Lisbon Treaty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

Ireland never had any power in the EU in voting terms but still our politicians were able to negotiate deals on EU funds. We got significantly more per capita than other poorer countries at the time. EU funds built half our infrastructure which for example can drive Dublin-Cork in 2.5/3 hours as opposed to 5+ hours.

---

Funding has nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty. It has everything to do with power, and in our case, less of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Funding has nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty. It has everything to do with power, and in our case, less of it.

---

i posted on here a while back, but i have to say i know plenty of people who would pretty much see themselves as european who would reject the treaty.

First it was the French, now the Germans are in on the act:

Quote:

---

He reportedly made pointed references to those who “complain about other nations fishing in their waters. . . and forget who pays their milk subsidies”.

“A second No would have horrific consequences for Ireland and I am not the first to say it. I don’t think there is anything particularly new in that.”

---

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...243126493.html

The Lisbon Treaty has nothing to do with milk subsidies or payments of any description, to say it does is lieing. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

The Lisbon Treaty has nothing to do with milk subsidies or payments of any description, to say it does is lieing. :mad:

---

It has nothing to do with conscription, abortion or tax harmonisation either but that won't stop some anti Lisbon nut jobs using that as an arguement either.

Good news during the week, as unlike here, the Czech government was voted out of office, due to their economic crisis. It also holds up the ratification of the Treaty there a bit longer, and delays Cowen and Martin's show "guarantees" in order to force us to vote again. :)

While EU leaders will whinge that the collapse is an example of their issues with the rotating presidency, the fact remains that most governments can fold at any time, and it's merely a coincidence that the Czech one should fall while holding the Presidency. Also, the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic remains holder of the Presidency, and this event should not be used as a stick to beat other countries with, who are due to have their turn at it in time.

http://europenews.dk/en/node/21676

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Good news during the week, as unlike here, the Czech government was voted out of office, due to their economic crisis. It also holds up the ratification of the Treaty there a bit longer, and delays Cowen and Martin's show "guarantees" in order to force us to vote again. :)

While EU leaders will whinge that the collapse is an example of their issues with the rotating presidency, the fact remains that most governments can fold at any time, and it's merely a coincidence that the Czech one should fall while holding the Presidency. Also, the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic remains holder of the Presidency, and this event should not be used as a stick to beat other countries with, who are due to have their turn at it in time.

http://europenews.dk/en/node/21676

---

Governing through a "having your turn approach" is about as childish as it comes. Whether its a coincidence or not is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that the EU will be directionally rudderless at a time when there are lots of issues that need addressing, such as financial regulation, the operations of the ECB going forward etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

While EU leaders will whinge that the collapse is an example of their issues with the rotating presidency, the fact remains that most governments can fold at any time, and it's merely a coincidence that the Czech one should fall while holding the Presidency. Also, the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic remains holder of the Presidency, and this event should not be used as a stick to beat other countries with, who are due to have their turn at it in time.

---

It highlights a big flaw in the rotation Presidency. The Presidency drives discussion & agreement on issue for their 6 months but now it is like a pause until Czech decide what they want.

The EU continues to function, while that process is ongoing. The issues that must be addressed, will be addressed.

Next week's Czech-USA summit goes ahead as planned.

I've always thought that 6 months was a very short term for a presidency. There's no way a country-based presidency should be as long as a person-based one, but sure nothing gets resolved in the political arena in 6 months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

I've always thought that 6 months was a very short term for a presidency. There's no way a country-based presidency should be as long as a person-based one, but sure nothing gets resolved in the political arena in 6 months.

---

Presidency incurs a huge extra cost for the country holding it. Both in terms of actual money spent and man hours. Some of the smaller countries simply couldn't afford to hold it for more than 6 months

Didn't realise it was paid for by the individual states. The obvious answer is for the EU to fund it. I would have thought it should have been that way from the outset.

I don't think it's something the EU could pay for. A small country pretty much goes ungoverned for 6 months during the presidency. There's no practical way that the EU could pay a country to have a second civil service for the term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

I've always thought that 6 months was a very short term for a presidency. There's no way a country-based presidency should be as long as a person-based one, but sure nothing gets resolved in the political arena in 6 months.

---

Ireland's last Presidency was one of the most successful of recent times. One of the least was Italy's 6 months before. If they had it for 2 and a half years, with the damage Berlusconi caused and was capable of causing, it would have taken years for EU diplomatic relations to recover. That's the safety net of what the 6 month system allows.

We've had 6 EU Presidency's. Despite the costs and our small nation status, we've handled them well. It has allowed us to make key EU appointments, raise our influence, and host important summits. We shouldn't have to give that up, because the big states want to centralise the whole operation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

Presidency incurs a huge extra cost for the country holding it. Both in terms of actual money spent and man hours. Some of the smaller countries simply couldn't afford to hold it for more than 6 months

---

Anecdotally the feeling I got from Slovenians it felt too much of a burden during their presidency and detracted from effective national governance.

usual good stuff from Kerrgian in the Indo today saying that maybe the government should ask the Eu for money in return for getting a yes vote - not a bad idea:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennocelt

usual good stuff from Kerrgian in the Indo today saying that maybe the government should ask the Eu for money in return for getting a yes vote - not a bad idea:)

---

Haven't they already given us something like 30-50 billion over the years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

Haven't they already given us something like 30-50 billion over the years?

---

true, but then we also could talk about them nicking our fish:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

We've had 6 EU Presidency's. Despite the costs and our small nation status, we've handled them well. It has allowed us to make key EU appointments

---

What key appointments have been made during Ireland's presidency?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

Haven't they already given us something like 30-50 billion over the years?

---

Is that net (no pun intended) of the extensive fishing rights we gave up? Farmers and roads paid for by our fishing industry...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

Is that net (no pun intended) of the extensive fishing rights we gave up? Farmers and roads paid for by our fishing industry...

---

I know the value of fish industry is commonly used by some to suggest the EU haven't given us much money but cou;ld we really sustain an economy with fish? Are there other similar countries making billions from fish?