Lisbon Treaty

[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
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.

[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".

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.

[OneRedArmy]

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.

The original founder states signed up for a customs and free trade area, but I'm not sure how relevant that is now

Things change. As more members join and the level of decision making gets more detailed, unanimity makes less and less sense.

If we don't want that level of decision making taking place at an EU level then we don't have the right to stop other countries moving forward. Most of the no camp want to have their cake (retain an effective veto and disproportionate representation) and eat it (still remain at the "centre" of Europe).

Which is patently unrealistic aswell a ridiculous overestimation of our worth and importance as a nation.

[Billsthoughts]

The original founder states signed up for a customs and free trade area, but I'm not sure how relevant that is now

Things change. As more members join and the level of decision making gets more detailed, unanimity makes less and less sense.

If we don't want that level of decision making taking place at an EU level then we don't have the right to stop other countries moving forward. Most of the no camp want to have their cake (retain an effective veto and disproportionate representation) and eat it (still remain at the "centre" of Europe).

Which is patently unrealistic aswell a ridiculous overestimation of our worth and importance as a nation.

The Eu was formed in 1992 by the Maastricht treaty. It was formed as an intergovermental union as opposed to some sort of Democratic superstate. This is why they need the Lisbon treaty to make the changes above. This was rejected. Your making a major assumption about what the EU is which is incorrect. Then you and Jebus are using this incorrect assumption to berate mypost.

[mypost]

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

In this country alone, despite it's small population, there's a PM from Offaly, and a Tanaiste from Donegal. Now, if we formed our government on the basis of population size, Dublin TD's would take about half the 88 seats, and the major cabinet roles. The likes of Offaly and Donegal, would barely get a look in.

But it doesn't work like that, nor should it. Similiar to the EU. Every country is equal, it's not our fault that there are 82 million people in Germany, and 4 in Ireland.

[jebus]

Rubbish comparison mypost. The man from Offaly's party was voted into power, not him, the party then elected him to be their leader....actually that comparison was so poor I'm not even going to bother with it

[OneRedArmy]

The Eu was formed in 1992 by the Maastricht treaty. It was formed as an intergovermental union as opposed to some sort of Democratic superstate. This is why they need the Lisbon treaty to make the changes above. This was rejected. Your making a major assumption about what the EU is which is incorrect. Then you and Jebus are using this incorrect assumption to berate mypost.

The EU followed on from the EEC etc. etc. You have ignored the important part of my post which concerned the realpolitik about wanting to have our cake and eat it. You've ignored it because there is no answer to it, other than the fact that we are within our legal, if not our moral, right to do so.

[mypost]

The EU followed on from the EEC etc. etc. You have ignored the important part of my post which concerned the realpolitik about wanting to have our cake and eat it. the fact that we are within our legal, if not our moral, right to do so.

Anyone on the federalist side of the debate is in no position to lecture other countries about morality, when they refused to put the Constitution to refs in other countries. One of Miliband's comments after the vote here, was that there should be a "British view". The parliament is where you'll find a vote not a view. The anti-treaty sentiment there, is an accurate reflection of the "British view". But like everywhere else bar here, that view was not heard nor accepted. That to the British government, is "democracy".

[pete]

Sarkozy says we have to run a second Referendum. He is the President so I suppose we should obey.

[OneRedArmy]

Anyone on the federalist side of the debate is in no position to lecture other countries about morality, when they refused to put the Constitution to refs in other countries. One of Miliband's comments after the vote here, was that there should be a "British view". The parliament is where you'll find a vote not a view. The anti-treaty sentiment there, is an accurate reflection of the "British view". But like everywhere else bar here, that view was not heard nor accepted. That to the British government, is "democracy".

At least the British people are clear, they would likely withdraw from the EU given the chance. They opted out of EMU. At least they don't make ridiculous comments about "being at the centre of Europe" whilst trying to dictate to 300million people....

[Billsthoughts]

The EU followed on from the EEC etc. etc. You have ignored the important part of my post which concerned the realpolitik about wanting to have our cake and eat it. You've ignored it because there is no answer to it, other than the fact that we are within our legal, if not our moral, right to do so.

I didnt ignore it. It was irrelevant to the point I made. To answer you whilst leaving aside emotional clap trap about our moral rights,you could just as easily level the same criticism as the yes side. They want to operate within agreed frameworks and then they want to ignore the same frameworks when things dont go their way.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Going by the language being used by any government minister with a camera in their face when asked about re-runs ...I think it's safe to say we're heading for a re-run.

Last night John Gormley wouldn't even be drawn on a "personal view" of whether or not there should be a re-run or whether Nicolas Sarkozy was right to call for one. Micháel Martin on the radio this morning used near verbatim language ..."reflect on the decision", "Wait and see", "careful consideration"...it all sounded very much like "we're going to wait til the heat dies a bit and then go again".