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
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Quite plainly you did not suggest it and I didn't mean to imply you did suggest this.
Sorry jawlie but when I saw my name quoted I assumed otherwise!
johnnyq wrote:People should have a direct say on the EU's policies. Their views should not be circumvented.scofflaw wrote:Which is why you have an MEP.
Perhaps I should clarify: people should have a direct say on the *scope* of the EU's policies.
My MEP should represent my view on each policy of the EU, NOT that the MEP decides what policies the EU should have.
Example: EU institutions propose that the EU institutions should have authority in X area. Members of institutions agree to such authority. Am I the only one with problems with this system of governance?!scofflaw wrote: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?
Sorry scofflaw, I didn't realise you already asked me this!
I obviously don't agree with this statement for the reasons you provided earlier. I don't however, believe that the EU institutions should be accountable onto themselves! Are the guards accountable to themselves?
I see loopholes like Article 308 as equivalent of letting the oireachtas to "extend" its powers given to it under the constitution by its own vote.
Let the EU ask to extend its admirable (being sincere) policies through its legal bases and powers by asking the people directly, not through sneaky loopholes.Galliard wrote:Article 16 shall be amended as follows:
...
(b) the following sentences shall be added after the first sentence: "Before undertaking any action on the international scene or entering into any commitment which could affect the Union's interests, each Member State shall consult the others within the European Council or the Council. Member States shall ensure, through the convergence of their actions, that the Union is able to assert its interests and values on the international scene. Member States shall show mutual solidarity.";
thanks Galliard, no I haven't seen it before (see all the study i have to do:D),
but on first reading again I'm concerned about the Union asserting its interests potentially in areas brought in through loopholes. I want a direct vote on ALLthe areas the EU wants to assert its interests and how that is to be achieved.0 -
johnnyq wrote:People should have a direct say on the EU's policies. Their views should not be circumvented.scofflaw wrote:Which is why you have an MEP.
Again another article
(admittedly biased) which I'm afraid makes me inclined to vote NO (assuming the events that happened are true!)article wrote:A damaging blow to democracy
05.03.2008 - 09:30 CET | By Thomas Rupp
EUOBSERVER / COMMENT - I am largely disillusioned with democracy - especially on a European level - so I believed that nothing could really shock me any more. But recently I was proven wrong by the European Parliament.
On 20 February the parliament approved the Lisbon Treaty – in itself an unsurprising move.
I had not expected a critical stance on the fact that they are about to ratify a document that is more or less the same as the EU Constitution, which was already rejected by the French and the Dutch voters.
But these are all minor democratic flaws compared with what happened that day in Strasbourg.
The basis of the debate was the so called "Corbett-de Vigo Report on the Lisbon Treaty", and there were amendments to this report, which had to be voted on before the whole treaty was put to a vote.
One of these amendments - Amendment No. 32 - asked that the European Parliament "undertake to respect the outcome of the referendum in Ireland."
In other words: Should the European Parliament respect the result of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, which is likely to be held in June 2008?
This amendment was rejected by 499 MEPs. Only 129 voted in favour of this motion and 33 abstained.
As the whole procedure was a roll-call vote, it is easy how individual MEPs voted on this amendment. What strikes me most is the fact, that even an Irish MEP - Proinsias de Rossa - voted not to respect the referendum held by his fellow Irishmen.
This is in effect to tell the Irish people that the European Parliament does not care what they say on the Lisbon Treaty - a further step in the decline of a democratic culture in the European Union, if it ever existed at all.
After the final vote on the Lisbon Treaty the president of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Poettering, delivered a text-book example of hypocrisy. He said after the self-congratulating applause by the parliamentarians:
"A vast majority of you have voted in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. This is an expression of the free will of the peoples you represent. I'd like to congratulate you on this convincing result. This European Parliament represents the people of Europe, this treaty gives the European Union the ability to function properly and this treaty gives it more democracy. And we defend the common values of Europe and" – referring to a few protesting MEPs - "we shall never allow loud noise to override sensible arguments."
In the context of the incident this quote to me sounds like pure sarcasm.
