Why are the British so anti Europe?

Jim2007

gallag wrote: »

Laughable really, we have a massive trade deficit with the EU. -"The EU sells a lot more to us than we sell to them. In 2009 there was a trade deficit of £34.9bn; in 2011, it was nearly £50bn. In the very worst case scenario if trade stopped with the EU, the UK would lost 3 million jobs which are dependent on trade with the EU. The EU however, would lost 4 millions jobs, so it would be nonsensical for them not to trade with their biggest customer.

This paragraph begs the question: if the UK has faired so poorly in a market where they have had unrestricted access, how can they expect to do better when access starts to be come restricted? Will their industry suddenly be come more dynamic, more competitive.....

And as for this idea of doing independent trade deals in Asia and so on, the problem there is that the UK cost structure is much higher than in Asia and the price of such agreements will be cheap goods flowing into the UK, resulting in job losses or poor working conditions since workers will have lost their protections under EU law.

McDave

gallag wrote: »

I don't think you have made a very good job with your rebuttals but I appreciate the effort instead of a post filled with nothing and insults!

just as an example, you say 3&4 can be dealt with by domestic legislation but do you understand any limitations put on non British EU citizens to access NHS and benefits would by EU law also have to apply to British citizens?

I don't think you made a very good job with your list of rent-a-phobie bolt-on gripes. They don't in the round really merit detailed rebuttal.

On health, EU law prevents discrimination on grounds of nationality. You can't discriminate against EU nationals working and making social contributions. If you want EU workers out, that's fine as a POV. I don't think most British people would support that view. You can deal with non-EU workers and EU non-workers on a different basis. Those aspects are entirely at the gift of Westminster while being within the EU.

gallag

Jim2007 wrote: »

This paragraph begs the question: if the UK has faired so poorly in a market where they have had unrestricted access, how can they expect to do better when access starts to be come restricted? Will their industry suddenly be come more dynamic, more competitive.....

And as for this idea of doing independent trade deals in Asia and so on, the problem there is that the UK cost structure is much higher than in Asia and the price of such agreements will be cheap goods flowing into the UK, resulting in job losses or poor working conditions since workers will have lost their protections under EU law.

But the point is access won't become restricted, the EU is not going to cut of its nose to spite their face. Nothing will change.

still waiting on someone pointing out a negative for the UK on exit?

gallag

McDave wrote: »

I don't think you made a very good job with your list of rent-a-phobie bolt-on gripes. They don't in the round really merit detailed rebuttal.

On health, EU law prevents discrimination on grounds of nationality. You can't discriminate against EU nationals working and making social contributions. If you want EU workers out, that's fine as a POV. I don't think most British people would support that view. You can deal with non-EU workers and EU non-workers on a different basis. Those aspects are entirely at the gift of Westminster while being within the EU.

That's pretty laughable, I made a list of genuine points but you would rather ignore them and continue ranting about xenophobic, racist rent-a-phobie etc

what about the list of negatives for the EU on a Brit exit? no doubt more xenophobic flag waving little Englander nonsense?

gallag

McDave wrote: »

On health, EU law prevents discrimination on grounds of nationality. You can't discriminate against EU nationals working and making social contributions. If you want EU workers out, that's fine as a POV. I don't think most British people would support that view. You can deal with non-EU workers and EU non-workers on a different basis. Those aspects are entirely at the gift of Westminster while being within the EU.

So what your saying is that if the NHS becomes non viable and overstretched by serving non Brits we should just end it for everyone and not prioritise British people? do you think it's sustainable to have a system where free health care to over 400m people as long as they come and take 16 hrs a week in tesco?

Jim2007

gallag wrote: »

just as an example, you say 3&4 can be dealt with by domestic legislation but do you understand any limitations put on non British EU citizens to access NHS and benefits would by EU law also have to apply to British citizens?

This true and rightly so, but not the full story! If done correctly and in accordance with EU rules on the free movement of people it would only apply to people who have established an economic existence in the UK.

An EU citizen is entitled to go to another EU country for up to three months to search for work, with a possible extension for another three months. During that time there is no automatic right to social assistance. After this period and having failed to find employment they can be required to return to their home country.

This the way it is done in other parts of Europe, so why not in the UK?

(DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC)

Peregrinus

gallag wrote: »

So what your saying is that if the NHS becomes non viable and overstretched by serving non Brits we should just end it for everyone and not prioritise British people? do you think it's sustainable to have a system where free health care to over 400m people as long as they come and take 16 hrs a week in tesco?

As the UK has been doing that, more or less, for 40 years it would seem that yes, it is sustainable.

I appreciate that the cost of the health service is growing. The growth is not really down to 400 million health tourists, though.

oscarBravo

gallag wrote: »

But the point is access won't become restricted, the EU is not going to cut of its nose to spite their face. Nothing will change.

If by "nothing will change" you mean that the UK will still have to contribute to the EU budget, still have to implement EU directives, and still have a trade deficit with the EU, then sure: nothing will change. Which makes you wonder why it's so important to some people to leave in the first place.

If, on the other hand, you mean that the UK will have access to a tariff-free market in the EU while conceding nothing whatsoever in return, then I have a number of fine river-crossing structures you may wish to invest in.

McDave

gallag wrote: »

That's pretty laughable, I made a list of genuine points but you would rather ignore them and continue ranting about xenophobic, racist rent-a-phobie etc

what about the list of negatives for the EU on a Brit exit? no doubt more xenophobic flag waving little Englander nonsense?

I didn't mention 'xenophobia' or racism in the post you've just responded to. If you want to deal with those issues, please refer to the posts concerned. In the interests of accuracy and accountability.

I responded to your points. Most of them are fairly standard. There's no need for either of us to chase each other down rabbit holes on banal issues which we're not going to agree on.

As for negatives, I think it's pretty clear that probably all member states would prefer to see the UK remain in the EU. However, if the UK exercises its sovereign right to exit, the rest of the EU will move on. Maybe one or two countries might revise their positions on membership, or on joining, but the bulk will remain carrying on with business as normal. In the event of remaining or exit, your list of negatives will be purely academic.

McDave

gallag wrote: »

So what your saying is that if the NHS becomes non viable and overstretched by serving non Brits we should just end it for everyone and not prioritise British people? do you think it's sustainable to have a system where free health care to over 400m people as long as they come and take 16 hrs a week in tesco?

What 400 million people? You're not making sense.

SpaceTime

gallag wrote: »

and what about the negatives of a Brit exit for the EU?

1. lose there second largest economy (soon to be)
2. lose the most strategically important partner and see the security of the EU massively diminished overnight.
3. lose the fastest growing economy of the important economies.
4. lose the highest contributer to eu funds per capita forcing Germany to pick up the slack and fuel the conversation of what's actually in it for them at this point?
5. potential cash the EU markets overnight.
6. lose the financial capital of the world.

It isn't the highest contributor to the EU per capita due to the rebate Thatcher negotiated.

I think though there's definitely something wrong with how EU funds are getting distributed. There should be more money going back into underdeveloped parts of the UK, East Germany etc than their is.

The one thing I would say though is that EU funding to agriculture tends to distort the figures.

Ireland's for example has a huge agricultural sector relative to the size of the population. France too tends to get a lot of CAP funding for similar reasons.

So in some ways you're looking at poor countries (largely new members / crisis hit ones) and big agricultural producers.

No matter what way you carve it up though, it's going to upset somebody.

I always thought one way of funding it that would make more sense would be a % of VAT.

Say 1 or 2 % across the entire EU.

porsche959

meglome wrote: »

What happened that is of issue to you? I won't speak for the Danish vote but I seem to recall we initially voted no for reasons that were, almost entirely, not in the treaty. So I for one had no issue voting again on the actual issues rather that some made up scaremongering.

Can you not see what a dreadfully anti-democratic precedent this sets?

It is being widely predicted that the Irish Labour party will get a pasting at the next domestic general election. Let us suppose that this happens. How seriously would anyone be taken if they were to say, oh the electorate don't understand the issues, we will run the election again to give the Labour party another chance?

meglome wrote: »

Do you really think after what we've seen here that giving complex treaties to the ordinary joe soap is a good idea?

Whatever way I read this, it sounds like ugly elitism.

Incidentally, you seem to assume that the UK would be denied access, overnight, to a 450 million market in the event of opting out of certain EU treaties. Unfortunately, this indicates that you yourself have a very poor understanding of the issues - perhaps you should deny yourself the right to vote in such 'complex treaties'.

meglome wrote: »

They did a survey after the first Lisbon vote here and as I said above it showed that most concerns were not even in the treaty. It basically allows small fringe groups to scaremonger the populous into making poor decisions.

There is a recognised system whereby the referendum commission have the remit and responsibility of informing the electorate of arguments for and against any proposed amendment. If you feel they did a poor job, take it up with them.

oscarBravo

porsche959 wrote: »

Can you not see what a dreadfully anti-democratic precedent this sets?

It is being widely predicted that the Irish Labour party will get a pasting at the next general election. Let us suppose that this happens. How seriously would anyone be taken if they were, oh the electorate don't understand the issues, we will run the election again to give the Labour party a better chance?

There are two scenarios after an election: either a government is formed, or one isn't. If one isn't, then another election is held. Apparently, this is deeply undemocratic.

The constitution gives the government the power to hold referendums. The government will hold a referendum on a new EU treaty because it has negotiated that treaty and, presumably (conspiracy theories about how successive governments' only motivation is to destroy the country aside) because it believes that the treaty is in the best interests of the country.

If the electorate rejects the treaty - particularly when polling after the fact indicates that most of those who rejected it did so for reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty itself - then the government has the choice of either doing what it believes goes against the best interests of the state, and pandering to an under-informed electorate (and before you get on that high horse, if the electorate when questioned replies that it has voted for reasons that are irrelevant to the question it was asked, then "under-informed" isn't pejorative), or of trying harder to inform the electorate and asking the question again.

Whatever way I read this, it sounds like ugly elitism.

Not really. The average voter hasn't a clue how the EU works, never mind the nuances of an international treaty. You can call that elitism, but if you do, you probably don't quite understand what the word means.

There are people who think they know better than doctors about the possible ill-effects of vaccines. I think the world would be a much better place if people who don't understand the first thing about immunology would just shut the **** up and let the doctors do their job. There are those who consider this an "elitist" view; I consider it pragmatic.

Incidentally, you seem to assume that the UK would be denied access, overnight, to a 450 million market in the event of opting out of certain EU treaties.

It's unlikely that the UK would be denied access to the EU market overnight if it withdrew its EU membership, for the simple reason that the UK would have to negotiate a new free trade agreement with the EU along the lines of those that Norway and Switzerland have.

There are those who believe that the EU is so hopelessly dependent on the UK that it will immediately capitulate and grant the UK a no-strings-attached free trade deal in return for absolutely nothing whatsoever, but then, there are people who believe that vaccines cause autism. What people choose to believe is all too often at a distant remove from reality.

There is a recognised system whereby the referendum commission have the remit and responsibility of informing the electorate of arguments for and against any proposed amendment. If you feel they did a poor job, take it up with them.

If you think the Referendum Commission was the only body telling people about the consequences of voting for or against the various EU treaties, I can only assume that you were living under a rock during the referendum campaigns.

If it suits you to pretend that many people didn't vote against the last EU treaty referendum for reasons that had nothing whatsoever to do with the treaty itself, fine. Per the vaccine example I've cited a couple of times already, people will choose to believe whatever it suits them to believe, and all too often don't trouble with pesky things like facts.

View

gallag wrote: »

But the point is access won't become restricted, the EU is not going to cut of its nose to spite their face. Nothing will change.

still waiting on someone pointing out a negative for the UK on exit?

All non members of the EU face a common EU-wide set of tariffs and/or quotas to access EU markets except where they have concluded a free trade agreement with the EU.

That would obviously apply to the UK were it to leave - it is up to the UK though whether it wants to have restrictions on its trade with the rest of the EU or not.

The UK can "cut of its nose to spite their face" or not as it sees fit, no one is stopping such a decision - apart from the UK electorate that is.

View

porsche959 wrote: »

Can you not see what a dreadfully anti-democratic precedent this sets?

As the Supreme Court pointed out there is nothing "anti-democratic" about putting an issue to the demos whether it is on a first or subsequent occasion.

Seeking to restrict the right of the demos to change their mind on an issue though most certainly is, as it seeks to deny them the opportunity to change from one fixed political position

gallag

I wonder do the Irish who voted no on the treaty the first time because they didn't believe it was in Ireland's best interest and foreseen the damage it would do to the economy and saddle generations of Irish with European debt feel glad that it was assumed the were too "uneducated" to form an opinion!

I wonder if the Irish had respected the will of the people on the first go would things be better for Ireland right now? really very hard to make the argument it would be any worse!

also iv yet to here anyone explain in a coherent manner why on a Brit exit Germany, who will already be suffering from recession and paying far more into the EU than now will not want to sell BMW'S to there third largest market, just close the factory's I suppose and watch the shares collapse? Yes yes Iceland, Norway blah blah but do they have a €50-€70 billion trade deficit with the EU?

Here is the way I see it, If I am in buisness and my main customer who I make billions of decides they are not going to pay the membership fee for access to my shop leaving be in a position were I can lose the fee but keep a very large customer or tell him to do one. What would happen?

I suppose the UK could remain in a EU military pact for access to a free market, that would save the EU a fortune, On a Brit exit the remaining EU countries would have to up spending in this area massively and that's a fact, or else that Bear would feel a lot more comfortable around the polish border!

one thing iv noticed from the pro EU camp is there is very little substance to their posts, sure there are long posts but it's just like reading of a vague sheet and avoiding any recognition of points made, strange. Do people know the EU has a massive budget for online viral promotion of the EU? Seriously, people paid to go on forums like this and just basically be pro EU.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=X9RNVIKDFMfPaLnmgsgM&url=http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Content/documents/Pdfs/hardsell.pdf&ved=0CCkQFjAFOBQ&usg=AFQjCNGPqv3ly2Hk90LF0Y5fbh5Gn-JQ4g

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9845442/EU-to-set-up-euro-election-troll-patrol-to-tackle-Eurosceptic-surge.html

when you tie this in with the "make the fools vote again" culture it shows what a deeply insidious thing the EU is and why, even faced with financial hardship I would be glad to be out of!

[MOD]"My opponents are paid shills" = yellow card.[/MOD]

Peregrinus

gallag wrote: »

I suppose the UK could remain in a EU military pact for access to a free market, that would save the EU a fortune, On a Brit exit the remaining EU countries would have to up spending in this area massively and that's a fact, or else that Bear would feel a lot more comfortable around the polish border!

