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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Secret Federalists

  • 03-10-2009 11:55pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,879 ✭✭✭


    So, yes won the day, yay etc.

    I've kept my opinions fairly close to my chest the last few weeks. Argued the more reasonable arguements for the treaty etc etc but secretly, in my heart, I'm a Federalist. I've loved the idea of a pan-European, if not state, then at least more substantial political body than the EU currently stands as, since I was first able to comprehend this whole politics malarky.

    Now, not for some wierd WW3 fantasies of EU vs Megacity1 vs SinoCit in 100 years time but because I honestly believe that the course of human history will be marked by greater and greater political hegemony and that for me at least is a Good Thing.

    So who else voted yes because they actually do want to be ruled from Brussels?


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 877 ✭✭✭Mario007


    Nevore wrote: »
    So, yes won the day, yay etc.

    I've kept my opinions fairly close to my chest the last few weeks. Argued the more reasonable arguements for the treaty etc etc but secretly, in my heart, I'm a Federalist. I've loved the idea of a pan-European, if not state, then at least more substantial political body than the EU currently stands as, since I was first able to comprehend this whole politics malarky.

    Now, not for some wierd WW3 fantasies of EU vs Megacity1 vs SinoCit in 100 years time but because I honestly believe that the course of human history will be marked by greater and greater political hegemony and that for me at least is a Good Thing.

    So who else voted yes because they actually do want to be ruled from Brussels?

    i don't think eu is ready to be federalist and i don't think it will be ready for another 100 years at least. there are too many relatively new states in the eu who only got their independence recently so USE wont work.
    having said that i'd be sympathetic towards the idea...a litte...but still i like the way eu will be run under lisbon. i think eu is a model for every union of nations how it should be run


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,879 ✭✭✭Coriolanus


    Oh, definitely not before I'm an old old man, no. I didn't mean that I voted Yes because it was going to turn us into the USE overnight. :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    I don't know. It's definitely something that is way outside the scope of our lifetimes tbh. In the long run it probably wouldn't be such a bad idea in theory but in practice would lead to more strife than not (depending on the countries involved, yes UK that means you ). That said I do consider myself as having a very strong European identity, and definitely have lots of opinions on what the EU should do etc. tbh I love being an EU citizen.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    I'd love there to be a proper United Europe, and ultimately, once we (as humanity) cop the **** on, a United World. Not in an NWO "lets control everybody" everybody way. I've always thought of it as natural progression. We've moved from tribes all the way up to nation states so far so it seems logical that further unification follow.

    There's a lot of obstacles in the way though. Nationalism will be on thats hard to overcome. But one day, maybe.

    But I know that nothing like that will ever happen in my lifetime. Probably not for centuries yet. And in case anyone jumps on me, Lisbon doesn't make this closer to reality. And my dreams for the future had no bearing on my decision on Lisbon.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Dinner wrote: »
    And in case anyone jumps on me, Lisbon doesn't make this closer to reality. And my dreams for the future had no bearing on my decision on Lisbon.

    +1 meant to include this in mine. If Lisbon hadn't been passed I actually feared there would be a move towards a 'federation' between some of the member states within the EU, and ultimately that the EU would actually collapse in the next few years. tbh it's still a fear I have, and will be until Lisbon is fully ratified and operational.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,118 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Dinner wrote: »
    There's a lot of obstacles in the way though. Nationalism will be on thats hard to overcome. But one day, maybe

    How will it be overcome? By forcing people into a world in which they do not want to live?

    How could that world ever be considered a United one?

    I hate the idea to be perfectly honest. National identity is hugely important imo, as was tribal identity back in the day


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 86 ✭✭granite man


    Nevore wrote: »
    So, yes won the day, yay etc.

    I've kept my opinions fairly close to my chest the last few weeks. Argued the more reasonable arguements for the treaty etc etc but secretly, in my heart, I'm a Federalist. I've loved the idea of a pan-European, if not state, then at least more substantial political body than the EU currently stands as, since I was first able to comprehend this whole politics malarky.

