Is it possible for the masses to influence the direction the EU is going?

Imposter

This is not really a discussion on Lisbon or Nice but is it possible for the unwashed masses to stop the EU from going in the direction they are going if the masses wanted this?

It seems to me that the EU is getting increasingly political and this direction is defined by politicians. To me it seems like it's kinda like turkeys voting for christmas! What politician is going to stand up and say that they think that the EU shouldn't be so political?

In general i'm pro EU - The initial Economic focus of the EEC, freedom to travel, freedom to do business across borders, a common currency etc are positive things in my view. Of course introducing all of these things involved politics, but is the amount of politics going too far and getting away from what the masses want? If so can it be reined in?

In order to rein it in you would need enough people in the European parliment and also enough leaders in power in enough countries in order to change this. I really can't see how that would be possible as it's basically running on a single issue ticket. Would that even be possible without getting compared to all the Eurosceptics nutjobs currently out there?

So what can someone who does not like the direction the EU is going, do to stop it from going in that direction?

Examples of things that need changing or reining in:
- Too much bureaucracy
- EU law superceding national law
- EU turning/turned into a political union as opposed to an economic union
- The way this political power and/or individual countries has such little respect for results of referenda either their own or those of other countries.

ei.sdraob

well if Lisbon passes

then all you need is a million signatures to influence the EU

...

Imposter

So what happens then should there be 1 million signatures?
Is this really a part of Lisbon?

Iwasfrozen

Yep, heres an extract from the European parliaments analysis on the Lisbon Treaty:

Parliamant wrote:

The Treaty of Lisbon would introduce the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), whereby EU citizens can collect one million signatures, from a significant number of Member States, to ask the Commission to submit a proposal on any matters of competence of the Union.

On Thursday, MEPs approved the report by Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE-NGL, DE), by 380 votes in favour, 41against and 29 abstentions which provides details guidelines for the implementation of the European Citizens' Initiative.

Basically if your petition recieves a million signatures you will be able to submit the proposal directly to the European Comission as long as the propsal is within the Commissions powers. i.e the implementation of Abortion/tax harmonisation is not within the comissions powers.

Imposter

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Basically if your petition recieves a million signatures you will be able to submit the proposal directly to the European Comission as long as the propsal is within the Commissions powers. i.e the implementation of Abortion/tax harmonisation is not within the comissions powers.

Ok then is it within the comissions powers to limit/reduce the power of the comission and of other offices of the EU? If not then back to my original question

bijapos

However they dont have to accept it, they can discuss it and reject it. Bit like getting your TD to ask a question in the Dail, they will ask it but any form of initiative is normally rejected so its usually a waste of time.

ei.sdraob

Imposter wrote: »

Ok then is it within the comissions powers to limit/reduce the power of the comission and of other offices of the EU? If not then back to my original question

Well "Original" Lisbon would have cut down on bureaucracy

but we got hung up on "our" commissioner issue, so there goes that

Iwasfrozen

Imposter wrote: »

Ok then is it within the comissions powers to limit/reduce the power of the comission and of other offices of the EU? If not then back to my original question

First off: The Lisbon treaty lowers the power of the Commission.
Second off: If the unmassed washes of the EU wanted to dissolve the Union they would vote in Euroskeptic parties such as UKIP or Libertas that would pull out of the Union, there-by limiting it's power.
AmIright ?

ixtlan

Imposter wrote: »

Ok then is it within the comissions powers to limit/reduce the power of the comission and of other offices of the EU? If not then back to my original question

Well I suppose yes, they could, but a more direct approach for changes such as you suggest is to influence the government and MEPs we elect and have them push for changes in the next treaty.

If you think that only "Eurosceptics nutjobs" are seeking the changes you want then you really should consider why this is. Obviously the centre parties think they are reforming/improving the EU too.

Policy on EU matters is informed/influenced by policy on national matters. Meaning that if people in Ireland elect FF/FG/Lab/Green then they push for policies that reflect their view of the world. It's very rare that EU policies completely contradict what national governments would want to do themselves. So when you speak of a "single issue ticket" you really mean a ticket of being against the EU. You can get such a ticket by electing Sinn Fein, Socialist party and others, but do you want them running the country? And the EU?

If you agree with many EU policies, a political union is an unavoidable consequence. For example we want strong environmental laws across the EU to prevent them polluting us and we polluting ourselves! But this is a sacrifice of sovereignty from all the states. A common currency has to come with strict rules on borrowing, again a restriction of financial freedom in a state in return for stability. Freedom to do business across borders is enhanced by common regulations, again a loss of sovereignty.

Ix.

Scofflaw

bijapos wrote: »

However they dont have to accept it, they can discuss it and reject it. Bit like getting your TD to ask a question in the Dail, they will ask it but any form of initiative is normally rejected so its usually a waste of time.

