleyes:

ei.sdraob

worldrepublic wrote: »

Hi meglome -I am voting yes, but implying that no voters are alluding to an incredible conspiracy etc. is not a good strategy. I have tried it myself to undermine particular no arguments, but it really does not work:
ought.
:

yet you constantly support and give thanks the No posters?

and it took how many posts before you put to rest the whole terrorist subplot

i dunno :cool:

koHd

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, I'll spell it out. Have a read of the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2007, and tell me if anyone who's opposed to the provisions contained therein should get equal airtime to those who support it.

I'm sorry pal I don't get what you're saying in regards to this bill ?

I have been saying it should be equal air time on publicly funded broadcast stations for all sides in a general public national vote. Such as the Lisbon Treaty.

Not on bills such as the one you have brought up, which are passed by government with no general public voting.

I don't really follow politics. But as far as I'm concerned, if we're to be a democracy, we're leaving too much to chance by not keeping the 50/50 rule on national broadcast in regards to a general public national vote.

These stations could easily be swayed to pumping out propaganda for one side of an argument for all the wrong reasons if we don't have an air tight rule on equal air time enforced at all times. They make up an "acceptable" excuse one time, it opens it right up for abuse in all future votes.

Scofflaw

koHd wrote: »

I'm sorry pal I don't get what you're saying in regards to this bill ?

I have been saying it should be equal air time on publicly funded broadcast stations for all sides in a general public national vote. Such as the Lisbon Treaty.

Not on bills such as the one you have brought up, which are passed by government with no general public voting.

I don't really follow politics. But as far as I'm concerned, if we're to be a democracy, we're leaving too much to chance by not keeping the 50/50 rule on national broadcast in regards to a general public national vote.

These stations could easily be swayed to pumping out propaganda for one side of an argument for all the wrong reasons if we don't have an air tight rule on equal air time enforced at all times. They make up an "acceptable" excuse one time, it opens it right up for abuse in all future votes.

oscar is referring to the Children's Rights referendum. The Bill in question is the Bill that authorises the referendum, and contains the proposed text for the Amendment you would vote on in the "general public vote".

He is, in other words, asking whether people who oppose the provisions of this amendment:

Article 42(A).
40 1. The State acknowledges and affirms the natural and
imprescriptible rights of all children.
2. 1° In exceptional cases, where the parents of any child for physical
or moral reasons fail in their duty towards such child, the State
as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall
endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with
due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.
2° Provision may be made by law for the adoption of a child where
the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be
prescribed by law in their duty towards the child, and where the
best interests of the child so require.
3. Provision may be made by law for the voluntary placement for
adoption and the adoption of any child.
4. Provision may be made by law that in proceedings before any
court concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or
access to, any child, the court shall endeavour to secure the best
interests of the child.
5. 1° Provision may be made by law for the collection and exchange
of information relating to the endangerment, sexual exploitation
or sexual abuse, or risk thereof, of children, or other persons of
such a class or classes as may be prescribed by law.
2° No provision in this Constitution invalidates any law providing 20
for offences of absolute or strict liability committed against or
in connection with a child under 18 years of age.
3° The provisions of this section of this Article do not, in any way,
limit the powers of the Oireachtas to provide by law for other
offences of absolute or strict liability.
2. 1° In exceptional cases, where the parents of any child for physical
or moral reasons fail in their duty towards such child, the State
as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall
endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with
due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.
2° Provision may be made by law for the adoption of a child where
the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be
prescribed by law in their duty towards the child, and where the
best interests of the child so require.
3. Provision may be made by law for the voluntary placement for
adoption and the adoption of any child.
4. Provision may be made by law that in proceedings before any
court concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or
access to, any child, the court shall endeavour to secure the best interests of the child.
5. 1° Provision may be made by law for the collection and exchange
of information relating to the endangerment, sexual exploitation
or sexual abuse, or risk thereof, of children, or other persons of
such a class or classes as may be prescribed by law.
2° No provision in this Constitution invalidates any law providing
for offences of absolute or strict liability committed against or
in connection with a child under 18 years of age.
3° The provisions of this section of this Article do not, in any way,
limit the powers of the Oireachtas to provide by law for other
offences of absolute or strict liability.

should be given 50% of the airtime for the referendum on Children's Rights.

cordially,
Scofflaw

koHd

Scofflaw wrote: »

oscar is referring to the Children's Rights referendum. The Bill in question is the Bill that authorises the referendum, and contains the proposed text for the Amendment you would vote on in the "general public vote".

He is, in other words, asking whether people who oppose the provisions of this amendment:



should be given 50% of the airtime for the referendum on Children's Rights.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I understand a little of his point.

But is it hypotheticaly a public vote that we will all place individual votes at the ballot?

If it came to that, then yes equal air time should apply.

ok the law is a good one that all moral citizens will approve of. But if it's going to a national vote for an amendment, then all sides should get their equal air time.

I'll decide if the opposition are nuts. Not have rte decide they are nuts for me.

They could have legitimate points about flaws that need to be amended.

Scofflaw

koHd wrote: »

I understand a little of his point.

But is it hypotheticaly a public vote that we will all place individual votes at the ballot?

Yes, it's a referendum.

koHd wrote: »

If it came to that, then yes equal air time should apply.

ok the law is a good one that all moral citizens will approve of. But if it's going to a national vote for an amendment, then all sides should get their equal air time.

I'll decide if the opposition are nuts. Not have rte decide they are nuts for me.

They could have legitimate points about flaws that need to be amended.

On balance, I tend to agree with that. I'm not quite convinced that a mechanical "50/50 airtime" is the best approach. The logic is inescapable, I agree - there's two possible choices (assuming you're going to vote), and if we knew in advance that only one was right, we wouldn't need to vote.

However, in complex and technical decisions outside the normal scope of daily experience the majority of people won't be able to actually judge the arguments properly. Take a (hypothetical) referendum on our Kyoto commitments - how many people are really capable of determining from the media whether climate change is real, whether we need to do something about it, and whether our Kyoto commitments are neither excessive nor inadequate?

cordially,
Scofflaw

koHd

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, it's a referendum.



On balance, I tend to agree with that. I'm not quite convinced that a mechanical "50/50 airtime" is the best approach. The logic is inescapable, I agree - there's two possible choices (assuming you're going to vote), and if we knew in advance that only one was right, we wouldn't need to vote.

However, in complex and technical decisions outside the normal scope of daily experience the majority of people won't be able to actually judge the arguments properly. Take a (hypothetical) referendum on our Kyoto commitments - how many people are really capable of determining from the media whether climate change is real, whether we need to do something about it, and whether our Kyoto commitments are neither excessive nor inadequate?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I agree. I myself shy away from voting because I always feel I don't know enough about what or who I'm voting on.

Perhaps we could only allow people who attend an unbiased course on the subject of the vote and pass a test on the subject to prove a voter actually knows what they're voting for to stop uneducated voters tipping results one way simply because one side of the argument found a catchy tag line to get attention and votes from average un-educated on the subject Joe via the media ? would that be discrimination? Surely only those that are fully aware of what they're voting on should be allowed to vote?

Long winded and open to abuse, But an idea.

I am a very political person in day to day life. But for some reason I don't follow politics. Which leads to ignorance on my part and then not voting. I only wish half of the other voters in the same boat would do the same. I know it's lazy. But I honestly think it's better than voting on something you hardly know about and tipping the results.

Zuiderzee

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yet you constantly support and give thanks the No posters?

So worldrepublic should not acknowledge good arguements on both sides - Shocking that he might disagree with you on occasion - how dare he :eek:

ei.sdraob

Zuiderzee wrote: »

So worldrepublic should not acknowledge good arguements on both sides - Shocking that he might disagree with you on occasion - how dare he :eek:

i was pointing out the hypocrisy in his posting

thats a word the No side are very familiar with, along with "lying"

djpbarry

koHd wrote: »

I am a very political person in day to day life. But for some reason I don't follow politics. Which leads to ignorance on my part and then not voting. I only wish half of the other voters in the same boat would do the same. I know it's lazy. But I honestly think it's better than voting on something you hardly know about and tipping the results.

