No voters: If the president and foreign minister roles were removed, and the CFP

hatrickpatrick

...would you vote yes?
(CFP = common foreign policy)

I was just thinking about it and really although I have many objections, these are the two major issues for me. I don't want to be part of a European foreign policy, each member state should be free to choose their own stance on every international issue, and the idea of having a "President" of the council is just a little bit too state-like for me.

Now my main objection to Lisbon II - that it is undemocratic - still stands, but if these were removed I would be far more likely to reconsider my position.

So what about the rest of you? Is the foreign policy a major reason for your no vote or do you regard that as insignificant in your decision to vote no?

PopeBuckfastXVI

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...would you vote yes?
(CFP = common foreign policy)

I was just thinking about it and really although I have many objections, these are the two major issues for me. I don't want to be part of a European foreign policy, each member state should be free to choose their own stance on every international issue, and the idea of having a "President" of the council is just a little bit too state-like for me.

Now my main objection to Lisbon II - that it is undemocratic - still stands, but if these were removed I would be far more likely to reconsider my position.

So what about the rest of you? Is the foreign policy a major reason for your no vote or do you regard that as insignificant in your decision to vote no?

Under Lisbon the only foreign policy is unanimous foreign policy.

There is already a 'President' of the council, it rotates every six months.

Tridion

Yes. The position is more Chairperson than President, but in France they don't have the word for Chairperson and so President was used instead.

The person actually doesn't have a vote and has no say in the deciding of foreign policy!! It just means that there will be one person representing the EU on foreign policy, not eight as is the case at the moment.

hatrickpatrick, what exactly is it about Lisbon that makes you think it's undemocratic?

hatrickpatrick

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Under Lisbon the only foreign policy is unanimous foreign policy.

There is already a 'President' of the council, it rotates every six months.

Oh sure, it has to be unanimous. Just like Lisbon, you mean - except that when we were the only ones who objected everyone kicked up a fuss. Can you really see Ireland blocking a foreign policy if everyone else agreed to it? That's what the whole undemocratic thing is about. They haven't accepted our decision on the last two treaties, what makes you think they'd accept our decision on the foreign policy?

The other undemocratic thing is that it has been stated again and again even by yes campaigners that Lisbon is basically the constitution with just enough changed to make referenda unnecessary in most countries and to allow the French and Dutch governments to ignore the decision made by their electorates.

Rb

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Oh sure, it has to be unanimous. Just like Lisbon, you mean - except that when we were the only ones who objected everyone kicked up a fuss. Can you really see Ireland blocking a foreign policy if everyone else agreed to it? That's what the whole undemocratic thing is about. They haven't accepted our decision on the last two treaties, what makes you think they'd accept our decision on the foreign policy?

Or any other policy, for that matter.

Tridion

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Oh sure, it has to be unanimous. Just like Lisbon, you mean - except that when we were the only ones who objected everyone kicked up a fuss. Can you really see Ireland blocking a foreign policy if everyone else agreed to it? That's what the whole undemocratic thing is about. They haven't accepted our decision on the last two treaties, what makes you think they'd accept our decision on the foreign policy?

When has it not been respected? The Lisbon Treaty has not been ratified, last time I checked. And all 27 states came together in June to work out legal guarantees for us!! But they don't respect our decisions??

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The other undemocratic thing is that it has been stated again and again even by yes campaigners that Lisbon is basically the constitution with just enough changed to make referenda unnecessary in most countries and to allow the French and Dutch governments to ignore the decision made by their electorates.

Why do you ignore the decisions by Luxembourg and Spain? If you look at all 4 referenda, more people actually voted in favour than against. And it's been said before but it is inherently undemocractic to tell other countries how to ratify their international treaties. If they want representative democracy, you or I have no place telling them to have referenda instead.

Rb wrote: »

Or any other policy, for that matter.

Can you show me where we have been "bullied" by the other states? The Double Majority system proposed under Lisbon actually works to stop big states from pushing things through against the wishes of smaller states. As I posted here or in another thread. If Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the UK all wanted a law to pass, they would still need 10 other states to agree to it (plus 65% of population at the next stage).

Rb

Tridion wrote: »

Can you show me where we have been "bullied" by the other states? The Double Majority system proposed under Lisbon actually works to stop big states from pushing things through against the wishes of smaller states. As I posted here or in another thread. If Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the UK all wanted a law to pass, they would still need 10 other states to agree to it (plus 65% of population at the next stage).

Sorry but where are you quoting "bullied" from? Who said that?

I believe you're putting words in people's mouths, I'd suggest you stop that.

Tridion

Rb wrote: »

Sorry but where are you quoting "bullied" from? Who said that?

I believe you're putting words in people's mouths, I'd suggest you stop that.

I suggest you allow people to choose their own vocabulary. thanks.

You and hatrickpatrick both insinuated that Europe does not respect our decision on this or, as you put it, on any other policy.

I'm asking for proof that this has happened in the past. Has it?

ixtlan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't want to be part of a European foreign policy, each member state should be free to choose their own stance on every international issue

As the others have said, that is exactly what Lisbon gives you, and me, and Ireland.

Let's get real here. There are 27 different states in the EU all with their own views on the world. The only issues going to get unanimous agreement are the no-brainer issues.

Any policy on Iraq would not have been unanimous, for example.

And I'll add that for issues that get blocked it's highly likely that we will be in the majority bemoaning the fact that it's not QMV.

Ix.

Rb

Tridion wrote: »

I suggest you allow people to choose their own vocabulary. thanks.

You and hatrickpatrick both insinuated that Europe does not respect our decision on this or, as you put it, on any other policy.

I'm asking for proof that this has happened in the past. Has it?

Sorry, where did I try to restrict your vocabulary? You put the word bullied in quotes, that's not vocabulary. You were supposedly quoting either myself or OP as having said somewhere in this thread that the country, or it's voters, have been bullied.

Although, this is quite clearly lost on you so before I say something that will cause trouble, I'll say good luck with it and I hope you got the results you wanted in the JC.

Tridion

I used bullied in inverted commas not as a quotation from either of you but to show paraphrasing.

*Sigh* It would be nice if you just answered the question, rather than getting bogged down in indignant pedantics, petty threats and veiled insults: anything to avoid the issue at hand.

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...would you vote yes?
(CFP = common foreign policy)

I was just thinking about it and really although I have many objections, these are the two major issues for me. I don't want to be part of a European foreign policy, each member state should be free to choose their own stance on every international issue,

They still have the veto. If you are that uncomfortable with it, Lisbon really isn't your issue.

hatrickpatrick wrote:

and the idea of having a "President" of the council is just a little bit too state-like for me.

I didn't like Sarkozy being the President for 6 months either and I'd absolutely no say in that.

hatrickpatrick wrote:

Now my main objection to Lisbon II - that it is undemocratic - still stands, but if these were removed I would be far more likely to reconsider my position.

So what about the rest of you? Is the foreign policy a major reason for your no vote or do you regard that as insignificant in your decision to vote no?

We could have an elected EU President. How would you work it?

ballsymchugh

on a slightly related topic, is john bruton still the EU ambassador to the US? imagine the face of barrack obama when john come in with that shyte laugh of his..

hatrickpatrick

Tridion wrote: »

I suggest you allow people to choose their own vocabulary. thanks.

You and hatrickpatrick both insinuated that Europe does not respect our decision on this or, as you put it, on any other policy.

I'm asking for proof that this has happened in the past. Has it?

"The Irish must vote again" -- Nicholas Sarkozy, EU president at the time of the Lisbon rejection.

And I'm sure I could find a similar example when the EU asked us to vote again on Nice after it had been democratically rejected.

K-9 wrote: »

They still have the veto. If you are that uncomfortable with it, Lisbon really isn't your issue.

How is that exactly? Lisbon proposes the common foreign policy and states that all members must uphold it, does it not?

turgon

Hatrickpatrick is mixing up cause and effect. The decision to vote no came first, not the dislike of CFP etc.

hatrickpatrick

turgon wrote: »

Hatrickpatrick is mixing up cause and effect. The decision to vote no came first, not the dislike of CFP etc.

