The interests of the Union = the interests of its citizens?

[Helium Three]

Earnest has asked a very good question on another thread that I think deserves wider consideration: what might the interests of the European Union be, other than the interests of its peoples?

His question came in answer to this post about the changed nature and focus of the post-Lisbon Union -

The Lisbon treaty is complicated. The part of the treaty that changes the nature of the EU is not that complicated though, and here it is:

So we can see what we are being asked to change, here first is the article in the current treaty that sets out what the existing task of the Union is supposed to be:

The Union shall be founded on the European Communities, supplemented by the policies and
forms of cooperation established by this Treaty. Its task shall be to organise, in a manner
demonstrating consistency and solidarity, relations between the Member States and between their
peoples. (Article 1, Treaty on European Union as it stands now.)

The Lisbon treaty takes all that out. It deletes it in full.

The Lisbon treaty - if it gets majority support in Ireland - will replaces that noble task with something completely different. Instead of organising the relations between the Member States and between their peoples, this new Union's tasks are by contrast primarily focussed on identifying, prioritising and asserting its own interests.

Look more closely and you will see for example it talks about us now about 'its peoples', a significant shift away from the existing treaty which refers to us as people of the Member States. It also changes the quality of EU citizenship to become for the first time a citizenship which is said to be 'addtional' to our national citizenship. The current text talks about EU citizenship complementing national citizenship. The new EU now regards itself entitled to address itself directly to us 'its citizens', bypassing our national states in so doing. Welcome to our new Mama.

Examples from the new Article 2 TEU:

1. The Union’s aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.

2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal
frontiers, .....

5. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and
interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. ...

Not too complicated there. It's simple enough to see what is going on once you get to the important bit. The people who want a Yes vote know that so instead of pointing this change out they just keep talking about concentration camps, Beethoven, or the fine weather...

***
Earnest raises a fair point. Can anyone imagine any circumstances where the interests of this European Union might not be identical with our interests?

[brio910]

The interests of the citizens of member states do not always tally with that of the increased power of the elites who run the EU.

[Helium Three]

Doesn't this shift also pave the way for the EU to go over the heads of our own countries and deal with 'its citizens' directly, whether in terms of giving us goodies or demanding our loyalty?

[Earnest]

Doesn't this shift also pave the way for the EU to go over the heads of our own countries and deal with 'its citizens' directly, whether in terms of giving us goodies or demanding our loyalty?

I asked: "what might the interests of the European Union be, other than the interests of its peoples? "

Helium Three puts out into cyberspace: "Can anyone imagine any circumstances where the interests of this European Union might not be identical with our interests?" as if it was a rephrasing of the question I asked. But of course, it is not, since "our interests" will be interpreted by most people as the interests of us, the citizens of Ireland. Whereas what I was talking about was the interests of its peoples, all 27 of them.

Brio910 points out: "The interests of the citizens of member states do not always tally with that of the increased power of the elites who run the EU." True. But it is equally true of Ireland: the elite that runs Ireland may well not govern in the interests of the citizens of Ireland. We try to moderate their actions through the political process. Equally, we try to moderate the actions of the European elite through the political process.

Helium Three's last question is "Doesn't this shift also pave the way for the EU to go over the heads of our own countries and deal with 'its citizens' directly, whether in terms of giving us goodies or demanding our loyalty?" The problem with this way of thinking is that it forgets that the EU is not an external force, we are part of it. Just as the Irish government may give us goodies or demand our loyalty, EU institutions (you can't talk of an EU government pre- or post-Lisbon) may give us goodies or demand our loyalty. If they give us goodies, we need to steel ourselves not to be bought. If they demand our loyalty, we reply: only so far as we've committed ourselves to that in the treaties.

[Helium Three]

I asked: "what might the interests of the European Union be, other than the interests of its peoples? "

Helium Three puts out into cyberspace: "Can anyone imagine any circumstances where the interests of this European Union might not be identical with our interests?" as if it was a rephrasing of the question I asked.

Not so. It was simply my own question, albeit one prompted by your question. Do not mischaracterise it.

Brio910 points out: "The interests of the citizens of member states do not always tally with that of the increased power of the elites who run the EU." True. But it is equally true of Ireland: the elite that runs Ireland may well not govern in the interests of the citizens of Ireland. We try to moderate their actions through the political process. Equally, we try to moderate the actions of the European elite through the political process.

Some may think it relatively easier to do the moderating when we speak the same language, and can sack the guy. Or force his buddies to get him to jump for fear we will sack them.

Helium Three's last question is "Doesn't this shift also pave the way for the EU to go over the heads of our own countries and deal with 'its citizens' directly, whether in terms of giving us goodies or demanding our loyalty?" The problem with this way of thinking is that it forgets that the EU is not an external force, we are part of it. Just as the Irish government may give us goodies or demand our loyalty, EU institutions (you can't talk of an EU government pre- or post-Lisbon) may give us goodies or demand our loyalty. If they give us goodies, we need to steel ourselves not to be bought. If they demand our loyalty, we reply: only so far as we've committed ourselves to that in the treaties.

How far is that exactly? On another thread there has been a 24 hour barrage of learned argument trying to settle whether an Irish citizen may or may not be able to go to Court over how the Irish government interprets its obligations under just one single subarticle of the new treaty. Who decides what we have committed ourselves to if there is a dispute? The ECJ - whose task is to promote the Union?

And of course the Union is indeed an external force. It gets its own legal personality under Lisbon. You may see a perpetual consonance between what the Union regards as its interests and what citizens regard as their interests. Not everyone may see things so optimistically.

[myksav]

Doesn't this shift also pave the way for the EU to go over the heads of our own countries and deal with 'its citizens' directly, whether in terms of giving us goodies or demanding our loyalty?

I asked: "what might the interests of the European Union be, other than the interests of its peoples? "

Helium Three puts out into cyberspace: "Can anyone imagine any circumstances where the interests of this European Union might not be identical with our interests?" as if it was a rephrasing of the question I asked. But of course, it is not, since "our interests" will be interpreted by most people as the interests of us, the citizens of Ireland. Whereas what I was talking about was the interests of its peoples, all 27 of them.

Brio910 points out: "The interests of the citizens of member states do not always tally with that of the increased power of the elites who run the EU." True. But it is equally true of Ireland: the elite that runs Ireland may well not govern in the interests of the citizens of Ireland. We try to moderate their actions through the political process. Equally, we try to moderate the actions of the European elite through the political process.

Helium Three's last question is "Doesn't this shift also pave the way for the EU to go over the heads of our own countries and deal with 'its citizens' directly, whether in terms of giving us goodies or demanding our loyalty?" The problem with this way of thinking is that it forgets that the EU is not an external force, we are part of it. Just as the Irish government may give us goodies or demand our loyalty, EU institutions (you can't talk of an EU government pre- or post-Lisbon) may give us goodies or demand our loyalty. If they give us goodies, we need to steel ourselves not to be bought. If they demand our loyalty, we reply: only so far as we've committed ourselves to that in the treaties.

Hi Earnest,
First off, who are those 27 people that make up the EU? Will I assume you meant the peoples of the 27 countries?

If the "elite" who run Ireland may or may not have our best interests in mind, how can you expect the EU "institutions" (in other words Government) to have the best interests of so many diverse groups of people , all with different expectations?

Anyone who DEMANDS loyalty does not deserve it. Loyalty is given voluntarily, in both directions. Our present politicians seem to not know this simple concept.
Interestingly, Mr Cowen demanded that the Fianna Fail elected members vote in favour of the Lisbon Treaty or be kicked out of the Party. Be loyal to the Party line or you're gone. Certain echoes in history with that.

Mike

[Helium Three]

Vote Yes or else is hardly the hallmark of democracy, and FF is a democratic party.

[Helium Three]

Some more changes under the Lisbon treaty to think about here:

One indicator of the constitutional change which Lisbon would bring about is that Members of the European Parliament, who under the present treaties are "representatives of the peoples of the member states brought together in the Community", would become "representatives of the union's citizens" in the post-Lisbon EU.

Another is that the European Council, the summit meetings of prime ministers and presidents, would become an EU institution for the first time, legally bound to forward the interests of the union, not of the national governments or electorates concerned, so that its acts or its failing to act would be subject to judicial review by the EU Court of Justice.

As well as being deprived of a voice on the EU Commission, the body which proposes all EU laws, for five years out of every 15, a little noticed feature of Lisbon's provisions is that when it comes to Ireland's turn to have a commissioner, we would lose the right to decide who he or she would be. Henceforth Ireland would be able to make "suggestions" only, for the new commission president to decide.

From an opinion piece by Anthony Coughlan in today's Irish Times.

Direct link for subscribers here

Why?

[Helium Three]

No one from the Yes side with an opinion on Earnest's question?

[Macca]

I think that's a non question, the debate has descended into arguing over semantics and grammar, you could ask what is the difference between the interests of the Irish govt and the Irish people.

What would be more relevant is to ask: What difference is there between the interests of the Irish, Poles, Spaniards, Italians, Danes, Czechs etc The answer is very little.

There is far too much scaremongering about the EU, the "them and us" attitude must change.