Pro-Lisbon Treaty group launched

netron

good example scofflaw.

so are the political class playing a game of smoke and mirrors with this EU thing?

are they using it to escape accountability by just blaming "brussels"?

because if they are, then i can see why they are in favour of it. but thats not good for us , the electorate , is it?

netron

Scofflaw wrote: »

Because the EU isn't a government, and the governments of the member states have absolutely no intention of allowing it to turn into one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

so therefore the governments of Europe are conspiring against the electorate to introduce a pseudo-totalitarian form of government, where they set the laws, and are unaccountable.

jesus.. i think i might apply for an American green card and get the hell out of here.

Scofflaw

netron wrote: »

good example scofflaw.

so are the political class playing a game of smoke and mirrors with this EU thing?

are they using it to escape accountability by just blaming "brussels"?

because if they are, then i can see why they are in favour of it. but thats not good for us , the electorate , is it?

Politicians always seek to shift the blame for unpopular decisions. In order not to let them away with it, you need to know who is actually responsible, and to what degree. That doesn't change just because Europe's there, except that you may need to spend a couple of minutes with Google to find the relevant Directive.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

netron wrote: »

Because the EU isn't a government, and the governments of the member states have absolutely no intention of allowing it to turn into one.

so therefore the governments of Europe are conspiring against the electorate to introduce a pseudo-totalitarian form of government, where they set the laws, and are unaccountable.

Some logic to link your 'conclusion' to the evidence presented would be nice.

netron wrote: »

jesus.. i think i might apply for an American green card and get the hell out of here.

You'll need to transfer your concerns to the UN, though, that being the NWO of choice in the US. Fortunately, I perceive no likely difficulties for you in making such a switch.

cordially,
Scofflaw

netron

Scofflaw wrote: »

Politicians always seek to shift the blame for unpopular decisions. In order not to let them away with it, you need to know who is actually responsible, and to what degree. That doesn't change just because Europe's there, except that you may need to spend a couple of minutes with Google to find the relevant Directive.

cordially,
Scofflaw

believe me - i have tried. for years. and you end up with a directive that is so loaded in legalese that you simply cannot understand it.

that is not good governance. it allows the lawyers to take over. and because it is in legalese speech , i mistrust the EU.

Scofflaw

netron wrote: »

believe me - i have tried. for years. and you end up with a directive that is so loaded in legalese that you simply cannot understand it.

that is not good governance. it allows the lawyers to take over. and because it is in legalese speech , i mistrust the EU.

It says:

3.1. Eel Management Plans

The principal element of the Regulation is the establishment of national eel management plans, by means of which each Member State will achieve the objective of a 40% escapement of adult silver eel from each river basin (measured with respect to undisturbed conditions). These plans should be reviewed by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries and, if a positive evaluation is received should be approved by the Commission and should come into force on 1 July 2007.

That's not legalese.

cordially,
Scofflaw

netron

Scofflaw wrote: »

Some logic to link your 'conclusion' to the evidence presented would be nice.

why are they implementing EU wide laws, while at the same time , as you put forward, that an EU government is not on the agenda?


bit of a contradiction there. "oh we're not an EU government - but here's another directive that will affect 500 million people"

netron

Scofflaw wrote: »

It says:



That's not legalese.

cordially,
Scofflaw

article 31 of Lisbon:

"When abstaining in a vote, any member of the Council may qualify its abstention by making a formal declaration under the present subparagraph. In that case, it shall not be obliged to apply the decision, but shall accept that the decision commits the Union. In a spirit of mutual solidarity, the Member State concerned shall refrain from any action likely to conflict with or
impede Union action based on that decision and the other Member States shall respect its position. If the members of the Council qualifying their abstention in this way represent at least one third of the Member States comprising at least one third of the population of the Union, the decision shall not be adopted. When abstaining in a vote, any member of the Council may qualify its abstention by making a formal declaration under the present subparagraph. In that case, it shall not be obliged to apply the decision, but shall accept that the decision commits the Union. In a spirit of mutual
solidarity, the Member State concerned shall refrain from any action likely to conflict with or impede Union action based on that decision and the other Member States shall respect its position. If the members of the Council qualifying their abstention in this way represent at least one third of the Member States comprising at least one third of the population of the Union, the decision shall not be adopted."


please stop taking the piss. the EU is FULL of this stuff.

netron

totally random directive text ...


