October 2nd 2009 - Demoracy in Ireland R.I.P.

K-9 · 04-10-2009 12:46am

eamo127 wrote: »

It is no secret in the 'commission' that Blair is being vetted as a possible future president of europe, but you won't get to vote for him! No siree, Yes to lisbon put paid to that idea - forever.

Yep and facing opposition.

The EU probably will settle for a candidate from a smaller country but that wouldn't tie in with your image of the big countries running everything would it?

You do realise Blair was President twice?

eamo127 · 04-10-2009 12:54am

cooperguy wrote: »

Whats your point? We never voted for them.

If you have no problem with an appointed un-democratic president representing you around the world, then lucky you - the yes vote has given you this gift. I'm sure you'll change your tune if they ever **SHOCK** appoint a president you may totally disagree with but cannot vote against e.g. an eu bush?

eamo127 · 04-10-2009 12:55am

K-9 wrote: »

You do realise Blair was President twice?

Really?

prinz · 04-10-2009 12:57am

eamo127 wrote: »

If you have no problem with an appointed un-democratic president representing you around the world, then lucky you - the yes vote has given you this gift. I'm sure you'll change your tune if they ever **SHOCK** appoint a president you may totally disagree with but cannot vote against e.g. an eu bush?

We never had a say in who the President of the Council was.

Why would we change our tune now

Do you know who is "representing you around the world tonight"?

*hint Prime Minister of Sweden

namloc1980 · 04-10-2009 12:57am

eamo127 wrote: »

If you have no problem with an appointed un-democratic president representing you around the world, then lucky you - the yes vote has given you this gift. I'm sure you'll change your tune if they ever **SHOCK** appoint a president you may totally disagree with but cannot vote against e.g. an eu bush?

Oh dear...obviously you don't realise the the post of President of the European Council has been in existence since 1975. It's never been directly elected by anyone. It rotates between the member states every 6 months which IMO is undemocratic.

Lisbon redefines the role and ensures that the person is ELECTED by the EU Heads of Government who are ELECTED by the electorate in their home countires.

namloc1980 · 04-10-2009 12:58am

eamo127 wrote: »

Really?

Indeed in 1998 and in 2005. for 6 months each time

ixtlan · 04-10-2009 1:00am

eamo127 wrote: »

http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/

Read up on it - you might learn something on what the yes vote means.

Oh, for goodness sake. Read up on it yourself!

This is the court that rules on the European Convention in human rights, which is completely separate to the EU, except insofar as the EU now mentions it in Lisbon.

Lisbon makes it no more applicable than it was yesterday. We signed up to almost all this years ago, with the exception of the discrimation protocol.

??? Would you care to explain why the yes vote changes anything? It doesn't!

Ix.

ixtlan · 04-10-2009 1:03am

eamo127 wrote: »

If you have no problem with an appointed un-democratic president representing you around the world, then lucky you - the yes vote has given you this gift. I'm sure you'll change your tune if they ever **SHOCK** appoint a president you may totally disagree with but cannot vote against e.g. an eu bush?

Just to agree with the others... you will now after Lisbon, have more say in this role than you ever had before, when you never knew for sure who was going to be getting the job next... rotating as it did amongst the states with elections occuring...

Did you mind when Sarkozy was council President and commenting on Lisbon I? Did you notice?

Ix.

eamo127 · 04-10-2009 1:06am

ixtlan wrote: »

Oh, for goodness sake. Read up on it yourself!

This is the court that rules on the European Convention in human rights, which is completely separate to the EU, except insofar as the EU now mentions it in Lisbon.

Lisbon makes it no more applicable than it was yesterday. We signed up to almost all this years ago, with the exception of the discrimation protocol.

??? Would you care to explain why the yes vote changes anything? It doesn't!

Ix.

Lisbon signs Ireland up to the charter of human rights - it now becomes a legal entity. It's in the document in black and white - big change for that little snippet.

namloc1980 · 04-10-2009 1:07am

eamo127 wrote: »

Lisbon signs Ireland up to the charter of human rights - it now becomes a legal entity. It's in the document in black and white - big change for that little snippet.

What's wrong with Human Rights?

eamo127 · 04-10-2009 1:12am

ixtlan wrote: »

Just to agree with the others... you will now after Lisbon, have more say in this role than you ever had before, when you never knew for sure who was going to be getting the job next... rotating as it did amongst the states with elections occuring...

Did you mind when Sarkozy was council President and commenting on Lisbon I? Did you notice?

Ix.

I'd rather not have an un-elected president, Sarkozy or otherwise (do you assume I would have some kind of allegiance to him!) And how will I have a say in this role? Does humble I, voting for say, Mary Hakin, somehow have a lottos chance of affecting our new and glorious president? Have more say - are you serious? :cool:

ixtlan · 04-10-2009 1:12am

eamo127 wrote: »

Lisbon signs Ireland up to the charter of human rights - it now becomes a legal entity. It's in the document in black and white - big change for that little snippet.

Yes but you told people to read up on the European Court of Human Rights, which rules on the European Convention on Human Rights.

I quote you again... Anyway, these are our new overlords. Read up on them - educate yourself, you'll be amazed what you might learn.

I repeat... this is the EHCR. We signed up to it in pieces over the years. We have signed up to almost all of it. It is separate to the EU. Lisbon makes no difference to it's application.

Ix.

eamo127 · 04-10-2009 1:13am

namloc1980 wrote: »

What's wrong with Human Rights?

Nothing, until it camps in your backyard and your told to put up or shut up

namloc1980 · 04-10-2009 1:14am

eamo127 wrote: »

I'd rather not have an un-elected president, Sarkozy or otherwise (do you assume I would have some kind of allegiance to him!) And how will I have a say in this role? Does humble I, voting for say, Mary Hakin, somehow have a lottos chance of affecting our new and glorious president? Have more say - are you serious? :cool:

Representative democracy mean much to you? Anyway this new glorious president, as you say, doesn't have the ability to do very much i.e. he has no power. It's more of a PR role than anything!

ixtlan · 04-10-2009 1:14am

eamo127 wrote: »

I'd rather not have an un-elected president, Sarkozy or otherwise (do you assume I would have some kind of allegiance to him!) And how will I have a say in this role? Does humble I, voting for say, Mary Hakin, somehow have a lottos chance of affecting our new and glorious president? Have more say - are you serious? :cool:

You don't have a direct say. You have an indirect say via our QMV in the council, and before you complain about that, my point is that this is more than you have had in the past. You had zero say in whether Sarkozy became president.

Ix.

eamo127 · 04-10-2009 1:19am

ixtlan wrote: »

I repeat... this is the EHCR. We signed up to it in pieces over the years. We have signed up to almost all of it. It is separate to the EU. Lisbon makes no difference to it's application.

Ix.

Re-read what you said - Semantic acrobatics or what? The court of human rights now has authority over Irish law. Yesterday, it didn't. Yes to lisbon enshrines it into Irish law. It requires a change to our constitution hence the vote in the first place!

Mario007 · 04-10-2009 1:21am

eamo127 wrote: »

I'd rather not have an un-elected president, Sarkozy or otherwise (do you assume I would have some kind of allegiance to him!) And how will I have a say in this role? Does humble I, voting for say, Mary Hakin, somehow have a lottos chance of affecting our new and glorious president? Have more say - are you serious? :cool:

well before lisbon- you don't know who the hell will preside the council
after lisbon- your MEPs and your PM decide on the president of the council-ie people that are accountable to you. and you know from whom they're picking!

Mario007 · 04-10-2009 1:23am

eamo127 wrote: »

Re-read what you said - Semantic acrobatics or what? The court of human rights now has authority over Irish law. Yesterday, it didn't. Yes to lisbon enshrines it into Irish law. It requires a change to our constitution hence the vote in the first place!

did you also read up on the Norris case? yeah bad ECHR told us we were homophobic, how dare they? for just not letting a guy to have a relationship with another guy? how dare they???!!! these evil overlords will surely destroy our well established law!

eamo127 · 04-10-2009 1:24am

ixtlan wrote: »

You don't have a direct say. You have an indirect say via our QMV in the council, and before you complain about that, my point is that this is more than you have had in the past. You had zero say in whether Sarkozy became president.

Ix.

One thing I liked about the last 'presidents' was that they were toothless and unrecognised. Now they will have real authority to drive policy, legislation and derive real power from the commission. Let's not be mistaken, this is a real power grab. A lobbyists and political elite paradise it is. That FAS guy, Molloy? would be really at home there.

prinz · 04-10-2009 1:29am

eamo127 wrote: »

One thing I liked about the last 'presidents' was that they were toothless and unrecognised. Now they will have real authority to drive policy, legislation and derive real power from the commission. Let's not be mistaken, this is a real power grab. A lobbyists and political elite paradise it is. That FAS guy, Molloy? would be really at home there.

The President of the Council will have no more power than they had before Eamo, give it up will you?

eamo127 · 04-10-2009 1:29am

Mario007 wrote: »

did you also read up on the Norris case? yeah bad ECHR told us we were homophobic, how dare they? for just not letting a guy to have a relationship with another guy? how dare they???!!! these evil overlords will surely destroy our well established law!

I'm not questioning the rights or wrongs of their decision making - just their power and accountability. Who elects the court? Does the people have a say? What do you say about the decisions the court makes that you don't happen to agree with? When they rule against you, will you be happy to accept their authority?

ixtlan · 04-10-2009 1:30am

eamo127 wrote: »

Re-read what you said - Semantic acrobatics or what? The court of human rights now has authority over Irish law. Yesterday, it didn't. Yes to lisbon enshrines it into Irish law. It requires a change to our constitution hence the vote in the first place!

Ok... let's take this slowly.

That court rules on the convention in human rights. Not the EU CFD.

We signed up to almost all of the ECHR years ago.

It already had authority over Irish law... if you want to put it that bluntly.

Lisbon makes no difference. All that Lisbon does is refer to the EHCR as being the way to interpret the CFD in certain places. ie if you signed up to a certain ECHR protocol you have to stand by that in EU law, but you already had to stand by those protocols in International law and we were already being taken to the court for breaches, which you will see if you read their web pages... as you told others to do.

If you are not signed up to a ECHR protocol then Lisbon does not sign you up.

Lisbon makes no difference whatsoever to the ECHR.

We can talk about the sections in the CFD that you may be worried about, which may be extra to the ECHR. My point remains that you have referred people to the ECHR court as our new post-Lisbon "masters" which is misleading. You can argue they are our masters, but if so they were so for years before Lisbon came along.

Ix.

K-9 · 04-10-2009 1:31am

eamo127 wrote: »

Lisbon signs Ireland up to the charter of human rights - it now becomes a legal entity. It's in the document in black and white - big change for that little snippet.

Incorrect.

K-9 · 04-10-2009 1:32am

eamo127 wrote: »

One thing I liked about the last 'presidents' was that they were toothless and unrecognised. Now they will have real authority to drive policy, legislation and derive real power from the commission. Let's not be mistaken, this is a real power grab. A lobbyists and political elite paradise it is. That FAS guy, Molloy? would be really at home there.

Incorrect.

eamo127 · 04-10-2009 1:32am

prinz wrote: »

The President of the Council will have no more power than they had before Eamo, give it up will you?

Please, even a cursory glance at the treaty spells out exactly the increased powers of the president. Again, it's there in black and white - why choose to ignore it?

Mario007 · 04-10-2009 1:34am

eamo127 wrote: »

I'm not questioning the rights or wrongs of their decision making - just their power and accountability. Who elects the court? Does the people have a say? What do you say about the decisions the court makes that you don't happen to agree with? When they rule against you, will you be happy to accept their authority?

dude i just...i'm trying not to be rude here

Do you elect your judges? No you freaking dont!
Are these people at the ECHR politicians to be elected? No, once again not!
Who elects them? I thought you read up on it. it's nomination of judges from each state. ireland has 5 i think.
if the supreme court rules against you will you accept it's authority? obviously! why? because the most learned judges are there. this court is basically another court of appeal, where you are given the fairest trial, since the judges couldn't care less about your sex, orientation, race etc. they are not tied down to the society of the state they live. yet again i'd say visit the norris case.

and stop this nonsese of 'ooh but who elects them'? up until now everything was unelected and no one cared. now its indirectly elected and people whine over it.

prinz · 04-10-2009 1:34am

eamo127 wrote: »

Please, even a cursory glance at the treaty spells out exactly the increased powers of the president. Again, it's there in black and white - why choose to ignore it?

Increased powers such as what? Why don't you fill us in? :rolleyes:

Mario007 · 04-10-2009 1:34am

eamo127 wrote: »

Please, even a cursory glance at the treaty spells out exactly the increased powers of the president. Again, it's there in black and white - why choose to ignore it?

quote the article then. because to me the powers of the president look the same as those described in nice

K-9 · 04-10-2009 1:36am

Mario007 wrote: »

and stop this nonsese of 'ooh but who elects them'? up until now everything was unelected and no one cared. now its indirectly elected and people whine over it.

And if we did elect the President, we'd be insignificant.

Mario007 · 04-10-2009 1:46am

K-9 wrote: »

And if we did elect the President, we'd be insignificant.

yes true. but the no camp would love it cos 'everyone would have their say'...only that we could completely reject someone and no one would care.
plus really if you are looking for a president of the eu in the american sense then the head of the commission is closer to that kind of status than the president of the council.

October 2nd 2009 - Demoracy in Ireland R.I.P.

Comments