Question on Lisbon

Nuravictus

I heard a lot of people say Lisbon would make Europe a better Democracy, I voted no on lisbon because 270+ Million European were denied the right to vote. However if you guys would like to tell me how Lisbon will change Europe for the better please do because I am open to this.

dresden8

Look up Scofflaw and then read all his posts.

He's quite good really, even if we are on opposite sides of this debate.

turgon

Nuravictus wrote: »

I heard a lot of people say Lisbon would make Europe a better Democracy, I voted no on lisbon because 270+ Million European were denied the right to vote. However if you guys would like to tell me how Lisbon will change Europe for the better please do because I am open to this.

No offence intended, but that was such a stupid reason to vote no. People voting for such reasons gave the other no voters a bad reputation as ignoramus'. Maybe next time get informed here beforehand and decide on realistic reasons.

Furious-Dave

No one was denied their right to vote. The only reason the Irish people voted was because it's in our constitution to do so on any proposed changes to that constitution. The question put forward in the referendum was NOT "Should we ratify the Lisbon Treaty?", as most people think it was, but rather "Should we allow the changes to the Irish constitution as proposed by the Lisbon Treaty?". It's not in the constitutions of other EU countries and therefore the Parliaments were within their own rights to ratify the treaty themselves. That's their job. Now, the 'No' campaign will say that this was undemocratic, but that's BS. The parliament is elected by the people and then that parliament decides upon state matters such as treaties. THAT'S democracy!

Nuravictus

2. Self-Amending Treaty

Article 48, Article 308 and others make the treaty self-amending in that they enable the European Council to extend the areas in which the EU can legislate and make major changes to the functioning of the Union by majority vote, without the need for a new treaty and, therefore, without the need for referendums in Ireland or elsewhere.

Three examples:

(a) The enlarged scope of the Flexibility Clause (Article 308 TEC/TFU), whereby if the Treaty does not provide the necessary powers to enable the new Union attain its very wide objectives, the Council may take appropriate measures by unanimity. The Lisbon Treaty would extend this provision from the area of operation of the common market to all of the new Union's policies directed at attaining its much wider objectives. The Flexibility Clause has been widely used to extend EU law-making over the years;

(b) the proposed "Simplified Treaty Revision Procedure" which would permit the Prime Ministers and Presidents on the European Council to shift Union decision-taking from unanimity to qualified majority voting in the "Treaty on the Functioning of the Union" (Article 33.6, amended TEU), where the population size of certain Member States is likely to be decisive; and

(c) the several "ratchet-clauses" or "passerelles" which would allow the European Council to switch from unanimity to majority voting in certain specified areas such as judicial cooperation in civil matters( Article 69d.3.2), in criminal matters(Art.69f.2), in relation to the EU Public Prosecutor (Article 69i.4), and in a number of other areas.

Source: http://www.libertas.org/content/view/194/114/

I know Libertas is Anti EU & thats fine but this was another of the reasons for my no vote. So is this all bull or can the EU do the above ?

Furious-Dave wrote: »

No one was denied their right to vote. The only reason the Irish people voted was because it's in our constitution to do so on any proposed changes to that constitution. The question put forward in the referendum was NOT "Should we ratify the Lisbon Treaty?", as most people think it was, but rather "Should we allow the changes to the Irish constitution as proposed by the Lisbon Treaty?". It's not in the constitutions of other EU countries and therefore the Parliaments were within their own rights to ratify the treaty themselves. That's their job. Now, the 'No' campaign will say that this was undemocratic, but that's BS. The parliament is elected by the people and then that parliament decides upon state matters such as treaties. THAT'S democracy!

Looks at the United Kingdom where people where promised a vote & denied it.

Furious-Dave

Fair enough but that's only one country, not "270+ million" people. I have gotten into a habit of not including the UK when I talk about the EU. The English want to be in the EU but also want to cling on to the last remnants of the 'empire'.

Scofflaw

Nuravictus wrote: »

Source: http://www.libertas.org/content/view/194/114/

I know Libertas is Anti EU & thats fine but this was another of the reasons for my no vote. So is this all bull or can the EU do the above ?

The best lies, as they say, are those with a grain of truth. The articles in question have the effect that the Treaties can be amended on an article by article basis, as we amend our Constitution - whereas currently the Treaties can only be amended by a whole new Treaty, as if we had to write a whole new Constitution every time we wanted to change ours.

The plus side of this is fairly obvious - being able to amend the EU treaties bit by bit instead of the current business of years of negotiation followed by a huge grab-bag of amendments which almost nobody likes 100% of.

However, the question is - is Libertas right? Does that mean no further referendums?

The answer is yes and no. We're used to the idea that we have referendums on EU treaties because they're treaties - and indeed, that's what Libertas suggest with their phrasing. However, we don't have referendums on other treaties. The reason we have referendums on the EU treaties is that they often contain some element or other that binds our sovereignty - in the original SEA, we bound ourselves to consider the interests of the other EU members in foreign policy.

So it is the element in the treaty that binds our sovereignty that requires a referendum on ratification of the treaty as a whole. If there is no such element in an EU treaty, there is no requirement for a referendum - except, importantly, the political requirement, because we expect one, and any EU treaty that was ratified without a referendum would undoubtedly be subject to legal challenge.

Then, if Lisbon was passed, and treaty amendments could be proposed singly, would that mean no more referendums? The answer is no - any amendment that affected our sovereignty, or materially changed the EU, would require a referendum, because, to quote Article 48:

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

Where something would currently require a referendum to allow the Irish government to ratify it, it will still require a referendum. Where it does not, however, it would not require one.

What I would expect to see if Lisbon passed are legal challenges to any amendment that the Irish government attempted to pass without referendum. After a while, there would be a clear body of decisions by the Irish Supreme Court which would clarify which amendments could be ratified without changing our Constitution, and which required a referendum. The government could choose to play it safe by putting every amendment to referendum, or it could choose to try and ratify some purely in the Dáil. Where the Irish government actually objected to the proposed amendment, it would almost certainly choose to put it to referendum.

The various passerelle clauses and other articles that Libertas refer to make the position slightly more complex. Two types of decision can be made without ratification - moving an area from unanimity to QMV, and adopting co-decision. Both decisions are made by the Council, and require unanimity on the Council - so Ireland cannot be forced to move something to QMV from unanimity. Adopting co-decision seems fine to me, since what it means is giving the Parliament the power to refuse the legislation as well as the Council.

Further, you cannot move areas with defence/military implications to QMV by this method, and national parliaments have to be given six months to allow them to object. An objection by any national parliament prevents the decision, so a government can be prevented from moving to QMV in any area where the national parliament feels it should not.

That's a bit long, but the summary I would make is that no, it does not mean no further Irish referendums, although there is no guarantee that all amendments proposed under this method would require referendums either. It does mean that the EU could advance by far smaller steps, which I think is a good thing. Either way, there is no requirement that this method ever be used.

Nuravictus wrote: »

Looks at the United Kingdom where people where promised a vote & denied it.

Indeed, by the government they elected. I'd call that a good basis for voting against Labour in the UK, but hardly relevant to the EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw