New EU Constitution

Cork · 30-10-2002 9:40am #1

Looks like the UK see the EU as a loose bunch of nations co-operating in a free trade area.

The Germans and French have more imperial ambitions (Whats new?).

As - we will be getting a new EU constitution -

Sunday Business Post Article

Where does Dick Roche , John Bruton or P de Rossa stand?

I think that the silence of our political establishment is deafening.

dahamsta · 30-10-2002 11:25am

Where does Dick Roche , John Bruton or P de Rossa stand?

There was a piece about this in yesterday's IT. I nearly pissed myself when I saw the term "United States of Europe" being mooted. A reckon a few Irish people will start regretting their Yes to Nice real soon now.

adam

DiscoStu · 30-10-2002 11:27am

This one could get a hell of a lot messier than nice ever got. Asking the people to give up the constitution, that will go down like a lead budgie.

bertiebowl · 30-10-2002 12:24pm

Er lads,

Before panic sets in remember.....the new constitution aims to define the competencies of the nation state vs. federal state....and to make the EU far more democratic.....whats wrong with that?

Also remember that Ireland is probably the most centralised country in the EU......quite contrary to our EU neighbours who view a federal arrangement as quite complementary to local democracy (e.g where you get to elect your own city major - gasp!!!)

So lets hear it for an EU constitution that compliments our own - and for more local democracy while were at it

Typedef · 30-10-2002 12:46pm

What's wrong bertiehowl is that the EU is attempting to coerce states into participating in the constitution by saying "those who can't accept it have to leave the EU".
So much for valuing the opinions of everyone in the EU, if you look at the reality of rhetoric coming from European Federalists, it's a case of do as we say or leave.

http://www.sbpost.ie/story.jsp?bottomadvert=&rightadverts=&rightnav=/common/navs/right/sponsorsnav.jsp&leftadverts=&advert=/common/adverts/top/homepage.htm&title=Sunday+Paper&story=WCContent;id-59303&list=businesspost

The occasion will be marked by controversy; Giscard d'Estaing has said member states that cannot ratify the new constitution should be excluded from the EU.

John Bruton, a member of the praesidium or steering group of the convention, said he disagrees with the chairman's plans to offer the nations of Europe an `in or out' choice on the constitution.

However I'm quite sure the government won't see being told to ratify the European constitution or leave the Union as coercion, nor will the pro-Federalist or anti-Nationalist camps see such European dictats that way, but in my opinion that is exactly the colour the rhetoric of the Federalists is taking.
Ref: quoted text above with link.

Meh · 30-10-2002 1:00pm

Originally posted by Typedef
What's wrong bertiehowl is that the EU is attempting to coerce states into participating in the constitution by saying "those who can't accept it have to leave the EU".

Correction: Giscard d'Estaing is saying this. A lot of influential people in the EU disagree with him:

John Bruton, a member of the praesidium or steering group of the convention, said he disagrees with the chairman's plans to offer the nations of Europe an `in or out' choice on the constitution.

And if d'Estaing wants this"in or out" idea implemented, he'll have to get every single EU member state to agree to it in 2004.

Also note that this isn't even a proposal -- it's a draft of a proposal. Whatever we vote on in 2004, it'll be different from this.

daveirl · 30-10-2002 1:08pm

This post has been deleted.

Typedef · 30-10-2002 1:19pm

Assuming our "European partners" don't say "Accept this constitution or leave the Union" or do as said "partners" did last time and demand that Ireland vote on the constitution in perpetuity until such time as Ireland votes "the right way".

Welcome to democracy in Ireland, where your opinon only counts so long as you do as you are told.

bertiebowl · 30-10-2002 2:00pm

Er, Typedef - it was Bertie and noone else who decided to hold a second referendum.........and Fianna Failure put it in their election manifesto that they would hold a second referendum - and the people voted for 'em

PH01 · 30-10-2002 2:26pm

An EU Constitution will mean a new threaty, and then another EU referendum for Ireland (probably the only country to vote again)!

