Hurray for Europe! New Bank Holiday proposed

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nope. Try again. The EU is a union of sovereign states, the USA or FRG are not.

then why did you say Federal Europe?

The EU is either a Union of sovereign states, or it is Federal.

topper75

Thomas_IV wrote: »

... culturally I am also European ...

What could that possibly even mean?

Do you speak Hungarian, eat sauerkraut, and burn turf in your fireplace?

The trading block was a good idea. Every other layer they try to impose is bogus.

conorhal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It tells me that they need to be given more powers, they have too much time on their hands atm. Any parliament worthy of the name needs to have the power to initiate legislation, at the moment only the Commission can do that.

To do what? Start actual wars rather then just posturing? Yeah, that'll work out well. When are we going into venezuela so? :pac:

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

lol. paranoia alert. EU has been and continues to be the best thing that has ever happened to this country. Some people are just too blinkered to see it or too proud to admit it.

Can you point out which of my posts triggered you into saying I have a "rather scary, ideologically fervant and creepy ultra-nationalist agenda" ? It's BS.

Could it be that you present the near religious fervour for the ‘EU project’ of a complete zealot, which is the uncritical thinking of a simpleton?


The fact that 'ah, sure they've been good for us in the past', is no guarantee that holds true in perpetuity into the future (you need only see my post in this thread on bank bonds and vulture funds, perhaps you could offer up some laughable spin on how a directive to prevent national governments regulating vulture funds is a good thing?).

topper75

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's been much more than a trading bloc for nearly 30 years now. Keep up.

Yeah I said was, past tense. Sadly.

"Ever closer union" - Treaty of Rome, 1958

through trade cooperation perhaps, not diktats from a bureaucracy.


Why?
because we are an independent nation


We're still sovereign and still neutral and will still be both in a federal Europe.
sovereignty is has been continually eroded since we joined in 73



Why should a document written by a tiny bunch of jesus freaks with bloodlust determine the course of a nation over 100 years later? The proclamation has nothing whatsoever to do with the nation we live in. The republic it proclaimed didn't last a week.
true colours on show there - such saltiness against being Irish - could emigration help your condition?



Paranoid bullsh*t.
do you read the pronouncements of Merkel and Macron at all?

Gee - you are really sore about this Europe thing. I can see through it. The emperor has no clothes. Give us as many days off as you like.

topper75

conorhal wrote: »

The fact that 'ah, sure they've been good for us in the past'

Have they even though?

That free lunch-believing Eddie Hobbes think will be the ruination of our land.

You don't get structural funds and subsidies gratis over the long game. You just don't, and you don't need a doctorate in economics to see this.

seamus

topper75 wrote: »

Have they even though?

That free lunch-believing Eddie Hobbes think will be the ruination of our land.

You don't get structural funds and subsidies gratis over the long game. You just don't, and you don't need a doctorate in economics to see this.

That implies there's a witch waiting to come back one day to knock on the door and ask for our first-born child.

You're right, in the long game you don't get these things free. Eventually we will very much be a heavy net contributor into the EU like Germany, France and Holland.

Since the purpose of EU funds is to share the wealth and finance social and infrastructure projects across the union, I don't see the problem.

It's been shown that even with big net contributors, they benefit enormously from the centralisation of funding - large expensive projects like motorways and hospitals are frequently co-funded by the EU, and would not otherwise happen without it.

4068ac1elhodqr

seamus wrote: »

You're right, in the long game you don't get these things free. Eventually we will very much be a heavy net contributor into the EU like Germany, France and Holland.

Agree, and with another six or so countries set to join (all with 1/2 the average German GDP-PP), there will be additional wallet opening to come.

Hotblack Desiato

Aegir wrote: »

then why did you say Federal Europe?

The EU is either a Union of sovereign states, or it is Federal.

There are different models of federalism.

Hotblack Desiato

conorhal wrote: »

To do what? Start actual wars rather then just posturing?

You are being ridiculous.

Could it be that you present the near religious fervour for the ‘EU project’ of a complete zealot, which is the uncritical thinking of a simpleton?

When you're spouting personal abuse it means you have lost the argument already.

The fact that 'ah, sure they've been good for us in the past', is no guarantee that holds true in perpetuity into the future

We can leave at any time, as the UK is doing. It would be a crazy thing to do, but we could do it if we wanted.

Hotblack Desiato

June Lemon Misogynist wrote: »

Agree, and with another six or so countries set to join (all with 1/2 the average German GDP-PP), there will be additional wallet opening to come.

If the six EEC nations had had that attitude in 1972 we'd never have been let in.

ArchXStanton

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nope. Try again. The EU is a union of sovereign states, the USA or FRG are not.

"I told Finnish Prime Minister Juha Sipilä that I remember very well my first visit to his country and the reindeer that was on the menu. But on a more serious note, I also stressed the need for a new Eurozone governance, a European army and a single European digital regulator. - bucktooth federalist Guy Verhofstadt

So which is it? National governance or governance from Brussels that no one was asked about or to vote on, smells like empire building 101

Hotblack Desiato

ArchXStanton wrote: »

"I told Finnish Prime Minister Juha Sipilhat I remember very well my first visit to his country and the reindeer that was on the menu. But on a more serious note, I also stressed the need for a new Eurozone governance, a European army and a single European digital regulator. - bucktooth federalist Guy Verhofstadt

So which is it? National governance or governance from Brussels that no one was asked about or to vote on, smells like empire building 101

None of those things can happen unless the member states agree that they should happen.

Who is "Brussels" anyway?
- The MEPs we elect directly
- The foreign ministers of the national governments, which we elect indirectly
- The prime ministers of the national governments, which we elect indirectly
- The Commissioners, appointed by the national prime ministers

Hotblack Desiato

topper75 wrote: »

Gee - you are really sore about this Europe thing. I can see through it. The emperor has no clothes. Give us as many days off as you like.

No, you're the one who is sore and complaining, I'm mostly quite happy with the status quo thanks.

The people who claim to be able to see the things that nobody else can see ('emperor has no clothes') are almost invariably wrong, they are seeing things which are not there or are interpreting wrongly what they do see. It's an entirely juvenile style of argument anyway, "I know everyone else disagrees with me but I'm right and I know I am because I'm great" is in effect what you're saying. Offer substance if you can.

Glad that you acknowledge we are an independent nation. Many EU opponents make the ridiculous claim that we are not.

You say sovereignty has been 'eroded', I say we have chosen to pool sovereignty with our partner nations in a few limited and specific areas and that this pooling has been greatly to our benefit, as well as endorsed by the Irish people in a string of referendums. The extreme Brexiteers go on and on about sovereignty but they'll find out pretty quick that
(a) you can't eat sovereignty
(b) you can't enter into any sort of international agreement, including trade agreements, unless you choose to pool your sovereignty in some way. That makes North Korea pretty much the most sovereign nation on earth, as they refuse to cooperate with just about everyone.


Stating facts about the 1916 proclamation is not 'saltiness about being Irish'. I'm proud to be Irish. I'm also proud to be a European. You seem to feel the need to denigrate people who disagree with you. Not a good look tbh. Anyway you are factually wrong. The 1916 proclamation forms no part of the legal basis for our state's existence, or even the state which existed before that. It's just stating a fact.

Also it's interesting that you seem to regard a document prepared by a tiny bunch of unelected bureaucrats:pac: rebels in such reverence, the actual mandate for Irish independence was the hundreds of thousands of votes for it in 1918. Democracy, see?

The "political overlords" nonsense talk is just that, emotive BS with no foundation whatsoever. You can't be the overlord of someone who can just choose to walk away.

ArchXStanton

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

None of those things can happen unless the member states agree that they should happen.

Who is "Brussels" anyway?
- The MEPs we elect directly
- The foreign ministers of the national governments, which we elect indirectly
- The prime ministers of the national governments, which we elect indirectly
- The Commissioners, appointed by the national prime ministers

“Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,” Juncker

Someone is telling porkies here, its either you or that drunken bastion of democracy Juncker.

Those decisions really don't belong in the hands of our politicians.what we got with the EU is federalism through the backdoor

What we really need is european wide referendums on the EUs future, they already know the answer and they won't be giving the people the chance to make it.

Hotblack Desiato

Under the Irish constitution we have to have referendums on European treaties which infringe upon sovereignty.

The ratification arrangements of other countries are matters for those countries according to their constitutional arrangements.

ArchXStanton

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Under the Irish constitution we have to have referendums on European treaties which infringe upon sovereignty.

The ratification arrangements of other countries are matters for those countries according to their constitutional arrangements.

And what happens when you vote against the EU treaties like happened here twice? Or in the case of the French and Dutch rejecting one, all the others were cancelled, do you see were I'm going with this? No? Let's have another belter from Juncker...

"there can be no democratic choice against the European treaties"


Democracy is only a word the bureaucrats use

https://euobserver.com/political/24481

Franz Von Peppercorn

Thomas_IV wrote: »

It is typical for right-wingers that their world view is very one-sided and narrow minded. But as I am no right-winger myself, I am not much bothered by the way such people maintain what they believe in even when it is wrong cos they only and always look at the things that divides but ignore the common values.

That’s an ad hominem attack. A clear search would reveal me to be an economic socialist and anti American foreign policy. That used to be enough to be left wing. As for Europe you haven’t explained why or what the actual common culture is. (Oh and plenty of right wingers believe Europe to have a common culture, but I’m dubious).

Europe is the better future for us all, nationalism is the wrong way back into a past which no-one in his right mind would ever want to return.

Actually nation states have been plenty successful since 1945. Most Western Europe liberal democracies were nation states. So is japan. Multi national states tend to fall apart.

Franz Von Peppercorn

professore wrote: »

It's factually incorrect to say there ever was a single European culture. The Romans had more in common with the Egyptians than the Vikings for example. The peoples of Europe today are MASSIVELY different culturally. The only thing they have in common over people from other parts of the world is watching American TV.

Germans believe in the full application of the letter of every law. Irish don't. Water charges protests there would be unthinkable.

Even Catholicism in Ireland Spain and Poland for example were practiced completely differently. Trying to pretend otherwise is revisionism.

If you've lived in Ireland all your life you can believe we are all the same culturally. But I can tell you are we fcuk.

There was but it needed a common religion and language (Latin) amongst the elites. Any attempt to recreate that would be impossible.

Lefty Bicek

murpho999 wrote: »

It's not an empire and nor is it falling apart at the seams.

It's just that a country that still has an Empire mentality is leaving.

The remaining 27 will be fine.

Immigration is only right wing bluster and not the big problem it's made out to be.
EU is also totally democratic.

Britain is far more democratic.

Unearthly

valoren wrote: »

How about reducing the working week in the EU states to 4 days a week.
Take the monday away. Three day weekends.
It could be part of an initiative to combat climate change.
Less emissions from travelling to work, less energy required to power buildings.

I'd much rather work an hour earlier and work an hour later 4 days per week and have an extra day off.
Those extra 8 hours would allow for covering the Mondays work.

I've been doing 4 days a week, 40 hour shifts for a few years now. I'd struggle to go back to 5 days a week

Lefty Bicek

Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals we dare not present to them directly. (...) This approach of 'divide and ratify' is clearly unacceptable. Perhaps it is a good exercise in presentation. But it would confirm to European citizens the notion that European construction is a procedure organised behind their backs by lawyers and diplomats.

Valery Giscard d'Estaing, on the Lisbon Treaty, Le Monde, 15 June 2007

Hotblack Desiato

ArchXStanton wrote: »

And what happens when you vote against the EU treaties like happened here twice?

Not this crap again. Asked and answered a hundred times before and you know it.

Or in the case of the French and Dutch rejecting one, all the others were cancelled

Not sure what your point was here, should they have continued having votes in other countries when it was clear it was not going to succeed? If they had, would you have been happy or complaining?

ArchXStanton

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Valery Giscard d'Estaing, on the Lisbon Treaty, Le Monde, 15 June 2007

Completely laughable that the EU masquerades as some gold standard of democracy..

Hotblack Desiato

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Britain is far more democratic.

Britain has an unrepresentative first past the post system, and an entirely unelected House of Lords

Bzzt. Try again.

ArchXStanton

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Not this crap again. Asked and answered a hundred times before and you know it.



Not sure what your point was here, should they have continued having votes in other countries when it was clear it was not going to succeed? If they had, would you have been happy or complaining?

And I think deep down you know it's dubious democracy, I'll leave it once again to big JC...

On French referendum over EU constitution

“If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,”

Hotblack Desiato

I do find it amusing that the same people who complain about a democratic deficit in the EU also complain about it becoming a federal state or "superstate". If they want a directly democratic EU (instead of the indirectly democratic* EU we have now) then it has to become much more like a federal state or "superstate".


*indirect meaning governments send representatives (Except MEPs which are directly elected)

ArchXStanton

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I do find it amusing that the same people who complain about a democratic deficit in the EU also complain about it becoming a federal state or "superstate". If they want a directly democratic EU (instead of the indirectly democratic* EU we have now) then it has to become much more like a federal state or "superstate".

To do that they'd need to go back and ask the people if they want this superstate wet dream in the first place... That's the democratic deficit in the EU

4068ac1elhodqr

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If the six EEC nations had had that attitude in 1972 we'd never have been let in.

Ire joined about the same time as the UK as a sort of package or similar nations into a very small economic union within a localised area.

But how many is too many 6, 9, 27, 33, 48?

And what geographical area is too large?
W.Balkans, Turkey, how about Ukraine and North Africa...

Hotblack Desiato

Turkey and North Africa are not European countries

We can and do have trade deals with them though

Hotblack Desiato

ArchXStanton wrote: »

To do that they'd need to go back and ask the people if they want this superstate wet dream in the first place... That's the democratic deficit in the EU

Sorry, what? A referendum would be a democratic deficit?

4068ac1elhodqr

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Turkey and North Africa are not European countries

But Turkey wants to become part of the EU, does it not?

Many North African countries are mentioned in the Barcelona Agreement (total of of 48 countries) under the umbrella of the 'Union for the Mediterranean'.

Some may well become future candidates to join the EU, depending on the success level of economic, politcal and cultural exchanges.

Hotblack Desiato

June Lemon Misogynist wrote: »

But Turkey wants to become part of the EU, does it not?

I want to win the lotto, doesn't mean it can or will happen
And if the people selling the tickets won't sell me one it certainly won't happen

Many North African countries are mentioned in the Barcelona Agreement (total of of 48 countries) under the umbrella of the 'Union for the Mediterranean'.

Some may well become future candidates to join the EU, depending on the success level of economic, politcal and cultural exchanges.

Evidence please that North African countries can become candidate states. Association agreements are not qualifications to become member states.

prinzeugen

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Britain has an unrepresentative first past the post system, and an entirely unelected House of Lords

Bzzt. Try again.

Which the public voted to retain in a referendum about FPTP many years ago. The majority of the Lords seats are now nominated rather that inherited as in the past. Nominated. Just like EU roles.

So if you think the House of Lords is an undemocratic, unelected house then using your yardstick, the EU exactly is the same.

Lefty Bicek

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Britain has an unrepresentative first past the post system, and an entirely unelected House of Lords

I lived in the UK for many years, and certainly long enough to be aware of it's shortcomings.

Farage agrees with you of course, as far as you go. It is regrettable that his party can win 4m votes and end up with just one seat.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11593312/nigel-farage-attacks-electoral-system-after-election.html

Nevertheless, the measure of democracy is as much about voters and their engagement, as it is with institutions. Which is what I had in mind.

As that relates to electoral turnout, Britain is far more democratic. The turnout for the last five UK General Elections up to 2017-

2017 68.8%
2015 66.1%
2010 65.1%
2005 61.4%
2001 59.4%

Not fabulous, but European elections just see lower, and lower, and lower turnout.

42.5% in 2014.

The tweaked figures will also come as an embarrassment for EU officials who had hailed the results of the 2014 poll for finally reversing a trend of declining voter engagement with EU polls.

The Parliament in particular ran its entire campaign on an assumption that the economic crisis would boost voter turnout, with the slogan “This time it’s different”.

It was, but not in the way that lawmakers expected.

Jaume Duch Guillot, the Parliament spokesperson, said on election night that the EU had witnessed “a historical moment because for the first time since 1979, the long term trend of declining turnout has been reversed”.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2014/news/it-s-official-last-eu-election-had-lowest-ever-turnout/

So, bzzt, yourself.


.

SEPT 23 1989

Mr. teddywinkles

When did north Africa become part of Europe

Mr. teddywinkles

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

When did north Africa become part of Europe

The Indian Ocean and the Caribbean are, apparently, so why not?

Mr. teddywinkles

suicide_circus wrote: »

people were European before the EU and they'll be European when it's gone.

Irish first thanks

4068ac1elhodqr

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I want to win the lotto, doesn't mean it can or will happen
And if the people selling the tickets won't sell me one it certainly won't happen

Get informed better?
Odds of winning Euromillion: 130,000,000/1
Odds of Turkey joining before 2030: 3/1

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Evidence please that North African countries can become candidate states. Association agreements are not qualifications to become member states.

Or Evidence they or others outside (but beside) Europe, can't 'ever' become part of the EU (primarily an 'economic' union, not soley based on geographical borders).

The Barcelona Agreement promotes cultural (including movement of people) and economic/political partnerships across 44 countries.

Saying that, N'Africa is decades away, but Ukraine (Eurasia) could well join at some stage (within 15yrs). There is also desire from (and to) Turkey (95% Asia) to join at some stage in the future, perhaps circa 2030.

prinzeugen

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

When did north Africa become part of Europe

When Spain established a colony there. One they refuse to give up. Just like a wee bit of Canada is part of the EU thanks to direct rule from Paris.

Look at the back of a €20 or €50 note. All the wee bits. EU colonies. From Canada to the south Pacific.

Hypocrites.

Duckworth_Luas

What do you think of when you contemplate the EU?

For many British politicians its Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjluqIEmRXc

... Hitler, Hitler, Hitler and Napoleon!

seamus

prinzeugen wrote: »

Which the public voted to retain in a referendum about FPTP many years ago. The majority of the Lords seats are now nominated rather that inherited as in the past. Nominated. Just like EU roles.

That doesn't mean FPTP is more democratic. It's a mistake to consider democratic decisions to be correct and unchangeable. Many bad decisions have been made democratically.
If a country's governing structures are not properly balanced to provide defence against bad decisions, you end up with runaway damaging policies. Like Brexit.

What is "defence" against a "bad" decision? Corrective mechanisms that can kick in to identify when a decision is going to cause more harm than good, and work to resolve the conflict between the common good and the democratic voice.

This has been broken in the UK, quite clearly. Not only is parliament being run by a government who has a minority of the popular vote, but they are also running away to implement the democratic voice without any regard to the common good.

So if you think the House of Lords is an undemocratic, unelected house then using your yardstick, the EU exactly is the same.

Well no. Because the House of Lords is accountable to no-one. There is no link between a voter and a peer. Most of them inherited their seat from their father.

In the EU system, a small number of seats are appointed, but those appointments made by democratically elected officials. Thus there is a link between every seat in the EU and the voter. It's not perfect, no system is.

On top of half of the UK's governance system being unelected, the head of state is completely unappointed, having inherited her title from her father.

The UK can barely call itself a democracy. It's currently being run by a government who do not have a common majority mandate.

professore

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The people who claim to be able to see the things that nobody else can see ('emperor has no clothes') are almost invariably wrong, they are seeing things which are not there or are interpreting wrongly what they do see.

Were you alive pre 2008? All the great minds then were singing off the same hymn sheet about the "soft landing" and how rock solid the banks were. All brought about by the euro. That cost us multiples of any grants we ever got.

The EEC was a great idea, this EU not so much.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Well no. Because the House of Lords is accountable to no-one. There is no link between a voter and a peer. Most of them inherited their seat from their father.

There are 790 members of the house of Lords. 92 of them are hereditary Peers. That is not, by any stretch of the imagination "Most".

seamus wrote: »

The UK can barely call itself a democracy. It's currently being run by a government who do not have a common majority mandate.

so, much like Ireland then?

seamus

Aegir wrote: »

There are 790 members of the house of Lords. 92 of them are hereditary Peers. That is not, by any stretch of the imagination "Most".

Ah yes, I forgot. The rest are appointed members for life by the Queen, or are senior members of the clergy.

That's much more democratic.

so, much like Ireland then?

Well no. The UK has a majority government with a minority mandate: 43.3% of voters.

Ireland has a minority government with a minority mandate, supported by a confidence agreement that forms a majority mandate. This represents about 55% of the voters.

In Ireland, the majority are still very much in control of the Dáil. In the UK, they are not. 56.7% of UK voters are being led along by the votes of the minority, with no say in how their country is running.

donaghs

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Vincent Browne questioning the ECB is very enlightening.

The EU will mostly provide us with a good standard of living. As the extra holiday shows. The Irish political system has had accountability issues, but there are still means of getting answers and voting governments out of power. The lack of accountability in the EU, particularly for smaller nations will become more of an issue over time.

Brexit is a bit of a distraction due the "British" factor. You can see similar symptom in Denmark's rejection of Maastricht in 1992, or more recent Dutch and French rejection of the European Constitution.
Its an interesting fact that the 1916 Rising occurred during a period of unprecedented economic prosperity in Ireland. The EU seems to be deaf to the fact that people will always wants this accountability.

Lefty Bicek

seamus wrote: »

Ah yes, I forgot.

No you didn't, you spoofer.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Ah yes, I forgot. The rest are appointed members for life by the Queen, or are senior members of the clergy.

appointed on the advice of the government. The Queen can't just randomly appoint Peers/

seamus wrote: »

Well no. The UK has a majority government with a minority mandate: 43.3% of voters.

No, the UK currently has a minority government. The same as Ireland.

seamus wrote: »

In Ireland, the majority are still very much in control of the Dáil. In the UK, they are not. 56.7% of UK voters are being led along by the votes of the minority, with no say in how their country is running.

a massive 25.5% of voters gave Fine Gael their first vote. Last time I checked, they are the ones calling the shots.

VinLieger

Aegir wrote: »

so, much like Ireland then?

Except for the coalition of the conservatives and lib dems in 2010 thanks to FPTP the UK hasnt elected a government that was supported by the majority of voters since the 1930's.

Hotblack Desiato

prinzeugen wrote: »

Which the public voted to retain in a referendum about FPTP many years ago. The majority of the Lords seats are now nominated rather that inherited as in the past. Nominated. Just like EU roles.

So if you think the House of Lords is an undemocratic, unelected house then using your yardstick, the EU exactly is the same.

Commissioners are nominated by national governments, yes - but that is very different to giving a lifetime term as an unelected legislator to your cronies, which is what the House of Lords now is.

Commissioners have a limited term of office, and can initiate legislation - but to become law it must pass the European Parliament, which is directly elected.

BTW the referendum on changing the voting system in the UK was not proportional representation, but a poorly thought out 'alternative vote' system - and the larger party in the coalition government campaigned against the proposal.