What is the EU?

turgon

Stupid question, you may think, but give me a moment.

Cóir, in a new poster campaign, have said that "The EU loves power." This is not an isolated mind-frame. The EU is often portrayed as a power greedy bureaucratic machine that spends its days spouting laws and regulations that are designed for no good reason but simply "to get us." Whenever one hears complaints of, for example, the fishing debacle, the EU is often talked about and labeled as such, as if the regulations don't serve any purpose but intended hardship.

But surely the EU is just the sum total of the member states, and the European Parliament which represents the people? This view would be helped by the fact it seems to work on consensus rather than pushing. (I heard Ireland only exercised its veto once in 37 years?). So if your attacking the EU who exactly are you attacking? The combined governments, so our government? The parliament - our reps? What is the EU in this regard?


Its seems to be very easy to target the EU, but I think that what is said doesnt stand to reason. If the EU introduce fishing quotas you can be sure that the member states (our government) had some reason. So instead of targeting the EU why not target the Irish government? Because therein lies the politics. The Irish government was chosen by you, the Irish government has a face, the Irish government can organize a press conference and refute you. The EU cannot.

ei.sdraob

these posters try to target a basic human need to separate entities into

"them" vs "us"

which probably runs all the way back to when humans lived in small isolated tribes



i often ask a simple question here when i hear certain things from posters

who is "them"? and who exactly are these "elites" we keep hearing of?

im still waiting on an answer

more than often i think people refer to the EU bureaucracy, granted bureaucracy suck but as Scofflaw illustrated the EU has less staff than HSE

Toiletroll

If you vote yes to LIESbon then it becomes a much bigger kettle of fish. Only then will we feel the full wrath.

ei.sdraob

Toiletroll wrote: »

If you vote yes to LIESbon then it becomes a much bigger kettle of fish. Only then will we feel the full wrath.

how so?

what makes you say that and do you have facts to backup such a claim?

Lisbon 1 would have reduced the EU Commision size, but alas the people have voted :cool:

oscarBravo

Toiletroll wrote: »

If you vote yes to LIESbon then it becomes a much bigger kettle of fish. Only then will we feel the full wrath.

This is a discussion forum. Cryptic throw-away remarks like the above don't contribute anything to the discussion.

If you want to discuss the topic, contribute something meaningful. If you don't, don't post.

g5fd6ow0hseima

One thing I have to ask those who are well informed about the EU is this:

Why does the EU need Lisbon so much? Are we not alright the way we are?

Toiletroll

Maximo Kind Powder wrote: »

One thing I have to ask those who are well informed about the EU is this:

Why does the EU need Lisbon so much? Are we not alright the way we are?

More control to Brussels is what they want. We are not alright the way we are, obviously, but we would be no better if we voted yes.

The EU needs a complete overhaul, they are a bigger and equally as corrupt as FF from what I have seen.

oscarBravo

Toiletroll wrote: »

More control to Brussels is what they want.

What who wants?

The EU needs a complete overhaul, they are a bigger and equally as corrupt as FF from what I have seen.

What have you seen that leads you to that conclusion?

You know, that discussion thing I was talking about earlier.

BlitzKrieg

i'm putting an end to this.

the clue is in his name toiletroll just ignore him!

turgon

Toiletroll wrote: »

More control to Brussels is what they want.

Exactly my point, why? They want to give power from themselves to ... themselves?

Toiletroll

oscarBravo wrote: »

What who wants? What have you seen that leads you to that conclusion?

You know, that discussion thing I was talking about earlier.

EUOBSERVER/BRUSSELS – The EU's judicial co-operation body, Eurojust, on Wednesday tried to distance itself from a scandal involving its head, Jose da Mota, who allegedly put pressure on prosecutors in order to stop a corruption probe involving Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates.

http://euobserver.com/9/28120

The Serious Fraud Office is considering whether to investigate alleged misconduct within the European Commission after receiving a dossier of evidence from Marta Andreasen, the Brussels whistleblower who worked for former Labour leader Neil Kinnock.

Andreasen, who was sacked from her post as a senior EC accountant after declaring that corruption and misuse of public funds were rife within the Commission, is urging Britain's top anti-fraud agency to launch an inquiry into her claims.

This one is still going on I believe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2004/oct/31/theeuro.europeanunion

BRUSSELS — Three Italians, including a senior European Commission official and an assistant to a former Italian soccer star, have been arrested for alleged corruption involving kickbacks that included free home renovations in connection with €30 million in contracts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/world/europe/28iht-eu.5.5062952.html

Does it seem like the Irish are attracted to corrupt 'leaders'?

Do you want more evidence??

Toiletroll

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

i'm putting an end to this.

the clue is in his name toiletroll just ignore him!