Well, that's something to look forward to.

As of now I'm voting 'Yes'

Typedef · 30-10-2002 2:27pm

How can you already be voting Yes... I don't even know that I'm voting No as I haven't even seen the damned document.

Pretty open minded approach there PH01.

This is me being holier than thou

PH01 · 30-10-2002 3:13pm

Originally posted by Typedef
How can you already be voting Yes... I don't even know that I'm voting No as I haven't even seen the damned document.

Pretty open minded approach there PH01.

This is me being holier than thou

I'm pretty much Yes-2-Europe-not-matter-what kind of a guy to a certain extent.
I would like to see even more political and economic unity in Europe. And as for military unity I'm for that as well, but it MUST be benign and not an offensive force.

Typedef · 30-10-2002 3:22pm

I think an outright Yes or No before the Treaty is even published is closed minded.

mike65 · 30-10-2002 6:48pm

FFS, this is just another daft, "run it up the flap-pole and see who salutes" thing, I said this before in another thread about the same subject. The UK government have already said "non" and the Swedes, Danes, Austians, and proberly the Irish government too will be saying in a polite fashion that a USE will not be happening anytime soon or ever.

Mike.

PH01 · 31-10-2002 8:59am

Originally posted by Typedef
I think an outright Yes or No before the Treaty is even published is closed minded.

I wouldn't call it a closed mind, I'd call it an opening position.

Cork · 31-10-2002 9:32am

It is ironic that mone of our political partys seem to be the slightest bit interested in the EU constitution.

Where does FF stand?

As a FF supporter - I find that the silence worrying.

I saw a debate on Primetime post NICEII - Dana & Patricaia Mckenna were talking about the EU constitution.

There was silence from the other side.

Have they no openion or are we entitled to have an openion?

bertiebowl · 31-10-2002 9:37am

I think that should read "opinion" Cork not "openion"

DiscoStu · 31-10-2002 10:18am

Originally posted by daveirl
The new constitution would compliment the old one, not replace it

it would not compliment it, it would supercede it.

In areas of conflict between the Irish Constitution and the new European Constitution, European law will take precedence

Typedef · 31-10-2002 10:32am

The UK government have already said "non" and the Swedes, Danes, Austians, and proberly the Irish government too will be saying in a polite fashion that a USE

Notice mention of an actual world power there (ie) the UK. Hopefully the British will dig in their heels about a United States of Europe and the ostensibly useless and unrepresentative mildly oppressive authoritarian government of Ireland won't have to be put in a position where it has to dictate European policy to the Irish electorate again. I realise that under Irish law the second Nice Treaty Referendum was not (illegal) however it was dictatorial, and the Referendum results were cherry picked. I'm not debating whether or not a government has the right to do such a thing, I am merely pointing out that if as Mike has alluded, the British dig in their heels about a Federal Union, this will ultimately and rather ironically be Ireland's best chance of staying a soverign nation.

Hopefully such a move from the British will filibuster or negate further European Federal integration and keep the Union as much of a solely economic co-operative as the Union can be kept. Clearly the French and Germans are hell bent on creating a Federal Union and the states that have been outlined above have varying levels of opposition to that Union. Now what concerns me is when the likes of G'estard Estang start shouting about expelling countries who oppose Federal Union from the EU, because to my mind that means that small countries like Ireland are put in the position of either ceding soveringty to a Federal Union or risking being isolated from the economic benefits of the former EEC and now EU.

Thus my fear for this country becomes, how much of a compromise on soveringty to placate Federalists is Ireland prepaired to undertake and how much can Ireland rely on British Euroscepticism to filibuster Federal Union and thus protect (ironically) Irish soveringty?

