Lisbon and sovereignty

hatrickpatrick

Soldie wrote: »

Nationalism tends to go hand-in-hand with forcing views upon others and, for that reason, it's largely incompatible with libertarianism.

How is that? It's the opposite. I am a nationalist because I DON'T want anyone to impose their laws on our nation other than our nation's citizens.

In addition, most libertarians would see the modern nation-state as somewhat illogical and redundant, so it doesn't make much sense to call oneself a nationalist and a libertarian.

Why? The political system is illogical and redundant, I absolutely agree. But that doesn't mean I have no national identity. I'm an Irishman. My family has a long history of leading revolutions for our freedom and I was brought up with the sense that a nation should be free to make its own laws and live by its own system rather than have them imposed by a foreign power. That's the nationalist part. I also believe that the only things which people should be banned from doing are things which somehow infringe the rights of others. That's the libertarian part.

I should clarify and say that I am a social libertarian. I'm incredibly left wing socially. But I'm also slightly centre-left economically so I'm not a fully fledged libertarian either. "Humanist libertarian" would probably be the closest description I can think of for myself.

Soldie

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How is that? It's the opposite. I am a nationalist because I DON'T want anyone to impose their laws on our nation other than our nation's citizens.

I think it's incompatible with libertarianism because the end-goal of libertarianism is the withering away of the state, and for the individual to have maximal personal freedoms. Whether this is achieved (or facilitated) by an independent Irish state, or as part of the UK, for example, really shouldn't matter at all - in the end the state itself will have little to no power at all and, as such, no relevance.

Why? The political system is illogical and redundant, I absolutely agree. But that doesn't mean I have no national identity. I'm an Irishman. My family has a long history of leading revolutions for our freedom and I was brought up with the sense that a nation should be free to make its own laws and live by its own system rather than have them imposed by a foreign power. That's the nationalist part. I also believe that the only things which people should be banned from doing are things which somehow infringe the rights of others. That's the libertarian part.

Your ethnicity and heritage has nothing to do with the politics you espouse, though (at least it shouldn't).

EDIT: If the mods think the thread is being hi-jacked then perhaps our tangent could be cut off and sent to the Political Theory forum.

Scofflaw

It's interesting, and sovereignty/nationalism and libertarianism are both important issues within the broader EU debate.

While it's easy to forget, this isn't actually the Lisbon Treaty forum.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Daftendirekt

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How is that? It's the opposite. I am a nationalist because I DON'T want anyone to impose their laws on our nation other than our nation's citizens.

To the nationalist the sovereignty of the nation takes precedence over anything else. To the libertarian, the sovereignty of the individual is paramount.

Since the only legitimate role of government (to the libertarian, at least) is to protect the personal freedom of the individual, it's largely unimportant how this is attained. A group of nations such as the EU, gaining greater control over domestic Irish affairs is preferable to a completely self-governing state, if the laws it enacts provide greater personal freedom to the people of the state.

Why? The political system is illogical and redundant, I absolutely agree. But that doesn't mean I have no national identity. I'm an Irishman. My family has a long history of leading revolutions for our freedom and I was brought up with the sense that a nation should be free to make its own laws and live by its own system rather than have them imposed by a foreign power. That's the nationalist part. I also believe that the only things which people should be banned from doing are things which somehow infringe the rights of others. That's the libertarian part.

I should clarify and say that I am a social libertarian. I'm incredibly left wing socially. But I'm also slightly centre-left economically so I'm not a fully fledged libertarian either. "Humanist libertarian" would probably be the closest description I can think of for myself.

To be fair, what you're describing sounds more like liberalism. Nothing wrong with that, it's just a different arbitrary label.

And while there is a lot of overlap between the two philosophies, I'd always associate libertarianism with a more anti-state/government stance (i.e. the state isn't desirable, but sometimes it's necessary) and right wing economics. Whereas liberalism places a greater role on the state, in protecting both personal freedom and social equality, and views it more as an important tool than a necessary evil.

hatrickpatrick

Daftendirekt wrote: »

To the nationalist the sovereignty of the nation takes precedence over anything else. To the libertarian, the sovereignty of the individual is paramount.

Since the only legitimate role of government (to the libertarian, at least) is to protect the personal freedom of the individual, it's largely unimportant how this is attained. A group of nations such as the EU, gaining greater control over domestic Irish affairs is preferable to a completely self-governing state, if the laws it enacts provide greater personal freedom to the people of the state.

One way of achieving libertarianism is through direct democracy (thus everyone could participate in lawmaking if they chose to). I have always affirmed that I approve of a move in this direction.

To be fair, what you're describing sounds more like liberalism. Nothing wrong with that, it's just a different arbitrary label.

It's not quite though because I believe in absolute free speech - so no censorship or political correctness - and I don't believe any subsances should be banned for people to take consensually. "Liberals" tend to support banning or restricting smoking, drugs, alcohol, etc.

And while there is a lot of overlap between the two philosophies, I'd always associate libertarianism with a more anti-state/government stance (i.e. the state isn't desirable, but sometimes it's necessary) and right wing economics. Whereas liberalism places a greater role on the state, in protecting both personal freedom and social equality, and views it more as an important tool than a necessary evil.

Yes, but this is the absolute key point. You have to pick one or the other, and we are more likely to have a direct influence on a national government than on the EU, since we only have a tiny percentage of the EU parliament by the balls via elections. That's why I support national sovereignty over international democracy.

Daftendirekt

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

One way of achieving libertarianism is through direct democracy (thus everyone could participate in lawmaking if they chose to). I have always affirmed that I approve of a move in this direction.

I'm not sure if I agree.

I'd be inclined to think a representative democracy would be more conducive to protecting personal liberty.

I can understand why at a glance a direct democracy would seem like the better option, but in reality, it's too easy for it to slip into a 'dictatorship by majority' scenario.

Take the example of abortion (and it really is just an example, I really don't want to start a debate on the issue here. Replace 'abortion' with
'the legalisation of drugs' or whatever if you aren't comfortable with this line of discussion) .

If the majority of people in Ireland are opposed to abortion, then no matter how many times the issue is put to the vote, it will always be rejected. Hence, a minority of the population are deprived of an important liberty because of a personal belief of the majority.

It's not quite though because I believe in absolute free speech - so no censorship or political correctness - and I don't believe any subsances should be banned for people to take consensually. "Liberals" tend to support banning or restricting smoking, drugs, alcohol, etc.

I'd personally see that as more like the caricature of the 'pinko, lefty, liberal', but I understand your objection to the use of the term. This is just semantics though, so I won't labour the point. The great thing about language is it's so flexible.

Yes, but this is the absolute key point. You have to pick one or the other, and we are more likely to have a direct influence on a national government than on the EU, since we only have a tiny percentage of the EU parliament by the balls via elections. That's why I support national sovereignty over international democracy.

In general, I'd agree with you, but in the specific case of the EU I wouldn't. The Lisbon Treaty in particular is a huge step forward in this regard, with the increase of power of the Parliament, giving national Parliaments a chance to vet any proposals and the Citizens' Initiative (my personal favourite).

Apart from this though, if the EU proved itself to be more socially liberal (not in the pinko lefty sense ) and protective of individual rights than our largely authoritarian government (and believe I it has), would you be happy to further the pooling of sovereignty?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

View

greeno wrote: »

I think the question here is are you happy to have Irish sovereignty dissolved by the sounds of it you are and in which case you will and should vote yes. The reasons people like me are voting no is because the sovereingty of our state means a lot to me. I feel we fought very hard to get our independance and our constitution so as we could make decisions of our own, not to be incumbent to some superstate

The Irish people made a decision - a sovereign decision - to join the European Communites. They also made sovereign decisions to approve the ECs subsequent transformation into the European Union.

In other words, they approved a situation where our European Union makes part of our laws for us.

The problem here is that you don't appear to be willing accept that the Irish electorate made sovereign decisions to approve all of this. You, in effect, are seeking to deny the sovereign right of the electorate to have made these decisions because you don't like the decisions that they made.

ConsiderThis

View wrote: »

The Irish people made a decision - a sovereign decision - to join the European Communites. They also made sovereign decisions to approve the ECs subsequent transformation into the European Union.

In other words, they approved a situation where our European Union makes part of our laws for us.

The problem here is that you don't appear to be willing accept that the Irish electorate made sovereign decisions to approve all of this. You, in effect, are seeking to deny the sovereign right of the electorate to have made these decisions because you don't like the decisions that they made.

Another decision, of course, was to reject the constitutional amendment necessary to ratify the Lisbon treaty.

We are being asked to vote on exactely the same amendment again, with not one comma changed. Who is it you are claiming does not accept the Irish electorate made sovereign decision?

I have to point out here that the so called "guarantees" are political promises, and are not included in the second vote, which is exactely the same as the last vote. I, for one, am not inclined to believe political promises from a FF government who has a long history of lying to the people of this country.

Sam Vimes

ConsiderThis wrote: »

Another decision, of course, was to reject the constitutional amendment necessary to ratify the Lisbon treaty.

We are being asked to vote on exactely the same amendment again, with not one comma changed. Who is it you are claiming does not accept the Irish electorate made sovereign decision?

I have to point out here that the so called "guarantees" are political promises, and are not included in the second vote, which is exactely the same as the last vote. I, for one, am not inclined to believe political promises from a FF government who has a long history of lying to the people of this country.

Please point out the parts of the treaty that should have been changed to address the issues of abortion, taxation, conscription, loss of neutrality and the loss of a commissioner.

And you don't have to believe "political promises from a FF government", but you should believe legally binding guarantees that have been ratified by the 27 heads of state of the EU and all 27 parliaments and will be registered with the UN the moment the treaty is ratified.

ConsiderThis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Please point out the parts of the treaty that should have been changed to address the issues of abortion, taxation, conscription, loss of neutrality and the loss of a commissioner.

And you don't have to believe "political promises from a FF government", but you should believe legally binding guarantees that have been ratified by the 27 heads of state of the EU and all 27 parliaments and will be registered with the UN the moment the treaty is ratified.

In fairness, we are not being asked to ratify the guarantees. We are being asked to vote on the same constitutional amendment as we voted on before.

The guarantees are not offered by "heads of state" (our president is head of state) but by politicians who will do anything to get this treaty through. The 27 which you seem to put your faith in have not allowed any of their people to be consulted on the issue, (so much for their belief in democracy), and are politicians. In my experience politicians will manipulate any situation and will lie and cheat to get their own way. Perhaps your experience of politicians is different to mine.

If you want to trust political promises made by desperate politicians, that your choice. I don't trust them and that's my choice.

Sam Vimes

I am so tired of correcting the same things over and over. I'll be glad when this is all over

ConsiderThis wrote: »

In fairness, we are not being asked to ratify the guarantees. We are being asked to vote on the same constitutional amendment as we voted on before.

Yes we are being asked to vote on an amendment that never had anything to do with abortion, taxation, conscription or neutrality. But many people were tricked into believing it did. The previous deal would also have lost us a commissioner but now doesn't. All of those issues have been resolved so why not ask people if they've changed their minds?

This is something that they tip toe around in the media but the Irish people were fooled into rejecting the treaty by a determined campaign of liars. What is so wrong with the government attempting to clear up all of the misconceptions and asking people to vote on the actual contents of the treaty?

ConsiderThis wrote: »

The guarantees are not offered by "heads of state" (our president is head of state) but by politicians who will do anything to get this treaty through.

The guarantees have been ratified by the European Council, all 27 parliaments and will be lodged with the UN. If you look at article 249 of Lisbon you will see that a "decision" in the European council is not like a normal decision, it's a term used for a legally binding agreement:

Lisbon Treaty Article:

“LEGAL ACTS OF THE UNION

233) The heading of Chapter 2 shall be replaced by the following "LEGAL ACTS OF THE UNION, ADOPTION PROCEDURES AND OTHER PROVISIONS".

