Well, only one more penstroke to go before dictatorship...

[PeteEU]

The Lisbon treaty is slimlining decision making and cutting out voices so it can have a quicker decision making mechanism. Call that house keeping, or what you want. Its basically what the constitution wanted to achieve. Its the same story with a different cover.

These are literally the only differences between Lisbon and the Constitution i could find:

Note I cut some of the text out since it was filling a lot and there is a limit to how big an answer can be

And those differences are very key along side that the constitution was a whole new piece of paper. The Lisbon treaty goes in and changes the old treaty in certain areas that does not remove any sovereignty from the national states despite what you and the anti-EU crowd claim. As I stated, prove that sovereignty is being removed.

The EU mechanism inevitable has to federate members to a certain extent through integration and increased soverign in Brussels. Though the term "federated" as we know it cannot yet be quiet defined as the EU, its certainly heading in that direction, and the Lisbon treaty is evidence of this. Regardless if the EU is headed for a Greater European state or not, the ever decreasing soverign of member states is still enough to cause concern.

That maybe the ultimate goal for some Federalists, however the Lisbon treaty does nothing to accomplish this. All it does is house keeping and expanding the democratic aspects of the EU and adding already used things like the Human Rights accord.

Im not going to say that the human rights elements of Lisbon is bad. Quiet the opposite. Infact its quiet a promotion of our indivisual rights. Its the general purpose of the treaty i disagree with.

Good, hence you are not against adding it to the EU treaty then?

It was not quiet the same. The "President" as defined in Lisbon is far less temporary and is far more vocal and has more power in his hands.

Yes it is "less temporary" in the way it does not change every 6 months bringing administrative and policy hell along with it. As for more "power".. prove it. What extra powers does the Lisbon treaty definition of President have that the present version does not have? As for more vocal.. yea and that is somehow a bad ting? Right now I dare you to name the present President by name.

..and you say Lisbon makes the EU less federal which is what you are against...a President under a governmental body that represents multiple nations sounds very familiar and federal to me (USSR, US come to mind?).

If the EU president had actual "presidential powers" that match the US and USSR (or Russian) President then I would agree, but he has not.. no where near the power. He is nothing more than a glorified office manager in many ways.

It gives more power to Brussels because a Representative of Foriegn Affairs is established with the aim to create a united EU foriegn policy in what is supposed to be a market treaty....why does a market treaty need a united foriegn policy and a President? And Europe is so politically divided a Representative of Foriegn affairs amuses me more than the thought of Syria coming to Israel's aid during a natural disaster. A President is also established which provides more central control over EU member states

For god sake.. it already exists! Solana is the Foreign Affairs Representative of the EU! The President post already exists! The only place it does not exist is in the old EU treaty. That is the whole point. And the Foreign Affairs Representative only does something when all members states agree, so no one is forcing anything on any nation. For example, the EU countries did not agree on the Iraq war, hence Solana had nothing to do with that. As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.. some aspects are in full agreement even by the Brits on that mess.

Have.

Not even remotely.

What are you getting at? Your the one denying that the Lisbon treaty is the trojan horse successor of the constitution which pretty much aims to do the same thing.

That is because you dont understand the whole thing. The constitution was a whole new document with many aspects. The treaty is needed house keeping due to the expanding EU, and yes those parts were a large part of the constitution also, so yes there are many similar points. Does not change the fact that the old treaty was designed for far fewer members than we have today, and the new members had no "legal" according to the old treaty on representation.. it was agreed and basically paper clipped to the original treaty.

Im glad. But they are doing it differently and this has nothing to do with my point that expansion needs to come to a halt and the exclusion of countries with large anti-EU crowds and largerly divided political views which leads to EU deadlocks in decision making.

Large anti-EU crowds.. other than the UK where? 75% of Poles voted yes for joining the EU in 2003... Polls that I have seen show high popularity for the EU in Poland. The Czechs were even more positive back in 2003...

No mate, the Czech's, the UK who will probably end up holding a referendum and rejecting it, and inevitably Turkey in the future.

And you base the Czech part on what? That the Czech president is highly anti-EU? You do know that over 75% of Czech voted FOR joining the EU despite the highly anti-EU Czech President campaigning against it right? If anything I would be far far far more worried that my own country voting against it than the Poles and Czechs.. heck even the Spanish or French and Germans.

How so?

