So really the EU isn't democratic at all?

[junketman]

You know the Lisbon Treaty has focused the minds of a lot of people on the good and bad of the EU in a way which we wouldn't do if we weren't forced to, rightly, by the Lisbon Treaty.

With every Treaty and every passing year, we seem to surrender more of our soverignty and decision making to Europe, I don't think this can be doubted. Europe is unquestionably akin to Big Brother from 1984, making decisions for us, denying us the wider truth and preventing us having a say in what we want to do.

I am not saying the EU is a bad organisation, yes it has done some good work. However I do believe the EU is an undemocratic organisation. Yes people will say that the commissioners are nominated by governments and we elect the MEPs and this and that. But we elect the MEPs once every 5 years and when they go out there, they disappear from view. And I don't trust out governments to nominate anything other than political cronies to the Commission, which is after all a powerfull organisation in Europe which can make laws or block laws.

The fact that most Europeans cannot vote in referenda on important Treaties is also funadamentally wrong in my opinion because the Treaties alter the National-EU dynamic and can take power away from nations. Is it not right that the people decide this and not the politicians, many who have vested interests in doing the bidding of the EU.

I see the EU as an old boys club. The nation states must be the most important element in Europe and the EU should serve the interests of the people and the nation states and listen to directives from the people and not the other way around. If a number of politicians want to set up an old boys club and then through their own parliaments vote powers to that old boys club, is this right and is it legitimate? Not in my opinion and fundamentally, passing the Lisbon Treaty without asking the people in any country is an undemocratic and illigitimate act.

[goosebump]

You know the Lisbon Treaty has focused the minds of a lot people on the goodness and badness of the EU in a way which we wouldn't do it we weren't forced to, rightly, by the Lisbon Treaty.

With every Treaty and every passing year, we seem to surrender more of our soverignty and decision making to Europe, I don't think this can be doubted. Europe is unquestionably akin to BIg Brother from 1984, making decisions for us, denying us the wider truth and preventing us having a say in what we want to do.

I am not saying the EU is a bad organisation, yes it has done some good work. However I do believe the EU is an undemocratic organisation. Yes people will say that the commissioners are nominated by governments and we elect the MEPs and this and that. But we elect the MEPs one every 5 years and when they go out there, they disappear from view. And I don't trust out governments to nominate anything other than political cronies to the Commission, which is after all a powerfull organisation in Europe which can make laws or block laws.

The fact that most Europeans cannot vote in referenda on important Treaties is also funadamentally wrong in my opinion because the Treaties alter the National-EU dynamic and can take power away from nations. Is it not right that the people decide this and not the politicians, many who have vested interests in doing the bidding of the EU.

I see the EU has an old boys club. The nation states must be the most important element in Europe and the EU should serve the interests of the people and the nation states and listen to directives from the people and not the other way around. If a number of politicians want to set up an old boys club and then through their own parliaments vote powers to that old boys club, is this right and is it legitimate? Not in my opinion and fundamentally, passing the Lisbon Treaty without asking the people in any country is an undemocratic and illigitimate act.

Man, this stuff sounds soooo last year already.

[FutureTaoiseach]

I agree with you. This Treaty is too similar to the rejected EU Constitution and consequently its authors are not respecting the people of France and Holland. If this goes through, it will encourage the Brussels elites to think they can ride a coach and horses through public opinion on European issues, and to that extent that is worrying. A more remote EU awaits if this passes. I feel sorry for the French and Dutch people that they may have something foisted on them that they democratically-rejected. Supposing we were in their positions, I don't think we would take it lying down.

[imissmcdowell]

How can it be undemocratic where EU laws are passed and decisions made by the Council and EP, the members of both of which are democratically elected, and the Commissioners, appointed by the democratically elected governments? If a Member State's constitutional requirements mean that a referendum is not required, that does not in itself mean that the passing of the Treaty is undemocratic. Who approved those constitutional provisions and appointed the current governments in the first place?

[ectoraige]

And I don't trust out governments to nominate anything other than political cronies to the Commission, which is after all a powerfull organisation in Europe which can make laws or block laws.

Haugher nominated Burke, not exactly a crony. I do agree though that directly elected commission members would be better; it was never on the table though, not this time around anyway.

[R Paul]

If you'd bothered to read the information on the Treaty, you have seen that one of clear changes in Lisbon is to give the directly elected EP more power within the EU. So, if you actually cared about democracy at all, you'd have rushed to vote yes.

[junketman]

How can it be undemocratic where EU laws are passed and decisions made by the Council and EP, the members of both of which are democratically elected, and the Commissioners, appointed by the democratically elected governments? If a Member State's constitutional requirements mean that a referendum is not required, that does not in itself mean that the passing of the Treaty is undemocratic. Who approved those constitutional provisions and appointed the current governments in the first place?

I know you probably will reject this viewpoint but....

Lets say every country in Europe elects policitions. Then lets say all those politicians met in a big social club sumwhere, lets say Dublin 4, or Whitehall, or Paris, it really doesnt matter where. And lets say they decided, "sure lets set up an organisation among ourselves." And lets say they voted among themselves to give lots and lots of power to that organisation. And voted money from the exchequers of their own nations and then, guess who gets most money from the purse, the politicians, as well as expenses and free trips and everything else. It sounds exactly like the EU doesnt it? The reason being because that is essentially what the EU is! Created by politicians and not initially mandated by the people but pressed on the people later by the politicians and so on and so on. But yes, the EU is a creation of the politicians I am afraid to say and its they who benefit in the main from it.

Now really I think most people would agree that it is important that the people have some say along the way as to whether the parallel organisation set up by the politicians is more or less powerful than their own national parliaments.

And taking my example further, so we elect our national politicians. But what is to stop them nominating their old drinking buddy to the European Commission, someone who is utterly incompetent but a good friend nonetheless of the Taoiseach of the day. Isn't that what usually happens with nominations to semi-state bodies? What's to stop it happening with nominations the EU commission as well?

[avalon451]

How can it be undemocratic where EU laws are passed and decisions made by the Council and EP, the members of both of which are democratically elected, and the Commissioners, appointed by the democratically elected governments? If a Member State's constitutional requirements mean that a referendum is not required, that does not in itself mean that the passing of the Treaty is undemocratic. Who approved those constitutional provisions and appointed the current governments in the first place?

With all due respect, how democratic is it when your government and all the main parties say that any new treaty will be put forward in a referendum. This happened in Holland in 2005.

In the following elections (2006) none of the parties mentioned anything about the constitutional treaty.
Two years later the government and all the main parties decide that the new treaty is fundamentally different from the old treaty, because the references to the flag and the anthem have been taken out. No referendum is needed.

Is that democracy?

By the way, most of the Dutch main parties would be decimated if there would be elections today. I don't want to vote for a fringe party, I have never ever voted for the fringe, but I will next time. The last time that this happened (2002), the politicians were truly scared, and now they are beginning to get scared again (especially the socialists). The political class has only themselves to blame.

[R Paul]

How can it be undemocratic where EU laws are passed and decisions made by the Council and EP, the members of both of which are democratically elected, and the Commissioners, appointed by the democratically elected governments? If a Member State's constitutional requirements mean that a referendum is not required, that does not in itself mean that the passing of the Treaty is undemocratic. Who approved those constitutional provisions and appointed the current governments in the first place?

I know you probably will reject this viewpoint but....

Lets say every country in Europe elects policitions. Then lets say all those politicians met in a big social club sumwhere, lets say Dublin 4, or Whitehall, or Paris, it really doesnt matter where. And lets say they decided, "sure lets set up an organisation among ourselves." And lets say they voted among themselves to give lots and lots of power to that organisation. And voted money from the exchequers of their own nations and then, guess who gets most money from the purse, the politicians, as well as expenses and free trips and everything else. It sounds exactly like the EU doesnt it? The reason being because that is essentially what the EU is! Created by politicians and not initially mandated by the people but pressed on the people later by the politicians and so on and so on. But yes, the EU is a creation of the politicians I am afraid to say and its they who benefit in the main from it.

Now really I think most people would agree that it is important that the people have some say along the way as to whether the organisation set up by the politicians is more or less powerful than their own national parliaments.

Did you miss that bit in your own post? Who do you think votes in elections?

[junketman]

If you'd bothered to read the information on the Treaty, you have seen that one of clear changes in Lisbon is to give the directly elected EP more power within the EU. So, if you actually cared about democracy at all, you'd have rushed to vote yes.

Would this be the same EU parliament that voted to ignore the democratic outcome of the Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty if that vote was a NO? I do care about democracy, much more so than the eurocrats in the EU parliament.

The EU parliament is made up of politicians from the same political parties who run Europe and who sit around the commission table. Once they get to Europe they quickly fall into line and like I say, how many people in Connaught-Ulster for example know how their MEP has voted since they arrived in Europe?

In addition with the expanded EU parliament, Ireland's influence in terms of MEPs will be somewhere between 1-2%. That is exactly the influence of two independent TD's in Dail Eireann. Contrast that with the 100% influence we have in the Dail.

So 100% versus 1-2%, I know what parliament I would like to have more power in decision making and its not the EU parliament.