How does the EU expect to achieve a Federal Europe?

Cavehill Red

oscarBravo wrote: »

Every passenger gets a veto on going any further. So I guess you can relax and enjoy the ride.

Aaaaaaaaaaand the analogy snaps.

oscarBravo

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Well you may want to explain your position to the majority of MEP's in the EU parliment in which open EU federalists have help a majority since 2009 .....

Would those be "open EU federalists" who were directly elected to the Parliament by their respective constituencies?

oscarBravo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Aaaaaaaaaaand the analogy snaps.

You're saying the member states don't have a veto on the direction the EU takes?

Cavehill Red

oscarBravo wrote: »

I guess I'm lying, so.

Maybe. Let's be charitable and agree that your experience is spectacularly different to mine in this regard.

oscarBravo wrote: »

They didn't. The member states did. Unless you can point to the signatures of EU employees on the treaties that made those things happen.

The question arises as to whence the treaty drafts originate.

oscarBravo wrote: »

And each of those increments is negotiated, ratified and signed by the democratically-elected governments of every single one of the member states of the union.

Yet the peoples of Europe are repeatedly refused the right to vote on the treaties, their votes routinely ignored when they get the opportunity to reject them, and the elected governments ratify often in contradiction to their democratic mandate, or at least in the absence of a mandate.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not even sure what it means, frankly. I've always assumed it was a catchphrase used by people who don't seem to recognise the contradiction in vehemently opposing a federal EU while demanding that the entire European demos gets to vote on something as a single bloc. But if there's a more objective definition on which there's widespread agreement, please point me to it.

There's a useful early discussion here: http://kie.vse.cz/wp-content/uploads/3_4.pdf

Cavehill Red

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're saying the member states don't have a veto on the direction the EU takes?

I'm saying that the people of Europe don't.

Ziphius

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Debates evolve. That's what they do.

I hadn't noticed.

Scofflaw

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Well you may want to explain your position to the majority of MEP's in the EU parliment in which open EU federalists have help a majority since 2009 .....

Here is one..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNMi8wI-enM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmqxX4fZvnQ


The second clip is exactly the stuff which p*** me off and when you raise these issues with people who are pro Europe they refuse to even engage in debate.

He says at 1.38..i am a an EU federalist but i was part of a group and i could not anounce it or the group could not go with me.

Baroso basically says we can't do what we want with elections......so ..no elections..oh and only a centre right party can be president.....technical thing...

Commissioners and MEP's form up this group to form a EU federalist majority in the parliment.
http://www.federalists.eu/uef/news/federalists-launch-campaign-within-new-european-parliament/

I am not assuming all integration leads to a fed ...i am not assuming all who are pro further integration are pro fed.

But many EU comissioners and MEP'S and Govts of other countries are pro fed and are OPENLY directing the EU towards a fed.

It is not some huge secret.

I don't think those Youtube videos demonstrate your claims particularly, I'm afraid. Poettering's point that the "group would not have gone with me" had he espoused a federalist position actually says the direct opposite. Slightly surprising, actually, given that people apparently regard the EPP as federalist, yet a federalist says he couldn't openly advocate his personal position when head of it because the EPP wouldn't have followed it.

I'm not sure you grasped Barrosos's remarks either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cavehill Red

Ziphius wrote: »

I hadn't noticed.

Well, they don't always, that's true. On this occasion, it did. Anyhow, I am now withdrawing from this thread until consistent moderation is applied to it.

poeticseraphim

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's fair enough. It's not at all unreasonable to be concerned that integration might lead to federalism.



Not really, I'm afraid - it depends what's assumed. Here, Cavehill Red assumes that all integrative moves are moves to federalism - not merely that they might lead there. Once that's done, there is no other conclusion possible other than that the EU is federalising, which Cavehill ascribes to the desire of the core EU, the evidence for which is a combination of his personal anecdotes and the fact that all integrative moves are moves to federalism.

I am not responding for Cavehill Red but to another poster who was refering to something in my own post and got me completely wrong i was not defending your stance above ....people keep confusing me with Cavehill Red i think.

I specifically said that the acception of this initial premise was not to be used as a proof of any claim.

The acception of a premise is not always a tautology but a rhetorical device to examine a position.

It is not being used to prove a conclusion, but to examine the relationship between one series of events and that conclusion.

Is it possible to defend sovereignty with much further integration...or will people end up in constitutional situtuations they had not anticipated. Or any crisis.

I do not think all pro integrationists are pro FED....and some federalists rejected lisbon....

But i do think many MEPS are pro fed...or certainly more pro integration than their electorate support ..and as for comissioners thats another thing.

No not all MEP's are pro Fed or pro integration...or even pro Europe


I mean on the other side there is UKIP....Hannan and Farage etc ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq_6e1A7gzA&feature=related

That above is just downright insulting and that man does not represent me ....
But if you question pro EU rhetoric or a pro EU position you are lumped in with this lot....

I am not anti - EU ....nor pro EU

But i am sick of people or sovreign govts being made to feel like a nuisance for being critical.

I don't even like the idea of pro-integration or anti-integration...

Why would be pro or anti something that has not been formed and shown to you in detail yet?

I don't understand anyone who declares a pro EU or anti EU stance....it means nothing without the detail.

And often i find the 'group think ' in both camps is rammed down your throat....

oscarBravo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The question arises as to whence the treaty drafts originate.

My understanding is that they originate from negotiations between representatives of the member states. More importantly, they are ratified and signed by the member states. In other words, the members of an organisation agree among themselves how that organisation should be run. Sounds reasonable to me.

Yet the peoples of Europe are repeatedly refused the right to vote on the treaties...

By whom? The EU? Or their own sovereign governments and/or constitutional provisions?

...their votes routinely ignored when they get the opportunity to reject them...

Ah yes. Yours is the form of democracy that only accepts an answer the first time a question is asked, and believes that voting twice is somehow less democratic than voting once.

...and the elected governments ratify often in contradiction to their democratic mandate, or at least in the absence of a mandate.

That sounds unconstitutional. Doubtless any government that ratified a treaty without a legal mandate to do so would be challenged in that member state's highest court.

