PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: » There's a giant weightless invisible and undetectable otter sitting on your shoulder. Disprove me using your own material.
rumour wrote: » Firstly I am here you are there, secondly the 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?
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.
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.
rumour wrote: » Your report was written by : 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.
rumour wrote: » Freeborn ........ by any reasonable standard has provided so many convincing arguments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Freeborn John wrote: » The members of the 'Presidium', were largely well-known federalists. Giscard D'Estinag was chair and two notorious federalists, [FONT="]Giuliano Amato [/FONT]and [FONT="]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.
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.
marco_polo wrote: » I am sure that everybody looks like a Federalist when you are a Euroskeptic Little Englander.
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.
marco_polo wrote: » Also the Lisbon treaty makes it a requirement that commission votes are held in the open for the first time.
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.
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?
K-9 wrote: » So, who is for scrapping Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice?
Freeborn John wrote: » No it doesn't.
...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.
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?
marco_polo wrote: » I had the word commissioner on the brain there, replace the word Commission with Council in that last post
oscarBravo wrote: » I just spotted that - I read Council also, hence my last post.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
