Care to share a personal concern about Lisbon

wailim_2002

So much of the debate is carried on by people who think they can read complex documents and simply dismiss peoples concerns as ignorant mis-informed nonsense.

The simple fact is, a constitution is worded in a vague manner deliberately so as to afford maximum protection and ensure all case law based on potential constitutional matters is heard by the top judges in the supreme court.

i.e. on a case by case basis so the judges have some context to bring meaning to what our fore fathers wrote in the constitution.

To ratify Lisbon, Ireland needs to change its constitution to defer to specific elements of that treaty. Do you think this treaty strengthens or weakens protection afforded to Irish Citizens or more importantly do you have a specific concern that you would like to share?

ChocolateSauce

wailim_2002 wrote: »

So much of the debate is carried on by people who think they can read complex documents and simply dismiss peoples concerns as ignorant mis-informed nonsense.

The simple fact is, a constitution is worded in a vague manner deliberately so as to afford maximum protection and ensure all case law based on potential constitutional matters is heard by the top judges in the supreme court.

i.e. on a case by case basis so the judges have some context to bring meaning to what our fore fathers wrote in the constitution.

To ratify Lisbon, Ireland needs to change its constitution to defer to specific elements of that treaty. Do you think this treaty strengthens or weakens protection afforded to Irish Citizens or more importantly do you have a specific concern that you would like to share?

I find the Irish constitution sorely lacking in many respects, and our fore fathers were, compared to people today, direly conservative, deeply religious and downright ignorant. I'd take a modern, EU made treaty over our constitution any day. I find the EU is (generally) very, very good at strengthening the civil liberties and protections of its citizens. The Irish state is not.

conchubhar1

again, not being cheeky

but move out of ireland - we dont need a new constitution as a eu constitution, we would be a federation of states then pretty much
not good

conchubhar1

again, not being cheeky

but move out of ireland - we dont need a new constitution as a eu constitution, we would be a federation of states then pretty much
not good

PopeBuckfastXVI

Hmm I disagree with you, why don't you move out of Europe...

see how that works?

Rb

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Hmm I disagree with you, why don't you move out of Europe...

see how that works?

Sorry Pope Buckfast, but a considerable amount of mainland Europeans don't even consider Ireland to be part of Europe.

Similarly, a considerable amount of Irish people don't want to be "European".

PopeBuckfastXVI

Rb wrote: »

Sorry Pope Buckfast, but a considerable amount of mainland Europeans don't even consider Ireland to be part of Europe.

Similarly, a considerable amount of Irish people don't want to be "European".

Rb, it's not actually my sentiment... see post I was replying to, which I was turning around on the OP, to show how his post was ill conceived and ignorant.

As was mine, if you were to actually take it at face value.

Rb

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Rb, it's not actually my sentiment... see post I was replying to, which I was turning around on the OP, to show how his post was ill conceived and ignorant.

As was mine, if you were to actually take it at face value.

Funnily enough I took it at face value purely because of who it was responding to

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

again, not being cheeky

but move out of ireland - we dont need a new constitution as a eu constitution, we would be a federation of states then pretty much
not good

to be fair ireland needs a new constitution, big time...dev's constitution was great at the time but right now? well just take all the talk about the blasphemy law which was due to be introduced due to the fact that constitution had an article about blasphemy which was not at all defined.

and eu constitution? it'd take it, seeing eu is a consensus it basically usually really really really wants to protect civil right, social standing and all that stuff while showing so many mechanisms that would control that all that the eu sets out to do is done efficiently.
and a confederation of states? whats wrong with that?

lostexpectation

wailim_2002 wrote: »

So much of the debate is carried on by people who think they can read complex documents and simply dismiss peoples concerns as ignorant mis-informed nonsense.

The simple fact is, a constitution is worded in a vague manner deliberately so as to afford maximum protection and ensure all case law based on potential constitutional matters is heard by the top judges in the supreme court.

i.e. on a case by case basis so the judges have some context to bring meaning to what our fore fathers wrote in the constitution.

To ratify Lisbon, Ireland needs to change its constitution to defer to specific elements of that treaty. Do you think this treaty strengthens or weakens protection afforded to Irish Citizens or more importantly do you have a specific concern that you would like to share?

have you gotten a personal benefit (or concern) out of the eu in general?

conchubhar1

funding for roads, for one

the eu doesnt go around giving fivers to individuals

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

funding for roads, for one

the eu doesnt go around giving fivers to individuals

yes it does...take for example the structural funds of the eu in regards to education, you can get a grant from europe if you show that you cant afford going to college at your current situation. Or if you have a good project you'll get the money from the structural funds...eu can't be just giving away money.
And another great benefit is that you have the big countries(france, uk, germany) rooting for ireland as well on the international level. like the gas crisis, lots of small central and easter european countries benefited by the big countries pushing on russia...
plus ireland pretty much created the rapid economic progress thanks to eu money

conchubhar1

no, you missed my point

lostexpectation asked did someone get ''personal benefit''

and i was stating that people dont get ''personal'' satisfaction or help from the eu
half joking as it was a mute point - as we have gotten a lot from the eu but how to state something as ''personal'' benefit from the eu is hard to do

the eu has been fantastic for ireland - we got a fair amount of money, support etc

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

no, you missed my point

lostexpectation asked did someone get ''personal benefit''

and i was stating that people dont get ''personal'' satisfaction or help from the eu
half joking as it was a mute point - as we have gotten a lot from the eu but how to state something as ''personal'' benefit from the eu is hard to do

the eu has been fantastic for ireland - we got a fair amount of money, support etc

oh sorry then:D i suppose the only personal benefit really is that college help i was talking about(i'm certainly planning to use it to my benefit):D

RandomName2

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I find the Irish constitution sorely lacking in many respects, .

I find the Irish constitution the best in Europe. It's the only one which cannot be ammended without a referendum. You would think Germany would have made a stronger constitution after what happened in the 1930s... although maybe that is why the legality of Lisbon II is currently being questioned by German courts.

Having said all that the Irish constitution is far too navel gazing, nationalistic, and autarky and religious based. Irish our first language? Ah well...

Mario007

RandomName2 wrote: »

I find the Irish constitution the best in Europe. It's the only one which cannot be ammended without a referendum. You would think Germany would have made a stronger constitution after what happened in the 1930s... although maybe that is why the legality of Lisbon II is currently being questioned by German courts.

Having said all that the Irish constitution is far too navel gazing, nationalistic, and autarky and religious based. Irish our first language? Ah well...

i dont know the referendum can hinder a lot of things...like laws that sometimes need to be passed have to be passed in a referendum(say the whole blasphemy incident) and since a referendum is time consuming they only happen in very important cases, ie the constitution changes only a little...which can be bad since we have a constitution from 1937. I think a referendum is great...but only in some areas...the TDs are our deputies, we elect them and they are paid to read documents like lisbon from legal perspective and make a decission. if we are to talk about lisbon...you cant really expect an ordinary person to read the treaty and make up their mind on it

conchubhar1

referendums are needed for big things like lisbon and big issues like abortion etc

yes, the irish constitution needs to be changed


overly religious - but not constricting to any religion or non religious people
irish as first language - again lip service, speak what you like it doesnt actualy affect you, and is important to some people

''too navel graxing''?

too nationalistic? - well you are against being nationalistic, again this doesnt restrict you

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

referendums are needed for big things like lisbon and big issues like abortion etc

yes, the irish constitution needs to be changed


overly religious - but not constricting to any religion or non religious people
irish as first language - again lip service, speak what you like it doesnt actualy affect you, and is important to some people

''too navel graxing''?

too nationalistic? - well you are against being nationalistic, again this doesnt restrict you

things like abortion? yes
things like lisbon? no, as i said, its too complex for people to understand

well catholic church has a 'special position' in it, doesnt it?
i actually like irish being first language, it should be like that, but it should also be imposed not just written down for the sake of it

conchubhar1

no, i think the catholic churces special posistion was removed

it was that attitude that helped a no vote win last time - of the electorate being too stupid to understand it
the government has done little good for 12 years surely to god they can inform the people, along with helping the ref commission
no?
i doubt it too, but we can hope


but the language i still strongly religious in the constitution

on the irish language - amen in hope (blind hope) , but this is the self loathing ireland we live in so i wont hold my breath on that happening

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

no, i think the catholic churces special posistion was removed

it was that attitude that helped a no vote win last time - of the electorate being too stupid to understand it
the government has done little good for 12 years surely to god they can inform the people, along with helping the ref commission
no?
i doubt it too, but we can hope


but the language i still strongly religious in the constitution

on the irish language - amen in hope (blind hope) , but this is the self loathing ireland we live in so i wont hold my breath on that happening

oh right then that good about the catholic church's special position, though as you point out the language is really religious.
well to be fair the treaty is extremly confusing when you try to read it, and it makes references to other treaties which an ordinary person(such as ourselves) has probably never before read. and the whole explaining the treaty issue is always bias, be it from one side or the other for obvious reasons, thats why i think complex treaties such as lisbon should be approved by a 2/3 majority in the dail.
the language...well its pretty sad that its not being spoken, but we can always hope

conchubhar1

ye the religious language should be removed - but doing no harm really

yes its a large treaty - but the language isnt very very complex and i found the ref commission to be helpful on it (and not bias i hope)

95% of the dáil at least - not that i think a referendum is vital, but for arguments sake if it were to be forced to be dáil approved it should be 95% in both houses
if it was good for ireland and europe, this would be easily achieved

it is being spoken, just not be the majority or even by a large minority - but still
hope is right, lots of hope

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

ye the religious language should be removed - but doing no harm really

yes its a large treaty - but the language isnt very very complex and i found the ref commission to be helpful on it (and not bias i hope)

95% of the dáil at least - not that i think a referendum is vital, but for arguments sake if it were to be forced to be dáil approved it should be 95% in both houses
if it was good for ireland and europe, this would be easily achieved

it is being spoken, just not be the majority or even by a large minority - but still
hope is right, lots of hope

ha i'm reading it right now, almost finished, but really it does make my head hurt sometimes, some articles can be tricky and weird worded.

i dont know...95% is a tad bit extreme...that means lisbob wouldnt pass in ireland for example just because of sinn fein in the dail...but we could make a comprimise of 77%?:D

yeah according to the latest survey its over a million now and apperently its cool to speak irish again among the kids

conchubhar1

ye me too - headaches galore but i knew little of the eu before so its triply headache-y

sinn féin have their supporters so it would be representative

but i see your point - 85%? this is all hypothetical anyway!

1 million world wide maybe - that one million is knowledge of irish
daily speakers would be maybe 50-60 thousand in ireland (all of it - gaeltacht and not)

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

ye me too - headaches galore but i knew little of the eu before so its triply headache-y

sinn féin have their supporters so it would be representative

but i see your point - 85%? this is all hypothetical anyway!

1 million world wide maybe - that one million is knowledge of irish
daily speakers would be maybe 50-60 thousand in ireland (all of it - gaeltacht and not)

yeah i basically started discovering about how eu works only this year so its fairly tough reading:D

yeah, but even in referendum you dont have 100% approval, so there is obviously going to be people who will be opposed to it and in the case of lisbon its mostly sinn fein voters.

i knew a family that lived in tallow, and they spoke only in irish, even the kids, which i thought was pretty cool...hopefully it'll spread:D

conchubhar1

its a bitch - but neccessary and call me a nerd but interesting also

true - not consensus

on sinn féin voters, ye probably but their vote is as valid as anyones....

le cúnamh dé (with the help of god)
not to be religious - haha thats just how we say it

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

its a bitch - but neccessary and call me a nerd but interesting also

true - not consensus

on sinn féin voters, ye probably but their vote is as valid as anyones....

le cúnamh dé (with the help of god)
not to be religious - haha thats just how we say it

yeah i know, i made a pledge to read it through till the end of summer as i was really pro lisbon last year, but this year i met Kathy Sinnott and she produced some very good and factual arguments against it...so i want to make up my mind on it completely and to do that i need to read it

ya i agree but to be honest when you vote the party in the minority your vote isnt as valid as anyones-the downfall of democracy. though many times a lot of politicians use that as an excuse and do almost no constructive work just populism...but yet again thats for a different debate

ha yeah i know, i saw des bishop explaining that religiousity of irish phrases:D

conchubhar1

true, reading it is the only way (well the only solid way with no sidetracks or downfalls)

well i vote on what i want and what i perceive as best for me, family friends and the country as a whole - not on who will win or is bigger
but i do see your point

ah des is a ledge - he also did a cool rap on australian history!
is also recording an album in irish and his autobiography