Got any specific examples?

There's a useful early discussion here: http://kie.vse.cz/wp-content/uploads/3_4.pdf

As I suspected, that paper proposes that the answer to the perceived democratic deficit is a more federal EU. Which, ironically, underscores my point rather than yours.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm saying that the people of Europe don't.

The EU is an organisation of countries. Insofar as it has democratic aspects, those aspects are its most distinctly federal aspects.

If you are opposed to the federalisation of the EU, you must logically be opposed to any moves toward a single European demos. If you are demanding greater political accountability of the EU's governing structures to the people of Europe directly - as opposed to the sovereign governments of those peoples separately - then you are the one driving the federalist agenda.

It's strange that you can't see this contradiction yourself.

sweeney1971

First of all by brain washing then by force.

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote:

Cavehill Red wrote:

...and the elected governments ratify often in contradiction to their democratic mandate, or at least in the absence of a mandate.

That sounds unconstitutional. Doubtless any government that ratified a treaty without a legal mandate to do so would be challenged in that member state's highest court.

Got any specific examples?

That's another hiding to nothing, though, since what's meant by "mandate" is going to turn out to be a specific vote on the part of the people to ratify the specific treaty, rather than the standard constitutional sense in which 'mandate' is used.

cordially,
Scofflaw

poeticseraphim

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think those Youtube videos demonstrate your claims particularly, I'm afraid. Poettering's point that the "group would not have gone with me" had he espoused a federalist position actually says the direct opposite. Slightly surprising, actually, given that people apparently regard the EPP as federalist, yet a federalist says he couldn't openly advocate his personal position when head of it because the EPP wouldn't have followed it.

I'm not sure you grasped Barrosos's remarks either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That is not an accurate picture of the groups in the EP and i think you know that.

The biggest party membership of MEP's in the European parliment is the European's people's party and they are an openly pro federal Europe party and for much deeper integration.

Poettering has had a long career.

And he has been a member since the 1979...he was part of the European peoples party which was founded by Christian Democrats and became the EPP they are the biggest majority group in the EP and they have openly federalist views. But back in the day they did not they have more moderate stances to attract centre right parties into merging.

In 1999 ..(maybe later ) the conservatives left the EPP over their pro fed EU stance forming the more EU sceptical group the European conservatives and reformists.

According to the former then chairman of the EPP the EPP is

" the group of the European federalists . . . the most enthusiastic supporters of the European Union."

The EPP are the biggest group in the EU parliment and they are profederalist.


The only country not to have representation in the EPP is the UK.

The history of the group goes back to 1976...his career with the group goes back to 1979....he is speaking about decades ago.

Finn Gael has four members of it. Gay Mitchell Mairead Mc Guiness Jim Higgins and Sean Kelly..

Scofflaw

poeticseraphim wrote: »

That is not an accurate picture of the groups in the EP and i think you know that.

The biggest party membership of MEP's in the European parliment is the European's people's party and they are an openly pro federal Europe party and for much deeper integration.

Poettering has had a long career.

And he has been a member since the 1979...he was part of the European peoples party which was founded by Christian Democrats and became the EPP they are the biggest majority group in the EP and they have openly federalist views. But back in the day they did not they have more moderate stances to attract centre right parties into merging.

In 1999 ..(maybe later ) the conservatives left the EPP over their pro fed EU stance forming the more EU sceptical group the European conservatives and reformists.

According to the former then chairman of the EPP the EPP is

" the group of the European federalists . . . the most enthusiastic supporters of the European Union."

The EPP are the biggest group in the EU parliment and they are profederalist.


The only country not to have representation in the EPP is the UK.

The history of the group goes back to 1976...his career with the group goes back to 1979....he is speaking about decades ago.

Finn Gael has four members of it. Gay Mitchell Mairead Mc Guiness Jim Higgins and Sean Kelly..

Sure - but if the EPP is federalist (and before we get onto what federalism means), then why did Poettering, when he was head of that grouping, have any concerns that the group "would not follow him" if he publicly stated the federalist position he says he holds?

In a related question - do you think Fine Gael are federalist? Aside, that is, from their membership of the EPP?

cordially,
Scofflaw

poeticseraphim

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure - but if the EPP is federalist (and before we get onto what federalism means), then why did Poettering, when he was head of that grouping, have any concerns that the group "would not follow him" if he publicly stated the federalist position he says he holds?

In a related question - do you think Fine Gael are federalist? Aside, that is, from their membership of the EPP?

cordially,
Scofflaw

It was years ago...and at the time he was trying to prevent a subgroup from separating ..which they did...and became the European Conservatives and reformists. ..a much smaller group.

It is publically federalist and subsequent chairmen have stood on that platform. In the last decade they are publically avowedly pro federalist.

In 2002 they reveal a pro federal stance in their manifesto.

Fine Gael members ...perhaps they simply wanted to join the biggest party in the EP .....but the only country not represented by them happens to be the least pro European country the UK.

Personnally i think our gov is weak. So weak it lacks will to gov.

Do i think they have a federalist goal..well Fine Gael has never said so whereas the EPP has ...who knows

TD Lucinda Creighton is and she is Minister of State for European Affairs at the Dept of the Taoiseach and Foreign Affairs and Trade.

She made this statement calling for a federal Europe .. http://www.finegael.ie/our-people/ministers/lucinda-creighton/the-eurozone-crisis-is-fi/index.xml

They are more in favour of it than their voters ...thats for sure..:)

Enda indicated he was in favour of a banking Union. And he is an ex oficio vice president of the European people's party. And the comission came up with a paper for 'much deeper integration' which he apparantly supports.

Well our minister for Europe has publically called for a federl EU and she is Fine Gael...

Fine Gael itself has not declared to it's electorate that it is pro federalist. That would be suicide though.

But i doubt Lucinda would be in the job she is in and publically stating what she has if it were totally against a Fed EU...I will put it that way ;-)

Olivia Mitchell has stated we may need to accept that our current position means we need to accept federal Europe.

http://www.finegael.ie/our-people/tds/olivia-mitchell/european-communities-%28ame/



Labour ...i dunno
As an aside
Eoghan Harris has stated he wants a federal EU.

