An article from the Irish Times today which underlines my exact worry about Lisbon

hatrickpatrick

The Democratic Deficit:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0202/1232923381206.html

To summarize my own views, think of it this way:
If you oppose a county council policy, I think we can all agree that lobbying and protesting have a much greater chance of success with a local council than they do with the central government. This, very simply, is because each individual is a bigger percentage of a local area than of the whole country, therefore an individual opinion matters more to a council than to the central government.

Not think of that in terms of central government -> EU government.

An individual's opinion has far more weight to a central government of that country than to the EU government which is vast and has far more to worry about. It's much the same as how someone in America has far more power over their state's policies than they do over federal policies.

If you'd like another analogy, think of it in terms of the National Lottery vs. the EuroMillions. You have far more chance of getting a jackpot on the National Lottery. Why? Because you're competing against far more people.

I personally am in favour of transferring more power from central government to local councils. So to be it's unthinkable to actually surrender sovereignty from the central government to a federal EU (United states of europe type arrangement). And this is the direction the EU wants to take us in. And the politicians don't seem to realize that this is actually one of the main reasons people oppose Lisbon. Read the Irish Time article, it explains this much better than I do...

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The Democratic Deficit:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0202/1232923381206.html

To summarize my own views, think of it this way:
If you oppose a county council policy, I think we can all agree that lobbying and protesting have a much greater chance of success with a local council than they do with the central government. This, very simply, is because each individual is a bigger percentage of a local area than of the whole country, therefore an individual opinion matters more to a council than to the central government.

Not think of that in terms of central government -> EU government.

An individual's opinion has far more weight to a central government of that country than to the EU government which is vast and has far more to worry about. It's much the same as how someone in America has far more power over their state's policies than they do over federal policies.

If you'd like another analogy, think of it in terms of the National Lottery vs. the EuroMillions. You have far more chance of getting a jackpot on the National Lottery. Why? Because you're competing against far more people.

I personally am in favour of transferring more power from central government to local councils. So to be it's unthinkable to actually surrender sovereignty from the central government to a federal EU (United states of europe type arrangement). And this is the direction the EU wants to take us in. And the politicians don't seem to realize that this is actually one of the main reasons people oppose Lisbon. Read the Irish Time article, it explains this much better than I do...

The EU is run by national governments, though, with a certain amount of direct control through the EP. The Commission has been steadily stripped of power over the last 20 years. Lisbon not only follows that trend, by making yet further aspects of what the EU does subject to the elected MEPs, but goes further by finally involving the national parliaments (as opposed to governments) in the legislative process.

All of that isn't a step away from democracy, but towards it. It isn't an increase in centralisation, but a decrease. The unelected Commission is the only 'undemocratic' bit of the EU, and Lisbon subjects it to further democratic control and oversight.

So if it's the democratic deficit you're concerned about,you'd vote Yes, not No - but it isn't the democratic deficit that Coir are concerned about, and Richard Greene's article appeals primarily to those who don't realise where the democratic levers in the EU are, or that they're already in people's hands.

Far from the EU becoming a "more centralised government", there still isn't an EU government - there's only a decision-making framework.

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

Well in fairness I imagine that decisions taken at Local Government Level are more inclined to effect you directly and be more comprehensible to the average Joe. For example if your town council want to introduce a parking levy, its pretty easy to understand the repercussions and it will effect you directly, so you go lobbying.

At EU level the decisions are inherently more complex and arent leveled directly at any small group but at the Union as a whole. So there probably for the good anyway? But far more importantly, take something like the fishing quotas. It was instituted by the EU so as to save fish stocks in Europe. Yet average joes cant come to terms with tis simple logic and still accuse the EU of meddleing and stealing our fish. Maybe standard people just arent smart enough to be able to from their own opinions on it when it comes to EU decisions??

Okay I know that sounds a bit hairy, but fundamentally theres nothing life changing going to slip through the EU without the Irish Independent or Kathy Sinnot pulling a fuss.

Plus the Lisbon Treaty makes a formal process for citizens initiative. So if the law your against is really that bad just get you and your 999,999 friends to sign the petition But it as step forward, or at least half a step.

Im not that concerned personally about EU law. I think because its such a transnational organization built on co-operation rather then opposition its not going to readily become a weapon of evil. Or maybe Im just naive!


One more thing, if any article starts with griping about how giving us a second referendum is un-democratic then you know its going to be biased. If anything its more democratic, it gives us disillusioned no voters a chance to change our mind

oscarBravo

Any article with a by-line of "Richard Greene" is going to be biased, anyway. The opening salvo about a referendum being undemocratic is just par for the course.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Well in fairness I imagine that decisions taken at Local Government Level are more inclined to effect you directly and be more comprehensible to the average Joe. For example if your town council want to introduce a parking levy, its pretty easy to understand the repercussions and it will effect you directly, so you go lobbying.

At EU level the decisions are inherently more complex and arent leveled directly at any small group but at the Union as a whole. So there probably for the good anyway? But far more importantly, take something like the fishing quotas. It was instituted by the EU so as to save fish stocks in Europe. Yet average joes cant come to terms with tis simple logic and still accuse the EU of meddleing and stealing our fish. Maybe standard people just arent smart enough to be able to from their own opinions on it when it comes to EU decisions??

Okay I know that sounds a bit hairy, but fundamentally theres nothing life changing going to slip through the EU without the Irish Independent or Kathy Sinnot pulling a fuss.

Plus the Lisbon Treaty makes a formal process for citizens initiative. So if the law your against is really that bad just get you and your 999,999 friends to sign the petition But it as step forward, or at least half a step.

Im not that concerned personally about EU law. I think because its such a transnational organization built on co-operation rather then opposition its not going to readily become a weapon of evil. Or maybe Im just naive!


One more thing, if any article starts with griping about how giving us a second referendum is un-democratic then you know its going to be biased. If anything its more democratic, it gives us disillusioned no voters a chance to change our mind

Outrageously undemocratic!

Would it be impolite to ask why you are 'disillusioned'?

interested,
Scofflaw

turgon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Outrageously undemocratic!

Would it be impolite to ask why you are 'disillusioned'?

Of course not.

As you might know the reasons I originally voted NO were a bit small anyway, although in my defense they were legitimate and if pushed I could have quoted the Treaty and all that to back it up. But still, I always knew that the Treaty was for the most part good, in good spirit, and what most of the NO side said was complete and utter bull****. Although I was technically anti-treaty, I was never as naivly passionate as the rest except on stupid technical points. Now Ive evaluated that as a complete decision, based not only on the treaty itself but the reaction and consequences our decision generates, Yes is probably more favorable.

The EU is the future in my opinion. Ireland is a small nation in the the middle of the sea, it has a crap political system and a very precarious government that I dont think a lot of, and although Im aware thats the "cool" view these days I still honestly believe it. The only way Ireland could possibly make a difference out side of its own rainy island is through the EU, which has a lot of potential. Unfortunately a second NO to Lisbon would definitely be taken as a cold shoulder to our European neighbors and thats something I dont want. I suppose I have come very pro-EU in the past few months.

And look at the state of the NO side. If there was ever a pack of farcical eejits!! We got cute and cuddly Kathy Sinnot who will never admit straight that she does in fact hate the EU, we got Ganley the neutrality loving military manufacturer, we got Coir but they dont even deserve anyones attention. No matter what you say, in voting NO you side yourself with these assholes. Because they are assholes, they deal in lies and conspiracies and they are whats wrong with democracy.

Theres no one concrete reason to be honest. I had my valid reasons for voting No, but in the end my Yes vote in the second referendum will be compensated by loads of mis-guided NO votes, so it all balances out in the end .

You have my permission to rub it in.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Of course not.

As you might know the reasons I originally voted NO were a bit small anyway, although in my defense they were legitimate and if pushed I could have quoted the Treaty and all that to back it up. But still, I always knew that the Treaty was for the most part good, in good spirit, and what most of the NO side said was complete and utter bull****. Although I was technically anti-treaty, I was never as naivly passionate as the rest except on stupid technical points. Now Ive evaluated that as a complete decision, based not only on the treaty itself but the reaction and consequences our decision generates, Yes is probably more favorable.

The EU is the future in my opinion. Ireland is a small nation in the the middle of the sea, it has a crap political system and a very precarious government that I dont think a lot of, and although Im aware thats the "cool" view these days I still honestly believe it. The only way Ireland could possibly make a difference out side of its own rainy island is through the EU, which has a lot of potential. Unfortunately a second NO to Lisbon would definitely be taken as a cold shoulder to our European neighbors and thats something I dont want. I suppose I have come very pro-EU in the past few months.

And look at the state of the NO side. If there was ever a pack of farcical eejits!! We got cute and cuddly Kathy Sinnot who will never admit straight that she does in fact hate the EU, we got Ganley the neutrality loving military manufacturer, we got Coir but they dont even deserve anyones attention. No matter what you say, in voting NO you side yourself with these assholes. Because they are assholes, they deal in lies and conspiracies and they are whats wrong with democracy.

Theres no one concrete reason to be honest. I had my valid reasons for voting No, but in the end my Yes vote in the second referendum will be compensated by loads of mis-guided NO votes, so it all balances out in the end .

You have my permission to rub it in.

Not at all - you were both honest and rational in your opposition, and there wasn't anything to be found behind your objections but your reasons, if you see what I mean.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sceptre

turgon wrote: »

As you might know the reasons I originally voted NO were a bit small anyway, although in my defense they were legitimate and if pushed I could have quoted the Treaty and all that to back it up. But still, I always knew that the Treaty was for the most part good, in good spirit, and what most of the NO side said was complete and utter bull****.

As a side comment, if it makes you feel any better, I voted no in the 1995 divorce referendum. Completely in favour of divorce on demand, I thought the four year apart requirement was too long and didn't want that part in the constitution.