Lisbon Treaty

[mypost]

Quoting yourself?......clearly you are a politician.

:confused:

If I was, I'd be campaigning for the other side.

Post quoted in order to continue the original point made. :rolleyes:

[mypost]

More proof that the Nice Treaty (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7493902.stm) works perfectly fine.

[OneRedArmy]

More proof that the Nice Treaty (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7493902.stm) works perfectly fine.and exactly how will this be impacted by Lisbon?

Quoting Articles or Protocols obviously.

[mypost]

One of the arguments put forward by the Yes side, was that Lisbon was required to make decisions easier. The above is another example where under Nice, agreement was possible between 27 states.

Listening to Gormley last night, on a recording of RTE's Lisbon coverage. He whinged that at one meeting in Brussels he was present at, current business in the EU couldn't be conducted efficiently under Nice, as one state's MEP spent too long putting his points across, resulting in other states needing the same amount of time to put theirs across. :rolleyes:

You don't need a Constitution to solve that, just better timekeeping.

[dahamsta]

Or a shotgun.

[GavinZac]

More proof that the Nice Treaty (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7493902.stm) works perfectly fine.

Qu'elle surprise! Nothing quite like an anti-immigration policy to get the thumbs up from mypost.


One of the arguments put forward by the Yes side, was that Lisbon was required to make decisions easier. The above is another example where under Nice, agreement was possible between 27 states.Thats a pretty weak argument, especially if all you've got is a little "no sweeping naturalisation" pledge. No-one said unanimity was impossible; but it certainly is more difficult and not very democratic.

[jebus]

Qu'elle surprise! Nothing quite like an anti-immigration policy to get the thumbs up from mypost.

That sounds suspiciously like immigrant talk to me, get him mypost!

[mypost]

Qu'elle surprise! Nothing quite like an anti-immigration policy to get the thumbs up from mypost.

Wtf?? :confused:


No-one said unanimity was impossible; but it certainly is more difficult and not very democratic.

Of course it's difficult, but they are the rules of the club, as it should be. Unanimity or FA. In order to get unanimity, the process must be democratic, and everyone is entitled to agree or disagree. As a result, eventually a mutual solution is found. Maybe not when the Commission wants it, but a solution is found. That's democracy.

Unlike Sarkosy's hollow threats, of "sign, read afterwards", and he's up to his old tricks again. This time, it's the European Parliament in the firing line.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0710/breaking30.htm

"He said he thought it was wrong to put such as issue to a referendum in the first place. To applause from MEPs, he commented: "Institutional things are for members of parliament, rather than referendums - it's a political choice and perfectly democratic." :D

This mate, is not playschool. This, if ratified will override 27 state constitutions, decimate national vetoes, wreck Europe hook line and sinker, and therefore should be put to referendum in each and every member state. That is democracy. Every time it has, it has been rejected. Someday you'll get the message about this, that the people of Europe, not merely "1% of the bloc's population", are telling you. If you can't accept that, make way for someone who does.

[GavinZac]

Of course it's difficult, but they are the rules of the club, as it should be. Unanimity or FA. In order to get unanimity, the process must be democratic, and everyone is entitled to agree or disagree. As a result, eventually a mutual solution is found. Maybe not when the Commission wants it, but a solution is found. That's democracy.
I'm not entirely sure you know what democracy is. If we had a vote in the morning on whether to throw out all the Poles and Africans, one persons vote wouldn't cancel out everyone else's. That is democracy. Democracy takes power away from raving lunatics, not gives it to them.

[mypost]

I'm not entirely sure you know what democracy is. If we had a vote in the morning on whether to throw out all the Poles and Africans, one persons vote wouldn't cancel out everyone else's. That is democracy. Democracy takes power away from raving lunatics, not gives it to them.

Still doesn't get it.

There is a major difference between the ability to decide on policy, and the ability to decide on power. When it comes to the internal policy-making of the Commission/Parliament, it's not a matter of national sovereignty, so it's up to them what they want to do with it. One of the arguments put forward by them was that such business could not be agreed without Lisbon. The example I gave, shows that to be a lie. The EU continues to function perfectly well, under Nice. Lisbon is not required.

[GavinZac]

Still doesn't get it.Oh I get it, don;t worry. You're just wrong.
The example I gave, shows that to be a lie. The EU continues to function perfectly well, under Nice. Lisbon is not required.One bloody vote doesn't prove its a fantastically well oiled machine. The problem is not with issues that go entirely smoothly, but with ones where there is opposition from fringe elements; e.g., the ultra-socialist movement right after Spain's government changed as a reaction to their previous alignment with the USA, which saw the naturalisation of 700,000 immigrants.

That is what this agreement above is about, and had Spain been in fanatical mode, they could have blocked such an agreement. That, of course, wouldn't force anyone else to suddenly naturalise vast swaths of foreigners, but would have left that option open; which as I'm sure you'll agree would be damaging if a government decided it was going to pass such a movement.

Democracy is "majoritarian", by design. Sure, it allows for anyone to make their own opinions heard; it does not guarantee their opinions are valid.

[mypost]

One bloody vote doesn't prove its a fantastically well oiled machine.

It's not meant to be. It's an example of agreements on policies being reached under Nice, which we've been told are not possible without Lisbon.

Since we ratified the Nice Treaty, 12 new members have been admitted to the block in the past 4 years. Has the EU crumbled under the strain?? No. Have policies failed to come into effect?? No. It's worked, and will continue to work regardless of our referendum vote. Despite what we're told by Brussels, we don't need the Lisbon Treaty.

[GavinZac]

It's not meant to be. It's an example of agreements on policies being reached under Nice, which we've been told are not possible without LisbonYou see thats either a misunderstanding, which I fail to find credulous given your continued interest in this topic over the course of several months, or misrepresentation or a lie. Nobody's ever said unanimity is impossible; indeed that itself would be a lie, or the EU wouldn't exist, would it? Instead, unanimity is more difficult, and more importantly less democratic, than the QMV system. Plucking one fairly nondescript pact about a policy which quite obviously threatens the EU's border controls and saying it is proof of anything is clutching at straws.

[mypost]

You see thats either a misunderstanding, Nobody's ever said unanimity is impossible; indeed that itself would be a lie, or the EU wouldn't exist, would it?

No, you're the one who is misunderstanding, as the following quote from one of your Yes men, as D'Estaing states:

"...If we stay with unanimity, we will do nothing. . . . It is impossible to function by unanimity with 27 members.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/0626/1214402981610.html

[GavinZac]

No, you're the one who is misunderstanding, as the following quote from one of your Yes men, as D'Estaing states:

"...If we stay with unanimity, we will do nothing. . . . It is impossible to function by unanimity with 27 members.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/0626/1214402981610.html

Here's another quote from the same damn article.
""One should never use a quote out of context, It's dishonest."

And here's the full text of what you pulled.

"We have to respect the Irish vote, but we have to respect the others' vote as well."
But surely the EU is founded on unanimity?
"Was founded on the basis of unanimity," he counters. "We are evolving towards majority voting because if we stay with unanimity, we will do nothing. . . . It is impossible to function by unanimity with 27 members. This time it's Ireland; the next time it will be somebody else."

[pete]

The fact that the EU is looking to implement policies on immigration is not the same as they have completed it. If France cannot completed in their 6 month term it gets passed onto next country that holds Presidency & so on. Having a 2 year Presidency for one person would make this much more efficient. The lack of President also means that the EU does not have an obvious leader so other countries such as the US or China don't have one person to go to.

Currently Sarkosy thinks he is the leader & he pretty much sets his own agenda,

[mypost]

The fact that the EU is looking to implement policies on immigration is not the same as they have completed it. If France cannot completed in their 6 month term it gets passed onto next country that holds Presidency & so on.

Nothing wrong with that. It's not perfect, but it's equal and fair. Look at the hoopla France have made of them holding the Presidency. It's a political honour, and under a 2-5 year President, Ireland would never, ever hold it again.

Despite being pro-European, I think most Irish people would want to be represented abroad by the President of Ireland, who is elected and accountable, than a President of Europe, unelected (publicly) and not accountable to his/her citizens.

[jebus]

Nothing wrong with that.

You seriously think there is nothing wrong with European countries not being given adequate time to pass through important bills?

[mypost]

You seriously think there is nothing wrong with European countries not being given adequate time to pass through important bills?

What's adequate time?? a month, 3 months, 6 months, 6 years?? What's the time limit?? :confused:

It's the equality that's important. Every country has an equal chance to hold the Presidency, for the same amount of time. That's the way it should be. The bills will be passed eventually, regardless of which country is in charge.

As head of state, do you want to be officially represented by Mary McAleese, someone your people elected, or Angela Merkel, that you didn't?

[jebus]

As head of state, do you want to be officially represented by Mary McAleese, someone your people elected, or Angela Merkel, that you didn't?

I didn't vote for McAleese (didn't we have an uncontested election last time the Presidency came up?) so it doesn't make a shred of difference to me who the figurehead/scapegoat of the EU is

[mypost]

I didn't vote for McAleese (didn't we have an uncontested election last time the Presidency came up?) so it doesn't make a shred of difference to me who the figurehead/scapegoat of the EU is

I didn't vote for her either, but she was democratically elected when there was an election, so she rightfully, represents our country on the world stage. Not some Eurocrat.

[jebus]

I didn't vote for her either, but she was democratically elected when there was an election, so she rightfully, represents our country on the world stage. Not some Eurocrat.

No problem with her representing Ireland on a world stage, would rather an actual politician to be president of Europe though, someone who has been elected in their own country for sure, but putting someone who's in a sham of a position like the President of Ireland in that position, well you may as well give it to the Queen

[mypost]

No problem with her representing Ireland on a world stage, would rather an actual politician to be president of Europe though, someone who has been elected in their own country for sure, but putting someone who's in a sham of a position like the President of Ireland in that position, well you may as well give it to the Queen

Again, looking for a perfect world.

Said politician, would be a representative of the big 5, and thus hold the Presidency. Said politician would neither reflect the political or practical position of Ireland, nor give the country a second thought in his dealings/decisions, nor can be replaced by our electorate. Bad for democracy, bad for this country, and bad for the EU.

On that basis, I'd rather have the "sham" position of the President of Ireland representing us.

[pete]

I didn't vote for her either, but she was democratically elected when there was an election, so she rightfully, represents our country on the world stage. Not some Eurocrat.

There was no election for McAleese second term.

At least with a new EU Presidency it would be elected by the leaders of the nations. As it stands Sarkozy only elected by the French so we have no say at all. Getting the Presidency for 6 out of every 162 months is worthless.

[mypost]

At least with a new EU Presidency it would be elected by the leaders of the nations. As it stands Sarkozy only elected by the French so we have no say at all. Getting the Presidency for 6 out of every 162 months is worthless.

Worthless to who??

As it stands, each country is entitled to host the Presidency for an equal length of time. That is imo, the correct way of conducting business in the EU. With the new EU Presidency proposals, there would be no public elections. Much like the ratification process. That signifies the ignorance and arrogance that the public are held in by Brussels. The President must be accountable to the people he represents.

[jebus]

Worthless to who??

Worthless to me and the Irish public. If we had scrapped the Presidency in this country when no would stood against McAleese would this country be any worse off for it? Would anyone other than some people that still think we're fighting for Dev's country even care?

[mypost]

If we had scrapped the Presidency in this country when no would stood against McAleese would this country be any worse off for it?

:confused:


Worthless to me and the Irish public.

The Presidency issue is one of the driving forces of my opposition to Lisbon, I see it as a surrender of soverignty if passed. I am happy with the current arrangements on the issue.

[GavinZac]

:confused:



The Presidency issue is one of the driving forces of my opposition to Lisbon, I see it as a surrender of soverignty if passed. I am happy with the current arrangements on the issue.

The 'presidency' makes them the president of the European Union. It does not make them your head of state.

Regardless, the President is as much our 'head of state' as Lizzie is in Australia.

[mypost]

The 'presidency' makes them the president of the European Union. It does not make them your head of state.

Should Lisbon be ratified everywhere, the European Union becomes a country in 2014, with it's own constitution, it's own flag, it's own anthem, it's own President, it's own Foreign Minister. It would be made of 27 states, that are all subservient to Brussels. Our head of state would have no legitamacy, neither would our foreign minister. We would officially be represented by the EU President, not the President of Ireland. The Irish Constitution would be obsolete, the Dail would be toothless and worthless, as would the lower/upper parliaments in all other states. That is a surrender of national sovereignty, which I'm not prepared to concede.

[jebus]

:confused:


If we got rid of the office of the President of Ireland tomorrow what difference would it make to our day to day life?

[GavinZac]

Should Lisbon be ratified everywhere, the European Union becomes a country in 2014:confused:
with it's own constitution,um, no?
it's own flagit has one
it's own anthemit has one
it's own PresidentIt has one
it's own Foreign Minister.it has one
It would be made of 27 states, that are all subservient to Brussels.it already is, in the sections where EU law is applicable.
Our head of state would have no legitamacyFrankly, she doesn't

We would officially be represented by the EU President, not the President of Ireland. That is a surrender of national sovereignty, which I'm not willing to concede.You already have, guv'.

[mypost]

If we got rid of the office of the President of Ireland tomorrow what difference would it make to our day to day life?

Under the Irish Constitution, she is head of state, that enforces bills and signs the laws of the land. So it makes a big difference to our day-to-day life. She represents the country on state visits. She has the power to dissolve/form a government, the power to call elections, the power to sign or refuse to sign bills, including the, (if ratified by first a referendum, then by parliament) Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution. Under the EU Constitution, she would lose all those powers, and recognition. That would be authorised in a darkened room in central Europe. The surrender of national sovereignty, no matter how insignificant it looks, is a red line area afaic.

[GavinZac]

Hypothetical rubbish. Under the Irish Constitution, she is head of state, that enforces bills and signs the laws of the land. So it makes a big difference to our day-to-day life. She represents the country on state visits. Under the EU Constitution, she would lose all those powers, and recognition. That would be authorised in a darkened room in central Europe. The surrender of national sovereignty, no matter how insignificant it looks, is a red line area afaic.I know this isn't Wikipedia, but I can't help but stick a big fat [citation needed] (random-stuff-you-made-up) under that.

[mypost]

You already have, guv'.

We haven't. Would you like to be reminded of that ref result again?? :confused:

[GavinZac]

We haven't. Would you like to be reminded of that ref result again?? :confused:

If you mean EU law superseding Irish law, it already does. Every factor you mentioned, except the constitution, already exists. The laughable claim that somehow the EU president would become our head of state via the Lisbon Treaty, however, is about as far off the truth as your assertion that the No vote had anything to do with sovereignty in the first place.

[jebus]

Under the Irish Constitution, she is head of state, that enforces bills and signs the laws of the land. So it makes a big difference to our day-to-day life. She represents the country on state visits. She has the power to dissolve/form a government, the power to call elections, the power to sign or refuse to sign bills, including the, (if ratified by first a referendum, then by parliament) Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution.

All ********, she's there to go to sporting events and try and look pretty when she is abroad. She has no power, you know it so why pretend otherwise? Can you imagine is she called a press conference tomorrow and said she was dissolving the government? She'd be laughed out of the building.

The office of the President is no longer needed and should be done away with

[mypost]

If you mean EU law superseding Irish law, it already does. Every factor you mentioned, except the constitution, already exists.

Well you've finally admitted that Lisbon and the EU Constitution are the same thing. :eek:


The laughable claim that somehow the EU president would become our head of state via the Lisbon TreatyWe would have a "President", but under the EU Constitiution, the EU President rules the continent. Our president would have no power, and therefore no official recognition. That's not laughable, that level of power is scary.

In any case, my main gripe is losing the right to the rotating Presidency, which we are entitled to. Are you going to deny that doesn't happen, as well?? :confused:


All ********, she's there to go to sporting events and try and look pretty when she is abroad.

:D All *********


She has no power, you know it so why pretend otherwise? Can you imagine is she called a press conference tomorrow and said she was dissolving the government? She'd be laughed out of the building.Where does Bertie Ahern go to dissolve/form the government?? The Press Office?? Prime Time?? Rather no, he goes to the President and formally signs out and in the government with her. On the advice of the sitting Taoiseach, only the President can authorise an election, and if the government can't be formed (as it almost wasn't last year), she has the power to call another election. She authorises and hands over the seals of Office to the new government. Every bill passed by the Dail, has to be signed into law by the President. Just because she doesn't spend 3 days a week howling and yelling in the Dail, and in the papers every day, doesn't mean she has no power.

[OneRedArmy]

:Where does Bertie Ahern go to dissolve/form the government?? The Press Office?? Prime Time?? Rather no, he goes to the President and formally signs out and in the government with her. On the advice of the sitting Taoiseach, only the President can authorise an election, and if the government can't be formed (as it almost wasn't last year), she has the power to call another election. She authorises and hands over the seals of Office to the new government. Every bill passed by the Dail, has to be signed into law by the President. Just because she doesn't spend 3 days a week howling and yelling in the Dail, and in the papers every day, doesn't mean she has no power.Can you give any examples of how a recent President has done anything other than ratification and follow precedent? (other than Mary McAleese making an ill-judged remark about comparing Northern Protestants to Nazis).

Its a figurehead role and many of the tasks you have mentioned above are also carried out by the Queen who is rarely viewed as having any power in the UK.

[John83]

The office of the President is no longer needed and should be done away with
It's worthwhile having a constitutional check on laws being passed. Read up on Cearbhall O'Dalaigh.

[superfrank]

On the advice of the sitting Taoiseach, only the President can authorise an election, and if the government can't be formed (as it almost wasn't last year), she has the power to call another election. She authorises and hands over the seals of Office to the new government. Every bill passed by the Dail, has to be signed into law by the President. Just because she doesn't spend 3 days a week howling and yelling in the Dail, and in the papers every day, doesn't mean she has no power.
All jobs anyone could do. The President is there for show.

We would have a "President", but under the EU Constitiution, the EU President rules the continent. Our president would have no power, and therefore no official recognition. That's not laughable, that level of power is scary.
The EU President would have the same kind of jobs that the Irish President has now. It is not a position of power.

How many people have to tell you that before you realise it?

[mypost]

All jobs anyone could do.

Well, as it turns out, it isn't. That's what separates the head of state from everyone else.


The EU President would have the same kind of jobs that the Irish President has now.

Wrong. Under Lisbon, he is unelected, and can make proposals, and decisions that are in the interest of Brussels, and not the European people.

In any case, I see nothing wrong with every country getting the opportunity to host the Presidency. Our last one was highly successful, and portrayed a positive image of the then PM, and Ireland in general.

[superfrank]

Well, as it turns out, it isn't. That's what separates the head of state from everyone else.
Signing documents, handing out flashy plaques, unveiling monuments and meeting foreign visitors?

I still believe anyone could do it.

Wrong. Under Lisbon, he is unelected, and can make proposals, and decisions that are in the interest of Brussels, and not the European people.
Europa - President of the European Council (http://europa.eu/scadplus/constitution/europeancouncil_en.htm#PRESIDENT)
Read that and tell me exactly where you found this information that suggest otherwise.

The President will be elected by the member states using QMV. How exactly do you think the President will be chosen if it does not involve some sort of election?

[mypost]

Signing documents, handing out flashy plaques, unveiling monuments and meeting foreign visitors?

I still believe anyone could do it.

Well, the fact is, they can't. That's why we have a President.


The President will be elected by the member states using QMV. How exactly do you think the President will be chosen if it does not involve some sort of election?

That's not an election. A political election is a public vote, where the winner has a democratic mandate. It's not a rigged internal vote, where some countries hold more sway than others. No doubt, they'll be canvassing their coleagues as well. It's neither free nor fair. The President will "represent" the citizens, yet the citizens have no say, on who, where, or what he does, nor how long he stays in office. "Election" my eye. More along the lines of "elections" that Zanu PF run.:rolleyes:

[superfrank]

Well, the fact is, they can't. That's why we have a President.
Jebus made the point that getting rid of the office of President would make no difference to the running of the country. I agree. Her unskilled responsibilities could be passed onto the Senate or someone else.

It's not a rigged internal vote, where some countries hold more sway than others.
You mean the countries with bigger populations? Seen as they have more citizens, it's only right they should have more influence. Just like every other election, the larger groups will have more say.

It's an election by the member states, which Ireland is one of and therefore will have a say in who is elected.

The President will "represent" the citizens, yet the citizens have no say, on who, where, or what he does, nor how long he stays in office.
To quote the link I posted:

He/she will chair the European Council and drive forward its work, and ensure its proper preparation and continuity in cooperation with the President of the Commission, on the basis of the General Affairs Council's work. The President also endeavours to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the European Council and presents a report to the European Parliament after each of its meetings.

The President will also, at his or her level, ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the responsibilities of the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
That says nothing about representing the citizens of the EU. Again, I'll ask you, where are you getting this info?

[mypost]

You mean the countries with bigger populations? Seen as they have more citizens, it's only right they should have more influence. Just like every other election, the larger groups will have more say.

There are 27 partners in the European Union. The voice of Malta and Cyprus is as important as the voice of France and Germany. Population size has, and should have nothing to do with it.

[pete]

Under the Irish Constitution, she is head of state, that enforces bills and signs the laws of the land. So it makes a big difference to our day-to-day life. She represents the country on state visits. She has the power to dissolve/form a government, the power to call elections, the power to sign or refuse to sign bills, including the, (if ratified by first a referendum, then by parliament) Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution. Under the EU Constitution, she would lose all those powers, and recognition. That would be authorised in a darkened room in central Europe. The surrender of national sovereignty, no matter how insignificant it looks, is a red line area afaic.

I think I am also going to have to back others up & ask for proof especially the highlighted section.

[mypost]

The proof is the document itself. It is the EU Constitution, and therefore, it supersedes all political power and muscle in the country, and supersedes all Irish law. That's the whole point of having a constitution, any constitution, it's not a chapter in a book, it determines how a country is run, in this case, the USE. A place where power is centralised to a Parliament in Brussels, they make the laws, and they dictate to their citizens. Whether citizens actually want/need it or not, is immaterial to them. Under any constitution, there must be a President. He/She is head of state of Europe, therefore, it can be interpreted, under the following quote in the linked post,


He/she will chair the European Council and drive forward its work

as holding the Presidency, and implementing decisions taken in EU business covering 500 million citizens.

Currently under Nice, there is no EU President. There is a Presidency, rotating around the bloc every 6 months. They chair the council of minister meetings, and other meetings throughout their term in charge. That allows every member to be an equal partner in the EU, regardless of budget, population, foreign policy etc. Sarkosy, and the French have taken to their Presidency with much enthusiasm, not that having "the Presidency for 6 out of every 162 months is worthless". :rolleyes:

There is much talk of a "United Europe" competing against China, Russia and co. But those are fully independent states, and Europe needs to tackle policies in a way that doesn't alienate it's people. What's good for one country is not necessarily good for another. We've seen and continue to see around the world, that when you push political issues through without the consent of the people, the public rebel, and the whole system collapses, leading to anarchy. Democracy isn't perfect, and the EU isn't perfect, but under the Nice Treaty, it's as good as it can be.

[jebus]

There are 27 partners in the European Union. The voice of Malta and Cyprus is as important as the voice of France and Germany. Population size has, and should have nothing to do with it.

Absolute nonsense. In what proper democracy should a state with 4m people have the same say as a state with 80m people?

[OneRedArmy]

There are 27 partners in the European Union. The voice of Malta and Cyprus is as important as the voice of France and Germany. Population size has, and should have nothing to do with it.What you have just described is generally known as "gerrymandering".....

[Billsthoughts]

Absolute nonsense. In what proper democracy should a state with 4m people have the same say as a state with 80m people?


What you have just described is generally known as "gerrymandering".....


All the states signed up for the EU on the basis that they would all have equal say regardless of population size. European parliament is a democracy - the EU is a union of democratic states.