EU President

Scofflaw

CIE wrote: »

Where exactly does it say in the Treaty of Lisbon that the POTEU (as called by the politicians at EU level) has "no real powers"...? There are no limits put on that new position by that treaty; that's why Barroso suddenly got worried, after bleating for a "strong presidency", because he suddenly came to realise what he'd lose.

If anything's "tiresome", it's reading the repeated "pointing out" of a fallacy that lacks proof. (With all due respect, that is.)You'd better be worried when there's consensus at the top. That bides ill for the people at the bottom, and has indeed led to horrors.With all due respect, where does it say that in the treaty?

The only "shall not" related to the European Council (and presumably its "President") is that "(i)t shall not exercise legislative functions". Nothing about no executive powers. Absence of a mention does not imply a limit.

The position is given no real powers - and absence of being granted powers under systems ruled by law does a good deal more than imply a limit - it is a limit.

If the President of the European Council were to turn round and say "right, order out the jackbooted EU stormtroopers - and if there aren't any, conscript some, then order them out", then whoever he gives that order to doesn't go "ZOMG! we totally forgot to include any rules that preclude him doing that! Jawohl, I'll get right on it!".

If the President is not specifically granted the power to order something by the documents outlining his/her role (the EU Treaties), then nobody is obliged to follow an order from the President to do that something, and a court would find that the President had acted outside his/her powers in making such an order.

That is a perfectly normal and sane approach, since otherwise, every conceivable power that you didn't want someone to exercise would need to be written into their job specification - and that would be the case from the President of the European Union to the school janitor ("show me where it says I can't order the students to go on a forced march up the Dublin Mountains!").

I'm not normally quite so blunt - but really, you need to get your brain cells wired together before they each die of loneliness.

very slight regards,
Scofflaw

Flamed Diving

ei.sdraob wrote: »

So no Blair eh

makes me feel warm and fuzzy when British tabloid trash and their equally trashy followers get proven wrong again

And the conspiracy theorists. Where are ye now, eh? Eh?

Nigel Farage

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

thanks for winning the lisbon referendum for us Nigel.

couldnt have done it without you.

I am intrigued as to why you might think this. The real shame is on your government for not accepting the democratic will of the people after the first referendum.

oscarBravo

Nigel Farage wrote: »

I am intrigued as to why you might think this. The real shame is on your government for not accepting the democratic will of the people after the first referendum.

Yes, thank you, we've rehearsed that argument more than once in the build-up to the referendum. I don't think we need to go over it again.

BlitzKrieg

Nigel Farage wrote: »

I am intrigued as to why you might think this. The real shame is on your government for not accepting the democratic will of the people after the first referendum.

tbh

Flamed Diving

Nigel Farage wrote: »

I am intrigued as to why you might think this. The real shame is on your government for not accepting the democratic will of the people after the first referendum.

The bigger shame are people who live without constitutions.

View

Nigel Farage wrote: »

I am intrigued as to why you might think this. The real shame is on your government for not accepting the democratic will of the people after the first referendum.

Our Government is allowed to refer whatever it likes, whenever it likes and as often as it likes to the people in referenda. As our Supreme Court ruled, it cannot be undemocratic to refer an issue to the people since the final decision is always the people's.

The real shame here though is that you don't seem to be able to accept the Constitutional order of the United Kingdom whereby Parliament, being sovereign, has the authority to make decisions on behalf of the British people. Instead you expect us to block a Treaty democratically ratified by your own Parliament.

oscarBravo

Let's not fall into the trap of assuming that this is actually Nigel Farage we're dealing with, shall we?

BlitzKrieg

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's not fall into the trap of assuming that this is actually Nigel Farage we're dealing with, shall we?

admit it.

its your alter ego!

View

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's not fall into the trap of assuming that this is actually Nigel Farage we're dealing with, shall we?

I'd assume the poster is probably British since he refers to "your government" (as opposed to "our government"). I'd also asssume that he isn't NF as presumably he should have better things to do with his time than to be posting here.

PS Anyone looking at the UKIP site will be "happy" to notice that they seem to have missed Irish independence as their logo covers the RoI as well as the UK.

Scofflaw

Nigel Farage wrote: »

I am intrigued as to why you might think this. The real shame is on your government for not accepting the democratic will of the people after the first referendum.

Which it turns out would have been entirely the wrong thing to do, given the scale of the change of mind of the electorate. The "democratic will of the people" isn't a once-off thing.

amused,
Scofflaw

Flamed Diving

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's not fall into the trap of assuming that this is actually Nigel Farage we're dealing with, shall we?

I dont know who that is. He could be Nigel Peabody II for all I know.

P. Breathnach

View wrote: »

...I'd also asssume that he isn't NF as presumably he should have better things to do with his time than to be posting here..

Although I think most participants in this forum have better things to do than post here, I am quite willing to believe that the real Nigel Farage hasn't.

Nigel Farage

tbh

http://thegrandnarrative.files.wordp...dead-horse.gif

The fact that you have constructed a child like retort speaks volumes and in fact is probably fitting, given that your government treated it's electorate like kids first time out.

I'd assume the poster is probably British since he refers to "your government" (as opposed to "our government"). I'd also asssume that he isn't NF as presumably he should have better things to do with his time than to be posting here.

You assume rather a lot, but correctly as it happens. I am not Nigel himself but he is a man of great principles, so great that I have incarnated him in my username.

Which it turns out would have been entirely the wrong thing to do, given the scale of the change of mind of the electorate. The "democratic will of the people" isn't a once-off thing.

The scale of change of mind was precipitated by a vile scare campaign.

Dinner

Nigel Farage wrote: »

The scale of change of mind was precipitated by a vile scare campaign.

And nobody lied and scaremongered more than our friend Nigel. Anytime he opened his mouth a lie fell out. He went on national radio and said that there were no changes at all between the EU constituton and Lisbon. That is a lie. During the Reuters Lisbon debate he said that Lisbon was self amending and would be the last referendum Ireland would ever have. That is a lie.

Nigel Farage deliberately tried to decieve the Irish electorate to make it seem like there was support for his cause. He supported the 'No to Lisbon campaign' not because of any genuine concern for the contents and effects of the Lisbon Treaty, but because a second No vote would be disastrous for the EU, and whats bad for the EU is good for Nig.

Nigel Farage did not have a ****ing clue what he was talking about during the campaign. And I imagine little has changed. How anyone can have any support for this man when his lies are so easily disproved is beyond me.

Nigel Farage

Another victim of the Cowan and Barosso brainwash I see.

Dinner

Nigel Farage wrote: »

Another victim of the Cowan and Barosso brainwash I see.

Afraid not. I do my best to avoid the ramblings of Cowan and don't recall reading or listening to anything said by Barosso in the run up to Lisbon. You'll have to try harder than that.

Although I have my suspicions about whether you are serious or just trolling I'll carry on as if you're real for the moment.

Can you tell me why Nigel Farage told lies about the Lisbon Treaty?


You don't have to address any of my points of course. If you prefer you can just reply with a one liner to try and avoid any awkward questions. I don't mind either way.

Nigel Farage

Dinner wrote: »

Afraid not. I do my best to avoid the ramblings of Cowan and don't recall reading or listening to anything said by Barosso in the run up to Lisbon. You'll have to try harder than that.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that you heard nothing from the President of the European Commission in the run up to Lisbon? Wow. I recall in one instance he was campaigning in a town called Limerick as well as granting interviews.

Dinner

Nigel Farage wrote: »

Are you honestly trying to tell me that you heard nothing from the President of the European Commission in the run up to Lisbon? Wow. I recall in one instance he was campaigning in a town called Limerick as well as granting interviews.

I'm saying that I never read or watched something that he said in the run up to Lisbon 2, or if I have I can't even remember it. I remember hearing that he was in Limerick to announce grants for the former Dell workers but I didn't watch any of his interviews. I didn't listen to what politicians were saying because most of them were insistent on throwing around vague and meaningless 'spin' slogans. I made up my mind without the help of Cowan or Barosso. Despite what you might like to believe, not all yes voters are FF yes men. You'd be hard pushed to find a poster here that supports Cowan.

Now, if you'd mind stopping dodging the question for one moment;

Why did Nigel Farage continuosly tell lies while campaigning against Lisbon?

Nigel Farage

Dinner wrote: »

but I didn't watch any of his interviews.

Maybe you should have before passing authoritative comment.

Dinner

Nigel Farage wrote: »

Maybe you should have before passing authoritative comment.

The only comment that I am passing is that I didn't blindly follow the instructions that Cowan and Barosso passed down. I did my own research into the Treaty.

Now, why did Nigel Farage lie during the Lisbon campaign?

prinz

Nigel Farage wrote: »

Maybe you should have before passing authoritative comment.

So to deny being brainwashed by a poltician they paid no heed to they should have watched his interviews, and only then they can claim not to have been brainwashed Ye what? Surely it makes more sense to claim not being brainwashed when you're not exposed to them in then first place?

Nigel Farage

Dinner wrote: »

I did my own research into the Treaty.

And this research you done, was it predicated on material heavy on government spin?

Dinner

Nigel Farage wrote: »

And this research you done, was it predicated on material heavy on government spin?

No.

Now why did Nigel Farage feel the need to lie during his campaign against the Lisbon Treaty?

If you don't know the answer then thats fine, just say so.

Nigel Farage

Could you elaborate on the material you used to form your opinion please?

Dinner

Nigel Farage wrote: »

Could you elaborate on the material you used to form your opinion please?

Why should I, you're not exactly going out of your to do anything but avoid answering a question.