Question Re: Two tiered EU

ShooterSF

I've spent some time reading up on this possibility of the rest of the EU passing a lisbon treaty involving their states and us still acting by the Nice treaty.
The first thing I couldn't understand was how voting would work on issues that were passed on an EU level before the Lisbon treaty as we would have a different voting system to everyone else. Surely that could be interesting.
I assume we'd be free from accepting EU laws in the new areas as they would still be decided at national level for us.

The major one is the EU presidency though. We under Nice would still require the rotation policy whereas everyone else would have a set president. Does that mean that in our term we'd hold the presidency and for everyone elses the set president would be in place as we have not accepted giving up our term, and to do so would probably require a referendum!?

I'm not sure how viable this will actually be to implement as the treaty introduces a lot of structural changes as opposed to say the Euro (which England opted out of) did.

Any ideas?

fitz0

What I cant understand is how they can even float the idea of a two-tiered Europe and still pretend it is based on "Democracy". Surely in a democracy when a NO vote is cast it is listened to, not over-ridden and cast aside as an ill-informed vote that should be redone.

I say the EU should stay as it was originally intended, a partership between member states to trade with each other, not become some sort of United States of Europe. I will not be part of such a thing.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

I've spent some time reading up on this possibility of the rest of the EU passing a lisbon treaty involving their states and us still acting by the Nice treaty.
The first thing I couldn't understand was how voting would work on issues that were passed on an EU level before the Lisbon treaty as we would have a different voting system to everyone else. Surely that could be interesting.
I assume we'd be free from accepting EU laws in the new areas as they would still be decided at national level for us.

The major one is the EU presidency though. We under Nice would still require the rotation policy whereas everyone else would have a set president. Does that mean that in our term we'd hold the presidency and for everyone elses the set president would be in place as we have not accepted giving up our term, and to do so would probably require a referendum!?

I'm not sure how viable this will actually be to implement as the treaty introduces a lot of structural changes as opposed to say the Euro (which England opted out of) did.

Any ideas?

Fair points - given that many of the changes are structural/institutional, it seems impossible for Ireland to opt out of them. Having said that, some of them are potentially in Nice anyway, under the enlargement protocol - and most of the Lisbon changes were due to kick in only in 2014.

Competence areas we'd simply opt out of, QMV areas we would presumably retain a veto, but unless we chose to exercise it (highly unlikely) decisions could still be made by QMV.

The Presidency would presumably have to remain under the present system of rotation, since that's explicitly stated:

"The office of President shall be held in turn by each Member State in the Council for a term of six months in the order decided by the Council acting unanimously."

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

fitz0 wrote: »

What I cant understand is how they can even float the idea of a two-tiered Europe and still pretend it is based on "Democracy". Surely in a democracy when a NO vote is cast it is listened to, not over-ridden and cast aside as an ill-informed vote that should be redone.

I say the EU should stay as it was originally intended, a partership between member states to trade with each other, not become some sort of United States of Europe. I will not be part of such a thing.

Hmm. The EU isn't a democracy. It's an intergovernmental system with supra-national legislative initiative. Its member states are democracies, and it has a system of democratic oversight through both the elected Parliament and the elected Council of Ministers - but the EU itself is not a democracy, and doesn't claim to be. Also, of course, the element you prefer - the 'trading partnership' (aka common market) is the least democratic element.

cordially,
Scofflaw

fitz0

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. The EU isn't a democracy. It's an intergovernmental system with supra-national legislative initiative. Its member states are democracies, and it has a system of democratic oversight through both the elected Parliament and the elected Council of Ministers - but the EU itself is not a democracy, and doesn't claim to be. Also, of course, the element you prefer - the 'trading partnership' (aka common market) is the least democratic element.

cordially,
Scofflaw

you're right but is the process of adopting this treaty not purported to be a unanimous vote? As in all states must ratify it or it can't be passed? We have rejected it but they seem to think they can tell us to "do it again, but do it our way." If they were committed to a unanimous decision then should they not accept this rejection of it? No other country was really given a choice in it, no other referendums for fear of rejection. Im sure that, had there been a referendum in each participating country, there would be at least another 1 or 2 countries against it.

Scofflaw

fitz0 wrote: »

you're right but is the process of adopting this treaty not purported to be a unanimous vote? As in all states must ratify it or it can't be passed?

Those are the current 'club rules', yes. However, like any set of rules for a club, they are subordinate to the existence and purpose of the club. If they become unworkable in practice, a way round them will be found.

However, that unanimity is the opposite of the 'democratic' element of the EU - it represents the undemocratic 'intergovernmental' end of the EU, in which no matter how small the nation, it must still be able to block all the others.

fitz0 wrote: »

We have rejected it but they seem to think they can tell us to "do it again, but do it our way." If they were committed to a unanimous decision then should they not accept this rejection of it?

Hmm. Yes and no. Yes, because those are the rules they agreed in advance - that Lisbon can't be ratified except by all the member states. No, because if Ireland won't ratify, then what happens depends on what the other member states want to do. If they are strongly enough committed to the reforms in Lisbon, and strongly enough opposed to renegotiation, then we will find that our No being respected might mean everyone else going ahead without us. If, on the other hand, there is a willingness to reopen negotiations, we will find our No being respected through renegotiation. Finally, if there is neither the will to renegotiate, nor strong commitment to reform, we will find our No being respected by paralysing the EU for the moment.

Thus far, the commitment to the reforms seems pretty strong, but we'll see how it pans out.

fitz0 wrote: »

No other country was really given a choice in it, no other referendums for fear of rejection. Im sure that, had there been a referendum in each participating country, there would be at least another 1 or 2 countries against it.

That is quite possible, but essentially irrelevant. They haven't had referendums, and they haven't refused to ratify. Currently, that leaves us out in the spotlight. We have yet to find out whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

cordially,
Scofflaw