Pooling of Sovereignty

FreudianSlippers

Economic union with Europe is the greatest thing that has ever happened to this country thus far. Anyone that denies this is either: too young, pushing an agenda or telling a fib.

Sovereignty is a concept that is rambled on about but seemingly misunderstood in the European context, especially in Ireland where the people are the sovereign and we hold these expensive referenda!

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

To use the light-bulb analogy, if the UN decides tomorrow that we can't sell any goods to Iran because of economic sanctions, then we have to follow it.

That is indeed a loss of sovereignty, and one which I absolutely don't support. But I don't advocate withdrawing from the UN to change it, just as I don't advocate a withdrawal from the EU in the cases of the treaties, merely voting against those particular treaties.

If the CWC organisation decides tomorrow that selling certain chemicals to non-signatories is banned, then we have to follow it.

If the Kyoto Protocol people decide our emissions are too high, we can't have certain industries here.

Ok help me out here - I was under the impression that in both of these cases, we signed up to a specific set of rules, and they can't be changed without us further agreeing to sign up to the new set of rules. No? For instance, the Kyoto protocol can't redefine the limits after members have signed up to it, without re-signing up to it. Is this incorrect?

You know some of those treaties set up organisations which set rules which we have to follow in their areas of competence. The only difference with the EU is one of scale, it has competence in a wider area.

Exactly, hence why I said I was ok with a loss of sovereignty up to a certain point, but that the EU has taken it too far and needs to be reigned in.

You complain about giving up the right to have our own lightbulbs, I could complain about giving up the right to make our own nuclear weapons (if the North Koreans and Israelis can have them, why not us?), the principle is the same. You can talk about human rights but I can produce the Finns and landmines as a counter-example.

I agree, except as I said before, those specific rules are specifically signed up to by each country which agrees to them. We don't have to sign up to the NPT if we don't want to and the UN can't impose the rules on us without us signing up to them.
If you like, we have an "opt out" on all of those issues. We don't have one when it comes to the EU, the EU can make rules and overrule 100% of the people of Ireland - and those rules can relate to domestic policy rather than foreign policy.
As far as I'm aware, the UN can't decide to "ban" us from having nukes for instance unless we willingly signed up to the NPT. It's one of the things I always argue about the Iran situation - they'd have a better leg to stand on if they renounced the NPT, which they have every legal right to do.

If you want to be consistent on the principle of participative democracy as set out above, you have to advocate withdrawal from all Treaties and organisations that restrict our ability to manage our own affairs. Arguing that we can have participative democracy except for human rights issues, environmental emissions and arming ourselves is not a consistent argument. All men are equal but some are more equal than others.
.

As I said above. We have participatory democracy in that we could vote to pull out of those particular treaties. I don't think (although I could be wrong) that we could pull out of an EU directive without pulling out of the entire EU. Could we? If I'm wrong then of course I'm wrong and I'll accept that, but as far as I know, I'm not.

hatrickpatrick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Economic union with Europe is the greatest thing that has ever happened to this country thus far. Anyone that denies this is either: too young, pushing an agenda or telling a fib.

Sovereignty is a concept that is rambled on about but seemingly misunderstood in the European context, especially in Ireland where the people are the sovereign and we hold these expensive referenda!

Economic indeed. Not social or political. That's the entire point I've been making. Banning lightbulbs isn't an economic rule it's a social one, and one which should be up to the people of the country in which the law is being made.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

But that's inconsistent with your argument. You've suggested that you opposed Lisbon because you felt it diluted our sovereignty too far, implying that the Nice treaty is the maximum extent to which you feel our sovereignty should have been diluted. But the Nice treaty allows for the same theoretical process of implementing measures we don't agree with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nice#Provisions_of_the_treaty

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Lisbon treaty increased the number of areas in which we have no veto and are subject to a qualified majority of European states, ergo it did in fact dilute our sovereignty further than Nice did.

FreudianSlippers

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Economic union with Europe is the greatest thing that has ever happened to this country thus far. Anyone that denies this is either: too young, pushing an agenda or telling a fib.

Sovereignty is a concept that is rambled on about but seemingly misunderstood in the European context, especially in Ireland where the people are the sovereign and we hold these expensive referenda!

Economic indeed. Not social or political. That's the entire point I've been making. Banning lightbulbs isn't an economic rule it's a social one, and one which should be up to the people of the country in which the law is being made.

It does not represent a loss of sovereignty. We are a part of the federal decision, You seem to be an anarchist in a way.

hatrickpatrick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It does not represent a loss of sovereignty. We are a part of the federal decision, You seem to be an anarchist in a way.

How does any of what I said make me an anarchist?

I don't want to be subject to a federal decision, but a local one. I don't see how that's in any way anarchist and I would be absolutely delighted to hear some detail about that claim

I might be what you'd call an "international anarchist" in that I think each nation should decide for itself what laws its people have to follow. I hardly think you could call that anarchism though...?

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Lisbon treaty increased the number of areas in which we have no veto and are subject to a qualified majority of European states, ergo it did in fact dilute our sovereignty further than Nice did.

Yes, it did. My point is that, under the Nice rules, the new directives to which you object so strongly could still have been introduced. This was true at the time of our initial accession, so if you have a problem with the idea that an organisation of which we are a member can introduce directives to which we are not necessarily agreed, then the only logical position is to oppose EU membership entirely.

Otherwise, you'll have to point out the very specific competencies that Lisbon moved from unanimity to QMV that were a bridge too far, and accept that every other competency that already existed under Nice was a curtailment of our sovereignty that you don't have a problem with.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't want to be subject to a federal decision, but a local one.

Would you be in favour of a situation where the Irish government could ban bituminous coal, but Dublin City Council could overturn that with a local decision?

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Would you be in favour of a situation where the Irish government could ban bituminous coal, but Dublin City Council could overturn that with a local decision?

Absolutely. I'd also be in favour of that with regard to the smoking ban, pub licensing laws (time limits and so on) and many other areas.
EDIT: Actually strike that. I'd prefer a situation in which the national government couldn't make those laws in the first place, so it's not a question of the council "overturning" them.

This is a straw man argument though - you're implying that Ireland within the EU is just like a county within Ireland, which it isn't. Ireland is a state made up of counties, I don't want to be in an EU "state" made up of countries. That's the entire argument I've been making all along. I don't want a United States of Europe. You've outlined exactly what I oppose about the direction of the EU

hatrickpatrick

Also, if we're going to discuss my beliefs about democracy and localism would it not be better to make a new thread for it in Politics? I've been accused of hijacking threads here before and I have no intention of detracting from the very real and necessary debate about the implications of EU federalism, with a debate about the nature of democracy itself.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'd prefer a situation in which the national government couldn't make those laws in the first place...

Reductio ad absurdum: all laws should be made by residents' committees.

You're right, it's a thread for somewhere else. I do find it hard to reconcile your claim to be happy with EU membership with your desire for complete local autonomy, however: it betrays a complete misunderstanding of what the EU actually is, as opposed to what some people would like it to be.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Reductio ad absurdum: all laws should be made by residents' committees.

I didn't say all. I said about a lot of issues. Not all by a long shot.

You're right, it's a thread for somewhere else. I do find it hard to reconcile your claim to be happy with EU membership with your desire for complete local autonomy, however: it betrays a complete misunderstanding of what the EU actually is, as opposed to what some people would like it to be.

Not really. I'm happy with the economic union aspect of EU membership, I tend to oppose it when we move in to the area of social policy and actual laws people have to follow. They should be up to the populations of those areas, not a larger body. Would you be in favour for instance of the EU deciding on issues such as which drugs are legal here, the age of consent, and other social issues such as these? It wouldn't make any sense as different cultures across Europe have different views on these things.

If we eventually move into a "united states of Europe" situation that kind of thing might easily happen. It's a bit like when voters in California had a vote about potentially legalizing weed, but the federal government said it would be irrelevant as they were bound by a federal ban.

I don't approve of this type of situation because it makes it much harder for the people to change things and greatly slows down the political process. It takes much longer to get agreement across 25 states than it does to get agreement across 26 counties. Would anyone deny that EU laws are harder for "the people" to change than national laws? Would anyone deny that national laws are harder for the people to change than local laws?

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not really. I'm happy with the economic union aspect of EU membership, I tend to oppose it when we move in to the area of social policy and actual laws people have to follow.

Then you're opposed to the European Union, because it has never - ever - been a strictly economic union. It was designed from the start to be a political union, and the extent to which it pools sovereignty is agreed on an ongoing basis between the democratically-elected governments of its member states.

You're basically saying you don't mind us being a member of EFTA. We're not members of EFTA; we're members of the EU. You don't have to like what that means in terms of pooled sovereignty; but if you don't like it, elect a government that can persuade the other member state governments to unravel the ever-closer union.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, it did. My point is that, under the Nice rules, the new directives to which you object so strongly could still have been introduced. This was true at the time of our initial accession, so if you have a problem with the idea that an organisation of which we are a member can introduce directives to which we are not necessarily agreed, then the only logical position is to oppose EU membership entirely.

Obviously not, as we had to vote on future treaties such as Lisbon.

Otherwise, you'll have to point out the very specific competencies that Lisbon moved from unanimity to QMV that were a bridge too far, and accept that every other competency that already existed under Nice was a curtailment of our sovereignty that you don't have a problem with.

I've done this before, I'll have a look later on and see if I can find it - I made a list of them during the actual Lisbon campaign, not sure if I posted it here or on another website, but I'll go back and rewrite it if I can't find it.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Then you're opposed to the European Union, because it has never - ever - been a strictly economic union. It was designed from the start to be a political union, and the extent to which it pools sovereignty is agreed on an ongoing basis between the democratically-elected governments of its member states.

EXACTLY. This: "the extent to which it pools sovereignty is agreed on an ongoing basis between the democratically-elected governments of its member states."

Then there's no problem with us voting no to future referenda which pool sovereignty further, right? That's exactly what I'm saying.

PopeBuckfastXVI

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

EXACTLY. This: "the extent to which it pools sovereignty is agreed on an ongoing basis between the democratically-elected governments of its member states."

Then there's no problem with us voting no to future referenda which pool sovereignty further, right? That's exactly what I'm saying.

I'm 100% behind you on that, by the way, it's exactly your right to vote no to increasing shared sovereignty.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Obviously not, as we had to vote on future treaties such as Lisbon.

You're confusing "new directives" with "new competencies". We don't need a treaty every time an EU directive is issued.

I've done this before, I'll have a look later on and see if I can find it - I made a list of them during the actual Lisbon campaign, not sure if I posted it here or on another website, but I'll go back and rewrite it if I can't find it.

Right, but that's only half my point: you also have to be sure that there's nothing the EU could have done under the Nice treaty that you would have had a problem with.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

EXACTLY. This: "the extent to which it pools sovereignty is agreed on an ongoing basis between the democratically-elected governments of its member states."

Then there's no problem with us voting no to future referenda which pool sovereignty further, right? That's exactly what I'm saying.

We're free to reject any referendum on any issue we like. How could it be otherwise?

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

We're free to reject any referendum on any issue we like. How could it be otherwise?

Either your brains or your signature will be on that contract.

No seriously: all the threats of a two-tier Europe, losing friends with our European neghbours, loss of influence in the Consilium and Parliament, reduction in investment, harder budgets, fewer companies setting up in Ireland, etc. are all geared towards making the Irish voter feel insecure and pressured into a certain position.

Most of those threats are as rubbish as "permanent austerity", mind you.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're confusing "new directives" with "new competencies". We don't need a treaty every time an EU directive is issued.

Exactly, and my issue is the transfer of new competencies to Europe beyond what it already has - in my view, it already has far too much. Therefore I oppose any attempts to transfer even more.
Are you misreading what I'm saying or am I just being very poor at explaining my position?

Right, but that's only half my point: you also have to be sure that there's nothing the EU could have done under the Nice treaty that you would have had a problem with.

I agree. Now as far as I remember, there wasn't. However, as I say, I'll find that write up I did in '08 and post it again if I have it, if not I'll try to reconstruct it later on.

We're free to reject any referendum on any issue we like. How could it be otherwise?

And

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'm 100% behind you on that, by the way, it's exactly your right to vote no to increasing shared sovereignty.

Really? If you believe a lot of the yes side's rhetoric, it's "Europe's way or GTFO of the EU", which apart from being completely untrue, is an extremely foolish way of trying to persuade people to vote yes - in reality, as in my own case, it just makes people resent the bullying tactics even more. Remember Sarkozy's "The Irish must vote again"?

The yes side seems to have this idea that it's "agree to everything the EU tries to impose on us, or get out". Even during Lisbon it was "Yes to Europe" - not "yes to this particular treaty within the EU." That's the kind of remark which annoys me, if you're not one of those people then we're more on the same side than you might think. There are many people on this forum and elsewhere who seem to think that if your position is to reject further competencies being given to Europe, you also automatically advocate withdrawing from the EU. This viewpoint flies in the face of "We're part of Europe and we have a say in what direction it takes".

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

No seriously: all the threats of a two-tier Europe, losing friends with our European neghbours, loss of influence in the Consilium and Parliament, reduction in investment, harder budgets, fewer companies setting up in Ireland, etc. are all geared towards making the Irish voter feel insecure and pressured into a certain position.

Most of those threats are as rubbish as "permanent austerity", mind you.

Some of these days we'll be mature enough as an electorate to ignore the threats and vote on the issues. Then maybe when we tell the tripe-peddlers to get knotted often enough, they'll shut up.

I'm not holding my breath.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Are you misreading what I'm saying or am I just being very poor at explaining my position?

Could be a misunderstanding on my part. Your position on pooled sovereignty strikes me as inconsistent with being happy with Nice; I'm open to correction.

The yes side seems to have this idea that it's "agree to everything the EU tries to impose on us, or get out".

But the EU doesn't impose things on us. It's quite simply not how the EU works. The government negotiates what it believes to be the best deal it can with the other member states. Leaving aside the rather bizarre conspiracy theories that have been espoused in the other thread, the baseline assumption is that the government will only sign a treaty that it thinks is, on balance, a good deal for Ireland.

There are many people on this forum and elsewhere who seem to think that if your position is to reject further competencies being given to Europe, you also automatically advocate withdrawing from the EU. This viewpoint flies in the face of "We're part of Europe and we have a say in what direction it takes".

Our country is a part of the EU, and our country has a say in what direction it takes. We elect a government, and entrust them with the responsibility of negotiating with the other member states. If our democratically-elected government believes that it's in the best interest of our country to further pool sovereignty, then it will sign up to that and give us the option of accepting or rejecting it.

PopeBuckfastXVI

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Exactly, and my issue is the transfer of new competencies to Europe beyond what it already has - in my view, it already has far too much. Therefore I oppose any attempts to transfer even more.
Are you misreading what I'm saying or am I just being very poor at explaining my position?



I agree. Now as far as I remember, there wasn't. However, as I say, I'll find that write up I did in '08 and post it again if I have it, if not I'll try to reconstruct it later on.



And



Really? If you believe a lot of the yes side's rhetoric, it's "Europe's way or GTFO of the EU", which apart from being completely untrue, is an extremely foolish way of trying to persuade people to vote yes - in reality, as in my own case, it just makes people resent the bullying tactics even more. Remember Sarkozy's "The Irish must vote again"?

The yes side seems to have this idea that it's "agree to everything the EU tries to impose on us, or get out". Even during Lisbon it was "Yes to Europe" - not "yes to this particular treaty within the EU." That's the kind of remark which annoys me, if you're not one of those people then we're more on the same side than you might think. There are many people on this forum and elsewhere who seem to think that if your position is to reject further competencies being given to Europe, you also automatically advocate withdrawing from the EU. This viewpoint flies in the face of "We're part of Europe and we have a say in what direction it takes".

I can disagree with your fears on pooling more sovereignty, but I'm not going to disagree with your right to vote against it.

I also feel that no one nation should put a brake on further integration, which is why I'm slightly less concerned about a 'no' in this one. A 'no' to this treaty for Ireland, is only bad for Ireland, and doesn't hold anyone else back.

later12

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

A 'no' to this treaty for Ireland, is only bad for Ireland, and doesn't hold anyone else back.

I think you're right here, but apart from the fact that it's a private ballot, it's a bit like voting Yes to the Treaty because you know it's going to win.

We all know the TSCG will pass in Ireland. That shouldn't inform how you mark your vote as a citizen.
We all know the TSCG will pass in Europe. That shouldn't inform how Ireland marks its vote as a state.

ixtlan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Even during Lisbon it was "Yes to Europe" - not "yes to this particular treaty within the EU." That's the kind of remark which annoys me, if you're not one of those people then we're more on the same side than you might think. There are many people on this forum and elsewhere who seem to think that if your position is to reject further competencies being given to Europe, you also automatically advocate withdrawing from the EU. This viewpoint flies in the face of "We're part of Europe and we have a say in what direction it takes".

Hi, I have sympathy with this position, even though I favour more integration. There is a problem here, and it has multiple causes, some of which are just the way things are.

We have as a nation generally (in fact always) elected pro-EU integration governments into office. They sign the best deal they can, and ask for approval from the people. Since they are pro-EU integration that's what they sign up to, and certainly there is a lot of pressure to agree when there are 27 countries involved. Maybe more "enhanced co-operation" agreements would suit your view better (so you had more options on what to say yes/no to), but there has been strenuous attempts to avoid this where possible, and again the governments we elect don't like to push such a view.

This isn't likely to change until a more anti/sceptical government takes over, and that is a long way off it seems. In fact such a government would dismay me but that would be democracy. It is interesting to note though that aside from economic EU discussions in the last vote, how much EU policy discussion have you ever heard over the past 20 years during a general election.

Ix