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

PopeBuckfastXVI · 18-08-2009 02:07PM

O'Morris wrote: »

The same people who give them elections to the European parliament.

Should those 'same people' have a right to restrict referenda?

hatrickpatrick · 18-08-2009 02:10PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you see what I mean by arguing from a conclusion? What's your explanation for all the successful EU referendums of the past several decades?

Well I'm possibly too young to remember most of them, but in my time I've witnessed 3 treaties that I remember, Amsterdam, Nice, and Lisbon. Two of these treaties were democratically rejected by the people, one of these treaties was repackaged and bullied through a second time, and the other is about to go through the same treatment.

Also, I think it really underlines that you can reject a particular treaty without actually being anti-EU.

Sam Vimes · 18-08-2009 02:14PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

The plans were made by a handful of people in the inner presidium of the EU convention that excluded all non-federalists.

Source? I mean the source for excluding people that had a right to be there.

Freeborn John wrote: »

There is nothing democratic about that plan which would (as Charlie McCreevy has said somewhat understating the case) be defeated in 95% of EU member states.

In 95% of cases it would be rejected solely because of ignorance and fear spread by the 5% who don't like the EU and so scare everyone into rejecting it.

Freeborn John wrote: »

Federalists dominated the EU Convention that wrote the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty but they are a tiny minority in every European country.

Source?

Freeborn John wrote: »

The number of people who support the federalist objective of hollowing out nation-states and transferring as many of their powers to Brussels as possible is tiny.

That's true I'm sure. Lucky no one is suggesting that

Freeborn John wrote: »

No more than 15% in any even the most federalist country (Luxembourg) and just 3 to 4 per cent in Ireland. It is precisely because federalists lack the numbers that they resort to subterfuge ('integration by stealth'), and undemocratic means ('keep voting til you get it right') to achieve a goal by hook or by crook which is not shared by ordinary voters.

I love how people accuse the yes side of scaremongering

hblock21 · 18-08-2009 02:14PM

Wow,

I really was not expecting the 'No Vote' to be winning here before I voted!

marco_polo · 18-08-2009 02:15PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well I'm possibly too young to remember most of them, but in my time I've witnessed 3 treaties that I remember, Amsterdam, Nice, and Lisbon. Two of these treaties were democratically rejected by the people, one of these treaties was repackaged to address peoples concerns and democratically endorsed by the people second time, and the other is about to go through the same treatment.
.

Fixed.

Also, I think it really underlines that you can reject a particular treaty without actually being anti-EU.

In fairness you don't sound particularly thrilled about the last one either.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 18-08-2009 02:16PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Two of these treaties were democratically rejected by the people, one of these treaties was repackaged and bullied through a second time, and the other is about to go through the same treatment.

In what way was it 'bullied through'? I'd like to see news reports from the time of this 'bullying'.

At the time I couldn't vote in the first Nice referendum, I think I was away, and I was damn glad of the opportunity to vote in the second one.

From memory I wasn't bullied, but maybe they zapped my memory clean after, do you think?

Sam Vimes · 18-08-2009 02:17PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Also, I think it really underlines that you can reject a particular treaty without actually being anti-EU.

The problem is that pretty much everyone I've come across who is against the treaty is either anti-EU or has been scared into rejecting it by someone who is anti-EU

oscarBravo · 18-08-2009 02:17PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...one of these treaties was repackaged and bullied through a second time...

Honestly, I'm going to need a new dictionary for this forum.

bully

(v) to offer the opportunity to vote in a referendum

hatrickpatrick · 18-08-2009 02:18PM

marco_polo wrote: »

Fixed.

Sorry, remind me what the difference between Nice I and Nice II was again?

In fairness you don't sound particularly thrilled about the last one either.

It was rejected democratically by the people. It should have died with that.

hatrickpatrick · 18-08-2009 02:20PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Honestly, I'm going to need a new dictionary for this forum.

bully
(v) to offer the opportunity to vote in a referendum

I remember the last time. They asked the same question twice, and in between votes they asked all the same irrelevant questions, not about that particular treaty but about Irish people's attitude to the EU itself. Vote Yes or you're Anti Europe.

oscarBravo · 18-08-2009 02:21PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I remember the last time. They asked the same question twice, and in between votes they asked all the same irrelevant questions, not about that particular treaty but about Irish people's attitude to the EU itself. Vote Yes or you're Anti Europe.

"Asking questions" isn't a definition of "bullying" in my dictionary.

sink · 18-08-2009 02:22PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sorry, remind me what the difference between Nice I and Nice II was again?

