A French perspective

froggy 2

Hello everybody.

A little post from Paris about the Lisbonna treaty.

I quite upset about it. Please allow me to give my reasons:

1) Although I perfectly realize it is not an Irish problem, as a Frenchman, I am particularily upset to be deprived of my right to vote.
It is not even a problem to be pro or against the treaty, but the very process of having a vote in the parliament just because they feared another “no”, seems absolutely scandalous to me; I have been especially chocked that Mrs MERKEL, a foreign leader (I did note vote for her ...) even if it is friend country’s one, insisting on the fact we would not have a referendum.

2) That point of having the right to vote is all the more important that the modification rules will change with this treaty, allowing to bypass a NO answer by up to 20% of the member states. This point would allow modification of the EU definition (domain attributions …) even if a member state constitution forbids it. In other words, should this rule already used, your referendum would count for nothing.
Why not after all ? But there are two problems
.... a) This “supra-constitutuionnal power” would be, in practical, in the sole hands of the executive branch (my president and your prime minister), which is an “unusual” situation.
.... b) Such a change in the very balance of the European institution should, at minimal, be voted by a referendum in every country. Some would have answer no ? well … in this case, they should accept it is “no”. You don’t abolish vote just because you don’t like the forecasted result.

oscarBravo

Split from a resurrected Constitution thread.

oscarBravo

froggy 2 wrote: »

...I have been especially chocked that Mrs MERKEL, a foreign leader (I did note vote for her ...) even if it is friend country’s one, insisting on the fact we would not have a referendum.

I doubt that German influence is the reason France isn't having a referendum.

This point would allow modification of the EU definition (domain attributions …) even if a member state constitution forbids it. In other words, should this rule already used, your referendum would count for nothing.

This isn't true, and won't be true should Lisbon be ratified.

Such a change in the very balance of the European institution should, at minimal, be voted by a referendum in every country.

Why? Nice didn't have a referendum in every country. Maastricht didn't have a referendum in every country. What's so special about Lisbon?

froggy 2

Exact for the first point : Mrs MERKEL's influence ios for nothing, but the very fact she expresses herself whereas she has no legitimacy (not really english uh?) on the subject is shocking.
Would you accept Berlusconi insisting on your referendum cancel ?

False on the second : it is not the case presently, but the Lisbonna treaty states that in the case of up to 20% of the state member "facing difficulties with their ratification instrument after two years", the council takes the affair (sorry for the bad translation).
Article 48 of the treaty on the european union

The answer on point 3 is ... my point 2

oscarBravo

froggy 2 wrote: »

Exact for the first point : Mrs MERKEL's influence ios for nothing, but the very fact she expresses herself whereas she has no legitimacy (not really english uh?) on the subject is shocking.

Would you apply the same standard to those on this forum who have loudly demanded that every EU country should hold a referendum? Would you agree that they also have no legitimacy to express an opinion on how other countries should ratify the treaty?

False on the second : it is not the case presently, but the Lisbonna treaty states that in the case of up to 20% of the state member "facing difficulties with their ratification instrument after two years", the council takes the affair (sorry for the bad translation).

That doesn't change the fact that any change requiring unanimity will still require ratification by all member states, and that all member states will use their ratification processes to do so.

bonkey

froggy 2 wrote: »

b) Such a change in the very balance of the European institution should, at minimal, be voted by a referendum in every country. Some would have answer no ? well … in this case, they should accept it is “no”. You don’t abolish vote just because you don’t like the forecasted result.

Ironically, for the EU to be able to mandate this would mean giving it far more power than it already has.

The EU allows member states to ratify in accordance with their national requirements. It does not and cannot dictate to them how they must reach a decision regarding change.

While one could argue that your criticism is valid, it is not criticism that should be levelled at the EU as a political entity, but rather at the individual nations.

You, as a French citizen, should be pressuring your government to change your system to require that you get a referendum on such issues in future. Suggesting that someone else should vote against an EU Treaty because your government (and others) don't do as ours does makes no sense.

froggy 2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Would you apply the same standard to those on this forum who have loudly demanded that every EU country should hold a referendum? Would you agree that they also have no legitimacy to express an opinion on how other countries should ratify the treaty?

I accept the fact that my point of view has no importance for an irish man.
You can have my point of view on that subject, but ... we are not leaders in our countries.

That doesn't change the fact that any change requiring unanimity will still require ratification by all member states, and that all member states will use their ratification processes to do so.

Yes, it does change that fact : if there is a denial of ratification, "le Conseil européen se saisit de la question" ... ; at the very least the fact that the council does decide in that case is clearly implied (very clear in the french version: this term is juridical : "être saisi" , it is said for a court of justice).
This is all the more obvious that this mention would have no meaning and no point should you be right : why precise that that "le Conseil européen se saisit de la question" ("the matter shall be referred to the council" in your version ... ) if not to give it the power of decision ???

Suggesting that someone else should vote against an EU Treaty because your government (and others) don't do as ours does makes no sense.

re-read my first post : I only stated I am upset, and I did precise I am perfectly aware it is not a point for an Irish man.
But, even though it is basically a national problem, you could probably agree this kind of problem tend to be "a little too frequent" when it comes to UE processes. This impression is reinforced, as I stated by the fact Merkel took strongly position on that matter (even if, I do agree she had no power of decision).

menoscemo

froggy 2 wrote: »

Hello everybody.

A little post from Paris about the Lisbonna treaty.

I quite upset about it. Please allow me to give my reasons:

1) Although I perfectly realize it is not an Irish problem, as a Frenchman, I am particularily upset to be deprived of my right to vote.
It is not even a problem to be pro or against the treaty, but the very process of having a vote in the parliament just because they feared another “no”, seems absolutely scandalous to me; I have been especially chocked that Mrs MERKEL, a foreign leader (I did note vote for her ...) even if it is friend country’s one, insisting on the fact we would not have a referendum.

I am upset that you have been deprived of your right to vote, that is why I will vote no. After all I am a true European

Scofflaw

froggy 2 wrote: »

I accept the fact that my point of view has no importance for an irish man.
You can have my point of view on that subject, but ... we are not leaders in our countries.



Yes, it does change that fact : if there is a denial of ratification, "le Conseil européen se saisit de la question" ... ; at the very least the fact that the council does decide in that case is clearly implied (very clear in the french version: this term is juridical : "être saisi" , it is said for a court of justice).
This is all the more obvious that this mention would have no meaning and no point should you be right : why precise that that "le Conseil européen se saisit de la question" (the matter is referred to the council in your version) if not to give it the power of decision ???

To decide what to do next. That is not the same as deciding to ratify the Treaty themselves - such a move is not possible. If it were,the EU could ratify each and every EU Treaty itself.

Besides, logically, if it says in the Treaty that the matter will be referred to the Council, what legal force can that have, if the Treaty is not ratified?

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

I hope I cause no offense in saying this (an I say sorry in advance if I do), but you claim you are french and are apologetic for your bad translations, and yet in your previous posts such as

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1211288#post1211288

you speak perfect english. I hope your not putting it on for the sake of forwarding you views

froggy 2

To decide what to do next.

I don't agree; this article is, at least sufficiently wide to such allow a decision.

Besides, logically, if it says in the Treaty that the matter will be referred to the Council, what legal force can that have, if the Treaty is not ratified?

At the moment being, this article is not ratified. As soon as it will be, it gives the european council the power to give a 80% approved modification legal force in Europe. Of course this apply only to further modifications (when the article is validated by the ratification).

I can add that, after our own referendum in 2005, some people had tried to impose the idea that a mere 80% ratification in Europe was sufficient to bypass our "no" ... They only gave up because that article was not even already active !!!
So, I don't imagine people would not use this article when it is validated.

bonkey

froggy 2 wrote: »

re-read my first post : I only stated I am upset, and I did precise I am perfectly aware it is not a point for an Irish man.

You are clearly arguing in favour of a No vote, to members of the one state which has a referendum on the subject.

If your point wasn't to try and encourage a No vote, what exactly was the relevance of making it?

Are you trying to let us know you're upset at the French government, but don't want us to take that into account? Surely not telling us would have achieved the same effect?

But, even though it is basically a national problem, you could probably agree this kind of problem tend to be "a little too frequent" when it comes to UE processes.

I'd rather you clarified what you define as "this kind of problem" before I agree to anything.

This impression is reinforced, as I stated by the fact Merkel took strongly position on that matter (even if, I do agree she had no power of decision).

There you go again...you're trying to suggest that someone had too much influence, whilst also covering it by admitting they didn't really have any. Why not just leave her out of things rather than making some non-point which you can tell someone to re-read when they challenge you on it?

bonkey

froggy 2 wrote: »

facing difficulties with their ratification instrument after two years"

The exact text is as follows:

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

5. If, two years after the signature of a treaty amending the Treaties, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.

It is worth noting the distinction between "encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification" and "failed to ratify".

Nowhere does it state that the referral to the EC will grant the right to run-around the previous statement, which requires ratification by all members.

It would seem to give the EC the ability to do things such as withdrawing the amendment or modifying it and restarting the ratification process, rather than remaining in a deadlocked position (potentially ad infinitum).

It could also conceivably be used to sanction nations were they to try "stonewalling" and using their refusal to ratify as a bargaining chip (i.e. they agree they want the amendment, but won't ratify it till they get something else).

froggy 2

It is, at the very least, clearly implied.
And, about the "difficulties", I don't really know what it could be about except a failure ( not a lack of time, I suppose)

If it was simply a matter of "what to do next", why impose a limit of 80% ratification, if it is not to give the council the legitimacy to validate the text ?

bonkey

froggy 2 wrote: »

I don't agree; this article is, at least sufficiently wide to such allow a decision.

No, its not. Unless explicitly stated, decisions cannot disregard requirements that are themselves part of the treaty.

I can add that, after our own referendum in 2005, some people had tried to impose the idea that a mere 80% ratification in Europe was sufficient to bypass our "no" ... They only gave up because that article was not even already active !!!

There's no accounting for what crazy ideas people get. Despite explicit wording to protect Irish neutrality, some loons have tried to argue that other sections can ignore that explicit wording.

So, I don't imagine people would not use this article when it is validated.

What you imagine is not the issue here. What is at issue is whether or not the article can be used in the way you claim....overriding explicit requirements of the same Treaty.

froggy 2

No, its not. Unless explicitly stated, decisions cannot disregard requirements that are themselves part of the treaty.

Well, so let us be clear : " le Conseil européen se saisit de la question. " is an explcit statement, and anyone can search in the text to make its own mind on what this sentence means in english.
In french, at least, when you say an organisation is "saisie de la question", it clearly means that it does ultimately decide.

For me, the redaction implies that the point 5 of the article fully applies if some countries face "difficulties" to validate modification according to the point 4 (paragraph 5 is the failure procedure for paragraph 4), and it gives the council power to decide about it if 80% validation is met over Europe. (I mentionned the fact people had imagined to use this article even if was not ratified as a curiosity, not a proof, of course).
This reading is totally consistent with the obligation to have a 80% ratification (this point would have no possible other meaning) to do so, yours is not.

Well, I think it is pointless arguing further, the best being to advice people to read themselves.

Last question before (virtually) crossing the channel back : what do say the polls in Ireland ?

oscarBravo

froggy 2 wrote: »

Yes, it does change that fact : if there is a denial of ratification, "le Conseil européen se saisit de la question" ... ; at the very least the fact that the council does decide in that case is clearly implied (very clear in the french version).
This is all the more obvious that this mention would have no meaning and no point should you be right : why precise that that "le Conseil européen se saisit de la question" (the matter is referred to the council in your version" if not to give it the power of decision ???

The matter is referred to the Council - but what power does the Council have?

For argument's sake, let's assume that Lisbon has been passed, and another treaty is up for ratification. It would still require that each member state ratify it according to its individual requirements. Lisbon doesn't change that.

froggy 2

For me, it is not the case :

=> If there is one "difficulty" (or up to 20%), the council "se saisit de la question", and, in french, this means (it is a precise term) that it has full power of decision on the "question sur lesquelles il est saisit", specifically the "difficulties".
Clearly it means that it can decide to validate the text despite the "difficulties" (ignore them). It is only a possiility, but it is.

The ironic side of our discussion is that this point has been one of the important arguments of the "Yes" side in the french 2005 campaign (including officials ... and not speaking of crazier further ideas I just mentioned for curiosity), finding there an argument to prove that the treaty was much easier to modify that the precedent ones (on the theme "it is not perfect, but easy to modify... 80% are sufficient"), whereas the "No" side claimed the text was vitually impossible to amend.
You have to realize that, in the french context, this point was considered as a major improvement, because of the federal approch it implies; that explains why the "Yes" side did insist on it, facing the imprecise (they did never contest the 80%) and embarassed denials of the "no" side.
It is not a proof ... ok ... the ultimate decision about the correct reading is the European court's one ... and maybe our politicians of both sides were doing a mistaken reading, but ... still ...

That's why the best is that everyone takes a consolidated version of the text, read it, and makes its own mind.

[EDIT 21/05 morning] Well, the irony of "reversed arguments" does not seem to end here, in fact …
I took a little time this morning, on my way to office, remembering our own 2005 campaign … and the point you mentioned about defence policy.
In France, it was the Yes side who was claiming the text did create an efficient defence common policy and a foreign minister (I don’t think this last point has been maintained) and it opened way for an “Europe Puissance” (EU with international role). The No side claimed that the then-text was giving priority to neutrality and NATO, practically forbidding such an hope (in a french perspective).
You will probably be happy to know that our “No” side (your “Yes” one) made the point, according to me.


Another question : is the time on the forum the official Irish time ?
In France, we are two hours later.
And my english comes back swiftly; interesting : I used to be speaking english quite well, but I lack practice (By the way : you can see in my old-times message 4 years ago that I was already french )
Bye ...

bonkey

froggy 2 wrote: »

For me, it is not the case :

=> If there is one "difficulty" (or up to 20%), the council "se saisit de la question", and, in french, this means (it is a precise term) that it has full power of decision on the "question sur lesquelles il est saisit", specifically the "difficulties".
Clearly it means that it can decide to validate the text despite the "difficulties" (ignore them). It is only a possiility, but it is.

Could you link to a copy of the official French version of the amendment?

I ask because the english translation you offered previously was mostly correct, but when taken in the context of the full amendment clearly excluded the possible interpretation you were offering.

Now, you're saying that maybe the english text doesn't support that interpretation, but the French does....so I'd like to read it for myself.

To explain why...

=> If there is one "difficulty" (or up to 20%), the council "se saisit de la question", and, in french, this means (it is a precise term) that it has full power of decision on the "question sur lesquelles il est saisit", specifically the "difficulties".
Clearly it means that it can decide to validate the text despite the "difficulties" (ignore them). It is only a possiility, but it is.

In this (partial) wording, as in teh English version, it would seem to me that the Council get to deal with the difficulties, but not the ratification. I disagree that its clear that when someone says they get to decide what to do about the difficulties, this means they get to ignore the requirement of ratification.

Under your interpretation, there is no boundary to what they could do....

"Ireland won't ratify? Lets kick them out of the EU."

"The Netherlands are dragging their heels? Lets invade and kill them all."

"Italy have taken over 2 years because they've been dealing with internal problems? Lets close their borders and issue a trade embargo"

These would all be perfectly valid, if one assumes that "dealing with the problem of ratification" is a carte-blanche to ignore any existing rules and regulations and simply make any decision one desires.

If its not a carte blanche to disregard all existing rules and regulations, then one must ask which rules and regulations are allowed to be disregarded, which not, and why that is nowhere specified.

So seriously...either we have to accept that this wording is a freedom to do anything it takes, up to and including, well, anything you like really, or we have to accept that any decisions taken by the council are limited by the Treaties which bind the EU.

froggy 2

For the link to the french consolidated version
http://www.traite-de-lisbonne.fr/Traite_de_Lisbonne.php?Traite=2

article 48.

And the point that my english version proves that my reading is incorrect maybe clear for you, but for me it is far from being so obvious. The fact is that english is not my mother tongue, so, excuse be if I am not so affirmative about its signification, particularily the subtilities in the signification of the expression "referred to" !!! I don't say the english version does not support my interpretation, but that it is hard for me to argue with an Irish on that point.
The fact they can decide what to do with the difficulties do not mean they will ignore it, but the fact that they CAN ignore it. In fact, the decision, in such a case, is "open", and is a political matter for which the council requires the legitimacy given by the 80% : give the state a choice to either ratify or withdraw for EU (another "strange" idea in 2005), cancel the text, modify it, simply decide a ratification ... in fact, possibilities are wide.
It is simply, as I stated before, a federal logic.

This article allows The council to do virtually whatever it wants about the difficulties, provided the text is ratified by at least 80% of the states (this limitation is a nonsense except to give the council a legitimacy to decide itself on the future of the text); it does not open way to any retaliatory measure (no statement of that anywhere), but it is clear it does include the fact they can decide, and especially ignore it, on the matter.

And, excuse me, but the hypothesis that a country could take more than 2 years in a ratification process, such as a "difficulty" could be interpreted otherwise than a failure (in fact, diffculty is even wider than failure), is simply a nonsense

bonkey

froggy 2 wrote: »

This article allows The council to do virtually whatever it wants about the difficulties,

As I asked in my last post...are you including throwing nations out of the EU, imposting trade embargoes, declaring war, or even comitting genocide in that "virtually whatever it wants"?

I'm not suggesting that the Council would do such things...I'm asking if you believe that this wording gives them the power to do them.

And, excuse me, but the hypothesis that a country could take more than 2 years in a ratification process, such as a "difficulty" could be interpreted otherwise than a failure (in fact, diffculty is even wider than failure), is simply a nonsense

Its not nonsense. It is, however, wording to recognise that if something goes beyond two years and no conclusion has been reached, then there is a problem which needs to be addressed.

If a conclusion has been reached, then there are no difficulties in "completing the process" - the process has been concluded, regardless of whether that conclusion is acceptance or rejection.

The wording (in English) makes it clear (to me, at least) that it is dealing with countries who have not yet completed the process, not those who have rejected a ratification. If you reject something, then you haven't experienced difficulties proceeding with the ratification process...you have taken the process through to one of its two valid conclusions.

You are reading (in French, I assume) the bit which refers to "completing the process" and interpreting it as "successfully ratifying". In otherwords, you do not see a rejection of a bill as a completion of the process. I don't understand why, but I'm entirely confident that you're wrong.

froggy 2

Point 1 : I thought it was clearly answered in my last post...
The wording gives the council to decide what to do about the difficulties to pass the ratification (beware if you read the french text : in french "proceder" is not "to proceed", as it implies a success), which means clearly to decide the future of the text ... not to get any retaliatory measure, which should be mentionned.
Point 2 : In fact, as I mentionned, a difficulty is (at least to me) even much wider than the simple notion of failure, but it includes it.


I think we have reached a point where everyone should make its own opinion, and it is no use arguing much more ... we just don't understand the text in the same way.

bonkey

froggy 2 wrote: »

Point 1 : I thought it was clearly answered in my last post...
The wording gives the council to decide what to do about the difficulties to pass the ratification

That's what I have been saying. It doesn't give the council the authority to decide what to do about the amendment itself, merely whether or not they can do something abou the difficulties to pass it.

which means clearly to decide the future of the text ... not to get any retaliatory measure, which should be mentionned.

Either it gives them carte blanche to decide what to do, or it doesn't. You admit it doesn't let them get into retaliatory measures, so clearly you feel that it doesn't give them a free hand in doing whatever they want. Thus, you accept that there are implicit limits to what this clause allows them to do.

I am suggesting that those implicit limits are the limits by which they are normally constrained - those being the Treaties by which the EU is governed. You are suggesting that it is not...that there is some non-defined set of extra powers, which you say does allow them to do some stuff but not other stuff...only you haven't explained how you've figured out what it does or doesn't let them do.

I think we have reached a point where everyone should make its own opinion, and it is no use arguing much more ... we just don't understand the text in the same way.

This encouragement only serves to breed uncertainty, which in turn will only support the No position. I can see why you feel its the best path to take, but I would encourage anyone to not just make up their own minds, but to seek other opinions and find other people willing to discuss it.

froggy 2

The wording of the treaty is that article 48 is about modifying the treaties (it is the title : procedure de révision ordinaire, or "Ordinary revision procedure"), so actions undertaken under the use of this article are clearly about modifying the treaties, unless otherwise specified and detailled.
It is speaking of treaty modification, not invasion ...
By the way, what did you mean by saying "deal with the difficulty" or "see if they can do something" ... written like that, it could ALSO have meant takeing coercitive measures (provided, according to you, that they are allowed by the treaty).

I maintain that, in the frame of this article (ie modifying the treaties), the pargraph 5 gives a total carte blanche to council to deal with any difficulty in the ratification process (this mention suggesting this paragraph cannot be used to change unconcerned parts in the treaty), provided the 80% requirement. This clearly implies the possibility to ignore it (adopt the amendment), or to take it partially (precise the amendment), or totally (withdraw it), into account.
Of course what is precisely included in this frame is, ultimately, up to the European court’s decisions (the role of any constitutionnal court, even if you accept your interpretation : "what they can do" would be ultimately up to European court), but clearly, it does include treaty modifications, and “probably” not declaring a nuclear war.

What we disagre the most is, I think, there : you assume that, even if they activate the paragraph 5, paragraph 4 would still apply. I do not agree : according to me, if the requirements for paragraph 4 are not met, then you go to paragraph 5, and the council makes the decision; those 2 paragraphes describe two different steps of the same process.

4. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
5. If, two years after the signature of a treaty amending the Treaties, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.

Furthermore, you apparently fail to notice that the mention of “ratification in accordance to constitutional requirements” only applies to decisions taken in virtue of the paragraph 4, not to those of paragraph 5.

I would encourage anyone to not just make up their own minds, but to seek other opinions and find other people willing to discuss it.

You are right : it is truly the best thing to do.