and get the vote right this time. :whip:
Printable View
and get the vote right this time. :whip:
Oh, no. They haven't proposed another one, have they?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
They'll keep proposing it until Ireland accepts. That's the point.
Of course, I just thought they'd actually done it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
it would be nice if the OP would explain what he is talking about...
The way Biffo is making screw up after screw up at the moment and considering his party/coilition is in tatters reeling from one disaster to another he would be a complete idiot to try and force a second vote .
So expect a second vote very shortly:2thumbsup:
So considering a possible timetable , how is he going to manage to sell the treaty once Klaus takes the chair as it will be very very hard to sell the idea when the person in the chair is opposed to the treaty .
Anyway surely we are due another vote on abortion again before we go to another vote on Lisbon .
@Tribes :laugh4:
I heard it will be in october 09.
Ireland democratically decided to join the EU, through various previous agreements. This does not mean that they shoud forever hold their breath. They are perfectly entitled to subject any existing or future treaty to whatever democratic decision making process of their liking.
Just because they said 'yes' once, does not mean they forfeited the opportunity to say 'no' the next time. Likewise, just because they said 'non' once, does not mean they shouldn't have an opportunity to say 'yes' next time.
Neither the pro nor the anti treaty camp can insist the other camp should forever hold its breath. I really don't understand the outrage. ~:confused:
Well in fairness to the anti EU camp what are the realistic chances of a do you want to pull back out of the treaty vote ?
It's funny how they don't insist on another vote when the voters get it 'right' though, isn't it?
Well as i see it, it would be an anti EU party that would eventually propse a vote to exit the eu treaty...
That being said... as the treaty was never properly ratified there is no treaty to repeal... so its a bit hard to know....
TBH once the treaty has gone through i very much doubt it would be repealed anywhere barring major circumstances... so imo the anti eu camp are right to try anything and everything to stop a vote and then make sure its rejected... once its passed it aint coming down...
We were given the opportunity to say no? Really? I obviously didn't get the memo fromQuote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
EmpressHigh ChancellorMs. Merkel. How unfortunate.
Are any of the larger party's in europe anti eu ?
In britian it is only the 4th largest party that is anti eu, and they aren't really a party with any power, they have a few european parlimentary seats but none in our native parliment (which is kind of ironic...) so there is not really an option for anti eu'rs.... how about in Germany ? France ? ect. ?
Actually, the Lisbon treaty was the first EU treaty to give countries an easy way out of the EU, should they ever so desire.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
The Irish did get it 'right' the last time. In 1992, Ireland voted 'yes' to the Maastricht Treaty. And they got it 'right' the time before that. Etcetera.Quote:
Originally Posted by IA
However, the pro EU camp never uses this as an argument against any future referendums. Ireland can have as many EU referendums as it likes. They can have one every week if they want. Only the anti EU camp wants to silence all opposition by demanding that Ireland can never have another EU referendum again.
The German constitution does not provide for a referendum. The German people express their democratic wish through other means. This does not mean that Germany isn't a rock-solid democracy by even the highest standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by EMFM
Actually, the Lisbon treaty was the first EU treaty to give countries an easy way out of the EU, should they ever so desire.
But no goverment in power seems like they would be willing to do that, and without a willing goverment you won't pull out, and there aren't scheduled referendums asking if they want to stay in the eu.... for example in the uk in current political climate your only option would be voting UKIP, who will never win an election, so you could never get out once your in basically... barring as i said major circumstance change, of course if a goverment was willing im sure it would be easy, but with major political parties all being pro eu (in uk) you wouldn't have a choice...
Depends. Do you prefer communists or fascists?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Section II, Article 20, Line 2. Point on the matter. The lack of a referendum may not be unconstitutional, but the Treaty itself?Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
The government should ask the people. They should care. Merkel doesn't - and she certainly won't receive my vote.
Depends. Do you prefer communists or fascists
well im a red at heart so commies i guess.... these are very minor parties in germany i assume ?
and i though facist parties were banned in germany after the last one ?
One is, one isn't. Die Linke (The Left) manages to maintain fifty-three seats in the Bundestag. They're not "really" communist, but since they're essentially a successor party of this...Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
No, only Neo-Nazi parties are banned. Fascists are alright, according to the courts. That'd be these guys.Quote:
and i though facist parties were banned in germany after the last one ?
EDIT: I quite like him as a politician, and I'm probably going to vote for Die Republikaner, because I can't stomach voting for a fascist party and I despise the European Union too much to vote for the FDP.
the German Federal constitution has no provision for referendums. The constitution will have to be amended to allow for a referendum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Alas, Section II, Article 20, Line 2 does not provide for a referendum at the federal level. At the provincial level, referendums are provided for.
Funny how people don't get the chance to say "no" after they've said "yes".Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
:deal2: :deal:
Has there been any clamoring for a second vote in Ireland, or is this just the EU insisting it gets its way? Come on now, surely you don't view this as an innocent chance for the Irish people to ponder the question again? If you do, why have all the countries who voted "yes" or decreed they were in agreement not got a second chance to review their decisions?
The treaty requires full support. It hasn't got it. That means the treaty should be dead.
CR
What I find funny is how the jubilant 'no' camp assumes it is the spokesperson for Ireland. Close to half the Irish people voted 'yes'. There is a massive pro-Treaty and an even larger pro-EU camp in Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Why do they need to be silenced forever? Just because a previous referendum gave the anti-camp their favoured result? Should America never hold an election anymore now that the American people have voted 'correctly'?
~:confused:
The refused treaty, 'Lisbon' was in 2004. The referendum about a new treaty will be held five years later. The world is different, Ireland is different.
For one, for those who haven't noticed: the EU has been going trough its finest hour in the past few months. It is commonly regarded a great instrument of stablity during the financial crisis. The euro has proved its worth as well. :2thumbsup:
If you do, why have all the countries who voted "yes" or decreed they were in agreement not got a second chance to review their decisions?
Unless i am misunderstanding the issue, because the treaty was never ratified there is no decision for these countries to overturn
Edit: if anyone does want out they'll have to go the political route... in which case we'll declare war and make them stay! damn confederates...
Don't be daft EMFM, no one was stopping you from getting elected to Chancellor :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
It is rather ironic that the provision that was supposed to save us from a totalitarian transition has led us to accept one without choice. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Yes, you are correct. However, it does practically make the entire Lisbon Treaty unconstitutional.Quote:
Alas, Section II, Article 20, Line 2 does not provide for a referendum at the federal level.
Who knows, perhaps I'll consider running. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
It's probably splitting hairs, but I'm curious: Wasn't the reason for the referendum in Ireland for the people to decide whether to amend their own constitution, which would inturn allow adoption of Lisbon - not a "yea" or 'Nay" on Lisbon itself?
If I got that right (and I'm not sure I have) that method of ratifying the treaty seems doomed from the start.
"Would you rather: 1) give up all sovreignity over your own affairs, in favour of Brussels dictating? Or
2) Keep everything the way it is now?"
Who in their right mind would pick #1? The maybe 5% one-worlders, perhaps, is my best guess. If Ireland's leadership wants to get this thing passed, their gonna have to figure our a better way of framing the question.
My :2cents: (now worth 27 Trln ZD's).
Who in their right mind would pick #1? The maybe 5% one-worlders, perhaps, is my best guess.
The vote was fairly close so obviously quite a few people
I have never got the whole why would you want to be ruled by Brussels comment.... As if somehow londoners or dubliners are much better equipped
It's probably splitting hairs, but I'm curious: Wasn't the reason for the referendum in Ireland for the people to decide whether to amend their own constitution, which would inturn allow adoption of Lisbon - not a "yea" or 'Nay" on Lisbon itself?
I thought it was on the lisbon treaty itself, which is why the thing is being reworked, if they had said no oto a europoean constitution because it wasn't thier own the rest of the eu could have just gone ahead as ireland obviousoly didnt want in.... though im not sure....
Would you rather: 1) give up all sovreignity over your own affairs, in favour of Brussels dictating?
This annoy's me, plenty of people have said it so its not a go at you kurki
Does Washington dictate to all of america ? or is it simply where the political houses are housed ?
Brussels doesn't decide the direction of the eu, the eu does that through eu parliment and european leaders, obviously you give up a portion of control to be part of this union, i suppose you could call the choice this... direct control over your little power or shared control over a far greater power...
That being said you probably lose some control by not being a member, think usa to britian, were greatly affected by your huge power but have no influence over it, or we could have a small influence on it but lose some control over our own power....
Brussels is simply an alternate phrase for the European Parliament, just as Ottawa is for the Canadian Parliament, Washington for the American Congress, Berlin for the Bundestag/Bundesrat, and Moscow for Russia.
Hopefully they get it right this time.
Hold a referendum on a new referendum, voila doneQuote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
For information, the 2009 date is the deadline being set for the Irish government by the EU leadership.
There are some concessions being offered that may make the Lisbon Treaty more palatable. Until I see what these are, I cannot make much of a comment.
Louis is right though - there is no reason why a new referendum cannot be held if a newly amended treaty is being proposed. Like the British rebate, this may prove to be in our favour. However, from my personal point of view, I shall still be looking for a substantial increase in democratic accountability.
Unfortunately for the pro-European camp this attempt, whatever its merits, will be advocated by the most unpopular Taoiseach in modern history. And a re-run referendum will inevitably anger the electorate and if there are good changes, these will be lost in the fury and sound-bite politics.
when the nation state wishes to give away to a third party the authority i grant to it to act in my name then i do indeed expect to ask my consent via a referendum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Personally, if I was an Irishman, I'd be insulted. As an Englishman, I'm insulted.
The EU doesn't do itself any favours by acting like this.
*pictures Louis chuckling like a mad de Gaulle on acid*
From the Gruniads CiF...
:laugh4:Quote:
I agree with tomper2. Why don't they just be honest this time and leave the "no" box off the voting form?
Now then , if there are concessions being offered does that mean that the treaty is being altered in some way which would mean that the countries that have already ratified will have ratified a treaty that no longer exists and will have to (in the interests of democracy:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:) have to re-ratify the new amended amending treaty ?Quote:
There are some concessions being offered that may make the Lisbon Treaty more palatable. Until I see what these are, I cannot make much of a comment.
Will they ever get the message that as the original treaty was rejected , the amending treaty was also rejected and the proposed new amended amending treaty stands a good chance of being rejected if it gets put to the vote , that perhaps its time they realised their treaty is bollox and they should start again ?
Or will they just repeat the same old crap that they have worked really really hard and the people are just being selfish by saying the product on offer from their work is rubbish ?
That's a very good point Tribes. :laugh4:
I myself wish for the Lisbon Treaty to pass, but I'm outraged by what is a complete lack of democracy practice in terms of approval of the Treaty. That said, I don't think the treaty should pass until every single country does a referendum on such an important matter such is the delegation of key sovereign powers of dozens of nations in Europe.
To be honest I think the treaty itself should provide for europe-wide refferendums on important issues and provide for Stat-wide refferendums on its adoption.
Tribes makes a good point, if the treaty is changed it needs to be ratified again by everyone.
I don't take issue with anything you wrote - particularly in the challenge to my poorly worded statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
However predictable the likely presentation, I'd still like to know what the proposals may be before making my mind up. Though as you point out, the substantive changes I would lke to see would require a new treaty and thus a new round of ratification. I stand by my original argument that a new treaty, put to the consent of the people of Europe, is the only way forward.
I am quite sure that England is insulted that Ireland might not do as England pleases (those pesky, uppity Irish!). But I am afraid that any hurt feelings of English nationalism* will not be very high on the list of considerations for the Irish Republic during the referendum. ~;pQuote:
As an Englishman, I'm insulted.
*England. Not the UK. England mistakes English nationalism for British nationalism. The Scots, the Welsh, and across the Irish Sea, other national narratives prevail.
It's funny that England now wishes it had listened to De Gaulle, and had stayed out. Now it is too late. :beam:Quote:
*pictures Louis chuckling like a mad de Gaulle on acid*
De Gaulle is dead. Meanwhile, we have grown fond of England. The better we are aquainted with it, the more we like it! Their kicking and screaming, their little obstructionist plans - every week a new one!, their toy soldier nationalism, it is simpy adorable! We're never going to let go of you ever again. It's all way too sweet! Like a cute cuddly kitten, you can't escape my embrace no matter how much you struggle. :smitten:
You are right that 'Lisbon', and all other treaties, can only gain effect after they have been ratified by each EU member. This means two things:Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
1) The EU can not proscribe anything. Each country can and must decide through its own, and its own alone, democratic process whether the Treaty will be accepted. There is no dictate.
2) The Treaty must be ratified by all. 26 to 1 means the treaty is off. So in daily speech, it is said that a 'no' vote is a no to the Treaty and its follow-ups.
Doomed from the start, then? Possibly. But there is no other way for a democratic union of 27 democratic states. The EU takes painstaking care not to intrude on the democratic prerogatives of its member states. Not because the 'EU' wants to, but because the EU does not wield any meaningful power itself. The EU is a collection of 27 independent states, each one jealously guarding its own position and interests.
This, btw, is one of the great hidden functions of the EU. National strife, nationalist aggression finds a means of expressing itself within and against the EU. It's a pressure valve, a jousting arena. The EU is a contuining process. This continuing process is the goal itself, instead of reaching any permanent state of integration - if the EU ever it achieves its goals, I want it immediately disbanded, to start the whole process back from the beginning.
To put it differently: when Europeans believe in an almighty kabal of Brussels bureaucrats, they don't believe in almighty Jews. So long as Berlusconi can put up his xenophobe shows in Europe, wave his fist in the air a bit, insult the people above the Alps, the Italians are satisfied - 'boy, did we show them good!!1'. This prevents, 'deflates', any impulse to invade Albania again. Likewise for the Poles, who had the opportunity to take out their frustration over their 20th century in the EU, instead of against internal scapegoats or external enemies.
Sheer bliss. ~;)
So yes, let Ireland stall EU integration for another fifty years. Because that's another fifty years of peace in Europe. Another fifty years of nationalist sentiment, of outrage, of paranoia that's blissfully diverted and deflated like a tire with too much air.
As for giving up sovereignity to the EU, let me use the example of NATO. Does a NATO member state 'surrender' its sovereignity, or does it protect and maintain its sovereignity through NATO? Surely, sovereignity over one's defense, the ability to wield independent militair power, are the first means and object of independence? Or...could it be that perhaps because members share a bit of their sovereignity that they are able to maintain it? That cooperation it is the very instrument through which they safeguard their democracy and independence?
Peculiarly, for defensive matters people will accept this mechanism. When it comes to the economy, agriculture, environment or the very stability of our democracies, the argument is strangely never accepted.
Hmmm... political treaty as subliminal pressure valve against (natural?) aggressive nationalism/expansionism.
I never thought of it that way before. Thanks, Louis.
Louis:
Just as an aside, the other 12 democracies forming the United States had to practically besiege Rhode Island before they would ratify. So it is not impossible for something good to come from a beginning that involved a bit of strong-arming (though I concede that this would NOT be the ideal tone).
I totally agree, it does act as an excellent pressure valve, and i agree one that functions best while the EU remains an evolving inter-state process between 27 separate nations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
One comment: Jolly good and please carry on, but the UK doesn't need it.
NATO is a defensive alliance, what we face with the EU is a common foreign policy. If Britain wants to invade somewhere I absolutely do not want it to have to ask permission to do so from Javier Solano.
The flaw, Louis, which you did recognize, is that one day the European Union will exist as a state. Then, where is the outlet? Conflict. What we have now may be alright, but what will we have in the future?
But you never did, nor does your particular opinion really care. It is one of the bad things of Representative Democracy. All it has to happen is for Gordon Brown to ask permission. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Furunculu5
I get the impressions that for you the whole EU issue always boils down to your great imperial right to kill people all over the world. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculu5
An extensive poll study shortly after the Irish no vote revealed the following:
73% of the Irish consider EU membership to be a good thing.
63% of the 'no' voters consider EU membership to be a good thing.
(The European average is 52% in favour of the EU)
Only 18% of the Irish electorate wants to be less involved with the EU.
Yet, 53% of Irish voters voted 'no' to the Lisbon Treaty.
This is why there is every reason to try to reach a settlement. Even among the no voters, two-thirds are of the opinion that the EU is beneficial to Ireland. Yet, it is also clear that the EU can not function properly without a streamlining of its institutions and functioning.
The EU went from fifteen to twenty-seven members in 2004. Simultanously, to help the EU cope with this, a new set of treaties was supposed to go into effect. The first happened, the latter didn't. This is the heart of the problem.
If one is against the EU, there is reason to support this ongoing situation, whereby the EU can not function properly. If one is in favour of the EU, as three-quarters of the Irish are, then there is every reason to try to find a way out.
Preferably, what we need, is a new Irish government, with new energy and charisma, that enjoys the support of the electorate. One that can a) negotiate for Ireland the main provisions and concessions that are sought by the no-camp. And, b) that can on the basis of this present a clear and coherent argument for a yes vote based on the Irish interest in a functioning EU.
The problem is that Ireland, the no-camp, does not have one or two clear demands that can be negotiated over. There's a whole array of demands, not all of them straightforward:Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Most of these can be negotiated over. Other countries have received specific exemptions too. For example, the UK and Poland demanded that European human rights must not be applicable to their subjects, so they were given exemption status. Likewise, if Ireland fears for liberal abortion laws, then maybe Ireland can seek exemption status from women's rights provisions.Quote:
The farmers, who have received two thirds of Ireland's EU subsidies, argue that their handouts will be drastically cut, devastating rural areas.
Pro-life groups say Ireland will be forced to relax its abortion laws, pacifists say Ireland's cherished neutrality will be in danger because of provisions for a European army, and patriots say Ireland will be giving up the independence it fought so hard for less than 100 years ago.
On top of all that, there are fears that a centralised taxation system will mean the end of Ireland's favourable 12.5 per cent corporation tax (compared with the UK's 28 per cent), which has helped attract so many businesses.
However, any concession over each of these issues, will also reduce the support for the 'yes' camp. If the EU promises more handouts to Irish farmers, it will lose support too. Even so, there seems to be no other option but for concessions.
If I were a pro-EU strategist, I would urge the EU to remain completely absent from any Irish debate.
Instead, I'd invite in all the no-camps from Europe. Bring in the UKIP, let them tell the Irish that they should vote no. Bring in the Polish nationalists, let them spout threats to any Irishman who even considers voting yes. The 'no-camp' must be made to look to be the camp of vested interests, of foreign interference, of arrogance, to be the camp telling Ireland what to vote. Whereas the 'yes-camp' should present itself as the calm, rational, Irish camp that has formulated clear, traditional Irish interests and that seeks to maintain them in the face of foreign interventions.
This in a reversal of what happened during the last referendum. Where the no-camp managed to spin the referendum into an 'arrogant foreigners telling Ireland what to do' versus 'Irish resistance'.
but that will change with a common foreign policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
Damn , and there was me thinking that what the no-camp were able to spin was the yes camp saying vote "yes" but not being able to say why because they hadn't even read the bloody treaty , and then following up with the idiocy of "The EU as it was set up has been beneficial to Ireland , vote yes to change the way it is set up" .Quote:
This in a reversal of what happened during the last referendum. Where the no-camp managed to spin the referendum into an 'arrogant foreigners telling Ireland what to do' versus 'Irish resistance'.
So when you add that to the aftermath of the last second re-run of a referendum vote where the majority who I have met who voted "Yes" loudly complain about what has happened due to that treaty and where they didn't have the faintest idea what they were voting for but were bamboozled by the governments "neutral and balanced representation" where yes meant no which means yes and no and no means no but yes and no .
So it isn't so much the arrogant foriegners Louis it is the arrogant gobshites in the Irish government .
I am Pro-EU. And it is because I am Pro-EU that I vote no in the French one (referendum). Referendum superbly ignored by Sarkozy the 1st mind you.
If Chavez would have done that, it would have been a blockade and big and long speeches at the UN to condemn this.
But, nothing.... What a good example of democracy and good governance we try to sell to the rest of the world… Ignore “vox populi vox dei” these plebeians ignore what is good for them.
I was dreaming of other Europe.
I'm a bit surprised no one opened a thread about the irish gov's decision to make people vote again for (or against) the EU constitutionnal treaty.
To my eyes it's a shame to try to push laws down the throat of the population and definitely hope our fellow hibernians will tell their technocrats to p*** off.
Just my two cents....
Opinion noted. Threads merged. :bow:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Pft. Ever since 2005 and all the way up to the election Sarkozy made it abundantly clear that he would strive for a mini-treaty, to be ratified by parliament. He was duly elected. This is the democratic legitimation. It's got nothing to do with Europe. You guys simply lost the national elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristuskhan
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Sarkozy's European programme in brief. The phenomenal thing about Sarkozy is that he's a politician who outlined in great detail exactly what he intended to do once elected. Everybody knew what he was about. What's more, after the election he actually went and did all that he said he would do. This gives him a tremendous mandate and political legitimization.
Je suis vraiment désolé, mes amis! https://img242.imageshack.us/img242/6087/cul2ua1.gif
Meh, what a bunch of :daisy: guarantees are offered to Ireland. Continued tax haven status for corporations, avoidance of military obligations and a near complete ban on abortion. :shame:
Here are my thoughts on them:
It's 2008, not 1922. Just join NATO, like other responsible and developed democracies.
It's 2008, stop prosecuting raped fourteen year-olds who seek to abort their uncle's baby as if you're Saudi Arabia.
It's 2008, get to the fact that bending over backwards to the whims of corporations has got the capitalist world into major trouble.
Oh well, whatever it takes.
Quote:
as regards all member states, nothing in the Lisbon treaty makes any change of any kind to the extent or operation of the Union’s competence in relation to taxation;
the Lisbon treaty does not prejudice the security and defence policy of member states, including Ireland’s traditional policy of neutrality, and the obligations of most other member states;
a guarantee that the provisions of the Irish constitution concerning the right to life, education and the family are wholly unaffected by the conferral of legal status on the EU charter of fundamental rights by the Lisbon treaty and by the justice and home affairs provision of the treaty.
Well, Irish are gonna be asked to vote until they get it right, which means until they say yes. Better do it now and get it over with or it's gonna ruin more of your weekends...
Not really. Voting for someone doesn't mean you automatically agree with all of their policies. If someone did, I would actually be rather frightened. It would prove that people actually do decide based on political advertisements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Daft, but their choiceQuote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Daft, but their choice
Still labouring under the wrong-headed idea that ireland is rich because of EU subsidies, which they then ungratefully throw back in the faces of generous continental taxpayers by undercutting them?
My weekend? Ireland has ruined my century. ~:mecry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Also, would I be completely wrong in assuming that you are still a trifle dismayed over my qualification of the Orthodox Balkan world as 'Mars, from where we're sitting'? ~;)
Maybe my deliberately inflammatory qualification buried the thought-provoking point there. Namely, that unless one is a proponent of a global government, there must be geographical and political limit to the EU. Even we internationalists have one, that is, you and I both. My EU ends at the Mediterranean, the Bosporus and the Russian border. Politically, it ends at a confederation. Your EU ends somewhere too. I shall assume you do not want a full federation with Pakistan and Sudan.
The point is, that we can discuss the desired extent of the political and geographical limits. But we can not discuss their existence itself, or claim any moral highground against those with smaller geographical or political limits to the EU.
Daft indeed.Quote:
Daft, but their choice
As for 'their choice', let me give you all my careful, balanced opinion about Irish free choice. How shall I phrase it so as not to come across as too crass? Ah, here you go:
Edit: The previous statement here was, upon reflection, not a good idea. Edited to 'the rights of Irish women are my concern'.
I am too pro-choice to consider it NOT their choice, that is, of individual Irish women. To repeat my old argument: the rights of women are always relegated to second rank. In this case, to inflated demands of national sovereignity.
Human rights anywere in the world are the concern of all. Saudi-Arabia can not give a raped teenage girl the lash. Ireland can not lock up raped fourteen-year old girls either.
I do not remain silent in the face of religious fundamentalism. Five hundred threads about evil Muslims on the .org but when it happens in the EU, apparantly we must remain silent or we'll be accused of being undemocratic, imperialist, fascist and arrogant.
Nope.Quote:
Still labouring under the wrong-headed idea that ireland is rich because of EU subsidies, which they then ungratefully throw back in the faces of generous continental taxpayers by undercutting them?
Ireland is rich because it understood its position in 1985: an English speaking country, with a well-educated workforce, combined with low-wages and full acces to the world's largest market. How good can it possibly get? :idea2:
Any direct EU subsidies merely served to make a 'take-off' possible, and to speed up development.
Irish corporate tax regime is intimitately connected with its position within the EU. It can not be understood outside of it. Switzerland's banking secret can not be understood outside a context of Switzerland's neutrality, stability, geo-political position and the existense of a world outside of Switzeland. The absense of income tax in Monaco, the tax regime of the Caymans, none can not understood without their outside working.
The sad thing about this new referendum is that the worst of the EU meets the worst of Ireland.
Of course, the best of both should've met. Negotiations should be about a better democratic functioning of the EU. About the Irish forcing the EU to live up to its standards. Instead of more of this mechanism of a power hungry EU abandoning its ideals to cater to particularistic demands just to keep growing, and petty national demands forcing the EU into a position where it can't live up to its ideals.
:shame:
by those terms of reference -
I would like to see the EU limited:
> geographically to the extent of turkey and the ukraine, georgia, etc.
> politically to a free trade area
I agree, but you yourself shrugged off the democratic concerns back in the thread raised after the original referendum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Since your position then was that the un-elected elites knew better how to steer the EU, so presenting a good treaty for the ratification of the peoples throughout Europe was redundant. In that light, I fail to see why you complain about an elitist fudge now (though I suspect your usual provocation :wink:)
As for Ireland and her awful abortion laws, you might find the comparison with Saudi Arabia a trifle over-stated. We are a democracy, and eventually enough of the people will vote for sensible laws. However, as we see time and time again in threads here, the view you and I share is not universal, and in democracies, one needs to win the argument with a majority. If a majority is still in thrall to a religious power, then that argument takes some winning but we are not far off - unlike the stick you choose to insult us with. (Usually, immigration has a positive effect on changing attitudes, but in this case many of our immigrants are from a country that has, if t'were possible, and even greater obeisance to the Holy See).
I realise that your hyperbole is adopted for effect, but it is precisely that kind of hectoring from EU proponents that alienates this people, for whom stubborn resistance to outside imposition is almost a genetic trait.
Bully us, and we are your foes for several lifetimes. Charm us, and we're anybody's for a pint and a smoke.
That, however, was really funny, thank you. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Possibly. But I re-read the 'X case' episode again, and it made my blood boil.Quote:
As for Ireland and her awful abortion laws, you might find the comparison with Saudi Arabia a trifle over-stated.
This article gives a nice perspective on Irish nationalism, the identification of Miss X's body with the symbolical body of Ireland, the need to police the female body, and EU membership.
A Catholic Irish girl, taken away from Ireland and send overseas, 'England' murdering her baby, made possible by EU regulation - the episode is rife with symbolism, a stab in the heart of reactionary (and no longer emancipatory!) Irish nationalism.
Whether opportune in a charm offensive to sway Ireland into the yes-camp or not, I am perfectly consistent in who I side with, whether they be Saudi clerics, Iranian ayatollahs, or Irish priests: no patriarchal policing of the female body in the name of protection of this embodiment of the nation and of the moral hygiene of the religion.
Although I realise that in the case of Catholics, I will be a minority voice. I've said it several times in 'Evil Islam Supresses Women!' threads: we won't hear the right when it does not concern brown foreigners. So, me, I accuse you all of blatant hypocrisy and Islamophobia for not agreeing with me over Ireland's sovereignity. A sovereignity, that is better described as non-sovereignity. Because the abstract symbol of national sovereignity takes precedence here over concrete sovereignity over one's very body. Freedom is individual, not collective. Hence, I argue that it is in fact me who stands up for Irish freedom and sovereignity, and not the others.
I do not in the least bit expect that I endeared anybody to the EU over the past few weeks here. For this, one needs to be charming indeed, perhaps nuanced and considerate too. Me, my posts had all the charm and nuance of a charging rhinoceros.Quote:
I realise that your hyperbole is adopted for effect, but it is precisely that kind of hectoring from EU proponents that alienates this people, for whom stubborn resistance to outside imposition is almost a genetic trait.
Bully us, and we are your foes for several lifetimes. Charm us, and we're anybody's for a pint and a smoke.
I announced it at post 4000. Stubbornly singlesided in content and provocative in form for my next thousand posts. Why? Because when I write carefully crafted posts that weigh all the pros and cons of an argument, I get polite nods and everybody likes me. When I pick a side and stubbornly defend it with pigheaded disregard for nuance, everybody hates my guts but I get plenty of heated debate. ~;)
Confusion over what is meant as thought-provoking provocation, what is sheer buffoonery and what is serious, is entirely unintentional and the result of my own argumentative shortcomings. Live and learn, as they say. And one learns by trying something new, like experimentative posting styles.
Weekends for the Irish. They'll have to do it until yes wins. So, 6 months from now again they'll have to go out to vote if they say no etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Yep, completely wrong. It probably would have had a major effect some 5 years ago when I wanted western Europeans to accept us from the "Orthodox Balkans" as you put it, and was actually always making an effort to leave a good impression, either in person or on the internet. You know how people are fond of stereotypes, so my logic was if I'm the first Serb they met or talked to and I leave a good impression, they'll generally extend that favourable impression to all Serbs. But, now, I couldn't give an intercourse what western Europeans think about Serbs or Serbia and I'm against Serbia becoming an EU member, for many reasons... So if Serbia ever gets close to becoming a member, I would be the guy on the streets demanding a referendum about that (if politicians suddenly decide that only a parliament decision is enough) and spend much of my time convincing people to vote No. Free trade, free flow of ideas, capital, all that stuff can be achieved without becoming a member...Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
There are certain thing in motion and things are gonna have to change. European nations are falling behind, and it's going to continue. The only remotely sustainable solution is greater federalization of Europe. It might not be my or your thing, but it has to happen and most probably it's gonna happen. Considering limits, I have a bit of a "De Gaullic" view of Europe - from Atlantic to the Urals. Any kind of unification of Europe not involving Russia and to a much lesser extent Turkey is flawed. That doesn't mean that Russia has to be a member per se, but some kind of close cooperation will have to exist. Seeing EU as something to limit or entirely remove Russia's influence is flawed and unsustainable and will bring more problems than it solves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
halleujah!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Pft. You only have thirty posts to your name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I won't debate with n00bs like you. :smash:
If freedom is individual then why are individuals throughout Europe not being allowed to vote on the treaty and why are those who do vote being told that their individual choice must be changed because the collective politicians don't like the individuals choice ?Quote:
Freedom is individual, not collective.
If you think the treaty is so good then pressure your politicians to have a vote and let your individuals have their freedom of choice in this treaty....oh sorry that won't happen because the treaty would probably get a big NON like in most countries .
you call me a n00b? your from 2004! :skull:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
[edit]
good post tribesman
not that i have much sympathy with direct democracy per-se, but in the instance of the state giving away its borrowed powers then i expect exactly that.
[/edit]
Their choice musn't change. Their wishes must be listened to and seen to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
The commonly accepted signal of the Irish 'no' is: 'Yes, we want an EU. But no, not the one proposed in the Treaty'.
So, one negotiates. What are the grievances, the wishes, the objections? What can be done to solve them? This is for the Irish and their European partners to work out, to see if a satisfactory and workable compromise can be reached. I really don't understand the outcry over a new referendum. This, in fact, is what politics is all about. Strip this case of nationalism, imagine that it is about an internal politicised subject, and suddenly it looks like a normal political process.
As for referendums, I dislike them with a passion. They are never about the issue at stake. And direct democracy doesn't work. If I need surgery, I will pick my surgeon, but I won't read the specifics of the case and demand the surgery happens in accordance with my ideas. That is a recipe for disaster.
If I go to a restaurant, I will decide my choice based upon the chef. I do not want a direct say in how he cooks my food. God forbid, no.
Likewise for politics. I shall be the ultimate judge of who is in charge, but I am much too aware of my limited understanding of all legal, economic, social and other aspects of legislation. And even if I wasn't, I have better things to do with my time.