Nicolas Sarkozy plans to bypass Irish no vote

Rhinocerous Surprise

Collin wrote:

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.

lgt

Collin wrote:

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.

nobody

Collin wrote:

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.

lgt

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

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.

Ireland has expressed their vote.

There is no coercion.

What problems do you envisage?

nobody

lgt wrote:

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]

yes that's true.

m.

Rhinocerous Surprise

lgt wrote:

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?

I can see trading disputes, taxation disputes, immigration disputes... I can see a lot of east/west polarisation.

lgt

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

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.

nobody

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.

lgt

nobody wrote:

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.

It's not monolithic.

nobody

lgt wrote:

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.

lgt

nobody wrote:

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.

JordyWordy

nobody wrote:

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.)

nobody

JordyWordy wrote:

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.

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

Yes, you voted on a EU treaty.

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.

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

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?

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.

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

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?

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

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?

nobody

Heineken Helen wrote:

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.

nobody

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 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.

Heineken Helen

nobody wrote:

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