The Lisbon Treaty – 6 questions
You all know the drill by now. Some abstract general principle gets illustrated by what is ostensibly a fairly innocuous news item. Predictable? I prefer the word “reliable” myself.
Anyways, in this case it may seem like you’re getting a blog post about European politics, but the point I want to make goes far beyond the Brussels bureacracy. I have to say though, that European politics can be a tricky topic for me. I’m extremely ambivalent about the whole thing and if I’m not careful that can come across as self-contradictory, as opposed to nuanced (anyone else notice the upsurge in things being “nuanced” since the Archbishop episode? No? Only me then). On the one hand, my first instinct — and with very good reason — is always to be suspicious of the undertakings of politicians. On the other hand, I’m very much in favour of “the spirit” of the European project.
And I think, therein lies the central problem. The undertakings of politicians is what happens when we try to structure the spirit as word. It’s an unpleasant spectacle, and it ends up being destructive for society as a whole. That said, I believe we’re smart enough to work out a way of not doing it anymore. And I’m serious about that by the way.
Chances are, though, we won’t get that done by June. That means the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty will almost certainly go ahead. Which, to be honest, I’m having great difficulty understanding. And I’d be more than grateful if any reader could clear up my confusion.
My confusion exists on a whole bunch of levels. So bear with me as I try to disentangle them and lay them before you in a discrete manner, as opposed to the Escher-designed gordian knot made entirely of pan-dimensional moebius strips in which they currently exist.
Firstly, a rather simple query. I’ve been told by two separate people (neither of whom are generally given to conspiracy theory or unreliable flights of fancy) that the European parliament has actually voted to ignore the result of the Irish referendum should it be in the negative. However, I cannot find any verification for this. Does anyone know the full story?
Secondly, if that’s not the case and an Irish “No” vote will sink the treaty, how can that possibly be described as even vaguely democratic (which is surely the whole point of a referendum)? The expanded EC has approximately 460 million citizens. Ireland is the only nation holding a popular vote on the Lisbon Treaty, with all of the other nations planning (as of now) to ratify it through parliament. Ireland has a population of a little over 4 million people, of whom roughly 3 million are eligible to vote. So even if there’s a massive turnout (an unlikely 90%, say) and a large majority of them cast a “No” vote (an unlikely landslide, with 75% against the treaty), it still means that a treaty ratified by every other state (representing 456 million people) will be overturned by the decision of 2 million Irish citizens. And in reality, if the Irish do vote “No”, it’ll be a much closer vote based on a much smaller turnout. It could be as few as 1.2 or 1.3 million people who scupper the treaty.
It’s stretching the definition way beyond breaking point to describe that as “democratic”.
Thirdly, if we Irish vote to reject the treaty, then what happens? The “Yes” campaign paint a dire picture of Europe grinding to a halt. Or else of Ireland becoming marginalised, perhaps even forced out of the European political system (which would be a singularly difficult process for the nation, given our total economic integration with the continent up to and including our adoption of the common currency). The “No” campaign insist that nothing of the sort would occur and that Ireland can sink the treaty with little or no negative consequences. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between, but given the complete inability of the political classes to offer a balanced view, it’s very difficult to know exactly where — in between — the truth lies.
Fourthly, what the hell does the treaty really propose? The “Yes” campaigners insist that it’s all about tidying up current European legislation and that, in fact, it’ll have little or no impact upon individual nations. If that were true, then why on earth is a referendum required? Why can’t this all be done in the European parliament in the same way that national parliaments are capable (in theory) of handling such irrelevant bureaucratic issues internally? The “No” campaigners, on the other hand, insist that this is nothing less than a complete abdication of national sovereignty. Here in Ireland, we will lose our valued neutrality. More than that, we will be transferring huge amounts of power to Brussels and away from our own parliament. But if that were the case, then why do the vast majority of Irish politicians support it? These are not people whose natural tendency is to loosen their grip on the reins of power.
Fifthly, why on earth is it so difficult to unearth objective and balanced information on this issue? I understand that many people must have a vested interest in either a “Yes” or a “No” vote. But are there no honest commentators? Nobody willing to explain — in relatively simple terms — exactly what impact this treaty will have on my life, and their own? I’m not suggesting that the issue isn’t complex, or that it should be “dumbed-down”, but the text of the treaty itself is absurdly opaque and basically unintelligible (and I speak as someone who regularly reads dense academic papers written by over-intellectual neurotics who haven’t interacted with the real world in 40 years). Why, exactly, should I vote “Yes” (or “No”) to Lisbon?
Sixthly, given all of the above — and the fact that most voters won’t even make the limited attempts that I’ve made to better understand this treaty — who on earth believes that a popular vote is a suitable manner of deciding whether or not to adopt Lisbon?
Like much of modern politics, this whole thing has got an air of the surreal about it.
