Only mentioned it in the post, to highlight the issue of a minority imposing the will to a majority.
which is what you and Rhinocerus imply, by saying that Europe should respect the Irish vote by not moving further along with integration, because it would be disregarding Ireland.
In the present scenario, where Lisbon is not valid, is a country - any country, big or small - they can veto any decision.
With qualified majority voting, which Lisbon advocated, any country can get together with other countries who support the same issue and make sure it goes through with MAJORITY VOTING.
Again, in a group of 27 this is more democratic.
exactly, maybe the irish find supporters. and there will be a new majority for a different kind of treaty. everything is open at the moment. and nothing will be imposed on anybody.
you voted against the treaty. it's dead. something new can surface (with the help of the irish) and we'll see what happens...
the whole situation is so far a way from some absolutist dictatorship as anyone could ever imagine...
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
i don't think one is better than the other. i think they are equally democratic. and there are referendums in germany.
maybe I am not so sceptical because germany is a federal state itself with 16 (3 of them only cities) different state parliaments. there is conflict, but it works.
and unlike the UK and US we don't have a two party system (not really sure about Ireland) so I'm used to coalitions, consensus, compromises and refraising of laws several times so that everyone can agree...
m.
Also - correct me, if I'm wrong - but I believe referendum in Germany on a FEDERAL level is illegal. [Possible on Lander and local levels, though.]
So the whole basis that the EU treaty should be voted by referenda is a moot point. {as if that would prove the democracy test of the treaty]
Ireland had to have a referendum otherwise the Treaty would have been illegal if it entered into force.
The Irish voted democratically. The vote was no, therefore, by EU policy and their own EU law the treaty cannot be entered into force.
Please explain to me how that equals Ireland imposing its minority will upon others?
It doesn't, simply because the EU gave every country veto power. And that was probably a democratic decision to which all members agreed (so if there is something in the treaty their country could say no).
What is happening right now is EU policy working out just fine like they intended it to work, however, now they don't like the result and they want to go round Ireland.
It's not hard to grasp at all. Your frustration should be directed towards the EU for giving every country veto power. Not towards the Irish voters.
If the EU decides to implement this treaty anyway it just shows it's unfair and stinking lying nature.
the veto is respected. the treaty won't be implemented.
what gives you the right to demand that other european countries can't come to another settlement and found what might be called the super-duper-group of europe, which is a more integrated body of european states that everbody is allowed to join.
even if it is close to the thing the lisbon treaty was planning. you won't have to be enslaved by it if you don't want to.
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
the veto is respected. the treaty won't be implemented.
what gives you the right to demand that other european countries can't come to another settlement and found what might be called the super-duper-group of europe, which is a more integrated body of european states that everbody is allowed to join.
even if it is close to the thing the lisbon treaty was planning. you won't have to be enslaved by it if you don't want to.
m.
Well, they can't do that within the EU. If they want to start another European body next to the EU and call it the super-duper-group of Europe, go ahead.
Ireland had to have a referendum otherwise the Treaty would have been illegal if it entered into force.
The Irish voted democratically. The vote was no, therefore, by EU policy and their own EU law the treaty cannot be entered into force.
Please explain to me how that equals Ireland imposing its minority will upon others?
It doesn't, simply because the EU gave every country veto power. And that was probably a democratic decision to which all members agreed (so if there is something in the treaty their country could say no).
What is happening right now is EU policy working out just fine like they intended it to work, however, now they don't like the result and they want to go round Ireland.
It's not hard to grasp at all. Your frustration should be directed towards the EU for giving every country veto power. Not towards the Irish voters.
If the EU decides to implement this treaty anyway it just shows it's unfair and stinking lying nature.
That's not what I'm saying at all.
The Irish expressed their vote and veto the Treaty. Fine.
No argument, or frustration - or whatever else you're assuming I'm feeling.
HOWEVER
What would be imposing the will of a minority is if for Ireland to protest [as Helen and Rhino have expressed of being brushed aside and ignored] if the rest of Europe wants to go ahead with further integration.
Why would the EU be "unfair and stinking lying nature" if the other countries want to go ahead?
Are the will of the people of the other 26 country to be ignored?
Well, they can't do that within the EU. If they want to start another European body next to the EU and call it the super-duper-group of Europe, go ahead.
That's exactly what they are trying to do though - two-tier EU. Ireland, Britain, probably the Czech Republic, and maybe Norway on one tier, and everyone else on the other. And it's gonna cause a lot of problems.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Well, they can't do that within the EU. If they want to start another European body next to the EU and call it the super-duper-group of Europe, go ahead.
They can do what they want if there is a majority for it.
Politically it is possible, and indeed envisaged in the founding Treaties.
It all boils down to a federalist and nationalistic view really.
Well, they can't do that within the EU. If they want to start another European body next to the EU and call it the super-duper-group of Europe, go ahead.
yeah, but this is basically what other people object to.
in the process the EU might become an empty shell, especially if 26 countries want to be part of super-duper-europe (via referendum or parliamentary vote, I don't care)
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
That's exactly what they are trying to do though - two-tier EU. Ireland, Britain, probably the Czech Republic, and maybe Norway on one tier, and everyone else on the other. And it's gonna cause a lot of problems.
But there is already a different-tier Europe.
No one is imposing that.
Britain and Norway wanted out of the Euro, Schengen, etc.
Norway never has been a member of the EU.
and I don't think really that it is a problem of big and small...luxembourg, belgium, austria aren't exactly big countries...
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Norway never has been a member of the EU.
and I don't think really that it is a problem of big and small...luxembourg, belgium, austria aren't exactly big countries...
m.
You're technically correct. Norway is part of EFTA - still a European agreement.
Just to highlight that already we have different levels of agreement, of co-operation and integration.
You're technically correct. Norway is part of EFTA - still a European agreement.
Just to highlight that already we have different levels of agreement, of co-operation and integration.
It's not monolithic.
yes, that's what I pointed out before. there are already countries in europe that prefere a mere economic cooperation like Norway. others also tried to harmonize certan laws (within the EU), others decided to have a common currency (without bullying others to do likewise), yet others don't care at all, like switzerland...why should it be so illegal if some countries decided to form an even closer union (without excluding others to join now or later).
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
yes, that's what I pointed out before. there are already countries in europe that prefere a mere economic cooperation like Norway. others also tried to harmonize certan laws (within the EU), others decided to have a common currency (without bullying others to do likewise), yet others don't care at all, like switzerland...why should it be so illegal if some countries decided to form an even closer union (without excluding others to join now or later).
m.
sorry - must have missed it in the tons of posts in the past few hours!
but yes, exactly, my point, too.
Don't get the fuss why other countries should not integrate further if they so wish.
I recommend you go to this website http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org
download the necessary data if you have the possibility to take a look at it and you will see the parliaments indeed don't fully reflect the will of "the people"
-in the matter of homosexual rights
-death penatly
-acceptance of migrants
-divorce
-women's rights
etc.
it is because "the people" change their mind every day, because of short-sigthened self-interested, that are everything but ignorant or dull, but not necessarily the best foundation for everyday politics.
m.
i know you posted this about 4 pages back, but you're proving yourself wrong here RE: representative democracy being the truest form of democracy. If doesnt matter if theyre voting over social issues or voting whether to buy an ice-cream. Government ignoring clearly expressed will of the people not representing the majority of people. => Undemocratic.
(Obviously it represents the majority of the government.)
i know you posted this about 4 pages back, but you're proving yourself wrong here RE: representative democracy being the truest form of democracy. If doesnt matter if theyre voting over social issues or voting whether to buy an ice-cream. Government ignoring clearly expressed will of the people not representing the majority of people. => Undemocratic.
(Obviously it represents the majority of the government.)
I never said it's a truer form of democracy...I said decisions made by referendums and a representative parliament are equally democratic.
but if the people are undemocratic themselves. eg. not wanting homosexuals in government, then I can live with the leading parties not even making that offer in their programmes...
it's a tricky question, and not so black and white, better or worse. I don't think it is undemocratic if a parliament is elected then there is a serial killer on the lose and everybody is in support of the death penalty all of a sudden for 5 months, and the parliament doesn't represent the (temporary) will of the people here...
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
But you cannot impose the will of one country on the rest of Europe.
That's how a VETO WORKS... it's quite different to an OPT OUT. Please stop ignoring this. We vetoed it... it's over... end of story. If we simply opted out, it should continue... but we vetoed it.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
The Irish expressed their vote and veto the Treaty. Fine.
No argument, or frustration - or whatever else you're assuming I'm feeling.
HOWEVER
What would be imposing the will of a minority is if for Ireland to protest [as Helen and Rhino have expressed of being brushed aside and ignored] if the rest of Europe wants to go ahead with further integration.
Why would the EU be "unfair and stinking lying nature" if the other countries want to go ahead?
Are the will of the people of the other 26 country to be ignored?
If they find an acceptable solution that ALL can agree on. The Lisbon Treaty in its ENTIRETY was pure bullshit... holes and contradictions all over the place. Even I'm sure WE could agree on something acceptable.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
They can do what they want if there is a majority for it.
Politically it is possible, and indeed envisaged in the founding Treaties.
It all boils down to a federalist and nationalistic view really.
So you're fine with a two tier europe... you really think that's what europe is and should be about? Punishing those who use their vote to disagree and creating an elitist system?
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Within the core integrationist countries disputes should be avoided through recourse to qualified majority voting and the ECJ.
For all the others, there's the ECJ.
the core integrationist countries? What's that? The most important countries?
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
the core integrationist countries? What's that? The most important countries?
you say you're so proud as Irish, but it rather seems you have some kind of deficiancy complex...(which is often the reason behind an overblown national pride)
for the 10th time: the treaty was supposed to give smaller countries more power, so that they were able (if they formed coalitions) even to outnumber your so called important countries...
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
So you're fine with a two tier europe... you really think that's what europe is and should be about? Punishing those who use their vote to disagree and creating an elitist system?
it's just the last resort if NOTHING else is possible..
thus it is very unlikely...
but then again, you said yourself (sorry to quote you again) that you don't want this union anymore...
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
you say you're so proud as Irish, but it rather seems you have some kind of deficiancy complex...(which is often the reason behind an overblown national pride)
for the 10th time: the treaty was supposed to give smaller countries more power, so that they were able (if they formed coalitions) even to outnumber your so called important countries...
m.
why should countries be forming coalitions? :eek: Are we trying to make another soviet union? I certainly don't have a deficiancy complex... I simply don't understand why the rest of you don't understand how important we are
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Comments
Ireland is not imposing its will on a majority!
The EU gave every member VETO power.
Your problem is with the EU, not the Irish.
naděje umírá poslední
exactly, maybe the irish find supporters. and there will be a new majority for a different kind of treaty. everything is open at the moment. and nothing will be imposed on anybody.
you voted against the treaty. it's dead. something new can surface (with the help of the irish) and we'll see what happens...
the whole situation is so far a way from some absolutist dictatorship as anyone could ever imagine...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
hehehe
It is if - as Helen and Rhino - imply that the EU should not go along with further integration, as they claim we are dismissing their vote.
No one said the Irish is a problem.
There is now a crisis because of the vote of the Irish referendum.
The Irish must also live with the consequences of their vote, which may be the status quo while the other member states chose an "ever closer union."
Vetos count for a lot because just one can kill any policy initiative, as the Irish referendum just proves.
Which country is overriding Ireland's sovereignty???
Are you referring to:
- the EU commission
- the EU parliament
- the Council of Ministers
- the ECJ
Ireland have representatives in all of those.
Also - correct me, if I'm wrong - but I believe referendum in Germany on a FEDERAL level is illegal. [Possible on Lander and local levels, though.]
So the whole basis that the EU treaty should be voted by referenda is a moot point. {as if that would prove the democracy test of the treaty]
Ireland had to have a referendum otherwise the Treaty would have been illegal if it entered into force.
The Irish voted democratically. The vote was no, therefore, by EU policy and their own EU law the treaty cannot be entered into force.
Please explain to me how that equals Ireland imposing its minority will upon others?
It doesn't, simply because the EU gave every country veto power. And that was probably a democratic decision to which all members agreed (so if there is something in the treaty their country could say no).
What is happening right now is EU policy working out just fine like they intended it to work, however, now they don't like the result and they want to go round Ireland.
It's not hard to grasp at all. Your frustration should be directed towards the EU for giving every country veto power. Not towards the Irish voters.
If the EU decides to implement this treaty anyway it just shows it's unfair and stinking lying nature.
naděje umírá poslední
what gives you the right to demand that other european countries can't come to another settlement and found what might be called the super-duper-group of europe, which is a more integrated body of european states that everbody is allowed to join.
even if it is close to the thing the lisbon treaty was planning. you won't have to be enslaved by it if you don't want to.
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Well, they can't do that within the EU. If they want to start another European body next to the EU and call it the super-duper-group of Europe, go ahead.
naděje umírá poslední
That's not what I'm saying at all.
The Irish expressed their vote and veto the Treaty. Fine.
No argument, or frustration - or whatever else you're assuming I'm feeling.
HOWEVER
What would be imposing the will of a minority is if for Ireland to protest [as Helen and Rhino have expressed of being brushed aside and ignored] if the rest of Europe wants to go ahead with further integration.
Why would the EU be "unfair and stinking lying nature" if the other countries want to go ahead?
Are the will of the people of the other 26 country to be ignored?
That's exactly what they are trying to do though - two-tier EU. Ireland, Britain, probably the Czech Republic, and maybe Norway on one tier, and everyone else on the other. And it's gonna cause a lot of problems.
They can do what they want if there is a majority for it.
Politically it is possible, and indeed envisaged in the founding Treaties.
It all boils down to a federalist and nationalistic view really.
yeah, but this is basically what other people object to.
in the process the EU might become an empty shell, especially if 26 countries want to be part of super-duper-europe (via referendum or parliamentary vote, I don't care)
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
But there is already a different-tier Europe.
No one is imposing that.
Britain and Norway wanted out of the Euro, Schengen, etc.
Ireland has expressed their vote.
There is no coercion.
What problems do you envisage?
yes that's true.
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
I can see trading disputes, taxation disputes, immigration disputes... I can see a lot of east/west polarisation.
Within the core integrationist countries disputes should be avoided through recourse to qualified majority voting and the ECJ.
For all the others, there's the ECJ.
and I don't think really that it is a problem of big and small...luxembourg, belgium, austria aren't exactly big countries...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
You're technically correct. Norway is part of EFTA - still a European agreement.
Just to highlight that already we have different levels of agreement, of co-operation and integration.
It's not monolithic.
yes, that's what I pointed out before. there are already countries in europe that prefere a mere economic cooperation like Norway. others also tried to harmonize certan laws (within the EU), others decided to have a common currency (without bullying others to do likewise), yet others don't care at all, like switzerland...why should it be so illegal if some countries decided to form an even closer union (without excluding others to join now or later).
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
sorry - must have missed it in the tons of posts in the past few hours!
but yes, exactly, my point, too.
Don't get the fuss why other countries should not integrate further if they so wish.
i know you posted this about 4 pages back, but you're proving yourself wrong here RE: representative democracy being the truest form of democracy. If doesnt matter if theyre voting over social issues or voting whether to buy an ice-cream. Government ignoring clearly expressed will of the people not representing the majority of people. => Undemocratic.
(Obviously it represents the majority of the government.)
I never said it's a truer form of democracy...I said decisions made by referendums and a representative parliament are equally democratic.
but if the people are undemocratic themselves. eg. not wanting homosexuals in government, then I can live with the leading parties not even making that offer in their programmes...
it's a tricky question, and not so black and white, better or worse. I don't think it is undemocratic if a parliament is elected then there is a serial killer on the lose and everybody is in support of the death penalty all of a sudden for 5 months, and the parliament doesn't represent the (temporary) will of the people here...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
you say you're so proud as Irish, but it rather seems you have some kind of deficiancy complex...(which is often the reason behind an overblown national pride)
for the 10th time: the treaty was supposed to give smaller countries more power, so that they were able (if they formed coalitions) even to outnumber your so called important countries...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
it's just the last resort if NOTHING else is possible..
thus it is very unlikely...
but then again, you said yourself (sorry to quote you again) that you don't want this union anymore...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you