New EU Constitution

Cork

Looks like the UK see the EU as a loose bunch of nations co-operating in a free trade area.

The Germans and French have more imperial ambitions (Whats new?).

As - we will be getting a new EU constitution -

Sunday Business Post Article

Where does Dick Roche , John Bruton or P de Rossa stand?

I think that the silence of our political establishment is deafening.

dahamsta

Where does Dick Roche , John Bruton or P de Rossa stand?

There was a piece about this in yesterday's IT. I nearly pissed myself when I saw the term "United States of Europe" being mooted. A reckon a few Irish people will start regretting their Yes to Nice real soon now.

adam

DiscoStu

This one could get a hell of a lot messier than nice ever got. Asking the people to give up the constitution, that will go down like a lead budgie.

bertiebowl

Er lads,

Before panic sets in remember.....the new constitution aims to define the competencies of the nation state vs. federal state....and to make the EU far more democratic.....whats wrong with that?

Also remember that Ireland is probably the most centralised country in the EU......quite contrary to our EU neighbours who view a federal arrangement as quite complementary to local democracy (e.g where you get to elect your own city major - gasp!!!)

So lets hear it for an EU constitution that compliments our own - and for more local democracy while were at it

Typedef

What's wrong bertiehowl is that the EU is attempting to coerce states into participating in the constitution by saying "those who can't accept it have to leave the EU".
So much for valuing the opinions of everyone in the EU, if you look at the reality of rhetoric coming from European Federalists, it's a case of do as we say or leave.

http://www.sbpost.ie/story.jsp?bottomadvert=&rightadverts=&rightnav=/common/navs/right/sponsorsnav.jsp&leftadverts=&advert=/common/adverts/top/homepage.htm&title=Sunday+Paper&story=WCContent;id-59303&list=businesspost

The occasion will be marked by controversy; Giscard d'Estaing has said member states that cannot ratify the new constitution should be excluded from the EU.

John Bruton, a member of the praesidium or steering group of the convention, said he disagrees with the chairman's plans to offer the nations of Europe an `in or out' choice on the constitution.

However I'm quite sure the government won't see being told to ratify the European constitution or leave the Union as coercion, nor will the pro-Federalist or anti-Nationalist camps see such European dictats that way, but in my opinion that is exactly the colour the rhetoric of the Federalists is taking.
Ref: quoted text above with link.

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
What's wrong bertiehowl is that the EU is attempting to coerce states into participating in the constitution by saying "those who can't accept it have to leave the EU".

Correction: Giscard d'Estaing is saying this. A lot of influential people in the EU disagree with him:

John Bruton, a member of the praesidium or steering group of the convention, said he disagrees with the chairman's plans to offer the nations of Europe an `in or out' choice on the constitution.

And if d'Estaing wants this"in or out" idea implemented, he'll have to get every single EU member state to agree to it in 2004.

Also note that this isn't even a proposal -- it's a draft of a proposal. Whatever we vote on in 2004, it'll be different from this.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Typedef

Assuming our "European partners" don't say "Accept this constitution or leave the Union" or do as said "partners" did last time and demand that Ireland vote on the constitution in perpetuity until such time as Ireland votes "the right way".

Welcome to democracy in Ireland, where your opinon only counts so long as you do as you are told.

bertiebowl

Er, Typedef - it was Bertie and noone else who decided to hold a second referendum.........and Fianna Failure put it in their election manifesto that they would hold a second referendum - and the people voted for 'em

PH01

An EU Constitution will mean a new threaty, and then another EU referendum for Ireland (probably the only country to vote again)!

Well, that's something to look forward to.

As of now I'm voting 'Yes'

Typedef

How can you already be voting Yes... I don't even know that I'm voting No as I haven't even seen the damned document.

Pretty open minded approach there PH01.

This is me being holier than thou

PH01

Originally posted by Typedef
How can you already be voting Yes... I don't even know that I'm voting No as I haven't even seen the damned document.

Pretty open minded approach there PH01.

This is me being holier than thou

I'm pretty much Yes-2-Europe-not-matter-what kind of a guy to a certain extent.
I would like to see even more political and economic unity in Europe. And as for military unity I'm for that as well, but it MUST be benign and not an offensive force.

