Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

1…4445474950…127

Comments

  • #1382
    rumour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 836 ✭✭✭rumour


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    There's a giant weightless invisible and undetectable otter sitting on your shoulder.

    Disprove me using your own material.

    :) Firstly I am here you are there, secondly 102742-450-giant-otter.jpgthe giant otter is beside the river with his friend the other giant otter and has no computer as can easily be seen on the photo.
    So if he is on my shoulder and I am burried in the sand where does the electicity come from?


  • #1383
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    rumour wrote: »
    :) Firstly I am here you are there, secondly 102742-450-giant-otter.jpgthe giant otter is beside the river with his friend the other giant otter and has no computer as can easily be seen on the photo.
    So if he is on my shoulder and I am burried in the sand where does the electicity come from?

    Neither of those is the otter in question.

    But I've seen a report by an expert that proves you have the otter on your shoulder, therefore I am right and you are wrong. Admit it.


  • #1384
    rumour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 836 ✭✭✭rumour


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Is there any particular reason why you think it is unreasonable to ask somebody to backup a claim that the minority Federalist faction came to completely dominate the writing of the treaty?

    Apart from the fact that he couldn't answer.

    Freeborn ........ by any reasonable standard has provided so many convincing arguments that in my opinion are an amalgamation of continual reading and keeping himself informed. No one source provides the answers which are called for in these threads to win over minor points. Regular reading of Figaro le Monde or even Pravda along with some study of history and not just the last twenty years can provide a knowledge base that would lend one to agree.
    Nit picking at every issue with no particular point serves no general purpose. Consider is the Treaty of Lisbon a march to a federalist Europe? Evidence would suggest that there is a certain agenda here. Are we transferring powers from our national governments to Europe? If the answer is yes then it fits with the agenda of the first question. Is this agenda supported by all the people of europe? Well we really don't know but the people that have been asked to vote have siad no. Continually this has resulted in a repackaging of the issue and it is presented as another treaty. Generally with no votes allowed. We in Ireland seem to be the only ones allowed to vote. However we are always taking the direction with each new treaty towards a federalist europe.

    What are the consequences of creating this europe and how accountable is it. Firstly the history of europe is littered with notions of the european empire and have generally always resulted in war and poverty for the inhabitants. Secondly this construct of Europe is not giving all the power to Parliament only some secondary functions. The main power resides with the commissioners. There is no mention of making these people accountable to the democratic process. Additionally we have 27 states now and many of these will not get representation it is notable that France Germany and the UK are centrally catered for. This is a stage in a process that we are being asked to vote for. Ultimately I do not think ireland will make one bit of difference but this new Europe is not being created on democratic principals.
    Perhaps it is a benign policy that seeks to rectify the inadequacies and failings of democracy but given the history of Europe how likely is it that it will not be corrupted in the future. All it takes are a few ecomonic scares.


  • #1385
    rumour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 836 ✭✭✭rumour


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Neither of those is the otter in question.

    But I've seen a report by an expert that proves you have the otter on your shoulder, therefore I am right and you are wrong. Admit it.

    Your report was written by gund-32040.jpg:






    Who has been internationally discredited for his work on paint drying. Notwithstanding your expert report, your inability to prove where the electricity would come from to supply my computer underwater whilst the otter is on my shoulder calls into question the veracity of your claims.


  • #1386
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    rumour wrote: »
    Your report was written by gund-32040.jpg:






    Who has been internationally discredited for his work on paint drying. Notwithstanding your expert report, your inability to prove where the electricity would come from to supply my computer underwater whilst the otter is on my shoulder calls into question the veracity of your claims.

    It wasn't that particular 'expert' though, you're right that he is widely discredited, that's a strawman that you're using to colour my argument.

    The burden of disproof remains with you.

    :) I think you've probably gotten my point about where asking for sources fits into a discussion though...


  • Advertisement
  • #1387
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    rumour wrote: »
    Freeborn ........ by any reasonable standard has provided so many convincing arguments

    Quote them please, because I can't see them.

    All I have seen is a claim, continually repeated as absolute truth, that the nation-state is the only legitimate form of governance.


  • #1388
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Freeborn John wrote:
    The principle that the majority decides is only accepted within the nation. The EU Parliament and Commision takes decisions by simple majority and the EU Council by a qualified majority, which are inapropraite for an international organization like the EU. These rules allow the policy preferences of entire national lectorates to be overruled in politically contested policy areas, and once this has happended ther supremacy of EU law means the decision remains binding IN PERPETUITY on the STATE (and not just the government that took part in the decision) no matter how the nation votes in future elections.