Just because I am anti Lisbon, are you going to ban me? I used troll in my name because I thought it was a funny play on the word / username generally. Grow up please.

Personal attacks make you loose debates. This is a fact. Now address my previous post.

BlitzKrieg

Toiletroll wrote: »

Just because I am anti Lisbon, are you going to ban me?

Neither intend nor have the power to ban you from politics. But if go over to film production and make an ass of yourself over there, I can ban you there if you want.

Personal attacks make you loose debates. This is a fact. Now address my previous post.

A debate usually involves 2 or more people discussing issues, counter argueing each other's points.

From what I have seen, you shout something, we point the flaws of your argument, you move to another thread and shout the same thing again.

That is not a debate

If by prior post if you meant the one just before my post, sure

More control to Brussels is what they want. We are not alright the way we are, obviously, but we would be no better if we voted yes.

More control to brussels?

This is about the treaty that if anything decreases power in the commission (the only institute made up of unelected politicions of each member state) and increases power to both the directly elected body (EU Parliament) The European Council (made up of the elected heads of state) and gives increase oversight to the national parliaments (including those who have not formed the government)

Toiletroll

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Neither intend nor have the power to ban you from politics. But if go over to film production and make an ass of yourself over there, I can ban you there if you want.



A debate usually involves 2 or more people discussing issues, counter argueing each other's points.

From what I have seen, you shout something, we point the flaws of your argument, you move to another thread and shout the same thing again.

That is not a debate

If by prior post if you meant the one just before my post, sure



More control to brussels?

This is about the treaty that if anything decreases power in the commission (the only institute made up of unelected politicions of each member state) and increases power to both the directly elected body (EU Parliament) The European Council (made up of the elected heads of state) and gives increase oversight to the national parliaments (including those who have not formed the government)

No try the next post and btw, I loved District 9

In relation to the debate issue you called me a name, you accuse me of shouting. I accuse you of calling me a name so we both lost a point on the debate, moving on to the actual topic again....

ei.sdraob

Maximo Kind Powder wrote: »

One thing I have to ask those who are well informed about the EU is this:

Why does the EU need Lisbon so much? Are we not alright the way we are?

seems your answer got buried by all the ruckus

i think you question deserves a thread of its own and is quite a good one too




here my quick attempt at it



firstly there is no rush, Lisbon was in the making for the better part of a decade, and now Ireland has been tinkering over it for last a year and half as well

the EU does not need Lisbon, EU itself is nothing more than a collection of politicians and pen pushers bridging 27 sovereign states

now that we got the definion of EU out of the way

there are several rationales for Lisbon

* common energy policy
* common foreign policy
* representative/administration
* changes to the way things are done since the current system the EU operates on wasnt designed for so many countries
* address issues that emerged in last decade (thats how long Lisbon was in making btw so theres definitely no rush) such as
** terrorism
** cooperation in emergencies
** global warming
** unemployment


there are many other reasons, maybe someone else can correct me or do a better job

but seriously do start a thread with that question, its quite worthy

meglome

Toiletroll wrote: »

In relation to the debate issue you called me a name, you accuse me of shouting. I accuse you of calling me a name so we both lost a point on the debate, moving on to the actual topic again....

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

More control to brussels?

This is about the treaty that if anything decreases power in the commission (the only institute made up of unelected politicions of each member state) and increases power to both the directly elected body (EU Parliament) The European Council (made up of the elected heads of state) and gives increase oversight to the national parliaments (including those who have not formed the government)

I think that's your answer there toiletroll.

ei.sdraob

meglome wrote: »

I think that's your answer there toiletroll.

anybets we gonna get a new member posting here soon under the name of wipearse

and hes gonna sound exactly the same

BlitzKrieg

Toiletroll wrote: »

http://euobserver.com/9/28120

This one is still going on I believe.

yes it is, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty.

Also the corruption that is discussed is at the national level of portugal, not exactly an example of the EU being corrupt seeing as all the events occured before he was elected to the position

He was elected head of the judicial co-operation body in 2007, at a time when the so-called Freeport case had already started.

If found guilty he will be removed from the position.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2004/oct/31/theeuro.europeanunion

ahh Marta Andreasen, a euroskeptic whistleblower.

strange that 5 years later SFO never gave a response and Marta has moved on to be a UKIP MEP.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/world/europe/28iht-eu.5.5062952.html

Some EU officials questioned Wednesday why a kickback investigation that appeared to amount to a few hundred thousand euros out of the EU's total €127 billion, or $169 billion, budget had taken three years to uncover and had justified raids in four countries that involved 150 police officers and 30 anti-fraud personnel.

Yeah rampant corruption, so much in fact that the european anti fraud organisation got accused of being over zealous.