Typedef

I think an outright Yes or No before the Treaty is even published is closed minded.

mike65

FFS, this is just another daft, "run it up the flap-pole and see who salutes" thing, I said this before in another thread about the same subject. The UK government have already said "non" and the Swedes, Danes, Austians, and proberly the Irish government too will be saying in a polite fashion that a USE will not be happening anytime soon or ever.

Mike.

PH01

Originally posted by Typedef
I think an outright Yes or No before the Treaty is even published is closed minded.

I wouldn't call it a closed mind, I'd call it an opening position.

Cork

It is ironic that mone of our political partys seem to be the slightest bit interested in the EU constitution.

Where does FF stand?

As a FF supporter - I find that the silence worrying.

I saw a debate on Primetime post NICEII - Dana & Patricaia Mckenna were talking about the EU constitution.

There was silence from the other side.

Have they no openion or are we entitled to have an openion?

bertiebowl

I think that should read "opinion" Cork not "openion"

DiscoStu

Originally posted by daveirl
The new constitution would compliment the old one, not replace it

it would not compliment it, it would supercede it.

In areas of conflict between the Irish Constitution and the new European Constitution, European law will take precedence

Typedef

The UK government have already said "non" and the Swedes, Danes, Austians, and proberly the Irish government too will be saying in a polite fashion that a USE

Notice mention of an actual world power there (ie) the UK. Hopefully the British will dig in their heels about a United States of Europe and the ostensibly useless and unrepresentative mildly oppressive authoritarian government of Ireland won't have to be put in a position where it has to dictate European policy to the Irish electorate again. I realise that under Irish law the second Nice Treaty Referendum was not (illegal) however it was dictatorial, and the Referendum results were cherry picked. I'm not debating whether or not a government has the right to do such a thing, I am merely pointing out that if as Mike has alluded, the British dig in their heels about a Federal Union, this will ultimately and rather ironically be Ireland's best chance of staying a soverign nation.

Hopefully such a move from the British will filibuster or negate further European Federal integration and keep the Union as much of a solely economic co-operative as the Union can be kept. Clearly the French and Germans are hell bent on creating a Federal Union and the states that have been outlined above have varying levels of opposition to that Union. Now what concerns me is when the likes of G'estard Estang start shouting about expelling countries who oppose Federal Union from the EU, because to my mind that means that small countries like Ireland are put in the position of either ceding soveringty to a Federal Union or risking being isolated from the economic benefits of the former EEC and now EU.

Thus my fear for this country becomes, how much of a compromise on soveringty to placate Federalists is Ireland prepaired to undertake and how much can Ireland rely on British Euroscepticism to filibuster Federal Union and thus protect (ironically) Irish soveringty?

It seems to me, if Ireland is becoming increasingly Eurosceptic (as it probably is), that Ireland must be prepaired to stand up and be counted as it were, without hiding behind British Euroscepticism and again my gripe with the government is that it fundamentally does not seem to be prepaired to represent Irish Euroscepticsm, but rather seems inclined towards quasi-Federalist dictatorialism.

That's just the way I see it..... so sue me!

PHB

Typedef :

FF had part of their election campaign that they were going to vote again on the nice treaty.

The people elected FF again and hence there was a vote on the nice treaty again.

If they hadn't then they wouldnt be doing what the people wanted, they had a mandate from the people to have another vote.
The people wanted another vote and they got it.

Typedef

Aside from the fact that doesn't address what I said I'll use some reverse psychology, the majority of people did not vote for Fianna Fial, so since the Yes camp rationalised the re-run partly due to the fact that the 'majority of the electorate didn't vote' does that mean that Fianna Fial can be removed from office on the same auspices?
How about yet another re-run on those auspices, since under 50% of the electorate voted?

Before you drag this thread any further off topic I'd just like to point out you haven't even come remotely close to answering the issues I raised in my previous post, but instead have dragged up Fianna Fail and the Nice Treaty again.

Kudos to you ted

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
my gripe with the government is that it fundamentally does not seem to be prepaired to represent Irish Euroscepticsm, but rather seems inclined towards quasi-Federalist dictatorialism.

Why on earth should the government argue from a eurosceptic viewpoint when it doesn't agree with the eurosceptics? The current government was democratically elected with pro-integration policies. If you want a government that resists further European integration, then all you have to do is vote for it.

