Lisbon Treaty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

the federalists want to govern without having to be accountable for their decisions.

---

This is not my understanding of what a federalism (ergo federalist) is.

Federalism is the sharing of power between centre and constituent units. Federalists want a relative increase in the power to be held at the centre and they want the accountabilility for this to better reflect the voting power of the constituent units.

Democracy is not at odds with federalism, quite the opposite.

I can grasp that you disagree with the concept of federalism, and thats fine, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't continually and deliberately misrepresent what federalism is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

The democrats want the politicians to be held accountable at the ballot box, the federalists want to govern without having to be accountable for their decisions.

---

But the question is which ballot box the politicians should be accountable to. Federalists like Libertas want a directly elected president of Europe and other federal structures, to model the Union on the federal republics like Germany or the USA. In this structure politicians would be accountable to the people of Europe as a whole, not to the individual countries electorates.

The Lisbon treaty kept the bulk of the power with the national governments, where we can hold our own politicians to account but we have no say over what the foreign politicians do.

Both systems are democratic but the demos is treated differently. Under the federal system that Libertas favours a European government would be directly accountable to the people of Europe as a single unit. Under the Nice and Lisbon treaties the people of Europe are treated as citizens of separate nations and they act mostly through their own governments.

If you wanted an open, transparent Constitution, with democracy at the heart of it, this is what should have happened:

The MEP's are sent home to their states and consult with their constituents on what their vision of Europe should be.
They then report back to the Commission their findings, which the Commission assesses, and forms the regulations of the Constitution on that basis.
The findings are approved by the Council of Ministers, and put before the electorates to accept in a referendum.
The proposal is then accepted, and the parliaments proceed to ratify through their parliaments.
EU Constitution adopted.

Instead, the proposals were: "This is what's been agreed, ratify it. Don't bother reading it, and don't bother putting it to the people either."

In a democracy, that kind of demand is not going to work, and accelerates Euroscepticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Libertas are democrats...

---

I accept more people voted No against Yes but suggesting Libertas are democracts is laughable. Libertas are everything that they accuse the EU of. Shadowy mysteriously financed unelected organisation. Ganleys claims about funding just don't add up as Libertas only have a handful of "members".

I don't see what funding has to do with the ref result. Both sides used the resources at their disposal in their campaign. The Yes side's financial resources were very strong, whether they used them effectively or not is an issue for them.

.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by libertas

Senior Spokesperson for Libertas, Caroline Simons, issued the following statement in response to criticism of Czech President Vaclav Klaus from various sections of the Irish political establishment:

"Today's spluttering, incoherent, bluster from the political establishment in this country is very revealing, in that it shows how angry they are that the central basis of their argument for a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty has been so devastatingly undermined.

Ireland is not alone in Europe. President Klaus has shown himself to be a friend to the majority of Irish citizens who rejected the Lisbon Treaty. That he is the incoming President of the EU council is even more significant.

Dick Roche, Joe Costello, and Billy Timmins have spent today publicly regretting the fact that the Irish public were able to hear the views of a fellow democrat. I would hope that that would give them pause for thought.

The Irish people have eyes and ears. They can clearly see the truth of Ireland's position in Europe, and they can also see that the people they have elected would rather that they did not have all of the facts.

Combined with the reports yesterday that the Government may consider limiting access to the airwaves for its opponents, this paints an uncomfortable portrait of the view of democracy held by our leaders, - especially given Minister Roche's continued churlish and deceitful references to "free debate" in Ireland.

I congratulate President Klaus on his courage, dignity, and service, and we in Libertas will never for one moment regret that the Irish people are able to hear the stated positions of our European colleagues"

---

So when Sarkozy came he was interfering and you got on your high horse about it, yet when Klaus comes he's welcomed as a friend of the Irish people...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

So when Sarkozy came he was interfering and you got on your high horse about it, yet when Klaus comes he's welcomed as a friend of the Irish people...

---

conversely Kev, those who defended sarkozy's right to comment on the situation in favour of the Treaty must now surely defend klaus' right to comment against the Treaty. fair's fair. i would like to see more balanced, intellignet rational comments from the eu regarding the situation over the lisbon treaty. bypass (or work alongside) the governemtn and try and explain the rationale behind the treaty, and also try and understand why the majority of those who voted, voted no - you know, mature, rational reasoned debate and discussion.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/an...l-1541321.html

In response to the laughable "poll" published at the weekend, here's another poll from the same paper, only this time with explanations.

http://http://www.irishtimes.com/pol...56&pollid=8602

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

But the question is which ballot box the politicians should be accountable to. Federalists like Libertas want a directly elected president of Europe and other federal structures, to model the Union on the federal republics like Germany or the USA. In this structure politicians would be accountable to the people of Europe as a whole, not to the individual countries electorates.

The Lisbon treaty kept the bulk of the power with the national governments, where we can hold our own politicians to account but we have no say over what the foreign politicians do.

Both systems are democratic but the demos is treated differently. Under the federal system that Libertas favours a European government would be directly accountable to the people of Europe as a single unit. Under the Nice and Lisbon treaties the people of Europe are treated as citizens of separate nations and they act mostly through their own governments.

---

Hi again,
Reading back through that, it contains a few claims not backed up with evidence. I'll add a direct quote from one of Ganley's speaches to back myself up;

"A United States of Europe, structured properly, could benefit Europeans and the world. A federal Europe is a pretty good idea".

from this speech: http://www.fpri.org/ww/0405.200312.g...stitution.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

In response to the laughable "poll" published at the weekend, here's another poll from the same paper, only this time with explanations.

http://http://www.irishtimes.com/pol...56&pollid=8602

---

The fact that so many said they were undecided makes that poll meaningless.

Ganley in front of the an Oireachtas Committee today. Will be interesting to see how he explains his funding as the numbers don't add up. Still don't trust the guy & don't know why he has any interest in the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

Hi again,
Reading back through that, it contains a few claims not backed up with evidence. I'll add a direct quote from one of Ganley's speaches to back myself up;

"A United States of Europe, structured properly, could benefit Europeans and the world. A federal Europe is a pretty good idea".

---

The key word in there is "structured properly", i.e. democratically elected.

As it's well known by now, I'm opposed to the idea of an EU President. It's a recipe for disaster for small countries like us, and Europe as a whole. The current system gives us the opportunity for 6 months, of leading the continent, for the same amount of time as France or Malta do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

The key word in there is "structured properly", i.e. democratically elected.

As it's well known by now, I'm opposed to the idea of an EU President. It's a recipe for disaster for small countries like us, and Europe as a whole. The current system gives us the opportunity for 6 months, of leading the continent, for the same amount of time as France or Malta do.

---

Which is effectively gerrymandering.

Aka Sharing power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

The key word in there is "structured properly", i.e. democratically elected.

As it's well known by now, I'm opposed to the idea of an EU President. It's a recipe for disaster for small countries like us, and Europe as a whole. The current system gives us the opportunity for 6 months, of leading the continent, for the same amount of time as France or Malta do.

---

I agree with most of that.
If we go back to the start of this discussion, the question was whether the federalists are happy that the treaty was rejected. The federalists in Ireland are and I'd guess that that's probably true across Europe as a whole.

Martyn Turner says it for me in todays Irish Times.

http://www.irishtimes.com/cartoons/t...08/1118/18.jpg

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...ligence-agency

i think the last couple of paragraphs might have some bearing on this debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shantykelly

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...ligence-agency

i think the last couple of paragraphs might have some bearing on this debate.

---

I think there is a lot of truth in that. I don't know what the solution is but the EU is definitely in danger of becoming less influential in the world. It cannot continue to sit on the sidelines.

There is a show on BBC where Jonathan Dimbleby travels across Russia. He asks weathly locals in St Peterburg if they think their country is democratic & they really don't care - they suggest you can go into private enterprise or a government career & the two don't cross. Seems China & Russia will be more powerful than ever before in quasi-capitalist world economy with only a hint of democracy.

If Russia and China want to be not democratic, that's their business. It doesn't mean we have to follow suit.

It's in our interests to build positive relationships with those countries however. That will not be achieved by subscribing to Lisbon, in order to "confront" them.