* Insertion of new Article 29.4.9:

The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7 of this section where that common defence would include the State.

marco_polo · 18-08-2009 02:23PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sorry, remind me what the difference between Nice I and Nice II was again?

It was rejected democratically by the people. It should have died with that.

The Seville Declaration.

Another superfluous document required as a result of misinformation spread about the issue of Neutrality, which was never in any danger under Nice.

Notice any pattern?

oscarBravo · 18-08-2009 02:25PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It was rejected democratically by the people. It should have died with that.

I think it's time to ask a question I've asked various people twenty-odd times before: is it your assertion that an EU treaty, once rejected in a referendum, should never ever again be put to those people? In other words, once there's a "no" vote in a referendum, the EU must stay in its present form for the rest of eternity?

Or, assuming you want to see a completely new treaty to replace the one that was rejected - what percentage of the provisions of the old treaty must be absent from the new one before it's considered new, and how do you measure that?

rumour · 18-08-2009 02:29PM

hblock21 wrote: »

Wow,

I really was not expecting the 'No Vote' to be winning here before I voted!

Yes, You too can make a difference

PopeBuckfastXVI · 18-08-2009 02:30PM

rumour wrote: »

Yes, You too can make a difference

...for better or worse.

rumour · 18-08-2009 02:35PM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

...for better or worse.

I'm just supporting the anecdote that every votes makes a difference while statistically knowing that my particular vote will not sway the issue one way or the other.

ei.sdraob · 18-08-2009 02:36PM

rumour wrote: »

I'm just supporting the anecdote that every votes makes a difference while statistically knowing that my particular vote will not sway the issue one way or the other.

If you dont know vote No

Freeborn John · 18-08-2009 02:38PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The Irish government rules over multiple district communities too. The people of Blanchardstown voted for Joan Burton but they were ignored because the people of Castleknock voted for Brian Lenihan. How undemocratic :rolleyes:

The inhabitants of Blanchardstown and Castleknock are part of the same nation and will agree to be bound by the national majority even when they personally disagree with verdict of the majority. That is not the case at international level. The people of Ireland did not agree to be governed by the majority in the Westminster parliament and established their own state, with its own majoritorian institutions, so that the opinion of the majority of Irishmen were no longer overruled by majorities elsewhere.

The principle that the majority decides is only accepted within the nation. The EU Parliament and Commision takes decisions by simple majority and the EU Council by a qualified majority, which are inapropraite for an international organization like the EU. These rules allow the policy preferences of entire national lectorates to be overruled in politically contested policy areas, and once this has happended ther supremacy of EU law means the decision remains binding IN PERPETUITY on the STATE (and not just the government that took part in the decision) no matter how the nation votes in future elections.

That is a deeply undemocratic system which cannot be allowed to stand, because if it does it will inevitably (over a period of decades) shrink the arena within which national parliaments can legislate towards vanishing point. The EU institutions are never going to stop producing new laws. And this one-way expansion in the body of EU law always involves national parliaments removing any conflicting national legislation and permanently refraining from legislating in that area at any time in the future. There can only be one long term consequence of that. It is guaranteed to result in national parliaments eventually losing their ability to legislate in any meaningful areas at all, and when that happens national elections and your vote will no longer be able to influence the policy of the real government in Brussels that you will live under. One can debate how long this would take to happen (probably 3-4 decades) but not that it is the inevitable consequence of the treaties on European Union. Indeed that is precisely the design goal of Monnet's "Action Commitee for a United States of Europe" and the real meaning of 'ever closer union'.

http://www.ena.lu/meeting_action_committee_united_states_europe_pathe_18_january_1956-022500127.html

PopeBuckfastXVI · 18-08-2009 02:40PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

The inhabitants of Blanchardstown and Castleknock are part of the same nation and will agree to be bound by the national majority even when they personally disagree with verdict of the majority. That is not the case at international level.

Unless, you know, it is.

Here's your argument pattern:

A is true.
why?
Well if A is true, then A must be true.

See a problem with that?

RandomName2 · 18-08-2009 02:42PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

See, you're just repeating yourself again, and you're still arguing from your conclusion. You claim that there's a breakdown in democratic legitimacy, but you just refuse over and over again to define democratic legitimacy except in terms of your premise that democratic legitimacy exists only in the form of nation-state governments, which is yet another unsubstantiated opinion.

Look: you have a view on the world. That view is that the nation-state is the final and immutable result of a process of political evolution; that there can never be any improvement on the perfection of the nation-state; that any steps beyond that point at which evolution has reached its perfect pinnacle must be fought at all costs.