U Blue Card holders should enjoy equal treatment as
(18)
regards social security. Branches of social security are
defined in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
14 June 1971 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
and to members of their families moving within the
Community (2). Council Regulation (EC) No 859/2003
of 14 May 2003 extending the provisions of Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 to
nationals of third-countries who are not already covered
by those provisions solely on the ground of their
nationality (3) extends the provisions of Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71 to third-country nationals who are
legally residing in the Community and who are in a
cross-border situation.


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:155:0017:0029:EN:PDF

Scofflaw

netron wrote: »

why are they implementing EU wide laws, while at the same time , as you put forward, that an EU government is not on the agenda?


bit of a contradiction there. "oh we're not an EU government - but here's another directive that will affect 500 million people"

A directive authorised by the governments of the countries that contain all of those 500 million people. The EU is a framework for making joint decisions between the governments of Europe. That means that, yes, the decisions will affect all the member states, all the citizens, and legally outweigh any contradictory legislation from any one member. It's government of Europe by the governments of Europe, acting jointly - it's hardly an innovation, let alone the outrage which you appear to consider it.

regards,
Scofflaw

View

netron wrote: »

I have absolutely zero problem with a fully democratic (at all levels) European Federation. My only exception would be the appointment of judges to the ECJ.

I like the American federal system - theres a lot of stuff thats wrong with it, but its a darn sight better than what we have right now. The president is elected, the senate is elected, the congress is elected. Simple.
Only the Supreme Court is appointed. No problems with that.

Why isnt that on the table with Lisbon?

The short answer is because the member states didn't agree to it. Remember all the member states have to agree to a proposal for it to end up in a treaty.

For instance, the European Convention (back in 2000 or 2001) discussed multiple methods of electing the Commission (The Commission itself favoured direct election by the EP). However, after multiple rounds of negotiation that becomes watered down to a legal commitment that the European Council will choose their nominee for Commission President after taking the results of the elections to the EP into account.

So, it is small steps only in the treaties, I am afraid. The good news though is that the EP has finally almost secured parity with the Council of Ministers in the EU legalisative process which is why I for one was happy to vote Yes to Lisbon.

oscarBravo

netron wrote: »

I like the American federal system - theres a lot of stuff thats wrong with it, but its a darn sight better than what we have right now. The president is elected, the senate is elected, the congress is elected. Simple.

The cabinet (the entire executive, apart from the President and VP) is unelected.

Only the Supreme Court is appointed. No problems with that.

Almost two of the three branches of the US federal government are unelected, but you consider that superior to the EU?

Why don't you have a problem with the SCOTUS being unelected?

ixtlan

oscarBravo wrote: »

The cabinet (the entire executive, apart from the President and VP) is unelected.

I was just about to comment on this too. Actually I like the American system. I find our elected ministers to be to beholding to their constituencies.

I would like the idea of appointed experts being placed in a cabinet. In theory that happens in the EU commission though I would have to concede that sometimes it's a case of a political appointment rather than based on skills. No system is perfect. Election by the EP could work, election by the public would be a Eurovision-style fiasco.

Anyhow the point oscarBravo makes and I repeat is... if you don't consider the US cabinet undemocratic then why is the EU commission? And remember that the commission has much less power.

Ix.

djpbarry

netron wrote: »

believe me - i have tried. for years. and you end up with a directive that is so loaded in legalese that you simply cannot understand it.

Whereas Irish legislation is written in pre-school English. With crayons.