    This is all very interesting. Wonder how we should ignore the Yes votes on Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice though?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #1389
    james'son
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1 ✭james'son


    i won't be in ireland on the day, so its a spoiled ballot for me in absense of not voting in the op's poll.

    as far as the treaty goes, i would have voted yes in the first one (again, if i'd been in the country), but now that the government is essentially asking us to "choose the right answer this time" it would be a resounding no.
    a democracy isn't about spamming the people with referenda untill they choose the right option. its about listening to them when they vote the first time.


  • #1390
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    james'son wrote: »
    a democracy isn't about spamming the people with referenda untill they choose the right option. its about listening to them when they vote the first time.

    And addressing their concerns?


  • #1391
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Is there any particular reason why you think it is unreasonable to ask somebody to backup a claim that the minority Federalist faction came to completely dominate the writing of the treaty?

    Apart from the fact that he couldn't answer.

    The members of the 'Presidium', were largely well-known federalists. Giscard D'Estinag was chair and two notorious federalists, [FONT=&quot]Giuliano Amato [/FONT]and [FONT=&quot]Jean-Luc Dehaene were his vice chairmen and part of his inner-circle.[/FONT]

    The complete line up was Mr Valéry GISCARD d'ESTAING, Mr Giuliano AMATO, Mr Jean-Luc DEHAENE, Mr Alfonso DASTIS, Mr Henning CHRISTOPHERSEN,Mr Georges PAPANDREOU, Mr John BRUTON ,Ms Gisela STUART, Mr Klaus HÄNSCH, Mr Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Mr Michel BARNIER,Mr António VITORINO,Mr Alojz PETERLE.

    Gisela Stuart MP described the federalist bias as follows
    "From my experience at the convention it is clear that the real reason for the constitution - and its main impact - is the political deepening of the union."

    "The Convention brought together a self-selected group of the European political elite, many of whom have their eyes on a career at a European level, which is dependent on more and more integration and who see national governments and national parliaments as an obstacle. Not once in the 16 months I spent on the Convention did representatives question whether deeper integration is what the people of Europe want, whether it serves their best interests or whether it provides the best basis for a sustainable structure for an expanding Union. The debates focused solely on where we could do more at European Union level. None of the existing policies were questioned."

    "Where integration can be deepened no further, this text has rigid rules as for example in the list of exclusive competences of the Commission. Power at the centre cannot be returned to Member States. Where the political climate means that certain ideas for further integration are not yet acceptable, the Draft Constitution creates the structure for a process to develop later. An example of this is defence and foreign policy."

    Gisela Stuart.


  • Advertisement
  • #1392
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    rumour wrote: »
    Freeborn ........ by any reasonable standard has provided so many convincing arguments that in my opinion are an amalgamation of continual reading and keeping himself informed. No one source provides the answers which are called for in these threads to win over minor points. Regular reading of Figaro le Monde or even Pravda along with some study of history and not just the last twenty years can provide a knowledge base that would lend one to agree.

    Nit picking at every issue with no particular point serves no general purpose. Consider is the Treaty of Lisbon a march to a federalist Europe? Evidence would suggest that there is a certain agenda here. Are we transferring powers from our national governments to Europe? If the answer is yes then it fits with the agenda of the first question. Is this agenda supported by all the people of europe? Well we really don't know but the people that have been asked to vote have siad no. Continually this has resulted in a repackaging of the issue and it is presented as another treaty. Generally with no votes allowed. We in Ireland seem to be the only ones allowed to vote. However we are always taking the direction with each new treaty towards a federalist europe.

    I'll take the that as a, no you don't consider backing up statements with facts as important. I consider the nit picking to be quite important actually and he has been found wanting for additional information numerous times on this thread already.

    Since you probably agree with them I am not surprised you find his arguments convincing. :)
    What are the consequences of creating this europe and how accountable is it. Firstly the history of europe is littered with notions of the european empire and have generally always resulted in war and poverty for the inhabitants. Secondly this construct of Europe is not giving all the power to Parliament only some secondary functions. The main power resides with the commissioners. There is no mention of making these people accountable to the democratic process. Additionally we have 27 states now and many of these will not get representation it is notable that France Germany and the UK are centrally catered for. This is a stage in a process that we are being asked to vote for. Ultimately I do not think ireland will make one bit of difference but this new Europe is not being created on democratic principals.
    Perhaps it is a benign policy that seeks to rectify the inadequacies and failings of democracy but given the history of Europe how likely is it that it will not be corrupted in the future. All it takes are a few ecomonic scares.

    I hope that is not the missing commisioner argument I see hidden in there?

    You do realise that the treaty transfers more power from the Commission to the Parliament and trends have been the same in the last few treaties.

    The commission are accountable to the Parliament, who as you may recall sacked them en bloc some years ago. Also the Lisbon treaty makes it a requirement that commission votes are held in the open for the first time. Whether or not you agree, these are all positive steps in the right direction in my opinion.

    Both of those things that you want to see more of are in the Lisbon treaty, a more powerful Parliament and a less powerful, more accountable Commission.


  • #1393
    rumour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 836 ✭✭✭rumour


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    It wasn't that particular 'expert' though, you're right that he is widely discredited, that's a strawman that you're using to colour my argument.

    The burden of disproof remains with you.

    :) I think you've probably gotten my point about where asking for sources fits into a discussion though...

    I don't disagree and know that the nature of your question has done the rounds since the ancient greeks. My point being it all decends into tosh after to long, which is happening here. Which fitted well with an article I was reading on our third level education system. We appear to educate our youth to be spoon fed. This is not a good thing as it translates to the workforce and then then country. But thats a seperate discussion.


  • #1394
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    The members of the 'Presidium', were largely well-known federalists. Giscard D'Estinag was chair and two notorious federalists, [FONT=&quot]Giuliano Amato [/FONT]and [FONT=&quot]Jean-Luc Dehaene were his vice chairmen and part of his inner-circle.[/FONT]

    The complete line up was Mr Valéry GISCARD d'ESTAING, Mr Giuliano AMATO, Mr Jean-Luc DEHAENE, Mr Alfonso DASTIS, Mr Henning CHRISTOPHERSEN,Mr Georges PAPANDREOU, Mr John BRUTON ,Ms Gisela STUART, Mr Klaus HÄNSCH, Mr Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Mr Michel BARNIER,Mr António VITORINO,Mr Alojz PETERLE.

    Gisela Stuart MP described the federalist bias as follows
    "From my experience at the convention it is clear that the real reason for the constitution - and its main impact - is the political deepening of the union."

    "The Convention brought together a self-selected group of the European political elite, many of whom have their eyes on a career at a European level, which is dependent on more and more integration and who see national governments and national parliaments as an obstacle. Not once in the 16 months I spent on the Convention did representatives question whether deeper integration is what the people of Europe want, whether it serves their best interests or whether it provides the best basis for a sustainable structure for an expanding Union. The debates focused solely on where we could do more at European Union level. None of the existing policies were questioned."

    "Where integration can be deepened no further, this text has rigid rules as for example in the list of exclusive competences of the Commission. Power at the centre cannot be returned to Member States. Where the political climate means that certain ideas for further integration are not yet acceptable, the Draft Constitution creates the structure for a process to develop later. An example of this is defence and foreign policy."

    Gisela Stuart.

    I am sure that everybody looks like a Federalist when you are a Euroskeptic Little Englander.


  • #1395
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    rumour wrote: »
    I don't disagree and know that the nature of your question has done the rounds since the ancient greeks. My point being it all decends into tosh after to long, which is happening here. Which fitted well with an article I was reading on our third level education system. We appear to educate our youth to be spoon fed. This is not a good thing as it translates to the workforce and then then country. But thats a seperate discussion.

    I'd say it serves to expose and remove tosh :)


  • #1396
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    marco_polo wrote: »
    I am sure that everybody looks like a Federalist when you are a Euroskeptic Little Englander.

    yet they wouldn't give the Scots their independence ... :pac:


  • #1397
    rumour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 836 ✭✭✭rumour


    marco_polo wrote: »
    I'll take the that as a, no you don't consider backing up statements with facts as important. I consider the nit picking to be quite important actually and he has been found wanting for additional information numerous times on this thread already.

    Since you probably agree with them I am not surprised you find his arguments convincing. :)



    I hope that is not the missing commisioner argument I see hidden in there?

    You do realise that the treaty transfers more power from the Commission to the Parliament and trends have been the same in the last few treaties.

