The Truth about the European Constitution / Lisbon Treaty

Boskowski

For everyone who's seriously interested in this I can only recommend to go to YouTube and listen to the lecture of Prof. Dr. Schachtschneider on the European Constitution. It is held in the German language but there is an alternate version with English subtitles. It is pretty lengthy (just over an hour) and especially the first part may seem a little polemic at first but it's well worth it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_kB6ejDlq8

Prof. Dr. Schachtschneider is a retired lecturer (eremitus) on state law and state theory and has become somewhat famous for challenging (successfully) the various attempts (Maastricht, EU constitution, Lisbon treaty) to promote a European Constitution on the grounds of those attempts not being compliant with the German Grundgesetz (Constitution). Schachtschneider is well renowned even amongst his critics.

In a nutshell (lengthy nutshell I admit):

As the German Grundgesetz was 'imposed' on Germany after WW2 in order to ensure Germany being a very, very democratic state which will never allow a despotic takeover and something like a holocaust to happen again this German Grundgesetz is deemed one of the most advanced constitutions of the western world - very much in the spirit of the great liberal state theorists emerging after the French revolution.
Schachtschneider successfully challenged the European constitution as being not compliant with the Grundgesetz because of serious democratic deficiencies before the Bundesverfasssungsgericht (Supreme Constitutional Court, the 'guardians' of the Grundgesetz if you like).
As a result of this (in spite of the lies in the media) the European Constitution was not only voted down in France and in the Netherlands but also was never ratified in Germany either. The Bundesverfassungsgericht simply forbid the German president to sign the bill that was passed by both parliaments. A similar motion by Schachtschneider (with the same expected outcome) was made against the Lisbon treaty. Strangely enough this is always being omitted in the media, they only say that the parliaments passed these treaties which sounds to the uninformed as if the were ratified which of course they were not.

Anyway here are the democratic deficiencies of the constitution/Lisbon treaty (which is the same despite what anyone is trying to tell you).

1) No sufficient separation of the executive, legislative and judiciary powers. Overpowering executive, the 'parliament' has no real control over the legislation and cannot submit legislation proposals itself even.

2) No independent judiciary. The judiciary is appointed by the governments.

3) No legitimation of Europe as a replacement for the nation states as no one but the people themselves can surrender their national sovereignty to join a new nation/union. A decision on behalf of the people (by the elected representatives) is insufficient. The attempt is made to bypass the people but for a few inconvenient exceptions (Ireland).

4) No equal representation of every citizens vote in this new Union. E.g. the vote of a person in Malta/Luxembourg weighs 20 times more than the vote of a person in the UK.

5) Establishment of neo-liberal, completely deregulated finance & market rules (super-capitalism) as an unchangeable political dogma in the European Constitution. The very cornerstone of democracy is that changes reflecting the ideas of the current political powers must be allowed.

There are a good few other things and Schachtschneider will explain these carefully, but I think these are the main issues. Also he explains who is benefiting from the new order that is attempted to be established by the European Constitution and how the whole process works.

oscarBravo

realcam wrote: »

Anyway here are the democratic deficiencies of the constitution/Lisbon treaty (which is the same despite what anyone is trying to tell you).

If you're going to try to persuade people of the accuracy of what you say, starting with something that's self-evidently false isn't a good way to go about it.

1) No sufficient separation of the executive, legislative and judiciary powers. Overpowering executive, the 'parliament' has no real control over the legislation and cannot submit legislation proposals itself even.

This is worse than the current situation, how?

2) No independent judiciary. The judiciary is appointed by the governments.

This is different from the current situation, how? This is different from (say) the US Supreme Court, how?

3) No legitimation of Europe as a replacement for the nation states...

What? Who suggested that Europe should be a replacement for nation states? You're arguing from your conclusion, here/

4) No equal representation of every citizens vote in this new Union. E.g. the vote of a person in Malta/Luxembourg weighs 20 times more than the vote of a person in the UK.