Oh and I'm still waiting for a response to this.

ixtlan

Decisions under this Chapter shall be taken by the European Council and the Council acting unanimously, except where this Chapter provides otherwise. The adoption of legislative acts shall be excluded.

netron wrote: »

article 31 of Lisbon:
"When abstaining in a vote, any member of the Council may qualify its abstention by making a formal declaration under the present subparagraph. In that case, it shall not be obliged to apply the decision, but shall accept that the decision commits the Union. In a spirit of mutual solidarity, the Member State concerned shall refrain from any action likely to conflict with or impede Union action based on that decision and the other Member States shall respect its position. If the members of the Council qualifying their abstention in this way represent at least one third of the Member States comprising at least one third of the population of the Union, the decision shall not be adopted.

please stop taking the piss. the EU is FULL of this stuff.

Well, it doesn't help if you paste the same text in twice! Hence making it seem doubly confusing. Yes. this is a complex treaty but it's not that confusing.

I'll attempt a translation...

Decisions on foreign and security policy must be unanimous, except in certain limited circumstances.

If a state feels it cannot agree, but does not want to block a decision it can explain it's reasons and abstain, and unless one third of the states abstain or someone votes against the decision it will be accepted, but it will be understood that the abstainer does not agree and will not be involved in any actions based on that decision (but will at the same time not impede the others).

I'm open to correction on this, but I think that is the gist of it. As with many sections it's trying to be as open as possible, leaving states as many options as possible.

Is it really that hard to understand?!

Ix

PopeBuckfastXVI

ixtlan wrote: »

Is it really that hard to understand?!

Only if you've already decided you've no interest in even trying to understand it...

Owwmykneecap

P. Breathnach wrote: »

No, there is no unqualified need for opposition. Thee is a need for critical scrutiny of what is proposed and if what is proposed has significant flaws, then there is need for opposition.

I am convinced that most of those who opposed Lisbon 1, and who will probably oppose Lisbon 2, do so because they are Eorosceptic (I'm giving some the benefit of the doubt; describing them as Eurosceptic is kinder than calling them wreckers). Now, it's okay to be Eurosceptic, just as it is okay for me to disagree with that position. What I particularly dislike is that they won't actually say what their position is. The standard line is "I am pro-Europe, but ..."

Of course It's just down right impossible for someone to be Pro Europe and Anti Lisbon. :rolleyes:

---

Now playing: We Are Scientists - This Scene Is Dead via FoxyTunes

conchubhar1

the but.... tends to explain their posistion breathnach

that what but does.....

PopeBuckfastXVI

Owwmykneecap wrote: »

Of course It's just down right impossible for someone to be Pro Europe and Anti Lisbon. :rolleyes:

---

Now playing: We Are Scientists - This Scene Is Dead via FoxyTunes

He did use the word 'most' in his post, and in fairness that would be borne out by the breakdown of the 'no to Lisbon' proponents on this forum, who are variously against 'Lisbon' for reasons that are nothing to do with it, such as, but certainly not limited to
- Unelected Commission
- Immigration
- Other EU Member States' ratification procedures
- Transfer of 'sovereignty'
- Michael Collins, Wolfe Tone & the IRA
- Being told what to do by 'Brussels'

and so on.

So while it is possible to be both 'Pro-Europe' and 'Anti-Lisbon', it is impossible to be 'Anti-Europe' and 'Pro-Lisbon', and it can be extremely hard to tell the difference between some of you, given your penchant for stealing each others clothes.

Owwmykneecap

The word "most" of course being hideously vague and a sentiment pulled out of the air/his arse.

As regards identifying individuals here, I've found the Yes side seems to consist of a contiguous gloop of Ignorant and Insulting self righteous posters and moderators alike.
A sense of civility hasn't been one of the stronger feelings I've come away with.

I doubt either side comes off well here.

---

Now playing: Jimi Hendrix - Message to Love
via FoxyTunes

conchubhar1

it is also possible to be pro lisbon pro europe and pro hooty-ho
it is also possible to be anti lisbon anti europe and anti hoo-haw

what is your point?

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

it is also possible to be pro lisbon pro europe and pro hooty-ho
it is also possible to be anti lisbon anti europe and anti hoo-haw

what is your point?

My point is that:

it can be extremely hard to tell the difference between some of you, given your penchant for stealing each others clothes.

Which you'd know, if you'd read my post.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Owwmykneecap wrote: »

The word "most" of course being hideously vague and a sentiment pulled out of the air/his arse.

As regards identifying individuals here, I've found the Yes side seems to consist of a contiguous gloop of Ignorant and Insulting self righteous posters and moderators alike.
A sense of civility hasn't been one of the stronger feelings I've come away with.

I doubt either side comes off well here.

---

Now playing: Jimi Hendrix - Message to Love
via FoxyTunes

I don't see how you can read 'most' and then reply to him as if he's said 'all'.

Most is only vague in that it means more than half and less than all. You still replied as if he had said 'all', which he clearly didn't.

If you're going to be offended, at least make sure it's for something actually offensive.

conchubhar1

''stealing each others clothes''
i read that part - ignored it as it is so eloquently put...

one can be pro and anti lisbon and be pro lisbon and anti europe - and any multiple of combinations......


still what is your point - people can be whatever stance they want and you need to know their stance? read their posts of you want to know that or ask them

dont make a stupid comment about ''stealing each others clothes''....

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

''stealing each others clothes''
i read that part - ignored it as it is so eloquently put...

one can be pro and anti lisbon and be pro lisbon and anti europe - and any multiple of combinations......


still what is your point - people can be whatever stance they want and you need to know their stance? read their posts of you want to know that or ask them

dont make a stupid comment about ''stealing each others clothes''....

You can't be 'pro-Lisbon' as well as being 'anti-Europe', such a position is ridiculous. 'Stealing each others clothes' means using each others arguments, in this context. So if you come along with an anti-Europe argument, which is nothing to do with Lisbon (such as complaining about the Commission not being elected), you will just have to put up with people assuming that there's a good chance you are anti-Europe, and not one of the seemingly many, but invisible (to my eyes) pro-Europe/anti-Lisbon people.

In the end of the day, all you need to do is clarify your position, given that it's an easy and innocent mistake to make. Hardly the end of the world for you.

conchubhar1

you cant be pro lisbon and anti eu

yes you can, you want the eu to work better as long as it is there, but dont like the overall concept and wish and hope it doesnt further develop into the path of a federal union

ie - you are a realist, the eu exists improve it as much as possible as you are able. but you dont like it, as a concept

not the end of the world at all, insignificant nearly

Scofflaw

conchubhar1 wrote: »

you cant be pro lisbon and anti eu

yes you can, you want the eu to work better as long as it is there, but dont like the overall concept and wish and hope it doesnt further develop into the path of a federal union

ie - you are a realist, the eu exists improve it as much as possible as you are able. but you dont like it, as a concept

not the end of the world at all, insignificant nearly

What you've outlined, though, is a position that doesn't make sense to me. Lisbon doesn't send the EU further on the path of a federal union, but makes the EU work better as it is. So if what you want is that, opposing Lisbon makes no sense.

cordially,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

sorry should have made that clearer and added the eu to that sentence

you are pro lisbon as it makes the eu work better

but you are anti eu as a whole (but might aswel make it work better as it is there)

Scofflaw

conchubhar1 wrote: »

sorry should have made that clearer and added the eu to that sentence

you are pro lisbon as it makes the eu work better

but you are anti eu as a whole (but might aswel make it work better as it is there)

Ah - I see what you're saying. Yes, I guess that's a theoretically possible position. However, the people who are most likely to hold such a pro-Lisbon/anti-EU position are actually federalists, for whom the existing EU is a hopelessly clumsy intergovernmental fudge that ought to be swept away and replaced with genuine federation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

possibly so

or people who want local government - but as the eu is here and for the forseeable future you might aswel do as much as possible to make it as good as possible