It seems to me, if Ireland is becoming increasingly Eurosceptic (as it probably is), that Ireland must be prepaired to stand up and be counted as it were, without hiding behind British Euroscepticism and again my gripe with the government is that it fundamentally does not seem to be prepaired to represent Irish Euroscepticsm, but rather seems inclined towards quasi-Federalist dictatorialism.

That's just the way I see it..... so sue me!

PHB · 31-10-2002 1:38pm

Typedef :

FF had part of their election campaign that they were going to vote again on the nice treaty.

The people elected FF again and hence there was a vote on the nice treaty again.

If they hadn't then they wouldnt be doing what the people wanted, they had a mandate from the people to have another vote.
The people wanted another vote and they got it.

Typedef · 31-10-2002 1:59pm

Aside from the fact that doesn't address what I said I'll use some reverse psychology, the majority of people did not vote for Fianna Fial, so since the Yes camp rationalised the re-run partly due to the fact that the 'majority of the electorate didn't vote' does that mean that Fianna Fial can be removed from office on the same auspices?
How about yet another re-run on those auspices, since under 50% of the electorate voted?

Before you drag this thread any further off topic I'd just like to point out you haven't even come remotely close to answering the issues I raised in my previous post, but instead have dragged up Fianna Fail and the Nice Treaty again.

Kudos to you ted

Meh · 31-10-2002 2:15pm

Originally posted by Typedef
my gripe with the government is that it fundamentally does not seem to be prepaired to represent Irish Euroscepticsm, but rather seems inclined towards quasi-Federalist dictatorialism.

Why on earth should the government argue from a eurosceptic viewpoint when it doesn't agree with the eurosceptics? The current government was democratically elected with pro-integration policies. If you want a government that resists further European integration, then all you have to do is vote for it.

Typedef · 31-10-2002 2:24pm

Well if this government is pro integration it should say so, clearly and unambigiously. I wonder Meh if you can provide a link that states that the current government is in favour of a United States of Europe?

This government has said the Nice Treaty was about 'enlargement', and it is the contention of the former Yes side in the Nice campaign that the government was elected on that basis. Now if it is your contention that the Treaty was in fact about integration and that by supporting the government of Ireland as it currently is you are supporting European Federal integration towards a United States of Europe, I would wonder why it is the government lied and said the Treaty was about enlargement only and I would like to see some evidence that exponenciation of Federal integration has become official government policy. Then I would like some random people from the Yes side to answer as to why it is they felt the need to lie to get this Treaty passed.
If it was really the will of the people to pass the Treaty can you really claim it as valid under the pretence that the government has lied as to the eventual aim of the progressive treaties regarding Europe?

Again I would point out that Nice has been done to death at this stage and is completely off topic to this thread.

Meh · 31-10-2002 2:42pm

Originally posted by Typedef
Well if this government is pro integration it should say so, clearly and unambigiously. I wonder Meh if you can provide a link that states that the current government is in favour of a United States of Europe?

It is well known to the electorate that FF and the PDs are pro-EU parties. If you're trying to say that the people who voted for them in May "didn't know" that they were pro-EU, that's just disingenuous. In any case, there's quite a large gap between "in favour of a degree of closer integration" (which this government certainly is) and "in favour of a United States of Europe".

Again I would point out that Nice has been done to death at this stage and is completely off topic to this thread.

I agree completely. In fact, I wasn't talking about Nice in my post. That's why I haven't addressed your points about the Nice treaty.

Typedef · 31-10-2002 2:55pm

Originally posted by Meh
It is well known to the electorate that FF and the PDs are pro-EU parties.

Well known just doesn't cut it. You are a great man for asking for proof, so I ask you now, to provide proof that the Fianna Fial/Progressive Democrat axis is in favour of a United States of Europe, ie European Political Federal integration.

Meh · 31-10-2002 3:11pm

Originally posted by Typedef
Well know just doesn't cut it. You are a great man for asking for proof, so I ask you now, to provide proof that the Fianna Fial/Progressive Democrat axis is in favour of a United States of Europe, ie European Political Federal integration.

