Should Ireland Leave the EU?

View

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well to a certain extent I'd say you are correct. Criticism of the two would primarily, I assume, be due to an antagonism against a similar sort of thing happening here (which it already did with Brian Cowen)

That sounds like you have a problem with our constitution as well as those of Italy & Greece. Are there any others you want changed as well?

RandomName2

View wrote: »

That sounds like you have a problem with our constitution as well as those of Italy & Greece. Are there any others you want changed as well?

I never said I had a problem with the constitutions of Greece or Italy (I frankly don't give a toss about them). I believe our constitution can be improved upon but I demonstrably have less issues with it than the pro eu-integrationists on this forum. :pac:

View

RandomName2 wrote: »

I never said I had a problem with the constitutions of Greece or Italy (I frankly don't give a toss about them). I believe our constitution can be improved upon but I demonstrably have less issues with it than the pro eu-integrationists on this forum. :pac:

Well, so far you have criticised the democratic elections of the Premiers of Italy, Greece & most recently Ireland, so clearly you seem to disagree with a basic fundamental of parliamentary democracy - namely, that parliaments "elect" their premiers (or more correctly, the premiers are appointed after their parliament approves their nomination) in accordance with the provisions of their respective constitutions.

Perhaps, you'd rather we have a Presidential system of government?

RandomName2

View wrote: »

Well, so far you have criticised the democratic elections of the Premiers of Italy, Greece & most recently Ireland,

No I haven't

View wrote: »

so clearly you seem to disagree with a basic fundamental of parliamentary democracy - namely, that parliaments "elect" their premiers (or more correctly, the premiers are appointed after their parliament approves their nomination) in accordance with the provisions of their respective constitutions.

Perhaps, you'd rather we have a Presidential system of government?

I suggest you read my posts as I am the only person in this thread defending this kind of representative democracy in relation to Ireland. I believe that it could be better, sure (having a non-token president would indeed be a possible improvement) but I ultimately think (and being on-topic) that vesting power in the Oireachtas if preferable to that of the three governmental bodies of the EU. Why do you not think so?

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Look, it's majority rules and "all politics are local". In fact the only real criticism that I can see you being able to land on the system is that local TDs, if they are appointed as ministers, have powers that naturally extend beyond the mandate granted by their constituency. I can see a number of ways to reform this - but somehow I think the main critics of this being undemocratic are being... disingenuous in their apparent sentiment.

Do you? That's unfortunate, because it's probably going to prevent you from seeing that these are genuine criticisms. I'm not "in favour of the EU" because I'm "against Irish democracy" - I'm in favour of both things.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not "in favour of the EU" because I'm "against Irish democracy" - I'm in favour of both things.

Well the two are mutually exclusive to a large extent: increasing the competencies of one by necessity reduces those of the other. There is not a certain part of you that welcomes the devolution of the Oireachtas as a means to bypass the weaknesses in its structure?

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

There is not a certain part of you that welcomes the devolution of the Oireachtas as a means to bypass the weaknesses in its structure?

I'll cheerfully hold my hand up to that one. I have no slavish devotion to democracy (nor much to sovereignty), and if a slight dilution of either is the price of a pragmatic, effective and above all competent form of governance, it's a price I'm willing to pay.

I accept that I'm in a minority, but then I won't be going to Mass on Christmas day either.

FreudianSlippers

RandomName2 wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not "in favour of the EU" because I'm "against Irish democracy" - I'm in favour of both things.

Well the two are mutually exclusive to a large extent: increasing the competencies of one by necessity reduces those of the other. There is not a certain part of you that welcomes the devolution of the Oireachtas as a means to bypass the weaknesses in its structure?

They're absolutely not. To say otherwise would be akin to saying its not democratic to have an Oireachtas that makes legislation and all law should be that of individual contract (freemen nonsense). We are responsible for the directives and regulations of the EU and we ultimately are the ones that legislate that in our country, that is: EU law is not necessarily directly applicable to us until our Oireachtas creates legislation.

We cannot and will not make unconstitutional laws because the EU creates a directive.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well the two are mutually exclusive to a large extent: increasing the competencies of one by necessity reduces those of the other.

No, they're not mutually exclusive - what is mutually exclusive is only the question of the locus of decision-making, not the question of whether it's the outcome of a democratic process.

RandomName2 wrote: »

There is not a certain part of you that welcomes the devolution of the Oireachtas as a means to bypass the weaknesses in its structure?

Not at all - my view is that the weaknesses in its structure need all the more urgently to be fixed because of the increased decision-making at the European level.

