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
Referendum on Lisbon Treaty
Options
Comments
-
Well, we can keep them in the hands of our Taoiseach and Ministers (who we don't directly elect either, of course).
It may well be splitting hairs and I can't see why it is relevant to the Lisbon treaty, but my understanding of the way our democracy works is that all members of the Dail are elected.
In any case, whether or not our TD's are elected is not relevant to the fact that the commissioners, and president of the EU commission, who hold considerable political power over us, are not elected by universal suffrage. Or why it is relevant to the view, held by those who believe in democracy, that anyone with political power over us should be elected by universal suffrage.
We are arguing that it does not produce the best possible result, because of problems we have pointed out, and which you have chosen to ignore...No, I am arguing that direct election of Commissioners produces a worse result than the current system.
There are many who don't like the results of democracy and who consider it doesn't produce the "right" or the "best" result. (Amongst others, Mr Mugabe in Zim seems to agree with you on this point).
It's not an argument against democracy that you don't personally (or do you represent a group as you say "we" ? ) consider the results might be not the "best possible" or "worse" result.Ireland is represented within the European Council by the Taoiseach. Since unanimity is required to change matters relating to taxation, Ireland has a veto. Should we forego that veto, it will be due to a decision made by our Goverment, not the EU. This is not Fianna Fáil spin, this is not Fine Gael spin, this is not spin: this is the text of the treaty.
If the EU looked at the issue in isolation, then that probably is the way it would work. My understanding of how the EU gets its own way is that it confuses a number of issues together, and it's a matter or horse trading. You scratch my back and I'll not use my veto.
As we continue to transfer more and more power to the EU, it is a matter of making sure those who exercise that power are democratically accountable to the people of the EU.0 -
In any case, whether or not our TD's are elected is not relevant to the fact that the commissioners, and president of the EU commission, who hold considerable political power over us, are not elected by universal suffrage. Or why it is relevant to the view, held by those who believe in democracy, that anyone with political power over us should be elected by universal suffrage.
Jawlie, I know this is a new page and all that, but you're simply repeating exactly what you've said on previous pages (blah...me democrat...blah...you Mugabe).
Please deal with the issues we've raised regarding the direct election of Commissioners - the loss of impartiality, the representing only a plurality of Irish voters anyway, etc.
repeatedly,
Scofflaw0 -
As we continue to transfer more and more power to the EU, it is a matter of making sure those who exercise that power are democratically accountable to the people of the EU.
This is exactly why the power of the European Parliament is being increased in this Treaty by the extension of co-decision - so that nearly all the Commission proposals will be subject to a vote by the directly elected MEPs.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
...
Please deal with the issues we've raised regarding the direct election of Commissioners..
You don't say who is the "we" whom you represent? Are you employed by the EU by any chance, or is it altogether another "we" you represent?
I have dealt with the direct election of the commissionsrs and the president of the commission. I think they should be elected by universal suffrage.0 -
As straw men go, this one is particularly tiresome. Scofflaw has raised points that you've refused point-blank to answer, as have I. Ergo, we.You don't say who is the "we" whom you represent? Are you employed by the EU by any chance, or is it altogether another "we" you represent?
Yes, and you've skipped nimbly over the pitfalls that others (the "we" that has you so suspicious and mystified) have pointed out to you, and you're still just mouthing slogans.I have dealt with the direct election of the commissionsrs and the president of the commission. I think they should be elected by universal suffrage.0 -
Advertisement
-
You don't say who is the "we" whom you represent? Are you employed by the EU by any chance, or is it altogether another "we" you represent?
That's "we" as in "me and a couple of other posters". The other ones who have asked you questions. On this thread. And no, I'm not employed by the EU - I'm a self-employed web development consultant. And you? Are you representing someone here, as "P_ONeill" clearly is?I have dealt with the direct election of the commissionsrs and the president of the commission. I think they should be elected by universal suffrage.
All you have done is repeat that view ad nauseam. There are problems with electing Commissioners - primarily the lack of partiality that comes with national elections (the Jackie Healy-Rae effect), but also the fact that it doesn't produce the best person for the job (the Dick Roche effect).
You're either incapable of addressing or unwilling to address these questions, which have now been repeated several times.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
That's "we" as in "me and a couple of other posters". The other ones who have asked you questions. On this thread. And no, I'm not employed by the EU - I'm a self-employed web development consultant. And you? Are you representing someone here, as "P_ONeill" clearly is?
All you have done is repeat that view ad nauseam. There are problems with electing Commissioners - primarily the lack of partiality that comes with national elections (the Jackie Healy-Rae effect), but also the fact that it doesn't produce the best person for the job (the Dick Roche effect).
You're either incapable of addressing or unwilling to address these questions, which have now been repeated several times.
regards,
Scofflaw
I can only speak for myself here, and don't claim to speak on behalf of any other group or any other group of posters either.
You seem to be saying that you don't think you might like the result that might be achieved by democracy, and that is a good enough reason to not have democracy?
And that because you judge national elections to have a "lack of partiality" then that is another reason to abandon democratic elections. Or, in the case of the commission, to not even have it in the first place.
I have to say it seems unusual to condemn the results of elections which we have never had ( ie of the commission and president of the commission) as an argument for not democratically electing politicians by universal suffrage.
I agree that I would not vote for either Dick Roche or Jackie Healy Rae, but I'd rather they were elected by universal suffrage rather than "appointed" in a manner over which the people have no say.
Of course there are problems with democracy, but I'd rather have democracy with its problems rather than have politicians put into positions of power over us appointed by the patronage of Mr Berlisconi and Mr Ahern etc.0 -
I can only speak for myself here, and don't claim to speak on behalf of any other group or any other group of posters either.
Very good - neither do I, although I feel entirely comfortable pointing out that you're avoiding other people's questions as well as my own.
If you're seeking a reason why I'm so persistent, all I can say is that I'm like that - and I refer you to the Creationism thread in the Christianity forum as evidence!You seem to be saying that you don't think you might like the result that might be achieved by democracy, and that is a good enough reason to not have democracy?
Sigh. No. As I have pointed out repeatedly, 'democracy' doesn't consist of direct elections to every position by universal suffrage. We don't elect Senators by universal suffrage, and many of them are appointed. We don't directly elect the Taoiseach or Ministers - and although they are usually drawn entirely from the pool of elected TDs, up to two members of the government may be Senators. We don't elect judges as they do in other democracies - and we don't use electoral colleges.
All of this make your claim that 'democracy' must obviously involve direct election of Commissioners by universal suffrage completely farcical. Clearly 'democracy' demands no such thing. You are demanding it - but as you note above yourself, you don't represent 'democracy' - and as is clear, you don't even have a workable definition of it, because your version doesn't apply to any of the countries that are recognised as democracies.And that because you judge national elections to have a "lack of partiality" then that is another reason to abandon democratic elections. Or, in the case of the commission, to not even have it in the first place.
I have to say it seems unusual to condemn the results of elections which we have never had ( ie of the commission and president of the commission) as an argument for not democratically electing politicians by universal suffrage.
The problems are obvious in advance.I agree that I would not vote for either Dick Roche or Jackie Healy Rae, but I'd rather they were elected by universal suffrage rather than "appointed" in a manner over which the people have no say.
Of course there are problems with democracy, but I'd rather have democracy with its problems rather than have politicians put into positions of power over us appointed by the patronage of Mr Berlisconi and Mr Ahern etc.
Again, while you've actually noted the problems, you haven't offered any solutions. I'm going to have to assume you don't have any solutions.
So, there are problems, and the elections probably wouldn't produce the best person for the job, and the resulting Commissioners probably wouldn't be impartial between their home country and other EU countries, or even between everyone else and the section of their national electorate that elected them - but you'd ignore all that simply to apply your very limited interpretation of "democracy".
I wouldn't - the Lisbon Treaty includes a huge extension of "co-decision", which means that ordinarily legislation proposed by the Commissioners must be passed by the directly elected Parliament. That is a perfectly good mechanism of democratic control - which you have entirely ignored.
