Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Referendum on Lisbon Treaty
Options
Comments
-
Perhaps you can outline the "considerable powers over all our lives" that the "president of Europe" will have?
This is what's in the Treaty about him/her (a bit long):
These are "considerable powers over all our lives"? Convening meetings and relaying decisions? What are people smoking around here?
cordially,
Scofflaw
Is your argument that, because you judge the president and the commission have no real power, therefore there is no need to elect them? Or are you saying that, should you judge that they have, in fact power over us, then you would agree that they should be elected by the citizens over which they hold power?
On rereading your post, is it possible you confuse the office of President of the Council with the office of President of the Commission?
The proposed "president of the commission" (the clue is in the title) is de facto a super commissioner much in the way that the taoiseach is a super minister. ( If one was to read the constitutional position regarding the powers of the taoiseach and then observed the way, in practice, the office has evolved more into something akin to a monarch, where the only power we have over him is to remove him every few years, it's not hard to understand why many have the same fears for the president and commission)
The commission, and the president of the commission, have powers to propose new powers and initiate legislation, to enact delegated legislation, to represent the EU in external relations and to implement EU policies and supervise their implementation by the member states. Additionally, the president himself (much like our taoiseach), selects which commissioners will hold which portfolio. The commission sets the overall budget for the EU and the president of the commission has an important and influential position, being responsible for policy initatives, shaping overall commission policy, coordinating commission policy, and has the power (just like our taoiseach) to "request" a member of the commission to resign. Also like our taoiseach, he can reshuffle his commission on a whim.
the areas where the commissioners have competence over the EU include agriculture, fisheries, transport, energy, research, environment, the internal market, competition, employment & social affairs, taxation and custome union, education & culture, trade, external relations and justice and home affairs.
In every way the president of the commission and the commissioners seem to have the same powers at EU level that our taoiseach and his cabinet have at national level. The commission even has 25 000 permanent staff, equivalent to our civil service.
The main difference between the president and the commission, and the taoiseach and the irish cabinet, is that the taoiseach and his cabinet are elected by us as Irish citizens while the president and the commissioners are not elected by a single vote of a citizen of any EU country.
By any measure they both exercise substantial powers over us as citizens.
It seems extraordinary that anyone should wish to trivialise the importance, role and power held by the president and the commission,
and one can only speculate as to why someone would want to do that.These are "considerable powers over all our lives"? Convening meetings and relaying decisions? What are people smoking around here? cordially,
Scofflaw
I can only repeat we should all vote no to this treaty which gives us no say in electing the president and the commission who hold so much power over our lives, and we should continue to vote no until such times as they are democratically accountable to us, the citizens over whom they hold power.0 -
That's quite a remarkable post, jawlie, because you spend it talking about the proposed "President of the Commission" - a position which already exists, and who is, in fact, elected by the elected EP. You appear to have confused this with the position of full-time President of the European Council (a body with no legislative powers) that is proposed in the Treaty of Lisbon.Is your argument that, because the president and the commission have no real power, therefore there is no need to elect them? Or are you saying that, no matter what powers they have, or accumulate over time, there is no necessity to elect them either way?
The proposed "president of the commission" (the clue is in the title) is de facto a super commissioner much in the way that the taoiseach is a super minister. ( If one was to read the constitutional position regarding the powers of the taoiseach and then observed the way, in practice, the office has evolved more into something akin to a monarch, where the only power we have over him is to remove him every few years, it's not hard to understand why many have the same fears for the president and commission)
The commission, and the president of the commission, have powers to propose new powers and initiate legislation, to enact delegated legislation, to represent the EU in external relations and to implement EU policies and supervise their implementation by the member states. Additionally, the president himself (much like our taoiseach), selects which commissioners will hold which portfolio. The commission sets the overall budget for the EU and the president of the commission has an important and influential position, being responsible for policy initatives, shaping overall commission policy, coordinating commission policy, and has the power (just like our taoiseach) to "request" a member of the commission to resign. Also like our taoiseach, he can reshuffle his commission on a whim.