How does one put it...OK, in the first place we have a very centralised government in Ireland. The local layer is virtually devoid of power. The Oireachtas has become progressively irrelevant by the neutering of the Seanad (partly due to its co-option by the social partnership process, partly due to the government packing of the benches, partly due to its publicly perceived lack of legitimacy), and the evolution of the Dáil into a rubber stamp by way of the Whip system.

So what we have at the moment is an executive - a Cabinet - which is only accountable at election time. And that small remaining piece of accountability is very much softened by the local and tribal nature of elections, where people with disastrous records as Ministers are re-elected because they're good constituency politicians.

It took an economic disaster sufficiently large to provoke IMF intervention to get Fianna Fáil out of power - and the architect of the bank guarantee that contributed to that situation was himself re-elected.

So what we have is a very very poorly accountable system. Irish Ministers don't resign - if you're lucky , and the press decide to make a big enough fuss, they might get shuffled sideways.


So far, so undemocratic. Balancing all that is the very small scale on which it happens - a lot of the Irish public can probably trace their way to a Minister inside 2-3 social links. The system is a woeful excuse for democracy, but just about adequate because of the sheer proximity of government to people.

Unfortunately, that's not something that translates at all to the European level, where our government is supposed to be our representative, but is instead both unaccountable and largely inscrutable. Now, it happens that the government is those things in Europe because it's those same things at home, but at home we have the balancing effect of sheer proximity, the interest of the press, etc - in Brussels we have none of those things. The government presents us with the results of European decision-making - which includes their input - as fait accomplis emanating from some sphere beyond them.

This produces, by the way, a very particular characteristic of Irish euroscepticism, which transfers to the EU in general the unaccountability of the Irish government in Europe, and which offers as a solution not any thoughtful improvement in the democratic control we citizens have of our government, but instead the same 'solution' we use to paper over the system's deficiencies at home - proximity.

It seems to me, though, that while we're pushing for things the government will be very reluctant to do anyway, whether leaving the EU or reforming itself, what we should prefer is better democratic accountability from our government, because that improves democracy both here and in Europe.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, they're not mutually exclusive - what is mutually exclusive is only the question of the locus of decision-making, not the question of whether it's the outcome of a democratic process.

Sorry, I wasn't talking about whether or not the difference has anything to democracy (I don't think the EU is a terribly democratic entity but that is a slightly different debate).

The effect may be to improve or diminish western democracy, but as I said: extending the competencies of one by necessity reduces that of the other.

McDave

RandomName2 wrote: »

Sorry, I wasn't talking about whether or not the difference has anything to democracy (I don't think the EU is a terribly democratic entity but that is a slightly different debate).

The effect may be to improve or diminish western democracy, but as I said: extending the competencies of one by necessity reduces that of the other.

The EU isn't a state. Citizens of its member states don't really identify very much with the EU as a political actor. I think that places major limits on the ability of the EU to become and behave like a democratic entity. And IMO it's a mistake to argue that the EU must be necessarily more democratic. Who really actually wants a federal EU or an EU 'superstate'?

Even with the EU treaties the way they are, ultimate sovereignty still resides in the member states (on the basis that any state can pull out of the EU). And this is where franchise and parliamentary democratic activity still has its greatest meaning and effect. The EU itself is constrained to act within democratic norms as laid down by the strict rule of law in the treaties as negotiated and agreed by its members.

Finally, I don't necessarily accept the 'competencies' zero sum game as you express it. When member states delegate competencies to the EU, they do so for a reason, i.e. that the competency in question is one that can be better applied at an international level with better outcomes for the EU as a whole and for individual member states (on varying levels).

For instance, the vesting of currency competencies in the Euro enables the Eurozone to deliver stability for its members in international competition with other single currencies in large political entities (US and China), to withstand international speculation and ultimately to protect the way we do business in the (more-or-less) social market model that operates in much if not most of the EU.

RandomName2

McDave wrote: »

The EU isn't a state. Citizens of its member states don't really identify very much with the EU as a political actor. I think that places major limits on the ability of the EU to become and behave like a democratic entity. And IMO it's a mistake to argue that the EU must be necessarily more democratic. Who really actually wants a federal EU or an EU 'superstate'?

Well that's true: there are deep seated reasons against the EU being democratic; namely the fact that Europeans consider their nationality first and their common European identity second. Nationalism undercuts the concept of single European statehood (mind you, if you are hoping against a federal Europe, it would seem a vain hope).

