Are there any yes voters out there who DO value national sovereignty / democracy?

hatrickpatrick

One thing I find interesting is that whenever I bring up the issue of national sovereignty and national democracy, NONE of the yes voters here are saying "no, the Lisbon treaty is not a step towards a United Europe". they're either saying "So what if it is?" or "Would a United government really be so bad"?

Is there anyone out there who supports the Lisbon treaty and believes that it's NOT a step towards a federal government? Because I firmly believe that is IS important to keep our national sovereignty, and no amount of argument will change my mind about that. I hoped for someone to allay my fears abut this by telling me that the Lisbon treaty was in fact not a step towards a united Europe, but what I'm actually hearing as supposed "reassurance" is pushing me further and further towards the no side.

Put very simply: If it's a step towards a federal government, I am 100% absolutely definitely not voting for it.

So is it a step towards that or not?

conchubhar1

i see this being locked - by the usual suspect.

that our pure sarcasm and little discussion or answer

P. Breathnach

If this forum were a court of law, your question would be disallowed on several bases -- in particular the way it is packaged as being about "sovereignty/democracy".

Your position is akin to that of the person who wants plenty of money, but does not want to buy anything because it would reduce the amount of money he has.

Yes, the EU involves the pooling of sovereignty in some areas: we give others some influence over affairs here, and gain some influence on affairs throughout the EU. That does not necessarily make it a step towards a federal Europe.

But I am pretty sure that you intend to vote no, and your purpose in this discussion is not to assist you in making your decision, but to influence the decisions of others.

meglome

Actually hatrickpatrick your question kinda offends me, dare I say it but I suppose I would call myself a nationalist (although not in the Northern sense). I came in here with an open mind and not knowing much about the treaty. I read all the debates and then checked the information in the treaty. What I found is basically nothing that causes me a problem and lot's of improvements to the EU. The same EU who has been very fair with us.

I don't think you were ever an undecided voter like myself. I have spent (maybe wasted) my time replying to you but no more.

K-9

I do value our sovereignty.

What I find with arguments like the OP is that it is a principle and something they will not give up, no matter what.

We could point to all the good things that have been achieved by the EU and the so called "giving up" of Sovereignty, but it will not matter.

tororosso

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

One thing I find interesting is that whenever I bring up the issue of national sovereignty and national democracy, NONE of the yes voters here are saying "no, the Lisbon treaty is not a step towards a United Europe". they're either saying "So what if it is?" or "Would a United government really be so bad"?

Is there anyone out there who supports the Lisbon treaty and believes that it's NOT a step towards a federal government? Because I firmly believe that is IS important to keep our national sovereignty, and no amount of argument will change my mind about that. I hoped for someone to allay my fears abut this by telling me that the Lisbon treaty was in fact not a step towards a united Europe, but what I'm actually hearing as supposed "reassurance" is pushing me further and further towards the no side.

Put very simply: If it's a step towards a federal government, I am 100% absolutely definitely not voting for it.

So is it a step towards that or not?

Nobody can say whether the ultimate result will be a federal government but I believe that it will lead to a federal European Government. Most people see the direction the European Project is taking and each new treaty and piece of legislation will further centralise power to this aim. Some will argue that this is not the case but many people who are strongly Yes are happy with this direction. Likewise the people who are strongly NO are unhappy to see the tightening of power. This is just an opinion so I will leave it for others to try to persuade you or disuade you from the vote you appear to be going to make!

ei.sdraob

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Put very simply: If it's a step towards a federal government

how so? please do elaborate

In Chains

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

One thing I find interesting is that whenever I bring up the issue of national sovereignty and national democracy, NONE of the yes voters here are saying "no, the Lisbon treaty is not a step towards a United Europe". they're either saying "So what if it is?" or "Would a United government really be so bad"?

Is there anyone out there who supports the Lisbon treaty and believes that it's NOT a step towards a federal government? ...

Good questions. And curious answers (so far).

pjproby

in the 1950's there was a general movement in Europe towards self sufficiency taken up with gusto by our beloved DeValera. You know the thesis,grow your own, tax imports to encourage Irish production -in one year 60000 were forced to emigrate to find work.
After they left we allowed Aer Lingus to enter into a monopoly arrangement with British Airways, on the Dublin London route to ensure that they could never afford to come back.
I'm sure National Sovereignty meant a great deal to those forced out never to return.
If you are entertaining such notions as self sufficiency, national sovereignty etc just study recent Irish history.
It was an absolute economic disaster.
If you seriously think we can get get out of the imminent bankruptcy of this country without the help of Europe you are dreaming

Daftendirekt

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

One thing I find interesting is that whenever I bring up the issue of national sovereignty and national democracy, NONE of the yes voters here are saying "no, the Lisbon treaty is not a step towards a United Europe". they're either saying "So what if it is?" or "Would a United government really be so bad"?

Is there anyone out there who supports the Lisbon treaty and believes that it's NOT a step towards a federal government? Because I firmly believe that is IS important to keep our national sovereignty, and no amount of argument will change my mind about that. I hoped for someone to allay my fears abut this by telling me that the Lisbon treaty was in fact not a step towards a united Europe, but what I'm actually hearing as supposed "reassurance" is pushing me further and further towards the no side.

Put very simply: If it's a step towards a federal government, I am 100% absolutely definitely not voting for it.

So is it a step towards that or not?

I think you're asking is the Lisbon Treaty a step towards a United States of Europe/ European Federation?

No, it's not. Or at least I see nothing in it to make me think otherwise. And incidentally, if I believed it was a move towards a federal Europe, I'd probably vote against it.

Martin 2

Are there any yes voters out there who DO value national sovereignty / democracy?

Yes I value both sovereignty and democracy, and I will feel no less Irish on October 3rd than on October 1st if the treaty is passed and no less Irish than I did before Maastricht or Nice.

PunkFreud

We lost some of our sovereignty the minute we joined the EU. If we want it all back again, then all we have to do is leave europe. What has europe ever done for us anyway?

*sarcasm*

eamo12

If we vote yes, then we will never get the chance to vote again. Read Declaration 17 which states EU law will have primacy over Irish law. So, to answer your question, it is not possible to value our sovereignty and vote yes. Lisbon is a way fro the politicans to pass the buck to faceless EU beaurocrats while living it up in the expense ridden Brussles gravy train.

ynotdu

well i think we should all at least read the Lisbon Treaty.

I think the OP.s question is worthy of consideration by all.

somewhere along the line it seems to me the European *dream* has gone astray. no doubt though we would be in deeper sh*t without the euro currency.

when Ireland voted to join the EU i dont think it was ever envisioned that our minister for health would have to consult Europe to ban sunbeds now that medical science has shown they are a severe cancer risk.

It is an example of the silly things Europe have imposed on us as well as the good things it has brought.

These petty things seem more designed to keep beauracrats in work than anything else.

If Lisbon was not to be passed can yes voters be absolutly sure it would be the end of the world?

may,be it might force the idea of us all being friends without losing our national identitys to be reconsidered?

I would hate if a certain Country who failed to dominate Europe by war twice has found a back door to achieve the same objective by treatys.

whoa and pull back i say.

pjproby

"I would hate if a certain Country who failed to dominate Europe by war twice has found a back door to achieve the same objective by treatys."

which neatly brings us back to the original purpose of the Common Market/EU

these are the most peaceful decades in European history.

Sangre

I think the more power we take from the morons we keep voting into power the better.

meglome

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I think you're asking is the Lisbon Treaty a step towards United States of Europe/ European Federation?

No, it's not. Or at least I see nothing in it to make me think otherwise. And incidentally, if I believed it was a move towards a federal Europe, I'd probably vote against it.

If that was the case I'd vote against it too.

ei.sdraob

ynotdu wrote: »

somewhere along the line it seems to me the European *dream* has gone astray.

what dream?

has there been any wars like before? no! remember 2 world wars and millions killed last century all originating in europe

is there poverty like before? nope! eu is the largest economy in the world now

the *dream* has been fairly successful all one has to do is read a history book and then look around

sensibleken

no i dont think it a step away from being a sovereign nation. the way i interpret this idea of sovereignity is more akin to isolationism. and that fcked us up after ww2.

we have to get used to the idea that some issues are better tackled internationally. specifically trade and competition. these are best done in a european enviroment. are they are done like that now. lisbon will not make us any less or more sovereign our position will remain unchanged

ei.sdraob

eamo12 wrote: »

If we vote yes, then we will never get the chance to vote again.

lisbon sets in stone how a state can exit the eu if they are not happy, something that doesnt exist now

also any changes that affect are constitution are cause for a referendum here

FeistyOneYouAre

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

One thing I find interesting is that whenever I bring up the issue of national sovereignty and national democracy, NONE of the yes voters here are saying "no, the Lisbon treaty is not a step towards a United Europe". they're either saying "So what if it is?" or "Would a United government really be so bad"?

Is there anyone out there who supports the Lisbon treaty and believes that it's NOT a step towards a federal government? Because I firmly believe that is IS important to keep our national sovereignty, and no amount of argument will change my mind about that. I hoped for someone to allay my fears abut this by telling me that the Lisbon treaty was in fact not a step towards a united Europe, but what I'm actually hearing as supposed "reassurance" is pushing me further and further towards the no side.

Put very simply: If it's a step towards a federal government, I am 100% absolutely definitely not voting for it.

So is it a step towards that or not?

You have to weigh our options...we could keep our national sovereignty while risking our membership with the EU (being members but with a very large asterix beside our name) or we could be fully fledged members and still reep the huge benefits that we have consitently reeped over the last 36 years.

nesf

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

One thing I find interesting is that whenever I bring up the issue of national sovereignty and national democracy, NONE of the yes voters here are saying "no, the Lisbon treaty is not a step towards a United Europe". they're either saying "So what if it is?" or "Would a United government really be so bad"?

Is there anyone out there who supports the Lisbon treaty and believes that it's NOT a step towards a federal government? Because I firmly believe that is IS important to keep our national sovereignty, and no amount of argument will change my mind about that. I hoped for someone to allay my fears abut this by telling me that the Lisbon treaty was in fact not a step towards a united Europe, but what I'm actually hearing as supposed "reassurance" is pushing me further and further towards the no side.

Put very simply: If it's a step towards a federal government, I am 100% absolutely definitely not voting for it.

So is it a step towards that or not?

Quit putting words in other people's mouths and then deciding to argue against them as if we'd actually said it. Many of Yes voters are flatly opposed to the federalist view of where the EU should go. This isn't a simplistic black and white issue where you vote No if you're against federalism and vote Yes if you're from it.

The entire basis of this thread is suspect and as such has a limited lifespan unless you restate your question in such a way that doesn't paint every Yes voter as a fanatical federalist pretending to be a moderate.

hatrickpatrick

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But I am pretty sure that you intend to vote no, and your purpose in this discussion is not to assist you in making your decision, but to influence the decisions of others.

I can't reply to the entire topic yet, I will do so later, but let's be clear. I am indeed intending to vote no, until someone convinces me not to. Originally I was undecided. I came here to clear up one or two fears I had about national sovereignty, and instead of this I was greeted with "who cares, nation states aren't that great anyway". And if the yes campaign is associated with this type of thinking, it certainly has pushed me towards the no side. But let me make this clear: only since I've heard the yes campaign's arguments.

I voted yes last time, in case I never mentioned that before.

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I can't reply to the entire topic yet, I will do so later, but let's be clear. I am indeed intending to vote no, until someone convinces me not to. Originally I was undecided. I came here to clear up one or two fears I had about national sovereignty, and instead of this I was greeted with "who cares, nation states aren't that great anyway". And if the yes campaign is associated with this type of thinking, it certainly has pushed me towards the no side. But let me make this clear: only since I've heard the yes campaign's arguments.

I voted yes last time, in case I never mentioned that before.

That may have been in response to a few posters saying Nation states was the only form of Govt.

I think it goes back to how much sovereignty people are prepared to pool.

To a minority giving up none is their limit, to others just enough for an EEC type organization, others Nice is the limit, others Lisbon etc.

To me there is a limit to how far the EU can go.

hatrickpatrick

nesf wrote: »

Quit putting words in other people's mouths and then deciding to argue against them as if we'd actually said it. Many of Yes voters are flatly opposed to the federalist view of where the EU should go. This isn't a simplistic black and white issue where you vote No if you're against federalism and vote Yes if you're from it.

The entire basis of this thread is suspect and as such has a limited lifespan unless you restate your question in such a way that doesn't paint every Yes voter as a fanatical federalist pretending to be a moderate.

I'm not suggesting that everyone is a fanatic, obviously that's ridiculous. What I am saying is that most of the yes voters who have engaged with my fears about a federalist Europe have argued not that Lisbon won't take away our sovereignty, but that "the nation state isn't so great either", "why does democracy have to be national?", "Well it's a good thing if the morons in our government have less power" etc. Basically, no one has argued that Lisbon will not erode the Irish citizens' control over their country, but that the question is irrelevant since having direct control over our country just isn't that important.

I'm asking if there are any republicans / nationalists here who think it's important we should absolutely have our own democratic nation state, and that voting yes will not change this.

Stark

Lisbon defines for the first time what the remit of the EU is. Under Nice, the EU can bring pretty much any issue into its remit. Lisbon allows us to opt out of the EU if we choose. Under Nice, we've no legal means of leaving the EU if we wish.

ChocolateSauce

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

One thing I find interesting is that whenever I bring up the issue of national sovereignty and national democracy, NONE of the yes voters here are saying "no, the Lisbon treaty is not a step towards a United Europe". they're either saying "So what if it is?" or "Would a United government really be so bad"?

