Pooling of Sovereignty

jaself

At last... a Government Minister reveals what the Referendum is really about!

The "pooling of Soveriegnty".

This Treaty is NOT the "Stability Treaty", nor is it the "Fiscal Stability Treaty" as the Government and the Referendum Commission would have us believe, it is the "Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and GOVERNANCE..."

This Treaty does not promise or guarantee stability - it is an aspiration, nothing more.

This Treaty cannot guarantee co-ordination.
Again an aspiration to be worked towards.

But this Treaty DOES put in place Governance. And not just in law, but it has to be embedded in our Constitution. When Minister Burton was questioned on the subject of Governance she referred to it as a "pooling of Sovereignty". This was not a mistake on her part because she went on to repeat the exact same phrase: a "pooling of Sovereignty".

So there you have it. The real purpose of this Treaty.
To "pool the Sovereignty" of the participating States.
In other words to centralise the Governing of these States.
And which body politic is at the centre of this?
The E.U.

So this is yet another, but significant, step towards a European State.

THAT is what you are voting for on Thursday!

Regards

J

oscarBravo

jaself wrote: »

And not just in law, but it has to be embedded in our Constitution.

That's simply, factually untrue. I'm not describing it as a lie only because I'm charitably assuming you may be unaware of its untruth, but some people who do know better have lied about it.

As for governance: when did the idea of governance become a bad thing?

Oh yes, when it was sold down the river in exchange for votes. How did that work out for us?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Duh! If there was no pooling of sovereignty there wouldn't be a referendum, how is this news to you!?

Iwannahurl

What is the EU but a pooling of sovereignty?

The nature and extent of that pooled sovereignty has evolved since we joined the EEC/Common Market in 1973.

Is there something inherently wrong with pooled sovereignty? If so, what?

jaself

So you WANT Ireland to become a little backwater State in the Federal Europe?

Slozer

pooled sovereignty is an oxymoron

Iwannahurl

jaself wrote: »

So you WANT Ireland to become a little backwater State in the Federal Europe?

The Ireland I grew up in was a backwater state. The EEC/EU has benefited us enormously, IMO.

Still a lot wrong with this country, but personally I blame that on our propensity for wanting to be closer to Boston than to Berlin.

oscarBravo

Slozer wrote: »

pooled sovereignty is an oxymoron

Given that an oxymoron is an apparent contradiction in terms, I guess it might well be - if you're determined to create a false dichotomy, and are completely inflexible in your definitions. Which is, basically, begging the question.

Iwannahurl

Slozer wrote: »

pooled sovereignty is an oxymoron

Interesting point, in terms of language.

Too simplistic, in terms of politics.

jaself

Slozer wrote: »

pooled sovereignty is an oxymoron

Gosh, a lesson in semantics. Thanks

jaself

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The Ireland I grew up in was a backwater state. The EEC/EU has benefited us enormously, IMO.

So we should once more doff our caps and say "Yes please"?

meglome

This might help.

Test from the Fiscal Compact

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of the State under that Treaty or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by bodies competent under that Treaty from having the force of law in the State.

Text from the Lisbon treaty.

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or institutions thereof or bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State

The Lisbon treaty didn't cause us to lose our 'sovereignty' (no matter how many times the no camp claimed it) and the Lisbon treaty was not written into our constitution.

jaself

Wake up people.
The Emporer is not wearing any clothes and this is your chance to see clearly!

Iwannahurl

jaself wrote: »

So we should once more doff our caps and say "Yes please"?

Once more?

meglome

jaself wrote: »

Wake up people.
The Emporer is not wearing any clothes and this is your chance to see clearly!

Genuinely wondering... are you high?

oscarBravo

jaself wrote: »

So we should once more doff our caps and say "Yes please"?

Or we could spit on the ground and say "piss off".

Or, less hyperbolically, we could work in partnership with the other EU member states towards a solution that best represents our respective interests, taking into account where those interests both overlap and conflict.

Which doesn't lend itself quite so well to pithy soundbites, I'm afraid, but them's the breaks.

jaself

meglome wrote: »

This might help.

Test from the Fiscal Compact


Text from the Lisbon treaty.


The Lisbon treaty didn't cause us to lose our 'sovereignty' (no matter how many times the no camp claimed it) and the Lisbon treaty was not written into our constitution.

