A Nation Once We Were - Angela Merkel calls for willingness to surrender sovereignty

Not for Long

Angela Merkel calls for willingness to surrender sovereignty
https://www.kas.de/veranstaltungsberichte/detail/-/content/-das-herz-der-demokratie-
[Hit The Translate Button]

And these. . ..
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/23/merkel-eu-hand-sovereignty-brussels/
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jul/25/dutton-says-australia-wont-surrender-our-sovereignty-by-signing-un-migration-deal

Straight from the Irish Constitution:
"We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible"

Is this really what the Irish people want, to give up their sovereignty?

Its awful to watch our society being completely transformed without sufficient representation. There are so many of our citizens outside the country with no say. I'ts heart-wrenching to watch the country doing down the toilet.

ancapailldorcha

Posts deleted. Serious discussion only please.

FreudianSlippers

Not for Long wrote: »

Angela Merkel calls for willingness to surrender sovereignty
https://www.kas.de/veranstaltungsberichte/detail/-/content/-das-herz-der-demokratie-
[Hit The Translate Button]

And these. . ..
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/23/merkel-eu-hand-sovereignty-brussels/
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jul/25/dutton-says-australia-wont-surrender-our-sovereignty-by-signing-un-migration-deal

Straight from the Irish Constitution:
"We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible"

Is this really what the Irish people want, to give up their sovereignty?

Its awful to watch our society being completely transformed without sufficient representation. There are so many of our citizens outside the country with no say. I'ts heart-wrenching to watch the country doing down the toilet.

OP doesn't know that Poblacht na hÉireann isn't the Constitution.

We have agreed that pooled sovereignty is better for the 28 27 members of the EU and so far it seems to have been quite successful. I also don't agree that Merkel is saying what you suggest she is. I think this kind of hyperbole would probably do a lot better in AH tbh.

RandomName2

Not for Long wrote: »

Angela Merkel calls for willingness to surrender sovereignty
https://www.kas.de/veranstaltungsberichte/detail/-/content/-das-herz-der-demokratie-
[Hit The Translate Button]

Well one quote of hers which is a bit sticky is

She criticized that "there are people who believed that they could determine when these agreements would become invalid because they represent the people"

That is, that politicians should not be able to represent the will of the people if it means breaking prior agreements. I notice that the people who are likely to be the first to defend the institution of representative democracy, whenever anybody complains about politicians deciding upon divisive policies, are the very ones liable to complain when governments make decisions that they don't personally agree with.

At the moment Poland and Hungary are being targeted by Merkel because she disagrees with the decisions that they are making. Yes, hold on a second, the specific complaints by Germany about the judiciary and media being undermined in those respective countries is a legitimate complaint, but it is being motivated by other reasons. No complaint about Spain in relation to how it handled the Catalonian vote, because Spain is behaving itself in other ways.

Merkel's personal views have held far too much sway over the member nations of the EU.

Not for Long wrote: »

Is this really what the Irish people want, to give up their sovereignty?

Well it's what they voted for.

Not for Long wrote: »

Its awful to watch our society being completely transformed without sufficient representation.

There's probably sufficient representation, it's just that Fianna Fail, and in particular Fine Gael, are complete sycophants in relation to all aspects of the governance of the EU.

amacca

Not for Long wrote: »

There are so many of our citizens outside the country with no say.

I firmly believe that only citizens resident in the country should have a vote or say in the running of said country.

After all they will be the ones that will have to live with the consequences of their voting decisions.

This diaspora stuff is nonsense - you want a say in how the place is run, live here.

blanch152

Not for Long wrote: »

There are so many of our citizens outside the country with no say.

There are indeed.

A huge number of them living in America and opponents of abortion. I would guess that Repeal the 8th could have failed, if the US anti-abortion movement had been able to target Irish voters living in the US.

James Brown

amacca wrote: »

I firmly believe that only citizens resident in the country should have a vote or say in the running of said country.

After all they will be the ones that will have to live with the consequences of their voting decisions.

This diaspora stuff is nonsense - you want a say in how the place is run, live here.

I would agree to a point. Any Irish citizens forced to seek a living abroad for economic reasons, on a year or two work visa should certainly have the right to vote out or against the policy makers put them in that position.

badtoro

amacca wrote: »

Not for Long wrote: »

There are so many of our citizens outside the country with no say.

I firmly believe that only citizens resident in the country should have a vote or say in the running of said country.

After all they will be the ones that will have to live with the consequences of their voting decisions.

This diaspora stuff is nonsense - you want a say in how the place is run, live here.

I'd be in 100% agreement with you. There's no way I want anyone, anyone, influencing life or society in this country from the comfort of another country. No way.

LuckyLloyd

No representation without taxation.

VinLieger

Not for Long wrote: »

Its awful to watch our society being completely transformed without sufficient representation. There are so many of our citizens outside the country with no say. I'ts heart-wrenching to watch the country doing down the toilet.

Why should anyone permanently resident outside the country have a say in how the country is run if they won't be affected by those choices by not living here?

James Brown

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

No representation without taxation.

Sadly, Government is often steered more by the will of domestic and foreign vulture funds and multinationals. I'd rather a well meaning expat any day.
Doesn't Varadkar see himself as the CEO of a company, (along those lines on the LLS).

Bit cynical

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

OP doesn't know that Poblacht na hÉireann isn't the Constitution.

We have agreed that pooled sovereignty is better for the 28 27 members of the EU and so far it seems to have been quite successful. I also don't agree that Merkel is saying what you suggest she is. I think this kind of hyperbole would probably do a lot better in AH tbh.

There's still the question of how much sovereignty is pooled and where power is held once it is pooled.

hatrickpatrick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We have agreed that pooled sovereignty is better for the 28 27 members of the EU and so far it seems to have been quite successful. I also don't agree that Merkel is saying what you suggest she is. I think this kind of hyperbole would probably do a lot better in AH tbh.

At what point, in your opinion, would it become acceptable to say "pooled sovereignty was a good idea up to this point, but any further dilution of national sovereignty is bad for democracy"?

Cookie_Monster

VinLieger wrote: »

Why should anyone permanently resident outside the country have a say in how the country is run if they won't be affected by those choices by not living here?

What of those living in the EU, where decisions made in Ireland can have a direct impact on other EU countries? Eg Ireland having it's nice little opt out of the tax harmonisation process (whether it could ever put put to some form of vote is debatable)

Lefty Bicek

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

OP doesn't know that Poblacht na hÉireann isn't the Constitution.

We have agreed that pooled sovereignty is better for the 28 27 members of the EU and so far it seems to have been quite successful. I also don't agree that Merkel is saying what you suggest she is. I think this kind of hyperbole would probably do a lot better in AH tbh.

Can you explain her actions here ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=westm8bmf2E

Especially given the more expedient use of it here...

https://www.thelocal.de/20170623/merkel-campaigns-with-german-flag-to-steal-a-march-on-nationslists

Lefty Bicek

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I would agree to a point. Any Irish citizens forced to seek a living abroad for economic reasons, on a year or two work visa should certainly have the right to vote out or against the policy makers put them in that position.

We should never forget the generations who went before us, having to go abroad for work.

In 1961, the total amount of remittances back to Ireland from our economic migrants was £13.5m.

The education budget for this state in that year, primary plus secondary, was £14m.

FreudianSlippers

Bit cynical wrote: »

There's still the question of how much sovereignty is pooled and where power is held once it is pooled.

There isn't though. We pool sovereignty in the EU to make supra-national decisions, these decisions are then (as least as they apply to the sovereign) implemented on the national level - meaning that the power is held in the Member State.

Basic fundamentals of EU law.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

At what point, in your opinion, would it become acceptable to say "pooled sovereignty was a good idea up to this point, but any further dilution of national sovereignty is bad for democracy"?

If we were ceding sovereignty, you might be on a correct path - since we're not (see above) then there is very little question of dilution of "national sovereignty". If we were to agree in the future to dilute or cede sovereignty to the EU, we would need to see a more structured and powerful EU government (much more akin to the US government - and the ongoing arguments there vis-a-vis state rights)

FreudianSlippers

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Can you explain her actions here ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=westm8bmf2E

Especially given the more expedient use of it here...

https://www.thelocal.de/20170623/merkel-campaigns-with-german-flag-to-steal-a-march-on-nationslists

German leader uses German flag?

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

At what point, in your opinion, would it become acceptable to say "pooled sovereignty was a good idea up to this point, but any further dilution of national sovereignty is bad for democracy"?

I have two issues with your question. The first is: what's the SI unit for dilution of sovereignty? OK, it's a slightly snarky question, but the point stands - it's essentially a rhetorical question by design, because it's logically impossible to answer it.

The other issue goes back to something I've described before as "one-dimensional thinking". A single metric is chosen, and that metric alone is the only standard against which everything must be measured (leaving aside that it's not a metric, because it can't be measured).

The "metric" in this case is "bad for democracy". Let's ignore for the moment the fact that you've presented it as axiomatic that pooled sovereignty is bad for democracy (North Korea doesn't exactly pool sovereignty) - implicit in your question is the idea that once something reaches a certain threshold of "badness for democracy", it must be halted. Is it good for the economy? The climate? People's health and wellbeing? Equality and wealth distribution? Those metrics are ignored, because Democracy.

My point is that you can't look at a vastly complex question, pick an arbitrary not-a-metric, and judge it solely by that criterion. Well, you can - but it's that sort of simplistic thinking that gives us Trump and Brexit.

How much pooled sovereignty is too much pooled sovereignty? It's a deeply subjective question, which means that the only meaningful answer is: the amount that sovereigns are unwilling to cede in advance of their aims. It's an unsatisfactorily wooly answer if you're determined to over-simplify the question, but real life doesn't lend itself kindly to over-simplification.

VinLieger

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

What of those living in the EU, where decisions made in Ireland can have a direct impact on other EU countries? Eg Ireland having it's nice little opt out of the tax harmonisation process (whether it could ever put put to some form of vote is debatable)

Under that argument all EU citizens should have the right to vote in our elections.

Lefty Bicek

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

German leader uses German flag?

If that is the level of your obtuseness, we needn't go any farther.

Good day to you.

hatrickpatrick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There isn't though. We pool sovereignty in the EU to make supra-national decisions, these decisions are then (as least as they apply to the sovereign) implemented on the national level - meaning that the power is held in the Member State.

Basic fundamentals of EU law.

If we were ceding sovereignty, you might be on a correct path - since we're not (see above) then there is very little question of dilution of "national sovereignty". If we were to agree in the future to dilute or cede sovereignty to the EU, we would need to see a more structured and powerful EU government (much more akin to the US government - and the ongoing arguments there vis-a-vis state rights)

This assumes that the question of what should be considered a national and a supra-national decision is black and white, and universally agreed upon. The whole point is that it is not. For example, regulating freedom of speech on the internet (the new copyright directive) could be considered either, and I for one am not ok with the EU having the power to make any rules whatsoever about content on the internet.

Am I a Euroskeptic, full stop, because I don't approve of this specific area falling under the purview of any entity which is not my own national government?

FreudianSlippers

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This assumes that the question of what should be considered a national and a supra-national decision is black and white, and universally agreed upon. The whole point is that it is not. For example, regulating freedom of speech on the internet (the new copyright directive) could be considered either, and I for one am not ok with the EU having the power to make any rules whatsoever about content on the internet.

Am I a Euroskeptic, full stop, because I don't approve of this specific area falling under the purview of any entity which is not my own national government?

So you'd prefer that each Member State made up its own specific rules about what can and can't be seen on the internet in each MS? That would be totally unworkable and insane.

Methinks you are not fully apprised of the new copyright directive in any event based on your comment. It has little to do with the "content of the internet" and almost nothing to do with sovereignty.

hatrickpatrick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So you'd prefer that each Member State made up its own specific rules about what can and can't be seen on the internet in each MS? That would be totally unworkable and insane.

Why would it, exactly? It's worked fine up until now. We've never had EU mandated internet censorship in the past. It should be up to national governments whether to censor the internet for their own citizens, and would give those citizens far more power to stop them from doing just that.

Methinks you are not fully apprised of the new copyright directive in any event based on your comment. It has little to do with the "content of the internet" and almost nothing to do with sovereignty.

Article 13 stipulates that platform providers will be held responsible for content uploaded by users, and not individual users themselves. This is something I fundamentally disagree with, but in the context of this discussion of sovereignty my point is that it would be far easier to stop this from passing if we only had to lobby the Dáil, rather than having to co-ordinate a massive EU-wide lobbying of politicians in many member states in order to block it.

Surely this isn't rocket science. The greater the number of people represented by a democratic vote, the less each individuals' voice counts for in terms of actually changing those policies, therefore the harder it is to co-ordinate effective opposition to those in power. A politician with fewer constituents is a politician who is far more susceptible to pressure from constituents.

RandomName2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

At what point, in your opinion, would it become acceptable to say "pooled sovereignty was a good idea up to this point, but any further dilution of national sovereignty is bad for democracy"?

I've thought about the issue of pooled sovereignty for a while, and there's a record of me moaning about the democratic deficit of the structure of the EU. I thought that making the EU 'more democratic' could perhaps reduce the impact of pooled sovereignty.

However my mind has somewhat changed in relation to this as time has gone by. Democracy is the dictatorship of the majority. It is this by design. It is the reason why we have separate states between separate peoples, so that minorities should not be subject to the will of a majority with different morés and cultures from themselves. We have tried to make states in Europe as cohesive as possible (Northern Ireland being a bit of an exception, but that's what you get when there aren't clear geographical delineations between separate demographics).

While currently the EU is predominantly controlled by Germany and France, and EU elections are a meaningless affair, I think that the situation could be made worse by a more democratic EU. An EU where a single government is elected with the mandate to govern Europeans? Where, instead of talking about a gravy train, red tape, useless bureaucrats, we were instead considering a cabinet charged to legislate for Europe, perhaps even subject to a whip structure of some kind? This would be a far more scary scenario than what we currently have.

If a democratic deficit is a failing of the EU's pooling of sovereignty, then the problem is in fact fundamental to the nature of pooling sovereignty in of itself. I know this doesn't answer your question about 'how much is too much?', which in all honesty is difficult to resolve. However, it is clear that there is a direct correlation between the increases in the amount of sovereignty that is pooled between states, and the diminishing of the authority of national legislatures. To say otherwise is an affront to reason.

donaghs

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have two issues with your question. The first is: what's the SI unit for dilution of sovereignty? OK, it's a slightly snarky question, but the point stands - it's essentially a rhetorical question by design, because it's logically impossible to answer it.

The other issue goes back to something I've described before as "one-dimensional thinking". A single metric is chosen, and that metric alone is the only standard against which everything must be measured (leaving aside that it's not a metric, because it can't be measured).

....

How much pooled sovereignty is too much pooled sovereignty? It's a deeply subjective question, which means that the only meaningful answer is: the amount that sovereigns are unwilling to cede in advance of their aims. It's an unsatisfactorily wooly answer if you're determined to over-simplify the question, but real life doesn't lend itself kindly to over-simplification.

You can reverse that question too. Its a pointless argument. Talking about increasing or decreasing sovereignty is more complicated that looking at something simpler like measuring the rise or fall temperature.

But, just because we can't exactly measure something, doesn't mean it doesn't occur. We can still see a region/country increasing or decreasing its sovereignty. There's too many to choose from. Finland for example, its status as a Duchy in the Russia empire in terms of its powers and sovereignty waxed and waned depending on various factors, mainly the whims of the Czars. It became fully independent after WW1. After WW2 Finland's sovereignty decreased greatly, it retained nominal independence, but defeat by the Soviet Union led it to be very conciliatory and appeasing to the Soviets, until the collapse of the Soviet Union. and so on.

breatheme

Not for Long wrote: »

Angela Merkel calls for willingness to surrender sovereignty
https://www.kas.de/veranstaltungsberichte/detail/-/content/-das-herz-der-demokratie-
[Hit The Translate Button]

And these. . ..
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/23/merkel-eu-hand-sovereignty-brussels/
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jul/25/dutton-says-australia-wont-surrender-our-sovereignty-by-signing-un-migration-deal

Straight from the Irish Constitution:
"We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible"

Is this really what the Irish people want, to give up their sovereignty?

Its awful to watch our society being completely transformed without sufficient representation. There are so many of our citizens outside the country with no say. I'ts heart-wrenching to watch the country doing down the toilet.

From the article:

Merkel erläuterte, dass Deutschland einen Teil seiner Souveränitätsrechte an die Europäische Union abgegeben habe. „Aber die Staaten sind die Herren der Verträge“.

Translation:

"Merkel explained that Germany has given up part ("Teil" could be translated as "part" "piece" or even "fraction") of their sovereignty to the European Union but the states are the masters ("Herren" can mean "lords", "masters", etc. when I see it here I think "the ones in control") of the agreement.

Seriously. Try learning a language. It'll open up your world a little bit.

I refuse to take the title of this thread, and its premise, seriously. It's a gross misunderstanding at best and purposeful fearmongering at worst.

Not for Long

Well, there’s two new nationalist parties in Ireland and they seem to be very concerned about a loss of sovereignty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRZM-yVeMxM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZqIiPGW6N4

breatheme

Not for Long wrote: »

Well, there’s two new nationalist parties in Ireland and they seem to be very concerned about a loss of sovereignty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRZM-yVeMxM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZqIiPGW6N4

And? What's your point then? Never have I claimed there are no eurosceptics in Ireland, nor have I ever stated that I believe eurosceptic parties don't have a right to exist. I refuted your main point and this is what you come up with? "These people don't agree" well they don't. There are also European federalists in Ireland who would love to see a European Federation superstate. They're both fringe views.