NO Vote POLITICAL consequences

Meh

Originally posted by dahamsta
Ditto my previous statement. If you actually believe that... well, I suppose that's your right; I make no apologies for laughing my ass off. Personally, I think you're mixing up rules and reality. Ne'er the twain shall meet.

Originally posted by Meh:
OK, since I can't prove a negative, it's up to you to give examples of where commissioners have acted solely in the interests of their own countries, rather than the interest of the larger Union.

PH01

It may well be what you believe, but the post I was responding to was statement painted as fact. You have a right to believe what you want, but I believe it's wrong to paint opinion as truth. I have guff and make-believe about Nice coming out my ears, so I come here to get away from that and look for facts.

Sorry dahamsta I'm not painting here! But I do reckon that I'm dealing with the realities here of the political consequences of a 'No'.
So you've come here looking for facts, but if you're not prepared to read and discuss your opinions with others, you are not going to get anywhere.
So far this forum has been pretty good place to discuss this topic. Lets hope it continues.

dahamsta

PH01, my comments have absolutely nothing to do with Nice, they are strictly about the post I originally replied to. Like I said, I'm simply sick of hearing unprovable statements. Every day I'm being told that a Yes to Nice will have $these consequences, and a No vote will have $those consequences. No explanation, no proof, just "$this is what will happen". Given the lies and deceit coming out of the mouths of the people most keen to see a Yes vote, is it any wonder I'm leaning towards No? That's not punishing the Government, it's simply not believing them. They're liars. Why should I believe them now?

Meh, I don't know enough about Europe to be able to prove it. I know enough about people to believe it though.

adam

shotamoose

Originally posted by bonkey

Democracy - which you hold sacrosanct - is about imajority rule. There is absolutely nothing undemocratic about the majority finding ways to work around the obstacles that the minorities have placed in their way.

Some models of democracy are all about majority rule, some are about varying levels of cooperation and consensus. And I don't think the analogy between parties or people in a national democracy and nations in the EU is a good one. If you vote for the Green Party and they don't get into power or mess things up in some way, you can always change your mind and vote for Fianna Fail. But a Greek can't decide to be a German if he thinks his representatives are being ignored. Decision making in the Commission and the Council resemble more decision making in a cabinet like ours or Englands, and they rely on consensus and collective responsibility.

Nations are whole and self-contained political communities and the primary means by which their citizens express their political preferences. If a nation is over-ruled in an international organisation it's not just 10 million random people being over-ruled but the embodiment of a unique political community. If the European Parliament ran the show in Europe, this wouldn't be such a problem - the decison-makers would be directly elected by people, and you could genuinely say that national political borders were significantly less important. But the EP doesn't run the show, the Council and Commission do, and they're still carved up on national grounds.

I realise this is paradoxical - the EU won't work if non-nation-based institutions precede non-nation-based politics, but how will we know if nation-based politics is on the way out without non-nation-based institutions?

But perhaps this is another reason why national political communities will continue to be the basic building blocks of international organisations. Because they are set up to provide optimum representation for their public, and because their publics seem to like it that way. The only way to ensure that these publics don't get worried about distant and detached decision-making is to base international decision-making on each country having a veto. This is not efficient, but it is, from the most important perspective (voter's-eye-view) democratic.

And given that we're looking for clarity.....exactly what should the EU do if we reject Nice? And remember...clarity was what you requested...so make sure you have some here. No handwaving of "find another solution" or "renegotiate honestly". Tell us what the EU needs to do to protect democracy, the Irish wishes, and the wishes of the other nations.

Cause I havent heard a single No answer to this yet. I have heard the scaremongering of what the EU will do, and why its all so bad, but not once have I heard what they should do.

jc

I don't know what answer anyone could give that would satisfy you, since any answer that does not say 'renegotiate' would pre-empt the views of those doing the renegotiating and so be undemocratic. No, renegotiate is exactly what they have to do. If necessary do it again and again. Keep doing it until they come up with a Treaty that everyone agrees on, with opt-outs and opt-ins aplenty if necessary. It won't be easy and it won't be fun, but that always has been and always will be the only way they can do this. I'm sure it peeves some in Europe that consensus is required to introduce majority rule, but that's just tough.