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

true, reading it is the only way (well the only solid way with no sidetracks or downfalls)

well i vote on what i want and what i perceive as best for me, family friends and the country as a whole - not on who will win or is bigger
but i do see your point

ah des is a ledge - he also did a cool rap on australian history!
is also recording an album in irish and his autobiography

i agree with you on the first two points(wow, we've reached an agreement:D)

on the note of des bishop, ya he did a rap completely in irish and the whole show in irish too...its really amazing how he came to love the language and he does a lot for irish to be spoken in ireland to be honest

conchubhar1

indeed we have - yay
ah hes great - in any language (which i understand anyway haha)

netron

RandomName2 wrote: »

I find the Irish constitution the best in Europe. It's the only one which cannot be ammended without a referendum. You would think Germany would have made a stronger constitution after what happened in the 1930s... although maybe that is why the legality of Lisbon II is currently being questioned by German courts.

Having said all that the Irish constitution is far too navel gazing, nationalistic, and autarky and religious based. Irish our first language? Ah well...

I would agree. even though i cant stand the "special position" stuff of the Catholic Church.


in a weird way - if we vote No again - our little island might have far BIGGER influence in Europe. For certain, a lot of people across Europe who are fighting for a democratic EU will use that result as the basis of their arguments.

How can we tolerate an EU Commission made up of failed unelected politicians like Neil Kinnock?

Thats just not on - we need an ELECTED EU Commission.

If a USE (United States of Europe) is offered to me - i'd vote for it. I really do NOT like this political class lawyer bollocks of Lisbon. They want to create a superstate without any democratic accountability - i will vote No to that.

Mario007

netron wrote: »

I would agree. even though i cant stand the "special position" stuff of the Catholic Church.


in a weird way - if we vote No again - our little island might have far BIGGER influence in Europe. For certain, a lot of people across Europe who are fighting for a democratic EU will use that result as the basis of their arguments.

How can we tolerate an EU Commission made up of failed unelected politicians like Neil Kinnock?

Thats just not on - we need an ELECTED EU Commission.

If a USE (United States of Europe) is offered to me - i'd vote for it. I really do NOT like this political class lawyer bollocks of Lisbon. They want to create a superstate without any democratic accountability - i will vote No to that.

not being a smartass or anything...but are you declan ganley? cos those are just his arguments...

RandomName2

netron wrote: »

How can we tolerate an EU Commission made up of failed unelected politicians like Neil Kinnock?

Thats just not on - we need an ELECTED EU Commission.

If a USE (United States of Europe) is offered to me - i'd vote for it. I really do NOT like this political class lawyer bollocks of Lisbon. They want to create a superstate without any democratic accountability - i will vote No to that.

Amen, brother.

oscarBravo

netron wrote: »

How can we tolerate an EU Commission made up of failed unelected politicians like Neil Kinnock?

Thats just not on - we need an ELECTED EU Commission.

That's just empty rhetoric. Why do we need an elected commission? What are the distinct advantages of electing the posts? Can't you think of any disadvantages?

Or are you one of those democratic fundamentalists who subscribe to the idea that anything that's voted on is intrinsically and unchallengably superior to anything that's not?

I really do NOT like this political class lawyer bollocks of Lisbon.

"Political class lawyer bollocks"? Now you're just making up stuff to object to.

They want to create a superstate without any democratic accountability - i will vote No to that.

Who, exactly, wants to create that?

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you one of those democratic fundamentalists who subscribe to the idea that anything that's voted on is intrinsically and unchallengably superior to anything that's not?

You don't think that the head of state should be elected - thus you favour dictatorship. That's a valid position; there have been numerous people who have argued in favour of dictatorship, totalitarian or not.

oscarBravo wrote: »

'They want to create a superstate without any democratic accountability - i will vote No to that.'
Who, exactly, wants to create that?

You do, by definition. Unless you believe that there is some merit in the weak, disjointed Parliament...

Iwasfrozen

RandomName2 wrote:

You don't think that the head of state should be elected - thus you favour dictatorship. That's a valid position; there have been numerous people who have argued in favour of dictatorship, totalitarian or not.

