Economist Article

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Here we go with the threats again. Of course we are free to vote which way we want, it is a democracy. Just once it's a yes vote.

I hate to say it, but if you feel threatened by an anonymous poster asking that question on an internet forum, something is not quite right - particularly since, as I pointed out, I'm playing devil's advocate there.

Still, can you answer the question? Does the EU need Ireland? Do we need the EU?

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

I hardly think you're playing devil's advocate when your on every discussion in the politics forum blatantly pro lisbon.

You haven't answered my point that we're free to give our opinion, once it's the right opinion. Or else.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

You haven't answered my point that we're free to give our opinion, once it's the right opinion. Or else.

And you haven't addressed his "club" analogy.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

I hardly think you're playing devil's advocate when your on every discussion in the politics forum blatantly pro lisbon.

Blatantly pro-Lisbon, eh? What an outrage!

dresden8 wrote: »

You haven't answered my point that we're free to give our opinion, once it's the right opinion. Or else.

Sorry - I'm having a hard time reconciling that with the fact that not only is it bad to be "blatantly" pro-Lisbon, but that there are questions one shouldn't even ask!

We cannot be forced to give the "right opinion", so we are free to give whatever opinion we like. And then we are free to take whatever the consequences of that are. Trying to pretend that there are only bad consequences from saying Yes, and no bad consequences from voting No, is quite ridiculous.

blatantly pro-Lisbon,
Scofflaw

dresden8

And then we are free to take whatever the consequences of that are.

Progress! And what shape will those consequences come in, Mr. Devil's Advocate? How exactly will we be punished?

johnnyq

Scofflaw wrote: »

blatantly pro-Lisbon,
Scofflaw

Lol!

Many thanks for the info. Going on your info, I would have less problems with the role if it was retitled 'convenior' rather than president. I don't think an unelected official should be called president.

P.s. congrats on getting published in the IT

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Progress! And what shape will those consequences come in, Mr. Devil's Advocate? How exactly will we be punished?

Good question. At the very best, I would assume a temporary period of embarrassment for all our people in Brussels and our politicians. At the very worst, I suppose, an EU that decides it needs to go ahead without Ireland. The truth will probably lie somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, we will find out only afterwards.

What's your own view?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

Lol!

Many thanks for the info. Going on your info, I would have less problems with the role if it was retitled 'convenior' rather than president. I don't think an unelected official should be called president.

I think it's actually a lost in translation thing.

johnnyq wrote: »

P.s. congrats on getting published in the IT

Sadly, I've never got anything published in any paper. I haven't even tried at any point in the last decade, now I come to think about it. Have you a link?

intrigued,
Scofflaw

johnnyq

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sadly, I've never got anything published in any paper. I haven't even tried at any point in the last decade, now I come to think about it. Have you a link?

intrigued,
Scofflaw

:eek: Oops.

I don't subscribe to IT so I can't link it.
But it was a person writing about that link you make a lot of references to (the UK foreign office one I think?) about the lisbon treaty, using the witty and delightful put downs that have become your trademark. Maybe you have a protégé:D

EamonnKeane

johnnyq wrote: »

Lol!

Many thanks for the info. Going on your info, I would have less problems with the role if it was retitled 'convenior' rather than president. I don't think an unelected official should be called president.

P.s. congrats on getting published in the IT

President = "one who presides". "Convenior" isn't even a word.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Good question. At the very best, I would assume a temporary period of embarrassment for all our people in Brussels and our politicians. At the very worst, I suppose, an EU that decides it needs to go ahead without Ireland. The truth will probably lie somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, we will find out only afterwards.

What's your own view?

cordially,
Scofflaw

The EU would never expel Ireland. The international community does not condone strongarm tactics against white nations.

johnnyq

EamonnKeane wrote: »

President = "one who presides". "Convenior" isn't even a word.

Apologies I mispelled it - convenor; i.e. person who convenes meetings

Let's see, President of Europe; one who presides over Europe.

Wow I don't like the sound of that.

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

:eek: Oops.

I don't subscribe to IT so I can't link it.
But it was a person writing about that link you make a lot of references to (the UK foreign office one I think?) about the lisbon treaty, using the witty and delightful put downs that have become your trademark. Maybe you have a protégé:D

Damnéd imitators...


plagued by plagiarisers,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

Apologies I mispelled it - convenor; i.e. person who convenes meetings

Let's see, President of Europe; one who presides over Europe.

Wow I don't like the sound of that.

You're surely not suggesting that you'd vote on the basis of what something sounds like? If so, I'll just point out that Treaty sounds a bit like "treat"...

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

If so, I'll just point out that Treaty sounds a bit like "treat"...

Vote Yes: There will be cake.

johnnyq

scofflaw wrote:

You're surely not suggesting that you'd vote on the basis of what something sounds like? If so, I'll just point out that Treaty sounds a bit like "treat"...

nesf wrote: »

Vote Yes: There will be cake.

:pac: LMFAO!!! That has got to be the best thing i've read in ages.:D

We shall have our cake and eat it

Anyway, no i'm not voting on the position based on what the name sounds like:p, the comment was directed at what EamossKeane had to say about the non-existence of the word convenor.

My vote is partially about what the position will and won't do, both in the treaty and afterwards. The info you have provided has helped in showing some of what this person will do. I'll need to look for other sources to find out more.

turgon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Or, take a group of 27 people who take lunch together, and decide unanimously where they will go. If one person starts making a habit of refusing to accept the choice everyone else agrees, will they continue to be asked along?

Ok put presume they were going to a fish resteraunt. Of course the problem is, Mr. Ireland is allergic to fish and will die upon eating them. So such a veto is necessary to protect the vital interests of the allergy prone members of the group. Otherwise the other 26 will drag Mr. Ireland to a place he dont want to be.

And in fairness, the interests of nations, bodies designed to govern millions of people are very important. Vetos are necessary.

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

Or, take a group of 27 people who take lunch together, and decide unanimously where they will go. If one person starts making a habit of refusing to accept the choice everyone else agrees, will they continue to be asked along?

Does the European Union need Ireland?

cordially,
Scofflaw

"Everyone else agrees." Like the countries that never accepted the Euro. Or the whole open borders thing. The EU already works with lots of of dissension.

What if at the start of the formation of the group the group promised to respect the wishes of all members of the group, as in the laid down terms and conditions?

And then threatens anyone who steps out of line.

Who are you, Mugabe?

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

:pac: LMFAO!!! That has got to be the best thing i've read in ages.:D

We shall have our cake and eat it

Anyway, no i'm not voting on the position based on what the name sounds like:p, the comment was directed at what EamossKeane had to say about the non-existence of the word convenor.

Actually, there certainly is such a word. It's usually used for the person who calls a debate together, or a conference.

johnnyq wrote: »

My vote is partially about what the position will and won't do, both in the treaty and afterwards. The info you have provided has helped in showing some of what this person will do. I'll need to look for other sources to find out more.

Always happy to try and put facts into the debate.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Ok put presume they were going to a fish resteraunt. Of course the problem is, Mr. Ireland is allergic to fish and will die upon eating them. So such a veto is necessary to protect the vital interests of the allergy prone members of the group. Otherwise the other 26 will drag Mr. Ireland to a place he dont want to be.

That's a fair extension of the analogy, as long as one feels that what is in the Lisbon Treaty is the equivalent of the fatal fish. However, it doesn't quite address the issue. If the rest of them do want to eat fish (or even have to eat fish), does it not make sense for them to leave Mr Ireland behind?

turgon wrote: »

And in fairness, the interests of nations, bodies designed to govern millions of people are very important. Vetos are necessary.

Hmm. If we assume that any given nation will only use its individual veto 1% of the time, then in an EU of 9 nations, 9% of activity is blocked. In an EU of 15, 15%. And in an EU of 27, slightly over quarter of all activity is stopped by national vetoes. If the EU expands further, the problem gets worse.

In essence, the veto becomes more of a hindrance to action the larger the EU gets. Most small groups of equals, be they social, political, or business, operate an informal equivalent of the veto system, where the genuine opposition of any one member is sufficient to preclude a course of action. As groups grow, they invariably move to a majority system, because the veto system is impractical. At the limit, imagine running an Ireland where every citizen had a veto - can one always find someone to say no to something.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

"Everyone else agrees." Like the countries that never accepted the Euro. Or the whole open borders thing. The EU already works with lots of of dissension.

What if at the start of the formation of the group the group promised to respect the wishes of all members of the group, as in the laid down terms and conditions?

And then threatens anyone who steps out of line.

Who are you, Mugabe?

Er, no. Nor am I the EU. I am asking you "what happens?", a question you appear to have a lot of difficulty with.

More widely, why is it "threatening" to ask "what happens if we say No?". It seems to me quite an important question.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er, no. Nor am I the EU. I am asking you "what happens?", a question you appear to have a lot of difficulty with.

More widely, why is it "threatening" to ask "what happens if we say No?". It seems to me quite an important question.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't know what happens. But according to the yes people a no vote will result in a "loss of goodwill" and all that entails. Why ask me what the threat to Ireland is? I am not the one who issued the threat of "consequences" in the event of a no vote.

It was you yes people who are threatening unspecied doom if we vote no. So to turn the question around, what happens to us if we vote no? Will Europe respect our democratic decision? What action will our lords and master take to punish us?

You tell me!

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

I don't know what happens. But according to the yes people a no vote will result in a "loss of goodwill" and all that entails. Why ask me what the threat to Ireland is? I am not the one who issued the threat of "consequences" in the event of a no vote.

It was you yes people who are threatening unspecied doom if we vote no. So to turn the question around, what happens to us if we vote no? Will Europe respect our democratic decision? What action will our lords and master take to punish us?

You tell me!

I don't know, although I have outlined what I consider the possible range of consequences in a very slightly earlier post, which I'll requote for your convenience:

Scofflaw wrote:

At the very best, I would assume a temporary period of embarrassment for all our people in Brussels and our politicians. At the very worst, I suppose, an EU that decides it needs to go ahead without Ireland. The truth will probably lie somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, we will find out only afterwards.

However, I'm not calling for a No vote - I'm blatantly pro-Lisbon. If you're calling for a No vote, is it not irresponsible to ignore the possible consequences of that vote?

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

So we're agreed then, we can exercise our democratic freedoms to make our own free choice. And if the Euro elite don't like our decision they will decide unilaterally what level of punishment they will inflict upon us. Slight or harsh.

Democratic freedoms exercised under threats of duress are neither democratic nor free.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

So we're agreed then, we can exercise our democratic freedoms to make our own free choice. And if the Euro elite don't like our decision they will decide unilaterally what level of punishment they will inflict upon us. Slight or harsh.

Democratic freedoms exercised under threats of duress are neither democratic nor free.

Once again, no. The EU can't do anything to us. Our fellow member states, on the other hand, can decide whatever they want. It's one of the side-effects of being in a club - having to care what the other members think of us.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

Once again, no. The EU can't do anything to us. Our fellow member states, on the other hand, can decide whatever they want.

That's a piss poor differentiation. The EU is it's members. Even us no voting tossers if that's the way it works out.

But once again, decisions made under duress are not freely made decisions.

nesf

dresden8 wrote: »

That's a piss poor differentiation. The EU is it's members. Even us no voting tossers if that's the way it works out.

It's more than that though, it's the bureaucracy, the legal system etc etc. It is formed by its members but it is not just its members.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

That's a piss poor differentiation. The EU is it's members. Even us no voting tossers if that's the way it works out.

Well, yes and no. The EU is a structure, or a club, if you like. It has rules that its members are obliged to follow. Ireland is a member of the club.

Under club rules, nothing can be done to us for voting not to accept the treaty. That's cut and dried. There isn't a mechanism for doing it, nor would any member state accept that there should be.

However, the other members of the club are free to take umbrage at our decisions, just as they would be in any club. That means we lose allies, and we lose goodwill, because we've managed to make the other members look stupid. How so? Because they (or at least some of them) have had to make domestic political compromises to satisfy their own electorates, or coalition partners, or back-benchers, or press barons, or whatever. Contrary to the cartoon version, the governments of the other 26 members can't simply ignore the concerns of their people - they have had to take them on board.

All of that work simply goes for nothing if the Irish say No. The strange compromises of the Polish, the hammering Gordon Brown has been getting - a No vote in Ireland means they might as well not have bothered. Except that they have bothered.

dresden8 wrote: »

But once again, decisions made under duress are not freely made decisions.

Facing up to consequences is not duress. It is reality.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

So we have to vote yes to spare Gordon Brown's blushes, and not tick off the press barons.

I think not.

bonkey

dresden8 wrote: »

So we have to vote yes to spare Gordon Brown's blushes, and not tick off the press barons.

I think not.

Interpreting your stance by the same yardstick you are affording Scofflaw, it would appear that you're saying we must vote no, in order to cause Gordon Brown blushes and tick off the press barons, because to vote yes would only show that we're cowed by them and we can't have that.

I know, of course, that this is not what you're saying....but then again, I know that your interpretation of Scofflaw's stance is also not what he is saying.

I'm willing to bet you can see how I'm misinterpreting your stance. I would suggest that you might do worse than to apply the same perspective to what Scofflaw is saying.