I personally am concerned at the use of referendums for making this kind of decision.
On the one hand yes it is important for the people to have some kind of say in treaties that will affect their lives.
On the other hand I wonder how many of the people who voted in Ireland actually understood what they were voting against and werent simply being swayed by nationalist tabloids and such.
Surely issues like this are precisely why elected representatives exist, to make decisions in the best interests of the people when the majority of the people are not qualified to make the decision themselves.
You go four or five generations without a major war in Europe, and you gloss over the parts of your history where every country on that continent stabbed every other country in the back for a millennium and change.
I don't think that's really fair. No one's glossing over the bloodshed, I think it's an important reason why the EU needs to exist and be stronger. Also, it helps prove how successful the EU can be - bringing together enemies who've been killing each other for centuries and stopping them
I don't know. In my eyes there's something seriously fucked up about 1% of the population having the ability to halt all progress on a treaty and outweigh the other 99%.
Let's face one fact: these allegations of the EU being "undemocratic" and whatnot is not something that has occurred only to the Irish. There are people in France and Italy and Belgium and England etc. that think the same thing. The thing however is that those people were not the majority; in every country except Ireland the vote was a yes. In every country except Ireland, the general consensus was that some progress is better than no progress, even if that progress is made under less-than-ideal amounts of democracy.
So what makes Ireland so special? I mean, it's not as if the Irish have higher standards for democracy or anything; the portions that voted no consists mostly of fundies and truck drivers and union members and what have you. What is going on here then?
Everyone needs to agree - every nation. It needs unanimity. Why? Because it's essentially a 27-way treaty. If it were a two-way treaty, both nations would have to agree. 27-way treaties need 27 nations to agree before they can work. The alternative would seem to be to expel a nation from the EU.
I think it's fairly conclusive that a lot of people would've voted against it given the chance. France and Holland voted against the Constitution, and the Treaty is seen as the successor to that, it stands to reason that it would be voted against as well. Proof? None, and I'm not bothering to look because it's pretty obvious
Having said that, I don't think it's a problem so much with the Treaty or Constitution themselves, I think it's a PR problem. It's seemed to me, and I might be wrong, that not many people are bothering to try to sell either to the public - if they did, it might win. Even the governments don't seem to care. They kind of shrugged their shoulders and say "vote for it, it's good" then act surprised when people vote against it.
So what makes Ireland so special? I mean, it's not as if the Irish have higher standards for democracy or anything; the portions that voted no consists mostly of fundies and truck drivers and union members and what have you. What is going on here then?
Aside from the points already made about this post I would like to say one thing: Of 43 voting constituencies in Ireland 10 voted for it. Only 5 of those were by a significant majority (more than 2000 votes of the 30000-50000 cast). One of the 10 areas was won by 4 votes. Even discounting how close they were that's still 3/4 of the constituencies in the country. It was hardly just the Truckers and Fundies voting against it.
Also: Arasaki
The fact Ireland did actually ask the people what they wanted makes me like the country a whole lot more though.
It's a reason to like the Irish constitution yes but believe me: If Irish politicians could have forced it through without a vote they would have.
True, asking the plebians for their opinion is always a foolish thing to do in a democracy.
His point is that it's analogous to, say, New Hampshire having referendum veto power over any federal law.
Which is oversimplifying it a bit.
It seems to me that people might be in more support of the EU if the commissioners were directly elected, but then what the fuck do I know, I'm over on the other side of the pond.
Well if you read the later parts of the post I do point out that EU is a supernational government aswell, I just didn't feel like going back and rewriting the beginning.
EU is a supernational government there is really no discussion there, I like the idea as I said but the execution and the ramifications for my country is not something I approve of, which is why I am against it. I would not mind an EU like entity for scandinavia as an example due to the fact that we scandinavians agree on most issues (in fact we have been one country for hundreds of years at times), I dislike the EU because I see it as a place were no matter how its done the UK, France, Germany, Spain and so forth are going to be controlling it and they have radically different ideas as to how things should be then we do (and then each other aswell).
I realise that small countries currently has disproportionate power compared to their populations but if EU has to be in any way succesful I believe that must end and if that ends we lose all chance of keeping Denmark the way the danish want it to be instead of how some central or southern europeans want it.
Also again, the Irish shooting down the Lisbon Treaty is in no way unfair or assholish, it is their god damn right to do so and it is to me outrageous that the rest of the european countries aren't doing it by popular vote aswell, shaping the EU should be up to the people, not up to those in power, even if they are put there by the people.
Most european nations have at some point been reformed by the people after they got unhappy with how those in power had done it. In my eyes an EU formed after the mind of the elites and not of the general people is doomed to fail, if we cannot as a Europe spanning democrazy agree on how it should be made we should not make it at all in my mind.
I agree with most of your points, really, except for the one about small countries needing to retain power.
I have the same argument there as I have when arguing with Spanish independentists: what the heck does it mean for Denmark being the way it wants to be that the EU decides about union-scale economy and human rights? Honestly, it's not like they're going to impose the curriculuims for schools or the official languages. Spain had to redo its agricultural policies. I come form a place where farming used to be huge and now we're on a quota for producing milk. We don't like it, but that's a policy that was designed with a bigger scope than my three million people community. The fact that the 300 million community could override our will and decide how much milk we could produce was needed. They won't come and tell us that our language, which only us speak in the worlk, is now illegal. People often mistake one thing for the other, which always leads to pain and conflict.
I agree, though, we need a consensus on this, and until we feel it is in place, we should stop trying to move forward and expland the union. It's causing more harm than good at this point. We're not a corporation, we don't need to keep growing to keep being successful. We can wait until the time is right once more.
That said, I do think the consensus must include smaller countries accepting that they're going to lose power because they represent less people. It also needs to include a reasonable territorial chamber that works as an European Senate on reasonable terms.
