Lisbon Treaty - Ireland votes on 12th of June

[Nemesis6]

Apparently, the Lisbon treaty is nothing but a reworded version of a shared E.U constitution draft which was already shot down. So the Irish are gonna vote in a few days, and the way the E.U have responded to critique - Sign it, THEN you can read what it says, just seems so fundamentally wrong. I'm sure there are someone more versed in this stinking business than I am, so what's your opinion?

 

[Parrot of doom]

My opinion is that Ireland may well be doing the UK a great big favour, since our government reneged on it's promise to give us a referendum on such a treaty.

 

[Laivasse]

Agreed with what Parrot says. My sense is that Ireland will give a resounding No vote, but I'm not too certain. Even out here in the stix there are plenty of campaign posters encouraging both Yes and No votes (the No posters mostly being Sinn Fein ones). Considering the mentality of the Irish, though, I can't see how they would respond positively to this kind of underhandedness from Brussels.

 

[Mr Stabby]

The EU has had a very positive influence in Ireland due to the economic prosperity the EU has brought to Ireland, so I don't think Ireland would be as skeptical about the treaty as the UK.

Are there any polls to indicate how the vote will go?

 

[Solaris]

I don't really understand it, but I support Sinn Feins position on it, whatever that may be.

 

[kirovman]

Sinn Fein's official position is "The opposite of what Solaris's position is".

 

[Laivasse]

The EU has had a very positive influence in Ireland due to the economic prosperity the EU has brought to Ireland, so I don't think Ireland would be as skeptical about the treaty as the UK.

Are there any polls to indicate how the vote will go?

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/ireland/politics/article3780800.ece

According to a poll in today's Sunday Business Post support for a 'No' vote in Thursday's referendum has risen by six percentage points to 39%.

However the Red C Poll shows the 'Yes' side is still ahead at 42%.

Looks like you're right but it's a close run thing. I think the Irish see good and bad sides to Europe. Certainly farmers and those who trade or run businesses have seen great gains due to the links to Europe. Ordinary people, on the other hand, are a bit slower to forget how some trappings of the EU have made life more difficult, eg. how the price of goods rose and stayed high after the introduction of the single currency (and the cost of living is now VERY high in ireland).

Ireland has benefited a hell of a lot in terms of subsidies from Europe, so in a sense a Yes vote would be like calling in a debt. I'd rather it was No though, since I'm still bitter about the snidey way the British were denied their say on the constitution.

Edit: Conflicting predictions actually - http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0605/breaking84.htm

The Lisbon Treaty is heading towards a shock defeat with the No side now in the lead, according to the findings of the latest Irish Times/TNS mrbi poll.
...
The poll shows the number of people intending to vote No has almost doubled to 35 per cent (up 17 points) since the last poll three weeks ago, while the number of the Yes side has declined to 30 per cent (down 5 points).

 

[jimbo118]

Even out here in the stix there are plenty of campaign posters encouraging both Yes and No votes (the No posters mostly being Sinn Fein ones).

Where are you?

 

[Laivasse]

Edenderry, Offaly. Not quite the middle of nowhere, I know, but small enough.

 

[jimbo118]

Edenderry, Offaly. Not quite the middle of nowhere, I know, but small enough.

aha Location void so.

 

[Solaris]

Why's your location say london then? lol.

 

[Laivasse]

Because my heart never left.

/gay

 

[The Monkey]

The Irish better not **** this up. If this referendum fails it will be the biggest blow to the EU ever.

The thing is, this treaty is looking to make the EU more effective, the biggest criticism that's been put against it. If you vote No in this election it will not be a vote against EU, it will be a vote for keeping the old, bureaucratic union that everyone hated.

 

[repiV]

Why would anyone in their right mind vote yes to giving away their independence and democracy to a bloated, unaccountable EU bureaucracy? Even more than we have already, I mean. There's a reason politicians all over Europe are desperate to railroad this through without having to put it to a referendum - noone wants it.