PH01

Originally posted by dahamsta
PH01, my comments have absolutely nothing to do with Nice, they are strictly about the post I originally replied to. Like I said, I'm simply sick of hearing unprovable statements. Every day I'm being told that a Yes to Nice will have $these consequences, and a No vote will have $those consequences. No explanation, no proof, just "$this is what will happen". Given the lies and deceit coming out of the mouths of the people most keen to see a Yes vote, is it any wonder I'm leaning towards No? That's not punishing the Government, it's simply not believing them. They're liars. Why should I believe them now?

Meh, I don't know enough about Europe to be able to prove it. I know enough about people to believe it though.

adam

You're probably right about what you say. It is very difficult to get or to provide a simple explanation to such a complex issue. And sometimes when you a simple answer to an issue like this you tend not to believe it anyway because it is coming from someone you're not open to in the first place.

For example, lets take the slogan "You will lose Money, Power & Freedom - Vote No to Nice". To me this message is total rubbish because it is coming from people like "National Platform", "Green Party", "Sinn Fein", "Socialist Party", "Workers Party", "Immigration Control Platform" and others. Now if the same slogan came from the likes of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Irish Alliance for Europe, Labour Party, Progressive Democrats, IBEC, Chambers of Commerce of Ireland, IFA, ICOS and other, I would likely vote 'No'.

This is not to say that I can't think for myself. I can. You simply can't be expected to know everything. I could spend all the hours that god send me find out and reading up on this issue but I won't. I'll take advice from the people or parties I trust. And as it stands now I trust the message I'm currently getting from the 'Yes' side.

I can then take that message and add it to my own knowledge, and argue the case for a 'Yes' vote.

Hope this helps?

Typedef

Originally posted by bonkey
Democracy - which you hold sacrosanct - is about imajority rule. There is absolutely nothing undemocratic about the majority finding ways to work around the obstacles that the minorities have placed in their way.

I don't necessarily subscribe to the notion that majority rule is analagous to democracy. For me democracy is about representation of the views of people, so that notion that the winner takes all is undemocratic in my view. For example Proportional Representation is a voting system that takes into account the fact that it is not simply the majority that have a say in governance and representation, but the minority who must also be represented, a notable contrast to First Past the Post, which is in my view less democratic. If democracy were simply a case of the winner taking all and majority rule, then when it came time for elections, the party who got the most votes would take all the seats in parliment, which would be unrepresentative though technically 'democratic' in the strictest meaning of the word. Pluralist, representative democracy has to afford representation to the minority and the more diametrically opposed to the majority opinion the minority is, the less argument you can make for winner takes all democracy actually being democratic or representative, if one works on the assumption that democracy is all about representation as fairly and as accurately as possible of the opinion of the voters.

Also, I would dearly love to know how you equate sidestepping Ireland's objections with co-ercing us to follow their lead.

I am rebuffing a point made that Ireland will have it's opinion side stepped. I too would like to see how it is Ireland could have it's opinon disregarded vis-a-vis federalism, in the abscence of Qualified Majority Voting on enhanced co-operation. That is one reason I regard this Treaty as being so important for Irish soveringty. Simply put, as I have stated before, the attempt to re-run the Nice Treaty is an attempt to get around the opinion voiced by the Irish electorate, without actually addressing the implications of a rejection. This is quintessentially undemocratic, as again the more extraneous means one employs to prorouge the wishes of the minority (in this instance the Irish people v the rest of Europe in opinon on the Nice Treaty), the less representative one's democracy is and the more about majority unilateralism 'democracy' becomes.

A far more likely scenario is that they will simply start forming additional "opt-in" features, like the Euro currently is, and let us make our choice. We get to choose to opt out of a number of things, which will then make it impossible for us to choose to opt in to others (dependancies), ultimately causing us to choose to be marginalised or integrated.

Yes renegotiation could and should take place, though I don't necessarily accept the argument that not participating in European political integration (as opposed to some economic facets) is akin to marginalisation, rather it is a choice that respects the choice's of the minority ie Ireland in Europe. The difference is the minority is in fact a soverign government and a soverign nation and the EU is not the supreme parliment by which the minority (ie the Irish in this instance) are represented, instead it is the Dial and the Irish constitution that is the supreme artifice and exponent of governance and representation in Ireland, thus majority rule vis-a-vis Europe is irrelevant to the opinion of the Irish people in relation to the soverign state of Ireland and the directions Ireland takes in Europe. Thus the views of the Majority in Europe vis-a-vis Ireland's participation in political integration must come behind the views of the Irish people in European political integration, as it is the Irish people and the Irish people alone who ultimately have the power and duty to create a representative and fair model of representation conducive with political opinion in the soverign state of Ireland.

Now, if you believe that this, is in effect, ignoring our democratic wishes, then I would love to know how the democratic wishes of the rest of Europe are not being ridden over rough-shod by the belief that the minority dissention is far more important than the majority of unanimity.

Ireland is a soverign state jc, thus the views of anyone not Irish are irrelevant in terms of Ireland's choice to ceed soveringty or integrate into Europe. Perhaps it is unfortunate for European Federalists that Irish consent is currently required for some aspects of integration, however in so far as the process affects Irish soveringty it must remain unfortunate for European Federalists, because as a soverign state in Europe decisions effecting Irish soveringty are left to be deicded by the Irish people and the Irish people alone.

Funnily...when you look at it this way, it looks like the Nice Treaty is another chance to vote to become second-class.....by rejecting it again.

On the contrary when you look the Treaty question as I have just exponenciated it, it would seem that voting No in fact reaffirms and endemnifiys Ireland's right to self determination as a soverign state.

Neither. Ireland will be marginalised by our own choices. Ultimately, this may lead us to a position where we can no longer feasibly stay a member of the EU, but again, this will be our choice.

bonkey, you know as well as I do that is pure speculation. If the EU continues to attempt to dictate to Ireland on matters that effect Irish soveringty (as is is currently doing with the Nice Treaty re-run) then yes I accept that continued participation in the politcal aspects of what is now the EU will be come untenable so long as Ireland remains a soverign state. If however the EU respects Ireland's democratic decision (as opposed to attemtping to reverse it) then so long as Ireland consents to further participation in the EU, there is no need to seced from the EU.

Europe cannot be held slave to us, nor more than we to them.

Absolutely, Ireland is a minority in Europe, but more importantly a soverign state, thus Ireland can not be held accountable in perpetuity for a Treaty that if put to all the peoples of Europe in plebiscite as it has been in Ireland would not be the burdon of the Irish people alone to rebuff and redesign to make said Treaty more universally acceptable, as quite clearly popular opinon is not forthcoming from people in many other European states. Fortunately or depending on your outlook unfortunately the Irish people are the only people in Europe who have been given the opportunity to excercise the franchise on this issue and exercised it they have and in so far as one must respect the soveringty of this state that result has to be addressed. It has not been addressed, rather a sinister attempt to reverse the democratic decision of the Irish Republic on the Treaty of Nice is underway in a 're-run' to use the newspeak vernacular of the Treaty plebiscite in Ireland, which is not representative governance, though is in the strictest sense of the word 'democracy', it is simply not representative nor particulary respectful to validity of Referenduma in Ireland.

And given that we're looking for clarity.....exactly what should the EU do if we reject Nice?

Renegotiate the Nice Treaty simply. Do I sound like Ian Paisley yet? Shall I tell you what the difference here is? The Belfast agreement had the consent of a majority of the people of the Republic of Ireland, the majority of Unionists in North of Ireland and the majority of Nationalists in the North of Ireland. If the Belfast agreement had been rejected by Unionism it could not have been ratified, despite the fact that most people in Ireland had voted for the Agreement (which is no the case with Nice in Europe). Where the corollary diverges even further is, imagine the Unionists had been a soverign country unto themselves and had rejected the Belfast Agreement. The argument you are attempting to exponenciate is that the Unionists should in that instance cave in to the opinon of the majority of the people in Ireland, despite being a soverign government, which is not only absurd but ludicrous and negates the concept of representative governance where it applies to soverign states and governments.

So since the soverign state of Ireland has rejected the Nice Treaty the proper course of action is to renegotate the Treaty until such time as the Treaty becomes acceptable to the people of Ireland or Ireland simply never ratifys said Treaty, the views of people who are not citizens of the soverign state of Ireland are in this instance superflous and irrelevant, as are all non-Irish citizen views in so far as Irish soveringty, law, liberty and persuit of happiness are concerned, because Ireland is a soverign country.

The views expressed here do not necessarily relfect the views of my employer,next of kin, ex girlfriends or pets .....
Cuidado con el Gato

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Ireland is a soverign state jc, thus the views of anyone not Irish are irrelevant in terms of Ireland's choice to ceed soveringty or integrate into Europe

......

So since the soverign state of Ireland has rejected the Nice Treaty the proper course of action is to renegotate the Treaty until such time as the Treaty becomes acceptable to the people of Ireland or Ireland simply never ratifys said Treaty, the views of people who are not citizens of the soverign state of Ireland are in this instance superflous and irrelevant, as are all non-Irish citizen views in so far as Irish soveringty, law, liberty and persuit of happiness are concerned, because Ireland is a soverign country.

May I take it then that you would have no problems with a Treaty which basically said that all decisions of the nature that require member-state ratification could be implemented on an opt-in/opt-out basis like the Euro was. That way, we would remain masters of our own destiny, foreign opinion wouldnt matter a damn, etc. etc. etc.

Also, I think you will find that non-Irish citizen views are relevant in this situation. If Ireland had ratified Nice, and (say) Italy hadnt, then the Italian opinion would be very bloody important to us, because they would be able to stop us achieving our chosen goals.

I would also suggest that if you believe that non-Irish are irrelevant in terms of law and liberty are concerned, that you go and read up on the European Courts. I think you'll find that non-Irish people have a hell of a lot of influence in these areas.

jc

p.s. Incidentally, your belief that the Irish should be the only decider's of Irish people's liberty and pursuit of happiness flies directly in the face of your stance on Human Rights, Oppressive regimes etc. As does the whole "masters of our own destiny" argument in general.

Typedef

p.s. Incidentally, your belief that the Irish should be the only decider's of Irish people's liberty and pursuit of happiness flies directly in the face of your stance on Human Rights, Oppressive regimes etc. As does the whole "masters of our own destiny" argument in general.

Except when I say Irish people I emphatically "don't" mean government, I mean citizens, so in this instance it is the Irish citizen ultimately via plebiscite of one form or another who should decide the rights,directions and thrust of Irish Political life, not the European Court on (x), the European Court on (x) is a not the supreme form of representation of the edicts and wishes of the Irish people.

More importantly, the Irish people are the only people in the entire Union who have been given the opportunity to vote on the Nice Treaty

If Ireland had ratified Nice, and (say) Italy hadnt, then the Italian opinion would be very bloody important to us, because they would be able to stop us achieving our chosen goals.

However those would be the choices of the Italian government, not the Italian people, it is quite doubtful if the Treaty of Nice were put to a vote throughout every member state in the Union that the Irish Republic would be the only country to reject it, thus the Irish people are not filibustering the people of Europe, as the 'people' of Europe haven't really spoken on this issue.

Sure you can argue that government of country (x) represents the wishes of it's people, but clearly the Irish governmnet doesn't represent the wishes of the Irish people on this issue (expressed via Referendum), so how can one know for sure that the other governments are representing their people in the way those people actually want to be represented? Exactly, it's not possible to know that, since it would quite patently in the case of the Irish government be an abject lie.