Pro-Lisbon Treaty group launched

netron

Mario007 wrote: »

EPP is not a majority;)

ha weird...i live in cork as well, and it means something totally different down here

northside or southside?

might explain the difference. i'm northside.

netron

Mario007 wrote: »

to your point in the czech republic for example they have a government full of experts in their fields and its working out amazingly great so far. the parliament is still the institution that has to pass all the laws and can make new ones and it answers to the public...so the elected peolpe actually make the decissions still....something like the eu to be honest, after the lisbon...right now the ep cant really do much to the commission

and the czech republic is the most strident AGAINST lisbon.

president klaus refuses to sign off on it.


thats one lie i cant stand from the Yes camp - as if everything depends on Ireland - it doesnt - Czechs havent signed off. Germans havent either.

And afaik, the Poles havent either. We're not the only ones.

Mario007

netron wrote: »

northside or southside?

might explain the difference. i'm northside.

southside...southeast actually:D wouldnt have thought there'd be so much difference in just one county:D

netron

Mario007 wrote: »

to your point in the czech republic for example they have a government full of experts in their fields and its working out amazingly great so far. the parliament is still the institution that has to pass all the laws and can make new ones and it answers to the public...so the elected peolpe actually make the decissions still....something like the eu to be honest, after the lisbon...right now the ep cant really do much to the commission

BUT the difference is - the Czech Parliament can initiate LAW - and get the experts to comment on it and do whatnot to that law.

but its the elected Parliament that can kick off laws.

There is no such thing in the EU - only the unelected EU Commission can kick off laws.

I guess the simple explanation is - EU Commission = A King.
EU Parliament = sucking up to the King.

netron

Mario007 wrote: »

southside...southeast actually:D wouldnt have thought there'd be so much difference in just one county:D

aaaaahh..

that would explain it. "eejit" up northside is a term thats used amongst friends disagreeing - "ahh gway ya eejit - sure didnt Seamus do well in that school. yer mad to not want yer kids to go to dat school"


now if i went to "langer" level, then it would have been a bit more serious.

like.


sorry bout that. didnt mean to offend. will watch my slang in future.

Mario007

netron wrote: »

aaaaahh..

that would explain it. "eejit" up northside is a term thats used amongst friends disagreeing - "ahh gway ya eejit - sure didnt Seamus do well in that school. yer mad to not want yer kids to go to dat school"


now if i went to "langer" level, then it would have been a bit more serious.

like.


sorry bout that. didnt mean to offend. will watch my slang in future.

ha no problem...glad thats sorted out...i actually kinda overreacted too:D

netron wrote: »

and the czech republic is the most strident AGAINST lisbon.

president klaus refuses to sign off on it.


thats one lie i cant stand from the Yes camp - as if everything depends on Ireland - it doesnt - Czechs havent signed off. Germans havent either.

And afaik, the Poles havent either. We're not the only ones.

yeah but klaus is using the irish as an excuse not to sign it, he said he'd only sing it ireland said yes. poland will only sign it if czech republic signs it and germany will sign it if their supreme court doesnt find any flaws in the treaty(the report is due to be published next week, i think)

btw according to the czech constitution and one of its interpretations, the president has to sign off on an international treaty if the parliament and the senate along with the government pass it...and klaus is holding up other two international treaties too...so i wouldnt read much into that

netron wrote: »

BUT the difference is - the Czech Parliament can initiate LAW - and get the experts to comment on it and do whatnot to that law.

but its the elected Parliament that can kick off laws.

There is no such thing in the EU - only the unelected EU Commission can kick off laws.

I guess the simple explanation is - EU Commission = A King.
EU Parliament = sucking up to the King.

well the eu parliament will get more powers under lisbon so its a step forward, dont you think? under nice things would stay the same. under article 14 the ep shares its powers with the commission when it comes down to budget policy and legislative proceeding...

oscarBravo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The standard line is "I am pro-Europe, but ..."

Or, "I'd vote for a USE, but I'm not voting for that Lisbon crap."

netron wrote: »

I want a democratic and fully accountable European Union - Lisbon does not provide that.

And Nice does?

President of the European Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Council

Unelected.


President of the European Commission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Commission

Unelected

The European Commission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission

The executive branch of the European Union.

Unelected.


European Foreign Minister
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Representative_of_the_Union_for_Foreign_Affairs_and_Security_Policy

Unelected

US Secretary of State - unelected.

US Secretary of the Treasury - unelected.

US Attorney General - unelected.

I could go on, but you get the gist. I guess America is the ultimate dictatorship, so.

Mario007

oscarBravo wrote: »

Or, "I'd vote for a USE, but I'm not voting for that Lisbon crap."

And Nice does? US Secretary of State - unelected.

US Secretary of the Treasury - unelected.

US Attorney General - unelected.

I could go on, but you get the gist. I guess America is the ultimate dictatorship, so.

brilliant way of summing it up, man. thumbs up!

RandomName2

Mario007 wrote: »

southside...southeast actually:D wouldnt have thought there'd be so much difference in just one county:D

How perjorative is 'eejit' supposed to be? In Dublin it would almost be akin to a term of affection - a bit culchie, but that's its charm

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

US Secretary of State - unelected.

US Secretary of the Treasury - unelected.

US Attorney General - unelected.

I could go on, but you get the gist. I guess America is the ultimate dictatorship, so.

As far as I know none of the above have any legislative capacity.

Mario007

RandomName2 wrote: »

As far as I know none of the above have any legislative capacity.

attorney general is a big position in the us...
the treasury makes out the budget...which yet again is greatly important
secretary of state is what would be the foreign minister of the eu, which people complain about not being directly elected.

about the legislative capacity...under lisbon it is shared between ep, ec and european council...ie you need 3 bodies to agree on a law...two of which you elect...one which is being elected by the two you've already elected...what more can you want?

turgon

netron wrote: »

President of the European Union Council
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Council

Ftfu. Im glad to see we already have the uber-factually correct No-side campaign starting up.

netron wrote: »

Unelected.

Wrong, the four times you said it. These positions are elected by the European Council, and the commission is approved by parliament. Lets be clear next time: they are not elected by a popular vote.

skearon

netron wrote: »

and the czech republic is the most strident AGAINST lisbon.

president klaus refuses to sign off on it.

Wrong, their government is in favour, true their president isn't in favour of lisbon and by doing so does not represent the views of his elected government.

PopeBuckfastXVI

In my humble opinion the quality of discussion on this forum is severely retarded by the deliberate employment of emotive terms, whereby the message, if any, is lost inside the argument over terminology. Anyone posting, again in my opinion, should really decide if their point can stand alone, devoid of incendiary language, because if so, it doesn't need it.

Scofflaw

netron wrote: »

BUT the difference is - the Czech Parliament can initiate LAW - and get the experts to comment on it and do whatnot to that law.

but its the elected Parliament that can kick off laws.

There is no such thing in the EU - only the unelected EU Commission can kick off laws.

I guess the simple explanation is - EU Commission = A King.
EU Parliament = sucking up to the King.

There are two main mechanisms for achieving democratic control over an institution like the Commission. The first, and most obvious method, is to directly elect the Commissioners. The second, less direct route, is to make the Commission answerable to (ie accountable to) a democratically elected body.

The EU follows the second route - the Commission is answerable to the elected Parliament. People are often unaware of the extent of the Parliament's control over the Commission - the Parliament can reject the Commission initially (for example, in rejecting Buttiglione), can unseat the Commission through a vote of No Confidence (for example, in the mass resignation of the Santer Commission), and can also reject the Commission's proposed budgets (as in 2006). Legislatively, they have the power both to amend legislation and to reject it - rejecting, for example, the proposed software patents directive and the proposed ports directive.

Such a system is similar to the way we run local councils - the majority of what happens in councils is the result of the work of the professional expert staff and management rather than councillors, but the councillors act as a form of democratic control over the council.

It is different to the way we run parliamentary democracies - because the European Parliament does not form the government of the EU, as they would in a state. If the Parliament did directly form the government of the EU, they would be thereby superior - within the EU's competences - to the elected governments of the member states. It should be obvious that such an arrangement would make the EU a federal super-state, and is not in fact desirable. The Parliament, therefore, are part of the "government" of the EU, but are balanced against the other institutions. They exist primarily to prevent the other democratically mandated body - the Council - from running the EU without any direct reference to the citizens.

So, coming all the way round to the Commission again - the Commission is subject to both the Parliament and the Council. It can propose all the laws and budgets it likes, but it cannot pass them without the consent of at least one of the other two bodies, both of which are democratically mandated. In certain areas, the Commission does pass regulations by itself, but only where it has been delegated the power to do so by the Council, who can withdraw such permission at any time.

As to why it is preferable that the indirect option is used rather than the direct election of the Commission, there are a couple of considerations.

The main issue is that a Commissioner does not represent their country, but is instead mandated by the treaties to act in the interests of Europe as a whole. I appreciate it's de rigeur for people to say "yeah, right" to that, but the evidence is that that's exactly what they do - the strongest evidence is the voluntary relinquishment of the second Commissioner that the big countries used to have. If Commissioners did act in national interests on any regular basis, the big member states would have kept them - the original reason behind the 2 Commissioners for large states rule was that the governments didn't originally trust the Commission to operate impartially.

By contrast to an appointed Commissioner, an elected Commissioner has an electorate to keep happy. They will have been elected by a national electorate (or, rather, a part of one) to carry out a particular agenda - and that agenda will inevitably be a national (or sub-national) one. If they wish to be re-elected, they have to push through some part of the electoral program they put to the voters as a manifesto - whether it makes sense for Europe as a whole or not. That makes every Commissioner a national agent - which may seem like a good idea until you consider that we only have one vote out of 27 on the Commission.

In turn, this means that the Commissioners will constantly be proposing legislation that benefits their particular country - or the part of it that voted for them (which may be only a small fraction) - rather than considering Europe-wide solutions.

For my money, it's much better to have the Commissioners suggested by whatever means (and there's nothing in the treaties that stops us electing our Commissioner), and for them then to be subject to the Parliament. It may not look as democratic, but it is a perfectly standard way of democratically controlling a technocratic body like the Commission.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Mario007

Scofflaw wrote: »

There are two main mechanisms for achieving democratic control over an institution like the Commission. The first, and most obvious method, is to directly elect the Commissioners. The second, less direct route, is to make the Commission answerable to (ie accountable to) a democratically elected body.

The EU follows the second route - the Commission is answerable to the elected Parliament. People are often unaware of the extent of the Parliament's control over the Commission - the Parliament can reject the Commission initially (for example, in rejecting Buttiglione), can unseat the Commission through a vote of No Confidence (for example, in the mass resignation of the Santer Commission), and can also reject the Commission's proposed budgets (as in 2006). Legislatively, they have the power both to amend legislation and to reject it - rejecting, for example, the proposed software patents directive and the proposed ports directive.

Such a system is similar to the way we run local councils - the majority of what happens in councils is the result of the work of the professional expert staff and management rather than councillors, but the councillors act as a form of democratic control over the council.

It is different to the way we run parliamentary democracies - because the European Parliament does not form the government of the EU, as they would in a state. If the Parliament did directly form the government of the EU, they would be thereby superior - within the EU's competences - to the elected governments of the member states. It should be obvious that such an arrangement would make the EU a federal super-state, and is not in fact desirable. The Parliament, therefore, are part of the "government" of the EU, but are balanced against the other institutions. They exist primarily to prevent the other democratically mandated body - the Council - from running the EU without any direct reference to the citizens.

So, coming all the way round to the Commission again - the Commission is subject to both the Parliament and the Council. It can propose all the laws and budgets it likes, but it cannot pass them without the consent of at least one of the other two bodies, both of which are democratically mandated. In certain areas, the Commission does pass regulations by itself, but only where it has been delegated the power to do so by the Council, who can withdraw such permission at any time.

As to why it is preferable that the indirect option is used rather than the direct election of the Commission, there are a couple of considerations.

The main issue is that a Commissioner does not represent their country, but is instead mandated by the treaties to act in the interests of Europe as a whole. I appreciate it's de rigeur for people to say "yeah, right" to that, but the evidence is that that's exactly what they do - the strongest evidence is the voluntary relinquishment of the second Commissioner that the big countries used to have. If Commissioners did act in national interests on any regular basis, the big member states would have kept them - the original reason behind the 2 Commissioners for large states rule was that the governments didn't originally trust the Commission to operate impartially.

By contrast to an appointed Commissioner, an elected Commissioner has an electorate to keep happy. They will have been elected by a national electorate (or, rather, a part of one) to carry out a particular agenda - and that agenda will inevitably be a national (or sub-national) one. If they wish to be re-elected, they have to push through some part of the electoral program they put to the voters as a manifesto - whether it makes sense for Europe as a whole or not. That makes every Commissioner a national agent - which may seem like a good idea until you consider that we only have one vote out of 27 on the Commission.

In turn, this means that the Commissioners will constantly be proposing legislation that benefits their particular country - or the part of it that voted for them (which may be only a small fraction) - rather than considering Europe-wide solutions.

For my money, it's much better to have the Commissioners suggested by whatever means (and there's nothing in the treaties that stops us electing our Commissioner), and for them then to be subject to the Parliament. It may not look as democratic, but it is a perfectly standard way of democratically controlling a technocratic body like the Commission.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thats the best post on the issue of commissioners and democracy in the eu! the 'yes' side should copy and paste that to every one of its statements!
well done, man!

Steviemak

Mario007 wrote: »

thats the best post on the issue of commissioners and democracy in the eu! the 'yes' side should copy and paste that to every one of its statements!
well done, man!

I concur!

conchubhar1

its a great post and comments - but its one side of the multi demensional coin (im not criticisng it)

netron

"It may not look as democratic, but it is a perfectly standard way of democratically controlling a technocratic body like the Commission."

No thanks. I'd rather have the folks making up laws that affect my daily life to be directly accountable to the electorate.


Your explanation of the Commission is well worded - I thank you for it.

But I am afraid that i just have to disagree with it - not your explanation itself , or with you, but with how the Commission works , as explained by yourself.

I find it fundementally undemocratic. And as such , I will still be voting No.

I guess this is a case of us agreeing to disagree.

netron

Mario007 wrote: »

thats the best post on the issue of commissioners and democracy in the eu! the 'yes' side should copy and paste that to every one of its statements!
well done, man!

I'll be forwarding it on to No campaigners. Its one of the best arguments against the current EU that I have read.

We the electorate are obviously too plebian to even consider European wide arguments. We're too thick - THEY know better.


Yeah. As if 1776 never happened. Or 1916.

No thanks.

Scofflaw

The truth is a good master, but a poor servant.

gnomically,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

the truth is what you believe and perceive

Dinner

conchubhar1 wrote: »

the truth is what you believe and perceive

What? If I belive something, then it is true?

conchubhar1

it is true, to you

that doesnt mean it is fact - universaly

Dinner

Right...

conchubhar1

not a philosophy fan no.......?

i never stated if you believe something it becomes a fundemental and fact that is universal to everyone

it is your perception of truth and your surroundings

what you believe and perceive, in your mind is fact

it can be distorted - the world and the universal truth can not however

djpbarry

netron wrote: »

But I am afraid that i just have to disagree with it - not your explanation itself , or with you, but with how the Commission works , as explained by yourself.

I find it fundementally undemocratic.

What would you change? How would those changes benefit the EU/Ireland?

ixtlan

netron wrote: »

I'll be forwarding it on to No campaigners. Its one of the best arguments against the current EU that I have read.

We the electorate are obviously too plebian to even consider European wide arguments. We're too thick - THEY know better.


Yeah. As if 1776 never happened. Or 1916.

No thanks.

Your last line there suggests that your determination to vote no really has nothing to do with a lack of European democracy. I suspect that no matter how many EU posts were directly elected you would still oppose any EU treaty. Indeed I'd suggest that such elections would re-enforce your opposition, making in your eyes Ireland even more powerless, as the EU was turned into a Eurovision style competition.

If you really believe we should have the power to decide ourselves alone on all issues, fine, that it an argument we can discuss. However I grow weary of all these "pro-European" no campaigners who use "lack of democracy" as a fig leaf to cover their real desire for a fully independent and insular Ireland.

Apologies if this is putting words in your mouth/thoughts in your head, but when you start envoking 1776 and 1916 it strongly suggests your focus is independence and not democracy.

Ix.

netron

ixtlan wrote: »

Your last line there suggests that your determination to vote no really has nothing to do with a lack of European democracy. I suspect that no matter how many EU posts were directly elected you would still oppose any EU treaty. Indeed I'd suggest that such elections would re-enforce your opposition, making in your eyes Ireland even more powerless, as the EU was turned into a Eurovision style competition.

If you really believe we should have the power to decide ourselves alone on all issues, fine, that it an argument we can discuss. However I grow weary of all these "pro-European" no campaigners who use "lack of democracy" as a fig leaf to cover their real desire for a fully independent and insular Ireland.

Apologies if this is putting words in your mouth/thoughts in your head, but when you start envoking 1776 and 1916 it strongly suggests your focus is independence and not democracy.

Ix.

i think you're misunderstanding me - 1776 and 1916 were not only nationalist revolutions - but equally they were embodiments of a very simple principle - the right of the people to determine their own destiny.

It is that principle that I am argueing for. It is not a "fig leaf".

I simply cannot understand how we've gotten into a situation where an estimated 50 to 80 per cent of laws are enacted from the EU , and without any sort of direct democratic accountability.

For example in the UK, the local politicians blame "Brussels" - then the MEPs blame UK "gold plating" of those laws. Nobody is accountable.

The electorate is becoming increasingly powerless. And it is THAT that i object to.

I have absolutely zero problem with a fully democratic (at all levels) European Federation. My only exception would be the appointment of judges to the ECJ.

I like the American federal system - theres a lot of stuff thats wrong with it, but its a darn sight better than what we have right now. The president is elected, the senate is elected, the congress is elected. Simple.
Only the Supreme Court is appointed. No problems with that.

Why isnt that on the table with Lisbon?

Scofflaw

netron wrote: »

i think you're misunderstanding me - 1776 and 1916 were not only nationalist revolutions - but equally they were embodiments of a very simple principle - the right of the people to determine their own destiny.

It is that principle that I am argueing for. It is not a "fig leaf".

I simply cannot understand how we've gotten into a situation where an estimated 50 to 80 per cent of laws are enacted from the EU , and without any sort of direct democratic accountability.

That's possibly because that's a misunderstanding. Nothing like "50-80%" of laws are from the EU - the figure is more like 20-30%. Second, you have a very similar degree of accountability as you do for national laws - the legislation takes place with our governments approval, and (usually) also the approval of MEPs. If you want more accountability, the parliamentary red-card system in Lisbon gives extra leverage.

netron wrote: »

For example in the UK, the local politicians blame "Brussels" - then the MEPs blame UK "gold plating" of those laws. Nobody is accountable.

The electorate is becoming increasingly powerless. And it is THAT that i object to.

That seems more like a problem with attribution than a real problem with accountability. The local politicians' claim that the law is an EU one is correct at root, but the MEPs' claim that the UK government has 'gold-plated' it is also usually true.

A good example here is the ban on eel fishing. The EU Directive required a 40% ban, which Eamon Ryan 'gold-plated' to a 100% ban.

If one objects to the 100% ban, but not the 40% ban, then the accountability lies with the Minister. If one objects to any form of ban, the accountability lies in Europe - and, in this case, the previous Minister, since the Directive in question is a Council one.

It's certainly possible for the Minister to try to shift the accountability, but it's not necessary to accept such an attempt - the Directive says 40%, and the Minister chose to make it 100%. So the accountability is there - unless one has a problem not being able to simply blame the Minister for everything, the solution would seem to be to actually find out who is responsible.

netron wrote: »

I have absolutely zero problem with a fully democratic (at all levels) European Federation. My only exception would be the appointment of judges to the ECJ.

I like the American federal system - theres a lot of stuff thats wrong with it, but its a darn sight better than what we have right now. The president is elected, the senate is elected, the congress is elected. Simple.
Only the Supreme Court is appointed. No problems with that.

Why isnt that on the table with Lisbon?

Because the EU isn't a government, and the governments of the member states have absolutely no intention of allowing it to turn into one.

cordially,
Scofflaw