The people of Ireland have spoken.

dresden8

So what now? Has Ireland spoken or what? Or have we covered that?

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

So what now? Has Ireland spoken or what? Or have we covered that?

Hmm. As far as I recall, we voted, which allowed only for a Yes/No answer. As a result, we are still discussing the meaning of the answer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

No means no, you anti-democratic fascist.

DUMBOBLONDE

oscarBravo wrote: »

No means no, you anti-democratic fascist.

Great post.

Thats spot on. Pity our betters would not accept this point.

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

No means no, you anti-democratic fascist.

No means no. No maybe if you get me drunk.


http://www.legal-info-legale.nb.ca/showpub.asp?id=16&langid=1

oscarBravo

DUMBOBLONDE wrote: »

Great post.

Thats spot on. Pity our betters would not accept this point.

I suggest you look up the meaning of "irony".

dresden8 wrote: »

No means no. No maybe if you get me drunk.


http://www.legal-info-legale.nb.ca/showpub.asp?id=16&langid=1

We're not talking about consent to a sexual act, we're talking about democracy. For the most part, they are rather different concepts.

dresden8

We're not talking about consent to a sexual act, we're talking about democracy. For the most part, they are rather different concepts.

Depends how badly you get shafted.

Tingting

I'm tingting. The only true democracy that I understand to exist is in certain cantons in Switzrland. There, each person has a say but a concensus must be reached. Sounds very wise. wise also perhaps because they do not go out to make everyone else have itr?

the-island-man

Well im giving three reasons why i voted no:

1) Democracy: In the lead up to the Referendum no campaigners argued that it was undemocratic that we were the only nation across Europe who let the people vote on it. The Goverment's response was smart but unconvincing! They said that we must respect each nations own independent way of ratifying the treaty! It was unconvincing in the way that besides Germany (who can't constitutionally have a referendum) all coincidently decided "independently" of each other not to have a referendum!

2) Sovereignty: Many would argue that even without this treaty been passed we have lost a lot of our sovereignty already! For example there are quotas been put on how much fish our fishermen can catch and these directives are not coming from our own sovereign state but the E.U! There is also already a house of European parliment for years and an E.U court of Justice are these not features of a state? Also if this treaty were passed you would have many new E.U foreign embassy's opening up across the world, a 5 year presidency of the E.U and a E.U foreign minister!!!! Are all these not features of a state??

3) The Goverment: In my opinion the goverment has wasted soooo much revenue from the celtic years and has got f*** all value for money on what they have spent! I've lost count the number of times projects have appeared on the news as been "way over budget"! Now what do we have a recession with oil prices peaking and no incentive to use our public transport as it is below par unless you live in a city and it is also uneconomical to use! You might ask what has that got to do with the lisbon treaty well nothing, i just want to see them squirm for their past failings!:D

Call Me Jimmy

the-island-man wrote:

It was unconvincing in the way that besides Germany (who can't constitutionally have a referendum) all coincidently decided "independently" of each other not to have a referendum!

Give me some reasons why each government in all countries big and small would want to ratify it if there wasn't a net benefit. If it was going to hinder countries so much, what incentive would the respective governments have to ratify?

the-island-man wrote:

3) The Goverment: In my opinion the goverment has wasted soooo much revenue from the celtic years and has got f*** all value for money on what they have spent! I've lost count the number of times projects have appeared on the news as been "way over budget"! Now what do we have a recession with oil prices peaking and no incentive to use our public transport as it is below par unless you live in a city and it is also uneconomical to use! You might ask what has that got to do with the lisbon treaty well nothing, i just want to see them squirm for their past failings!:D

For someone who values democracy so much, the one serious decision you have to make and you don't vote on the issue. It's pretty juvenile tbh. The election is the place to "make them squirm".

DUMBOBLONDE

oscarBravo wrote: »

I suggest you look up the meaning of "irony".
.

I suggest you look up the meaning of "taking the bait".

turgon

Tingting wrote: »

wise also perhaps because they do not go out to make everyone else have itr?

An excellent remark, never thought about it that way.

the-island-man wrote: »

3) The Goverment: In my opinion the goverment has wasted soooo much revenue from the celtic years and has got f*** all value for money on what they have spent! I've lost count the number of times projects have appeared on the news as been "way over budget"! Now what do we have a recession with oil prices peaking and no incentive to use our public transport as it is below par unless you live in a city and it is also uneconomical to use! You might ask what has that got to do with the lisbon treaty well nothing, i just want to see them squirm for their past failings!:D

People like you give other No-siders a bad name. Thnaks a million.

Scofflaw

the-island-man wrote: »

Well im giving three reasons why i voted no:

1) Democracy: In the lead up to the Referendum no campaigners argued that it was undemocratic that we were the only nation across Europe who let the people vote on it. The Goverment's response was smart but unconvincing! They said that we must respect each nations own independent way of ratifying the treaty! It was unconvincing in the way that besides Germany (who can't constitutionally have a referendum) all coincidently decided "independently" of each other not to have a referendum!

Treaty (Year)|Countries|Referendums
Lisbon (2008)|24 ratified so far|1 referendum
Constitution (2005)|18 ratified|5 referendums
Nice (2002)|15 ratified|1 referendum
Amsterdam (1997)|15 ratified|2 referendums
Maastricht (1992)|12 ratified|3 referendums
SEA (1987)|10 ratified|2 referendums

It would be nice if people bothered to check whether the number of referendums for Lisbon was in any way unusual.

cordially,
Scofflaw

the-island-man

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

For someone who values democracy so much, the one serious decision you have to make and you don't vote on the issue. It's pretty juvenile tbh. The election is the place to "make them squirm".

How can you vote on the issue when to get an honest opinion you have to read 3000 pages of references to other treaty's and on top of that you have to have some experience in legal terminology! Well thats unless you want to take the goverment's word for it or else put your faith in the referendum commission who by the way got confused when asked a question on the treaty at a press conference during the campaign! Also watching the goverment squirm wasn't my only reason!

Boggle

@ Scofflaw - still have to come back to you on another post but need proper time to think it through so bear with me if you will on that one...

But anyway - saw this and had to pass a comment...

Treaty (Year) Countries Referendums
Lisbon (2008) 24 ratified so far 1 referendum
Constitution (2005) 18 ratified 5 referendums
Nice (2002) 15 ratified 1 referendum
Amsterdam (1997) 15 ratified 2 referendums
Maastricht (1992) 12 ratified 3 referendums
SEA (1987) 10 ratified 2 referendums

It would be nice if people bothered to check whether the number of referendums for Lisbon was in any way unusual.

This IS worrying - very worrying in fact. Basically, if I'm interpreting this right, the only time in the past 10 years when any public vote (outside of ireland) was held on a European matter, the public voted against it. Basically getting at the whole constitution matter which was dropped.
Another trend which is quite obvious, but I'm pretty confident there are justifiable reasons which you'll hopefully mention, as we have gained more members, we have moved away from referendum voting.

This gets back to the point I was making a while ago (and which I want to come back to when I have time) about how we should be wary about how we attach our democratic process to differing democratic processes which may simply not be compatible and also about how it appears that the EU state (for want of a better word) is being brought about via the back door.
(It worked for the smoking ban d'innit?!?:D)

scofflaw wrote:

As a result, we are still discussing the meaning of the answer.

Actually, this would be fine if we were acyually looking for the true meaning in a European context but we're not. Its simpy a blatant attempte to slide the treaty past the Irish electorate.

Are we re-examining the entire European project throughout Europe?
Are we trying to find out if there is general support for it throughout Europe?
Does anybody care?!?
NO???
Are we satisfied that we can basically ignore pubblic opinion in every other country and that there is no more requirement to consult with them?
Are we really only looking for a way to get this proposal past the Irish electorate?
YES??
Not much of a dicussion really - more a market survey/focus group to seek the best way to sell your product. (Bit like Bertie - couldn't run a sweetshop but could spin quite well thanks to his focus groups!!)

Scofflaw

Boggle wrote: »

@ Scofflaw - still have to come back to you on another post but need proper time to think it through so bear with me if you will on that one...

But anyway - saw this and had to pass a comment...


This IS worrying - very worrying in fact. Basically, if I'm interpreting this right, the only time in the past 10 years when any public vote (outside of ireland) was held on a European matter, the public voted against it. Basically getting at the whole constitution matter which was dropped.

Well, not really - here, let me fill in the results as well:

Treaty (Year)|Countries|Referendums|Yes/No
Lisbon (2008)|24 ratified so far|1 referendum|1 No
Constitution (2005)|18 ratified|5 referendums|3 Yes, 2 No
Nice (2002)|15 ratified|1 referendum|1 Yes (Ireland repeated after No)
Amsterdam (1997)|15 ratified|2 referendums|2 Yes
Maastricht (1992)|12 ratified|3 referendums|3 Yes (Denmark repeated after No)
SEA (1987)|10 ratified|2 referendums|2 Yes

That doesn't include the accession referendums, which have all been Yes except Norway. On balance, people vote Yes to EU matters (11 Yes to 5 No in the above table, including all repeats).

Boggle wrote: »

Another trend which is quite obvious, but I'm pretty confident there are justifiable reasons which you'll hopefully mention, as we have gained more members, we have moved away from referendum voting.

That is the more interesting point from the table. There's a variety of factors at work. First off, we're a constant - we account for one referendum every time, while the majority of countries never ratify treaties by referendum. Second, the general trend towards fewer referendums results from the major changes having been put in place in the earlier treaties - things like the Euro and so on. Maastricht, for example, created the EU.

Why did the EU Constitution suddenly produce a crop of referendums? Two reasons - one legal, one political. The legal reasoning was that the Constitution replaced earlier treaties instead of amending them - so it contained, legally, all the changes they had contained (the euro, the CFP, the CFSP, the EU itself, etc etc). So the Constitution would automatically require a referendum anywhere that any previous treaty had required one.

However, that still only really covers Ireland, Denmark, and France, which are the only EU countries that have ever used referendums for ratification of EU treaties.

The main reason was political. The idea behind the Constitution was "to bring the EU closer to the citizen", so referendums were chosen to, er, 'celebrate' this. Something of a misjudgement, as it turned out - getting close to the citizen is not really something the EU has been terribly good at (or any other civil service, either).

Interestingly, the fallout in Holland was that they would not ever hold a referendum on such a thing again, because the referendum there was supposed to be non-bindingly "indicative" only, and not dictate the result. However, having returned a No, the Dutch Parliament found they could not realistically go ahead with parliamentary ratification. This made their referendum binding, which was unconstitutional, since their constitution makes parliament supreme. Sort of a reverse Crotty judgement...

Boggle wrote: »

This gets back to the point I was making a while ago (and which I want to come back to when I have time) about how we should be wary about how we attach our democratic process to differing democratic processes which may simply not be compatible and also about how it appears that the EU state (for want of a better word) is being brought about via the back door.

Hmm. Not really the back door at all - indeed, hardly even "being brought in" when you consider that the EU has essentially had its development on hold since Nice.

We are prone to see non-referendum ratification as less democratic and somehow less 'worthy' than our own mechanisms - and we are of course entitled to that somewhat self-satisfied viewpoint. I would, myself, generally agree with it - I prefer referendums, hostage though they can be to the worst kinds of populist hysteria.

However, any claim that referendums were "suppressed" for Lisbon is bunkum - only three countries (us, Denmark, France) have ever used them in ratification except as a political device, only two countries regularly use them (us, Denmark), and only one country always uses them (us).

As to whether we consider our partners in the EU as "sufficiently democratic" based on their mechanisms of EU treaty ratification - well, personally, I would be inclined to think hard about our own glasshouse politics (personal fiefdoms, hereditary politicians, clientilism, corruption) before I started throwing that particular stone around.

Boggle wrote: »

As a result, we are still discussing the meaning of the answer.

Actually, this would be fine if we were acyually looking for the true meaning in a European context but we're not. Its simpy a blatant attempte to slide the treaty past the Irish electorate.

Are we re-examining the entire European project throughout Europe?
Are we trying to find out if there is general support for it throughout Europe?
Does anybody care?!?
NO???
Are we satisfied that we can basically ignore pubblic opinion in every other country and that there is no more requirement to consult with them?
Are we really only looking for a way to get this proposal past the Irish electorate?
YES??
Not much of a dicussion really - more a market survey/focus group to seek the best way to sell your product. (Bit like Bertie - couldn't run a sweetshop but could spin quite well thanks to his focus groups!!)

There's some truth in that - it's a matter of selling it, certainly, and it was woefully undersold by the official Yes campaign. However, there was a public consultation exercise in advance of the Treaty, and quite a lot of stuff happened in the "pause for reflection" after the EU Constitution.

The point to bear in mind here is that we're not voting on a government, or on policy, or a straight moral/ethical issue like abortion. We're really voting on something rather more like the work of the Boundary Commission, the Constitution, the structure of the European market, the division of powers between layers of government, macro-economic structural institutions, the legal system, and a variety of complex legal issues simultaneously - and we're voting on it based on where we think any given package of reforms will take us.

Which, in turn, is why rather a lot of people across Europe think that having referendums on it is pretty silly. Of course, they're wrong, but only where the issues aren't reduced to media-friendly soundbites.