Exactly what, in the EU, does a person in Malta get to vote on, apart from their MEPs?

5) Establishment of neo-liberal, completely deregulated finance & market rules (super-capitalism) as an unchangeable political dogma in the European Constitution. The very cornerstone of democracy is that changes reflecting the ideas of the current political powers must be allowed.

There's no such thing as an unchangeable political dogma, where EU treaties are concerned. If the member states want a different direction for the Union, they'll negotiate new treaties.

Scofflaw

Several years of arguing with Creationists have made me extremely wary of any poster who starts by making a fuss over the credentials of someone he or she is about to quote. Yes, Herr Schachtschneider is a senior academic - however, that does not make him the sole authority in his field, or his the sole worthwhile opinion. Creationists regularly cite retired academics as authorities that "establish" quite patently ridiculous points, so I'm afraid the mere existence of an academic career cannot be taken as an absolute indicator of reliability.

In seeking to determine whether, apart from his academic qualifications, Herr Schachtschneider is reliable, I find at least one glaring example of a totally false claim - that the Charter of Fundamental Rights would re-introduce the death penalty to Europe (source 1, source 2).

I'm sorry to say that someone who could claim that (it's been debated here, and it's one of the most easily disproved and ridiculous claims about the Charter) could claim anything. Once that is established, Herr Schachtschneider's academic qualifications become a negative rather than a positive - I don't doubt for an instant that he is capable of making his claims sound extremely weighty and legally impressive, but the fact that he is clearly willing to mix in a false claim means that such an ability could well disguise other, less obvious, false claims under a layer of legalistic verbiage.

I am sure that the OP will regard this as an ad hominem attack. It isn't - it's important and relevant to judging the likely credibility of impressively legalistic claims that the person making them is (a) known to make false legal claims, and (b) able to dress such claims up to make them sound impressively legalistic.

Obviously, I do not intend to imply that all of Herr Schachtschneider's claims are false. I am, however, pointing out that he is not constrained in a Youtube video from making claims that would be judged false in a court of law.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boskowski

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you're going to try to persuade people of the accuracy of what you say, starting with something that's self-evidently false isn't a good way to go about it.

Simply stating that I'm 'false' isn't good enough. Can you elaborate in what way my statement is false? I'm curious how you make a case for that 'cos obviously I believe it isn't.

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is worse than the current situation, how? This is different from the current situation, how? This is different from (say) the US Supreme Court, how?

It is far worse as it is attempting to manifest an undemocratic situation.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What? Who suggested that Europe should be a replacement for nation states?

This' effectively what's happening. Today the vast majority of laws are 'made' by Brussels (for Germany about 85%). If people surrender their ability to form the rules they are going to abide as a society to a new body, what else is that? Isn't that what a nation state is all about?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Exactly what, in the EU, does a person in Malta get to vote on, apart from their MEPs?

What is the MEP? It is the only thing you get a vote on in Europe which happens to be or become the most powerful institution in the place you're living in.

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's no such thing as an unchangeable political dogma, where EU treaties are concerned. If the member states want a different direction for the Union, they'll negotiate new treaties.

Only it isn't just another 'treaty'.


Anyway, I'm not making case for me knowing the whole truth personally. I'm making a case for this man having a case. Will you at least listen to him before you make counter arguments?

Boskowski

Scofflaw wrote: »

I find at least one glaring example of a totally false claim - that the Charter of Fundamental Rights would re-introduce the death penalty to Europe

Now funny you should mention that, cos' on this one I actually was reading about myself in the text of the treaty.

How is it not reintroducing the death penalty when you say in one paragraph there isn't a death penalty but details are regulated in another paragraph and in that other paragraph you list all the exceptions where we do indeed have the death penalty?

Also on me focusing on his credentials. I'm not blinded by those, I merely thought it was worth mentioning that he wasn't yet another Joe Soap but an actual expert on the subject matter.

Scofflaw

realcam wrote: »

Now funny you should mention that, cos' on this one I actually was reading about myself in the text of the treaty.

How is it not reintroducing the death penalty when you say in one paragraph there isn't a death penalty but details are regulated in another paragraph and in that other paragraph you list all the exceptions where we do indeed have the death penalty?

Well, first, those are exemptions, and therefore cannot impose an obligation. If the law on school says that your child must go to school unless they are sick, then the latter does not oblige you to make your child sick. The first part is the obligation, the latter is the exemption.

So in this case the obligation is to outlaw the death penalty, and the exemptions are the listed cases. They are optional - cases where a state may choose to retain the death penalty.

For the majority of EU states, even these exemptions are inapplicable, because they are signatories to Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which bans entirely the use of the death penalty without exception.

The complete explanation, then, is that a one EU state has refused to abolish the death penalty in those cases exempted by the Charter, and in order to have the Charter agreed by all the EU states (it couldn't go forward for ratification otherwise) it had to allow those exemptions.

However, there is no case whatsoever where those exemptions could be used to reintroduce the death penalty to EU states that have abolished it, such as Ireland, because that abolition is governed by being signatories to Protocol 13 of the ECHR. The exemptions have no effect outside the one EU state that retains the death penalty - Latvia.

So, making this claim is evidence that the good professor is willing to put forward easily disproven and materially false claims simply because they make the EU look bad. He is not pressing this one in a court of law, because it will fail instantly.

Further, the claim is a traducement of the effort the EU puts into abolition of the death penalty. The EU is recognised as the main mover worldwide in getting the death penalty abolished - to claim that it is trying to reintroduce it by trickery is like claiming Nelson Mandela supports apartheid.

realcam wrote: »

Also on me focusing on his credentials. I'm not blinded by those, I merely thought it was worth mentioning that he wasn't yet another Joe Soap but an actual expert on the subject matter.

Sometimes, being an expert just means having the ability to dress up a poor claim in rich language. That he makes the patently false claim about the death penalty reflects very badly either on his expertise or his honesty. Either way, I wouldn't accept his opinions without a very large dose of salt.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

realcam wrote: »

Simply stating that I'm 'false' isn't good enough. Can you elaborate in what way my statement is false? I'm curious how you make a case for that 'cos obviously I believe it isn't.

You said that the Lisbon treaty is the same as the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. It's not. It's demonstrably different.

Doubtless you'll now backpedal and start talking about "minor differences", or the percentage of provisions that are common between them, but that's not what you said: you said they're the same.

It is far worse as it is attempting to manifest an undemocratic situation.

You said "No independent judiciary. The judiciary is appointed by the governments." You're saying that this is worse than the current situation.

Who currently appoints the judiciary, in the absence of the Lisbon treaty?

This' effectively what's happening. Today the vast majority of laws are 'made' by Brussels (for Germany about 85%). If people surrender their ability to form the rules they are going to abide as a society to a new body, what else is that? Isn't that what a nation state is all about?

I suggest you look up the subsidiarity principle.

What is the MEP? It is the only thing you get a vote on in Europe which happens to be or become the most powerful institution in the place you're living in.

OK, so you were talking about MEPs, and you're unhappy with the disproportionate level of representation that smaller states get. You'd be happier with the EU if the level of representation in the parliament was directly proportional to population?

Good luck selling that one to the smaller states.

Only it isn't just another 'treaty'.

I'm pretty sure it is just another treaty, with or without danger quotes. If it's something more, please feel free to explain how. More specifically, explain how any of its principles are rendered irrevocable by future treaties.

Anyway, I'm not making case for me knowing the whole truth personally. I'm making a case for this man having a case. Will you at least listen to him before you make counter arguments?

Nope. You've singularly failed to make that case.

Boskowski

oscarBravo wrote: »

You said that the Lisbon treaty is the same as the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. It's not. It's demonstrably different.

I'm not going to backpedal whatsoever, for all intents ands purposes they're the same.

I'm not saying it is worse than the current situation which is bad. What I'm saying is that it is manifesting a bad situation and gives or attempts to give it a democratic coat.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I suggest you look up the subsidiarity principle.

Whats that got to do with what I said? I said that we surrender the process of making legislation to a very large extent to Brussels. The most significant thing that a society can do is forming the rules they agree to abide on as a society. The common rules and values is what makes a society. If we give that authority to Europe we're effectively forming a new society which supersedes our nations.

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, so you were talking about MEPs, and you're unhappy with the disproportionate level of representation that smaller states get. You'd be happier with the EU if the level of representation in the parliament was directly proportional to population?

Good luck selling that one to the smaller states.

Don't care whether they like it or not. It's not democratic if the weight of my vote isn't equal to the vote of a person in Malta. Period.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope. You've singularly failed to make that case.

Never mind. I feel that you have your mind made up anyway and never intended to listen.

sink

realcam wrote: »

If we give that authority to Europe we're effectively forming a new society which supersedes our nations.

Here is crux of the matter. You either believe that the independence of a nation state is the of highest concern or absolute thus placing it above all other interests including what is best for the entirety of human society or you believe that the nation state structure is the best organisational structure to serve the interests of humanity. It is this fundamental difference from which all other differences seem to stem. Let me ask you this, why do you believe it so?

oscarBravo

realcam wrote: »

I'm not going to backpedal whatsoever, for all intents ands purposes they're the same.

That's backpedalling.

I could argue that, based on the percentage of commonality between human and chimpanzee DNA, that for all intents and purposes they're the same. But I'd be wrong.

I'm not saying it is worse than the current situation which is bad. What I'm saying is that it is manifesting a bad situation and gives or attempts to give it a democratic coat.

If Lisbon doesn't make the current situation worse, why present it as an argument against Lisbon?

Also, who says it "gives or attempts to give it a democratic coat"?

Whats that got to do with what I said? I said that we surrender the process of making legislation to a very large extent to Brussels. The most significant thing that a society can do is forming the rules they agree to abide on as a society. The common rules and values is what makes a society. If we give that authority to Europe we're effectively forming a new society which supersedes our nations.

You say "supersedes", I say "complements". We've been allowing this complementary society to help frame our laws since 1973. Why does it suddenly become a problem with Lisbon?

Don't care whether they like it or not. It's not democratic if the weight of my vote isn't equal to the vote of a person in Malta. Period.

Two wolves and a lamb voting on a dinner menu is, strictly speaking, democratic.

I can't help but feel that this is yet another situation where the very concept of democracy is being dragged kicking and screaming into an argument it wanted no part of.

Never mind. I feel that you have your mind made up anyway and never intended to listen.

It's a discussion forum. If you don't want people to disagree with you, you shouldn't be here.

Stabshauptmann

realcam wrote: »

5) Establishment of neo-liberal, completely deregulated finance & market rules (super-capitalism) as an unchangeable political dogma in the European Constitution. The very cornerstone of democracy is that changes reflecting the ideas of the current political powers must be allowed.

What do you mean by deregulated?

Almost every type of financial activity requires a license / authorisation.

The Capital Requirements Directive is far more burdensome and complex than the Capital Adequacy Directive it replaced. (Same with Solvency II for insurers.)

The Market in Financial Instruments Directive likewise is more encompassing and lays down greater requirements.

Then theres the payments services directive, e-commerce directive, UCITS IV on the horizons.

The EU market is heavily regulated, with the aim of market stability and consumer protection.

turgon

realcam wrote: »

Never mind. I feel that you have your mind made up anyway and never intended to listen.

And I suppose you are so openminded yourself?

Look realcam you can try and put that kind of rubbish you posted infront of some OAPs, or Sinn Fein supporters, and theyl swallow it all up. But you should kniw that if you post it here Scofflaw and OscarBravo will do what they thankfully do for most dogmatic people and tear up the crap they come up with using - lo and behold - facts!