Hi Jim, the answer to your first question is true. Amendment 32 of the Corbett Report in fact had an overwhelming vote to ignore the Irish referendum vote. See this link, one of our own, DeRossa, actually voted for the amendment! It is a shocking example of what the EU members really think about Democracy. However, this amendment does nothing to lessen the impact of the Irish Referendum, the results of which will matter greatly.
Ireland is the only country, this time around, who will let the people have a voice in the matter. If the EU could have avoided this they would have, if there is a Yes vote in Ireland and the referendum passes we will never get a voice in EU government again.
For the benefit of all those that are denied this vote we should vote No in this referendum. The only thing that will happen is that the Treaty will be sent back to be revised into a readable Constitution. This is the same document that the French and Dutch rejected a few years ago. This time their governments will not let those people vote again.
There isn’t much available reading material on this referendum as it was purposely written in an obscure manner and was never meant for public consumption. Good luck with your research!
I don’t want to sway your opinion one way or another; but, I have posted a link to a video that you should watch on my blog’s latest post. I for one will be voting No for two reasons: 1) the process they are using at present is un-democratic and 2) the document itself needs to be re-written for clarity. When in doubt vote No and let them “serve us” by producing a readable document and hold a democratic election to approve it!
All the best Jim!
April 18th, 2008 | 8:36pm
by Caoimhin
Thanks for your response Caoimhin. It’s extremely unlikely that I will be casting a “Yes” vote. There’s just no way I’d give my support to a treaty I don’t understand. At the same time, however, I also wouldn’t feel entirely comfortable voting against it. It’s likely, therefore, that I’ll be abstaining.
I will watch that video you linked to, though at almost an hour and a half long, it won’t be this evening. However, having watched the opening 5 minutes, it’s clear that the film is part of the “No” campaign. As such, it’s unlikely to provide a balanced view (though as I say, I shall watch it in full and retract that claim if it’s unjustified).
I really need a non-partisan explanation of the Lisbon Treaty, and I cannot seem to find one. Even your own comment here includes the line: if there is a Yes vote in Ireland and the referendum passes we will never get a voice in EU government again. Now, perhaps that is true. But if it is, then can you explain to me why almost every mainstream Irish politician is in favour of the treaty? Why are these people campaigning in favour of their own political emasculation? Why are they asking the Irish people to vote them out of power? To remove their voice? (I don’t believe they give a damn about our voice… the voice of the public… but I’m utterly convinced that they are concerned about their own power and would resist any attempt to lessen it significantly).
I’m not saying you’re wrong (my whole point is that I genuinely don’t know) but you have to accept that what you are saying is — at the very least — counterintuitive.
April 18th, 2008 | 8:55pm
by Jim Bliss
As you may have noticed Jim there are few, if any, totally unbiased reports out there. Whether they are video, audio, or written materials each position is being portrayed from one side of the issue only and only by reviewing materials from both camps can we gain an enlightened opinion. I have looked into both sides of the argument and have found that the Yes camp speaks in generalities and symbolic language using the words “democracy, freedom, security” et al. where as the No side actually speaks to the nuts and bolts of the issues and mechanics of the EU organisation.
The local politicians are as guilty as we are when it comes to passing responsibility and obligations over to some other authority. It makes things easier for us/them personally. Look what has happened to the office of the Minister for Health for example: the responsibilities and obligations of that office were turned over to the HSE, the Minister is no longer accountable. The position of Minister is still there, with the honours and rewards that go with it, but the workload is gone, political deniability is established.
The same is happening in Europe, no politician in Ireland will lose his job, they will just have it handy. Do you know how the laws are written in the EU and who gets to vote on them? You will not find these answers in the information provided by the Yes supporters!
Actually, when I first came across that long video I had my doubts about it, and I am not one to give a lot of credit to Conspiracy Theorists; but, I don’t expect to be spoon-fed the right answers in some mythical “balanced” version prepared by a neutral party, so instead I look for answers to my questions, if the questions go un-answered I am obliged to vote No. If you have doubts Jim don’t abstain, vote No and make them give us a readable treaty! 🙂
April 19th, 2008 | 11:04am
by Caoimhin
Thanks again for your response, Caoimhin. Perhaps I’m being a tad over-sensitive here, but I’d like to point out that requesting a balanced opinion is not the same as asking to be “spoon-fed the right answers”. In fact, some might even see that as a wee bit patronising.
I also don’t believe that “an enlightened opinion” is to be found through examining two biased opinions. I actually believe that to be one of the great fallacies adopted and preached by the mainstream media… in order to provide a balanced view, they provide two partisan views. You could perhaps argue that strategy provides a “balance of views”, but it doesn’t provide a “balanced view”. The truth does not exist within two opposing lies.
That’s a general point, by the way. For all I know, the truth — the balanced view — of this issue does indeed exist within the statements emerging from the “No” campaign (or maybe even those of the “Yes” camp) but because there has been no attempt to provide an analysis of this treaty outside of the partisan realm of campaigning and proselytizing, and because the treaty is so opaque, it’s extremely difficult to know.
I’d also like to point out that I feel sure if I spent enough time with this treaty that I’d be more than capable of getting to the bottom of all this. However, I’m currently engaged in academic research of my own and have a thesis to complete by August this year. I simply do not have the time to engage in the kind of research required to dissect the absurdly overblown legalese of the Lisbon Treaty.
On your final point, which I guess could be summarised as: If in doubt, vote ‘No’, I’m not 100% sure I can go along with that. The ‘Yes’ campaign insist that a ‘No’ vote would have dire consequences for us all. I don’t for a second believe that’s an unbiased, balanced or even remotely accurate claim. But the fact remains, I simply do not know. And my philosophy in such cases is to abstain from the decision making process. To cast a ‘No’ vote would be to take a political stance that I could neither justify nor even explain were I required to.
See, I’m not actually a democrat. Important decisions need to be taken by those who genuinely understand the likely consequences. It is only through such an understanding that — I believe — people become qualified to take those decisions in the first place. As the venerable political philosopher, Mr. Harry Hutton, once remarked (albeit about a different nation)… “The idea that Mr Average Briton, walking around Tesco with his mouth hanging open, should be allowed to choose the government is superstitious nonsense”.
April 19th, 2008 | 10:16pm
by Jim Bliss
I see you have a problem Jim you are asking for a balanced opinion on a very subjective matter. I will try to answer a couple of your questions in a relatively balanced manner, although I should point out that I approach the EU from sceptical position.
It is true that the EU Parliament voted against an amendment that stated it would recognise the Irish referendum, Corbett write this on his own Blog,
The parliament did, of course, reject an amendment to add to my own report evaluating the treaty, a paragrapph calling for it to respect the result of the Irish referendum, but it did so (1) because this goes without saying as the Treaty can only come into force if it is ratified by every Member State and (2) it was inappropriate to refer only to Ireland as it is every county’s decision that has to be respected, not just Ireland’s.
I think the point of the amendment was that in the past when any country has voted no, the vote has not been respected by the EU leaders, because those who have voted no have been required to vote again, I do not think Corbett answered that point.
Your second point is very interesting; you are of course quite right that it cannot be democratic for Ireland to be the only country out of 27 to allow its citizen a vote, or that Ireland should hold the fate (if that is the correct word) of 500 million people in its hands. But should this question not be reversed – is this not rather a failure of the other member states than a condemnation of Ireland because it has allowed its citizen a vote on a very important treaty that will affect the way your country is governed.
I do not think you increase democracy in the whole of the EU by questioning the right of the only country in the EU to recognise the principal.
There is also a further point that you might like to consider, Ireland is an independent sovereign state, it is therefore an internal matter only for the people of Ireland to decide if they wish to enter into an international treaty. Your forefathers fought and died for the right of self determination of the Irish people to decide these things for themselves.
Your third question is rather dependant on your first; if the EU does not recognise an Irish No, then at some point the Irish people will be required to vote again. If it does then this treaty will fail and we will be in the same position as we are today. There is no mechanism where a country can be ejected from the EU and certainly not for refusing to accept a change to their treaty agreement.
It would take to much space to enter into a full explanation of the Lisbon Treaty. But the most important thing it does is obviously confirmed by the fact that Ireland is the only country holding a referendum. I believe when the Irish constitution was written the safeguard was inserted that changes to the Irish constitution must be put to the people of Ireland, so the Lisbon treaty changes the rules of your government, it changes how you will be governed in the future. It is up to the Irish people to decide if these changes are acceptable to them, if they feel that those things they hold dear will be protected from external interference it is your constitution it is your choice. The French and I think Portuguese governments have already changed their constitutions to allow for the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty, of course in the UK our government just pretend we do not have a constitution so anything goes.
If our governments want us to understand something they have absolutely no problem in making themselves understood, if the Lisbon treaty is so difficult to understand the question that should be asked is why. The people of Ireland ought to be demanding that their government make the effects of the treaty fully comprehensible to all voters, on a personal note would any of us sign any legal agreement without fully understanding its consequences. Do any of us pop into our local garage and drive away with a new car without first understanding fully the consequences of the HP agreement we have signed.
The EU itself is behind many of the moves against unfair contractual practises making it illegal for companies to hide important details in contracts, yet the Lisbon treaty is not clear many of its clauses are written in a vague manner and we will not really know the effects of the treaty until they have been ruled on by the ECJ.
April 20th, 2008 | 9:47am
by Ken Adams
I was referring to myself in that spoon-fed scenario and what my expectations might be, it was not my intention nor was it written in a way that should be interpreted differently. I meant no offence Jim.
There are two, if not more, conflicting stances on the Lisbon Treaty referendum and what it means as it is, or is not, being presented to the Irish voter. Courts of Law also require evidence from both sides in a case in order for the court to decide a verdict. Both sides may present their version of the truth but reasonable men and women have to decide whom to believe given contradictory evidence. The key of course is discernable evidence, fact, as opposed to emotive opinions. Like jurors we need to look upon the evidence presented and come to a valid conclusion that we can stand by and live with. The Treaty is written in the English language and is understandable; but, the question of intent remains. Look into the nations of Norway and Denmark and see how they are getting along, and being treated, without being entrenched in the EU. We will not be ostracized for voting No; but, we, as one-percent of the population of Europe, may be intrumental in securing a valid, clear, and acceptable document by which we and our descendents will be governed.
As for quotes, don’t forget Acton, which I paraphrase as “For evil to succeed all it takes is for a few good men to do nothing.”
As to your last paragraph Jim I hope that for all our sakes you do not truely believe that the power of the majority of people should be usurped by the few?
What if Hutton had said, “The idea that Mr. Academic Researcher, struggling to meet scholarly deadlines, should be allowed to choose the government is superstitious nonsense.”? There is no giant leap in political logic that would deny this opinion from your Mr. Hutton is there? This contempt by elitist members of government is rampant in the authors and presenters of the Treaty of Lisbon.
April 20th, 2008 | 10:42am
by Caoimhin
The European Parliament does not even have remotely the competence to decide if the referendum can be ignored. The treaty has to be ratified according to the national constitution as its an international treaty. The way it is ratified on national level is the decision of the memberstates which are bound to their constitutions.
The European Parliament has itself a vote and can bring the treaty to fall, but it has no power over the way the treaty gets enacted.
Thats the reason why I am extremely skeptical about those claims and am pretty sure thats some heavy distortion of reality in order to create yet another EU myth.
What I could filter out by scanning through an article of one of the usual EU skeptic blogs is that it seems they are referring to an amendment that would have imposed a certain way of ratification on the member states. (making a national referendum obligatory no matter what the national constitution says, and also blocking the way for other possible direct democratic approaches). I don’t think the member states would have been amused by the European Parliament trying to impose the way of ratification onto them.
I can’t see a way how the Irish referendum could be ignored, and I predict if it ends with the majority of No voters it will end in a similar mess like after the failure of the constitution, only worse. The opponents hoped that there is a plan B, there is no plan B. The EU leaders where happy enough to be able to agree on a plan A at all. If this plan A falls now, the EU will be kept busy for further years with internal reform, instead of being able to start working on the major issues with the full attention for once.
What I think the Irish people should keep in mind is the following: Don’t compare the treaty of Lisbon with some utopic ideals, but with the alternative of the status quo, compare it with the treaty of Nizza. In Austria there is a tabloid campaign running against the treaty, that mixes up Euro myths, vague EU-phoby and pure fairy tails together with critical points of the treaty. Arguments are used against the treaty that may have something to do with the EU but nothing at all with the treaty. The Irish hopefully prove the arguments if they have something to do with the treaty and what it changes and if what is criticized is already status quo or not (if it is already status quo, rejecting the treaty won’t change it either, but bring the treaty to fall)
And last but not least: Don’t vote yes or no because of some nastiness of national politics, because you don’t like your government or similar reasons, the referendum is too important for the entirety of Europe to get hijacked by off topic arguments.
April 20th, 2008 | 9:47pm
by slartibartfas
Another point:
If you encounter arguments and you want to fact check them, here is the consolidated treaties in the version of the Lisbon treaty. Everything included, not just the treaties but protocols etc. All in all something below 500 pages. But you do not have to read it through, many criticisms focus on not too long passages of the text. Not everything becomes clear when you read the real text, but at least in my opinion it often helps.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/st06655.en08.pdf
April 20th, 2008 | 10:01pm
by slartibartfas
One problem I always have with people using arguments against the Treaty is – they refer to themselves as sources, instead of giving the actual sources of what they claim. I have yet to see that Corbett Report Caoimhin is talking about. The linked blog does not give a source. It says “Corbett Report”, but why are people so lazy and do not link this report. Where is this report? I want to look at it for myself. I need a document which is hosted at an official website – not on some weblog or private page, because it’s too easy to manipulate information.
I’ve seen too many lies being spread on the Internet that’s why I think it’s absolutely important to give official sources. I do not trust anyone anymore who does no give sources. Your very own blog is NOT a source. Blogs in general are NOT sources.
Concerning this line: “if there is a Yes vote in Ireland and the referendum passes we will never get a voice in EU government again” – it’s not true.
If you look closely at that Article 48 TEU people are discussing: there are three different procedures to ammend Treaties. The first (2)-(5) and the second (6) procedure would require a referendum in Ireland, because it says “The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements“.
Only the third procedure (7) does not require a referendum, but that only applies to law that you agreed to in an earlier referendum already anyway (since it says “Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Title V of this Treaty”, this shows only law that is already in force is meant), that’s why it’s not necessary to have a refendum in these cases. (7) is only about switching from unanimity to qualified majority in cases in which they can decide due to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Title V already anyway.
Just read the Article very slowly, and you will see.
April 21st, 2008 | 4:41am
by EU Law
BTW I’d like to add something:
For the benefit of all those that are denied this vote we should vote No in this referendum.
I do not think so. I do not have the benefit to vote myself, but if you voted for me I’d request you to vote YES. Not everyone you think you are voting for wants your NO. I definitely wished you voted YES, because I 100% agree with what slartibartfas said:
“Don’t compare the treaty of Lisbon with some utopic ideals, but with the alternative of the status quo, compare it with the treaty of Nizza.”
You are also voting for e.g. Polish people. Actually they were quite close to having a referendum in Poland themselves, and a majority of more than 70% in polls said they would vote YES:
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1205771527.71
You are voting for these people, too. I can’t give you stats on other countries, because I think there are none out there, but I’m rather positive that there are more Member States that would vote YES if they only could. In 2005 Spain and Luxembourg also voted YES in their referenda on the EU Constitution, but people never mention their YES-votes, because everyone thinks that only NO-votes count.
France and the Netherlands also mostly did not vote against that Treaty because they thought it was bad. They voted against it for failures within their Member States – bad government, social situations (the Member States are still responsible for, not the EU), and also because they did not understand the Treaty (which is really not easy, I understand people who do not understand the Treaty). There were polls in both countries on why people voted against the Treaty, you can read about them here:
FRANCE: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl171_en.pdf
NETHERLANDS: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl172_en.pdf
If I had one free wish in Ireland I’d ask for: a YES vote.
BTW in Ireland a great White Paper on the Treaty was published. I think it is a very honest summary of what the Treaty does. I wished my government had released such a great document:
http://www.reformtreaty.ie/eutreaty/pDF08-White-paper_6.pdf
April 21st, 2008 | 5:10am
by EU Law
[…] The Lisbon Treaty – 6 questions “My confusion exists on a whole bunch of levels. So bear with me as I try to disentangle them and lay them before you in a discrete manner, as opposed to the Escher-designed gordian knot made entirely of pan-dimensional moebius strips in which they curren (tags: EU Ireland) […]
April 21st, 2008 | 12:38pm
by links for 2008-04-21 | Nosemonkey’s EUtopia
EU Law: Thank you for your interest and your obvious commitment to bring clarity to this discussion on the type of governing in Europe that we deserve.
You say you do not have the benefit of a vote and that you wished you did. I also wish that you were allowed to vote. I will vote NO in Ireland this time so you will get your voice the next time, hopefully your government will not deny you to have a voice in the future.
If you need assistance in finding the Corbett report you can visit this link and Corbett himself has a blog/website here where he comments on the results.
Just today it was reported how Corbett would like to inhibit the MEP’s from asking the European Commission questions pertinent to their constituencies. Corbett even has a You-Tube account if you wish to hunt that down.
There is an undertone of elitism within the Commission that was not the intent of the original founders of the European Community, and at a time when we need less government interference and not more, the EU is becoming a bureaucracy that will soon have autonomous powers.
To see how our MEP’s were treated, just before the new Treaty was signed, see this 4 minute clip. This is our democracy in action.
I asked Jim and I will ask you EU Law, do you know how the European laws are written and how they are voted on? Do you think this is democratic?
I wish all the peoples of Europe were going to have a voice in this Treaty and I would happily live with the outcome if we decided on this democratically, since that is not the case I will use my small voice to send the Treaty back to the drawing board and hope in the future that it will be clearly written, openly debated, and voted on democratically.
Thank you again EU Law for your involvement in making Europe a better place for us all!
April 21st, 2008 | 2:52pm
by Caoimhin
My apologies to all: I submitted the same link as in my first post regarding the Corbett Amendment…here it is in the original form. Sorry for that duplication.
Here also is an opinion by another MEP who was there for the vote Mr. Roger Helmer, MEP, and his views on the subject and on Mr. Richard Corbett, MEP.
Happy reading! 🙂
April 21st, 2008 | 3:20pm
by Caoimhin
In how far does the Treaty of Lisbon leld to a mentionworty increase in the powers of the Commission? Can anyone show me the source in the Treaties that would suggest so?
As far as I know there exists the trend in the treaty reforms that the power of the Commission stagnates at best when being compared to the other major institutions.
April 21st, 2008 | 5:40pm
by slartibartfas
You say you do not have the benefit
of a vote and that you wished you did.
I actually do not request to get my vote. I just want this Treaty to be in force soon, because it adds a lot more rights we all can benefit from. There’s no use in interrupting the development of the European Union. There will always be people who will not be happy with this or that, but you can’t make it right for everyone. I would even want the Constitution back, because I’d like to have a hymn, an EU-flag and I want the Fundamental Rights to be part of one document for everyone, I want the Treaty in one document again, not in three documents. In case Ireland votes NO I think they should just pull out the EU Constitution again and vote on it until people have finally understood what it is about to be happy to say YES.
Corbett actually sounds pretty good. He tells it like it is. These people are just not doing their job then. Even with a consolidated version you would have to go through the old Articles and compare them to one another to find out what’s new. It’s not easier to understand what’s new just because you have the full text version.
do you know how the European laws
are written and how they are voted on?
Do you think this is democratic?
Yeah, I actually do know. I study Law, majoring in European Law, and I’m currently working on a project about the co-decision, which will change quite a bit due to the Lisbon Treaty. Very much new stuff they can decide on in this procedure will be added, and the European Parliament will be in a much stronger position than it is at the moment. That is actually one reason why I want this Treaty. I want the person I will vote for next year to have more power in the EP. And I want my country to be part of the law-making process, which it will be due to the Lisbon Treaty, because the Member States will get information on EVERY law that goes through the co-decision for example. They have a say before the EU-law is in force and as soon as it is in force. The Member States will also have the right so suggest laws themselves, not only the Commission will have this right anymore. Even one million people from Member States can request the Commission to suggest a certain new law. I would be happy to support such actions in the future – but it will not be possible until this Treaty is in force.
A NO in Ireland would mean to me that me and my country still won’t have rights I would like us to have to make the EU a more democratic place to be.
In how far does the Treaty of Lisbon leld to
a mentionworty increase in the powers of the Commission?
I can’t, because as far as I can see the power of the Commission would rather be decreasing in parts. Concerning the co-decision, for example, in cases in which Member States suggest new laws the Commission would hardly be involved in the law-making process anymore. It would stay in the process, receive information and could make unbinding suggestions here and there, but nobody would be forced to go by what the Commission says.
As far as I know there exists the trend in the
treaty reforms that the power of the Commission
stagnates at best when being compared to the
other major institutions.
If we do not agree on a decrease, I would agree with you on stagnation at least. I do not think anyone will find proof in this Treaty that the power of the Commission increases.
April 21st, 2008 | 6:35pm
by EU Law
I looked at this Corbett Report (2007/2286(INI)) now – we are talking about this document, right? And this document is said to include the words “Undertakes to respect the outcome of the referendum in Ireland“? I cannot find those words in that document. Though it says:
In what official document can I find the words “Undertakes to respect the outcome of the referendum in Ireland“?
April 21st, 2008 | 6:52pm
by EU Law
Here in Ireland, we will lose our valued neutrality.
That is not true due to several Articles in the Lisbon Treaty. For example:
Art. 4 (2) 1, 3 TEU and Art. 42 (2) I 3 TEU (which shows that Member States make the final decision by themselves) and Art. 42 (2) II, (7) I 2 TEU (especially the first part of the sentence: the nature of your country, the neutrality will not be effected).
Art. 44 (1) 1 TEU states that Member States will participate if they wish to do so (Art. 44 refers to Art. 43 TEU which refers to Art. 42 TEU, which means: whatever Art. 44 TEU says applies to Art. 42 TEU, which means: no Member State will be forced to do anything as long as they do not wish to participate in a mission).
According to Art. 46 TEU the Member States can deepen their cooperation with other Member States – if they wish to (Art. 46 (1) TEU). I think only then they will be required to uphold a certain level of armament also, because if they don’t, then there is Art. 46 (4) TEU and Member States that do not fulfill what’s required to deepen the military cooperation will not be able to particpate anymore – just like Art. 44 (1) 1 TEU says: only Member States that are on a level that is required to take part in a mission will be able to join a mission they wish to join in.
If you don’t fulfill the requirements – oh well, then you simply don’t. There’s no law that says – if you don’t fulfill them you will be punished. You will simply not be part of missions even if your Member State would like to join. To be punished there would have to be a law that says you can be punished.
It’s complicated and hard to express in simple words, but you really have to look at all of the Articles at the same time to understand what Art. 42 TEU is about. Art. 42 TEU is just a general rule. The Articles that follow clarify what Art. 42 TEU is about. You cannot take it out of its context.
More than that, we will be transferring huge amounts of power to Brussels and away from our own parliament.
I don’t see that happening. First of all there is Art. 5 TEU (a general rule) – this Article is conected with Art. 2, 3, 4 and 6 TFEU which are general rules within the TFEU. Those three TFEU rules are clarified by the following many rules of the TFEU. So you always have to read those in connection with one another. You will find the content of Art. 5 TEU in Art. 7 TFEU again, by the way. All of these Articles need to read as a whole.
Art. 2, 3, 4 and 6 TFEU specify the power of the EU and in what cases only the EU is allowed to make decisions (Art. 3 TFEU), in what cases the EU and the Member States are allowed to make decisions at the same time (Art. 4 TFEU) and in what cases only Member States are supposed to make decisions but can be supported by the EU if necessary (Art. 6 TFEU).
If you read Art. 3 TFEU there’s not really a lot only the EU can decide on. It’s very basic really, simply what the EU was meant to be about in the first place when the EU was created in the beginning.
Art. 4 TFEU goes beyond those basic EU-functions, but the Member States will still be allowed to make decisions by themselves in those mentioned cases.
Art. 6 TFEU is a very soft rule to simply support Member States to improve the situation within the State itself and the EU.
To find out what all of those Articles are about you need to go through the rest of the TFEU, because the Articles that follow those general rules in the Treaty only specify more what is meant by the general rules.
I hope this explains a little bit more how to look at such a treaty and how to get started if you want to try to understand what the Treaty is really about. But it is not easy to explain it in simple words.
who on earth believes that a popular vote is a suitable manner of deciding whether or not to adopt Lisbon?
To be honest, I think it’s great Ireland has a constitution that includes the referendum. In Germany we don’t have it at all. In general I believe in direct democracy, and I want people to learn to make decisions for themselves more. But making decisions also takes a lot of responsibility.
You have the responsibility to inform yourself on the facts, not just to listen to what other people say. You have the responsibility to look into the facts and make up your very own mind, not let anyone make up your mind by manipulating you into thinking what they want you to think. You have the responsibility to use the free mind that is granted by your country’s system.
At the same time I believe you have the right to receive balanced and true information – through your government for example. There’s just one problem I noticed – many politicians could tell people every possible truth and still nobody would listen to them, because people have lost hope in true and balanced information coming out of politicians’ mouths. Governments have disappointed their people too often, that’s why they don’t trust them even if they tell the truth. It’s about time governments realize how much their own people distrust them and work on it.
That’s what I think in general. I would even be ready to trust in people’s ability to make a responsible decision on a treaty like the Lisbon Treaty. But as long as people do not realize how much of a responsibility they have, I’m not sure whether a referendum on a complex treaty like that is the best solution. Maybe it’s not. But maybe it could be in the future.
April 22nd, 2008 | 4:39am
by EU Law
Jim, I think that the basic problem is that you’re trying to find a balanced view about a duality. You have the two contradictory views and, (at best), only one of them can be correct.
The Lisbon Treaty, for all that it has been made deliberately unpenatrable, differs so little from the Constitutional Treaty in substance that they are within a gnats whisker of being the same thing, (if you want to understand the Lisbon Treaty go and read the Constitutional one).
There are significant areas where sovereignty is being transferred, (hence the title of the first go), and the self ammendment abilities mean that this will be the last chance to have a voice on the issue without pulling out and starting again, (a process that is made deliberately more difficult by this treaty).
I believe that the current system fails in so many ways, (from lack of accountability to obvious corruption and coverups), that it would be better to break it completely and start again. Others, believe that despite them having failed utterly to bring accountability into the system before, there is still hope for doing so in the future.
Finally, given that the pro treaty camp have, with malice aforethought, hidden what the treaty meant, done everything they can to deny the people a voice and come up with so few and such poor arguments for a yes, I would vote no.
April 22nd, 2008 | 1:07pm
by Falco
I would recommend this document as the briefest factual summary of what the Treaty does. It’s the “comparative table of the current EC and EU treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon produced by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office”.
In respect of your simple query:
“I’ve been told by two separate people (neither of whom are generally given to conspiracy theory or unreliable flights of fancy) that the European parliament has actually voted to ignore the result of the Irish referendum should it be in the negative. However, I cannot find any verification for this. Does anyone know the full story?
Secondly, if that’s not the case and an Irish “No†vote will sink the treaty”
An amendment was indeed proposed to the effect that the EP undertook to “respect the result of the Irish referendum”. It was indeed voted down. That vote has no impact on whether an Irish No vote will sink the Treaty, since the EP has no choice in that respect – which, in turn, was the reason the amendment was voted down. It was a straightforward stunt amendment, which gave the EP the choice between looking undemocratic by voting it down, or being undemocratic by establishing a precedent that it had such powers. It chose the correct course.
April 22nd, 2008 | 3:04pm
by Joe O'Brien
Many thanks to all who have taken the time to respond here. There’s clearly a lot to read and think about. Unfortunately I picked a bad week to start this discussion as I’m presenting a paper tomorrow afternoon (on one of Freud’s central theoretical concepts — Nachträglichkeit — in case anyone’s interested) which is taking some time to prepare. And then, well, Thursdays and Fridays are the days I spend in the Trinity Reading Room working on my thesis.
So please don’t think I’m ignoring this debate, and let me assure you all that I’m very glad to see that a civilised discussion has emerged here, as opposed to the unhelpful mud-slinging that often results when European politics is mentioned. With a bit of luck I’ll have the time to respond in detail over the weekend.
April 22nd, 2008 | 4:18pm
by Jim Bliss
“The Lisbon Treaty … differs so little from the Constitutional Treaty in substance that they are within a gnats whisker of being the same thing…”
There are some key differences in fact, apart from those things that are widely known. To my knowledge for example the majority voting for foreign politics fell in the treaty of Lisbon and there remains to be unanimity there. Thats a huge difference in fact as it will be the very reason why this common foreign politics will remain inefficient also after the Lisbon treaty. But thats what integration sceptics want to see, here they have. Its sad that the sceptics completely fail to appreciate that large step that has made towards them in an area that is quite important.
“There are significant areas where sovereignty is being transferred, (hence the title of the first go), and the self ammendment abilities mean that this will be the last chance to have a voice on the issue without pulling out and starting again, (a process that is made deliberately more difficult by this treaty).”
As far as I know very little competence is actually transferred from national to EU level. The most significant change is the enlargement of the area where majority voting takes place in the council. While this will cause changes, it does not transfer competences. Thats quite some difference.
“I believe that the current system fails in so many ways, (from lack of accountability to obvious corruption and coverups)…”
Accountability, thats a good term. The Lisbon treaty substantially increases the power of the directly elected European Parliament. Except for what is today the third pillar (thats the common foreign and defense politics, where every member state remains to have veto powers), the Parliament will have equal powers to the Council in as good as all legislative acts. Additionally the Parliament acquires the ultimate authority over the entire EU budget (currently it has only control over about half of it, because the agriculture stuff is excepted). The position in the procedure of the Commission designation is slightly improved as well.
April 22nd, 2008 | 8:53pm
by slartibartfas
Please remember one single most important fact, Ireland is only holding a referendum because the Irish constitution demands one before it can be modified. So therefore the Lisbon Treaty changes the Irish constitution.
April 23rd, 2008 | 1:50pm
by Ken Adams
this has not been mentioned in the media. brown, blair,major,thatcher,callaghan,
wilson and ted heath,was reported for treason by a group of patriotic and
concerned constituents of kircady& cowdenbeath, led by retired royal engineers
captain peter adams. they charged brown & co with treason at kircady police
station.power may not be lawfully exercised unless done through the crown treason is therefore done when a minister of the crown signs a treaty that permanentaly revokes the power of the crown, as exercised via parliament, or
through the royal perogative in britain.this is because they have signed a treaty that ensures the crown no longer has the exclusive authority to apply the
royal perogative in those areas defined in the treaty. after the present queen
abdicates as if from henceforth binds all her successors, and therefore makes
the crown subserviant to the eu. this is allso confirmed by the fact that parliament may no longer prevent foreign judges from imposing laws, directly
upon british citizens simply bypassing parliament and the crown. in previous
treaties the power of the crown was said to be operated in the name of the crown
via the eu and that the authority of eu laws was based on them being produced as
a result of this shared control of power of the crown and the perogative with the eu. the uk goverment allowed the eu to enact laws in the name of thecrown via the eu treaties and this meant those laws became laws in the uk under the authority of the crown.the eu did not permamentaly revoke the power of the crown
but exercised the power of the crown,in the name of the crown via the eu.this treaty though removes and surrenders totaly the power of the crown over those areas defined in the treaty, and hands full power over exclusively in perpetuity
to the eu. this means the crown loses sovereign control of british territory and british dominions this means the act is treason. unquote
May 5th, 2008 | 10:39pm
by john cross
“[The Lisbon Treaty] hands full power over exclusively in perpetuity to the eu”
Except, of course John, it doesn’t. Which kind of puts a bit of a hole in your argument. Any EU nation (pre or post Lisbon) is free to withdraw completely from the EU should they choose and become as isolationist as they wish.
Should the British government ratify Lisbon (as looks likely) then all that’s required is for the next government (which is likely to be Tory) to reverse that decision and leave the EU. They would then be free to ignore any and all laws passed by the European Parliament and could negotiate trade and travel treaties separately with the rest of the EU.
Given that it’s unlikely the tories will do this (aware, as they are, of the likely negative economic effects of such a move) I suspect it’ll require a UKIP victory should you wish to see this happen.
May 9th, 2008 | 10:01pm
by Jim Bliss
[…] May 12th, 2008 | 4:24pm by Jim Bliss Well, it’s been a few weeks since I first posed some questions that had been troubling me regarding the Lisbon Treaty and the forthcoming referendum in Ireland. […]
May 12th, 2008 | 4:24pm
by The Quiet Road » Blog Archive » Return to Lisbon (with a “No!”)