nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Are there any yes voters out there who DO value national sovereignty / democracy?

hatrickpatrick

One thing I find interesting is that whenever I bring up the issue of national sovereignty and national democracy, NONE of the yes voters here are saying "no, the Lisbon treaty is not a step towards a United Europe". they're either saying "So what if it is?" or "Would a United government really be so bad"?

Is there anyone out there who supports the Lisbon treaty and believes that it's NOT a step towards a federal government? Because I firmly believe that is IS important to keep our national sovereignty, and no amount of argument will change my mind about that. I hoped for someone to allay my fears abut this by telling me that the Lisbon treaty was in fact not a step towards a united Europe, but what I'm actually hearing as supposed "reassurance" is pushing me further and further towards the no side.

Put very simply: If it's a step towards a federal government, I am 100% absolutely definitely not voting for it.

So is it a step towards that or not?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

conchubhar1

i see this being locked - by the usual suspect.

that our pure sarcasm and little discussion or answer

P. Breathnach

If this forum were a court of law, your question would be disallowed on several bases -- in particular the way it is packaged as being about "sovereignty/democracy".

Your position is akin to that of the person who wants plenty of money, but does not want to buy anything because it would reduce the amount of money he has.

Yes, the EU involves the pooling of sovereignty in some areas: we give others some influence over affairs here, and gain some influence on affairs throughout the EU. That does not necessarily make it a step towards a federal Europe.

But I am pretty sure that you intend to vote no, and your purpose in this discussion is not to assist you in making your decision, but to influence the decisions of others.

meglome

Actually hatrickpatrick your question kinda offends me, dare I say it but I suppose I would call myself a nationalist (although not in the Northern sense). I came in here with an open mind and not knowing much about the treaty. I read all the debates and then checked the information in the treaty. What I found is basically nothing that causes me a problem and lot's of improvements to the EU. The same EU who has been very fair with us.

I don't think you were ever an undecided voter like myself. I have spent (maybe wasted) my time replying to you but no more.

K-9

I do value our sovereignty.

What I find with arguments like the OP is that it is a principle and something they will not give up, no matter what.

We could point to all the good things that have been achieved by the EU and the so called "giving up" of Sovereignty, but it will not matter.

tororosso

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

One thing I find interesting is that whenever I bring up the issue of national sovereignty and national democracy, NONE of the yes voters here are saying "no, the Lisbon treaty is not a step towards a United Europe". they're either saying "So what if it is?" or "Would a United government really be so bad"?

Is there anyone out there who supports the Lisbon treaty and believes that it's NOT a step towards a federal government? Because I firmly believe that is IS important to keep our national sovereignty, and no amount of argument will change my mind about that. I hoped for someone to allay my fears abut this by telling me that the Lisbon treaty was in fact not a step towards a united Europe, but what I'm actually hearing as supposed "reassurance" is pushing me further and further towards the no side.

Put very simply: If it's a step towards a federal government, I am 100% absolutely definitely not voting for it.

So is it a step towards that or not?

Nobody can say whether the ultimate result will be a federal government but I believe that it will lead to a federal European Government. Most people see the direction the European Project is taking and each new treaty and piece of legislation will further centralise power to this aim. Some will argue that this is not the case but many people who are strongly Yes are happy with this direction. Likewise the people who are strongly NO are unhappy to see the tightening of power. This is just an opinion so I will leave it for others to try to persuade you or disuade you from the vote you appear to be going to make!

ei.sdraob

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Put very simply: If it's a step towards a federal government

how so? please do elaborate

In Chains

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

One thing I find interesting is that whenever I bring up the issue of national sovereignty and national democracy, NONE of the yes voters here are saying "no, the Lisbon treaty is not a step towards a United Europe". they're either saying "So what if it is?" or "Would a United government really be so bad"?

Is there anyone out there who supports the Lisbon treaty and believes that it's NOT a step towards a federal government? ...

Good questions. And curious answers (so far).

pjproby

in the 1950's there was a general movement in Europe towards self sufficiency taken up with gusto by our beloved DeValera. You know the thesis,grow your own, tax imports to encourage Irish production -in one year 60000 were forced to emigrate to find work.
After they left we allowed Aer Lingus to enter into a monopoly arrangement with British Airways, on the Dublin London route to ensure that they could never afford to come back.
I'm sure National Sovereignty meant a great deal to those forced out never to return.
If you are entertaining such notions as self sufficiency, national sovereignty etc just study recent Irish history.
It was an absolute economic disaster.
If you seriously think we can get get out of the imminent bankruptcy of this country without the help of Europe you are dreaming

Daftendirekt

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

One thing I find interesting is that whenever I bring up the issue of national sovereignty and national democracy, NONE of the yes voters here are saying "no, the Lisbon treaty is not a step towards a United Europe". they're either saying "So what if it is?" or "Would a United government really be so bad"?

Is there anyone out there who supports the Lisbon treaty and believes that it's NOT a step towards a federal government? Because I firmly believe that is IS important to keep our national sovereignty, and no amount of argument will change my mind about that. I hoped for someone to allay my fears abut this by telling me that the Lisbon treaty was in fact not a step towards a united Europe, but what I'm actually hearing as supposed "reassurance" is pushing me further and further towards the no side.

Put very simply: If it's a step towards a federal government, I am 100% absolutely definitely not voting for it.

So is it a step towards that or not?

I think you're asking is the Lisbon Treaty a step towards a United States of Europe/ European Federation?

No, it's not. Or at least I see nothing in it to make me think otherwise. And incidentally, if I believed it was a move towards a federal Europe, I'd probably vote against it.

Martin 2

Are there any yes voters out there who DO value national sovereignty / democracy?

Yes I value both sovereignty and democracy, and I will feel no less Irish on October 3rd than on October 1st if the treaty is passed and no less Irish than I did before Maastricht or Nice.

PunkFreud

We lost some of our sovereignty the minute we joined the EU. If we want it all back again, then all we have to do is leave europe. What has europe ever done for us anyway?

*sarcasm*

eamo12

If we vote yes, then we will never get the chance to vote again. Read Declaration 17 which states EU law will have primacy over Irish law. So, to answer your question, it is not possible to value our sovereignty and vote yes. Lisbon is a way fro the politicans to pass the buck to faceless EU beaurocrats while living it up in the expense ridden Brussles gravy train.

ynotdu

well i think we should all at least read the Lisbon Treaty.

I think the OP.s question is worthy of consideration by all.

somewhere along the line it seems to me the European *dream* has gone astray. no doubt though we would be in deeper sh*t without the euro currency.

when Ireland voted to join the EU i dont think it was ever envisioned that our minister for health would have to consult Europe to ban sunbeds now that medical science has shown they are a severe cancer risk.

It is an example of the silly things Europe have imposed on us as well as the good things it has brought.

These petty things seem more designed to keep beauracrats in work than anything else.

If Lisbon was not to be passed can yes voters be absolutly sure it would be the end of the world?

may,be it might force the idea of us all being friends without losing our national identitys to be reconsidered?

I would hate if a certain Country who failed to dominate Europe by war twice has found a back door to achieve the same objective by treatys.

whoa and pull back i say.

pjproby

"I would hate if a certain Country who failed to dominate Europe by war twice has found a back door to achieve the same objective by treatys."

which neatly brings us back to the original purpose of the Common Market/EU

these are the most peaceful decades in European history.

Sangre

I think the more power we take from the morons we keep voting into power the better.

meglome

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I think you're asking is the Lisbon Treaty a step towards United States of Europe/ European Federation?

No, it's not. Or at least I see nothing in it to make me think otherwise. And incidentally, if I believed it was a move towards a federal Europe, I'd probably vote against it.

If that was the case I'd vote against it too.

ei.sdraob

ynotdu wrote: »

somewhere along the line it seems to me the European *dream* has gone astray.

what dream?

has there been any wars like before? no! remember 2 world wars and millions killed last century all originating in europe

is there poverty like before? nope! eu is the largest economy in the world now

the *dream* has been fairly successful all one has to do is read a history book and then look around

sensibleken

no i dont think it a step away from being a sovereign nation. the way i interpret this idea of sovereignity is more akin to isolationism. and that fcked us up after ww2.

we have to get used to the idea that some issues are better tackled internationally. specifically trade and competition. these are best done in a european enviroment. are they are done like that now. lisbon will not make us any less or more sovereign our position will remain unchanged

ei.sdraob

eamo12 wrote: »

If we vote yes, then we will never get the chance to vote again.

lisbon sets in stone how a state can exit the eu if they are not happy, something that doesnt exist now

also any changes that affect are constitution are cause for a referendum here

FeistyOneYouAre

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

One thing I find interesting is that whenever I bring up the issue of national sovereignty and national democracy, NONE of the yes voters here are saying "no, the Lisbon treaty is not a step towards a United Europe". they're either saying "So what if it is?" or "Would a United government really be so bad"?

Is there anyone out there who supports the Lisbon treaty and believes that it's NOT a step towards a federal government? Because I firmly believe that is IS important to keep our national sovereignty, and no amount of argument will change my mind about that. I hoped for someone to allay my fears abut this by telling me that the Lisbon treaty was in fact not a step towards a united Europe, but what I'm actually hearing as supposed "reassurance" is pushing me further and further towards the no side.

Put very simply: If it's a step towards a federal government, I am 100% absolutely definitely not voting for it.

So is it a step towards that or not?

You have to weigh our options...we could keep our national sovereignty while risking our membership with the EU (being members but with a very large asterix beside our name) or we could be fully fledged members and still reep the huge benefits that we have consitently reeped over the last 36 years.

nesf

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

One thing I find interesting is that whenever I bring up the issue of national sovereignty and national democracy, NONE of the yes voters here are saying "no, the Lisbon treaty is not a step towards a United Europe". they're either saying "So what if it is?" or "Would a United government really be so bad"?

Is there anyone out there who supports the Lisbon treaty and believes that it's NOT a step towards a federal government? Because I firmly believe that is IS important to keep our national sovereignty, and no amount of argument will change my mind about that. I hoped for someone to allay my fears abut this by telling me that the Lisbon treaty was in fact not a step towards a united Europe, but what I'm actually hearing as supposed "reassurance" is pushing me further and further towards the no side.

Put very simply: If it's a step towards a federal government, I am 100% absolutely definitely not voting for it.

So is it a step towards that or not?

Quit putting words in other people's mouths and then deciding to argue against them as if we'd actually said it. Many of Yes voters are flatly opposed to the federalist view of where the EU should go. This isn't a simplistic black and white issue where you vote No if you're against federalism and vote Yes if you're from it.

The entire basis of this thread is suspect and as such has a limited lifespan unless you restate your question in such a way that doesn't paint every Yes voter as a fanatical federalist pretending to be a moderate.

hatrickpatrick

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But I am pretty sure that you intend to vote no, and your purpose in this discussion is not to assist you in making your decision, but to influence the decisions of others.

I can't reply to the entire topic yet, I will do so later, but let's be clear. I am indeed intending to vote no, until someone convinces me not to. Originally I was undecided. I came here to clear up one or two fears I had about national sovereignty, and instead of this I was greeted with "who cares, nation states aren't that great anyway". And if the yes campaign is associated with this type of thinking, it certainly has pushed me towards the no side. But let me make this clear: only since I've heard the yes campaign's arguments.

I voted yes last time, in case I never mentioned that before.

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I can't reply to the entire topic yet, I will do so later, but let's be clear. I am indeed intending to vote no, until someone convinces me not to. Originally I was undecided. I came here to clear up one or two fears I had about national sovereignty, and instead of this I was greeted with "who cares, nation states aren't that great anyway". And if the yes campaign is associated with this type of thinking, it certainly has pushed me towards the no side. But let me make this clear: only since I've heard the yes campaign's arguments.

I voted yes last time, in case I never mentioned that before.

That may have been in response to a few posters saying Nation states was the only form of Govt.

I think it goes back to how much sovereignty people are prepared to pool.

To a minority giving up none is their limit, to others just enough for an EEC type organization, others Nice is the limit, others Lisbon etc.

To me there is a limit to how far the EU can go.

hatrickpatrick

nesf wrote: »

Quit putting words in other people's mouths and then deciding to argue against them as if we'd actually said it. Many of Yes voters are flatly opposed to the federalist view of where the EU should go. This isn't a simplistic black and white issue where you vote No if you're against federalism and vote Yes if you're from it.

The entire basis of this thread is suspect and as such has a limited lifespan unless you restate your question in such a way that doesn't paint every Yes voter as a fanatical federalist pretending to be a moderate.

I'm not suggesting that everyone is a fanatic, obviously that's ridiculous. What I am saying is that most of the yes voters who have engaged with my fears about a federalist Europe have argued not that Lisbon won't take away our sovereignty, but that "the nation state isn't so great either", "why does democracy have to be national?", "Well it's a good thing if the morons in our government have less power" etc. Basically, no one has argued that Lisbon will not erode the Irish citizens' control over their country, but that the question is irrelevant since having direct control over our country just isn't that important.

I'm asking if there are any republicans / nationalists here who think it's important we should absolutely have our own democratic nation state, and that voting yes will not change this.

Stark

Lisbon defines for the first time what the remit of the EU is. Under Nice, the EU can bring pretty much any issue into its remit. Lisbon allows us to opt out of the EU if we choose. Under Nice, we've no legal means of leaving the EU if we wish.

ChocolateSauce

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

One thing I find interesting is that whenever I bring up the issue of national sovereignty and national democracy, NONE of the yes voters here are saying "no, the Lisbon treaty is not a step towards a United Europe". they're either saying "So what if it is?" or "Would a United government really be so bad"?

I find it offensive that you equate a yes vote with a lack of respect for national sovereignty and democracy, as well as unsupportable. A yes vote, by definition, is democratic and will make the EU more democratic. National vetoes and the people of the present being bound by the mis-informed decisions of the past is, however, undemocratic.

As for sovereignty, why is pooling some of it into a democratic and mutually beneficial surpa-national organisation that has brought us peace and prosperity not preferable to being politically and economically isolated?

nesf

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What I am saying is that most of the yes voters who have engaged with my fears about a federalist Europe have argued not that Lisbon won't take away our sovereignty, but that "the nation state isn't so great either", "why does democracy have to be national?", "Well it's a good thing if the morons in our government have less power" etc. Basically, no one has argued that Lisbon will not erode the Irish citizens' control over their country, but that the question is irrelevant since having direct control over our country just isn't that important.

The problem is that you're defining sharing sovereignty as losing sovereignty, i.e. that after Lisbon that the Irish Government no longer has any influence over certain areas. This is patently not the case, we are not losing our seat on the Council of Europe and our Government will continue to have influence over EU decisions and policy, and the EU will most likely attempt to continue with the tradition of unanimity that has shaped the EU until now.

Losing sovereignty is a half-truth, it implies that post Lisbon that Ireland will have no say over policy in certain areas when this is patently not the case.

Again here you are arguing against straw men here rather than presenting your own argument. It's a fallacious as me starting an argument by saying that "No posters that I've seen have said the minimum wage will be under 2 euro an hour therefore this must be believed by most people who vote No" and then continuing to argue against this obvious mistruth.

FruitLover

I doubt anyone with a bit of cop on seriously expects a federal government to be on the cards at any point.

ynotdu wrote: »

I would hate if a certain Country who failed to dominate Europe by war twice has found a back door to achieve the same objective by treatys

Good thing everyone's able to remain level-headed on the issue, eh :rolleyes: You're pretty close to invoking Godwin's law there, Ted.

Greyham

this thread is a perfect example of everything wrong with a debate on lisbon, a whole load of anecdotal nonsense coming from both sides with little to no reference to the actual content of the treaty ,

maybe people on here are discussing this on a higher level than i am , and maybe its a given that everyone already knows all of the articles everyone is referring to , but i havnt seen one academic discussion of it , i.e

"article number X says this , and that means Y for ireland , because of..."

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that everyone is a fanatic, obviously that's ridiculous. What I am saying is that most of the yes voters who have engaged with my fears about a federalist Europe have argued not that Lisbon won't take away our sovereignty, but that "the nation state isn't so great either", "why does democracy have to be national?", "Well it's a good thing if the morons in our government have less power" etc. Basically, no one has argued that Lisbon will not erode the Irish citizens' control over their country, but that the question is irrelevant since having direct control over our country just isn't that important.

I'm asking if there are any republicans / nationalists here who think it's important we should absolutely have our own democratic nation state, and that voting yes will not change this.

Why would Yes voters argue it will not take away our sovereignty?

Areas move to QMV, so it is unarguable. I think most Yes voters understand why some have concerns over that, but obviously don't put as much significance on it.

People have asked for examples of QMV going against our wishes and we have got no examples, or poor ones. Yes voters go on the experience Ireland has had of QMV, staunch No voters don't really want to see that.