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

Freeborn John · 18-08-2009 12:49AM

sink wrote: »

Is the world converging on the nation state? Or does the emergence of international organisations such as the UN, EU WTO, IMF, ASEAN, African Union, Arab league and Union of South American Nations amongst others in that last half century indicate a shift away from the independent nation state model towards a world governed by large international bodies?.

European idcentity (as measure in the EU Commission's own Eurobaramoeter polls) has been getting weaker since the early 1990s. In many countries (including Ireland) only 3 to 4% of people regard themselves as either exclusively European or that there European identity is strong than their national identity. This is a totally inadequate level of identification to support the powers that the EU has already. The powers of the EU have been increased while the level of European identification hav decreased. The result is that the EU has exceeded its legutimacy base already. The reposnse of politicians is to make the proble m worse by giving the EU even more powers thru Lisbon while the forced ratification further alienates the peoples of Europe from the politician's project. The whole structure is now in danger of toppling.

marco_polo · 18-08-2009 12:51AM

Freeborn John wrote: »

I didn't say language does not change. I said it (and other elements that underpin national identity) are etremely resistant to change. Spanisards, Potugese and italians can talk to one another in their own langauge if they choose their words carefully showing that these langauges have not chnaged much from the time of the roman empire 2000 years ago.

The nations of Europe are not going away. There have been 30 new nation-states in Europe since 1989 alone many of them brining democracy to their people for the first time in their long histories. Indeed it is likely that we will see more and more nation-states emerging in the world this century as state boundaries in africa and parts of asia that were drawn by imperial cartogrophers are redrawn to reflect the wishes of indigenous communities.

In one or two instances they also brought ethnic clensing back to Europe for the first time since the 40's

Seems to me there is a pretty large queue to join the EU so that is not going away in a hurry either.

Freeborn John · 18-08-2009 12:58AM

marco_polo wrote: »

In one or two instances they also brought ethnic clensing back to Europe for the first time since the 40's

Seems to me there is a pretty large queue to join the EU so that is not going away in a hurry either.

The only ethnic cleanising has been in the multinational federation of Yugoslavia where the dominant nation (serbia) tried to preserve a multnational state that it dominated against the wishes of other nations for self-government.

Only poor countries want to join the EU. They put a financial price on their democracy. The richest nations in Europe (switzerland, norway, iceland) would not touch it with a barge pole, and the richest of EU member states are the ones that opt out of the most EU policies.

P. Breathnach · 18-08-2009 01:07AM

Freeborn John wrote: »

QMV is currently used in common market regulations, including (as i did show) in the art auction case. You have no grounds for saying that votes were not taken on that issue, when i showed 6 nations against initially that was whittled down over time...

In other words, if the facts do not fit your assertion, then you judge that your assertion prevails.

I'm not going to ask you again for an apology for your personal attack on me: you have had plenty of opportunities, and it is now obvious to me that you exempt yourself from the normal requirements of courtesy.

padz · 18-08-2009 01:14AM

im goin to vote the same as lastime anyway:)

K-9 · 18-08-2009 01:16AM

Freeborn John wrote: »

Only poor countries want to join the EU. They put a financial price on their democracy. The richest nations in Europe (switzerland, norway, iceland) would not touch it with a barge pole, and the richest of EU member states are the ones that opt out of the most EU policies.

LOL

Freeborn John · 18-08-2009 01:17AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In other words, if the facts do not fit your assertion, then you judge that your assertion prevails.

I have provided two references showing that QMV applied to this decision. There are others asserting that it did not, but the facts are with me. Here is a 3rd reference showing categorically that QMV was used.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/341094.stm

marco_polo · 18-08-2009 01:22AM

Freeborn John wrote: »

QMV is currently used in common market regulations, including (as i did show) in the art auction case. You have no grounds for saying that votes were not taken on that issue, when i showed 6 nations against initially that was whittled down over time.

Anagin what was the score in the final vore on the matter? Which country voted no and had it imposed on them anyway.

There are loads of examples where the EU takes decisions by QMV that are politically sesnsitive, the Working Time Directive being one example.

Lisbon would make QMV the norm in almost all policy areas, and changes the QMV rules to make it harder to form a blocking coalition. With the expansion of EU membership each countries voting weight has laready been watered down making it more difficult to block measures contrary to the national interest. The voting threshold should have been reduced in the EU to compensate for this watering down due to more members. Instead it has been raised in Lisbon, which will lead to a rapid centralisation of power in brussels.

Again your facts are spectacularly wrong. No country was forced via QMV to adopt this directive of which a very watered down version was agreed to by all states.

I am seeing is patterns of negotiation and eventual concensus without any recourse to forcing through directives via QMV.

Even one example to the contrary will do for a start, even at that you would still be a million miles away demonstrating that it is the 'norm' in EU business.

K-9 · 18-08-2009 01:24AM

Freeborn John wrote: »

I have provided two references showing that QMV applied to this decision. There are others asserting that it did not, but the facts are with me. Here is a 3rd reference showing categorically that QMV was used.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/341094.stm

OK fair enough, though it does seem to point out a compromise was reached and Oscar Bravo has asked you how it affected the market several times.

Anything more up to date? That is 10 years ago. Surely you can do better than that.

marco_polo · 18-08-2009 01:26AM

Freeborn John wrote: »

I have provided two references showing that QMV applied to this decision. There are others asserting that it did not, but the facts are with me. Here is a 3rd reference showing categorically that QMV was used.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/341094.stm

How exactly, since that article was written two years before the directive was passed ?

Freeborn John · 18-08-2009 01:31AM

marco_polo wrote: »

How exactly, since that article was written two years before the directive was passed ?

Because it is a single market issue and QMV is used to decide all single market issues.

marco_polo · 18-08-2009 01:35AM

Freeborn John wrote: »

Because it is a single market issue and QMV is used to decide all single market issues.

Poor sidestep. What was the result of the the final vote after Britain had secured numerous concessions?

K-9 · 18-08-2009 01:36AM

Freeborn John wrote: »

Because it is a single market issue and QMV is used to decide all single market issues.

Anything more up to date?

Freeborn John · 18-08-2009 01:37AM

marco_polo wrote: »

Poor sidestep. What was the result of the the final vote after Britain had secured numerous concessions?

Poor sidestep. This measure would never have passed without QMV.

whatisayis · 18-08-2009 01:39AM

The Data Retention Directive would be a more up to date case:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/european-court-rules-against-ireland-in-data-row-1635176.html

marco_polo · 18-08-2009 01:42AM

Freeborn John wrote: »

Poor sidestep. This measure would never have passed without QMV.

Really? Because unless you have some evidence to the contrary it looks to me like 100% percent of countries backed the final proposal, which was by the way amended after two years of negotiations despite the fact that it was not nescessary that this be done back in 1999 as the blocking minority was not reached.

funnygal · 18-08-2009 01:46AM

I am voting no! but there just going to keep holding votes until we say yes!! but why should we lose our voice in the eu, its limited enough as it is!

marco_polo · 18-08-2009 01:51AM

whatisayis wrote: »

The Data Retention Directive would be a more up to date case:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/european-court-rules-against-ireland-in-data-row-1635176.html

http://www.out-law.com/page-9520

Though it has not objected to the substance of the Directive, Ireland objected to the way in which it was adopted and asked the ECJ, Europe's highest court, to repeal it. An Advocate General's opinion is only advisory, but is followed in around 80% of cases by the ECJ itself.

......

"Contrary to Ireland’s submissions, I take the view that the mere fact that a measure refers to an objective such as the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime is not sufficient to shift such a measure from the first to the third pillar," he said. "In other words, the existence of such a purpose is not, in my view, sufficient to constitute an act coming within the area covered by ‘police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters’."

He said that the scope of Title VI of the EU Treaty, which outlines what the third pillar is, is carefully defined and does not include the action spoken of in the Data Retention Directive. The Directive covers, instead, activity that happens before law enforcement authorities are involved.

Basically it seems that we had a flawed intrepretation of what the law was.

K-9 · 18-08-2009 01:52AM

Freeborn John wrote: »

Poor sidestep. This measure would never have passed without QMV.

Anything more up to date?

Freeborn John · 18-08-2009 01:53AM

marco_polo wrote: »

Really? Because unless you have some evidence to the contrary it looks to me like 100% percent of countries backed the final proposal, which was by the way amended after two years of negotiations despite the fact that it was not nescessary that this be done back in 1999 as the blocking minority was not reached.

Because they could not block they were picked off one by one as the legislative process moved forward through multiple stages and a concilliation process. This is part of the instituional dynamics of QMV which forces minorities to seek the best concessions they can get when they would prefer to block but cannot.

It is one thing to have this process being used on minor matters of common market law, but Lisbon 'collpases the pillar structure' that previously restricted the undemocratic community method to the 'first pillar' of community law. One of the worst changes that Lisbon makes is therefore to extend this undemocratic process into political decision-making which will result in an accumulating body of law that we never wanted but can never change in future through the ballot box.

marco_polo · 18-08-2009 02:03AM

Freeborn John wrote: »

Because they could not block they were picked off one by one as the legislative process moved forward through multiple stages and a concilliation process. This is part of the instituional dynamics of QMV which forces minorities to seek the best concessions they can get when they would prefer to block but cannot.

It is one thing to have this process being used on minor matters of common market law, but Lisbon 'collpases the pillar structure' that previously restricted the undemocratic community method to the 'first pillar' of community law. One of the worst changes that Lisbon makes is therefore to extend this undemocratic process into political decision-making which will result in an accumulating body of law that we never wanted but can never change in future through the ballot box.

So we won't always get 100% exactly what we want all of the time? Wow I'm taking my ball and going home.

Which of the areas which Ireland would be adopting under QMV post Lisbon would you consider to be much more important that the 'minor matter' of Common Market law.

Freeborn John · 18-08-2009 02:15AM

marco_polo wrote: »

So we won't always get 100% exactly what we want all of the time? Wow I'm taking my ball and going home.

Which of the areas which Ireland would be adopting under QMV post Lisbon would you consider to be much more important that the 'minor matter' of Common Market law.

None of the areas in the 2nd or 3rd pillars of EU law are suitable for the community method. That is why the pillar structure was created in the first place. Lisbon does away completely with these disctinctions and would make the EU far less democratic in all 50 areas where unanimity is replaced by QMV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Community

marco_polo · 18-08-2009 02:21AM

Freeborn John wrote: »

None of the areas in the 2nd or 3rd pillars of EU law are suitable for the community method. That is why the pillar structure was created in the first place. Lisbon does away completely with these disctinctions and would make the EU far less democratic in all 50 areas where unanimity is replaced by QMV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Community

Why are you posting links to stuff I am already fully aware of. I am asking which or the 34 areas which we are adopting for QMV that you see as more important to our national interest that the minor matter of the common market.

P. Breathnach · 18-08-2009 02:21AM

Freeborn John wrote: »

I have provided two references showing that QMV applied to this decision. There are others asserting that it did not, but the facts are with me. Here is a 3rd reference showing categorically that QMV was used.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/341094.stm

It does not show that. Have you no respect for truth?

Freeborn John · 18-08-2009 02:28AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It does not show that. Have you no respect for truth?

QMV is used for all single market issues. End of story.

K-9 · 18-08-2009 02:32AM

Freeborn John wrote: »

QMV is used for all single market issues. End of story.

No, you pick the truth!

So, what was the vote again? How many voted No? What drastic effect had this on the market?

Macha · 18-08-2009 08:42AM

Freeborn John wrote: »

All the major European languages are thousands of years old. Caeser described various nations 2000 years ago, including Belgae, Gauls (french), Germanic tribes, Hellenic (swiss), Hispanniens (Spaniards) and Britons and their languages with a map of Europe recognisable today.

What utter, utter nonsense. What about Langue D'Oc? Langue D'Oil? Galician? Catalan? Valenciano? Breton? Corse? Basco? Andalucian?

These are just a few of the languages that exist in France and Spain, other than Castillano and 'standard' French (which itself is changing despite the best efforts of the Academie Francaise).

Ironically, you sound a lot like Valery Giscard D'Estaing in that post. Hilarious.

BTW - what country does Arabic belong to? And what on earth is Luxembourg going to do??

Freeborn John · 18-08-2009 10:20AM

marco_polo wrote: »

Why are you posting links to stuff I am already fully aware of. I am asking which or the 34 areas which we are adopting for QMV that you see as more important to our national interest that the minor matter of the common market.

The 50 areas that Lisbon transfers to QMV are listed in the link at the bottom of this post.

Law superior to national law should not be imposed by QMV in any area beyond the basic common market. That includes not just the 50 additional areas in Lisbon but those that were transferred to QMV by the treaties of Amsterdam and Nice. However simply returning to QMV would not remove the undemocratic EU law already created under those treaties. The best way forward would be to make national law superior to EU law in all areas other than the common market, with however an obligation that those governments (not states) voting for the measures in the EU Council of Ministers implement them at national level, without binding their successors. This would allow us to elect governments in future able to reverse (on their territory only of course) what current governments have signed us up to. Without such real reform the EU will become less and less democratic over time as the growing body of past EU law continually shrinks the arena within which the governments we elect can change the law of the land.

http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/lisbon_treaty/questions_and_answers/new_cases_of_qmv.pdf

O'Morris · 18-08-2009 10:43AM

Freeborn John wrote: »

LAw superiror to national law should not be imposed by QMV in any area beyond the basic common market.

Seconded

marco_polo · 18-08-2009 10:50AM

Freeborn John wrote: »

There is no evidence you are aware of anything. Whether that is real lack of knwledge or the typical pro-EU supporters desire to minimise the significance of treaty changes is unclear. The 50 areas that Lisbon transfers to QMV are listed in the link at the bottom of this post.

Law superiror to national law should not be imposed by QMV in any area beyond the basic common market. That includes not just the 50 additional areas in Lisbon but those that were transferred to QMV by the treaties of Amsterdam and Nice. However retruning to QMV would not remove the undemoratic EU law already created under those treaties. The best way forward would be to make national law superior to EU law in all areas other than then common market, with however an obligation that those governments (not states) voting for the measures in the EU Cpoincil of Ministers implement them at national level, without binding their successors. This would allow us to elect governments in future able to reverse (on their territory only of course) what current governments have signed us up to. Without such real reform the EU will become less and less democratic over time as the growing body of past EU law continually shrinks the arena within which the governments we elect can change the law of the land.

http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/lisbon_treaty/questions_and_answers/new_cases_of_qmv.pdf

You are well able to make the snide remarks anyway.

Is it the case that you are simply not aware of the areas moving to QMV that we are opting out of, or are you just being economical with the truth?

Which of the ones that we are adopting do you feel are more critical to our national interest than the Common market laws.

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

Comments