All Hail the new.....EU-president?

[Morgoth]

EU posts are just dumping sites for nobodies and failed ministers. It's even more cynical that a Briton (the biggest EU skeptics of all) is getting the forgeign minister position.

[Purkake]

Leaders should be judged by how attractive they are. Good job, Obsidian Forum Community.

 

This.

[lord of flies]

Because every soldier who fires a shot and every police officer who beats a civilian is a human being, who can be convinced. Who can be forced into non-action.

One of the slogans they learned during their trainings was:

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

This is how they look like (i dunno if you can see this outside finland though)

 

 

The caption says: "These are the new leaders of the EU"

I feel so sorry for Europe now. I mean, at least they could have been decent-looking. **** Cheney is more attractive than these two combined.

[butterfly]

I like how a prime minister of a founding member of the Union is termed a nobody.

 

As for the appointment being undemocratic:

-He was elected by the governments of the member nations, who were elected by the people of europe(some directly, some indirectly).

-Most leaders of the european member leaders are NOT elected directly, some like e.g. brittain don't even have a goverment that is supported by an absolute majority of the voters.

 

I certainly would have liked to have had a direct election by the people, but it would never have passed in the current political climate. (I suspect that those who now cry undemocratic would have been and will be the strongest opponents to such an arrangement).

Edited November 20, 2009 by butterfly

[GreasyDogMeat]

Finally! Clear visual proof that aliens have been living among us.

[Walsingham]

I like how a prime minister of a founding member of the Union is termed a nobody.

 

As for the appointment being undemocratic:

-He was elected by the governments of the member nations, who were elected by the people of europe(some directly, some indirectly).

-Most leaders of the european member leaders are NOT elected directly, some like e.g. brittain don't even have a goverment that is supported by an absolute majority of the voters.

 

I certainly would have liked to have had a direct election by the people, but it would never have passed in the current political climate. (I suspect that those who now cry undemocratic would have been and will be the strongest opponents to such an arrangement).

 

I'm not having a go at Belgium. Anyway, I'm on record just recently for saying the whole thing has gone awry. I don't see why we can't have the no-war goodness of the EU without all the waste and misrule.

 

Apparently the choice of these two was in order to placate people who are threatened by the EU. Frankly it just scares me more.

 

EDIT: quote from the goon on the right

 

"Over the next few months and years I aim to show I am the best person for this job," she said. "I think for quite a few people, they would say I am the best for the job and I was chosen because I am."

 

And with scintillating rhetoric like that I can see why.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Walsingham

[lord of flies]

I certainly would have liked to have had a direct election by the people, but it would never have passed in the current political climate. (I suspect that those who now cry undemocratic would have been and will be the strongest opponents to such an arrangement).

The people who cry out at specific undemocratic decisions would not make them if given the choice? No... it's almost as though they don't want these things done at all... and represent the popular will...

 

No country can honestly call itself democratic unless it has functional voter recall anyway, so I don't see what the point of discussing how democratic these guys are or are not is.

[butterfly]

I certainly would have liked to have had a direct election by the people, but it would never have passed in the current political climate. (I suspect that those who now cry undemocratic would have been and will be the strongest opponents to such an arrangement).

The people who cry out at specific undemocratic decisions would not make them if given the choice? No... it's almost as though they don't want these things done at all... and represent the popular will...

 

No country can honestly call itself democratic unless it has functional voter recall anyway, so I don't see what the point of discussing how democratic these guys are or are not is.

 

I find it hypocritical to criticise a system for being undemocratic if you don't actually want it to be democratic but just have it cease exist or reduced to irrelevance. Either you want the EU more democratic or you want your sovereignty back. Can't have it both ways.

 

And as for representing popular will, in England maybe. In contrast european federalism is the dominant opinion in Belgium. But most europeans are apathic to the EU.

 

Now that i have seen some articles about Van Rompuy in some british tabloids the fervor of british euroscepticism makes more sense now. Apparently they get away with grotesque and ridiculous lies and so distort people's visions of the EU.

[Meshugger]

I certainly would have liked to have had a direct election by the people, but it would never have passed in the current political climate. (I suspect that those who now cry undemocratic would have been and will be the strongest opponents to such an arrangement).

The people who cry out at specific undemocratic decisions would not make them if given the choice? No... it's almost as though they don't want these things done at all... and represent the popular will...

 

No country can honestly call itself democratic unless it has functional voter recall anyway, so I don't see what the point of discussing how democratic these guys are or are not is.

 

I find it hypocritical to criticise a system for being undemocratic if you don't actually want it to be democratic but just have it cease exist or reduced to irrelevance. Either you want the EU more democratic or you want your sovereignty back. Can't have it both ways.

 

And as for representing popular will, in England maybe. In contrast european federalism is the dominant opinion in Belgium. But most europeans are apathic to the EU.

 

Now that i have seen some articles about Van Rompuy in some british tabloids the fervor of british euroscepticism makes more sense now. Apparently they get away with grotesque and ridiculous lies and so distort people's visions of the EU.

 

The EU should only be about:

 

1) Free economy with a common currency.