By the time you've managed to get a million signatures across Europe, the Commission will have to slightly more than reject them all out of hand. There is no formal mechanism for asking the Irish government to legislate on something, so it's a little difficult to compare the two - petitions to the European Parliament might be a better comparison.

It's a pity to watch people turn down good things because they are so cynical as to assume the worst of them - automatically, and without any evidence.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Imposter

ixtlan wrote: »

If you think that only "Eurosceptics nutjobs" are seeking the changes you want then you really should consider why this is. Obviously the centre parties think they are reforming/improving the EU too.

Policy on EU matters is informed/influenced by policy on national matters. Meaning that if people in Ireland elect FF/FG/Lab/Green then they push for policies that reflect their view of the world.

It's very rare that EU policies completely contradict what national governments would want to do themselves. So when you speak of a "single issue ticket" you really mean a ticket of being against the EU. You can get such a ticket by electing Sinn Fein, Socialist party and others, but do you want them running the country? And the EU?

The 'single issue ticket' I refer to is not against the EU as such, it is against the current direction of the EU (or the speed of change). That and because of what they stand for is why voting UKIP or similar is not an option.

Back in the days of the EEC europe had nowhere near as much political power as it has now. Who moved europe in that direction? Was in the people or the politicians (or both)? For the most part it is positive where europe has gone, but allowing politicians (nationally elected politicians) to decide the future direction of europe doesn't really allow the people of europe to say no to such changes. No mechanism exists to change this system without voting out national governments and related MEPs in enough countries, which is pretty much an impossible task.

PopeBuckfastXVI

It's only an 'impossible task' if you accept that the will of the majority is for the current 'direction' of the EU, because if the will were against it, the task would be very possible.

Imposter

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It's only an 'impossible task' if you accept that the will of the majority is for the current 'direction' of the EU, because if the will were against it, the task would be very possible.

So electing your national government you would vote based on something that happened at EU level rather than their performance at national level? Even if you considered both their performance at EU and national level they would have to have made one hell of a blunder to get you to vote them out. Same would have to happen across enough of europe and those that get voted in to replace the old governments would have to have the opinion that europe isn't working as it is! So yeah, pretty impossible.

The will of the majority (regardless of how misinformed it was) was ignored in France, Holland, UK (well it was likely a no) and Ireland in the recent past on issues somewhat related to this!

Scofflaw

Imposter wrote: »

The 'single issue ticket' I refer to is not against the EU as such, it is against the current direction of the EU (or the speed of change). That and because of what they stand for is why voting UKIP or similar is not an option.

Back in the days of the EEC europe had nowhere near as much political power as it has now. Who moved europe in that direction? Was in the people or the politicians (or both)? For the most part it is positive where europe has gone, but allowing politicians (nationally elected politicians) to decide the future direction of europe doesn't really allow the people of europe to say no to such changes. No mechanism exists to change this system without voting out national governments and related MEPs in enough countries, which is pretty much an impossible task.

It has to be pointed out (again) that the EU was always political. The common market, which most people think of as the raison d'etre of the EU, was created in order to help fulfil the EU's primary mission, which is the creation of an "ever closer union between the peoples of Europe" and the prevention of war in Europe.

As to the OP, you've put your finger on exactly how you change the direction of the EU - by voting in national and euro elections. The national governments of the member states write the EU treaties (as the Intergovernmental Conference), set the policy and goals of the EU (as the European Council), and pass/reject the legislation of the EU (as the Council of Ministers).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Mario007

Hey OP if you want to change the EU as such, you really need lisbon, because under nice there is not much you can do. The petition to the commission has already been mentioned, but also the commission's powers decrease and the powers of the EP increase, which means the people you directly vote in have more power. It's still not enough, in my opinion, ie its not legislative power(a fact that many eurosceptics complain about) but if the EP would have legislative power, then EU would completely become a full political union, which is something that can't happen straight away, because it would frighten people.
So your best bet are the elections(both national and euro), the petition mechanism and if you want to you can always set up a lobby group and lobby:rolleyes:

turgon

Why dont you get off your computer, go into the real world, talk to your MEP and see how that goes?

They dont call it representative democracy for nothing.

Zuiderzee

What are matters of competence of the Union?

Who is going to count and verify 1,000,000 sigatures.

Would one false name bin the whole thing could be binned.

Would an online petition of 1m signatures count?

Would 1m letters count?

What power should 1/450000000 of the EU population have?

Could we dispose of the Strasbourg parliament
Could the right wing push 1000000 signatures to expel foreign workers?

bijapos

Scofflaw: Can you blame me for being cynical after the EU rejected the Irish decision last year? If 1 million signatures are collected (not that hard to do online if online is allowed) the usual tat will be trotted out that 1 million are in favour but 450 million plus didnt sign it so "therefore must be against it". Any prominent lobbyist in Brussels will achieve more than a 1 million signature petition.

