Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

oscarBravo wrote: »

You haven't explained it, you've claimed it.

And pointed to the entire world as evidence that i am correct. If my explanation fits the real world, and yours does not, then it is apparent which one of us is correct.

You cannot explain why there are hundreds of nation-states in the world, and very few remaining states which are not formed around the contour of national community. You are the one making the assertion that it is suddenly a good idea to reverse hundreds of years of progress towards representative government by in effect going back to the 19th century multinational states that existed in Europe before the nation-state.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I reject your premise. What is the glue that allows outvoted minorities in the UN General Assembly to go along with what the majority wants?

The UN General Assembly has no 'serious' powers. If it did then it would experience the same problem of lack of democratic legitimacy as the EU.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You have unilaterally decided that the nation-state is the upper limit of legitimacy. You state this as if it were self-evident, without adducing any evidence to support it. Argument by repetition isn't convincing, I'm afraid.

Since it was not me that created all the nation-states in the world, it is hardly my unilateral decision. National identity is the strongest form of identity that we have, and so provides the greatest degree of solidarity in the presence of political tension. States that are formed on any other basis than national identity will fracture along national lines in the presence of political tension. Civilisational identities (e.g. European identity, "The West", etc.) are the weakest form of community that we have and will not bear the weight of decision-making by majority. That is why the EU fractures along national lines when there is disagreement on any point of political controversy.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Does the UN lack democratic legitimacy? Does NATO? Does NAFTA? Does ICTU?

No international organization has a democratic legitimacy of its own. They can be considered in two groups. Those that (a) take 'serious' decisions which will lead to political constroversy, and (b) those which don't.

International organisations in the first gorup (e.g. NATO, WTO, etc.) must preserve the democratic legtiimacy of the decisions taken there by ensuring that the policy perefences of national electorates are not overruled. That is why all international organisaions in the first group (with the exception of the EU) use decision-making by unanimity.

International organisation in the 2nd group (e.g. UN General Assembly) can use decision-making by majority because their decisions will not lead to political tensions. The EU decision-making rules (the community method) date from the period when it was a type (b) organization making minor rules about the maximum curvature of cucmumbers, etc. However the powers of the EU have been increased such that it is now a type (a) organisation making serious decisions, but whose decision-making rules remain those of a type (b) condensation.

Therefore we see that it is now capable of taking serious decisions binding on its members using QMV, and which will result in entire national electorates being obliged to live under EU rules and policies which they never wanted and can never change throguh their ballot box in the future. This is the root cause of the growing EU crisis of democratic legitimacy and Lisbon would make it worse by extending the undemratic community method into new and more politically sensitive polciy areas, and raising the blocking threshold to 35% thus making it more likely that nations will be outvoted.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It is either foolish or dishonest, after the discussion we have had here, to persist in conflating the idea of nation with the idea of statehood.

The entire map of the world says otherwise, and the presence of one or two low-grade EU supporters on here such as yourself does not alter that fact. I suggest you come down from cloud-cuckoo land to the real world where state boundaries are drawn around national communities.

Freeborn John wrote: »

The entire map of the world says otherwise, and the presence of one or two low-grade EU supporters on here such as yourself does not alter that fact. I suggest you come down from cloud-cuckoo land to the real world where state boundaries are drawn around national communities.

Just because something is so today, doesn't mean it always has been or always will be or, more importantly, should be.

K-9

Yet we have only used our veto once.

taconnol wrote: »

Just because something is so today, doesn't mean it always has been or always will be or, more importantly, should be.

The major trend in the history of the world since 1776 has been the realignment of state borders around national community worldwide through the creation of more and more nation-states. This is 250 years of progress in the history of mankind which is closely associated with the spread of democracy. The EU must not be allowed to reverse that progress of mankind now. The best way to ensure that this does not happen, and that Ireland remains a place where 'government of the people, by the people, for the people' survives is to vote down Lisbon on October 2.

Freeborn John wrote: »

The major trend in the history of the world since 1776 has been the realignment of state borders around national community worldwide through the creation of more and more nation-states. This is 250 years of progress in the history of mankind which is closely associated with the spread of democracy. The EU must not be allowed to reverse that progress of mankind now. The best way to ensure that this does not happen, and that Ireland remains a place where 'government of the people, by the people, for the people' survives is to vote down Lisbon on October 2.

I can equally argue that in the last 50 years, the increase in supra-national agreements such as NATO, UN etc has seen even more democracy 'progress' blah blah and therefore we musn't allow low-grade anti-EU people, like yourself, to reverse that progress of mankind now.

taconnol wrote: »

I can equally argue that in the last 50 years, the increase in supra-national agreements such as NATO, UN etc has seen even more democracy 'progress' blah blah and therefore we musn't allow low-grade anti-EU people, like yourself, to reverse that progress of mankind now.

