:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
If I was, I'd be campaigning for the other side.
Post quoted in order to continue the original point made. :rolleyes:
Printable View
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
If I was, I'd be campaigning for the other side.
Post quoted in order to continue the original point made. :rolleyes:
More proof that the Nice Treaty works perfectly fine.
and exactly how will this be impacted by Lisbon?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Quoting Articles or Protocols obviously.
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.
Or a shotgun.
Qu'elle surprise! Nothing quite like an anti-immigration policy to get the thumbs up from mypost.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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.Quote:
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.
That sounds suspiciously like immigrant talk to me, get him mypost!Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
Wtf?? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
No-one said unanimity was impossible; but it certainly is more difficult and not very democratic.
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/...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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Still doesn't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
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.
Oh I get it, don;t worry. You're just wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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.Quote:
The example I gave, shows that to be a lie. The EU continues to function perfectly well, under Nice. Lisbon is not required.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
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.
You 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
No, you're the one who is misunderstanding, as the following quote from one of your Yes men, as D'Estaing states:Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
"...If we stay with unanimity, we will do nothing. . . . It is impossible to function by unanimity with 27 members.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...402981610.html
Here's another quote from the same damn article.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
""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."
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,
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
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.
You seriously think there is nothing wrong with European countries not being given adequate time to pass through important bills?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
What's adequate time?? a month, 3 months, 6 months, 6 years?? What's the time limit?? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
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?
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 isQuote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
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 QueenQuote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Again, looking for a perfect world.Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
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.
There was no election for McAleese second term.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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??Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
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.Quote:
Worthless to me and the Irish public.
The 'presidency' makes them the president of the European Union. It does not make them your head of state.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Regardless, the President is as much our 'head of state' as Lizzie is in Australia.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
If we got rid of the office of the President of Ireland tomorrow what difference would it make to our day to day life?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
um, no?Quote:
with it's own constitution,
it has oneQuote:
it's own flag
it has oneQuote:
it's own anthem
It has oneQuote:
it's own President
it has oneQuote:
it's own Foreign Minister.
it already is, in the sections where EU law is applicable.Quote:
It would be made of 27 states, that are all subservient to Brussels.
Frankly, she doesn'tQuote:
Our head of state would have no legitamacy
You already have, guv'.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
I know this isn't Wikipedia, but I can't help but stick a big fat [citation needed] under that.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
We haven't. Would you like to be reminded of that ref result again?? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
The office of the President is no longer needed and should be done away with
Well you've finally admitted that Lisbon and the EU Constitution are the same thing. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
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.Quote:
The laughable claim that somehow the EU president would become our head of state via the Lisbon Treaty
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:
:D All *********Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
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.Quote:
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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.
It's worthwhile having a constitutional check on laws being passed. Read up on Cearbhall O'Dalaigh.Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
All jobs anyone could do. The President is there for show.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
The EU President would have the same kind of jobs that the Irish President has now. It is not a position of power.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
How many people have to tell you that before you realise it?