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

yes voters

Options
  • 19-06-2009 2:57am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭


    what would you say are the worst aspects of the treaty?

    what would you say are the best aspects of the treaty?


    article numbers would be handy if you have them to hand


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    what would you say are the worst aspects of the treaty?

    what would you say are the best aspects of the treaty?


    article numbers would be handy if you have them to hand

    If you'll excuse the lack of article numbers, and allow me to restrict my choice a little.

    The best aspect

    Increased Parliamentary Co-decision role (increase of co-decision from 70% to 95% in decision making if I recall the figures correctly)

    Why? If the EU makes decisions in an area, I want it 100% under the normal democratic control/scrutiny of Parliament.

    The Worst aspects

    That Parliamentary Co-decision role was not increased to 100%
    That Parliament wasn't given the right to nominate the EU Commissioners (either solely or in addition to the European Council and/or Member States)


    Why? I want to see a situation where, after the EP elections are over, the first EP sessions elects the Commission either with the EP doing it on its own or with the European Council also voting seperately to elect them (Obviously, in practice there would be a need for some tie-break mechanism in the event of dead-lock, and also, some sort of "magic formula" to balance the composition of the Commission but I am happy to live with most reasonable efforts to solve these issues).

    I want to see a clear link between our votes at the ballot box and the composition of all the Commission, not just as Lisbon says taking the results of the elections into account, the Commission President will be nominated (That's not a 100% accurate quote btw).

    Still, patience, patience - every treaty takes us one small step closer to that day...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    how are the commissioners elected?

    how does it change after lisbon?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    how are the commissioners elected?

    how does it change after lisbon?

    From memory, it goes something like this:
    i) The European Council (aka heads of state) nominates a candidate to be the Commission President (this is subject to unanimity)
    ii) Not sure about timing of this bit, but he then gets interviewed by the EP and duly approved/elected by the EP
    iii) He then consults with the member states who nominate their candidates for the Commission
    iv) Historically, there was (and probably still is) the "Night of the long knives" at the end of which the various portfolios have been matched to the candidates
    v) The EP then interviews/grills the candidates (much like the US congress interviews their Secretaries of State, Defence etc.) and approves them
    vi) When the EP is happy with the Commission as a whole, it then approves/"elects" the Commission
    vii) The European Council then formally appoints the Commission to office

    Lisbon changes this very little.

    For point i), (post Lisbon) "taking the results of the European elections into account", the European Council will nominate the candidate for Commission President.
    For point iii), (post Lisbon) the member states will suggest (rather than nominate) their candidates for the Commission (That one-word change has a huge number of people in hysterics)

    Otherwise, it is more or less unchanged, altough Lisbon II will re-introduce the "One Commissioner per member state" rule that Nice was due to get rid of
    (Also Ireland's failure to ratify Lisbon I meant the idea that some MEPs had that they would run in the European elections with clear platforms saying they would support particular candidates for Commission President came to naught).

    All of which is a shame, because when the European Convention kicked off back in 2000 or so, there were lots of proposals about how to make the whole process more democratic bandied about. The Commission's own proposal was that it should be directly elected by the EP, despite which it gets tagged as "undemocratic" all the time....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    commissioners represent a certain field - like law etc do they not?

    does a country choose any particular candidate to be put up regardess of their field of expertise

    would that not lead to multiple people with the same outlook/job

    im sure this doesnt happen, but im trying to clear it in my head
    how does it work


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    commissioners represent a certain field - like law etc do they not?

    does a country choose any particular candidate to be put up regardess of their field of expertise

    would that not lead to multiple people with the same outlook/job

    im sure this doesnt happen, but im trying to clear it in my head
    how does it work

    The Commissioners each head up one of the Commission Departments like Environment, Transport etc ... not unlike Ministers here

    I don't know how much thought goes into expertise of nominees but I am guessing its very little...tends to be purely political


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    department thats the word - field or department. cheers

    how is it decided tho -27 states one commissioner each
    how do they stop more than one in a dept being appointed


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    department thats the word - field or department. cheers

    how is it decided tho -27 states one commissioner each
    how do they stop more than one in a dept being appointed

    By consensus.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    I find the best aspect of the treaty the removal of the national vetos.

