You want an election for a meeting chair/PR guy?

That position wont be chairman forever though. The position has little power right now. However, the Lisbon treaty is a stepping stone for shifting more government power to the EU later on. So while the role may not be so important now, it will be more important in the future.

Et voila, Socialist dictatorship?

No, not at all, it wont lead to a socialist dictatorship, I never said that. I think it would lead to some kind of Republic style government based on Keynesian economic principles way off into the future (Which I would quite like tbh). But I know the position is small now and in the future we may get to vote for who chairs the EU, but the fact is power will shift towards the EU and I would like to vote for whoever is receiving the "potential" power.

@kowenicki - would you prefer it if the EU Parliament gained more powers, rather than the other institutions? It's still pooling sovereignty (how I loathe that concept, or, at least, the importance it has on modern international relations), but at least it's going to the democratic part of the EU.

I know you don't want an EU, but if it has to be (which, let's face it, is the case), surely you'd prefer Strasbourg gaining powers over Brussels?

I like the way the that the only part of the EU you want, is the part that doesn't actually exist. The EU is so far from a "common market" it's actually ridiculous. You need to have some major changes like a common currency, a common language, as well as other things like having the same plug socket, driving on the same side of the road, the same definitions of chocolate and bananas, etc.

Haha, I see what you did, there.

Given time, all things that seemed impossible become inevitable.

quick question for the sceptics, given that we are in the EU, would you rather that the UK took a backseat and just moaned about everything or that the UK lead the charge on reform and democratization of the EU and also on majour EU wide issues?

basically, do you think the UK should be a passive or active member?

That's fair enough, I certainly don't mean to imply all Eurosceptics are ignorant, far from it. There is however, a large segment of the UK population who simply have no idea what the EU does and even less what the new treaty actually proposes and simply base their opinions on what the EU-sceptic press tells them.

I'm not convinced there needs to be a completely intergrated Europe but I definately believe that enhanced co-operation between states is desirable. I do believe the EU needs to be represented as a power on the world stage, not only to put forward our values but also to negotiate better trade deals (in particular with the US). The EU is also the only organisation willing to stand up to large industries. Recent laws passed include lowering unreasonable credit card fees across europe as well as well as forcing mobile companies to cut their ridiculous pan-european tariffs. You are also entiitled to compensation on flights should an airline over book your flight (and these are only the laws or the top of my head).

Furthermore there is the cross Europe health care program as well as scientific collaborations all of which require a commision/parliment of some sort to monitor and run. Not to mention the fact that this type of intergration makes war between member states extremely improbable (although I accept there are many factors involved here).

I think they'd rather the UK not be a member at all.

As in, opt out all together and sign a simple trade treaty with the new EU.