Can the EU make any laws they see fit / Understanding the Lisbon treaty

sceptre

I've split the discussion that follows from this thread as it's worthy of discussion in its own right. it's not a surgical split and I had to keep the initial posts that sparked it.

DB10

Hitman Actual wrote: »

I ridicule him, and I have no problem 'with the EU making new laws', as you put it.

The way the EU is going, you will have a problem.
We are just a speck of dirt getting in the way, if we give in, they can make ANY law they see fit eg an EU army and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

PopeBuckfastXVI

DB10 wrote: »

The way the EU is going, you will have a problem.
We are just a speck of dirt getting in the way, if we give in, they can make ANY law they see fit eg an EU army and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

Proof or withdrawal please?

eagle eye

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Proof or withdrawal please?

Why don't you disprove his argument. I've read a post you made previously. There was no substance to it.

I am not saying the guy is correct, but I'd like to see you make a post of substance.

ionix5891

eagle eye wrote: »

Why don't you disprove his argument. I've read a post you made previously. There was no substance to it.

I am not saying the guy is correct, but I'd like to see you make a post of substance.

the burden of proof is usually on the person making a wild statement :rolleyes:

PopeBuckfastXVI

eagle eye wrote: »

Why don't you disprove his argument. I've read a post you made previously. There was no substance to it.

I am not saying the guy is correct, but I'd like to see you make a post of substance.

The burden of proof is with the claiment, as per the charter of this forum.

If you have concrete issues with any of my other posts, I'd be happy to review them.

eagle eye

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The burden of proof is with the claiment, as per the charter of this forum.

If you have concrete issues with any of my other posts, I'd be happy to review them.

I'll wait for you to make a decent post, if that ever happens and I see something wrong with it then I'll reply.
Just to clarify,
I voted no to Lisbon and I will vote no again. I don't support Libertas and I didn't vote for Ganley and I wouldn't vote for him either.

BlitzKrieg

Why don't you disprove his argument

Off the top of my head article 48 subparagraph 4 and 7 disprove any chance of the EU:

they can make ANY law they see fit eg an EU army and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

Seeing as it specifies constitutional ratification before the amendments become law it would be impossible for the EU to make laws and us being unable to do anything about it.

beyond that, like the UK, Ireland has an opt out clause for the common security elements in the Lisbon treaty.

Hitman Actual

DB10 wrote: »

The way the EU is going, you will have a problem.
We are just a speck of dirt getting in the way, if we give in, they can make ANY law they see fit eg an EU army and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

There's a lot wrong with that statement. First of all, the EU doesn't legislate (i.e. make laws) in areas of defence/military issues; all decisions are agreed upon by the European Council themselves (heads of state and/or foreign ministers; I'm not sure exactly how it works, but the Commission has no part in it). Also, every defence/military decision requires unanimity. So rather than "there is nothing we can do to stop it", we can actually veto decisions we don't like. Also, like BlitzKrieg says, future Treaty amendments are subject to unanimous approval by all member states in accordance with their constitutional requirements, as covered in Article 48 Lisbon. There is no way "they can make ANY law they see fit".

Tbh, I think you've been listening to Libertas too much.

eagle eye

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Off the top of my head article 48 subparagraph 4 and 7 disprove any chance of the EU:

I wasn't asking you to do that.

Anyways, my reasons for voting against it were quite simple. It was a very confusing document, it includes

22. Declaration on Articles 48 and 79 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union
The Conference considers that in the event that a draft legislative act based on Article 79(2) would
affect important aspects of the social security system of a Member State, including its scope, cost or
financial structure, or would affect the financial balance of that system as set out in the second
paragraph of Article 48, the interests of that Member State will be duly taken into account.

What on earth does that mean, what parts of Article 48 are they referring to?
Its not a fair and clear document. The EU treaty is an easy read but the Lisbon treaty is a very difficult read and hard to understand. Some of the English used in it leaves it open to interpretation and I don't like that. I want a document thats as clear as the treaty itself. That way I can be certain of what exactly is going on. If you suddenly change things to confuse me I'm voting no.

PopeBuckfastXVI

My understanding is that where any particular draft legislation were to provide severe problems for the social security systems of a member state, they can, refer the draft to the European Council for consideration. The legislative procedure is suspended, and the European Council have 4 months to request the Council terminate the suspension, or request that the Commission submit a new proposal, deeming the act not to have been adopted.

In other words if a new law comes in which would end up making a significent burden for (e.g.) Ireland's social security system, we could request that it be redrafted.

Again, just my interpretation, I'm open to correction...

passive

eagle eye wrote: »

Anyways, my reasons for voting against it were quite simple.

You'll get no argument here.

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

M

Again, just my interpretation, I'm open to correction...

Don't waste your time/keyboard... It's not like he cares at all what it means.

Scofflaw

eagle eye wrote: »

I wasn't asking you to do that.

Anyways, my reasons for voting against it were quite simple. It was a very confusing document, it includes

The Conference considers that in the event that a draft legislative act based on Article 79(2) would affect important aspects of the social security system of a Member State, including its scope, cost or financial structure, or would affect the financial balance of that system as set out in the second paragraph of Article 48, the interests of that Member State will be duly taken into account.

What on earth does that mean, what parts of Article 48 are they referring to?

They're referring to the second paragraph of Article 48, as it says:

Where a member of the Council declares that a draft legislative act referred to in the first subparagraph would affect important aspects of its social security system, including its scope, cost or financial structure, or would affect the financial balance of that system, it may request that the matter be referred to the European Council. In that case, the ordinary legislative procedure shall be suspended. After discussion, the European Council shall, within four months of this suspension, either:
(a) refer the draft back to the Council, which shall terminate the suspension of the ordinary legislative procedure; or
(b) take no action or request the Commission to submit a new proposal; in that case, the act originally proposed shall be deemed not to have been adopted.

Which is to say that if a member state government feels that legislation has a strong impact on its social security system, it can request the suspension of the legislative process and a re-examination of the legislation by the Council of Ministers. It's an 'emergency brake' article.

eagle eye wrote: »

Its not a fair and clear document. The EU treaty is an easy read but the Lisbon treaty is a very difficult read and hard to understand. Some of the English used in it leaves it open to interpretation and I don't like that. I want a document thats as clear as the treaty itself. That way I can be certain of what exactly is going on. If you suddenly change things to confuse me I'm voting no.

I'm slightly surprised to see someone say that the current EU treaties are an 'easy read' compard to Lisbon. Nice contains this little gem:

The Council shall act in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 after consulting the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, except in the fields referred to in paragraph 1(c), (d), (f) and (g) of this article, where the Council shall act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, after consulting the European Parliament and the said Committees. The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, after consulting the European Parliament, may decide to render the procedure referred to in Article 251 applicable to paragraph 1(d), (f) and (g) of this article.

That certainly doesn't seem to me to be any clearer than the Lisbon Declaration you've cited.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

Scofflaw,

Can you enlighten us as to what exactly the Declarations on Articles are? My guess is they are some sort of notes, declaring the considerations that were given to various issues, because this Declaration seems to be pretty much repeated inside article 48.

Am I way off the mark?

eagle eye

passive wrote: »

You'll get no argument here.



Don't waste your time/keyboard... It's not like he cares at all what it means.

I do care what it means, but I want to understand it fully myself. I want to read the document and be clear about everything in it.

Its impossible to be clear about exactly what it means when you have English thats open to interpretation. I could be voting for something that seems right but then if/when they use an element of that treaty in the opposite way to how I understood it, I would feel like a right fool having voted to ratify it.
I'm not willing to just listen and accept that what somebody says it means, I want to be certain one way or the other. With that document its impossible to be certain.

Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Scofflaw,

Can you enlighten us as to what exactly the Declarations on Articles are? My guess is they are some sort of notes, declaring the considerations that were given to various issues, because this Declaration seems to be pretty much repeated inside article 48.

Am I way off the mark?

That seems to be the case. The ECJ interprets the Treaties in case of uncertainty, and the Declarations are a guide to the intended interpretation - they express the common 'understanding' of what the Article means.

cordially,
Scofflaw

eagle eye

Where a member of the Council declares that a draft legislative act referred to in the first subparagraph would affect important aspects of its social security system, including its scope, cost or financial structure, or would affect the financial balance of that system, it may request that the matter be referred to the European Council. In that case, the ordinary legislative procedure shall be suspended. After discussion, the European Council shall, within four months of this suspension, either:
(a) refer the draft back to the Council, which shall terminate the suspension of the ordinary legislative procedure; or
(b) take no action or request the Commission to submit a new proposal; in that case, the act originally proposed shall be deemed not to have been adopted.

Can you provide me with a link to this?

Scofflaw

eagle eye wrote: »

Can you provide me with a link to this?

Do you have a copy of the consolidated treaty? If not, there's one on this page (second down), and the Article in question is on page 87 of the PDF.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0047:0199:EN:PDF

Article 48 of the Consolidated Treaty of The Functioning of the European Union

eagle eye

Now maybe you understand where my confusion arose, when they say second paragraph instead of a numbered section. You are saying that this first one is article 48 whole and complete. I have always read the second one as being that.

Article 48
(ex Article 42 TEC)
The European Parliament and the Council shall, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative
procedure, adopt such measures in the field of social security as are necessary to provide freedom of
movement for workers; to this end, they shall make arrangements to secure for employed and selfemployed
migrant workers and their dependants:
(a) aggregation, for the purpose of acquiring and retaining the right to benefit and of calculating the
amount of benefit, of all periods taken into account under the laws of the several countries;
(b) payment of benefits to persons resident in the territories of Member States.
Where a member of the Council declares that a draft legislative act referred to in the first subparagraph
would affect important aspects of its social security system, including its scope, cost or financial
structure, or would affect the financial balance of that system, it may request that the matter be referred
to the European Council. In that case, the ordinary legislative procedure shall be suspended. After
discussion, the European Council shall, within four months of this suspension, either:
(a) refer the draft back to the Council, which shall terminate the suspension of the ordinary legislative
procedure; or
(b) take no action or request the Commission to submit a new proposal; in that case, the act originally
proposed shall be deemed not to have been adopted.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0047:0199:EN:PDF

Article 48
(ex Article 48 TEU)
1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may
also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.
9.5.2008 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 115/41
Ordinary revision procedure
2. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may
submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties. These proposals may, inter alia,
serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties. These
proposals shall be submitted to the European Council by the Council and the national Parliaments shall
be notified.
3. If the European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, adopts
by a simple majority a decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments, the President of the
European Council shall convene a Convention composed of representatives of the national
Parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament
and of the Commission. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional
changes in the monetary area. The Convention shall examine the proposals for amendments and shall
adopt by consensus a recommendation to a conference of representatives of the governments of the
Member States as provided for in paragraph 4.
The European Council may decide by a simple majority, after obtaining the consent of the European
Parliament, not to convene a Convention should this not be justified by the extent of the proposed
amendments. In the latter case, the European Council shall define the terms of reference for a
conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States.
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.
Simplified revision procedures
6. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may
submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the
Union.
The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after
consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case
of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is
approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on
the Union in the Treaties.
C 115/42 EN Official Journal of the European Union 9.5.2008
7. Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Title V of this Treaty provides
for the Council to act by unanimity in a given area or case, the European Council may adopt a decision
authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority in that area or in that case. This subparagraph
shall not apply to decisions with military implications or those in the area of defence.
Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for legislative acts to be adopted
by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, the European Council may adopt a
decision allowing for the adoption of such acts in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.
Any initiative taken by the European Council on the basis of the first or the second subparagraph shall
be notified to the national Parliaments. If a national Parliament makes known its opposition within six
months of the date of such notification, the decision referred to in the first or the
second subparagraph shall not be adopted. In the absence of opposition, the European Council may
adopt the decision.
For the adoption of the decisions referred to in the first and second subparagraphs, the European
Council shall act by unanimity after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall be
given by a majority of its component members.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0013:0045:EN:PDF

PopeBuckfastXVI

The first is Article 48 of the Consolodated Treaty on the Functioning Of The European Union

This is referred to in the Declaration.

The second is Article 48 of the Consolodated Treaty on European Union, which is a different treaty.

Easy enough mistake to make, similar names...

BlitzKrieg

Now maybe you understand where my confusion arose, when they say second paragraph instead of a numbered section. You are saying that this first one is article 48 whole and complete. I have always read the second one as being that.

your reading the wrong treaty

There's the treaty for the functioning of the european union (your first quote)

and the Treaty of Europe (your second quote)

the functioning of the european union outlines the institutes of the EU and their powers and roles

while the treaty of europe outlines the relationship between the EU and the national powers and how they function back and forth.

eagle eye

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

your reading the wrong treaty

There's the treaty for the functioning of the european union (your first quote)

and the Treaty of Europe (your second quote)

the functioning of the european union outlines the institutes of the EU and their powers and roles

while the treaty of europe outlines the relationship between the EU and the national powers and how they function back and forth.

Ok, I'll come back to this at a later date, suffice to say much reading to do.

sceptre

Thread split from here, explanation in first post of this thread.

Scofflaw

eagle eye wrote: »

Ok, I'll come back to this at a later date, suffice to say much reading to do.

It is a pain, I have to admit, the having to refer back and forth, even with the consolidated version. Still, that's the nature of legal texts.

cordially,
Scofflaw

DB10

To the person who said we have right to veto:

I assume that would mean a referendum and the usual government and media propaganda to suit the EU. Maybe they will give 3 or 4 then until they get the result they want.

BlitzKrieg

no he meant our veto in the european council which our government holds...

DB10

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

no he meant our veto in the european council which our government holds...

Interesting. So as I previously said we the people have no say or veto but the likes of Cohen and co will have a say.

Well I would still worry about the outcome.

ionix5891

DB10 wrote: »

Interesting. So as I previously said we the people have no say or veto but the likes of Cohen and co will have a say.

Well I would still worry about the outcome.

they are our elected representatives

if you dont like that idea of them making decisions on behalf of the people who elected them, then either:

* vote come next election for whoever you trust to represent your views
* run youself
* get opposition to demand change

DB10

Luck enough Cohen and FF will be long out of office before something like this happens but there is nothing to say FG will do any different.

I will use my vote wisely as I generally do. But the elected are never backed by everyone and if thousands want to vote because of De Valera and Collins and not the here and now, there is not much I can do to stop it.

28064212

DB10 wrote: »

Interesting. So as I previously said we the people have no say or veto but the likes of Cohen and co will have a say.

Well I would still worry about the outcome.

By your definition then, "the people" have no say or veto in the laws coming out of the Oireachtas either?