The fact Ireland did actually ask the people what they wanted makes me like the country a whole lot more though.
It's a reason to like the Irish constitution yes but believe me: If Irish politicians could have forced it through without a vote they would have.
Well politicians suck.
And Ireland has Guinness.
Daedalus: I understand what he means, but stating that asking people what they want is a stupid way or practising democracy just seems somewhat wrong to me. Personally I would have liked the oppurtunity to vote no to the EU, but due to our government I wasn't allowed to.
Daedalus: I understand what he means, but stating that asking people what they want is a stupid way or practising democracy just seems somewhat wrong to me. Personally I would have liked the oppurtunity to vote no to the EU, but due to our government I wasn't allowed to.
Daedalus: I understand what he means, but stating that asking people what they want is a stupid way or practising democracy just seems somewhat wrong to me. Personally I would have liked the oppurtunity to vote no to the EU, but due to our government I wasn't allowed to.
That's not what I said.
You just said it was stupid in general, but that's a very pedantic distinction.
Daedalus: I understand what he means, but stating that asking people what they want is a stupid way or practising democracy just seems somewhat wrong to me. Personally I would have liked the oppurtunity to vote no to the EU, but due to our government I wasn't allowed to.
That's not what I said.
You just said it was stupid in general, but that's a very pedantic distinction.
Yeah, I think it's stupid that a treaty that would make the EU a more efficient governing body - i.e. address and eliminate it's main weakness - was shot down by the majority rule of a tiny minority.
There is a reason why most modern countries use representative democracy. They understand that there is no way one can inform and educate the whole public on detailed matters such as this - that's why they have representatives in place to deal with them. Hell, how many of those No votes would have been Yes votes if everyone actually knew what the fuck they were voting on? The way Ireland dealt with this was extremely crude and elementary, and it screwed over a humongous number of people outside their country.
The biggest problem with democracy is not that the people are uninformed about the issues, and as such should elect people who would then take the time to learn about the issues and make informed decisions for the good of everyone.
The problem is people are to fucking stupid to vote for a candidate who would actually research the issues and make informed decisions. The people would rather have a charismatic asshole who will vote for whatever is likely to get him reelected regardless of how bad an idea it is. Democracy fails because people do not even care about the real issues, they do not even research their candidate. They do not even have the time to research how the candidate feels on issues, let alone what those issues are.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
~ Winston Churchill
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
Daedalus: I understand what he means, but stating that asking people what they want is a stupid way or practising democracy just seems somewhat wrong to me. Personally I would have liked the oppurtunity to vote no to the EU, but due to our government I wasn't allowed to.
That's not what I said.
You just said it was stupid in general, but that's a very pedantic distinction.
Yeah, I think it's stupid that a treaty that would make the EU a more efficient governing body - i.e. address and eliminate it's main weakness - was shot down by the majority rule of a tiny minority.
There is a reason why most modern countries use representative democracy. They understand that there is no way one can inform and educate the whole public on detailed matters such as this - that's why they have representatives in place to deal with them. Hell, how many of those No votes would have been Yes votes if everyone actually knew what the fuck they were voting on? The way Ireland dealt with this was extremely crude and elementary, and it screwed over a humongous number of people outside their country.
Sorry, but I can't help but feel that our government is screwing us over by not letting us vote on it. I have no desire to be part of the EU, and I dislike someone in another country setting rules and regulations for me to follow.
Daedalus: I understand what he means, but stating that asking people what they want is a stupid way or practising democracy just seems somewhat wrong to me. Personally I would have liked the oppurtunity to vote no to the EU, but due to our government I wasn't allowed to.
That's not what I said.
You just said it was stupid in general, but that's a very pedantic distinction.
Yeah, I think it's stupid that a treaty that would make the EU a more efficient governing body - i.e. address and eliminate it's main weakness - was shot down by the majority rule of a tiny minority.
There is a reason why most modern countries use representative democracy. They understand that there is no way one can inform and educate the whole public on detailed matters such as this - that's why they have representatives in place to deal with them. Hell, how many of those No votes would have been Yes votes if everyone actually knew what the fuck they were voting on? The way Ireland dealt with this was extremely crude and elementary, and it screwed over a humongous number of people outside their country.
How should Ireland have dealt with it then, when Ireland's law didn't allow any other course of action? Should they just have ignored their inconvenient constitution?
Daedalus: I understand what he means, but stating that asking people what they want is a stupid way or practising democracy just seems somewhat wrong to me. Personally I would have liked the oppurtunity to vote no to the EU, but due to our government I wasn't allowed to.
That's not what I said.
You just said it was stupid in general, but that's a very pedantic distinction.
Yeah, I think it's stupid that a treaty that would make the EU a more efficient governing body - i.e. address and eliminate it's main weakness - was shot down by the majority rule of a tiny minority.
There is a reason why most modern countries use representative democracy. They understand that there is no way one can inform and educate the whole public on detailed matters such as this - that's why they have representatives in place to deal with them. Hell, how many of those No votes would have been Yes votes if everyone actually knew what the fuck they were voting on? The way Ireland dealt with this was extremely crude and elementary, and it screwed over a humongous number of people outside their country.
Sorry, but I can't help but feel that our government is screwing us over by not letting us vote on it. I have no desire to be part of the EU, and I dislike someone in another country setting rules and regulations for me to follow.
Well, would you like your government to let you vote on every single fucking thing?
I mean why do you have a parliament then? Where do you draw the line between "okay, this is an issue that our politicians should vote on" vs. "i want every single one of us to vote on it"?
This is what I don't understand. You either have a popular democracy (a.k.a participatory democracy) or a representative democracy. You can't have both. Because when you try to have both, this mess happens.
Well, would you like your government to let you vote on every single fucking thing?
I mean why do you have a parliament then? Where do you draw the line between "okay, this is an issue that our politicians should vote on" vs. "i want every single one of us to vote on it"?
This is what I don't understand. You either have a popular democracy (a.k.a participatory democracy) or a representative democracy. You can't have both. Because when you try to have both, this mess happens.
If my country's constitution would be changed, I'd like to have a say in the matter, yes. But I don't think what I want is terribly important. I was just pointing out that the Irish did what Irish law requires, everybody knew (or should have known) a referendum would be necessary, and if the result is a failure it's because their government failed to inform their citizens properly.
Bliss 101 on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Well, would you like your government to let you vote on every single fucking thing?
I mean why do you have a parliament then? Where do you draw the line between "okay, this is an issue that our politicians should vote on" vs. "i want every single one of us to vote on it"?
This is what I don't understand. You either have a popular democracy (a.k.a participatory democracy) or a representative democracy. You can't have both. Because when you try to have both, this mess happens.
If my country's constitution would be changed, I'd like to have a say in the matter, yes. But I don't think what I want is terribly important. I was just pointing out that the Irish did what Irish law requires, everybody knew (or should have known) a referendum would be necessary, and if the result is a failure it's because their government failed to inform their citizens properly.
This is obviously the democratic way for a big matter such as this was. Sickening that Ireland was the only country (to my knowledge) that had/was going to have a public vote on this. I read some of the articles in the treaty and was not impressed, some were positive though - and when it weighs between taking bad with positive changes or keeping things as they are I say it's given to ask the people about it...
Another way of doing it could be to have a majority vote independent of country, but I just now thought of this and maybe it would have it's repercussions for people in specific countries.
Err, I normally never get to vote when politicians change the constitution. Nor do citizens of the USA (although the process there is hard). I'm not sure any country except maybe switzerland (which holds binding referenda a lot) has a hardcoded right to vote on constitutional changes.
Yeah it's a bit of a tricky matter. I want to be able to vote on important matters because I'm so much smarter, better educated and have a higher standard of ethics than most politicians, but I also realize that most of my fellow citizens (who I guess would have to be allowed to vote as well) are idiots.
I'm really not a fan of referendums. I don't like the idea of ignorant masses making decisions on things they don't understand, and I'm terrified of a tyranny of the majority on many environmental and human rights issues. But certain issues involve the values of the citizens to such a degree that referendums should be held, in my opinion: issues that deal with changing or dismantling your country's sovereignty and form of government.
Case in point: Finland. Five million people who speak a language nobody else in the world understands (well, Estonians do to some degree). Each of the five largest cities in Germany have more people than our entire country. Through most of history, Finland was a political and military battleground between Sweden and Russia, and had to fight for its independence first against Soviet Union and then against Germany in WWII. The fear of losing our cultural identity after all these struggles isn't entirely unfounded, and I think people in many smaller countries share this view. A certain amount of xenophobia and nationalism sit tight in this country, and while I don't agree with these attitudes I don't think it's right for the government to ignore them (especially when the same politicians are eager to play on the exact same misguided ideologies when it suits them). You should educate the people and then listen to them, instead of simply disregarding the opinions of the ignorant peasants.
Err, I normally never get to vote when politicians change the constitution. Nor do citizens of the USA (although the process there is hard). I'm not sure any country except maybe switzerland (which holds binding referenda a lot) has a hardcoded right to vote on constitutional changes.
Every country does with some reforms, the US included (they actually have like 10 different processes for constitutional reform).
Here in Spain, for instance, we need either insane majority on the parliament (so that it needs to be at least agreed by the two major parties) or insane majority on the parliament AND a referendum, if it changes many articles at once or some of the specially protected ones.
We didn't have to vote on the 80s when we added an article about giving up our sovereignty to the EU, then again the parliament was unanimous about that one.
Referendums are needed in major changes to state structure just so nobody can claim a political faction imposed the changes. That's what they're for. They're not about more or less democracy, they're about setting things in stone. If every individual voted on the subject and they voted yes, then the legitimation for that as an unchangeable rule of the game is higher than if it's a decission by a few hundred men answering to a party. That's all there is to it.
That said, if those rules say the referendum is needed, it's needed, and legitimate, too. They never decided about the whole EU, just about their vote. Be angry at the need for unanimity, if you want, but not at the process the Irish needed.
The US might not have direct votes on the national constitution, but many of the states do have direct votes on changes to the state constitutions. I just checked and mine does (Georgia). Which, are pretty analogous to the countries in the EU, from my understanding. The main difference seems to be that the US was designed as a whole entity from the beginning, and so has better (or at least, require less red tape) procedures in place for national level changes.
Being an American, I don't have much more to add to this, other than it's very interesting reading for me.
Err, I normally never get to vote when politicians change the constitution. Nor do citizens of the USA (although the process there is hard). I'm not sure any country except maybe switzerland (which holds binding referenda a lot) has a hardcoded right to vote on constitutional changes.
I know that Denmark and I believe the other scandinavian countries have it so that we also need to vote if the constitution is changed, I believe the last time we did it was when we voted whether we should allow our monarchs to be female.
Err, I normally never get to vote when politicians change the constitution. Nor do citizens of the USA (although the process there is hard). I'm not sure any country except maybe switzerland (which holds binding referenda a lot) has a hardcoded right to vote on constitutional changes.
I know that Denmark and I believe the other scandinavian countries have it so that we also need to vote if the constitution is changed, I believe the last time we did it was when we voted whether we should allow our monarchs to be female.
No we don't. Sweden has two successive decisions by the parliament with a general election in between. They can also option for a general referendum but that's never been done.
