Article 308 will prevent another referendum

[FutureTaoiseach]

Under Article 308 of the Lisbon treaty (353 of the TFU), the national govts in the EU, agreeing unanimously, can surrender our veto on taxation, our right to have any Commissioner ever, and change the voting system. And it can do all of this without a new treaty. This is even more disturbing than Article 48, because while there is debate over what 48 means in this context, Article 308/353 of TFU, is fairly unequivocal:

1. If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures. Where the measures in question are adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, it shall also act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

2. Using the procedure for monitoring the subsidiarity principle referred to in Article 3b(3) of the Treaty on European Union, the Commission shall draw national Parliaments' attention to proposals based on this Article.

3. Measures based on this Article shall not entail harmonisation of Member States' laws or regulations in cases where the Treaties exclude such harmonisation.

4. This Article cannot serve as a basis for attaining objectives pertaining to the common foreign and security policy and any acts adopted pursuant to this Article shall respect the limits set out in Article 25b, second paragraph, of the Treaty on European Union.".

Defend your right to a say in Europe - vote no!

[woodie]

Under Article 308 of the Lisbon treaty (353 of the TFU), the national govts in the EU, agreeing unanimously, can surrender our veto on taxation, our right to have any Commissioner ever, and change the voting system. And it can do all of this without a new treaty. This is even more disturbing than Article 48, because while there is debate over what 48 means in this context, Article 308/353 of TFU, is fairly unequivocal:

1. If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures. Where the measures in question are adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, it shall also act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

2. Using the procedure for monitoring the subsidiarity principle referred to in Article 3b(3) of the Treaty on European Union, the Commission shall draw national Parliaments' attention to proposals based on this Article.

3. Measures based on this Article shall not entail harmonisation of Member States' laws or regulations in cases where the Treaties exclude such harmonisation.

4. This Article cannot serve as a basis for attaining objectives pertaining to the common foreign and security policy and any acts adopted pursuant to this Article shall respect the limits set out in Article 25b, second paragraph, of the Treaty on European Union.".

Defend your right to a say in Europe - vote no!

There is already a similar article in the existing treaties (308 EC treaty) which allows the EU to take action in order to achieve its objectives but the existing treaties do not provide the necessary powers to do so.

At present, the Council decides unanimously on the basis of a Commission proposal and after consulting the EP. This measure is used all the time, mostly to adopt social security and agreements with third countries but also measures such as the International Fund for Ireland.

Since FT says he voted in favour of the previous treaties and supports the EU as it is, presumably he supports all of this??? :P

The Lisbon Treaty continues this provision but makes a number of positive reforms:

First, it upgrades the EP's involvement from consultation to consent (i.e. an effective veto) - clearly an advance on the existing provisisons;

Second, it specifies that national parliaments must be informed - again an advance on the current situation;

Third, this provision cannot be used to circumvent other treaty provisions exclusing harmonisation - no such clause in the existing treaties;

And fourth, it states it cannot be used in relation to CFSP.

Perhaps FT would explain why the existing provisions, which he supports and which do not contain a clause specifying that they cannot be used to 'bypass' exisiting exclusions such as Ireland's automatic right to appoint a Commissioner or the unanimity requirements for taxation, haven't been used to do such things?

And why these things would happen under Lisbon, which contains precisely such a clause???

[Compound Fracture]

More spin and lies from the crakpots at Libertas.

First of all, there is already a section of the EC Treaty dealing with this. Secondly, compare the respective wordings:

Article 308 EC Treaty:

If action by the Community should prove necessary to attain, in the course of the operation of the common market, one of the objectives of the Community, and this Treaty has not provided the necessary powers, the Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, take the appropriate measures.

Article 308 of Lisbon:

1. If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures. Where the measures in question are adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, it shall also act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

So Lisbon actually RESTRICTS the power of the Council in this regard, requiring the consent of the Parliament, whereas now they are only required to consult it.
There are further restrictions placed on the current Article 308 by Lisbon, which restrict the use of this section in the areas of the harmonisation of state laws, and on CFSP.

So now that this little lie has been dispensed with, what will Libertas' next little bit of scare-mongering be?

[Citizen]

More spin and lies from the crakpots at Libertas.

....

So now that this little lie has been dispensed with, what will Libertas' next little bit of scare-mongering be?

You protest too much.

This is an interesting clause and it is being expanded. Whatever about the respective roles of the Council and the EP, the point is that the Union itself is being given more scope to act if it sees fit. This is why we should be trying to anticipate now where the Union may go with this.

Firing off the abuse doesn't really help any of us in trying to get to understand this.

[Compound Fracture]

This is an interesting clause and it is being expanded. Whatever about the respective roles of the Council and the EP, the point is that the Union itself is being given more scope to act if it sees fit.

Can you read? The Lisbon Treaty RESTRICTS the powers that are already there!

1) It demands the consent of the European Parliament in this regard, as opposed to purely consulting it as is presently the case
2) It specifically states (for the first time) that this may not apply to harmonisation of laws, or CFSP
3) For the first time, It demands that National Parliaments be notified

Any other interpretation of this black-and-white provision is simply a fantasy.

PS: I find it interesting that you consider associating someone with Libertas to be an insult. Sign of the times maybe?

[Citizen]

Maybe I cannot read quite like you can. I do not see the three examples you give as restrictions on the scope given to the Union to extend its scope under Art 308. The EP is an institution of the Union - its consent is internal to the Union. The notification of National Parliaments involves buying a stamp. The exclusion of CFSP is not new. The exclusion you mention re harmonisation I will think about.

Are you capable of posting something on this without abuse?

[FutureTaoiseach]

First of all I am not a member of Libertas and never have been. Secondly on this:

2) It specifically states (for the first time) that this may not apply to harmonisation of laws, or CFSP

It does not state that it may not apply to the harmonisation of laws. Read it in full:

3. Measures based on this Article shall not entail harmonisation of Member States' laws or regulations in cases where the Treaties exclude such harmonisation.

As such, this could be used to end the veto on taxation and to harmonise taxes. As usual some people don't real the whole thing.

[michael1965]

3. Measures based on this Article shall not entail harmonisation of Member States' laws or regulations in cases where the Treaties exclude such harmonisation.

As such, this could be used to end the veto on taxation and to harmonise taxes. As usual some people don't real the whole thing.

Don't think so. To me, that says this new article cannot be used to bring in harmonisation in areas that were excluded previously.

[FutureTaoiseach]

3. Measures based on this Article shall not entail harmonisation of Member States' laws or regulations in cases where the Treaties exclude such harmonisation.

As such, this could be used to end the veto on taxation and to harmonise taxes. As usual some people don't real the whole thing.

Don't think so. To me, that says this new article cannot be used to bring in harmonisation in areas that were excluded previously.

I disagree. There is no specific ban on tax-harmonisation in the EU treaties.

[ibis]

3. Measures based on this Article shall not entail harmonisation of Member States' laws or regulations in cases where the Treaties exclude such harmonisation.

As such, this could be used to end the veto on taxation and to harmonise taxes. As usual some people don't real the whole thing.

Don't think so. To me, that says this new article cannot be used to bring in harmonisation in areas that were excluded previously.

I disagree. There is no specific ban on tax-harmonisation in the EU treaties.

All competencies not allowed to the EU are excluded. The EU is allowed competence only in matters it has specifically been granted competence in.