General EU discussion thread

pixelburp

There are fewer more tedious and disingenuous political urban myths than the "Ireland voted on the Lisbon Treaty 'til we said 'yes'". In fact I think it's such a blatant myth and falsehood, IMO it should be red flagged as conspiracy theory. It's well documented the second vote came after Ireland secured a bunch of concessions, and voted on that revised form (plus, didn't the Dutch & French also reject one of the Lisbons?).

But reality doesn't seem to deter those with an inherently anti-EU confirmation bias threading their thinking. Or possess any paranoia towards conspiracy, and that they are the keepers of "the truth", against all those "sheeple" that voted for Lisbon II. It's a broken record, disproven by facts, but hey ho.

Should every referendum then be subject to this same bias? Presumably then the Abortion referendum can be considered hostile to democracy as we voted TWICE(!) on the same issue. The divorce amendment too perhaps.

MrMusician18

pixelburp wrote: »

There are fewer more tedious and disingenuous political urban myths than the "Ireland voted on the Lisbon Treaty 'til we said 'yes'". In fact I think it's such a blatant myth and falsehood, IMO it should be red flagged as conspiracy theory. It's well documented the second vote came after Ireland secured a bunch of concessions, and voted on that revised form (plus, didn't the Dutch & French also reject one of the Lisbons?).

But reality doesn't seem to deter those with an inherently anti-EU confirmation bias threading their thinking. Or possess any paranoia towards conspiracy, and that they are the keepers of "the truth", against all those "sheeple" that voted for Lisbon II. It's a broken record, disproven by facts, but hey ho.

Should every referendum then be subject to this same bias? Presumably then the Abortion referendum can be considered hostile to democracy as we voted TWICE(!) on the same issue. The divorce amendment too perhaps.

To be fair, the concessions won by Ireland were fairly meaningless, and related to things that weren't in the treaty anyway. i.e. one confirming that abortion policy was a domestic competence. There was some other BS about neutrality too afaik.

The only meaningful concession that was won was after Nice rejection, that every country got a commissioner. It was an easy sell since most countries were a little miffed by that lost opportunity for patronage, even if it did make the commission more workable.

BonnieSituation

nc6000 wrote: »

Why are they so obsessed with fishing and fishing rights? My understanding is that the whole fishing industry is only a fraction of a percent of their GDP.

The same way they are obsessed with the minutiae of "trade". It's just bizarre.

Podge_irl

MrMusician18 wrote: »

To be fair, the concessions won by Ireland were fairly meaningless, and related to things that weren't in the treaty anyway. i.e. one confirming that abortion policy was a domestic competence. There was some other BS about neutrality too afaik.

Meaningless in the context of the actual treaty perhaps, but they were, bizarrely, a large part of the reason the referendum failed the first time. Listening to people's concerns, addressing them and then asking for an updated opinion seems pretty bloody fair to me.

jm08

MrMusician18 wrote: »

To be fair, the concessions won by Ireland were fairly meaningless, and related to things that weren't in the treaty anyway. i.e. one confirming that abortion policy was a domestic competence. There was some other BS about neutrality too afaik.

The only meaningful concession that was won was after Nice rejection, that every country got a commissioner. It was an easy sell since most countries were a little miffed by that lost opportunity for patronage, even if it did make the commission more workable.

As far as I recall the biggie was the assurances that tax was a domestic competence, particularly in light of some (like Sarkozy) wanting to trade it in for the bailout.

Kermit.de.frog

Are people forgetting the French and Dutch said no and did not get another vote? The public couldn't be trusted to vote the right way.

Again most likely in my view, unless the course is changed, the EU will end in separation, public disorder and economic pain.

Brexit is the start but it really happens when a Euro member leaves. When one leaves (likely Italy in my opinion) the economic contagion to the other weak countries will be too hard for those countries to take.

It doesn't have to be that way but that's where we are going unfortunately.

Stop moaning ffs

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Are people forgetting the French and Dutch said no and did not get another vote? The public couldn't be trusted to vote the right way.

Again most likely in my view, unless the course is changed, the EU will end in separation, public disorder and economic pain.

Brexit is the start but it really happens when a Euro member leaves. When one leaves (likely Italy in my opinion) the economic contagion to the other weak countries will be too hard for those countries to take.

It doesn't have to be that way but that's where we are going unfortunately.

So we’re headed for an EU federal superstate or the EU is doomed to break up.