If you tried to argue that i would laugh at you. NATO is not a supranational organisation making the decision to go to war on behalf of its members. Nobody is going to send their sons and daughters off to fight and possibly die on the back of a qualified majority vote they have lost.

Freeborn John wrote: »

And pointed to the entire world as evidence that i am correct. If my explanation fits the real world, and yours does not, then it is apparent which one of us is correct.

Unfortunately, your explanation doesn't fit the real world, which (I suppose) explains why you need to modify your perception of the world to fit your explanation.

You claim that there are two nations in Northern Ireland, but only one in Great Britain (good luck selling that one to Welsh and Scottish nationalists). Presumably you would equally claim that there is only one nation within the boundaries of Spain, or within Belgium or Switzerland for that matter.

You cannot explain why there are hundreds of nation-states in the world...

They are almost invariably the result of various wars. The idea of a nation that eschews any influence from the outside is backwards, parochial and downright dangerous.

The UN General Assembly has no 'serious' powers. If it did then it would experience the same problem of lack of democratic legitimacy as the EU.

Ah, we've introduced a new arbitrary metric into our definition of democratic legitimacy - "seriousness".

What is the unit of measure of seriousness? Or of democratic legitimacy, for that matter?

National identity is the strongest form of identity that we have...

Speak for yourself. Personal identity is the strongest form of identity I have.

No international organization has a democratic legitimacy of its own.

You still haven't defined "democratic legitimacy".

Therefore we see that it is now capable of taking serious decisions binding on its members using QMV, and which will result in entire national electorates being obliged to live under EU rules and policies which they never wanted and can never change throguh their ballot box in the future.

How many "serious decisions" can you name that the EU has taken using QMV, that a national electorate is obliged to live under, and that it's unhappy about?

This is the root cause of the growing EU crisis of democratic legitimacy...

You keep talking about this "growing crisis" - thus far the only place this crisis seems to exist is inside your head.

Freeborn John wrote: »

NATO is not a supranational organisation making the decision to go to war on behalf of its members.

Neither is the EU.

Freeborn John wrote: »

Nobody is going to send their sons and daughters off to fight and possibly die on the back of a qualified majority vote they have lost.

Why do you perpetuate the lies? Defence matters remain subject to unanimity.

Spiritoftheseventies

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, we have lost our competitiveness by allowing wage inflation to get out of control. What natural resources? Shoddy government, for the most part.

Natural resources as in National resources. Fisheries, oil, gas, that sort of stuff.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What is the unit of measure of seriousness? Or of democratic legitimacy, for that matter?

'Seriousness' means politically salient, i.e. will result in politically controversy of the type which decides votes in elections.

Democratic legitimacy is the acceptance of political decisions by virtue of the decision being the preference of the majority.

International elections do not have a democratic legitimacy in any nation where the national majority is of an opinion that differs from that of the international majority.

The EU 'community method' was designed for taking decision in non-politically salient areas, such as minor rules about the common market. Since Maastricht (1992) it has increasingly been applied to politically salient policy areas, resulting in entire nations being locked (permanently) into decisions that they did not agree with in the first place and cannot change in future through their general elections. This is the origin of the EU crisis of democratic legitimacy which has been growing since the early 1990s.

Before Maastricht nobody spoke of the EU democratic deficit because the community method was only used to decide non-salient issues. Since Masstricht the democratic legitimacy problem has grown as the community method has become the norm, and as the decisions of past governments taken at EU level bind those of current and future governments.

taconnol wrote: »

Why do you perpetuate the lies? Defence matters remain subject to unanimity.

My response was to your suggestion that NATO is a supra-national organisation.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Neither is the EU.

The EU would be supranational in all except a handful of policy areas (including defence) under Lisbon. Lisbon achieves this by 'collapsing the pillar structure' such that the community method becomes the norm across almost all policy areas, where as previously the community method was only the norm in the 'first pillar' of common market regulations.

taconnol wrote: »

I can equally argue that in the last 50 years, the increase in supra-national agreements such as NATO, UN etc has seen even more democracy 'progress' blah blah and therefore we musn't allow low-grade anti-EU people, like yourself, to reverse that progress of mankind now.

Firstly, I dont think you have the right to refer to another poster as a low grade person because they disagree with you, and disappointing to see a mod thank that, but it does reflect the general tone of debate at this stage.

And with the growth of the EU, more technocrats etc, democracy has been damaged in my opinion.

