Connection between support for EU and distaste for democracy

Mother says

sink wrote: »

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.

If you are going to take the time to comment on my posts at least take the time to read them:

'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.'

I'm aware that the population changed changed over time. I was trying to keep it succinct. In fact the population was less than 1/100th of what it is today not exactly 1/10th as you say. From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Colonies#Population

'1775: 2,418,000 At the time of the Revolutionary War, approximately 85 per cent of the white population was of English, Irish, Welsh, and Scottish descent. Persons of German origin represented 8.8 per cent of the white population, and those of Dutch origin represented 3.5 per cent of the colonists.'

85% from the British Isles suggests some degree of homogeneity to me.
So, in fact your statement was completely false. This is what happens when you talk in absolutes.

sink wrote: »

Just like the USA when it was first formed.

Yes, why are you disagreeing with me,? That's what makes it an analogy! The birth of the US was very similar to that of the EU and the US has had a rough history. It is useful to look at history in order to gauge how future events may unfold. Pretty basic stuff...

sink wrote: »

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.

So what are you saying, the two situations are not comparable? Considering there was such a small population and a lot less information to spread around I think they are. It's irrelevant anyway since you seem to agree with me.

sink wrote: »

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.

I meant what I typed and ill thank you not to be so condescending as to tell me what I meant. There was definitely never any explicit consent to a federal EU. In fact there was explicit opposition when the constitution was rejected.
In the US there was implicit consent in that there was an uprising popular enough to defeat the British Empire. I know there was no explicit consent (in the form of a plebiscite) that is why I used the word implicit.

The point I was trying to make is that we should not be surprised if the EU fails because it does not clearly have the support of the people it is supposed to unify and in fact its architects clearly show a disdain for the people who's lives they are supposedly improving and for the democratic process. I don't want the EU to fail, that's why I'm voting No to Lisbon.

In Chains

Mother says wrote: »

85% from the British Isles suggests some degree of homogeneity to me.
So, in fact your statement was completely false. This is what happens when you talk in absolutes.

The birth of the US was very similar to that of the EU and the US has had a rough history. It is useful to look at history in order to gauge how future events may unfold. Pretty basic stuff...

...I don't want the EU to fail, that's why I'm voting No to Lisbon.

Good post, but i would disagree on the one point of the US and EU being similar. The USA was already a nation forged in the revolutionary struggle at its inception. It only had, for the brief period between 1776 and 1789, the constitution of a confederation because that was the de-facto situation when the revolutionary war ended with the severed links to London leaving each state executive (governor) independent of each other. The US Constitution of 1787 was for a nation-state (it begins with the words "We the People..." corrected the problem of a single people divided between 13 sets of political institutions. The EU is not like that at all. It really is 27 nations already, each of which need their own nation-state if they are to enjoy self-government.

So the most basic of all mistakes in the EU debate is to confuse the USA with Europe, and to say that because there is a nation-state with a federal form of government on its Western side of the Atlantic, there can by a multi-national federation on the other side.

nesf

Mother says wrote: »

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.

I mean it in terms of this. In France we have forced homogenisation through the banning of languages other than a specific type of French. In the EU we've active encouragement of countries using their many languages to conduct formal business in.

I look at the EU and don't really see much homogenisation going on. I genuinely don't think it's wanted by the different Governments and peoples.

LibbyPhelan

meglome wrote: »

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?

More likely that they were previously banned for daring to express anti lisbon opinions.

ei.sdraob

LibbyPhelan wrote: »

More likely that they were previously banned for daring to express anti lisbon opinions.

more likely they were banned for ignoring moderators or going against the charter

marco_polo

LibbyPhelan wrote: »

More likely that they were previously banned for daring to express anti lisbon opinions.

Strange how you seem to have a such a strong opinion on the matter after just 4 posts.

LibbyPhelan

ei.sdraob wrote: »

for ignoring moderators

:rolleyes: Exactly my point, pro lisbon moderators.

PopeBuckfastXVI

LibbyPhelan wrote: »

:rolleyes: Exactly my point, pro lisbon moderators.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055627762

marco_polo

LibbyPhelan wrote: »

:rolleyes: Exactly my point, pro lisbon moderators.

But as far as I know none of them have even logged in since you first started posting for the first time ever on this site a half an hour ago.

LibbyPhelan

marco_polo wrote: »

But as far as I know none of them have even logged in since you first started posting for the first time ever on this site a half an hour ago.

You can read previous posts, No? If not take a started course on computer usage.

ei.sdraob

LibbyPhelan wrote: »

You can read previous posts, No? If not take a started course on computer usage.

if you have a problem with moderation take it up with the helpdesk

at least the moderators are able to form more than a single sentence posts unlike you

marco_polo

LibbyPhelan wrote: »

You can read previous posts, No? If not take a started course on computer usage.

Anyways, so what are your opinions on the treaty?

PopeBuckfastXVI

marco_polo wrote: »

Anyways, so what are your opinions on the treaty?

Presumably the same as whatever alias she was using before a banning, from the way she's going on?

LibbyPhelan

marco_polo wrote: »

Anyways, so what are your opinions on the treaty?

No the first time around, No now and NO the next time around.


Not a chance it will pass at the second attempt. Look at the tax report yesterday, welcome to hell.

PopeBuckfastXVI

LibbyPhelan wrote: »

No the first time around, No now and NO the next time around.


Not a chance it will pass at the second attempt. Look at the tax report yesterday, welcome to hell.

So no opinions on the treaty itself then...

:not very surprised at all smiley:

marco_polo

LibbyPhelan wrote: »

No the first time around, No now and NO the next time around.


Not a chance it will pass at the second attempt. Look at the tax report yesterday, welcome to hell.

The taxation commision has nothing to do with Lisbon.

Do you no feel it is appropriate to got back to Europe, negotiate and address the concerns of a many voters over the treaty and put it to the people again. What could be more democratic that that?

LibbyPhelan

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

So no opinions on the treaty itself then...

:not very surprised at all smiley:

Oh my opinions are very well founded. I detest the EU and want to see Ireland pulling out of the "union". I am against anything which promises more integration.

And as a side issue, the governement never consulted me on my opinions, infact I never seen my opinion on the list of reasons for people voting NO.

LibbyPhelan

marco_polo wrote: »

. What could be more democratic that that?

Respecting the will of the people.

marco_polo

LibbyPhelan wrote: »

Oh my opinions are very well founded. I detest the EU and want to see Ireland pulling out of the "union". I am against anything which promises more integration.

And as a side issue, the governement never consulted me on my opinions, infact I never seen my opinion on the list of reasons for people voting NO.

That is because your views are a fringe isolationist position, that are not even shared by 90% of people voting No. Back to the good old pre Sean Lemass days for us all. What would be the point in asking an anti EU campaigner about the contents of a Euopean Treaty?

LibbyPhelan

marco_polo wrote: »

That is because they are a fringe isolationist position, that are not even shared by 90% of people voting No. Back to the good old pre Sean Lemass days for us all.

:rolleyes:

Back to freedom for all, where the will of the people is respected and we are not rail roaded into serfdom.

ei.sdraob

LibbyPhelan wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Back to freedom for all, where the will of the people is respected and we are not rail roaded into serfdom.

railroaded by being given hundreds of billions of euro to build our infrastructure from a 3rd world country standards

since when is voting equates to "railroading"?

LibbyPhelan wrote:

I detest the EU and want to see Ireland pulling out of the "union"

:rolleyes:

yes i see

and if ireland would pull out of the EU

where would a large chunk of the population earn their livelyhoods from?

back to potatoes and emigration so

/

P. Breathnach

LibbyPhelan wrote: »

... Back to freedom for all, where the will of the people is respected and we are not rail roaded into serfdom.

I wonder why people bother to re-register with a new name when they don't have anything much to say.

humanji

LibbyPhelan wrote: »

I detest the EU and want to see Ireland pulling out of the "union".

Doesn't a Yes vote give us a provision for leaving the EU? So it's actually in your best interests to vote Yes. Then you can get your political party together, get enought support to get into government and then get us out of the EU. Should be easy to do if you've got the support of the people.

ei.sdraob

humanji wrote: »

Doesn't a Yes vote give us a provision for leaving the EU? So it's actually in your best interests to vote Yes.

YES it does ironic eh?

getz

LibbyPhelan wrote: »

Oh my opinions are very well founded. I detest the EU and want to see Ireland pulling out of the "union". I am against anything which promises more integration.

And as a side issue, the governement never consulted me on my opinions, infact I never seen my opinion on the list of reasons for people voting NO.

i dont think you will be the only one on this, the EU will soon have to back track on its political ideals,i believe that next year the citizens of the UK will have their say,without doubt the conservative party will be in power,the general election has to be called before june 2010,they have already said they will go to the uk public about europe,most conservative members have indicated they wish to pull out,and as we know joe public in the UK has no love for the EU.the most significant thing about this ,was that in november 18th 1999,the american senate passed a act,[by the request of the UK goverment]to a allow the united kindom to join NAFFA,the north american free trade agreement if they wish.that includes the US canada and mexico,so its up to the EU to win the hearts and change minds. or the EU will be in a mess

PopeBuckfastXVI

getz wrote: »

i dont think you will be the only one on this, the EU will soon have to back track on its political ideals,i believe that next year the citizens of the UK will have their say,without doubt the conservative party will be in power,the general election has to be called before june 2010,they have already said they will go to the uk public about europe,most conservative members have indicated they wish to pull out,and as we know joe public in the UK has no love for the EU.the most significant thing about this ,was that in november 18th 1999,the american senate passed a act,[by the request of the UK goverment]to a allow the united kindom to join NAFFA,the north american free trade agreement if they wish.that includes the US canada and mexico,so its up to the EU to win the hearts and change minds. or the EU will be in a mess

The Irish Republic is not in the UK though. So, y'know, whatever.

ei.sdraob

getz wrote: »

i dont think you will be the only one on this, the EU will soon have to back track on its political ideals,i believe that next year the citizens of the UK will have their say,without doubt the conservative party will be in power,the general election has to be called before june 2010,they have already said they will go to the uk public about europe,most conservative members have indicated they wish to pull out,and as we know joe public in the UK has no love for the EU.the most significant thing about this ,was that in november 18th 1999,the american senate passed a act,[by the request of the UK goverment]to a allow the united kindom to join NAFFA,the north american free trade agreement if they wish.that includes the US canada and mexico,so its up to the EU to win the hearts and change minds. or the EU will be in a mess

as I said before if any country wants to leave the EU, well thats their choice

Lisbon would make it possible as there is an "exit strategy" clause

Now i dont care what the UK does, we are not part of the UK (thank god) and the EU has done more good to this country in a few decades than the raping that ensured under British rule for hundreds of years

Cameron is a puppet but im sure hes aware taking UK out the worlds largest market into the worlds second largest market is a step backward not forward economically

and politically Labour are paying dearly for siding with Yanks in Iraq and Afghanistan quagmires

oscarBravo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I wonder why people bother to re-register with a new name when they don't have anything much to say.

Personally, I strongly suspect OCD. I've lost count of the number of previous incarnations of this particular poster, but it must be more than twenty by now.

In Chains

Mother says wrote: »

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.

...

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.

Good post. It may be that those who work inside the Brussels system are a 4th group in addition to the three i mentioned, even if they to some extent share the views of groups 1 and 3. They have additional personal reasons for supporting Lisbon because the increase in power that Lisbon gives the EU is a power they will exercise. They will mix up their own interests with that of the voters and favour Lisbon even if it is a bad treaty that disenfranchises the voters.

getz

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The Irish Republic is not in the UK though. So, y'know, whatever.

i know it isent,but if ireland say no,and there is a good chance they will,after the threats from france/germany . they are only a small player in the EU,and the EU will continue to carry on regardless, it would take one of the larger PAYING IN contributors ;like the UK;, for them to backtrack ,