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.Originally Posted by 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.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 Queen
Again, looking for a perfect world.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.
Last edited by mypost; 14/07/2008 at 5:57 PM.
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.
Worthless to who??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.
Last edited by mypost; 14/07/2008 at 6:03 PM.
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.Worthless to me and the Irish public.
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.Originally Posted by GavinZac
Last edited by mypost; 14/07/2008 at 8:27 PM.
um, no?with it's own constitution,it has oneit's own flagit has oneit's own anthemIt has oneit's own Presidentit has oneit's own Foreign Minister.it already is, in the sections where EU law is applicable.It would be made of 27 states, that are all subservient to Brussels.Frankly, she doesn'tOur head of state would have no legitamacy
You already have, guv'.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.
Your Chairperson,
Gavin
Membership Advisory Board
"Ex Bardus , Vicis"
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.Originally Posted by jebus
Last edited by mypost; 14/07/2008 at 8:46 PM.
I know this isn't Wikipedia, but I can't help but stick a big fat [citation needed] under that.
Your Chairperson,
Gavin
Membership Advisory Board
"Ex Bardus , Vicis"
We haven't. Would you like to be reminded of that ref result again??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.
Your Chairperson,
Gavin
Membership Advisory Board
"Ex Bardus , Vicis"
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
Well you've finally admitted that Lisbon and the EU Constitution are the same thing.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.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??
Originally Posted by jebus
All *********
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.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.
Last edited by dahamsta; 15/07/2008 at 9:24 AM.
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.
Extratime.ie
Yo te quiero, mi querida. Sin tus besos, yo soy nada.
Abri o portão de ouro, da maquina do tempo.
Mi mamá me hizo guapo, listo y antimadridista.
Bookmarks