It's a view. I disagree with it. That doesn't make it wrong; it just makes it a difference of opinion between us.

I think that nationalism is, historically, a dividing force in the world. I think it's xenophobia with a thin veneer of respectability. I think it was a step along an evolutionary process towards finally getting over our respective hangups about foreigners, but I think we have a long way to go.

It's a view. You disagree with it. That doesn't make it wrong; it just makes it a difference of opinion between us.

The other major difference between us is that I'm not proclaiming my worldview to be the One True Way, and preaching sermons at people who disagree with me. I'm certainly not casting aspersions on people's intelligence just because they disagree with me.

It's just politics. Stop treating it like religion.

As much as I would like to agree with you about nationalism [and I genuinely do] your perspective upon the evoultionary nature of politics and national governance is flawed.

There are certain aspects of the human condition which are not terribly nice, but one shouldn't just simply ignore. You can attempt to artificially organise fundamental aspects of how socities are run - indeed all laws in society are largely artificial conceits designed to stop humanity returning to the State of Nature.

Yeah fine, all good old stuff. Now let's come up with a bright idea of amplifying the idea of the state - evolving it beyond petty borders and nationalities. The proletariat will unite, religious devides and classes will be abolished, and we will all live in Communist utopia.

No? Some will say that this is still a good idea and that it just... happened to go terribly wrong wherever it was attempted. Sorry, right - you were talking more Monnet than Marx.

Either way the ideas about nationalism stay the same, even if religion and class are issues that have been abandoned in the EU [Religion in particular, during the conception of the EU Constitution Treaty]. As far as I can see, high fences make good neighbours. Where nationalities are dispersed, with large minorities, particuplarity when there are a plurality of nationalities and cultures, then sectarianism and ethnic claenisng are not far behind. That's what happened in Yugoslavia when utopian communism fell apart. In relaity it can be seen as the root cause of almost all the European wars of the 20th century.

Now large empires can disregard nationalism and conquer theri weaker neighbours just for material gain, which has also been a primary cause of conflict throughout European history. Ostensibly, it is this rather than nationalistic division which lies in the formation of supranational bodies such as the EU and NATO. With the USSR removed as an atagonistic empire, it is easy to dispose of imperial competition within Europe by incorporating its strongest nations into a single hermogenous empire. Now, the EU expands without actually conquering anywhere - indeed all the sates that join the EU want to join the EU; but a lot of this is on the grounds that their national identity will not be affected by membership. However, the trend in EU constitutional ammeding treaties seems to be to undermine both the conception and power of national identity of the EU states, although admittedly at the moment maintaining the position of national governments within the Consilium. But the weight of legislative authority for individual states is gradually swinging in favour of the EU body as a whole rather than internal to individual states. BECAUSE of the reality of national and cultural differences between states it is not practical to have this as an entirely democratic process; as larger nationalities could easily outvote and overpower weaker states. This does not necessarily make this entire set-up good though, indeed I think its one which is setting itself up for a fall.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 18-08-2009 02:47PM

Actually,

You've got a second one, which I should also point out:

A is the only correct idea.
Why?
A is the only thing that exists.
But C could exist, and wouldn't necessarily be bad.
No it has to be bad, because it's not A.
Why would it be bad because it's not A?
Because A is the only thing that exists.
Oh wait, B exists, and it's not A.
B is just another A.
But, B is not A.
Yes it is.
I'm going for a drink...

rumour · 18-08-2009 02:49PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Source? I mean the source for excluding people that had a right to be there.

In 95% of cases it would be rejected solely because of ignorance and fear spread by the 5% who don't like the EU and so scare everyone into rejecting it.

Source?

That's true I'm sure. Lucky no one is suggesting that

I love how people accuse the yes side of scaremongering

I have heard complaints about students in college these days expecting to be tought. It appears ultimately much easier than doing research and coming up with your own conclusions based on reasoned argument and a moral justification of what constitutes right and wrong. Perhaps if you could counter arguments based on your own material rather than demanding sources your arguments would become more convincing. Currently they are not fully developed.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 18-08-2009 02:50PM

rumour wrote: »

Perhaps if you could counter arguments based on your own material rather than demanding sources your arguments would become more convincing. Currently they are not fully developed.

There's a giant weightless invisible and undetectable otter sitting on your shoulder.

Disprove me using your own material.

oscarBravo · 18-08-2009 02:51PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

The trend in EU constitutional ammeding treaties seems to be to undermine both the conception and power of national identity of EU states...

I reject this premise, and thereby your whole post (which I'm not going to bother quoting). The principle of subsidiarity is enshrined in the EU treaties.