The Lisbon Treaty: more powers for the European Parliament 

 

[kaya'08]

Note I cut some of the text out since it was filling a lot and there is a limit to how big an answer can be

And those differences are very key along side that the constitution was a whole new piece of paper. The Lisbon treaty goes in and changes the old treaty in certain areas that does not remove any sovereignty from the national states despite what you and the anti-EU crowd claim. As I stated, prove that sovereignty is being removed.

They are hardly key. A few tweaks with the names of institutions here and their and not making it legally binding to accept the EU flag, the latter actually making quiet a significant difference if enforced on us, i accept. But on a general scale it does not. The treaty slim lines decision making and makes the EU a more central power by introducing a more permanent "President" and an institution that intends to unify a foriegn policy.

That maybe the ultimate goal for some Federalists, however the Lisbon treaty does nothing to accomplish this. All it does is house keeping and expanding the democratic aspects of the EU and adding already used things like the Human Rights accord.

I think the house keeping you talk of, however minor you as an indivisual make it out to be, has put in the neccessary additions to pave the way for a more federal orientated system in the future, be it imposed on us slowly or in one swoop with a treaty.

Good, hence you are not against adding it to the EU treaty then?

Im against the treaty anyway.

Yes it is "less temporary" in the way it does not change every 6 months bringing administrative and policy hell along with it. As for more "power".. prove it. What extra powers does the Lisbon treaty definition of President have that the present version does not have? As for more vocal.. yea and that is somehow a bad ting? Right now I dare you to name the present President by name.

President of what, the EU commision?
The fact that the Presidential position is more permanent and acts as if its ahead of a nation or in this case a federated set of states, much like the US presidency who too makes republic wide policy decisions and gets elected after a few years in term, is deffinetly to most people a sign of federal ideals. If you compare the EU with the USA, you'll notice the difference between the two are narrowing down with every passing treaty, law, market integration and year.



For god sake.. it already exists! Solana is the Foreign Affairs Representative of the EU!

The President post already exists! The only place it does not exist is in the old EU treaty. That is the whole point. And the Foreign Affairs Representative only does something when all members states agree, so no one is forcing anything on any nation. For example, the EU countries did not agree on the Iraq war, hence Solana had nothing to do with that. As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.. some aspects are in full agreement even by the Brits on that mess.

Presidency of the Council of the European Union (commonly referred to as presidency of the European Union) is the responsibility for the functioning of the Council of the European Union which is rotated between European Union member states every six months. There is no single president but rather the task is undertaken by an entire national government, hence that state influences the direction of European Union policy during its term. Although it rotates every six months, since 2007 the current presidency has worked with the last and next one on a common political programme.

That is because you dont understand the whole thing. The constitution was a whole new document with many aspects. The treaty is needed house keeping due to the expanding EU, and yes those parts were a large part of the constitution also, so yes there are many similar points.

You chose to see it as a whole new document though i fail to see a major difference between the two.

Large anti-EU crowds.. other than the UK where? 75% of Poles voted yes for joining the EU in 2003... Polls that I have seen show high popularity for the EU in Poland. The Czechs were even more positive back in 2003...

Thats a good point. Opinions on the EU can be quiet dynamic but i still think the EU has a tendency to expand without taking the neccessary precautions first, much like the Balkans.

And you base the Czech part on what? That the Czech president is highly anti-EU? You do know that over 75% of Czech voted FOR joining the EU despite the highly anti-EU Czech President campaigning against it right? If anything I would be far far far more worried that my own country voting against it than the Poles and Czechs.. heck even the Spanish or French and Germans.

I said countries which are politically divided with other EU members and/or who have large anti-EU crowds. I didnt say that the Czech' people are neccessarily against the EU (though hell, what relevance does that have? The French rejected the constitution, hardly anti-EU themselves). I was talking about the leaders too. In the Czech's case, the ruling party is more anti-EU though it makes one wonder of the true attitude of the Czech's who voted them. And in the UK's case, the government isnt the anti-EU one.

 

[Private Hudson]

Good news boys and girls! :2dancing:

New hope for EU treaty as Klaus accepts concession

PRAGUE — The European Union's Lisbon treaty looked set to emerge from a limbo as the last hurdle to its ratification, Czech President Vaclav Klaus, accepted a concession offered by the 27-nation bloc.

AFP: New hope for EU treaty as Klaus accepts concession

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

No wonder the likes of the BNP, Front National, Democratic Peoples' Party and others are on the rise if governments see themselves as replacements of the people rather than representatives.

This is not in my name, certainly, even if it is the name of the gloaters.

 

[kaya'08]

No wonder the likes of the BNP, Front National, Democratic Peoples' Party and others are on the rise if governments see themselves as replacements of the people rather than representatives.

This is not in my name, certainly, even if it is the name of the gloaters.

I dont think the EU (apart from its abysmal standardized immigration policy) is the reason for the rise of the BNP, i think recently it has primarily been the economic crises....if all they wanted was to opt out of the EU, then your normal self respecting Briton wouldnt vote for the BNP, but rather the UKIP. There are alternatives that Euro realists can vote for that isnt the BNP or any other racist party. So i dont accept this as a valid excuse. I think what is happening though is that the secret racists are using the EU as an excuse to vote for the BNP, as if to justify their vote.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

What have UKIP actually done to help get us out of the EU, as their original stated aim was? It's certain that in reality there is nothing UKIP can do without being in government here, but the fact that UKIP are now themselves proving to be useless at what they were set up to do can only help some frustrated people to believe that the BNP will actually succeed where UKIP fail.

UKIP MEPs have proved themselves to be as corrupt, money-grubbing and ineffectual as most other supposed mainstream Eurosceptics. The likes of the BNP promise change right across the board and that somehow helps promote the idea that a 'different' party can have the will to change what others cannot.

And, in general, the likes of the BNP are the only sizeable alternative organisations which threaten the political bigwigs who force through radical changes without permission.

 

[kaya'08]

What have UKIP actually done to help get us out of the EU, as their original stated aim was? It's certain that in reality there is nothing UKIP can do without being in government here, but the fact that UKIP are now themselves proving to be useless at what they were set up to do can only help some frustrated people to believe that the BNP will actually succeed where UKIP fail.

And what exactly have the BNP done thats so great? I cant help but wonder who you did and will vote for in upcomming/past elections. The UKIP like all politicial parties are useless when it comes to changing such policies, and they will continue to be useless for as long as they are not actually in government. There hands are tied, and they cant do anything without our votes. People are using the EU as a scapegoat to be racist.

UKIP MEPs have proved themselves to be as corrupt, money-grubbing and ineffectual as most other supposed mainstream Eurosceptics.

Not nearly as much as the Tories or labour, and they have both ruled and will rule. Also, can you give examples of such corruption?

The likes of the BNP promise change right across the board and that somehow helps promote the idea that a 'different' party can have the will to change what others cannot.

And this is the change your self respecting Briton wants to see, is it? Has it not occured to you, you dont HAVE to vote at all?

And, in general, the likes of the BNP are the only sizeable alternative organisations which threaten the political bigwigs who force through radical changes without permission.

No, they are not.

 

[B L Zeebub]

Good news boys and girls! :2dancing:

I concur:2party::july_4th:

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

1. And what exactly have the BNP done thats so great?

2. Not nearly as much as the Tories or labour, and they have both ruled and will rule. Also, can you give examples of such corruption?

3. And this is the change your self respecting Briton wants to see, is it? Has it not occured to you, you dont HAVE to vote at all?

4. No, they are not.

1. In this arena, nothing. And they're more unlikely to than UKIP. My point is that the BNP present themselves as something fresh because the other parties fail to deliver populist promises.

2. True. One example I can find is here: UKIP in embezzlement scandal - Times Online

3. It's the change a few want.

4. Many see it that way, particularly when the BNP have the biggest brown-trousers value of them all. Read the bigger boards like Mediafly and you'll see a hotter and roughly even-cut debate.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

I concur:2party::july_4th:

Why celebrate your parliament's loss of supreme executive authority?

 

[PeteEU]

Why celebrate your parliament's loss of supreme executive authority?

Since they have not lost it, then why spread lies like you are?

 

[kaya'08]

1. In this arena, nothing. And they're more unlikely to than UKIP. My point is that the BNP present themselves as something fresh because the other parties fail to deliver populist promises.

The BNP doesnt offer anything that is "fresh", a term id pin to something good and reforming. It offers something that is "different" to mainstream parties that is viewed by many Britons as "fascist", "racist" and "against British values", and these are very valid statements. This is evident in their policy against interracial marriages, their incorrect definition of what an indigneous Briton is and there emphasis on race, their distaste of semetic peoples, and their past policies of white recruits only which have since changed because they where forced too. This restriction of free speech has lead fascists like Nick to market their parties differently - and this misleading marketing has increased their vote count. Its our own fault.

2. True. One example I can find is here: UKIP in embezzlement scandal - Times Online

You mean only example.

This does not seem to be valid for the entire party but one MEP of UKIP. These things happen; even political parties cannot control the greed of man in its members.

3. It's the change a few want.

Yes. And this minority is racist, ignorant, and counter to the British establishment and its countrymens values. They are in effect our worst enemies.

4. Many see it that way, particularly when the BNP have the biggest brown-trousers value of them all. Read the bigger boards like Mediafly and you'll see a hotter and roughly even-cut debate.

The Tories, assuming they keep their promise, intend to put to popular vote these radical changes you say we have no change on. The same bigwits that accept such changes without our permission however, do not need to be threatened by the BNP to be taken out of downing street. Infact the BNP's stance only reduces the threat they pose, especially after their true colours where shown to the nation on QT. Britons can use the UKIP to be this threat, but they dont, because many people are using the EU as a scapegoat to be racist. You seem to be one of them, im afraid.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

All that culture, all that political independence, all that sovereignty, all that free will, all will soon be gone: Polish president ratifies EU treaty - , - Latest news & weather forecasts - MSN News UK

Just one more traitorous European president betraying his people before we become a-national serfs.

Eurowankers claim that 'Well that's Democracy, Public. The elected politicians signed our national death warrants on our behalf, rulers in their positions only because we voted'. We're told to just lump it, but we were never directly asked to become part of what can only be described as the EUSSR, nor were any politicians campaigning on the ticket of enslaving their country.

Have you read this?
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

Its the charter of fundamental rights, part of the Lisbon treaty..


In case you are actually right, then we are joining the US and the UK, totalitarian states hiding behind the banner of democracy while deceiving their people with manipulation and propaganda.. Democacy in the US has been dead for a long time, democracy in the UK is quite dead.. Consider your own prime minister who was selected by his party as oppose to elected. And then the hipocrits in the UK screams shamble when Russia elects a president..


****ING AND UTTERLY RIDICULOUS..

 

[kaya'08]

Have you read this?
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

Its the charter of fundamental rights, part of the Lisbon treaty..

The only good point about Lisbon, id say!

In case you are actually right, then we are joining the US and the UK, totalitarian states hiding behind the banner of democracy while deceiving their people with manipulation and propaganda...

What propaganda? Decieving the people? Thats rich. Considering the EU has decieved its people by changing the constitution to a treaty so it can make radical, dictatorial changes to the union without a referendum and the voice of its inhabitans.

Democacy in the US has been dead for a long time, democracy in the UK is quite dead..

Democracy in the US is dead? Are you serious? :rofl

Consider your own prime minister who was selected by his party as oppose to elected. And then the hipocrits in the US screams shamble when Russia elects a president..

More evidence you know nothing. The British system doesnt elect PM's in the first place.

****ING AND UTTERLY RIDICULOUS..

Nice to have you back.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Democracy in the US is dead? Are you serious? :rofl

If you believe a media circus around the SELECTION between 1 of 2 candidates is a democracy, then you are certainly one of those deceived as described above..

Democracy is dying everywhere. Its becoming a selection of the least worst of 2 options. Parlimentary democracy is also turning into a two sided dogfight. Elections are turning into garbage, ridiculous contest of having the best white smile, the best jokes, cutting taxes the most. Its a silly popularity contest without politics.
Same in the UK...

And more and more in European elections as well..


Anyways, you critisize Russia for their election, while your party selected the next prime minister without the approval of the people.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

It does when it suppresses free public will and doesn't allow us our say if we disagree with the new status quo.

Really? Do you not have internet for example? Is that not what you do right now? The EU doesnt sensor the internet, nor the media. Media is pretty much one sided, like in the rest of the west, but not sensored(not that much, certainly not more than the UK or the US).

It's just 'get what you're given'. Pretty soon it will be illegal for pan-European political parties to even run on an anti-EU ticket. And the other national parties with no European Parliament members will be abolished.

Where did you get fed that ****? From the anti-EU newspapers you read?
"get what you are given" is pretty much the norm in the whole west at the moment, and pretty much a symbol of how democracy was ruined in the media age.

And you'll even be denied permission for mere protest marches by the Brussels authorities if they don't agree with you too.

Really? Is that so? Really so?
In that case Europe is joining the US and the UK in demonstration and opinions having to be approved, and sensored when it doesnt fit the authorities.

 

[kaya'08]

If you believe a media circus around the SELECTION between 1 of 2 candidates is a democracy, then you are certainly one of those deceived as described above..

Why one or two candidates? Many potential candidates run for the Presidency, ie Al Gore, Obama, McCain, Hillary, and then the two candidates left are the ones that have garnered the most support.

Democracy is dying everywhere. Its becoming a selection of the least worst of 2 options.

I disagree. I just believe most politicians these days are crap and therefore most political parties.

Parlimentary democracy is also turning into a two sided dogfight. Elections are turning into garbage, ridiculous contest of having the best white smile, the best jokes, cutting taxes the most. Its a silly popularity contest without politics.
Same in the UK...

Yeah its pretty much how Obama won.
But this is the West. Its all bright lights, white teeth, Prada, tax cuts, big cars, houses and cheesy grins. Its been like that ever since media to the masses. As unfortunate as that may be, one thing remains the same: the best personality wins because we voted for them. The shallowness of some people does not destroy Democracy however.

Anyways, you critisize Russia for their election, while your party selected the next prime minister without the approval of the people.

We voted for the Party not the PM! Familiarize yourself with our politics. The party chooses the PM. Your lack of knowledge on our electoral system is evident in your endless British bashing with PetEU.

 

[B L Zeebub]

Why celebrate your parliament's loss of supreme executive authority?

I celibrate for a number of reasons, one is very simple, it winds the nudniks up, come to think of it. what other reason do I need:july_4th::2party::july_4th:

 

[Partisan]

Does Poland signing have anything to do with Obama putting them under the bus, by bending over for Putin with regard to the missile defense?....
Do they feel they need new protection?....

 

[PeteEU]

Does Poland signing have anything to do with Obama putting them under the bus, by bending over for Putin with regard to the missile defense?....
Do they feel they need new protection?....

No, the world does not revolve around the US.

The Polish Parliament voted for the treaty a long time ago with a huge majority, but their President is anti-EU and set up a condition on signing the treaty as when Ireland voted yes. They did, so he was forced to sign it.

 

[reefedjib]

No, the world does not revolve around the US.

Are you sure about that? I was reading this morning that the US got the Germans fighting again in Afghanistan. First time since WW2 that they have been in combat.

And the world turns....

 

[PeteEU]

Are you sure about that? I was reading this morning that the US got the Germans fighting again in Afghanistan. First time since WW2 that they have been in combat.

And the world turns....

Should not believe everything you read.

 

[Partisan]

No, the world does not revolve around the US.

The Polish Parliament voted for the treaty a long time ago with a huge majority, but their President is anti-EU and set up a condition on signing the treaty as when Ireland voted yes. They did, so he was forced to sign it.

No, but if I were Poland or Czech., I'd be as nervous as a cat in a room full of rocking chairs...
Sorry, I thought it was a legitimate question, as I think Our fearless leader did an injustice to our allies....
Oh, & don't worry, we'll bail you out when you get in trouble, AGAIN!....

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

We voted for the Party not the PM! Familiarize yourself with our politics. The party chooses the PM. Your lack of knowledge on our electoral system is evident in your endless British bashing with PetEU.

My country's system is a parliamentary "democracy".. I know EXACTLY how it "works".

Why one or two candidates? Many potential candidates run for the Presidency, ie Al Gore, Obama, McCain, Hillary, and then the two candidates left are the ones that have garnered the most support.

No.. The parties "elect" their presidential candidate.

Then the people are left selecting the president of the party they support, or selecting the president of the other party.

I disagree. I just believe most politicians these days are crap and therefore most political parties.

Finally we agree on something.. I believe most politicians should be ashamed of their intelligence & integrity and do us all a favour and hang themself.

Yeah its pretty much how Obama won.

Pretty much yeah. By saying all the popular things, and then not delivering. What a fake piece of crap, just like any president. Personally I do not understand the whole popularity of Obama, hes just another asshole. Actually I do understand it somewhat though.. Any guy elected instead of Hitler back in 1942 or 1943 would also enjoy enourmous popularity around the world.

The shallowness of some people does not destroy Democracy however.

I advised you to see the movie "idiocracy", it sucks, but its where democracy is headed.
Its not because of the movie theory things turn that way, but because of democracy and the way it functions. Dumb people elect dumb policians, dumb politicians make dumb people even dumber, and dumber people elect dumber politicians and so fourth.

 

[kaya'08]

My country's system is a parliamentary "democracy".. I know EXACTLY how it "works".

Your country? Didnt realize you was British.
And evidently not.