LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
The boards.ie that bans anyone of Eurocritical views?Originally Posted by molloyjh
I have posted extracts of the Referendum Commission Report on the Lisbon threads in support of my arguments, including quotes specifically from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The only hysteria comes from some pro-Lisbon supporters who are trying to link the no vote to a global recession and an Irish property crash that was already well underway in June 2008. This was my first no vote in an EU referendum, having voted yes in the previous 3. I came to a rational decision based on the merits and demerits of the Treaty and a growing concern about the lack of democracy in Europe, which I feel is aggravated by Lisbon, not least because it defies the wishes of 2 other nations who voted to reject the almost identical EU Constitution. I make no apology for my position.
The Parliament has never exercised its role of holding the Commission to account. The whole thing is a stitch-up over there. The EPP and PES agree to rotate the Presidency of the European Parliament and have voted on the EP Joint Committee on Budgetary Control to suppress the Galvin Report into corruption in the EP expenses system. The EP has abdicated its responsibility to the taxpayers of Europe to rein in Brussels corruption. The EU budget has not been signed-off on by the EU Court of Auditors for 14 years. They almost make Fianna Fáil look whiter than white.From my point of view I voted Yes for the following reasons:
- The Commission reduction (which we agreed to in Nice) makes perfect sense given the bloated size of it as it stands. The only way to insure that it remains as impartial as possible and not local is to make sure every nation has equal ability to put forward a Commissioner. While they don't currently represent their own countries interests, if you have them directly elected by the citizens of the EU you will find them all coming from Germany and France etc. While the Parliament acts as a control to that also, there is always the possibility that the Commission could end up looking after sections of the EU.
The population-weight is explicitly introduced into the voting-system for the first time. Until now, the small member states were over-represented per head of population, with Ireland for example having 7 out of 345 votes (2.1%) on the Council of Ministers. The numerical weighted-vote is being abolished in favour of a population weight, reducing the effective weighted-vote of Ireland to 0.85%. It makes the small states second-class members of the EU. To form a blocking-minority, you will need 4 states including over 35% of the EU's population. In practice, this means that 4 Big States can block everything subject to QMV (over 90% of areas is Lisbon goes through) while 11 small countries would not be able to form a blocking-minority because they would be unable to pass the 35%+ pppulation threshold. The Treaty erects Chinese walls between Big States and Small states, reducing the small states to vassals of the former. Below are the present (Nice) voting weights and beside them the new population-weights that effectively reduce Ireland to 0.85% of the voting-strength.- New QMV method for voting: Despite the No campaigns BS about our voting weight being halved, it is not. The new method provides a dynamic way of calculating each member states voting weights. Where-as before the weights were set and that meant that when new member states were introduced there was always a period of reviewing the weights the new method means that this review period is no longer required. It also means that any shifts in population (which are obviously unlikely) would also be factored in.
While not exactly a fan, I'm tempted refer to Edward Carson's old adage about 'a sentence of death with a stay of execution of 7 years' in relation to another treaty. The new system removes the equality between Big and Small states that required equal rotation of the position of President of the Council every 6 months to one where the Big States can use their blocking-minority under QMV to veto any nominee that displeases them. 3 Big States plus 1 small, or 4 Big States would have the power to block any nominee they don't like. It is quite conceivable that an Irishman/woman would rarely if ever hold that post for at least a generation should this mechanism enter into force.- President of the Council: currently we have an indirect say in this for 6 months every 13.5 years (our head of state by rotation), with the new method we get an indirect say every 2.5 years. Directly electing this position would lead to a German President or French President more often than not.
They will get 8 weeks notice of new EU legislation coming from the Commission. Fine. The problem is that they will still have no power to block proposed EU legislation. The powers are purely consultative and intended to provide a veneer of democracy for an undemocratic form of govt. The way the mechanism will work is as follows: If one-third of national parliaments agree that proposed EU legislation violates the principle of "subsidiarity" (that, unless EU institutions have exclusive power, action will only be taken at a European level if it were to be more effective than acting at a national level), the Commission will have to either withdraw, maintain or amend it. Similarly, if a majority of national parliaments object to the proposal, the Commission will be required to explain its reasons. But again - and this is the important point. The Commission can press on regardless. National parliaments will still be unable to stop the EU Commission pressing on with initiating legislation. Not good enough considering the vast powers we are surrendering in terms of the expansion of QMV and the Supreme Court-type powers the Charter of Fundamental Rights will give the ECJ. And tell me this: if the Commission can't bring itself to listen to the no votes of 20 million Europeans who have voted on the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty, then what makes you think they will listen to a few hundred parliamentarians?- Additional role for the National Parliaments: National Parliaments currently have no input into EU legislation. With Lisbon they would be given 8 weeks to review and comment on legislation.
It is my contention that the simplified revision-procedure is intended to circumvent the requirement for referenda in member states such as Ireland. The Crotty Judgement of 1986 stated that referenda were only required if a Treaty changed the "scope" of the EU. If Lisbon goes through, future treaty changes can be rammed through without an Irish referendum and when it comes to the inevitable constitutional-challenge, the govt will simply argue that this is within the "scope" of changes envisaged by Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty/self-amending provisions.- The much maligned self-amending element of the Treaty: This just means that rather than writing new Treaties every time there are changes to be made to the workings of the EU, which would lead to multiple treaties all referencing each other and create a god awful mess, the EU can update Lisbon. The changes themselves still need to be approved in the same way as a new Treaty would, but the implementation of the changes if approved has changed. This means that in 20 years the EU won't be a complete mess of treaties.
There is already a petition. As with the old one, this is non-binding. It has about as much weight as a petition to a Medieval king. And might I add you will need 1 million signatures to invoke it. And still the Commission can take no notice. The relevant amendment to the Treaties by Lisbon in this respect is the new Article 11.4 of the Treaty on European Union:- Citizens Initiative: Allowing the citizens of the EU direct access to the Commission by petition.
Agreed. But the mechanism for invoking this process poses as many questions as answers. A QMV vote on the European Council will be required to ratify any withdrawl agreement.- Mechanism for leaving the EU: Although I am very pro-EU it only makes sense to have a way out defined.
Well you can research if you want. I have posted hectares of my own research on the treaty in the past year and a half, including direct quotes from the Lisbon Treaty. In any discussion on a subject matter, primary-sources are the most credible basis for arguments and that should also be the case where this Treaty is concerned. I challenge you to post which parts of the Treaty support your arguments as I have posted those which support mine.To me these are all logical, sensible changes. Maybe we don't exactly "get" anything from them, but that doesn't mean we should reject it. I also voted Yes because I researched many of the No claims and found them to be bogus. I could go through those if you like but I'm concious of the size of the post....