The sad thing about this claim is that there is no new proposed "president of the commission". What is proposed is a full-time European Council President, with the powers I outlined.
Why don't you read what's actually in the Treaty, rather than heading off on irrelevant rants about things that aren't?the areas where the commissioners have competence over the EU include agriculture, fisheries, transport, energy, research, environment, the internal market, competition, employment & social affairs, taxation and custome union, education & culture, trade, external relations and justice and home affairs.
In every way the president of the commission and the commissioners seem to have the same powers at EU level that our taoiseach and his cabinet have at national level. The commission even has 25 000 permanent staff, equivalent to our civil service.
The main difference between the president and the commission, and the taoiseach and the irish cabinet, is that the taoiseach and his cabinet are elected by us as Irish citizens while the president and the commissioners are not elected by a single vote of a citizen of any EU country.
By any measure they both exercise substantial powers over us as citizens.
It seems extraordinary that anyone should wish to trivialise the importance, role and power held by the president and the commission,
and one can only speculate as to why someone would want to do that.
It's extraordinary that someone who claims to be opposing this Treaty on the basis of what's in it would set out to make it quite so clear they haven't even read it. The proposed position is President of the European Council, not President of the Commission.I can only repeat we should all vote no to this treaty which gives us no say in electing the president and the commission who hold so much power over our lives, and we should continue to vote no until such times as they are democratically accountable to us, the citizens over whom they hold power.
And I can only repeat that you have failed to read the Treaty, and have now mixed up the full-time President of the European Council that the Treaty actually proposes with the existing position of President of the Commission.
Impressive. P_ONeill hadn't read the treaty because he didn't believe it existed - what's your excuse?
amused,
Scofflaw0 -
That's quite a remarkable post, jawlie, because you spend it talking about the proposed "President of the Commission" - a position which already exists, and who is, in fact, elected by the elected EP. You appear to have confused this with the position of full-time President of the European Council (a body with no legislative powers) that is proposed in the Treaty of Lisbon.
The sad thing about this claim is that there is no new proposed "president of the commission". What is proposed is a full-time European Council President, with the powers I outlined.
Why don't you read what's actually in the Treaty, rather than heading off on irrelevant rants about things that aren't?
It's extraordinary that someone who claims to be opposing this Treaty on the basis of what's in it would set out to make it quite so clear they haven't even read it. The proposed position is President of the European Council, not President of the Commission.
And I can only repeat that you have failed to read the Treaty, and have now mixed up the full-time President of the European Council that the Treaty actually proposes with the existing position of President of the Commission.
Impressive. P_ONeill hadn't read the treaty because he didn't believe it existed - what's your excuse?
amused,
Scofflaw
Just to be clear, I am, and have been, talking about the president of the commission and the commissioners.
My point is the same point I have been making now for some time and that is we should vote no to any treaty while these unelected people have such powers over us, some of which I have outlined earlier.
I can't help noticing that you have not responded to the point, which in itself is illuminating.0 -
I have never had much interest in voting and never felt strongly about any issue enough to vote but the Lisbon Treaty has really got my attention. I went to a debate in UCC 2 or 3 weeks ago regarding it and after hearing both sides (member of the green party and the 'NO' crowd) I can only vote no.
The organisation against it read out and spoke about specific articles in the treaty and there implications to Ireland and the World, where on the other hand, the green party representative waffled about the treaty, saying how europe has been good to us and we should go with the flow and he stayed well away from any implications of it.
The major factors deciding my vote would be the military aspects and affect on our national infrastructure due to this competition law.
They want us to upgrade out military so that it may be used in a european army??? We used to be neutral but that seems to have gone out the window with the nonsense at shannon and the 'peacekeepers' in chad. (http://www.swp.ie/news/latest/irish-army-in-the-service-of-empire.html)
Now it looks like we are another cog in the oil machine. I don't like the idea of tax payers money going to fund the killing of people in chad.
This debate also touched on the health care in Ireland. The 'No' side said that the reason for our poor health service was to line it up for privatisation and it would become the same as in the states.