Which is it?

kunst nugget

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Are people forgetting the French and Dutch said no and did not get another vote? The public couldn't be trusted to vote the right way.

Again most likely in my view, unless the course is changed, the EU will end in separation, public disorder and economic pain.

Brexit is the start but it really happens when a Euro member leaves. When one leaves (likely Italy in my opinion) the economic contagion to the other weak countries will be too hard for those countries to take.

It doesn't have to be that way but that's where we are going unfortunately.

They voted no against the Constitution, the constitution was scrapped. Why would they have to vote again for something that was already gone?

Italy's support for the EU stands at over 70% currently. I sincerely doubt they are gong to leave anytime soon.

fash

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

So we’re headed for an EU federal superstate or the EU is doomed to break up.

Which is it?

The enemy is both overwhelmingly powerful and at the same time brittle and weak.
The fascist mantra.
how to Id a fascist

Kermit.de.frog

kunst nugget wrote: »

They voted no against the Constitution, the constitution was scrapped. Why would they have to vote again for something that was already gone?

Italy's support for the EU stands at over 70% currently. I sincerely doubt they are gong to leave anytime soon.

You must not be aware of how the Italian government is disobeying the budgetary rules of the Commission and threatening the ECB.

Even if Italy left in 20 years the result is still the same - the PIIGS countries are stuck in an economic prison that suits German exports - we can't devalue our currency or have normal access to Central Bank tools.

This is a disaster. We will forever be the debtor countries. The Germans will NEVER sign up to fiscal transfers for the feckless countries.

That is why this is doomed in the medium term.

Ignoring it is like ignoring the existence of gravity.

Podge_irl

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Are people forgetting the French and Dutch said no and did not get another vote? The public couldn't be trusted to vote the right way.

They voted against the EU Constitution - the EU does not now have a constitution.

The Lisbon Treaty was mostly passed without referendums. That is because that is the job of governments to do as you so nicely put it yourself

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Of course even if views were not ignored most people are not diplomats so presenting them with 100's of pages of diplomatic text is never right.

CelticRambler

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

unless the course is changed, the EU will end in separation, public disorder and economic pain.

Given that Brexit is already effecting (sic) that scenario in the UK as we speak, you seem to be saying that any country that stays in the EU will suffer the same fate as if it were to leave. So, in fact, EU membership has no significant impact on the sovereignty or socio-economic status of any particular country.

Or is the break-up of the UK one of your measures of success?

PeadarCo

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

This is a disaster. We will forever be the debtor countries. The Germans will NEVER sign up to fiscal transfers for the feckless countries.

So what you are saying here is that there will never be a European super state and its not something anyone should worry about. Fiscal transfers between rich and poor area's are a key part of any state.

Kermit.de.frog

Podge_irl wrote: »

They voted against the EU Constitution - the EU does not now have a constitution.

ALL the features of the constitution remained and were enacted.

Calling it something else changes nothing.

CelticRambler

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

You must not be aware of how the Italian government is disobeying the budgetary rules of the Commission and threatening the ECB.

France has disobeyed the EEC/EC/EU's budgetary rules for decades, and now they've got one of their own nominated to head the ECB ... :rolleyes:

Kermit.de.frog

PeadarCo wrote: »

So what you are saying here is that there will never be a European super state and its not something anyone should worry about. Fiscal transfers between rich and poor area's are a key part of any state.

Not at all.

There will be a super state, at least that's the end goal, that will suit Germany. Not France btw. The Germans allow France to pretend it's a power but the real power lies with the EU and that lies with Germany.

Why would we or any other peripheral country think that is in our interest?

This is why countries would leave. The economic and societal impacts are too great.

We are stuck in an economic prison which allows us ONLY devalue through our budgets. Meanwhile Germany has the full backing of the ECB!...how is this in any of our interests?

Kermit.de.frog

CelticRambler wrote: »

France has disobeyed the EEC/EC/EU's budgetary rules for decades, and now they've got one of their own nominated to head the ECB ... :rolleyes:

France isn't introducing parallel currency! That is a precursor to leaving the Euro and a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the ECB.

ancapailldorcha

Ok, this warrants a thread IMO. I can amend the title if it becomes necessary.

Wheety

SNIP. Do not just paste tweets here please.

PeadarCo

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

We are stuck in an economic prison which allows us ONLY devalue through our budgets. Meanwhile Germany has the full backing of the ECB!...how is this in any of our interests?

Germany doesn't have the full backing of the ECB. The most recent appointment to the head of the ECB Draghi was not a German appointment and many of the measures he took were not exactly in line with German's views. The ECB is not a German conspiracy.

Also in Ireland case pre EU the punt was pegged to the sterling and a punt nua would end up being pegged to the euro/dollar/sterling (that's when ever the currency got to the point of actually being meaningful tender) none of whose central banks or governments Ireland would have any influence over. Ireland has a voice at the ECB which is far far greater than it had at the bank of England before breaking the link with sterling and moving towards the euro.

Podge_irl

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

France isn't introducing parallel currency! That is a precursor to leaving the Euro and a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the ECB.

Neither is anyone else.

Ultimately the EU is not some kind of overlord and it makes no sense to talk of it in that fashion. We are the EU, and ultimately any decisions about moving towards a superstate will be the decision of the member states (not that I expect it to happen anyway).

It's not Skynet.

Bit cynical

Podge_irl wrote: »

Ultimately the EU is not some kind of overlord and it makes no sense to talk of it in that fashion. We are the EU, and ultimately any decisions about moving towards a superstate will be the decision of the member states (not that I expect it to happen anyway.

Of course it depends on how you define "we". What happens, for example, when the general population doesn't care much for the EU as it is presently constituted but their politicians are happy with it? Who is the "we" in this case? This might be considered the situation prior to the Brexit referendum in the UK.

Podge_irl

Bit cynical wrote: »

Of course it depends on how you define "we". What happens, for example, when the general population doesn't care much for the EU as it is presently constituted but their politicians are happy with it? Who is the "we" in this case? This might be considered the situation prior to the Brexit referendum in the UK.

It does depend somewhat but ultimately it’s no different from any other decision our elected representatives make.

The point really is that the EU doesn’t really exist as a stand-alone body. It is not a overseer or overload and even an entity with its own agency really.

Bit cynical

Podge_irl wrote: »

It does depend somewhat but ultimately it’s no different from any other decision our elected representatives make.

The point really is that the EU doesn’t really exist as a stand-alone body. It is not a overseer or overload and even an entity with its own agency really.

Accountability does not seem to work in the same way though. With a democratic nation state, the electorate have a reasonable say in the overall direction of that state. For example, whether a state becomes more socialist or more capitalist is broadly down to the wishes of the electorate. They exercise these wishes by voting in parties that hold these views. If a party fails to respect the wishes of the electorate they lose respect and are no longer in power.

It's hard to see an equivalent at the EU level. Even if the electorate were against further integration politicians could still push for it since decision making is obscured in horse trading.

For example, during the recent parliamentary elections, EU Presidential debates were held on television. In Germany spitzenkandidats (lead candidates) were on election posters. After making their decision to elect MEPs, partial consideration for these lead candidates would have informed their voting decision. Then, somewhere in the cloud the decision was made to appoint someone that did not take part in the debates and was not a lead candidate. The electorate was simply told to put up with it.

There is no equivalent to this carry on at the level of the nation state.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

There is no equivalent to this carry on at the level of the nation state.

The appointment of "senior civil servants" is pretty much the same. These are the people who wheel and deal in the background of every nation's government, tell politicians what is and isn't feasible and/or desireable, and set in motion changes that those same politicians and the electorate cannot subsequently undo.

fly_agaric

Bit cynical wrote: »

For example, during the recent parliamentary elections, EU Presidential debates were held on television. In Germany spitzenkandidats (lead candidates) were on election posters. After making their decision to elect MEPs, partial consideration for these lead candidates would have informed their voting decision. Then, somewhere in the cloud the decision was made to appoint someone that did not take part in the debates and was not a lead candidate. The electorate was simply told to put up with it.

There is no equivalent to this carry on at the level of the nation state.

As far as I understand it, that happened because of politicking among the member states (due to inconclusive results of the EU elections).

Seems to be a lengthy write up about it here:
https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2019/0705/1060461-tony-connelly-eu-backroom-deal/

The leaders of the member states, through EU council hold alot of power in the EU and are "in the cloud" calling the shots. So that mess is more of a function of the weakness of the super-national "EU" as an entity itself and the sway of the member states within it.

The Eurosceptic/anti-EU heroes in Hungary and Poland were in the thick of things trying to block these "lead candidates" put up by the European parties because they did not like the cut of their jibs!

Of course, "the (undemocratic) EU" gets the blame for the whole thing anyway.

Edit: I think you can also see similar things emerging from the fog of smoke filled rooms at the national level when an election throws up an awkward result and coalitions come into being, there is horse trading over manifestos and top jobs etc

Nody

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

You must not be aware of how the Italian government is disobeying the budgetary rules of the Commission and threatening the ECB.

And then backed down when they were told they would be fined for it and lowered the amount they would be overspending; i.e. they folded their hand when EU said put up or shut up and follow the rules and this is the country that's suppose to lead the charge after UK to leave? The problems in Italy etc. is not related to the ECB or the euro as much as their own failure to sort out their own markets and laws; they all had plenty of issues long before the euro as well but it's the latest boggie bear to blame for the problems. For example if we take Spain; reason for the high unemployement rate for young people is that once you go past 1 year you're very hard to get rid of; hence companies hire people for a year minus a day consistently leaving them without a secure position. Or we can talk Greece and bribes; estimated that your average person has to spend a third or more of their monthly salary on bribes at hospitals, government agencies etc.? Or how about Italy and the legislation for companies making it close to impossible to run a successful enterprise? None of those are related to the euro; all it's done is to stop the government to have a cheesy way to try to bring the unemployment figures down by making their citizens poorer rather than actually having to fix the real problems.

eire4

IMHO the EU has been a success. It has given us peace in Europe and that in of itself is a very laudable achievement. I cannot speak to the whole EU economically but it seems to me Ireland has overall done well out of EU membership economically. So for me while an imperfect organization I think overall the EU has been and is a good thing.

Melanchthon

eire4 wrote: »

IMHO the EU has been a success. It has given us peace in Europe and that in of itself is a very laudable achievement. I cannot speak to the whole EU economically but it seems to me Ireland has overall done well out of EU membership economically. So for me while an imperfect organization I think overall the EU has been and is a good thing.

Peace is to do with NATO and the USA vs USSR rivalry.

My question is, has the EU been a success when compared to the EC that preceded it till 1993, I am not sure that can be said, there was extended prosperity til 2008 but after that point its a pretty mixed record. The USA pulled out of the debt crises much faster than EU, countries like Italy and Greece never really recovered and particularly if you look at Italy vs Germany pre 1993 compared to within the EU its clear that there has been a significant lopsidedness happening.

This is one of the problems with Brexit, the UK pressing the nuclear button has obscured some very real issues that need to be dealt with in a less destructive way

eire4

Melanchthon wrote: »

Peace is to do with NATO and the USA vs USSR rivalry.

My question is, has the EU been a success when compared to the EC that preceded it till 1993, I am not sure that can be said, there was extended prosperity til 2008 but after that point its a pretty mixed record. The USA pulled out of the debt crises much faster than EU, countries like Italy and Greece never really recovered and particularly if you look at Italy vs Germany pre 1993 compared to within the EU its clear that there has been a significant lopsidedness happening.

This is one of the problems with Brexit, the UK pressing the nuclear button has obscured some very real issues that need to be dealt with in a less destructive way

I was not talking about peace with outside countries or Russia I was talking about peace between the EU countries. The EU has made the idea of for example France and Germany going to war laughable and that is a tremendous accomplishment considering the wars those 2 have fought prior.

Bit cynical

eire4 wrote: »

I was not talking about peace with outside countries or Russia I was talking about peace between the EU countries. The EU has made the idea of for example France and Germany going to war laughable and that is a tremendous accomplishment considering the wars those 2 have fought prior.

In fairness, while there are still unfortunately plenty of armed conflicts, major all-out war between states is very rare these days.

Melanchthon

eire4 wrote: »

I was not talking about peace with outside countries or Russia I was talking about peace between the EU countries. The EU has made the idea of for example France and Germany going to war laughable and that is a tremendous accomplishment considering the wars those 2 have fought prior.

There is still 35,000 US troops in Germany , in 1962 it was 270,000 , in 2010 there was also 20,000 Brits (number way down now apparently)

fly_agaric

I think most of the "major all out wars between states" over last 150 years or years or so were to do with European states and proxies fighting each other!
So the fact that European states don't usually fight each other is a major contributor to why these wars are rare (whatever the underlying factors behind why European nation states don't tend to engage in such wars now).

One thing Eurosceptics don't discuss so much is the end game when they halt the awful "ever closer union" or roll back some of the shared sovereignty in the EU. As far as I can gather, the hazy vision is the friendly nation states of Europe all happily getting along, with good new fences erected between them and their neighbours' business (making for good neighbours on the whole).

Its a pipe dream IMO. The process of rolling back the EU (or even just stopping further cooperation/union) is going to be very acrimonious as we see with Brexit already. The end point of it all is going to be a load of damaged and angry countries that are quite unhappy with each other. Not going to war level unhappy, but certainly not particularly friendly/allies any more!
We'll see it small scale when UK finally Brexits - could be quite poisonous in the years to come if the end up with a "no deal" exit.

Bit cynical

fly_agaric wrote: »

Edit: I think you can also see similar things emerging from the fog of smoke filled rooms at the national level when an election throws up an awkward result and coalitions come into being, there is horse trading over manifestos and top jobs etc

True but at the national level, bargaining power is based on the numbers given to the parties by the electorate.

Something similar was also meant to happen with the EU presidency. If a majority wasn't secured by a single party, the parties could come together and form coalitions based on their electoral strength and put forward an agreed candidate. But this time, before this could happen, Merkel and Macron were already bypassing it.

The impression one gets is that democracy is fine so long as the electorate plays ball. If the electorate gets it "wrong" then our betters step in and impose their preferred result.

fly_agaric

Bit cynical wrote: »

True but at the national level, bargaining power is based on the numbers given to the parties by the electorate.

Something similar was also meant to happen with the EU presidency. If a majority wasn't secured by a single party, the parties could come together and form coalitions based on their electoral strength and put forward an agreed candidate. But this time, before this could happen, Merkel and Macron were already bypassing it.

The impression one gets is that democracy is fine so long as the electorate plays ball. If the electorate gets it "wrong" then our betters step in and impose their preferred result.

As you'd guess I would be supportive of the EU.

I don't like what has happened at all but see the fault as being with the member states (and the way the EU institutions don't have much power independent of the states).

The leaders felt it was their perogative to put forward their own candidate(s) when there wasn't a clear result, and they obviously have the power to do that with the current set up. It just seems to me that stopping that happening would need more power at EU level and taking it away from the member states (weakening European Council in the EU?) which is opposite of what Eurosceptics would want I think.

edit: I get impression that the EU leaders (i.e. PMs of the member states etc) did not like this "lead candidate" idea of the European parties to begin with as it diminished their power over the process but if the election result had been clearer there would have been less ability for them to just override it without looking even more undemocratic than they have.

Bit cynical

fly_agaric wrote: »

As you'd guess I would be supportive of the EU.

I don't like what has happened at all but see the fault as being with the member states (and the way the EU institutions don't have much power independent of the states).

The leaders felt it was their perogative to put forward their own candidate(s) when there wasn't a clear result, and they obviously have the power to do that with the current set up. It just seems to me that stopping that happening would need more power at EU level and taking it away from the member states which is opposite of what Eurosceptics would want I think.

However the EU parliament isn't the EU; it is merely one of the institutions which happens to be directly elected. So a shifting of power towards a democratic component does not imply more power transferred to the EU from the member states.

fly_agaric

Bit cynical wrote: »

However the EU parliament isn't the EU; it is merely one of the institutions which happens to be directly elected. So a shifting of power towards a democratic component does not imply more power transferred to the EU from the member states.

Maybe my language is sloppy - apologies. The Council and Council of Ministers are also the "EU" of course. By "member states" I mean (say for Ireland), Varadkar and the Irish government.

If Varadkar has less (or no) control over exactly who gets to be nominated as Commission president, and that power instead goes to the members of the EU parliament (which is supranational and directly elected by all EU citizens) that looks to me like going further in the direction of "closer union"/federalisation, even if it actually seems more democratic (to me anyway).

I suppose I was using "more power at the EU level" as a shorthand for that redistributing of power away from the leaders.

edit: am giving up for now and heading to sleep!

Bit cynical

fly_agaric wrote: »

Maybe my language is sloppy - apologies. The Council and Council of Ministers are also the "EU" of course. By "member states" I mean (say for Ireland), Varadkar and the Irish government.

If Varadkar has less (or no) control over exactly who gets to be nominated as Commission president, and that power instead goes to the members of the EU parliament (which is supranational and directly elected by all EU citizens) that looks to me like going further in the direction of "closer union"/federalisation, even if actually seems more democratic (to me anyway).

I suppose I was using "more power at the EU level" as a shorthand for that redistributing of power away from the leaders.

However there's another aspect of "more power going to Europe" and that is the transfer of power or remit at the national level to the EU level. What the leaders of the member states might like is more and more power transferred but to have they themselves in ultimate charge of it without the hindrances of other EU institutions.

We might like to think of Merkel, Macron and even Varadkar as "the member states" but it is important to remember that at the national level their power is limited. National parliaments can refuse to enact legislation proposed by them and indeed national parliaments, though rare, can enact legislation against the wishes of the Taoiseach or premier of the country.

eire4

Melanchthon wrote: »

There is still 35,000 US troops in Germany , in 1962 it was 270,000 , in 2010 there was also 20,000 Brits (number way down now apparently)

Kind of off topic or maybe not. But when Britain is officially gone from the EU will that mean those troops will be gone as well?

eire4

Bit cynical wrote: »

In fairness, while there are still unfortunately plenty of armed conflicts, major all-out war between states is very rare these days.

And the EU has been played a massive role in that by making the idea of wars between the European nations a non starter. The EU is far from perfect but it has created peace and greater co-operation between European states and long may it continue to do so as far as I am concerned.

Kermit.de.frog

eire4 wrote: »

And the EU has been played a massive role in that by making the idea of wars between the European nations a non starter. The EU is far from perfect but it has created peace and greater co-operation between European states and long may it continue to do so as far as I am concerned.

That may be fine for the continent but why should that logic apply to Ireland when we have never been involved in any European conflict?

I don't see why we should be brought in to a guilt trip of "all those wars on the continent" to make pro integration arguments.

fly_agaric

Bit cynical wrote: »

However there's another aspect of "more power going to Europe" and that is the transfer of power or remit at the national level to the EU level. What the leaders of the member states might like is more and more power transferred but to have they themselves in ultimate charge of it without the hindrances of other EU institutions.

We might like to think of Merkel, Macron and even Varadkar as "the member states" but it is important to remember that at the national level their power is limited. National parliaments can refuse to enact legislation proposed by them and indeed national parliaments, though rare, can enact legislation against the wishes of the Taoiseach or premier of the country.

I think I see where you are coming from. For me its not a compelling reason to halt or to roll back integration/decrease the powers exercised at the EU level, which is ultimately what Eurosceptics want (the less extreme ones that don't want to dismantle the EU completely/see it fall apart like the UK Brexiteers).

It's more an argument to empower EU institutions in appropriate areas (especially the democratically elected parliament, which in fairness the informal "lead candidate" idea seemed to be trying to do) and reduce powers of the member state governments within the EU structure itself.

CelticRambler

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That may be fine for the continent but why should that logic apply to Ireland when we have never been involved in any European conflict?

indeed. I seem to remember from my history lessons in school that Ireland was very much involved in an armed conflict with another European nation until ... oooh, was it the late 19th Century? No, in fact I think it was the late 20th Century. Then, IIRC, the EU helped broker a peace treaty and relations between the two countries improved enormously. Can't for the life of me think of the name of that Agreement, though ... :rolleyes:

eire4

eire4 wrote: »

Kind of off topic or maybe not. But when Britain is officially gone from the EU will that mean those troops will be gone as well?

The troops are based at NATO bases, It has nothing to do with the Eu.

Kermit.de.frog

CelticRambler wrote: »

Then, IIRC, the EU helped broker a peace treaty

Yeah but this is a myth though that has been conjured up in recent years.

The GFA was brokered by Ire/UK with the real help coming from the United States with little if any input at all from the EU.

The EU were not party to the negotiations.

CelticRambler

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Yeah but this is a myth though that has been conjured up in recent years.

The GFA was brokered by Ire/UK with the real help coming from the United States with little if any input at all from the EU.

The EU were not party to the negotiations.

You're getting fixated on a single date; like Brexit, the signing date of the GFA was the start of something, not an end. The EU has been instrumental in fostering a stable, conflict-free situation through the four successive PEACE initiatives (for a time under the stewardship of a certain Michel Barnier), amongst other work.

Bit cynical

eire4 wrote: »

And the EU has been played a massive role in that by making the idea of wars between the European nations a non starter. The EU is far from perfect but it has created peace and greater co-operation between European states and long may it continue to do so as far as I am concerned.

Sure but there have been wars elsewhere in the first half of the 20th century. The Cino-Japanese war had 20 million civilian deaths, more than double those of WWI. There's been no repeat of wars of that scale in Asia either in the second half of the 20th century. It was not just Europe that changed.

Other factors to consider in Europe: membership of NATO of a large number of European countries; the cold war; exhaustion from the two world wars.

I'm not saying the EU did not play a part but its role is probably exaggerated.

Cookie_Monster

Bit cynical wrote: »

There is no equivalent to this carry on at the level of the nation state.

Not in Ireland but plenty of countries operate list systems in elections.

eire4

Bit cynical wrote: »

Sure but there have been wars elsewhere in the first half of the 20th century. The Cino-Japanese war had 20 million civilian deaths, more than double those of WWI. There's been no repeat of wars of that scale in Asia either in the second half of the 20th century. It was not just Europe that changed.

Other factors to consider in Europe: membership of NATO of a large number of European countries; the cold war; exhaustion from the two world wars.

I'm not saying the EU did not play a part but its role is probably exaggerated.

The Vietnam war was on a pretty major scale. No one can say for sure how many died but on the low end estimates put the death toll at about 1.5 million. The Korean war saw a per capita death toll similar to the worst hit countries in World War 2 with the death toll estimated in the region of 1.5 million also. Those are 2 pretty massive wars in Asia that happened in the second half of the 20th century while the EU was continuing to draw Europe closer together and away from war.

eire4

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That may be fine for the continent but why should that logic apply to Ireland when we have never been involved in any European conflict?

I don't see why we should be brought in to a guilt trip of "all those wars on the continent" to make pro integration arguments.

No guilt trip involved at all. Simply making a point as to the positive influence the EU has had overall including us. We may be an island but we are still part of Europe.

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

. . . or example, during the recent parliamentary elections, EU Presidential debates were held on television. In Germany spitzenkandidats (lead candidates) were on election posters. After making their decision to elect MEPs, partial consideration for these lead candidates would have informed their voting decision. Then, somewhere in the cloud the decision was made to appoint someone that did not take part in the debates and was not a lead candidate. The electorate was simply told to put up with it.

There is no equivalent to this carry on at the level of the nation state.

Exactly this is happening in the UK right now. It happened in Ireland in 2017. It should also be noted that the reason the EPP spiztenkandidat isn't a shoe-in is because not enough voters voted for the EPP. Their significant losses in the elections meant they didn't have the political clout to ensure their nominee was appointed; that's the direct outcome of the voters' choice not to vote for them.

Contrary to the Daily Mail/Brexiter image of the EU as a powerful, centralised, unaccountable, sinister empire, in the EU power is in fact highly dispersed between the Commission, the Council and the Parliament. There are diverse routes by which Member States and their people can influence the workings of the EU - directly, in elections to the European Parliament or indirectly, through national governments acting in the Council of Ministers.

When power is dispersed in this way, then getting anything done requires dealing, negotiation, even horse-trading between different centres of power. As regards the President of the Commission, essentially the Council of Ministers and the Parliament always have to agree on who it is to be, but the relative influence of each body in forming that agreement can vary according to circumstances. On this occasion, the Parliament has lost some nfluence because the voters have returned a more divided parliament with more equal representation of competing political views. If the Parliament could get behind a leading candidate, it would be difficult for the Council to hold out against them but, as it cannot, this give the Council the opportunity to take the intitiative and propose a candidate to Parliament. Parliament could reject this candidate, of course, but it unlikely to do so unless it can agree on an alternative which, as we have just noted, it can't.

Is this undemocratic? Not fundamentally, for two reasons. First, as noted, it's the choice of the voters to elect a Parliament which is unable to provide majority support for any candidate. Secondly, the influence which ebbs from Parliament accrues to the Council of Ministers, itself made up of democratically-elected governments (which is more than can be said of the Tory party selectorate who will choose the UK's next Prime Minister). We can argue about whether it's efficient, or whether it's transparent, or whether it's the most democratic way of doing things, but I don't think it can be argued that it's fundamentally undemocratic. The voters chose not to endorse any of spitzenkandidat. Surely basic democratic principles should then lead us to conclude that the voters' clearly-expressed views should be heeded, and the spitzenkandidated they rejected should not be appointed?