Will we never be rid of Blair and the scum who lied to us about the EU "treaty"?

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Also, back on topic, I suggest taffboy gwyrdd finds out exactly what the President of the Council actually does for a living before he spouts more shite about EU superstates...

Ah! is this another doublethink devotee?

As I said in the OP, sarkozy and the article refer to the "EU President". I know the role of the "President of the Council" thanks. I know the doublethinkers will say "oh, there is no president" and then refer to "The President". That's how doublethink works.

Apart from the vast amount of directives that already come from the EU, if you dont believe there is a superstate I suggest you look into the Prum Treaty and Project Stork before you accuse me of talking shite. Your personal data, including biometrics, is going to be shared across the EU. They didnt tell you that I know. Your car (if you have one) will be tracked by satellite to tax you. That's nice. Obviously, it cant be a state monitoring you to tax you - perhaps it's just a knitting circle.

 

[CyberRose]

Ah! is this another doublethink devotee?

As I said in the OP, sarkozy and the article refer to the "EU President". I know the role of the "President of the Council" thanks. I know the doublethinkers will say "oh, there is no president" and then refer to "The President". That's how doublethink works.

Apart from the vast amount of directives that already come from the EU, if you dont believe there is a superstate I suggest you look into the Prum Treaty and Project Stork before you accuse me of talking shite.

But haven't you just admitted above that you're talking shite by acknowledging that the powers of the "President of the Council" are identical to those of your so-called "European President", but the only thing you're concerned about is what name we give to the position?

And it's the President of the Council to distinguish the post from the President of the Parliament who are, apart from foreign policy, pretty much equals...

 

[CyberRose]

Your personal data, including biometrics, is going to be shared across the EU. They didnt tell you that I know. Your car (if you have one) will be tracked by satellite to tax you. That's nice. Obviously, it cant be a state monitoring you to tax you - perhaps it's just a knitting circle.

And?

 

[SpookyFrank]

So would a new, permanent 'president of the council' have pretty much the same job as, for example, Janez Jansa currently holds during Slovenia's six-month presidency?

And yes I did have to look up the Prime Minister of Slovenia

 

[CyberRose]

So would a new, permanent 'president of the council' have pretty much the same job as, for example, Janez Jansa currently holds during Slovenia's six-month presidency?

And yes I did have to look up the Prime Minister of Slovenia

First, it's not "permanent" (it's every 18 months, up from 6) and secondly, yes, same job...(altho no doubt some will argue, probably fairly, that an increased term allows for greater influence and drive, which was the point of extending the terms, however, the role and powers, afaik, stay the same)

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

But haven't you just admitted above that you're talking shite by acknowledging that the powers of the "President of the Council" are identical to those of your so-called "European President", but the only thing you're concerned about is what name we give to the position?

I'll explain again. There will be a president of the council. S/he will be frequently referred to as "The President" or "EU president" - this isnt just a concern about semantics.

As I said upthread, when the little people say "hang on, who said we were getting an EU president?" our dear leaders will say, "oh, there is no president"

That's my problem - not what he or she is called but the doublethink of "there is a president" or "there isnt a president" as it suits them.

 

[CyberRose]

I'll explain again. There will be a president of the council. S/he will be frequently referred to as "The President" or "EU president" - this isnt just a concern about semantics.

As I said upthread, when the little people say "hang on, who said we were getting an EU president?" our dear leaders will say, "oh, there is no president"

That's my problem - not what he or she is called but the doublethink of "there is a president" or "there isnt a president" as it suits them.

Well why don't you engage your brain and work it out for your self then

There is a post, the technical name of which is "President of the Council of the EU". Just like there is a "President of the European Parliament" and a "President of the EU Commission".

You obviously have an idea of what a "President" is ... so does the Council's President fit that definition?

 

[untethered]

Generally when we think of presidents we think of directly-elected ones with executive powers and others without executive powers who act as figureheads for a state.

Which will this be most like?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

So would a new, permanent 'president of the council' have pretty much the same job as, for example, Janez Jansa currently holds during Slovenia's six-month presidency?

And yes I did have to look up the Prime Minister of Slovenia

U75 trivia: The Slovenian Prez is a vegan

CyberRose

The functions at present of the president (who isnt a president) are indeed those that rotate every 6 months. But the new role will be done by a selected person which will give them more authority in the position, they will be chosen specifically for the role of president as compared to the comparitave randomness of the current process. This is a consolidation of presidential kudos and power )along with a much longer term which I assume can be renewed (fair enough if Im wrong on that)

Obviously, the President wont be voted in by the ittle people but will be stitched up between the elite.

Also the role of the president can be changed, we know authority tends to consolidate itself. Again they'll make sure they dont have to bother asking mere citizens / taxpayers / untermenchen like us.

 

[CyberRose]

Generally when we think of presidents we think of directly-elected ones with executive powers and others without executive powers who act as figureheads for a state.

Which will this be most like?

Neither. It's a chairperson, and probably would be called as such were it not for translation problems (President fits the bill better when translated into 20+ languages, "Chairperson", unfortunatley, does not)

 

[untethered]

Neither. It's a chairperson, and probably would be called as such were it not for translation problems (President fits the bill better when translated into 20+ languages, "Chairperson", unfortunatley, does not)

One who presides rather than one who rules, then?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Generally when we think of presidents we think of directly-elected ones with executive powers and others without executive powers who act as figureheads for a state.

Which will this be most like?

Neither really. Certainly not democratically elected. Forget that. Not executive either though, more a chair of a decision making body who will draw up an agenda etc. and therefore have huge influence without being an executive him / herself.

 

[bluestreak]

Feck no, Iraq would be the perfect destination.

Like the Iraqis haven't had enough of our crap dropped on them already. Send him off to be our ambassador to Mars.

 

[untethered]

Like the Iraqis haven't had enough of our crap dropped on them already. Send him off to be our ambassador to Mars.

Governor of St Helena.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

And?

And you said I was talking shit referring to a superstate. You may not have a problem with being tracked and taxed through the auspices of the EU. Thats not the issue. The issue is that for better or worse the superstate exists and I dont know why anyone would bother to try and deny it.

 

[CyberRose]

U75 trivia: The Slovenian Prez is a vegan

CyberRose

The functions at present of the president (who isnt a president) are indeed those that rotate every 6 months. But the new role will be done by a selected person which will give them more authority in the position, they will be chosen specifically for the role of president as compared to the comparitave randomness of the current process. This is a consolidation of presidential kudos and power )along with a much longer term which I assume can be renewed (fair enough if Im wrong on that)

Obviously, the President wont be voted in by the ittle people but will be stitched up between the elite.

Also the role of the president can be changed, we know authority tends to consolidate itself. Again they'll make sure they dont have to bother asking mere citizens / taxpayers / untermenchen like us.

I can see how you might be scared that this post might evolve like the US President (which is what you think of when you think of the word "President") but this is the EU, not the US. In the US, the President was the executibe and Congress the legislative. In the EU, the Commission is the executive and the Council AND the Parliament are the legislative jointly. Both insitutions have to ratify laws otherwise they cannot be passed. So, imo, it would be impossible for the Council President to evolve anything like in America and would ALWAYS have the European people's representatives to veto.

PS: Sorry the term is 30 months not 18 as I said earlier

 

[CyberRose]

And you said I was talking shit referring to a superstate. You may not have a problem with being tracked and taxed through the auspices of the EU. Thats not the issue. The issue is that for better or worse the superstate exists and I dont know why anyone would bother to try and deny it.

I don't actually have a problem with these "infringes" on civil liberties you're right, however, the EU is not a state. For a start, people talk about the "EU" doing this and the "EU" doing that without actually knowing what "EU" refers to. These JHA provisions you are referring to would allow nation states to access other nation states' records. Of course, there will be some kind of Commission department responsible for facilitating these measures (such as Europol or the European Arrest Warrant) but essentially it is two nation states agreeing to cooperate, and agreeing on a set of rules to govern that cooperation (just like we have many agreements with America - doesn't mean we are part of a US superstate does it? Actually, don't answer that!)

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I can see how you might be scared that this post might evolve like the US President (which is what you think of when you think of the word "President") but this is the EU, not the US. In the US, the President was the executibe and Congress the legislative. In the EU, the Commission is the executive and the Council AND the Parliament are the legislative jointly. Both insitutions have to ratify laws otherwise they cannot be passed. So, imo, it would be impossible for the Council President to evolve anything like in America and would ALWAYS have the European people's representatives to veto.

PS: Sorry the term is 30 months not 18 as I said earlier

I dont personally automatically think of US prez functions when I hear the word "president". As we have both agreed, the EU president functions will neither be ceremonial or executive, but it is certainly more functional than ceremonial.

My main beef here is I think it is insulting and undemocratic to have a president chosen by an elite without being asked. Actually, when people were asked they said "no".

More insulting again is that they will then turn round and say "The president isnt a president".

The apologism for the "treaty" has been as weasly as any other of the guff that neolab spinmeisters have doled out. They are not to be trusted and neither are the EU elite.

 

[CyberRose]

One who presides rather than one who rules, then?

Yes (actually I think me and taffboy both have exactly the same idea of what this post entails so not sure what his problem is )

 

[CyberRose]

My main beef here is I think it is insulting and undemocratic to have a president chosen by an elite without being asked.

If it were a president in the traditional sense then yes, I'd agree, as it's not then that's an irrelevant comment (elected governments will elect the President so there is a hint of democracy there, I guess it's similar to Labour chosing Gordon Brown to be PM without a public vote)

Actually, when people were asked they said "no".

Two countries voted against the Constitution, can you tell me how many voted for it?

More insulting again is that they will then turn round and say "The president isnt a president".

Jesus Christ!

The apologism for the "treaty" has been as weasly as any other of the guff that neolab spinmeisters have doled out. They are not to be trusted and neither are the EU elite.

You want out of the EU? You know what the alternative is right?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

CyberRose

I have to go, but thanks for the banter.

Off the top of the head I think more than 2 nations rejected the constitution, maybe Im mixing up Euro votes. Certainly most countries that approved did not do so in referenda. I think constitutional matters should require referenda and to come back with a very similar "treaty" is weasley.

Actually, I reckon the referenda should be EU wide cos you'd never get 27 countries to vote yes, thats unfair.

I dont really want out of the EU. I want an EU that gives proper place to subsidiarity, gets its accounts audited more than once a decade and is not as remote and in hoc to corporate lobbyists as it is. The EU is currently a project for consolidation of power and facilitating uber capitalism and environmental destruction. I guess I want a federation more than a union.

must dash.

 

[CyberRose]

CyberRose

I have to go, but thanks for the banter.

Off the top of the head I think more than 2 nations rejected the constitution

Nope, just France and Netherlands (altho the UK would ahve done and Ireland is yet to vote on the Treaty which could present problems like last time)

Certainly most countries that approved did not do so in referenda

True. Out of the 18 that ratified it, only Spain and Luxemburg held referendums (altho interestingly the Czech Republic government refused to hold a referendum because they were against the Constitution and their population were for it!)

I think constitutional matters should require referenda and to come back with a very similar "treaty" is weasley.

I don't think anything should be ratified by referendums, ever. Look at the major progress our system has undertaken throughout history and ask yourself whether that progress could have been made had there been a referendum of the electorate - would the male electorate have given women the vote had they been consulted? Would the death penalty have been abolished or would it be re-introduced if we asked the baying mob that read the News of the World? Would anyone vote to pay any taxes whatsoever?!

Actually, I reckon the referenda should be EU wide cos you'd never get 17 countries to vote yes, thats unfair.

You mean ask the EU population as a whole, and not individually by nationality?

I dont really want out of the EU. I want an EU that gives proper place to subsidiarity, gets its accounts audited more than once a decade and is not as remote and in hoc to corporate lobbyists as it is. The EU is currently a project for consolidation of power and facilitating uber capitalism and environmental destruction. I guess I want a federation more than a union.

must dash.

I think the most enthusiastic EU supporters want a federation rather than Union (I assume here you're referring to "state" characteristics?)

(Btw, the EU accounts get audited every year and they fail because they are a lot stricter than the UK's auditing, which would fail every year too should they follow the same procedures, and also because the majority of the money that cannot be accounted for is actually money given to the member states via funding etc)