    I wish the parliament had been made even more powerful relative to the commission, so I guess this would be my "worst aspect"....although truly for me the worst aspect is that is was watered down from the constitution.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    move to brussels
    buy a flag
    hum the anthem
    and tattoo the motto on your forehead then

    the eu doesnt need a constitution


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    move to brussels
    buy a flag
    hum the anthem
    and tattoo the motto on your forehead then

    the eu doesnt need a constitution

    What's the point starting a thread like this if you are going to ridicule points of view?

    Pros:
    More democratic and extra powers over energy policy being the main ones.

    Cons:
    EU defence provisions, not because I have a huge problem with them, but I knew it wouldn't go down well in Ireland. We have to grow up a little and realise the EU is 27 countries and it isn't just about Ireland.

    Ironically, the Commissioner being kept, more stupid bureaucracy.

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



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    ye

    should hve always been the most democratic it could be
    again any issues of use, why werent these debated and acted on before?

    ireland is neutral - nothing got to with it being 27 states

    get rid of the commission or improve it then - you obviously view it as useless on the whole reducing tin by 9 - will that solve your perceived problem?


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    should hve always been the most democratic it could be

    Yes, doubt you'll have to many arguing there.
    conchubar1 wrote:
    ireland is neutral - nothing got to with it being 27 states

    We aren't actually.
    conchubar1 wrote:
    get rid of the commission or improve it then - you obviously view it as useless on the whole reducing tin by 9 - will that solve your perceived problem?

    Can you clarify that in relation to what I posted?

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



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    i will after you clarify this glaring crock you posted

    we aren't neutral?

    how so?

    i will look forward to this


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    K-9 wrote: »
    Can you clarify that in relation to what I posted?

    you said ''Ironically, the Commissioner being kept, more stupid bureaucracy.''

    reducing it to 18 from 27 reduced the bureaucracy - but are the 18 to solve the problem you perceive

    as in is it suddenly less bureaucratic besides less clutered


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    i will after you clarify this glaring crock you posted

    we aren't neutral?

    how so?

    i will look forward to this

    One word, Shannon. Though seeing as you made the claim, can you point out the provision in the Constitution saying we are neutral?
    you said ''Ironically, the Commissioner being kept, more stupid bureaucracy.''

    reducing it to 18 from 27 reduced the bureaucracy - but are the 18 to solve the problem you perceive

    as in is it suddenly less bureaucratic besides less clutered

    Here's a link:
    http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/index_en.htm

    There's a few areas there that could be got rid off.

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



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    shannon doesnt make us not neutral - it infringed on it yes....

    no - it is not a distant crackpot claim - it is so well known i am not tracking down the article etc

    like which areas?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    no - it is not a distant crackpot claim - it is so well known i am not tracking down the article etc

    There is none. Neutrality, in as far as it exists, is governmental policy, not a constitutionally enforceable position.

    Any Irish government, at any time, could officially end 'neutrality' and sign us up to NATO or whoever without a referendum.

    We have a tradition of neutrality by geography, i.e. we're nestled snugly between the Brits and the Yanks, so we can afford to be neutral, because their planes and tanks are standing between us and everyone else.

    Again though, this tradition is just that, it is not legally binding in any way.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    shannon doesnt make us not neutral - it infringed on it yes....

    no - it is not a distant crackpot claim - it is so well known i am not tracking down the article etc

    Exactly, its a common misbelief and your search will be forlorn. The very fact that we could have Shannon without a constitutional Referendum means we don't have a Neutrality cause in our Referendum. We are Neutral by political choice, not constitutional requirements.
    like which areas?

    Probably some of the new ones created for our newest members just like how we had extra Junior Ministers that could be got rid off. I'd leave the decision to people more involved with the day to day running of the Commission.

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



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,372 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    you said ''Ironically, the Commissioner being kept, more stupid bureaucracy.''

    reducing it to 18 from 27 reduced the bureaucracy - but are the 18 to solve the problem you perceive

    as in is it suddenly less bureaucratic besides less clutered

    He didn't say he had a problem with the comission. He said he had a problem with a comission which was too big. Thats what I took that to mean anyway.

    Re. Neutrality: (This is taken from Wikipedia)
    Ireland's concept of neutrality

    There are notable differences between Irish neutrality and traditional types of neutral states:
    • While most neutral states do not allow any foreign military within their territory, Ireland has a long history of allowing military aircraft of various nations to refuel at Shannon Airport. Under the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order, 1952,[2] the Minister for Foreign Affairs, exceptionally, could grant permission to foreign military aircraft to overfly or land in the State. Confirmation was required that the aircraft in question be unarmed, carry no arms, ammunition or explosives and that the flights in question would not form part of military exercises or operations
    .

    In September 2001 these conditions were "waived in respect of aircraft operating in pursuit of the implementation of the Security Council Resolution 1368".[3] Irish governments have always said that allowing aircraft to use Irish soil does not constitute participation in any particular conflict and is compatible with a neutral stance, instancing the transit of German troops between Finland and Norway through neutral Swedish territory during World War II.

    A neutral state may, however, allow its citizens to serve in the armed forces of other, possibly belligerent, nations. Ireland does not restrict its citizens to serve in the foreign armies and significant numbers of Irish citizens serve or have served in the British and to a lesser extent United States armies.

    So Ireland's neutrality stance isn't exactly clear cut, and as the wiki artical states:
    It is inaccurate to describe Ireland as a neutral state in the same way as Sweden or Switzerland, it would be more accurate to describe it as a non-aligned state which takes conflict participation on a case by case basis.

    Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality

    Also, throughout the article Irish neutrality is referred to as a Policy Decision.


  • Registered Users Posts: 877 ✭✭✭Mario007


    how did this turn into neutrality/eu commission debate?

    anyway the good thing about lisbon is the introduction of a bill or an issue to the EC after getting 1 million signatures for it, thats a damn cool tool to have.

    The negative aspect i think right now would be the big commission and not reducing its numbers. That was one lasting damage that libertas has done, unfortunately.

    With regards to neutrality, seeing as i just did my leaving cert in which i dealt with dev and neutrality its pretty much just a handy and easy option during world war two that was kept on. the reason why neutrality was so appealing was because dev could not get ireland on the british side(back then there were a lot of mad lunatic republicans) and nor could he got for hittler(for obvious reasons). the reason why this policy is kept on is because the irish think that is somehow demonstrates their sovereignty, which really it doesnt anymore. And lets be frank, say britain was to invade ireland tomorrow morning, wouldnt we want all of the eu to come and help us? its common sense, you cant be whiny about these issue, if you want to benefit than you need to prepare to help others benefit too...thats how a union works.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,889 ✭✭✭tolosenc


    ireland is neutral - nothing got to with it being 27 states

    What about Sweden, Finland and Austria? They're all neutral.


  • Registered Users Posts: 877 ✭✭✭Mario007


    obl wrote: »
    What about Sweden, Finland and Austria? They're all neutral.

    yeah and all the above had no problem with the lisbon treaty...thanks for pointing that out.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    are we any of those countries?

    no irish givernement could last any longer than a few weeks if they ended neutrality

    irish people would not stand for it - that is not as solid as a constitutional bill or whatever but it is a strong garuntee for it being core to out policies and outlook


  • Registered Users Posts: 877 ✭✭✭Mario007


    are we any of those countries?

    no irish givernement could last any longer than a few weeks if they ended neutrality

    irish people would not stand for it - that is not as solid as a constitutional bill or whatever but it is a strong garuntee for it being core to out policies and outlook

    no we're not, so what? they also have a strong neutral policy, i've just checked them out when the poster above me mentioned it.

    i like the 'or whatever' phrase...shows there is no factual argument here, just pure beliefs that can't be altered....

    btw i didnt see an election being fought on the grounds of neutrality, its its such a big concept in irish nature. neutrality is pure nonsense to be frank, no country is purely neutral, its just a little disguise. and no the government wouldnt fall, if they didnt fall after the last two budgets, no minor issue like neutrality would cause them them to fall.
    Imagine a scenario ireland joind NATO and gains military investment that will bring 2500 jobs...you think anyone would be interested about neutrality then?