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

the-island-man wrote: »

How can you vote on the issue when to get an honest opinion you have to read 3000 pages of references to other treaty's and on top of that you have to have some experience in legal terminology! Well thats unless you want to take the goverment's word for it or else put your faith in the referendum commission who by the way got confused when asked a question on the treaty at a press conference during the campaign! Also watching the goverment squirm wasn't my only reason!

So rather than listen to our elected representatives you'd rather listen to the Shinners, the Socialist party and Libertas (whose motives are far less than clear)? Its quite easy to get confused when asked a particular question in a press conference. Given the size of the Treaty and the areas it covered you'd want to be one hell of a freak (in a positive way of course!) to be able to remember every last little detail correctly. That doesn't mean for a second that it wasn't understood.

As for your other reasons, every other citizen of every other member country was perfectly entitled to seek a referendum through the courts just as Crotty did here. The democratic system in the other countries is pretty much the same as it is here and so unless people in those other countries went looking for a referendum they were never going to get one, just as we wouldn't here if not for Crotty. I fail to see the logic, though, in complaining about this apparent lack of democracy in the other member states here, when they are not doing it there.

Re your sovereignty point, well it started out ok in that I can understand why some people might have issue with the fact that we don't get to decide every last thing that affects us. However its a trade off really, and I think we did quite well out of it. However the remainder of the point shows a blatant lack of understanding as to how the EU works. The has a lof of similarities to a State because it is a collection of States. What other form would something like that take? And the Foreign Minister post will not lead to "EU embassies", its just an amalgamation of 2 existing posts so there's nothing new to it.

Boggle wrote: »

Actually, this would be fine if we were acyually looking for the true meaning in a European context but we're not. Its simpy a blatant attempte to slide the treaty past the Irish electorate.

What you will find is that this is what you have seen in the media. The official Government stand-point is that they are awaiting the results of the study into the result before sitting down and figuring out what to do - the findings of the study are due out next month.. This is the only logical step.

the-island-man

molloyjh wrote: »

So rather than listen to our elected representatives you'd rather listen to the Shinners, the Socialist party and Libertas (whose motives are far less than clear)? Its quite easy to get confused when asked a particular question in a press conference. Given the size of the Treaty and the areas it covered you'd want to be one hell of a freak (in a positive way of course!) to be able to remember every last little detail correctly. That doesn't mean for a second that it wasn't understood.

As for your other reasons, every other citizen of every other member country was perfectly entitled to seek a referendum through the courts just as Crotty did here. The democratic system in the other countries is pretty much the same as it is here and so unless people in those other countries went looking for a referendum they were never going to get one, just as we wouldn't here if not for Crotty. I fail to see the logic, though, in complaining about this apparent lack of democracy in the other member states here, when they are not doing it there.

Re your sovereignty point, well it started out ok in that I can understand why some people might have issue with the fact that we don't get to decide every last thing that affects us. However its a trade off really, and I think we did quite well out of it. However the remainder of the point shows a blatant lack of understanding as to how the EU works. The has a lof of similarities to a State because it is a collection of States. What other form would something like that take? And the Foreign Minister post will not lead to "EU embassies", its just an amalgamation of 2 existing posts so there's nothing new to it.

Regarding your first point i think you have to look at it from your own perspective, Fianna Fail, The green party and The P.D's might be your representitives but it doesn't mean they're mine and if they were it doesn't mean i would have to agree with everything they do! To be honest before the last election i was a Green party supporter but because they went into power with Fianna Fail i have lost faith in them. Basically i don't like anything about Fianna Fail!
Regarding your second point i agree that unless they go looking for a referendum they have no right to get one but at the same time is it not the reponsibility of the countries representatives to gauge public opinion before they sign up to any new deal within the E.U? I mean surely when the French and the Dutch voted down the constitution the French and Dutch goverments would have given their people a say on this treaty seen as the two documents are quiet similar!
Regarding your last point again it depends on your point of view, it depends on how much similarities do you want between the concept of a state and a collection of states! As regarding the foreign embassies, the reporters in the British Telegraph would disagree with you!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1922140/EU-plans-international-embassies.html
This link is an article written by Bruno Waterfield of the UK Telegraph
reporting on how some 160 E.U offices around the world would become embassies when Lisbon is passed!

Scofflaw

the-island-man wrote: »

Regarding your last point again it depends on your point of view, it depends on how much similarities do you want between the concept of a state and a collection of states! As regarding the foreign embassies, the reporters in the British Telegraph would disagree with you!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1922140/EU-plans-international-embassies.html
This link is an article written by Bruno Waterfield of the UK Telegraph
reporting on how some 160 E.U offices around the world would become embassies when Lisbon is passed!

Er, yes. That's because it's the Telegraph. The Telegraph reports the EU the way An Phoblacht reports Unionism.


cordially,
Scofflaw

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er, yes. That's because it's the Telegraph. The Telegraph reports the EU the way An Phoblacht reports Unionism.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Do I take it from this response Scofflaw that you would not approve of the EU setting up a diplomatic service as described in the Telegraph?

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

Do I take it from this response Scofflaw that you would not approve of the EU setting up a diplomatic service as described in the Telegraph?

I'd probably favour it, in fact - but the Telegraph saying it hasn't actually made it so.

Is there some kind of problem with the EU being able to articulate any joint foreign policy it might actually reach? Or is this the usual "they can't do that because only nation-states should" argument?

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

the-island-man wrote: »

Regarding your first point i think you have to look at it from your own perspective, Fianna Fail, The green party and The P.D's might be your representitives but it doesn't mean they're mine and if they were it doesn't mean i would have to agree with everything they do! To be honest before the last election i was a Green party supporter but because they went into power with Fianna Fail i have lost faith in them. Basically i don't like anything about Fianna Fail!

We're of very similar views on that as it happens. But regardless of how little I trust the major parties I'd still rather they spoke for me than the Shinners!

the-island-man wrote: »

Regarding your second point i agree that unless they go looking for a referendum they have no right to get one but at the same time is it not the reponsibility of the countries representatives to gauge public opinion before they sign up to any new deal within the E.U?

I think a lot of that depends on the details of the deal. There wasn't anything earth shattering about Lisbon that fundamentally altered the EU that the Irish people have consistantly been very much in favour of.

the-island-man wrote: »

I mean surely when the French and the Dutch voted down the constitution the French and Dutch goverments would have given their people a say on this treaty seen as the two documents are quiet similar!

Well the French elected Sarkozy "despite" the fact that he was very openly pro-Lisbon and admitted he favoured ratification without a referendum. Then they proceeded to do nothing to change that. So the limited evidence we have would suggest that there was nothing inherently anti-democratic about it. You also have to remember that the Constitution was rejected during a time of severe social and economic strife in France and this played to the No side in a great way. As for the Dutch, I can't make head or tail of the politics over there. It's all a mess, and there's even fairly serious talk about splitting up the country. It's all very strange so I'm dubious about commenting on them at all.

the-island-man wrote: »

Regarding your last point again it depends on your point of view, it depends on how much similarities do you want between the concept of a state and a collection of states! As regarding the foreign embassies, the reporters in the British Telegraph would disagree with you!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1922140/EU-plans-international-embassies.html
This link is an article written by Bruno Waterfield of the UK Telegraph
reporting on how some 160 E.U offices around the world would become embassies when Lisbon is passed!

Th telegraph can disagree all they want. Its their perogative. However, as Scofflaw pointed out, just because they say so doesn't make it true. It is not true. Sadly I can't prove here it's not in the Treaty without quoting the entire Treaty, but when claims like this are made it is up whoever makes it to back it up with something more than a nameless secret document that noone else has seen.

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd probably favour it, in fact - but the Telegraph saying it hasn't actually made it so.

Is there some kind of problem with the EU being able to articulate any joint foreign policy it might actually reach? Or is this the usual "they can't do that because only nation-states should" argument?

cordially,
Scofflaw

TBH, I didn't think the EU could be that stupid to think that setting up embassies all over the world would be a runner - whatever about the citizens of the various countries in the EU going down quietly, I very much doubt that the civil servants employed in the diplomatic service of their own countries would go down without a fight!

Would you agree that in the interests of efficiency (which is after all, one of the main reasons for the Lisbon Treaty), that we could save ourselves a few bob by shutting down our embassies where ever the EU has an embassy?

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

TBH, I didn't think the EU could be that stupid to think that setting up embassies all over the world would be a runner - whatever about the citizens of the various countries in the EU going down quietly, I very much doubt that the civil servants employed in the diplomatic service of their own countries would go down without a fight!

What would they need to fight? Even the Torygraph doesn't suggest these would replace national embassies.

thehighground wrote: »

Would you agree that in the interests of efficiency (which is after all, one of the main reasons for the Lisbon Treaty), that we could save ourselves a few bob by shutting down our embassies where ever the EU has an embassy?

Ah, I see. Why would we do that, though? EU embassies would be representing EU foreign policy, not Irish foreign policy. The two are only going to be the same thing when the other 26 countries want the same thing as Ireland.

Also, Lisbon would be more about effectiveness than efficiency - even without the cultural conditioning that causes us to interpret "efficient" as "reduced service".

cordially,
Scofflaw

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

What would they need to fight? Even the Torygraph doesn't suggest these would replace national embassies.

No it doesn't, but it is a logical conclusion that an EU embassy would be able to offer the same services as a national embassy. They would need to fight being 'decentralised' from Beijung to Ballyporeen.

Ah, I see. Why would we do that, though? EU embassies would be representing EU foreign policy, not Irish foreign policy. The two are only going to be the same thing when the other 26 countries want the same thing as Ireland.

Each country still maintaining a full diplomatic service will only undermine EU Foreign policy. Who decides EU Foreign Policy and who does the Foreign Minister take his instruction from? It would all work great if all 27 agreed - but that is going to be practially impossible - for instance, has the EU or all EU countries recognised Kosova? (I don't know).

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

No it doesn't, but it is a logical conclusion that an EU embassy would be able to offer the same services as a national embassy. They would need to fight being 'decentralised' from Beijung to Ballyporeen.

Well, the problem with that is this:

thehighground wrote: »

Each country still maintaining a full diplomatic service will only undermine EU Foreign policy. Who decides EU Foreign Policy and who does the Foreign Minister take his instruction from? It would all work great if all 27 agreed - but that is going to be practially impossible - for instance, has the EU or all EU countries recognised Kosova? (I don't know).

The only circumstance under which there will be an EU foreign policy is when all 27 agree.

Therefore, there's no question of Irish embassies "undermining" EU policy, because the only time the EU embassies will have a policy is when Ireland agrees with it. Strange but true.

That makes it sound like the EU embassies will be a pointless red herring, but (a) most EU policies tend to be very long-term anyway, and (b) there's quite a lot for diplomatic services to do besides policy diplomacy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, the problem with that is this:

The only circumstance under which there will be an EU foreign policy is when all 27 agree.

Therefore, there's no question of Irish embassies "undermining" EU policy, because the only time the EU embassies will have a policy is when Ireland agrees with it. Strange but true.

That makes it sound like the EU embassies will be a pointless red herring, but (a) most EU policies tend to be very long-term anyway, and (b) there's quite a lot for diplomatic services to do besides policy diplomacy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So, why bother with an EU Foreign Minister in the first place

Oh right, stealth ... I mean 'long-term' .....

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

So, why bother with an EU Foreign Minister in the first place

Oh right, stealth ... I mean 'long-term' .....

Perhaps because there are issues that all 27 countries can agree on. After all, that's why we have an "EU Foreign Minister" now.

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

thehighground wrote: »

So, why bother with an EU Foreign Minister in the first place

Oh right, stealth ... I mean 'long-term' .....

highgound I certainly hope you are not suggesting that the EU have absolutely no involvement with the outside world on any level!? As a body the EU needs foreign relations to some degree. This position can also be utilised by the member states to present a stronger united front on issues that we all agree on. Where exactly is the problem with this?

We wll represent ourselves on Irish issues and the EU Foreign Minister post (or posts as they are now) will (currently do) represent the EU on EU issues and other foreign affairs issues where all member states agree. It seems perfectly reasonable and fair to me, and I really fail to see where any problems could arise.

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

highgound I certainly hope you are not suggesting that the EU have absolutely no involvement with the outside world on any level!? As a body the EU needs foreign relations to some degree. This position can also be utilised by the member states to present a stronger united front on issues that we all agree on. Where exactly is the problem with this?

Not suggesting that at all and I do agree the EU needs foreign relations to some degree. Just clarifying for Scofflaw that I would find it difficult to believe that the EU would plan to set up 160 embassies as reported in the Telegraph (and I voted 'No' to Lisbon - all no voters don't believe everything the Eurosceptic press publish )

We wll represent ourselves on Irish issues and the EU Foreign Minister post (or posts as they are now) will (currently do) represent the EU on EU issues and other foreign affairs issues where all member states agree. It seems perfectly reasonable and fair to me, and I really fail to see where any problems could arise.

It seems perfectly reasonable and fair to me as to how it is operating at present, and I just don't see the need (or want) to change it.