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

Scofflaw · 28-08-2009 04:54PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

What are you talking about? A veto though their government??

All other international organizations taking serious decisions do have such vetoes and have not shed their democratic legitimacy the way the EU has. But here we are talking about the Lisbon treaty which exacerbates the EU policy of getting rid of those vetoes which means the polciies you vote for in national elections can be overruled (in perpetuity!) by the EU.

So the UN, which has no citizen input whatsoever, is more 'democratic' according to your definition than the EU, which does.

Humpty-Dumpty, j'accuse.

amused,
Scofflaw

Freeborn John · 28-08-2009 05:14PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

So the UN, which has no citizen input whatsoever, is more 'democratic' according to your definition than the EU, which does.

Humpty-Dumpty, j'accuse.

amused,
Scofflaw

The UN General Assembly has no serious powers. If it had serious powers with its existing decision-making rules it would suffer the same legitimacy crisis as the EU. But it does not have any such serious powers, nor barely any trivial ones either; It cannot even to decide the maximum curvature of cucumbers.

The UN Security Council has vetoes for its permanent members who are the ones charged with the responsibility to bring their overwhelming collective power to bear against rogue states that might start wars. Those vetoes are necessary to preserve the democratic legitimacy of UNSC decisions to send their fighting men and women off to fight and die within the permanent members themselves.

marco_polo · 28-08-2009 05:17PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

The UN General Assembly has no serious powers. If it had serious powers with its existing decision-making rules it would suffer the same legitimacy crisis as the EU. But it does not have any such serious powers, nor barely any trivial ones either; It cannot even to decide the maximum curvature of cucumbers.

The UN Security Council has vetoes for its permanent members who are the ones charged with the responsibility to bring their overwhelming collective power to bear against rogue states that might start wars. Those vetoes are necessary to preserve the democratic legitimacy of UNSC decisions to send their fighting men and women off to fight and die within the permanent members themselves.

So shouldn't everyone have one then? Why just 5 of the members of the Security council.

Freeborn John · 28-08-2009 05:26PM

Het-Field wrote: »

Of course I understand it.

Your just pissed that I agree with shifting levels of sovreignty. The isolationist wet dream will never work on me.

You have the right to support Lisbon, and i defend that right. But you do not have a right to say (as you have done here) that (i) Lisbon is not a federalist treaty and (ii) that the EU does not have carte blanche power to legislate in areas of shared competence.

There is nothing isolationist about being opposed to supranational federalism. Inter-governmental co-operation works just fine for the rest of the democratic world. Europe would be better to consign EU federalism to the scrap heap of history and join the rest of free world in using voluntary co-operation along intergovernmental lines. That way we would not have this appaling shrinkage without end of the democratic arena that occurs every time a new EU law is created.

Freeborn John · 28-08-2009 05:29PM

marco_polo wrote: »

So shouldn't everyone have one then? Why just 5 of the members of the Security council.

That would turn the UNSC into the League of Nations with every rogue state being able to veto action against itself.

No nation should be able to start wars with impunity and in the final analysis the only thing on earth capable of deterring the worst of them is the Great Powers acting in concert. But equally the fighting men and women of the great powers cannot be sent into battle against rogue states that threaten such conflict on the back of a qualified majority vote in which they were outvoted.

Scofflaw · 28-08-2009 05:40PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

You have the right to support Lisbon, and i defend that right. But you do not have a right to say (as you have done here) that (i) Lisbon is not a federalist treaty and (ii) that the EU does not have carte blanche power to legislate in areas of shared competence.

In fact, he does have the right to deny them, just as you have the right to assert them. That's what discussions forums are for - not for putting forward your point of view without challenge.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Freeborn John · 28-08-2009 05:54PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

In fact, he does have the right to deny them, just as you have the right to assert them. That's what discussions forums are for - not for putting forward your point of view without challenge.

moderately,
Scofflaw

i do not have a right to lie on here and i expect the same of others.

Either Het-field understands the Lisbon treaty (as he said he did) or he does not understand it. And either he knew it was a federalist document or he did not (and he claimed it was not). But if he both understood the treaty AND denies it is a federalist document then he was doing what every European federalists have been doing since Monnet; denying the goal while pursuing it though 'integration by stealth'.