2) Human rights enforcable by the european court.

3) The only governing body should be the european parliament, voted in through referendum in each member countries. However, soverignity of the member states comes first as long as they doesn't breach the human rights charter at european court.

4) Free information between law enforcements in member countries.

 

Everything else is BS and bureaucratic fluff. Get rid of it. They do not represent the interest of the citizens, they only represent the interests of the imbecilles that whishes to play realpolitik with usa, russia, india and china.

 

About the british scepticism, i take that you mean this?

 

Herman Van Rompuy, the Belgian Prime Minister, broke his silence before Thursday

[butterfly]

Apparently The Times is now a tabloid? I meant things like this.

 

But opponents of his crazed plans for building a European superstate and banning national flags and anthems were uniting yesterday after full details emerged of his ambitions for a massive new taxation offensive once he is installed in the

[Darth InSidious]

It feels like i am part of a very silly, silly...silly monty python scetch. I mean, even the newly "elected" Foreign minister is a british baroness for pete's sake. Nobility at the very top of power, doesn't that ring some serious alarmbells among countries that do not have a monarchy, especially among the french?

 

A British Labour politician, Ashton was made a life peer in 1999 by the Labour government and held junior ministerial appointments in three government departments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Ashton

 

Most ridiculous overreaction in the history of this board? If only she were a hereditary peer; she'd probably be better qualified for the job.

 

Ok, they have almost zero executive power, but still, it is like the most self-evident truth has zinged the heads of the EU-countries: Since the friggin french revolution, since the times of Voltaire, people have taken for granted that no power should be without representation.

Not really, no.

 

This isn't the EU any more, it is the first step to a poor mans version of the old USSR, a system of bureaucracy, govern by imbeciles that aren't harmful, just silly and incompetent.

Total union has been on the cards since at least the early 90s. Thatcher saw it coming in 1990; cf: "No, no, no" speech.

 

You guys in the US have it good, really good. You have clear separation of power, different branches in the house of congress. A president elected in a direct referendum, and a supreme court that adheres to constitution. We have none of that. Yes, you americans may point and laugh

I'd suggest that it's swings and roundabouts.

 

Yeah this is silly, but didn't your national/local media give you a rundown on the Lisbon treaty? This move has been in the works for a few years now, it's not exactly surprising.. I agree with the alarmbells regarding nobility though, that sounds a little too monarchy'ish to me!

Perhaps I might recommend that you do a little background reading before screeching about aristocracy?

 

Next treaty will probably institute a European Emperor.. that would be beautiful wouldn't it?

I hope Otto von Habsburg is chosen.

 

He's a figurehead, everybody says so. No power in the position. It is a bit strange that they chose a nobody to be a figurehead, but this is the stuff of political compromise.

It's also rather strange that an unelected figurehead gets paid so much... Or, given the state of the EU, perhaps not.

[Nightshape]

This whole EU super state only makes sense if we're going to build bigger guns than the American's, and drop lots of weapons on their inbred faces... Otherwise it's just Germany and France finally getting into the UK via the back door.

 

I'm only serious about one of these statements.

[Walsingham]

Yeah this is silly, but didn't your national/local media give you a rundown on the Lisbon treaty? This move has been in the works for a few years now, it's not exactly surprising.. I agree with the alarmbells regarding nobility though, that sounds a little too monarchy'ish to me!

Perhaps I might recommend that you do a little background reading before screeching about aristocracy?

 

 

I know I'm hardly unbiased, but although I don't like unelected goons in charge at all, I genuinely prefer the thought of some aristocratic buffoon who can at least be trusted not to be all revolutionary and do very much, rather than some jumped up greengrocer who will begin acting out their mad customer revenge fantasies.

[Theseus]

This is how they look like (i dunno if you can see this outside finland though)

 

 

The caption says: "These are the new leaders of the EU"

lol manarchy? inbreeds.

[Lare Kikkeli]

So does anyone actually know if this will change the power structure of the EU at all or did they just change the name of the Secretary General? I doubt any of you have read the Lissabon Treaty much less understand the changes it makes. I know I haven't.

[butterfly]

So does anyone actually know if this will change the power structure of the EU at all or did they just change the name of the Secretary General? I doubt any of you have read the Lissabon Treaty much less understand the changes it makes. I know I haven't.

 

There are several European institutions (EU and not EU) that have a Secretary General none that are really important.

 

The European President presides over the European Council (not to be confused with 'Council of the European Union' nor the 'Council of Europe'), basically the gathering of all the heads of state of the member countries. The function of the european president was previously alternated between the different member nation. First at two per year, later as the Union growed three per year. The role of the new president is basically what the same as the role that the swedish prime minister played in his appointment. He seeks a consensus and steers the agenda.

 

Yes i checked wikipedia, which is what you should do. Although i already knew most of this stuff I did confuse it with the Council of the European Union, most notably it is the Council of the European Union that coapproves laws with the European Parliament .

 

 

As an aside, European sceptics rejoice, the Lisbon treaty also includes a secession clause.

[Walsingham]

It's pretty simple. Either the EU President does important things in which case he should be elected

 

OR

 

He does nothing important in which case WHY PAY FOR HIM TO F*** ABOUT?

[lord of flies]

It's pretty simple. Either the EU President does important things in which case he should be elected

 

OR

 

He does nothing important in which case WHY PAY FOR HIM TO F*** ABOUT?

Don't you live in the UK?

[Walsingham]

It's pretty simple. Either the EU President does important things in which case he should be elected

 

OR

 

He does nothing important in which case WHY PAY FOR HIM TO F*** ABOUT?

Don't you live in the UK?

 

Yes. We are in the EU. Did you not know that?

[lord of flies]

Yes. We are in the EU. Did you not know that?

How's your unelected, rich-as-**** monarch doing?

[Meshugger]

Most ridiculous overreaction in the history of this board? If only she were a hereditary peer; she'd probably be better qualified for the job.

 

What are you? Fox News? Just asking fair and balanced questions? Just suggesting, you know. See how inane that comment really is? Lord or lady or how they achieved it doesn't matter. It is something reserved for the silly people of the silly islands with their awesome sense of comedy. Keep out of cross-european politics.

 

Not really, no.

 

Yeah really. A country even was founded upon that.

 

Total union has been on the cards since at least the early 90s. Thatcher saw it coming in 1990; cf: "No, no, no" speech.

 

Since when does that make it just and right? That's right, it doesn't.

 

I'd suggest that it's swings and roundabouts.

 

Yeah, but that wasn't the point here, was it?

[Blarghagh]

I think that it strange that despite the dutch referendum saying no to the Lissabon treay, then the french, then the irish, who somehow later change their minds, and with the rest of us having nothing to say about it, suddenly having a president and a foreign minister representing them all.

 

If anything, they should resign.

 

This.

 

Yes. We are in the EU. Did you not know that?

How's your unelected, rich-as-**** monarch doing?

 

Oh man. Holland has the same thing, and I just want to get rid of them.

Edited November 24, 2009 by TrueNeutral

[Darth InSidious]

Most ridiculous overreaction in the history of this board? If only she were a hereditary peer; she'd probably be better qualified for the job.

What are you? Fox News? Just asking fair and balanced questions? Just suggesting, you know. See how inane that comment really is? Lord or lady or how they achieved it doesn't matter. It is something reserved for the silly people of the silly islands with their awesome sense of comedy. Keep out of cross-european politics.

You wrote:

"It feels like i am part of a very silly, silly...silly monty python scetch. I mean, even the newly "elected" Foreign minister is a british baroness for pete's sake. Nobility at the very top of power, doesn't that ring some serious alarmbells among countries that do not have a monarchy, especially among the french?"

 

So, I'm the one dissembling, despite you being the one trying to paint an inconvenient minor politician as an aristocrat for the sake of some some half-c0cked point about democracy? Yeah, that makes so much sense.

 

Ok, they have almost zero executive power, but still, it is like the most self-evident truth has zinged the heads of the EU-countries: Since the friggin french revolution, since the times of Voltaire, people have taken for granted that no power should be without representation.

Not really, no.

Yeah really. A country even was founded upon that.

A country was founded on spurious pseudohistory? I'm looking forward to your explanation of that one. It hasn't been taken for granted since the time of Voltaire at all, nor is it in any way a "self-evident truth". For starters, Voltaire died over a decade before the French Revolution, and a further fifty-sixty years before Britain even began to resemble a democracy. And those are just two examples.

 

This isn't the EU any more, it is the first step to a poor mans version of the old USSR, a system of bureaucracy, govern by imbeciles that aren't harmful, just silly and incompetent.

Total union has been on the cards since at least the early 90s. Thatcher saw it coming in 1990; cf: "No, no, no" speech.

 

Since when does that make it just and right? That's right, it doesn't.

Who said it made it right? I pointed out that going on like this is some recent corruption of noble ideals is a fallacy. The EU has been corrupt, incompetent and aiming at dominance for a long time now.

 

You guys in the US have it good, really good. You have clear separation of power, different branches in the house of congress. A president elected in a direct referendum, and a supreme court that adheres to constitution. We have none of that. Yes, you americans may point and laugh

[

I'd suggest that it's swings and roundabouts.

 

"Yeah, but that wasn't the point here, was it?"

 

Frankly, there didn't seem to be any point at all, much like this post I'm responding to, which seems in the main to consist of attempts to twist what I said out of the context of your replies and to paint me as some pro-EU lunatic for your own bizarre purposes.

 

Maybe you simply expressed yourself very badly, but the way your posts read and the relationship with your responses to my responses makes it pretty clear that somewhere along the line, you've missed the point I was making.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Darth InSidious

[Meshugger]

* a lot of things*

 

Lets streamline it a bit, shall we?

 

1) I never claimed you to be a federalist or even pro-EU in any way. That assumption is only in your head.

 

2) I said it very clearly. It doesn't matter what the current consensus among the politicians are before, at the moment or in the future. The system is inheritly wrong, and having someone belonging to the nobility at this position is the cherry on the top.

 

3) I mentioned Voltaire in the relation of the founding fathers of the united states of america were greatly influenced by him.