234) A Section 1 shall be inserted above Article 249:

"SECTION 1 THE LEGAL ACTS OF THE UNION".”



“235) Article 249 shall be amended as follows:

(a) the first paragraph shall be replaced by the following:

"To exercise the Union's competences, the institutions shall adopt regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions.";

(b) the fourth paragraph shall be replaced by the following:

"A decision shall be binding in its entirety. A decision which specifies those to whom it is addressed shall be binding only on them."

If you think they might go back on these guarantees then it makes no difference what way you vote on Lisbon because it would make the treaties irrelevant. Once an agreement is broken the European Union is dead. And I'm not exaggerating, it would be the end of the union.

ConsiderThis wrote: »

The 27 which you seem to put your faith in have not allowed any of their people to be consulted on the issue, (so much for their belief in democracy),

The Irish people have rejected two EU treaties because of lies and they might very well be about to do it a third time because of these lies:

€200 billion in fisheries
€1.84 minimum wage
Forcing us to engage in military action in a terrorist attack
European superstate
Abortion
gay marriage
EUthanasia
Death penalty
Massive conspiracy to pretend the guarantees are binding
Treaty is unreadable
Treaty is designed to be unreadable
Corrupt surveys to make up fake issues and pretend to address them
Ratification through parliament in other countries is somehow undemocratic or unusual
EU "didn't allow" other countres to have referendums
Keep voting until you give the right answer
Ryanair allowed buy Aer Lingus in exchange for the campaign
Rigged polls to make it look like the yes side are ahead
Lisbon allows Turkish accession (with fake video)
Lisbon makes EU law superior to Irish law
Losing the right to referendums
We will no longer have a constitution in Ireland
Self-amending and escalator clause
Privatisation of healthcare and education
More military spending
Lavelle case could happen here
Charter of human rights allows the EU to take the homes, assets and children of people with mild intellectual disabilities and alcoholics
Voting weight halved
QMV is brand new
Loss of veto in all areas
Allows EU to raise our corporation tax
Conscription into a non-existent EU army
EU commission diverted €10 million to yes campaign
Treaty is the same as the constitution dressed up to avoid referendums
Fake polls made up by Coir
2nd vote undemocratic. (The reasons that many people voted no have been addressed and the supreme court has ruled that it's not)

Referendums are for issues like divorce and abortion, complex legal documents describing the relationship between 27 nations are for politicians and legal experts. That's why we elect them

ConsiderThis wrote: »

If you want to trust political promises made by desperate politicians, that your choice. I don't trust them and that's my choice.

But you trust Sinn Fein, Declan Ganley, the religious fundamentalists and the communists. You will of course say no but these are the only people spreading lies about this treaty, they are the only ones spreading FUD. Your choice is to believe their conspiracy theories or accept the facts. Yes politicians lie but extremists lie an awful lot more.

ConsiderThis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But you trust Sinn Fein, Declan Ganley, the religious fundamentalists and the communists. You will of course say no but these are the only people spreading lies about this treaty, they are the only ones spreading FUD. Your choice is to believe their conspiracy theories or accept the facts. Yes politicians lie but extremists lie an awful lot more.

I wasn't aware that I have said how I am going to vote, or that I "trust" Sinn Fein or anyone else for that matter. That you make the claim that I do seems to weaken your arguments, as if you are prepared to jump to this sort of conclusion here, there is a presumption that you may also do that elsewhere.

I think it's unlikely that they are the "only people" spreading lies about this treaty. Again, if it's your opinion that no one else is telling lies about the treaty, it seems to call into question your judgement.

I am not limited to believing "their conspiracy theories" ( I am not even aware of what their conspiracy theories are), and why you should decide for me that this is my only choice seems unclear.

It's self evidently true that we are being asked to vote on exactly the same constitutional amendment as before.