And where did I say that they were pro-United States of Europe? For proof that the government is in favour of the EU, see this paper. Closer integration does not necessarily mean a United States of Europe. It's only the eurosceptics who say that it does, and the faulty logic in their argument should be apparent to anyone with any intelligence. It's perfectly possible to be in favour of closer EU integration, but to draw the line before a full-blown federation along the lines of the USA.

Typedef · 31-10-2002 3:13pm

If you are going to backtrack maybe you would care to qualify what you mean by current government was democratically elected with pro-integration policies you mean by pro-integration if not a Federal Union?

Meh · 31-10-2002 3:22pm

Originally posted by Typedef
If you are going to backtrack maybe you would care to qualify what you mean by current government was democratically elected with pro-integration policies you mean by pro-integration if not a Federal Union?

Well, what do you mean by "Federal Union" if not an arrangement like the USA, where the federal government declares war on states that try to secede from the union? I doubt that anyone, even M. d'Estaing, envisages an EU like that. I've certainly never heard of an Irish politician advocating it.

You are trying to present us with a false choice between a European equivalent of the US federal government, and a purely economic EEC. In reality, no such dichotomy exists. The line can be drawn anywhere. And the current government favours a degree of further integration with the EU. As you will see if you read the PDF I linked.

Typedef · 31-10-2002 3:31pm

Well, what do you mean by "Federal Union" if not an arrangement like the USA,

You know answering a question with a question is bad form.
You pro-Europeans ask me a Eurosceptic to accept a European integration motif, but refuse to define what that means.

Thus I oppose said integration on the grounds it could mean a Federal Union style United States of Europe. Logically it's pretty simple, I choose not to blinkerdly trust others to decide what level of integration is best, I would like a concrete proposal. Not hand wavy, "well what does a Federal Union mean anyway" tactics.
Answer the question.

bertiebowl · 31-10-2002 4:25pm

Typedef - I think what Meh means is that we're free to take this EU development exactly where we want to go.

We are not constrained to follow the US model, the Australian model or even the original Confederate model.

We Europeans have the power to shape our institutions for what we want them to be.
This is what the convention on the future of Europe is about - developing the best Europe that we can, were all citizens and all member states share mutual benefits.

Meh · 31-10-2002 4:28pm

Originally posted by Typedef
Thus I oppose said integration on the grounds it could mean a Federal Union style United States of Europe.

I've said this before, but that's like being afraid to ask a girl you fancy out on the grounds that you might end up marrying her.

daveirl · 01-11-2002 12:56am

This post has been deleted.

DiscoStu · 01-11-2002 1:21am

Originally posted by daveirl
Doesn't European Law already supercede Irish Law or am I missing something.

Isn't the European Court the highest court you can appeal to, or is that only on Human rights issues?

Your point? Youve claimed that it will mearly compliment the constitution but now you have stated that european law over rules Irish law anyway. An EU constitution, as has been described in the article will simply serve as a carte blanche for federalists to mould nations that may in some way oppose a U.S.E by ruling that their descisions are unlawful under european law and forcing them to accept the mandates of the federalists. Imagine a Nice situation under the proposed eu constitution.

"No need for an annoying referendum Betie, voting on the path your nation chooses would be illegal in Europe. So stop your worrying and hand over the couple of billion you owe for the structural funds. Those Polish farmers need subsidies you know"

Cork · 01-11-2002 9:52am

Originally posted by Meh
I've said this before, but that's like being afraid to ask a girl you fancy out on the grounds that you might end up marrying her.

Closer integration does not necessarily mean a United States of Europe.

We already share a common monetary policy - any more Closer integration we are danger territory.

What can't our political partys give leadership & state where they stand?

Why is Dick Roche & Brian Cowen gone all quiet?

Why does the EU see the need to try & keep up with the US?

You have the EU space agency and NASA?

You are comparing bannas and pears - They'll never be a Unitied States Of Europe.

daveirl · 01-11-2002 10:00am

This post has been deleted.

Cork · 01-11-2002 6:27pm

Originally posted by daveirl
Relax. All I was doing was asking a question. That's why there wasn't a point. Jesus :rolleyes:

We have a fine constitution. We have added silly treatys like NICE onto it.

Nobody really knows the staus of the EU constition. It is absurd. Our politicians had all the answers a few short weeks ago - Today , they are silent.

01-11-2002 7:11pm

Originally posted by Cork
We have a fine constitution. We have added silly treatys like NICE onto it.

Nobody really knows the staus of the EU constition. It is absurd. Our politicians had all the answers a few short weeks ago - Today , they are silent.

Yes we have a fine constitution, if a little outdated in places perhaps.

Regarding the politicians being silent, I wouldn't worry about that....It might be better to wait untill we see a draft of this constitution and know it's purpose etc.
At least then a proper discussion can take place on the subject.
mm

daveirl · 01-11-2002 7:48pm

This post has been deleted.

Cork · 02-11-2002 11:56am

I think our constitution is a documement far ahead of its time.

I feel that it has served us through times where other courtries in Europe were engaged in both Civil & World Wars.

Regarding the EU Constitution:

At least then a proper discussion can take place on the subject.

Sure - We'll have all our establishment supporting it - no metter what.

Sesshoumaru · 02-11-2002 1:19pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,821228,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,821165,00.html

"a union of European states which, while retaining their national identities, closely coordinate their policies at the European level, and administer certain common competences on a federal level"

"any competence not conferred on the Union by the constitution rests with the member states"

Seems to me that Giscard is doing a good job on the EU's future constitution. The whole aim of this constitution is to make the EU more transparent and accountable to the ordinary citizens. So what if one of the proposed names was "The USE"? and why do we have to be afraid of using the word "Federal"? I think there are many instances where it would be beneficial for europeans to co- operate on a federal level. This constitution is being drafted by a 105 member convention which includes representatives from all EU countries and candidate countries. Ireland has its say in this new constitution. So there is no need to start frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog just cause the federal word is being used.

Cork · 02-11-2002 1:38pm

Originally posted by Sesshoumaru
Ireland has its say in this new constitution. So there is no need to start frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog just cause the federal word is being used.

Ireland has it's say - What are our politicians saying?

I know the UK is aganist federalisim or EU unity.

The French and the Germans seem to want closer intergration.

But - Where does Ireland stand?

What is P de rossa, John Bruton or Dick Roche saying?

02-11-2002 2:43pm

Originally posted by Cork
Ireland has it's say - What are our politicians saying?

What is P de rossa, John Bruton or Dick Roche saying?

I think you should ask them, I'll pop them a mail today and see what they say.
You should present your worries on this issue to your local M.E.P also Cork, as they may not be reading this board.
As there isn't even a draft of this constitution available yet, and whats going to be in it is still being discussed, I would say expressing your opinions to those in charge would be best for now.
If the principal of any proposed E.U constitution is to merely formalise the implimentation of existing E.U Law in all member states, then I may have no problem with it.
I reserve my own judgement untill I see the Draft.
mm

Sesshoumaru · 02-11-2002 3:23pm

Ireland has it's say - What are our politicians saying?

I think you should ask them, I'll pop them a mail today and see what they say.

Simple question has simple answer. Thank you!

Cork · 02-11-2002 3:54pm

I have contacted our MEPS on an issue last year - they don't really reply to emails. T

hey need to publicly state where they stand. What are they afraid of?

I think they may be giving the EU a blank cheque - to do whatever they wish with us.

bonkey · 03-11-2002 12:31pm

Originally posted by Cork
I think they may be giving the EU a blank cheque - to do whatever they wish with us.

And I think this is more baseless scaremongering. Either provide something to back this point up, or drop it.

I am getting fed up of seeing substanceless drivel like this clogging up thread after thread after thread. While I may disagree with people like Typedef, at least he usually supplies well-thought-out reasoning for his stance.

Then again, I've been looking hard to find even 4 or 5 worthwhile posts on this thread. The rest are either off topic, chidish or contentless.

If the content doesnt improve, there is no point in continuing this thread. Consider this a final warning.

jc

Typedef · 03-11-2002 7:02pm

Originally posted by Man
I think you should ask them, I'll pop them a mail today and see what they say.

Actually I did ask Enda Kenny if he supported a Federal European Union, and I was told unambiguously that no, neither he, nor the Fine Gael party supports such en entity. So when one considers that Fine Gael is the most pro-European party in Ireland and that Fine Gael is not prepaired to support a Federal European Union, I think it not unreasonable to draw the inference that most politicians in Ireland being pro-European to a lesser extent, do not in fact support a Federal European motif.

Therefore if the emergent constitution of the European Union starts mentioning competences of a Federal nature, one can expect by way of leading pro-European politicians already stated opposition to Federal Union that, said constitution will not be accepted by Ireland.

Never mind Ireland, Britian would never accept the enunciation of 'Federal' competences. In this regard individual nations in the European Union still have the ability to veto treaties pertaining to the European Union. Now I accept that 'Enhanced co-operation' negates the necessity for treaties to advance the intergrationist agenda, however a European Treaty is binding to all members of the Union, whereas Enhanced co-operation is not. Thus I do not see a time when Federal sceptic countries in the EU will acede to allowing a framework for Federal Union to take place.
Also I find the notion of an opt-out of Federal Union unlikely since senior pro-Federal Europeans are calling for ratification of the constitution or expulsion from the Union of those who do not ratify.

Thus if this quote is to be believed as the thrust of a Constitution "a union of European states which......... administer certain common competences on a federal level", and the notion that states will be expected to leave the Union or ratify is similarly to be believed, I find solace in the knowledge that Federal sceptic states will probably prevent creation of a Federal European Union, by way of their refusal to ratify a Federal agenda and the impossibility of expulsion of those who don't.

Biffa Bacon · 03-11-2002 9:17pm

Originally posted by bonkey
And I think this is more baseless scaremongering. Either provide something to back this point up, or drop it.

I am getting fed up of seeing substanceless drivel like this clogging up thread after thread after thread. While I may disagree with people like Typedef, at least he usually supplies well-thought-out reasoning for his stance.

Then again, I've been looking hard to find even 4 or 5 worthwhile posts on this thread. The rest are either off topic, chidish or contentless.

If the content doesnt improve, there is no point in continuing this thread. Consider this a final warning.

jc

Nice one bonkey. About time too.

03-11-2002 10:45pm

Originally posted by Typedef
Actually I did ask Enda Kenny if he supported a Federal European Union, and I was told unambiguously that no, neither he, nor the Fine Gael party supports such en entity. So when one considers that Fine Gael is the most pro-European party in Ireland and that Fine Gael is not prepaired to support a Federal European Union, I think it not unreasonable to draw the inference that most politicians in Ireland being pro-European to a lesser extent, do not in fact support a Federal European motif.

I would agree, but Enda Kenny seems to come across as very wooly headed at the best of times.Based on what I've seen, if I was on the interview panel for Taoiseach,I wouldn't give him the job.I would be afraid that other European leaders would run rings around him.

I find solace in the knowledge that Federal sceptic states will probably prevent creation of a Federal European Union, by way of their refusal to ratify a Federal agenda and the impossibility of expulsion of those who don't.

I too find solace in that, it's what I've thought all along,I doubt very much if the same electorate here either, that passed Nice would ever support a full federal European Union.
(:eek: I'm agreeing with Typey:D )
mm

New EU Constitution

Comments