McDave wrote: »

Finally, I don't necessarily accept the 'competencies' zero sum game as you express it. When member states delegate competencies to the EU, they do so for a reason, i.e. that the competency in question is one that can be better applied at an international level with better outcomes for the EU as a whole and for individual member states (on varying levels).

They may do it for a reason; that doesn't necessarily negate what I said.

FreudianSlippers

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well that's true: there are deep seated reasons against the EU being democratic; namely the fact that Europeans consider their nationality first and their common European identity second. Nationalism undercuts the concept of single European statehood (mind you, if you are hoping against a federal Europe, it would seem a vain hope).




They may do it for a reason; that doesn't necessarily negate what I said.

We still must implement those areas into our own legislation in line with our constitution though.

RandomName2

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We still must implement those areas into our own legislation in line with our constitution though.

Which is why our constitution must be amended when the competencies of the EU are increased

FreudianSlippers

RandomName2 wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We still must implement those areas into our own legislation in line with our constitution though.

Which is why our constitution must be amended when the competencies of the EU are increased

I guess i am missing the undemocratic nature of all of this.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Sorry, I wasn't talking about whether or not the difference has anything to democracy (I don't think the EU is a terribly democratic entity but that is a slightly different debate).

The effect may be to improve or diminish western democracy, but as I said: extending the competencies of one by necessity reduces that of the other.

That doesn't make "Irish democracy" and "EU democracy" antithetical, which I thought was what we were discussing. Unless "democracy" means something other than the method of arriving at decisions. I think you're mixing up "national decision-making" with "democratic decision-making", which is a very large question to leave begging.

cordially,
Scofflaw

McDave

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well that's true: there are deep seated reasons against the EU being democratic; namely the fact that Europeans consider their nationality first and their common European identity second. Nationalism undercuts the concept of single European statehood (mind you, if you are hoping against a federal Europe, it would seem a vain hope).

I genuinely find it hard to imagine an EU state or a federal EU in my lifetime. It's not what people want.

As I see it, the essential building block of the EU is the nation state. If we are going to see development concerning national statuses, it is more likely to be the generation of new states like Catalonia, or the rending of the likes of Belgium and the possible integration of Wallonia into France.

I don't doubt that EU policies will evolve further over time, and that certain nations will be stronger, more influential actors than others. But that evolution will still require member states to sign off on each and every transfer of contingent competence to the EU - which itself will always remain a rules-based entity, with an escape hatch for any member state that changes its mind.

As I see it, national identity will maintain its primacy. Indeed, as I see it, this is a major strength of the EU. Every major development has to win the consent of its members. And every development must conform to commonly held values.

The Corinthian

McDave wrote: »

I genuinely find it hard to imagine an EU state or a federal EU in my lifetime. It's not what people want.

Well yes and no. As has been pointed out repeatedly, 'people' want to live in a thriving nation state - better still, in a thriving region, community or town.

However, what happens when 'people' are faced with a choice between living in a smaller part of a greater whole or living in an economically, politically and possibly even military, poor nation state, region, community or town? Because as much as we would like for the World to stay static, it won't and the European nation states are rapidly losing their previously privileged places in the World.

I don't think this trend is really that open to debate any more, all that remains is the question of how we adapt to this 'New World Order'. The eurosceptic line has typically sought to sell how we can be another Norway or Switzerland, except we are nothing like Norway or Switzerland. Five years ago, they would have cited Iceland too to that list, which adds to my scepticism of such claims.

The alternative is joining a greater whole which is what we have done. Of course the big question is where this greater whole will go and become?

As I see it, national identity will maintain its primacy. Indeed, as I see it, this is a major strength of the EU. Every major development has to win the consent of its members. And every development must conform to commonly held values.

I would agree broadly with what you're saying. I do believe that there is a limit to the level of centralization that can occur in any European 'superstate'. A more likely federal model is one similar to Switzerland rather than the USA, whereby the vast majority of power remains at the state level and only a few key areas are centralized/collectivized.

Given this, even for those few key areas to become centralized would require a 'push' to effect. A series of crises, such as the one we have with the Euro presently, or even one that is more serious would likely see this incrementally. After all, how do you think the Old Swiss Confederation, which is eerily similar to the present EU, became the modern Swiss Confederation?

If the EU does not fall apart - which is unlikely, but still possible - I suspect this will be inevitable. If it does fall apart, I suggest everyone start teaching their children Russian and/or Mandarin Chinese.

McDave

The Corinthian wrote: »

However, what happens when 'people' are faced with a choice between living in a smaller part of a greater whole or living in an economically, politically and possibly even military, poor nation state, region, community or town? Because as much as we would like for the World to stay static, it won't and the European nation states are rapidly losing their previously privileged places in the World.

Excellent overall post. And I don't disagree.

As the world becomes multipolar and disparities in wealth and power are narrowed, no small state can be completely independent. Even non-aligned states are ultimately dependent on the conditions around them. If Russia continues to implode demographically, its Asian territories are completely exposed to China. If Russia were to seriously get its act together, it would be able to lean *very* heavily on the rest of Europe. Countries like Switzerland or Norway wouldn't have much say in the less benign outcomes of either scenario.

At this point in time, the electorates in most of the EU can sense there is an underlying rationale behind European integration. And IMO they're happy with the baby steps being taken towards closer co-operation. The successful balancing of the Eurozone will mark a qualitative leap forward in terms of securing the global status of Europeans. Somehow I see this step as a less of a loss of sovereignty and more as a classic case of pooling resources to create a whole greater than the sum of its parts. The nation states are still retaining their essence.

There will be great tests down the line on the military front. Here is where you will see greater resistance and a tendency for opt-outs. Where the 'union' thing will break down completely will be on matters of justice, education, culture and other matters which remain strongly local, national or regional as befits the culture concerned.

Individual states are indeed losing their previously privileged positions (mostly based on imperial endeavours). There'll be much more competition for resources and markets in the future. The EU cannot afford to be static in this regard, even if a handful of its members are happy to take a free ride on those committing to core policies.

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

That doesn't make "Irish democracy" and "EU democracy" antithetical, which I thought was what we were discussing. Unless "democracy" means something other than the method of arriving at decisions. I think you're mixing up "national decision-making" with "democratic decision-making", which is a very large question to leave begging.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Okay, you seem to have, by default, conceded my point concerning sovereignty.

In terms of Irish and EU democracy; the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive (one may argue that in the context of the consilium that they are one and the same).

In the case of a given democratic state the "national decision-making" is by definition "democratic decision-making", albeit accompanied by the vagueness of "how democratic is democracy?".

It ultimately depends on whether one is okay with supra-national representation; because this is ultimately what the "decision-making" process of the EU boils down to. The consilium is directly organised on national lines, and the commission by extension. The parliamentary groups may not work on national boundaries, but the constituencies from which representatives are returned, do. In fact, the parliamentary groupings work as an alliance between national political bodies who can find political concurrence.

So who speaks for you? Well, in terms of your constituency in the EU parliamentary elections, an MP, and in terms of our national elections (in the consilium) the government.

But you are okay with this situation because the commissioners are not bound to appease the electorate, their being appointed to their positions. Unlike the Irish Ministers who make a mockery of the system by staying on good relations with their constituents that they represent as TDs, the commissioners are free from such provisional bonds to pursue pragmatic political agendae?

RandomName2

The Corinthian wrote: »

If it does fall apart, I suggest everyone start teaching their children Russian and/or Mandarin Chinese.

A little pessimistic!

Although I see that Russia is making moves to develop an eastern version of the european union, I think that it be a bit soon to put faith in the colossi ex-communist conglomerations that are still in political infancy.

McDave

RandomName2 wrote: »

A little pessimistic!

Although I see that Russia is making moves to develop an eastern version of the european union, I think that it be a bit soon to put faith in the colossi ex-communist conglomerations that are still in political infancy.

I'd wish Russia luck on that one. I'd think though that any eastern-style EU could only succeed if Russia were the kind of society and polity that would intrinsically attract partners, and if any putative legal framework was balanced and reliable.

Regrettably, I reckon rules-based democracy is too underdeveloped in that part of the world. And even if there was an adequate legal tradition in the region, Russia would still be too big a partner for any other country to get into bed with.

The Corinthian

RandomName2 wrote: »

Although I see that Russia is making moves to develop an eastern version of the european union, I think that it be a bit soon to put faith in the colossi ex-communist conglomerations that are still in political infancy.

You're kind of missing the point. Russia, for example, does not need an 'eastern version of the European union'. She can, probably at this stage, already eclipse any single western European state all on her own. And that's just Russia, there are a number of other superstates rising at present.

So not pessimistic, simply realistic about where things are going.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Okay, you seem to have, by default, conceded my point concerning sovereignty.

I think I covered that back in my first response about the locus of decision-making.