O'Morris · 28-08-2009 07:55PM

On the question of legitimacy, I found this article. It quotes from findings of a few different opinion polls that were carried out in Britain and in the rest of the EU.

Relating to the British population:

75% want a referendum before any more powers are given to the EU

57% want to take back powers already given to the EU

29% said that "The UK should stay in the EU".

Before the yes side dismiss the above as the kind of thing to be expected from the EU's most eurosceptic country, you might be interested to read this:

a poll in Germany found that 70% of people want the Lisbon Treaty to be re-negotiated, and a separate poll found that 73% of Germans agree that "the EU takes too many powers from Germany". (Neues Deutschland, 15 May)

I agree with Freeborn John, the EU does have a serious legitimacy problem.

P. Breathnach · 28-08-2009 09:19PM

O'Morris wrote: »

On the question of legitimacy, I found this article...

I had a look. First thing that struck me was that it is a Eurosceptic site, and might not be balanced.

This caught my eye:

A new poll by Irish company Red C, commissioned by Open Europe, has found that 71% of Irish voters are against a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and that, of those who expressed an opinion, 62% would vote "no"...

so I went to check it for myself, and found an early question framed thus:

Q.2 Ireland voted in a national referendum on 12 June to reject the EU Lisbon Treaty. Politicians are now considering organising a second
referendum, on the same Treaty. This week, French President Nicolas Sarkozy visited Ireland to speak with Taoiseach Brian Cowen about what should happen next. It is reported that Sarkozy has said that Ireland must vote again on the Lisbon Treaty.
For each of the following statements, please say whether you tend to agree, or tend to disagree?

That is not designed as a neutral way of putting a question.

One should treat Eurosceptic sources with, if I may put it in such terms, scepticism.

Freeborn John · 28-08-2009 09:46PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I had a look. First thing that struck me was that it is a Eurosceptic site, and might not be balanced.

...

One should treat Eurosceptic sources with, if I may put it in such terms, scepticism.

Personally i am happy to quote opinion polls from sources on the 'opposite side', such as the EU Commission polls I have referred to in this thread. Of course i am trying to make a coherent case that is difficult for other to take cheap shots at, where as you are on the look out for cheap shots ...

P. Breathnach · 28-08-2009 10:16PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

... where as you are on the look out for cheap shots ...

Do not impugn my motives.

K-9 · 28-08-2009 11:39PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

I do not ignore them. However the votes in other countries only indicate consent in those countries for EU power over those people.

Generally only poor countries vote for the EU on the grounds they will profit from Brussels subsidies. There have only been two referendums in Western European countries in the last decade when people voted YES to an EU measure without having voted against it and forced to vote again. They were the referendums in Spain and Luxembourg on the EU Constitution. The prime minster of Luxembourg threatened to resign unless it was carried, turning it into a vote of NO confidence in the government. The Spanish apparently voted YES to show thanks for all the EU money they had got in the past without it ever being explained to them that the EU Constitution (and now Lisbon) is about an undemocratic political union that will reduce the arena within which their votes can influence the law and policy they live under towards vanishing point in the long-run.

It is amazing how you sum up Yes votes so easily. In fairness, you do it to No votes too.

oscarBravo · 30-08-2009 12:23PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

i do not have a right to lie on here and i expect the same of others.

Either Het-field understands the Lisbon treaty (as he said he did) or he does not understand it. And either he knew it was a federalist document or he did not (and he claimed it was not). But if he both understood the treaty AND denies it is a federalist document then he was doing what every European federalists have been doing since Monnet; denying the goal while pursuing it though 'integration by stealth'.

It is not an objective fact that the Lisbon Treaty is a federalist document. It is your opinion that it is a federalist document. I accept that you hold that view strongly, in the same way that right-wing fundamentalists hold the view that Barack Obama is a communist.

In short: don't accuse people of lying because they hold a different opinion from you.

Scofflaw · 30-08-2009 12:33PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

i do not have a right to lie on here and i expect the same of others.