The saddest thing here is that by voting No, you are not only not choosing the election of Commissioners (you won't get that by voting No) - but you are also choosing not to extend the control Parliament exercises over those appointed Commissioners. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face - and urging everyone else to do the same.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
... We don't elect Senators by universal suffrage, and many of them are appointed. We don't directly elect the Taoiseach or Ministers - and although they are usually drawn entirely from the pool of elected TDs, up to two members of the government may be Senators. We don't elect judges as they do in other democracies - and we don't use electoral colleges.
I'm not sure what senators or judges have to do with the election, by universal suffrage, of the commissioners and the president of the commission, except to act as a red herring or a smoke screen. Is there a reason you keep wanting to link them all together? Are you really not able to distinguish between those with political power to make policies which affect all our lives ( the EU commissioners and president of the commission) , and senators and judges?
All of this make your claim that 'democracy' must obviously involve direct election of Commissioners by universal suffrage completely farcical.
Your version of democracy seems an unusual whereby no one gets to vote in those in whom they vest the political power. Can you give us some examples from around the world where this has been tried successfully, and why you think it is more democratic not to vote for political leaders. If, in these countries which you seem to admire, they don't vote for their political leaders by universal suffrage, how are their leaders chosen?
So, there are problems, and the elections probably wouldn't produce the best person for the job,
So you keep saying, although I have to say I don't think just because either of us might not think that universal suffrage might produce what we judge to be the "best" person for the job, that's a good reason to abandon universal suffrage.
In my experience, all states in history who have abandoned universal suffrage fro another system have regretted it - I think of the USSR, and China as two examples, although there are plenty of others.
No doubt their leaders also didn't want to enfranchise their people with universal suffrage for fear that they might not choose the "right" or the "best" candidates.0 -
I'm not sure what senators or judges have to do with the election, by universal suffrage, of the commissioners and the president of the commission, except to act as a red herring or a smoke screen. Is there a reason you keep wanting to link them all together rather?
Yes, of course there is. I'll lay it out as simply as possible:
1. you keep referring to directly electing the Commissioners as being the only democratic way of doing things.
2. you consistently use "democracy" where you mean "directly elected".
3. I am pointing out to you that "democracy" is not a synonym for "directly elected".
The proof of point 3 is that there are lots of other ways of arranging things other than direct election by universal suffrage - and which are still democracy.
In brief, then, the problem is that while you claim this is a discussion about democracy, your definition of democracy is both very limited, and totally unrealistic. I appreciate, of course, that you don't think so.Your version of democracy seems an unusual whereby no one gets to vote in those in whom they vest the political power. Can you give us some examples from around the world where this has been tried successfully, and why you think it is more democratic not to vote for political leaders. If, in these countries which you seem to admire, they don't vote for their political leaders by universal suffrage, how are their leaders chosen?
I haven't mentioned any countries that I admire. You have certainly claimed that I must admire places like Zimbabwe and North Korea, but I haven't really had anything to do with that bit of the discussion.So you keep saying, although I have to say I don't think just because either of us might not think that universal suffrage might produce what we judge to be the "best" person for the job, that's a good reason to abandon universal suffrage.
You're either very dense, or being dishonest, I'm afraid. I haven't suggested we abandon universal suffrage.
In fact, I have pointed out that the Commission is subject to the Parliament - who are elected by universal suffrage - and that the powers of the Parliament over the Commission are increased by this Treaty - a point which appears either to nonplus you, or which you feel to be irrelevant. I fear this demonstrates rather well the deficiency in your understanding of democracy.In my experience, all states in history who have abandoned universal suffrage fro another system have regretted it - I think of the USSR, and China as two examples, although there are plenty of others.
No doubt their leaders also didn't want to enfranchise their people with universal suffrage for fear that they might not choose the "right" or the "best" candidates.
Your straw men are extremely obvious. Why not argue with what I'm actually saying?
amused,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
The executive branch of the US government, with the exception of the President, is unelected, and is appointed by the President subject to congressional oversight.Your version of democracy seems an unusual whereby no one gets to vote in those in whom they vest the political power. Can you give us some examples from around the world where this has been tried successfully...
Now, I'd appreciate a straight answer to some very simple questions I've already asked. For your convenience, I'll re-quote them:oscarBravo wrote: »- Do you think that a commissioner should be elected by each country? If so, how do you avoid the problems of clientelism?
- If, on the other hand, you believe that commissioners should be elected across the EU, how do you avoid the problem of larger countries dominating the polls?
- How should the President be elected, and by whom, and how do you avoid the same problems as those involved in the election of commissioners?
0 -
Excuse me quoting myself again, but this just occurred to me.
It's also worth noting that the President of the US is also not directly elected by the citizens, but by an electoral college.oscarBravo wrote: »The executive branch of the US government, with the exception of the President, is unelected, and is appointed by the President subject to congressional oversight.
Therefore, as a self-proclaimed democratic purist, I'm sure you'll be first in line to condemn the US system of government, since the entire executive branch is unelected (by your definition).
Right?0 -
I know I'm probably stepping on countless toes here but it's better than stepping on anyone's toes - I've searched on boards and google with countless phrases and all I;ve got is a link to the 257-page full text of the treaty. Has anyone a link to something that explains, to an underinformed member of the public, what the f*** this treaty is all about and possibly explains the main drawbacks/benefits?
[/offtopic]0 -
In brief, then, the problem is that while you claim this is a discussion about democracy, your definition of democracy is both very limited, and totally unrealistic. I appreciate, of course, that you don't think so.
I haven't mentioned any countries that I admire. You have certainly claimed that I must admire places like Zimbabwe and North Korea, but I haven't really had anything to do with that bit of the discussion.
It's obvious that you think universal suffrage to elect those who hold political power over us is not what you favour, because you think it may not return what you consider to be the "right" or the "best" candidate.
While I agree it may not return what I may also consider to be my favoured candidate, I am prepared to concede that I would rather live under a system where the candidate is elected by this method than by the current system of patronage whereby the PM's of the various constituent countries "appoint" their cronies.
Indeed, you have not mentioned which countries you admire, and where such a system of patronage which you favour and are putting forward here as the closest to the ideal in selecting the commissioners and president of the commission. It would be great if you could give us some examples of these countries so we can examine them more closely.
Your are mistake that I ever claimed you admired either Zim or North Korea. I have never mentioned North Korea in this discussion, and only mentioned Robert Mugabe as someone who appears to share your view that the electorate of Zim has chosen the "wrong" candidates by casting their votes for the "wrong" people and not for those whom he considers to be the "best" candidates.0 -
I know I'm probably stepping on countless toes here but it's better than stepping on anyone's toes - I've searched on boards and google with countless phrases and all I;ve got is a link to the 257-page full text of the treaty. Has anyone a link to something that explains, to an underinformed member of the public, what the f*** this treaty is all about and possibly explains the main drawbacks/benefits?
[/offtopic]
There's actually a thread dedicated to that question.
This is the shortest, simplest, and clearest* explanation of what changes there are. You'll be left working out the implications, though.
Also, while I am rather loath to point to it, there's a section on politics.ie which consists solely of guides.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
It's obvious that you think universal suffrage to elect those who hold political power over us is not what you favour, because you think it may not return what you consider to be the "right" or the "best" candidate.
While I agree it may not return what I may also consider to be my favoured candidate, I am prepared to concede that I would rather live under a system where the candidate is elected by this method than by the current system of patronage whereby the PM's of the various constituent countries "appoint" their cronies.
Indeed, you have not mentioned which countries you admire, and where such a system of patronage which you favour and are putting forward here as the closest to the ideal in selecting the commissioners and president of the commission. It would be great if you could give us some examples of these countries so we can examine them more closely.
Your are mistake that I ever claimed you admired either Zim or North Korea. I have never mentioned North Korea in this discussion, and only mentioned Robert Mugabe as someone who appears to share your view that the electorate of Zim has chosen the "wrong" candidates by casting their votes for the "wrong" people and not for those whom he considers to be the "best" candidates.
Jawlie, you haven't addressed anything I've written, and now you're lying about what you claim I said.
Please stop, and discuss either the Treaty, or at the very least what I've actually posted.
Scofflaw0 -
jawlie, I've asked you three simple questions twice now. Why don't you answer them?0
-
Jawlie, there are enough people already addressing your points in relation to the election of commissioners, so I won't get involved, but I think Oscar Bravo and Scofflaw are making very good points and I agree with them. I would like to address the following:
If you are worried about our representatives ignoring the veto, then you should address that by voting a representative you trust into the Dáil.If the EU looked at the issue in isolation, then that probably is the way it would work. My understanding of how the EU gets its own way is that it confuses a number of issues together, and it's a matter or horse trading. You scratch my back and I'll not use my veto.
As we continue to transfer more and more power to the EU, it is a matter of making sure those who exercise that power are democratically accountable to the people of the EU.
In any case, the issue of tax harmonisation has nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty. If we reject this treaty, France will still push for the tax harmonisation, and it will still be up to the Taoiseach to use Ireland's veto if he sees fit. The EU may still try to 'confuse a number of issues together,' and it will still be up to the Taoiseach to stand firm. Lisbon will have no effect on this issue whatsoever.0 -
Jawlie, you haven't addressed anything I've written, and now you're lying about what you claim I said.
While it's sad to see this descending into personal abuse at the expense of the issues, if you'd like to quote what it is you claim I am "lying" about, then I will happily apologise if, indeed, I have been "lying". In this context it is important to quote rather than editorialise.
It's curious why you choose such a pejorative word as "lying" as this implies more than a simple misunderstanding, and seems to say more about your mindset than anyone elses's.
To get back to the subject, I did a google search this morning and came up with this which I thought interesting
and this.
0 -
I also found this - I miss Vincent Browne on the radio as I never see his tv show. he makes his point well that we are being asked to vote for a treaty that no one understands, and the only intelligent response is to vote for the status quo (ie vote "NO") until we are given a treaty we can easily understand.
0 -
Advertisement
-
While it's sad to see this descending into personal abuse at the expense of the issues, if you'd like to quote what it is you claim I am "lying" about, then I will happily apologise if, indeed, I have been "lying". In this context it is important to quote rather than editorialise.
It's curious why you choose such a pejorative word as "lying" as this implies more than a simple misunderstanding, and seems to say more about your mindset than anyone elses's.
I see...you want to avoid people's questions, repeatedly pretend they've said things they haven't, and then make big boo-boo eyes and come over all tremulous and hurt when this is pointed out.
The bits where you are lying about what I have said are highlighted in the quote from you. I use lying advisedly at this stage, because I have repeatedly stated that I am not claiming what you say I am claiming.
And now you think we should move on so you can post propaganda videos.
The thousand-dollar question, then, is "is jawlie actually here to debate, or is he here to push a line?".*
*The twenty-dollar one, of course is "who does he think he's kidding?".
Scofflaw0 -
Two things, jawlie: first, I'll draw your attention to the charter where there's a rule on simply posting videos. There's even an announcement at the top of the forum about it.
Second, why are you ignoring my questions?0 -
Im voting No on this treaty and I know countless others who are voting No also..
Lots of people dont know what this treaty is about yet the goverment want people to vote yes - would you sign something without reading it?! Of course not, so vote No and stop the gradual move to a United states of Europe.0 -
I'm genuinely puzzled by this attitude. If you don't know what it's about, why are you taking a side on it? What's wrong with doing some simple research and actually finding out what it's about?Im voting No on this treaty and I know countless others who are voting No also..
Lots of people dont know what this treaty is about yet the goverment want people to vote yes - would you sign something without reading it?!
Would I sign something without reading it? No. Would I sit there with my arms folded and say "I haven't read it, so I'm not signing it"? Probably not. In fact, in the case of most things I sign, it would be a pretty stupid thing to do.
What's the intelligent thing to do? Read it, then decide - on its merits - whether you should sign it or not.
If you don't understand it, and can't be bothered finding out what it's about, it makes more sense to not vote than to vote no.
This is a pattern I've repeatedly seen throughout this thread and elsewhere. People who have a problem with the EU want others to vote against the treaty, in blind opposition to everything that they feel the Union stands for.Of course not, so vote No and stop the gradual move to a United states of Europe.
If you're voting no because you have a problem with the EU, at least be honest enough to say so.0 -
Im voting No on this treaty and I know countless others who are voting No also..
Lots of people dont know what this treaty is about yet the goverment want people to vote yes - would you sign something without reading it?! Of course not, so vote No and stop the gradual move to a United states of Europe.
I completely agree that it is madness to vote for a treaty when we can't read it or understand it. In fact, I'll bet that less that 1% of our elected representatives can read it or understand it. We should all vote "NO" to keep the status quo until such times as a treaty is produced which is easy to understand, and until such times as those with political power in the EU are elected by universal suffrage.
The attitude that we should all vote yes and hope for the best seems to be what we are being asked to do, and it just doesn't withstand any sort of scrutiny.0 -
jawlie, why are you ignoring my simple questions?0
-
oscarBravo wrote: »I'm genuinely puzzled by this attitude. If you don't know what it's about, why are you taking a side on it? What's wrong with doing some simple research and actually finding out what it's about?
Would I sign something without reading it? No. Would I sit there with my arms folded and say "I haven't read it, so I'm not signing it"? Probably not. In fact, in the case of most things I sign, it would be a pretty stupid thing to do.
What's the intelligent thing to do? Read it, then decide - on its merits - whether you should sign it or not.
If you don't understand it, and can't be bothered finding out what it's about, it makes more sense to not vote than to vote no. This is a pattern I've repeatedly seen throughout this thread and elsewhere. People who have a problem with the EU want others to vote against the treaty, in blind opposition to everything that they feel the Union stands for.
If you're voting no because you have a problem with the EU, at least be honest enough to say so.
I never said I know nothing about it! I know enough about it personally that I will be voting No. What I meant was that alot of people dont know enough about it yet will vote Yes simply because the goverment have told them to.
Also, I have a problem with the EU, but thats not the main reason why im voting No. Im voting no because of the contents on the treaty.0 -
Im voting No on this treaty and I know countless others who are voting No also..
Lots of people dont know what this treaty is about yet the goverment want people to vote yes - would you sign something without reading it?! Of course not, so vote No and stop the gradual move to a United states of Europe.
Dear me...if you can't read the Treaty, how do you know it moves us towards a United States of Europe?Kev_ps3 wrote:Also, I have a problem with the EU, but thats not the main reason why im voting No. Im voting no because of the contents on the treaty.
And if you can read the Treaty, why not call for people to do likewise?
You're doing exactly what you say the government is doing - asking people to vote without reading it. Why?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Dear me...if you can't read the Treaty, how do you know it moves us towards a United States of Europe?
And if you can read the Treaty, why not call for people to do likewise?
You're doing exactly what you say the government is doing - asking people to vote without reading it. Why?
cordially,
Scofflaw
You dont understand what im saying. The goverment is saying people should vote yes by default whether they know whats in it or not. Im saying to people, if they are going to vote and they dont know whats in it then vote No. I would prefer people to read up on it of course.0 -
Advertisement
-
Dear me...if you can't read the Treaty, how do you know it moves us towards a United States of Europe?
And if you can read the Treaty, why not call for people to do likewise?
You're doing exactly what you say the government is doing - asking people to vote without reading it. Why?
cordially,
Scofflaw
Mainly because it is incredibly complex, complicated and unreadable. Is it 3000 amendments to many previous treaties and one would have to have about a month to go through it, all the previous treaties, and the wisdom of Solomon to understand it. Even then it is written in such a way as to be open to different interpretations.
The only intelligent position is to reject it and vote "no" as to do otherwise means we would be voting for something which binds our hands but which no one actually has read or understood.0
Advertisement