I think you may be confusing the EU and NATO. A UK withdrawal from the EU does not imply any reduced commitment to NATO. Or, if you think it does, you probably need to make that clear, and to explain why you think that.

gallag wrote: »

Also iv yet to here anyone explain in a coherent manner why on a Brit exit Germany, who will already be suffering from recession and paying far more into the EU than now will not want to sell BMW'S to there third largest market, just close the factory's I suppose and watch the shares collapse? Yes yes Iceland, Norway blah blah but do they have a €50-€70 billion trade deficit with the EU?

Again, I think you’re a bit confused here. Whether or not the UK is in the EU, the Germans will be delighted to sell BMWs to the UK. The question is, will the UK be equally delighted to buy them? That would be a decision for the UK. I would have thought that was the whole point of their leaving the UK.

I think what you at trying to suggest, without offering any coherent argument for it, is the UK is such a vewy special pwincess that if they want to participate in the single market without accepting any of the associated commitments, the other 30 states involved will gladly agree.

Dream on, but while dreaming on you would be wise to refrain from accusing other boardies of making posts with “very little substance”. It can only expose you to ridicule.

gallag

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you may be confusing the EU and NATO. A UK withdrawal from the EU does not imply any reduced commitment to NATO. Or, if you think it does, you probably need to make that clear, and to explain why you think that.


Again, I think you’re a bit confused here. Whether or not the UK is in the EU, the Germans will be delighted to sell BMWs to the UK. The question is, will the UK be equally delighted to buy them? That would be a decision for the UK. I would have thought that was the whole point of their leaving the UK.

I think what you at trying to suggest, without offering any coherent argument for it, is the UK is such a vewy special pwincess that if they want to participate in the single market without accepting any of the associated commitments, the other 30 states involved will gladly agree.

Dream on, but while dreaming on you would be wise to refrain from accusing other boardies of making posts with “very little substance”. It can only expose you to ridicule.

Again just fluff with no points dealt with, will the EU have to increase military spending on a Brit exit? will the Germans impose trade restrictions on the UK? will they accept a free market with someone who buys more from them and their loss would crash their economy? what do you think about how ireland would be fairing now if the first vote was respected? what about the EU spending money for viral marketing etc?

Peregrinus

gallag wrote: »

Again just fluff with no points dealt with, will the EU have to increase military spending on a Brit exit? will the Germans impose trade restrictions on the UK? will they accept a free market with someone who buys more from them and their loss would crash their economy? what do you think about how ireland would be fairing now if the first vote was respected? what about the EU spending money for viral marketing etc?

I can't deal with points if you won't make any.

- What military expenditure do you think the EU undertakes, and how much of it do you think Britain contributes? How signficant is that expenditure to the military security of Europe? If you are willing to say what your point is instead of just saying "Military! Bear! Money!" I'll try and address it but, as long as you have no point to make, I can have no response to offer.

- The Germans can't impose trade restrictions on the UK; as long as Germany is in the EU then the question of UK access to all EU markets (including Germany) is a matter for the EU (not Germany).

Of course the EU would prefer free access to UK markets. That doesn't mean, though, that they will do anything and everything the UK wants, without question, to get it. What you fail to grasp is that the UK equally wants access to EU markets - would badly need it, in fact - and the EU realises this. So the EU does have some bargaining power here - quite a lot of bargaining power, actually - and they will use it. Your fond imagination that if the EU dares to bargain with the UK Germany will "crash into recession" is just that. The EU and the UK will bargain over trade in the real world. And we have plenty of other examples of real-world bargaining for access to EU markets, and we know how they turned out. The EU's opening offer will be "you know our terms; join the EEA", and they have powerful reasons for not offering the UK better terms than anyone else can get. That's not to say that the UK has no room for maneouvre but, frankly, whatever the UK could agree in this scenario is going to look a lot more like EEA membership than you seem willing to admit.

McDave

gallag wrote: »

Again just fluff with no points dealt with, will the EU have to increase military spending on a Brit exit? will the Germans impose trade restrictions on the UK? will they accept a free market with someone who buys more from them and their loss would crash their economy? what do you think about how ireland would be fairing now if the first vote was respected? what about the EU spending money for viral marketing etc?

You're confusing the EU with NATO. Continental countries will adjust military spending to meet their needs. Most of them don't feel the need to go on fully-fledged cash-burn, wild goose chases in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You're raising vague, headline non sequiturs. Don't expect detailed rebuttals on your content-free straw men.

Fratton Fred

McDave wrote: »

You're confusing the EU with NATO. Continental countries will adjust military spending to meet their needs. Most of them don't feel the need to go on fully-fledged cash-burn, wild goose chases in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You're raising vague, headline non sequiturs. Don't expect detailed rebuttals on your content-free straw men.

Which eu countries did not commit resources to Afghanistan?

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Which eu countries did not commit resources to Afghanistan?

Afghanistan was a NATO-led operation. The UK's withdrawal from the EU has no implications for its participation in NATO. Afghanistan is a complete red herring in this discussion.

Scofflaw

gallag wrote: »

I wonder do the Irish who voted no on the treaty the first time because they didn't believe it was in Ireland's best interest and foreseen the damage it would do to the economy and saddle generations of Irish with European debt feel glad that it was assumed the were too "uneducated" to form an opinion!

Well, the answer there has to be that they were clearly forming an inaccurate opinion based on ignorance, since Lisbon and the bank debt have nothing at all to do with each other.

Pretty good example, in fact.

cordially,
Scofflaw

McDave

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Which eu countries did not commit resources to Afghanistan?

Take up your lack of knowledge with gallag. He's the one confusing the EU and NATO. You can chase each other's tails AFAIC.

Fratton Fred

McDave wrote: »

Take up your lack of knowledge with gallag. He's the one confusing the EU and NATO. You can chase each other's tails AFAIC.

No, I was testing your lack of knowledge. Which eu countries didn't commit resources to Afghanistan?.

It should be easy to answer, because according to you "most" of them didn't.

micosoft

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, I was testing your lack of knowledge. Which eu countries didn't commit resources to Afghanistan?.

It should be easy to answer, because according to you "most" of them didn't.

To be fair Frattan, they are two different things. As you well know most EU states (including Ireland) committed resources to Afghanistan under many contexts including the Irish Military under ISAF (which is a NATO entity but given its authority by the United Nations Security Council).

What Gallag has repeatedly brought up is the suggestion by implication that the EU has some form of competency when it comes to military spending. It does not. NATO has set an objective of % of GDP on military spending. Gallag is attempting to make a non sequitur that a Brixit would for some reason cause the remaining EU members to raise defense spending. I don't understand because it simply does not follow. There is no connection.

As an aside, France is nearly up there with the UK on Defense spending and is the only EU nation with a truly independent Nuclear response (i.e. not completely reliant on a third parties launch system). Claims that were it not for the UK, Europe would be defenseless are far fetched. And again, this leaves out the fact that the EU has no competency here.

What I find most unusual is that there have been no complaints about meddling in a nations internal affairs by NATO in it's demands to raise defense spending in Europe. I would have thought that spending on military activities goes to the heart of a nations sovereignty. Why are people who hold the EU to one level of disdain for interference and having "old treaties" yet a far less democratically accountable organisation (with a much "older" treaty that arguably was for a threat that ended in 1990) that could literally lead nations into war is great and you know, if we need to spend more money because NATO demands it, that's OK!

micosoft

gallag wrote: »

and what about the negatives of a Brit exit for the EU?

1. lose there second largest economy (soon to be)
What? The UK economy disappears? As far as I understand the UK will still be there and trading with the EU.
2. lose the most strategically important partner and see the security of the EU massively diminished overnight.
Security is not a particular competence of the EU. Other organisations do that.
3. lose the fastest growing economy of the important economies.
At the moment. Wasn't a couple of years ago, won't be in a few years.
4. lose the highest contributer to eu funds per capita forcing Germany to pick up the slack and fuel the conversation of what's actually in it for them at this point?
Not the highest contributer. The forth largest. If the UK expects to have free trade with the EU it will still have to contribute (potentially more) much as Norway, Switzerland and the other members of EFTA do.
5. potential cash the EU markets overnight.
That's a little hysterical now don't you think? Can you show any respected economist suggesting that his would happen? (I note the word potential)
6. lose the financial capital of the world.
I think New Yorkers would be confused by this, but if you do mean London? Yes but not in the way you think. Goldman Sachs were very clear on this.

But here's my list!

1. Lose being part of the biggest trading block in the world.
2. Lose enormous influence on the 26 nearest countries to you and have absolutely no say in how they proceed.
3. Lose largest GDP countries at 4th,5th (yes, France has a handily bigger economy then the UK), 9th and 13th in the World.
4. Continue to pay an entry fee to the free trade area without any say on how much or how it's spent.
5. Immediate and substantial negative effects on the UK economy according to the Confederation of British Industry.
6. Londons success is predicated on being in the EU. No EU, No London...

Jim2007

gallag wrote: »

I wonder if the Irish had respected the will of the people on the first go would things be better for Ireland right now? really very hard to make the argument it would be any worse!

Well to start with it is worth pointing out that unlike the UK, the Irish reserve some powers to themselves concerning the running of their country through a written constitution which they alone can change! In change the constitution on joining the EEC in 1974, it was foreseen that the government might need to consult the people several times on the same or similar issues and that is exactly why there is no limit on such consultations! So to suggest that it is some how unconstitutional to hold an other referendum on issue is total nonsense! This has been challenged in the Supreme Court and found to be fully in line with the constitution.

And let's for a minute consider what actually happened: the Irish government negotiated a treat with the EU which the Irish people found unacceptable. The result was that everyone had to sit down and renegotiate: clarify certain issues, grant concessions etc and the go back to the Irish people and seek their agreement. This is a far cry from the situation in the UK where the people have no possibility to press the pause button.

It is interesting to note that the French have now too altered their constitution to require a referendum for all EU treaty changes. Of course this also means that if DC where to negotiate any new treaty changes he have to get the agreement of the peoples of France, Denmark and Ireland, not just their governments before it could happen.

micosoft

Jim2007 wrote: »

It is interesting to note that the French have now too altered their constitution to require a referendum for all EU treaty changes. Of course this also means that if DC where to negotiate any new treaty changes he have to get the agreement of the peoples of France, Denmark and Ireland, not just their governments before it could happen.

