Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Can someone please clarify the following points about the Lisbon treaty from Libertas

  • 11-05-2009 3:14pm
    #1
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭


    Instead of the usual non answers we get such as "you are either in or out of Europe" and "Without Europe we are screwed", can someone please specifically address the following points made on the Libertas website and simply clarify whether they are true or false?

    http://libertas.eu/en/policies/reasonslisbontrreaty

    1. It is self amending. The European Council can change the way the EU operates without the need for further treaties (or a referendum in Ireland) provided there is a majority vote.

    2. A new role of President of Europe is created. The President would represent you on the world stage, yet would not be elected by you. The President’s exact powers are unknown - they have not yet been drawn up.

    3. The national parliament that you elected becomes devalued. If a national parliament believes that a proposal is outside of the remit of the EU, the unelected European Commission can decide to maintain, amend or reject the proposal.

    4. EU law will take primacy over a member state’s law if there is a difference between the two.

    5. You will have a common EU citizenship. You will have a duty of obedience to the European Union’s laws and loyalty to its institutions. Members of the European Parliament no longer represent “peoples of the member states” but will represent “citizens of the Union”.

    Number 4 is the most important one for me. I will not vote yes to any document which removes power from the Irish people and gives it to a larger entity of which we are just a small part. This was precisely the reason we demanded Home Rule from the Westminster parliament in the first place.

    So without any immature bickering or mud slinging, could someone calmly and coherently address each of these points and give their views on whether they are true or not?


«1

Comments

  • #2
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    1. It is self amending. The European Council can change the way the EU operates without the need for further treaties (or a referendum in Ireland) provided there is a majority vote.
    It's not self-amending. It allows for incremental changes to the treaties, which must be ratified by all member states - according to their individual constitutional requirements - to come into effect. The only change is the removal of the need to have an entirely new treaty in order to make any changes at all.
    2. A new role of President of Europe is created. The President would represent you on the world stage, yet would not be elected by you. The President’s exact powers are unknown - they have not yet been drawn up.
    There is already a "President of Europe", in the sense that Lisbon means - the President of the European Council is the head of government of whatever country happens to hold the European Presidency.

    I have yet to see Libertas's proposals as to how the President should be elected.
    3. The national parliament that you elected becomes devalued. If a national parliament believes that a proposal is outside of the remit of the EU, the unelected European Commission can decide to maintain, amend or reject the proposal.
    As I understand it, Lisbon gives national parliaments more say over EU legislation, not less.
    4. EU law will take primacy over a member state’s law if there is a difference between the two.
    As has been the case since 1973.
    5. You will have a common EU citizenship. You will have a duty of obedience to the European Union’s laws and loyalty to its institutions. Members of the European Parliament no longer represent “peoples of the member states” but will represent “citizens of the Union”.
    This is materially different from Maastricht, how?
    Number 4 is the most important one for me. I will not vote yes to any document which removes power from the Irish people and gives it to a larger entity of which we are just a small part. This was precisely the reason we demanded Home Rule from the Westminster parliament in the first place.

    So without any immature bickering or mud slinging, could someone calmly and coherently address each of these points and give their views on whether they are true or not?
    They're not true - at least, not in any meaningful sense. They're bog-standard Libertas water-muddying talking points.


  • #3
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's not self-amending. It allows for incremental changes to the treaties, which must be ratified by all member states - according to their individual constitutional requirements - to come into effect. The only change is the removal of the need to have an entirely new treaty in order to make any changes at all..

    OB is correct. Basically until now any changes required a new treaty to amend existing ones. The change is that instead amendments can be made to existing treaties without the need for a new treaty. The changes themselves are still subject to the same ratification procedures, i.e. if it requires a change to our Constitution we hold a referendum, otherwise the Dail and Seanad vote on it.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    There is already a "President of Europe", in the sense that Lisbon means - the President of the European Council is the head of government of whatever country happens to hold the European Presidency

    I have yet to see Libertas's proposals as to how the President should be elected.

    The change to Lisbon re the President is only how that President is selected and for how long. Currently it's a 6 month stint rotated among the heads of state. The Lisbon Treaty proposes a 5 year stint elected by the Parliament. But as OB says the post already exists. It's like the "new" Foreign Minister post they harp on about, which is in fact 2 other posts merged into 1, which surely they would prefer given that they are always on about the inefficiencies in the EU!? :rolleyes:
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    As I understand it, Lisbon gives national parliaments more say over EU legislation, not less.

    Doesn't Lisbon allow national Governments a period of time to review new legislation and provide feedback, which is something they don't currently have?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    As has been the case since 1973.

    My understanding of this is that this is more aimed at states that are joining the EU to ensure that they are in line with the rest of the union.



    As for how true the points that Libertas make are, what you will find is that they present facts. However the truth is made up of a collection of facts, and Libertas don't give all the facts, therefore misrepresenting the issues while very rarely actually lying. Check this post for examples:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=60196462#post60196462


  • #4
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    molloyjh wrote: »
    Doesn't Lisbon allow national Governments a period of time to review new legislation and provide feedback, which is something they don't currently have?

    Slightly better than that - the national parliaments will get draft legislation at the same time as the EU institution considering the legislation. That means both the government parties and the opposition, both the Dáil and the Seanad (1 vote each).

    If any national parliament considers that the draft in question does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity it may send in a 'reasoned opinion', which must be considered as part of the legislative process.

    If a third of national parliamentary votes are against the proposal being in line with subsidiarity, the proposal must be reviewed, and the Commission must defend any decision to maintain the proposal.

    If a simple majority of votes are against the proposal being in line with the principle of subsidiarity, it must also be reviewed, defended if maintained, and can be voted out by a majority of either the Council (55%) or the Parliament (simple majority) without further consideration.

    To my mind, that's an interesting increase in the effectiveness of the opposition in national parliaments, which can now better oppose legislation sponsored by the government at a European level.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #5
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    molloyjh wrote: »
    Currently it's a 6 month stint rotated among the heads of state. The Lisbon Treaty proposes a 5 year stint elected by the Parliament. But as OB says the post already exists.

    Actually it's only a 2.5 year term with the option for a second term and the candiate is elected by the European Council by QMV.


  • #6
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    One of the problems with Libertas is that most of their undertakings to date have been just opposition to exant or proposed legislation coupled with some ad hoc suggestions instead of any coherent overarching motions.

    That said, and in accordance to what OB said, many of the perceived faults of Lisbon are really flaws (or features) of Maastricht. This does not make what Libertas said inherently right or wrong through.

    Just, for instance, if you take the issue of the (reformed) presidency it would be far preferable if the legislation were to make it electable by popular vote. Whilst this would in all likihood produce a German, French or British president due to their sizes, at least it would make it democratic. Mind you, Libertas doesn't make this part of their manifesto.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Just, for instance, if you take the issue of the (reformed) presidency it would be far preferable if the legislation were to make it electable by popular vote. Whilst this would in all likihood produce a German, French or British president due to their sizes, at least it would make it democratic.
    Yes, it would be democratic. I fail to see how this is "far preferable".


  • #8
    ionix5891
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭ionix5891


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    One of the problems with Libertas is that most of their undertakings to date have been just opposition to exant or proposed legislation coupled with some ad hoc suggestions instead of any coherent overarching motions.

    That said, and in accordance to what OB said, many of the perceived faults of Lisbon are really flaws (or features) of Maastricht. This does not make what Libertas said inherently right or wrong through.

    Just, for instance, if you take the issue of the (reformed) presidency it would be far preferable if the legislation were to make it electable by popular vote. Whilst this would in all likihood produce a German, French or British president due to their sizes, at least it would make it democratic. Mind you, Libertas doesn't make this part of their manifesto.

    oh here we go again, another user insisting that representative democracy is less "democratic" than direct democracy


  • #9
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    well umm... of the people by the people for the people is pretty straight forward. Unless of course you don't agree with democracy (which is, of course, your prerogative).


  • #10
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    well umm... of the people by the people for the people is pretty straight forward. Unless of course you don't agree with democracy (which is, of course, your prerogative).

    I don't agree with pure democracy, I don't know many people who do.

    Should every single decision taken within a country be subject to a plebiscite?

    That's effectively the only democratic alternative to representative democracy, which you seem to abhor?

    I suspect you don't understand the function of the proposed EU president, in which case you should research it. As it does not seem to me to be a position which would lend itself to being well filled by a direct election, being as it involves chairing council meetings etc.

    It would be sort of like directly electing the Ceann Comhairle... all very well in principle, but probably useless to the point of being detrimental in practice.


  • #11
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    well umm... of the people by the people for the people is pretty straight forward. Unless of course you don't agree with democracy (which is, of course, your prerogative).
    It depends how you define "the people". The EU president isn't a president of the people of the EU, (s)he's president of the Union, which is a supernational organisation.

    Do you think the Secretary General of the UN should be elected? Or of NATO?


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    well umm... of the people by the people for the people is pretty straight forward. Unless of course you don't agree with democracy (which is, of course, your prerogative).

    Curiously enough, existing democracies have all kinds of ways of sorting out who does what. Theoretically this might be because they are hangovers from monarchic systems, but in fact the revolutionary republics (US, France, etc) of the great age of democratic thought tend to have the more baroque systems.

