Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Ireland: get the the heck out of our EU!
Elikal
Member UncommonPosts: 7,912
I know for our American Neighbours it sure seems of little significance. For us Europeans, it is a vital, decisive question, wether or not to unify Europe to strengthen us for the future. Let me say this clear, by heart I will always be way more German than European, but in my mind it has always been clear to me that Europe has only a future if we are able to create a unified Federation of states, in the long run like the USA. I know, thats not what many Europeans like, in their hearts they cling like to the historically grown nations, like I do. But reason and science all show that we are to unite or to loose our significance in the world.
Ireland, I dont get it... NO other nation has benefitted greater from European Union than they! Billions of Euro went into the once poorest nation of the EU, special contracts, laws, any kind of support. But people are fooled by the most stupid arguments now.
It has already been the same a short time ago, when the Europeans Nations forged a European Constitution, one of the most modern ever made, which would replace the entanglement of bureaucrats with simple and democratic structures, more direct democracy, more transparency. The bad thing is, 90% of all people who voted against the Constitution never read it. They claim all evil to the Union and all good the National states. Then the Constitution was stripped of the ideals and reduced to a contract, which now was under vote of the 27 member nations. So far all had agreed, all but the Irish, those who always had gotten the greatest gain, the most money from the EU. And with what arguments? The EU contract would bring in drugs, prostitution and abortion - appealing to the LOWEST fears. It were only 45% Irish who even WENT to the vote, and now a nation with a mere 4 million inhabitants has over-voted the other 500 million Europeans! Democracy ad absurdum.
The only realistic fear of Ireland was the strengthening of democracy! Currently the EU is lead by Commisars, unknown bureaucrats, free of influence of the EU parliamant, and one Commisar from each of the 27 Nations. All decisions must be accepted by ALL 27 members atm! This principle was ok when the EU only consisted of 6 or 8 members, but with 27 it makes it almost impossible to go ahead, and no decision can be made about anything now! It twists the weight of the actual number of people, when a nation with 4 millions has the same weight as a nation with 80 million people! In any REAL democracy there is one principle: One Man One Vote! The Constitution as now the contract who was in question, would have replaced the Commisars with a real kind of government, directly under the control of an elected Parliament, where one European person is ONE vote, as Democracy SHOULD be. There are so many parts of the Constitution and the contract who would have strengthened democracy and the influence of the people, but most followed whims and prejudices, when it came to one of the most important decision of Europe since the end of the World War II.
I do respect any Nation decides not the be part of the European Union, even if I find it extemely selfish of Ireland only to take the good (our money) and then dont stand for the obligations and responsibilities. Thats no decend behavior. I hope those states willing to ratify the contract, or better the Constitution, will form a new European Union and those who are unwilling are leaving! We Europeans must set a good example to create a modern, democratic Federation at the beginning of the new century, and not loose ourselves in stupid bickering over false rumors and hearsay! This is a shameful day for Ireland. IF you dont want to be in, fine, but then get the heck out of our European Union!
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Comments
One thing I notice is that people lump the decisions of the politicians with the rest of the people. Don't be angry at the Irish, but their government.
Maybe there are other conditions in the contract that they would be averse to and it merely needs to be modified...
I hope to get to live in Europe one day: Sure is a hell of a lot nicer there than most places here; you don't really get to appreciate it until you're gone though.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
What if the Irish are right?
This is similiar to the centuries old arguement in the United States over a Confederation of independant states or a central Federalist government system.
In the case of the EU, giving each member state an equal vote as every other member state creates this sort of a problem. But, if changed to popular vote like you suggest, Ireland winds up with no say, and the high density population members control the policies. The problem occurs because the member states still think of themselves as separate, autonomous members, rather than as a member of the whole EU. In short, they are still pursuing their own national interests, not the interests of the EU. To paraphrase former US President John F Kennedy (a liberal Democrat Federalist), when members join the EU, are they asking "what can we do for the EU", or are they asking "what can the EU do for us"?
After the fall of the Soviet Union Russia tried to be a Commonwealth of Independant States, however, once the members thought of themselves first and foremost as individuals, Russia broke apart. Out of it rose Putin, a strong central government advocate, to re-unify Russia and direct it toward common goals. We have seen the rise in influence of Russia under this strong centralized government that was just not occuring under the disjointed member states organization.
You also see these kinds of arguements from the posters here in the United States. They advocate reallocating power from the central federal government back to the member states, and then make statements that, since they live in New York, they don't care about funding flood relief in the midwest with their public tax dollars. They then fall back on the justification that it should private non-tax donations that are used. You will hear how Americans are the most giving people in the world used to support the dis-jointed arguement that they don't want their tax dollars given to help, but would rather the other guy give his donations privately.
In short, it is the same arguement to justify the actions of a member state such as Ireland. That they only want the benefits of a member state driven organization, rather than the responsibilities of a federalist system. You are correct, your EU charter is flawed, and will remain so until the disjointed interests of each member state become subordinated to the interests of the whole.
We Europeans must set a good example to create a modern, democratic Federation at the beginning of the new century. Yeah, right. You're complaining because Ireland's constitution requires any amendment be ratified by a popular vote, including acts that have constitutional strength like treaty modifications. Damn democracy getting in the way of my democracy. Kick 'em out. Let me make some things clear for those Americans here who don't follow this shit.
1. This is largely an end run around the rejection of the EU Constitution.
2. The reason the Lisbon Treaty doesn't require as many popular votes as the EU Constitution is because, legally, it's just a modification of existing treaties, rather than a whole new binding document like the EU Constitution.
3. This was deliberately done to avoid further popular votes, as out of the five countries that held a referendum to determine the fate of the EU Constitution, two rejected it then. Out of the three that passed it by referendum, one country had a very low voter turnout, and the other two passed it by a very narrow margin.
4. As a result of this shift in tactics, Ireland is the only country that had a popular vote this time around.
5. In fact, while the Lisbon Treaty dropped many of the more controversial terms of the EU Constitution, it contains rehashes of many others, just in non-binding language. It would eventually be made binding if this came to pass.
Now why don't the Irish like it? Well, if you listen to the OP, who is not Irish and obviously has no idea of their concerns beyond the quatsch he has read in the German papers, it's because they're insular morons. Here is the actual truth.
1. France is taking leadership of the EU next.
2. You know what France loves? One of the issues that really gets them hard when it comes to EU policy? Normalization of corporate taxation. They've pushed hard for it before, and they will push hard for it again.
3. Guess what country's recent economic growth has been the result of massive corporate investment due to a very low corporate tax rate? If you guessed Ireland, you win the prize.
4. Does the treaty contain binding language forcing the Irish to alter their tax code? No.
5. Would it eventually lead to that happening in a few years time? Probably.
Well, those are the answers by the numbers. Here is a hint, Elikal. It's not democracy if you discard the results you don't like. You have a process in place. Live with the results.
Oh yeah, just another little thing to consider for the Americans who don't care about this shit. EU governments are already publicly talking about ways to circumvent Ireland's decision. That's right. They're coming out and saying they're looking for a legal way to get around this. They agreed to this setup with their recent treaties, and now that something has happened which they don't like, they will find a way to simply push aside the dissenting party.
1919-1933. 1945-2008. I guess with only 77 years of democracy, it's not too surprising that Germany isn't quite sure of what the word means. The Indians learned to accept the bad decisions with the good, and they have about twenty less than you guys. Maybe you should outsource your governance to them, Elikal?
The EU would be a massive waste of manpower if even a country like Ireland were to GTFO.
Adopting the Euro will probably be the only good decision that comes out Europe starting to bind itself as one, Anything else will just be political... Seriously adopting the Euro removed one of the first tangible advantages that the US has always had over you guys economically. Combined with some of the advantages of being as independant of each other as you were Ireland would have never needed the aid anyways, you just sped them up by a handful of years.
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
No it is not, in Ireland the people can at least vote directly. Its a shame that in many countries, also germany, people cant vote about the EU-agreement and in every country where people had a chance to vote against the agreement of Lisboa, the agreement failed. This has its reasons since part of the agreements content delimitate the freedom of each nation politics. Just read about the agreement of Lisboa, most interesting to read about facts from the famous german Prof. Schachtschneider and other small organisations who fight against the agreement. The whole convention has only one aim, to centralize the powers of each nation and to influence big parts of national politics and shorten the powers of own politician. This is some kind of the beginning of a political dictate and not about democratical freedom, thats a lie.
The whole EU decomcratic Federation freedom and especially the convention of Lisboa has a lot of content which most people even dont know about, probably you are also one of them and the most important point, they cant vote for or against it.
The votes in Ireland are only real free democratic elections ! Maybe you should rethink your demands that a country with real free democratic elections should get out of the EU, thats rather a shame if you believe in freedom and deomocracy.
Here are some links for my german friend, hope you read it:
interesting article:
www.welt.de/berlin/article2025646/Das_legt_der_Vertrag_von_Lissabon_fest.html
www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display.268+M5b97368f608.0.html (Interview-Prof. Schachtschneider)
"Nach der neuen Vertragslage soll der Europäische Rat in allen wichtigen Politikfeldern, etwa der Wirtschafts-, Währungs- und Sozialpolitik, der Steuer- und Justizpolitik – außer der Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik – die Verträge selbst ganz oder zum Teil ändern können, ohne daß dem der Bundestag und der Bundesrat zustimmen müssen.
Diese Entmachtung des gewählten Gesetzgebers ist unglaublich – aber wahr. Ich möchte aber noch einmal betonen: Unser eigentliches Ziel ist nicht, einige Änderungen des Vertrages zu erwirken, sondern den Vertrag insgesamt aus der Welt zu schaffen! Denn es geht hier um nicht weniger als um die Freiheit! "
some interesting facts to read abou the changes due to the agreement:
www.eu-vertrag-stoppen.de/
We Europeans must set a good example to create a modern, democratic Federation at the beginning of the new century. Yeah, right. You're complaining because Ireland's constitution requires any amendment be ratified by a popular vote, including acts that have constitutional strength like treaty modifications. Damn democracy getting in the way of my democracy. Kick 'em out. Let me make some things clear for those Americans here who don't follow this shit.
1. This is largely an end run around the rejection of the EU Constitution.
2. The reason the Lisbon Treaty doesn't require as many popular votes as the EU Constitution is because, legally, it's just a modification of existing treaties, rather than a whole new binding document like the EU Constitution.
3. This was deliberately done to avoid further popular votes, as out of the five countries that held a referendum to determine the fate of the EU Constitution, two rejected it then. Out of the three that passed it by referendum, one country had a very low voter turnout, and the other two passed it by a very narrow margin.
4. As a result of this shift in tactics, Ireland is the only country that had a popular vote this time around.
5. In fact, while the Lisbon Treaty dropped many of the more controversial terms of the EU Constitution, it contains rehashes of many others, just in non-binding language. It would eventually be made binding if this came to pass.
Now why don't the Irish like it? Well, if you listen to the OP, who is not Irish and obviously has no idea of their concerns beyond the quatsch he has read in the German papers, it's because they're insular morons. Here is the actual truth.
1. France is taking leadership of the EU next.
2. You know what France loves? One of the issues that really gets them hard when it comes to EU policy? Normalization of corporate taxation. They've pushed hard for it before, and they will push hard for it again.
3. Guess what country's recent economic growth has been the result of massive corporate investment due to a very low corporate tax rate? If you guessed Ireland, you win the prize.
4. Does the treaty contain binding language forcing the Irish to alter their tax code? No.
5. Would it eventually lead to that happening in a few years time? Probably.
Well, those are the answers by the numbers. Here is a hint, Elikal. It's not democracy if you discard the results you don't like. You have a process in place. Live with the results.
Oh yeah, just another little thing to consider for the Americans who don't care about this shit. EU governments are already publicly talking about ways to circumvent Ireland's decision. That's right. They're coming out and saying they're looking for a legal way to get around this. They agreed to this setup with their recent treaties, and now that something has happened which they don't like, they will find a way to simply push aside the dissenting party.
1919-1933. 1945-2008. I guess with only 77 years of democracy, it's not too surprising that Germany isn't quite sure of what the word means. The Indians learned to accept the bad decisions with the good, and they have about twenty less than you guys. Maybe you should outsource your governance to them, Elikal?
You disqualified EVERYTHING you said with a ridiculous statement like "Germany isn't quite sure what democracy means". All your credit in your other arguments was nullified then. End of debate with you.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
We Europeans must set a good example to create a modern, democratic Federation at the beginning of the new century. Yeah, right. You're complaining because Ireland's constitution requires any amendment be ratified by a popular vote, including acts that have constitutional strength like treaty modifications. Damn democracy getting in the way of my democracy. Kick 'em out. Let me make some things clear for those Americans here who don't follow this shit.
1. This is largely an end run around the rejection of the EU Constitution.
2. The reason the Lisbon Treaty doesn't require as many popular votes as the EU Constitution is because, legally, it's just a modification of existing treaties, rather than a whole new binding document like the EU Constitution.
3. This was deliberately done to avoid further popular votes, as out of the five countries that held a referendum to determine the fate of the EU Constitution, two rejected it then. Out of the three that passed it by referendum, one country had a very low voter turnout, and the other two passed it by a very narrow margin.
4. As a result of this shift in tactics, Ireland is the only country that had a popular vote this time around.
5. In fact, while the Lisbon Treaty dropped many of the more controversial terms of the EU Constitution, it contains rehashes of many others, just in non-binding language. It would eventually be made binding if this came to pass.
Now why don't the Irish like it? Well, if you listen to the OP, who is not Irish and obviously has no idea of their concerns beyond the quatsch he has read in the German papers, it's because they're insular morons. Here is the actual truth.
1. France is taking leadership of the EU next.
2. You know what France loves? One of the issues that really gets them hard when it comes to EU policy? Normalization of corporate taxation. They've pushed hard for it before, and they will push hard for it again.
3. Guess what country's recent economic growth has been the result of massive corporate investment due to a very low corporate tax rate? If you guessed Ireland, you win the prize.
4. Does the treaty contain binding language forcing the Irish to alter their tax code? No.
5. Would it eventually lead to that happening in a few years time? Probably.
Well, those are the answers by the numbers. Here is a hint, Elikal. It's not democracy if you discard the results you don't like. You have a process in place. Live with the results.
Oh yeah, just another little thing to consider for the Americans who don't care about this shit. EU governments are already publicly talking about ways to circumvent Ireland's decision. That's right. They're coming out and saying they're looking for a legal way to get around this. They agreed to this setup with their recent treaties, and now that something has happened which they don't like, they will find a way to simply push aside the dissenting party.
1919-1933. 1945-2008. I guess with only 77 years of democracy, it's not too surprising that Germany isn't quite sure of what the word means. The Indians learned to accept the bad decisions with the good, and they have about twenty less than you guys. Maybe you should outsource your governance to them, Elikal?
You disqualified EVERYTHING you said with a ridiculous statement like "Germany isn't quite sure what democracy means". All your credit in your other arguments was nullified then. End of debate with you.
Humourous comments which should have been taken in jest (perhaps Germany isn't sure what that means either?
) do not, regardless of how badly taken, nullify an otherwise perfect treatise on the current situation in the EU. You cannot circumvent someone telling you what's really going on, even if it's against your own point of view, by pointing out a sentence they wrote that offends you; that's even more childish than writing an offensive statement. Instead, you rise above it, and respond intelligently to the rest of the argument. A response I'm eager to see frankly, because I do not believe your point of view is anything more than ridiculous and ignorant.
sounds like the OP is upset because Ireland wants the EU to be a true democtratic body of government versus a "toy version"
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
First, I respect that a nation votes no, what I do NOT accept is
a) the vote is cast on the minority, since only 45% took part in such a vital decision
b) most anti-EU campaigns were based on totally hilarious fear inducing topics like the contract bring prostitution, abortion and drugs!
c) Ireland took all our money gladly but now that some loyalty is requested they say nay.
Bottom line for me is, you either want in the EU or you leave, Ireland is a free nation, so be free to go. As the old saying goes: dont let the door hit your arse on the way out.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Did you delete your "liberalism is like HIV" signature to make this statement of your more believable?
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Did you delete your "liberalism is like HIV" signature to make this statement of your more believable?
nope...has nothing to do with it. You're just afraid a non-tool country wants into the EU that want's true democratic selection. You can't handle it.
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
We Europeans must set a good example to create a modern, democratic Federation at the beginning of the new century. Yeah, right. You're complaining because Ireland's constitution requires any amendment be ratified by a popular vote, including acts that have constitutional strength like treaty modifications. Damn democracy getting in the way of my democracy. Kick 'em out. Let me make some things clear for those Americans here who don't follow this shit.
1. This is largely an end run around the rejection of the EU Constitution.
2. The reason the Lisbon Treaty doesn't require as many popular votes as the EU Constitution is because, legally, it's just a modification of existing treaties, rather than a whole new binding document like the EU Constitution.
3. This was deliberately done to avoid further popular votes, as out of the five countries that held a referendum to determine the fate of the EU Constitution, two rejected it then. Out of the three that passed it by referendum, one country had a very low voter turnout, and the other two passed it by a very narrow margin.
4. As a result of this shift in tactics, Ireland is the only country that had a popular vote this time around.
5. In fact, while the Lisbon Treaty dropped many of the more controversial terms of the EU Constitution, it contains rehashes of many others, just in non-binding language. It would eventually be made binding if this came to pass.
Now why don't the Irish like it? Well, if you listen to the OP, who is not Irish and obviously has no idea of their concerns beyond the quatsch he has read in the German papers, it's because they're insular morons. Here is the actual truth.
1. France is taking leadership of the EU next.
2. You know what France loves? One of the issues that really gets them hard when it comes to EU policy? Normalization of corporate taxation. They've pushed hard for it before, and they will push hard for it again.
3. Guess what country's recent economic growth has been the result of massive corporate investment due to a very low corporate tax rate? If you guessed Ireland, you win the prize.
4. Does the treaty contain binding language forcing the Irish to alter their tax code? No.
5. Would it eventually lead to that happening in a few years time? Probably.
Well, those are the answers by the numbers. Here is a hint, Elikal. It's not democracy if you discard the results you don't like. You have a process in place. Live with the results.
Oh yeah, just another little thing to consider for the Americans who don't care about this shit. EU governments are already publicly talking about ways to circumvent Ireland's decision. That's right. They're coming out and saying they're looking for a legal way to get around this. They agreed to this setup with their recent treaties, and now that something has happened which they don't like, they will find a way to simply push aside the dissenting party.
1919-1933. 1945-2008. I guess with only 77 years of democracy, it's not too surprising that Germany isn't quite sure of what the word means. The Indians learned to accept the bad decisions with the good, and they have about twenty less than you guys. Maybe you should outsource your governance to them, Elikal?
You disqualified EVERYTHING you said with a ridiculous statement like "Germany isn't quite sure what democracy means". All your credit in your other arguments was nullified then. End of debate with you.
Humourous comments which should have been taken in jest (perhaps Germany isn't sure what that means either?
) do not, regardless of how badly taken, nullify an otherwise perfect treatise on the current situation in the EU. You cannot circumvent someone telling you what's really going on, even if it's against your own point of view, by pointing out a sentence they wrote that offends you; that's even more childish than writing an offensive statement. Instead, you rise above it, and respond intelligently to the rest of the argument. A response I'm eager to see frankly, because I do not believe your point of view is anything more than ridiculous and ignorant.
You dont get it! If you think that way about EU, FINE, but then dont take our money and GO. I respect that you dont want to be in EU, I just dont respect hypocrisy. If you hate the EU, good, go with god but go. Its just ridiculous to say EU is so bad but stay to take the money anyway.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Once again, you appear totally ignorant of what you're actually saying.
A itself is fair enough (although not unlikely, as most elections for parliament see similar turnouts), but you're missing the point that if the other 55% were going to vote yes, they would have turned up for the vote, because it would have been important to them. The fact that a majority of that 45% saw it as worthwhile to turn up just to say 'no thanks' is testiment in itself to how unacceptable they view the idea.
B i almost agree with I suppose; there always is a lot of false advertising from 'patriots' about what the EU creates.
C is a total waiver of all that democracy is. You cannot buy someone's allegiance in a democracy: people vote for what they want. If you were giving them money in order for them to vote yes constantly, that's as good as bribery. Would you have helped them out if you knew they weren't going to support the same thing as you? If no, you REALLY are misunderstanding this 'democracy' thing.
As to your last paragraph, the EU is not defined by what you define it as. It's defined by the voting system it itself has decided on, and thus, Ireland does want in the EU, and they want it as it is, which is entirely within their rights as a member state. Just because they aren't voting to change it does not mean they don't want to be a part of it. If you want an EU different to what they do, and you want to circumvent their vote, then really it is you that does not want to be a part of the EU.
If you circumvent the Irish vote here, then Ireland leaves the EU and you get to have the EU that you want. So what happens when France wants something the other 25 countries don't? You circumvent them too so they leave. Then Spain does the same, so you circumvent, and once again, they leave. A democracy is no kind of democracy at all if votes can be discounted like that.
Either learn to love what you've created and stop complaining that you don't get your way, or leave it so you can have your own way all the time. You might even be able to bring some countries with you, but uhoh, what is it you're doing there? You're fragmenting europe further, and weakening it even more.
Okay, I'm confused.
Some claim this is a true democracy, and circumventing the Irish vote is a bad policy. However the Irish are voting as a state block, what about the other state blocks? One state block can prevent implimentation of a policy by all the other member states? Minority rules?
If the EU wants a true democracy, it seems to me that all persons qualifying to vote in all member states should vote for an issue on a consolidated basis, not on a state block basis. If the EU is voting on a state by state basis, with each state having an equal vote, the persons of a large population state each have less than their share of the say (if my state has twice the population of yours, and both states have the same representation, than each person in my state has half the voting representation than each person in your state). On top of that, are you saying that it takes only one state to block a policy, rather than a policy must be upheld by, say, 2/3rds of the states? Is there a mechanism for the majority of member states to over ride the veto of one?
It sounds like one faction in the EU wants the EU to be a confederation of independant states, the other wants it to be a federation of states. Is that a correct observation?
Heck, we've probably bored you Europeans to tears discussing American political problems, feel free to enlighten us on yours.
Did you delete your "liberalism is like HIV" signature to make this statement of your more believable?
nope...has nothing to do with it. You're just afraid a non-tool country wants into the EU that want's true democratic selection. You can't handle it.
I have to say that Ireland made the right Choice. In the UK the government when it was first voted in promised that we to would get a vote on this same subject, but guess what Tony Blair decided a general vote was not necessary so now the people of Britain has no say on the Lisbon Treaty. So Ireland voting no is a bit like us voting and i say thank you to those in Ireland who voted no to this treaty giving more power to Unelected and largely unaccountable Euro-MP's.
And to the OP Ireland voting NO even if it was just 45% of the population who cared enough to vote, still counts as democracy.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
Basically to sum it up this Treaty basically does 3 broad things.
1. Surrenders various countries powers of Veto [for example if it was decided by the leaders of Europe in Brussels to make Wearing Crucifixes in a public pale or building those countries wont be able to say no as they no longer have the power of Veto in those areas].
2. The treaty creates a Presidential position.
3. Suddenly i cant remember this one.
So basically one of the concessions in this far reaching treaty is that ALL members must agree on it as it effectively makes them subject states to Brussels. So for something like this that could affect every European country they all need a say in this.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
Basically to sum it up this Treaty basically does 3 broad things.
1. Surrenders various countries powers of Veto [for example if it was decided by the leaders of Europe in Brussels to make Wearing Crucifixes in a public pale or building those countries wont be able to say no as they no longer have the power of Veto in those areas].
2. The treaty creates a Presidential position.
3. Suddenly i cant remember this one.
So basically one of the concessions in this far reaching treaty is that ALL members must agree on it as it effectively makes them subject states to Brussels. So for something like this that could affect every European country they all need a say in this.
There are no demcratic options for votes in several countries. There is no democratic basement for such important decisions, it is just centralized e x c e p t some countries like Irland - the "new" EU-Constitution is nothing else as the Agreement of Lisboa.
If the inhabitants from the countries without any possibility to vote would get informed more about the new EU-Constitution, most would not vote for it - thats a fact.
Here in germany the media even dont discuss the whole agreement for the public, the detailed informations are "kept hidden". Only in some news/magazines or from inofficial political movement organisatios you read about the detailed facts, but not in the mass media.
It is not only about centralization of the politics of each country in europe and the cut of national politicians and influence from brussel into national interests. Its also about the taxes like someone did mention already, taxes which will be decided in brussel, the whole domestic politics of each country will get influenced by brussel.
There is even more...introduction of the possiblity of death penalties, introduction of a new EU Army with commitment to each country to rearm....well you see there are severe changes.
Why in many countries people cant vote for such severe decisions and how will be elections in the future with with centralized politics in brussel ?
And if you talk about germany, there was an former CDU politician who talked about a new versaille for germany with the agreement of Lisboa. Yes i know thats a bit exxagerated but if it comes to payements in the EU, germany is the country with the biggest part and has not the reasonable delegates when it comes to the numbers of inhabitants in comparison to others - did i hear influence of taxes from brussel ? hah...well i can agree and disagree here but there are some points which are interesting and are facts.
The agreement of Lisboa, the new EU-Constitution, failed in France, Netherlands and now in Irland ! All countries where real democratic elections did happen.
Theres is just not enough educational advertising for the Constitution in some countries, but they dont care and i promise you the EU-Constitution will come since economical groups benefit from it but not the masses. Thats a similar piss take like they promised each of us about so golden advantages of the €uro and after all we got the highest price rates in short time and got in germany due to latest economical researches a "real" inflation rate of 12% !!, official 3%.
As for point A, welcome to democracy. If we count a no vote with less than 50% turnout as invalid, then why not consider a similar yes vote invalid? Because by that measure, the EU Constitution would have been defeated in just about all the referenda which were held to decide it. I know Spain had a 44% turnout when it approved the EU Constitution, and the other countries didn't have much higher than 45%.
As for point B, welcome to democracy. So far, this is the way that EU treaty proponents have brought the message to the people:
1. They haven't put forth any real effort to sell this. They only whine that the people who reject it are imbeciles.
2. Nothing else.
Wow! What an amazing surprise then that it got rejected. Go read Tony Blair's comments on the rejection of the EU Constitution in his Feb 06 speech. He has a lot more insight into the political realities than you do. Well, you probably won't go and read it, so here is an excerpt.
The best example lies in the debate over Europe's Constitution. We spent two or three years in an intense institutional debate. Giscard, with characteristic brilliance, negotiated a solution. There was only one drawback. Apart from better rules of internal governance, no one in Europe knew what it was meant to solve. As the problems of the citizen grew ever more pressing, instead of bold policy reform and decisive change, we locked ourselves in a room at the top of the tower and debated things no ordinary citizen could understand. And yet I remind you the Constitution was launched under the title of "Bringing Europe closer to its citizens".
Now, finally, for point C. Guess what? Welcome to democracy. Ireland is not the only country which rejected this shit. Do you know why the other countries have decided to go with a parliamentary vote? Because they know it would have been defeated in many of the member nations. I guarantee you France would have rejected it again. That's why there wasn't a vote there. Britain's margin of acceptance for the EU Constitution was so thin that, combined with growing dissatisfaction with the EU on certain issues, the Lisbon Treaty would almost certainly have been rejected there now. That's why there wasn't a referendum there. Why not kick those two out? Oh, right. Because they're big members. Lets ignore the rejection by big names and single out the little guy. Sounds like democracy to me.
But yeah, kick out Ireland. Ah, wait. Democracy is built on a respect for law. I'll let you in a little secret. Once you write the rules, you play by them, not discard them when it suits you. So no. You live with Ireland as it is.
I find it scary that you are upset that the Irish saw through the power hungry EU politician's back-ally move to circumvent popular vote "in the name of democracy."
Well, isnt it wonderful to see how some use democracy as a justification of any kind of rude, foolish or arrogant behavior. Wonderful. Now far be it from me to take them the right to make fools of themselves, but when 480.000 Europeans vote NO, why must the other 495 MILLION Europeans SUFFER and the contract is null and void? How can THIS be democratic?
Now I am FAR from bein a Euro-enthusiast, god forbid, for me it is only a necessary evil in a time of globalization. We can not deal with the problems of globalization by simpy IGNORING it and play by nationality rules of the 19th century. I mean, Ireland is welcome to try, what I DONT accept is, that when Ireland doesnt want to go along, the rest must suffer and be forced to remain in the old contract. It just means a TINY minority of 480.000 Europeans enforce their will over 495 millions! So the only fair and square solution would be if those who are WILLING form a new EU without those who dont want to accept the consitution or contract of Lisbon, problem solved. If any other nation then wants in the New EU, they must sign the constitution first.
YES the EU has plenty bad politician, so have nations. YES there is a lot of cumbersome bureaucracy. YES YES YES. BUT: there is not real alternative! We either develop the European Union ahead or we disband it! Those are the only two alternatives. We cant leave it in 2008+ with a system made decades ago under totally different circumstances, and the EU is the best chance for Europe we HAVE. Sure, in an ideal world we would forge ideal Alliances, but we live in a REAL world with REAL choices, and the choice at had is, do we WANT to be in Europe and develop it further or do we leave it and go? There IS not choice to leave it as it is in the long run. Thats just what this all is about, so if a nation says NO to the contract it says NO to the EU, because it CANT stay as it is in the long run.
I am all AGAINST making the Irish vote again. That would just be hilarious, No is No and so it should be. We other Europeans should respect that and let them go, as apparently the majority of voters only wants in the EU to get they money anyway.
The old system where every nation has one vote, instead of every human PERSON, worked when the EU just had a few members. Now we have 27 and more candidates are just in the process of becoming members, like Croatia. Does any reasonable person REALLY think a Union can WORK if every nation has one vote with so many members? Thats absolutely ridiculous! There will always be a lot things which the national states can decide idependently, and every nation is always free to go, so why be afraid of things that MIGHT someday be but none really brought on the table?
I mean, ok I understand the EU as it is really needs a better system, it is cumbersome bureaucracy, overly complicated structures and lack of democratic control - but you know what THAT was exactly what the constitution was about to improve in the first place! Of all the people who are against the Constitution and the contract, I dont know a single one who READ them, most cant even quote a single paragraph they are against! If all this proves one thing to me, its humans are just not READY for such levels of direct democracy! For instance ALL great decisions in West-Germany after the war were made by politicians AGAINST the opinion of the masses, like joining Nato, west-orientation, liberal economy asf. NONE would have gotten a majority in votes in their time, but ALL were RIGHT and NECESSARY. Humans are just to DUMB for direct democracy, it can only be given to them in portions via representatives, everything else just invites people becoming victim to propaganda and hearsay. As you can see! People's decisions is something for neutreal or tiny states like Swiss or Panama. The great decisions of our time can not be given to catchphrase propagandists.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
elikal you are a bloody fraud.
The Dutch/Netherlands voted against the TCE (Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe) (61.6% no June 2005.)
The French voted no (55% May 2005.)
The 2007 Reform Treaty (160,000 word english) eighteen member states ratified, seven postponed and TWO rejected the text.
More day-to-day decisions in the Council of Ministers would be to be taken by qualified majority voting, requiring a 55% majority of members of the Council representing a 65% majority of citizens. (The 55% is raised to 72% when the Council acts on its own initiative rather than on a legislative proposal from the Commission or the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs.) The unanimous agreement of all member states would only be required for decisions on more sensitive issues, such as tax, social security, foreign policy and defense.
The Commission would be reduced in size from 27 to 15 by the year 2014. There would be fewer Commissioners, with member states taking it in turn to nominate Commissioners two times out of three.
Ratification of Treaty vote:
Lithuania Nov 2004, 84yes, 4no, 3abstention
Hungary yes, 323-4
Slovenia yes, 79-4
Italy yes, 436-28-5
Spain April 2005 referendum (42% participated) 76%yes, 17%no; May 2005 Congreso 311-19; Senado 225-6-1
Greece Apr 2005, yes, 268-17-15
Austria May 2005 show of hands yes, 1against; Bundesrat hands yes, 3 against
Slovakia May 2005, yes, 116-27-4
Germany May 2005, yes, Bundestag 569-23-2, Bundesrat 66-0-3
France May 2005 NO, referendum (69% participation) 45.3%yes, 54.7% NO
Netherlands June 2005, NO, referendum (63% participation) 38.4% yes, 69.3% NO
Cyprus June 2005, yes, 30-19-1
Latvia June 2005, yes, 71-5-6
Malta Jul 2005, yes unanimous
Luxembourg July 2005 yes, referendum (88% participation) 56.5% yes, 43.9% no; Chamber Oct 2005 57-1
Belgium April 2005-Feb 2006 yes, huge number of votes all yes by large amount except last one, Vlaams Parlement 84-29-1
Estonia May 2006, yes, 73-1
Finland Dec 2006, yes, 125-39-4
Bulgaria Jan 2007, yes
Romania Jan 2007, yes
Chez, Denmark, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, UK cancelled
link
edit
The US Constitution...
1776 July 4 Declaration of Independence "The unanimous Declaration..." in Philadelphia severed ties to brit crown.
1787 Sept 17 seven article US Constitution "We the People ..." signed in Philadelphia Pennsylvania in response to dissatisfaction with the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union("To all to whom..." 1777-81.) Ratified Dec 1789 to May 1790 all thirteen states.
1789 Sept 25 first federal Congress proposes twelve amendments "The Congress of the United States..." (Bill of Rights [now largely void due to the patriot act])for the Constitution to the state legislatures (the first two [# of constituents per Representative and pay were not ratified])
edit
elikal are you guys going to start building panzer divisions again and elect some nutcase with a lil moustache to enforce how you KNOW all other countries should run their own affairs... zeigheil, zeigheil !!
You ignore France and Netherlands voted down the TCE, and instead rail against Ireland, you fraud!
Europe mostly has wealth because you guys do not sink your half your GDP into military. You turn your back on serbs exterminating moslem albanians and the Afgans sending opium into Pakistan that floods Europe with cheap smack.
link
You ignore the threat from Russia, NK, China, Pakistan... just give them what ever they want in Africa and the middle east. You ignore the TENS of millions of blacks being exterminated in Africa, geez you guys made apartheid in S. Africa an art form! (concentration camps part 2) You care for blacks even less than you care about jews; and that is saying alot!
Granted the US has since WW2 invaded over 50 countries and over thrown over 30 governments (usually in the name of fighting "comunism") but that now has the US about us$10 TRILLION (that is twelve 0s, growing us$3T since 2000) in debt nearly 70% of the GDP; but you guys quibbling in the UN and really doing nothing to make the world a better place has allowed the UN now to be largely dictatorship & moslem controlled. Without the US, are you, the EU going to defend the world, (would it be a world worth defending?) or will you just roll over and take it up ... while investing in your own economies.
You do have a point that people have a tendency to resist strong federal governments when they're being implemented.
The USA went through the exact same thing that the EU is going through now. For the beginning of American history, we were governed by the Articles of Confederation, not the US Constitution. We were a confederation of states with a weak federal government. As a result, we were impotent against certain threats, but many people still resisted the idea of unification. The Constitutional Convention saw some of the most heated debates that American politics would ever produce. Ultimately, though, an agreement was reached. Everybody bought into it. That's important.
The point is not that it shouldn't be done. The point is that you can't build a democracy by excluding the marginalized parties and breaking your own rules. Believe me, it doesn't work. The USA did it many times, and each time, it answered for it. Unanswered questions rarely stay unanswered. You have to work through roadblocks, and it's a hard process.
Kicking out Ireland now would just be a stain on the legitimacy of the EU which would last forever.
Disclaimer: I love Europe. I have traveled many times to Europe, studied in Europe, and actually studied the EU while in Europe; its advantages, disadvantages, and other varied issues as they impact smaller, larger, and different nations.
The Irish have created a truly create country. Besides Norway, Ireland is probably the greatest country in the world right now.
The Irish decision was influenced due to:
Similarly, look at London:
Some countries are better using EU in different ways.
It reminds me how Germany was the economic engine of Europe, and now Germany is known as the "sick man of Europe."
The French want to be the leader of the EU.
I support a strong EU because then the USA can get out of Germany, and other, EU countries. Let the EU defend themselves. The USA is broke, busted, and bankrupt. Our citizens do not even have universal health care in the USA, unlike other EU countries.
Speaking of France, they have the best health care system in the world: a multipayer system: part government and part private. It works brilliant, in spite of what you read in your local newspapers.