And yeah, representative democracy works much better then the direct version on anything but the local level. Being a politician is a full time job, most people don't have time for it any almost no one really cares about it either way. A lot of kids confuse being politically involved with marching around on the streets protesting (or in Denmark’s case burning cars apparently?) about things they don't have the patience to understand instead of working through the system that's set up to help make those changes come through but unfortunately I think that's as close as most people come to being politically active.
Anyway, could someone who disagrees with the treaty tell me what it actually does that makes EU worse? I haven't read, and I certainly won't now, but I was under the impression that it was basically a new, toned down, version of the constitution.
And that document didn't really grant EU any new powers so...
Because so far it seems like every naysayer is like "EU is bad. Change is scary. Let's not vote for this mkay?" instead of actually disagreeing with actual contents.
The only solid argument I have heard is that the number of commissioners were changed from 27 to 18 on a rotating basis because there were to many of them and things didn't get done. And apparently some people thought that would screw over smaller countries. I don't see the logic in that but at least they read the thing which is good because that's one step closer to understanding it.
The only solid argument I have heard is that the number of commissioners were changed from 27 to 18 on a rotating basis because there were to many of them and things didn't get done. And apparently some people thought that would screw over smaller countries. I don't see the logic in that but at least they read the thing which is good because that's one step closer to understanding it.
I believe the thinking on this one is that even if the big countries don't have a commissioner at a certain time people will still listen to their input (because they're big and powerful) whilst if a small country lacks a commissioner during said time then its opinion can be easily sidelined.
It is interesting to compare the EU's big-vs-little states situation to the US, I wonder if the US would run so smoothly if it had four states with an equal or greater proportion of the total Unions population and economy than California does, and all of them have divergent interests. It is certainly a problem if your goal is unity to have such disproportionately powerful actors, and I definitively see why the smaller member states want some sort of check on that, though figuring out something democratic and efficient that everyone can agree on might be troublesome...
For reference proportion of EU/US population:
0.17 Germany
0.13 France
0.12 United Kingdom
0.12 Italy
0.09 Spain
0.08 Poland
0.04 Romania
0.75 in the top 7
0.12 California
0.08 Texas
0.06 New York
0.06 Florida
0.04 Illinois
0.04 Pennsylvania
0.04 Ohio
0.44 in the top 7
The US might not have direct votes on the national constitution, but many of the states do have direct votes on changes to the state constitutions. I just checked and mine does (Georgia). Which, are pretty analogous to the countries in the EU, from my understanding. The main difference seems to be that the US was designed as a whole entity from the beginning, and so has better (or at least, require less red tape) procedures in place for national level changes.
The US and EU are pretty radically different in a number of ways. They're really not comparable. People do compare them, but they're wrong to do so
Sorry, but I can't help but feel that our government is screwing us over by not letting us vote on it. I have no desire to be part of the EU, and I dislike someone in another country setting rules and regulations for me to follow.
But someone in your country is setting rules and regulations for you to follow too. It's not like you're getting dictated to - you have as much a say as people in other countries
The US and EU are pretty radically different in a number of ways. They're really not comparable. People do compare them, but they're wrong to do so
Well that's disputable, but I do agree they are more dissimilar than many people seem to think, and overcoming that conflation in peoples minds is important.
Its odd that you never see the EU compared to other big federations like say India, when in terms of problems like linguistic diversity, economic and structural differences between states they are possibly much closer .
Well that's disputable, but I do agree they are more dissimilar than many people seem to think, and overcoming that conflation in peoples minds is important.
Its odd that you never see the EU compared to other big federations like say India, when in terms of problems like linguistic diversity, economic and structural differences between states they are possibly much closer .
I don't think you can dispute that the EU and US are entirely different. Even if you took the EU as a confederation, they'd be totally different in terms of government and stuff. In actuality, the EU is first and foremost an international organisation comprised of nation states, even if it shares similarities with a real nation. The nations hold all the real power and cede power when they feel like it.
Well that's disputable, but I do agree they are more dissimilar than many people seem to think, and overcoming that conflation in peoples minds is important.
Its odd that you never see the EU compared to other big federations like say India, when in terms of problems like linguistic diversity, economic and structural differences between states they are possibly much closer .
I don't think you can dispute that the EU and US are entirely different. Even if you took the EU as a confederation, they'd be totally different in terms of government and stuff. In actuality, the EU is first and foremost an international organisation comprised of nation states, even if it shares similarities with a real nation. The nations hold all the real power and cede power when they feel like it.
Entirely? Both are formalised ways disparate entities have attempted to form a democratic framework for achieving common ends, and the mechanisms that prior federal democratic polities have employed for ensuring accountability and representative power sharing are certainly worth studying and comparing with the current and proposed EU structures for doing the same things.
Besides the US started off with its member states 'ceding power when they feel like it' in the Articles of Confederation, its just the EU doesn't have the same pressing need for an overstate.
The only solid argument I have heard is that the number of commissioners were changed from 27 to 18 on a rotating basis because there were to many of them and things didn't get done. And apparently some people thought that would screw over smaller countries. I don't see the logic in that but at least they read the thing which is good because that's one step closer to understanding it.
I believe the thinking on this one is that even if the big countries don't have a commissioner at a certain time people will still listen to their input (because they're big and powerful) whilst if a small country lacks a commissioner during said time then its opinion can be easily sidelined.
Yes but appointing a commissioner is kind of like appointing a judge in the Supreme Court. You get to pick your candidate, the parliament has to approve and then he's off.
The commissioners are supposed to work only for the EU and not listen to the parent countries outside of their voices in the council.
So not having a commissioner for half a year or so isn't such a huge deal because they aren't really there to safeguard your country anyway.
Also I think I remember something about the votes required in the EU and the votes given out were skewed so that all the big countries cannot push through everything they want just because they have a much bigger population, but also so that the smaller countries don't have enough for a majority either.
This is of course for things that doesn't require a yes from every country but the idea is (was?) supposed to be that if something is clearly in favour of the larger countries the smaller ones band together and block it but if something is favourable to the union but hurts some countries, like fishing rights or a change in agriculture money, then they can't just veto it.
I have no idea what happened to that balance after they let in the newer members (Polen is huge for example) but it's entirely possible a change was in the current treaty. I know one of the main issues is that the old treaties just aren't cut out for the current size of the union.
Or they changed it at the expansion of the union.
Number of votes and shit is usually a good way to get countries arguing so it's entirely possible it's still unresolved.
I've always felt like Americans think they're the same when they're fundamentally different. Us Europeans think we're different when we're fundamentally the same.
Entirely? Both are formalised ways disparate entities have attempted to form a democratic framework for achieving common ends, and the mechanisms that prior federal democratic polities have employed for ensuring accountability and representative power sharing are certainly worth studying and comparing with the current and proposed EU structures for doing the same things.
Besides the US started off with its member states 'ceding power when they feel like it' in the Articles of Confederation, its just the EU doesn't have the same pressing need for an overstate.
Maybe not entirely, that was hyperbole. The EU started as an attempt to stop wars by giving an economic reason not to fight, and it's developed into a hybrid international organisation/confederation type thing. The nations in the EU have largely extensive histories and they're individually powerful enough to (in theory) do without each other fine.
Even when the US was a confederation of sorts, its states were nothing like modern EU states in terms of power, population and wealth (obviously, it's two centuries later), there weren't similar motivations for integration, there weren't similar reasons for establishment of the federal government, there wasn't the history of the nations and the national identities to surmount, etc. They are radically different situations, really
I think the best path for the EU now is to create a two-tier system. There's a European Union as it exists today, a largely trade-based union between the 27 member states. Then, and this is pretty pie-in-the-sky stuff, there's a second union made of existing member states willing to dissolve their national government and splinter their countries into regions (presumig this would start in the west with the bigger states), establishing smaller regional governments and a higher 'federal' government that would effectively be a state, handling all military matters.
For instance, if Britain were to join it would be seperated into Scotland, Wales and England would be seperated into two. Someone with better knowledge of Irish geography will probably correct me but I can see it being split into Northern Ireland and then the RoI split into two. The regions would enjoy a degree of autonomy comparable to that of the States in the USA. The idea behind splitting up existing states if they were to join a federal Europe is to bring the individual closer to methods of change and power at a time where power's being moved away from them and diluted amongst their new countrymen.
The current EU is nowhere near a simple trade bloc these days. It's just not. It really does have some characteristics of a nation state. I've never heard anyone saying they want a single nation in the foreseeable future - a generation or more away perhaps, and even then it's extremely vague.
You've come up with those ideas for implementation yourself, or found someone just speculating. How can anyone have any idea how a federal EU would look if no one's seriously proposed it and it would have to be negotiated from the ground up? Nope, you can speculate all you want, even suggest how you'd like it to look, but how can anyone say England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland would be separate states in such a federation? If it were negotiated today, the UK government would be doing the negotiating, and why would it agree to separating the nation into four pieces for integration?
It'd make a lot of sense that current nations would remain as the equivalent of the states, with whatever sub-divisions they have staying in place as well. All that would have to happen is that everyone determines what powers the EU has at each level and putting that into effect across the new nation
The way Ireland dealt with this was extremely crude and elementary, and it screwed over a humongous number of people outside their country.
How should Ireland have dealt with it then, when Ireland's law didn't allow any other course of action? Should they just have ignored their inconvenient constitution?
I'd like to hear an answer to this one. What else was the Irish government to do?* Stage a coup d'etat?
* It would have been nice if they had run a half-way competent "Yes" campaign. Because they really, really didn't. The assholes.
The way Ireland dealt with this was extremely crude and elementary, and it screwed over a humongous number of people outside their country.
How should Ireland have dealt with it then, when Ireland's law didn't allow any other course of action? Should they just have ignored their inconvenient constitution?
I'd like to hear an answer to this one. What else was the Irish government to do?* Stage a coup d'etat?
Do what every other European government did: have their representatives, rather than the citizens, vote on the matter.
It's already been pointed it out that that option simply is not available under the Irish constitution. That's constitutional democracy for ya, in action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crotty_v._An_Taoiseach
So, what was an actual alternative available to the Irish government in this instance, that does not involve dictatorial scariness?
It's already been pointed it out that that option simply is not available under the Irish constitution. That's constitutional democracy for ya, in action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crotty_v._An_Taoiseach
So, what was an actual alternative available to the Irish government in this instance, that does not involve dictatorial scariness?
Running an information campaign that didn't completely suck, apparently. Granted, I wasn't exactly in Ireland at the time, so this is hearsay and rumor.
Running an information campaign that didn't completely suck, apparently. Granted, I wasn't exactly in Ireland at the time, so this is hearsay and rumor.
* It would have been nice if they had run a half-way competent "Yes" campaign. Because they really, really didn't. The assholes.
You heard right. It sucked long and hard.
Just standing up for my Constitution, is all. It's got its downsides, but amendment by referendum/plebiscite is not one of them - constitutional amendment should never be easy, and certainly shouldn't be in the hands of those whose actions are to be checked by it.
The US might not have direct votes on the national constitution, but many of the states do have direct votes on changes to the state constitutions. I just checked and mine does (Georgia). Which, are pretty analogous to the countries in the EU, from my understanding. The main difference seems to be that the US was designed as a whole entity from the beginning, and so has better (or at least, require less red tape) procedures in place for national level changes.
The US and EU are pretty radically different in a number of ways. They're really not comparable. People do compare them, but they're wrong to do so
You do realize that before the Civil War and hell, not really until FDR came into office that the states had a ton of powers and the federal government of the US was notoriously weak?
They gradually took more and more of the power for themselves. This will probably happen to the EU the longer it manages to hold together.
Running an information campaign that didn't completely suck, apparently. Granted, I wasn't exactly in Ireland at the time, so this is hearsay and rumor.
* It would have been nice if they had run a half-way competent "Yes" campaign. Because they really, really didn't. The assholes.
You heard right. It sucked long and hard.
Just standing up for my Constitution, is all. It's got its downsides, but amendment by referendum/plebiscite is not one of them - constitutional amendment should never be easy, and certainly shouldn't be in the hands of those whose actions are to be checked by it.
The idea that every treaty requires a Constitutional amendment, though, is a little weird. edit: though I'm aware that there was a court case behind that.
The US might not have direct votes on the national constitution, but many of the states do have direct votes on changes to the state constitutions. I just checked and mine does (Georgia). Which, are pretty analogous to the countries in the EU, from my understanding. The main difference seems to be that the US was designed as a whole entity from the beginning, and so has better (or at least, require less red tape) procedures in place for national level changes.
The US and EU are pretty radically different in a number of ways. They're really not comparable. People do compare them, but they're wrong to do so
You do realize that before the Civil War and hell, not really until FDR came into office that the states had a ton of powers and the federal government of the US was notoriously weak?
They gradually took more and more of the power for themselves. This will probably happen to the EU the longer it manages to hold together.
Overall, though, this has been a good thing for the States in the long run, despite what I hear from (say) Ron Paul supporters.
Nope, you can speculate all you want, even suggest how you'd like it to look
...
And I have done exactly that. If you're going to take power away from the people you'll have to give it back, too. Splitting these fairly huge nation states apart is the only way to do this. The Scots want out anyway, and the Welsh have it in their heads that they're actually a nation like England and Scotland, so I can't see any real upsets from them, plus it's not like the English will give a shit except maybe against the idea it should be split in two itself (for population reasons).
Posts
On the one hand yes it is important for the people to have some kind of say in treaties that will affect their lives.
On the other hand I wonder how many of the people who voted in Ireland actually understood what they were voting against and werent simply being swayed by nationalist tabloids and such.
Surely issues like this are precisely why elected representatives exist, to make decisions in the best interests of the people when the majority of the people are not qualified to make the decision themselves.
I don't think that's really fair. No one's glossing over the bloodshed, I think it's an important reason why the EU needs to exist and be stronger. Also, it helps prove how successful the EU can be - bringing together enemies who've been killing each other for centuries and stopping them
Everyone needs to agree - every nation. It needs unanimity. Why? Because it's essentially a 27-way treaty. If it were a two-way treaty, both nations would have to agree. 27-way treaties need 27 nations to agree before they can work. The alternative would seem to be to expel a nation from the EU.
I think it's fairly conclusive that a lot of people would've voted against it given the chance. France and Holland voted against the Constitution, and the Treaty is seen as the successor to that, it stands to reason that it would be voted against as well. Proof? None, and I'm not bothering to look because it's pretty obvious
Having said that, I don't think it's a problem so much with the Treaty or Constitution themselves, I think it's a PR problem. It's seemed to me, and I might be wrong, that not many people are bothering to try to sell either to the public - if they did, it might win. Even the governments don't seem to care. They kind of shrugged their shoulders and say "vote for it, it's good" then act surprised when people vote against it.
Aside from the points already made about this post I would like to say one thing: Of 43 voting constituencies in Ireland 10 voted for it. Only 5 of those were by a significant majority (more than 2000 votes of the 30000-50000 cast). One of the 10 areas was won by 4 votes. Even discounting how close they were that's still 3/4 of the constituencies in the country. It was hardly just the Truckers and Fundies voting against it.
Also: Arasaki
It's a reason to like the Irish constitution yes but believe me: If Irish politicians could have forced it through without a vote they would have.
His point is that it's analogous to, say, New Hampshire having referendum veto power over any federal law.
Which is oversimplifying it a bit.
It seems to me that people might be in more support of the EU if the commissioners were directly elected, but then what the fuck do I know, I'm over on the other side of the pond.
I agree with most of your points, really, except for the one about small countries needing to retain power.
I have the same argument there as I have when arguing with Spanish independentists: what the heck does it mean for Denmark being the way it wants to be that the EU decides about union-scale economy and human rights? Honestly, it's not like they're going to impose the curriculuims for schools or the official languages. Spain had to redo its agricultural policies. I come form a place where farming used to be huge and now we're on a quota for producing milk. We don't like it, but that's a policy that was designed with a bigger scope than my three million people community. The fact that the 300 million community could override our will and decide how much milk we could produce was needed. They won't come and tell us that our language, which only us speak in the worlk, is now illegal. People often mistake one thing for the other, which always leads to pain and conflict.
I agree, though, we need a consensus on this, and until we feel it is in place, we should stop trying to move forward and expland the union. It's causing more harm than good at this point. We're not a corporation, we don't need to keep growing to keep being successful. We can wait until the time is right once more.
That said, I do think the consensus must include smaller countries accepting that they're going to lose power because they represent less people. It also needs to include a reasonable territorial chamber that works as an European Senate on reasonable terms.
That's not what I said.
You just said it was stupid in general, but that's a very pedantic distinction.
Yeah, I think it's stupid that a treaty that would make the EU a more efficient governing body - i.e. address and eliminate it's main weakness - was shot down by the majority rule of a tiny minority.
There is a reason why most modern countries use representative democracy. They understand that there is no way one can inform and educate the whole public on detailed matters such as this - that's why they have representatives in place to deal with them. Hell, how many of those No votes would have been Yes votes if everyone actually knew what the fuck they were voting on? The way Ireland dealt with this was extremely crude and elementary, and it screwed over a humongous number of people outside their country.
The problem is people are to fucking stupid to vote for a candidate who would actually research the issues and make informed decisions. The people would rather have a charismatic asshole who will vote for whatever is likely to get him reelected regardless of how bad an idea it is. Democracy fails because people do not even care about the real issues, they do not even research their candidate. They do not even have the time to research how the candidate feels on issues, let alone what those issues are.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
~ Winston Churchill
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
~ Winston Churchill
Sorry, but I can't help but feel that our government is screwing us over by not letting us vote on it. I have no desire to be part of the EU, and I dislike someone in another country setting rules and regulations for me to follow.
How should Ireland have dealt with it then, when Ireland's law didn't allow any other course of action? Should they just have ignored their inconvenient constitution?
Well, would you like your government to let you vote on every single fucking thing?
I mean why do you have a parliament then? Where do you draw the line between "okay, this is an issue that our politicians should vote on" vs. "i want every single one of us to vote on it"?
This is what I don't understand. You either have a popular democracy (a.k.a participatory democracy) or a representative democracy. You can't have both. Because when you try to have both, this mess happens.
If my country's constitution would be changed, I'd like to have a say in the matter, yes. But I don't think what I want is terribly important. I was just pointing out that the Irish did what Irish law requires, everybody knew (or should have known) a referendum would be necessary, and if the result is a failure it's because their government failed to inform their citizens properly.
This is obviously the democratic way for a big matter such as this was. Sickening that Ireland was the only country (to my knowledge) that had/was going to have a public vote on this. I read some of the articles in the treaty and was not impressed, some were positive though - and when it weighs between taking bad with positive changes or keeping things as they are I say it's given to ask the people about it...
Another way of doing it could be to have a majority vote independent of country, but I just now thought of this and maybe it would have it's repercussions for people in specific countries.
I'm really not a fan of referendums. I don't like the idea of ignorant masses making decisions on things they don't understand, and I'm terrified of a tyranny of the majority on many environmental and human rights issues. But certain issues involve the values of the citizens to such a degree that referendums should be held, in my opinion: issues that deal with changing or dismantling your country's sovereignty and form of government.
Case in point: Finland. Five million people who speak a language nobody else in the world understands (well, Estonians do to some degree). Each of the five largest cities in Germany have more people than our entire country. Through most of history, Finland was a political and military battleground between Sweden and Russia, and had to fight for its independence first against Soviet Union and then against Germany in WWII. The fear of losing our cultural identity after all these struggles isn't entirely unfounded, and I think people in many smaller countries share this view. A certain amount of xenophobia and nationalism sit tight in this country, and while I don't agree with these attitudes I don't think it's right for the government to ignore them (especially when the same politicians are eager to play on the exact same misguided ideologies when it suits them). You should educate the people and then listen to them, instead of simply disregarding the opinions of the ignorant peasants.
Every country does with some reforms, the US included (they actually have like 10 different processes for constitutional reform).
Here in Spain, for instance, we need either insane majority on the parliament (so that it needs to be at least agreed by the two major parties) or insane majority on the parliament AND a referendum, if it changes many articles at once or some of the specially protected ones.
We didn't have to vote on the 80s when we added an article about giving up our sovereignty to the EU, then again the parliament was unanimous about that one.
Referendums are needed in major changes to state structure just so nobody can claim a political faction imposed the changes. That's what they're for. They're not about more or less democracy, they're about setting things in stone. If every individual voted on the subject and they voted yes, then the legitimation for that as an unchangeable rule of the game is higher than if it's a decission by a few hundred men answering to a party. That's all there is to it.
That said, if those rules say the referendum is needed, it's needed, and legitimate, too. They never decided about the whole EU, just about their vote. Be angry at the need for unanimity, if you want, but not at the process the Irish needed.
Being an American, I don't have much more to add to this, other than it's very interesting reading for me.
I know that Denmark and I believe the other scandinavian countries have it so that we also need to vote if the constitution is changed, I believe the last time we did it was when we voted whether we should allow our monarchs to be female.
No we don't. Sweden has two successive decisions by the parliament with a general election in between. They can also option for a general referendum but that's never been done.
And yeah, representative democracy works much better then the direct version on anything but the local level. Being a politician is a full time job, most people don't have time for it any almost no one really cares about it either way. A lot of kids confuse being politically involved with marching around on the streets protesting (or in Denmark’s case burning cars apparently?) about things they don't have the patience to understand instead of working through the system that's set up to help make those changes come through but unfortunately I think that's as close as most people come to being politically active.
Anyway, could someone who disagrees with the treaty tell me what it actually does that makes EU worse? I haven't read, and I certainly won't now, but I was under the impression that it was basically a new, toned down, version of the constitution.
And that document didn't really grant EU any new powers so...
Because so far it seems like every naysayer is like "EU is bad. Change is scary. Let's not vote for this mkay?" instead of actually disagreeing with actual contents.
The only solid argument I have heard is that the number of commissioners were changed from 27 to 18 on a rotating basis because there were to many of them and things didn't get done. And apparently some people thought that would screw over smaller countries. I don't see the logic in that but at least they read the thing which is good because that's one step closer to understanding it.
I believe the thinking on this one is that even if the big countries don't have a commissioner at a certain time people will still listen to their input (because they're big and powerful) whilst if a small country lacks a commissioner during said time then its opinion can be easily sidelined.
It is interesting to compare the EU's big-vs-little states situation to the US, I wonder if the US would run so smoothly if it had four states with an equal or greater proportion of the total Unions population and economy than California does, and all of them have divergent interests. It is certainly a problem if your goal is unity to have such disproportionately powerful actors, and I definitively see why the smaller member states want some sort of check on that, though figuring out something democratic and efficient that everyone can agree on might be troublesome...