In their quest to ratify this treaty at any cost, a majority of MEPs lost any respect for democracy and the people they ought to represent.
They are using their mandate which was given to them by democratic means to seriously damage democracy.
The author is the coordinator of the European Referendum Campaign
I don't want to vote for a europe that won't even accept the result of a democratic vote.
0 -
Perhaps I should clarify: people should have a direct say on the *scope* of the EU's policies.
My MEP should represent my view on each policy of the EU, NOT that the MEP decides what policies the EU should have.
Example: EU institutions propose that the EU institutions should have authority in X area. Members of institutions agree to such authority. Am I the only one with problems with this system of governance?!
Hmm. I would, I think, if they existed. Do you think that's how the EU operates? The EU decides it should have authority over dog licences, and gives itself authority over dog licences?Sorry scofflaw, I didn't realise you already asked me this!
I obviously don't agree with this statement for the reasons you provided earlier. I don't however, believe that the EU institutions should be accountable onto themselves! Are the guards accountable to themselves?
No, the guards are accountable, in the final analysis, to your elected representatives in the Dail. The COmmissioners are accountable to your elected representatives in the European Parliament. What exactly is the difference there?I see loopholes like Article 308 as equivalent of letting the oireachtas to "extend" its powers given to it under the constitution by its own vote.
Let the EU ask to extend its admirable (being sincere) policies through its legal bases and powers by asking the people directly, not through sneaky loopholes.
In order for the EU to "give itself" the power to do anything, it must be accepted by the national governments of the member states. By itself, the EU has virtually no power at all - it has a tiny bureaucracy (smaller than ours), and 90%+ of everything it does is done through the national civil services.
The EU can issue a directive like the Nitrates Directive, but it doesn't mean a thing until the Irish government have turned it into Irish law - and before that, the member states have to have agreed that the Nitrates Directive is within the powers they have granted to the EU.thanks Galliard, no I haven't seen it before (see all the study i have to do:D),
but on first reading again I'm concerned about the Union asserting its interests potentially in areas brought in through loopholes. I want a direct vote on ALLthe areas the EU wants to assert its interests and how that is to be achieved.
Hmm. You might want to read up a bit on where EU competences come from. The EU cannot grant itself powers - its 'constitution' does not permit it, and its member states would not allow it to.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Again another article
(admittedly biased) which I'm afraid makes me inclined to vote NO (assuming the events that happened are true!)
I don't want to vote for a europe that won't even accept the result of a democratic vote.
Aagh. This one really does irritate me, I'm afraid. The EP has no choice whatsoever but to respect the result of the Irish referendum. The amendment in question was a complete stunt, which was tacked into the middle of something else, in order to give the eurosceptics something to manufacture hysteria over. It was also, at root, an incredibly dangerous ploy.
If the European Parliament passed an amendment that they 'respected' the result of the Irish referendum, they would be setting a legal precedent. That legal precedent would be that, by passing such an amendment, they would imply that they had the right to respect or not respect the result.
They have no such right, and are not entitled to arrogate themselves such a right. Therefore they could not pass an amendment that suggested they did have such a right.
To claim that they did not pass the amendment because they did not respect the Irish referendum result is the exact opposite of the truth.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Scofflaw wrote:Do you think that's how the EU operates? The EU decides it should have authority over dog licences, and gives itself authority over dog licences?
On the whole, no I don't think the EU normally has to resort to this form of operation because most of its actions are totally reasonable.
To take your example, if the EU wanted to harmonise dog licences i would have no problems with this.
So.....
Place this objective into the treaty like they have with common policing etc...
Why is there the need for Article 308 then?
The line... if Treaties have not provided the necessary powers,the Council shall take the appropriate measures.
What are these appropriate measures?
If one country banned pit-bull terriors does this mean for the sake of harmonisation of dog licences that an appropriate measure would be to ban pit-bulls across the union?!
So, the government minister may have a vote here. He decides to agree to this measure as a bargaining exchange for another measure he's more interested in.
And in this extreme example you have powers conferred to an authority, which were not as intended. I already provided an example of this article being used as a catchall even with the 'common market' exclusion in place.scofflaw wrote:Aagh. This one really does irritate me, I'm afraid. The EP has no choice whatsoever but to respect the result of the Irish referendum. The amendment in question was a complete stunt, which was tacked into the middle of something else, in order to give the eurosceptics something to manufacture hysteria over. It was also, at root, an incredibly dangerous ploy.
Thanks for providing this perspective! At least the EU may not have turned into a monster just yet
I am curious though are the parts I highlighted especially the quote from Hans-Gert Poettering true or accurate? Because even still there is some irony there.0 -
-
-
On the whole, no I don't think the EU normally has to resort to this form of operation because most of its actions are totally reasonable.Do you think that's how the EU operates? The EU decides it should have authority over dog licences, and gives itself authority over dog licences?
To take your example, if the EU wanted to harmonise dog licences i would have no problems with this.
So.....
Place this objective into the treaty like they have with common policing etc...
Why is there the need for Article 308 then?
The line... if Treaties have not provided the necessary powers,the Council shall take the appropriate measures.
What are these appropriate measures?
If one country banned pit-bull terriors does this mean for the sake of harmonisation of dog licences that an appropriate measure would be to ban pit-bulls across the union?!
So, the government minister may have a vote here. He decides to agree to this measure as a bargaining exchange for another measure he's more interested in.
And in this extreme example you have powers conferred to an authority, which were not as intended. I already provided an example of this article being used as a catchall even with the 'common market' exclusion in place.
Hmm. No, not really. If we extend my rather silly example, it would be where the EU has been given the 'regulation of dogs' as part of one of its competences, but does not have the power to issue dog licences. Assuming there was some perceived need to issue EU dog licences, what it would do is:
1. determine whether legally the power to issue dog licences followed from the competence of 'regulation of dogs' (because the Union may not act outside its competences), and
2. determine whether this was action that could be better taken at an EU level as opposed to a national level (because the EU must obey the principle of subsidiarity)
If the EU found that an EU-wide dog licence was indeed part of the powers the member states had intended to come under 'regulation of dogs', and that an EU-wide scheme was in fact more appropriate than national schemes, it could then give itself the power to issue EU dog licences. However, that decision would be subject to challenge by any member state that felt that either this wasn't within the 'regulation of dogs' competence, or that the matter would be better handled at the national level.
Assuming there were no such challenges, what would probably actually be produced would be either a separate EU dog licence that would be of effect in every EU country, or a template that all national dog licences would thereafter be based on - because the EU bureaucracy is too small to actually engage a fair fraction of it in issuing dog licences.
So, first and foremost, the EU can only give itself powers within its competences - that is, give itself the necessary powers to regulate what it has been decide it can regulate.
It cannot at any point decide to regulate something it has not been given the power to regulate by the national governments - and even within its competences, it is required to leave to the national governments those things that the national governments feel are better regulated at the national level. one of the improvements in the Treaty is an easier mechanism for doing this than going to court every time.Thanks for providing this perspective! At least the EU may not have turned into a monster just yet
TBH, I find it quite bizarre the way people see the EU as a monster that's taking over the European countries, when the EU is actually simply a way for the EU countries to do in common those things they think are best done in common.I am curious though are the parts I highlighted especially the quote from Hans-Gert Poettering true or accurate? Because even still there is some irony there.
What, in the MEPs who are elected all across Europe regarding themselves as representing voters all across Europe? In what way would that be ironic?
I think a lot of people don't take MEP elections at all seriously, or even vote in them, and then whinge about how they're not being represented in Europe. I have the same lack of sympathy for them I have for people who don't vote in Dail elections, and then complain the government doesn't represent their views. What do they expect?
On the other hand, there is, I'm afraid, a certain irony in your following up that piece, on how the only Europe-wide representative body voted for the Treaty, by saying "I don't want to vote for a europe that won't even accept the result of a democratic vote".
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
WillieFlynn wrote: »In many ways I feel that the EU is more democratic and transparent than our own government.
Our government and 12 MEP's represents us in the EU
Most of our MEP's belong to Ireland two political parties
Yeah, in this way Ireland's voice at EU is being best represented 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement