Islands give Finns Lisabon treaty problem
- Thread starter crabapple
- Start date
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Then should have, because it's true. It's pure hypocrisy to oppose the necessary next step in EU development and then claim that you support the EU. Yeah right
nonconformist
Miserable
we don't need another step in the EU. It's fine as it is. Christ, what do you want, the abolishment of all national armed forces and a huge EU-wide force?
jessiecat
Divine Monarch
Then should have, because it's true. It's pure hypocrisy to oppose the necessary next step in EU development and then claim that you support the EU. Yeah right
Well, as you know, I'm pro-EU as well and I don't see the latest treaty as the "necessary next step" in EU development. Any more than I agree with the way that the UK can opt out of some parts of the EU while others can't. You have your own opinion about what's "necessary". And so do we. Simple as that. IMO
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
Winner you are talking the most utter rubbish. Using your vote in a democratic process to protect your interests is "terrorist logic"?
Dear lord this is a new nadir in the misuse of the word terrorism. You use is more abserd than that of the most frothing neo-con. By your token anyone who votes in a way you dont like is a terrorist.
Either you dont understand the meaning of terrorist or democracy. Or you do and your metaphor was a
If the people expressing their democratic will is terrorism then to preclude terrorism we must have a fasist, or otherwise authoritarian state.
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
Ireland are under a lot of pressure to keep having votes until they get the answer the EU wants. And then stop having votes of course.
Every country must ratify it, but for Finland to ratify it (for local Finnish reasons) the Aland Islanders must ratify it.
The issue in Ireland is that for us to ratify it we need a referendum because it changes our constitution as it gives away the state's power to veto to move to more qualified majority voting.
The reason Aland's view's has been ignored is propably because it's so small (not intentionally, of course). But since it's so small it's easy to forget it. I haven't yet seen any news about this issue in the Finnish mainstream media. Of course, we shouldn't just ignore them. Also something along these lines
would be needed.
It seems Aland got too much influence. If Aland says no I'm willing to ignore them.
crabapple
I am watching
to much influence about the lisabon treaty perhaps, but we have no say in EU therefor the autonomy that we have is made null and void by EU, ergo we should have some way to influence EU
Unless of course,IF you are one of them that want our autonomy abolished, but then there is pointless to discuss this with you
Yes you should have a way to influence the EU, and according to the Finnish wikipedia you do (http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahvenanmaan_maakunta). As I said, the text is in finnish but I'm sure there's somewhere the same article in swedish (google it?)
I'm all for Aland's autonomy, as long as it's not my problem.
Oerdin
Deity
Why should an internal autonomous region have a say in international treaties? Either the country has one central government or it doesn't. It sounds like you're a state like entity who wants to pretend you're sovereign.
In most democracies representation is at least somewhat proportional to the population. Åland has around 30 000 people, rounding up. I'm a Finn and do support their autonomy but if they want to conduct their own foreign policy it would be best if they simply declared independence.
As far as Åland's say in EU matters goes: they have a single guaranteed representative in the Finnish parliament (this is pretty well in line with their size, 5 000 000 divided by 200 is 25 000) which makes the decisions on EU matters. 1 out of 200 isn't much but neither is 30 000. The 14 Finnish MEPs are chosen by general election (ie. the entire country is one voting district, no area gets a guaranteed seat). From what I've understood Åland wants its own representative. I can't say I support that and even less if it would come out the 14 we currently have. One Finnish MEP represents roughly 370 000 Finns so guaranteeing one of those seats to Åland would be unjust for the rest of us.
I don't think this is going to end in Åland's favour. They seem to have little support from either EU or mainland Finland. 30 000 is only 30 000, autonomy or not. If they somehow manage to force the issue that will only make the push for a reform on EU decision making so much stronger and raise some considerable resentment in the rest of Finland.
On a less serious note: I wonder if it is possible for Finland to declare the League of Nations decision void and release Åland unilateraly?
Now that would make the headlines.
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
In most democracies representation is at least somewhat proportional to the population. Åland has around 30 000 people, rounding up. I'm a Finn and do support their autonomy but if they want to conduct their own foreign policy it would be best if they simply declared independence.
As far as Åland's say in EU matters goes: they have a single guaranteed representative in the Finnish parliament (this is pretty well in line with their size, 5 000 000 divided by 200 is 25 000) which makes the decisions on EU matters. 1 out of 200 isn't much but neither is 30 000. The 14 Finnish MEPs are chosen by general election (ie. the entire country is one voting district, no area gets a guaranteed seat). From what I've understood Åland wants its own representative. I can't say I support that and even less if it would come out the 14 we currently have. One Finnish MEP represents roughly 370 000 Finns so guaranteeing one of those seats to Åland would be unjust for the rest of us.
I don't think this is going to end in Åland's favour. They seem to have little support from either EU or mainland Finland. 30 000 is only 30 000, autonomy or not. If they somehow manage to force the issue that will only make the push for a reform on EU decision making so much stronger and raise some considerable resentment in the rest of Finland.
On a less serious note: I wonder if it is possible for Finland to declare the League of Nations decision void and release Åland unilateraly?
Which rather failsto address the point.
At the moment Aland has authority over x. The central gov has no authority over x. The central gov decides to ceed it's competience over x to Brussles. They also ceed Aland's competience to Brussles.
This was not within their gift.
By the same token I can give your house to my brother?
Had I tried to address that point I would agree. Yes, they have the right to refuse to ratify the treaty. Otherwise giving them the right to vote on it would be pretty meaningless, no? This does not however mean that the rest of Finland can not ratify it. I'm pretty sure a way will be found to bypass them should no other acceptable solution be found. The point I was addressing was whether Åland should have more, and direct, representation on the EU level. So long as it is a part of Finland, I would say no. This is what the disagreement is about. Åland feels that the Finnish state is not properly representing their interests in the EU and want their own representatives.
If Åland wants to be sovereign I think we should let them be. The current arrangement does not seem to be working to anyone's satisfaction within the EU framework. Maybe they will get their MEP (and other direct EU representatives) as an independent micro-nation. At least they would make Malta feel like a real superpower
. As an autonomous area I doubt EU is willing to grant them that (there would be a long line of other autonomous areas asking direct representation) and Finland isn't either.Here is a pretty good short piece on the Finnish MEP dilemma:To get a place in the European sun, a minority should preferably be German
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
Yeah, big countries should just invade and annex them.
Why the . .. .. .. . is the EU legislating on the consumption of "oral tobacco"? Oh, yes, the all-mighty state always knows better that the rabble, and the rabble should not be allowed to challenge the government (or the EU bureaucracy above), even when the laws, treaties and constitutions formally grant them that power... Winner's usual whining.
I guess you'd endorse the view that a constitution is only a damn piece of paper anyway, so why are you so worried about the "EU constitution" not being approved? Just move to the USA and try to get a job as a Bush sycophant, before his term expires, you'd fit right in with those views!
crabapple
I am watching
Åland doesnt want to be soverign, there is a minority that want to but its pretty small
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Oh dear, shut up and read what I wrote again and try to use your gray neurons when doing it.
"Terrorist logic" means, that you use threats against innocent bystanders to force someone to do what you want.
This must be the greatest single strawman ever encountered on this forum
This has nothing to do with democracy. Aalanders, as I understand, have a problem with the Finnish national government. So instead of dealing with this government, they take an issue which is totally un-related to their problem, but which is very important to the remaining 25 member countries of the European Union, and use threats (of not approving the treaty) in order to make them force Finland to do what they want.
That is what I call terrorist logic - they're taking hostages, of course in the political, non-violent sense.
So chill out and first try to understand what I am saying before you start exhaling fumes and spitting fire.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
On a less serious note: I wonder if it is possible for Finland to declare the League of Nations decision void and release Åland unilateraly?
That's entirely possible - few people know that, but that's what we did with Slovaks
Yeah, I know. But there is the currently very remote possibility that should this sort of thing persist or happen again you will get sovereignty whether you want it or not. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
The real problem is that EU and Åland's traditional autonomy are not compatible. What used to be domestic issues (where Åland has the right to make its own decisions) have now become international issues (where Åland has not had autonomy). The demarcation between foreign and domestic is not all that clear within the EU. Precisely what will happen if Åland does not ratify the treaty is just not clear from what I've read.
From the official Åland Islands homepage (emphasis added):
Foreign affairs is not transferred to Åland under the Autonomy Act, but remains under the control of the Finnish Government. Even so, Åland has a degree of influence on international treaties that contain provisions relating to areas where Åland is the competent authority. The Autonomy Act states that an international treaty of this kind entered into by Finland requires the consent of the Parliament of Åland to become valid also in Åland.
One solution would be to present a choice: ratify or do not ratify and secede from EU (like Greenland). A situation where Finnish government has to ask for Åland's go ahead to sign into EU treaties is simply unpalatable. Either way I do hope that the situation is solved in a way that prevents this sort of hassle in the future.
For the record: I don't think calling Ålanders terrorists is appropriate. What they are doing is nothing new in politics. It might not be all good and noble but terrorism, as understood in normal discourse, it is not.
Similar threads
