Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Declan Ganley wants a United States of Europe

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,067 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Tarobot wrote: »
    What? So the fact that the EU doesn't interfere with the sovereign ratification process of each individual member states means the EU is more undemocratic? I'm sorry that makes no sense at all.


    Where on earth are you getting this? First of all, what exactly is a semi-detached decision? I don't even know what that means.

    In my own opinion, the fact that the EU is not injecting more direct decision making abilities for the citizens of each country and is instead electing for a more central role is undemocratic, no matter how it's dressed up as a streamlining initiative.

    I don't know if the term 'semi-detached decision' exists, but it fits in with what's happening...

    ... accountability will remain with us (for electing our MEPs), while deals are made via QMV, which effectively silences smaller nations


  • Options
    #63
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    its not undemocratic to ratify international treaties through national parliaments rather than refernda. after all we do not pull laws on inheritance, land law or any other complicated legislation to the popular vote. it would be crazy to, thats why we have elected representatives (and no i dont trust alot of them either but thats why i voted for opposition candidates) thats their job.

    i think that anyone who has really researched the treaty and established laws affected by it realise what a job it is to do so. i have a job and it takes up allot of my time. finger picking my way through international treaties is not my ideal way to spend my leisure time. but i have to because i have a vote on it.


  • Options
    #64
    Tarobot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 181 ✭✭Tarobot


    My name is URL wrote: »
    In my own opinion, the fact that the EU is not injecting more direct decision making abilities for the citizens of each country and is instead electing for a more central role is undemocratic, no matter how it's dressed up as a streamlining initiative.
    OK firstly, the very idea that the EU tell other countries how to ratify an international treaty, contrary to that country's own constitutional requirements is incredibly undemocratic.

    Secondly, what are you talking about when you say "a more central role"? (We are talking about ratification procedures here: if you want to talk about something else, please state that clearly).

    My name is URL wrote: »
    I don't know if the term 'semi-detached decision' exists, but it fits in with what's happening...

    ... accountability will remain with us (for electing our MEPs), while deals are made via QMV, which effectively silences smaller nations
    Sorry but that makes ZERO sense. Sentences like this just irritate me SO much because No voters just throw out these ridiculous, baseless claims and then the YES side has to spend time refuting these stupid, stupid claims. GRR

    -The new QMV rules (double majority) increase the voice of smaller nations by introducing a blocking mechanism needing only 4 countries. Ireland's voting weight remains at 2% when both criteria are taken into consideration.
    -Ireland loses only 8 vetoes and gains 1. The loss of vetoes are in areas such as the the mutual recognition of qualifications. (Oh no..Whatever will we do without our veto on the mutual recognition of qualifications. All hope is lost.)


  • Options
    #65
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    This thread is here to put to rest every single argument about the YES side wanting a federal state or empire or anything else ridiculous along the lines


    here we have the beloved "leader" of the NO side rambling on about how he wants to turn EU into a copy of the US
    /

    So, because one of the main No Campaigners wants a federal EU, that means that none of the Yes Campaigners do? Logic much? I like coffee and will be voting Yes. Ergo, Declan Ganley is not a coffee drinker. Come on.

    Incidentally, I want a federal EU and will be voting yes. Boo. Hiss. New World Order. Etc.


  • Options
    #66
    Furious-Dave
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭Furious-Dave


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    So, because one of the main No Campaigners wants a federal EU, that means that none of the Yes Campaigners do? Logic much? I like coffee and will be voting Yes. Ergo, Declan Ganley is not a coffee drinker. Come on.

    Incidentally, I want a federal EU and will be voting yes. Boo. Hiss. New World Order. Etc.

    I think the point being made is that one of the reasons that some of the No side are using to promote a No vote is that Lisbon is a step closer to a federal Europe, when that is exactly what the man considered to be the "leader" of the No side wants.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Tarobot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 181 ✭✭Tarobot


    Furious-Dave wrote: »
    I think the point being made is that one of the reasons that some of the No side are using to promote a No vote is that Lisbon is a step closer to a federal Europe, when that is exactly what the man considered to be the "leader" of the No side wants.

    To be honest, the No side constantly contradict each other. I was just at the debate in UCD with Ganley, Mary Lou, Brian Hickey, McKenna and some guy from the Socialists. They were all contradicting each other all the time about what their exact problem was with the Lisbon Treaty.

    Anyway, the YES side won hands down in the end :)


  • Options
    #68
    pog it
    Registered Users Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭pog it


    The Yes side didn't win on last weeks Primetime debates, i.e. Ganley V. O'Leary, McDonald V. Pat Cox and Martin V. Joe Higgins.

    In every debate the No advocators won hands down. That is widely accepted.

    Why won't Cowen come out and debate himself against Ganley?

    He knew he hasn't got it in him to win over Ganley. Poor O'Leary has done so much damage to his reputation after the debate. I felt sorry for him during it :D well only a bit ..


  • Options
    #69
    Tarobot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 181 ✭✭Tarobot


    pog it wrote: »
    The Yes side didn't win on last weeks Primetime debates, i.e. Ganley V. O'Leary, McDonald V. Pat Cox and Martin V. Joe Higgins.

    In every debate the No advocators won hands down. That is widely accepted.

    Another 'just so' argument - getting really tired of them! Who accepts widely?


  • Options
    #70
    Furious-Dave
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭Furious-Dave


    Tarobot wrote: »
    To be honest, the No side constantly contradict each other. I was just at the debate in UCD with Ganley, Mary Lou, Brian Hickey, McKenna and some guy from the Socialists. They were all contradicting each other all the time about what their exact problem was with the Lisbon Treaty.

    Anyway, the YES side won hands down in the end :)

    The reason why they contradict each other is because they all have their own different agendas for seeking a No vote. If they had any sense they would organise under one voice, probably Ganleys.


  • Options
    #71
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Furious-Dave wrote: »
    The reason why they contradict each other is because they all have their own different agendas for seeking a No vote. If they had any sense they would organise under one voice, probably Ganleys.

    I suspect it's as much to do with the randomness of post-rationalisation than specific agendas in many cases. Many euro-skeptical types will decide they want a no vote, then figure out why.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement