Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Irexit party yay or nay?
Options
Comments
-
It can obviously be a flawed premise to compare one country to another but Singapore has thrived without being part of a union, political or monetary. It is a small country, practically an island nation ( bridge to Malaysia I think) and was an impoverished nation 70 years ago. Also a former British colony.
I see no reason why Ireland, with a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU, very liberal immigration policies and stable progressive government's, cannot thrive. By thrive I do not mean GDP growth I mean great infrastructure, policies that put people first not corporations, an environment that business can grow, make money but also give back to their societies. A society where cycles of truama are broken giving is a healthier, happier and more productive society.
Finally, to save people the time a) yes I know Singapore is not a democracy b) yes I know Ireland wasn't a colony c) yes I know Ireland is not located beside a country with booming growth like China.
And why exactly apart from your own little prejudice should Ireland given up all it has achieved and start over. Complete bloody nonsense is the answerer.
Luckily most of the population are not that dump.0 -
Given the history of second EU referenda we have had in this country though, is it right to be entirely reassured that something is not presently an EU competence?
It is entirely plausible that we could, in some notional future, be asked in a referendum to cede our national power to set our rate of CT.
In that case, even if we were to reject it in a first referendum, it would be very difficult to maintain this in a second referendum, which would effectively be a referendum on us continuing to be a constructive EU member ...
Our history as an EU member is one of eventually falling into line: how realistic is it for us to retain a power that our fellow members don’t want us to retain?
First of all, it would require that every member state wants to cede sovereignty over direct taxation: not on the cards. Second, it would require that the Irish government of the day make a decision that it's in Ireland's best interests to join the other member states in ceding that sovereignty, and present that case to the people. Third, if the Irish people vote for it, then it's been democratically agreed. The idea that second referendums are less democratic is a weird one.
If all those things happen, we'll be living in a very different world than the one we have today. I'm personally not losing sleep over it.0 -
The EU’s primary draw has always been the draw of a common european market with free trade between countries. It was when it transitioned from an economic organisation to a political one that it took a downhill turn. Austrian economist Friedrich Von Hayek in 1942 predicted the rise of supernational organisations after world war two and that they would lead to discontent.
Fundamentally, most polish citizens have no interest in how countries like such as France or Ireland elect to run themselves. My own opinion is that much of the history of continental Europe has seen France and Germany grappling to dominate the continent and now that there is no appetite to try and do so militarily, they’re teaming up to do so politically under the banner of unity.
The prospect of ever “closer unity” I think would be alot more attractive to the citizens of Europe if it was done in a way that did not allow the smaller nations of europe to be trampled over by the big ones. ie. in a confederation of states, all states should be treated equally. We could learn alot from how the USA solved this problem in the 18th century with the concept of federalism which ensured that no major changes in policy could be passed unless they had wide reaching support in the majority of states regardless of their sizes and populations. For example, look at how while the states are represented proportionally in the House of Representatives, in the Senate each state has an equal amount of senators and legislation must pass both houses to be implemented. Changes in the constitution must not only recieve a two thirds majority in the Congress but be ratified by two thirds of the states. The electoral college system ensures presidential candidates must be supported by a majority of the states, not necessarily a majority of the people in order to win, otherwise the most populous states like California and New York would decide every election.
If the EU wishes to go down the route of closer union it should follow the federal model. It should treat all states entering into the bargain of the EU equally and lessen the beaurocratic gap between the people and their leaders, ie. the unelected European Commission which proposes legislation that the Parliament has no power to change.
As far as the Irexit party is concerned, I think they can make the case that the EU should treat smaller nations equally or there is a very real prospect of them leaving, I don’t think Ireland should leave as the economic fallout would be too much. One might say that the EU needs Ireland alot less than Ireland needs the EU and it would be true that we could exercise very little leverage on our own. I would recomment that if Irexit MEPs were elected, they should form a coalition with MEPs from other small european states, especially those in eastern europe who are most disgruntled with Brussels and insist that the EU adopt federal mechanisms like I have described to even the playing field for smaller nations.
I think after losing Britain, the prospect of losing alot of other nations could bring the EU to it’s senses.0 -
Could you perhaps explain how the larger nations are trampling over the smaller ones currently?The prospect of ever “closer unity” I think would be alot more attractive to the citizens of Europe if it was done in a way that did not allow the smaller nations of europe to be trampled over by the big ones. ie. in a confederation of states, all states should be treated equally.
How are nations not being treated equally?
1. How are EU member states not represented proportionally?We could learn alot from how the USA solved this problem in the 18th century with the concept of federalism which ensured that no major changes in policy could be passed unless they had wide reaching support in the majority of states regardless of their sizes and populations. For example, look at how while the states are represented proportionally in the House of Representatives, in the Senate each state has an equal amount of senators and legislation must pass both houses to be implemented. Changes in the constitution must not only recieve a two thirds majority in the Congress but be ratified by two thirds of the states. The electoral college system ensures presidential candidates must be supported by a majority of the states, not necessarily a majority of the people in order to win, otherwise the most populous states like California and New York would decide every election.
2. Is the electoral college system rather unfair?
Again you have this allegation of unfairness without any evidence of it. Maybe you could enlighten me?As far as the Irexit party is concerned, I think they can make the case that the EU should treat smaller nations equally or there is a very real prospect of them leaving, I don’t think Ireland should leave as the economic fallout would be too much. One might say that the EU needs Ireland alot less than Ireland needs the EU and it would be true that we could exercise very little leverage on our own. I would recomment that if Irexit MEPs were elected, they should form a coalition with MEPs from other small european states, especially those in eastern europe who are most disgruntled with Brussels and insist that the EU adopt federal mechanisms like I have described to even the playing field for smaller nations.
For example, has Ireland not shown that despite its small size and population we have the EU completely behind us when it comes to the stupidity that is Brexit? How does that demonstrate that we have little leverage?
On the contrary, anyone with a bit of cop on can see that the Brits are shooting themselves in the face and a Brexit under no circumstances will end with Britain doing better than if it stayed within the EU.I think after losing Britain, the prospect of losing alot of other nations could bring the EU to it’s senses.
If Brexit looked like it was going to be in any way successful, then more countries would be lining up to take the pistol from the Brits!0 -
The phrase "ever closer union" was in the Treaty of Rome in 1950. I get that it's popular among the straight-banana set to claim that it was introduced with Lisbon, but it was right there in the second paragraph of the treaty that established the EEC.The EU’s primary draw has always been the draw of a common european market with free trade between countries. It was when it transitioned from an economic organisation to a political one that it took a downhill turn.
Seriously? That's the message you've taken from the EU's unshakable solidarity with Ireland over the past year or so?The prospect of ever “closer unity” I think would be alot more attractive to the citizens of Europe if it was done in a way that did not allow the smaller nations of europe to be trampled over by the big ones.
I think Brexit will have brought most other member states to their senses. Clearly, however, its lessons have been lost on that minority who have their own views of the EU, however detached from reality those views are.I think after losing Britain, the prospect of losing alot of other nations could bring the EU to it’s senses.0 -
Advertisement
-
Actually smaller states have significantly outsized power and influence in the EU compared to big states. Why do you think it otherwise?As far as the Irexit party is concerned, I think they can make the case that the EU should treat smaller nations equally or there is a very real prospect of them leaving.0 -
Seth Brundle wrote: »Could you perhaps explain how the larger nations are trampling over the smaller ones currently?
How are nations not being treated equally?
1. How are EU member states not represented proportionally?
2. Is the electoral college system rather unfair?
Again you have this allegation of unfairness without any evidence of it. Maybe you could enlighten me?
For example, has Ireland not shown that despite its small size and population we have the EU completely behind us when it comes to the stupidity that is Brexit? How does that demonstrate that we have little leverage?
On the contrary, anyone with a bit of cop on can see that the Brits are shooting themselves in the face and a Brexit under no circumstances will end with Britain doing better than if it stayed within the EU.
If Brexit looked like it was going to be in any way successful, then more countries would be lining up to take the pistol from the Brits!
Nations are not treated equally in that the largest nations with the highest populations exert the most influence and have the most seats in parliament while smaller nations have the least. What I’m saying is that if the EU is going to be a conglomaration of states in which Estonia is viewed as just as much a member as France then states should have an equal say in the legislative process. I suggest the federal model as in the united states congress, in the lower house, states are represented proportional to their populations. Therefore California has 53 seats while small states like Alaska and Vermont only have 1. In the senate however, every state has 2 seats regardless of population, therefore in order for legislation to pass both house, it must be supported a majority of reps both in terms of population and in terms of states.
The electoral college system is only unfair if you view the USA as only one state. It isn’t. It’s a nation comprised of 50 states and the states elect the president. In each state, if the candidate wins a majority then all the state’s electoral college votes go to that candidate and states are given electoral college votes proportional to population. The most influential states are not the most left leaning states like California or the most right leaning states like Texas, but the states in the middle. This creates incentive for candidates to campaign in the states that are most unsure of who to vote for rather than the most homogenous states which by and large are either the biggest states or the smallest in terms of population.
The EU is obliged to involve Ireland in the Brexit negotiations in a way that they are not obliged to involve countries of similar size like Denmark or Croatia, simply because we’re the only country with a land border with the nation that is leaving.
In relation to your last point, many of the arguments in favor of Brexit had nothing to do with economics, in fact I doubt if any country would have much to gain economically from leaving the common market. As I said in my first post, the primary draw of the original EEC was the common market. Non economic arguments for Brexit included arguments based on the inequality between states as I’ve said, regulative superiority over member states, superiority of European Courts over national courts, immigration policy and the entire beaureacratic political apparatus. There are states that shared Britain’s concerns over these things. For example the eastern european states such as Poland and Hungary both of which were unhappy to have refugees foisted upon them.0 -
-
The European Parliament is just one of the three administrative bodies that make EU law. It's the one that's directly elected by the people of the EU, so it makes sense that representation is broadly in line with population (proportional representation).Nations are not treated equally in that the largest nations with the highest populations exert the most influence and have the most seats in parliament while smaller nations have the least.
The other two EU bodies are the Commission, which has one member appointed by each member state, and the Council, which consists of the heads of state or government of each member state.What I’m saying is that if the EU is going to be a conglomaration of states in which Estonia is viewed as just as much a member as France then states should have an equal say in the legislative process. I suggest the federal model as in the united states congress, in the lower house, states are represented proportional to their populations. Therefore California has 53 seats while small states like Alaska and Vermont only have 1. In the senate however, every state has 2 seats regardless of population, therefore in order for legislation to pass both house, it must be supported a majority of reps both in terms of population and in terms of states.
So Parliament represents the people of the EU; the Council represents the member states of the EU; and the Commission represents the interests of the Union itself, albeit with a membership that ensures that the member states' interests are not trampled on.
In other words, it already works the way you're demanding that it should.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »The European Parliament is just one of the three administrative bodies that make EU law. It's the one that's directly elected by the people of the EU, so it makes sense that representation is broadly in line with population (proportional representation). The other two EU bodies are the Commission, which has one member appointed by each member state, and the Council, which consists of the heads of state or government of each member state.
So Parliament represents the people of the EU; the Council represents the member states of the EU; and the Commission represents the interests of the Union itself, albeit with a membership that ensures that the member states' interests are not trampled on.
In other words, it already works the way you're demanding that it should.
These guys in the Commission are appointed, not elected. And you’ve left out a key detail that the European Parliament cannot propose legislation. It can only vote on legislation proposed by the commision. This isnt how a legislature is supposes to work.0 -
Advertisement
-
is_that_so wrote: »d) we are not Singaporean.
Why is it people always ignore salient details like this when they want to do a wholesale import of another country's system as a "brilliant solution"?
Indeed
The Singaporean government owns something like 85% of the land there
No way we'd wear that here. Private property rights override all, even though the constitution says they don't outweigh the common good - in theory.Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
0 -
Our history as an EU member is one of eventually falling into line: how realistic is it for us to retain a power that our fellow members don’t want us to retain?
Our history is of voting down EU treaties twice, on entirely spurious grounds e.g. abortion.
Then we get an embarrassing little declaration saying that the Nice treaty has nothing to do with abortion atall atall, which of course it didn't, and we collectively engaged brain before the second vote
Lisbon was rejected mainly due to bad campaigning and the government being so unpopular at the time. We got a change so that every country got to keep a commissioner as a result, jobs for the boys really as there aren't enough proper commissioner jobs to go around, but a substantial change to the treaty nonetheless.Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
0 -
The EU is not a country, it's a voluntary union as exemplified by Brexit.These guys in the Commission are appointed, not elected. And you’ve left out a key detail that the European Parliament cannot propose legislation. It can only vote on legislation proposed by the commision. This isnt how a legislature is supposes to work.
Although it's not the EUs fault the UK can't walk out the door it opened.0 -
The EU is not a country, it's a voluntary union as exemplified by Brexit.
Although it's not the EUs fault the UK can't walk out the door it opened.
It certainly acts like a country in that it exerts sovereignty over it’s constituent parts in areas like regulation, courts and immigration. However it doesn’t act like a democratic country in that it severely limits the right the people to control who their legislators are.
I’m extremely lukewarm to the notion of a federal nation of european states, but it must be democratic and the current model simply isnt0 -
It certainly acts like a country in that it exerts sovereignty over it’s constituent parts in areas like regulation, courts and immigration. However it doesn’t act like a democratic country in that it severely limits the right the people to control who their legislators are.
I’m extremely lukewarm to the notion of a federal nation of european states, but it must be democratic and the current model simply isnt
They're the competencies that member states adhere to.
Clubs have rules. Don't adhere to them and your club privileges get suspended.0 -
They're the competencies that member states adhere to.
Clubs have rules. Don't adhere to them and your club privileges get suspended.
You’re misunderstanding the point I’m making.
I’m not objecting to the preference of some people for these rules. I’m objecting to the notion that the rules are worthy of a democratic institution in spite of whether or not people have agreed to them.
I’m suggesting that if we’re going to be getting more united as a continent and cede more powers to the EU, we should make it more demcratic and decrease the distance between the people and their leaders. If we did this then I’m perfectly happy with a United States of Europe.0 -
Pooling resources is not ceding sovereignty.You’re misunderstanding the point I’m making.
I’m not objecting to the preference of some people for these rules. I’m objecting to the notion that the rules are fair in spite of whether or not people have agreed to them.
I’m suggesting that if we’re going to be getting more united as a continent and cede more powers to the EU, we should make it more demcratic. If we did this then I’m perfectly happy with a United States of Europe.
Any state reserves the right to withdraw itself from that voluntary effort.
I think a problem is that commentators in the USA expect it to act like a federation and the UK expects it to be an empire. Both are reflections of how those nation see the world through own experience, but both consistently miss the EU hasn't had to do either to maintain a globally high standard of living for its citizens.
The EU is voluntary which doesn't give the tension either the USA or UK needs to fulfill its expectations, which is why the brexit factions in the UK have now turned on eachother to keep the suspense level up.0 -
Pooling resources is not ceding sovereignty.
Any state reserves the right to withdraw itself from that voluntary effort.
I think a problem is that commentators in the USA expect it to act like a federation and the UK expects it to be an empire. Both are reflections of how those nation see the world through own experience, but both consistently miss the EU hasn't had to do either to maintain a globally high standard of living for its citizens.
The EU is voluntary which doesn't give the tension either the USA or UK needs to fulfill its expectations, which is why the brexit factions in the UK have now turned on eachother to keep the suspense level up.
1st part: You’re absolutely right. Pooling resources is not ceding soveriegnty. I don’t know where you got the impression it might be.
2nd part: Again you’re misunderstanding my point. I am not objecting to the notion that the EU has rules, rules we agreed to, rules some people prefer and others don’t and that we reserve the right to secede from the EU. I am arguing that these rules are not worthy of the supposedly democratic institution the EU claims to be and therefore we should seek to change them.
3rd part: The EU does act like a federation. It has sovereignty over it’s states in the areas of legislation, regulation, immigration and courts. Just like the federal govt in Washington DC has sovereignty over the 50 States in these areas. However, where it departs from being a federation is that the rights of the people in the states to control and reign in the EU through democracy is severely limited. The EU Commission is not democratically accountable to the people and the EU parliament cannot propose legislation, it can merely vote on legislation sent it’s way by the commission.
4th part: I’ve already addressed this in the 2nd part:0 -
It doesn't exert that sovereignty; the member states have agreed to pool sovereignty in those areas.It certainly acts like a country in that it exerts sovereignty over it’s constituent parts in areas like regulation, courts and immigration.
...because it isn't one, and doesn't pretend to be one.However it doesn’t act like a democratic country...I’m extremely lukewarm to the notion of a federal nation of european states...
Hmm.If we did this then I’m perfectly happy with a United States of Europe.
We don't need a United States of Europe, and almost nobody is looking for one. It exists almost entirely as a straw man argument.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »It doesn't exert that sovereignty; the member states have agreed to pool sovereignty in those areas. ...because it isn't one, and doesn't pretend to be one.
Hmm.
We don't need a United States of Europe, and almost nobody is looking for one. It exists almost entirely as a straw man argument.
It's always the same though, UK brexiters can't seem to get beyond its rule or be ruled mentality, and now they're only EU members by permission of the EU27. They are entirely the authors of their supplicant position because they can not see the EU any other way than an imperial project.
Pooling the effort to maintain a high global standard of living is simple not good enough for them. And then there's the paranoid Trumpers radicalised with their Bush era "you're either with us or against us" world view.
Both are now tied up in domestic political paralysis.0 -
Advertisement
-
You’re misunderstanding the point I’m making.
I’m not objecting to the preference of some people for these rules. I’m objecting to the notion that the rules are worthy of a democratic institution in spite of whether or not people have agreed to them.
I’m suggesting that if we’re going to be getting more united as a continent and cede more powers to the EU, we should make it more demcratic and decrease the distance between the people and their leaders. If we did this then I’m perfectly happy with a United States of Europe.
But you really don't get it.
- Firstly the EU is democratic. It's a different kind of system based on the fact Europe is neither a nation or a Federation but it does not make it one iota less democratic. Too many people think that if a system does not entirely replicate their system it is not "democratic". The US system where you don't have a directly elected president and a commission/cabinet that is unelected for example.
- The power in Europe has been specifically balanced towards the member states. What you entirely ignore is that the components of the EU not directly elected (the European Parliament) are elected by the nation state members (council of ministers for example). The commission replicates (in so much you can compare) the cabinet in the US which is not elected at all.
- All of your suggestions would lead to small states like Ireland having less power. Any increase in the power of the EU democratic institutions like the EP will necessarily reduce the power of small states. In fact the EU is built around reducing the power of the big two of France and Germany.
You need to provide detail behind your thinking and not repeat youtube tropes made up by the hard right press. What you propose is not what you think it is.0 -
These guys in the Commission are appointed, not elected. And you’ve left out a key detail that the European Parliament cannot propose legislation. It can only vote on legislation proposed by the commision. This isnt how a legislature is supposes to work.
Oh this old trope.
- The US equivalent, the Cabinet is not elected nor are they necessarily elected representatives.
- You can easily argue the same for Ireland or the UK where you are not elected to that position and in fact do not need to be a elected to get the position.
With regard to the European Parliament they have the extremely powerful abilities to block and amend any legislation proposed by the commission.
Now I do appreciate that you actually want to implement a system where small states are ignored and centralise all power with a parliament and directly elected commission that Germany and France could then dominate; but the rest of us actually want a sensible balanced arrangement that best reflects the democratic wishes of ALL the people of Europe. That's what we have. Not perfect but streets ahead of your proposals.0 -
-
a strong nay, the eu has issue yes but a party basically copying UKIPs entire platform isn't really offering anything0
-
Didn't the USA implement QE early in the GFC, resulting in a recovery in all sectors of the economy while the EU implemented austerity, driving down the EU wide economy, along with the world economy. The EU economy is still languishing while the US economy is booming ( albeit within the capitalist economic cycle of growth and recession )..
Also, Australia gave all their citizens 1000 dollars when the GFC hit. Their economy has and continues to grow for the past 27 years.
I also understand that IMF implemented austerity absolutely destroyed the economies of countries, such as Zambia. Hence the IMF within the Troika asked the EU to ease up on Ireland with regard to spending cuts ( which I don't believe they did).
The US Dollar is a reserve currency. There is no correlation between the USD and a Punt Nua. You might not have noticed that Ireland is much smaller than the US and therefore must import a lot more of our basic goods and services.
The IMF have successes as well as failures (which may have been caused by other factors) such as the Asian Crisis. When the IMF gets called in the Country has already crashed. It's like blaming the firefighters for water damage when your house was on fire.
Australia has significant issues being a resource economy.
Basically context matters. Blindly applying the same policy everywhere and having an idea of "one right way, all other ways wrong" approach to life is counter productive.0 -
-
I still don't get the Irexit line of that the EU is undemocratic.
Look around at every lamp post at the moment! (unless, of course Irexit supporters arent actually in Ireland to experience our glorious esb polls during an election:rolleyes:)
That's right, WE get to elect OUR representatives in the European parliament.
Maybe it's the European Council and the Council of Ministers that's the problem - but we also get to decide what party gets to form our government, we give them our mandate to select our Taoiseach and Ministers to represent us in both councils. There is a General Election somewhere on the horizon, so dont fear if you are not happy with the current crop!
So that leaves the European Commission- true not directly elected by us, but - and it is a massive but, it's our representatives in EU Council and council of ministers who, on our behalf, nominate a commissioner and get to vote on the selection of the entire commission. - We get to elect who does this on our behalf.
That's one of the things about the STV system as opposed to FPTP - you do feel your vote is represented even if your No.1 is not elected.
So to think the EU system is undemocratic is simply a misrepresentation of how democracy works. They may feel that they don't have a voice or influence, but that's because a majority of other people might have a different view - and that's democracy unfortunately.0 -
So that leaves the European Commission- true not directly elected by us, but - and it is a massive but, it's our representatives in EU Council and council of ministers who, on our behalf, nominate a commissioner and get to vote on the selection of the entire commission. - We get to elect who does this on our behalf.
It is not exactly the case, the president of the Commission is the candidate proposed by the parties winning the majority vote in the EP elections. Referred to as the SPITZENKANDIDATEN.0 -
I still don't get the Irexit line of that the EU is undemocratic.
How could you get it, they make up what democracy is and then complain that anything that does not meet their criteria is undemocratic. End the end it comes down not getting their way, kindergarten stuff nothing else.0 -
Advertisement
-
EU Regulations are not directly effective on the sovereign of the Member States (in most MS excluding the UK, the sovereign being the people); Regulations are imposed on the Member State itself. Directives apply EU law to sovereign individuals but are implemented on a Member State level by national law. There is absolutely nothing undemocratic about that.It certainly acts like a country in that it exerts sovereignty over it’s constituent parts in areas like regulation, courts and immigration. However it doesn’t act like a democratic country in that it severely limits the right the people to control who their legislators are.
I’m extremely lukewarm to the notion of a federal nation of european states, but it must be democratic and the current model simply isnt
I can't even fathom how the CJEU has any impact on sovereignty - you'll need to explain that one?0
Advertisement