From:
THIRTIETH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION (TREATY ON STABILITY, COORDINATION AND GOVERNANCE IN THE ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION) BILL 2012


———————— EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM ————————


Purpose of Bill

The Thirtieth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2012 is necessary for the State to ratify the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (hereafter referred to as ‘‘The Stability Treaty’’). The Stability Treaty was signed on behalf of the government by the Taoiseach in Brussels on 2 March 2012; a total of twenty-five of the twenty-seven member states of the European Union have signed it and a ratification process is now under way in each member state. The Stability Treaty provides that it will enter into force when it has been ratified by twelve contracting parties whose currency is the euro.
With a view to securing economic recovery and sustainable growth, the key provisions of the Stability Treaty relate to a strengthening of rules underpinning the Stability and Growth Pact agreed by EU Member States in relation to the euro currency. As the full title of the Stability Treaty states, its core aims are improved stability, coordination and governance in the Economic and Monetary Union.

Content of Bill

The Bill provides for the insertion of the following subsection after subsection 9 of Article 29.4 of the Constitution, in order to ratify the Stability Treaty and enable the Oireachtas to adopt any legislation necessary in order to implement its provisions:

‘‘10° The State may ratify the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union done at Brussels on the 2nd day of March 2012. No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of the State under that Treaty or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by bodies competent under that Treaty from having the force of law in the State.’’.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, March, 2012.

Read that bold paragraph carefully.

In plain language it means that nothing in our Constitution can override any law, act or measure by bodies competent under that Treaty.

So please tell me again how this Treaty is not just being written into our Constitution but overriding it?

Slozer

oscarBravo wrote: »

Given that an oxymoron is an apparent contradiction in terms, I guess it might well be - if you're determined to create a false dichotomy, and are completely inflexible in your definitions. Which is, basically, begging the question.

No. I just dont think that a pooling of sovereignty is going to work. We either want to be ruled by a european central government or ruled by our own elected government. At the moment we are probably in between so its a case of shi tting or getting off the pot. Personally I would rather our governing body to be closer to home.

jaself

Slozer wrote: »

No. I just dont think that a pooling of sovereignty is going to work. We either want to be ruled by a european central government or ruled by our own elected government. At the moment we are probably in between so its a case of shi tting or getting off the pot. Personally I would rather our governing body to be closer to home.

At least one other person with their eyes open, thank God, thought I was going mad!!!

beeftotheheels

jaself wrote: »

‘‘10° The State may ratify the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union done at Brussels on the 2nd day of March 2012. No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of the State under that Treaty or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by bodies competent under that Treaty from having the force of law in the State.’’.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, March, 2012.

Read that bold paragraph carefully.

In plain language it means that nothing in our Constitution can override any law, act or measure by bodies competent under that Treaty.

So please tell me again how this Treaty is not just being written into our Constitution but overriding it?

We are voting to allow (or not) the Government to ratify the treaty. They don't have to if we vote yes, but they probably will.

If the amendment didn't specify that the Constitution couldn't override the Treaty, there would be nothing for us to vote on.

The reason we're voting is because the AG thought that there was a risk that the Constitution and Treaty might conflict.

However, there is nothing in the amendment that says a future Act of the Oireachtas cannot override the treaty, or that a future treaty cannot over ride the treaty, or indeed that we can't change the constitution again, in the future, to override the treaty.

You're reading way too much into the wording.

meglome

Here's what I posted on the previous page.

This might help.

Test from the Fiscal Compact

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of the State under that Treaty or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by bodies competent under that Treaty from having the force of law in the State.

Text from the Lisbon treaty.

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or institutions thereof or bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State

The Lisbon treaty didn't cause us to lose our 'sovereignty' (no matter how many times the no camp claimed it) and the Lisbon treaty was not written into our constitution.

For your argument to work, the same things should have happened with the Lisbon treaty and they didn't.

hatrickpatrick

There's nothing wrong with pooling sovereignty to an extent.
The point I make as a no voter is, we're past that extent now. In fact we were past it before we ratified Lisbon.

Closer integration is fine, but... That's close enough now.

hatrickpatrick

meglome wrote: »

The Lisbon treaty didn't cause us to lose our 'sovereignty' (no matter how many times the no camp claimed it)

Actually it did. Now whether or not you regard this as a bad thing - many on the yes side don't - is a different matter, but every area which moved from unanimity to QMV meant that Ireland no longer had the final say on our policies in those particular areas (aside from those we got exemptions from).

As I say, it's up to you whether or not this is a good or bad thing, but to deny that some of our sovereignty was lost is downright incorrect.

oscarBravo

Slozer wrote: »

We either want to be ruled by a european central government or ruled by our own elected government. At the moment we are probably in between so its a case of shi tting or getting off the pot.

That's the false dichotomy I was talking about. We don't have to choose between those extremes; we have the option of finding a balance.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Closer integration is fine, but... That's close enough now.

Hasn't that been Sinn Féin's argument against every single treaty since accession? They never quite seem to explain how each treaty that they just opposed has morphed into the one that's working fine and we shouldn't change.

I accept that you think we shouldn't have ratified Lisbon, but I'm willing to wager that come the next EU treaty (which this isn't), SF will be telling us how the Lisbon treaty is working just fine, so we shouldn't change anything...

meglome

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Actually it did. Now whether or not you regard this as a bad thing - many on the yes side don't - is a different matter, but every area which moved from unanimity to QMV meant that Ireland no longer had the final say on our policies in those particular areas (aside from those we got exemptions from).

As I say, it's up to you whether or not this is a good or bad thing, but to deny that some of our sovereignty was lost is downright incorrect.

You'll notice I used the word sovereignty in quotes. This is because the way that word is used tends to mean we are now under the control of Germany, when we're clearly not. Sovereignty the magic word that means whatever the person saying it thinks it means.

Gurgle

Slozer wrote: »

We either want to be ruled by a european central government or ruled by our own elected government.

Some minor points:
1. I don't want to be ruled by anyone, but I'm willing to be governed.

2. That would be an elected central european government or an elected irish government. I'm not aware of any significant difference.

3. The vote on thursday has nothing to do with whether the EU has lots of small governments or one big government.

jaself

Gurgle wrote: »

Some minor points:
...

3. The vote on thursday has nothing to do with whether the EU has lots of small governments or one big government.

But everything to do with where the real power lies. :eek:

Gurgle

jaself wrote: »

But everything to do with where the real power lies. :eek:

In what way?

View

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Actually it did. Now whether or not you regard this as a bad thing - many on the yes side don't - is a different matter, but every area which moved from unanimity to QMV meant that Ireland no longer had the final say on our policies in those particular areas (aside from those we got exemptions from).

As I say, it's up to you whether or not this is a good or bad thing, but to deny that some of our sovereignty was lost is downright incorrect.

The Supreme Court largely rejected that argument in the Crotty case (see point 14 of it).

Their opinion was that such voting changes might - depending on the change - have an effect on sovereignty if they strayed from the confines of (the amendment related to) the pre-existing treaties. In other words, probably when the EU headed off into a new political territory.

That though wasn't the case in Lisbon since the tasks assigned to the EU in Article 3 remained unaltered.

RandomName2

jaself wrote: »

At last... a Government Minister reveals what the Referendum is really about!

The "pooling of Soveriegnty".

Does this increase the competencies of the EU bodies in any real fashion? The fining and recapitalisation bypass via the ESM is relatively new, sure (with our liability to such fines and bailouts predicated on our passing the Fiscal Treaty)... but that's not really a loss of sovereignty.

Mind you, the posters who say that this isn't written into our constitution are being somewhat disingenuous. Sure, you won't find the text of ANY European Treaty in our Constitution, however, you will find the surrendering of national authority to various European organs within our Constitution. Duh.

I will listen though if you are able to give a cogent explanation of how this treaty might pool sovereignty.

jaself

Gurgle wrote: »

In what way?

Tell me this: When did you last elect a member of the European Commission?
Or have a democratic say in any of the actions of the Commission or its 23,000 strong body of civil servants?

oscarBravo

jaself wrote: »

Tell me this: When did you last elect a member of the European Commission?

When did you last elect a member of the Department of Finance?

jaself

RandomName2 wrote: »

...

I will listen though if you are able to give a cogent explanation of how this treaty might pool sovereignty.

That is a question best directed to our good Minister Burton for it is she that I am quoting.
As to the workings of such an arrangement, alas she did not expand on the topic.

jaself

oscarBravo wrote: »

When did you last elect a member of the Department of Finance?

You are comparing a de facto Government with a Department of Government.

Godge

jaself wrote: »

So we should once more doff our caps and say "Yes please"?

Seeing as you are so knowledgeable on the subject of losing our sovereignty, perhaps you might explain

(1) which sections of the Treaty lead to the loss of sovereignty?
(2) what is the mechanism that leads that loss to affect everyday lives and what are the quantifiable losses set out in the treaty?
(3) Can you demonstrate how this loss of sovereignty is so much worse that the other sovereignty we have pooled since 1972 i.e. pinpoint the aspect of the sovereignty loss in this Treaty that should cause the Irish electorate to reverse its previous decisions on the EU? (and do this by reference to particular articles of the Treaty that differ from previous EU Treaties)?

Godge

Slozer wrote: »

No. I just dont think that a pooling of sovereignty is going to work. We either want to be ruled by a european central government or ruled by our own elected government. At the moment we are probably in between so its a case of shi tting or getting off the pot. Personally I would rather our governing body to be closer to home.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with pooling sovereignty to an extent.
The point I make as a no voter is, we're past that extent now. In fact we were past it before we ratified Lisbon.

Closer integration is fine, but... That's close enough now.

Lads, seeing as you two seem to know quite a lot about the Treaty and its inner workings, maybe you could help jaself out in providing an answer to the question I posed below on the pooling of sovereignty and why it is so much worse this time.

Godge wrote: »

Seeing as you are so knowledgeable on the subject of losing our sovereignty, perhaps you might explain

(1) which sections of the Treaty lead to the loss of sovereignty?
(2) what is the mechanism that leads that loss to affect everyday lives and what are the quantifiable losses set out in the treaty?
(3) Can you demonstrate how this loss of sovereignty is so much worse that the other sovereignty we have pooled since 1972 i.e. pinpoint the aspect of the sovereignty loss in this Treaty that should cause the Irish electorate to reverse its previous decisions on the EU? (and do this by reference to particular articles of the Treaty that differ from previous EU Treaties)?

hatrickpatrick

^ I never said it was any worse than last time - in case you didn't notice, I opposed Lisbon too.
Obviously in this case we're signing up to rules which will be enforced externally - that is, limiting what decisions our future governments can make of their own volition. Again, I'm not saying this has to be a bad thing, some people here clearly support it, but to outright claim that "there IS no loss of sovereignty" is a lie. There is most certainly a loss of sovereignty, the question is whether that loss is acceptable to you or not. It's not acceptable to me, it is (apparently?) acceptable to you. That's what we disagree on, I believe. If you're honestly claiming that there is no loss of sovereignty involved, I would ask you perhaps to justify that statement?

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Hasn't that been Sinn Féin's argument against every single treaty since accession? They never quite seem to explain how each treaty that they just opposed has morphed into the one that's working fine and we shouldn't change.

I'm no SF supporter, so I'd rather not answer this. I'm voting no for my own reasons and paying no heed whatsoever to who I'm voting "with". Guilt by association is no way to live your life.

I accept that you think we shouldn't have ratified Lisbon, but I'm willing to wager that come the next EU treaty (which this isn't), SF will be telling us how the Lisbon treaty is working just fine, so we shouldn't change anything...

Indeed they might. I certainly won't be though, just as I'm not now, with Lisbon.

meglome wrote: »

You'll notice I used the word sovereignty in quotes. This is because the way that word is used tends to mean we are now under the control of Germany, when we're clearly not. Sovereignty the magic word that means whatever the person saying it thinks it means.

Sovereignty (in my book) simply means that the people of this country have the power to decide what policies this country implements. If we devolve that power to a higher authority outside the state, we cede some of the state's sovereignty - Ireland's policy in the areas we cede is no longer wholly and completely in the hands of the Irish people, independent from any other external decision making body. That is the "loss of sovereignty".
Ergo, if we transfer competence on some or any of our laws, we cede "sovereignty". That is not in question, what's in question is whether or not you're ok with it. In this case, I'm not ok with it.

View

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sovereignty (in my book) simply means that the people of this country have the power to decide what policies this country implements. If we devolve that power to a higher authority outside the state, we cede some of the state's sovereignty - Ireland's policy in the areas we cede is no longer wholly and completely in the hands of the Irish people, independent from any other external decision making body. That is the "loss of sovereignty".

Ergo, if we transfer competence on some or any of our laws, we cede "sovereignty".

Well, no we don't - as you say yourself, we transfer sovereignty (i.e. competence). We choose in other words to exercise sovereignty with our fellow EU citizens in order to achieve agreed objectives. And, yes it is a perfectly valid sovereign decision for us to choose to do so.

Domestically, we should probably also choose to transfer some of our sovereignty from our over-centralized government to our local government to stop this feigned helplessness we affect when facing any sort of difficult decision here at home, but that is a different issue.

hatrickpatrick

View wrote: »

Well, no we don't - as you say yourself, we transfer sovereignty (i.e. competence). We choose in other words to exercise sovereignty with our fellow EU citizens in order to achieve agreed objectives. And, yes it is a perfectly valid sovereign decision for us to choose to do so.

I agree, we have every right to do it, I simply don't approve of it - therefore I'll be voting no. As I said earlier, if you're happy to transfer sovereignty then go ahead and vote yes, but don't claim there is no transfer of sovereignty involved.
Also, what's the difference between transferring and ceding exactly? Bottom line, the individual Irish voter's voice counts for less when it's competing with more people across Europe for a say in the same policy areas.

Domestically, we should probably also choose to transfer some of our sovereignty from our over-centralized government to our local government to stop this feigned helplessness we affect when facing any sort of difficult decision here at home, but that is a different issue.

Ironically enough I absolutely agree with this, but that's one of the reasons I oppose transferring sovereignty to the EU. Transferring soverengity to local government puts the power much closer to the individual voter than the central government, transferring it to the EU puts it much further away.
I'm an advocate of participatory democracy, I honestly don't see how anyone could advocate both participatory democracy AND further transfer of sovereignty to the EU, given the widely acknowledged democratic deficit the EU is plagued by.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

^ I never said it was any worse than last time - in case you didn't notice, I opposed Lisbon too.
Obviously in this case we're signing up to rules which will be enforced externally - that is, limiting what decisions our future governments can make of their own volition. Again, I'm not saying this has to be a bad thing, some people here clearly support it, but to outright claim that "there IS no loss of sovereignty" is a lie. There is most certainly a loss of sovereignty, the question is whether that loss is acceptable to you or not. It's not acceptable to me, it is (apparently?) acceptable to you. That's what we disagree on, I believe. If you're honestly claiming that there is no loss of sovereignty involved, I would ask you perhaps to justify that statement?

No, I am not saying there is no loss of sovereignty. What I am saying is that the loss of sovereignty is minimal and in that case, opposing it on "loss of sovereignty" grounds seems silly - it is like being in debt for €10000 and saying that you oppose a further loan of €1 because you are against indebtedness.

There have been a small number of credible grounds for opposing the Treaty advanced (none have appeared on posters though) but I just don't get the "loss of sovereignty" one.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sovereignty (in my book) simply means that the people of this country have the power to decide what policies this country implements. If we devolve that power to a higher authority outside the state, we cede some of the state's sovereignty - Ireland's policy in the areas we cede is no longer wholly and completely in the hands of the Irish people, independent from any other external decision making body. That is the "loss of sovereignty".
Ergo, if we transfer competence on some or any of our laws, we cede "sovereignty". That is not in question, what's in question is whether or not you're ok with it. In this case, I'm not ok with it.

So we should quit the UN?

C14N

jaself wrote: »

At last... a Government Minister reveals what the Referendum is really about!

The "pooling of Soveriegnty".

Surprised nobody has called you out on this before but where is this information from and who is the minister in question?

johnnyskeleton

jaself wrote: »

‘‘10° The State may ratify the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union done at Brussels on the 2nd day of March 2012. No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of the State under that Treaty or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by bodies competent under that Treaty from having the force of law in the State.’’.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, March, 2012.

Read that bold paragraph carefully.

In plain language it means that nothing in our Constitution can override any law, act or measure by bodies competent under that Treaty.

So please tell me again how this Treaty is not just being written into our Constitution but overriding it?

We can always amend the constitution at some future point to delete all subarticles of article 29 so that EU law is no longer exempt from constitutional scrutiny. Of course, that would mean us leaving the EU but in our domestic law it can be done, and the provisions can be removed any time the people vote to remove them.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

So we should quit the UN?

It depends how much sovereignty we've ceded and on what grounds. If the UN were to dictate internal domestic policies such as data retention, or tell us what kind of lightbulbs we're allowed to use (I know it was an Irish initiative, the point is that voters in the countries implementing this had no say in it and changing a government wouldn't have made a difference), it goes beyond a mere "economic union" and becomes a ceding of sovereignty on domestic, internal policies. Which should be entirely within the control of the Irish people.
As I understand it, the UN pools sovereignty on grounds of human rights and international affairs to an extent, and I don't oppose either of those - if it were put to a vote, I would vote yes. I don't approve of some of the areas in which the EU has competence, on the other hand. I've given examples of specific areas before, I can dig them up if you like?