Either Het-field understands the Lisbon treaty (as he said he did) or he does not understand it. And either he knew it was a federalist document or he did not (and he claimed it was not). But if he both understood the treaty AND denies it is a federalist document then he was doing what every European federalists have been doing since Monnet; denying the goal while pursuing it though 'integration by stealth'.

Let me just reiterate the warning given to you by oscarBravo. Your belief that Lisbon is federalist is not an objective fact. To accuse other posters of lying is not trivial (nor is the 'cheap shots' gibe), and it certainly cannot be done on the basis of assuming that you are right, and treating everyone who disagrees as either blind or dishonest.

moderately,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick · 30-08-2009 01:55PM

Surely the definition of federalist would be any document which centralizes many powers away from national governments into an international body, thus making the federal government more powerful than the state government?

Also I have to just chip in and say that comparing people who view Lisbon as federalist to people who view Obama as a communist is quite frankly one of the most hilariously ridiculous things I've ever read. You don't have to be an extremist to be wary of letting go of your democratic power as a citizen, but you certainly have to be one if you accuse anything which isn't anarcho-capitalist (AKA Bush) as "communist". Terrible, terrible comparison.

nesf · 30-08-2009 02:00PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Surely the definition of federalist would be any document which centralizes many powers away from national governments into an international body, thus making the federal government more powerful than the state government?

That's not a very useful definition, it would mean a treaty that did nothing but give the EU power over what shape bananas could be on sale in Ireland would be a federalist treaty which is obviously nonsense.

hatrickpatrick · 30-08-2009 02:17PM

nesf wrote: »

That's not a very useful definition, it would mean a treaty that did nothing but give the EU power over what shape bananas could be on sale in Ireland would be a federalist treaty which is obviously nonsense.

Not entirely - that's precisely the sort of issue which should be under national democratic control. And sure it's a ridiculously trivial example but that doesn't make it any less true.

Scofflaw · 30-08-2009 02:31PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Surely the definition of federalist would be any document which centralizes many powers away from national governments into an international body, thus making the federal government more powerful than the state government?

It carries rather more meaning than that. In particular, it carries the assumption that the EU is, or is becoming, a federal state rather than a confederation or other form of association - and that, in turn, carries the assumption that the association is other than voluntary, and that the member states are less than voluntarily associated autonomous entities. Amazingly, even if we were to allow those assumptions past unchallenged, the description would still beg the question of whether Lisbon is more 'centripetal' than 'centrifugal', which wouldn't be an open and shut discussion either.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Also I have to just chip in and say that comparing people who view Lisbon as federalist to people who view Obama as a communist is quite frankly one of the most hilariously ridiculous things I've ever read. You don't have to be an extremist to be wary of letting go of your democratic power as a citizen, but you certainly have to be one if you accuse anything which isn't anarcho-capitalist (AKA Bush) as "communist". Terrible, terrible comparison.

I don't know about the comparison, but your claim that the EU involves "letting go of your democratic power as a citizen" is also not one that passes unchallenged, involving as it does the assumption that democracy is only real at the national level.

All you've actually done here is illustrated that to someone who believes only the nation is an acceptable unit of democracy, anything else is federalism. That is rather similar to the example you decry, and makes it seem that perhaps you cannot appreciate the comparison for exactly the same reason that a US right-winger makes it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo · 30-08-2009 02:37PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Surely the definition of federalist would be any document which centralizes many powers away from national governments into an international body, thus making the federal government more powerful than the state government?

Also I have to just chip in and say that comparing people who view Lisbon as federalist to people who view Obama as a communist is quite frankly one of the most hilariously ridiculous things I've ever read. You don't have to be an extremist to be wary of letting go of your democratic power as a citizen, but you certainly have to be one if you accuse anything which isn't anarcho-capitalist (AKA Bush) as "communist". Terrible, terrible comparison.

There seems to be a developing trend of attempting to whip up faux outrauge about practically any statement made someone who is pro lisbon. What was said was holding the view of the EU as Federalist is fine, but attempting to push the view as some sort of objective fact beyond debate is not.

marco_polo · 30-08-2009 02:38PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not entirely - that's precisely the sort of issue which should be under national democratic control. And sure it's a ridiculously trivial example but that doesn't make it any less true.

Would you consider members of the EFTA or EEA to be members of a Federal State?

Freeborn John · 31-08-2009 12:05PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Let me just reiterate the warning given to you by oscarBravo. Your belief that Lisbon is federalist is not an objective fact. To accuse other posters of lying is not trivial (nor is the 'cheap shots' gibe), and it certainly cannot be done on the basis of assuming that you are right, and treating everyone who disagrees as either blind or dishonest.

moderately,
Scofflaw

The 'community method' is federalism. Lisbon 'abolishes the pillar structure' of earlier treaties that limited the community method to the first pillar of common market law and renames the community method the 'ordinary legislative procedure'. Lisbon is therefore a federalist document. These are indisputable facts and very basic ones about Lisbon. If you are not aware of them, or deny them, you are are lack the basic understanding of the treaty needed to disucss it sensibly.

ei.sdraob · 31-08-2009 12:07PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

The 'community method' is federalism.

by your reasoning the having a Dail is "federalism"

hmm Irish Federation

has a ring to it

Freeborn John · 31-08-2009 12:11PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

by your reasoning the having a Dail is "federalism"

Total drivel of the type you only see on boards.ie. The republic of ireland is a nation-state and not a supranational federation.

MrMicra · 31-08-2009 12:24PM

Ireland should be more loosely organised. Irish counties should be like Swiss Cantons. Are Switzerland and the USA not federations FreebornJohn?
Is a federation by definition impossible to leave? And also does Lisbon make it possible for Ireland to be kicked out of the EU (I was told this yesterday but don't know the facts on it).

MrMicra · 31-08-2009 12:27PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

but your claim that the EU involves "letting go of your democratic power as a citizen" is also not one that passes unchallenged, involving as it does the assumption that democracy is only real at the national level.

I don't think that hatrickpatrick actually made that claim, he says it is something of which we should be wary. I agree that is why I will be voting yes to Lisbon. Powers have been transferred already and Lisbon brings more democratisation to EU decision making and increases the ability of ordinary Europeans to hold the institutions of the EU to account.

Freeborn John · 31-08-2009 12:42PM

MrMicra wrote: »

Lisbon brings more democratisation to EU decision making and increases the ability of ordinary Europeans to hold the institutions of the EU to account.

No it doen't. Lisbon increases the power of Brussels institutions with a low democratic legitimacy (EU Commission and EU Parliament) at the expense of institutions with a high democratic legitimacy (national governments and parliaments) with a net reduction in democratic legitimacy overall.

If you are saying that giving more powers to the EU parliament will reduce the EU democratic deficit then how do you explain that the EU legitimacy problem has grown since 1979 during which time the powers of the EU Parliament have been increased?

Freeborn John · 31-08-2009 12:47PM

MrMicra wrote: »

Are Switzerland and the USA not federations FreebornJohn?.

The USA and Switzerland are nation-states with a federal form of government. That should never be confused with a multinational federation. There is no difference in US political lexicon between the words federal and national, but the democratic legitimacy of the federal institutions is totally dependent on them being national instiutions. The opposite is the case with EU with the Brussels institutions lacking democratic legitimacy because they are not national institutions.

MrMicra · 31-08-2009 01:26PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

No it doen't. Lisbon increases the power of Brussels institutions with a low democratic legitimacy (EU Commission and EU Parliament) at the expense of institutions with a high democratic legitimacy (national governments and parliaments) with a net reduction in democratic legitimacy overall.

If you are saying that giving more powers to the EU parliament will reduce the EU democratic deficit then how do you explain that the EU legitimacy problem has grown since 1979 during which time the powers of the EU Parliament have been increased?

With regards to the democratic deficit it could be argued that the Treaty of Nice devolved powers without increasing accountability and that Lisbon to an extent corrects this. However you yourself do not hold the position that Nice reduced accountability.

I am not certain that national governments are in every case highly democratic. The English for example have no rights or freedoms except those gifted them by the EU, they are slaves of a parliamentary tyranny (alas they love their chains) rather than free men like the Irish.

