Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Pooling of Sovereignty
Options
Comments
-
-
RandomName2 wrote: »...
I will listen though if you are able to give a cogent explanation of how this treaty might pool sovereignty.
That is a question best directed to our good Minister Burton for it is she that I am quoting.
As to the workings of such an arrangement, alas she did not expand on the topic.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »When did you last elect a member of the Department of Finance?
You are comparing a de facto Government with a Department of Government.0 -
So we should once more doff our caps and say "Yes please"?
Seeing as you are so knowledgeable on the subject of losing our sovereignty, perhaps you might explain
(1) which sections of the Treaty lead to the loss of sovereignty?
(2) what is the mechanism that leads that loss to affect everyday lives and what are the quantifiable losses set out in the treaty?
(3) Can you demonstrate how this loss of sovereignty is so much worse that the other sovereignty we have pooled since 1972 i.e. pinpoint the aspect of the sovereignty loss in this Treaty that should cause the Irish electorate to reverse its previous decisions on the EU? (and do this by reference to particular articles of the Treaty that differ from previous EU Treaties)?0 -
No. I just dont think that a pooling of sovereignty is going to work. We either want to be ruled by a european central government or ruled by our own elected government. At the moment we are probably in between so its a case of shi tting or getting off the pot. Personally I would rather our governing body to be closer to home.hatrickpatrick wrote: »There's nothing wrong with pooling sovereignty to an extent.
The point I make as a no voter is, we're past that extent now. In fact we were past it before we ratified Lisbon.
Closer integration is fine, but... That's close enough now.
Lads, seeing as you two seem to know quite a lot about the Treaty and its inner workings, maybe you could help jaself out in providing an answer to the question I posed below on the pooling of sovereignty and why it is so much worse this time.Seeing as you are so knowledgeable on the subject of losing our sovereignty, perhaps you might explain
(1) which sections of the Treaty lead to the loss of sovereignty?
(2) what is the mechanism that leads that loss to affect everyday lives and what are the quantifiable losses set out in the treaty?
(3) Can you demonstrate how this loss of sovereignty is so much worse that the other sovereignty we have pooled since 1972 i.e. pinpoint the aspect of the sovereignty loss in this Treaty that should cause the Irish electorate to reverse its previous decisions on the EU? (and do this by reference to particular articles of the Treaty that differ from previous EU Treaties)?0 -
Advertisement
-
^ I never said it was any worse than last time - in case you didn't notice, I opposed Lisbon too.
Obviously in this case we're signing up to rules which will be enforced externally - that is, limiting what decisions our future governments can make of their own volition. Again, I'm not saying this has to be a bad thing, some people here clearly support it, but to outright claim that "there IS no loss of sovereignty" is a lie. There is most certainly a loss of sovereignty, the question is whether that loss is acceptable to you or not. It's not acceptable to me, it is (apparently?) acceptable to you. That's what we disagree on, I believe. If you're honestly claiming that there is no loss of sovereignty involved, I would ask you perhaps to justify that statement?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Hasn't that been Sinn Féin's argument against every single treaty since accession? They never quite seem to explain how each treaty that they just opposed has morphed into the one that's working fine and we shouldn't change.
I'm no SF supporter, so I'd rather not answer this. I'm voting no for my own reasons and paying no heed whatsoever to who I'm voting "with". Guilt by association is no way to live your life.I accept that you think we shouldn't have ratified Lisbon, but I'm willing to wager that come the next EU treaty (which this isn't), SF will be telling us how the Lisbon treaty is working just fine, so we shouldn't change anything...
Indeed they might. I certainly won't be though, just as I'm not now, with Lisbon.You'll notice I used the word sovereignty in quotes. This is because the way that word is used tends to mean we are now under the control of Germany, when we're clearly not. Sovereignty the magic word that means whatever the person saying it thinks it means.
Sovereignty (in my book) simply means that the people of this country have the power to decide what policies this country implements. If we devolve that power to a higher authority outside the state, we cede some of the state's sovereignty - Ireland's policy in the areas we cede is no longer wholly and completely in the hands of the Irish people, independent from any other external decision making body. That is the "loss of sovereignty".
Ergo, if we transfer competence on some or any of our laws, we cede "sovereignty". That is not in question, what's in question is whether or not you're ok with it. In this case, I'm not ok with it.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »Sovereignty (in my book) simply means that the people of this country have the power to decide what policies this country implements. If we devolve that power to a higher authority outside the state, we cede some of the state's sovereignty - Ireland's policy in the areas we cede is no longer wholly and completely in the hands of the Irish people, independent from any other external decision making body. That is the "loss of sovereignty".
Ergo, if we transfer competence on some or any of our laws, we cede "sovereignty".
Well, no we don't - as you say yourself, we transfer sovereignty (i.e. competence). We choose in other words to exercise sovereignty with our fellow EU citizens in order to achieve agreed objectives. And, yes it is a perfectly valid sovereign decision for us to choose to do so.
Domestically, we should probably also choose to transfer some of our sovereignty from our over-centralized government to our local government to stop this feigned helplessness we affect when facing any sort of difficult decision here at home, but that is a different issue.0 -
Well, no we don't - as you say yourself, we transfer sovereignty (i.e. competence). We choose in other words to exercise sovereignty with our fellow EU citizens in order to achieve agreed objectives. And, yes it is a perfectly valid sovereign decision for us to choose to do so.
I agree, we have every right to do it, I simply don't approve of it - therefore I'll be voting no. As I said earlier, if you're happy to transfer sovereignty then go ahead and vote yes, but don't claim there is no transfer of sovereignty involved.
Also, what's the difference between transferring and ceding exactly? Bottom line, the individual Irish voter's voice counts for less when it's competing with more people across Europe for a say in the same policy areas.Domestically, we should probably also choose to transfer some of our sovereignty from our over-centralized government to our local government to stop this feigned helplessness we affect when facing any sort of difficult decision here at home, but that is a different issue.
Ironically enough I absolutely agree with this, but that's one of the reasons I oppose transferring sovereignty to the EU. Transferring soverengity to local government puts the power much closer to the individual voter than the central government, transferring it to the EU puts it much further away.
I'm an advocate of participatory democracy, I honestly don't see how anyone could advocate both participatory democracy AND further transfer of sovereignty to the EU, given the widely acknowledged democratic deficit the EU is plagued by.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »^ I never said it was any worse than last time - in case you didn't notice, I opposed Lisbon too.
Obviously in this case we're signing up to rules which will be enforced externally - that is, limiting what decisions our future governments can make of their own volition. Again, I'm not saying this has to be a bad thing, some people here clearly support it, but to outright claim that "there IS no loss of sovereignty" is a lie. There is most certainly a loss of sovereignty, the question is whether that loss is acceptable to you or not. It's not acceptable to me, it is (apparently?) acceptable to you. That's what we disagree on, I believe. If you're honestly claiming that there is no loss of sovereignty involved, I would ask you perhaps to justify that statement?
No, I am not saying there is no loss of sovereignty. What I am saying is that the loss of sovereignty is minimal and in that case, opposing it on "loss of sovereignty" grounds seems silly - it is like being in debt for €10000 and saying that you oppose a further loan of €1 because you are against indebtedness.
There have been a small number of credible grounds for opposing the Treaty advanced (none have appeared on posters though) but I just don't get the "loss of sovereignty" one.0 -
Advertisement
-
So we should quit the UN?hatrickpatrick wrote: »Sovereignty (in my book) simply means that the people of this country have the power to decide what policies this country implements. If we devolve that power to a higher authority outside the state, we cede some of the state's sovereignty - Ireland's policy in the areas we cede is no longer wholly and completely in the hands of the Irish people, independent from any other external decision making body. That is the "loss of sovereignty".
Ergo, if we transfer competence on some or any of our laws, we cede "sovereignty". That is not in question, what's in question is whether or not you're ok with it. In this case, I'm not ok with it.0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 13642
‘‘10° The State may ratify the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union done at Brussels on the 2nd day of March 2012. No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of the State under that Treaty or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by bodies competent under that Treaty from having the force of law in the State.’’.
Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, March, 2012.
Read that bold paragraph carefully.
In plain language it means that nothing in our Constitution can override any law, act or measure by bodies competent under that Treaty.
So please tell me again how this Treaty is not just being written into our Constitution but overriding it?
We can always amend the constitution at some future point to delete all subarticles of article 29 so that EU law is no longer exempt from constitutional scrutiny. Of course, that would mean us leaving the EU but in our domestic law it can be done, and the provisions can be removed any time the people vote to remove them.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »So we should quit the UN?
It depends how much sovereignty we've ceded and on what grounds. If the UN were to dictate internal domestic policies such as data retention, or tell us what kind of lightbulbs we're allowed to use (I know it was an Irish initiative, the point is that voters in the countries implementing this had no say in it and changing a government wouldn't have made a difference), it goes beyond a mere "economic union" and becomes a ceding of sovereignty on domestic, internal policies. Which should be entirely within the control of the Irish people.
As I understand it, the UN pools sovereignty on grounds of human rights and international affairs to an extent, and I don't oppose either of those - if it were put to a vote, I would vote yes. I don't approve of some of the areas in which the EU has competence, on the other hand. I've given examples of specific areas before, I can dig them up if you like?
Godge, I never said that ceding sovereignty was a valid opposition to this particular treaty. That's not why I'm voting no, I'm voting no for entirely different reasons which I have outlined many times on this forum. I'm merely pointing out that those who suggest there is no loss of sovereignty involved are incorrect, if you define sovereignty as the extent to which the Irish elected government can implement policies without being bound by external authorities. Any treaty which binds future Irish governments to rules enforced by authorities outside the state of Ireland can be considered a loss of sovereignty. It removes power from the Irish state and transfers it to a 'higher' authority. The reason many of us oppose ceding sovereignty should be obvious - the Irish government should be accountable to and obey the wishes of the Irish people first and foremost, no external authority. Otherwise our democracy is diluted.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »It depends how much sovereignty we've ceded and on what grounds. If the UN were to dictate internal domestic policies such as data retention, or tell us what kind of lightbulbs we're allowed to use (I know it was an Irish initiative, the point is that voters in the countries implementing this had no say in it and changing a government wouldn't have made a difference), it goes beyond a mere "economic union" and becomes a ceding of sovereignty on domestic, internal policies. Which should be entirely within the control of the Irish people.
As I understand it, the UN pools sovereignty on grounds of human rights and international affairs to an extent, and I don't oppose either of those - if it were put to a vote, I would vote yes. I don't approve of some of the areas in which the EU has competence, on the other hand. I've given examples of specific areas before, I can dig them up if you like?
Godge, I never said that ceding sovereignty was a valid opposition to this particular treaty. That's not why I'm voting no, I'm voting no for entirely different reasons which I have outlined many times on this forum. I'm merely pointing out that those who suggest there is no loss of sovereignty involved are incorrect, if you define sovereignty as the extent to which the Irish elected government can implement policies without being bound by external authorities. Any treaty which binds future Irish governments to rules enforced by authorities outside the state of Ireland can be considered a loss of sovereignty. It removes power from the Irish state and transfers it to a 'higher' authority. The reason many of us oppose ceding sovereignty should be obvious - the Irish government should be accountable to and obey the wishes of the Irish people first and foremost, no external authority. Otherwise our democracy is diluted.
Looked at it in a pure "loss of sovereignty" terms, we have lost a huge amount of sovereignty through our ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention (and its protocols) as well as the Landmines Treaty. They take away our ability to defend our state in certain ways and if you look at the definitions of a sovereign nation state, one of the fundamental principles is the ability to defend one's own borders. The ratification of those Treaties therefore hits directly at the sovereignty and independence of this State in a way that the EU does not. I take it therefore that you oppose Ireland's membership and ratification of those Treaties.0 -
Looked at it in a pure "loss of sovereignty" terms, we have lost a huge amount of sovereignty through our ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention (and its protocols) as well as the Landmines Treaty. They take away our ability to defend our state in certain ways and if you look at the definitions of a sovereign nation state, one of the fundamental principles is the ability to defend one's own borders. The ratification of those Treaties therefore hits directly at the sovereignty and independence of this State in a way that the EU does not. I take it therefore that you oppose Ireland's membership and ratification of those Treaties.
Well actually I don't, as those types of weapons I would regard as crimes against humanity - in the same way as I don't oppose us signing up to the charter of human rights, for instance.
The difference is though, that doesn't give anyone else a right to make new laws which our country has to abide by. For instance, the NPT doesn't allow anyone else to decide what kind of lightbulbs we can sell in our shops, or how long we can / have to retain internet data of users. Just using those as two examples. Point is, those decisions are about internal, domestic affairs and the Irish people should have the 100% right to decide how their country is run when you get down to a low level like that. It's far easier to lobby the Irish government than it is to lobby the entire EU, therefore the people have more chance of having their voices heard.
In the case of this particular treaty, I don't approve of the loss of sovereignty but as I've said before, that's not why I'm voting no. I am merely pointing out to some of the posters here that there is, absolutely indisputably, a loss of sovereignty involved with this treaty. As I said in my last post, it's entirely up to you whether the loss of sovereignty is acceptable to you or not as a voter. Just don't claim that it's "not a loss of sovereignty" purely because it's a loss of sovereignty you don't personally have a problem with.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »I am merely pointing out to some of the posters here that there is, absolutely indisputably, a loss of sovereignty involved with this treaty. As I said in my last post, it's entirely up to you whether the loss of sovereignty is acceptable to you or not as a voter. Just don't claim that it's "not a loss of sovereignty" purely because it's a loss of sovereignty you don't personally have a problem with.
You're suffering from an awful tarring by being that unusual creature who is voting no for considered reasons, and who is more than capable of accepting (and demanding) truthfulness in the discussion.
I may disagree entirely with how you will vote but I respect entirely your right to vote that way. I only wish you were more representative of the No vote in this country.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »Well actually I don't, as those types of weapons I would regard as crimes against humanity - in the same way as I don't oppose us signing up to the charter of human rights, for instance.
The difference is though, that doesn't give anyone else a right to make new laws which our country has to abide by. For instance, the NPT doesn't allow anyone else to decide what kind of lightbulbs we can sell in our shops, or how long we can / have to retain internet data of users. Just using those as two examples. Point is, those decisions are about internal, domestic affairs and the Irish people should have the 100% right to decide how their country is run when you get down to a low level like that. It's far easier to lobby the Irish government than it is to lobby the entire EU, therefore the people have more chance of having their voices heard.
In the case of this particular treaty, I don't approve of the loss of sovereignty but as I've said before, that's not why I'm voting no. I am merely pointing out to some of the posters here that there is, absolutely indisputably, a loss of sovereignty involved with this treaty. As I said in my last post, it's entirely up to you whether the loss of sovereignty is acceptable to you or not as a voter. Just don't claim that it's "not a loss of sovereignty" purely because it's a loss of sovereignty you don't personally have a problem with.
I have never said there was no loss of sovereignty - otherwise we wouldn't have needed a referendum.
Well, actually the NPT influences what type of nuclear industry you can have - look at the sanctions on Iran for what they deem is peaceful nuclear power.
Ditto the chemical weapons convention.
They are not simple human rights issues. For a long time, a country like Finland, well known for its support of human rights generally, was deeply opposed to the Landmines Treaty because of its long land border with Russia.
I am only pointing out that every time we ratify an international treaty we pool or lose some sovereignty. One man's human rights issue is another man's loss of the sovereign ability to protect your borders. It is the "no" campaign (to be fair, not including yourself) who are going around crying and shouting about loss of sovereignty yet many of them would hypocritically support other Treaties (Kyoto Protocol anyone?) that involve significant loss of sovereignty over internal domestic affairs.0 -
I seem to remember voting for their management, the European Parliament.Tell me this: When did you last elect a member of the European Commission?Or have a democratic say in any of the actions of the Commission or its 23,000 strong body of civil servants?
As above, we've got as much democratic say in Europe as in Ireland.
You could argue that our vote is diluted by the size of the European electorate, but it equally dilutes the votes of all political movements and so balances out.
The EU tends towards the same socio-economic system as Ireland but on a bigger and eventually (we can hope) more efficient scale.0 -
Looked at it in a pure "loss of sovereignty" terms, we have lost a huge amount of sovereignty through our ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention (and its protocols) as well as the Landmines Treaty. They take away our ability to defend our state in certain ways and if you look at the definitions of a sovereign nation state, one of the fundamental principles is the ability to defend one's own borders. The ratification of those Treaties therefore hits directly at the sovereignty and independence of this State in a way that the EU does not. I take it therefore that you oppose Ireland's membership and ratification of those Treaties.
The fundamental difference here is that an agreement like that bans specific weapons, at the time of our signing up to it. It does not give an outside body the power to impose new bans on us further down the line even if the majroity of the people and the government here don't want them.
Ireland had to individually ratify those treaties. We chose to do so. We do not, however, choose whether or not to implement EU rules, and any which are decided without us having a veto or opt out, can be said to represent a loss of sovereignty - we, the Irish people, no longer have the right to choose our own policy.
That's different from UN treaties because we have to individually sign up to them. This particular fiscal compact, we have to vote on, we're having a referendum on it in fact. UN treaties, the government at the very least must ratify in the Oireachtas. Do EU governments or populations have the ability to reject, for their country, specific rules such as those regarding lightbulbs or data retention?0 -
Advertisement
-
As above, we've got as much democratic say in Europe as in Ireland.
And I've been arguing for years that we SHOULD in fact have far more democratic say in Ireland, hence my view that handing it over to a larger entity is a step in exactly the wrong direction from where I personally want democracy to go.
Again, this is simply my own opinion, it's not right or wrong. I want a move towards more of a participatory democracy, handing power to a large international body is going in the exact opposite direction. Hence I oppose handing over that power. It's ok with me if it's limited to economic issues, but not when it starts involving social issues and issues such as what kind of lightbulbs you can buy in the shops. That should be up to each nation, otherwise the public have barely any say in it at all.0 -
No, but EU governments are involved in deciding those rules in the first place. We haven't created a completely independent EU through the treaties which we then have to slavishly obey; we've created an intergovernmental structure through which we jointly decide things.hatrickpatrick wrote: »Do EU governments or populations have the ability to reject, for their country, specific rules such as those regarding lightbulbs or data retention?0 -
I respect that view, but every single referendum campaign makes it clearer to me that we are piss poor at democracy. Honesty and integrity have no apparent role to play in the process.hatrickpatrick wrote: »And I've been arguing for years that we SHOULD in fact have far more democratic say in Ireland...0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »No, but EU governments are involved in deciding those rules in the first place. We haven't created a completely independent EU through the treaties which we then have to slavishly obey; we've created an intergovernmental structure through which we jointly decide things.
So let's take the light bulb rules again - if every other EU government was in favour and we weren't, we'd still have to implement it.
Ergo, the Irish people no longer control what laws they have to follow in their own country. That sounds like a loss of sovereignty to me. The question as I keep saying is whether or not you're ok with that. I'm not. It sounds to me like you are, which is a perfectly valid opinion. My opinion is just as valid - as an advocate of participatory democracy AWAY from centralization, it's entirely the wrong direction to go in. As I said before, I'm in favour of removing sovereignty from the national parliament and giving more of it to local parliaments - giving it to an outside entity in which we have to compete against other countries for a say in our own affairs is the opposite path. IF you support it that's ok, but I don't, and I never will. Without getting too personal about it, my ancestors fought for our independence so that we, the Irish people, could have self determination. I will never vote to give that away, to the EU or to anyone else. This is our country. What kind of lightbulbs the French, Italians or Germans want to ban in their own countries shouldn't force US to do anything at all.
Again I realize that particular law is our initiative but it's just an example. Do you believe for instance that the French should have to ban things their people want just because the rest of the EU does? It should be up to the French, it's their country to decide how they choose to run it.0 -
No, I don't have a problem with that, because it works well in practice. The theory of one country being bullied into accepted something that it's vehemently opposed to has never been borne out in reality - it's just not how the EU works.hatrickpatrick wrote: »So let's take the light bulb rules again - if every other EU government was in favour and we weren't, we'd still have to implement it.
Ergo, the Irish people no longer control what laws they have to follow in their own country. That sounds like a loss of sovereignty to me. The question as I keep saying is whether or not you're ok with that.
Your view is that because it's even possible that it could ever happen, you're willing to trade off every good thing that the EU has achieved, because all its positive achievements are outweighed by the theoretical loss of sovereignty. Which, in turn, is a valid perspective, but one I can't agree with.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »No, I don't have a problem with that, because it works well in practice. The theory of one country being bullied into accepted something that it's vehemently opposed to has never been borne out in reality - it's just not how the EU works.
Your view is that because it's even possible that it could ever happen, you're willing to trade off every good thing that the EU has achieved, because all its positive achievements are outweighed by the theoretical loss of sovereignty. Which, in turn, is a valid perspective, but one I can't agree with.
I'm not willing to trade off every good thing the EU has achieved though. That's the strawman we get all the time from pro Europeans which really pisses me off. europe is not a black and white question of "in or out". Just because I'm saying the loss of sovereignty has gone far enough and NOW we need to slam the brakes on, doesn't mean I'm advocating completely going back to the days before the EU existed.
What's wrong with saying I'm ok with integration but only up to a point? You make it sound like the only choice is "we're in the EU and we say yes to every single thing it asks us to do, or we're out". That doesn't sound very democratic to me. You can be in favour of the concept of the EU and a lot of its early policies and you can oppose the direction it's going in for the future. They are not mutually exclusive.0 -
There is no real loss of sovereignty as we are ultimately responsible for implementation and enforcement of the new rules. There will be no external enforcement, only internal. Your whole argument is based on a fundamentally flawed premise.hatrickpatrick wrote: »^ I never said it was any worse than last time - in case you didn't notice, I opposed Lisbon too.
Obviously in this case we're signing up to rules which will be enforced externally - that is, limiting what decisions our future governments can make of their own volition. Again, I'm not saying this has to be a bad thing, some people here clearly support it, but to outright claim that "there IS no loss of sovereignty" is a lie. There is most certainly a loss of sovereignty, the question is whether that loss is acceptable to you or not. It's not acceptable to me, it is (apparently?) acceptable to you. That's what we disagree on, I believe. If you're honestly claiming that there is no loss of sovereignty involved, I would ask you perhaps to justify that statement?0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »So let's take the light bulb rules again - if every other EU government was in favour and we weren't, we'd still have to implement it.
Ergo, the Irish people no longer control what laws they have to follow in their own country. That sounds like a loss of sovereignty to me. The question as I keep saying is whether or not you're ok with that. I'm not. It sounds to me like you are, which is a perfectly valid opinion. My opinion is just as valid - as an advocate of participatory democracy AWAY from centralization, it's entirely the wrong direction to go in. As I said before, I'm in favour of removing sovereignty from the national parliament and giving more of it to local parliaments - giving it to an outside entity in which we have to compete against other countries for a say in our own affairs is the opposite path. IF you support it that's ok, but I don't, and I never will. Without getting too personal about it, my ancestors fought for our independence so that we, the Irish people, could have self determination. I will never vote to give that away, to the EU or to anyone else. This is our country. What kind of lightbulbs the French, Italians or Germans want to ban in their own countries shouldn't force US to do anything at all.
Again I realize that particular law is our initiative but it's just an example. Do you believe for instance that the French should have to ban things their people want just because the rest of the EU does? It should be up to the French, it's their country to decide how they choose to run it.
To use the light-bulb analogy, if the UN decides tomorrow that we can't sell any goods to Iran because of economic sanctions, then we have to follow it.
If the CWC organisation decides tomorrow that selling certain chemicals to non-signatories is banned, then we have to follow it.
If the Kyoto Protocol people decide our emissions are too high, we can't have certain industries here.
You know some of those treaties set up organisations which set rules which we have to follow in their areas of competence. The only difference with the EU is one of scale, it has competence in a wider area.
You complain about giving up the right to have our own lightbulbs, I could complain about giving up the right to make our own nuclear weapons (if the North Koreans and Israelis can have them, why not us?), the principle is the same. You can talk about human rights but I can produce the Finns and landmines as a counter-example.
If you want to be consistent on the principle of participative democracy as set out above, you have to advocate withdrawal from all Treaties and organisations that restrict our ability to manage our own affairs. Arguing that we can have participative democracy except for human rights issues, environmental emissions and arming ourselves is not a consistent argument. All men are equal but some are more equal than others.
.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »I'm not willing to trade off every good thing the EU has achieved though. That's the strawman we get all the time from pro Europeans which really pisses me off. europe is not a black and white question of "in or out". Just because I'm saying the loss of sovereignty has gone far enough and NOW we need to slam the brakes on, doesn't mean I'm advocating completely going back to the days before the EU existed.
What's wrong with saying I'm ok with integration but only up to a point? You make it sound like the only choice is "we're in the EU and we say yes to every single thing it asks us to do, or we're out". That doesn't sound very democratic to me. You can be in favour of the concept of the EU and a lot of its early policies and you can oppose the direction it's going in for the future. They are not mutually exclusive.
I think it was Masstricht where we signed up to the concept of "ever closer Union". You do actually need to reverse some of the existing Treaties we have signed and ratified if you want to stop further integration.0 -
Advertisement
-
But that's inconsistent with your argument. You've suggested that you opposed Lisbon because you felt it diluted our sovereignty too far, implying that the Nice treaty is the maximum extent to which you feel our sovereignty should have been diluted. But the Nice treaty allows for the same theoretical process of implementing measures we don't agree with.hatrickpatrick wrote: »I'm not willing to trade off every good thing the EU has achieved though. That's the strawman we get all the time from pro Europeans which really pisses me off. europe is not a black and white question of "in or out". Just because I'm saying the loss of sovereignty has gone far enough and NOW we need to slam the brakes on, doesn't mean I'm advocating completely going back to the days before the EU existed.
"Every closer union" has been a goal of the EU and its predecessors since the Treaty of Rome in 1957.I think it was Masstricht where we signed up to the concept of "ever closer Union". You do actually need to reverse some of the existing Treaties we have signed and ratified if you want to stop further integration.0
Advertisement