Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Lisbon. Yes? No? Sell it to me.
Options
Comments
-
do you happen to have a link to the original treaty?
for me this is the most important of all.
it tells us exactly the mindset of those making it and gives a better idea of where we will be in 10 years or less should we agree to the amended version.
after all there is not much stopping them from changing it over the years to slowly turn inot the original. thanks to the way the system is looking to be setup.0 -
Do you mean the original lisbon treaty?
the original amendment treaty is here:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:SOM:EN:HTML
But the treaty was designed as an amendment treaty so those who wrote it up wrote it to become part of the other treaties so the consoludated version is the most accurate version of what it is intended to do.0 -
Fact: Ireland does not rely on the size of its population to negotiate what we need within the EU.
How the hell do you think a country with 0.8% of the population negotiated €30 billion in aid?
So by this are you saying that the EU already works this way i.e. weighted voting?
From what I can see from the treaty and the way we will lose "some" power by the fact that if "Europeans" want to pass a legislation/law and "Irish" people dont want this to be in effect, we cannot stop it. Are you saying this is definitly not true? i'll admit I havent personally read the whole treaty as I dont have the time or will to read the whole thing, so I'm not saying I'm an authority on it or anything. My problem is, one side is telling us of possible major negatives of the treaty and one side are saying that this is lies, yet the people disscussing it and campaigning either "no" or "yes" havent read the whole treaty and hence do not know the whole impact of it. This is a potentially dangerous situation. If the EU want us to vote on it why arent they giving us a copy first, or at least giving us a breakdown of all the implications of it that we can cross reference with the actual treaty?
For instance I have heard from various sources "possibly not reliable" that the top European council have the power to make a law and enforce it without the need for any voting from anyone else. Then I hear from the "yes" side saying this is completly false, yet not actually quoting from the treaty, showing proof that this is false.
This is just one example and it maybe false. But what it seems to come down to is 2 sides giving their argument without actually reading the whole treaty or quoting from the full treaty to back their statements up. To me it just seems like the EU are adding another power structure above ours, so that the ordinary Irish people now have to go through another channel to get something changed/stopped etc and our government is turning into a "middle-man". Why do they need to bring this in? Can we not continue the way things are going without a European "government" above our Irish government?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
do you happen to have a link to the original treaty?
for me this is the most important of all.
it tells us exactly the mindset of those making it and gives a better idea of where we will be in 10 years or less should we agree to the amended version.
after all there is not much stopping them from changing it over the years to slowly turn inot the original. thanks to the way the system is looking to be setup.
All the previous EU treaties can be found here:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/index.htm
Any changes to the treaty must be agreed by all member states unanimously, and if it is the case that any change requires us to have a referendum then that what must happen.0 -
For instance I have heard from various sources "possibly not reliable" that the top European council have the power to make a law and enforce it without the need for any voting from anyone else. Then I hear from the "yes" side saying this is completly false, yet not actually quoting from the treaty, showing proof that this is false.
Did they specify what kind of law? Depending what legal area it is in, it would require quoting from a different aspect of the treaty. Usually for the big ones (the ones changing the treaty and its power) the catch all quote would be Article 48 TEU sections 4 and 6That decision shall not enter into force until it is
approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
but if you want to know the EU's power in maing law you will probably need to specify an area (like taxation or immigration or sports etc) and it will be explained in the corrasponding section in the treaty for the functioning of the european union.0 -
Advertisement
-
So if the EU want to bring in a new law, like say an enviornmental law (maybe an example would be a new tax for something) that is against our constitution. What happens? Will it have to be voted on by the Irish people?
@marco_polo - when you say - "if it is the case that any change requires us to have a referendum then that what must happen. "
What happens if we vote no? Didnt we already vote no on the Lisbon Treaty and yet for some reason we have to vote on it again? I know they ammended it, but how many ammendments to somehting, that we have to vote on can the EU make, before they decide that it is definitley not going to come into effect in Ireland? Is there a set number?
Also "if it is the case that any change requires us to have a referendum"....... Who decides if it needs a referendum?0 -
So if the EU want to bring in a new law, like say an enviornmental law (maybe an example would be a new tax for something) that is against our constitution. What happens? Will it have to be voted on by the Irish people?