    For the US elects their President by electoral college, a system which opponents regard as horribly undemocratic, but which proponents regard as safeguarding the rights of smaller states.

    Except in the most naive conception, democracy is not simply the election of everybody directly by straight popular vote, both because such systems fail to adequately guard the rights of smaller demoi, and because direct election to a post doesn't produce the best person for the job.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #13
    ionix5891
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭ionix5891


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    well umm... of the people by the people for the people is pretty straight forward. Unless of course you don't agree with democracy (which is, of course, your prerogative).

    politicians elected by the people for the people is not straight forward?

    seriously please do read up on the difference between the 2 styles of democracy (which are in use to certain extend in ireland and eu)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

    neither is any less "democratic" than the other, don't let Liberta's little deceits play on your lack of understanding of democracy and its forms


  • #14
    ionix5891
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭ionix5891


    oh on futher note do remember that Nazi's came to power "democratically" by cleverly exploiting peoples lack of knowledge, playing against their fears, offering hope at a time of economic disaster, masterly using propaganda to brainwash people and using racism against escape goats (who later got gassed)

    please please keep that in mind before you vote for a guy who has no clear manifesto and is using his wealth to buy out support across europe and spending a fortune on a clever marketing campaigns designed to appease all sorts of contradicting populist opinions

    :cool:


  • #15
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Look, representative democracy is clearly a compromise, and has always been such. It is designed to limit the legislative power of the demos whilst also producing a co-ordinated representation of the general views of the demos. Representative democracy fails when it no longer represents the general views of the people, and when politicans advocate what the people should think, instead of what they actually do think. Again this has been displayed with the Lisbon Treaty.I can't really be bothered doing the maths - about 25% of the electorate displayed a No preferance, as opposed to the representatives in the Dail which had perhaps a 2% 'No' preferance (pretty much all of Fianna Fail, Labour, Fine Gael, PDs were in favour... Greens were ambiguous and Sinn Fein were anti). Talking about scape-goats... surely it is Libertas who is being scape-goated (for what, I am not entirely sure - perhaps the defeat of Lisbon I, although the proponents of the Treaty seem to claim that Libertas exerted no significant influence upon the electorate).Oh and don't bother giving a reply stating how Libertas is part of the NWO or whatever. If you want corruption you don't have to look past our current politicans, or for lousy fiscal policies for that matter. And, naturally, there is no need to mention the skeletons in Sinn Fein's cupboard (sorry about the occupatio).


  • #16
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Look, representative democracy is clearly a compromise, and has always been such. It is designed to limit the legislative power of the demos...
    I would argue that it's designed to limit the legislative burden on the demos.


  • #17
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Look, representative democracy is clearly a compromise, and has always been such. It is designed to limit the legislative power of the demos whilst also producing a co-ordinated representation of the general views of the demos. Representative democracy fails when it no longer represents the general views of the people, and when politicans advocate what the people should think, instead of what they actually do think. Again this has been displayed with the Lisbon Treaty.I can't really be bothered doing the maths - about 25% of the electorate displayed a No preferance, as opposed to the representatives in the Dail which had perhaps a 2% 'No' preferance (pretty much all of Fianna Fail, Labour, Fine Gael, PDs were in favour... Greens were ambiguous and Sinn Fein were anti). Talking about scape-goats... surely it is Libertas who is being scape-goated (for what, I am not entirely sure - perhaps the defeat of Lisbon I, although the proponents of the Treaty seem to claim that Libertas exerted no significant influence upon the electorate).Oh and don't bother giving a reply stating how Libertas is part of the NWO or whatever. If you want corruption you don't have to look past our current politicans, or for lousy fiscal policies for that matter. And, naturally, there is no need to mention the skeletons in Sinn Fein's cupboard (sorry about the occupatio).

    First of all I'm not sure what the point of your peice is there on representative democracy. You are saying that our Government are no longer representative of the people based on 1 issue (Lisbon) and that this is where representative democracy fails. Yet we had direct democracy on that issue therefore representative democracy isn't in question on it. The very fact that the system of representative democracy that we employ here gives us the option for direct democracy over certain issues surely works in its favour!?

    Secondly it has come to light since that ignorance played a very large role in the Lisbon result so can you really be sure of that 25% in that case?

    Finally, while corruption does indeed exist in our existing political parties that is no reason to ignore what Libertas are up to. Saying "who cares that Libertas is crooked, sure aren't they all" is hardly a constructive way of looking at things. Libertas are being tackled because it would seem that they are a far worse alternative to our already poor set of options. And just because people here are critical of Libertas does not mean they are not critical of anyone else. You just have to look at non-Libertas threads to see that.