Do you think they are?

oscarBravo

To be fair, the constitution of the EPP makes it pretty clear that the party considers itself federalist, so I think it brings us on to the question of what that actually means.

I tend to suspect it refers to the question of the democratic legitimacy of the EU's institutions, and the dichotomy between a purely intergovernmental EU versus a fully federal EU. All the talk of a "democratic deficit" is premised on the idea that if the EU is to have such democratic trappings as a directly-elected parliament, then it is no longer a purely intergovernmental body and has become (from a certain perspective) partially federal already.

Now, to the extent that the EU has been federalised, it has been in response to the charge that it is undemocratic. If there is a continuing perception of a democratic deficit, then it can be addressed only through further federalisation (in the sense of having the EU answerable to its citizens, rather than merely to its member states). If further federalisation is to be resisted, it will be at the expense of addressing this alleged democratic deficit.

Which is why I find it amusing that it tends to be, by and large, the same people who criticise the EU for this perceived democratic deficit who also decry any moves towards federalisation.

poeticseraphim

oscarBravo wrote: »

To be fair, the constitution of the EPP makes it pretty clear that the party considers itself federalist, so I think it brings us on to the question of what that actually means.

I tend to suspect it refers to the question of the democratic legitimacy of the EU's institutions, and the dichotomy between a purely intergovernmental EU versus a fully federal EU. All the talk of a "democratic deficit" is premised on the idea that if the EU is to have such democratic trappings as a directly-elected parliament, then it is no longer a purely intergovernmental body and has become (from a certain perspective) partially federal already.

Now, to the extent that the EU has been federalised, it has been in response to the charge that it is undemocratic. If there is a continuing perception of a democratic deficit, then it can be addressed only through further federalisation (in the sense of having the EU answerable to its citizens, rather than merely to its member states). If further federalisation is to be resisted, it will be at the expense of addressing this alleged democratic deficit.

Which is why I find it amusing that it tends to be, by and large, the same people who criticise the EU for this perceived democratic deficit who also decry any moves towards federalisation.

I don't equate greater democracy in the EU with federalism. I find it funny when people seem to think a federal EU=democracy.

The Soviet Union was a federation.

Many undemocratic countries are.

Ristance to a federal EU is not necessarily at the expense of demorcay ...infact greater integration may be at that expense. There is no indication that deeper integration of the EU or further federaliation has led to greater democracy. Infact i would suggest the opposite.

oscarBravo

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I don't equate greater democracy in the EU with federalism. I find it funny when people seem to think a federal EU=democracy.

I don't equate them either, but my point was that that is what I suspect the EPP has in mind when describing itself as federalist.

Now, if you're going to argue that the EPP wants a federal EU but not a more democratic one, I'll be curious to see what you're basing that on.

golden lane

the eu....is already a federation of states......

it is everything that most people do not want.......

the sovereign state governments already have a reputation for telling fibs......

the eu administration.....beats them all...

poeticseraphim

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't equate them either, but my point was that that is what I suspect the EPP has in mind when describing itself as federalist.

Now, if you're going to argue that the EPP wants a federal EU but not a more democratic one, I'll be curious to see what you're basing that on.

I am not sying anything about the EPP...merely that i don't think greater integration and federalition has resulted in more democracy so far but less.

I don't know if it is based on simply a wish for a more united Europe rather than a more democratic one.

They simply wnt more sweeping powers ....a member of theirs made an interesting speech to the UK govt that i posted earlier which makes me think they don't

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNMi8wI-enM


Anyway the main issue is do EU citizens want it...would it get a yes vote...probably not...and without the wish of the people it is undemocratic... if it is unwanted..and all polls say it is unwanted...

oscarBravo

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I am not sying anything about the EPP...merely that i don't think greater integration and federalition has resulted in more democracy so far but less.

I'm not sure I agree - you'd need to be specific as to what way you feel democracy has been lessened - but even if the EU has led to a lessening in democracy, then the question is not simply one of whether that's a good or a bad thing in isolation, but whether the benefits to its citizens of EU membership outweigh the cost in democracy.

The benefits of EU membership are tangible. The costs in terms of democracy? Less so.

They simply wnt more sweeping powers ....a member of theirs made an interesting speech to the UK govt that i posted earlier which makes me think they don't

I'm having trouble parsing you. You say you're not saying anything about the EPP, but you say that they want more sweeping powers, and then you say you think they don't.

Anyway the main issue is do EU citizens want it...would it get a yes vote...probably not...and without the wish of the people it is undemocratic... if it is unwanted..and all polls say it is unwanted...

You seem to be working hard to miss my point, which strikes me as, frankly, cognitive dissonance.

You seem to be saying that the people of the EU don't want a federal EU. This would manifest itself in a pan-European plebiscite as a rejection of a federal EU. Such a plebiscite could only ever happen in the context of a fully federalised EU, which we don't have: we have an intergovernmental organisation (albeit with some federal features, such as a parliament). This means that the question of the future direction of the EU is left to its actual members - the member states - as represented by their governments. This situation is what the anti-federalists describe as a "democratic deficit".

None of this makes any sense to me.

poeticseraphim

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree - you'd need to be specific as to what way you feel democracy has been lessened - but even if the EU has led to a lessening in democracy, then the question is not simply one of whether that's a good or a bad thing in isolation, but whether the benefits to its citizens of EU membership outweigh the cost in democracy.

The benefits of EU membership are tangible. The costs in terms of democracy? Less so. I'm having trouble parsing you. You say you're not saying anything about the EPP, but you say that they want more sweeping powers, and then you say you think they don't. You seem to be working hard to miss my point, which strikes me as, frankly, cognitive dissonance.

You seem to be saying that the people of the EU don't want a federal EU. This would manifest itself in a pan-European plebiscite as a rejection of a federal EU. Such a plebiscite could only ever happen in the context of a fully federalised EU, which we don't have: we have an intergovernmental organisation (albeit with some federal features, such as a parliament). This means that the question of the future direction of the EU is left to its actual members - the member states - as represented by their governments. This situation is what the anti-federalists describe as a "democratic deficit".

None of this makes any sense to me.

The idea that the lack of federalism in the EU results in less democracy would only apply if the EU was already a State. It is not and further moving power away from Sov govs and sovereign electorates is what creates a lot of that deficit.
Well i think the rejection of the constitution proposal by voters in the member states where referendums were held before it got pulled is actually evidence enough of a rejection.

I think the anti democratic deficit is not in leaving it to sovereign govts to decide but in taking it away from sovereign govts with successive treaties.

And accepting the Irish first no vote on Lisbon would have been a way to correct democratic deficit. I would consider what happened over Lisbon and Nice to be tangible evidence of the cost as you put it.

Perhaps more democracy means less integration. Less supranationalism more intergovernmentalism.

But i am deeply suspicious of anyone who suggests that the only way to restore democracy to europe is federalism. As i think that is what most people wish to prevent.

It is not just the lack of democracy in the EU people dislike. Reform does not have to equal a fed, which is the very reason many people don't want further integration, for fear of a fed.

The EPP merely want Sweeping powers the clip makes me think they don't want federalism to restore democracy to the people (that bit got deleted sorry) as the people would rather keep their own sovereign democracies.


My opinion on the EU is this people intern or go as MEP's and s business men and realize how much power they could weild and money they could make from more Europe they come back misty eyed.

I don't consider myself either anti-EU or pro- EU i don't think either stance is helpful is seeing clearly. But there seems to be the false dichotomy of you must be one or the other and i sense that in your post.

Don't try to parse me..it's hopeless..i am unparseble....i am en route ..and i am exhausted....i ramble and meander......i am a bit mad..don't mind it

poeticseraphim

golden lane wrote: »

the eu....is already a federation of states......

it is everything that most people do not want.......

the sovereign state governments already have a reputation for telling fibs......

the eu administration.....beats them all...

I am not saying that you are correct or incorrect and i don't mean to be troublesome, but i am curious as to what fibs?

If there has been any fibbing on behalf of the EU admin or govts SPILL :P

There are many who would agree with you and they often cite examples, so what are your examples?


The lack of Transparancy is unbelievable, truly that would increase democracy and faith.

oscarBravo

poeticseraphim wrote: »

The idea that the lack of federalism in the EU results in less democracy would only apply if the EU was already a State.

I think you're still missing my point.

The so-called "democratic deficit" is the perception that the EU institutions are not accountable to EU citizens. This is only true of the Commission, but that seems to be enough to have people wringing their hands and decrying the undemocratic nature of the Union. In order to address this perceived deficit, it is proposed that the citizens of the Union should have more direct control over the executive of the Union.

For me, that's federalisation. If you treat the citizens of the Union as a single demos with a single government accountable to them, you're creating a federation.

My view is not so much that the EU is a federal superstate with a democratic deficit so much as an intergovernmental organisation with a democratic surplus.

It is not and further moving power away from Sov govs and sovereign electorates is what creates a lot of that deficit.

Moving power away from sovereign government is done by those sovereign governments, with the consent (tacit or explicit) of their electorates. The power is shared with the other member states not, as the popular narrative goes, because of weak national governments in thrall to a shadowy cabal of EU insiders, but because it is to the member states' mutual advantage to do so.

Well i think the rejection of the constitution proposal by voters in the member states where referendums were held before it got pulled is actually evidence enough of a rejection.

Sure - too much federalism, rejected by electorates. This is evidence of a democratic deficit, how?

I think the anti democratic deficit is not in leaving it to sovereign govts to decide but in taking it away from sovereign govts with successive treaties.

Nobody's taking anything away from sovereign governments. You're falling into the usual trap of believing in the EU as an external entity with the power to do things against the wishes of the member states.

The member states write the treaties. Nobody's taking decision powers from the states, they are voluntarily ceding a certain amount of sovereignty, in return for the advantages of union.

And accepting the Irish first no vote on Lisbon would have been a way to correct democratic deficit. I would consider what happened over Lisbon and Nice to be tangible evidence of the cost as you put it.

The Lisbon and Nice treaties were only ratified after the Irish electorate had agreed to allow the government to ratify them. The fact that you accept our rejection of those treaties but reject our acceptance of them is ironic from someone who is demanding more democracy.

Perhaps more democracy means less integration. Less supranationalism more intergovernmentalism.

Maybe. And if the democratically-elected governments of the member states want less integration, then they'll negotiate treaty changes to reduce integration.

The fact that they have not done so to date suggests that they feel the benefits of ever closer union outweigh the costs in pooled sovereignty. If you disagree, elect a different government.

But i am deeply suspicious of anyone who suggests that the only way to restore democracy to europe is federalism. As i think that is what most people wish to prevent.

Do you have a suggestion for making the EU simultaneously more democratic and less federal?

It is not just the lack of democracy in the EU people dislike. Reform does not have to equal a fed, which is the very reason many people don't want further integration, for fear of a fed.

What reform does the EU require?

The EPP merely want Sweeping powers the clip makes me think they don't want federalism to restore democracy to the people (that bit got deleted sorry) as the people would rather keep their own sovereign democracies.

What sweeping powers to the EPP want?

My opinion on the EU is this people intern or go as MEP's and s business men and realize how much power they could weild and money they could make from more Europe they come back misty eyed.

In my experience, EU civil servants are substantially more idealistic than their cynical national counterparts. My experience of MEPs is that they tend, by and large, to be better informed and less parochial than TDs.

I don't consider myself either anti-EU or pro- EU i don't think either stance is helpful is seeing clearly. But there seems to be the false dichotomy of you must be one or the other and i sense that in your post.

I guess on balance I'm pro-EU, but then I dislike nationalism and I don't have any great faith in the infallibility of democracy.

padser12345

Just a thought....

I wonder' what were the opinion's of the Athenian Women, on the subject of Democracy in 500 BC! The answer.... probably' the same as their close'est living 'Male' relative.

It's almost unbelievable, that Democracy was contemplated at a time when certain people were to be excluded from it. I say almost because 2,500 years on ,or at least up to the 20th century, that same certain people were still excluded from it!

On the subject of Nice (I)(II) and any challenge's to a Supreme Court or otherwise It would seem to me that: Once the Representative Democracy (Irish Government) of Ireland were complicit in the construction of the Treaty it was as if it were agreed in principle. From there on...whether it passed in the referendum or not was academic. But here is where I get confused - if the Representative Democracy (Irish Government) includes the Judiciary, then any challenge could be futile. Even if there was a balanced judgement - the Court would surely act on who would be "more/less affected" in the overall sense. I also cannot understand that any challenger, would not have weighed up the method by which a democratic decision is made. Maybe they did!

If, like a lot of other things in life, 'Democracy' is a set of rules to adhere to & is constructed logically & fairly it would seem to me that "logically & fairly" = what is best for everyone, or in the extreme what serves the greater good if not for only slightly more than half of the people.

If there is such a 'fine line' making a democratic decision(s) that has "profound affect" to serve the "best" interest of all the people of Europe, then why is our Economies in tatter's? Then it's implausible a Government can't be wrong by ignoring the first choice of the Irish people in the Nice Treaty!

All said' I think most people, whether they have studied it in great detail or not, have indeed a profound sense of what is 'Democratic', "what is right & what is wrong" - on that basis....why did so many feel wronged!

regards
padser

Scofflaw

padser12345 wrote: »

Just a thought....

I wonder' what were the opinion's of the Athenian Women, on the subject of Democracy in 500 BC! The answer.... probably' the same as their close'est living 'Male' relative.

It's almost unbelievable, that Democracy was contemplated at a time when certain people were to be excluded from it. I say almost because 2,500 years on ,or at least up to the 20th century, that same certain people were still excluded from it!

What, Athenian women (and slaves, metics, foreigners, and tradespeople)?

padser12345 wrote: »

On the subject of Nice (I)(II) and any challenge's to a Supreme Court or otherwise It would seem to me that: Once the Representative Democracy (Irish Government) of Ireland were complicit in the construction of the Treaty it was as if it were agreed in principle. From there on...whether it passed in the referendum or not was academic. But here is where I get confused - if the Representative Democracy (Irish Government) includes the Judiciary, then any challenge could be futile. Even if there was a balanced judgement - the Court would surely act on who would be "more/less affected" in the overall sense. I also cannot understand that any challenger, would not have weighed up the method by which a democratic decision is made. Maybe they did!

Er, no, the judiciary is not part of the government, and the government is not really part of the representative democracy. The Dáil - that is, the legislature - is the democratic part of the constitutional architecture. The government is an unelected executive body (you and I don't vote for Ministers or even for Taoiseach) which is subject to the law as created by the legislature and interpreted by the courts, and accountable to the elected legislature.

In addition, we have a written constitution which can only be changed by the vote of the people, and which binds all elements of the constitutional architecture - the legislature, the government, and the judiciary must all operate within the rules established by the constitution. Those rules are interpreted by the Supreme Court, who do not make such considerations as who is more or less affected, but solely on the basis of what is said and intended in the Constitution.

padser12345 wrote: »

If, like a lot of other things in life, 'Democracy' is a set of rules to adhere to & is constructed logically & fairly it would seem to me that "logically & fairly" = what is best for everyone, or in the extreme what serves the greater good if not for only slightly more than half of the people.

If there is such a 'fine line' making a democratic decision(s) that has "profound affect" to serve the "best" interest of all the people of Europe, then why is our Economies in tatter's? Then it's implausible a Government can't be wrong by ignoring the first choice of the Irish people in the Nice Treaty!

Sorry, I once again can't understand your point.

padser12345 wrote: »

All said' I think most people, whether they have studied it in great detail or not, have indeed a profound sense of what is 'Democratic', "what is right & what is wrong" - on that basis....why did so many feel wronged!

regards
padser

In large part because it overturned the result they preferred. That's a genuine observation - much of the noise was made by people who were simply on the No side, and hoped to dissuade the government from running a second referendum, or to persuade people to vote No in it.

Personally, I voted No at Nice 1 in the full expectation that the government would ask us again, and I suspect that "most people" are probably not bothered by the re-running of referendums. After all, if they were, then second referendums would produce larger No votes, not smaller ones - yet smaller ones is what they produce.

So if you personally are offended by the re-running of referendums, the most likely explanation, I fear, is that it's because of the way the second vote overturned your preferred result - that's what's most likely to be the case, anyway. And your feeling on the matter, to the extent it's shared by the general public, is either not very widely shared or not very deeply felt.

cordially,
Scofflaw

padser12345

Quote:
What, Athenian women (and slaves, metics, foreigners, and tradespeople)?


I'm beginning to understand the true meaning of the term "the ordinary citizen" insofar as their 'ignorance is bliss' or even their fear, when it comes to understanding politics/academic's.
I think those who contemplate it though are truly respected in our society ...not because 'we think' they know what they are actually talking about.....but merely because they contemplated it!
Maybe' Women are smarter than Men!![/I]

padser12345

On the subject of Nice (I)(II) and any challenge's to a Supreme Court or otherwise It would seem to me that: Once the Representative Democracy (Irish Government) of Ireland were complicit in the construction of the Treaty it was as if it were agreed in principle. From there on...whether it passed in the referendum or not was academic. But here is where I get confused - if the Representative Democracy (Irish Government) includes the Judiciary, then any challenge could be futile. Even if there was a balanced judgement - the Court would surely act on who would be "more/less affected" in the overall sense. I also cannot understand that any challenger, would not have weighed up the method by which a democratic decision is made. Maybe they did!

http://irelandafternama.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/representative-democracy-is-breaking-down/

What are we to believe? If the assertion is made by notable Commentaries that we are Representative Democracy - are they in fact likening the Irish Political system to the RD?

http://publish.ucc.ie/ijpp/2011/01/DOBroin/03/en
http://webpages.dcu.ie/~martins/mig.pdf

Ah, I see now ...we act one way when it suits us & then another way when it does not! The "wolf in sheep's clothing" analogy comes to mind. We make the people think we are a RD insofar as we are a Republic & we are Democrats....then undress when convenient to do so.

Scofflaw

padser12345 wrote: »

Quote:
What, Athenian women (and slaves, metics, foreigners, and tradespeople)?

Ok, before you get personal with me, what is your definition of Democracy?

Apologies for the crack there, but it was hard to resist the "same certain people are excluded from it":

It's almost unbelievable, that Democracy was contemplated at a time when certain people were to be excluded from it. I say almost because 2,500 years on ,or at least up to the 20th century, that same certain people were still excluded from it!

What, Athenian women (and slaves, metics, foreigners, and tradespeople)?

I'm pretty sure we don't have the same franchise rules as ancient Athens.

As to 'definition of democracy' - I don't have a personal definition of it, I'd use the dictionary. What I probably have is a personal understanding of the implications of it, but that's not something that's easy to simply lay out in one go. There's no way I've considered every implication, for obvious reasons.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

padser12345 wrote: »

On the subject of Nice (I)(II) and any challenge's to a Supreme Court or otherwise It would seem to me that: Once the Representative Democracy (Irish Government) of Ireland were complicit in the construction of the Treaty it was as if it were agreed in principle. From there on...whether it passed in the referendum or not was academic. But here is where I get confused - if the Representative Democracy (Irish Government) includes the Judiciary, then any challenge could be futile. Even if there was a balanced judgement - the Court would surely act on who would be "more/less affected" in the overall sense. I also cannot understand that any challenger, would not have weighed up the method by which a democratic decision is made. Maybe they did!

http://irelandafternama.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/representative-democracy-is-breaking-down/

What are we to believe? If the assertion is made by notable Commentaries that we are Representative Democracy - are they in fact likening the Irish Political system to the RD?

http://publish.ucc.ie/ijpp/2011/01/DOBroin/03/en
http://webpages.dcu.ie/~martins/mig.pdf

Ah, I see now ...we act one way when it suits us & then another way when it does not! The "sheep in wolf's clothing" analogy comes to mind. We make the people think we are a RD insofar as we are a Republic & we are Democrats....then undress when convenient to do so.

I'm afraid that once again I don't understand what you're getting at - it sounds interesting, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

padser12345

padser12345 wrote: »

Quote:
What, Athenian women (and slaves, metics, foreigners, and tradespeople)?


I'm beginning to understand the true meaning of the term "the ordinary citizen" insofar as their 'ignorance is bliss' or even their fear, when it comes to understanding politics/academic's.
I think those who contemplate it though are truly respected in our society ...not because 'we think' they know what they are actually talking about.....but merely because they contemplated it!
Maybe' Women are smarter than Men!![/I]

That could very well be a good closing line to the debate', we will see.....

un-offended
padser

poeticseraphim

padser12345 wrote: »

Quote:
What, Athenian women (and slaves, metics, foreigners, and tradespeople)?


I'm beginning to understand the true meaning of the term "the ordinary citizen" insofar as their 'ignorance is bliss' or even their fear, when it comes to understanding politics/academic's.
I think those who contemplate it though are truly respected in our society ...not because 'we think' they know what they are actually talking about.....but merely because they contemplated it!
Maybe' Women are smarter than Men!![/I]

As an avowed fan of Universal Suffrage and in particular the Women's Suffrage movement i cannot allow this self man hate against men.

If we do respect those who cerebrate rather than those who are benumbed, unconscious and in denial to what is unsubstanstiated and unjust, simply because it is ubiquitus then surely we must equally respect the Women's Suffrage and Universal Suffrage movements.

They were a radical, revolutionary and a brave fight against selfish, protectionist and most of all lazy thinking and ideals. It challenges any disenfranchisment of all.

In one of the most effective world changes country by country Suffrage implemented possibly one of the most enfranchising societal changes for both men and women.

It revolutionised most politicial concepts of human rights. It triggered some of the deepest 'contemplative' thinking on human rights. It changed laws on child marriages and pointed out how blind male society was to peadaphilia by putting the accountability on the adult in statutory rape. Politicans have rarely before or since actually acheived so much in the real world. It was a matter of 'deeds and not just words' to quote Emily Pankhurst. I assure you the suffrage movement was a long contemplated event. It went beyond civil politics and influenced political philosophy on both the left and the right.

Conscious political thinking is the essence of feminism. And it advocates it for both men and women universally.

As far as gender either men and women are equally smart or equally dumb depending on your point of view. But thats only because it is individuals that have the IQ, gender does not.

View

padser12345 wrote: »

On the subject of Nice (I)(II) and any challenge's to a Supreme Court or otherwise It would seem to me that: Once the Representative Democracy (Irish Government) of Ireland were complicit in the construction of the Treaty it was as if it were agreed in principle.

Well, yes since when the government agrees to the text of any treaty it has agreed to it in principle. There would be little point in them agreeing the text if they were opposed to it.

padser12345 wrote: »

But here is where I get confused - if the Representative Democracy (Irish Government) includes the Judiciary, then any challenge could be futile.

Were that the case the Crotty challenge to the SEA would have failed in '87 and we wouldn't be holding referenda on the off chance that subsequent treaties might have constitutional implications.

padser12345 wrote: »

Then it's implausible a Government can't be wrong by ignoring the first choice of the Irish people in the Nice Treaty!

You can perhaps explain why the government should ignore the commitments agreed to by the electorate in referenda on previous Treaties, specifically the accession referendum in '72 and Maastricht in 91/2. Why should the government have disregarded those decisions? Are they not democratic because you disagrees with the electorates' decisions?

padser12345

View wrote: »

Well, yes since when the government agrees to the text of any treaty it has agreed to it in principle. There would be little point in them agreeing the text if they were opposed to it.



Were that the case the Crotty challenge to the SEA would have failed in '87 and we wouldn't be holding referenda on the off chance that subsequent treaties might have constitutional implications.



You can perhaps explain why the government should ignore the commitments agreed to by the electorate in referenda on previous Treaties, specifically the accession referendum in '72 and Maastricht in 91/2. Why should the government have disregarded those decisions? Are they not democratic because you disagrees with the electorates' decisions?

Insofar as the 'part of' the government that agreed to it.

True, and it took an non political individual, to highlight that.

I can't argue something that I don't know enough about, specifically.

Scofflaw

padser12345 wrote: »

Insofar as the 'part of' the government that agreed to it.

Are you describing the judiciary as part of the government there?

cordially,
Scofflaw

padser12345

No' but I probably could.

Scofflaw

padser12345 wrote: »

No' but I probably could.

Well, no, you can't, you see, because it isn't. It's independent of government, much as the government would like it not to be - that was the constitutional gotcha in the judges' pay referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

padser12345 wrote: »

Insofar as the 'part of' the government that agreed to it..

For international treaties, there is no "part of" the government, there is solely Ireland (the government being Ireland for all diplomatic matters).

padser12345 wrote: »

True, and it took an non political individual, to highlight that.

Well, I am not sure how a vocal opponent of Ireland's membership of the EU can be reasonably described as "non political" but fair enough. Certainly, the purpose of his challenge was clearly political - namely, to make life difficult for the government to pursue in practice what the electorate had agreed to in principle.

padser12345 wrote: »

I can't argue something that I don't know enough about, specifically.

Ireland has formally committed itself to the principle of "an ever closer union" in certain specified areas just like every other member state of the Union - in our case after explicit permission from the electorate to do so. The votes in Nice I and Lisbon I did not overturn those commitments. Why should the government ignore those pre-existing democratic decisions and commitments?

padser12345

poeticseraphim wrote: »

As an avowed fan of Universal Suffrage and in particular the Women's Suffrage movement i cannot allow this self man hate against men.

If we do respect those who cerebrate rather than those who are benumbed, unconscious and in denial to what is unsubstanstiated and unjust, simply because it is ubiquitus then surely we must equally respect the Women's Suffrage and Universal Suffrage movements.

They were a radical, revolutionary and a brave fight against selfish, protectionist and most of all lazy thinking and ideals. It challenges any disenfranchisment of all.

In one of the most effective world changes country by country Suffrage implemented possibly one of the most enfranchising societal changes for both men and women.

It revolutionised most politicial concepts of human rights. It triggered some of the deepest 'contemplative' thinking on human rights. It changed laws on child marriages and pointed out how blind male society was to peadaphilia by putting the accountability on the adult in statutory rape. Politicans have rarely before or since actually acheived so much in the real world. It was a matter of 'deeds and not just words' to quote Emily Pankhurst. I assure you the suffrage movement was a long contemplated event. It went beyond civil politics and influenced political philosophy on both the left and the right.

Conscious political thinking is the essence of feminism. And it advocates it for both men and women universally.

As far as gender either men and women are equally smart or equally dumb depending on your point of view. But thats only because it is individuals that have the IQ, gender does not.

Well' I do have conflict's, I suppose in short, it makes me what I am or at least how I think or ultimately how I question. Some of those conflict's are formed by the environment that I live in - and overall I can't complain. I only used the term Maybe' Women are smarter than Men!! because they were the topic of what was essentially hypocritical in the 'foundations' of Democracy.

I don't follow the 'movements' that you refer to but if I did I'm sure I'd feel the same way insofar as the struggle's. I have no doubt that we are indebted to both.

"Conscious political thinking is the essence of feminism"......I wouldn't argue with that, but only apt to how much of a feminist you are!

Maybe the 'subconscious' reason I used it, is it's reinforcement by certain commercial entity's use it to compel women to buy their product ie. The contention that "Women are better driver's than Men", so they get cheaper insurance. Hmm!

regards
padser

padser12345

View wrote: »

For international treaties, there is no "part of" the government, there is solely Ireland (the government being Ireland for all diplomatic matters).

In light of further research by my self on the matter - I suppose' you are correct....but it is a very crass distinction, in the way the 'ordinary citizen' perceives the democratic political structure in Ireland.

Well, I am not sure how a vocal opponent of Ireland's membership of the EU can be reasonably described as "non political" but fair enough. Certainly, the purpose of his challenge was clearly political - namely, to make life difficult for the government to pursue in practice what the electorate had agreed to in principle.

A true Independent maybe, until allied to the left later.

Ireland has formally committed itself to the principle of "an ever closer union" in certain specified areas just like every other member state of the Union - in our case after explicit permission from the electorate to do so. The votes in Nice I and Lisbon I did not overturn those commitments. Why should the government ignore those pre-existing democratic decisions and commitments?

In short....they shouldn't! But let me pose you this. If there were a change in the Political landscape, to the extent that we had or maybe even in the future could have'.... a Nationalist Party in power, that they would have repeated the election?

padser12345

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, no, you can't, you see, because it isn't. It's independent of government, much as the government would like it not to be - that was the constitutional gotcha in the judges' pay referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I stand corrected.

Padser

View

padser12345 wrote: »

In short....they shouldn't!

Correct and as such it was our government which acted democratically in the case of the two referenda. Contrast that with the people on the No side who repeatedly called on them not to do so...

padser12345 wrote: »

But let me pose you this. If there were a change in the Political landscape, to the extent that we had or maybe even in the future could have'.... a Nationalist Party in power, that they would have repeated the election?

Nationalists are people who acted in the manner desired by the Nation (i.e. the people). Our pro-EU parties are doing so in so far as is reasonably possible. Their anti-EU opponents oppose the wish of the Nation so while it may be reasonable to call them "Isolationists", it is completely incorrect to call them "Nationalists".

That said, to attempt to answer your question (although I find it a little unclear, particularly the comment about repeating the election) - were an Isolationist party to achieve power, then - ironically using EU law - they only need to lodge a formal notification that Ireland intends to leave the EU to start the process of terminating our membership. That process ends either: a) two years later at worst or b) sooner if the members agree (there being inevitably areas they should reach agreement on prior to exit - e.g. the future status of Irish citizens who already live elsewhere in the EU and non-Irish EU citizens who already live in Ireland).

To the best of my knowledge, there would be no constitutional requirement on an Isolationist party to hold a referendum on such a decision here nor - I believe - is there any mechanism to stop it under Irish (or EU???) law once initiated.

padser12345

Quote: Scofflaw

"There is currently no way of 'imposing a federal Europe' that bypasses such consent - such a step would require a drastic change in the legal character of the EU and of every member state."

I think the question of federalism being created in the "creeping" or "integrative" way has been answered. Which granted, answer's my question directly! I suppose that's the way a lot of thing's are done in long term policy making, etc.

However' I have, for a long time, suspected that, our current economic crisis was, 'let' happen. It could conveniently deal with the question of how "the EU" intended to tackle the problem of a "two-speed" European Union in the quest to federalise "the EU" or something else - who knows. "Two-speed, in the context of how each member state contends - when (among other thing's) they would entertain or indeed "need" a federal EU. One country maybe ready for it this decade but maybe not in the next decade etc.etc.

Where's my proof? I don't have any per say. I have tried very hard in the past four years to understand why the institutions of "the EU" - stood by, and did nothing.

How do I start to resolve....that Financial Regulators of respective member state's of "the EU", neglected to do their job properly?? Why we gave the money back to the gambler's? Why is nobody in jail? Why in it's powers to do so, was FF not ejected from the Dail for gross misconduct, that affected the state?

Why? In short...When Enda Kenny announced to the Nation, that "it's not 'your' fault"! What he was really saying was: While "it" was in fact 'everybody's' (the EU, the entire Irish Political system & the Irish Citizen's) fault - neither "any one of us" can be seen to be at fault....so it's not "your" fault!

padser12345

Quote: View

"Nationalists are people who acted in the manner desired by the Nation (i.e. the people). Our pro-EU parties are doing so in so far as is reasonably possible. Their anti-EU opponents oppose the wish of the Nation so while it may be reasonable to call them "Isolationists", it is completely incorrect to call them "Nationalists".

Do you think the Irish (majority) voter's in Nice I' felt "isolated", when voting?

whiskey_bar

padser12345 wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge, various Commentaries and Advocates of the EU over the years - including some of it's founding fathers, have mooted the EU (one day) to being a Federal Europe.

The notion has always been there and by all accounts and purposes it has acted like one....indeed' various opponents over the years have questioned it's legitimacy in this regard. And, any legally functioning entity needs to be legitimate, otherwise it's not genuine.

Commentaries suggest, that at the moment, it will take advantage of the current crisis (a beneficial crisis) to implement it.

But assume we were not in crisis then....

......how would the EU expect to achieve a Federal Europe?

you mean how does germany expect to achieve a federal europe

by endslaving the periphery in debt , all the while being fully aware that they value their comfortable lifestyles more than national soverignty , germany will eventually underwrite ireland and other nations debt but the price will be full control of our affairs , us irish will rush to sign on the dotted line as we place money way above nationalism

poeticseraphim

whiskey_bar wrote: »

you mean how does germany expect to achieve a federal europe

by endslaving the periphery in debt , all the while being fully aware that they value their comfortable lifestyles more than national soverignty , germany will eventually underwrite ireland and other nations debt but the price will be full control of our affairs , us irish will rush to sign on the dotted line as we place money way above nationalism

I think people value living standards above nationalism...Germany will not control the EU ...in FED EU there are millions more outside Germany.....France Spain Italy...France is about 65 million...Germany 80 million or something..Italy is 60 million...and Spain like 47 million....we would be dwarfed though

But still i am not pro fed..but placing children's future on nationalism rather than something they can eat is just plain silly. Seriously we need to do do what is best economically and politically is best for our people our democracy and our living stanards because they are all interconnected.

That may mean being pro EU or pro Fed EU or pro- nationalism..

I am getting sick of the psuedo - nationalist posts...if what you suggest would actually hurt the country it is not nationalism...it is however nationalism to want to make sure your country and people are able to thrive and succeed.

This leave the EU or stand up to it is would potentially damage Ireland which is anti-patriotic isn't it?

Anyway i don't think the Germans are very enthused about a federal EU at all.

golden lane

germany started the snowball rolling......they didn't realise how much unwanted snow it would pick up on the way...downhill...

padser12345

whiskey_bar wrote: »

you mean how does germany expect to achieve a federal europe

by endslaving the periphery in debt , all the while being fully aware that they value their comfortable lifestyles more than national soverignty , germany will eventually underwrite ireland and other nations debt but the price will be full control of our affairs , us irish will rush to sign on the dotted line as we place money way above nationalism

I don't think it's just Germany in the sense you described. Every member state has over the decades been equal in the advance towards a federal europe. There has always been an attraction of Ireland to integrate 'willingly' into Europe, because we were sold the notion for years that we got lot's of free cash from them. Ironically, we have actually given Billions of Punt's to Europe in the past 1970's - 1980's by acceding our fishing water's to the rest of Europe. Economist's reckon 30 Billion Punt's.

Scofflaw

padser12345 wrote: »

I don't think it's just Germany in the sense you described. Every member state has over the decades been equal in the advance towards a federal europe. There has always been an attraction of Ireland to integrate 'willingly' into Europe, because we were sold the notion for years that we got lot's of free cash from them. Ironically, we have actually given Billions of Punt's to Europe in the past 1970's - 1980's by acceding our fishing water's to the rest of Europe. Economist's reckon 30 Billion Punt's.

No, "economists" don't. People making up figures do (that may occasionally include economists, but when they're making up figures their professional qualifications are largely irrelevant). The best available figures, indeed the only available actual figures give us somewhere around €8bn. All other figures are unsourced unbacked guesstimates of various different degrees of silliness.

I can go into this at great length, if required.

cordially,
Scofflaw

padser12345

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, "economists" don't. People making up figures do (that may occasionally include economists, but when they're making up figures their professional qualifications are largely irrelevant). The best available figures, indeed the only available actual figures give us somewhere around €8bn. All other figures are unsourced unbacked guesstimates of various different degrees of silliness.

I can go into this at great length, if required.

cordially,
Scofflaw

A 'popular' Irish economist about 15 years ago, contended in a Sunday newspaper that figure £30 Billion. I have heard of similar figures from other economists over the years, more or less the same figure. Maybe I should write and ask them, to explain that figure.
I have read on other blogs that a figure close to €200 Billion, which I personally think is, of the wall.

I'm glad you acknowledge we do play our part, and I would be grateful if you could qualify €8 Billion.

regards
padser