That vote in the European Parliament...

[R Paul]

To set last week's vote in the European Parliament in context.

A report on the Lisbon Treaty was prepared by two MEPs (i.e. this was Parliament's analysis of the treaty). A resolution adopting the report was up for approval/rejection by the Parliament. The original text of the resolution in its entirity can be found here, together with a fairly good explanatory note on the treaty from the two MEPs.

Thirty nine seperate amendments to this resolution were proposed by various MEPs (mainly Euro-sceptic or comparable). The texts of these resolution - which were intended to alter the text of the original resolution - can be found here (#32 is the "Irish referendum" one).

To edit (for the sake of brevity) the original resolution reads more or less as follows:

The European Parliament,

– having regard to ... (various previous treaties etc. - times 6)

Whereas:

.... (times 8)

A positive step for the future of the Union

1. Concludes that, taken as a whole, the Treaty of Lisbon is a substantial improvement on the existing Treaties, which will bring more democratic accountability to the Union and enhance its decision-making (through a strengthening of the roles of the European Parliament and the national parliaments), enhance the rights of European citizens vis-à-vis the Union and ameliorate the effective functioning of the Union's institutions;

More democratic accountability

2. Welcomes the fact that democratic accountability and decision-making powers will be enhanced, allowing citizens to have greater control over the Union's action, notably due to the following improvements:

(a) the adoption of all European Union legislation will be subject to a level of parliamentary scrutiny that exists in no other supranational or international structure:

– all European legislation will, with a few exceptions, be submitted to the dual approval, in equal terms, of the Council (composed of national ministers accountable to their parliaments) and of the European Parliament (composed of directly elected MEPs);

– the prior scrutiny by national parliaments of all legislation of the Union will be reinforced as they will receive all European legislative proposals in good time to discuss them with their ministers before the Council adopts a position and will also gain the right to demand a fresh scrutiny of a proposal if they feel it does not respect the principle of subsidiarity;

(b) the President of the Commission will be elected by the European Parliament, on a proposal of the European Council taking into account the elections to the European Parliament;

(c) the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will be appointed by both the European Council and the President of the Commission and, as a member of the Commission, must undergo the same investiture procedure in Parliament as any other Commissioner;

(d) a new, simpler and more democratic budgetary procedure with a single reading is established: the distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure is abolished, thus ensuring full parity between Parliament and Council as regards approval of the whole annual budget, while Parliament is also granted the right of consent to the legally binding Multiannual Financial Framework;

(e) democratic control in relation to the legislative powers delegated to the Commission will be reinforced through a new system of supervision in which the European Parliament or the Council may either call back Commission decisions or revoke the delegation of such powers;

(f) the consent of the European Parliament will be required for the approval of a wide range of international agreements signed by the Union, including those concerning domains subject to the ordinary legislative procedure in the internal sphere of the Union;

(g) the Council will meet in public when deliberating or voting on draft legislative acts, thus allowing citizens to see how their governments act in the Council;

(h) agencies, notably Europol and Eurojust, will be subject to greater parliamentary scrutiny;

(i) the Committee of the Regions will be able to bring cases before the Court of Justice, its members' term of office will be increased to five years and its relations with the European Parliament will be defined more clearly;

(j) the procedure for revising the Treaties will be, in future, more open and democratic, as the European Parliament will also acquire the power to submit proposals to that end, the scrutiny of any proposed revision must be carried out by a Convention which will include representatives of national parliaments and of the European Parliament, unless Parliament agrees that this is not necessary, while new simplified revision procedures are introduced for amending, by unanimous decision, certain provisions of the Treaty, with the approval of the national parliaments;

Affirming values, strengthening rights of citizens, improving clarity

....... (points 3 through 6)

Conclusions

7. Endorses the Treaty and stresses the need for all Member States of the Union to achieve its ratification in good time for its entry into force on 1 January 2009;

.... (points 8 through 12)

Had the proposed amendment #32 been adopted, then (if I read it correctly) this would have altered the above to read:

....

A positive step for the future of the Union

1. Concludes that, taken as a whole, the Treaty of Lisbon is a substantial improvement on the existing Treaties, which will bring more democratic accountability to the Union and enhance its decision-making (through a strengthening of the roles of the European Parliament and the national parliaments), enhance the rights of European citizens vis-à-vis the Union and ameliorate the effective functioning of the Union's institutions;

More democratic accountability

-2a. Undertakes to respect the outcome of the referendum in Ireland. (i.e. amendment #32)

2. Welcomes the fact that democratic accountability and decision-making powers will be enhanced, allowing citizens to have greater control over the Union's action, notably due to the following improvements:

(a) the adoption of all European Union legislation will be subject to a level of parliamentary scrutiny that exists in no other supranational or international structure:

....