This treaty, a VGD vanity project at this stage, has been rejected by enough people and enough times in enough countries to force a proper treaty to be developed, to give us more say in our futures.

bayviewclose wrote: »

Natural resources as in National resources. Fisheries, oil, gas, that sort of stuff.

The idea that we sold out our fishermen for entry into the EU is a total fabrication.

Before we joined the EU, fishermen from Spain and other countries were already fishing in our waters and the industry was worth very little in terms of livelihood, contributions to exchequer and employment.

In fact it was investment from the EU that helped the Irish fishing industry to grow to where it is today.

BTW, what's all this oil you're talking about? And please explain where they took all our gas...and stuff?

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Firstly, I dont think you have the right to refer to another poster as a low grade person because they disagree with you, and disappointing to see a mod thank that, but it does reflect the general tone of debate at this stage.

Well then you'll appreciate that I used it specifically (and ironically) in response to Freeborn John's initial use of the phrase:

Freeborn John wrote: »

The entire map of the world says otherwise, and the presence of one or two low-grade EU supporters on here such as yourself does not alter that fact.

Can I hope now to see you chastise Freeborn John for his use of the phrase (as well as other unnecessary phrases like "I suggest you come down from cloud-cuckoo land"? I'm waiting

Freeborn John wrote: »

And with the growth of the EU, more technocrats etc, democracy has been damaged in my opinion.

Can you explain how? Backed up with facts?

It was more a mod thanking such an unbecoming post I was dissappointed with.

Running the same referendum twice, and ramming it through in France and Holland as well as the lack of openess and transparancy in the EU such as expenses is something I find undemocratic - not to mention the BCI decision etc. I've expressed concerns on this stuff before, not pulling it up again - you can always check out the blog

Zuiderzee wrote: »

It was more a mod thanking such an unbecoming post I was dissappointed with.

Just pathetic. Seriously. Get irony much?

taconnol wrote: »

The idea that we sold out our fishermen for entry into the EU is a total fabrication.

Before we joined the EU, fishermen from Spain and other countries were already fishing in our waters and the industry was worth very little in terms of livelihood, contributions to exchequer and employment.

In fact it was investment from the EU that helped the Irish fishing industry to grow to where it is today.

Wrong, fisheries has suffered under the EU with quota reductions and decommissioning. Other countries who fished inside territorial waters did so illegally, they now have a right to do so.

Our involvement with EU fisheries policy has not been of help to the Irish fisheries sector, inshore fisheries in particular which was important for peripheral communities was particularly badly affected.
This has continued with the recent withdrawl of support for new build vessels.

taconnol wrote: »

BTW, what's all this oil you're talking about? And please explain where they took all our gas...and stuff?

Correct, the EU did not shaft us on this one, the Government did - particularly Ray Bourke and Frank Fahy

Freeborn John wrote: »

'Seriousness' means politically salient, i.e. will result in politically controversy of the type which decides votes in elections.

Like TV deflectors?

Democratic legitimacy is the acceptance of political decisions by virtue of the decision being the preference of the majority.

International elections do not have a democratic legitimacy in any nation where the national majority is of an opinion that differs from that of the international majority.

You're arguing from your conclusion again. You are taking as a starting point the premise that a nation is somehow an infallibly ordained unit of democratic legitimacy, and that anything that isn't a nation isn't allowed to override a nation's wishes - qualified, of course, by some completely arbitrary measure of "seriousness".

The EU 'community method' was designed for taking decision in non-politically salient areas, such as minor rules about the common market.

If you think the common market isn't politically salient, you don't know much about international trade.

Since Maastricht (1992) it has increasingly been applied to politically salient policy areas, resulting in entire nations being locked (permanently) into decisions that they did not agree with in the first place and cannot change in future through their general elections. This is the origin of the EU crisis of democratic legitimacy which has been growing since the early 1990s.

You're still arguing from your conclusion.

Before Maastricht nobody spoke of the EU democratic deficit...

Precious few have spoken about it since, either.

Freeborn John wrote: »

The EU would be supranational in all except a handful of policy areas (including defence) under Lisbon.

So you acknowledge that the EU "is not a supranational organisation making the decision to go to war on behalf of its members"?

Although something tells me you have a definition of "supranational" that's tailored to fit your worldview also.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

This treaty, a VGD vanity project at this stage...

That's an astonishingly naive view.

P. Breathnach

Freeborn John wrote: »

The entire map of the world says otherwise,

That is untrue. Maps tell us little about the people that live within the areas delineated.

and the presence of one or two low-grade EU supporters on here such as yourself does not alter that fact. I suggest you come down from cloud-cuckoo land to the real world where state boundaries are drawn around national communities.

Don't get personal.

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's an astonishingly naive view.

Thats how I feel, a failed one term mans last attempt at what he percieves to be greatness.

Evenin now folks, other stuff to doooo

hatrickpatrick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The number of people playing the lotto does not effect your chances of winning in any way. You have a ticket with 6 numbers on it and 6 numbers are drawn. Whether someone else has bought a ticket or not does not change the numbers on your ticket or the numbers drawn. The only way it can effect you is if someone else has the same numbers, then you don't win as much

What effects your chances of winning is that ours goes to 42 (I think) and the euromillions goes to 50 and uses the lucky stars idea

Exactly, but that's to counter the fact that there are so many more players. Anyway it may have been a flawed analogy, but you know what I'm getting at, and I don't see anyone trying to deny it.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You are taking as a starting point the premise that a nation is somehow an infallibly ordained unit of democratic legitimacy, and that anything that isn't a nation isn't allowed to override a nation's wishes ...

Welcome to the democratic world where states derive their legitimacy from a sovereign people.

I have provided a coherent explanation for why state boundaries are drawn around the contours of national community worldwide, why international organisations only preserve democratic legitimacy when taking serious decisions binding on their membership through decision-making by unanimity, and why the EU has been shedding democratic legitimacy for decades while increasing the powers of the EU Parliament. My explanation fits the observed facts all around the world so has to be more than my personal opinion.

You on the other hand cannot provide any alternative explanation that fits the facts. Rather than admit this, you start to deny the facts!! According to you there is no link between states and peoples (despite the evidence of the political map of the world) nor any existing problem of EU democratic legitimacy (despite all the lost referendums and the clear signs of disconnect between politicians and electorates in multiple countries on the EU issue).

I have tried to educate you on the basics of the EU issue, but ultimately if you want to blind yourself to the issues no one can stop you. What is important though is that people see you have no explanation for the way the world is, or the problems that the EU is experiencing and can propose nothing except repeating the failed policies (which is what Lisbon is) that have led the EU into its current difficulties. The definition of stupidity is repeating that which you know not to work. I hope all can see that Lisbon is a stupid treaty by that definition.

P. Breathnach

Freeborn John wrote: »

... I have provided a coherent explanation for why state boundaries are drawn around the contours of national community worldwide...

No, you have not. You have asserted it, and you have pretty well suggested that ethnic cleansing would tidy things up a bit. You have also claimed that the Scots and Welsh are not nations, and that all Indians are one nation, and all Pakistanis are one nation. The only place where you seem to think that there are two nations in one territory is Northern Ireland.

This is a discussion group. Assertion is not discussion.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

No, you have not. You have asserted it, and you have pretty well suggested that ethnic cleansing would tidy things up a bit. You have also claimed that the Scots and Welsh are not nations, and that all Indians are one nation, and all Pakistanis are one nation. The only place where you seem to think that there are two nations in one territory is Northern Ireland.

This is a discussion group. Assertion is not discussion.

Totally bogus. It is only you that is suggesting ethnic cleansing which is not going on anywhere in the democratic world. My explanations meet the facts. You defy the facts.

As for India and Pakistan, Lord Moutbatten (last viceroy) explained the need for partition as follows; “there can be no question of coercing any large areas in which one community has a majority to live against their will under a government in which another community has a majority. And the only alternative to coercion is partition”. It is an explanation that could have been applied when the Irish state was created, or Czechoslovakia split up, or when any of the other democratic nation-states of the world formed.

The explanations on here are coming from me, and they fit the real world historical experience. The assertions that i am wrong come from others like yourself who are incapable of providing any coherent alternative explanation that fits the facts.

P. Breathnach

Freeborn John wrote: »

Totally bogus. It is only you that is suggesting ethnic cleansing which is not going on anywhere in the democratic world. My explanations meet the facts. You defy the facts.

As for India and Pakistan, Lord Moutbatten (last viceroy) explained the need for partition as follows; “there can be no question of coercing any large areas in which one community has a majority to live against their will under a government in which another community has a majority. And the only alternative to coercion is partition”. It is an explanation that could have been applied when the Irish state was created, or Czechoslovakia split up, or when any of the other democratic nation-states of the world formed.

The explanations on here are coming from me, and they fit the real world historical experience. The assertions that i am wrong come from others like yourself who are incapable of providing any coherent alternative explanation that fits the facts.

You have explained nothing of what you have said; you have simply repeated your assertions.

I note also that you have not withdrawn or apologised for your personal attack on me.