Heil the EUSSR.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Heil the EUSSR.

I thought it was Saudi Eurabia?

 

[Tagaziel]

Why would anyone in their right mind vote yes to giving away their independence and democracy to a bloated, unaccountable EU bureaucracy? Even more than we have already, I mean. There's a reason politicians all over Europe are desperate to railroad this through without having to put it to a referendum - noone wants it.

Children don't like vaccinations either.

Heil the EUSSR.

Rather the European Federation. And I'm all for it, time to put petty strife aside and work together. Individual states in the USA aren't complaining about the Union - why should we?

 

[kirovman]

Children don't like vaccinations either.



Rather the European Federation. And I'm all for it, time to put petty strife aside and work together. Individual states in the USA aren't complaining about the Union - why should we?

Texans are complainin' 'bout the Union army.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Rather the European Federation. And I'm all for it, time to put petty strife aside and work together. Individual states in the USA aren't complaining about the Union - why should we?

Germany and Ireland have a lot less in common with each other than Texas and California.

 

[Tagaziel]

Texans are complainin' 'bout the Union army.

I'd complain too if I got my ass handed to me and had nothing to sit on.

Germany and Ireland have a lot less in common with each other than Texas and California.

On what level? Agreed, Europe isn't homogenic, but that's a well estabilished fact.

An European superstate doesn't mean merging and complete eradication of differences. It means voluntary cooperation (in terms of a coherent foreign policy for example) of states in a confederacy.

Not to mention that individual states have much less of an influence than a single large state.

 

[Mr Stabby]

An European superstate doesn't mean merging and complete eradication of differences. It means voluntary cooperation (in terms of a coherent foreign policy for example) of states in a confederacy.

Isn't the erosion of the sovereignty of the nation states exactly what a super state entails?

A centralized political structure isn't necessary for economic co-operation, a structure no more complex than NATO would be capable of handling all other useful forms of co-operation i.e defence, energy security, space exploration etc.

Not to mention that individual states have much less of an influence than a single large state.

Yes, but a single foreign policy would be hard to agree on, look at the differing views on Iraq. The smaller states like Ireland or Denmark who have little international influence would also have little influence on deciding what the foreign policy was.

 

[Tagaziel]

Isn't the erosion of the sovereignty of the nation states exactly what a super state entails?

Limits, yes. Then again, nations are already limited in their sovereignity. For instance, France can't nuke Iran and then hide behind the veil of sovereignity.

Sovereignity in itself isn't an absolute value.

A centralized political structure isn't necessary for economic co-operation, a structure no more complex than NATO would be capable of handling all other useful forms of co-operation i.e defence, energy security, space exploration etc.

We already went through that stage. What do you think formed the basis of EU?

Yes, but a single foreign policy would be hard to agree on, look at the differing views on Iraq. The smaller states like Ireland or Denmark who have little international influence would also have little influence on deciding what the foreign policy was.

Since their influence is already miniscule, it'd be actually an improvement to be able to shape Europe-wide policies.

It isn't as simple as saying "small countries stand no chance against big countries".

 

[ríomhaire]

Last I heard polls are showing that 'No' is ahead. I can't vote as my 18th birthday is the day before the referendum and I can't possibly register ro vote in time. If I were voting I'd be slightly leaning towards a yes vote but certain things give me pause about it, eg, forcing all EU countries to increase the size of their military and giving the EU exclusive rights to make laws in certain areas. I am definitely not if favour of a European federation.

People are not very well informed on this here. There is good information available but feckers an both sides of the arguement are misleading stuff and pulling 'facts' out of their ass.

No side arguements:

• This will cause Ireland to lose its neutrallity (I find our neutrallity to be complete crap anyway but some people fecking love it)
• This will cause abortion to be legalised in Ireland (Ireland's constitution bans abortion)
• This will cause prostitution to be legalised in Ireland (Actually I think this is already legal, it's just that organised prostitution and advertising is illegal)
• This will cause drugs to be legalised in Ireland
• The rest of Europe didn't vote for Dustin in the Eurovison
• General racism against Europe
• Our prime minister didn't read the damn thing "from cover to cover" (he's a busy ****ing man and it's a huge document full of jargon)
• General ill-sentiment towards the government and the EU despite the amout of good they've done the country over the last few decade
• "There is a better deal out there" <--Sinn Feinn's slogan (Sinn Feinn, BTW, means "we ourselves" and was set up with the ideal of making Ireland a purely independant state that was economically self-sustaining. They have been against every singe EU treaty so far (including joining the EU) so I think their opinion is pretty much null and void)
• "Ireland deserved better"/"This will decrease Ireland's power in the EU"
• I saw one 'No' poster in the paper that said that if we vote yes our children would be electronically tagged. WTF?
• Gets rid of vetos in certain areas.

The main Yes arguements are:

• This is better for Ireland/Better for Europe (no reasons why given)
• Sinn Feinn is voting no.
• The people who are saying to vote 'No' are *insert insult here*

 

[repiV]

I thought it was Saudi Eurabia?

Give it 50 years.

Rather the European Federation. And I'm all for it, time to put petty strife aside and work together. Individual states in the USA aren't complaining about the Union - why should we?

How exactly does an undemocratic superstate foster "working together"? Working together is about mutual cooperation and benefit - the EU is more like Brussels beating everyone over the head with a stick until they give in.

80% of the laws brought in here are EU laws. We have to comply with all sorts of nonsensical regulations in the name of "harmonisation", that we have absolutely no control over because we do not elect the EU government.

We pay a fortune into the EU and get very little financially out of it - this is good for us why?

I'd be quite interested in living in Spain some time down the line, but apparently much of what makes it such a relaxed, carefree place is being slowly eroded by EU bureaucracy "modernising" the place. Maybe it doesn't need modernising...maybe one of the great things about the world is that everywhere is different. And that, somewhere, somehow, there is a place where one can seek refuge from Eurocratic police states like the UK.

The EU undermines democracy, it undermines sovreignty, and it undermines financial accountability. I pay taxes to Brussels who can then use it for some shit thousands of miles away - so wait, I go to work to fund a road building project in the ****ing Czech Republic? Well ain't that marvellous.

The only people who benefit from the EU are the MEPs and cronies with their snouts firmly in the trough. And poor countries who don't mind sacrificing their autonomy for free money. Until they get rich and start asking questions of course.

 

[Tagaziel]

Half of the "no" arguments are retarded.

As for yes... further integration will grant increased stability, ease the flow of wealth and intellect, safeguard freedoms, increase our standing globally...

Since when integration and cooperation were bad?

How exactly does an undemocratic superstate foster "working together"? Working together is about mutual cooperation and benefit - the EU is more like Brussels beating everyone over the head with a stick until they give in.

What undemocratic state? The EU was created by governments elected by the people and joined with their approval.

80% of the laws brought in here are EU laws. We have to comply with all sorts of nonsensical regulations in the name of "harmonisation", that we have absolutely no control over because we do not elect the EU government.

Yes you do. Ever heard of eurorepresentatives? If you don't elect them in Britain, then you have bigger problems than the EU, as your passivity allowed you to get screwed over.

We pay a fortune into the EU and get very little financially out of it - this is good for us why?

Because everything EU is about is cash.

I'd be quite interested in living in Spain some time down the line, but apparently much of what makes it such a relaxed, carefree place is being slowly eroded by EU bureaucracy "modernising" the place. Maybe it doesn't need modernising...maybe one of the great things about the world is that everywhere is different.

Oh yes, those darn EU execution squads, stringing Spaniards up on trees for not complying with Brussels comrades' wishes.

The EU undermines democracy, it undermines sovreignty, and it undermines financial accountability. I pay taxes to Brussels who can then use it for some shit thousands of miles away - so wait, I go to work to fund a road building project in the ****ing Czech Republic? Well ain't that marvellous.

So basically you're an egoist. England Prevails! All Hail Chancellor Adam Sutler!

Seriously though, where does it undermine democracy? I have yet to see a single case of Brussels overriding local governments' decisions, overturning ballot results or replacing laws with their own. There is nothing in the EU the countries founding it haven't agreed on.

Your sovereignity is already limited, and has been for a long, long time. I understand you long for medieval times, when life was simpler, and each state was fully self-sufficent and completely sovereign... though it's not going to happen ever again, since the world has developed and GB has to work with the rest of the world and act according to international laws.

You should really stop treating the EU as some mythical devil and start understanding that it is what the member countries make it be.

The only people who benefit from the EU are the MEPs and cronies with their snouts firmly in the trough. And poor countries who don't mind sacrificing their autonomy for free money.

 

[repiV]

Half of the "no" arguments are retarded.

As for yes... further integration will grant increased stability, ease the flow of wealth and intellect, safeguard freedoms, increase our standing globally...

Since when integration and cooperation were bad?

I know you were replying to riomhaire, but what? How can an unaccountable, autocratic multi-national government run by money-grabbing career politicians safeguard freedoms?! That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

 

[ríomhaire]

Another retarded No arguement:
The Treaty doesn't have enough about climate change in it.

Seriously though, WTF is with the Treaty forcing nations to increase their military?

 

[Tagaziel]

I know you were replying to riomhaire, but what? How can an unaccountable, autocratic multi-national government run by money-grabbing career politicians safeguard freedoms?! That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Because of the fact it's run by people who are citizens of diverse member countries and that it enforces a set of laws (which include an entire separate act on human rights, look up European Human Rights Convention/Pact) all member countries can't go against.

And since that package includes human rights... there you go.

Also, Rimmy, that is an uninformed.

Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The
Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and
armaments (hereinafter referred to as “the European Defence Agency”) shall identify
operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall
contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to
strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in
defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in
evaluating the improvement of military capabilities.

There is nothing here that says ANYTHING about increasing funding. All is said that the member states will have to progressively improve their military. Not a sudden surge in funding or anything, just an obligation to improve, with an EDA set up to help with this effort.

 

[repiV]

What undemocratic state? The EU was created by governments elected by the people and joined with their approval.

Well, not exactly, because we're being denied a referendum on the EU Constitution (oh, sorry, Lisbon treaty) yet polls indicate that 80% of people would vote against it. Hardly democratic.
Besides that, just because you elected a government it doesn't follow that if they decide to form some kind of super-government (against your wishes, no less) that that super-government will then be democratic. Taking government further away from the people is never a democratic option.

Yes you do. Ever heard of eurorepresentatives? If you don't elect them in Britain, then you have bigger problems than the EU, as your passivity allowed you to get screwed over.

It's pissing in the wind, really. We could all wear blindfolds and tick random boxes and it wouldn't make the shittiest little bit of difference to what the EU makes us bend over for.

Because everything EU is about is cash.

Why should I have to pay taxes for the EU to piss up the wall on projects in other countries?

Oh yes, those darn EU execution squads, stringing Spaniards up on trees for not complying with Brussels comrades' wishes.

...

So basically you're an egoist. England Prevails! All Hail Chancellor Adam Sutler!

Seriously though, where does it undermine democracy? I have yet to see a single case of Brussels overriding local governments' decisions, overturning ballot results or replacing laws with their own. There is nothing in the EU the countries founding it haven't agreed on.

Under the EU Constitution (oh I'm sorry, the Lisbon treaty - totally different document obviously...), EU law supercedes national law.
As it is, like I told you, 80% of laws passed here come from the EU. This quite obviously undermines democracy.
And, as the vast majority of people in this country do not agree with this new superstate (and I would wager in most if not all Western European countries for that matter), it follows that your assertion about the countries founding it being in agreement is misguided.
Crooked politicians agree. We do not.

Your sovereignity is already limited, and has been for a long, long time. I understand you long for medieval times, when life was simpler, and each state was fully self-sufficent and completely sovereign... though it's not going to happen ever again, since the world has developed and GB has to work with the rest of the world and act according to international laws.

You can stop preaching now.

You should really stop treating the EU as some mythical devil and start understanding that it is what the member countries make it be.

We don't want it to be a superstate, yet it's not going to make any difference. It was renamed the Lisbon treaty solely so that governments could dupe people into thinking it's not the EU Constitution nobody wants. Have I or anyone else in this country had any say in the increasing meddling of Brussels in our affairs over the last decade or so? Hell no. It just happens. Doesn't mean we want it.
And big government is never a good thing.

 

[repiV]

Because of the fact it's run by people who are citizens of diverse member countries and that it enforces a set of laws (which include an entire separate act on human rights, look up European Human Rights Convention/Pact) all member countries can't go against.

And since that package includes human rights... there you go.

You speak nonsense. Freedom does not come from ever-larger government that is ever more detached from and less representative of the people. From that comes tyranny.

Also, the ECHR is a crock of shite which protects criminals and worthless employees. The European Court of Human Rights is also for sale, as they decided in the favour of the UK government that motorists caught by speed cameras (outlawed on privacy grounds in many countries) do not have the right to silence - that same right which even murderers and rapists are afforded. The illegal system of guilty until proven innocent stays.

You want to bow down and serve your European masters, be my guest - but leave me the hell out of it.

 

[Tagaziel]

Well, not exactly, because we're being denied a referendum on the EU Constitution (oh, sorry, Lisbon treaty) yet polls indicate that 80% of people would vote against it. Hardly democratic.

How big were the poll samples?

Besides that, just because you elected a government it doesn't follow that if they decide to form some kind of super-government (against your wishes, no less) that that super-government will then be democratic. Taking government further away from the people is never a democratic option.

Representative democracy is already far away from the Greek ideal.

I hope you don't equate your wishes with the will of the entire British citizenry.

It's pissing in the wind, really. We could all wear blindfolds and tick random boxes and it wouldn't make the shittiest little bit of difference to what the EU makes us bend over for.

Then you have a much greater problem than the EU, since you can't produce decent statesmen to represent you. It's not the EU's problem, it's the British society's.

Why should I have to pay taxes for the EU to piss up the wall on projects in other countries?

Let me guess.... because your country decided to join? Don't like it? Start a political party, gain support and take Britain out of the EU! You won't have any problem gaining support, after all, polls say that 80% people would support you!

...

Exactly.

Under the EU Constitution (oh I'm sorry, the Lisbon treaty - totally different document obviously...), EU law supercedes national law.

Oh gee... guess you failed to notice when reading the treaty text the fact that ALL legal acts HAVE to be presented to national parliaments. Nothing can be done without their approval.

As it is, like I told you, 80% of laws passed here come from the EU. This quite obviously undermines democracy.

Judge the quality, not the quantity.

And, as the vast majority of people in this country do not agree with this new superstate (and I would wager in most if not all Western European countries for that matter), it follows that your assertion about the countries founding it being in agreement is misguided.
Crooked politicians agree. We do not.

Then become a politician and replace them, if you have such support.

You can stop preaching now.

What? Can't handle facts?

We don't want it to be a superstate, yet it's not going to make any difference. It was renamed the Lisbon treaty solely so that governments could dupe people into thinking it's not the EU Constitution nobody wants. Have I or anyone else in this country had any say in the increasing meddling of Brussels in our affairs over the last decade or so? Hell no. It just happens. Doesn't mean we want it.
And big government is never a good thing.

Okay, so, let's just end this "discussion" here, ok? From now on I'll be eagerly awaiting the inevitable success of "Repiv's Salvation Party" in Great Britain and similiar parties in Western Europe. If you do succeed, I will retract my words, if not...

Well, United Europe wins.

ADDENDA:

You speak nonsense. Freedom does not come from ever-larger government that is ever more detached from and less representative of the people. From that comes tyranny.

