Who are the EU elites?

BlitzKrieg

It pops up from thread to thread. *The eu elites deny us this, the eu elite want this, the eu elite will eat your babies* etc etc etc.

WHo the f*ck are the EU elites?

FutureTaoiseach

To my eyes, the EU elites are the ruling-classes of society in the fields of politics, media, business, unions, celebs etc. Now, when persons like me on the no side criticise "elites", we are really referring more so to the majority of them rather than all of them. What we are attacking is their tendency to be out of touch with public-opinion on certain matters, notably European integration. This was evidence not only in the Lisbon referendum, but also in Nice I and the Citizenship Referendum. Virtually the entire Irish media opposed the latter referendum. What we are also criticising is the tendency among the elites towards groupthink, and some of us regard this as resulting in part from an "old boys networks", of the "you scratch my back - I'll scratch yours" variety. For my own part, when I use the term I also intend it as a criticism of what I see as "elitism" whereby Ireland usually ends up being the only country to vote directly on European integration via referenda, while the no votes of the French and Dutch are not respected. When I say the latter are not respected, I mean morally rather than legally. It is legally true to say that parliamentary-ratification of the Lisbon treaty in those 2 countries was legally in keeping with their respective national laws. But was it morally the correct thing to do? I believe it was a violation of the spirit of democracy to bring back 95% of the rejected provisions and then foist them on electorates that had said no. It embodies elitism in that it seeks to put the common people in their place while the ruling-classes make the big decisions on European integration - in defiance of their people in some cases.

BlitzKrieg

names?

FutureTaoiseach

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

names?

All the supporters of Lisbon I in the Oireachtas. To have 95% in those houses on the opposite side of the fence last year to 53% of the public is the ultimate expression of the elites being one side and the people on the other. And they way they continue pushing this document on the Irish people smacks in my opinion of high-handedness, which also falls into my definition of elitism.

The member state governments in general fall into this category too, aside from a few noble exceptions like Presidents Klaus and Kazcynski of the Czech republic and Poland who are as of yet refusing to sign the legislation. I also include the leadership of IBEC, the CPSU and other Irish unions that supported Lisbon last year and intend to do so again. The same applies to the leadership of the unions/business-orgs/media in France and Holland who were on the losing side in those countries in the EU Constitution referenda yet continued to support the political-classes in foisting 95% of its provisions on their own people.

Mario007

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

All the supporters of Lisbon I in the Oireachtas. To have 95% in those houses on the opposite side of the fence last year to 53% of the public is the ultimate expression of the elites being one side and the people on the other. And they way they continue pushing this document on the Irish people smacks in my opinion of high-handedness, which also falls into my definition of elitism.

oh right so everyone who doesnt like the way you think eu should work is a 'euro elite'...thanks for that

BlitzKrieg

so anyone not in the *no* campaign?

So there are not EU elites above our own politics? Its just another name to make them sound menancing and distant, when they are simply the same crap we deal with even if its not an eu issue?

FutureTaoiseach

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

so anyone not in the *no* campaign?

So there are not EU elites above our own politics? Its just another name to make them sound menancing and distant, when they are simply the same crap we deal with even if its not an eu issue?

I'm not saying all yes voters are part of the "elites". Just those who are in the ruling-classes in the political/media/union/business-orgs who constantly support every EU constitutional treaty that comes along and who insist on ratification continuing when people vote no.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

All the supporters of Lisbon I in the Oireachtas. To have 95% in those houses on the opposite side of the fence last year to 53% of the public is the ultimate expression of the elites being one side and the people on the other. And they way they continue pushing this document on the Irish people smacks in my opinion of high-handedness, which also falls into my definition of elitism.

So it begs the obvious question, why are people voting for "elites" in General Elections?

FutureTaoiseach

K-9 wrote: »

So it begs the obvious question, why are people voting for "elites" in General Elections?

Because they vote on national issues. It's like that in Denmark and Sweden too, where people vote in pro-euro politicians while rejecting the euro in the 2000/2005 referenda in those countries. In fact, the UK seems to be the only country where the EU gets a look in as an important election issue, as shown in the UK whwere 63% voted for anti-Lisbon parties like UKIP and the Tories. There's also an added factor in Irish politics which is traditional family voting-patterns. For example my 67 year old mother has only ever voted FF in General and local elections.

BlitzKrieg

is EU elites another word for... THE MAN?

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Because they vote on national issues. It's like that in Denmark and Sweden too, where people vote in pro-euro politicians while rejecting the euro in the 2000/2005 referenda in those countries. In fact, the UK seems to be the only country where the EU gets a look in as an important election issue, as shown in the UK whwere 63% voted for anti-Lisbon parties like UKIP and the Tories. There's also an added factor in Irish politics which is traditional family voting-patterns. For example my 67 year old mother has only ever voted FF in General and local elections.

Why are you counting UKIP in a post about General Elections?

Would it be to bolster your figure to 63%?

Eurosceptics generally failed to gain ground in Europe in the EU Election you are obviously referring to by mentioning UKIP.

FutureTaoiseach

K-9 wrote: »

Why are you counting UKIP in a post about General Elections?

Would it be to bolster your figure to 63%?

Because it underlines the importance of the European issue in UK politics. I was replying to your question as to why Europeans vote for the elites who they sometimes disagree with on Europe. The UK is the exception that proves the role. I didn't notice the reference to General Elections earlier. But the above still holds, other than that the PR system favours Eurosceptic parties other than the Tories in Euro elections, but will return to the Tories in a GE, according to polls.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Because it underlines the importance of the European issue in UK politics. I was replying to your question as to why Europeans vote for the elites who they sometimes disagree with on Europe. The UK is the exception that proves the role. I didn't notice the reference to General Elections earlier. But the above still holds, other than that the PR system favours Eurosceptic parties other than the Tories in Euro elections, but will return to the Tories in a GE, according to polls.

Voting Tory, does not mean anti Euro or Euro sceptic.

63% - 15% UKIP = 48% - God knows how many Tories who aren't that particularly Euro sceptic. We are well below 50% anyway.

We both know EU Elections are used as protest votes too.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Eurosceptics generally failed to gain ground in Europe in the EU Election you are obviously referring to by mentioning UKIP.

I'll just post this again, because the EU Parliament elections seem to have been ignored by many Euro sceptics.

Euro sceptics predicted a breakthrough in this election. There was no breakthrough.

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

I'll just post this again, because the EU Parliament elections seem to have been ignored by many Euro sceptics.

Euro sceptics predicted a breakthrough in this election. There was no breakthrough.

If one considers Libertas as well, the only breakthrough was through the floor.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bokspring71

K-9 wrote: »

Voting Tory, does not mean anti Euro or Euro sceptic.

63% - 15% UKIP = 48% - God knows how many Tories who aren't that particularly Euro sceptic. We are well below 50% anyway.

We both know EU Elections are used as protest votes too.

I've heard that the EU is about to make sceptcism against the EU an offence, punishable by a progressively draconian set of fines and imprisonment for those who continue to question and not believe what they are told by the Politburo ooppss I mean Commission.

To suggest there is no groundswell of opinion which is uneasy with the direction of the EU seems to fly in the face of some evidence; three out of five votes, held to gain the approval of 5 different electorates across the EU on the Lisbon constitution/treaty, were not passed.

While bearing in mind the pressure exerted on those electorates by the political "elites", this must be judged to be extraordinary.

No one else has been allowed to vote, so we can't claim to know what the rest of the EU's people think or want.

FutureTaoiseach

K-9 wrote: »

I'll just post this again, because the EU Parliament elections seem to have been ignored by many Euro sceptics.

Euro sceptics predicted a breakthrough in this election. There was no breakthrough.

They will have around 1/7th/8th of the seats and a couple of groups, notably the new European Conservatives and Reform group including the Tories, ODS and Law and Justice party (over 50 seats). The next European Parliament will be more Eurosceptic than the last. The strength of each group is as follows:

EPP (pro-Lisbon): 265
PASD (pro-Lisbon): 183
ALDE (pro-Lisbon): 83
Greens-EFA (same): 55
ECR (anti-Lisbon): 55
EUL-NGL (anti-Lisbon): 35 (Joe Higgins' group)
EFD (anti-Lisbon): 30
Far Right MEPs (anti-Lisbon, no group): 27

As such, the EP will have 149 anti-Lisbon MEPs. Not a bad performance, though obviously I have no time for the Far Right. The anti-Lisbon movement clearly represents a very sizeable strain of European public opinion, and as such, deserves a fair hearing by the Euro elites. Before the elections, the anti-Lisbon groups between them had only 65 MEPs. Granted, some of the change is due to the Tories (26 seats) leaving the EPP.But that still leaves a gain of 60 seats by the anti-Lisbon candidates/groups. Clearly, there is mounting concern in the EU about the democratic-deficit in Europe.

Scofflaw

bokspring71 wrote: »

I've heard that the EU is about to make sceptcism against the EU an offence, punishable by a progressively draconian set of fines and imprisonment for those who continue to question and not believe what they are told by the Politburo ooppss I mean Commission.

And do you actually believe such hysterical nonsense?

bokspring71 wrote: »

To suggest there is no groundswell of opinion which is uneasy with the direction of the EU seems to fly in the face of some evidence; three out of five votes, held to gain the approval of 5 different electorates across the EU on the Lisbon constitution/treaty, were not passed.

While bearing in mind the pressure exerted on those electorates by the political "elites", this must be judged to be extraordinary.

No one else has been allowed to vote, so we can't claim to know what the rest of the EU's people think or want.

That hasn't stopped virtually every No proponent here and elsewhere claiming exactly that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

This is easy.

Elite = Democratically elected representative of the people - apparently, the more often the people elect you to be their representative, the less you are representative of them,

Not to be confused with:
Non-Elite = Democratically repeatedly rejected at the ballot box or Never stood for elected office - typically members of self-styled national or people's movement, their claims to really represent the people are typically inversely related to the number of votes they get in elections.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

They will have around 1/7th/8th of the seats and a couple of groups, notably the new European Conservatives and Reform group including the Tories, ODS and Law and Justice party (over 50 seats). The next European Parliament will be more Eurosceptic than the last. The strength of each group is as follows:

EPP (pro-Lisbon): 265
PASD (pro-Lisbon): 183
ALDE (pro-Lisbon): 83
Greens-EFA (same): 55
ECR (anti-Lisbon): 55
EUL-NGL (anti-Lisbon): 35 (Joe Higgins' group)
EFF (anti-Lisbon): 30
Far Right MEPs (anti-Lisbon, no group): 27

As such, the EP will have 149 anti-Lisbon MEPs. Not a bad performance, though obviously I have no time for the Far Right. The anti-Lisbon movement clearly represents a very sizeable strain of European public opinion, and as such, deserves a fair hearing by the Euro elites. Before the elections, the anti-Lisbon groups between them had only 65 MEPs. Granted, some of the change is due to the Tories (26 seats) leaving the EPP.But that still leaves a gain of 60 seats by the anti-Lisbon candidates/groups. Clearly, there is mounting concern in the EU about the democratic-deficit in Europe.

I hate to say it, but those figures are completely meaningless. As you've illustrated with your point about the Tories, the larger groups shown as pro-Lisbon previously contained eurosceptical national parties within their ranks. That those have now 'broken cover' doesn't change the composition of the Parliament.

You have also apparently claimed that all the independents in the current Parliament are anti-Lisbon, while apparently not counting them in the previous parliament - at least, I assume so, since there's no group called "EFF", and you haven't otherwise included independents. That boosts your 'gain' artificially by 30, on top of the artificial boost of eurosceptic MEPs changing party.

Finally, the sum, according to your own figures, should be 147, not 149. They may be meaningless, but that's no excuse for adding them up wrong.

Overall, I'm not sure why you wasted your time and other people's putting together something so egregiously wrong? As I said before, you should probably devote some time to research before posting here.

patiently,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I'm not saying all yes voters are part of the "elites".

But apparently it is a requirement, in order to be placed into that category.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

As such, the EP will have 149 anti-Lisbon MEPs. Not a bad performance, though obviously I have no time for the Far Right.

As Scofflaw has already pointed out, that figure is wildly inaccurate, but anyway…

Every MEP who is pro-Lisbon is dismissed as an “elitist” and now you’ve dismissed the anti-Lisbon MEP’s as right-wing loons. Where does that leave us?

Oafley Jones

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

It pops up from thread to thread. *The eu elites deny us this, the eu elite want this, the eu elite will eat your babies* etc etc etc.

WHo the f*ck are the EU elites?

Ah the 'Elites' - attack rhetoric of the American Neo-cons and beloved by such giants as Karl Rove and Sarah Palin; designed to inspire fear, contempt and resentment in insular, uneducated hicks. What they espoused was the average guy - e.g. Joe the plumber - because why would you want the best running your country. Strangely they never had a problem with sporting elites and never clamoured for averagely talented individuals filling their baseball teams.

I find it fascinating that there is an element trying to ply this failed tactic in Ireland - which in effect is nothing more than an Ad hominem argument - and anyone who has to resort to it should be ignored.

Iwasfrozen

*Wonders why a Democratically elected MEP who favours Lisbon is an Elite while a Democratically elected MEP who is anti-Lisbon is a Champion of the People.*

Scofflaw

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

*Wonders why a Democratically elected MEP who favours Lisbon is an Elite while a Democratically elected MEP who is anti-Lisbon is a Champion of the People.*

1. define "elite" as anyone out of touch with the wishes of "the people"

2. define yourself as "the people", or otherwise specially in touch with them

Ergo, anyone out of touch with your wishes is by definition a member of "the elite". If the next referendum result is a Yes, then the No side will become the new "elite", by virtue of being out of touch with majority thinking...

simply,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

1. define "elite" as anyone out of touch with the wishes of "the people"

2. define yourself as "the people", or otherwise specially in touch with them

Ergo, anyone out of touch with your wishes is by definition a member of "the elite". If the next referendum result is a Yes, then the No side will become the new "elite", by virtue of being out of touch with majority thinking...

Jaysus! I'm a member of the elite.

There was a time when I couldn't even pronounce the word.

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Jaysus! I'm a member of the elite.

There was a time when I couldn't even pronounce the word.

Actually, you may not be a member of the elite, because you haven't been elected (I presume) - you'd be an 'elitist', or a 'yes-man to the elites'. Your slavish agreement with their evil designs is the result of either blind folly or ambition, or both.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nayorleck114

EU ELITES are the Euro skeptic imaginery ruling class of europe. Look its simple, as a block of countries with common policies, common standards, common currency its far easier to trade and to progress as a block. Europe has been as war for the last 2 milleniums. The union of nations has helped us progress. I remember Poland before they joined the EU, it has changed a lot since then, I can go there and expect the same consumer rights as in Ireland. I remember trying to get a refund for faulty stereo in 1996 in Krakow and it was near impossible, however I had no issues getting refund on faulty DVD player in 2006. Each nation has its own identity, but we can also have a common European Identity with common standards and laws. ... or we just go back to borders and disintergration.

Scofflaw

nayorleck114 wrote: »

EU ELITES are the Euro skeptic imaginery ruling class of europe. Look its simple, as a block of countries with common policies, common standards, common currency its far easier to trade and to progress as a block. Europe has been as war for the last 2 milleniums. The union of nations has helped us progress. I remember Poland before they joined the EU, it has changed a lot since then, I can go there and expect the same consumer rights as in Ireland. I remember trying to get a refund for faulty stereo in 1996 in Krakow and it was near impossible, however I had no issues getting refund on faulty DVD player in 2006. Each nation has its own identity, but we can also have a common European Identity with common standards and laws. ... or we just go back to borders and disintergration.

That's pretty much it. No campaigners have a slightly schizophrenic attitude. On the one hand, they have erected "democracy" (aka the No vote in the first referendum) to the status of a minor deity, but on the other hand all the competences that have been given to the EU have been given with the democratic agreement of the Irish people, and the EU in general enjoys greater levels of popular trust and goodwill than national governments.

The solution is the evil 'elites', who have 'tricked the people' into 'ceding sovereignty'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

nayorleck114 wrote: »

EU ELITES are the Euro skeptic imaginery ruling class of europe. Look its simple, as a block of countries with common policies, common standards, common currency its far easier to trade and to progress as a block. Europe has been as war for the last 2 milleniums. The union of nations has helped us progress. I remember Poland before they joined the EU, it has changed a lot since then, I can go there and expect the same consumer rights as in Ireland. I remember trying to get a refund for faulty stereo in 1996 in Krakow and it was near impossible, however I had no issues getting refund on faulty DVD player in 2006. Each nation has its own identity, but we can also have a common European Identity with common standards and laws. ... or we just go back to borders and disintergration.

Aw now, don't get carried away.

It's an article of faith of all Eurosceptics that we must on principle spend our time disagreeing with each other and not adopting common measures even if those measures would actually benefit us.

Thus, for instance, the agreement that came into force on July 1st to reduce the cost of mobile calls when roaming within the EU (see http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/052-54063-111-04-17-909-20090421IPR54062-21-04-2009-2009-false/default_en.htm ) is inherently wrong. It cannot on point of principle be good for you.

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

I hate to say it, but those figures are completely meaningless. As you've illustrated with your point about the Tories, the larger groups shown as pro-Lisbon previously contained eurosceptical national parties within their ranks. That those have now 'broken cover' doesn't change the composition of the Parliament.

You have also apparently claimed that all the independents in the current Parliament are anti-Lisbon, while apparently not counting them in the previous parliament - at least, I assume so, since there's no group called "EFF", and you haven't otherwise included independents. That boosts your 'gain' artificially by 30, on top of the artificial boost of eurosceptic MEPs changing party.

Finally, the sum, according to your own figures, should be 147, not 149. They may be meaningless, but that's no excuse for adding them up wrong.

Overall, I'm not sure why you wasted your time and other people's putting together something so egregiously wrong? As I said before, you should probably devote some time to research before posting here.

patiently,
Scofflaw

I meant EFD.

The UK Independence Party (UKIP) has teamed up with other Eurosceptics to form a new 30-strong group in the European Parliament.The group, called Europe of Freedom and Democracy, is headed by UKIP leader Nigel Farage.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I meant EFD.

I'm glad you've corrected that, although it doesn't change any of the other gross errors in your post. Indeed it makes one more obvious - there are still apparently no independents in your Parliament.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm glad you've corrected that, although it doesn't change any of the other gross errors in your post. Indeed it makes one more obvious - there are still apparently no independents in your Parliament.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And is that important? The point I am making is that the anti-Lisbon side will have increased representation in this EP, and that in that context, cannot and should not be written off as a fringe-element of European public opinion. When the EFD comes officially into place, that leaves around 3 non-group MEPs.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

And is that important? The point I am making is that the anti-Lisbon side will have increased representation in this EP, and that in that context, cannot and should not be written off as a fringe-element of European public opinion. When the EFD comes officially into place, that leaves around 3 non-group MEPs.

Well, yes, it's important, because the numbers you've cited don't add up (literally), nor would they show what you're claiming even if they did. You've effectively counted the movement of eurosceptic MEPs into their own groupings as an increase in the numbers of eurosceptic MEPs, even though all that happened is that eurosceptic MEPs left something you counted as "pro-Lisbon" and moved to something you counted as "anti-Lisbon". You have simply reclassified a number of MEPs from pro to anti, and claimed it as a 'significant increase' in the number of antis.

Say you had 20 apples and 80 oranges, all in bags marked 'apples' or 'oranges'. What you've done is start with 10 of the apples in a bag marked 'oranges', moved them to a bag marked 'apples', and proclaimed the result as a doubling in the number of apples.

Not, of course, that you actually gave a comparative breakdown of the previous Parliament.

Really, it's dreadful pseudo-maths, made worse by basic arithmetical errors.

politely,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

bokspring71 wrote: »

No one else has been allowed to vote, so we can't claim to know what the rest of the EU's people think or want.

Exactly, so we should all shut up mouthing off about them and worry about ourselves.

bokspring71

molloyjh wrote: »

Exactly, so we should all shut up mouthing off about them and worry about ourselves.

Ouch!

Isn't the point of a message boards site to "mouth off"?

oscarBravo

No, the point of this site is discussion. Blogs are for mouthing off.

Executive Steve

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

is EU elites another word for... THE MAN?

No, it's another word for "LIZARDS, MAAAN"

FutureTaoiseach

The Brussels Bourbons have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. No means no.

granite man

The elite being talked about is the Bilderberg group along with the ruling Illuminati banking families, Rothchild etc. They call the shots not the politicians.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/leaked-agenda-bilderberg-group-plans-economic-depression.html

Some interesting reading here but as it is on a so called conspiracy site and not the controlled media its probably all made up lies. I'd just call it investigative journalism myself and worth as much of a look as anything else.

Scofflaw

granite man wrote: »

The elite being talked about is the Bilderberg group along with the ruling Illuminati banking families, Rothchild etc. They call the shots not the politicians.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/leaked-agenda-bilderberg-group-plans-economic-depression.html

Some interesting reading here but as it is on a so called conspiracy site and not the controlled media its probably all made up lies. I'd just call it investigative journalism myself and worth as much of a look as anything else.

You might, but not here. If you want to discuss conspiracy theories, do so in the Conspiracy Theories forum. This is your only and final warning.

moderately,
Scofflaw

granite man

OK, will do.

steady on now

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

To my eyes, the EU elites are the ruling-classes of society in the fields of politics, media, business, unions, celebs etc.

So the "EU elites" are all those who have been successful and have achieved something.
I know I would rather take advice from a success than from a failure. No offense Future Tea-shock but I am not putting you in the success category.

ART6

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's pretty much it. No campaigners have a slightly schizophrenic attitude. On the one hand, they have erected "democracy" (aka the No vote in the first referendum) to the status of a minor deity, but on the other hand all the competences that have been given to the EU have been given with the democratic agreement of the Irish people, and the EU in general enjoys greater levels of popular trust and goodwill than national governments.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Does it? Do you have evidence for that or is it simply a personal opinion? If so why did the Dutch and French vote against the EU Constitution? Was that not an indication of lack of trust in that they didn't want to give the Eurpoean Commission any more powers? I suggest that it's possible that because many national governments have lost much of the trust of their peoples that those peoples might be increasingly suspicious of the EU given their governments support for it. If someone is perceived as having lied to you can you then have trust in another whom he has recommended or to whom he has committed you without consulting you?

I feel there is much greater depth in this issue than the nebulous "EU Elite" college versus the Eurosceptics. I am not convinced that people trust either their own governments or the EU, but the reasons why they don't are bound to to vary between states according to their cultures and histories. In short trying to simplify issues to "Elites" and "Sceptics" is simplistic and doesn't identify the problem. Opposing Lisbon is not necessarily the same thing as opposing the idea of the EU.

And in answer to the question of why people vote for the governments they do if they are distrustful of Europe, in the case of Ireland what choice did they have? All the main line parties were in favour of the EU and Lisbon, so what does a voter do? The alternative seems to be not vote at all or to waste his vote on some lunatic organisation that will never form a government or play any meaningful role in public life

Scofflaw

ART6 wrote: »

Does it? Do you have evidence for that or is it simply a personal opinion?

It's a regular poll question in the Eurobarometer polls - trust in EU institutions, trust in national institutions. In general, the EU institutions manage a 'trust' of about 50%, whereas national institutions manage somewhere around 25%.

ART6 wrote: »

If so why did the Dutch and French vote against the EU Constitution? Was that not an indication of lack of trust in that they didn't want to give the Eurpoean Commission any more powers? I suggest that it's possible that because many national governments have lost much of the trust of their peoples that those peoples might be increasingly suspicious of the EU given their governments support for it. If someone is perceived as having lied to you can you then have trust in another whom he has recommended or to whom he has committed you without consulting you?

I would imagine there is currently a general distrust of all political institutions, and everyone involved in the political establishment, on foot of the enormous collapse in economies.

However, that wouldn't apply to the Dutch and French votes, which were much the same kind of grab-bag of different reasons as ours. I doubt they indicate any realistic assessment of 'how far' Europe has gone, and in turn I doubt they're any kind of meaningful indicator that people feel it's gone 'far enough'. Aside from anything else, most people would be hard pressed to tell you what competences Lisbon or the Constitution added to the EU.

I'm not sure why you single out the Commission specifically, though.

ART6 wrote: »

I feel there is much greater depth in this issue than the nebulous "EU Elite" college versus the Eurosceptics. I am not convinced that people trust either their own governments or the EU, but the reasons why they don't are bound to to vary between states according to their cultures and histories. In short trying to simplify issues to "Elites" and "Sceptics" is simplistic and doesn't identify the problem. Opposing Lisbon is not necessarily the same thing as opposing the idea of the EU.

Indeed, that's obviously a perfectly possible position. On the other had, it's pretty rare to find anyone who does oppose Lisbon while not opposing the EU. When people say they "support the idea of the EU", they rarely turn out to mean the one that exists - instead they usually mean some completely different arrangement with the same name. A bit like saying "I support the Irish government", and meaning by it that one actually supports the idea of an Irish government constituted as a worker's soviet. Technically correct, but extremely misleading. There are people who say they "support the EU" but actually mean that they support a sort of European Free Trade Area without any joint decision-making.

ART6 wrote: »

And in answer to the question of why people vote for the governments they do if they are distrustful of Europe, in the case of Ireland what choice did they have? All the main line parties were in favour of the EU and Lisbon, so what does a voter do? The alternative seems to be not vote at all or to waste his vote on some lunatic organisation that will never form a government or play any meaningful role in public life

Which begs the question of why none of the mainstream political parties here are opposed. God knows they'd do almost anything else to get a vote, so if there were votes in being eurosceptical, they'd presumably do it. The Tories in the UK are a mainstream soft eurosceptical party, and likely to form the next UK government - if we don't have that option here, the most obvious reason is that we don't particularly want it. After all, we've tried "national self-sufficiency" relatively recently, and we also know (or most of us do) that in a Europe of raw competition between nations, we have all the clout of a gnat's fart. The general view of the Irish political classes is, I think, that sovereignty is only meaningfully defined as the ability to make our own decisions for the best for Ireland and to carry them out, and that, paradoxically, our ability to do that is greater within the joint decision-making framework of the EU than by going it alone. I have to say that I consider that a very rational position, even if it is emotionally unappealing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

... After all, we've tried "national self-sufficiency" relatively recently, and we also know (or most of us do) that in a Europe of raw competition between nations, we have all the clout of a gnat's fart. The general view of the Irish political classes is, I think, that sovereignty is only meaningfully defined as the ability to make our own decisions for the best for Ireland and to carry them out, and that, paradoxically, our ability to do that is greater within the joint decision-making framework of the EU than by going it alone...

Now that is a particularly well-made point.

The EU involves a voluntary pooling of some aspects of the sovereignty of the member-states. In effect, the opportunity we get to influence the behaviour of our fellow-members is far greater than what we cede to the collective.

In addition, there is a gain for all member-states in that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

ART6

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's a regular poll question in the Eurobarometer polls - trust in EU institutions, trust in national institutions. In general, the EU institutions manage a 'trust' of about 50%, whereas national institutions manage somewhere around 25%.

One could read many things into such a statistic, and maybe one that conspiracy theorists would claim is that it is good propoganda for the Lisbon Treaty in that it suggests the people would support a reduction in the powers of state governments in favour of increases in the powers of the EU

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would imagine there is currently a general distrust of all political institutions, and everyone involved in the political establishment, on foot of the enormous collapse in economies.

However, that wouldn't apply to the Dutch and French votes, which were much the same kind of grab-bag of different reasons as ours. I doubt they indicate any realistic assessment of 'how far' Europe has gone, and in turn I doubt they're any kind of meaningful indicator that people feel it's gone 'far enough'. Aside from anything else, most people would be hard pressed to tell you what competences Lisbon or the Constitution added to the EU.

I'm not sure why you single out the Commission specifically, though.

Going by the way trust in our government has collapsed I am sure you are right with your opening comment. The economic disaster has demonstrated just how incompetent some governments have been.

I singled out the European Commission because they mainly create legislation rather than it originating by political initiatives. Not always, I accept -- the EU Parliament can propose legislation but can't enact it. At least that is my understanding of how it works but I don't pretend to have any expertise in the matter.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Indeed, that's obviously a perfectly possible position. On the other had, it's pretty rare to find anyone who does oppose Lisbon while not opposing the EU. When people say they "support the idea of the EU", they rarely turn out to mean the one that exists - instead they usually mean some completely different arrangement with the same name. A bit like saying "I support the Irish government", and meaning by it that one actually supports the idea of an Irish government constituted as a worker's soviet. Technically correct, but extremely misleading. There are people who say they "support the EU" but actually mean that they support a sort of European Free Trade Area without any joint decision-making.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I am an opponent of the Lisbon Treaty, but I can clearly see the merits of the EU, particularly for a small country like ours. My problem with the Treaty and the way the EU is developing is its structure, so your second point is valid. If it was structured such that its management was in the hands of elected representatives in a central parliament, and the Commission was essentially a non political civil service, then I would happily support moves towards a federal Europe since it would then resemble the United States - a democracy and federation that has stood the test of time. That would be much more difficult to achieve in Europe, I imagine, due to cultural and language differences, but there is no reason why it could not evolve and benefit all member states.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which begs the question of why none of the mainstream political parties here are opposed. God knows they'd do almost anything else to get a vote, so if there were votes in being eurosceptical, they'd presumably do it. The Tories in the UK are a mainstream soft eurosceptical party, and likely to form the next UK government - if we don't have that option here, the most obvious reason is that we don't particularly want it. After all, we've tried "national self-sufficiency" relatively recently, and we also know (or most of us do) that in a Europe of raw competition between nations, we have all the clout of a gnat's fart. The general view of the Irish political classes is, I think, that sovereignty is only meaningfully defined as the ability to make our own decisions for the best for Ireland and to carry them out, and that, paradoxically, our ability to do that is greater within the joint decision-making framework of the EU than by going it alone. I have to say that I consider that a very rational position, even if it is emotionally unappealing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Your first point in this paragraph is intriguing. Yes, all of our politicians would sell their grannies for a vote, so when the people rejected the Lisbon Treaty did not more of them immediately become eurosceptics? I find it hard to believe that they didn't because they are utterly convinced of your second argument. Logically if one supports a steady move towards federalism (and I would argue that's what the proposed Constitution was intended to achieve) then one must be prepared to forfeit much of one's decision making authority in one's own state. Perhaps it's more a question of safety in numbers irrespective of the consequences, and maybe that's why the UK is so eurosceptic. It's a much larger country and economy with a long history of going it alone. They don't see themselves a needing EU membership whereas we do.

View

ART6 wrote: »

And in answer to the question of why people vote for the governments they do if they are distrustful of Europe, in the case of Ireland what choice did they have? All the main line parties were in favour of the EU and Lisbon, so what does a voter do? The alternative seems to be not vote at all or to waste his vote on some lunatic organisation that will never form a government or play any meaningful role in public life

There is nothing to stop a group of voters who are "concerned" about the EU from forming their own political party and standing for election. If the electorate share their concerns, they should do well. If not, then the electorate will have delivered its verdict.

ixtlan

View wrote: »

There is nothing to stop a group of voters who are "concerned" about the EU from forming their own political party and standing for election. If the electorate share their concerns, they should do well. If not, then the electorate will have delivered its verdict.

Wasn't that Libertas?

djpbarry

ART6 wrote: »

If it was structured such that its management was in the hands of elected representatives in a central parliament, and the Commission was essentially a non political civil service...

That seems to me like a description far more befitting of the EU than the US.

Scofflaw

ART6 wrote: »

One could read many things into such a statistic, and maybe one that conspiracy theorists would claim is that it is good propoganda for the Lisbon Treaty in that it suggests the people would support a reduction in the powers of state governments in favour of increases in the powers of the EU

I'm sure conspiracy theorists would indeed claim that - and I'm sure, likewise, that they'd have some explanation as to how that's been kept secret for the 35 years the Eurobarometer has been running.

Assuming we're not in the realm of conspiracy theory (which we're not, because this is the Politics forum), the higher trust accorded to the EU institutions by the public remains to be explained.

ART6 wrote: »

Going by the way trust in our government has collapsed I am sure you are right with your opening comment. The economic disaster has demonstrated just how incompetent some governments have been.

As they say, "when the tide goes out you find out who's been swimming naked".

ART6 wrote: »

I singled out the European Commission because they mainly create legislation rather than it originating by political initiatives. Not always, I accept -- the EU Parliament can propose legislation but can't enact it. At least that is my understanding of how it works but I don't pretend to have any expertise in the matter.

Actually, it's the Commission that can propose legislation but not enact it. The Commission proposes all EU legislation, but usually at the request of the Council of Ministers or the Parliament. In turn, that legislation is debated, amended, and voted on by the Council (always) and the Parliament (usually) - without the agreement of the Council and the Parliament none of the Commission's legislation actually gets passed.

ART6 wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree with that. I am an opponent of the Lisbon Treaty, but I can clearly see the merits of the EU, particularly for a small country like ours. My problem with the Treaty and the way the EU is developing is its structure, so your second point is valid. If it was structured such that its management was in the hands of elected representatives in a central parliament, and the Commission was essentially a non political civil service, then I would happily support moves towards a federal Europe since it would then resemble the United States - a democracy and federation that has stood the test of time. That would be much more difficult to achieve in Europe, I imagine, due to cultural and language differences, but there is no reason why it could not evolve and benefit all member states.

It would also be opposed by people like me. I support the current EU because it is a decentralised joint decision-making framework where the power lies with the member states. What you're proposing is a centralised European government, which I would oppose.

ART6 wrote: »

Your first point in this paragraph is intriguing. Yes, all of our politicians would sell their grannies for a vote, so when the people rejected the Lisbon Treaty did not more of them immediately become eurosceptics? I find it hard to believe that they didn't because they are utterly convinced of your second argument. Logically if one supports a steady move towards federalism (and I would argue that's what the proposed Constitution was intended to achieve) then one must be prepared to forfeit much of one's decision making authority in one's own state. Perhaps it's more a question of safety in numbers irrespective of the consequences, and maybe that's why the UK is so eurosceptic. It's a much larger country and economy with a long history of going it alone. They don't see themselves a needing EU membership whereas we do.

Well, I hate to say it, but I'd need you to actually argue that there is a "steady move towards federalism", because, frankly, I don't see it - and would probably oppose it if I did see it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ART6

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, I hate to say it, but I'd need you to actually argue that there is a "steady move towards federalism", because, frankly, I don't see it - and would probably oppose it if I did see it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Since I am not wholly opposed to the idea of a federal Europe, only the mechanism for achieving it and its structure, I would argue that a body that proposes it should have a constitution, a national anthem, and national flag as prescribed in the original constitution draft (I stand to be corrected, not having studied it) is moving in the direction of a federal state. If it then proposes to establish its own military arm and its own foreign office with its own foreign minister, when it already has legal precedence over individual member state legislation in many and increasing areas, then at some point it must be a federal state even if in all but name. I would find it hard to believe that anyone in the EU Commission can't understand that even if the politicians can't.

Possibly the concept of qualified majority voting is not dissimilar from national parliaments and might even work if national political parties stopped dumping their dead wood as commissioners and MEPs, as the UK certainly has done. I accept that we the electorate have the opportunity to vote for our MEPs, but they have to be rooted in an existing political party to stand much chance of election, so they end up following the party line.