What nonsense, you say the EU is a dictatorship because all of the institutions are not elected ?
Let me ask you thin, Is the Irish senate elected ? No.
Do we live in a Dictatorship ? No.

RandomName2 wrote:

You do, by definition. Unless you believe that there is some merit in the weak, disjointed Parliament...

So why then do you oppose a treaty that gives more power to the Parliament at the expense of the Commission ?

Mario007

RandomName2 wrote: »

You don't think that the head of state should be elected - thus you favour dictatorship. That's a valid position; there have been numerous people who have argued in favour of dictatorship, totalitarian or not.



You do, by definition. Unless you believe that there is some merit in the weak, disjointed Parliament...

ok firstly you go for democracy and in the next few lines you say that parliament is disjointed and weak...parliament being the corner stone of democracy

on the note of the dictatorship, is brian cowen a dictator, cos he wasnt elected by the people to be a taioseach? is the general secretary of the un a dictator? is the pope a dictator? is vaclav klaus, a man who all you anti-lisbon people love, a dictator seeing that he was elected to be a president by the czech parliament and the czech senate?

RandomName2

Mario007 wrote: »

ok firstly you go for democracy and in the next few lines you say that parliament is disjointed and weak...parliament being the corner stone of democracy

on the note of the dictatorship, is brian cowen a dictator, cos he wasnt elected by the people to be a taioseach? is the general secretary of the un a dictator? is the pope a dictator? is vaclav klaus, a man who all you anti-lisbon people love, a dictator seeing that he was elected to be a president by the czech parliament and the czech senate?

The Parliament in the eu is bogged down with problems. It should be much stronger than it is.

Brian Cowen probably should have been specifically elected Taoiseach - but it doesn't really matter because:
1. He's Irish. 2. He was elected as the second most important FF member (as far as I know) - hence Tanaiste if there was no coalition 3. In the next general election the public can vote him out. (Note the big problems in the uk about Brown's lack of legitimacy and not deciding to call an election after becoming PM)

UN - just a loose weak military organisation. It's not as if they set any tax rates.

Vatican - technically a dictatorship (indeed it has been termed the least democratic monarchy in the world by a number of historians). But - who cares? Mugabe could be elected Pope and it wouldn't make that much difference - no legislative authority outside Vatican City... although some significant influence over the flock in general I suppose.

Czerch President - No legislative power I know of. Has the power of veto (like Irish President and UK monarch). Why Czech President is capable of using the veto and Irish President wouldn't be... I don't know. Not much of a dictatorship though.

djpbarry

RandomName2 wrote: »

The Parliament in the eu is bogged down with problems. It should be much stronger than it is.

If only there was some way we could boost the Parliament's influence...

PopeBuckfastXVI

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's just empty rhetoric. Why do we need an elected commission? What are the distinct advantages of electing the posts? Can't you think of any disadvantages?

Or are you one of those democratic fundamentalists who subscribe to the idea that anything that's voted on is intrinsically and unchallengably superior to anything that's not? "Political class lawyer bollocks"? Now you're just making up stuff to object to. Who, exactly, wants to create that?

I know it's redundant, but should it be strictly necessary to ask for obviously imagined claims to be proved. It seems that in most, if not all cases, the claim is abandoned, and at some point another false claim is made. How much weight should an obviously false claim be afforded, even in an open forum such as this?

conchubhar1

well would you be opposed to an elected body as opposed to an unelected body?

why?

oscarBravo

conchubhar1 wrote: »

well would you be opposed to an elected body as opposed to an unelected body?

why?

I would be opposed to an elected Commission, yes. Directly-elected commissioners would necessarily pander to their respective electorates, and as such would have a direct conflict of interest with their oath to act in the interests of the Union as a whole.

conchubhar1

like the council of ministers and the leaders council (offical name?) ????

ixtlan

...pander to their respective electorates...

conchubhar1 wrote: »

like the council of ministers and the European Council

Yes, you are right. Like those bodies. However the nature of our democracy is that politicans advocate for those who elect them. No one is saying that the system is perfect. As long as they act reasonably and fairly the system works.

The question you raised is whether a directly elected commission would work better, and I like many others think not. Remember we do have an elected commission, just not a directly elected one. The EU operates on consensus. Surely everyone would agree that is a good thing? A directly elected commission would end up bickering over which states got the most benefit from any decisions.

Actually in a way the EU commission has some parallels with the US cabinet, though we have much greater oversight of it's functions and it has much less power.

Ix

conchubhar1

well things need to be done to raise turnout in elections

one issue brought up was lack of knowledge and care for the eu

they vote an mep - and that mep while they can do alot is only one part of the whole

the_dark_side

Rb wrote: »

Sorry Pope Buckfast, but a considerable amount of mainland Europeans don't even consider Ireland to be part of Europe.

Similarly, a considerable amount of Irish people don't want to be "European".

When the smoking ban was introduced, bars and clubs decided to build a smoking area... many of which were simply a decked area with a roof.

A pub near my area was so proud of the fine job that the carpenters did that they actually advertised the smoking area in the local papers and on a bill-board on the way into the town, which read

'****'s Bar, Main Street, come and see our European style veranda'

It was if to say, these are the kind that they have over in Europe.

the_dark_side

One of my first real awakenings regarding the Lisbon Treaty was when I watched this 3 minute video of a Danish MEP expressing his concerns about the lack of transparency of the document, I found it eye opening:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kr0Foq3CQE

Scofflaw

the_dark_side wrote: »

One of my first real awakenings regarding the Lisbon Treaty was when I watched this 3 minute video of a Danish MEP expressing his concerns about the lack of transparency of the document, I found it eye opening:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kr0Foq3CQE

Jens-Peter Bonde has opposed every single EU treaty. It's not a case of him being in any way neutral - it's only a question of what he chooses to find wrong with them.

I did retain some respect for him (although much reduced after his 'accidental' mention of abortion when talking about Lisbon) until the 'Libertas bagman' episode, where he was flying around Europe with Ganley's cash, buying up political parties for the Euro elections.

Still, whoever you choose to trust is up to you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

that would be jans peter bonde though

he founded Eudemocrats and was claimed to be a leading architect in the forming of libertas.

He may be an mep but he was also the presentable face of the euroskeptic movements within the european parliament until he left.

EDIT:

DAMNIT SCOFFLAW!

molloyjh

conchubhar1 wrote: »

like the council of ministers and the leaders council (offical name?) ????

I think you are missing OBs point conchubar.

There is a huge difference between the Council/Parliament and the Commission.

The Commission has an individual looking after a particular area of policy. That one person, if elected, would pander to his/her base on that policy.

The Council and Parliaments are elected and will to a degree pander to their base, however they are groups voting on policy areas and so are all pandering in different directions on the same issue and so have to come to a consensus. No such consensus would occur in an elected Commission.

PopeBuckfastXVI

An elected commission would likely bring in the sort of clientism we, unfortunately, experience with our Ministers more than looking after their constituencies. So if the Minister for Transport is elected by Galway West, Galway gets itself a spanking new motorway, needed or not. To the detriment of all other constituencies.

Now you might think, hey, that's cool, cause if the Commissioner for transport infrastructure (if such existed) came from Ireland, and had to be responsible to that electorate they might give us a nice motorway or two, great. However if they came from Lithuania, you'd have to think they'd do the same, to the detriment of Ireland, fair enough you say, because we'd be at the same thing ourselves, and we'll get our chance. But with 27+ different commissionerships to be filled, every 5 years, it's likely as not that it might take us 30 or 40 years to get our hands on the transport one, which means 30 or 40 years of neglect, as the transport commissioner is trying to please his own electorate in his own country.

Now given that, the advantages of a biased and elected commissioner soon start to be outweighed by the disadvantages. Therefore it can be seen how an unelected and therefore unbiased Commissioner tasked with addressing the need of the people, wherever they may be, could be taken as a better setup.

I think our ministerial system stinks of clientism, and I'd hate to see the same thing happen to the EU.

Edit: Of course, to be painfully obvious, none of this is affected by the Lisbon treaty, one way or another.

oscarBravo

the_dark_side wrote: »

Bonde is still a well respected serving MEP.

Nope. He resigned last year.

I'm not sure how "well respected" he is, either - by whom? My Danish girlfriend doesn't have much time for him.