Ireland will get to vote on EU treaty

dahamsta

Ireland will get to vote on EU treaty
Henry McDonald, Ireland editor
Sunday June 1, 2003
The Observer

Ireland will get a chance to endorse or reject the controversial new European Union constitution.

A referendum on Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's grand project for EU unity will be held in the Irish Republic within the next 18 months, The Observer has learnt.

Last night the Tories described Tony Blair's opposition to a similar referendum in Britain as 'a total absurdity', given that Ireland is the only nation with a land border with the UK.

Senior Irish government sources told The Observer that it was 'very likely' that the Republic would have to hold a referendum on any new EU constitution.

'Under our own constitution there is a requirement that any international treaty that affects sovereignty must be put to the people. Even if the current government decided not to hold a referendum an ordinary citizen could go to the Supreme Court in Dublin and force the state to have the poll by using the 1936 Constitution.

[...]

Might as well kick the polling off. I wasn't sure about "Undecided", since it doesn't match up with regular polling, however I guess it doesn't really matter either way. I'm voting no at this time. I'm in favour of a federal Europe in the long term, but I mean long term. Now is not the time, and I'm not going to support Bruton and d'Estaing's hawkish efforts. They're not doing it for the good of Europe, they're doing it purely to feed their own egos.

adam

Sparks

Been reading the draft constitution over the last few days.
It's here and the preamble is here, for those that haven't seen it yet.

And based on what I've read, I'm voting no. This was an opportunity to actually take a step away from our form of government and towards a better one - and instead, it's a step backwards. I mean, seriously, it's an electoral college system that elects a president who used to be the head of a member state - does that not sound familiar? And don't recent events show how bad an idea it is?

That said, it was nice to see space exploration put into the constitution, and there were some other nice touches. (As well as daft ones - "in the Community way"??? Yes, sure, that's not federal - and "in the family way" isn't pregnant...)

Éomer of Rohan

So long as there are no invocatio dei's and it is regarded as a living document, then I feel it is a beneficial step towards Europe's socialist unity. A wee while down the road mind you .
many cultures, many people, one Union.

dahamsta

The poll is intended to represent a referendum in the next 18 months.

adam

Sparks

But presumably on the document as it stands, right dahamsta?

dahamsta

Yip. I was just making a rather ineffectual effort to clarify that my definition of long term in this case is a decade or more. Rushing into things very, very rarely results in common good when it comes to politics. Politicians know this, which is why I get suspicious when they're mad keen to get things moving. The Patriot Act is an example of the former (lack of common good); electronic voting in Ireland an example of the latter (suspicious haste).

adam

Lennoxschips

The first sentence:

Concious that Europe is a continent that has brought forth civilisation...

Erm, a bit arrogant perhaps?

Sparks

Lennox,
No, since it doesn't mean civilisation in the abstract, but in the specific.

Éomer of Rohan

Concious that Europe is a continent that has brought forth civilisation...

Erm, a bit arrogant perhaps?

Well, they have brought forth civilisation; from Ancient Greece and Rome to the Byzantine Empire and the colonial age, all the most powerful civilisations of history came from Europe - the Zulus, the Aztecs and the Chinese notwithstanding. Maybe that is a slightly biased view of history to some people but think of it like this; look at what Europe achieved in history and then think about what they can achieve when they are not trying to annihilate each other or restrict political ideologies.

Captain Trips

The Eu constitution is justa method for premptive enshrinement of the big countries dominating the smaller ones (like Ireland). It's the Nice treaty wrapped in a new package to finsih the job of removing the evil of democracy such as each member state having a vote on the Commission - which will be dead.

Of course, the now (post-constitution) non-voting states (Ireland) will be present as ever as "Advisary Parties" .

As you can see from our ever inflating economy, we are ****ed and will end up with a new EU tax, aka federal tax. But the constition proposed is against everything a federal union would have. It's not good at all. Currently the Euro is being rated to fix Germany, Ireland however, is getting screwed on exports by a LOT and that's the problem with forcing integration too quickly. Of course, constitutionally, the EU wouldn't have to give a **** about Ireland. Or what the Irish "advisaries" might say.

Well done to those who voted for Nice. When you lose your job and unemployment goes to 10-11% like Spain and Germany and France I'm sure you'll be gald that at least there's asolid education and health system in place anyway.

Meh

Originally posted by Captain Trips
It's the Nice treaty wrapped in a new package to finsih the job of removing the evil of democracy such as each member state having a vote on the Commission - which will be dead.

"One vote per country" wasn't exactly a shining example of democracy, you know. It gave the 500,000 inhabitants of Luxembourg the same influence as 80 million Germans. Sure, you can argue that this is needed to protect the rights of small countries, and I'd tend to agree with you. But to describe it as "democracy" is untrue.

As you can see from our ever inflating economy, we are ****ed and will end up with a new EU tax, aka federal tax.

How do you figure that? The draft retains the national vetoes on taxation.

Sparks

Meh,

But to describe it as "democracy" is untrue.

Actually, it's not. It's a form of representative democracy. Starting to get why I don't think too much of that system now?

The draft retains the national vetoes on taxation.

Firstly, it's a draft, not the final document. Secondly, those vetoes will probably be a step later down the line.

Unfortunately, this is something we have voted for by electing a FF/PD government with a proven record for never doing anything a foreign nation might find akward, and we voted for it when we voted yes for nice (once, twice, who cares... :rolleyes: ).
And odds are, when it rolls around to vote in the new constitution, we'll just vote to keep on going with an antiquated and dysfunctional form of government.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
Firstly, it's a draft, not the final document. Secondly, those vetoes will probably be a step later down the line.

So, let me get this straight....

If its something bad and in the draft, then the draft is bad and should be discarded.
if its good and in the draft, then its only a draft, so we can expect it to be dropped before the final version, and if it isnt we can expect the rules to change shortly afterwards so that its no longer there either....so the draft is bad and should be discarded.

So you seem to be starting from a position of "the draft is a bad thing and should be discarded" irrelevant of what is actually in the draft with an argument like that....and the conclusion which you seem to be pushing us to is that....wait for it....the draft is a bad thing and should be discarded.

Doesnt this effectively mean that your base argument boils down to "I dont want this, and thats all there is to it", or (if you prefer) "there really is a conspiracy from the big countries to screw all the smaller ones, and we're collectively stupid enouigh to let them do it".

I honestly can't see a third option.

Also, once you start from a mindset of good things are meaningless, and bad things are unacceptable", then there's really not much point in even discussing the details, is there? The bad stuff we will agree is bad, and the good stuff - from your stance - is meaningless and pointless.

jc

Sparks

So, let me get this straight.

I wish you had!

If its something bad and in the draft, then the draft is bad and should be discarded.

No, the draft should be changed.

if its good and in the draft, then its only a draft, so we can expect it to be dropped before the final version, and if it isnt we can expect the rules to change shortly afterwards so that its no longer there either

Erm, no, that's not what I said. First off the bat, we were specifically discussing EU taxation, not things in general. EU taxation is one of those issues where there's a lot of vested interests involved and things changing behind the scenes in favour of a plutocracy is just a realistic take on the situation, backed up by precedent.

So you seem to be starting from a position of "the draft is a bad thing and should be discarded" irrelevant of what is actually in the draft with an argument like that....and the conclusion which you seem to be pushing us to is that....wait for it....the draft is a bad thing and should be discarded.

No, I'm coming from the postition of having read the draft in relation to the issue of taxation. Firstly, the draft does not specifically veto EU-wide taxation, it just lists competencies the EU has responsibility for, including:

The Union shall have competence to coordinate the economic and employment policies of the
Member States.

and

The Union shall have competence to coordinate the economic and employment policies of the
Member States.

Adding an item to the list of competencies of the EU would be reasonably trivial, given those clauses. Also, from the draft comments (ie. the bit in italics aren't my comments):

Article I-53: The Union's resources
1. The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry
through its policies.
2. Without prejudice to other revenue, the Union's budget shall be financed wholly from its own
resources.
3. A European law of the Council shall lay down the limit of the Union's resources and may
establish new categories of resources or abolish an existing category. That law shall not
enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their
respective constitutional requirements. The Council shall act unanimously after
consulting the European Parliament.
4. A European law of the Council shall lay down the detailed arrangements relating to the
Union's resources. The Council shall act after obtaining the consent of the Parliament.

It should be noted that, with regard to own resources, a considerable number of amendments
proposed leaving open the possibility of creating European taxes (Michel and others, de Villepin,
Lequiller, Duhamel and others, Brok and others, Borrell and others, Farnleitner and Duff and
others). The discussion circle concluded that the present legal basis already allows the creation of
new resources, including fiscal resources. It would therefore not be necessary to mention them
explicitly. The nature and system of the resources were matters for secondary legislation and
would be covered by laws adopted on the present legal basis.

Doesnt this effectively mean that your base argument boils down to "I dont want this, and thats all there is to it", or (if you prefer) "there really is a conspiracy from the big countries to screw all the smaller ones, and we're collectively stupid enouigh to let them do it".

Hopefully I've shown that my base argument doesn't boil down to that. However, you're accurate in that I don't think that the draft is worth pursuing and that I think scrapping and restarting with a different model (that of direct democracy rather than that of the electoral college) would be in the best interests of the average EU citizen - but I'm rather convinced that vested interests will prevent that. But then I more or less said that in my first post.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Firstly, the draft does not specifically veto EU-wide taxation, it just lists competencies the EU has responsibility for

And it also says:

Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Constitution remain with the Member States.

So the Constitution must specifically allow the EU to control member states' tax rates, before it can happen

Adding an item to the list of competencies of the EU would be reasonably trivial, given those clauses.

Adding tax harmonization to the proposed Constitution would certainly not be trivial, given that both the UK and Ireland are vehemently opposed to it (along with several of the new member states).

Sparks

Meh,

So the Constitution must specifically allow the EU to control member states' tax rates, before it can happen

Never said it didn't have to.

Adding tax harmonization to the proposed Constitution would certainly not be trivial, given that both the UK and Ireland are vehemently opposed to it (along with several of the new member states).

Actually it would be trivial, as all that's needed is to add one item to the list of competencies. Nothing else in the constitution prevents it. In fact the constitution allows EU-wide taxes already, so tax harmonisation would be trivial to write into the constitution.
I never said it would be easy to get members to agree to do it - though to be frank, it probably will happen just as soon as the larger countries decide that it's in their best interests.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Actually it would be trivial, as all that's needed is to add one item to the list of competencies. Nothing else in the constitution prevents it. In fact the constitution allows EU-wide taxes already, so tax harmonisation would be trivial to write into the constitution.

:rolleyes: Well, if we're using that logic, it would be trivial to add an article in to the new Constitution declaring me God-Emperor of the entire continent.

I never said it would be easy to get members to agree to do it - though to be frank, it probably will happen just as soon as the larger countries decide that it's in their best interests.

And they'll still have to get past the veto of the small countries.

Sparks

Meh,

Well, if we're using that logic, it would be trivial to add an article in to the new Constitution declaring me God-Emperor of the entire continent.

Actually, that would require several non-trivial rewrites of the constitution.

And they'll still have to get past the veto of the small countries.

Not all that impossible, given that you don't have to arrange for it to be in the best interests of every citizen to get a referenda passed...

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Actually, that would require several non-trivial rewrites of the constitution.

No it wouldn't. All you'd need is another article along the lines of this:

"Notwithstanding any of the other provisions of this Constitution, Meh is hereby declared to be God-Emperor of Europe and all its citizens. This articles overrides all the others."

And this article is only slightly less likely than tax harmonization to appear in the final version of the new constitution.

Not all that impossible, given that you don't have to arrange for it to be in the best interests of every citizen to get a referenda passed...

So what's the problem? Isn't that how direct democracy is supposed to work?

Sparks

And this article is only slightly less likely than tax harmonization to appear in the final version of the new constitution.

Actually, I'd say it was rather a lot less likely.

So what's the problem?

That a minority could determine the course for the majority.

Isn't that how direct democracy is supposed to work?

No, that's what direct democracy is supposed to solve! When I say you have don't have to convince all the citizens, I meant that you just have to convince a small group of influential people. That's the nature of plutocracy.

Elmo

I think it is great the way that the Irish Government held their ground in regard to the word Fedral being used in the wording of the EU Constitution.


Actually I think it is great that the british government also held their ground in relation to this.

Maybe spain, france, germany, Luxemborg, Belgium, Sweden, etc etc also held their ground.

Isn't wonderful the word Fedral won't be used.

Wait a minute a saying comes to mind.

Fedral all but in Name.


In relation to your spoil vote in the poll, You won't be able to as every polling booth will be electronic, they hope by the Euro election and local elections 2004.

Sparks

In relation to your spoil vote in the poll, You won't be able to as every polling booth will be electronic, they hope by the Euro election and local elections 2004.

With the current system? We might as well just elect a dictator and get it over with... :rolleyes: