EU - The EU Treaty

[Coconut]

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/br...cle3129899.ece

[top]Just 25% of Irish voters support EU Reform Treaty

Monday, November 05, 2007

Irish support for the EU Reform Treaty is lower than that for the failed EU Constitution, according to a new opinion poll published this morning.
Twenty-five per cent of respondents to the Irish Times poll said they would vote yes to the proposed new treaty, with 13% saying they would vote no and 62% undecided.

---

Ireland is presently the only country willing to hold a referendum on the issue of the European Backdoor Constitution (aka Reform Treaty). Interesting that only 25% of people would lend their support to it; if this trend were to be expected across Europe, no wonder politicians are refusing to hold referenda on the issue. Sure, when democracy thwarts your plans the first time around, why not dodge it altogether?

What are people's thoughts on the treaty? Do you oppose or support it and why? I'm actually very interested in hearing what people have to say about this, since so many here live in Europe.

[Lunar Loops]

Well, my little c0conut (forgive the familiarity, you may be built like the proverbial brick outhouse...it's those damn forum names playing mind games again), what is your opinion?

I see two have said they oppose it already. What are your reasons?

I'm a little undecided about this. In principal I think it's a good idea, but member nations have too much self-interest at heart to FULLY sign up to this. Nations are always looking for caveats....Ireland to keep it's neutrality, UK to keep it's currency, etc, etc, etc. I don't see how any such treaty can truly work when there are so many conflicting interests at play. Too many people see it as giving up on their sovereignty....the "we want to govern ourselves" attitude...well you can't have it both ways. If you are going to start watering down the treaty and making exceptions for certain member states then you may as well scrap the whole thing.

Part of me feels there's a thin line between sovereignty and racism...."we don't want johnny foreigner interfering in our affairs". A fact emphasised by the fact that the far-right Le Pen is already interested in campaigning here (In Ireland) for a "No" vote.

Of course the whole thing has possibly interesting ramifications for the 'war on drugs'. Would it make it harder or easier for a change in policy?

Personally I am undecided. I approve of the idea in general, but am not all convinced that it can ever TRULY work due to conflicting member nation interests.

I think far too many people are unaware of how the change would affect them.

[Coconut]

Originally Posted by shroomonger

Well, my little c0conut (forgive the familiarity, you may be built like the proverbial brick outhouse...it's those damn forum names playing mind games again), what is your opinion?

I see two have said they oppose it already. What are your reasons?

I thought it best not to articulate my opinions on the treaty last night since it would have turned into some kind of huge incoherent rant, but I'll be happy to oblige you today, my little shroomonger.

Basically, my opposition to the treaty stems from my opposition to the European Union as a whole. I believe the longer Ireland remains in the EU, the greater the chance of being absorbed into a United States of Europe - now I'm sure some people think a USE is a good idea, whether it be to counteract the United States of America and challenge it as the world's sole superpower or to integrate the peoples of Europe since we're "all Europeans", therefore we should all live under one government for some reason. But I don't share either of these beliefs. Superstates are not a good idea.

The European Union has done good for Ireland in the past, but it has so many absurd laws which Ireland has no choice but to make law here that I am growing increasingly disillusioned with our membership.

This treaty is, of course, just a back-door version of the EU constitution. The idea behind it is that since the constitution was democratically rejected, it should be implemented some other way, by avoiding democracy altogether.

Another point would be that I am a libertarian socialist and, therefore, am opposed to all kinds of authority.

Originally Posted by shroomonger

I'm a little undecided about this. In principal I think it's a good idea, but member nations have too much self-interest at heart to FULLY sign up to this. Nations are always looking for caveats....Ireland to keep it's neutrality, UK to keep it's currency, etc, etc, etc. I don't see how any such treaty can truly work when there are so many conflicting interests at play. Too many people see it as giving up on their sovereignty....the "we want to govern ourselves" attitude...well you can't have it both ways. If you are going to start watering down the treaty and making exceptions for certain member states then you may as well scrap the whole thing.

I agree that you can't keep having exceptions for certain parties to a treaty.

Originally Posted by shroomonger

Part of me feels there's a thin line between sovereignty and racism...."we don't want johnny foreigner interfering in our affairs". A fact emphasised by the fact that the far-right Le Pen is already interested in campaigning here (In Ireland) for a "No" vote.

I do not believe opposition to external influence is racism. I do not like the idea of anybody meddling with my life, so it is understandable that people who support the Irish state do not want other people meddling with our own affairs. Obviously some people will capitalise on this and transform it into racist rhetoric, as always happens.

Originally Posted by shroomonger

Of course the whole thing has possibly interesting ramifications for the 'war on drugs'. Would it make it harder or easier for a change in policy?

An interesting question. Due to the overarching influence of Germany, France and Britain in the EU, I believe it is likely that whatever drug laws these nations have will probably be brought in as harmonised legislation on the rest of the member states.

[Lunar Loops]

Originally Posted by c0c0nut

Basically, my opposition to the treaty stems from my opposition to the European Union as a whole. I believe the longer Ireland remains in the EU, the greater the chance of being absorbed into a United States of Europe - now I'm sure some people think a USE is a good idea, whether it be to counteract the United States of America and challenge it as the world's sole superpower or to integrate the peoples of Europe since we're "all Europeans", therefore we should all live under one government for some reason. But I don't share either of these beliefs. Superstates are not a good idea.

Well, firstly let me thank you for elaborating. As you are already aware, there are arguments for and against this. The fact is, I have no problem with the idea. In a utopian world, where we are all humans after all (ignoring race and religion...if only we could), I would have no problem with government for all, by all on a global level (providing it was TRULY democratic). Of course this will NEVER be achieved due to issues of self-interest.

Originally Posted by c0c0nut

The European Union has done good for Ireland in the past, but it has so many absurd laws which Ireland has no choice but to make law here that I am growing increasingly disillusioned with our membership.

We have our own absurd laws (plenty of them) as do most other member states. I'm not sure that any one is worse than the other. It would probably mean that passing a new law would be more difficult as it would require the majority of the member states to agree. Of course this could also be seen as either a good thing or a bad thing.

Originally Posted by c0c0nut

This treaty is, of course, just a back-door version of the EU constitution. The idea behind it is that since the constitution was democratically rejected, it should be implemented some other way, by avoiding democracy altogether.

Agreed and on that level it is wrong.

Originally Posted by c0c0nut

Another point would be that I am a libertarian socialist and, therefore, am opposed to all kinds of authority.

That is an admirable standpoint, but it isn't going to happen any time soon (read EVER). On that basis is one any worse than the other?

Originally Posted by c0c0nut

I do not believe opposition to external influence is racism. I do not like the idea of anybody meddling with my life, so it is understandable that people who support the Irish state do not want other people meddling with our own affairs. Obviously some people will capitalise on this and transform it into racist rhetoric, as always happens.

I wasn't saying that it WAS racist, but there is a part of me that is uncomfortable with the attitude. Whilst there are many, like your good self who do not object on racist grounds, there are many whose reasons for resisting such a change are very much racist in nature. You don't like any one meddling in your life, neither do I, but the fact is we have it whether we like it ir not. So what difference does it make if those meddling are Irish or a mixture of Irish and other Europeans?

This is of course a VERY complex issue and there will be many that will be opposed on economic grounds (ask the Irish farmers for one).

[Coconut]

Originally Posted by shroomonger

Well, firstly let me thank you for elaborating. As you are already aware, there are arguments for and against this. The fact is, I have no problem with the idea. In a utopian world, where we are all humans after all (ignoring race and religion...if only we could), I would have no problem with government for all, by all on a global level (providing it was TRULY democratic). Of course this will NEVER be achieved due to issues of self-interest.

I believe global government will be achieved in the near future, but I am extremely sceptical of claims that it will be a fair and just government which holds liberty and rights in high regard. I admit, the idea of such a utopian world government does sound appealing, however power corrupts and absolute power corrups absolutely, and a world government means absolute power.

Originally Posted by shroomonger

We have our own absurd laws (plenty of them) as do most other member states. I'm not sure that any one is worse than the other. It would probably mean that passing a new law would be more difficult as it would require the majority of the member states to agree. Of course this could also be seen as either a good thing or a bad thing.

Oh, absolutely we have ridiculous laws here. It's just a lot easier (in my opinion) to block the passage of such laws or get them repealed when you're dealing with a relatively small government a couple of miles down the road on an island of 5 million instead of a huge government, which is not directly elected by the people, and whose parliament has no power, several hundred miles away and whose power covers almost one billion humans.

Originally Posted by shroomonger

That is an admirable standpoint, but it isn't going to happen any time soon (read EVER). On that basis is one any worse than the other?

I agree, the abolition of authority will probably never happen unless human society collapses itself (which I believe is an inevitable outcome), but one can dream and stick to one's principles. To me, if government must exist, it should be on as small a scale as possible and its sole function should be to protect the rights and liberties of the people. Therefore, a local council in my part of Dublin, say, is preferable to a European government.

Originally Posted by shroomonger

I wasn't saying that it WAS racist, but there is a part of me that is uncomfortable with the attitude. Whilst there are many, like your good self who do not object on racist grounds, there are many whose reasons for resisting such a change are very much racist in nature. You don't like any one meddling in your life, neither do I, but the fact is we have it whether we like it ir not. So what difference does it make if those meddling are Irish or a mixture of Irish and other Europeans?

I didn't think you were saying that it was racist. Had I thought that my response would not have been so civil.

I do not have a problem with other Europeans contributing to our society. For example, people who immigrate in here from say, France or Germany. But my above point is generally where I'm coming from; the scale of government, its concern for liberties and its democratic accountability, and in regard to my extremely high standards, Europe fails on all three counts there.

Originally Posted by shroomonger

This is of course a VERY complex issue and there will be many that will be opposed on economic grounds (ask the Irish farmers for one).

I agree.

[Lunar Loops]

Originally Posted by c0c0nut

Oh, absolutely we have ridiculous laws here. It's just a lot easier (in my opinion) to block the passage of such laws or get them repealed when you're dealing with a relatively small government a couple of miles down the road on an island of 5 million instead of a huge government, which is not directly elected by the people, and whose parliament has no power, several hundred miles away and whose power covers almost one billion humans.

Hmmm, I'm not so sure about that. Given the bizarre voting system in this country, it's a fair bet that many of the TD's have not been 'directly' elected by the populous. As for getting things changed, I don't think it could be much worse than it already is. Just take a look at Bagman Bertie, he doesn't care what shite he throws at the Irish public once he's in power. Why anyone should now be surprised that he's making off with the loot is beyond me.

Anyway, looks like it's just you and me on this one.

For the record, I don't think our views are vastly different and we are really only debating semantics.

[Petethemeat]

It concerns me slightly that people have such misgivings about the treaty. Most of the UK and Ireland seem to like or at least tolerate the idea of being a member of the EU. It is certainly vaible to say that economically it has worked- mainly through immigration and opening up markets.

However the UK and Ireland must be team players in some sense, they cannot reasonably reject a treaty that has been ratified by every other state and remain in the game.

People view the treaty as a loss of soveriegnty, when this is not the case- the sovereignty is being 'pooled' not lost. While some issues we may have less control over, a nation also gains from the sovereignty shared by another nation. It is also critical that some sovereignty is shared for the decision maing process to occur. With new nations joining it becomes unfeasible for many issues to allow one nation to have a vetoe. The more nations that join the more majority voting will occur.

David Cameron claims he would like to see a more 'democratic' EU, yet he would not vote for the treaty. This is a paradoxical stance, as the treaty ensures more power is given to the elected EU parliament, rather than the appointed EU assembly.

Finally the Treaty gives the necessary procedures for if a state should ever want to leave the EU. At the moment no nation knows how to do so.

It is for these reasons and more that I would vote yes to such a treaty.

[Petethemeat]

The ending of the war on drugs would require the agreement of all the EU at least. With a system such as the EU this seems possible. While if one nation on its own legalised drugs, then that society would simply have an unfair number of drug users and bear the burden entirely to itself.

[Coconut]

Originally Posted by shroomonger

Hmmm, I'm not so sure about that. Given the bizarre voting system in this country, it's a fair bet that many of the TD's have not been 'directly' elected by the populous.

I've long been sceptical of the single transferable vote system.

Originally Posted by shroomonger

As for getting things changed, I don't think it could be much worse than it already is. Just take a look at Bagman Bertie, he doesn't care what shite he throws at the Irish public once he's in power. Why anyone should now be surprised that he's making off with the loot is beyond me.

I agree with you here, however Bertie is a politician. That's what they do. People will elect politicians and complain that they're corrupt yet they will elect them again or elect an opposition politician who turns out to be equally, if not more, rotten to the core. Then the vicious circle continues.

Originally Posted by shroomonger

For the record, I don't think our views are vastly different and we are really only debating semantics.

True, but that's what makes debating fun.

Oh, and winning of course, but it's impossible to win on the Internet.

Originally Posted by Petethemeat

It concerns me slightly that people have such misgivings about the treaty. Most of the UK and Ireland seem to like or at least tolerate the idea of being a member of the EU. It is certainly vaible to say that economically it has worked- mainly through immigration and opening up markets.

Economically the EU has worked. But isn't that what the EU started out as? An economic bloc? Of course, from the beginning the idea was not only that, but socio-political integration. Economic partnerships (such as the EFTA) and keeping friends on the world stage I have no problem with. I don't see why anyone other than Kim Jong-Il would. But once countries start becoming amalgamated with one another and power is centralised hundreds of miles away, I grow concerned.

Originally Posted by Petethemeat

However the UK and Ireland must be team players in some sense, they cannot reasonably reject a treaty that has been ratified by every other state and remain in the game.

Why not? Are you implying that when the rest of the EU ratifies the treaty (sans referendum), we should just go along with it?

Originally Posted by Petethemeat

People view the treaty as a loss of soveriegnty, when this is not the case- the sovereignty is being 'pooled' not lost.

This reminds me of "it's extreme interrogation, not torture!"

What's in a name?

If you transfer some of your sovereignty to another body, I believe it is essentially lost as it is not your sovereignty anymore. It becomes someone elses entirely. Oh, sure, you may get a look in every so often but that's about it. Meanwhile, the barrage of directives regarding the shape of bananas and whatnot flood in.

Originally Posted by Petethemeat

While some issues we may have less control over, a nation also gains from the sovereignty shared by another nation. It is also critical that some sovereignty is shared for the decision maing process to occur. With new nations joining it becomes unfeasible for many issues to allow one nation to have a vetoe. The more nations that join the more majority voting will occur.

This veto seems to be hardly unfeasible for the United Nations, with many times more member states than the EU and a handful of powers permanently and comfortably seated on the security council with vetoes.

Originally Posted by Petethemeat

David Cameron claims he would like to see a more 'democratic' EU, yet he would not vote for the treaty. This is a paradoxical stance, as the treaty ensures more power is given to the elected EU parliament, rather than the appointed EU assembly.

No reasonable man would listen to what David Cameron has to say without raising an eyebrow.

Originally Posted by Petethemeat

Finally the Treaty gives the necessary procedures for if a state should ever want to leave the EU. At the moment no nation knows how to do so.

I would imagine that leaving the EU would be a fairly long process, perhaps over a couple of years. Laws could be repealed, et cetera. But if a member state wants to leave, it's certainly doable. It's not as if we need the EU to tell members how to withdraw.

[Lunar Loops]

Originally Posted by c0c0nut

It's not as if we need the EU to tell members how to withdraw.

No, we have the catholic church for that (sorry, couldn't resist).

On a more serious note though, that is one organisation that has FAR too much of a say in the affairs of this country (from early years indoctrination and upwards). Another issue maybe, but ask yourself how much of an influence Rome already has in this country.

[Coconut]

Originally Posted by shroomonger

No, we have the catholic church for that (sorry, couldn't resist).

You got a good chuckle out of me there.

Originally Posted by shroomonger

On a more serious note though, that is one organisation that has FAR too much of a say in the affairs of this country (from early years indoctrination and upwards). Another issue maybe, but ask yourself how much of an influence Rome already has in this country.

Absolutely, the Vatican has tremendous control over this country, even over our laws, despite the fact that its influence is waning somewhat. I personally oppose the Catholic Church.

[Petethemeat]

My point about sovereignty was valid, sovereignty is not lost, for every bit of sovereignty you give away- you gain slightly more sovereignty over others. That is not a pedantic difference, it is enormous.

You surely know as well as I that the EU does not devote a great deal of time, on such trivial things as shapes of bananas, with modern media picking out the most ridiculous and unrepresentative examples of the EU's work.

The UN is a broken organisation. With it's biggest backer free to do whatever it desires without any fear of retribution- it simply is not fit for purpose.

You seem to imply that for a government to pass the treaty without a referendum is undemocratic- this is incorrect. Direct Democracy is widely regarded as unworkable. The UK and Ireland have arrived at the conclusion that democracy is best and indeed only workable, when presented as a parliamentary or presidential system. So the people have already given their legal sovereignty to the government through democratic elections- giving them the full democratic authority to pass this treaty without a referendum.

You are correct laws can be repealed, yet this has further reaching ramifications than you may expect. We are intrisicly linked to the EU in terms of migration, enterprise and law making. Simply repealin the European Peoples Act will not untangle us from the web of beauracracy. It is for this reason that the treaty lays out clearly how this can be resolved.

The treaty:

Democratises the power of the EU (giving more power to the elected parliament)

Devises a fairer and more accurate system of majority voting (which at the moment is dangerously out of whack with population levels in each nation)

Sets the rules and regulations for possible expansion, rather than the existing ad hoc basis in which they are allowed in.

[Petethemeat]

Couldn't agree more about Cameron...

[FuBai]

I certainly think that we should tend more to an allegiance with Europe than America for cultural reasons first and fore-most. We are moving into an age where we will need more and more a strong superstructure that unites countries in a more rigid manner and allows greater integration of nations, so I am in favour of an idea like the EU. The problem is that the vast outlay that EU membership requires at the moment isn't worth the return for the UK at least, coupled with the problem of uncapped immigration means that the whole thing becomes more problematic. I think that we should be far more careful about where our money is being spent and the return and projected returns we get on it as we inevitably enter a stronger European framework, and that we should always allow an opt-out clause so that we can never be full bound into a course of action that we despise. As for the current debate about the European Reform Treaty - I think the main thing to do is put it to referendum in the UK. It will almost certainly be defeated (granted) but it is to all-encompassing and sovereignty surrendering for it to be left entirely to Whitehall and Westminster.