Does anyone believe:
a) that this was a logical place for the proposed amendment (irrespective of whether you are/were pro/con the proposed amendment)?
b) that it enhances the original resolution in any way?
c) that there is a special case for singleing out Ireland in a resolution of this kind?
d) that the other twenty six should have been ignored if Ireland was to be included?
e) that the majority in the Parliament were wrong to vote down the proposed amendment since it appears so out of context with the original resolution?

If so, please feel free to explain...


PS Please remember it was a proposal to insert the suggested amendment into the original resolution that was voted down, the Parliament didn't hold a vote on the actual content of the proposed amendment.

[MacCoise]

Does anyone believe:
a) that this was a logical place for the proposed amendment (irrespective of whether you are/were pro/con the proposed amendment)?
b) that it enhances the original resolution in any way?
c) that there is a special case for singleing out Ireland in a resolution of this kind?
d) that the other twenty six should have been ignored if Ireland was to be included?
e) that the majority in the Parliament were wrong to vote down the proposed amendment since it appears so out of context with the original resolution?

If so, please feel free to explain...


PS Please remember it was a proposal to insert the suggested amendment into the original resolution that was voted down, the Parliament didn't hold a vote on the actual content of the proposed amendment.

a) Yes, a section talking about democratic accountability seems like a good place to undertake to respect the outcome of a referendum

b) Yes of course it does-especially as a voter in the upcoming referendum

c) Well, if other countries were holding referendums I'm sure the amendment would have referred to them too.

d) Are they holding referendums? or are you suggesting that ratification of Treaties should come under QMV too?

e) Why is out of context?-its a report on the Treaty-- the number appears sloppy now but would have been tidied up afterwards.

As for your point about that "the Parliament didn't hold a vote on the actual content of the proposed amendment"-well, thats just wrong. Its an argument akin to voting against because you don't like the colour of the ballot paper. They vote politically not for aestethic reasons

[R Paul]

Does anyone believe:
a) that this was a logical place for the proposed amendment (irrespective of whether you are/were pro/con the proposed amendment)?
b) that it enhances the original resolution in any way?
c) that there is a special case for singleing out Ireland in a resolution of this kind?
d) that the other twenty six should have been ignored if Ireland was to be included?
e) that the majority in the Parliament were wrong to vote down the proposed amendment since it appears so out of context with the original resolution?

If so, please feel free to explain...


PS Please remember it was a proposal to insert the suggested amendment into the original resolution that was voted down, the Parliament didn't hold a vote on the actual content of the proposed amendment.

a) Yes, a section talking about democratic accountability seems like a good place to undertake to respect the outcome of a referendum

...

e) Why is out of context?-its a report on the Treaty-- the number appears sloppy now but would have been tidied up afterwards.

Try reading the actual text of the resolution. Section 2 - the "More Democratic Accountability" section - is talking about improvements in the democratic accountalbility and decision making of the EU. As such, at that point in the resolution, it makes no sense to put something in about the referendum here in Ireland.

b) Yes of course it does-especially as a voter in the upcoming referendum

c) Well, if other countries were holding referendums I'm sure the amendment would have referred to them too.

d) Are they holding referendums? or are you suggesting that ratification of Treaties should come under QMV too?

Okay, I'll be nice and assume you are sincere (though I have my doubts)...

Even if you believe that the resolution should contain declarations that the European Parliament respects the results of the referendum, the resolution would then presumably have to say it respects the results of the varied Parliamentary ratification methodolgiess used in the member states (and it would probably have to list each member state in seperate sub-clauses!). That way no one could claim the EP is implying any given methodology is better or worse than any other.

All this is very well, but as has been pointed out elsewhere, it is the business of each member state how they ratify the treaty. The European Parliament has no say in how they do it. If, for example, they decided the German system is the best one, so what? It doesn't mean any other state is going to suddenly start using the German system.

As such, the various amendments would merely serve to make the original resolution longer to very little (if any) effect...

As for your point about that "the Parliament didn't hold a vote on the actual content of the proposed amendment"-well, thats just wrong. Its an argument akin to voting against because you don't like the colour of the ballot paper. They vote politically not for aestethic reasons

There is a difference between voting on a resolution (i.e. content) and voting on an amendment to a resolution (i.e. whether the content should be changed). If Mar-Lou et al in the GUE/NGL wanted to put a simple resolution, such as: "The European Parliament undertakes to respect the outcome of the referendum in Ireland", they could have done so. This would have allowed for a "clean" vote on the concept (of the amendment). They chose not to do so. Their intention was probably to see the amendment voted down...[/i]