Comments on: Irish vote No – some calm respect please

By: dm00

dm00 — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:15:03 +0000

Hello, just an American sticking his nose in. Lot of Euro interest over here lately, some of my friends are taking up the study of soccer, I’m trying to learn your politics. This issue is very confusing to try to become informed on at this late stage and I thought I’d just say that this is a great discussion here. No better way to learn about a political issue than to watch informed people debate it vigorously I always say.

Of course I’m going to jump right in and shoot off at the mouth on this. It seems to me that there are questions that ought not be decided in a democratic fashion but whether ones country should take big steps from being a sovereign nation towards becoming a state within a larger federal system is certainly not one of them. Shouldn’t that simple question be put on a ballot across Europe? Something like “Would you be in favor of your country giving up its own sovereignty in favor of becoming a state within the EU?” That probably sounds like a ridiculous thing to propose and its only because nobody in their right mind would go to the bother of printing up the ballots when its so obvious the result would be a resounding no. They may well vote to drop their tariffs if their neighbors will to advance their economy but there is no way they vote away their country. Isn’t the question amongst EU supporters about how to move forward presumptuous when there isn’t even agreement on whether to move forward?

Also, as turnabout is fair play I’ll try and answer any questions about how screwed up American politics is if anybody wants to hold my feet to the fire. But the EU situation is more interesting, take my word for it.

By: Murphy2008

Murphy2008 — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:56:46 +0000

Let’s make the Irish vote again with some cosmetic non-binding assurance. Maybe a declaration that the Eu is opposed to masonic plots to rule the world should be worth trying.
Or, why not some other disguise: the Stockholm Protocol, anyone?
Let’s the Elector Princes of this non-imperial empire strike back.

And let’s real friends of Europe jam the net with very sensible proposals to make the Eu better. Like scrapping the Commission or the Parliament, maybe both. And why not the bloody unelected ECJ?

Well, I have a different proposal. Do respect the Irish voters. Take no as no. Simply call it a day and scrap the bloody thing altogether.

Euro and willingly eastern and northern countries should withdraw from this farce, restarting a new union based on something bolder than Lisbon the following day. The other countries could stay (IF they wish) in an improved EEA/EFTA, enjoying the beauty of fax democracy.

By: AC Pereira Menaut

AC Pereira Menaut — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:44:48 +0000

Eulogist and Billy:
Perhaps I should have stated, first of all, that I sympathise with Ireland while at the same time I am in favour of the EU project. I assume that the EU is already a real political community, although a “sui generis” one, which in my view should never become a full, European continental state. This is the real challenge we face: how to increase constitutionalism without increasing statism, and hence my preference for the American model if understood not “a la lettre” but as a way of doing things, a way of making a new, bigger community out of older, smaller ones which should never cease to be real political communities.

This American way of doing things constitutes, to my mind, the best way â€”or lesser evilâ€” to the EU now. In fact, centralization in the US has been slower than in the EU.

At the same time, I do not think that the state and sovereignty have a bright future ahead; probably they hardly exist right now. A minimum of primacy, supremacy, European laws superseding national ones and so on cannot be avoided. You cannot make an omelette (European integration) without breaking the eggs (national sovereignties). Supra-state integrations are common all the word over.

If so, our struggle should guarantee the respect of the principle of conferral, avoid undue implied powers, keeping values, morals, culture and generally sensitive topics beyond the reach of EU regulations; as well as defining some (few) hard cores never to be handed to Brussels, be they shapes of beer mugs, marriage, religion or whatever.

By: eulogist

eulogist — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:36:40 +0000

Ireland (and all other Member States) would have retained their right to veto any tax harmonisation – under the Lisbon Treaty just like under the present Treaty. Moreover, the proposal Lagarde intended to put back on the agenda was NOT about tax harmonisation, but about harmonisation of the corporation tax BASE – i.e. not about harmonising the tax amounts, but about harmonising in which the way taxable corporate incomes are calculated. A totally different beast, in other words, that would have made life easier (i.e. cheaper) for companies working in more than one EU country.

Ireland, like all Member States, kept its veto on Treaty amendments including changes towards different amending procedures.

Ireland kept an opt-out on police and criminal cooperation under the Lisbon Treaty.

Sovereignty, as in ‘scaring the hell out of China’, ceased to exist ages ago for any individual European country (including the big ones).

By: infomatique

infomatique — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:29:52 +0000

I just heard that she had removed plans for Tax Harmonisation from the agenda

“Tax Harmonisation (Although the area wasnt explicate, it did leave a back door for tax harmonisation, a plan that would have been pushed under Sarkoâ€™s presidency according French Finance Minister, Christine Lagarde”

By: rz

rz — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:09:59 +0000

Thanks Billy,
you are an amazing guy. Your ability to look into the of all no voters is a astonishing.

By: Billy

Billy — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:40:27 +0000

Apologies, I meant ‘precedent’ not ‘precedence’…

By: Billy

Billy — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:37:04 +0000

Oh dear lord. This is worrying, although amusing, and shows how much the “experts” are out of touch. Being Irish I feel I am more qualified then most of ye to comment on the true reasoning behind the NO vote. Here it is:

-Sovereignty (People saw it as a step closer to a European superstate. That is the plan afterall. One only has to look to the ideology of Jean Monnet to see this.)

-Tax Harmonisation (Although the area wasnt explicate, it did leave a back door for tax harmonisation, a plan that would have been pushed under Sarko’s presidency according French Finance Minister, Christine Lagarde)

-Self Ammending (The can of worms)

-Privatisation of Public Services (Largely Nationalised country…. never going to vote YES while this is a possibility)

-European Law superseding Irish Law (Again a sovereignty issue)

-Eurojust, Europol etc. (This is just getting Orwellian)

If you are only speculating on the reasons then why bother write? I think it quite sad that the EU cant respect its own laws or the democratic process of the Irish people. And they want people to trust them? hardly setting a good precedence now are they?