Which is a huge problem. By their very nature, negotiating a treaty between 27 different states is an extremily complicated task resulting in a complex document. As we saw with the Irish referendums, these treaties get delayed by mass disinformation campaigns on every petty grieveance parts of the population have in that country. Coupled with the fact that referendums on dull sounding treaties don't exactly energise the unexercised majority, you have a receipe for the bad legislation we now have. For example, a non-existient threat to our neutrality from Lisbon transmogified into a triple lock that essentially means the permanent security council (Russia, China, US, UK, France) of the UN has a Veto on deploying our troops. A less "neutral" status if you like. It's getting even more concerning now that the Government has blamed the EU for the setting up of Irish Water when that's a gross simplifcation or untrue. It will be very challenging to get any treaty in Ireland on the first go.

Of course, this is what DC has not explained, and was not really explained to the Irish Electorate last time. You are not negotiating with the EU. You are negotiating with the other 26 states. That means negotiate, not dictate. That's democracy for you!

McDave

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, I was testing your lack of knowledge. Which eu countries didn't commit resources to Afghanistan?.

It should be easy to answer, because according to you "most" of them didn't.

Where did I say 'most EU countries didn't commit resources'? In fact I didn't.

What I said was: 'Most of them don't feel the need to go on fully-fledged cash-burn, wild goose chases in Afghanistan and Iraq.' Not at all the same thing.

You're going to have to be a good deal more accurate if you want to sustain a competent line of thinking.

Jim2007

micosoft wrote: »

Which is a huge problem. By their very nature, negotiating a treaty between 27 different states is an extremily complicated task resulting in a complex document. As we saw with the Irish referendums, these treaties get delayed by mass disinformation campaigns on every petty grieveance parts of the population have in that country.

Whether we like it or not in Ireland the people retain the right to decide the destiny of the nation and I very much doubt they agree to give it up, thus ending up in the same situation as the UK, where the PM can simply take the country out of the EU without consultation.

Furthermore I would never underestimate the ability of the Irish people to figure out what is in their best interests and that of their country. At the end of the day it is up to those proposing or opposing an amendment to make their case to the people, if they fail to do so, then it is their failure not the peoples!

Our constitution, like so many others, recognises the fact that the people can get it wrong and that is why there is no restriction on how often an issue can be put to the people.

micosoft

Jim2007 wrote: »

Whether we like it or not in Ireland the people retain the right to decide the destiny of the nation and I very much doubt they agree to give it up, thus ending up in the same situation as the UK, where the PM can simply take the country out of the EU without consultation.

Furthermore I would never underestimate the ability of the Irish people to figure out what is in their best interests and that of their country. At the end of the day it is up to those proposing or opposing an amendment to make their case to the people, if they fail to do so, then it is their failure not the peoples!

Our constitution, like so many others, recognises the fact that the people can get it wrong and that is why there is no restriction on how often an issue can be put to the people.

While I don't entirely disagree, it seems currious that it's possible for many other constitutional democracies to enter into agreements without the need to run it past the people every time. The UK is a unique case with it's unwritten constitution. But amongst constitutional democracies Ireland seems unique in the level of constitutional referendums it holds which seems to be a failure in our system espeically with regard to the many other checks and balances (President, Supreme Court and even Seaned) we have. That said, if it's the price we pay for our type of democracy is to run referendums multiple times then so be it. It just makes a for a very time consuming process and creates distrust if not resentment from our partners who have their own electorates who do not want to be dictated to by an ill informed Irish electorate.

Peregrinus

micosoft wrote: »

While I don't entirely disagree, it seems currious that it's possible for many other constitutional democracies to enter into agreements without the need to run it past the people every time. The UK is a unique case with it's unwritten constitution. But amongst constitutional democracies Ireland seems unique in the level of constitutional referendums it holds which seems to be a failure in our system espeically with regard to the many other checks and balances (President, Supreme Court and even Seaned) we have. That said, if it's the price we pay for our type of democracy is to run referendums multiple times then so be it. It just makes a for a very time consuming process and creates distrust if not resentment from our partners who have their own electorates who do not want to be dictated to by an ill informed Irish electorate.

The UK excepted, all the other EU countries have written constitutions. But they don't necesssarily require a referendum to be amended; in many cases they can be amended by the national parliament, or by co-ordinated action between national and regional authorities.

The Danish Constitution also requires a referendum for amendment (in most cases) and they invariably have a referendum on EU treaties. Denmark has had 16 constitutional amendment referenda compared to Ireland's 38, but this is partly explained by the fact that the Danish Constition was only introduced in 1953.

ewan whose army

micosoft wrote: »

[/B]

6. Londons success is predicated on being in the EU. No EU, No London...

Interestingly most people outside of London would like to see its bubble burst

Jim2007

micosoft wrote: »

While I don't entirely disagree, it seems currious that it's possible for many other constitutional democracies to enter into agreements without the need to run it past the people every time.

It is up to each country to decide how to run there decisions making process. Some require qualified majorities in parliament, some have provisions that allows the people to challenge the decisions that are taken, but unless challenged the are accepted and so on.

micosoft wrote: »

The UK is a unique case with it's unwritten constitution.

The UK is unique, but not in a good way... they give complete power to their PM and then complain that none of they were consulted on the EU changes over the years!

micosoft wrote: »

But amongst constitutional democracies Ireland seems unique in the level of constitutional referendums it holds...

Not at all, I've been a Swiss citizen for two years and have voted in 9 amendments so far and they just keep coming!

Frank Lee Midere

Jim2007 wrote: »

Well to start with it is worth pointing out that unlike the UK, the Irish reserve some powers to themselves concerning the running of their country through a written constitution which they alone can change! In change the constitution on joining the EEC in 1974, it was foreseen that the government might need to consult the people several times on the same or similar issues and that is exactly why there is no limit on such consultations! So to suggest that it is some how unconstitutional to hold an other referendum on issue is total nonsense! This has been challenged in the Supreme Court and found to be fully in line with the constitution.

And let's for a minute consider what actually happened: the Irish government negotiated a treat with the EU which the Irish people found unacceptable. The result was that everyone had to sit down and renegotiate: clarify certain issues, grant concessions etc and the go back to the Irish people and seek their agreement. This is a far cry from the situation in the UK where the people have no possibility to press the pause button.

It is interesting to note that the French have now too altered their constitution to require a referendum for all EU treaty changes. Of course this also means that if DC where to negotiate any new treaty changes he have to get the agreement of the peoples of France, Denmark and Ireland, not just their governments before it could happen.

Au contrarie. Because parliament is sovereign the EU is less powerful in the UK than Ireland.

micosoft

Jim2007 wrote: »

It is up to each country to decide how to run there decisions making process. Some require qualified majorities in parliament, some have provisions that allows the people to challenge the decisions that are taken, but unless challenged the are accepted and so on.

Not at all arguing that countries should not be allowed decide how they do this. I am suggesting that our approach is sum optimal and does not contribute much other then hugely wasteful referendums that aren't necessary for the types of power being transferred. There is a balance - we haven't got it. We have other means and checks, from our courts, presidency and even Seanad.

Jim2007 wrote: »

The UK is unique, but not in a good way... they give complete power to their PM and then complain that none of they were consulted on the EU changes over the years!

As one of the oldest democracies in Europe I suspect the British may disagree. A constitutional referendum is a type of check. There are other ways of checking power such as a strong judiciary, a presidency, second chamber etc.

Jim2007 wrote: »

Not at all, I've been a Swiss citizen for two years and have voted in 9 amendments so far and they just keep coming!

[/QUOTE]
Fair enough - I guess I meant to say within the EU which was my though process. If Ireland is an outlier, Switzerland is the extreme. And in fact it would tend to back up my point - it would be nearly impossible for Switzerland to join the EU given the impossibility of the Swiss Government negotiating when they have to hold referenda at nearly every turn.

FreudianSlippers

porsche959 wrote: »

Can you not see what a dreadfully anti-democratic precedent this sets?

Well, it's in our law; not stipulated in any EU Directive. We voted on one thing and rejected it, a new proposal was presented and it was more acceptable to the nation.

That's democracy, not calling results you do not like "anti-democratic".

It is being widely predicted that the Irish Labour party will get a pasting at the next domestic general election. Let us suppose that this happens. How seriously would anyone be taken if they were to say, oh the electorate don't understand the issues, we will run the election again to give the Labour party another chance?

When your argument is predicated on false pretence it may make sense as a comparison, but in reality it isn't an apt comparison.

Peregrinus

porsche959 wrote: »

It is being widely predicted that the Irish Labour party will get a pasting at the next domestic general election. Let us suppose that this happens. How seriously would anyone be taken if they were to say, oh the electorate don't understand the issues, we will run the election again to give the Labour party another chance?

Actually, this is routine in parliamentary democracies - a government that is returned with a minority, or with an uncomfortably slim majority, calls an early election in the hope of improving its electoral, and therefore parliamentary, position. Dev used to do it all the time.

As a tactic, in modern times it has become unpopular with the electorate and it can be criticised on a number of grounds, but I've never heard it described as "undemocratic". Governments seeking a mandate either to govern generally, or to implement a particular policy which they consider to be in the common interest, is pretty much the essence of democracy.

Scofflaw

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, this is routine in parliamentary democracies - a government that is returned with a minority, or with an uncomfortably slim majority, calls an early election in the hope of improving its electoral, and therefore parliamentary, position. Dev used to do it all the time.

As a tactic, in modern times it has become unpopular with the electorate and it can be criticised on a number of grounds, but I've never heard it described as "undemocratic". Governments seeking a mandate either to govern generally, or to implement a particular policy which they consider to be in the common interest, is pretty much the essence of democracy.

That's true. You could form a coalition which had as its only agreed goal the running of another election on the basis that the results of this one were silly - or, to put it another way, that the election had produced a situation that couldn't provide stable government.

