Germany urges EU to end individual state's veto rights

FFVII

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2021/0607/1226474-germany-veto-call/

Big Bullies, pretending its about Israel is funny.

"They took our money (tax)" "Irish wh*res"

buried

That Heiko Mass lad looks like one of them priests from Father Ted

Ubbquittious

Of course they do. With their 80m+ population they'll be able to muscle many a smaller country out of the way. Load of arrogant sh1ts.


If this ever came to a referendum in Ireland people would stupidly vote yes to it because people feel like they owe Germany something and that Germany is actually a better country than Ireland and we must do as they tell us. Kind of like with Lisbon/Nice.

matchthis

Let them go with out for a few years and we’ll review it

dxhound2005

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Of course they do. With their 80m+ population they'll be able to muscle many a smaller country out of the way. Load of arrogant sh1ts.


If this ever came to a referendum in Ireland people would stupidly vote yes to it because people feel like they owe Germany something and that Germany is actually a better country than Ireland and we must do as they tell us. Kind of like with Lisbon/Nice.

The first Lisbon result had us on course to leave the EU. Countries can't be members unless they ratify all the agreed treaties. We would have done an Irexit long before the Brits, but people saw sense the second time. Every other member state ratified it in their parliaments.

Definitely a great idea.

Junkyard Tom

He's right.

Ubbquittious

Ubbquittious wrote: »

If this ever came to a referendum in Ireland people would stupidly vote yes to it because people feel like they owe Germany something and that Germany is actually a better country than Ireland and we must do as they tell us. Kind of like with Lisbon/Nice.

They'd vote 'Yes' because the media, Europe and the politicians would tell them to to do so. Anyone who questions it would be lumped in with the conspiracy theorists and fascists.

dxhound2005

tara2k wrote: »

They'd vote 'Yes' because the media, Europe and the politicians would tell them to to do so. Anyone who questions it would be lumped in with the conspiracy theorists and fascists.

They would vote against whatever the sitting government wanted, just to give them a kicking.

85603

no rush to do that.

Guy:Incognito

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Of course they do. With their 80m+ population they'll be able to muscle many a smaller country out of the way. Load of arrogant sh1ts..

Their population doesnt make a difference. Each country has a vote. Majority rules is ok in pretty much all other voting issues.

You wouldnt be in favour of having an individual veto in an election here. Only Roscommon voted against the marriage equality referendum in 2015, would you think it was fair if they could then veto the whole thing?

Ubbquittious

dxhound2005 wrote: »

They would vote against whatever the sitting government wanted, just to give them a kicking.

Ah but once they've had their little tantrum out the way they quickly realise they have to clean up the mess and fall into line for Europe before Germany goes all blitzkrieg on their ass

Ubbquittious

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Their population doesnt make a difference. Each country has a vote. Majority rules is ok in pretty much all other voting issues.

You wouldnt be in favour of having an individual veto in an election here. Only Roscommon voted against the marriage equality referendum in 2015, would you think it was fair if they could then veto the whole thing?

That would only make sense if you're in favour of the "EU Superstate" ideology.

dxhound2005

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Ah but once they've had their little tantrum out the way they quickly realise they have to clean up the mess and fall into line for Europe before Germany goes all blitzkrieg on their ass

Major decisions like Lisbon and Brexit should not be decided by referendum. A minority of those entitled to vote on a certain day (37% in the case of Brexit) decide the fate of generations to come.

If a political party stands in the election on an anti Lisbon or pro Brexit platform and gets a majority fair enough. Not a Yes/No to something which would take thousands of pages to explain.

Ubbquittious

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Major decisions like Lisbon and Brexit should not be decided by referendum. A minority of those entitled to vote a a certain day (37% in the case of Brexit) decide the fate of generations to come.

If a political party stands in the election on an anti Lisbon or pro Brexit platform and gets a majority fair enough. Not a Yes/No to something which would take thousands of pages to explain.

Its the only way to decide them. What kind of sh1te are you spouting here, are you in favour of some sort of quare EU dictatorship where nobody can leave?

dxhound2005

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Its the only way to decide them. What kind of sh1te are you spouting here, are you in favour of some sort of quare EU dictatorship where nobody can leave?

Political parties can make a case to the people in elections. And their parliaments can decide. It called representative democracy. Better than a snapshot of the population on one day deciding the future for everyone else.