Since obviously USA is a fascist dictatorship abusing it's citizens ever since the end of the Civli War.

Also, the ECHR is a crock of shite which protects criminals and worthless employees. The European Court of Human Rights is also for sale, as they decided in the favour of the UK government that motorists caught by speed cameras (outlawed on privacy grounds in many countries) do not have the right to silence - that same right which even murderers and rapists are afforded. The illegal system of guilty until proven innocent stays.

What? If his infraction is caught on tape, that's all the proof needed.

Also, I think I'll stop trying to argue with you, since it's pointless to argue with someone who thinks he knows better than all the greatest lawyers of the 19th century.

You want to bow down and serve your European masters, be my guest - but leave me the hell out of it.

I don't bow to European masters, since there are none. And never will be.

Anyways, welcome to my ignore list.

 

[repiV]

How big were the poll samples?

Who cares? Big enough, I'm sure. I don't know one single person who thinks it's a good idea. If people supported it, they wouldn't have needed to rename it the Lisbon Treaty to get out of the referendum they promised us. What do you suppose they're afraid of?

Representative democracy is already far away from the Greek ideal.

No shit. Hey, loads of people are committing murder nowadays, so that must mean it's ok for me to become a serial killer.

I hope you don't equate your wishes with the will of the entire British citizenry.

I hope you don't equate your wishes with ultimate truth, as your arrogant manner is starting to irritate me.

Then you have a much greater problem than the EU, since you can't produce decent statesmen to represent you. It's not the EU's problem, it's the British society's.

No, it's the simple fact that a few MEPs mean **** all in the grand scheme of things.

Let me guess.... because your country decided to join? Don't like it? Start a political party, gain support and take Britain out of the EU! You won't have any problem gaining support, after all, polls say that 80% people would support you!

Exactly.

Exactly what? I refuse to participate in your inane wordplay. Neck hurt from sticking your nose up much?

Oh gee... guess you failed to notice when reading the treaty text the fact that ALL legal acts HAVE to be presented to national parliaments. Nothing can be done without their approval.

Well that makes a shitload of difference, considering there are hundreds if not thousands of them every year.

Judge the quality, not the quantity.

The quality is shite, too. For that matter, any law which is dictated as a directive from an untouchable supranational organisation can never have quality.

Then become a politician and replace them, if you have such support.

What? Can't handle facts?

I can't handle your extremely condescencing attitude. You should be a politician yourself...you have exactly the right combination of egomania, holier-than-thou attitude, contempt for anyone with different views who is quite obviously beneath you to fit right in. I hear the gravy train is a very lucrative one indeed.

What? If his infraction is caught on tape, that's all the proof needed.

No, they catch your numberplate and send you a form requiring you to incriminate the driver of the vehicle or face punishment. If you don't know who was driving, that's no excuse - the onus is on you to prove you weren't.

Okay, so, let's just end this "discussion" here, ok? From now on I'll be eagerly awaiting the inevitable success of "Repiv's Salvation Party" in Great Britain and similiar parties in Western Europe. If you do succeed, I will retract my words, if not...

Well, United Europe wins.

Anyways, welcome to my ignore list.

You really are a complete and utter first-rate cock. Who the **** do you think you are, asshole?

Takes a special breed of self-absorbed knobjockey to "declare the discussion over".

 

[Mr Stabby]

Limits, yes. Then again, nations are already limited in their sovereignity. For instance, France can't nuke Iran and then hide behind the veil of sovereignity.

Sovereignity in itself isn't an absolute value.

Sovereignty over immigration, justice, policing etc. should be kept by the nations not by Brussels.

We already went through that stage. What do you think formed the basis of EU?

I know that, I think we should go back to it. The EU is becoming a Statist bureaucracy, which is expensive and unnecessary.

Since their influence is already miniscule, it'd be actually an improvement to be able to shape Europe-wide policies.

It isn't as simple as saying "small countries stand no chance against big countries".

It's better to have no influence than be apart of a foreign policy you object too. Any foreign policy of a united Europe would be dictated by the UK, France and Germany, when they can agree on one.

 

[Tagaziel]

Sovereignty over immigration, justice, policing etc. should be kept by the nations not by Brussels.

The member nations already recognize the authority of the European Justice Tribunal as the final instance and implement policies according to EU directives. Standardization is good, as it eases the flow of information wealth etc. as well as stabilizes the situation.

You know how costly it is for an international business to account for differences in laws?

Immigration is left for the countries to decide for the time being.

I know that, I think we should go back to it. The EU is becoming a Statist bureaucracy, which is expensive and unnecessary.

Except it's not possible to go back, since European integration has progressed. Trying to rip up all EU structures would be much, much more destructive to the condition of the member countries than integrating further.

It's better to have no influence than be apart of a foreign policy you object too. Any foreign policy of a united Europe would be dictated by the UK, France and Germany, when they can agree on one.

IF they can agree. UK usually doesn't agree with France, and this leaves open the ability for smaller states (Poland, Ireland, Spain, Italy) to combine votes and force theirs. You are also assuming that all reps from UK, France or Germany are going to vote the same. And that's not happening.

Not to mention that the policy would still have to be passed with a qualified majority, if I recall correctly, under the new system.

 

[Solaris]

I didn't know it would have those changes on Ireland rimfire.

I think I'm definately leaning to supporting the bill, but I do wonder if it would damage the stuggle for a 32county socialist republic.

 

[The Monkey]

The European Union's main achievement is bringing the peoples of Europe closer together. I can now work, live and study anywhere in Europe I want without any restrictions. When else in history have we been able to say that? Also, we need to stick together if the continent is gonna survive in the age of globalisation. Every country for itself is not gonna work.

I'm not denying that The EU has problems, but the solution is not to disband the entire project, but rather to try to improve things from within (which this referendum will do).

 

[Mr Stabby]

The member nations already recognize the authority of the European Justice Tribunal as the final instance and implement policies according to EU directives. Standardization is good, as it eases the flow of information wealth etc. as well as stabilizes the situation.

You know how costly it is for an international business to account for differences in laws?

Immigration is left for the countries to decide for the time being.

Except it's not possible to go back, since European integration has progressed. Trying to rip up all EU structures would be much, much more destructive to the condition of the member countries than integrating further.

And why exactly is it impossible to get rid of the bad parts of the EU? A strongly centralized EU, is unpopular in just about every country in Europe.

Why do we need a European justice system, when every country has their own, far more democratically accountable justice systems?

Economic free trade doesn't require a centralized political structure in Brussels.

IF they can agree. UK usually doesn't agree with France, and this leaves open the ability for smaller states (Poland, Ireland, Spain, Italy) to combine votes and force theirs. You are also assuming that all reps from UK, France or Germany are going to vote the same. And that's not happening.

Not to mention that the policy would still have to be passed with a qualified majority, if I recall correctly, under the new system.

And why are the smaller states any more likely to agree than the big ones, a foreign policy that France, Germany or the UK opposes is basically pointless as nothing will happen without their support.

 

[Tagaziel]

And why exactly is it impossible to get rid of the bad parts of the EU? A strongly centralized EU, is unpopular in just about every country in Europe.

What centralized EU? Do you have any idea what the word centralization means? Local governments retain their rights and abilities, the Brussels only enforces Europe-wide standards and laws. They couldn't care less about internal policies in Poznan, Berlin or how your medical services work, as long as they work.

Why do we need a European justice system, when every country has their own, far more democratically accountable justice systems?

So that sentences are interchangeable, for example? Not to mention that justice systems aren't democratically accountable, as they aren't elected.

*shudders*

The very concept of judges being democratically accountable is... horrifying. A judge is supposed to be independent and neutral.

Economic free trade doesn't require a centralized political structure in Brussels.

Doesn't require, yes. But having a single entity enforcing universally applicable laws helps.

And why are the smaller states any more likely to agree than the big ones, a foreign policy that France, Germany or the UK opposes is basically pointless as nothing will happen without their support.

So basically anything that's going to happen is bad?

 

[Mr Stabby]

What centralized EU? Do you have any idea what the word centralization means? Local governments retain their rights and abilities, the Brussels only enforces Europe-wide standards and laws. They couldn't care less about internal policies in Poznan, Berlin or how your medical services work, as long as they work.

I don't think you know what centralization is. When power in concentrated in one place, i.e Brussels. The political influence of the EU is definitely increasing and definitely exists and is unnecessary and not very accountable.

So that sentences are interchangeable, for example? Not to mention that justice systems aren't democratically accountable, as they aren't elected.

*shudders*

The very concept of judges being democratically accountable is... horrifying. A judge is supposed to be independent and neutral.

Actually they are under the supervision of the government a democratically accountable institution.

Doesn't require, yes. But having a single entity enforcing universally applicable laws helps.

So the EU is politically centralized?
Trade agreements should only happen when a country voluntarily supports it, and if a country supports the agreement then they can enforce the laws necessary themselves.. Not that the market needs political enforcement

So basically anything that's going to happen is bad?

No, it is still a very flawed idea. why should a country that disagrees with a policy, be binded to the policy of 51% of the EU?

 

[Tagaziel]

I don't think you know what centralization is. When power in concentrated in one place, i.e Brussels. The political influence of the EU is definitely increasing and definitely exists and is unnecessary and not very accountable.

Too bad I had undertaken a course that clearly explained what centralization means (among other things). Centralization happens when a single, superior center of power reserves the authority to make decisions, with lower branches severely limited or outright stripped of it.

Decisionmaking in Brussels happens on an Europe-wide scale, countries retain their decision making rights, what's more, the EU rarely outright gives a law to adopt, more often it's issuing an act outlining a certain objective countries are supposed to reach, leaving the choice of means to the countries themselves.

Also, why is political influence of the EU unnecessary?

Actually they are under the supervision of the government a democratically accountable institution.

No, they are not. Judges answer ONLY in disciplinary cases ONLY to the judge corporation. Ever heard of the divisions of power?

So the EU is politically centralized?
Trade agreements should only happen when a country voluntarily supports it, and if a country supports the agreement then they can enforce the laws necessary themselves.. Not that the market needs political enforcement

Oh yes, laissez-faire worked perfectly! In introducing monopolistic corrupt cartels of course.

No, it is still a very flawed idea. why should a country that disagrees with a policy, be binded to the policy of 51% of the EU?

Why should you be bound by laws enacted by xx% of your country?

 

[Mr Stabby]

Too bad I had undertaken a course that clearly explained what centralization means (among other things). Centralization happens when a single, superior center of power reserves the authority to make decisions, with lower branches severely limited or outright stripped of it.

Doesn't change the fact that the term for when a central governing body ie Brussels is created is called centralization.

Decisionmaking in Brussels happens on an Europe-wide scale, countries retain their decision making rights, what's more, the EU rarely outright gives a law to adopt, more often it's issuing an act outlining a certain objective countries are supposed to reach, leaving the choice of means to the countries themselves.

The power is still in Brussels. In the UK power is centralized in Whitehall, despite electing officals from Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Also, why is political influence of the EU unnecessary?

The British government is quite capable of running Britain, so why have the EU do it.

No, they are not. Judges answer ONLY in disciplinary cases ONLY to the judge corporation. Ever heard of the divisions of power?

Judges are accountable to the law, law is set by government. All the checks and balances are ultimately under the control of the government.

Oh yes, laissez-faire worked perfectly! In introducing monopolistic corrupt cartels of course.

When I said market I meant the European common market, as we are discussing Europe not economics. I was referring to interventionism from the EU, it's unnecessary and undemocratic.

Why should you be bound by laws enacted by xx% of your country?

Democracy isn't perfect but it works better on a smaller scale.