Sarkozy, Barroso "plead" for strong permanent Presidency

[Al.]

Does this mean such a President (appointed) will stop "conferring" powers on the Commission (also appointed)? because that would be the key to being "very strong" (autocratic?)

Gotta love "democracy" EU-style.

EU Observer

[SIZE="3"]Barroso and Sarkozy plead for permanent EU presidency[/SIZE]

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and French President Nicolas Sarkozy - currently chairing the EU - have urged the need for a permanent EU presidency to replace the rotating system.

"We need a president of the Council [the institution representing EU member states] that does not change every six months," Mr Barroso told journalists at the end of an EU leaders' meeting in Brussels on Thursday (16 October). "To lead [EU] member states, we need a very strong presidency."

The EU's Lisbon treaty - rejected by Ireland in June but already ratified by 22 EU states - puts forward a permanent head of the council as one of its key reforms.

Relations between Mr Barroso and Mr Sarkozy have warmed in the last months, with the French president referring to Mr Barroso by his first name, Jose Manuel, during Thursday's post-summit press conference and with the commission president even proposing the French leader fill the post...

[southwestkerry]

Perhaps sharky and co want a strong presidency to protect the brits.

[spidermom]

They're just not to keen on the NEXT holders of the presidency, considering the incumbent government could not be called pro europeans AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Trampas]

Barroso and Sarkozy plead for permanent EU presidency

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and French President Nicolas Sarkozy - currently chairing the EU - have urged the need for a permanent EU presidency to replace the rotating system.

"We need a president of the Council [the institution representing EU member states] that does not change every six months," Mr Barroso told journalists at the end of an EU leaders' meeting in Brussels on Thursday (16 October). "To lead [EU] member states, we need a very strong presidency."


And the stronger the better, and then when Turkey and Morocco are foisted on the people of Europe (and their descendants), against the frequently expressed wishes of the people of Europe, we will be told that we voted for it. Simple really.

[Myles_per_hour]

There is a good reason to introduce a permanent president. The current system is a mess. 'Presidents-in-office' (the current title) are in office for six months. If you get a bad one, you are stuck with them for 6 months. If you get a good one, they are only there for six months. Each president currently brings their own agenda to the table, so they may have 5 aims, only have time to do three, and before the aims have been been implemented fully along comes some one else with their own often different agenda starting from scratch. The average 1 term US president deals with 8 presidents of the council. A one-term taoiseach deals with 10. The current system is stop-start, haphazard, with terms too short to deliver much positive but enough time for an incompetent idiot to leave a mess that the following president will have to spend the next 6 months fixing. And with 27 members now, that will mean a presidency of the council would only come around to each state every fourteen or so years, meaning most of the politicians and civil servants who experienced the last one would have retired by the time the next one comes around, so everyone ends up starting from scratch. It is a mess.

[Defeated Romanticist]

Leaving aside the merits of this, does anyone else agree that Sarkozy is a great big windbag who comes out with the greatest amount of tripe to make him sound like the leader of a nation who deserves a seat at the top table despite them not deserving such an honour for half a century at the minimum?

[Bobert]

Will they be needing to revise the Treaty of Rome then?

[Bobert]

Leaving aside the merits of this, does anyone else agree that Sarkozy is a great big windbag who comes out with the greatest amount of tripe to make him sound like the leader of a nation who deserves a seat at the top table despite them not deserving such an honour for half a century at the minimum?

Yes, I do.

[Rolling Smoke]

There is a good reason to introduce a permanent president. The current system is a mess. 'Presidents-in-office' (the current title) are in office for six months. If you get a bad one, you are stuck with them for 6 months. If you get a good one, they are only there for six months. Each president currently brings their own agenda to the table, so they may have 5 aims, only have time to do three, and before the aims have been been implemented fully along comes some one else with their own often different agenda starting from scratch. The average 1 term US president deals with 8 presidents of the council. A one-term taoiseach deals with 10. The current system is stop-start, haphazard, with terms too short to deliver much positive but enough time for an incompetent idiot to leave a mess that the following president will have to spend the next 6 months fixing. And with 27 members now, that will mean a presidency of the council would only come around to each state every fourteen or so years, meaning most of the politicians and civil servants who experienced the last one would have retired by the time the next one comes around, so everyone ends up starting from scratch. It is a mess.

What happens if you get a Berlosconi type of character?

[Hobo Sapiens]

This was one of the issues around the Lisbon treaty debates. Many 'No' voters rejected the treaty because they didn't want a political federation. By the same token, they don't want a 'strong president'.