Economist Article

nesf

This week's Charlemange column discussed the Lisbon Treaty Referendum in Ireland: http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11328647

It's a fairly balanced article commenting on the Yes and No campaigns and the implications of a "No" vote for Ireland and the EU.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

This week's Charlemange column discussed the Lisbon Treaty Referendum in Ireland: http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11328647

It's a fairly balanced article commenting on the Yes and No campaigns and the implications of a "No" vote for Ireland and the EU.

Good article. Very well put - acknowledges simultaneously that there will be negative consequences and that there shouldn't be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

johnnyq

I recommend that people read the comments too.
This one in particular got the most recommendations:

stu99 wrote:

Why is Ireland the only country holding a referendum?

Shame on the cowardice of every other EU government for refusing to ask voters. And above all, shame on the lame people of Europe for being so un-bothered.

An article from Time magazine also has an interesting slant on the future direction of the EU.

Duffman

Has anyone seen the "one child" leaflet they mention? Would like to have a look at that

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

Why is Ireland the only country holding a referendum?

It's interesting that this one crops up so often. The answer is that it's how we ratify EU treaties. The Danes are the only other who usually have one, but their constitutional experts decided there wasn't anything in the Lisbon Treaty that justified a referendum (yes, yes, I know you all disagree with them).

johnnyq wrote: »

Shame on the cowardice of every other EU government for refusing to ask voters. And above all, shame on the lame people of Europe for being so un-bothered.

Dang voters, eh? Anyone would think the French and Dutch were happy this time round...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Duffman

It's a political requirement more so than legal one at this stage. It's not at all clear that we actually needed to have a referendum this time, imo we didn't.

johnnyq

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's interesting that this one crops up so often. The answer is that it's how we ratify EU treaties. The Danes are the only other who usually have one, but their constitutional experts decided there wasn't anything in the Lisbon Treaty that justified a referendum (yes, yes, I know you all disagree with them).



Dang voters, eh? Anyone would think the French and Dutch were happy this time round...

cordially,
Scofflaw

For the record, those were not my words as you quoted but those of the reply that got the most recommendations.

I think it highlights how those people want a more direct say in the future direction of europe that they are being reprived of.

nesf

johnnyq wrote: »

I think it highlights how those people want a more direct say in the future direction of europe that they are being reprived of.

Yeah but the important question is are these people the majority of people or just a very vocal minority?

johnnyq

nesf wrote: »

Yeah but the important question is are these people the majority of people or just a very vocal minority?

I guess the other countries should have a vote to find out..... oh wait

nesf

johnnyq wrote: »

I guess the other countries should have a vote to find out..... oh wait

lol

They do get a vote, they can massacre their sitting MEPs at the next European elections and take the things more seriously next time and ensure that they're putting candidates in there who'll do what they want. You, know, it's what democratic representation is all about.

johnnyq

nesf wrote: »

lol

They do get a vote, they can massacre their sitting MEPs at the next European elections and take the things more seriously next time and ensure that they're putting candidates in there who'll do what they want. You, know, it's what democratic representation is all about.

Okay then, let's see if Ireland didn't have to vote which party would voluntarily have the treaty put to a vote....
Fianna Fail - Nope,
Fine Gael - Ha, definately not
Labour - probably not
PD - :rolleyes:
Green - maybe in the past but they have been tamed now
Sinn Fein - I'm not voting for former terrorists

Wow, that leaves me with some choice!
Somehow your argument rings hollow to me.

nesf

johnnyq wrote: »

Okay then, let's see if Ireland didn't have to vote which party would voluntarily have the treaty put to a vote....
Fianna Fail - Nope,
Fine Gael - Ha, definately not
Labour - probably not
PD - :rolleyes:
Green - maybe in the past but they have been tamed now
Sinn Fein - I'm not voting for former terrorists

Wow, that leaves me with some choice!
Somehow your argument rings hollow to me.

If a majority of people were against the EU do you think all the major parties would be for the treaty? They ain't that stupid, if there was a sizeable voter base for a Euro-sceptic party one of the main one's would be stepping in to fill that void but in reality in this country most people don't seem to care much about it. Politicians, especially opposition politicians keep a very close eye on this kind of thing, if they felt that hammering the Government over this would get them more seats in the next election I can assure you Labour would be doing it (maybe not FG) but they aren't which tells you something.

johnnyq

nesf wrote: »

If a majority of people were against the EU do you think all the major parties would be for the treaty? They ain't that stupid, if there was a sizeable voter base for a Euro-sceptic party one of the main one's would be stepping in to fill that void but in reality in this country most people don't seem to care much about it.

But that's the whole point - why must I be branded a euro-skeptic to want to have a direct vote in the future of europe???

What's wrong with being pro-Europe and pro direct democracy.

If politicians were so confident that they were reflecting their citizens wants for the new direction of Europe, why not put the treaty to a vote.

Why must the voting reform measures for more efficiency be bundled with the militarised element???

If citizens want a militarised Europe they should be able to vote for it.

nesf

johnnyq wrote: »

But that's the whole point - why must I be branded a euro-skeptic to want to have a direct vote in the future of europe???

I was using the term in its broadest sense here (ie to include everything from rabid IRA tattooed muppets to reasonable people who are unhappy with the organisation structures within the EU for various reasons). I wasn't trying to label you or pigeon hole you into a narrow stereotype.

johnnyq wrote: »

What's wrong with being pro-Europe and pro direct democracy.

Nothing, except direct democracies are very rare in Europe for the most part and there are good reasons for this (it's off-topic for here though).

johnnyq wrote: »

If politicians were so confident that they were reflecting their citizens wants for the new direction of Europe, why not put the treaty to a vote.

Because referendums are expensive, disruptive things and we have representative Governments so that we can avoid having them too regularly?

johnnyq

nesf wrote:

Because referendums are expensive, disruptive things and we have representative Governments so that we can avoid having them too regularly?

But surely you accept that this treaty is important?

Allowing a European President and Foreign Minister (under different names of course) as figureheads of the European ***** (whatever they want to call it) which are not to be elected is fairly important and something I personally would like a say on, like the other millions of europeans I'd imagine.

If this treaty was only about 'efficiency' as we are constantly told well then you may have a point, but it's not.

nesf

johnnyq wrote: »

But surely you accept that this treaty is important?

Yes, but just because something is important doesn't mean it needs a referendum. The Budget is an extremely important document, should we have a referendum on it each year?

johnnyq wrote: »

Allowing a European President and Foreign Minister (under different names of course) as figureheads of the European ***** (whatever they want to call it) which are not to be elected is fairly important and something I personally would like a say on, like the other millions of europeans I'd imagine.

I don't think they will actually represent "us" as figureheads of Europe, they'll be figureheads of the bureaucracy not "us" the people. Similar to how a head of the civil service doesn't represent the people per se.

johnnyq

nesf wrote:

Yes, but just because something is important doesn't mean it needs a referendum. The Budget is an extremely important document, should we have a referendum on it each year?

If the budget was proposing new figureheads of europe and an integrated military/foreign policy and a total new direction for the future of europe then yes

Also this treaty is not annual. In fact, once ratified it will never go back, so the idea of kicking out the politicians that ratified it a few years later will be of little consolation.

nesf wrote:

I don't think they will actually represent "us" as figureheads of Europe, they'll be figureheads of the bureaucracy not "us" the people. Similar to how a head of the civil service doesn't represent the people per se.

You don't *think*, who in fact has any idea of what this person will and won't do? The treaty certainly doesn't outline it simply anyway.

I also thought this person was to represent the head of the council of ministers instead of the rotating presidency, not the commission (or the civil service of europe, which is the Barrosso's job)

Also, I remember reading somewhere in the treaty (can't remember where) where the foreign minister commissioner would be involved with those eu states sitting on the UN security council. Can't remember the exact details but that certainly is a representative role I would say.

nesf

johnnyq wrote: »

If the budget was proposing new figureheads of europe and an integrated military/foreign policy and a total new direction for the future of europe then yes

Also this treaty is not annual. In fact, once ratified it will never go back, so the idea of kicking out the politicians that ratified it a few years later will be of little consolation.

You merely asked if it was important, my answer underlines that I don't consider something being important as being enough to hold a referendum.

johnnyq wrote: »

You don't *think*, who in fact has any idea of what this person will and won't do? The treaty certainly doesn't outline it simply anyway.

I think a lot of the problems stem from the word "President" rather than anything else. We're not ceding sovereignty to the person or anything.

johnnyq

nesf wrote: »

You merely asked if it was important, my answer underlines that I don't consider something being important as being enough to hold a referendum.

Okay then, 'important in determining the future direction of Europe'.

nesf wrote:

I think a lot of the problems stem from the word "President" rather than anything else. We're not ceding sovereignty to the person or anything.

Yes, it's the old chestnut from the failed EU state constitution, which really should be done away with in the next vote on the treaty in order to bring forward the new efficiency proposals.
But wait it's a *job for the boys*, so it probably will still be there :rolleyes::rolleyes:

It would be no harm to separate out the military proposals too while they're at it.

oscarBravo

johnnyq wrote: »

If the budget was proposing new figureheads of europe and an integrated military/foreign policy and a total new direction for the future of europe then yes

I'd say each year's budget has a much greater impact on our day-to-day lives than anything in Lisbon is likely to have.

nesf

johnnyq wrote: »

It would be no harm to separate out the military proposals too while they're at it.

Well one of the better points of the Treaty is that future amendments can be dealt with on a one by one basis which will make things a lot handier tbh.

johnnyq

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd say each year's budget has a much greater impact on our day-to-day lives than anything in Lisbon is likely to have.

Sure the budget has a greater impact on our day-to-day lives than our own constitution it could be argued.

But that's not the point.

What constitutions (*cough* treaties) do is set the ground rules.
People should be able to vote on the fundamentals.

johnnyq

nesf wrote: »

Well one of the better points of the Treaty is that future amendments can be dealt with on a one by one basis which will make things a lot handier tbh.

We need that kind of forward thinking right now!!!!

But wait, by voting yes to this *enlightenment* we must first commit to increasing our military capabilities amongst other things.

A big oops i'd say.

nesf

johnnyq wrote: »

We need that kind of forward thinking right now!!!!

But wait, by voting yes to this *enlightenment* we must first commit to increasing our military capabilities amongst other things.

A big oops i'd say.

Welcome to bureaucracy, it takes them fecking ages to get to anything. It's still a damn good idea though and something that'll definitely improve the functioning of the EU in my opinion and all individual urgent amendments can be pushed through quicker without having to put together a whole new "treaty".

johnnyq

nesf wrote: »

Welcome to bureaucracy, it takes them fecking ages to get to anything. It's still a damn good idea though and something that'll definitely improve the functioning of the EU in my opinion and all individual urgent amendments can be pushed through quicker without having to put together a whole new "treaty".

Well they'll have some time to work it out after the flawed treaty is rejected.

Important things like this need time and thought, not as a trojan horse for european militarisation.

oscarBravo

johnnyq wrote: »

Important things like this need time and thought...

...and, as we all know, the Lisbon Treaty was knocked up in about four hours by a junior civil servant.

No time, no thought. No siree.

johnnyq

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and, as we all know, the Lisbon Treaty was knocked up in about four hours by a junior civil servant.

No time, no thought. No siree.

Well I for one are delighted how YFG are taking this campaign so seriously. All those 4 hours of hard work by that talented young eurocrat certainly didn't go to waste!

linky

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

You don't *think*, who in fact has any idea of what this person will and won't do? The treaty certainly doesn't outline it simply anyway.

I also thought this person was to represent the head of the council of ministers instead of the rotating presidency, not the commission (or the civil service of europe, which is the Barrosso's job)

Hmm. Actually, it's relatively trivial to pick out all the bits of the Treaty that deal with the President of the Council. Sorry this is long:

Treaty of Lisbon wrote:

If the European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, adopts by a simple majority a decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments, the President of the European Council shall convene a Convention composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament and of the Commission.

A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties. The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The President of the Council and the Commission shall report to the European Parliament on the results of multilateral surveillance. The President of the Council may be invited to appear before the competent committee of the European Parliament if the Council has made its recommendations public.

Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance to the Member State concerned. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decision taken.

As long as a Member State fails to comply with a decision taken in accordance with paragraph 9, the Council may decide to apply or, as the case may be, intensify one or more of the following measures.....The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decisions taken.

The Council shall, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Central Bank and the Committee referred to in this Article, lay down detailed provisions concerning the composition of the Economic and Financial Committee. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of such a decision.

The Council may, acting by a qualified majority either on a recommendation from the European Central Bank or on a recommendation from the Commission, and after consulting the European Central Bank, in an endeavour to reach a consensus consistent with the objective of price stability, adopt, adjust or abandon the central rates of the euro within the exchange-rate system. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the adoption, adjustment or abandonment of the euro central rates.

Where the European Council decides by vote, its President and the President of the Commission shall not take part in the vote.

The Council shall meet when convened by its President on his own initiative or at the request of one of its Members or of the Commission.

A vacancy caused by resignation, compulsory retirement or death shall be filled for the remainder of the member’s term of office by a new member of the same nationality appointed by the Council, by common accord with the President of the Commission, after consulting the European Parliament and in accordance with the criteria set out in the second subparagraph of Article 9d(3) of the Treaty on European Union

The Council may, acting unanimously on a proposal from the President of the Commission, decide that such a vacancy need not be filled, in particular when the remainder of the member’s term of office is short.

The President of the Council and a member of the Commission may participate, without having the right to vote, in meetings of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank. The President of the Council may submit a motion for deliberation to the Governing Council of the European Central Bank.

If, within three months of receiving the European Parliament’s amendments, the Council, acting by a qualified majority: (a) approves all those amendments, the act in question shall be deemed to have been adopted; (b) does not approve all the amendments, the President of the Council, in agreement with the President of the European Parliament, shall within six weeks convene a meeting of the Conciliation Committee.

Legislative acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure shall be signed by the President of the European Parliament and by the President of the Council.

If, within forty-two days of such communication, the European Parliament: (a) approves the position of the Council, the budget shall be adopted; (b) has not taken a decision, the budget shall be deemed to have been adopted; (c) adopts amendments by a majority of its component members, the amended draft shall be forwarded to the Council and to the Commission. The President of the European Parliament, in agreement with the President of the Council, shall immediately convene a meeting of the Conciliation Committee. However, if within ten days of the draft being forwarded the Council informs the European Parliament that it has approved all its amendments, the Conciliation Committee shall not meet.

Regular meetings between the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission shall be convened, on the initiative of the Commission, under the budgetary procedures referred to in this Chapter. The Presidents shall take all the necessary steps to promote consultation and the reconciliation of the positions of the institutions over which they preside in order to facilitate the implementation of this Title.

Not very exciting stuff, I'm afraid. Chairing meetings and speaking to the other EU institutions. It's a well-understood role, since it's exactly what the current rotating president does.

johnnyq wrote: »

Also, I remember reading somewhere in the treaty (can't remember where) where the foreign minister commissioner would be involved with those eu states sitting on the UN security council. Can't remember the exact details but that certainly is a representative role I would say.

The EU Presidency and the current High Representative can already address the UN Security Council where invited to do so on an issue where the EU has an agreed policy. This is in addition to national statements made by each member. Lisbon makes no changes to that arrangement.

hope that helps,
Scofflaw

turgon

Comment from the Economist Article wrote:

"But one question remains: what to do if the Irish really decide to veto the treaty? Personally I am not willing to wait for them. The Union should go ahead without the Irish. They can always (re)join when or if ever they feel ready to it."

This is absolutely ridiculous. Made even more ridiculous by the fact we are the only nation having a vote: in other words if a majority of the populace don't want it, eject said majority and ignore what happened. Great plan.

I'm telling you, I will respect a Yes vote, but if there is a No vote and some hairy political dealings afterwards I will be protesting. I get the impression that there are many people, home and abroad, who would have the same opinion as that person I quoted.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

This is absolutely ridiculous. Made even more ridiculous by the fact we are the only nation having a vote: in other words if a majority of the populace don't want it, eject said majority and ignore what happened. Great plan.

I'm telling you, I will respect a Yes vote, but if there is a No vote and some hairy political dealings afterwards I will be protesting. I get the impression that there are many people, home and abroad, who would have the same opinion as that person I quoted.

While I appreciate what you're saying (and agree), let me put it to you another way. Say you're a member of a club. The club decides it needs to change premises, or make some other serious change. Everyone agrees that it's necessary but you. Is it completely outrageous that the other members of the club should suggest that you might be "happier elsewhere"?

Or, take a group of 27 people who take lunch together, and decide unanimously where they will go. If one person starts making a habit of refusing to accept the choice everyone else agrees, will they continue to be asked along?

Does the European Union need Ireland?

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

Does the European Union need Ireland?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Here we go with the threats again. Of course we are free to vote which way we want, it is a democracy. Just once it's a yes vote.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Here we go with the threats again. Of course we are free to vote which way we want, it is a democracy. Just once it's a yes vote.

I hate to say it, but if you feel threatened by an anonymous poster asking that question on an internet forum, something is not quite right - particularly since, as I pointed out, I'm playing devil's advocate there.

Still, can you answer the question? Does the EU need Ireland? Do we need the EU?

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

I hardly think you're playing devil's advocate when your on every discussion in the politics forum blatantly pro lisbon.

You haven't answered my point that we're free to give our opinion, once it's the right opinion. Or else.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

You haven't answered my point that we're free to give our opinion, once it's the right opinion. Or else.

And you haven't addressed his "club" analogy.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

I hardly think you're playing devil's advocate when your on every discussion in the politics forum blatantly pro lisbon.

Blatantly pro-Lisbon, eh? What an outrage!

dresden8 wrote: »

You haven't answered my point that we're free to give our opinion, once it's the right opinion. Or else.

Sorry - I'm having a hard time reconciling that with the fact that not only is it bad to be "blatantly" pro-Lisbon, but that there are questions one shouldn't even ask!

We cannot be forced to give the "right opinion", so we are free to give whatever opinion we like. And then we are free to take whatever the consequences of that are. Trying to pretend that there are only bad consequences from saying Yes, and no bad consequences from voting No, is quite ridiculous.

blatantly pro-Lisbon,
Scofflaw

dresden8

And then we are free to take whatever the consequences of that are.

Progress! And what shape will those consequences come in, Mr. Devil's Advocate? How exactly will we be punished?

johnnyq

Scofflaw wrote: »

blatantly pro-Lisbon,
Scofflaw

Lol!

Many thanks for the info. Going on your info, I would have less problems with the role if it was retitled 'convenior' rather than president. I don't think an unelected official should be called president.

P.s. congrats on getting published in the IT

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Progress! And what shape will those consequences come in, Mr. Devil's Advocate? How exactly will we be punished?

Good question. At the very best, I would assume a temporary period of embarrassment for all our people in Brussels and our politicians. At the very worst, I suppose, an EU that decides it needs to go ahead without Ireland. The truth will probably lie somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, we will find out only afterwards.

What's your own view?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

Lol!

Many thanks for the info. Going on your info, I would have less problems with the role if it was retitled 'convenior' rather than president. I don't think an unelected official should be called president.

I think it's actually a lost in translation thing.

johnnyq wrote: »

P.s. congrats on getting published in the IT

Sadly, I've never got anything published in any paper. I haven't even tried at any point in the last decade, now I come to think about it. Have you a link?

intrigued,
Scofflaw

johnnyq

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sadly, I've never got anything published in any paper. I haven't even tried at any point in the last decade, now I come to think about it. Have you a link?

intrigued,
Scofflaw

:eek: Oops.

I don't subscribe to IT so I can't link it.
But it was a person writing about that link you make a lot of references to (the UK foreign office one I think?) about the lisbon treaty, using the witty and delightful put downs that have become your trademark. Maybe you have a protégé:D

EamonnKeane

johnnyq wrote: »

Lol!

Many thanks for the info. Going on your info, I would have less problems with the role if it was retitled 'convenior' rather than president. I don't think an unelected official should be called president.

P.s. congrats on getting published in the IT

President = "one who presides". "Convenior" isn't even a word.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Good question. At the very best, I would assume a temporary period of embarrassment for all our people in Brussels and our politicians. At the very worst, I suppose, an EU that decides it needs to go ahead without Ireland. The truth will probably lie somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, we will find out only afterwards.

What's your own view?

cordially,
Scofflaw

The EU would never expel Ireland. The international community does not condone strongarm tactics against white nations.

johnnyq

EamonnKeane wrote: »

President = "one who presides". "Convenior" isn't even a word.

Apologies I mispelled it - convenor; i.e. person who convenes meetings

Let's see, President of Europe; one who presides over Europe.

Wow I don't like the sound of that.

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

:eek: Oops.

I don't subscribe to IT so I can't link it.
But it was a person writing about that link you make a lot of references to (the UK foreign office one I think?) about the lisbon treaty, using the witty and delightful put downs that have become your trademark. Maybe you have a protégé:D

Damnéd imitators...


plagued by plagiarisers,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

Apologies I mispelled it - convenor; i.e. person who convenes meetings

Let's see, President of Europe; one who presides over Europe.

Wow I don't like the sound of that.

You're surely not suggesting that you'd vote on the basis of what something sounds like? If so, I'll just point out that Treaty sounds a bit like "treat"...

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

If so, I'll just point out that Treaty sounds a bit like "treat"...

Vote Yes: There will be cake.

johnnyq

scofflaw wrote:

You're surely not suggesting that you'd vote on the basis of what something sounds like? If so, I'll just point out that Treaty sounds a bit like "treat"...

nesf wrote: »

Vote Yes: There will be cake.

:pac: LMFAO!!! That has got to be the best thing i've read in ages.:D

We shall have our cake and eat it

Anyway, no i'm not voting on the position based on what the name sounds like:p, the comment was directed at what EamossKeane had to say about the non-existence of the word convenor.

My vote is partially about what the position will and won't do, both in the treaty and afterwards. The info you have provided has helped in showing some of what this person will do. I'll need to look for other sources to find out more.

turgon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Or, take a group of 27 people who take lunch together, and decide unanimously where they will go. If one person starts making a habit of refusing to accept the choice everyone else agrees, will they continue to be asked along?

Ok put presume they were going to a fish resteraunt. Of course the problem is, Mr. Ireland is allergic to fish and will die upon eating them. So such a veto is necessary to protect the vital interests of the allergy prone members of the group. Otherwise the other 26 will drag Mr. Ireland to a place he dont want to be.

And in fairness, the interests of nations, bodies designed to govern millions of people are very important. Vetos are necessary.

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

Or, take a group of 27 people who take lunch together, and decide unanimously where they will go. If one person starts making a habit of refusing to accept the choice everyone else agrees, will they continue to be asked along?

Does the European Union need Ireland?

cordially,
Scofflaw

"Everyone else agrees." Like the countries that never accepted the Euro. Or the whole open borders thing. The EU already works with lots of of dissension.

What if at the start of the formation of the group the group promised to respect the wishes of all members of the group, as in the laid down terms and conditions?

And then threatens anyone who steps out of line.

Who are you, Mugabe?

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

:pac: LMFAO!!! That has got to be the best thing i've read in ages.:D

We shall have our cake and eat it

Anyway, no i'm not voting on the position based on what the name sounds like:p, the comment was directed at what EamossKeane had to say about the non-existence of the word convenor.

Actually, there certainly is such a word. It's usually used for the person who calls a debate together, or a conference.

johnnyq wrote: »

My vote is partially about what the position will and won't do, both in the treaty and afterwards. The info you have provided has helped in showing some of what this person will do. I'll need to look for other sources to find out more.

Always happy to try and put facts into the debate.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Ok put presume they were going to a fish resteraunt. Of course the problem is, Mr. Ireland is allergic to fish and will die upon eating them. So such a veto is necessary to protect the vital interests of the allergy prone members of the group. Otherwise the other 26 will drag Mr. Ireland to a place he dont want to be.

That's a fair extension of the analogy, as long as one feels that what is in the Lisbon Treaty is the equivalent of the fatal fish. However, it doesn't quite address the issue. If the rest of them do want to eat fish (or even have to eat fish), does it not make sense for them to leave Mr Ireland behind?

turgon wrote: »

And in fairness, the interests of nations, bodies designed to govern millions of people are very important. Vetos are necessary.

Hmm. If we assume that any given nation will only use its individual veto 1% of the time, then in an EU of 9 nations, 9% of activity is blocked. In an EU of 15, 15%. And in an EU of 27, slightly over quarter of all activity is stopped by national vetoes. If the EU expands further, the problem gets worse.

In essence, the veto becomes more of a hindrance to action the larger the EU gets. Most small groups of equals, be they social, political, or business, operate an informal equivalent of the veto system, where the genuine opposition of any one member is sufficient to preclude a course of action. As groups grow, they invariably move to a majority system, because the veto system is impractical. At the limit, imagine running an Ireland where every citizen had a veto - can one always find someone to say no to something.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

"Everyone else agrees." Like the countries that never accepted the Euro. Or the whole open borders thing. The EU already works with lots of of dissension.

What if at the start of the formation of the group the group promised to respect the wishes of all members of the group, as in the laid down terms and conditions?

And then threatens anyone who steps out of line.

Who are you, Mugabe?

Er, no. Nor am I the EU. I am asking you "what happens?", a question you appear to have a lot of difficulty with.

More widely, why is it "threatening" to ask "what happens if we say No?". It seems to me quite an important question.

cordially,
Scofflaw