  • #18
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Look, representative democracy is clearly a compromise, and has always been such. It is designed to limit the legislative power of the demos whilst also producing a co-ordinated representation of the general views of the demos. Representative democracy fails when it no longer represents the general views of the people, and when politicans advocate what the people should think, instead of what they actually do think. Again this has been displayed with the Lisbon Treaty.I can't really be bothered doing the maths - about 25% of the electorate displayed a No preferance, as opposed to the representatives in the Dail which had perhaps a 2% 'No' preferance (pretty much all of Fianna Fail, Labour, Fine Gael, PDs were in favour... Greens were ambiguous and Sinn Fein were anti). Talking about scape-goats... surely it is Libertas who is being scape-goated (for what, I am not entirely sure - perhaps the defeat of Lisbon I, although the proponents of the Treaty seem to claim that Libertas exerted no significant influence upon the electorate).Oh and don't bother giving a reply stating how Libertas is part of the NWO or whatever. If you want corruption you don't have to look past our current politicans, or for lousy fiscal policies for that matter. And, naturally, there is no need to mention the skeletons in Sinn Fein's cupboard (sorry about the occupatio).

    Actually, representative democracy is not designed to limit the power of the demos, but because the demos doesn't wish to make the thousands of detailed and technical decisions that are made in government. Different democracies, at different times, have drawn the boundaries between the 'detailed and technical' elements of government and the decisions which rightly rest with the people - but such a line always exists.

    It is also recognised, by every democratic system, that it is not the job of those elected simply to reflect every passing whim of the people, but to work for their best interests. That is why we complain when we feel that the government lacks the courage to implement necessary but unpopular measures - because we regard that as their duty. Clearly, if it is part of the government's duty to do necessary but unpopular things, it cannot also be their duty to reflect popular opinion at all times.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #19
    ionix5891
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭ionix5891


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    . surely it is Libertas who is being scape-goated (for what, I am not entirely sure

    scapegoated for what? these people spend millions on a political campaign and didn't have to show where a cent of it came from


    to use your own language "do you think its 'democratic' for a single entity backed by a rich guy with shady military connections to be buying the opinion of the Irish people?"


    at least we know where SF stand and their lack of support of anything to do with EU is not exactly new news, SF interests have always being about the people of northern Ireland, whose interest does Libertas represent?


  • #20
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Actually, representative democracy is not designed to limit the power of the demos, but because the demos doesn't wish to make the thousands of detailed and technical decisions that are made in government. Different democracies, at different times, have drawn the boundaries between the 'detailed and technical' elements of government and the decisions which rightly rest with the people - but such a line always exists.

    It is also recognised, by every democratic system, that it is not the job of those elected simply to reflect every passing whim of the people, but to work for their best interests. That is why we complain when we feel that the government lacks the courage to implement necessary but unpopular measures - because we regard that as their duty. Clearly, if it is part of the government's duty to do necessary but unpopular things, it cannot also be their duty to reflect popular opinion at all times.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


    With all respect, I think you just paraphased me.


  • #21
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    With all respect, I think you just paraphased me.

    Er, no, I don't think so.

    You said:
    Representative democracy fails when it no longer represents the general views of the people, and when politicans advocate what the people should think, instead of what they actually do think.

    I said:
    Clearly, if it is part of the government's duty to do necessary but unpopular things, it cannot also be their duty to reflect popular opinion at all times.

    Now, if you think the latter statement is a paraphrase of the former, you are, I think, misunderstanding at least one or the other of them.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    ionix5891 wrote: »
    scapegoated for what? these people spend millions on a political campaign and didn't have to show where a cent of it came from


    to use your own language "do you think its 'democratic' for a single entity backed by a rich guy with shady military connections to be buying the opinion of the Irish people?"


    at least we know where SF stand and their lack of support of anything to do with EU is not exactly new news, SF interests have always being about the people of northern Ireland, whose interest does Libertas represent?

    Democratic for a:
    1. single entity
    2. backed by a rich guy
    3. with shady military connection
    4. to be buying the opinion of the Irish people (with millions... and didn't have to show where a cent of it came from)

    1. Well, it seems to be the only major (theoretical) opposition party in the EU (UKIP don't count as they want to pull out altogether... maybe there are solialisrt blocs I don't know of). By definition it can not be any more dangerous in this capacity than any existing party within the European Parliament (even if you believe their motives are suspect).
    2. Yawn... next
    3. An interesting one, but beaten to death by both the opponents and proponents of Libertas. If you take Ganley's word for it, it seems fine. If you take some of the more ardent opinions of Libertas' deteractors it seems as if Libertas is a vehicle for the CIA. Either way, they are not an honest broker in terms of the EU, but is any party?
    4. Again, pretty much like any political party (albeit not funded by the tax-payer, at least not directly). The disclosure of funds is a definite issue... but it does not seem to be illegal (or immoral) to get private donations. Affiliation to a private corporation might be though...


  • #23
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Er, no, I don't think so.

    You said:



    I said:



    Now, if you think the latter statement is a paraphrase of the former, you are, I think, misunderstanding at least one or the other of them.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    No, what you expressed was your preference for the system. Thus, a difference of opinion, not a difference in terms of content.


  • #24
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    No, what you expressed was your preference for the system. Thus, a difference of opinion, not a difference in terms of content.

    Which still wouldn't make it a paraphrase...however, what I'd like you to do is to explain how governments can do necessary but unpopular things while at all times reflecting public opinion.

    amused,
    Scofflaw


  • #25
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    It depends on what you mean by 'unpopular'. It is unpopular that people pay taxes, for instance, but this a loose use of the term. There are practical problems when you get into minute of administration - hence the odd solution proposed by anarchistic type groups who believe in doing away with government altogether and leave people to their own devices (ultimately the Hobbesian 'state of nature').

    But what you are seeking is not a solution to the current form of representative democracy, which you espouse. For that you would need an altogether more comprehensive reply than I have time to give, and besides which would make a mockery of the thread title.

    BTW I agree with you concerning the awkward (and essentially broken) current set-up of EU administration, I merely think that Lisbon will probably compound some of the more inherent problems.


  • #26
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    It depends on what you mean by 'unpopular'. It is unpopular that people pay taxes, for instance, but this a loose use of the term. There are practical problems when you get into minute of administration - hence the odd solution proposed by anarchistic type groups who believe in doing away with government altogether and leave people to their own devices (ultimately the Hobbesian 'state of nature').

    But what you are seeking is not a solution to the current form of representative democracy, which you espouse. For that you would need an altogether more comprehensive reply than I have time to give, and besides which would make a mockery of the thread title.

    BTW I agree with you concerning the awkward (and essentially broken) current set-up of EU administration, I merely think that Lisbon will probably compound some of the more inherent problems.

    It would be handy if you could write out the posts you're responding to, because you don't appear to be responding to mine!

    encore amusée,
    Scofflaw


  • #27
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    It would be handy if you could write out the posts you're responding to, because you don't appear to be responding to mine!

    encore amusée,
    Scofflaw

    That was a reply to the cordial, amused, and highly amused Scofflaw. It was you, after all you asked me about 'unpopular but necessary' legislation - but I hardly need remind of that, do I?


  • #28
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    That was a reply to the cordial, amused, and highly amused Scofflaw. It was you, after all you asked me about 'unpopular but necessary' legislation - but I hardly need remind of that, do I?

    You hardly need to remind me of it, certainly. I couldn't work out, though, whether you had actually attempted to square the circle of a government that is required to both faithfully reflect public opinion at all times, while simultaneously taking any necessary but unpopular decisions that arise.

    You can feel free to attempt that squaring on the thread, since the claim that the government ought - obviously - to be reflecting the "will of the people" by mirroring public opinion seems to form a large part of Libertas' claim to legitimacy.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #29
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    It all comes down to whether you want a government of leaders, or a government of followers. Leaders are revered in history and followers are forgotten. I think that says a lot about which is more effective.


  • #30
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Apologies for Off Topic..

    I would have thought that parties should espouse policies, and the people should vote for those parties who's policies they support.

    This means that the government (as an entity) always reflects public opinion, even (especially?) if the party which forms it changes.

    A party is free to change it's policies if it smells the turning of public opinion of course.

    We don't elect a bunch of randomers and then go to them and tell them what to do, a bunch of parties come before us with stated intentions and we approve or reject those intentions at the voting booth.

    To me, that's the essence of representative democracy.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    ionix5891
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭ionix5891


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Apologies for Off Topic..

    I would have thought that parties should espouse policies, and the people should vote for those parties who's policies they support.

    This means that the government (as an entity) always reflects public opinion, even (especially?) if the party which forms it changes.

    A party is free to change it's policies if it smells the turning of public opinion of course.

    We don't elect a bunch of randomers and then go to them and tell them what to do, a bunch of parties come before us with stated intentions and we approve or reject those intentions at the voting booth.

    To me, that's the essence of representative democracy.

    there has been a distinct lack of policies outlined by Libertas, all that we got is more negative campaigning, tarring of other politicians, contradicting claims

    Libertas have no track record in EU, theres no history to judge against, wheres the experience?

    So far the only Libertas canvasser on this thread has not addressed any of the questions, mixed up his representative and direct democracies, and dismissing crucial questions with "others are no better"

    i am sorry if this voter is not convinced, seems to me like a powergrab by some very shady characters with dubious history and no experience


  • #32
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    ionix5891 wrote: »
    there has been a distinct lack of policies outlined by Libertas,

    It does seem more than a little ridiculous that a party established on a pan-European platform of EU reform still has this message on its website one week before campaigning ends in the European Parliament election:

    "The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks."

    http://www.libertas.eu/en/policies


  • #33
    ionix5891
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭ionix5891


    ot: you might want to edit that link, no need to give the extra juice in google :pac:

    back on topic: what a surprise


  • #34
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    It does seem more than a little ridiculous that a party established on a pan-European platform of EU reform still has this message on its website one week before campaigning ends in the European Parliament election:

    "The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks."

    http://www.libertas.eu/en/policies

    They intend to publish it after the election probably. That way it'll more accurately express the will of the electorate. At the moment, based on the latest opinion poll, their policies consists of 36% of FG policies, 23% of Labour's and 20% of FF's etc. etc. :)


  • #35
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Apologies for Off Topic..

    I would have thought that parties should espouse policies, and the people should vote for those parties who's policies they support.

    This means that the government (as an entity) always reflects public opinion, even (especially?) if the party which forms it changes.

    A party is free to change it's policies if it smells the turning of public opinion of course.

    We don't elect a bunch of randomers and then go to them and tell them what to do, a bunch of parties come before us with stated intentions and we approve or reject those intentions at the voting booth.

    To me, that's the essence of representative democracy.

    Well this has been the current set-up until now, because it tends to work. But, as one irate Czech I know said, what happens when all the parties sing off the same hymn sheet in relation to something which is opposed by the public, or don't mention it in their policies at all? (in this instance, the radar systems that are being built in the CR - which the people can have no say over - the fact that I, or the Czech politicans feel it is a good idea is ntot the point. They are clearly abusing their position if they are rnot representing the public).

    What Scofflaw was saying was that politicians are fundamentally better qualified to make decisions affecting the body politic than the body politic itself, which is prone to certain whims. I would challenge anybody to equate Biffo with a Philosopher King, mind you.

    Moreover, such 'whims' affect politicans as much as the public - politicans are, of course, not divorced from the public, which they are a part of. Their qualifications, by in large, are as teachers, accountants, or lawyers. Their whims, like the public in general, are held in check by constitutional law.

    The reason for representative democracy is practicality. However, the more it becomes representative, and the less it becomes directed by the public, the more it tends towards dictatorship.

    Okay, a quick analogy;

    You hire a lawyer for your business. This is very useful as you simply don't have the time to go through the legal number-crunching involved. One day however, you find that the lawyer has signed a contract for your business on your behalf, feeling that it was in your best interests. This, of course, would be illegal.


  • #36
    ionix5891
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭ionix5891


    i see we are still picking on the definition of democracy itself instead of addressing real concerns and outlining policies

    how very 'Libertas' of you :D (wheres the damned trademark symbol)


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    I'm inclined to agree with what RandomName2 says about representative democracy, including the point that it isn't perfect. I think, however that the suggestion that
    the more it becomes representative, and the less it becomes directed by the public, the more it tends towards dictatorship
    is a bit severe.

    One problem with direct democracy is that people often want things that are irreconcilable, like lower taxes, no government borrowing, and more public provision. In order not to stymie everything, that challenge is remitted to representatives who we trust in order to balance our wishes and work out an acceptable solution.

    A second problem with direct democracy, and one that is much closer to the question in this thread, is that many issues in modern political and administrative life are necessarily complex, more complex than the average voter can readily comprehend. So if they are asked to vote on them, they have recourse in a different way to politicians (not all of them elected to any position): they listen to arguments and exhortations, and vote accordingly. It seems to me that many who advocated no to Lisbon were unreasonable in their interpretations of its implications, and some were downright dishonest. I think Libertas managed to do a bit of each.

    I never again want to see a referendum on complex questions. Our constitution generally deals with basic principles, not with fine detail. That's how it should be, and that's the only sort of issue that a constitutional referendum should deal with. Let our elected representatives deal with the detail, limited only by (a) the principles set down in the constitution and (b) their usual hope that they will satisfy the electorate and be returned at the next election.


  • #38
    ionix5891
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭ionix5891


    P. Breathnach wrote: »

    A second problem with direct democracy, and one that is much closer to the question in this thread, is that many issues in modern political and administrative life are necessarily complex, more complex than the average voter can readily comprehend. So if they are asked to vote on them, they have recourse in a different way to politicians (not all of them elected to any position): they listen to arguments and exhortations, and vote accordingly. It seems to me that many who advocated no to Lisbon were unreasonable in their interpretations of its implications, and some were downright dishonest. I think Libertas managed to do a bit of each..