WTF?

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How is that exactly? Lisbon proposes the common foreign policy and states that all members must uphold it, does it not?

So there is no veto?

Think you need to reference the Treaty at this stage.

hatrickpatrick

There is a veto, but why are you saying my issue is not with Lisbon? Before Lisbon there wasn't a common foreign policy. How could I have had an issue with it before it existed???

And we also had a veto on Nice and had a veto on Lisbon. The EU kindly gave us another chance to vote when we got the answer wrong, remember?

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There is a veto, but why are you saying my issue is not with Lisbon? Before Lisbon there wasn't a common foreign policy. How could I have had an issue with it before it existed???

And we also had a veto on Nice and had a veto on Lisbon. The EU kindly gave us another chance to vote when we got the answer wrong, remember?

So your issue isn't Neutrality, it is CFD!

The EU did not say we got the answer wrong, so CFD isn't your concern.

Be honest hatrickpatrick.

Come clean.

Give me quotes where the EU said we gave the wrong answer.

Rb

turgon wrote: »

Hatrickpatrick is mixing up cause and effect. The decision to vote no came first, not the dislike of CFP etc.

Maybe in your own case, Turgon, but don't speak on behalf of others.

Also, since the Yes side were so keen to "educate" people on the treaty, they should be delighted if people who were originally no but without "proper" reason went and read up on it, found genuine reasons to vote no and intend to again. Ah but remember, the Yes side have done something to combat such behaviour - by filling our roads with absolute bull**** propaganda full of thinly veiled threats! Wahey, it must be great to be Yes!

hatrickpatrick

K-9 wrote: »

So your issue isn't Neutrality, it is CFD!

That's what I've been saying along. The common foreign policy is one of my major issues with the treaty. How is that news, it's been a staple of my argument for some time?

The EU did not say we got the answer wrong, so CFD isn't your concern.

Be honest hatrickpatrick.

Come clean.

Give me quotes where the EU said we gave the wrong answer.

I literally just gave one about 4 posts ago in this very thread.

"The Irish must vote again" - Nicholas Sarkozy, EU president at the time of Lisbon I

BlitzKrieg

if the foreign minister is removed how different will the CFP in Lisbon be from the one that is in Nice?

hatrickpatrick

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

if the foreign minister is removed how different will the CFP in Lisbon be from the one that is in Nice?

If the post of foreign minister was removed I would personally be a lot less uneasy about the CFP. If it was left to each state to speak for themselves about where they stood on international issues rather than having one voice speaking for all.

But to answer your question, Lisbon does in fact change it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_pillars_of_the_European_Union#Abolition_of_the_pillar_structure

Foreign policy falls under "shared competence - member states cannot exercise competence in areas where the Union has done so". If this doesn't effectively make our own foreign policy redundant then what does it do, exactly?

BlitzKrieg

uhmm going from your same source (wikipedia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy#Future

The pillar system would be officially abolished, while in practice it will largely prevail. The foreign policy of the European Union would thus remain intergovernmental and subject to unanimity in the Council of Ministers.

I was originally asking because you named the removal of 3 things. President,Foreign high representative and the CFP. I was curious if you wanted to entire removal of the CFP or only the changes made by Lisbon in which case you might need to be a bit more specific at which parts, since taking it out as a whole is a big rollback on elements that have existed for years.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

"The Irish must vote again" - Nicholas Sarkozy, EU president at the time of Lisbon I

Was he speaking in his capacity as President of the Council at the time? Was he purporting to speak on behalf of the EU? Or was he expressing a personal view?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If the post of foreign minister was removed I would personally be a lot less uneasy about the CFP. If it was left to each state to speak for themselves about where they stood on international issues rather than having one voice speaking for all.

Just so I'm clear: you'd be happier about having a Common Foreign Policy, as long as it wasn't a common foreign policy?

PopeBuckfastXVI

So we retain a veto on common policy, but we won't be allowed to use it by the big bullies in the EU?

