Italy proposes gag law on bloggers, FB posts; Brussels silent (again)

[sondagefaux]

Misreading Article 4 section 1 again? That clause has to be within the principle of subsidiarity, and since the EU is supreme, all of the member states (save Germany, via its Consitutional Court decision, where they approve all EU legislation) are subsidiaries of the Union and are therefore ruled from the top down. The EU has all power, via that principle; there isn't a single "competence" spelled out in the treaty that any of the member states have withheld.

Utter tripe. This is the meaning of the principle of subsidiarity:

The principle of subsidiarity is defined in Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. It is intended to ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen and that constant checks are made as to whether action at Community level is justified in the light of the possibilities available at national, regional or local level. Specifically, it is the principle whereby the Union does not take action (except in the areas which fall within its exclusive competence) unless it is more effective than action taken at national, regional or local level. It is closely bound up with the principles of proportionality and necessity, which require that any action by the Union should not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty.

The Edinburgh European Council of December 1992 issued a declaration on the principle of subsidiarity, which lays down the rules for its application. The Treaty of Amsterdam took up the approach that follows from this declaration in a Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality annexed to the EC Treaty. Two of the things this Protocol introduces are the systematic analysis of the impact of legislative proposals on the principle of subsidiarity and the use, where possible, of less binding Community measures.

Name one single regulation or directive that can be rejected by the member states.

Name one single regulation or directive about the age of consent, about the official languages of Ireland, about the Irish method of electing TDs or about the constitutional relationship of Scotland with the rest of the UK that the EU has the power to make.

You won't be able to because the EU doesn't have the competence to make laws in these areas.

And don't forget Article 5 section 3:Therefore, the EU can grab any power it sees fit; not that they have to, since this section gives them that power already, to decide for themselves what can be "better achieved at Union level" and act on it willy-nilly. Furthermore, there are no member state powers defined as the member states' "exclusive competences"; Article 4 section 1 and Article 5 section 2 are utterly meaningless thanks to the above section quoted. Better work a bit harder to cut through the legalese and sophistry.

Not quite Al, because Article 5.3 applies to areas of shared competence.

Those areas are set out in the other EU treaty, the TFEU.

The EU does not have power to make laws in any areas it chooses.

It can only make laws in areas that the EU treaties allow it to make laws.

If you can't understand that simple concept then you're an idiot.

[Al.]

[SIZE=1]It never ceases to amaze me the way folks lash out at Brussels for not doing something that is none of their concern and in the next breath, lash out at Brussels for controlling their lives in every respect. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]The EU has made huge efforts to respect the principle of subsidiarity and I would be appalled if they were to get stuck into matters that don't concern the treaties of Rome.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]This is a matter of national competence and the best bet is for the first victims of a prosecution to hotfoot it to Strasbourg and have the law found to be in contravention of the ECHR which it almost certainly will be. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]By then you may have another government in Italy...[/SIZE]

What kind of post is this?

It's fine and good to worry about "national competence" (which doesn't exist unless the member states actually assert it, but they didn't bother to have it enshrined in the treaties on European Union), but when you have governments that formerly respected freedoms we take for granted suddenly turn around and become authoritarian, and (surprise surprise) the EU's government turns a blind eye to it, then what you have to question is whether or not the EU is accessory and accomplice to such moves.

Furthermore, the "principle of subsidiarity" refers to top-down government. So given that, it makes Brussels look all the more complicit in the rise of such authoritarianism.

BTW, were you not aware that Il Popolo della Libertà are a fascist bloc? so don't expect them to be voted out and a more free government get into Italy's parliament any time soon. And as the article mentions, the leftists under Prodi were attempting to make equally authoritarian moves towards restrictions of freedom of speech and of the press. This is a European problem.

[Al.]

The principle of subsidiarity is defined in Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. It is intended to ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen and that constant checks are made as to whether action at Community level is justified in the light of the possibilities available at national, regional or local level. Specifically, it is the principle whereby the Union does not take action (except in the areas which fall within its exclusive competence) unless it is more effective than action taken at national, regional or local level. It is closely bound up with the principles of proportionality and necessity, which require that any action by the Union should not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty.

The Edinburgh European Council of December 1992 issued a declaration on the principle of subsidiarity, which lays down the rules for its application. The Treaty of Amsterdam took up the approach that follows from this declaration in a Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality annexed to the EC Treaty. Two of the things this Protocol introduces are the systematic analysis of the impact of legislative proposals on the principle of subsidiarity and the use, where possible, of less binding Community measures.

So these paragraphs verify exactly what I say, but when I say it, it's "utter tripe". You really need to take reading comprehension class again. Did you forget that one of the objectives of the Treaty of Lisbon was an "ever closer union"?


If you read the exclusive competences and shared competences of the EU as defined in the Treaties, you'd see that they extend to every governmental power. Nothing is left out, and nothing is left to a member state. Article 4 section 2:

[FONT=EUAlbertina][FONT=EUAlbertina]Shared competence between the Union and the Member States applies in the following [/FONT][FONT=EUAlbertina]principal areas:

1. internal market;
2. social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty;
3. economic, social and territorial cohesion;
4. agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources;
5. environment;
6. consumer protection;
7. transport;
8. trans-European networks;
9. energy;
10. area of freedom, security and justice;
11. common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in this Treaty.

[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=EUAlbertina][FONT=EUAlbertina]So what's left to the member states? The EU's list of "shared competences" even extends to age of consent matters through the powers over "social policy" and "economic, social and territorial cohesion", and Article 5 section 3 gives them the power to act unilaterally (i.e. as though it were "exclusive competence") when they decide that such matters can be "better handled at Union level".

Name one single regulation or directive about the age of consent, about the official languages of Ireland, about the Irish method of electing TDs or about the constitutional relationship of Scotland with the rest of the UK that the EU has the power to make. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EUAlbertina][FONT=EUAlbertina]You won't be able to because the EU doesn't have the competence to make laws in these areas[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=EUAlbertina][FONT=EUAlbertina]Circular argument. Inaction by Brussels doesn't imply no power to act. The list of shared competences (why "shared" when Article 5 section 3 empowers the Union to take them away as they see fit?) makes that utterly clear.

Article 5.3 applies to areas of shared competence

Actually, no. All it says is that the Union may take action in areas that do not fall within its exclusive competences. Shared competences are not mentioned at all. That gives it unlimited power.[/FONT][/FONT]

[sondagefaux]

So these paragraphs verify exactly what I say, but when I say it, it's "utter tripe". You really need to take reading comprehension class again. Did you forget that one of the objectives of the Treaty of Lisbon was an "ever closer union"?

If you read the exclusive competences and shared competences of the EU as defined in the Treaties, you'd see that they extend to every governmental power. Nothing is left out, and nothing is left to a member state. Article 4 section 2:So what's left to the member states? The EU's list of "shared competences" even extends to age of consent matters through the powers over "social policy" and "economic, social and territorial cohesion", and Article 5 section 3 gives them the power to act unilaterally (i.e. as though it were "exclusive competence") when they decide that such matters can be "better handled at Union level".Circular argument. Inaction by Brussels doesn't imply no power to act. The list of shared competences (why "shared" when Article 5 section 3 empowers the Union to take them away as they see fit?) makes that utterly clear.Yes, and I posted the list, which covers everything that a government would be able to do.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=EUAlbertina][SIZE=4][FONT=EUAlbertina][SIZE=4]
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

Al, you haven't got a clue. Away with you.

[Al.]

Al, you haven't got a clue. Away with you.

Don't get angry at me because you don't know how to understand what you read.

[ibis]

Al, you haven't got a clue. Away with you.

Ah - I could have told you that way back. Al's world is barely recognisable even to the most demented of other 'eurosceptics'. Other eurosceptics read Lyndon LaRouche, but Al mainlines him and distils extra loony juice out of it.

[ryson]

I hope the Italian people vote on it. Or we should all watch who is voting on it.
If the Italians people vote for it that will be too bad.
But then, how would they deal with someone in Turkey or Ireland posting
'incorrect facts' on the those same sites/blogs? They would have to filter
the net like China.
Watch bloody out.

Wonder if this is a Minstry of Truth attempt to outlaw the Truth Movements. It would backfire in court someting serious if it is.

[YoungLiberal]

Ah - I could have told you that way back. Al's world is barely recognisable even to the most demented of other 'eurosceptics'. Other eurosceptics read Lyndon LaRouche, but Al mainlines him and distils extra loony juice out of it.

There really ought to be an EU Law for Dummies book.

Although, I suspect they'd lack the self-awareness to buy the friggin' thing.

[YoungLiberal]

The Italian government seems to break every sort of human rights laws and the great "liberals" of the EU say nothing as always. Profit always comes first in the EU.

If the EU did do something, you'd be giving out about them violating sovereignty and acting like the "Fourth Reich".

Away with you, retardo.

[ibis]

Why would I criticise the EU if they were genuinely looking after human rights? Of course I criticise them when they poke their noses into a country's economic affairs.

There's the thing, though - there's this thing called the "internal market", right (used to be the Common Market)? And this other thing called the euro. And there's this thing called a customs union, too.

All of that together means that the economic affairs of the EU countries are so entangled that they essentially run them co-operatively. The EU's role in that is to act as referee. Where the EU countries haven't agreed to any joint rules, the EU has no role - as in this case. The EU isn't some kind of separate entity with a liberal agenda - it's part of the machinery of co-operation, its agenda is to enforce the rules that the countries have agreed amongst themselves, and it has only the powers required to do so.

Just as in football, the referee gets criticised by those on the sidelines all the time, but their job is only to ensure that the countries operate by the rules they've all agreed on. The referee may not approve of the players' lifestyles or hairstyles, but he has no right to comment on them.