    I cant find the link but in one of the parallel threads we did some numbers and for direct democracy to work we the people need to have a referenda on several national/eu issues every week, and then one can imagine a referendum on something like the national budget :D

    Arent Libertas the ones screaming "Not again" with the new upcoming Lisbon referendum, so its a bit hypocratic to be pushing "direct" democracy (with Ganley on top)


  • #39
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Well this has been the current set-up until now, because it tends to work. But, as one irate Czech I know said, what happens when all the parties sing off the same hymn sheet in relation to something which is opposed by the public, or don't mention it in their policies at all?

    Simple. People who feel strongly enough about it can go set up a new political party complete with a different set of policies (not just soundbites). If the electorate wants to vote for the party with the different policies they are free to do so. If not, then the party clearly doesn't have a mandate from the electorate to do so.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    They are clearly abusing their position if they are rnot representing the public.

    No, they are not. The parties advocate policies. Voters vote for them. The presumption is that voters are intelligent enough to vote for parties whose policies they agree with. There is no obligation on parties to "represent" voters that don't agree with them.


  • #40
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    The problem with the second referendum, which the 'yes' side seem to be ignoring is this:

    1. If you vote 'No' the Lisbon Treaty will not be defeated
    2. If you vote 'No' Ireland might be forced out of the EU.

    I find it hard to find anyting less democratic that actually has a vote attached to it. Perhaps the Austrian Anschluss - vote 'no' and you will be invaded.


  • #41
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    View wrote: »
    Simple. People who feel strongly enough about it can go set up a new political party complete with a different set of policies (not just soundbites). If the electorate wants to vote for the party with the different policies they are free to do so. If not, then the party clearly doesn't have a mandate from the electorate to do so.



    No, they are not. The parties advocate policies. Voters vote for them. The presumption is that voters are intelligent enough to vote for parties whose policies they agree with. There is no obligation on parties to "represent" voters that don't agree with them.

    Demonstrably this is not the case. Now, the reasons why a party might not be founded that would represent a general consensus is a more problematic subject, but in terms of representation, the government is meant to represent the majority of the electorate. If it does not, then this is not democratic. Actually representation of majority opinion is one of the fundamental failings of democracy (dictatorship of the majority). It is the reason we have seperate states (so that there is a common ground for consensus, and so that minority groups are not left out of the political process - a problem that is evident in Iraq at the moment)

    Besides which I already said that such 'policies' are a compromise in the first place. It does not make them inherently good.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    The problem with the second referendum, which the 'yes' side seem to be ignoring is this:

    1. If you vote 'No' the Lisbon Treaty will not be defeated
    2. If you vote 'No' Ireland might be forced out of the EU.

    I find it hard to find anyting less democratic that actually has a vote attached to it.
    I fail to see what's undemocratic about it. Are you suggesting that a vote is only democratic if there is no possibility of a negative consequence attached to any of its outcomes?


  • #43
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I fail to see what's undemocratic about it. Are you suggesting that a vote is only democratic if there is no possibility of a negative consequence attached to any of its outcomes?

    I don't see how you don't understand the implications.

    The ratification of Lisbon across Europe has already been decided. The irish vote doesn't actually matter as to whether or not Lisbon is enacted in Europe, as we will (a) be forced to vote until we say yes (b) be forced out of the EU and then allowed to possibly rejoin once Lisbon has been enacted.

    The 'yes' vote is in many ways as meaningless as the 'no' as the Irish electorate are in no way respected in this regard. You might say this is good and propper that such a small, pathetic nation has no real say on the future of Europe. I would just disagree.


  • #44
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    You're rather cleverly conflating an Irish vote on a purely internal issue - whether or not to change the constitution - with the idea of "EU democracy". You're setting it up in this way to make it look like the EU is asking us to vote on an EU treaty, and then planning to ignore our vote on it. That's not how it works.

    The EU is an organisation that consists of member states. Those member states, as represented by their governments, have agreed in principle that a reform treaty is required. What is required to implement that treaty is that each of the member states ratify it.

    In our case, that ratification apparently requires a constitutional amendment, which in turn requires a referendum. The direct consequence of a "no" vote in the next referendum would be identical to the direct consequence of the "no" vote in the previous one: our constitution will not be amended, and Ireland will not ratify the treaty.

    The indirect consequences of a failure to ratify have yet to be decided, but will probably have negative consequences for our relationship with the other member states.

    So, we - as the electorate of this sovereign state - have a choice, and the choice we make will have consequences. It is our responsibility to consider those choices when making our decision, and the consequences of the decision will be ours to bear either way.