    Now, not for some wierd WW3 fantasies of EU vs Megacity1 vs SinoCit in 100 years time but because I honestly believe that the course of human history will be marked by greater and greater political hegemony and that for me at least is a Good Thing.

    So who else voted yes because they actually do want to be ruled from Brussels?

    I voted no because I completely disagree with being ruled by Brussels. Our lots bad but at least we can vote them out and change things if the will was there, that won't be the case once this is ratified.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,559 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Nevore wrote: »
    So who else voted yes because they actually do want to be ruled from Brussels?

    I did, but ultimately I want the European parliament to be the main legislative body in europe whereby MEPs are like US senators with dail eireann being more like a powerful local authority.

    I also think that, logically, a united European army would be a good thing:
    1) it would be significantly cheaper than every member state maintaining an expensive and largely redundant army
    2) it would turn war between memberstates from being highly unlikely to being administratively impossible, which is the ultimate aim of the European project
    3) it would allow countries like Germany and France to have greater staying power over the likes of the UK when they want to, for example, decide to invade Iraq on scant evidence.

    By and large, the better legislative innovations have come from the EU and we have time and again proved ourselves to be incapable of running our government responsibly (granted other EU memberstates have been found wanting from time to time, but Ireland seems never to have learned from its mistakes and seem doomed to repeat them). So even if more power to Europe means that domestic politicians have to fight that bit harder to get things done, it will have a good impact on Ireland.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    How will it be overcome? By forcing people into a world in which they do not want to live?

    Well, thats why it would take such a long time. It wouldn't be a case of forcing us, that just wouldn't work. It would just require time for peoples opinions to change.

    I hate the idea to be perfectly honest. National identity is hugely important imo, as was tribal identity back in the day

    National identity is important to you today. 2 thousand years ago tribal identity would have been important to you. Somewhere along the line tribal identity 'evolved' into national identity. In another 1000 years national identity might merge into continental identity and then into human/World identity.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    no

    simply no

    A federalist EU, will turn it more into a populist system and seeing as that is what got us our current government I rather avoid having the entire EU political enviroment get selected because one party ran a snazzy campaign across europe. Its easier when its 27 different populist governments working for what best suits their own electorate and comprimising between each other.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    It would have it's benefits but I'm not crazy on the idea now.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    no

    simply no

    A federalist EU, will turn it more into a populist system and seeing as that is what got us our current government I rather avoid having the entire EU political enviroment get selected because one party ran a snazzy campaign across europe. Its easier when its 27 different populist governments working for what best suits their own electorate and comprimising between each other.

    True, the 27 countries are the checks and balances in the system.

    If that goes and it becomes more democratic, it will lead to populism and we've seen what that means yesterday and last year.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    K-9 wrote: »
    True, the 27 countries are the checks and balances in the system.

    If that goes and it becomes more democratic, it will lead to populism and we've seen what that means yesterday and last year.

    Ah sure we're talking a hundred+ years and hypothetically into the future here. On an immediate level I do believe the Constitutional amendment requirement for ratifying treaties will really have to be looked at, the states should work out a uniform ratification process across the union.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    Nevore wrote: »
    So who else voted yes because they actually do want to be ruled from Brussels?
    I hope I'm not misrepresenting BlitzKrieg and K-9 here, but would it be true to say that you don't want to be ruled from Brussels for fear that it might end up being too democratic?
    K-9 wrote: »
    If that goes and it becomes more democratic, it will lead to populism and we've seen what that means yesterday and last year.
    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    A federalist EU, will turn it more into a populist system


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 86 ✭✭granite man


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    I hope I'm not misrepresenting BlitzKrieg and K-9 here, but would it be true to say that you don't want to be ruled from Brussels for fear that it might end up being too democratic?

    Sounded like that to me as well. There could be some major disappointments with the juicy yes vote, ie, the juice runs out, a bit like wrigleys then they get fined for not disposing of it correctly.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    I hope I'm not misrepresenting BlitzKrieg and K-9 here, but would it be true to say that you don't want to be ruled from Brussels for fear that it might end up being too democratic?


    Populism, not democracy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism) I have nothing against an EU that would be democratic, but I would worry about how a pan european election campaign would be run. (it would also go a part of the way of explaining my position on the referendum that just passed and the european election.)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    I hope I'm not misrepresenting BlitzKrieg and K-9 here, but would it be true to say that you don't want to be ruled from Brussels for fear that it might end up being too democratic?

    No. I think the checks and balances are the 27 Govts. We all hear about how difficult it can be to get agreement on Treaties and the problem the EU faces is reaching that agreement.

    That is the brake on a more federal Europe.

    What some overlook is Govts. don't want a Federal Europe.

    Personally, I was comfortable in the changes to the QMV this time.

    On the next Treaty, changes to QMV, if any, will be my first concern.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    On the next Treaty, changes to QMV, if any, will be my first concern.

    pesonnally I wont make my decision until I know whats being changed to QMV if anything is.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    I hope I'm not misrepresenting BlitzKrieg and K-9 here, but would it be true to say that you don't want to be ruled from Brussels for fear that it might end up being too democratic?

    Well the issue for Irish people would always be that we'd have far far less say in a truly representative EU democratic superstate than we would in the present set up. It's why I can't ever really see it happening in my lifetime. The smaller countries (and the bigger ones) would stand to lose far too much by such a union.

    This doesn't of course mean that we couldn't integrate further in other ways and on other topics but a true EU State Parliament would not be something many if not most pro-EU people in this country would want, myself included.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 86 ✭✭granite man


    nesf wrote: »
    Well the issue for Irish people would always be that we'd have far far less say in a truly representative EU democratic superstate than we would in the present set up. It's why I can't ever really see it happening in my lifetime. The smaller countries (and the bigger ones) would stand to lose far too much by such a union.

    This doesn't of course mean that we couldn't integrate further in other ways and on other topics but a true EU State Parliament would not be something many if not most pro-EU people in this country would want, myself included.

    So you voted yes anyway??? One day you will discover the implications of this.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    So you voted yes anyway??? One day you will discover the implications of this.

    I think this can be summed up in one word *facepalm*

    Sorry to lower to tone and all but I couldn't think of a better way to do it. There really is no point sometimes.:o


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    pesonnally I wont make my decision until I know whats being changed to QMV if anything is.

    Exactly. You've hit the nail on the head there and the problem Federalists face.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    So you voted yes anyway??? One day you will discover the implications of this.


    I can understand quoting someoe out of context if its something they said 5 years ago or was translated from a different language.

    But highlighting the 2nd half of a sentance and ignoring the statement before hand is a new one for me...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Daftendirekt


    I hope it never happens.

    Not for any nationalist reasons, of course. I fully support the increasingly closer union of the EU member states, and am incredibly pro-Europe (something I've learned about myself over over the course of the Lisbon debate).

    I just think that as separate states, we'll always be an equal partner with the rest of the EU, but in a federal EU we'd simply be a fringe state with very little influence.

    Interesting to see how many people are coming out of the closet now though. ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    I hope it never happens.

    Not for any nationalist reasons, of course. I fully support the increasingly closer union of the EU member states, and am incredibly pro-Europe (something I've learned about myself over over the course of the Lisbon debate).

    I just think that as separate states, we'll always be an equal partner with the rest of the EU, but in a federal EU we'd simply be a fringe state with very little influence.
    Interesting. Did you vote Yes to Lisbon?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Daftendirekt


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    Interesting. Did you vote Yes to Lisbon?

    Yep.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    nesf wrote: »
    This doesn't of course mean that we couldn't integrate further in other ways and on other topics but a true EU State Parliament would not be something many if not most pro-EU people in this country would want, myself included.
    I'm not sure there is such thing as integration without some sort of pooling of sovereignty into a state-like entity at least in the areas that integration occurs. That state-like entity need not be democratic, for example unelected officials may make many of the decisions. I'm wondering is that what people want here?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    I won't say that it'll never happen, but with the present process of integration it won't.