Why, pray tell, do we give a sh*t what areas are moving to QMV, if we would only be bullied out of using our veto anyway?

At this rate we should just pull out of the EU, because it seems they do nothing but break the rules to act against poor little Ireland.

RandomName2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...would you vote yes?
(CFP = common foreign policy)

I was just thinking about it and really although I have many objections, these are the two major issues for me. I don't want to be part of a European foreign policy, each member state should be free to choose their own stance on every international issue, and the idea of having a "President" of the council is just a little bit too state-like for me.

Now my main objection to Lisbon II - that it is undemocratic - still stands, but if these were removed I would be far more likely to reconsider my position.

So what about the rest of you? Is the foreign policy a major reason for your no vote or do you regard that as insignificant in your decision to vote no?

I noticed that although this question is aimed at NO voters that the Yes side, as usual, has taken it upon itself to answer on the part of the nay-sayers.

To answer your question - perhaps... it would be different enough from the Constitution to actually call it a different treaty in anything but name.

But I'm only really talking about Lisbon I, as Lisbon II could not be any different from Lisbon I as the changes you suggest would require re-ratification. Even if Lisbon I was changed in this manner, I would still be cagey about some details, and I would be particularly concerned that it had been rushed through the other EU countries against the desires or even knowledge of the electorates.

I also would still object to the bullying policies of the yes-side political parties (which was basically all of them). Perhaps this would be mitagated by my inherent opposition to many of the groupings opposed to Lisbon... but if the whole thing was just mired in ****e then I might just have decided to call it a day and abstain, as I did for Nice (which, if I had my time back, I would have voted no, albeit without much enthusiasm)

ixtlan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If the post of foreign minister was removed I would personally be a lot less uneasy about the CFP. If it was left to each state to speak for themselves about where they stood on international issues rather than having one voice speaking for all.

It's tiring repeating things over and over. Each state can speak for themselves about where they stand on international issues. But... if all the states have the same view then the foreign affairs representative can speak for all. Why not?

Again... the reality is that the only issues the joint position will be agreed on are those that no one will dispute.

Are you seriously saying that you think that if a genocide starts in some corner of the world, which we all abhorr, the EU will be more effective by having the 27 states independently make representations to the country involved. Or might one voice be clearer and stronger?

And don't start saying that genocide is OK, but we will be dragged into foreign adventures against our wishes. As I said, the only way 27 states will agree will be on matters that no one is in any doubt about.

Ix.

turgon

Rb wrote: »

Maybe in your own case, Turgon, but don't speak on behalf of others.

Well considering that I havent found a no poster that isnt a lie, and that most No reasons stem from lies or a misunderstanding of the EU, I realize that the decision to vote No becomes before a then rather subjective reading of the "facts." For example, why are Coir voting No? No reasons that are in their campaign because they are all lies.

Rb wrote: »

Also, since the Yes side were so keen to "educate" people on the treaty

Forgive but the Yes side isnt doing any educating; all they have is their Yes to Europe; Yes to Safety slogans which tell us nothing about Lisbon.

Rb wrote: »

filling our roads with absolute bull**** propaganda full of thinly veiled threats!

€1.84, minimum wage after Lisbon?

Rb

turgon wrote: »

Well considering that I havent found a no poster that isnt a lie, and that most No reasons stem from lies or a misunderstanding of the EU, I realize that the decision to vote No becomes before a then rather subjective reading of the "facts." For example, why are Coir voting No? No reasons that are in their campaign because they are all lies.

:rolleyes:

I think that's all that paragraph warrants really.

Forgive but the Yes side isnt doing any educating; all they have is their Yes to Europe; Yes to Safety slogans which tell us nothing about Lisbon.

Oh lol. I'm not even going to bother. This is ridiculous.

€1.84, minimum wage after Lisbon?

If you, or anyone else, listen to Coir then that's your problem.

I've pointed out the difference between the words of Coir and the words of our Government and mainstream opposition parties in other threads and amn't arsed doing so here.

oscarBravo

Rb wrote: »

If you, or anyone else, listen to Coir then that's your problem.

If anyone listens to Cóir it's everyone's problem.