Could happen in the UK next year...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Peregrinus

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's true. You could form a coalition which had as its only agreed goal the running of another election on the basis that the results of this one were silly - or, to put it another way, that the election had produced a situation that couldn't provide stable government.

Less dramatically, you can have a government that isn't forced into running an election, but decides to. Used to be quite common, in fact.

FreudianSlippers

The problem is a problem of perception for most. A general election is always just called a general election; Lisbon II would have been perceived by the losing side better if it had a different name - was it fundamentally a vote on the same issue? Yes. Was it a vote on the same treaty? No.

I can't get into this again though... if it starts up again, someone help me find my posts from 2009/2010 where it was discussed into the ground in the politics forum... please!?

Jim2007

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Au contrarie. Because parliament is sovereign the EU is less powerful in the UK than Ireland.

First of all I was not talking about the power of the EU, I was talking about the power of the government to commit the country to an agreement. Secondly the power of the EU is exactly the same in all countries.

Jim2007

porsche959 wrote: »

It is being widely predicted that the Irish Labour party will get a pasting at the next domestic general election. Let us suppose that this happens. How seriously would anyone be taken if they were to say, oh the electorate don't understand the issues, we will run the election again to give the Labour party another chance.

But in a way this can happen. The people go to the polls and elect their chosen candidates and send them to the Dail. If they fail to provide an government or more likely produce a stable government, then it may well end up in there being an election much sooner than expected.

StudentDad

Jim2007 wrote: »

But in a way this can happen. The people go to the polls and elect their chosen candidates and send them to the Dail. If they fail to provide an government or more likely produce a stable government, then it may well end up in there being an election much sooner than expected.

Wouldn't it be nice to get rid of the cynicism in Irish politics? Election after election the turnout is so low (30% to maybe 50% if the weather is nice) it's hard to call it a true election.

We have a parliament that's essentially a rubber stamp for the whips to lash through legislation that our elected aristocracy aka cabinet decree. With the same old faces getting elected and their strings being pulled by the usual vested interests, you could hardly call what we have 'representative.'

I don't like Sinn Fein, I do not like their roots or their leadership. For all that they seem quite capable of getting people who would not ordinarily vote to do so, simply because they represent an alternative.

This country needs real change and prior to the last election that's what the politicians were very happy to bleat about. I'm still waiting. Senate reform? Nope. Making the govt. of the day more accountable by making Parliament more relevant? Nope. Elections on Sunday so everyone can vote? Nope.

The list goes on. Plenty of new taxes though. Not so much when it comes to accountability.

SD

Peregrinus

StudentDad wrote: »

Wouldn't it be nice to get rid of the cynicism in Irish politics? Election after election the turnout is so low (30% to maybe 50% if the weather is nice) it's hard to call it a true election.

Nitpick: Turnout at the last five general elections:
2011: 70.0%
2007: 67.0%
2002: 62.6%
1997: 76.5%
1992: 68.5%

62.6% is, I think, the lowest ever turnout in an Irish general election. Your 30-50% range is way off.

Scofflaw

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: Turnout at the last five general elections:
2011: 70.0%
2007: 67.0%
2002: 62.6%
1997: 76.5%
1992: 68.5%

62.6% is, I think, the lowest ever turnout in an Irish general election. Your 30-50% range is way off.

Interestingly, that's a very common mistake - see this, for example: http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/IpsosMORI/perils-of-perception-global/19

cordially,
Scofflaw

StudentDad

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: Turnout at the last five general elections:
2011: 70.0%
2007: 67.0%
2002: 62.6%
1997: 76.5%
1992: 68.5%

62.6% is, I think, the lowest ever turnout in an Irish general election. Your 30-50% range is way off.

Perception is important and those figures are hardly anything to crow about. I know far too many people who just won't vote, it's a non-issue for them. They see voting as a pointless waste of time.

Good to see you agree with the rest of my post though

SD

Scofflaw

StudentDad wrote: »

Perception is important and those figures are hardly anything to crow about. I know far too many people who just won't vote, it's a non-issue for them. They see voting as a pointless waste of time.

Good to see you agree with the rest of my post though

SD

The real turnout figures suggest that the number of people who "just won't vote" is as low as the figure you believed to be the turnout, and which you regarded as indicative of a disaffection with voting. Given only about 30-40% of people are actually non-voters (and some portion of that will be accidental non-voters), I think you have to accept that, by your own logic, as indicating a state of disaffection with non-voting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

StudentDad

Scofflaw wrote: »

The real turnout figures suggest that the number of people who "just won't vote" is as low as the figure you believed to be the turnout, and which you regarded as indicative of a disaffection with voting. Given only about 30-40% of people are actually non-voters (and some portion of that will be accidental non-voters), I think you have to accept that, by your own logic, as indicating a state of disaffection with non-voting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Perhaps. Begs the question though. How much fun we could have if those 'disaffected' voters actually turned up and put that x in the box?


Something as simple as voting on Sunday could encourage those extra few






SD