    Ultimately, there is absolutely no way that countries such as Germany, the UK or France (let alone the rest) would gleefully allow their national identity to be overridden by a supernational entity such as the EU. For something like that, we would require a serious socio-economic shock to the system, such as a war, to make it viable.

    The best and closest historical example of something like this is Switzerland. Up until Napoleon, the old Swiss Confederation was very a loose one of independent sovereign states. While they tended not to go to war against each other (at least since the Reformation), they would often send mercenaries to fight on opposing sides in Europe's other wars, and thus had no coherent common foreign policy. Indeed, no real common policies to speak of. Not even a common currency.

    In 1798 Napoleon invaded and easily overran the independent, sovereign and ultimately completely uncoordinated states of Switzerland and established the Helvetic Republic (and introduced the first Swiss Francs). Ultimately, Napoleon and the Helvetic Republic fell and things returned to business as usual, however the experience of the Helvetic Republic and Napoleon's easy conquest remained and eventually the Swiss decided to adopt many aspects of a centralized state by 1848 - forming what is now the modern Switzerland.

    The point to the above history lesson, is that pre-Napoleonic Switzerland was composed of numerous fiercely independent states that while happy to have a loose series of treaties with each other, had no interest in allowing their national identities to be overridden by any supernational entity - just like the EU - and they probably would have continued with this view indefinitely, were it not for extraordinary events imposed upon them that caused them to re-evaluate their position.

    And the EU will almost certainly do the same - will never become a federal state, unless some extraordinary event convinces the member states that it is in their self interest to do so.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,118 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Dinner wrote: »
    Well, thats why it would take such a long time. It wouldn't be a case of forcing us, that just wouldn't work. It would just require time for peoples opinions to change.




    National identity is important to you today. 2 thousand years ago tribal identity would have been important to you. Somewhere along the line tribal identity 'evolved' into national identity. In another 1000 years national identity might merge into continental identity and then into human/World identity.

    As things are now, there's a natural progression in politics and and socio-economics. If that progression eventually leads to a one-world government then that's fair enough, still not something I'd be keen on seeing however.

    But what about when it comes about? What happens to natural progression then?

    Wouldn't the entire global economy begin to stagnate?


  • Advertisement
  • Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Does this answer your question?

    3280857417_f4ed07dba5_b.jpg

    DeV.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    What you are trying to argue here is that it took an external invasion to unify the Swiss. This argument works, imo, if the two situations are comparable.
    The best and closest historical example of something like this is Switzerland. Up until Napoleon, the old Swiss Confederation was very a loose one of independent sovereign states. While they tended not to go to war against each other (at least since the Reformation), they would often send mercenaries to fight on opposing sides in Europe's other wars, and thus had no coherent common foreign policy. Indeed, no real common policies to speak of. Not even a common currency.
    This is where the example fails. We have gone well beyond what the Swiss Confederation before their invasion yet there has been no invasion on the EU acting as the trigger to get us to this point. The Swiss example might have worked at the very early stages the EU.

    Personally I don't know where the EU is going, but I'm not seeing limiting processes kick in. Maybe the French and Germans will put a stop to it at a certain point but we certainly haven't reached that point yet and no on knows when it will be reached.

    We have already gone a small way towards federalism, imo, though it is politically incorrect to call it that. Where I disagree with some of the posters on this thread is that I don't think wherever the EU is going needs to have a democratic core. I'm still wondering if that is what people see as the ideal EU: something with more central power than at present, but with appointed officials making the decisions?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    out of a strange curiosity...

    does anyone know how a federal state within another federal state would work?

    just wondering about Germany.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Nevore wrote: »
    So, yes won the day, yay etc.

    I've kept my opinions fairly close to my chest the last few weeks. Argued the more reasonable arguements for the treaty etc etc but secretly, in my heart, I'm a Federalist. I've loved the idea of a pan-European, if not state, then at least more substantial political body than the EU currently stands as, since I was first able to comprehend this whole politics malarky.

    Now, not for some wierd WW3 fantasies of EU vs Megacity1 vs SinoCit in 100 years time but because I honestly believe that the course of human history will be marked by greater and greater political hegemony and that for me at least is a Good Thing.

