the lisbon treaty-structure.

yekrab

no argumentum ad hominen. its true that a lot of people blame brian cowen for the way ireland is now, but the truth is that the recession that ireland is under is not his fault. if u look to france, the opposition party is launching a vitriolic attack on sarkozy, in england its the same with Cameron towards Brown, all of europe is going through it, not just ireland. the truth is at least in my opinion that if bertie were still around i doubt he could do any better. (got out at the right time if u ask me).

it should be noted that all the parts of the european union are not enforceable. rather only the EC, the struture of the way europe is now is as follows,

there are 'three pillars', the first is made up of the EC, the second is 'the common security and foreign policy' and the third is judicial and policing matters', the first is by far the most important,

NB- the European union is only a few years old, and was actually created in 1992, with the masstricht treaty. before 1992 we had what was called the european communities, Euratom, the EC etc( amended from the EEC, which was the european economic community), which was really borne in the 1950s with the treaty of rome and then the treaty of paris. this is something a lot of people get mixed up. the really remote origins extend perhaps as far back as the ECSC.

today the EC is the first pillar of the EU which forms the economic community, which is concerned with creating a single market, (which was designed to distribute resouces in a fair and proper fashion, instead of by aggressive means) today the EC is the only legally enforceable pilar within the EU, and it is really concerned with the free movement of goods, people, services etc. also it is noteworthy that the (european convention on human rights) ECHR is not legally enforceable per se, rather the member states have signed it but are under no authority and risk of liability for encroaching any of its stipulations.

i would like to point out that under the lisbon treaty, the european convention on human rights would have been made legally enforceable for the first time. every body thinks that the introduction of european law is a bad thing, but consider the following, ireland has no enumerated right or unenumerated right in the constitution of ireland to the right against slavery, (im not saying that slavery is legal in ireland) but such a right could be held to be a latent right by virtue of the influence of EU law some time in the future.isnt that surely benefically? also people keep seeming to bring up the fear of being ruled by france or germany, but politicians in the signatory states cant actually introduce legislation, thats the role of the commission, (the independent from the national government part of the EU) the European parliament is not the instigator of european statues in other words nor is the european council, rather they can only vote on which legislation to pass, that was initiated by the commission.

Senna

I'm not reading all of that!

SV

you had me at hominen..







?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

I appretiate your attempt but see here.

IvySlayer

This is more confusing than the real thing...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

No. I want to be called Loretta.

Húrin

You might get the serious discussion you appear to want by posting this in the politics forum.

The European governments deserve to be criticised. During the boom there was plenty of indication that the financial sector of the economy wielded far too much power in the western world. That should have been changed.

twinytwo

Húrin wrote: »

You might get the serious discussion you appear to want by posting this in the politics forum.

The European governments deserve to be criticised. During the boom there was plenty of indication that the financial sector of the economy wielded far too much power in the western world. That should have been changed.

fat bitch harney said in 2006/2007 that the country " was awash with money".. then at the first little bump everything goes pair shaped....... enough said