Godge, I never said that ceding sovereignty was a valid opposition to this particular treaty. That's not why I'm voting no, I'm voting no for entirely different reasons which I have outlined many times on this forum. I'm merely pointing out that those who suggest there is no loss of sovereignty involved are incorrect, if you define sovereignty as the extent to which the Irish elected government can implement policies without being bound by external authorities. Any treaty which binds future Irish governments to rules enforced by authorities outside the state of Ireland can be considered a loss of sovereignty. It removes power from the Irish state and transfers it to a 'higher' authority. The reason many of us oppose ceding sovereignty should be obvious - the Irish government should be accountable to and obey the wishes of the Irish people first and foremost, no external authority. Otherwise our democracy is diluted.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It depends how much sovereignty we've ceded and on what grounds. If the UN were to dictate internal domestic policies such as data retention, or tell us what kind of lightbulbs we're allowed to use (I know it was an Irish initiative, the point is that voters in the countries implementing this had no say in it and changing a government wouldn't have made a difference), it goes beyond a mere "economic union" and becomes a ceding of sovereignty on domestic, internal policies. Which should be entirely within the control of the Irish people.
As I understand it, the UN pools sovereignty on grounds of human rights and international affairs to an extent, and I don't oppose either of those - if it were put to a vote, I would vote yes. I don't approve of some of the areas in which the EU has competence, on the other hand. I've given examples of specific areas before, I can dig them up if you like?

Godge, I never said that ceding sovereignty was a valid opposition to this particular treaty. That's not why I'm voting no, I'm voting no for entirely different reasons which I have outlined many times on this forum. I'm merely pointing out that those who suggest there is no loss of sovereignty involved are incorrect, if you define sovereignty as the extent to which the Irish elected government can implement policies without being bound by external authorities. Any treaty which binds future Irish governments to rules enforced by authorities outside the state of Ireland can be considered a loss of sovereignty. It removes power from the Irish state and transfers it to a 'higher' authority. The reason many of us oppose ceding sovereignty should be obvious - the Irish government should be accountable to and obey the wishes of the Irish people first and foremost, no external authority. Otherwise our democracy is diluted.

Looked at it in a pure "loss of sovereignty" terms, we have lost a huge amount of sovereignty through our ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention (and its protocols) as well as the Landmines Treaty. They take away our ability to defend our state in certain ways and if you look at the definitions of a sovereign nation state, one of the fundamental principles is the ability to defend one's own borders. The ratification of those Treaties therefore hits directly at the sovereignty and independence of this State in a way that the EU does not. I take it therefore that you oppose Ireland's membership and ratification of those Treaties.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

Looked at it in a pure "loss of sovereignty" terms, we have lost a huge amount of sovereignty through our ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention (and its protocols) as well as the Landmines Treaty. They take away our ability to defend our state in certain ways and if you look at the definitions of a sovereign nation state, one of the fundamental principles is the ability to defend one's own borders. The ratification of those Treaties therefore hits directly at the sovereignty and independence of this State in a way that the EU does not. I take it therefore that you oppose Ireland's membership and ratification of those Treaties.

Well actually I don't, as those types of weapons I would regard as crimes against humanity - in the same way as I don't oppose us signing up to the charter of human rights, for instance.
The difference is though, that doesn't give anyone else a right to make new laws which our country has to abide by. For instance, the NPT doesn't allow anyone else to decide what kind of lightbulbs we can sell in our shops, or how long we can / have to retain internet data of users. Just using those as two examples. Point is, those decisions are about internal, domestic affairs and the Irish people should have the 100% right to decide how their country is run when you get down to a low level like that. It's far easier to lobby the Irish government than it is to lobby the entire EU, therefore the people have more chance of having their voices heard.

In the case of this particular treaty, I don't approve of the loss of sovereignty but as I've said before, that's not why I'm voting no. I am merely pointing out to some of the posters here that there is, absolutely indisputably, a loss of sovereignty involved with this treaty. As I said in my last post, it's entirely up to you whether the loss of sovereignty is acceptable to you or not as a voter. Just don't claim that it's "not a loss of sovereignty" purely because it's a loss of sovereignty you don't personally have a problem with.

beeftotheheels

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I am merely pointing out to some of the posters here that there is, absolutely indisputably, a loss of sovereignty involved with this treaty. As I said in my last post, it's entirely up to you whether the loss of sovereignty is acceptable to you or not as a voter. Just don't claim that it's "not a loss of sovereignty" purely because it's a loss of sovereignty you don't personally have a problem with.

You're suffering from an awful tarring by being that unusual creature who is voting no for considered reasons, and who is more than capable of accepting (and demanding) truthfulness in the discussion.

I may disagree entirely with how you will vote but I respect entirely your right to vote that way. I only wish you were more representative of the No vote in this country.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well actually I don't, as those types of weapons I would regard as crimes against humanity - in the same way as I don't oppose us signing up to the charter of human rights, for instance.
The difference is though, that doesn't give anyone else a right to make new laws which our country has to abide by. For instance, the NPT doesn't allow anyone else to decide what kind of lightbulbs we can sell in our shops, or how long we can / have to retain internet data of users. Just using those as two examples. Point is, those decisions are about internal, domestic affairs and the Irish people should have the 100% right to decide how their country is run when you get down to a low level like that. It's far easier to lobby the Irish government than it is to lobby the entire EU, therefore the people have more chance of having their voices heard.

In the case of this particular treaty, I don't approve of the loss of sovereignty but as I've said before, that's not why I'm voting no. I am merely pointing out to some of the posters here that there is, absolutely indisputably, a loss of sovereignty involved with this treaty. As I said in my last post, it's entirely up to you whether the loss of sovereignty is acceptable to you or not as a voter. Just don't claim that it's "not a loss of sovereignty" purely because it's a loss of sovereignty you don't personally have a problem with.

I have never said there was no loss of sovereignty - otherwise we wouldn't have needed a referendum.

Well, actually the NPT influences what type of nuclear industry you can have - look at the sanctions on Iran for what they deem is peaceful nuclear power.

Ditto the chemical weapons convention.

They are not simple human rights issues. For a long time, a country like Finland, well known for its support of human rights generally, was deeply opposed to the Landmines Treaty because of its long land border with Russia.

I am only pointing out that every time we ratify an international treaty we pool or lose some sovereignty. One man's human rights issue is another man's loss of the sovereign ability to protect your borders. It is the "no" campaign (to be fair, not including yourself) who are going around crying and shouting about loss of sovereignty yet many of them would hypocritically support other Treaties (Kyoto Protocol anyone?) that involve significant loss of sovereignty over internal domestic affairs.

Gurgle

jaself wrote: »

Tell me this: When did you last elect a member of the European Commission?

I seem to remember voting for their management, the European Parliament.

jaself wrote: »

Or have a democratic say in any of the actions of the Commission or its 23,000 strong body of civil servants?

As above, we've got as much democratic say in Europe as in Ireland.

You could argue that our vote is diluted by the size of the European electorate, but it equally dilutes the votes of all political movements and so balances out.

The EU tends towards the same socio-economic system as Ireland but on a bigger and eventually (we can hope) more efficient scale.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

Looked at it in a pure "loss of sovereignty" terms, we have lost a huge amount of sovereignty through our ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention (and its protocols) as well as the Landmines Treaty. They take away our ability to defend our state in certain ways and if you look at the definitions of a sovereign nation state, one of the fundamental principles is the ability to defend one's own borders. The ratification of those Treaties therefore hits directly at the sovereignty and independence of this State in a way that the EU does not. I take it therefore that you oppose Ireland's membership and ratification of those Treaties.

The fundamental difference here is that an agreement like that bans specific weapons, at the time of our signing up to it. It does not give an outside body the power to impose new bans on us further down the line even if the majroity of the people and the government here don't want them.

Ireland had to individually ratify those treaties. We chose to do so. We do not, however, choose whether or not to implement EU rules, and any which are decided without us having a veto or opt out, can be said to represent a loss of sovereignty - we, the Irish people, no longer have the right to choose our own policy.
That's different from UN treaties because we have to individually sign up to them. This particular fiscal compact, we have to vote on, we're having a referendum on it in fact. UN treaties, the government at the very least must ratify in the Oireachtas. Do EU governments or populations have the ability to reject, for their country, specific rules such as those regarding lightbulbs or data retention?