Typedef

Well if this government is pro integration it should say so, clearly and unambigiously. I wonder Meh if you can provide a link that states that the current government is in favour of a United States of Europe?

This government has said the Nice Treaty was about 'enlargement', and it is the contention of the former Yes side in the Nice campaign that the government was elected on that basis. Now if it is your contention that the Treaty was in fact about integration and that by supporting the government of Ireland as it currently is you are supporting European Federal integration towards a United States of Europe, I would wonder why it is the government lied and said the Treaty was about enlargement only and I would like to see some evidence that exponenciation of Federal integration has become official government policy. Then I would like some random people from the Yes side to answer as to why it is they felt the need to lie to get this Treaty passed.
If it was really the will of the people to pass the Treaty can you really claim it as valid under the pretence that the government has lied as to the eventual aim of the progressive treaties regarding Europe?

Again I would point out that Nice has been done to death at this stage and is completely off topic to this thread.

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
Well if this government is pro integration it should say so, clearly and unambigiously. I wonder Meh if you can provide a link that states that the current government is in favour of a United States of Europe?

It is well known to the electorate that FF and the PDs are pro-EU parties. If you're trying to say that the people who voted for them in May "didn't know" that they were pro-EU, that's just disingenuous. In any case, there's quite a large gap between "in favour of a degree of closer integration" (which this government certainly is) and "in favour of a United States of Europe".

Again I would point out that Nice has been done to death at this stage and is completely off topic to this thread.

I agree completely. In fact, I wasn't talking about Nice in my post. That's why I haven't addressed your points about the Nice treaty.

Typedef

Originally posted by Meh
It is well known to the electorate that FF and the PDs are pro-EU parties.

Well known just doesn't cut it. You are a great man for asking for proof, so I ask you now, to provide proof that the Fianna Fial/Progressive Democrat axis is in favour of a United States of Europe, ie European Political Federal integration.

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
Well know just doesn't cut it. You are a great man for asking for proof, so I ask you now, to provide proof that the Fianna Fial/Progressive Democrat axis is in favour of a United States of Europe, ie European Political Federal integration.

And where did I say that they were pro-United States of Europe? For proof that the government is in favour of the EU, see this paper. Closer integration does not necessarily mean a United States of Europe. It's only the eurosceptics who say that it does, and the faulty logic in their argument should be apparent to anyone with any intelligence. It's perfectly possible to be in favour of closer EU integration, but to draw the line before a full-blown federation along the lines of the USA.

Typedef

If you are going to backtrack maybe you would care to qualify what you mean by current government was democratically elected with pro-integration policies you mean by pro-integration if not a Federal Union?

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
If you are going to backtrack maybe you would care to qualify what you mean by current government was democratically elected with pro-integration policies you mean by pro-integration if not a Federal Union?

Well, what do you mean by "Federal Union" if not an arrangement like the USA, where the federal government declares war on states that try to secede from the union? I doubt that anyone, even M. d'Estaing, envisages an EU like that. I've certainly never heard of an Irish politician advocating it.

You are trying to present us with a false choice between a European equivalent of the US federal government, and a purely economic EEC. In reality, no such dichotomy exists. The line can be drawn anywhere. And the current government favours a degree of further integration with the EU. As you will see if you read the PDF I linked.

Typedef

Well, what do you mean by "Federal Union" if not an arrangement like the USA,

You know answering a question with a question is bad form.
You pro-Europeans ask me a Eurosceptic to accept a European integration motif, but refuse to define what that means.

Thus I oppose said integration on the grounds it could mean a Federal Union style United States of Europe. Logically it's pretty simple, I choose not to blinkerdly trust others to decide what level of integration is best, I would like a concrete proposal. Not hand wavy, "well what does a Federal Union mean anyway" tactics.
Answer the question.

bertiebowl

Typedef - I think what Meh means is that we're free to take this EU development exactly where we want to go.

We are not constrained to follow the US model, the Australian model or even the original Confederate model.

We Europeans have the power to shape our institutions for what we want them to be.
This is what the convention on the future of Europe is about - developing the best Europe that we can, were all citizens and all member states share mutual benefits.

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
Thus I oppose said integration on the grounds it could mean a Federal Union style United States of Europe.

I've said this before, but that's like being afraid to ask a girl you fancy out on the grounds that you might end up marrying her.