Lisbon Treaty

[mypost]

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

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

Post quoted in order to continue the original point made.

[mypost]

More proof that the Nice Treaty works perfectly fine.

[OneRedArmy]

More proof that the Nice Treaty 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.

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

[dahamsta]

Or a shotgun.

[GavinZac]

More proof that the Nice Treaty 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??

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/...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."

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 Lisbon

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.

[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/...402981610.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/...402981610.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??

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