Blair wants EU top job

[butchersapron]

You have a poor understanding of how the EU works if you think that's what the President of the Council can do. The role of President is simply to provide a driving force for the agreed upon policies of the Council. It's more of an administerial role or a chairman's role (indeed it would be called Chairman were it not for the translation difficulties - "President" fits in with most languages). The President cannot control how nation states vote in the Council, and even if he could, it's not like he can guarantee the implementation of those laws because they also have to be agreed with the Parliament


There'll be powers soon enough? Says who? Is it written in the Treaty that "there'll be powers soon enough"? No. The role of the President of the Council will be the same as it is now. And what do you mean "dominant groups"?

As i said, very naive of you, and without much evidence of you giving any criticial thought to the medium-long term intentions behind the construction of the EU. Of course, if a group of politicians say that the EU 'president' will have no or very few powers, who are we to distrust them - they are, after all, politicians.

Blair is already, before even formally announcing that he'd take the job if offered, lobbying for the postion to be given 'real powers' as a condition of his acceptance.

I do think that you've internalised one to many assumption behind IR or IPE during your courses mate. Didn't they teach you to challenge the offcial story or anthing?

Dominant groups? The bigger states and capitals alongside the institutions with most influence and sway. Agnelli's European Round Table of Industrialists for example...

 

[CyberRose]

I know exactly what the subject of this thread is about; just because the role of President isn't a President in the executive sense but a Chairman (which I was well aware of but given that even the broadsheets are using the expression President I think we can stick wit the common usage for now) it still wouldn't be a good thing for our godbothering neoliberal warmongering former PM to take the role.

Well you might think that, but if Blair (or whoever) does become the Council's President then he will have been voted in by a qualified majority of EU member states, and if that's what the majority of the EU wants then surely whoever they vote in will be able to perform their role well

 

[London_Calling]

That is completely irrelevant when discussing countries that support the opperation or do not support the operation. That is what we are talking about, not who went in first. Bluestreak said that the rest of Europe would not support Blair because of Ira, implying that the rest of Europe was against the Iraq war. That is wrong, plain and simple

This is not correct.

The acquisition of Iraq is one matter, the international community dealing with the aftermath and consequences is another.

For example, you try and link Iraq and Afghanistan; if the international community hadn't deserted the Afghan people after the Soviets left, it would be a very different country now - it makes no sense at all to try and link national policy re pre-invasion Iraq, with countries developing policy in the post-invasion reality, and after the UN indicated its reluctance.

 

[CyberRose]

As i said, very naive of you, and without much evidence of you giving any criticial thought to the medium-long term intentions behind the construction of the EU. Of course, if a group of politicians say that the EU 'president' will have no or very few powers, who are we to distrust them - they are, after all, politicians.

And again, you have a poor understanding of how the EU works. You're completely casting aside the roles of the Parliament or Commission for example. The Council is not the executive and does not creat new laws. It only approves new laws (or amends them) jointly with the Parliament. You seem to think that the Council has the most power of the institutions but this is only true for foreign policy (where individual member states still have the ultimate say) - all other policy areas have to also be agreed by the Parliament. So no matter how much power the Council's President has, it still can never give them the power the unilaterally implement policy like a traditional President can. And going further, any increases in the President of the Council's power can only be made with a new treaty. New treaties require unanimous backing by the Council. Therefore, if just one country disagreed with increasing the powers of the President, they can block it. So, in light of what I have just said, could you tell me how exactly you predict the powers of the President to increase? Be specific please

Blair is already, before even formally announcing that he'd take the job if offered, lobbying for the postion to be given 'real powers' as a condition of his acceptance.

See above - new Treaty needed for that

I do think that you've internalised one to many assumption behind IR or IPE during your courses mate. Didn't they teach you to challenge the offcial story or anthing?

Don't lower yourself to nino's level

Dominant groups? The bigger states and capitals alongside the institutions with most influence and sway. Agnelli's European Round Table of Industrialists for example...

And how is that ANY different WHATSOEVER from hwo the Council operates today?

 

[CyberRose]

This is not correct.

The acquisition of Iraq is one matter, the international community dealing with the aftermath and consequences is another.

For example, you try and link Iraq and Afghanistan; if the international community hadn't deserted the Afghan people after the Soviets left, it would be a very different country now - it makes no sense at all to try and link national policy re pre-invasion Iraq, with countries developing policy in the post-invasion reality, and after the UN indicated its reluctance.

What are you on about?!

I never linked Iraq to Afghanistan, bluestreak did, and I replied to him

All I said was that (approximately) half the EU member states have been or are involved in Iraq

I also said, and this can be completely unrelated to the first bit, that the vast majority of EU member states are involved in the Afghan war

You're trying to read too much into what I wrote and coming out at a complete tangent...

 

[butchersapron]

And again, you have a poor understanding of how the EU works. You're completely casting aside the roles of the Parliament or Commission for example. The Council is not the executive and does not creat new laws. It only approves new laws (or amends them) jointly with the Parliament. You seem to think that the Council has the most power of the institutions but this is only true for foreign policy (where individual member states still have the ultimate say) - all other policy areas have to also be agreed by the Parliament. So no matter how much power the Council's President has, it still can never give them the power the unilaterally implement policy like a traditional President can. And going further, any increases in the President of the Council's power can only be made with a new treaty. New treaties require unanimous backing by the Council. Therefore, if just one country disagreed with increasing the powers of the President, they can block it. So, in light of what I have just said, could you tell me how exactly you predict the powers of the President to increase? Be specific please
See above - new Treaty needed for that


Don't lower yourself to nino's level

And how is that ANY different WHATSOEVER from hwo the Council operates today?

But all the above are examples of that internalising, it's not nino style abuse. And with that internalising goes a lack of critical thought, all you've done is replace it with repeating the formal pronouncements of how constitutions and treaties are suppsoed to 'work' as if these are autonomous subjects that decide how thinsg are to operate.

According to the assumptions behind much IR and IPE they are - but to someone using a more critical approach, they are not. What they are is poltical/constitutional expressions of those dominant interests that i menntioned earlier - they are at the beck and call of the changing and developing intersts of those dominant groups - they are not the master.

Putting faith in them is, as i've said, very naive and the sort of good faith that i don't think that the historical record of politicians generally or that of the EU in particular deserves.

It's not. The EU remains at heart what it was from the start. A capital/state medium-long term plan to restructure european capitalism at the expense of the wider european/global population. The various forms this aim appears in may change as events dictate though.

 

[nino_savatte]

This from The Guardian
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/neil_clark/2008/02/blair_eu_president_non_merci.html

Mick Hall says

The arrogance and conceit of some of our leading politicians almost takes my breath away and I might add it is not only politicians. The manner in which Tony Blair is being touted around the EU Chancellories as a contender to become the President of Europe, which is a new position created under the Lisbon Treaty defies reality. It is as if Mr Blair and his supporters are oblivious to, or are contemptuous of public opinion, let alone the man’s short comings as a democratic politician. The fact that the position of President of Europe is an unelected post is bad enough, but it is just not on to even consider placing into this position a man who not only ignored the will of the British people when he took the UK to war against Iraq, but that he did so by using slight of hand methodology which most legal experts regard as being illegal; and to this day he refuses to admit he made any major mistakes when it comes to Iraq.



http://organizedrage.blogspot.com/2008/02/tony-blair-all-thought-of-him-becoming.html#links

For some, there seems to be a blindspot when it comes to Blair; he can do no wrong, even though his desire to go to war has cost millions of lives. Getting Blair to admit to his mistakes is like trying to get blood from the proverbial stone.

 

[bluestreak]

Well you might think that, but if Blair (or whoever) does become the Council's President then he will have been voted in by a qualified majority of EU member states, and if that's what the majority of the EU wants then surely whoever they vote in will be able to perform their role well

Firstly his selection for the role would be based on an election by member states' leaders, not by the people. Whether you think this is the same thing or not I think depends on your political analysis.

Secondly, the ability to perform their job well depends on your definition of "well" and what you think the role should be. I have no doubt that Blair is a very able politician,is superb at maintaining the neoliberal agenda and ties with big business, and pushing through a "reformist" agenda whilst maintaining enough popular support to prevent a collapse of the agenda.

 

[CyberRose]

But all the above are examples of that internalising, it's not nino style abuse. And with that internalising goes a lack of critical thought, all you've done is replace it with repeating the formal pronouncements of how constitutions and treaties are suppsoed to 'work' as if these are autonomous subjects that decide how thinsg are to operate.

According to the assumptions behind much IR and IPE they are - but to someone using a more critical approach, they are not. What they are is poltical/constitutional expressions of those dominant interests that i menntioned earlier - they are at the beck and call of the changing and developing intersts of those dominant groups - they are not the master.

Putting faith in them is, as i've said, very naive and the sort of good faith that i don't think that the historical record of politicians generally or that of the EU in particular deserves.

It's not. The EU remains at heart what it was from the start. A capital/state medium-long term plan to restructure european capitalism at the expense of the wider european/global population. The various forms this aim appears in may change as events dictate though.

If you're not going to address any of my points only to repeat your preconstructed opinion of what the EU is and how it operates, then there's not really much point me continuing this debate. FYI - the EU is a template in which policy can be created and implemented. It is no different in that respect to a national parliament. There are those that are against the EU for ideological reasons, but the "EU" is not ideological. Ideology comes from those that hold power in the EU, exacty the same as a national parliament. If all the EU member states and MEPs were extreme left, then the EU would implement extreme left policies. The fact is, the situation at the moment is that EU member states and MEPs are generally pro-free trade (to an extent) and that is the policies that not only come out of the EU, but out of our own national parliaments as well (that is just the trend)

The fact that you cannot tell me, in terms of the EU, how the President of the Council can become some powerful US-style President, suggests that maybe you've been given this preconstructed view of the EU (most likely from whichever ideology you follow) and are struggling to align it with the reality...

 

[CyberRose]

Firstly his selection for the role would be based on an election by member states' leaders, not by the people. Whether you think this is the same thing or not I think depends on your political analysis.

I already said that, earlier on

Secondly, the ability to perform their job well depends on your definition of "well" and what you think the role should be. I have no doubt that Blair is a very able politician,is superb at maintaining the neoliberal agenda and ties with big business, and pushing through a "reformist" agenda whilst maintaining enough popular support to prevent a collapse of the agenda.

"Well" would mean having the support of EU member states. And no, it doesn't depend on what I think the role should be at all. I know what the role is, and that is to provide a driving force to implement the agreed upon policies of the Council. The role is to provide fluidity of the Council.

Face facts, EU member states will never elect someone with communist or anarchist beliefs, so whoever they elect you will have exactly the same criticisms of them as you would Blair

 

[butchersapron]

If you're not going to address any of my points only to repeat your preconstructed opinion of what the EU is and how it operates, then there's not really much point me continuing this debate. FYI - the EU is a template in which policy can be created and implemented. It is no different in that respect to a national parliament. There are those that are against the EU for ideological reasons, but the "EU" is not ideological. Ideology comes from those that hold power in the EU, exacty the same as a national parliament. If all the EU member states and MEPs were extreme left, then the EU would implement extreme left policies. The fact is, the situation at the moment is that EU member states and MEPs are generally pro-free trade (to an extent) and that is the policies that not only come out of the EU, but out of our own national parliaments as well (that is just the trend)

The fact that you cannot tell me, in terms of the EU, how the President of the Council can become some powerful US-style President, suggests that maybe you've been given this preconstructed view of the EU (most likely from whichever ideology you follow) and are struggling to align it with the reality...

Do you honestly think that your own favoured response of arguing that the politicians have said that they won't/can't change things so we should flippin' well trust them cuts the mustard?

FYI i don't need the EU's own PR guff (which is exactly what it is) spewed back at me in post after post from you. I choose to look at what it's done in its history and how and then to make my own mind up about it's plans and intentions. And i have.

And frankly, i don't see how you have a leg to stand on to moan about ideologies intruding into posts - your own posts are positively dripping with unquestioned ideological assumptions hiding (not that i think you realise that you're hidiing them, i think you're just genuinely unaware of them) behind the oily language of the professional politicians - such as the EU being structurally neutral and the ideologial content being filled in by national politicians -and hence everything it does it justifibale and democratic by definition. Any serious study of the EU would show this to be an utter untruth. I cannot believe that you really believe this yourself.

The EU has just spent the last two decades writing neo-liberalism into it's fundamental structures precisely in order to remove these policies from the political arena and from any collective or democratic control, into the arena of technical matters - non-political matters. None of our business in short.

Seriously, i think you're right though - there's little point in us arguing about this. You've swallowed something pretty nasty and you seem to have swallowed it whole.

 

[CyberRose]

Do you honestly think that your own favoured response of arguing that the politicians have said that they won't/can't change things so we should flippin' well trust them cuts the mustard?

I have said nothing about what "politicians have said". I have stated what is required to increase the President's powers (amending the treaty). I have therefore not ruled out at all the possibility of increasing their powers. All I have done is exaplain to you what problems would be presented to anyone that tried to increase them (ie, it would only take one member state or the Parliament to block any increases in the President's power)

FYI i don't need the EU's own PR guff (which is exactly what it is) spewed back at me in post after post from you. I choose to look at what it's done in its history and how and then to make my own mind up about it's plans and intentions. And i have.

That's fine. But why can't you answer my points about the practicalities of increasing the President's powers?

And frankly, i don't see how you have a leg to stand on to moan about ideologies intruding into posts - your own posts are positively dripping with unquestioned ideological assumptions hiding (not that i think you realise that you're hidiing them, i think you're just genuinely unaware of them) behind the oily language of the professional politicians - such as the EU being structurally neutral and the ideologial content being filled in by national politicians -and hence everything it does it justifibale and democratic by definition. Any serious study of the EU would show this to be an utter untruth. I cannot believe that you really believe this yourself.

I'm not saying I agree with everything that the EU does, or that I agree with the ideologies prevailant across Europe. But the fact is, the "EU" is driven by its member states and MEPs. If they are all of a similar ideology how exactly do you expect them to act any differently? I'm just making observations, not judgements. You're against capitalism, fine. But that also means you're against anything that promotes these capiatlist ideals, and that is by no means specific to the EU. I don't know what your opinions are on the British political system, but if the House of Commons were full of people who share your ideological beliefs, would you still oppose the British political system as it stands now?

The EU has just spent the last two decades writing neo-liberalism into it's fundamental structures precisely in order to remove these policies from the political arena and from any collective or democratic control, into the arena of technical matters - non-political matters. None of our business in short.

No. The EU's member states and MEPs have done as you described above (altho I notice you fail to acknowledge any of the consumer protection laws or the social/employment laws we enjoy thanks to the EU)

Seriously, i think you're right though - there's little point in us arguing about this. You've swallowed something pretty nasty and you seem to have swallowed it whole.

Don't make the assumption that because you disagree with someone they are obviously wrong. I could quite easily say you've swallowed "something pretty nasty" from wherever you get your information from. The fact is, you're against all things with just a hint of capitalism in. That's your choice and you have a right to a political belief. But not everybody else thinks like that. What you say is correct according to your beliefs about capitalism, so you're not wrong to point them out. Where you are getting ahead of yourself is assuming others share the same "positive" or "negative" interpretations of you observations...

 

[bluestreak]

Face facts, EU member states will never elect someone with communist or anarchist beliefs, so whoever they elect you will have exactly the same criticisms of them as you would Blair

Exactly.

 

[butchersapron]

You're still missing the point CR! All your posts about the EU are framed within a series of pro-eu assumptions and you're demanding that i answer a question that only matters from within that set of assumptions (not that you think they're assumptions - you actually argue that they're just neutral 'observations'). I reject those assumptions and the framework that's been built on them (that the eu is driven by the democratic input of its member states and is simply an arena for these interest to play out in etc). We're so far aprt as to make any productive outcome highly unlikely.

Anyway if i really wanted to argue with a notorious eu-pimp i could simply go and read the EU's own wesbite

 

[Poi E]

Should still shoot the cunt

helpful, huh?

 

[CyberRose]

You're still missing the point CR! All your posts about the EU are framed within a series of pro-eu assumptions and you're demanding that i answer a question that only matters from within that set of assumptions (not that you think they're assumptions - you actually argue that they're just neutral 'observations'). I reject those assumptions and the framework that's been built on them (that the eu is driven by the democratic input of its member states and is simply an arena for these interest to play out in etc). We're so far aprt as to make any productive outcome highly unlikely.

Anyway if i really wanted to argue with a notorious eu-pimp i could simply go and read the EU's own wesbite

Fair enough. But don't forget this thread is about the prospect of Blair becoming President of the Council (and also derailed by me into the current and prospective future role of the President). You oppose the EU for economical reasons and I completely appreciate that, but you can't use that as a basis for criticising individual aspects of the EU like the role of the EU Presidency because the same arguments and criticisms would come from you whether we were debating CAP or foreign policy.

 

[butchersapron]

Fair enough. But don't forget this thread is about the prospect of Blair becoming President of the Council (and also derailed by me into the current and prospective future role of the President). You oppose the EU for economical reasons and I completely appreciate that, but you can't use that as a basis for criticising individual aspects of the EU like the role of the EU Presidency because the same arguments and criticisms would come from you whether we were debating CAP or foreign policy.

Don't quite follow you there CR. Are you saying that because i have a general overall criticisms of the EU and its long term plans that i can't analyse smaller events or actions? I don't see why not - if that is what you're saying.

Any long term plan is subject to internal competition, different interest groups can disagree over the implementation of a particular policy - over speed of introduction or emphasis for example - without rejecting the necessity for that policy. That's the meat and drink of the everyday functioning of the EU and it's perfectly possible to be able to talk about them whilst attempting to integrate them into a wider view.

In fact, it's pretty impossible not to - for instance you really need to follow the developments of the EU's various social policies in conjunction with the changing economic fortunes of global capital post mid-70s and with what this meant for each state and the eu as a whole. For instance the gutting of the Social Action Program in the last 70s austerity.

 

[CyberRose]

Don't quite follow you there CR. Are you saying that because i have a general overall criticisms of the EU and its long term plans that i can't analyse smaller events or actions? I don't see why not - if that is what you're saying.

If you are against something as a whole, then there's not much point in saying you are against it because that's a given. But that certainly does not stop you analysing or giving your opinion on the smaller components of that policy, just as long as you keep it specific to that component and don't use your general arguments of that policy as a whole to criticise the smaller component (if that makes any kind of sense whatsoever?!)

 

[gosub]

The ones that would rather have been part of the USA.

Well in that case, that would come under foreign policy and would therefore require a unanimous vote, which means it would be impossible for any group to achieve that

This unanimous vote thing is that like the current situation with treaties constitutional or otherwise, where say one maybe two countries that have the decency to ask, say NO, and the whole thing goes away?

How long before further reform, where it said the system is unworkable and switched to QMV. Will those countries that hold up the orange card be told they are an embarrassment and some rouse constructed to circumvent their will.

 

[DexterTCN]

I thought Blair was busy saving the Palestinians?

Middle-East thingy? Remember?

Whilst I'm sure Europe would love a Yankee place-man in charge of some.....quango....I'm pretty positive Blair could not get enough support, which would be politically damaging to his supporters because of his association with THE WAR which was (despite the too-much protests of some of our ladies) not a positive thing in Europe.

 

[CyberRose]

I thought Blair was busy saving the Palestinians?

Middle-East thingy? Remember?

Whilst I'm sure Europe would love a Yankee place-man in charge of some.....quango....I'm pretty positive Blair could not get enough support, which would be politically damaging to his supporters because of his association with THE WAR which was (despite the too-much protests of some of our ladies) not a positive thing in Europe.

It wasn't a positive thing anywhere in Europe because it was a war! But people seem to be under the misguided opinion that every government in the EU (or at least a big majority) were vehemently against the Iraq war which simply was not true. In fact, other than the traditionally militarily neutral countries, there was only Germany that was opposed to any kind of military action against Iraq. My point here is that don't concentrate too much on the Iraq war when trying to claim "the EU" would be against Blair becoming President of the Council because I do not think that the governments of the EU would give that issue as much consideration when making the choice as you would

Anyway, I'm not saying Blair should be President of the Council because I have no idea who else is being touted for the job and what they bring to the table. All I'm saying is that people should not get too worked up about the role of the President of the Council, whoever gets chosen to be in that position, because you seem to be labouring under a false understanding of what exactly that role entails simply because of the word "President" and the fact the press refer to the position as "President of the EU". It is not, and never will be, 'President of the EU'.

Some people, like butchers, have alluded to a possible future expansion of powers for the role of the President of the Council (altho tellingly, he continues to avoid the question of how those powers could be extended and and to what extent). This is again because of the word "President". People probably look to the most obvious example of a President and see how those powers were extended through the course of history - the President of America. At the beginning, Congress was to be the major power broker, but gradually the Presidency gained more and more powers until we get to today where the President is the most powerful. But that pattern cannot follow in the EU because the Council is not the executive and shares an equal amount of power in the legislature as the Parliament. A more accurate analogy would be to look at the Senate and the House of Representatives in the Congress. The Council and the Parliament are the direct equivalent of Congress in America. So can the leader of the Senate, or the leader of the House become more powerful than the other? Or can either leader encroach into the Presidents power? No. The role of the President of the Council can become as powerful as it wants, but it can do so only within the confines of the Council itself. It is impossible for that power to encroach into the Parliament or the Commission without tearing down the EU and creating something completely new, just as it would be impossible in America for the leader of the Senate to take over the powers of the Presidency without some kind of revolution.

The absolute maximum power the President of the Council could ever have is to dictate votes in the Council instead of member states having a say. But that would not effect the Parliaments ability to vote how they wanted and there is not one single state in the EU that would ever allow the President to take their votes for them (such a change in the rules would actually require ALL 27 countries to agree to it - never ever gonna happen)

 

[CyberRose]

This unanimous vote thing is that like the current situation with treaties constitutional or otherwise, where say one maybe two countries that have the decency to ask, say NO, and the whole thing goes away?

That is a matter for French and Dutch national law, as you know fucking well. Nothing to do with the EU WHATSOEVER

How long before further reform, where it said the system is unworkable and switched to QMV. Will those countries that hold up the orange card be told they are an embarrassment and some rouse constructed to circumvent their will.

Yet this "further reform" that is the Lisbon Treaty contains a protocol AFFIRMING that foreign policy is the sole competency of the NATION STATE, but again, you knew that didn't you?

 

[gosub]

If I can't legitimitely expect a Labour Government' s manifesto commitments to be honest why the fuck should I consider the assertions of a Labour Government parrot posting anonymously on an Internet bulletin board to be true?


Apparently just before he became Prime Minister,Gordon Brown said: ‘the manifesto is what we put to the public. We’ve got to honour that manifesto. That is an issue of trust for me with the electorate’.

 

[gosub]

Ops, staggered back from the pub where six pints made me post in a cyberrose-esque manner.

Ratification of the EU constitution was conducted under present EU constitutional arrangements (Treaty of Rome) failed and if the UK had if its referendum would have even failed under proposed new constitutional arrangements, but still it presses on relentlessly..
And if as you appear to be saying don't worry about all this because they are putting an unworkable system in place, seems unlikely seems unlikely it will stay that way for very long and the presidents from what is going on at the moment are enlightening.

Anyway back off down the pub now to watch Wales kick Scotlands arse

 

[CyberRose]

Ops, staggered back from the pub where six pints made me post in a cyberrose-esque manner.

Ratification of the EU constitution was conducted under present EU constitutional arrangements (Treaty of Rome) failed and if the UK had if its referendum would have even failed under proposed new constitutional arrangements, but still it presses on relentlessly..

I'm sorry but the arrangements of ratifying Treaties does not include public referendums. It merely requires the signature of the head of state. How that country decides to ratify a Treaty is purely a matter of national law and has nothing, whatsoever, to do with EU law. The French and Dutch governments were under no legal obligation whatsoever to consider the results of their national referendums when it came to ratifying the Constitution. Legally, they would be quite within their rights to completely disregard the results of those referendums and ratify the Constitution anyway

 

[nino_savatte]

I thought Blair was busy saving the Palestinians?

Middle-East thingy? Remember?

Whilst I'm sure Europe would love a Yankee place-man in charge of some.....quango....I'm pretty positive Blair could not get enough support, which would be politically damaging to his supporters because of his association with THE WAR which was (despite the too-much protests of some of our ladies) not a positive thing in Europe.

I think it's a testament to his indefatigability (sic). I think his only European ally - apart from Brown - is Sarko.

 

[gosub]

They didn't have to have a referendum, true. It was the manner they chose to address the issue and :They did say no, as in NO, meaning NO. which under the EU's current constitutuional arrangements only one country had to do to stop the thing. Things have to be done unanimously....(what, like foreign policy decisions will have to...)_

You are wrong on France as well, the only way they could have got that through is either a super majority OR a referendum, either being binding.

 

[CyberRose]

They didn't have to have a referendum, true. It was the manner they chose to address the issue and :They did say no, as in NO, meaning NO. which under the EU's current constitutuional arrangements only one country had to do to stop the thing. Things have to be done unanimously....(what, like foreign policy decisions will have to...)_

Sorry but I don't think you understand. The Council does have to unanimously approve any new treaties. But the manner in which each country makes their approval is entirely up to them (the only country in the EU that requires a public referendum is Ireland)

The results of any other public referendums that were held have no outcome on the ability of a member state to ratify new treaties. Like I said above, and please try to understand this - the results of the French and Dutch referendums had no baring on whether or not France and the Netherlands could ratify the Constitution - they could still have ratified the Constitution despite those referendum results, understand?

FYI, the issue works both ways. There were EU governments that did not want to ratify the Constitution, and refused to hold a referendum because their populations did want to ratify the Constitution. That those countries are now happy with the new Treaty speaks volumes about whether or not the Treaty is the same as the Constitution...

 

[gosub]

Sorry I'd checked and edited my post while you were writing yours France required either a super majority OR a referendum either would have been binding, but necessary in order to amend the French constituion could not legally coexist under the proposed EU constitution. Had Britian held its referendum then we are talking the sort of numbers in the propsoed Orange card system.


You confuse elected members of political parties with countries.

 

[EddyBlack]

According to this, the job description of the new role of president has not been written yet. It will not be discussed and decided until after the treaty has been ratified.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/09/weu109.xml