For reference proportion of EU/US population:
0.17 Germany
0.13 France
0.12 United Kingdom
0.12 Italy
0.09 Spain
0.08 Poland
0.04 Romania
0.75 in the top 7
0.12 California
0.08 Texas
0.06 New York
0.06 Florida
0.04 Illinois
0.04 Pennsylvania
0.04 Ohio
0.44 in the top 7
The US and EU are pretty radically different in a number of ways. They're really not comparable. People do compare them, but they're wrong to do so
But someone in your country is setting rules and regulations for you to follow too. It's not like you're getting dictated to - you have as much a say as people in other countries
Well that's disputable, but I do agree they are more dissimilar than many people seem to think, and overcoming that conflation in peoples minds is important.
Its odd that you never see the EU compared to other big federations like say India, when in terms of problems like linguistic diversity, economic and structural differences between states they are possibly much closer
I don't think you can dispute that the EU and US are entirely different. Even if you took the EU as a confederation, they'd be totally different in terms of government and stuff. In actuality, the EU is first and foremost an international organisation comprised of nation states, even if it shares similarities with a real nation. The nations hold all the real power and cede power when they feel like it.
Entirely? Both are formalised ways disparate entities have attempted to form a democratic framework for achieving common ends, and the mechanisms that prior federal democratic polities have employed for ensuring accountability and representative power sharing are certainly worth studying and comparing with the current and proposed EU structures for doing the same things.
Besides the US started off with its member states 'ceding power when they feel like it' in the Articles of Confederation, its just the EU doesn't have the same pressing need for an overstate.
Yes but appointing a commissioner is kind of like appointing a judge in the Supreme Court. You get to pick your candidate, the parliament has to approve and then he's off.
The commissioners are supposed to work only for the EU and not listen to the parent countries outside of their voices in the council.
So not having a commissioner for half a year or so isn't such a huge deal because they aren't really there to safeguard your country anyway.
Also I think I remember something about the votes required in the EU and the votes given out were skewed so that all the big countries cannot push through everything they want just because they have a much bigger population, but also so that the smaller countries don't have enough for a majority either.
This is of course for things that doesn't require a yes from every country but the idea is (was?) supposed to be that if something is clearly in favour of the larger countries the smaller ones band together and block it but if something is favourable to the union but hurts some countries, like fishing rights or a change in agriculture money, then they can't just veto it.
I have no idea what happened to that balance after they let in the newer members (Polen is huge for example) but it's entirely possible a change was in the current treaty. I know one of the main issues is that the old treaties just aren't cut out for the current size of the union.
Or they changed it at the expansion of the union.
Number of votes and shit is usually a good way to get countries arguing so it's entirely possible it's still unresolved.
Maybe not entirely, that was hyperbole. The EU started as an attempt to stop wars by giving an economic reason not to fight, and it's developed into a hybrid international organisation/confederation type thing. The nations in the EU have largely extensive histories and they're individually powerful enough to (in theory) do without each other fine.
Even when the US was a confederation of sorts, its states were nothing like modern EU states in terms of power, population and wealth (obviously, it's two centuries later), there weren't similar motivations for integration, there weren't similar reasons for establishment of the federal government, there wasn't the history of the nations and the national identities to surmount, etc. They are radically different situations, really
For instance, if Britain were to join it would be seperated into Scotland, Wales and England would be seperated into two. Someone with better knowledge of Irish geography will probably correct me but I can see it being split into Northern Ireland and then the RoI split into two. The regions would enjoy a degree of autonomy comparable to that of the States in the USA. The idea behind splitting up existing states if they were to join a federal Europe is to bring the individual closer to methods of change and power at a time where power's being moved away from them and diluted amongst their new countrymen.
You've come up with those ideas for implementation yourself, or found someone just speculating. How can anyone have any idea how a federal EU would look if no one's seriously proposed it and it would have to be negotiated from the ground up? Nope, you can speculate all you want, even suggest how you'd like it to look, but how can anyone say England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland would be separate states in such a federation? If it were negotiated today, the UK government would be doing the negotiating, and why would it agree to separating the nation into four pieces for integration?
It'd make a lot of sense that current nations would remain as the equivalent of the states, with whatever sub-divisions they have staying in place as well. All that would have to happen is that everyone determines what powers the EU has at each level and putting that into effect across the new nation
I'd like to hear an answer to this one. What else was the Irish government to do?* Stage a coup d'etat?
* It would have been nice if they had run a half-way competent "Yes" campaign. Because they really, really didn't. The assholes.
Do what every other European government did: have their representatives, rather than the citizens, vote on the matter.
So, what was an actual alternative available to the Irish government in this instance, that does not involve dictatorial scariness?
Running an information campaign that didn't completely suck, apparently. Granted, I wasn't exactly in Ireland at the time, so this is hearsay and rumor.
Hence -
You heard right. It sucked long and hard.
Just standing up for my Constitution, is all. It's got its downsides, but amendment by referendum/plebiscite is not one of them - constitutional amendment should never be easy, and certainly shouldn't be in the hands of those whose actions are to be checked by it.
You do realize that before the Civil War and hell, not really until FDR came into office that the states had a ton of powers and the federal government of the US was notoriously weak?
They gradually took more and more of the power for themselves. This will probably happen to the EU the longer it manages to hold together.
The idea that every treaty requires a Constitutional amendment, though, is a little weird. edit: though I'm aware that there was a court case behind that.
Overall, though, this has been a good thing for the States in the long run, despite what I hear from (say) Ron Paul supporters.
...
And I have done exactly that. If you're going to take power away from the people you'll have to give it back, too. Splitting these fairly huge nation states apart is the only way to do this. The Scots want out anyway, and the Welsh have it in their heads that they're actually a nation like England and Scotland, so I can't see any real upsets from them, plus it's not like the English will give a shit except maybe against the idea it should be split in two itself (for population reasons).