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    are we any of those countries?

    no irish givernement could last any longer than a few weeks if they ended neutrality

    irish people would not stand for it - that is not as solid as a constitutional bill or whatever but it is a strong garuntee for it being core to out policies and outlook

    Like with Shannon?

    In reverse, no Govt. would last too long if we where properly neutral. Conscription doesn't go down too well with the electorate generally.

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



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    you are right you cant alter my belief that we are none of those countries

    neutrality if openly broken by any irish gov for the forseeable future, would soon crash that government

    why would an election be fought on neutrality - seriously why and how would that happen

    we have peacekeeping forces and defence forces - we have jobs created in this area

    joining nato is vastly vastly different - and would not go down well here

    america could have fueled in n.i - it wouldnt have been majorly ticked at us if we didnt let them us shannon

    we got to stay out of ww2 - after managing that
    what scenario would have led to our neutrality being threatened to make this statement true - ''no Govt. would last too long if we where properly neutral.'' ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    you are right you cant alter my belief that we are none of those countries

    neutrality if openly broken by any irish gov for the forseeable future, would soon crash that government

    why would an election be fought on neutrality - seriously why and how would that happen

    we have peacekeeping forces and defence forces - we have jobs created in this area

    joining nato is vastly vastly different - and would not go down well here

    america could have fueled in n.i - it wouldnt have been majorly ticked at us if we didnt let them us shannon

    we got to stay out of ww2 - after managing that
    what scenario would have led to our neutrality being threatened to make this statement true - ''no Govt. would last too long if we where properly neutral.'' ?

    Without going to off topic there was an interesting documentary on Dev, Churchill and WW2 recently. Neutrality has been dealt with on the main Politics forum and WW2 in particular on the history & heritage. Interesting you mention the Yanks, Churchills hand could well have been forced into an invasion here eventually, Pearl Harbour may well have saved our bacon!

    Anyway, I'll leave it at that or the mods will not be happy.

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



  • Registered Users Posts: 877 ✭✭✭Mario007


    you are right you cant alter my belief that we are none of those countries

    neutrality if openly broken by any irish gov for the forseeable future, would soon crash that government

    why would an election be fought on neutrality - seriously why and how would that happen

    we have peacekeeping forces and defence forces - we have jobs created in this area

    joining nato is vastly vastly different - and would not go down well here

    america could have fueled in n.i - it wouldnt have been majorly ticked at us if we didnt let them us shannon

    we got to stay out of ww2 - after managing that
    what scenario would have led to our neutrality being threatened to make this statement true - ''no Govt. would last too long if we where properly neutral.'' ?

    joining nato really means nothing...france was out of nato until this march and were they neutral? dont think so...
    and the ww2 stuff...to be honest ireland was neutral thanks to the dev-maffey relationship and maffey's sympathy for the irish plight, churchill himself said he wanted to invade and america too was of the opinion of invading.
    what if we get into third world war? would ireland still be neutral? cos really third world was is the nuclear war, so even if ireland is neutral, it will be hit anyway when britain is hit...you asked for a scenario, here it is, though really really unlikely.
    also if ireland is properly neutral who would help us if someone invaded? answer: no one. but in reality the eu would back us up, cos we're not really neutral, we just like to believe that we are...

    so all in all neutrality is not really an issue


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    We're neutral in one direction.

    If there was an attack by anyone on Ireland we'd be demanding help from everyone and their mother. If there was a terrorist hijacking on a plane in Irelands airspace, and it looked likely to smash into Dublin, who would we send, the Air Corps, to head up and wave at them, or would we be straight on the phone to the RAF?

    On the other hand, if someone attacks another EU country, our response would be pretty much 'tough titties chum, you can swing on it'.

    What wonderful friends we are...


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    we are neutral - the eu knows this and knew this

    so yes what friends we actualty are


    france is a military state - membership of nato doesnt determine a states rules and stance on being militarial or neutral or not


Advertisement