I find it offensive that you equate a yes vote with a lack of respect for national sovereignty and democracy, as well as unsupportable. A yes vote, by definition, is democratic and will make the EU more democratic. National vetoes and the people of the present being bound by the mis-informed decisions of the past is, however, undemocratic.

As for sovereignty, why is pooling some of it into a democratic and mutually beneficial surpa-national organisation that has brought us peace and prosperity not preferable to being politically and economically isolated?

nesf

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What I am saying is that most of the yes voters who have engaged with my fears about a federalist Europe have argued not that Lisbon won't take away our sovereignty, but that "the nation state isn't so great either", "why does democracy have to be national?", "Well it's a good thing if the morons in our government have less power" etc. Basically, no one has argued that Lisbon will not erode the Irish citizens' control over their country, but that the question is irrelevant since having direct control over our country just isn't that important.

The problem is that you're defining sharing sovereignty as losing sovereignty, i.e. that after Lisbon that the Irish Government no longer has any influence over certain areas. This is patently not the case, we are not losing our seat on the Council of Europe and our Government will continue to have influence over EU decisions and policy, and the EU will most likely attempt to continue with the tradition of unanimity that has shaped the EU until now.

Losing sovereignty is a half-truth, it implies that post Lisbon that Ireland will have no say over policy in certain areas when this is patently not the case.


Again here you are arguing against straw men here rather than presenting your own argument. It's a fallacious as me starting an argument by saying that "No posters that I've seen have said the minimum wage will be under 2 euro an hour therefore this must be believed by most people who vote No" and then continuing to argue against this obvious mistruth.

FruitLover

I doubt anyone with a bit of cop on seriously expects a federal government to be on the cards at any point.

ynotdu wrote: »

I would hate if a certain Country who failed to dominate Europe by war twice has found a back door to achieve the same objective by treatys

Good thing everyone's able to remain level-headed on the issue, eh :rolleyes: You're pretty close to invoking Godwin's law there, Ted.

Greyham

this thread is a perfect example of everything wrong with a debate on lisbon, a whole load of anecdotal nonsense coming from both sides with little to no reference to the actual content of the treaty ,


maybe people on here are discussing this on a higher level than i am , and maybe its a given that everyone already knows all of the articles everyone is referring to , but i havnt seen one academic discussion of it , i.e

"article number X says this , and that means Y for ireland , because of..."

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that everyone is a fanatic, obviously that's ridiculous. What I am saying is that most of the yes voters who have engaged with my fears about a federalist Europe have argued not that Lisbon won't take away our sovereignty, but that "the nation state isn't so great either", "why does democracy have to be national?", "Well it's a good thing if the morons in our government have less power" etc. Basically, no one has argued that Lisbon will not erode the Irish citizens' control over their country, but that the question is irrelevant since having direct control over our country just isn't that important.

I'm asking if there are any republicans / nationalists here who think it's important we should absolutely have our own democratic nation state, and that voting yes will not change this.

Why would Yes voters argue it will not take away our sovereignty?

Areas move to QMV, so it is unarguable. I think most Yes voters understand why some have concerns over that, but obviously don't put as much significance on it.

People have asked for examples of QMV going against our wishes and we have got no examples, or poor ones. Yes voters go on the experience Ireland has had of QMV, staunch No voters don't really want to see that.

sink

I think the majority of people have an incorrect idea of what democracy and sovereignty are. They view it from a platonic/euclidean lens where perfect templates of objects exist. Most would hold in their heads an idea of a perfect democratic system or perfect form of sovereignty and they would use these ideas as benchmark against which to measure the current model and extrapolate from that any perceived imperfections which requiring correction. They focus on achieving their perfect models which they hold as sacred and loose track of the original reason for their existence in the first place. Democracy and sovereignty in effect become quasi religious icons to be worshipped.

My view is completely different. In reality there is no perfect system which is the epitome of democracy or sovereignty, they are a loose evolving set of ideas or instruments which have one single purpose; to accommodate and satisfy the needs of society. They adapt and change to the social environment and take on different meanings reflecting the perspective separate individuals and groups. They are artificial and as such are driven by our needs and wants and reflect our ideas and perceptions, and change when we change.

To think of a perfect blueprint for democracy and sovereignty and then attempt to create it is an error in thinking for no such blueprint exists. Our needs and wants are the proprietors of democracy and sovereignty and are the only things that really exist. The only way we can get close to an ideal version of democracy and sovereignty is to forget about the blueprint and concentrate what what really exist, our needs and wants. We have to slowly through trial and error figure out what best satisfies our needs and wants, keeping what works and discarding the rest.

So getting back to the original question. I do value democracy and sovereignty in so far as they serve the needs and wants of society, but I don't hold in my minds eye a perfect sacred vision of either.

sink

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So is it a step towards that or not?

I cannot deny if a federal government is considered the epitome of a united supranational entity and if national isolation is considered the epitome of sovereignty, both being opposite ends of a continuing spectrum, then Lisbon is undoubtedly a step in the direction of a federal government. But lets not get confused, a step is just that, one single solitary step, it's not a journey. It's does even signify an intention to continue towards federal state, Lisbon could be the final step if that is what the majority wants, considering the growing amount of resistance to closer integration with every successive treaty I would think Lisbon is likely to be the end point for a at least the next few decades. The assumption that a step towards federalism will inevitably end in federalism is completely unfounded and is simple paranoia.

meglome

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that everyone is a fanatic, obviously that's ridiculous. What I am saying is that most of the yes voters who have engaged with my fears about a federalist Europe have argued not that Lisbon won't take away our sovereignty, but that "the nation state isn't so great either", "why does democracy have to be national?", "Well it's a good thing if the morons in our government have less power" etc. Basically, no one has argued that Lisbon will not erode the Irish citizens' control over their country, but that the question is irrelevant since having direct control over our country just isn't that important.

I'm asking if there are any republicans / nationalists here who think it's important we should absolutely have our own democratic nation state, and that voting yes will not change this.

I've seen most of the main Yes campaigners in here say they would not accept a federalist Europe and I feel the same way. Sharing certain set things with our EU neighbours personally suits me fine, and I believe it is for the good of the country.

I keep hearing how we'll lose sovereignty to the EU. But not once has anyone pointed out where the EU has ever forced any EU country to do anything. The EU work through negotiation so at any time if we feel things have moved too far we can stop.

It is our football but I have no issue if we play a few games on the same team as the EU.

eamo12

pjproby wrote: »

"I would hate if a certain Country who failed to dominate Europe by war twice has found a back door to achieve the same objective by treatys."

which neatly brings us back to the original purpose of the Common Market/EU

these are the most peaceful decades in European history.

Apart from the Bosnian/Serb/Croat wars, they have been peaceful despite the EU. But we now see the beginnings of the consequences of mass muslim immigration into europe. Our children will suffer because of our liberal decadence in a clash of civilisations which we can only hope will not rival WW2. With Turkey waiting in the wings, the problem of immigration will move from one of containment to the full scale clash we all fear. For the liberal elites in europe, to question their immigration policies is to question a liberals essence hence the debate is out of bounds with accusations of racism by the yes side. It's the only way they can win, and I think they will.

sink

eamo12 wrote: »

Apart from the Bosnian/Serb/Croat wars, they have been peaceful despite the EU. But we now see the beginnings of the consequences of mass muslim immigration into europe. Our children will suffer because of our liberal decadence in a clash of civilisations which we can only hope will not rival WW2. With Turkey waiting in the wings, the problem of immigration will move from one of containment to the full scale clash we all fear. For the liberal elites in europe, to question their immigration policies is to question a liberals essence hence the debate is out of bounds with accusations of racism by the yes side. It's the only way they can win, and I think they will.

That sounds eerily reminiscent of Charles Manson's 'helter skelter'.

K-9

sink wrote: »

I cannot deny if a federal government is considered the epitome of a united supranational entity and if national isolation is considered the epitome of sovereignty, both being opposite ends of a continuing spectrum, then Lisbon is undoubtedly a step in the direction of a federal government. But lets not get confused, a step is just that, one single solitary step, it's not a journey. It's does even signify an intention to continue towards federal state, Lisbon could be the final step if that is what the majority wants, considering the growing amount of resistance to closer integration with every successive treaty I would think Lisbon is likely to be the end point for a at least the next few decades. The assumption that a step towards federalism will inevitably end in federalism is completely unfounded and is simple paranoia.

I would have to agree with that. Personally I see the areas that move to QMV in Lisbon as an extension of Nice but I agree that there will be a limit set by us and it could well be Lisbon, or the Treaty after this.

pjproby

"Apart from the Bosnian/Serb/Croat wars"

they were not part of the European union at that time

which only goes to emphasize the point

Scofflaw

eamo12 wrote: »

If we vote yes, then we will never get the chance to vote again. Read Declaration 17 which states EU law will have primacy over Irish law. So, to answer your question, it is not possible to value our sovereignty and vote yes. Lisbon is a way fro the politicans to pass the buck to faceless EU beaurocrats while living it up in the expense ridden Brussles gravy train.

Declarations aren't legally binding - that particular Declaration is merely noting the existing situation, which is that it is accepted by all the EU member states that EU law has precedence over national law in the case of a clash in an area of EU competence.

This has been the case since Costa vs. ENEL in 1964. Do not continue to try and tout this as something new.

regards,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick

This deserves its own separate thread and I might make one for it tomorrow, but for now - everyone has been asking for an example of the EU forcing us to do something detrimental to our country. Here you go.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0901/1224253586894.html

This is Irish land owned by Irish people. If the people who own that land want to get rid of the landslide and allow these people's lives to return to normal, the EU simply should not be allowed to stop them. That is something which should solely be within the control of the local council assuming it's public land.

Now, here we have the example of local democracy vs. national vs. international. I think everyone would agree that if the law was a local one, petitioning the council would get that law changed far faster than petitioning the government would if it was a national law, and both of those would be incredibly fast compared to changing the law as it exists at EU level. So it's an example of what I said before. The smaller the voting population, the more direct control they have over the laws which affect them. Hence why I am pro de-centralization of power even from a national to a local level, and utterly opposed to centralization of it from a national to an international level.

But all of this is off topic. My question still stands. If I think that the nation state is indeed a "sacred" (although I don't like that word) institution and want to prevent the possibility of it ever being eroded by a federal government, does the Lisbon treaty do enough in EITHER direction to make that a relevant issue, or is the Lisbon Treaty simple nothing to do with it and therefore this should not be considered when voting?

nesf

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This deserves its own separate thread and I might make one for it tomorrow, but for now - everyone has been asking for an example of the EU forcing us to do something detrimental to our country. Here you go.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0901/1224253586894.html

This is Irish land owned by Irish people. If the people who own that land want to get rid of the landslide and allow these people's lives to return to normal, the EU simply should not be allowed to stop them. That is something which should solely be within the control of the local council assuming it's public land.

Now, here we have the example of local democracy vs. national vs. international. I think everyone would agree that if the law was a local one, petitioning the council would get that law changed far faster than petitioning the government would if it was a national law, and both of those would be incredibly fast compared to changing the law as it exists at EU level. So it's an example of what I said before. The smaller the voting population, the more direct control they have over the laws which affect them. Hence why I am pro de-centralization of power even from a national to a local level, and utterly opposed to centralization of it from a national to an international level.

But all of this is off topic. My question still stands. If I think that the nation state is indeed a "sacred" (although I don't like that word) institution and want to prevent the possibility of it ever being eroded by a federal government, does the Lisbon treaty do enough in EITHER direction to make that a relevant issue, or is the Lisbon Treaty simple nothing to do with it and therefore this should not be considered when voting?

What you have is a convenient trick for local politicians. We would have laws governing conservation of natural habitats regardless of whether we were in the EU. If it was Irish law, said Mayor would be blaming the bureaucrats in Dublin for the misfortunes of the people. This isn't an example of Europe pushing the country backwards, it's merely an example of an area where instead of Irish law we have fairly equivalent European Law, unless you believe that somehow by now that lobby groups wouldn't have had conservation laws passed which is unlikely in the extreme.

Mother says

lol, leading question much?

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This deserves its own separate thread and I might make one for it tomorrow, but for now - everyone has been asking for an example of the EU forcing us to do something detrimental to our country. Here you go.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0901/1224253586894.html

This is Irish land owned by Irish people. If the people who own that land want to get rid of the landslide and allow these people's lives to return to normal, the EU simply should not be allowed to stop them. That is something which should solely be within the control of the local council assuming it's public land.

Now, here we have the example of local democracy vs. national vs. international. I think everyone would agree that if the law was a local one, petitioning the council would get that law changed far faster than petitioning the government would if it was a national law, and both of those would be incredibly fast compared to changing the law as it exists at EU level. So it's an example of what I said before. The smaller the voting population, the more direct control they have over the laws which affect them. Hence why I am pro de-centralization of power even from a national to a local level, and utterly opposed to centralization of it from a national to an international level.

As usual, though, the problem seems more that Irish politicians (if we may call a Mayor that) are trying to shift the blame from themselves:

Europe is not blocking clean-up efforts in the aftermath of a landslide in Glencolmcille.

That’s according to the EU Commission.

Torrential rain sparked the slide ten days ago, with the resulting mud and debris blocking a narrow bog road linking around 20 homes to Meenacross and Port.

The finger of blame had been pointed towards an EU Habitats Directive for the delay.

Under the directive, wetland locality is designated a special area of conservation, prompting criticism that plant life was of more concern to the EU than humans.

Commission spokesperson Phillipe Carr says the EU has not put forward any reasons why the clean-up can’t go ahead.

Blame-shifting is undeniably a problem, but it isn't exactly an EU one - we saw this before with the Water Services Directive. It has to be pointed out that the Habitats Directive covers undisturbed sites - a bog slide doesn't really qualify. If the EU hasn't put forward any objection to the clean-up, it makes you wonder exactly who "pointed out" the Habitats Directive as stopping operations...

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But all of this is off topic. My question still stands. If I think that the nation state is indeed a "sacred" (although I don't like that word) institution and want to prevent the possibility of it ever being eroded by a federal government, does the Lisbon treaty do enough in EITHER direction to make that a relevant issue, or is the Lisbon Treaty simple nothing to do with it and therefore this should not be considered when voting?

The reason I don't consider that it really enters the equation (although obviously many think it does) is because the EU is a voluntary system, freely entered into by the Irish people, and which we can leave as freely as we joined (we can even follow the UK out, just as we followed them in).

The EU has both intergovernmental aspects (that is, areas where unanimity is required), which presumably not even a 'sacred nationalist' will find objectionable, and it also has supranational aspects where unanimity is not required, and where a country can be bound by legislation it does not support. Presumably, someone who believes that the course of a nation should be set, in every aspect, purely by its own political mechanisms, would consider this latter - the supranational aspects of the EU - to be completely objectionable on principle.

I think that for someone like that, all that is required for a No vote is that an EU treaty contain any movement whatsoever from intergovernmental decision-making to supranational decision-making. It's not a question of which area moves, or of the resulting voting weights - it's purely a matter of principle: "no nation should ever allow itself to be bound by the decisions of other nations".

I don't think one sees this argument laid out very clearly or very often, even though it is presumably a motivating factor for a good number of No voters. Personally, I presume that's because the majority of the electorate don't find it particularly appealing. Instead we see arguments about voting weight in QMV - as if that were genuinely important, given that actual voting is rare (about 20% of the decisions to which it theoretically applies) and almost invariably symbolic - and scare stories about being "dominated" by the larger countries.

Most people, as far as I can see, are reasonably pragmatic about the issue of legislation - what counts is the quality of the legislation, rather than the origin. They're equally pragmatic about the realistic limits of national sovereignty. People want self-determination, but it's not realistic to pretend that we can make our national decisions in some kind of vacuum - we're too small to turn our backs on the world, or ignore what neighbouring countries do, unless we fancy completely turning in ourselves in the kind of national self-sufficiency doctrine espoused by deValera. Even under that piece of lunacy, where you couldn't import Curly-Wurly bars, and you had to apply to the Minister if you wanted to put your prices up (see here, for example), it's impossible to deny that Ireland was far from a free agent - we applied with the UK to join the EEC in 1961, withdrew our application when De Gaulle blocked UK entry, reapplied, again with the UK, in 1967, and again withdrew our application when UK entry was vetoed. We finally joined in 1973, with the UK.

So, my own view is that people to whom 'pure' sovereignty is non-negotiable are a very definite minority (although probably a majority of the hard No vote), and that while sovereignty is important to the majority of voters, pure exercise of sovereignty is recognised by the majority as being an unrealistic goal, and certainly not viable as a principle. That doesn't make it unimportant - it's certainly not unimportant to me, as I'm pretty sure I've said to you before - but it does mean that it's not a sacred cow in the sense it might be to you.

So, for most people, what's important is what the practical effect of supranational decision-making is. Do we lose out? Are we forced to accept things that we would not accept from our national government? The answer seems to be that one is very hard-pushed to come up with things that Ireland has objected to, and lost out on. Even the example you have come up with here turns out, on relatively little inspection, to be nothing to do with the EU, and everything to do with a local official shifting blame from himself and the County Council. That doesn't mean it's impossible to scare people by claiming that our wishes are being 'overridden' in Europe - the majority of people are aware that they don't know exactly what's going on, and the Irish government is even more prone than the No campaigns to blame on Europe what it itself has done.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ynotdu

pjproby wrote: »

"I would hate if a certain Country who failed to dominate Europe by war twice has found a back door to achieve the same objective by treatys."

which neatly brings us back to the original purpose of the Common Market/EU

these are the most peaceful decades in European history.

True! but sometimes Govts can speak softly but carry a big stick!
btw sometimes i think being able to part quote a posters opinion on boards is as bad as the yes or no side propaganda.

I said "I think we should all read the treaty"

I mentioned the silliness of a *member* state not being able to ban sunbeds without EU approval,not to mention what shapes spuds carrots banana,s etc should be.if this is not beauracy gone mad i dont know what is?

these *minor*issues boost the No campaign to those who really just wonder why their *culture* is being diluted so much by other cultures ways of life.

have people forgotten the outrageous news confrence by Merkel&sarkozy the day Ireland voted NO last time?

They did *back down* rapidly but it was TOO late as they had shown their true colors by then,and it was obvious they did NOT respect the Democratic vote of the Irish people and to some extent under very veiled threats DEMANDED we vote again(was,nt really a request now was it?)

I voted yes last time,now i am undecided for the record.

Scofflaw

ynotdu wrote: »

True! but sometimes Govts can speak softly but carry a big stick!
btw sometimes i think being able to part quote a posters opinion on boards is as bad as the yes or no side propaganda.

I said "I think we should all read the treaty"

I mentioned the silliness of a *member* state not being able to ban sunbeds without EU approval,not to mention what shapes spuds carrots banana,s etc should be.if this is not beauracy gone mad i dont know what is?

these *minor*issues boost the No campaign to those who really just wonder why their *culture* is being diluted so much by other cultures ways of life.

The short answer is American films, and British companies, TV, and tabloids. The shape of fruit is hardly a major cultural issue, and is largely set now by companies like Tesco.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

and the Irish government is even more prone than the No campaigns to blame on Europe what it itself has done.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The TL : DR version.

Yep, FF are only to happy to blame the EU for decisions they themselves didn't have the balls to make!

MrMicra

Prior to Ireland joining the European Union we remained in economic terms an adjunct of the UK. By opening up new markets to Irish business and providing new ways for our state to have influence in the world the EEC and EU have increased our sovereignty.

The republic of Ireland faces one great challenge to its sovereignty, that challenge is not the EU it is the UK. This state has one enemy that enemy is the UK. The EU provides a multipolar structure that has moved out of the UK sphere of influence.

In fact the No supporters by parroting the line of groups that are in blunt terms our enemies (UKIP, the Tories and the BNP) are the enemies not of national sovereignty in the abstract but of the national sovereignty of their own country.

European integration creates new structures for the exercise of this country's national sovereignty. The idea that the interests of small nations and great powers are identical is one of the more quixotic angles that the No side work.

The No side are traitors and fools who either don't care about Ireland's national interests or are the bought and paid for creatures of England (or British nationals like Ganley).

MrMicra

pjproby wrote: »

in the 1950's there was a general movement in Europe towards self sufficiency taken up with gusto by our beloved DeValera. You know the thesis,grow your own, tax imports to encourage Irish production -in one year 60000 were forced to emigrate to find work

This wasn't the real pursuit of national sovereignty, it was just the rhetoric of national sovereignty. The No campaigners don't give a damn about Ireland unsurprising because most of the No campaigners in Ireland are either English or paid by English nationalist organisations.

eamo12

MrMicra wrote: »

European integration creates new structures for the exercise of this country's national sovereignty. The idea that the interests of small nations and great powers are identical is one of the more quixotic angles that the No side work.

The No side are traitors and fools who either don't care about Ireland's national interests or are the bought and paid for creatures of England (or British nationals like Ganley).

Here we have the usual 'vote yes cause we hate the brits' tripe. We fought a civil war to get our sovereignty, now you want to hand it to euro bureaucratic elites where we will represent a population of >1% ! Lisbon appeals to socialists because it takes power away from the people (why, they don't want pesky Ireland, Dutch and French voters getting in the way of their grand project).

With Lisbon, the eu elites will never have to worry about another democratic vote again - ever. Policy will be formulated by lobbyists and laws passed by a commission that can hardly be described as democratic or accountable - if we're lucky, we might see Pat 'The Cope' Gallagher or Mary Harkin once or twice in 5 years.

Oh yeah, and the yes side accusing the no side of scare tactics is a bit rich.

nesf

eamo12 wrote: »

Here we have the usual 'vote yes cause we hate the brits' tripe. We fought a civil war to get our sovereignty, now you want to hand it to euro bureaucratic elites where we will represent a population of >1% ! Lisbon appeals to socialists because it takes power away from the people (why, they don't want pesky Ireland, Dutch and French voters getting in the way of their grand project).

With Lisbon, the eu elites will never have to worry about another democratic vote again - ever. Policy will be formulated by lobbyists and laws passed by a commission that can hardly be described as democratic or accountable - if we're lucky, we might see Pat 'The Cope' Gallagher or Mary Harkin once or twice in 5 years.

Oh yeah, and the yes side accusing the no side of scare tactics is a bit rich.

What do you mean by usual tactic? The vast majority of Yes posters on this thread are decrying this as nonsense!

K-9

eamo12 wrote: »

Oh yeah, and the yes side accusing the no side of scare tactics is a bit rich.

And then you go and post that last post?