EU member states are still sovereign states. They retain complete control over everything that is best managed at a national level, while co-operating on those things that are best managed at a supranational level.

Co-operation. Management. That's what the EU is all about. I don't understand the need to constantly drag the straw men of federalism and imperialism into the discussion.

rumour · 18-08-2009 02:52PM

Good post

rumour · 18-08-2009 02:54PM

As much as I would like to agree with you about nationalism [and I genuinely do] your perspective upon the evoultionary nature of politics and national governance is flawed.

There are certain aspects of the human condition which are not terribly nice, but one shouldn't just simply ignore. You can attempt to artificially organise fundamental aspects of how socities are run - indeed all laws in society are largely artificial conceits designed to stop humanity returning to the State of Nature.

Yeah fine, all good old stuff. Now let's come up with a bright idea of amplifying the idea of the state - evolving it beyond petty borders and nationalities. The proletariat will unite, religious devides and classes will be abolished, and we will all live in Communist utopia.

No? Some will say that this is still a good idea and that it just... happened to go terribly wrong wherever it was attempted. Sorry, right - you were talking more Monnet than Marx.

Either way the ideas about nationalism stay the same, even if religion and class are issues that have been abandoned in the EU [Religion in particular, during the conception of the EU Constitution Treaty]. As far as I can see, high fences make good neighbours. Where nationalities are dispersed, with large minorities, particuplarity when there are a plurality of nationalities and cultures, then sectarianism and ethnic claenisng are not far behind. That's what happened in Yugoslavia when utopian communism fell apart. In relaity it can be seen as the root cause of almost all the European wars of the 20th century.

Now large empires can disregard nationalism and conquer theri weaker neighbours just for material gain, which has also been a primary cause of conflict throughout European history. Ostensibly, it is this rather than nationalistic division which lies in the formation of supranational bodies such as the EU and NATO. With the USSR removed as an atagonistic empire, it is easy to dispose of imperial competition within Europe by incorporating its strongest nations into a single hermogenous empire. Now, the EU expands without actually conquering anywhere - indeed all the sates that join the EU want to join the EU; but a lot of this is on the grounds that their national identity will not be affected by membership. However, the trend in EU constitutional ammeding treaties seems to be to undermine both the conception and power of national identity of the EU states, although admittedly at the moment maintaining the position of national governments within the Consilium. But the weight of legislative authority for individual states is gradually swinging in favour of the EU body as a whole rather than internal to individual states. BECAUSE of the reality of national and cultural differences between states it is not practical to have this as an entirely democratic process; as larger nationalities could easily outvote and overpower weaker states. This does not necessarily make this entire set-up good though, indeed I think its one which is setting itself up for a fall.

Good post

Freeborn John · 18-08-2009 03:01PM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Unless, you know, it is.

Here's your argument pattern:

A is true.
why?
Well if A is true, then A must be true.

See a problem with that?

What is your explanation for the formation of nation-states (including the Irish state) in the world. Presumably you agree that they exist for a purpose. If the purpose is not to allow decision-making by the national majority then what is it?

Presumably you acknowledge that each of the nation-states in the world (unlike the EU) enjoy popular legitimacy such that they could easily win majority support for their existence from their national electorate in a referendum, for the powers they exercise over the nation. How do you explain that hundreds of nation-states have popular legitimacy but the EU cannot achieve it.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 18-08-2009 03:04PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

What is your explanation for the formation of nation-states (including the Irish state) in the world. Presumably you agree that they exist for a purpose. If the purpose is not to allow decision-making by the national majority then what is it?

Presumably you acknowledge that each of the nation-states in the world (unlike the EU) enjoy popular legitimacy such that they could easily win majority support for their existence from their national electorate in a referendum, for the powers they exercise over the nation. How do you explain that hundreds of nation-states have popular legitimacy but the EU cannot achieve it.

Are you submitting that in a direct EU wide popular vote, people would vote to abolish the EU?

What's your explanation for multi-nation states like the UK?

What's your explanation for supra-national organisations like the EU?

marco_polo · 18-08-2009 03:04PM

rumour wrote: »

I have heard complaints about students in college these days expecting to be tought. It appears ultimately much easier than doing research and coming up with your own conclusions based on reasoned argument and a moral justification of what constitutes right and wrong. Perhaps if you could counter arguments based on your own material rather than demanding sources your arguments would become more convincing. Currently they are not fully developed.

Is there any particular reason why you think it is unreasonable to ask somebody to backup a claim that the minority Federalist faction came to completely dominate the writing of the treaty?

Apart from the fact that he couldn't answer.

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

Comments