    You can call it "undemocratic", but you have to redefine "democracy" in order to do so. Which is fair enough - everyone seems to have their own pet definition of the word these days.


  • #45
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    You might say this is good and propper that such a small, pathetic nation has no real say on the future of Europe. I would just disagree.
    I wouldn't say any such thing. Ireland had a substantial influence in the drafting of the Lisbon treaty. If we ratify Lisbon, we will have had a strong say in the future of Europe.

    Mind you, if we fail to ratify, we will also have had a strong say in the future of Europe. I personally would rather that our influence remained constructive.


  • #46
    ionix5891
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭ionix5891


    oscarBravo wrote: »

    You can call it "undemocratic", but you have to redefine "democracy" in order to do so. Which is fair enough - everyone seems to have their own pet definition of the word these days.

    He already had a go at trying to redefine "democracy" in this thread

    in the unlikely event that other (independent) states who compromise the EU (a collection of states, not a federal superpower like the US) decide to take a course than lets favorable to Ireland (and wont hurt them) theres damn all we can do about it, imposing our beliefs sure wouldn't fly with rest of EU members (even our neighbors in UK wouldn't like the Irish dictating them what to do)

    you have to use their own language I learned as well taught out posts from members don't seem to make dint

    how is imposing Declan Ganleys will on 500 million people democratic? ha there :p (great i now lowered myself a notch to their level, lets roll up the sleeves)


  • #47
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    I don't see how you don't understand the implications.

    The ratification of Lisbon across Europe has already been decided. The irish vote doesn't actually matter as to whether or not Lisbon is enacted in Europe, as we will (a) be forced to vote until we say yes (b) be forced out of the EU and then allowed to possibly rejoin once Lisbon has been enacted.

    The 'yes' vote is in many ways as meaningless as the 'no' as the Irish electorate are in no way respected in this regard. You might say this is good and propper that such a small, pathetic nation has no real say on the future of Europe. I would just disagree.

    I hate to say it, but that's pure mouth-noise. We're having a second referendum, yes, but hysterically equating that with being "forced to vote until we say yes" is patent nonsense. If you're going to vote No at this second referendum, get on with it - and if the result is a second No, the whole process will be well and truly derailed. There's plenty of precedent for a second referendum - both our own (Nice 2) and others (Denmark) - but the question being asked again really isn't the same as being herded to the polling pens and made to vote Yes.

    The business about Ireland being disregarded is likewise rubbish, as oB has pointed out. We have had a very large influence already on this process, having been the country that oversaw the final negotiation of the Constitution, and having also had a large influence on the drafting of Lisbon.

    What's annoying about these claims is that they're not even honest - they're being made in the hopes of making people vote against their own best interests on the basis of "well, we'll show them".

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • #48
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You're rather cleverly conflating an Irish vote on a purely internal issue - whether or not to change the constitution - with the idea of "EU democracy". You're setting it up in this way to make it look like the EU is asking us to vote on an EU treaty, and then planning to ignore our vote on it. That's not how it works.

    That's pretty much how it worked when the French & Dutch rejected the EU Constitution. They got the Lisbon Treaty instead - which is essentially the Constitution minus a few symbolic bells and whistles like an official European flag and anthem.


  • #49
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    That's pretty much how it worked when the French & Dutch rejected the EU Constitution. They got the Lisbon Treaty instead - which is essentially the Constitution minus a few symbolic bells and whistles like an official European flag and anthem.
    Yes, they got a different treaty. Evidently, it's not different enough for you. How different does it have to be before it's acceptable to you, and by what metric do you measure that difference?


    I could have sworn I've asked you those questions before.


  • #50
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    That's pretty much how it worked when the French & Dutch rejected the EU Constitution.

    Simple question, yes or no answer is all that's needed Gizmo...

    Was a constitution implemented?


  • #51
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Lol :P back to the same old, same old.

    EU Constitution is an entirely different document.
    1. It's name was different
    2. Required a referendum in each member state
    3. Proviso about use of the EU flag
    4. Polish vote wan't staggered.

    As I said, entirely different.

    And the Irish vote ain't hollow apparently :rolleyes:. The only thing is we can't vote no. Of course it is just a constitutional quirk that we got to vote in the first place. Millions of tax-payers money was funelled into a yes campaign which didn't work. So we vote again. The government's options are very good in this regard, indefinate reruns of the referendum, kicked out of EU, special proviso in relation to Ireland, etc.

    The actual idea of changing the Lisbon Treaty in form is not considered as it took EU leaders so long for them to write it up. Of course, it is probably not a good idea for such an overarching document, which covers so many areas to have been established in the first place. Nice at least had only 2 or 3 issues at stake.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement