Connection between support for EU and distaste for democracy

In Chains

It has long puzzled me that EU supporters across Europe are so against the democratic will of the people. My strong belief is that referendums on EU powers are necessary to give the EU legitimacy it needs if it is to wield the powers it wants, but this is not a view common in Brussels. Those most in favour of the EU having additional powers are very often those most reluctant to accept any need for the people to consent to it having those powers. Part of this can be explained by a fear that such referendums would be lost, but on its own this cannot be a sufficient explanation because many European countries use referendums on non-EU matters that are of constitutional significance without the fear of losing referendums preventing them happening or the result being honoured. On no other issue do we see, in any country, referendum results being ignored, or bypassed, or the votes being repeated with the specific intention of over-turning a previous result, as has become the norm on the issue of EU powers. So it seems to me there must be a deeper explanation for this mysterious connection between undemocratic instincts and support for the EU. The following is my explanation for this curious phenomena. I would be interested in your thoughts on it, or any alternative explanations.

It appears to me that there are several distinct sub-groups of supporters of European political union (as opposed to the common market).
1. The largest group (at least on the continent) are ‘nationalists in search of a bigger country’ that would enable them to exert ‘influence’ over large and powerful states in the world, such as the USA, Russia, China etc. The pursuit of power (a.k.a. influence) over other governments is a legitimate goal of politics, but not the ultimate goal worthy of subordinating liberal democracy itself. The pursuit of influence over foreign governments is tantamount to getting that government to do what you want, rather than what its own voters would want it to do, so there is an inherent undemocratic tendency in those who support the EU on collective power grounds. I suggest that explains why this main group of EU supporters put democracy lower in their priorities than their support for the EU.
2. A second group of EU supporters are worried about ‘fear of isolation’. Their compass is permanently pointing towards the ‘course of least resistance’ which tells them to tag along with whatever Paris, Berlin or Brussels wants (see 1). Democratic elections for these folks are worrysome because they may lead one into the rough grass away from the fairway of the ‘course of least resistance’. So again this group oppose the people having any democratic say on EU issues.
3. The third group of EU supporters are the genuine European federalists who wish to create a new democratic European nation-state to replace the current states, which could be democratically legitimated by the formation of a European ‘demos’ These people fondly imagine that everyone else thinks as they do, and that the European ‘demos’ exists already. They therefore perceive the Irish as a region of their new country with just 1% of the population, and object to this tiny minority 'standing in the way' of what (they imagine) the pan-European majority want. So this sub-group also oppose national referendums on the EU issue.

So I suggest that the connection between support for the EU and distaste for democracy is not a random one, but is explained by the very thought patterns that make one support the EU in the first place. And that this is why we only see this phenomenon of a desire to ignore or bypass referendum results on the EU issue.

Any thoughts as to this explanation, or on alternative explanations?

K-9

There seems to be a connection between imposing our Democracy on other countries and No voters.

I'm reminded of the Financial Times after our No vote, "there was such a rag bag of reasons for voting No, a second vote will fail!".

I think they are right and it will fail for exactly that reason. Campaigners from extremes will sling mud, creating FUD and another No.

Yes voters generally agree on the way forward. No voters can't agree on it.

meglome

In Chains wrote: »

It has long puzzled me that EU supporters across Europe are so against the democratic will of the people. My strong belief is that referendums on EU powers are necessary to give the EU legitimacy it needs if it is to wield the powers it wants, but this is not a view common in Brussels. Those most in favour of the EU having additional powers are very often those most reluctant to accept any need for the people to consent to it having those powers. Part of this can be explained by a fear that such referendums would be lost, but on its own this cannot be a sufficient explanation because many European countries use referendums on non-EU matters that are of constitutional significance without the fear of losing referendums preventing them happening or the result being honoured. On no other issue do we see, in any country, referendum results being ignored, or bypassed, or the votes being repeated with the specific intention of over-turning a previous result, as has become the norm on the issue of EU powers. So it seems to me there must be a deeper explanation for this mysterious connection between undemocratic instincts and support for the EU. The following is my explanation for this curious phenomena. I would be interested in your thoughts on it, or any alternative explanations.

Normally I'm not a big follower of politics but the amount of downright lying from the No side is really starting to get on my nerves. I'm constantly amazed that the No side say Lisbon takes away our sovereignty but it actually makes makes the EU more accountable. It really doesn't make any sense.

I'm interested here that you believe the other EU country's should vote on each treaty. But more than that you seem to want to push this view of yours on the rest of Europe. How other European country's run their affairs is none of our business.

I actually agree with you that in some EU country's the treaty's wouldn't pass if voted on directly by the public. But not because the treaty's are in themselves bad but because the far left and right plus misc crazies will come along and use a stack of lies to get a No vote. Maybe one day we'll wise up in this country, maybe one day we'll stop voting Fianna Fail, maybe one day we'll stop being negative to an organisation (the EU) which has given us so much and looked for so little.

bustertherat

meglome wrote: »

I'm constantly amazed that the No side say Lisbon takes away our sovereignty.

have you actually read the treaty?

Our sovereignty will be diluted....or as the Yes camp like to call it - ''shared''

K-9

bustertherat wrote: »

have you actually read the treaty?

Our sovereignty will be diluted....or as the Yes camp like to call it - ''shared''

And?

Give us examples of decisions brought in against our wishes under QMV.

I understand the principle of not giving away sovereignty. Give readers practical reasons why it is a bad thing.

In Chains

K-9 wrote: »

There seems to be a connection between imposing our Democracy on other countries and No voters.

I'm reminded of the Financial Times after our No vote, "there was such a rag bag of reasons for voting No, a second vote will fail!".

I think they are right and it will fail for exactly that reason. Campaigners from extremes will sling mud, creating FUD and another No.

Yes voters generally agree on the way forward. No voters can't agree on it.

Thanks for your thoughts on my thoughts K-9! Your main point is that supporters of Lisbon are quite united that this treaty represents a “good thing” where as NO voters have disparate views. I wonder if this is really true? It seems to me that there are few Yes supporters who think every article in Lisbon is good, and likewise there are few NO supporters who would object to every single provision. On both sides you see people adding up the pros and cons as they judge them and weighing the balance differently. I would agree with you that there is no single counter proposal on the table from the NO side. But I wonder if such a counter proposal is impossible or just not necessary for the NO side right now so long as the immediate goal is defeating Lisbon? It seems to me that it could be possible to find a counter proposal that could win more widespread support than Lisbon, by being a “broader church”, i.e. a more flexible approach that could accommodate the desires of countries seeking more integration and those that want less? Do you think that is true?

Your other comment about a “connection between imposing our Democracy on other countries and No voters” made me think for a while. Do you think NO voters are aspiring to impose something on other countries (not my impressions) by frustrating the wishes of those other countries? Do you worry about other countries perceiving a 2nd Irish NO as frustrating their wishes to the extent that Lisbon should be approved by Ireland no matter what? If so would you fit into my sub-group 2? Or somewhere else?

K-9

Simple question. I know you are against the principle of giving away sovereignty, we already have, Pre Lisbon.

Give us examples of how it is a bad thing. Can't be that hard if it's true.

I'll answer your last post then, but let us clear up this point first.

patrickthomas

K-9 wrote: »

There seems to be a connection between imposing our Democracy on other countries and No voters.

I'm reminded of the Financial Times after our No vote, "there was such a rag bag of reasons for voting No, a second vote will fail!".

I think they are right and it will fail for exactly that reason. Campaigners from extremes will sling mud, creating FUD and another No.

Yes voters generally agree on the way forward. No voters can't agree on it.

You believe we have been going forward :pac: No voters are saying no to going backwards!

ChocolateSauce

K-9 wrote: »

Simple question. I know you are against the principle of giving away sovereignty, we already have, Pre Lisbon..

Not giving away, pooling. It is still there, mixed in with that of other nations. Giving it up would involve sacrificing it without gaining representation!

patrickthomas

K-9 wrote: »

Any specific examples?

How about Trinity no longer being listed in the top 100 colleges, our entire education system is gone downhill. teachers paid 55% more than Finland No 3 in the EU, Ireland not in the top 20, Prison system that is overflowing, victorian standards, nothing being done about any social problems, jeez I could write a book off the top of my head.

We had a fibre optic laid in the 70's that was one of the most advanced in the eu, now what do we have sfa.

And what is better, a generation of politicans that behave like zimbabean dictators driving limos to eu meetings, an embaressment, all that was lacking was a couple of gold chains around his redneck.

A young generation of d4 types that they are so so soooo cooool, and not a bloddy brain or a piece of culture in their coked up heads. but heading to follow daddies footsteps in a nice PS job or likewise

You want me to go on.......forget it, the pigs are walking on two legs.

patrickthomas

K-9 wrote: »

I'd Vote Yes based on those reasons, which I can identify with.

Europe has the answers to those points, not the US/UK example we have been following!

Interresting how you can read what I write but fail completely to process the information contained theirin.

tbh I no longer give a flying fu*k about europe, the problems of poverty, lousy living conditons, lack of oppurtinities in education, jobs, these are decided in leinster house by vastly overpaid incompentent corrupt decadent monstrosoties. they only care about themselves, all they have to do is look after 25% of the population which they do and that is enough to keep tham in power.

I give up, whoever educated you failed, failed to tell you the most simple of things...................you really do not understand that bu you debating on here you are directly increasing the NO vote, do you

meglome

patrickthomas wrote: »

Interresting how you can read what I write but fail completely to process the information contained theirin.

tbh I no longer give a flying fu*k about europe, the problems of poverty, lousy living conditons, lack of oppurtinities in education, jobs, these are decided in leinster house by vastly overpaid incompentent corrupt decadent monstrosoties. they only care about themselves, all they have to do is look after 25% of the population which they do and that is enough to keep tham in power.

I give up, whoever educated you failed, failed to tell you the most simple of things...................you really do not understand that bu you debating on here you are directly increasing the NO vote, do you

sorry patrickthomas but I don't understand what you're saying. Our government have made many bad decision, decisions which I for one didn't support and I certainly didn't vote for them. However a good chunk of the country were happy to believe their lies and vote for them, that's representative democracy for you. But none of that is relevant to the Lisbon treaty, which I personally believe will be good for Ireland. And when Fianna Fail are gone we might have some hope of getting ourselves out of this mess.

patrickthomas

K-9 wrote: »

Look I know enough to know you where a No voter from the start. You came here pretending to be undecided following the usual p.ie tactics.

You have been asked for examples of bad EU Policy and can't or will not provide it, instead you go of on rhetoric and personal insult, moaning and moaning, with no solutions.

You are the example of what is wrong with Ireland today. A moaner and a NIMBY.

Goodnight, you had a chance to properly debate the issues and now you are the first on my ignore list!

I was undecided and wanted to check to see if I voted yes would it mean any chance of social change in a forward direction, just like the last time it was the yes side that convinced me to vote no.

I have been a fierce advocate of the EU until I naturally went to the yes side as I normally would, but this time i am met by complete idiots who are carrying out orders.

last time I checked i am free to belong to any forums i feel like in this country, you wish to restrict that too?

I'm on your ignore list, i am soooo hurt wtf is a NIMBy so many "in" words. i am just not cool enough for you am i?

Ok for anyone else who does not understand these words like myself:
NIMBY or Nimby is an acronym for Not In My Back Yard.

patrickthomas

meglome wrote: »

sorry patrickthomas but I don't understand what you're saying. Our government have made many bad decision, decisions which I for one didn't support and I certainly didn't vote for them. However a good chunk of the country were happy to believe their lies and vote for them, that's representative democracy for you. But none of that is relevant to the Lisbon treaty, which I personally believe will be good for Ireland. And when Fianna Fail are gone we might have some hope of getting ourselves out of this mess.

The government decided to push this down the throaths of a people it has dumped on and been too bust looking the other way for way too long, This is yet another bad decision and yet another example of the government touching their forelocks to leaders in brussels thinking they are so cool with their armani suits and stretch limos.

this vote is about a disaffected people, with no political repersentation, no leaders, nothing. you can blame it all you like on COIR or sinn fein but you have completely missed the point, you can not deal with me or anyone like me, because they are not like me, indviduals pi**ed of with the direction this country has gone. not any any level, you may use words i do not understand and be able to spell but that is all you got, go back to sleep, you are not ready for the ireland of 2013, i am, i have always been there.

The EU can wait until we deserve to be in it.

meglome

patrickthomas wrote: »

The government decided to push this down the throaths of a people it has dumped on and been too bust looking the other way for way too long, This is yet another bad decision and yet another example of the government touching their forelocks to leaders in brussels thinking they are so cool with their armani suits and stretch limos.

this vote is about a disaffected people, with no political repersentation, no leaders, nothing. you can blame it all you like on COIR or sinn fein but you have completely missed the point, you can not deal with me or anyone like me, because they are not like me, indviduals pi**ed of with the direction this country has gone. not any any level, you may use words i do not understand and be able to spell but that is all you got, go back to sleep, you are not ready for the ireland of 2013, i am, i have always been there.

The EU can wait until we deserve to be in it.

But why would we stick two fingers up to the EU when we should be looking at Fianna Fail and their supporters. What about all the people like me who could see their bull**** and wouldn't vote for them. I don't want to suffer for something I didn't do. I run a business and I employ people, I don't treat them badly, I don't cheat them, I'm fair (if I don't say so myself). Now we do a lot of our work with the government and they've just cut most of it, just like that. I have numerous reasons to hate how we've run this country. I just think we've been given a huge kick in the arse after the property bubble burst and it's likely to get worse, a deserved kick sadly. So now is not the time to vote against the EU which has been very good to us and who might be able to help us make the right decisions. For the first time in my life I'm actively campaigning for political change, for us to get a new government with new ideas. But voting against Lisbon is not the way for that to happen.

I've gone through it and it's pretty damn boring in general but I haven't seen anything that I find objectionable. Anyway that's my 2cents worth.

nesf

patrickthomas wrote: »

How about Trinity no longer being listed in the top 100 colleges, our entire education system is gone downhill. teachers paid 55% more than Finland No 3 in the EU, Ireland not in the top 20, Prison system that is overflowing, victorian standards, nothing being done about any social problems, jeez I could write a book off the top of my head.

We had a fibre optic laid in the 70's that was one of the most advanced in the eu, now what do we have sfa.

And what is better, a generation of politicans that behave like zimbabean dictators driving limos to eu meetings, an embaressment, all that was lacking was a couple of gold chains around his redneck.

A young generation of d4 types that they are so so soooo cooool, and not a bloddy brain or a piece of culture in their coked up heads. but heading to follow daddies footsteps in a nice PS job or likewise

You want me to go on.......forget it, the pigs are walking on two legs.

Eh, what has any of that got to do with EU membership? You need to actually back up your argument not just list random "bad things" that happened over a certain time period.

ixtlan

patrickthomas wrote: »

And what is better, a generation of politicans that behave like zimbabean dictators driving limos to eu meetings, an embaressment, all that was lacking was a couple of gold chains around his redneck.
...
You want me to go on.......forget it, the pigs are walking on two legs.

As nesf says, this has nothing to do with Lisbon or the EU. Many of the EU states are doing much better than us.

The EU is not a panacea for all problems. The people here have to elect good leadership. If we could do that and be an integral part of a reformed EU things could be a lot better.

I would hope you would ask people to make a fully informed decision on Lisbon and not make the mistakes you say they did in electing the politicans of the last decade. Let them do better this time.

Ix.

In Chains

meglome wrote: »

I'm interested here that you believe the other EU country's should vote on each treaty. But more than that you seem to want to push this view of yours on the rest of Europe. How other European country's run their affairs is none of our business.

Interesting viewpoint, but one i can't agree with when the EU is a setup where countries take part in the running of each others affairs.

I am interested in the thoughts that lie behind your post though. I would assume that you think it would be good in principle if the peoples of all these other countries would vote in favour of the EU having the powers it wants as set out in Lisbon? If this popular support is not there a lot of EU supporters still want the EU to be empowered regardless. So there must be some strong motivating factor for them to want Lisbon that makes them willing to set aside the wishes of so many others. Do you think any of the 3 explanations i put forward in the original post explain your own thinking in this regard? If not I would be interested to know of your own reasoning in your own case.

best wishes.

patrickthomas

K-9 wrote: »

There seems to be a connection between imposing our Democracy on other countries and No voters.

I'm reminded of the Financial Times after our No vote, "there was such a rag bag of reasons for voting No, a second vote will fail!".

I think they are right and it will fail for exactly that reason. Campaigners from extremes will sling mud, creating FUD and another No.

Yes voters generally agree on the way forward. No voters can't agree on it.

patrickthomas wrote: »

You believe we have been going forward :pac: No voters are saying no to going backwards!

patrickthomas wrote: »

How about Trinity no longer being listed in the top 100 colleges, our entire education system is gone downhill. teachers paid 55% more than Finland No 3 in the EU, Ireland not in the top 20, Prison system that is overflowing, victorian standards, nothing being done about any social problems, jeez I could write a book off the top of my head.

We had a fibre optic laid in the 70's that was one of the most advanced in the eu, now what do we have sfa.

And what is better, a generation of politicans that behave like zimbabean dictators driving limos to eu meetings, an embaressment, all that was lacking was a couple of gold chains around his redneck.

A young generation of d4 types that they are so so soooo cooool, and not a bloddy brain or a piece of culture in their coked up heads. but heading to follow daddies footsteps in a nice PS job or likewise

You want me to go on.......forget it, the pigs are walking on two legs.

nesf wrote: »

Eh, what has any of that got to do with EU membership? You need to actually back up your argument not just list random "bad things" that happened over a certain time period.

Nesf, I was debating within context, Don't you think there is a valid parellel between saying that we impose our demorcracy on other countries, impose a yes vote on a democracy, and imposing debating rules on internet forum, within reason naturaly.

Any debate like this is bound to go on tangents, it is a live debate, not a pre-written script. Surely that is what makes an internet debate far more interesting.

nesf

patrickthomas wrote: »

Nesf, I was debating within context, Don't you think there is a valid parellel between saying that we impose our demorcracy on other countries, impose a yes vote on a democracy, and imposing debating rules on internet forum, within reason naturaly.

Any debate like this is bound to go on tangents, it is a live debate, not a pre-written script. Surely that is what makes an internet debate far more interesting.

You need to back up your statements here, this isn't a blog.

meglome

In Chains wrote: »

Interesting viewpoint, but one i can't agree with when the EU is a setup where countries take part in the running of each others affairs.

We agree to share certain things with our EU neighbours. We do not run each others affairs.

In Chains wrote: »

I am interested in the thoughts that lie behind your post though. I would assume that you think it would be good in principle if the peoples of all these other countries would vote in favour of the EU having the powers it wants as set out in Lisbon?

Sure I'd agree with that.

In Chains wrote: »

If this popular support is not there a lot of EU supporters still want the EU to be empowered regardless. So there must be some strong motivating factor for them to want Lisbon that makes them willing to set aside the wishes of so many others. Do you think any of the 3 explanations i put forward in the original post explain your own thinking in this regard? If not I would be interested to know of your own reasoning in your own case.

I think the popular support is there as referenced by the many opinion polls which have been linked in this forum. When the people of Europe voted in pro-Lisbon governments who's policies included ratifying Lisbon, they tacitly agreed to Lisbon. And really how they run their affairs is not for us to decide, since we don't actually interfere in each others affairs.

However I also realise that representative democracy isn't always perfect. If we look at the reasons that people here gave for voting No to Lisbon 1, the majority were not in the treaty at all. And the EU had no problem accepting our wish to keep the commissioner. These reasons where almost exactly the same ones that the No side were pushing and let's be honest there were just made up. People like Cóir don't give a **** about democracy, they object to every treaty, often for the same reasons that have already been dealt with. The bottom line is if this was repeated all over Europe nothing would get done and the EU would flounder, this might suit some people but it wouldn't suit me.

Anyway to your three points, I don't agree with them at all.

Daftendirekt

OP, you should probably actually talk to some yes voters and find out their reasons for voting as they do, rather than attacking caricatures you've drawn yourself.

Mother says

To actually respond to the original post, I get the impression from watching the European Parliament and various leaders talking, that they feel they have worked very hard on their European project and want to see it completed before they're too old to serve in it.

I don't necessarily think the emergence of the EU as a superstate is a bad thing, it is probably necessary, inevitable even. However if the architects of the EU go ahead without the clear consent of the populace it is doomed to failure, the EU will quickly fragment and take a long time to repair. It becomes a question of how long can you defer the will of the people.

If we look at the Federalisation of the United States, it took 200 years and a terrible civil war to unite less than 300 million people that, for the most part shared a common language and similar culture. The genesis for the emergence of the US was a genuine democratic revolution.

Here we are trying to unite over 400 million people from hundreds of distinct cultures and more than thirty languages in less than two generations. The genesis for the emergence of the EU was the most terrible war in human history, a monstrous genocide by the largest member of the union and some economic agreements.

If the architects of the EU genuinely have the best interests of the people in mind they would pursue their project at a pace that the people are comfortable with even if it means they won't live to see it completed.

The people that write these treaties are bureaucrats and apparatchiks. A more democratic Europe is not in the best interest of these people advancing their careers.

These are the people who have run Europe for centuries. They are simply managers with an inflated sense of self importance. The democratic process is not a part of their culture.

For me, it comes down to two choices: Do you want to be managed by Brussels for 20 years before the Union collapses or do you want your grandchildren to live in a prosperous and harmonious Europe?
But that's just me.

sink

Mother says wrote: »

If we look at the Federalisation of the United States, it took 200 years and a terrible civil war to unite less than 300 million people that, for the most part shared a common language and similar culture. The genesis for the emergence of the US was a genuine democratic revolution.

The American war of independence took place between 1775-1883, back then the population of the colonies was around 5 million and English was not the universal language there were many French, Spanish and German speakers all of whom were recent immigrants and processed separate unique cultures carried over from Europe.

80 years later the American civil war took place between 1861-1865 and the population was still relatively small compared to today at 30-35 million. Many of the people who fought in the war were recent immigrants who had just arrived from Europe and were completely alien to the established American culture, including massive numbers of Irish fleeing the great famine.

So your statement is completely false. The homogenisation of American culture and language was in it infancy during the development of the American federal government and the people were as culturally and ethnically diverse as Europe having just emigrated from there and other continents such as Africa and let's not forget to include the native Americans.

There is a case to be made that Europe is more culturally homogeneous today then America was in it's revolutionary past due to modern transport and communications. In terms of travel time and commercial activity Poland is closer to Ireland today than Massachusetts was to New York in 1865.

Mother says

sink wrote: »

The American war of independence took place between 1775-1883,

On the topic of completely false statements...

sink wrote: »

back then the population of the colonies was around 5 million and English was not the universal language there were many French, Spanish and German speakers all of whom were recent immigrants and processed separate unique cultures carried over from Europe.

They had in common the fact, as you say, that they were all immigrants to America from Europe. They would have been governed predominantly through English.

sink wrote: »

80 years later the American civil war took place between 1861-1865 and the population was still relatively small compared to today at 30-35 million. Many of the people who fought in the war were recent immigrants who had just arrived from Europe and were completely alien to the established American culture, including massive numbers of Irish fleeing the great famine.

So your statement is completely false.

How does that conclusively prove that my statement is completely false?

sink wrote: »

The homogenisation of American culture and language was in it infancy during the development of the American federal government and the people were as culturally and ethnically diverse as Europe having just emigrated from there

Exactly! And it still took hundreds of years to integrate. Furthermore, Europe had the most terrible war in it's history only two generations ago, I think its fair to say we are still very much in the infancy of our cultural homogenisation.

sink wrote: »

In terms of travel time and commercial activity Poland is closer to Ireland today than Massachusetts was to New York in 1865.

Is that a statement of fact? Is there an empirical calculation for converting distances for different time periods? Poland is 1400 km from Ireland. New York is 0 km from Massachusetts. New York city is 150km from Mass. Try walking from here to Poland... please.

Perhaps instead of nit picking an admittedly simplistic analogy you could actually address the point I was making. Wether or not Europe is more culturally homogenised than America was, it is still a very short time to impose such a complicated project on such a vast number of different people without their implicit popular consent.

nesf

[QUOTE=Mother says;61979911 Furthermore, Europe had the most terrible war in it's history only two generations ago, I think its fair to say we are still very much in the infancy of our cultural homogenisation.[/QUOTE]

Is there such a homogenisation being actively sought at an EU level?

MadCat

Connection between pay cheques and pro Lisbon supporters on this site?

Must be something there, ordinary people do not sit on a forum 24 hrs a day, these people are gettin' paid in my opinion.

nesf

MadCat wrote: »

Connection between pay cheques and pro Lisbon supporters on this site?

Must be something there, ordinary people do not sit on a forum 24 hrs a day, these people are gettin' paid in my opinion.

Interesting accusation. Who's on 24 hours a day? And you better have something more than "in my opinion" to back this up.

meglome

MadCat wrote: »

Connection between pay cheques and pro Lisbon supporters on this site?

Must be something there, ordinary people do not sit on a forum 24 hrs a day, these people are gettin' paid in my opinion.

Actually I've got more time on my hands since the government cut the work we were doing for them.

Of course that has nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty.

Tell you what though let's do an analysis of the Yes/No voters and I'll think you'll find a lot of No voters with very new accounts many that are coming from the same Ip addresses. I'm sure that's nothing though, probably just people living in the same place and having a sudden common interest in voting No, eh?

sink

Mother says wrote: »

How does that conclusively prove that my statement is completely false?

It's completely false because when the federal government of the United States was created there was no homogenised American Culture and the numbers involved were 1/10th of the current population.

Mother says wrote: »

Exactly! And it still took hundreds of years to integrate. Furthermore, Europe had the most terrible war in it's history only two generations ago, I think its fair to say we are still very much in the infancy of our cultural homogenisation.

Just like the USA when it was first formed.

Mother says wrote: »

Is that a statement of fact? Is there an empirical calculation for converting distances for different time periods? Poland is 1400 km from Ireland. New York is 0 km from Massachusetts. New York city is 150km from Mass. Try walking from here to Poland... please.

I was talking about modern transport. It would take you 8/9 hours to travel from NYC to Boston by train (the fastest mode available) in 1865. Today you can travel from Dublin to Warsaw in roughly 4hours by Jet. Consider also the impact modern communications technology, in 1865 they didn't even have radio or the telephone.

Mother says wrote: »

Perhaps instead of nit picking an admittedly simplistic analogy you could actually address the point I was making. Wether or not Europe is more culturally homogenised than America was, it is still a very short time to impose such a complicated project on such a vast number of different people without their implicit explicit popular consent.

FYP

There was no explicit consent to the US constitution either, it was ratified by parliamentary convention in the 13 founding states not unlike the way EU treaties are ratified in the majority of EU states through their parliaments.

Mother says

nesf wrote: »

Is there such a homogenisation being actively sought at an EU level?

I don't know. Where is the EU level? I presume its above me. If I had to guess I would say they have some on the go but I wouldn't have thought they would make a significant difference to the natural process from of homogenisation of from migration and media.