RandomName2 wrote: »

In terms of Irish and EU democracy; the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive (one may argue that in the context of the consilium that they are one and the same).

In the case of a given democratic state the "national decision-making" is by definition "democratic decision-making", albeit accompanied by the vagueness of "how democratic is democracy?".

Yes, that takes us to the stage of "some cats are black" in what could well end up being a syllogistic fallacy.

RandomName2 wrote: »

It ultimately depends on whether one is okay with supra-national representation; because this is ultimately what the "decision-making" process of the EU boils down to. The consilium is directly organised on national lines, and the commission by extension. The parliamentary groups may not work on national boundaries, but the constituencies from which representatives are returned, do. In fact, the parliamentary groupings work as an alliance between national political bodies who can find political concurrence.

So who speaks for you? Well, in terms of your constituency in the EU parliamentary elections, an MP, and in terms of our national elections (in the consilium) the government.

But you are okay with this situation because the commissioners are not bound to appease the electorate, their being appointed to their positions. Unlike the Irish Ministers who make a mockery of the system by staying on good relations with their constituents that they represent as TDs, the commissioners are free from such provisional bonds to pursue pragmatic political agendae?

I think I've been over that one in some detail. Yes, I'm OK with that, because the Commission can only propose legislation, and is accountable to the Parliament. A Commissioner is also potentially subject to their national government, at least to the extent that they hope to continue in national politics, although that's not something I'm particularly happy with, because it isn't a de jure subjection.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, I'm OK with that, because the Commission can only propose legislation, and is accountable to the Parliament. A Commissioner is also potentially subject to their national government, at least to the extent that they hope to continue in national politics, although that's not something I'm particularly happy with, because it isn't a de jure subjection.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well the commission being a retirement home for those close to, or actually in European governments (subject to parliamentary approval of course) is not terribly edifying practice for that house.

And of course though
the commission can only propose legislation....
only the commission can propose legislation

You seem to forget that Irish ministers are accountable to the government (as ministers), and the courts and oireachtas (as TDs). Whilst the double jobbing of TDs as ministers is less than ideal, it is better than some alternatives..

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

You seem to forget that Irish ministers are accountable to the... oireachtas (as TDs).

In theory, yes. In practice, no.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well the commission being a retirement home for those close to, or actually in European governments (subject to parliamentary approval of course) is not terribly edifying practice for that house.

Actually, the fact that Commissioners tend to have reached the end of their careers in national politics is a good thing.

RandomName2 wrote: »

And of course though
the commission can only propose legislation....
only the commission can propose legislation

That's right - because the Commission, and only the Commission, is charged with putting Europe first.

RandomName2 wrote: »

You seem to forget that Irish ministers are accountable to the government (as ministers), and the courts and oireachtas (as TDs).

I don't forget it at all, but as oB says, it's only a theory. In practice, they're nothing of the kind.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Whilst the double jobbing of TDs as ministers is less than ideal, it is better than some alternatives..

I'm sure it is, but it's also worse than others. It's worse than properly accountable technically qualified appointees as Ministers, for example.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Executive Steve

The Corinthian wrote: »

And suggesting that Ireland could be like Norway or Switzerland is utterly farcical. Ireland has neither the oil or banking industries of either of these nations - indeed, Ireland is still only lightly industrialized in comparison. If one wanted to look at a more likely example of what Ireland could be, it would probably be Iceland, and that frankly is a far less attractive proposition.

Excellent point in an excellent post.

We don't even have the rich geothermal energy resources that are the least-discussed aces up Iceland's sleeve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Iceland

FreudianSlippers

Executive Steve wrote: »

Excellent point in an excellent post.

We don't even have the rich geothermal energy resources that are the least-discussed aces up Iceland's sleeve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Iceland

We do, however, have some good wind and tidal resources that we have left almost completely undeveloped.

If we look simply at the UK alone, they purchase somewhere in the region of 40% (IIRC - this was discusses in another thread and I got links and things but can't do that at the moment) of their energy from mainland Europe.

If we could produce enough energy (renewable) to half or, in a perfect world, end our carbon dependency in energy production and sell the excess to the UK, we could stand to make a significant amount of money much in the same way that Norway does from their national good sales.

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't forget it at all, but as oB says, it's only a theory. In practice, they're nothing of the kind.

It works both ways however - in theory the Commission is accountable to the EU parliament (as amorphous a concept that is) but in practice (with the exception of refusing national appointment) - correct me if I'm wrong but the Parliament has only once ever opposed a Commissioner that was currently in office?