Display:
Migeru says: "So the Irish Government doesn't want to have another referendum. Is there something that can be offered to them to get them to change their mind?"

Get them to change their mind? And hold another referendum? Sure. This is the new face of democracy. As in the Netherlands and France in 2005. As in Denmark in 2000. The policy is that if Brussels fails by democratic standards, then it seeks other means to pursue its policy - a second vote, a legal solution... and when all else fails, forceful implementation.

Another blatant example where European policymakers are turning international law into a mockery is Kosovo. Brussels is intent on replacing the United Nations mission in Kosovo with EULEX without the prior approval of the UN Security Council. Talk about a flagrant breach of international law! Do our policymakers in Brussels want to do away with the United Nations? Do they think that the UN is about as worthless as the League of Nations? It would seem so.

If Europe were so democratic, why not organise referendums throughout the 25 countries to wee what the people want? Brussels lacks democratic... and indeed legal credentials to rule. Nobody in the European Commission has even been elected!

Coming back to the Irish referendum: the people voted NO. The will of the people needs to be respected, which means Ireland should now opt out of the next phase of European political integration. An the same opportunity should be given to te remaining 400 million Europeans.

Now wouldn't that be a real test of democracy?

by vladimir on Sun Jun 15th, 2008 at 08:56:02 AM EST
Nobody in the European Commission has even been elected!

So what? No one in the Swedish government has been elected either and that's doesn't make it any less legitimate.

I might also add that the EP is directly elected.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sun Jun 15th, 2008 at 09:21:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So you're saying that democracy doesn't exist in Sweden either? OK.
by vladimir on Sun Jun 15th, 2008 at 09:24:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I'm saying that just because the people in the executive branch are not directly elected doesn't mean you don't have a democracy. It's usually called parliamentarism. Maybe you should try it.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sun Jun 15th, 2008 at 09:27:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't you think that a system which allows the people to elect their representatives in the legislative AND the executibe branch is more democratic than one where only the legislative branch is elected by the people?
From my experience in the poll booths, this is the case in France today.
by vladimir on Sun Jun 15th, 2008 at 09:31:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Having a directly elected executive branch often results in people electing Strong Leaders (tm) who run roughshod over parliaments. I think the experience in Europe over the last century is that this is a very bad thing. I'd much rather see a strong parliament controlling and balancing the executive branch. This, the formally strong but in practice very weak parliament I'd say is the biggest weakness of Swedish democracy, not the other way around.

And then we also have a very biased media, but I won't touch that issue here.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sun Jun 15th, 2008 at 09:37:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What should we say about the french parliament then...

sigh.

A free fox in a free henhouse!

by Xavier in Paris on Sun Jun 15th, 2008 at 03:39:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My personal opinion on a "democratic" way forward is here. Trouble is, the "democratically elected" national governments will never accept that. So, what is "democratic"?

Also, if people come out and say "we voted NO to the Lisbon Treaty because of high fuel prices", that is democratic, but not exactly right. As is when US military contractors campaign on "protect Irish neutrality".

You might want to address the alleged reasons for voting no, and the possibilities for accommodation that are being discussed, instead of filling your mouth with "democracy".

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 15th, 2008 at 09:23:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The will of the people needs to be respected, which means Ireland should now opt out of the next phase of European political integration.

I have no problem with this, except as far as I know it isn't allowed for under the treaty, which requires unanimity. Those are the rules, but they are hardly "fair". Perhaps the EU-27 can agree unanimously to scrap the unanimity requirement, although I doubt it. In any case, it should probably be excluded from any future treaties.

the same opportunity should be given to te remaining 400 million Europeans.

I don't think you will get many objections here, but that remains a matter for the individual countries. They all have their own procedures, which are open to internal judicial review if any national group feels that the national rules are being flouted.

by det on Sun Jun 15th, 2008 at 09:58:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series