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

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Scofflaw, where does this process of integration end? Why the constant need to reinvent the wheel every 4/5 years? It makes me suspicious and I think a lot of no voters. We want to know where this is leading.

It's a good question, to which the answer is that it will end wherever the mainstream of European thought wants it to - which, in any foreseeable future, will be a very long way short of federalism.

I appreciate that if one believes whole-heartedly in unfettered national sovereignty, then integration has already gone too far. However, if one believes whole-heartedly in unfettered federalism, it's barely gone anywhere. Where it has gone so far has, either way, been accepted by the people of Europe as something that appears to work without too many drawbacks.

The EU is a hybrid mechanism - partly a permanent multilateral treaty arrangement, and part a supranational community. It represents a balance between national self-determination and common interests - as all communities do:

1. where there is an aspect of governance that everyone accepts as not really impinging on national self-determination and undeniably a matter of common interest - trade, customs, the common market - we have the community method, with its Commission proposals, majority voting by the governments, and increasingly with independent citizen oversight via the Parliament, and we have EU exclusive or priority competence.

2. where there is an aspect of governance that everyone accepts as generally a matter of common interest, but which also impinges on national self-determination - foreign policy, criminal matters - we have a more cautious intergovernmental approach with European Council or Council of Ministers unanimity and initiatives, and mere consultation of the Commission and Parliament. These sensitive areas are usually subject to special and specific treatment in the treaties, because they're not quite EU matters, but more matters for the countries that happen to be member of the EU.

3. where there is an aspect of governance that is usually a matter of national self-interest, but not of national self-determination - such as tourism, culture, industry, sport - we have the Community method, but the EU's role is limited to supporting or supplementing national action.

4. finally, where something is not of common interest, and is a matter of national self-determination - such as public morality, abortion, tax - the EU is simply excluded, except to the extent that these matters impinge on the agreed common interests of the member states. As far as possible, the treaties are written to ensure that there is no conflict between the matters of common interest and these issues.

That hybrid system seems, so far, to work, generating very acceptable results (certainly far better than would be generated by a Europe of competing nation-states) with a minimum of intrusion into people's lives. As far as I can see, it's the way most people want the EU to continue - neither becoming a federal state, nor falling back into armed camps, but simply providing a calm common background for getting on with life in Europe. In that sense, it's not "going" anywhere, because for the vast majority of both people and politicians, it's not an end in itself but simply a way of doing business together. It's been quite a while since there was any real impetus for a "European project" - Giscard d'Estaing, for example, is something of a throwback to that era, but even he can see that the 'flame' has gone out. And perhaps that's just as well - 'exciting' projects tend to have 'exciting' results.

cordially,
Scofflaw

i said this earlier

but the libetas website still says their policies for the European elections will be released in the coming weeks...So excuse me if I think their campaign is going to be a drop in an ocean.


Also Marco and Pope! DAMN YOU! I had an awesome 666 thanks thing going there for a while.

naysavig wrote: »

EDUCATE YOURSELF before you go to the polls. Love Your Freedom, cerish that you have the right to vote on this.......EDUCATE YOURSELF

Are you going to post this platitude in every thread in this forum? Can you not make one thread with this in it and repeat it over and over again?

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I think so yes. Maybe not on the same scale as before. But they have big placards and I have a picture of one, but I've been asked to wait till the launch so I will. Shock and awe and all.

your f*cking pulling our legs aint ya?

seriously?

Ok very important question

have they got rid of caroline Simons?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574404643114251588.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

And I see the interview and Mr Ganley is already back to his old lying self

The most striking is Article 48, universally known by its French nickname, the passerelle clause. It says that "with just intergovernmental agreement, with no need of going back to the citizens anywhere, they can make any change to this constitutional document, adding any new powers, without having to revisit an electorate anywhere,"

Anybody have any garlic?

This could go against the No side. Libertas is associated with Ganley and people remember the recount.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Get reading. Don't bother posting until you have finished. I might have some questions for you when you have done your homework.

[I note FT saw fit to thank this post. What is one to make of that?]

done - omg its the same treaty - dont bother with the questions - its ok

wintear wrote: »

I am voting No because when I said no the first time I meant it. It was the same when I voted on Nice, I don't need to be asked the same thing twice.

The EU is good as it is and will suffer if it gets any bigger. Ireland will become a lost voice against the larger louder countries with greater voting powers.

No should mean No.

I'm glad the rest of Europe didn't share your selfish attitude before we joined...

wintear wrote: »

The EU is good as it is and will suffer if it gets any bigger. Ireland will become a lost voice against the larger louder countries with greater voting powers.

No should mean No.

Just to let you know, you’re not voting on whether Europe should get bigger (regardless of a yes/no outcome other countries will become members). you're voting on whether you want Europe to reform the way it works in order to facilitate Europe becoming bigger, which is going to happen. So you are in fact against Europe strengthening itself and bringing all its member countries closer together?


If your going to vote no, it's best to figure out a real reason why.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Angela Merkel and Sarkozy have said that further Enlargement cannot take place without Lisbon. Well then that's another reason to vote no as far as I am concerned. The race to the bottom has gone far enough. I oppose Turkish membership of the EU and the latest Eurobarometer polls that asked that question (before it was conveniently removed from the poll) show Irish people opposed to Turkish EU membership. They are trying to do too much too quickly.

Again I'm glad nobody in the EU had your selfish attitude when we applied to join.

Is Iceland included in your 'race to the bottom'?