Pro-Europe No Voters: What constitutes a democratic Europe?

[ectoraige]

I've heard many arguments against the Lisbon Treaty, and to be honest, most of them seem based on lies, omissions, and fear-mongering.
However, the claim that the Lisbon Treaty fails to address deficincies in the democratic make-up of the EU is one that has some promise, being based on some political priniciple instead of knee-jerk antiestablishmentarianism.
Unfortunately. I have yet to really see any alternate visions presented of what a truly democratic Europe could be. So to the No campaigners here who believe in the continuance of the European project, I ask you, what do you want?

A directly elected commission? A president? A new executive structure? An upper and lower house? No ECJ? Inter-parliamentary working groups? What levels of accountability, proportionality, and representation should there be at the different levels? What changes to competances?

I'm not interested in hearing about the French/Dutch rejection of another treaty by-the-way, I'm sure there's plenty of room on other threads for that.

[Demotruk]

For me, the enshrining of a Europe wide referendum system, with a requirement whenever article 48 is invoked.

That, or get rid of article 48, but allow the people to decide as the treaty goes through. There are other things that would help, but those are my main contentions.

[FutureTaoiseach]

I want the evolution of the European project to be led by public opinion, rather than by just the elites. In that regard, I find it just offensive that the French/Dutch no votes are being treated with such flagrant disregard and disrespect. In fact, I find this to be more offensive to me than the actual content of the Treaty. No matter what an EU treaty contains, I will never use my vote to force other countries to give up sovereignty that their people have expressly voted against giving up/pooling.

The most important element then of democratising the European project is for the elites to start listening to public opinion including when it says no. If the answer is no then accept that. No shady business like bringing back the same rejected proposals under another name which is so brazenly what is happening here. On its own that would be sufficient to make this Treaty illegitimate.

Tbh, while I have spoken out on the need for a democratic Europe, that is not to say that I am seriously unhappy with the EU constitutional architecture as it stands now in practice. But I would welcome the following changes:

A: All EU treaties that reform EU institutions involving pooling more sovereignty should be subject to approval by referenda in all EU member states.

B: The unelective status of the Commission is increasingly resented across Europe. This could be addressed either by directly elected Commissioners where each state chooses their Commissioner, or perhaps by ensuring that only MEPs can become Commissioners.

C: Real power for national parliaments, including reforming the proposals in Lisbon such that when half of national parliaments call for legislation to be changed or scrapped, it becomes binding on the EU institutions to accede to such a request.

D: Instead of the non-binding nature of the Citizens Petition, a binding one is needed to allow EU citizens to introduce legislation in the European Parliament.

E: The co-decision procedure should be reformed so that while the European Parliament gets more vetoes/amending power over proposed EU legislation, that the corresponding national vetoes in the relevant policy-areas are retained at Council of Ministers level. This differs from the existing mechanism which combines more vetoes for the EP with the extension of QMV at Council of Ministers level.

[Demotruk]

D: Instead of the non-binding nature of the Citizens Petition, a binding one is needed to allow EU citizens to introduce legislation in the European Parliament.

You mean like Citizen's Initiated Referenda? That would be perfect, but not going to happen in a million years.

[Rocky]

A: All EU treaties that reform EU institutions involving pooling more sovereignty should be subject to approval by referenda in all EU member states.

Under the German Constitution there is no provision for referendums because Nazis twice used plebiscites for aggressive purposes, for the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936 and the swallowing-up of Austria in 1938. In several other EU countries referendums are very rare and not part of their usual political discourse.

B: The unelective status of the Commission is increasingly resented across Europe. This could be addressed either by directly elected Commissioners where each state chooses their Commissioner, or perhaps by ensuring that only MEPs can become Commissioners.

The Commission is elected indirectly, in that the elected government of the people chose a countries Commissioner. Much the same way as Ministers are chosen in a national government.

D: Instead of the non-binding nature of the Citizens Petition, a binding one is needed to allow EU citizens to introduce legislation in the European Parliamebnt.

A million people in no way represents a majority of EU Citizens though. It would be very easy for a million people to sign a petition, which the large majority of EU citizens disagrees with. It would also be possible for two citizen’s petition to be created, which are completely contradictory.

[The Earl of Desmond]

First off I want to see to the penny how much MEPs have been claiming in expenses. Then I want to know who they employ and what the relationship is. Then I want expenses and employing family members banned. The Council meetings should be open to the public and its minutes published and its voting record published as well.

There should be much more use of referenda. There are so many ways to make the EU more honest and accountable.

However, what really needs to be done is a change in attitude of those who are considered part of the political 'elite' - the patronising attitude fro mthe YEs side ot people on the No side has been quite off putting. I'm voting no but I have no problems with a federal EU - all I ask is that it comes about honesty and by the free will of EU citizens and if that doesn't happen then that's democracy and my opinion will remain a minority one.

I'm voting No because mainly I simply do not believe a word the Yes side are telling me and the reason for that is all the lies told by all political parties and the lack of courage the opposition shows to put forward some real radical solutions. In Ireland - if an FFer tells me - an FGer - to do something then I'll do the opposite to spite them. If Garret FitzGerald tells me that I'm anti EU or anti IRish or stupid for voting No then I'm going to vote No for sure - as how dare he patronise me in that way.

If Enda Kenny lacks the guts to begin to educate the Irish public that if it wants the things it claims to want then there are big changes it needs to make like paying more tax and changing who it votes for and in return for paying more tax they'll get more public serivces and save on having to pay for all the things given to private firms by the FFers and that tax tax spending will be audited and every penny accounted for etc. But he won't and tries to make FG all things to all people instead of gaining votes the honest way.

There are so many reasons for voting No.

Most of them come back to people wanting to stop the whole pressure cooker and be able to make their own choice and not feel pressurised into a choice they don't understand. What is the rush? WHy is it so vital we vote Yes? What exactly will happen if we vote No? Nothing.