Germany urges EU to end individual state's veto rights

_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.

_Kaiser_

dxhound2005 wrote: »

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 wrote: »

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

The point is that the democratic process in the EU only seems to work as long as the bigger players get the results they want.

The way the "second tier" countries (ourselves included) were treated during the financial crisis was more evidence of this with the late Brian Lenihan told "accept the deal.. or else!" and similar threats levelled at Greece when they pushed back as well.

For all the talk about the UK and Brexit, I have a feeling we will miss them badly in the coming years as our interests as an island on the periphery align far more with the UK than the rest of the EU. We already know our main political parties are fully bought and paid for when it comes to the "project" with many individual politicians having already landed, or aiming for, a cushy position in the bureaucracy when domestic politics loses its appeal/the locals have had enough of them.

The underlying problem is that the EEC/EU was only intended to keep the peace between counties that had been knocking shades out of each other for decades/generations before, but there IS no EU "identity" that people align with.
They are Germans/French/Italians/Irish/whatever first, and "EU citizens" only when it comes to holidays, online retail, or jobs. Then the group was expanded to include former Soviet bloc countries who are even less aligned to the Western Europe idea of what EU should represent.

I fully expect that when the next major crisis arises - be it economic or security - the already growing scepticism of the whole concept will come to a head with more members wanting out, or mini-alliances forming and deepening the split. This will accelerate if the UK actually ends up doing OK outside of the bloc as I believe some others are waiting to see what happens before they look for their own exit.

The real question will be how peaceful and orderly the split will be, but knowing good old Ireland, we'll be sure to hang on to go down with the ship anyway.

Guy:Incognito

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The point is that the democratic process in the EU only seems to work as long as the bigger players get the results they want.

The point is nonsense. We, as a smaller country, rejected and made changes to it.

Maybe you'll take on the question of what a small and big country is seeing as Ubiquitous ignored it

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

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......

.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I fully expect that when the next major crisis arises - be it economic or security - the already growing scepticism of the whole concept will come to a head with more members wanting out, or mini-alliances forming and deepening the split. This will accelerate if the UK actually ends up doing OK outside of the bloc as I believe some others are waiting to see what happens before they look for their own exit.

There were plenty on here(possibly even yourself?) last year telling us that covid was the imminent end of the EU. Now it the next one.

_Kaiser_

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The point is that the democratic process in the EU only seems to work as long as the bigger players get the results they want.

The way the "second tier" countries (ourselves included) were treated during the financial crisis was more evidence of this with the late Brian Lenihan told "accept the deal.. or else!" and similar threats levelled at Greece when they pushed back as well.

For all the talk about the UK and Brexit, I have a feeling we will miss them badly in the coming years as our interests as an island on the periphery align far more with the UK than the rest of the EU. We already know our main political parties are fully bought and paid for when it comes to the "project" with many individual politicians having already landed, or aiming for, a cushy position in the bureaucracy when domestic politics loses its appeal/the locals have had enough of them.

The underlying problem is that the EEC/EU was only intended to keep the peace between counties that had been knocking shades out of each other for decades/generations before, but there IS no EU "identity" that people align with.
They are Germans/French/Italians/Irish/whatever first, and "EU citizens" only when it comes to holidays, online retail, or jobs. Then the group was expanded to include former Soviet bloc countries who are even less aligned to the Western Europe idea of what EU should represent.

I fully expect that when the next major crisis arises - be it economic or security - the already growing scepticism of the whole concept will come to a head with more members wanting out, or mini-alliances forming and deepening the split. This will accelerate if the UK actually ends up doing OK outside of the bloc as I believe some others are waiting to see what happens before they look for their own exit.

The real question will be how peaceful and orderly the split will be, but knowing good old Ireland, we'll be sure to hang on to go down with the ship anyway.

I personally don't think the EU will exist in 15-20 years.

dxhound2005

dxhound2005 wrote: »

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.

Eh yeah, I'm not sure that's how it works. If it's not ratified it's not ratified. If other states wanted to follow along out of "good faith" or whatever that's on them but it wouldn't have been properly ratified and things would have stayed as they were.

KevRossi

dxhound2005 wrote: »

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.

This is so wrong it's laughable. Not ratifying Lisbon had no bearing on our membership of the EU. If the EU had accepted the first Irish vote, then it would have carried on as before, no change.

Countries are members of the EU until they decide to leave (UK). Not ratifying a new/updated treaty still makes us a member.

OneEightSeven

This ship sailed in 2015 when the EU proposed mandatory resettlement quotas for the illegal immigrants entering Italy and Greece. The proposal was deeply unpopular in Eastern Europe and abolishing the veto will play into the hands of Euroskeptic, anti-immigration parties. The migration is a long way from over.

_Kaiser_

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The point is nonsense. We, as a smaller country, rejected and made changes to it.

Maybe you'll take on the question of what a small and big country is seeing as Ubiquitous ignored it

It's not as much population size as political and economic influence.

Our problems in the Financial collapse - while being largely the result of good ole Irish greed and "it'll be grand" regulation - were exacerbated by EU monetary policy designed primarily to suit Germany's needs at the time.

There were plenty on here(possibly even yourself?) last year telling us that covid was the imminent end of the EU. Now it the next one.

Covid has both delayed and likely deepened the already fundamental problems with the EU (just as it has at home with already significant domestic issues like housing and health now much worse in the aftermath) and the inequality that exists between the member states. As I said, the next crisis will probably push it over the edge - I don't think we were that far away from a split at times during the Financial crash.

Again, the fundamental issue is that the member states have no common basis for a United Europe beyond geography and a desire to not start blowing each other up again. There's vast disparity in economies, national politics, cultural norms and multiple other fundamentals. Even the USA for all its differences between counties, state and federal jurisdictions at least consider themselves Americans first and foremost. That's something the EU has never, and likely will never have.

_Kaiser_

Deleted User wrote: »

I personally don't think the EU will exist in 15-20 years.

It's certainly unlikely in its current state. Possibly even long before then as well.

We'll probably end up back in a looser EEC style trading bloc (which I personally think it should never have mutated beyond as its when the politicians got political notions of a US of E that the wheels started to come off), with the Eastern members falling back under the influence of Russia.

Whether this transition will happen peacefully however is a very different question.

TheValeyard

Germany can fcuk off. Why would we give up a power that protects this nation and its people. Small nations everywhere in the EU are hardly going to listen to them.