If I believe that a democratic deficit exists in the EU it is BECAUSE I am federalist (though Ireland should be allowed to leave) for a person like yourself (unless I misjudge your position for which I apologise) to make such a claim is inconsistent. The Council of Ministers is the most powerful controller of the EU by far. If national governments are the appropriate locus of European level democracy this should suit your aggressive realist position.

The claim that only 'national institutions' can be legitimate is absurd the Lisbon treaty (to which I will be voting yes) is about democratising supranational institutions. At what level of democractisation does a supranational organisation become legitimate in your eyes?

Is the government of China illegitimate? Was the government of the UK illegitimate during the first world war?

RandomName2 · 31-08-2009 01:46PM

Tomorrow, hypothetically speaking, Biffo wakes up and for reasons best known to himself rings up Brian Lenihan.

'Brian! The best way to solve the economic crisis we are in is to drop our VAT rate to 2%'
'Sorry boss, the EU has both the mandate and will to stop us doing anything like that'

Yes: that's economic co-operation, not federalism!

Will using the word 'federalist' soon be classed as a hate crime? Factoid alert! EU is not nor ever will be a federation... repeat after me....

For the record I believe that the US ended its federalist status with the conclusion of the civil war (although several anti-federalist reforms were launched in the 1790s), after which point it essentially became a single state. It is the difference between saying 'The United States are going to war with Mexico' to 'The United States is going to war with Japan', if you will.

Edit: For the sake of pedants, the US and Switzerland are technically still Federacies (in the same way that Netherlands is still a Monarchy)

Freeborn John · 31-08-2009 01:46PM

MrMicra wrote: »

With regards to the democratic deficit it could be argued that the Treaty of Nice devolved powers without increasing accountability and that Lisbon to an extent corrects this. However you yourself do not hold the position that Nice reduced accountability.

Nice made a bad situation worse. Lisbon would make that bad situation yet worse.

MrMicra wrote: »

I am not certain that national governments are in every case highly democratic. The English for example have no rights or freedoms except those gifted them by the EU, they are slaves of a parliamentary tyranny (alas they love their chains) rather than free men like the Irish.

National government is not always democratic, but democratic government is always national. Government of the people, by the people, for the people requires a people, and the EU does not have one. It is true that sovereignty of the people exists in Ireland, but noth in the UK or anywhere else in the EU. But a Yes for Lisbon means giving those other governments 98% of the voting weight to decide the law of Ireland.

BTW: The EU does not grant any rights to anyone. You may be confusing the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights.

MrMicra wrote: »

If I believe that a democratic deficit exists in the EU it is BECAUSE I am federalist (though Ireland should be allowed to leave) for a person like yourself (unless I misjudge your position for which I apologise) to make such a claim is inconsistent. The Council of Ministers is the most powerful controller of the EU by far. If national governments are the appropriate locus of European level democracy this should suit your aggressive realist position.

You are way out of date. Under Lisbon the Council of Ministers would only have equal power with the EU Parliament, a body with less democratic legitimacy than the national governments in the EU Council of Ministers.

MrMicra wrote: »

The claim that only 'national institutions' can be legitimate is absurd the Lisbon treaty (to which I will be voting yes) is about democratising supranational institutions. At what level of democractisation does a supranational organisation become legitimate in your eyes?

Only national institutions have their own democratic legitimacy drawn directly from a sovereign people. This is because the principle that the majority decides is only accepted within the context of a national community bound by a strong sense of national identity which does not exist at international level. International organisations that take serious decisions binding on their membership must use decision-making by unanimity. All of them do, except for the EU, which is the only body to have suffered a catastrophic breakdown in its legitimacy, which can be date from precisely the point (Maastricht, 1992) at which it began to introduce QMV into political decision-making.

MrMicra wrote: »

Is the government of China illegitimate? Was the government of the UK illegitimate during the first world war?

China is not a democracy and its government has no democratic legitimacy. If the Chinese state were to become a democracy you would immediately see a redrawing of its borders around the contours of national community with the Tibetans voting to create their own nation-state, and the Taiwanese joining their mainland compatriots under a unified Chinese nation-state.

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

Comments