Every country can leave the EU. I think there is an Irexit type party here you can vote for.

Guy:Incognito

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Its the only way to decide them.

It is in its ****e. A tiny minority of people voting in the Lisbon referendum understood it. If a couple of hundred read the thing I'd be surprised.

tara2k wrote: »

They'd vote 'Yes' because the media, Europe and the politicians would tell them to to do so. .

and of course the people advocating a no vote would be the ones who really know what theyre talking about , yeah? Funny that...

Ubbquittious

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It is in its ****e. A tiny minority of people voting in the Lisbon referendum understood it. If a couple of hundred read the thing I'd be surprised.

What would you do instead? Let the sorting hat from Hogwarts decide?

biddyearley

Thin end of the wedge.

No thanks Germany....

Guy:Incognito

Ubbquittious wrote: »

That would only make sense if you're in favour of the "EU Superstate" ideology.

You didnt answer any of what I said.

Whats "Eu supersate" about a simple majority decision btw?

Guy:Incognito

Ubbquittious wrote: »

What would you do instead? Let the sorting hat from Hogwarts decide?

Let the people we elect to make the decisions decide. You know, the way we do for decisions that dont make changes to the constitution and how the rest of Europe do.

Or should we just do away with all elected officials and every single decision made in the country can be done by referendum? We can have 10 or 20 a week, at least itll keep us all busy.

Ubbquittious

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You didnt answer any of what I said.

Whats "Eu supersate" about a simple majority decision btw?

It would be no longer done by country and large countries would gain the ability to downfoist unpopular rules onto all the smaller ones

Ubbquittious

Ubbquittious wrote: »

That would only make sense if you're in favour of the "EU Superstate" ideology.

Some people might want that. Not feeling much love for politicians in Ireland. An overlord in central Europe must work for some people.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Major decisions like Lisbon and Brexit should not be decided by referendum.

Decisions like that have to be made via a referendum.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

and of course the people advocating a no vote would be the ones who really know what theyre talking about , yeah? Funny that...

No, you'd have an equal distribution of informed and uninformed people on both sides of the debate.

Ubbquittious

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Let the people we elect to make the decisions decide. You know, the way we do for decisions that dont make changes to the constitution and how the rest of Europe do.

Or should we just do away with all elected officials and every single decision made in the country can be done by referendum? We can have 10 or 20 a week, at least itll keep us all busy.

Important stuff should be done by referendum. Maybe not do away with them completely but they shouldn't have as much power


The way it is now they promise the sun, moon and stars and once they have a nice juicy lump of a 5-year mandate they just kind of do their own thing. Any auld unpopular stuff they were hiding up their sleeve they foist it upon us

Guy:Incognito

Ubbquittious wrote: »

It would be no longer done by country and large countries would gain the ability to downfoist unpopular rules onto all the smaller ones

Whats your definition of a large country? Only 7 eu countries have a population over 12m. Only the top 5 are over 20m

So if anything, itd look like the smaller countries could very easily foist decisions on the big ones.


How would removing the veto change anything other than it now being that decisions are made by majority? Other than you deciding it of course......

You keep saying things will be a certain way but not explaining how they will be this way.

TefalBrain

Germany can piss off.

_Kaiser_

Ah look. Now that the end of the Covid is on the horizon, Germany is throwing its weight around again knowing that harsh economic times lie ahead.

It's the Financial Crisis all over again. I wonder what we'll be bullied into accepting for "our own good" this time....

odyssey06

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Political parties can make a case to the people in elections. And their parliaments can decide. It called representative democracy. Better than a snapshot of the population on one day deciding the future for everyone else.

Every country can leave the EU. I think there is an Irexit type party here you can vote for.

This is fundamentally different.
We elect a government with a mandate given by a snapshot of the population on one day.
If the government pass a domestic law the electorate disapprove of, they can elect a different government to reverse or ameloriate that law.

If we let a government sign away rights to the EU, we have no way to restore them even by rejecting that government at the next election other than leaving the EU. That's not representative democracy anymore.

Nope. More checks and balances are needed for such decisions which remove powers from the electorate in perpetuity.

dxhound2005

Ubbquittious wrote: »

It would be no longer done by country and large countries would gain the ability to downfoist unpopular rules onto all the smaller ones

Bombay mix
In 2006, the Sun reported that “nutty” EU officials wanted to rename Bombay mix Mumbai mix, “to make the snack politically correct”.

This story is completely fictional.

Barmaids’ boobs
There was outrage in 2005 at suggestions that the EU was about to stick red tape all over the exposed busts of British barmaids.

“Po-faced penpushers have deemed it a HEALTH HAZARD for bar girls to show too much cleavage,” wailed the Sun in an article headlined “Hands off our barmaids’ boobs”, which contended that “in a daft directive … Brussels bureaucrats have ordered a cover-up”.

That might be amusing but it was 40 years of relentless anti EU propaganda in the British press that led to Brexit.

amacca

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Ah look. Now that the end of the Covid is on the horizon, Germany is throwing its weight around again knowing that harsh economic times lie ahead.

It's the Financial Crisis all over again. I wonder what we'll be bullied into accepting for "our own good" this time....

While I may agree I find it amusing a Kaiser is speaking out against Germany.

_Kaiser_

tara2k wrote: »

They'd vote 'Yes' because the media, Europe and the politicians would tell them to to do so. Anyone who questions it would be lumped in with the conspiracy theorists and fascists.

And if they/we dared vote the "wrong" way, they/we'd simply be told to go vote again because we didn't understand the question the first time.

I'll keep saying it. The EU works as a trade body, but there are simply too many competing national interests, cultural values and differing ideas about the end game for the "project" for it ever to properly work as a political entity.

Guy:Incognito

odyssey06 wrote: »

This is fundamentally different.
We elect a government with a mandate given by a snapshot of the population on one day.
If the government pass a domestic law the electorate disapprove of, they can elect a different government to reverse or ameloriate that law.

If we let a government sign away rights to the EU, we have no way to restore them even by rejecting that government at the next election other than leaving the EU. That's not representative democracy anymore.

Nope. More checks and balances are needed for such decisions which remove powers from the electorate in perpetuity.

How would this be signing away rights to the EU?
How is 26 countries all agreeing that something should be done one way, but 1 country deciding they dont fancy it , more democratic in your eyes?

Again, seeing as no one decided to answer it, if the 2015 marriage equality referendum could be vetoed by the one county whos electorate voted against it, Roscommon, would that be democratic in your opinion?

buried

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Ah look. Now that the end of the Covid is on the horizon, Germany is throwing its weight around again knowing that harsh economic times lie ahead.

It's the Financial Crisis all over again. I wonder what we'll be bullied into accepting for "our own good" this time....

I'd say the lads and lassies up in the Bord Leinster Gas energy House have signed up to it since last year already.

dxhound2005

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

And if they/we dared vote the "wrong" way, they/we'd simply be told to go vote again because we didn't understand the question the first time.

I'll keep saying it. The EU works as a trade body, but there are simply too many competing national interests, cultural values and differing ideas about the end game for the "project" for it ever to properly work as a political entity.

We had another vote on Lisbon because the first result would have meant we had to leave the EU. The second result meant we could stay. My memory of the time is that the majority of people wanted to stay.

Guy:Incognito

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

And if they/we dared vote the "wrong" way, they/we'd simply be told to go vote again because we didn't understand the question the first time..

So, did we vote again on the exact same thing, no changes?

Will be interesting to see where the EU is in 10 years

odyssey06

[HTML][/HTML]

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Bombay mix
In 2006, the Sun reported that “nutty” EU officials wanted to rename Bombay mix Mumbai mix, “to make the snack politically correct”.

This story is completely fictional.

Barmaids’ boobs
There was outrage in 2005 at suggestions that the EU was about to stick red tape all over the exposed busts of British barmaids.

“Po-faced penpushers have deemed it a HEALTH HAZARD for bar girls to show too much cleavage,” wailed the Sun in an article headlined “Hands off our barmaids’ boobs”, which contended that “in a daft directive … Brussels bureaucrats have ordered a cover-up”.

That might be amusing but it was 40 years of relentless anti EU propaganda in the British press that led to Brexit.

Irrelevent nonsense. They elect governments the same way.

Ubbquittious

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Bombay mix
In 2006, the Sun reported that “nutty” EU officials wanted to rename Bombay mix Mumbai mix, “to make the snack politically correct”.

This story is completely fictional.

Barmaids’ boobs
There was outrage in 2005 at suggestions that the EU was about to stick red tape all over the exposed busts of British barmaids.

“Po-faced penpushers have deemed it a HEALTH HAZARD for bar girls to show too much cleavage,” wailed the Sun in an article headlined “Hands off our barmaids’ boobs”, which contended that “in a daft directive … Brussels bureaucrats have ordered a cover-up”.

That might be amusing but it was 40 years of relentless anti EU propaganda in the British press that led to Brexit.

The problem of fake news doesn't warrant ushering in a dictatorship

Guy:Incognito

Ubbquittious wrote: »

The problem of fake news doesn't warrant ushering in a dictatorship

You keep ignoring questions you dont fancy. Whats dictatorship about a majority rules in decision making? Do you agree with majority passing a referendum?

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How would this be signing away rights to the EU?
How is 26 countries all agreeing that something should be done one way, but 1 country deciding they dont fancy it , more democratic in your eyes?

Let Germany try all they want, they'll never get their way on this.

odyssey06

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How would this be signing away rights to the EU?
How is 26 countries all agreeing that something should be done one way, but 1 country deciding they dont fancy it , more democratic in your eyes?

Again, seeing as no one decided to answer it, if the 2015 marriage equality referendum could be vetoed by the one county whos electorate voted against it, Roscommon, would that be democratic in your opinion?

Of course we'd be signing away rights. Absurd to pretend it's anything otherwise and dishonest argument.

Counties aren't countries anymore than constituencies are.
How is it anymore democratic that Ireland would have 1 vote with 5 million people and Germany 1 vote with 80 million?
Unless countries have special sovereign rights.

Guy:Incognito

Deleted User wrote: »

Let Germany try all they want, they'll never get their way on this.

So its not a dictatorship at all and people are just scaremongering?

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So its not a dictatorship at all and people are just scaremongering?

I never said it was a dictatorship or scaremongering. Germany can try and lobby for a change to the current rules. They will 100% fail on this issue.

Guy:Incognito

odyssey06 wrote: »

Of course we'd be signing away rights. Absurd to pretend it's anything otherwise and dishonest argument.

Counties aren't countries anymore than constituencies are.
How is it anymore democratic that Ireland would have 1 vote with 5 million people and Germany 1 vote with 80 million?
Unless countries have special sovereign rights.

Explain how changing from any country being able to just veto a decision the other 26 want to a majority rule is signing away rights (other than the actual veto that would be done away with but thats clearly not what you meant).

Why is majority rule ok for every other decision we make but bad for this?

Guy:Incognito

Deleted User wrote: »

I never said it was a dictatorship or scaremongering. Germany can try and lobby for a change to the current rules. They will 100% fail on this issue.

I didnt say you did, I asked a question because others are throwing around that its a dictatorship.

dxhound2005

What were the five worst rules for Ireland that were foisted on us?

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I didnt say you did, I asked a question because others are throwing around that its a dictatorship.

Germany are getting annoyed but it doesn't matter, they will never be able to push this through.

odyssey06

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Explain how changing from any country being able to just veto a decision the other 26 want to a majority rule is signing away rights (other than the actual veto that would be done away with but thats clearly not what you meant).

Why is majority rule ok for every other decision we make but bad for this?

Of course I am talking about signing about veto rights.

Why does anyone need to explain further, absurd argument, you are dancing away from the truth,

Guy:Incognito

odyssey06 wrote: »

Of course I am talking about signing about veto rights.

Why does anyone need to explain further, absurd argument, you are dancing away from the truth,

Well then you need to be clearer, because this reads nothing like its about the veto and more that its about letting the government decide things that would make changes to our constitution that , right now, require a referendum.

odyssey06 wrote: »

If we let a government sign away rights to the EU, we have no way to restore them even by rejecting that government at the next election other than leaving the EU. That's not representative democracy anymore.
.

If a change to our constitution isnt required to change the EU rules from veto to simple majority then it will be our elected officials deciding, so again, I'm not getting how thats about the veto?

touts

Germany should never have been permitted to reunite. They have been a destabilizing presence in Europe since Bismark invented them in the 1860s. After that they caused three major wars that devastated Europe and much of the world (Franco Prussian, WW-I and WW-II) within a generation. 45 years of peace and stability followed their breakup. Now they are back to their old games. We shouldn't be surprised. The parents or at most grandparents of the current generation of German Leaders elected Hitler and served under the Nazi regime. You don't just forget beliefs like "we are the master race". You hide them until your victims let their guard down again. A united Germany is toxic to a peaceful and united Europe.