    The commission are accountable to the Parliament, who as you may recall sacked them en bloc some years ago. Also the Lisbon treaty makes it a requirement that commission votes are held in the open for the first time. Whether or not you agree, these are all positive steps in the right direction in my opinion.

    Both of those things that you want to see more of are in the Lisbon treaty, a more powerful Parliament and a less powerful, more accountable Commission.

    Thank you some useful points to consider. However upon agreeing to this treaty agruments for future accountability of the comissioners can only be done through the European Parliament is that correct?
    As for sacking the comissioners I don't recall what happened in the end didn't they all just go back to work? The parliament had no more than a 'hissy fit' ? Because they don't have any real power I suspect. Maybe you can tell me what power over the comissioners they do have?


  • #1398
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Also the Lisbon treaty makes it a requirement that commission votes are held in the open for the first time.

    No it doesn't.
    marco_polo wrote: »
    Both of those things that you want to see more of are in the Lisbon treaty, a more powerful Parliament and a less powerful, more accountable Commission.

    Giving more and more powers to the EU Parliament for the last 30 years has coincided with the widening and deepening of the EU democratic legitimacy crisis. If this approach has failed for 30 years to solve the EU democracy problem why do you think it would suddenly work now?

    p.s. The EU Commision would become more powerful under Lisbon. The main power of the EU Commision is its monopoly on all legislative proposals for law superior to any other for 500 million people. The Commision keeps this power in Lisbon, but the scope of EU law where the Commision has the monopoly on all changes is extended into new and more politically sensitive policy fields by Lisbon.


  • #1399
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Giving more and more powers to the EU Parliament for the last 30 years has coincided with the widening and deepening of the EU democratic legitimacy crisis. If this approach has failed for 30 years to solve the EU democracy problem why do you think it would suddenly work now?

    Unfortunately your argument is predicated on the existence of a 'widening and deepening of [an] EU democratic legitimacy crisis', even though you haven't shown one exists.


  • #1400
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    So, who is for scrapping Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #1401
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    K-9 wrote: »
    So, who is for scrapping Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice?

    I am, if we replace them with a Constitution ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #1402
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    No it doesn't.
    What is the effect of article 16(8) of the TEU as amended?
    ...the scope of EU law where the Commision has the monopoly on all changes is extended into new and more politically sensitive policy fields by Lisbon.
    More politically sensitive than art auction house fees? Say it ain't so!

    By the way, how has the art auction business fared since 2001?


  • #1403
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    rumour wrote: »
    Thank you some useful points to consider. However upon agreeing to this treaty agruments for future accountability of the comissioners can only be done through the European Parliament is that correct?
    As for sacking the comissioners I don't recall what happened in the end didn't they all just go back to work? The parliament had no more than a 'hissy fit' ? Because they don't have any real power I suspect. Maybe you can tell me what power over the comissioners they do have?

    I had the word commissioner on the brain there, replace the word Commission with Council in that last post :o


  • #1404
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    marco_polo wrote: »
    I had the word commissioner on the brain there, replace the word Commission with Council in that last post :o
    I just spotted that - I read Council also, hence my last post.


  • #1405
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I just spotted that - I read Council also, hence my last post.

    Good to see you admit the national governments of Europe, as represented in the EU Council of Ministers would be made weaker by Lisbon.

    No if Lisbon increases the power of the institutions with the least claim to democratic legitimacy (EU Commission and the EU so-called Parliament without a people) at the expense of national governments (in the EU Council of Ministers) and national parliaments (who are obliged to remove any of their legislation that conflicts with any produced by the EU under Lisbon) then why would anyone but an out-and-out federalist support it?


  • #1406
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Also the Lisbon treaty makes it a requirement that commission votes are held in the open for the first time.

    You're thinking of the Council of Ministers.

    Here's how the Commission works:
    In practice, the Commissioners meet every Wednesday in Brussels. However, during the European Parliament's plenary sessions, their meeting is held on Tuesday in Strasbourg.

    In addition to its regular weekly meeting, the Commission may, when necessary, decide to hold special sittings (for example, an additional sitting to deal with a special matter, a sitting just before or at the same time as an important Council meeting).

    For each meeting, the President of the Commission adopts an agenda, which may be linked to the Commission’s annual work programme for instance, and which is prepared by the Secretariat-General. The final agenda is circulated to the members of the Commission on the day before the meeting.

    Certain requirements must be met regarding form and timing for an item to be entered on the Commission's agenda (oral procedure). The Commission may decide, by majority vote, to discuss a question which is not on the agenda or for which the necessary working documents have been distributed late.

    The details of how the Commission meetings are organised are set forth in the rules of procedure of the Commission.

    The meetings are not public and all discussions are confidential. However, the agendas and minutes of previous meetings are available in the register of Commission documents.

    You are welcome to consult the agenda of the next Commission meeting. Please note that the agenda is set up in French before being translated into English. Therefore you might find the French version of the document some hours earlier on the Web.

    The minutes of the most recent Commission meeting are usually available one week after the meeting was held. They are available in French and in English.

    Moreover, the Commission takes most of its decisions not during its meetings. The Commission adopts mainly by written procedure as the major means. A decision project or draft is circulated between all Commissioners who can make comments or ask for changes during the time frame given. The decision is adopted when no comments have been given.

    http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/collegemeetings/index_en.htm


  • #1407
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Good to see you admit the national governments of Europe, as represented in the EU Council of Ministers would be made weaker by Lisbon.

    No if Lisbon increases the power of the institutions with the least claim to democratic legitimacy (EU Commission and the EU so-called Parliament without a people) at the expense of national governments (in the EU Council of Ministers) and national parliaments (who are obliged to remove any of their legislation that conflicts with any produced by the EU under Lisbon) then why would anyone but an out-and-out federalist support it?

    Is the power of the Commission to enact legislation strengthened by Lisbon?


  • #1408
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Good to see you admit the national governments of Europe, as represented in the EU Council of Ministers would be made weaker by Lisbon.
    Do you have some sort of filter on your computer that translates what I post into something you want to hear?

    Because what you just said there has nothing - nothing - to do with what you quoted from me.
    No if Lisbon increases the power of the institutions with the least claim to democratic legitimacy (EU Commission and the EU so-called Parliament without a people) at the expense of national governments (in the EU Council of Ministers) and national parliaments (who are obliged to remove any of their legislation that conflicts with any produced by the EU under Lisbon) then why would anyone but an out-and-out federalist support it?
    Dude, we get it. You don't like the EU. You have stone tablets somewhere that say that the nation-state was ordained by God as the perfect pinnacle in political evolution. The EU is the Antichrist. We're all going to hell. Got it.

    I disagree, and constantly repeating yourself isn't persuading me differently.

    I've always maintained that Euroskepticism is one of the few valid reasons to oppose the Lisbon treaty. You're a Euroskeptic. You'll be voting no. Bravo.


  • #1409
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    marco_polo wrote: »
    I am sure that everybody looks like a Federalist when you are a Euroskeptic Little Englander.

    That is a cheap shot; Gisela Stuart is a German-born pro-European MP. I guess Lisbon supporters are all out of the heavy artillery of arguments though so are reduced to cheap shots. If that all you've got, that what's you throw, eh? The Yes-men here remind me of the apes at the beginning of "2001: A Space Odyssey" throwing bones at the spaceship.


  • #1410
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    That is a cheap shot; Gisela Stuart is a German-born pro-European MP. I guess Lisbon supporters are all out of the heavy artillery of arguments though so are reduced to cheap shots. If that all you've got, that what's you throw, eh? The Yes-men here remind me of the apes at the beginning of "2001: A Space Odyssey" throwing bones at the spaceship.

    We get it as Oscar pointed out. You are against Lisbon, Nice, Amsterdam and the Maastricht Treaties.

    You are against QMV unless it is do with the old EEC matters or art auction houses!

    You don't like the way QMV can be used to "bully" countries into compromising even though the same problem arises with unanimity.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • #1411
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    If you substitute "Council of Ministers" for "Commission" in your original post you get:
    marco_polo wrote: »
    Both of those things that you want to see more of are in the Lisbon treaty, a more powerful Parliament and a less powerful Council of Minsters.

    So it is logical to ask why you think it is a good idea to have a less powerful national governments (which is what the EU Council is)?

    I also presume you do not dispute that the Lisbon Treaty would make the EU Commission more powerful?

    And since the increased powers of the EU Parliament and EU Commission cannot be pulled out of a hat, i presume you accept that somebody must be losing powers to give these institutions more powers? That somebody is national governments, national parliaments and the voters who elect them.

    So if the main impact of Lisbon is to reduce the powers of national governments, parliaments and voters why do you want to see it ratified?


Advertisement