I would agree that people who are not prepared to inform themselves should not be voting. But, given the choice of educating oneself or not voting, I would rather most people chose the former. Otherwise, we’d be left with a very low turnout for most votes and the legitimacy of the result could be called into question.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Zuiderzee wrote: »

So worldrepublic should not acknowledge good arguements on both sides - Shocking that he might disagree with you on occasion - how dare he :eek:

Did you read the linked post?

JP Liz wrote: »

No for the second time

Yeah, good argument...

:pac:

oscarBravo

koHd wrote: »

...yes equal air time should apply.

ok the law is a good one that all moral citizens will approve of. But if it's going to a national vote for an amendment, then all sides should get their equal air time.

I'll decide if the opposition are nuts. Not have rte decide they are nuts for me.

They could have legitimate points about flaws that need to be amended.

They could. On the other hand, they could be lying through their teeth to further their own hidden agenda.

The problem with mandating equal airtime is that it assumes that both sides of a discussion have equal merit and equal legitimacy. In the case of children's rights, if you have four thousand experts in the field who support the amendment and one who opposes it, you end up giving that one person the same credibility and exposure as the four thousand.

I'd love to believe that people can easily sift the lies and deliberate misinformation from the truth, but the first Lisbon referendum has demonstrated with perfect clarity that this isn't the case.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Of course, then you have to pick who represents each side.

In a discussion on Abortion, should you allow a priest? Should you allow any men? Should you only have Doctors, or should you include psychologists? Philosophers? Anyone with a strong opinion, right or wrong?

P. Breathnach

I would have fewer problems with equal airtime if the standard of discussion were higher. In the last referendum campaign many of the on-air discussions were no more than bearpits, with both camps behaving equally badly (step forward for particular mention, Dick Roche).

I would prefer one-on-one encounters with well-briefed moderators. That might be a debate with one pro- one anti-Lisbon participant, moderated a professional broadcaster who has the strength to impose discipline and the understanding to identify nonsense and untruths for what they are (not Joe Duffy, for example); or it might be an interview with either a pro- or anti- advocate conducted by a knowledgeable professional broadcaster who will brook no nonsense.

I suspect that the anti-Lisbon movement (if you can call it a movement) would object to this. That is because they would see the challenging of some of their wilder claims as some sort of bias.

Hussard

Regardless of the merit or otherwise of the arguments put forward by each side, how can it be determined what the right balance should be.

Surely the only fair way would be to abide by the will of the people (novel suggestion) and give 53 per cent of air time to the No side.

Arguments over whether the No side were truthful or not are totally subjective. Surely it is the role of the media to report and then question so that we come to our own decision.

This decision gives the media responsibility for deciding what we hear in the first place and that must surely be against the interests of of a fair referendum.

The people are entitled to make their own minds up (again).

oscarBravo

Hussard wrote: »

Surely the only fair way would be to abide by the will of the people (novel suggestion) and give 53 per cent of air time to the No side.

How would you have applied that rule to the first referendum? Used the Nice II result?

Arguments over whether the No side were truthful or not are totally subjective.

Nope. Some things are objectively untrue.

P. Breathnach

Hussard wrote: »

... Arguments over whether the No side were truthful or not are totally subjective. ...

Not in any everyday meaning of language.

There was no truth in claims that voting yes would lose us "our" commissioner; there was no truth in claims that voting yes would result in abortion or conscription or higher corporation taxes.

PopeBuckfastXVI

The truth is not subjective, that's it's primary property, and it's beauty.

Hussard

oscarBravo wrote: »

How would you have applied that rule to the first referendum? Used the Nice II result? Nope. Some things are objectively untrue.

It would not have applied to the first referendum because at that time the BCI was still applying the McKenna ruling. Doesn't it prove the point that any metric in a yes/no referendum other than 50 50 is going to be flawed, at least as regards fairness and balance...

oscarBravo

Hussard wrote: »

It would not have applied to the first referendum because at that time the BCI was still applying the McKenna ruling. Doesn't it prove the point that any metric in a yes/no referendum other than 50 50 is going to be flawed, at least as regards fairness and balance...

In my view, any airtime metric is a crude tool. The best approach is editorial balance, rather than a stopwatch.

Hussard

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The truth is not subjective, that's it's primary property, and it's beauty.

The truth is as you state it. When you insert 'political' before it though it sometimes has a way of becoming somewhat less than we might hope for.