Let me put it this way. Any change to the EU that would require a referendum in this country to go ahead will still require a referendum for it to be passed in Ireland post-Lisbon. All that Governments can pass without a referendum post-Lisbon are changes that don't require a referendum. What requires a referendum to be passed doesn't actually change with Lisbon (strictly speaking, we're only having a referendum because some parts of Lisbon appear to require one to be passed, not because an EU treaty requires one by default [these parts are the changes to EU competencies and other areas]).
Does that answer your question?
As an example: The EU has no power over direct taxation at the moment so long as the Government don't introduce any taxation that impedes the European Free Market (like putting a special tax on EU people working here or charging more tax on inheritances from inside the EU to someone living here or similar)*. If they wanted to change this so that the EU could have power over direct taxation this would require a referendum, both before and after Lisbon if it is passed.
*The example that came up recently was the UK tried to introduce a tax credit system that basically meant lower inheritance tax for people inheriting from sources within the UK. So if I was working and resident in Britain and my parents died and left me 50K, I'd have paid more tax on this (because it originated in the Republic) then had my parents been resident in Britain. Such would be an obvious breach of free movement of capital within EU countries (i.e. we've all pledged not to tax people for transferring money from one EU country to another) and would act as a strong disincentive to be resident in Britain if there was any chance you'd be inheriting in the short term.
Some people try to misconstrue this as the EU legislating on direct taxation outside of its competency but it's clearly not the case.0 -
gline wrote:What happens if we vote no? Didnt we already vote no on the Lisbon Treaty and yet for some reason we have to vote on it again? I know they ammended it
The Lisbon treaty hasn't been amended.gline wrote:Also "if it is the case that any change requires us to have a referendum"....... Who decides if it needs a referendum?
From what I understand, the only changes that would require a referendum would be changes that give increased competency to the EU. That doesn't include the handing over of more of our vetoes. If Lisbon is passed, they will be able to amend the treaties to move more areas from unanimity to QMV. Under the current set-up they would only be able to do this by having a new treaty and putting it to each of the member states for ratification.
If Lisbon is passed not only will we lose at least 30 of our vetoes but we'll also give the government the power to hand over many of the remaining vetoes without them having to ask for our consent through a referendum.0 -
So if the EU want to bring in a new law, like say an enviornmental law (maybe an example would be a new tax for something) that is against our constitution. What happens? Will it have to be voted on by the Irish people?
Yes if it against our constitution it will have to be voted on in a referendum. This would happen if our government decided that the law was beyond the agreed power of the EU and challenged it but then decided that it was a good idea and held a referendum to allow it.
The EU does make laws all the time. You mention an environmental law the law on lightbulbs that comes in today is an EU regulation.0 -
pen. "
What happens if we vote no? Didnt we already vote no on the Lisbon Treaty and yet for some reason we have to vote on it again? I know they ammended it, but how many ammendments to somehting, that we have to vote on can the EU make, before they decide that it is definitley not going to come into effect in Ireland? Is there a set number??
It hasn't been amended, what has happened is that binding guarantees have been given that abortion, gay marriage, tax and neutrality are not covered by the Lisbon treaty and never were covered by the Lisbon treaty. If we vote no this time Lisbon falls and alot of civil servants will be annoyed for a couple of weeks and then get back to work.
This has been done because there is a perception that some people may have voted NO before because they believed that our neutrality was threatened or abortion would be brought in by the Lisbon treaty. It is hoped that this will allay their fears.0 -
Advertisement
-
Firstly , i do not understand how they can make the Irish vote again on something that has already been thrown back into the water by the Irish people.
I am of Irish/English lineage and if the people in England had their referendum as they were promised, i would hope the English would have done the same to the treaty as the Irish, but they were not. The European Union already has to much of a stranglehold on the English people.
In fact if the Lisbon treaty went through, the Irish will be in the same position as the rest of the member states...no voice at all
The English government have already stated that the changes to the treaty will make no real changes. Its an illusion to fool the Irish into thinking they will be listened to.
If you want a voice in Europe and value your republic, please please vote
No to the treaty
It will put 27 unelected dictators into power and the Irish are the only people who can stop this. Keep this power you hold with your republic and save the rest of us from ID cards, mandatory vaccinations and more ridiculous laws alledgedly for our benefit that do nothing more than take away our freedoms.
With respect and love
Peaceful0 -
Lisbon Treaty. I havent a clue whats its about and to be honest I dont care.This is a hypothetical situation but one that I no doubt exists in masses of multiples around the country.
Now I am a citizen of Ireland. A normal pleb.
What Europe means to me.
The Euro. Great for holidays.A pain in the arse when going to Northern Ireland or England But It shows how overpriced we are here FOR ALMOST EVERYTHING.
Its warmer and drier everywhere else.
Ask me to live anywhere else and I wouldn't. I love it here. The pints, the GAA, the people.
I work my arse off yet I simply cant pay the bills and then I am told I have to take a pay cut!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why do the banks and developers get special treatment and get their debts written off when I am getting phone calls from x,y and z about the €100 I owe.
Give me a a grand or two and I will spend it around where I live.Its a great spot
Lisbon Treaty. I havent a clue whats its about and to be honest I dont care.
If you choose to reply to this remember.An ordinary Joe with ordinary worries.
Sell it to me cause I havent a clue .:)
"If you choose to reply to this remember.An ordinary Joe with ordinary worries.
Sell it to me cause I havent a clue ".
Sorry only caught last line of your post having re read it. If you dont care what Lisbon treaty is about why should anyone sell it you.
Folks Ill say it again. Vote or dont vote. But dont make an uninformed decision. Thats the end all and be all. Radio, Newspapers, TV are now debating this. And plenty of information.
You either care enough about the issues or you dont to make a vote. that simple.0 -
With respect and love
Peaceful
i was thinking of you when i wrote this
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=20556675020 -
This is the Passerelle Clause you're talking about, and it's not new- both Nice and Maastricht included areas which could be moved from unanimity to QMV. Also, unanimity of all member states is required for an area to move from unanimity to QMV, so we still have full control over the area i.e. we can veto the move to QMV.From what I understand, the only changes that would require a referendum would be changes that give increased competency to the EU. That doesn't include the handing over of more of our vetoes. If Lisbon is passed, they will be able to amend the treaties to move more areas from unanimity to QMV. Under the current set-up they would only be able to do this by having a new treaty and putting it to each of the member states for ratification.
No, not quite right. The Passerelle Clause cannot be used to confer more power on the EU, so we wouldn't be having a referendum anyway.If Lisbon is passed not only will we lose at least 30 of our vetoes but we'll also give the government the power to hand over many of the remaining vetoes without them having to ask for our consent through a referendum.
More information here, or just the relevant points below:lisbontreaty.ie wrote:10. It was also agreed to provide a further simplified revision procedure, known as the “general passerelle” arrangement (as set out in Chapter 8 on decision-making). Under this arrangement the European Council can decide to change the decision-making procedure in a given area from unanimity to QMV, or from a special to the ordinary legislative procedure. The Treaty states that any decision to move to QMV or to the ordinary legislative procedure must have the unanimous agreement of the European Council. In addition to the veto held by any Head of State or Government at the European Council, any national parliament can veto such a change. This procedure deals solely with changes to decision-making procedures; accordingly, no new powers may be conferred on the Union under this provision. It cannot be used to change institutional arrangements, for example. The Treaty specifically states that this arrangement “shall not apply to decisions with military implications or those in the area of defence”.
11. Under the terms of the proposed constitutional amendment, any proposal to avail of a passerelle clause would require the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.0 -
Hitman Actual wrote:This is the Passerelle Clause you're talking about, and it's not new- both Nice and Maastricht included areas which could be moved from unanimity to QMV.
The Lisbon treaty goes much further. Lisbon would allow the politicians to make amendments to the EU treaties in any area, apart from defence, that doesn't involve increasing the EU's powers.Hitman Actual wrote:Also, unanimity of all member states is required for an area to move from unanimity to QMV, so we still have full control over the area i.e. we can veto the move to QMV.
But the veto will be in the hands of the politicians. Under the current set-up the veto is in the hands of the Irish electorate because they are the people who have to approve any changes to the EU treaties. If Lisbon is passed, the politicians will be able to amend the treaties on our behalf without the need to put the changed treaty to the people in a referendum.Hitman Actual wrote:No, not quite right. The Passerelle Clause cannot be used to confer more power on the EU, so we wouldn't be having a referendum anyway.
I didn't say it would confer more power on the EU. It would give our government the power to assent to non-competency-conferring amendments to the treaties without the requirement to put those changes to a referendum.0 -
Exactly, it doesn't increase the EU's powers, it's more for the internal working of the EU. I have no problem with a quicker, more efficient mechanism to change internal procedures.The Lisbon treaty goes much further. Lisbon would allow the politicians to make amendments to the EU treaties in any area, apart from defence, that doesn't involve increasing the EU's powers.
Would any such changes require a referendum now?But the veto will be in the hands of the politicians. Under the current set-up the veto is in the hands of the Irish electorate because they are the people who have to approve any changes to the EU treaties. If Lisbon is passed, the politicians will be able to amend the treaties on our behalf without the need to put the changed treaty to the people in a referendum.
Would any such changes require a referendum now?I didn't say it would confer more power on the EU. It would give our government the power to assent to non-competency-conferring amendments to the treaties without the requirement to put those changes to a referendum.
You're trying to make out that the new revision procedures are radically different to what we have now. They're not. The Simplified Revision Procedure and Passerelle mechanisms can't grant the EU more competency, so they wouldn't require a referendum, but currently any such changes wouldn't require a referendum anyway.0 -
Okay lets spell this out. The NAMA leglislation in whatever shape or form it goes through by whatever government will be funded by the EU.Hitman Actual wrote: »Exactly, it doesn't increase the EU's powers, it's more for the internal working of the EU. I have no problem with a quicker, more efficient mechanism to change internal procedures.
Would any such changes require a referendum now?
Would any such changes require a referendum now?
You're trying to make out that the new revision procedures are radically different to what we have now. They're not. The Simplified Revision Procedure and Passerelle mechanisms can't grant the EU more competency, so they wouldn't require a referendum, but currently any such changes wouldn't require a referendum anyway.
So in that effect we cant be seen to be taking money off them and then snubbing them again.
Put simply we have put ourselves in a position now where we have no hand to play. We had in last treaty vote
As Gilmore said yesterday to punish government by voting no simply does not solve the problem.
Reservations I have about the treaty are about how much power the European Court of Justice have. They will make a lot of key decisions that will ultimately shape Europe in the years to come.
What we should be ensuring that we have a voice there.
Bottom line is are we partners in Europe or servants. Our borrowing is out of control. It will take only one wrong step and the IMF takes over.
We took our eye of the ball in boom times. We messed up. Now the EU is coming in to clean the mess.0 -
If that's really meant to be a reply to my post, can you clarify why? I'm talking about the Simplified Revision Procedure and the Passerelle mechanism in Lisbon. Your reply makes no sense to me.bayviewclose wrote: »Okay lets spell this out. The NAMA leglislation in whatever shape or form it goes through by whatever government will be funded by the EU.
So in that effect we cant be seen to be taking money off them and then snubbing them again.
Put simply we have put ourselves in a position now where we have no hand to play. We had in last treaty vote
As Gilmore said yesterday to punish government by voting no simply does not solve the problem.
Reservations I have about the treaty are about how much power the European Court of Justice have. They will make a lot of key decisions that will ultimately shape Europe in the years to come.
What we should be ensuring that we have a voice there.
Bottom line is are we partners in Europe or servants. Our borrowing is out of control. It will take only one wrong step and the IMF takes over.
We took our eye of the ball in boom times. We messed up. Now the EU is coming in to clean the mess.0 -
Reason 1: Increased democratic oversight of the EU, reduction of the democratic deficit...
The powers of the EU Parliament have been increased since 1979 and the EU crisis of democratic legitimacy has grown during this time. Lisbon would only perpetuate an approach (giving the EU Parliament more powers) that has been a failure for 30 years and which is therefore guaranteed to only make the democratic legitimacy problem even worse.
This is because the EU Parliament has lower democratic legitimacy that the other bodies (national parliaments and governments in the EU Council of Ministers) from whom the power has been taken to give to the EU Parliament.0 -
Hitman Actual wrote: »Exactly, it doesn't increase the EU's powers, it's more for the internal working of the EU
That's total rubbish. Lisbon gives the EU new 'competences' (powers). And it 'collapses the pillar structure' making the federalist community method the 'ordinary legislative procedure' across almost the entire range of policies in which the EU has power. When the 'ordinary legislative procedure' is used the EU Commission is able to use its monopoly on all proposals for new or changed EU law to set the legislative agenda. And once the EU law has come into force no-one you elect can change it in the future without another Commission proposal and the agreement of many other governments who are ignoring their own voters on Lisbon and will certainly take no notice of you.
Lisbon is a framework for more undemocratic political union in more policy areas that should be decided by the democratic process in national elections. It is the latest step in a process of political integration that is neutralizing national parliaments and disenfrachising the voters who elect them.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hitman Actual wrote:Would any such changes require a referendum now?
No, they wouldn't require a referendum. The national parliaments could ratify them without having to hold a referendum. The Lisbon treaty would make it easier for the politicians to make amendments to the treaties at an EU level though without the need to bundle the changes into a new treaty and then put that treaty to the member states for ratification. Up until now any major changes to the decision making process in the EU were ratified at the national level.bayviewclose wrote:Okay lets spell this out. The NAMA leglislation in whatever shape or form it goes through by whatever government will be funded by the EU.
How do you mean? How is the EU funding NAMA? NAMA's funding will involve borrowing from the ECB but the ECB is separate from the EU. The EU budget will not not be touched.bayviewclose wrote:So in that effect we cant be seen to be taking money off them and then snubbing them again.
I'm very grateful to the German and British and French and Dutch and Scandinavian taxpayers for all that have done for our economy. They will be very much in my mind when I go to vote on the Lisbon in a few weeks from now.0 -
Freeborn John wrote: »That's total rubbish. Lisbon gives the EU new 'competences' (powers). And it 'collapses the pillar structure' making the federalist community method the 'ordinary legislative procedure' across almost the entire range of policies in which the EU has power. When the 'ordinary legislative procedure' is used the EU Commission is able to use its monopoly on all proposals for new or changed EU law to set the legislative agenda. And once the EU law has come into force no-one you elect can change it in the future without another Commission proposal and the agreement of many other governments who are ignoring their own voters on Lisbon and will certainly take no notice of you.
Lisbon is a framework for more undemocratic political union in more policy areas that should be decided by the democratic process in national elections. It is the latest step in a process of political integration that is neutralizing national parliaments and disenfrachising the voters who elect them.
Wow, your soap-boxing knows no bounds, does it? I was talking about the Simplifed Revision Procedure there, which only applies to the internal policies and actions of the EU (Part 3 TFEU), and which can't be used to increase the competences of the EU. I wasn't talking about the generalities of the Lisbon Treaty, and nor have I any interest in getting involved in your one-note, soapboxing EU legitimacy threads.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
No, they wouldn't require a referendum. The national parliaments could ratify them without having to hold a referendum. The Lisbon treaty would make it easier for the politicians to make amendments to the treaties at an EU level though without the need to bundle the changes into a new treaty and then put that treaty to the member states for ratification. Up until now any major changes to the decision making process in the EU were ratified at the national level.
The treaty still needs to be ratified by all member states sa per normal after the proposed changes have been agreed. If such a change is of a nature that will require a referendum then that is what will happen.
A common misconception is that any change to an EU treaty agreed to by the Irish government must be put before the people in a referendum, when this is not the case at all. It is only a requirement for changes in Foreign Policy.Article 48
....
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.0 -
Hitman Actual wrote: »Wow, your soap-boxing knows no bounds, does it? I was talking about the Simplifed Revision Procedure there, which only applies to the internal policies and actions of the EU (Part 3 TFEU), and which can't be used to increase the competences of the EU. I wasn't talking about the generalities of the Lisbon Treaty, and nor have I any interest in getting involved in your one-note, soapboxing EU legitimacy threads.
The 'simplified revision procedure' allows changes from unanimity to the community method (renamed the 'ordinary legislative procedure' in Lisbon, which, as i described, is federalism whereby the undemocratic EU Commission is able to use its monopoly on legislative initiative to dominate the legislative agenda at EU level.0 -
I'm very grateful to the German and British and French and Dutch and Scandinavian taxpayers for all that have done for our economy. They will be very much in my mind when I go to vote on the Lisbon in a few weeks from now.
The taxpayers of all these countries want Lisbon to fail. The French and Dutch voted against it already. The British certainly would. And opinion polls show that 73% of Germans want Lisbon re-negotiated.0 -
Personally I've no problem with that. Bundling necessary reforms into a single treaty has the draw-backs of, if rejected, throwing out the good with the bad. Being able to make smaller changes without having to go to a referendum every time really appeals to me (with all the misinformation that every referendum entails). Also, the Treaties have nothing to do with whether or not we need a referendum, and Lisbon changes nothing on that score. And when you say that "up until now any major changes to the decision making process in the EU were ratified at the national level", these changes will still be at the national level, at the very least through both houses of the Oireachtas, and through a referendum if necessary. There is no hidden EU body deciding these issues for us.No, they wouldn't require a referendum. The national parliaments could ratify them without having to hold a referendum. The Lisbon treaty would make it easier for the politicians to make amendments to the treaties at an EU level though without the need to bundle the changes into a new treaty and then put that treaty to the member states for ratification. Up until now any major changes to the decision making process in the EU were ratified at the national level.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
I mean the "self ammending" article is not even new, it has just been rewritten to include a new simplified proceedure for ammending provisions in Part Three on the Functioning of the European Union. The also includes a proceedure for areas to move to QMV if all member state agree.
Aside from some fairly minor proceedural changes such as allowing the parliament the power to initiate a change, the Ordinary revision proceedure remain essentially the same in as the old method.
Old article 48:Article 48
[ex Art. 48 TEU, replaced]
The government of any Member State or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties on which the Union is founded.
If the Council, after consulting the European Parliament and, where appropriate, the Commission, delivers an opinion in favour of calling a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States, the conference shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to those Treaties. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.0 -
bayviewclose wrote: »Lisbon Treaty. I havent a clue whats its about and to be honest I dont care.
Sorry only caught last line of your post having re read it. If you dont care what Lisbon treaty is about why should anyone sell it you.
But dont make an uninformed decision.
You either care enough about the issues or you dont to make a vote. that simple.
I want to make an informed decision. That was the whole point of this thread. To get some facts. And I think I am getting some.Thanks.
Can I ask a question to which I believe there should only be a 'Yes' or 'No' answer.
It was big news not so long ago that the EU were going to make amendments to the Lisbon Treaty to which we rejected. Have these amendments been made or will they be made before we vote again?
Yes or No.0 -
And my point is simply that both parts of the Simplified Revision Procedure (the SRP itself, and the Passerelle Clause) cannot be used without consent/unanimty of the member states, through their national parliaments.Freeborn John wrote: »The 'simplified revision procedure' allows changes from unanimity to the community method (renamed the 'ordinary legislative procedure' in Lisbon, which, as i described, is federalism whereby the undemocratic EU Commission is able to use its monopoly on legislative initiative to dominate the legislative agenda at EU level.0 -
Advertisement
-
marco_polo wrote: »I mean the "self ammending" article is not even new, it has just been rewritten to include a new simplified proceedure for ammending provisions in Part Three and Five of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Aside from some fairly minor proceedural changes such as allowing the parliament the power to initiate a change, the Ordinary revision proceedure remain essentially the same in as the old method.
Old article 48:
More junk. The current Article 48 clearly implies that an inter-governmental conference must be held to make changes to the international treaty that is the treaty on European Union.Old article 48 "If the Council, after consulting the European Parliament and, where appropriate, the Commission, delivers an opinion in favour of calling a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States, the conference shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to those Treaties. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area".
The new article 48 removes the need for an Intergovernmental conference replacing it with "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". This is deliberately intended to include federalist elements (such as the EU Commission and EU Parliament) around the table who have always displayed an institutional bias in favour of increasing their own power.0
Advertisement