    So who else voted yes because they actually do want to be ruled from Brussels?

    No, I have to say I'm fine with the current hybrid. There are things it makes sense to do at a European level, and things that make sense to do at a national level (there are also things it makes sense to do at a local level, but we don't do those things), so I'm happy enough that there are structures to produce that result. I don't see any case for reversing the flow of legitimacy within the EU - the nations should remain, as they currently are, the "masters of the treaties".

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    This argument works, imo, if the two situations are comparable... This is where the example fails.
    I disagree. Comparable means does not mean that they are an exact match. We may have the Euro, while no such currency existed in Switzerland, but neither is the Euro a common currency yet. There may also be a greater web of interdependent laws and regulations in the EU, but what is ultimately comparable is that both are/were composed of independent states that were loosely coordinated, often in competition with each other and none of whom wanted to lose sovereignty.

    So in reality we've not really gone too far beyond what the old Swiss Confederation achieved, in this regard.

    What you're suggesting is a creeping unification scenario as was seen with Germany as it transitioned from German Confederation to German Reich. For this to occur, would require one dominant state. In the German example, this was Prussia, who's only real potential rival was Austria - which split from the confederation, leaving Prussia dominant.

    Were the EU like this I would agree, but there are at least three potential major rivals - Germany, France and the UK - or more if you include Italy, Spain or Poland. This more closely follows the Swiss situation that had a number of rival cantons (notably Zurich, Bern and Geneva), rather than one dominant one that swallowed up the rest.

    Ultimately you have to ask yourself would Germany, France or the UK allow control of their foreign policy to be taken over by the other two, or would either France or the UK allow their permanent seats on the UN Security Council become 'EU' seats, because this is what you are in effect suggesting they would want.

    And as things stand that's simply not going to happen.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 97 ✭✭finbar10


    I won't say that it'll never happen, but with the present process of integration it won't.

    Ultimately, there is absolutely no way that countries such as Germany, the UK or France (let alone the rest) would gleefully allow their national identity to be overridden by a supernational entity such as the EU. For something like that, we would require a serious socio-economic shock to the system, such as a war, to make it viable.

    The best and closest historical example of something like this is Switzerland. Up until Napoleon, the old Swiss Confederation was very a loose one of independent sovereign states. While they tended not to go to war against each other (at least since the Reformation), they would often send mercenaries to fight on opposing sides in Europe's other wars, and thus had no coherent common foreign policy. Indeed, no real common policies to speak of. Not even a common currency.

    In 1798 Napoleon invaded and easily overran the independent, sovereign and ultimately completely uncoordinated states of Switzerland and established the Helvetic Republic (and introduced the first Swiss Francs). Ultimately, Napoleon and the Helvetic Republic fell and things returned to business as usual, however the experience of the Helvetic Republic and Napoleon's easy conquest remained and eventually the Swiss decided to adopt many aspects of a centralized state by 1848 - forming what is now the modern Switzerland.

    The point to the above history lesson, is that pre-Napoleonic Switzerland was composed of numerous fiercely independent states that while happy to have a loose series of treaties with each other, had no interest in allowing their national identities to be overridden by any supernational entity - just like the EU - and they probably would have continued with this view indefinitely, were it not for extraordinary events imposed upon them that caused them to re-evaluate their position.

    And the EU will almost certainly do the same - will never become a federal state, unless some extraordinary event convinces the member states that it is in their self interest to do so.

    That's an interesting parallel. I am a big admirer of the Swiss democratic setup (even if it's not without its flaws). I really do hope the EU evolves much more in this direction. And yes I can't see the EU going down a federal route for now. There's really no proper European demos yet anyway.

    But the governments in Europe are quite keen on more integration. They either don't want to or can't (due to their electorates) go down a federal route. Therefore integration seems to be mostly going down a route where more power is being given to primarily intergovernmental EU institutions. Lisbon certainly gives the council more power. Most of the other EU institutions other than the parliament are primarily intergovernmental in nature as well. The commission is composed of the appointees of the national political leaders. Even the judges of the ECJ are appointed by the national governments.

    I'm uncomfortable with this trend. I consider politicians to be something of a necessary evil. We couldn't function without them. But that doesn't mean we should entirely trust them. They need careful watching! :) Something I don't really like about the current EU setup is its lack of proper checks and balances. That was the primary reason for my no vote yesterday. I must admit to being disappointed at the result but anyway that's how the people voted.

    The US federal system is well constructed: Senate v Congress v Executive. Supreme court justices have to go before the Senate before being appointed. The primarily intergovernmental nature of the EU means the national leaders collectively have far more power than they would have individually. I think this power is poorly counterbalanced by a weak and incoherent European parliament and a fragmented body of national parliaments (already likely to be in the pocket of their corresponding ministers/prime ministers). I think this is where the perception about the unaccountability of EU institutions arises.

    I think a stronger European Parliament would be a good idea. I don't think it would be any more populist than existing national parliaments. I don't feel the increased codecision powers are anyway near enough. It could be potentially a far more coherent and powerful check on the other intergovernmental institutions. The extra powers to the national parliaments are more symbolic than real. I really don't like the commission. It's even less accountable than the council. It's potentially too prone to lobbying. To be honest I feel the commission should just be merged with the parliament.

    The EU tries to balance the principles of equality of states versus equality of individual citizens. Currently the intergovernmental council tries to do both at the same time. I'd rather that the council be the institution that just embodies equality of states. Germany would have the same vote as Malta. Maybe requiring 2/3 of countries to agree to a proposal for it to pass would be about right. I'd prefer the parliament to embody the equality of citizens principle (and get rid of degressive proportionality). And allow it to also propose legislation. Maybe just a simple majority would be required here. And allow the parliament a veto on all appointments to the ECJ.

    The Swiss federal government is deliberately kept to a minimum. The Cantons have whatever powers not given to the federal institutions. I'd also rather wish this minimalist approach was much more strongly incorporated into the EU treaties.

    I'm not sure the current rush towards giving more power (especially population based QMV type voting) to the council is the right approach for the European project to take. I would have prefered the powers of the parliament were gradually increased first. Allow it to block council proposals in more areas with a simple rather than an absolute majority. Allow it to block ECJ appointments. And allow it to propose legislation in its own right by merging it with the commission. That would have been much easier to do if more unanimity had been kept in the council. And then if a European demos had gradually developed it would have been much easier and more palatable for the requirement for unanimity in the council to be lowered to 2/3 of countries or whatever. And this would have been even more palatable if strong restrictions were placed on how much power the central EU institutions could take on relative to the national parliaments.

    I fear under the current system the bigger countries will be reluctant to ever give up their stronger voting weights in the council. And the parliament may therefore never be allowed to become a more effective and powerful check on the council. In my opinion the council is being given too much power too quickly in a way that is not particularly accountable, and I really don't feel European citizens are being brought along entirely willingly either. I feel it's all happening a bit too much too fast and I'm not entirely convinced the best structures are in place.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    Ultimately you have to ask yourself would Germany, France or the UK allow control of their foreign policy to be taken over by the other two, or would either France or the UK allow their permanent seats on the UN Security Council become 'EU' seats, because this is what you are in effect suggesting they would want.
    Back 15 years ago, would France or Germany or the UK have agreed to what we will now instituted with Lisbon? Of course not. The process at work here is that each step towards unification brings about the argument and conditions for further unification.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,044 ✭✭✭AugustusMaximus


    While I would considering myself pro Europe and somewhat of a federalist, I can see that this is prob the last treaty for at least 10 years.

    I don't think the appetite for more European integration is out there among the people.

    However, I thing going further into this century, further integration will be needed to keep Europe relevant in a future world which will be dominated by superstates such as the USA, China and India.

    More federalism you would imagine would bring cost savings accross the board. For instance, you would get a lot more army for your money if there was a single European army rather than having 27 seperate ones each being funded sperately.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    finbar10 wrote: »
    That's an interesting parallel. I am a big admirer of the Swiss democratic setup (even if it's not without its flaws). I really do hope the EU evolves much more in this direction. And yes I can't see the EU going down a federal route for now. There's really no proper European demos yet anyway.
    That's assuming that federalism has something to do with democracy at the federal level.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    Back 15 years ago, would France or Germany or the UK have agreed to what we will now instituted with Lisbon? Of course not.
    Please qualify the specifics of that claim.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    Nevore wrote: »
    So who else voted yes because they actually do want to be ruled from Brussels?

    I'm all for a united Europe but I didn't like the structures put in place by the Lisbon treaty. And since I was only eligible for a vote due to a 'system error' anyway I couldn't make myself vote at all. Def'ny not 'Yes'.

    Also when I heard about the possibility of Tony Blair becoming the first European President I learned something about myself. I'm not as ready for Europe as I thought I would be. I wasn't comfortable at all with the thought of being presided by an Englishman and surely not by that working class traitor & war criminal.
    So I would be happy if things stayed the way they are at the moment but on a historical scale I'd like to see it happen - some day.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    Please qualify the specifics of that claim.

    I'd believe it.
    Only 20 years ago the Brits nearly had a fit with regards to the German reunification. Rumour has it there is secret clauses written down 'somewhere' which effectively still restrict German sovereignty to a certain extent. <takes tin foil hat off>


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    finbar10 wrote: »
    I think a stronger European Parliament would be a good idea.

    I do too, which is why I voted Yes yesterday. Lisbon increases the EU Parliaments oversight on legislation from 80% of legislation to 95%. It increases the oversight on the EU budget from 20% to 100%. Surely this is the kind of thing you desire?

    Thats not the only check or balance. Lisbon gives national parliaments a bigger say. Yes, you are right in saying that in many cases the council of ministers will control parliament back home. But that doesn't change the fact that if theres legislation you disagree with you can now lobby both your MEP and your TD. And try and make them vote against their party-colleague who is on the CoM.

    And then theres the citizens initiative. I concede its weak but it has to be otherwise extreme fanatics like Coir would start getting a hold of Europe. Your bound to find 1 million nutcases across Europe. But the commission is forced to consider it.

    The charter of fundamental rights enhances your position under the ECJ. If you feel EU law goes against your rights you can now, after Lisbon, take a case to the courts arguing same.

    I just dont see how you could be for checks and balances and yet against Lisbon. :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    I'm a federalist, I think the EU should become a federal state.

    Don't think I've kept that a secret though...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    realcam wrote: »
    Also when I heard about the possibility of Tony Blair becoming the first European President I learned something about myself. I'm not as ready for Europe as I thought I would be. I wasn't comfortable at all with the thought of being presided by an Englishman and surely not by that working class traitor & war criminal..

    What about the last two times he held the post? Did the sky fall in? Personally I'd rather see a German get the job. Or a Belgian. Verhofstadt ftw.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    I'm not opposed to a federal Europe in principle, but I don't think it would work. Not any time remotely soon at least. Until such a time as racism and nationalism are things of the past (to name just two examples), I would probably vote against it.

    It is an appealing ideal though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 283 ✭✭Mr. SS


    i did, im definatly a federalist. it would be easy for us to maintain our identity in a federal europe because we are an island with a large diaspora particularly in america which keeps us in peoples minds through movies and tv. it would be harder for the smaller continental countries like belgium or slovakia, so it is really up to them how deep we want to go, now that lisbon is passed we'll never have to ask voters again!!! yay!!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 430 ✭✭Steviemak


    I love being an EU citizen and I am very happy with the current shape of the EU but I don't want it to be a Federal State. Ireland has disproportionate influence at the minute and I can see this being severely affected under a Federal model.

    I think the EU is totally unique and will continue to be unique. It doesn't need to follow a older political model but continue to create a new one.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    now that lisbon is passed we'll never have to ask voters again!!! yay!!!

    hmmm I am going to regret this but how did you come to this conclusion?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 97 ✭✭finbar10


    turgon wrote: »
    I do too, which is why I voted Yes yesterday. Lisbon increases the EU Parliaments oversight on legislation from 80% of legislation to 95%. It increases the oversight on the EU budget from 20% to 100%. Surely this is the kind of thing you desire?

    It does gain some powers. The gain of full rather than partial control of the budget is good. It can amend legislation and has some oversight powers. But it's still easily the weakest of all the EU bodies. In some ways it's somewhat like our Seanad in terms of relative power to the Dáil.
    Thats not the only check or balance. Lisbon gives national parliaments a bigger say. Yes, you are right in saying that in many cases the council of ministers will control parliament back home. But that doesn't change the fact that if theres legislation you disagree with you can now lobby both your MEP and your TD. And try and make them vote against their party-colleague who is on the CoM.
    It's a weak power. National parliaments can only object on grounds of subsidiarity. If a third object the commission may consider it, but is not obliged to give more than an explanation. A very high bar is set for definitely blocking anything: a majority of national parliaments and either 55% of the council or a majority in the EP.

    Anyway, it's rare a prime minister and parliament are going to disagree! I'd be happier if a third of parliaments could actually block any legislation. But even there I'd wonder if that would really ever happen. I'd doubt that national parliaments could ever really be a good counterbalance to the power of the council.
    And then theres the citizens initiative. I concede its weak but it has to be otherwise extreme fanatics like Coir would start getting a hold of Europe. Your bound to find 1 million nutcases across Europe. But the commission is forced to consider it.
    The citizen's initiative is one of the most attractive parts of Swiss democracy. The Swiss have a nice sprinkling of direct democracy in their system. It's something I'd really love to see in the Irish constitution. I wouldn't say there's no downsides. Switzerland was one of the very last places in Europe to give the vote to women. Swiss men just kept refusing in referenda to give them the vote! The sexist pigs! :D But otherwise it has worked very well there.

    The problem with the citizen's initiative in Lisbon is that the European treaties certainly aren't yet on a secure enough basis to allow European citizen's to tinker with them in such a way. You'll notice they aren't allowing European referenda on such initiatives! Even holding European wide referenda would require alternations to the constitutions of a number of countries. I can't see any way such initiatives could be made mandatory. It'll always be at the discretion of the commission. I'm sure they'll get lots of wacky initiatives. I think this provision may become something of a joke. It's likely some Europhile groups will propose some initiatives the commission likes which will then be made into law. The rest will be ignored. My cynical side says this is mostly just window dressing to cover over accountability issues in Lisbon.
    The charter of fundamental rights enhances your position under the ECJ. If you feel EU law goes against your rights you can now, after Lisbon, take a case to the courts arguing same.
    The Charter will increase the power of the ECJ and the its judges which are appointed by the leaders of the EU countries (who probably with their own political agendas for the EU in mind when selecting these). I've mixed feelings about this. In the US states can have widely differing laws and stances on marriage, social issues, the death penalty, gun control etc.. Some have gay marriage, some don't. There's quite a bit of diversity. I hope the ECJ won't use the Charter to try to overly homogenize laws across the Union in some kind of expansionary drive.
    I just dont see how you could be for checks and balances and yet against Lisbon. :)
    The European parliament becomes marginally more powerful. The council becomes much more powerful and less gridlocked through the removal of vetoes in many areas and the rejigging of QMV. European prime ministers and ministers (particularly in the bigger states) can exercise more power with minimal censure from their own parliaments. And the European parliament ermains still too weak and incoherent to act as a check on them either.

    The council has an interesting structure. It would be as if all the governors of the US states jointly sat on a single federal institution which simultaneously combined most powers of the Senate (representation by state), Congress (representation according to population) and President (executive) into one body, with perhaps a secondary (EP like) chamber with certain blocking and oversight powers. I'm still not convinced this is a good idea.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    prinz wrote: »
    What about the last two times he held the post? Did the sky fall in? Personally I'd rather see a German get the job. Or a Belgian. Verhofstadt ftw.

    No but personally I'd like to see someone in that post who has less of a despicable record. This man belongs in prison, not in office.

    Belgian would be fine, or Swedish or so

    Edit: Hey, I must have gotten really on your wrong side , did I?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement