Nicolas Sarkozy plans to bypass Irish no vote

Heineken Helen

nobody wrote:

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.

That was a reaction... in the past few days, we've heard a lot of threats and bullshit... of course one is going to react.

nobody

Heineken Helen wrote:

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

you are displaying more and more of your political expertise...
coaltions are an core element of democracy, they hinder extremist positions to take power and mediate between different opinions to shape a consensus...what does that have to do with the soviet union?

m.

nobody

Heineken Helen wrote:

That was a reaction... in the past few days, we've heard a lot of threats and bullshit... of course one is going to react.

you said it on 04-28-2008, 12:33 PM

it was your opening of the whole discussion in the lisbon treaty threat...

get your own oppinion straight and once in a while also respont to parts of threats that don't fit your set frame of mind, like my comment about different "nations" living as citizens of one country...
also in germany for example each state can even set up it's own educational system without the federal goverment having any influence on it.

m.

Heineken Helen

nobody wrote:

you are displaying more and more of your political expertise...
coaltions are an core element of democracy, they hinder extremist positions to take power and mediate between different opinions to shape a consensus...what does that have to do with the soviet union?

m.

Because when I suggested countries would form coalitions as part of my argument, it was laughed off. I pointed out the voting blocs in, dare I say, the Eurovision.

Heineken Helen

nobody wrote:

you said it on 04-28-2008, 12:33 PM

it was the your opening of the whole discussion in the lisbon treaty threat...

get your own oppinion straight and once in a while also respont to parts of threats that don't fit your set frame of mind, like my comment about different "nations" living as citizens of one country...
also in germany for example each state can even set up it's own educational system without the federal goverment having any influence on it.

m.

that's fine... and same in the US I guess, with the states havin their different laws. That's perfect! Leave each country to govern themselves.

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

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.

You vetoed that Treaty.

That Treaty is legally dead.

But not POLITICALLY.

You did not veto how the other member states can continue their path towards further integration.

What's so bad if the other EU countries go ahead with further integration???

It won't be imposed upon Ireland. The Irish people will will be respected.

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

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 already in existance a two-tier Europe!

And what punishment??? Are there sanctions??

Indeed, it would be respecting the will of the countries who want out.

No one ever imposed EU membership.

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

the core integrationist countries? What's that? The most important countries?

It's the countries who want to forge ahead with integration.

These include, yes, large states like Germany, France and Italy and other states like Austria, Belgium, etc.

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

that's fine... and same in the US I guess, with the states havin their different laws. That's perfect! Leave each country to govern themselves.

But the US also have a federal level of government.

If you want nation-states to determine their own destiny - in an age of globalisation, btw - it could have been done.

Indeed, the Lisbon Treaty allowed for Member States to withdraw completely from the EU.

So much for a dictatorial authoritarian form of government, eh?

nobody

Heineken Helen wrote:

Because when I suggested countries would form coalitions as part of my argument, it was laughed off. I pointed out the voting blocs in, dare I say, the Eurovision.

how do you suggest decisions should be arrived at?
are 30 countries supposed to have the same opinion on any matter...
that's why there are clauses that allows countries not to follow legislation, BUT NOT BLOCK THE MAJORITY WHO WANTS TO IMPLEMENT THEM...and I am not talking about this treat but about hypothetical future legislature...

m.

nobody

Heineken Helen wrote:

that's fine... and same in the US I guess, with the states havin their different laws. That's perfect! Leave each country to govern themselves.

still, US and german states have a common foreign policy etc...
like lgt says...a federal government...

m.

Heineken Helen

nobody wrote:

how do you suggest decisions should be arrived at?
are 30 countries supposed to have the same opinion on any matter...
that's why there are clauses that allows countries not to follow legislation, BUT NOT BLOCK THE MAJORITY WHO WANTS TO IMPLEMENT THEM...and I am not talking about this treat but about hypothetical future legislature...

m.

but you just said that it would be great that we could form coalitions with other countries... which side are you taking on this?

I thought we're not allowed discuss hypothetical future legislation? When I bring it up I'm being paranoid and out of control.

nobody

Heineken Helen wrote:

but you just said that it would be great that we could form coalitions with other countries... which side are you taking on this?

I thought we're not allowed discuss hypothetical future legislation? When I bring it up I'm being paranoid and out of control.

I am taking nobody's side...;)
I don't even know what sides you are talking about...
you seem to have a serious problem with black/white, right/wrong, us/them dichotomies that don't allow you to see a more complex picture...

I am talking what the treaty was about:
making decisions possible within a group of 27 and more countries!
the current way, that one country can block all others because its sheepherders are afraid of EU laws is not going to work...with it the EU is a dead body...

m.

Heineken Helen

sheepherders :rolleyes:

I could have been much bitchier when I suggested reasons for you and your nationality not quite understanding where we're coming from over here in Ireland, historically speaking that is.

nobody

Heineken Helen wrote:

sheepherders :rolleyes:

I could have been much bitchier when I suggested reasons for you and your nationality not quite understanding where we're coming from over here in Ireland, historically speaking that is.

I apologize: I wasn't referring to the Irish here...honestly...
do you herd a lot of sheep?;)

there have been plenty of those situations so far, not with treaties but with laws...when I made the post I just remembered there was once a dispute about farming etc...so I used sheepherders...again...I apoligize...I think it was the danish, though;)

I knew you were thinking about bringing that in, though;)
I am also east german...so I am a nazi and a communist...;)

m.

Heineken Helen

nobody wrote:

I apologize: I wasn't referring to the Irish here...honestly...
do you herd a lot of sheep?;)

I knew you were thinking about bringing that in, though;)
I am also east german...so I am a nazi and a communist...;)

m.

so what were you referring to? Seemed very specifically the Irish

and honestly, can't you see why Germany might prefer the idea of a european one body government... than a country who's been fighting 800 years for the right to govern itself? But yet we both contribute to making up Europe so neither of us are right or wrong.

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

so what were you referring to? Seemed very specifically the Irish

and honestly, can't you see why Germany might prefer the idea of a european one body government... than a country who's been fighting 800 years for the right to govern itself? But yet we both contribute to making up Europe so neither of us are right or wrong.

Then Ireland should not have joined a supranational organisation in the first place if you value your independence and national sovereignty so much!

And why begrudge other countries who want to do that, after your Lisbon Treaty veto...

nobody

Heineken Helen wrote:

so what were you referring to? Seemed very specifically the Irish

and honestly, can't you see why Germany might prefer the idea of a european one body government... than a country who's been fighting 800 years for the right to govern itself? But yet we both contribute to making up Europe so neither of us are right or wrong.

see my edit:)
I can see why but not for the same reasons you do...it is already big and could pressure other countries into things by itself...yet it decided after decades of aggressive warfare to be part of europe, not conquer and exploit it...I think that's a huge progress...and I don't mind exploitation;)...like every country exploits the other, and everybody gains...
please don't understand me wrong here...there is no right that comes from this fact...but being big (and rich) also means it has to pay into the eu relatively more than other countries...yet there are enough advantages to counterweigh those expenses
norway for example would pay so much (because of it's wealth through oil) that it wouldn't gain anything by joining the EU and that's why it doesn't...and has never been put under pressure to do so...
that's not so much the old circle, is it?:)

m.

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

Then Ireland should not have joined a supranational organisation in the first place if you value your independence and national sovereignty so much!

And why begrudge other countries who want to do that, after your Lisbon Treaty veto...

why? I thought we weren't giving up our independence or national sovereignty

Heineken Helen

nobody wrote:

see my edit:)
I can see why but not for the same reasons you do...it is already big and could pressure other countries into things by itself...yet it decided after decades of aggressive warfare to be part of europe, not conquer and exploit it...I think that's a huge progress...and I don't mind exploitation;)...like every country exploits the other, and everybody gains...
please don't understand me wrong here...there is no right that comes from this fact...but being big (and rich) also means it has to pay into the eu relatively more than other countries...yet there are enough advantages to counterweigh those expenses
norway for example would pay so much (because of it's wealth through oil) that it wouldn't gain anything by joining the EU and that's why it doesn't...and has never been put under pressure to do so...
that's not so much the old circle, is it?:)

m.

Nope, that's more like a line... a straight line

Why DOESN'T germany complain more about how much they've to pay? I know we're going to paying more and more but that's only right and it's only to be expected.

JordyWordy

Heineken Helen wrote:

why? I thought we weren't giving up our independence or national sovereignty

not trying to ruffle feathers helen, but when you refer to national sovereignty what exactly do you mean? i follow most of your points and then when you start talking about this it gets fairly circular, and i genuinely cant tell if you just didnt want our influence within the EU diminidhed by the treaty or if youre anti-EU....again, its a genuine question. nothing meant by it.

i think sovereignty is a pretty elusive concept about a countrys ability to do something...yet you refer to it quite specifically and frequently...what exactly do you think it is?

nobody

Heineken Helen wrote:

Nope, that's more like a line... a straight line

Why DOESN'T germany complain more about how much they've to pay? I know we're going to paying more and more but that's only right and it's only to be expected.

well, one reason...many people don't know;)
second, people know that by investing in other countries they will be put in a position to buy german products...thus german firms and workers gain in the long run...also, the money helps stabilising the countries making them less likely to drift to radicalism etc....
so I guess, the benefits outweigh the costs...

this here threat seems to be friendlier than the other;) maybe because it has sarkozy in its title??;)

m.

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

Nope, that's more like a line... a straight line

Why DOESN'T germany complain more about how much they've to pay? I know we're going to paying more and more but that's only right and it's only to be expected.

Germany historically has been one of the most pro-European countries.

They actually view the whole European project not just as a mere economic free trade area - which incidentally it is not what the founding fathers of the EU wanted either.

Reading what Jean Monnet, Schuman and Alfredo Spinelli had to say would be a revelation!

lgt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Community

nobody

JordyWordy wrote:

not trying to ruffle feathers helen, but when you refer to national sovereignty what exactly do you mean? i follow most of your points and then when you start talking about this it gets fairly circular, and i genuinely cant tell if you just didnt want our influence within the EU diminidhed by the treaty or if youre anti-EU....again, its a genuine question. nothing meant by it.

i think sovereignty is a pretty elusive concept about a countrys ability to do something...yet you refer to it quite specifically and frequently...what exactly do you think it is?

also one thing to consider: within the EU Ireland might be more influencial and "powerful" (in a positive way...not weaponwise;)) than by itself...

m.

Heineken Helen

JordyWordy wrote:

not trying to ruffle feathers helen, but when you refer to national sovereignty what exactly do you mean? i follow most of your points and then when you start talking about this it gets fairly circular, and i genuinely cant tell if you just didnt want our influence within the EU diminidhed by the treaty or if youre anti-EU....again, its a genuine question. nothing meant by it.

i think sovereignty is a pretty elusive concept about a countrys ability to do something...yet you refer to it quite specifically and frequently...what exactly do you think it is?

That was in reply to LGT's posts... cos several people have said earlier that we won't lose that... and I never commented cos that's a route I'm not going to go down cos I simply don't know. But she suggested that we shouldn't have joined if we didn't wanna lose it... I wanted to know what she meant.

Heineken Helen

nobody wrote:

well, one reason...many people don't know;)
second, people know that by investing in other countries they will be put in a position to buy german products...thus german firms and workers gain in the long run...also, the money helps stabilising the countries making them less likely to drift to radicalism etc....
so I guess, the benefits outweigh the costs...

this here threat seems to be friendlier than the other;) maybe because it has sarkozy in its title??;)

m.

guess that's why there are Lidl and Aldi's all over the place then. Good points!

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

They actually view the whole European project not just as a mere economic free trade area -

but as what?

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

That was in reply to LGT's posts... cos several people have said earlier that we won't lose that... and I never commented cos that's a route I'm not going to go down cos I simply don't know. But she suggested that we shouldn't have joined if we didn't wanna lose it... I wanted to know what she meant.

I actually thought you were joking and conceded the point because obviously if you join a supranational organisation you give up certain national rights.

Nobody and I never argued that you never lose it...

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

but as what?

"an ever closer union"

which is what the whole political European process of integration is all about.

If you want just free trade area, you can do like Norway and join EFTA.

Hence, the previous point that there are already different-tier Europe.

No one is imposing the type of membership on anyone.