So we are voting in a month or 2 for/against this treaty. I'm not informed. Both sides say the other is lying. Joe soap doesn't have the document but may be able to find it online.
I'm worried about the affect this treaty will have on Ireland and the world if it is passed. I am only patching together bits and pieces I have come across but this is just how I am seeing it so far and with having no interest in it up until recently. Please feel free to update, inform me.
http://zeitgeistmovie.com
This movie will could help you lose all faith in politics.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
So you're voting based on the respective quality of the sales pitches, rather than making an informed decision?jimmyendless wrote: »The organisation against it read out and spoke about specific articles in the treaty and there implications to Ireland and the World, where on the other hand, the green party representative waffled about the treaty, saying how europe has been good to us and we should go with the flow and he stayed well away from any implications of it.
Which article of the Lisbon Treaty removes or alters our neutrality?jimmyendless wrote: »
The major factors deciding my vote would be the military aspects and affect on our national infrastructure due to this competition law.
They want us to upgrade out military so that it may be used in a european army??? We used to be neutral but that seems to have gone out the window with the nonsense at shannon and the 'peacekeepers' in chad. (http://www.swp.ie/news/latest/irish-army-in-the-service-of-empire.html)
Now it looks like we are another cog in the oil machine. I don't like the idea of tax payers money going to fund the killing of people in chad.
Did they happen to cite the article of the Treaty that forms the basis for this assertion?jimmyendless wrote: »This debate also touched on the health care in Ireland. The 'No' side said that the reason for our poor health service was to line it up for privatisation and it would become the same as in the states.
Most Joe Soaps don't want to bother reading the document. Most want it explained to them. The downside of this is that vested interests will lie about the consequences of voting.jimmyendless wrote: »So we are voting in a month or 2 for/against this treaty. I'm not informed. Both sides say the other is lying. Joe soap doesn't have the document but may be able to find it online.
The antidote to lies (on either side) is to ask anyone who asserts that the Treaty will have a specific effect to cite the article of the Treaty that will have that effect, and to explain how it does so. If they can't, they're probably lying.
Does it mention the Lisbon Treaty? If not, how is it relevant to this thread?jimmyendless wrote: »I'm worried about the affect this treaty will have on Ireland and the world if it is passed. I am only patching together bits and pieces I have come across but this is just how I am seeing it so far and with having no interest in it up until recently. Please feel free to update, inform me.
http://zeitgeistmovie.com
This movie will could help you lose all faith in politics.0 -
Just to be clear, I am, and have been, talking about the president of the commission and the commissioners.
My point is the same point I have been making now for some time and that is we should vote no to any treaty while these unelected people have such powers over us, some of which I have outlined earlier.
I can't help noticing that you have not responded to the point, which in itself is illuminating.
You know, the argument "you're not responding to my point" would be more impressive if you had points, or gave any evidence that you were arguing about the Treaty of Lisbon.
I'll just remind you what you said:jawlie wrote:The proposed "president of the commission" (the clue is in the title) is de facto a super commissioner much in the way that the taoiseach is a super minister. ( If one was to read the constitutional position regarding the powers of the taoiseach and then observed the way, in practice, the office has evolved more into something akin to a monarch, where the only power we have over him is to remove him every few years, it's not hard to understand why many have the same fears for the president and commission)
That contains an enormous factual error. The President of the Commission is an existing position, whose powers and responsibilities are not changed by the Treaty.
The proposed position is "President of the European Council", whose powers are as I have outlined.
Now, if you want to argue about the Treaty, we're talking about the latter. If you want to argue about the former, we're not arguing about the Treaty at all, but about the EU in general.
Which is it?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
jimmyendless wrote: »I have never had much interest in voting and never felt strongly about any issue enough to vote but the Lisbon Treaty has really got my attention. I went to a debate in UCC 2 or 3 weeks ago regarding it and after hearing both sides (member of the green party and the 'NO' crowd) I can only vote no.
The organisation against it read out and spoke about specific articles in the treaty and there implications to Ireland and the World, where on the other hand, the green party representative waffled about the treaty, saying how europe has been good to us and we should go with the flow and he stayed well away from any implications of it.
The major factors deciding my vote would be the military aspects and affect on our national infrastructure due to this competition law.
They want us to upgrade out military so that it may be used in a european army??? We used to be neutral but that seems to have gone out the window with the nonsense at shannon and the 'peacekeepers' in chad. (http://www.swp.ie/news/latest/irish-army-in-the-service-of-empire.html)
Now it looks like we are another cog in the oil machine. I don't like the idea of tax payers money going to fund the killing of people in chad.
This debate also touched on the health care in Ireland. The 'No' side said that the reason for our poor health service was to line it up for privatisation and it would become the same as in the states.
So we are voting in a month or 2 for/against this treaty. I'm not informed. Both sides say the other is lying. Joe soap doesn't have the document but may be able to find it online.
I'm worried about the affect this treaty will have on Ireland and the world if it is passed. I am only patching together bits and pieces I have come across but this is just how I am seeing it so far and with having no interest in it up until recently. Please feel free to update, inform me.
http://zeitgeistmovie.com
This movie will could help you lose all faith in politics.
Lol - I'm not sure I want to see a movie which will make me lose all faith in politics!
I tend to agree that the only intelligent position is to vote no to this treaty and further agree that those in favour seem largely to be in favour of the EU in a general sense, the implication being that anything the Eu does must be good.
While I am in favour of the EU , I am not in favour of the democratic deficit as outlined above, and could never vote to give the EU more powers until that is remedied.0 -
Lol - I'm not sure I want to see a movie which will make me lose all faith in politics!
I tend to agree that the only intelligent position is to vote no to this treaty and further agree that those in favour seem largely to be in favour of the EU in a general sense, the implication being that anything the Eu does must be good.
While I am in favour of the EU , I am not in favour of the democratic deficit as outlined above, and could never vote to give the EU more powers until that is remedied.
You should vote Yes then, since the Treaty extends the powers of the directly elected EP as against the Commission.
Of course, you should also read the Treaty.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »So you're voting based on the respective quality of the sales pitches, rather than making an informed decision?
Why was the green party representative avoiding the guts of the treaty? Does he not know the details himself or does he not want to try and defend the details? The debate was about the treaty, why would he not discuss it in detail like the opposition. That was my point.oscarBravo wrote: »Which article of the Lisbon Treaty removes or alters our neutrality?
Not directly but it looks to gear us up for war in the future with regards to improving the military of each member state when its the healthcare systems that need attention.
The speakers debate was focused around first citing an article and then describing its implications.oscarBravo wrote: »Did they happen to cite the article of the Treaty that forms the basis for this assertion?oscarBravo wrote: »Most Joe Soaps don't want to bother reading the document. Most want it explained to them. The downside of this is that vested interests will lie about the consequences of voting.
True.0 -
Advertisement
-
My answer to all of the above is: I don't know. It still seems to me that you're basing your vote on the quality of the sales pitches.jimmyendless wrote: »Why was the green party representative avoiding the guts of the treaty? Does he not know the details himself or does he not want to try and defend the details? The debate was about the treaty, why would he not discuss it in detail like the opposition. That was my point.
If the Treaty doesn't have any implications for our neutrality, why would a concern about our neutrality inform your vote?jimmyendless wrote: »Not directly but it looks to gear us up for war in the future with regards to improving the military of each member state when its the healthcare systems that need attention.
Cool. Which article was cited that implied that our healthcare system will be privatised?jimmyendless wrote: »The speakers debate was focused around first citing an article and then describing its implications.
Nice snip. Any response to the rest of it? Aren't you concerned about the possibility that the "no" speaker (whom I assume was SWP) may have lied to you about the implications of a "yes" vote?jimmyendless wrote: »True.0 -
I wasn't taking notes. I don't know which articles he cited.
I'm working off memory here.
Some of the articles that were read straight from the treaty were understandable and I didn't like what they meant for Ireland. Thats good enough for me to say no.
Privatisation of health care was the speakers prediction of the implications of some competition law within the treaty.
Of course the speaker may have lied about the implications but you can't deny specific articles and of course it would help if I knew which ones I'm talking about.
And with regards to basing my vote on the quality of the sales pitches,you couldn't base a vote on it but its justs another thing that makes me lose confidence in the "yes" side, the way this speaker avoided the details of the treaty.0 -
You should vote Yes then, since the Treaty extends the powers of the directly elected EP as against the Commission.
Of course, you should also read the Treaty.
cordially,
Scofflaw
It's kind of you to offer advice, although I am not going to make the same point over and over if you are not able to understand it. I am voting no for the reasons I have already explained.
Many people I talk to find it alarming that the president of the commission and the commissioners are not elected by a single person, over whom they have power, and if that is not a concern to you, then that's your position.
The fact that the commission have pushed through this treaty, which contains over 90% of the same transfer of powers as the constitution which was democratically rejected, is an indication of what they think of democracy, and for us to, for example, give up 68 vetoes and vest that power instead in the president of the commission and the commissioners is, in my view, a gamble which we should not take until such times as they are democratically accountable to us.0 -
It's kind of you to offer advice, although I am not going to make the same point over and over if you are not able to understand it. I am voting no for the reasons I have already explained.
Many people I talk to find it alarming that the president of the commission and the commissioners are not elected by a single person, over whom they have power, and if that is not a concern to you, then that's your position.
Well, the thing is it has no bearing on the Lisbon Treaty - the one we're voting on.
Presumably, you won't be admitting in any way shape or form that you were completely wrong about the Presidency in the first place.The fact that the commission have pushed through this treaty, which contains over 90% of the same transfer of powers as the constitution which was democratically rejected, is an indication of what they think of democracy, and for us to, for example, give up 68 vetoes and vest that power instead in the president of the commission and the commissioners is, in my view, a gamble which we should not take until such times as they are democratically accountable to us.
The Treaty was negotiated by an inter-governmental process - that is, by representatives of our elected governments - not the Commission.
If you're going to discuss the Treaty, could you at least do basic fact-checking first?
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
Well, the thing is it has no bearing on the Lisbon Treaty - the one we're voting on.
Perhaps it should. Surely in a democracy we should vote in our commissoners and presidents? Why cann't that be put into to the treaty. Was it even discussed?
Do you think we will ever vote for an EU president?0 -
Perhaps it should. Surely in a democracy we should vote in our commissoners and presidents? Why cann't that be put into to the treaty. Was it even discussed?
Do you think we will ever vote for an EU president?
Of course it should as this treaty hands so much more power to the unelected commission than they currently enjoy.
I hope we can look forward to a time when the commissioners and the president will be elected, although it seems they are about as keen on being democratically accountable to the citizens of the EU as they are on respecting the wishes of those who voted down the constitution by trying to force over 90% of it through in spite of the democratically expressed will of the citizens.0 -
Of course it should as this treaty hands so much more power to the unelected commission than they currently enjoy.
I hope we can look forward to a time when the commissioners and the president will be elected, although it seems they are about as keen on being democratically accountable to the citizens of the EU as they are on respecting the wishes of those who voted down the constitution by trying to force of 90% of it through in spite of the democratically expressed will of the citizens.
Hmm. Well, at least you've read advertising 101. Keep repeating the claim, hope that no-one notices there's no actual substance to it, de yada de yada.
I'm not sure that directly electing the Commissioners has been on the table at any point. They're the 'second chamber' of a bicameral structure - and even our Seanad isn't fully elective. The UK upper house is peerage and partially hereditary, the French Senate is indirectly elected by 150,000 local elected officials, the German Bundesrat is appointed by the German state governments, the Dutch Eerste Kamer is elected by members of the provincial councils...etc etc.
In short, you're calling for something unusual, not usual - and something that quite possibly no other EU member state would accept either.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
Surely in a democracy we should vote in our commissoners and presidents?
We should, but it has nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty.Why can't that be put into to the treaty?
Because the treaty was finalised ages ago and is already signed. The time for amendments has passed.Was it even discussed?
I don't know. Perhaps your MEP could tell you.Do you think we will ever vote for an EU president?
I hope so.0 -
Perhaps it should. Surely in a democracy we should vote in our commissoners and presidents? Why cann't that be put into to the treaty. Was it even discussed?
Do you think we will ever vote for an EU president?
Hmm. Do I think that they should be accountable, and subject to democratic control? Yes. Do I think that Commissioners should be directly elected? No.
Why not? Well, because of people like Dick Roche, fundamentally. He's an enormously popular politician in his home constituency, and he's a thick-necked idiot who I wouldn't put in charge of a toyshop.
Commissioners are not politicians - they're the managers of directorates. Do I think managers should be selected by political beauty competitions? No, I certainly don't. Do I think they should be subject to control by elected representatives? Yes, I certainly do - and they are.
Should we elect our judges, do you think? Or our senior civil servants? Our senior Gardai?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Hi guys,
I am sort of undecided about the treaty at the moment but from what I have read about it, I can't say I like this article 308 very much:
At the moment it reads:Article 308 wrote:"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. "
Now it is proposed to change it to:New Article 308 wrote: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.".
While I welcome the fact that the parliament's consent is needed and that national parliaments need to be consulted, I still think this gives the EU too many powers to encrouch into any areas it wishes to, except those which are explicitly forbidden.
I think that excluding the words 'operation of the common market' gives the EU carte blanche to harmonise what it likes, again with certain caveats. There is evidence to suggest that the EU is already engaging in this.
For example is assisted suicide harmonisation explicitly excluded? Could it be brought under freedom of movement of services etc... etc....
What about drugs? Tax policy? so many other areas....
There is Article 48 which says for the treaty to be altered a new referendum must be called. But surely, there would be no need for an altered treaty when this one already gives the institutions to do what it pleases in almost all areas?
My big problem is that if the EU wants the powers to achieve its objectives, then why not list them in the treaty to be voted on? I don't like this - if we think we need it we'll sneak it in - sort of idea.
Now, don't get me wrong i'm all for the EU, just not that it overrides areas in our lives that we don't consent to, especially given Ireland's small say in its affairs.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hi guys,
I am sort of undecided about the treaty at the moment but from what I have read about it, I can't say I like this article 308 very much:
At the moment it reads:
Now it is proposed to change it to:
While I welcome the fact that the parliament's consent is needed and that national parliaments need to be consulted, I still think this gives the EU too many powers to encrouch into any areas it wishes to, except those which are explicitly forbidden.
I think that excluding the words 'operation of the common market' gives the EU carte blanche to harmonise what it likes, again with certain caveats. There is evidence to suggest that the EU is already engaging in this.
For example is assisted suicide harmonisation explicitly excluded? Could it be brought under freedom of movement of services etc... etc....
What about drugs? Tax policy? so many other areas....
There is Article 48 which says for the treaty to be altered a new referendum must be called. But surely, there would be no need for an altered treaty when this one already gives the institutions to do what it pleases in almost all areas?
My big problem is that if the EU wants the powers to achieve its objectives, then why not list them in the treaty to be voted on? I don't like this - if we think we need it we'll sneak it in - sort of idea.
Now, don't get me wrong i'm all for the EU, just not that it overrides areas in our lives that we don't consent to, especially given Ireland's small say in its affairs.
Hmm. This is what the UK Foreign Office says about the article:Draws on Article 308 TEC. Cannot be used to attain CFSP objectives or to take measures that would entail harmonisation of national laws where this is excluded by the Treaties. Introduces requirement for EP’s consent. New provision for national parliaments to monitor use of the article.
Further, Article 3.6:The Union shall pursue its objectives by appropriate means commensurate with the competences which are conferred upon it in the Treaties.
And 4.1:In accordance with Article 5, competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States.
I would have said that those two between them rather restrict the apparently unrestricted ability granted in 308. As to listing the powers conferred on the EU, those are available here. No new competences are granted by Lisbon.
As a matter of interest, why would the Member states sign up to allow the EU carte blanche?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Thanks Scofflaw that was very interesting!
I did a bit more research on Article 308 and found this report by the UK House of Commons into This Article.
Just one quote in particular :Report wrote:For example, in 2006 the Commission, citing the Article as the legal base, proposed a draft Decision which would, among other things, provide for assistance from Member States and the EC to third countries in the event of a major emergency outside the geographical area of the Community. We questioned whether Article 308 would provide a lawful legal base for the provision of assistance outside the Community if no connection could be shown to the operation of the common market.
If the Commission needs a legal base for its actions it should come from its direct authority given to it under the treaties, not through a loophole.
Now i'm not saying that there is anything wrong with assistance to third countries per se, BUT, when removing the 'common market' clause, there would be little restriction on other policies (excluding those like CFSP) from being implemented like this within the broad range of 'policies' allowed under the treaties. These loopholes I think provide too much scope for extentions of the boundaries. Let us plain and simply vote on the policies and powers the EU needs!Scofflaw's Link wrote:All areas that are not specifically mentioned in EU treaties (Maastricht 1992, Amsterdam 1997, Constitution signed in 2004) are off-limits for the Commission, and remain the responsibility of the individual countries. For the current Irish government, it is particularly important to retain ultimate national control over the corporate tax rates that draw in foreign investment, and the state's tradition of military neutrality. These are considered as Ireland's affairs and no common EU legislation on these areas is sought. Any moves in that direction have been rebuffed by the Irish government.
This ensures that the EU. on its own has no power to wrestle additional powers for itself without the national government's say-so.
This is certainly reassuring, yet I can't help but feel important issues to Irish people regardless of which party is in government, may be compromised by such a government in pursuit of it's own aims.
One need only look to the threats from our politicans about marginalisation if we reject the treaty, what's not to say they will say the same about other important issues e.g. neutrality, when larger states like Germany etc... are breathing down their necks in the future?
I read about how people wish to have the proposed 'President of Europe' directly elected, but isn't it more important that EU policy areas are directly decided by the people, not used as a political bargaining chip?0 -
I read about how people wish to have the proposed 'President of Europe' directly elected, but isn't it more important that EU policy areas are directly decided by the people, not used as a political bargaining chip?
The people of Europe did decide directly on over 90% of what is contained in the lisbon treaty, and rejected the proposed constitution. Although politics being politics the EU commission decided to re hash it as a treaty, as a way of avoiding letting the citizens have a say, and this time around the only citizens who will vote are the irish.
It seems extraordinary that anyone might argue that the the equivalent of our taoiseach and cabinet at EU level , the president of the commission and the commissioners, should not be elected and held to account to the citizens of the EU.0 -
I don't remember voting on it.The people of Europe did decide directly on over 90% of what is contained in the lisbon treaty, and rejected the proposed constitution.
For someone who spends a lot of time whining about others not responding to your points, you have a hell of a blind spot when it comes to acknowledging the points made by others in refutation of yours.It seems extraordinary that anyone might argue that the the equivalent of our taoiseach and cabinet at EU level , the president of the commission and the commissioners, should not be elected and held to account to the citizens of the EU.0 -
Perhaps it should. Surely in a democracy we should vote in our commissoners and presidents?We should, but it has nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty.
Of course it has nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty as the idea is not part of the Lisbon treaty.
However, it is part of the lisbon treaty in that all member countries of the EU will cede power from their elected national parliaments to the unelected president of the commission and the unelected commissioners in many areas.
The president of the commission and the commissioners are never going to volunteer to be elected, and we can all understand that. That will only come about if there is enough pressure on the EU to reform these undemocratic offices. And it is at times like this when we are all discussing the EU that it is good to make people aware this and to vote NO to the treaty for two reasons; (i) to stop the transfer of yet more power away from the unelected president of the commission and the commissioners and (ii) to try to highlight this as an issue and bring about a change to make these offices accountable to the people they have power over.0 -
Of course it has nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty as the idea is not part of the Lisbon treaty.
However, it is part of the lisbon treaty in that all member countries of the EU will cede power from their elected national parliaments to the unelected president of the commission and the unelected commissioners in many areas.
The president of the commission and the commissioners are never going to volunteer to be elected, and we can all understand that. That will only come about if there is enough pressure on the EU to reform these undemocratic offices. And it is at times like this when we are all discussing the EU that it is good to make people aware this and to vote NO to the treaty for two reasons; (i) to stop the transfer of yet more power away from the unelected president of the commission and the commissioners and (ii) to try to highlight this as an issue and bring about a change to make these offices accountable to the people they have power over.
So we should vote No on the basis of something that has never been suggested by the member states - the "never going to volunteer" thing is completely meaningless, because the Commissioners are appointed by their national governments, and subject to the EP. They are not, as you portray them, simply sitting on the right hand of God.
Will electing 'our' Commissioner give us the best person for the job? Almost certainly never. Are the Commissioners already accountable to our democratically elected representatives in the Parliament? Yes, they are.
This is yet another red herring. Perhaps we should vote No because the EU isn't based in Dublin?
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
The people of Europe did decide directly on over 90% of what is contained in the lisbon treaty, and rejected the proposed constitution. Although politics being politics the EU commission decided to re hash it as a treaty, as a way of avoiding letting the citizens have a say, and this time around the only citizens who will vote are the irish.
I totally agree with you here, jawlie! People should have a direct say on the EU's policies. Their views should not be circumvented.jawlie wrote:It seems extraordinary that anyone might argue that the the equivalent of our taoiseach and cabinet at EU level , the president of the commission and the commissioners, should not be elected and held to account to the citizens of the EU.
I'm not sure I was ever claiming this to be the case?!
I was just pointing out that allowing Europe to grant itself powers, may be more important than who the puppet sitting on the chair is! It's not that I don't think they should also be accountable.
I found this interesting article Linky in the economist which says that this treaty will give the EU a foreign minister representative for the first time, in all but name.
Will this foreign minister represent the EU at the UN meetings? Will this impact on Ireland's right to vote on its own foreign polcy at the UN?0 -
I totally agree with you here, jawlie! People should have a direct say on the EU's policies. Their views should not be circumvented.
I'm not sure I was ever claiming this to be the case?!
I was just pointing out that allowing Europe to grant itself powers, may be more important than who the puppet sitting on the chair is! It's not that I
Quite plainly you did not suggest it and I didn't mean to imply you did suggest this. I was making a more general point expressing surprise that "anyone" might argue against the idea of the commission and the president of the commission being elected by those over whom they hold power, and seem to prefer instead that the commissioners and president of the commission should not be elected.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I totally agree with you here, jawlie! People should have a direct say on the EU's policies. Their views should not be circumvented.
Which is why you have an MEP.I'm not sure I was ever claiming this to be the case?!
I was just pointing out that allowing Europe to grant itself powers, may be more important than who the puppet sitting on the chair is! It's not that I don't think they should also be accountable.
Interesting choice of words. Let me try asking this question again - do you believe the only possible way to be 'accountable' is by being elected? If so, why do we not elect our judges, senior Gardai, etc?I found this interesting article Linky in the economist which says that this treaty will give the EU a foreign minister representative for the first time, in all but name.
Will this foreign minister represent the EU at the UN meetings? Will this impact on Ireland's right to vote on its own foreign polcy at the UN?
No - every country worried about that, so it was definitely not an option. Declaration 13 of the Treaty states:The Conference underlines that the provisions in the Treaty on European Union covering the Common Foreign and Security Policy, including the creation of the office of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the establishment of an External Action Service, do not affect the responsibilities of the Member States, as they currently exist, for the formulation and conduct of their foreign policy nor of their national representation in third countries and international organisations.
Hope that helps.
cordially,
Scofflaw0
Advertisement