I welcome it but I have little confidence in it. Time will be the judge of this, but in the meantime you have no grounds to knock my cynicism.

View

Zuiderzee wrote: »

What are matters of competence of the Union?

Try reading the EU Treaties. They are listed on around page 3 of consolidated version of what would be the post-Lisbon EU Treaties (When you have done that, you can compare it with the much, more opaque consolidated version of the post-Nice EU Treaties).

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Who is going to count and verify 1,000,000 sigatures.

Would one false name bin the whole thing could be binned.

Would an online petition of 1m signatures count?

Would 1m letters count?

What power should 1/450000000 of the EU population have?

Guidelines and procedures for this are to be drawn up - in fact, I think someone mentioned earlier in the thread that the EP is working on this.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Could we dispose of the Strasbourg parliament

I have no idea who this "we" is you refer to. I'd imagine there would be very little support from the electorate for any attempt to abolish the only directly elected EU institution.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Could the right wing push 1000000 signatures to expel foreign workers?

They certainly could try. I doubt the member states would agree to such a measure though were it proposed though. On principle, they'd probably tell the "right wing" to get lost...

P. Breathnach

bijapos wrote: »

Scofflaw: Can you blame me for being cynical after the EU rejected the Irish decision last year? ...

I read that far, and stopped. It is improbable that a post that opens like that is a considered and balanced contribution to discussion. But I don't know, because I didn't read the rest of the post.

View

bijapos wrote: »

I welcome it but I have little confidence in it. Time will be the judge of this, but in the meantime you have no grounds to knock my cynicism.

Scofflaw - and everyone else - has every reason to knock your cynicism. There is no formal mechanism for a citizen's initiative under the current post-Nice EU Treaties. One is to be introduced post-Lisbon and you spend your time complaining about it.

If the member states didn't want a citizen's initiative and/or intend to just ignore it, then they could have just left it out of Lisbon and you wouldn't be any the wiser about them having done so, would you?

PS Heaven forbid, you should actually try and use the mechanism to change something....

turgon

bijapos wrote: »

Scofflaw: Can you blame me for being cynical after the EU rejected the Irish decision last year?

The EU didn't reject anything, it was the Irish government who timetabled a second vote. And they didn't reject anything, you are more than entitled to vote No again.

The funny thing is all the No-siders getting pissy about the second vote. Im thinking: If their position is as good as they maintain it is, whats the big problemo? Surely ye will pull another No vote out of the bag?

Zuiderzee

turgon wrote: »

The EU didn't reject anything, it was the Irish government who timetabled a second vote. And they didn't reject anything, you are more than entitled to vote No again.

The funny thing is all the No-siders getting pissy about the second vote. Im thinking: If their position is as good as they maintain it is, whats the big problemo? Surely ye will pull another No vote out of the bag?

OK - if Fianna Fail are doing such a great job, lets have another local election to put things right.

The Irish elected have in this case ignored the electorate - as have the French and Dutch Governments.

Garuantees that mean nothing as they refer to nothing in the treaty -
but thats OK

Petitions which will apparently achieve nothing -
but thats OK

Come on, suppose we vote No this time, just suppose - what happens -
Do we have another referendum in 6 - 12 months time?

When do you think the Government should start actualy listening to the electorate?

In fairness, if we vote no, again, and are forced to vote, again, and the UK has a general election between now and then.
The conservatives will probably win - and they have (like Blair) promosed a referendum on this .

P. Breathnach

Zuiderzee wrote: »

... The Irish elected have in this case ignored the electorate - as have the French and Dutch Governments.

Garuantees that mean nothing as they refer to nothing in the treaty -
but thats OK

These two distortions are tiresomely common. Would that it were possible to prevent them being posted.

The Irish government did not ignore the electorate: the treaty has been stalled. It identified reasons why people voted no, could see that some of those reasons had nothing to do with the treaty, and asked our partners in Europe to affirm that they had nothing to do with the treaty (the guarantees). And it now puts the question again to the electorate, with the subtext: "some of you were misled by dishonest or mistaken arguments; now we have proof that those arguments were wrong; do you still want to vote no?"

Imposter

Another question for those who know stuff

Are there any/many parties (probably opposition parties) in the EU who are relative central in their viewpoints who are pro EU but a little sceptical on the current direction and/or speed of change of the EU?

Would the Conservatives in the UK be such a party? From what I understand none of the major 3 in Ireland would fit into that category and also none of the major 2 here in Austria.

---

I was thinking about this a bit more last night and I think my current sceptical viewpoint is because of the current gulf in understanding, of each other, that exists between the political rulers and the populations at large in the EU. It seems to me at least that perhaps the politicians may have the best intentions of the people at heart but that they cannot explain why certain things are neccessary and explain sufficiently the contents of the agreements they make. On the other hand perhaps things are moving too fast and the politicians are sufficiently out of touch to recognise this!

I also think that it seems like this gulf can only get wider! So far from what I see on this thread there seems to be no way for the masses to reasonably quickly (say inside 10-20 years) get the EU to change there direction/focus/speed of change. Similarly it seems most, if not all, of the major parties are happy with the way things are, but these are voted into power in national elections where their EU performance takes a back seat in the decision process to their performance on national issues. Unless they do something spectacularly stupid in the EU this will surely remain the case.

Imposter

P. Breathnach wrote: »

These two distortions are tiresomely common. Would that it were possible to prevent them being posted.

The Irish government did not ignore the electorate: the treaty has been stalled. It identified reasons why people voted no, could see that some of those reasons had nothing to do with the treaty, and asked our partners in Europe to affirm that they had nothing to do with the treaty (the guarantees). And it now puts the question again to the electorate, with the subtext: "some of you were misled by dishonest or mistaken arguments; now we have proof that those arguments were wrong; do you still want to vote no?"

How many times have irish governments rerun referendums?
Surely they should have learnt by now that they need to explain their case properly the first time!

turgon

Zuiderzee wrote: »

The Irish elected have in this case ignored the electorate - as have the French and Dutch Governments.

Hows the air conditioning in that bubble of yours?

P. Breathnach

Imposter wrote: »

How many times have irish governments rerun referendums?
Surely they should have learnt by now that they need to explain their case properly the first time!

I think the government (as a government) has allowed itself to be hamstrung by the McKenna judgement. It may not use taxpayers' money to campaign, but it can use our money to explain the facts.

The pro-Lisbon parties ran some of the worst campaigns imaginable. The anti-Lisbon groups generally campaigned very effectively aided, in some cases, by not being worried about truth and accuracy.

meganj

I do think that the Government has a lot to answer for with regards to Lisbon (I) and the EU as a whole. I, like a lot of people on this forum, have a keen and educated interest in the EU it's history, achievements, politics, history and daily processes but the ordinary "joe soap" would be better served by a more simplified (and before anyone jumps down my throat i'm not saying that anyone who doesn't know the EU inside and out is stupid or anything, just that it's a complex institution that many struggle to understand) account of how it works and so on.

In addition to this the Lisbon I campaign was laughable, as was Nice I the electorate was uneducated and it does perhaps show a huge amount of hubris on the behalf of the government that they thought the minimal amount of work they put in would succeed in educating those who perhaps had not, like I and some others had, read and studied Lisbon on our own steam. The laissez-faire approach adopted by the government was ridiculous and in many ways they are responsible for those who voted No on the basis that they didn't understand it (and they do exist). But hopefully they (government) will learn from the first time round and do better in Lisbon II as with Nice.

To get back to the original issue of is it possible for the masses to influence the EU? I think it is possible. For my own perspective my vote in Elections (Local, General and obv. Euro) reflects my desire to see the EU grow and develop, and I select my candidates equally based on their European policies and how they see Europe as well as their domestic policies. We leave it a growing world, and it is short-sighted for people to simply be voting on local problems especially in elections, while obviously I'm not advocating electing someone who hates the Irish and loves the EU but a bit of balance between a candidates foreign and domestic policies is required in the world we live in today, and if everyone took that tact on voting for candidates you would see an EU that reflected the majorities will in the EU, by voting pro-European parties or euro-sceptic parties, depending on your personal preference.

I do think that the citizen's initiative is a fantastic development in the EU and brings the people to the fore in the EU by showing that (provided you've enough signatures) your opinion will be listened to provided its feasible, doesn;t break the laws of the EU, or the national laws and that it is in the EU's realm of control.

So if you wanted to change the EU somewhat you can, as someone has already said here getting the signatures doesn't mean that it will automatically go through but the fact that 1,000,000 people signed a proposal certainly must carry some weight, provided once again that it's not some crazy "1,000,000 people think Megan should be the all hallowed leader of the EU" although maybe I will start that initiative...

bijapos

P.Breathnach: If you cant be bothered reading a couple of lines of a post then dont comment on it.

bijapos

turgon: On the day we voted no Martin Schulze (spelling??) of the German Social Democrats and leader of their bloc in the EU seriously questioned Irelands vote and in the coming days in the German media he, Merkel and others made no doubt about the fact that Ireland would have to "rethink" (ueberlegen) this vote.

The EU I would think, told Cowan and co to have a new referendum but it was pretty obvious this would happen when the first tallies came in at the last referendum.

No matter what way you look at it, it will be an embarassing episode in Euro politics. Like I have said in a number of posts I expect it to be passed in October but it still doesnt make it democratically just or correct.