Is it just me with limited political understanding or is making this claim publicly just an outrageous slap in the face of EU citizens and democracy? Could someone with better understanding shed some light on the processes at hand and how de Gucht could make that statement without instantly being oust from office?
Also De Gucht was appointed to office, not voted in. There is no democratic way to oust him.
The EU has no problem dropping a member state out if that government wants to not take part. The UK didn't want the recent Fiscal Compact, and was going to veto it. So the rest of the EU (bar UK & Czech Rep.) just went ahead with a different treaty.
That's begging for decision paralysis. The same problem liberum veto had ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto ).
I think it's safe to assume when we voted againist sth once, we can ignore it for next 5 or 10 years.
The former suggests pretty much immediate, repetitive, DoS style re-tabling and an intention to force something through despite that matter having been voted AGAINST - the later suggest good democratic processes.