Criticism of EU = Euro skeptic?

Elmo

Perhaps it is just me but it seem to me when you constructively criticize the EU you are labeled a Euroskeptic.

Look at all of the people who asked for people to Vote NO many of them are people who are often constructively criticizing the EU. While in a referendum it may come across as so call "euroskepticism" due to the nature of the vote, most people over look the constructive criticisms of the EU and the Lisbon Treaty (Trying to avoid a discussion about the Lisbon Treaty, so if we can keep it to a minimum, that would be great).

FF/FG/LP all seem to be very very pro-Europe without any real criticism, it is as though the EU is "above reproach" and no one is entitle to speak out against it. However even the so called skeptic parties seem to be well aware of the importance of the EU.

So for all the so called pro-Europeans, what are the issues facing (The Lisbon Treaty is not an issue for discussion) the EU and what criticisms do you lay at its door?

BlitzKrieg

Perhaps it is just me but it seem to me when you constructively criticize the EU you are labeled a Euroskeptic

THats the main issue, in alot of cases its not constructive criticism. Constructive critcism usually means someone is suggesting an alternative or a remedy.

Most criticisms of the EU tend to either show a misunderstanding of the EU or make demands that are pretty much impossible.

The one that always catches my eye is the pull push dilema of wanting more power kept in Irish hands but at the same time the EU being more democratic. THe EU being more democratic will require acceptance that we are a very samll percentage of the EU, while more power kept in Irish control will require that Ireland is over represented.

Something constructive would be something in between those two issues...Which is for the most part how the EU tends to run.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Just further to your point, I personally know of a good few people that voted 'no' to Lisbon, while claiming to not be Euroskeptic, but all their reasons were, immigration, too much integration, sheer nationalism etc.

Some people claim to be 'pro-eu' or at least not 'anti', however if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, there's a very good chance that it's a duck.

As for criticisms of the EU?

It's not politically integrated enough and doesn't have a common foreign policy, probably my 2 major gripes. Also it could do with a constitution.

Elmo

It's not politically integrated enough and doesn't have a common foreign policy, probably my 2 major gripes. Also it could do with a constitution.

But sure what would that have to do with us, if they did have an integrated foreign policy as you point out we are too small in a fully integrated system.

Also I rarely hear any discussion about Ireland's Foreign Policy bar neutrality, which unfortunately none of our politicians seem to except. So from that point of view I don't see how we could be constructively critics since we would hold any really power in such situations.

But none of the parties in Europe seem to want to be integrated with each other.

Constructive critcism usually means someone is suggesting an alternative or a remedy.

I heard people giving constructive criticism only to be shot down as euroskeptics straight way. Many people said nice couldn't work and sure enough it was unworkable.

It seems to me that proEuropeans are to happy to continue with the same political line with no real insight into the full workings of the EU.

Just further to your point, I personally know of a good few people that voted 'no' to Lisbon, while claiming to not be Euroskeptic, but all their reasons were, immigration, too much integration, sheer nationalism etc.

You didn't speak to me, since none of those issues were a major problem of mine. But again avoiding a discussion on Lisbon their are plenty of other treads.

conman

another press spin is this..

voting no to Lisbon = Voting no to Europe..

what a load of crap!

PopeBuckfastXVI

Elmo wrote: »

But sure what would that have to do with us, if they did have an integrated foreign policy as you point out we are too small in a fully integrated system.
But none of the parties in Europe seem to want to be integrated with each other.

they = we in my opinion. Yes unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much appetite for federal integration, maybe someday...

Elmo wrote: »

You didn't speak to me, since none of those issues were a major problem of mine. But again avoiding a discussion on Lisbon their are plenty of other treads.

Indeed I didn't. I wasn't discussing Lisbon, I was discussing people who claimed not to be Euroskeptic, but obviously were.

nesf

Elmo wrote: »

Perhaps it is just me but it seem to me when you constructively criticize the EU you are labeled a Euroskeptic.

It's a smoke and mirrors problem. Eurosceptics in this country label themselves as pro-EU criticisers rather than anti-EU due to the very very small number of people who are truly anti-EU here. This results in scepticism of any criticism because time and time again mild constructive criticism has been used to build up an anti-EU diatribe by various groups and politicians.

It's highly problematic I agree and it's hardly pleasing but with dishonesty by the genuine Eurosceptics it's going to be a problem for everyone who wants to make genuine constructive efforts at criticising areas within the EU that they think could be better.

I'll recommend the Economist's European Politics section to you as a paper that is critical of the EU when relevant yet never descends into anti-EU ranting.

USE

Constructive criticism is nothing bad. I.e. I myself sometimes criticize EU. Nobody says that EU is perfect (tell me a region that is). EU is still under construction of its law. So we should understand that and work to improve it, but not to act against it and destruct it.

If a person can reason his/her opinion and is able to express him/herself in a mature manner, this is good because this allows us to make EU better.

It's not about a position regarding some concrete subject, it's about your intentions.

But very oftenly I can heard inadequate misleading radical shoutings from eurosceptical side. And that simply discredits their own position.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Of course whether or not criticism is constructive is quite subjective.

Someone might consider criticism of internal movement of people to be constructive, and pro-EU, in that restricting internal movement would be of benefit to each of the member states, and of the EU as a whole.

However I would consider that to be against the ethos of the EU, destructive criticism, and I would label the critic a Eurosceptic without reservation.

Elmo

USE wrote: »

But very oftenly I can heard inadequate misleading radical shoutings from eurosceptical side. And that simply discredits their own position.

This is what I mean we don't hear any critical talk from the pro-euro side (if that is what we want to call it).

I would suggest I am pro-Euro but it is very hard went the politicians seem to be going around saying everything is grand!

Nobody says that EU is perfect (tell me a region that is). EU is still under construction of its law. So we should understand that and work to improve it, but not to act against it and destruct it.

Lets face it after the NO vote from each of the NO countries not just Ireland, the countries could have made improvements. It seems that "concessions" are given but no real change.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Elmo wrote: »

Lets face it after the NO vote from each of the NO countries not just Ireland, the countries could have made improvements. It seems that "concessions" are given but no real change.

Ireland was the only country to vote on Lisbon.

This lack of 'real change' may have a lot to do with the fact that many of the criticisms were of things that aren't actually in the treaty.

USE

Elmo wrote: »

This is what I mean we don't hear any critical talk from the pro-euro side (if that is what we want to call it).

Okay, I'll try.

I would like to see directly elected EU President (more rights to the people). And I also would like full term cadence to ensure more continuous policies of EU. Because now then a rotation is held every half a year every country tries to promote its own policies to leave something after its presidency. 2.5 years candency that could come into action after the Treaty of Lisbon is better, but still too short in my opinion. Also incumbency of President would allow EU to talk in a more common voice outside EU and we really need this.

That is only one point, but I have made my shot I have given at least 3 ways of criticism in the paragraph above:
1. President (de facto) is not directly elected;
2. Lack of succession of EU policies while changing presidencies oftenly;
3. Lack of solidarity/common voice while defending EU interests.

Lets face it after the NO vote from each of the NO countries not just Ireland, the countries could have made improvements.

Well, we must look at the arguments of voting no, and they are mostly nationalistic or based on national interests (the major ones are even not sensible, like lack of knowledge), that does not require major change of EU itself. And the improvements for Ireland will be done through guarantees.

Elmo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Ireland was the only country to vote on Lisbon.

Again avoiding the total conversation about the Lisbon treaty but France and the Netherlands voted NO on the constitution.

The problems that the pro-Euro people has is that they are unwilling to approach the people about any issues in Europe. You can see that with the low turn out in some countries and the move towards the extreme right.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Elmo wrote: »

Again avoiding the total conversation about the Lisbon treaty but France and the Netherlands voted NO on the constitution.

The problems that the pro-Euro people has is that they are unwilling to approach the people about any issues in Europe. You can see that with the low turn out in some countries and the move towards the extreme right.

Lisbon is not the Constitution. After the French and Dutch vote the constitution was dropped, and there was a significant round of negotiations, from which the Lisbon treaty emerged. While I personally don't consider the dropping of the constitution to be an improvement, I'm sure many people do.

I'm a pro-Euro person, and I am one of 'the people' too.

Elmo wrote: »

You can see that with the low turn out in some countries and the move towards the extreme right.

I see that as evidence that electorates across Europe don't really consider the EP to be important, for one reason or another.

Elmo

I would like to see directly elected EU President (more rights to the people). And I also would like full term cadence to ensure more continuous policies of EU. Because now then a rotation is held every half a year every country tries to promote its own policies to leave something after its presidency. 2.5 years candency that could come into action after the Treaty of Lisbon is better, but still too short in my opinion. Also incumbency of President would allow EU to talk in a more common voice outside EU and we really need this.

Since this is outside the discussion on Lisbon which is difficult to get out of, and since this isn't in the treaty I will comment.

I would like 1 commissioner from each country in a national election. (I will use the 27 countries as they now stand rather then think about others.)

The 27 elected members would work, on a rotating 5 year term, in 10 commissions (more if wanted but I don't see much reason as you will see).

1 elected president out of a choice provided from the 27 elected commissioners, an EU wide poll. With each party providing one commissioner as their candidate if they have a commissioner in the commissioner.

The other 16 would be Junior Commissioners in a commission.

The president would select the positions as he/she see fit, but the Council and Parliament will ensure fairness, so that he/she cannot abuse his/her power and demote people from a different political background.

OR

If commissioners are to come from each of the Governments of the of the states that they are qualified people rather than political nominees.

I don't want to see an EU wide Foreign Policy, it just doesn't interest me, I amn't interest in power.

BlitzKrieg

The problems that the pro-Euro people has is that they are unwilling to approach the people about any issues in Europe

DO you mean politicions or people who simply support the EU? Cause as far as I can see any issue about the EU that has been brought up here, the *pro EU people* myself, Scafflow, Sink His popish self above me and many others have tried out upmost to answer all issues people have.

Elmo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'm a pro-Euro person, and I am one of 'the people' too.

You seem very pro-EU. However my point was that the people of other countries also voted NO in other referedia e.g. Denmark and Mastrict.

It seem to me the discusses weren't brought to the people, neither the French or Dutch will vote on the treaty because of their laws.

I think the EU is a group of Sovereign Independent Countries with equal rights. You seem to think that I am a total nationalist because of that, perhaps I am, but I would consider you a European Nationalist. Or maybe you are looking towards a UN more like the EU.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Elmo wrote: »

Since this is outside the discussion on Lisbon which is difficult to get out of, and since this isn't in the treaty I will comment.

I would like 1 commissioner from each country in a national election. (I will use the 27 countries as they now stand rather then think about others.)

The 27 elected members would work, on a rotating 5 year term, in 10 commissions (more if wanted but I don't see much reason as you will see).

1 elected president out of a choice provided from the 27 elected commissioners, an EU wide poll. With each party providing one commissioner as their candidate if they have a commissioner in the commissioner.

The other 16 would be Junior Commissioners in a commission.

The president would select the positions as he/she see fit, but the Council and Parliament will ensure fairness, so that he/she cannot abuse his/her power and demote people from a different political background.

OR

If commissioners are to come from each of the Governments of the of the states that they are qualified people rather than political nominees.

I don't want to see an EU wide Foreign Policy, it just doesn't interest me, I amn't interest in power.

So we vote for a commissioner, to do a job that is not directly beneficial to the electorate, without knowing what portfolio they'll be assigned, and no way of negotiating that portfolio. Including junior, non-position portfolios, of course.

Then what a week, two weeks later we have to go to the polls again to vote for a commission president, from a list of 27 different candidates, where we don't have time to even learn about the policies of those candidates and it ends up being always someone from one of the larger (or just largest) countries?

And we do this every five years?

It sounds just plain unworkable to me.

Elmo

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

DO you mean politicions or people who simply support the EU? Cause as far as I can see any issue about the EU that has been brought up here, the *pro EU people* myself, Scafflow, Sink His popish self above me and many others have tried out upmost to answer all issues people have.

But you see BlitzKrieg the ideas that you have many may disagree with as I said I don't believe in a ultimate United States of Europe, where you are a federalist. I don't like that model but many of our politicians seem to expect everyone to think the same way.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Elmo wrote: »

I think the EU is a group of Sovereign Independent Countries with equal rights. You seem to think that I am a total nationalist because of that, perhaps I am, but I would consider you a European Nationalist. Or maybe you are looking towards a UN more like the EU.

I don't think you are a total nationalist, I think you have accurately described the current and foreseeable future form of the EU.

I'm a federalist, I'm still quite happy to be Irish though.

BlitzKrieg

I would like 1 commissioner from each country in a national election. (I will use the 27 countries as they now stand rather then think about others.)

My concern is national interests would dominate these elections for a role that is not meant to consider national issues, not to mention a commissioner is expected to fill a specific role, what happens if we put forward a commissioner with the hope of having him elected into Finance but the president opts for someone else for finance and puts our commissioner in security. We now have essentially a lame duck commissioner in a field where he brings nothing?

The 27 elected members would on a rotating 5 year term in 10 commissions (more if wanted but I don't see much reason as you will see).

I like this idea. But some might accuse the systme of being a waste...why pay for 27 commissioners but only 10 of them are doing the full job. Not to mention you will still have the same loss of *percieved* power that groups like libertas see with ireland loosing a key position in rotation.

1 elected president out of a choice provided from the 27 elected commissioners, an EU wide poll. With each party providing one commissioner as their candidate if they have a commissioner in the commissioner.

Again national self interest plus population size would garuntee that the president will always be German or French.

The other 16 would be Junior Commissioners in a commission.

What powers will they have? Will they shadow the main commissioners and have the power to veto his proposals or would that be too much? Will they have any influence in the law making process?

On the commissioner system, I might think a dual commissioner system might work better? Considering the size and diversity of the EU wouldnt two commissioners for each policy be better, they are bought required to sign off on any proposals and so on. Puts forward cooperation, cuts the number of commissioner roles down to 13 (+1 being President) meaning every state is represented.

The president would select the positions as he/she see fit, but the Council and Parliament will ensure fairness, so that he/she cannot abuse his/her power and demote people from a different political background.

This seems fine, though again a president elected by the populace runs the risk of him forming a commission that many might see as unfair...

Elmo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

So we vote for a commissioner, to do a job that is not directly beneficial to the electorate, without knowing what portfolio they'll be assigned, and no way of negotiating that portfolio. Including junior, non-position portfolios, of course.

Then what a week, two weeks later we have to go to the polls again to vote for a commission president, from a list of 27 different candidates, where either we don't have time to even learn about the policies of those candidates and it ends up being always someone from one of the larger (or just largest) countries?

And we do this every five years?

It sounds just plain unworkable to me.

A commissioner is there for the whole of the EU, that is directly beneficial.

No I am saying that each of the EU political grouping would choose one of their commissioners to go forward as their nominee not all all 27 commissioners that you be unworkable.

We should know about the policies of each of the parties and of the EU before we go to the polls for the commissioners.

We never know the portfolio of Ministers and those portfolios can change during the course of any government.

Did we know what commission Charlie McCreevy would get?

BlitzKrieg

I don't believe in a ultimate United States of Europe, where you are a federalist.

And the constructive element goes out the window when you start making assumptions. You could search through my posting history you could maybe ask me, no you just assume I am a federalist because I am pro-EU.

Nope not a federalist, I believe in cooperation and inter governmental organisations but I wouldnt want a federal europe and would oppose such a proposal instantly.

oscarBravo

A question for anyone who thinks that Commissioners should be directly elected by their national electorates: do they also think that (say) the US Secretary of State should be directly elected?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Elmo wrote: »

A commissioner is there for the whole of the EU, that is directly beneficial.

No I am saying that each of the EU political grouping would choose one of their commissioners to go forward as their nominee not all all 27 commissioners that you be unworkable.

We should know about the policies of each of the parties and of the EU before we go to the polls for the commissioners.

We never know the portfolio of Ministers and those portfolios can change during the course of any government.

Did we know what commission Charlie McCreevy would get?

Then why appoint commissioners on a country by country basis, let alone in national votes?

Our government negotiated with the other governments to put Charlie in Internal Markets.

For me the post of Commissioner just doesn't lend itself to direct election, as directly elected posts imply some sort of specific direct benefit to the electors. This is precluded by the duties of the Commissioner to the EU. Now in a federal system that would be one thing, where we just had an EP, which formed a Government, and the Council and Commission were scrapped, but in an EU of nation states, and under the format of the current institutions appointed Commissioners are the only game in town.

PopeBuckfastXVI

oscarBravo wrote: »

A question for anyone who thinks that Commissioners should be directly elected by their national electorates: do they also think that (say) the US Secretary of State should be directly elected?

Yes but only from Virginia, and Secretary of Defence elected by Oregon and the Secretary of the Treasury elected by Ohio... etc. etc.

Elmo

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

My concern is national interests would dominate these elections for a role that is not meant to consider national issues, not to mention a commissioner is expected to fill a specific role, what happens if we put forward a commissioner with the hope of having him elected into Finance but the president opts for someone else for finance and puts our commissioner in security. We now have essentially a lame duck commissioner in a field where he brings nothing?

I believe that this is what already happens across Europe at National level, i.e. Ministers do things for their constituencies. Lame Duck Ministers. And really happens an the Commission level with unknown politicians representing country governments rather then the EU itself, I do not believe that an Irish EU commissioner every full represented just the EU or no Political party. The Government should be sending qualified people rather than people annoying the Government or Party fools which seems to the current case.

I like this idea. But some might accuse the systme of being a waste...why pay for 27 commissioners but only 10 of them are doing the full job. Not to mention you will still have the same loss of *percieved* power that groups like libertas see with ireland loosing a key position in rotation.

The Juniors would act as advisors how many advisors do commissioners have?

Again national self interest plus population size would garuntee that the president will always be German or French.

No since a German or French person may not be running for president since for example the EPP would select one person from its set of 5 elected commissioners to run for them.

What powers will they have? Will they shadow the main commissioners and have the power to veto his proposals or would that be too much? Will they have any influence in the law making process?

The same powers as the currently have, they would act as impartial as possible but would bring their issues to the Parliament and the Council of Ministers. (Lobbying is a huge business in the EU we don't know what their interest are).

On the commissioner system, I might think a dual commissioner system might work better? Considering the size and diversity of the EU wouldnt two commissioners for each policy be better, they are bought required to sign off on any proposals and so on. Puts forward cooperation, cuts the number of commissioner roles down to 13 (+1 being President) meaning every state is represented.

If you want 2 commissioners in each of the 10 commissions. I am suggesting 2-3 junior commissioners in each of the 10 commissions who would act as a represented of the EU with their Junior position e.g. Junior Commissioner for Broadcasting Regulation in the Communications Commission.

This seems fine, though again a president elected by the populace runs the risk of him forming a commission that many might see as unfair..

No as I said the nominees may not come from any of the larger countries. Thus helping to focus on policy. Eventually it wouldn't be an issue.

Elmo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Yes but only from Virginia, and Secretary of Defence elected by Oregon and the Secretary of the Treasury elected by Ohio... etc. etc.

Ha Ha

But you miss my point about the current set of Commissioners.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Yes you've clarified a little Elmo.

Given that, why not just let the EP elect the Commission, the same way as the Dáil elects the Government? Why make us all go to the polls yet again?

BlitzKrieg

Elmo wrote: »

The Government should be sending qualified people rather than people annoying the Government or Party fools which seems to the current case.

That is an issue, I would be equally annoyed about. But how does opening it up to national voting change the issue? Will candidates suddenly become smarter

The Juniors would act as advisors how many advisors do commissioners have?

At the moment? I think they have a department and they work with the council of ministers which would have the minister of each state in that specific field. Still doesnt address the issue that people who feel that the loss of *percieved* power will still exist, we will not have a commissioner we will have a junior commissioner. It sounds like a good system to keep the idea of every state has a commissioner written down on paper, but the reality it is an excessive amount of unwarranted spending that will produce no substantial benefit over having a flat out 10-13 commissioners and nothing more?

No since a German or French person may not be running for president since for example the EPP would select one person from its set of 5 elected commissioners to run for them.

Ok tell me if I have this right: there are 8 political groups and out of the 27 commissioners they pick one each to be polled across europe. And from the pan european election/poll the president is elected.


But a german candidate out of those 27 will predominantly be selected by the political group he is alligned to and he will be the one elected because the german population is the largest in the EU. Especially when you consider that it would a progressive list election (as all EU elections are.) and the votes from smaller states in central europe and eastern europe will pour into the german candidate before they will go anywhere near an English or Irish or Spanish candidate.

The same powers as the currently have, they would act as impartial as possible but would bring their issues to the Parliament and the Council of Ministers. (Lobbying is a huge business in the EU we don't what their interest are).

Again the issue is that those who opposed the cutting of the commissioner will not be satisfied as they will still believe we have lost our voice in the commission.

If you want 2 commissioners in each of the 10 commissions I am suggesting 2-3 junior commissioners in each of the 10 commissions who would act as a represented of the EU with their Junior position e.g. Junior Commissioner for Broadcasting Regulation in the Communications Commission.

All I am saying is that to have 2 commissioners with equal powers will allow for more cooperation and stop commissioners from trying to put forward national self interest legalsation.

My only concern would be how you would choose the two states, it would be argued that states like the UK and Ireland and Germany and Austria shouldnt be paired together.

No as I said the nominees may not come from any of the larger countries. Thus helping to focus on policy. Eventually it wouldn't be an issue.

The parties will always try and get a candidate from one of the larger countries because it would be politically logical choice.

Elmo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Yes you've clarified a little Elmo.

Given that, why not just let the EP elect the Commission, the same way as the Dáil elects the Government? Why make us all go to the polls yet again?

The current set of Commissioners are sent to Europe by each of the Governments of Europe. Often the seem to me to be political appointees rather than so call "civil servant". I think the PMs of Europe should select the commissioner but they should select a qualified person not some party hack. I don't think Charlie McCreevey is a suitable appointee for the EU.

No again I amn't a federalist and I think each sovereign state should have some national basis. AFAIK most US states get 1 - 2 senators regardless of size. no?

In relation to the all this voting lark, the French go back to the polls when voting for their president. <<< Again I don't know for sure.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Elmo wrote: »

The current set of Commissioners are sent to Europe by each of the Governments of Europe. Often the seem to me to be political appointees rather than so call "civil servant". I think the PMs of Europe should select the commissioner but they should select a qualified person not some party hack. I don't think Charlie McCreevey is a suitable appointee for the EU.

No again I amn't a federalist and I think each sovereign state should have some national basis. AFAIK most US states get 1 - 2 senators regardless of size. no?

In relation to the all this voting lark, the French go back to the polls when voting for their president. <<< Again I don't know for sure.

I agree they should be a qualified person, however there is some hope with an appointed commissioner, but you are pretty much guaranteed a party hack if there is an election.

The big question is who decides who is the qualified candidate? Perhaps the outgoing commission should hold interviews for the incoming one!? Imagine what the likes of Libertas would do with that!

Unfortunately I think that elected is the opposite of qualified, with appointed by government sitting somewhere in the middle.

Elmo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I agree they should be a qualified person, however there is some hope with an appointed commissioner, but you are pretty much guaranteed a party hack if there is an election.

My point being I would rather an elected party hack or an unelected qualified person.

But I know the governments would all say their appointees are qualified.

Charlie McCreevey sits nowhere in the middle of anything.

As for Mandelson I don't think he knows where to sit.