Lisbon = EU Constitution?

Cactus Col

Just wondering ... how close to the EU Constitution is the Lisbon Treaty?

I understand the constitution would have flatly replaced previous EU treaties, whereas the Lisbon Treaty amends the previous treaties.

But my question is, do these amendments bring about the same changes the constitution would have, just through a different means?

(if that's anyway clear!)

Scofflaw

Cactus Col wrote: »

Just wondering ... how close to the EU Constitution is the Lisbon Treaty?

I understand the constitution would have flatly replaced previous EU treaties, whereas the Lisbon Treaty amends the previous treaties.

But my question is, do these amendments bring about the same changes the constitution would have, just through a different means?

(if that's anyway clear!)

The main difference is that the Constitution contained an implicit claim to quasi-statehood, by using state-like terminology and symbolism. Lisbon dropped all that.

The two therefore contain similar reforms (the actual reforms in the EUC weren't what was objected to), but Lisbon doesn't involve any claim whatsoever to EU statehood.

Aside from that major change (since that's what most people who objected to something in the Constitution objected to, and perhaps rightly), the Dutch negotiated the improved subsidiarity "orange/yellow card" system for national parliaments, and the French negotiated a weakening of the pro-market language.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

The RTÉ site has the full annotated consolidated treaties available, and colour codes what was in the constitution, and what has changed, or remained the same in Lisbon.

http://www.rte.ie/news/features/lisbontreaty/treaty_sections.html

I don't think it lists what has been removed from the constitution though, but I'm open to correction on that.

PHB

Having a "Constitution" would have radically shifted how the ECJ would be able to act. Right now, it kind of assumes a Constitution, but to be honest, if it came down to it, any supreme court could tell them where to go. However the Treaty is just that, a Treaty, and maintains our current relationship with the EU.

I would have voted No to the EU Constitution. I am now actively, actively, campaigning for a Yes Vote to Lisbon.

evercloserunion

PHB wrote: »

Having a "Constitution" would have radically shifted how the ECJ would be able to act. Right now, it kind of assumes a Constitution, but to be honest, if it came down to it, any supreme court could tell them where to go. However the Treaty is just that, a Treaty, and maintains our current relationship with the EU.

I would have voted No to the EU Constitution. I am now actively, actively, campaigning for a Yes Vote to Lisbon.

It's great that you're campaigning for a Yes vote to Lisbon but TBH I think you were misguided on the EU Constitution. I was under the impression that the main differences between the two treaties are, as Scofflaw said, one consolidated document (EUC) instead of amendments to the myriad existing documents (Lisbon), and the absence in Lisbon of the EUC's state-like symbolism. The fact that one was called a constitution and the other was not does not have any great effect on the legal impact of each treaty.

The funny thing is that the EU Treaties currently resemble a constitution, in that they lay out the form, structure and competences of the EU. Companies, political parties, organizations, sports clubs and more also have constitutions; this doesn't mean they're usurping our national sovereignty.

nesf

evercloserunion wrote: »

It's great that you're campaigning for a Yes vote to Lisbon but TBH I think you were misguided on the EU Constitution. I was under the impression that the main differences between the two treaties are, as Scofflaw said, one consolidated document (EUC) instead of amendments to the myriad existing documents (Lisbon), and the absence in Lisbon of the EUC's state-like symbolism. The fact that one was called a constitution and the other was not does not have any great effect on the legal impact of each treaty.

The funny thing is that the EU Treaties currently resemble a constitution, in that they lay out the form, structure and competences of the EU. Companies, political parties, organizations, sports clubs and more also have constitutions; this doesn't mean they're usurping our national sovereignty.

It would have set a clear path on the way to "statehood" in future negotiations. Such acceptance of trappings by the people of the EU would give impetus to those who wish to push for greater federalisation. It's rejection indicates that these people are a minority in the union and that most would appear to wish to keep the EU as a supra-national organisation rather than a nation in its own right.

In Chains

Cactus Col wrote: »

Just wondering ... how close to the EU Constitution is the Lisbon Treaty?

I understand the constitution would have flatly replaced previous EU treaties, whereas the Lisbon Treaty amends the previous treaties.

But my question is, do these amendments bring about the same changes the constitution would have, just through a different means?

(if that's anyway clear!)

Apart from some symbolic issues, the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty achieve the same effect in law. The EU treaties are constitutional in the sense that they define the framework within which EU secondary legislation is decided. And both EU primary legislation (the EU treaties) and secondary legislation (what is proposed by the EU Commission, and agreed by the EU Council of Ministers and EU Parliament) is superior to national and replaces it.

The style of the document ('treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe' versus 'Lisbon Treaty') is a trivial issue. Empowering political institutions in Brussels that your vote cannot influence with the power to make law that replaces the law of the Oireachtas is a very major issue indeed.

nesf

In Chains wrote: »

Apart from some symbolic issues, the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty achieve the same effect in law. The EU treaties are constitutional in the sense that they define the framework within which EU secondary legislation is decided. And both EU primary legislation (the EU treaties) and secondary legislation (what is proposed by the EU Commission, and agreed by the EU Council of Ministers and EU Parliament) is superior to national and replaces it.

The style of the document ('treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe' versus 'Lisbon Treaty') is a trivial issue. Empowering political institutions in Brussels that your vote cannot influence with the power to make law that replaces the law of the Oireachtas is a very major issue indeed.

You know, it's really obvious when someone reregisters to get around a ban. The above is a reincarnation of Freeborn John for anyone who is interested.

Both accounts are permanently banned from Politics now.

P. Breathnach

nesf wrote: »

You know, it's really obvious when someone reregisters to get around a ban. The above is a reincarnation of Freeborn John for anyone who is interested.

Both accounts are permanently banned from Politics now.

Will that lead to more bitching on that other site? I might go over there for a little lurk.

ei.sdraob

lol looking at the usernames one might think theres some sort of S&M going on there


anyways back on topic, i would myself vote against any constitution, i dont want a United States of Europe in an american style, with an anthem, that was going over the top imho

but the treaty is a big step into addressing issues that current EU and members face, hence the name "Reform Treaty"

like myself its pragamtic

things I like in the treaty:
*energy and common foreign policy are big plus
*giving more power to the parliament
*removing commissioners (doh! these useless and expensive bureaucrats get to stay )
*focus on green energy and global warming

Penny Farthing

Cactus Col wrote: »

Just wondering ... how close to the EU Constitution is the Lisbon Treaty?

I understand the constitution would have flatly replaced previous EU treaties, whereas the Lisbon Treaty amends the previous treaties.

But my question is, do these amendments bring about the same changes the constitution would have, just through a different means?

(if that's anyway clear!)

The constitution was based on three things:

1. A complete rewrite of the current treaties.
2. Changes to the current treaties.
3. Constitutional and state symbols.

In Lisbon 1 and 3 are gone. Instead of rewriting and replacing the current treaties, they remain in situ. Lisbon is simply number 2, changes to the current treaties. 3 was completely binned.

JustSomeone

The Treaty of Lisbon is the same as the rejected constitution. Only the format has
been changed to avoid referendums. - Not my words, those of Valéry Giscard d’Estaing,
former French President and President of the Constitutional Convention

As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty,
most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply
been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people
the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum. - Not my words, but those of Garret Fitzgerald, Irish Times, 30 June 2007.

So there is a Constitution, an EU constitution that we will soon have to
adhere to if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. There are no functions of Member
States that cannot now be found or developed at EU level. Even missing
powers such as the possibility of taxing citizens or bringing them into a war
can be decided by unanimous decision without asking the peoples of Europe
directly. The new Constitution will thus mean that each country will from
now on have two constitutions, the national one and the Union one. Bavaria
will even have three constitutions. If there is conflict between them, the Union
one will apply. Not the national one, the European Court of Justice has
decided. - Not my words, but Jens-Peter Bonde is the author of 60 books
on the EU.

Check out Jens-Peter Bonde's "From EU Constitution to Lisbon Treaty". It's eye-opening stuff! http://en.euabc.com/upload/fromConstTreaty.pdf

Dinner

JustSomeone wrote: »

The Treaty of Lisbon is the same as the rejected constitution. Only the format has
been changed to avoid referendums.

I presume your forgot to metion the parts that were changed to suit the French and Dutch people. You wouldn't leave that out on purpose would you? Of course you would.

As for the d’Estaing quote, if you bothered to look down a few threads you would have seen an entire thread dedicated to that quote which when put in context isn't all that sensationalist. But you don't care.

PomBear

in simple terms about 95%

after France and Holland rejected it, the EU needed a plan B which is the Lisbon Treaty

JustSomeone

Dinner wrote: »

I presume your forgot to metion the parts that were changed to suit the French and Dutch people.

Which parts were they, then? And what legal effect did they have? And were the French and Dutch people asked if they were happy with the new version?

Just out of interest, did you bother to read the analysis I linked to?

Dinner

JustSomeone wrote: »

Which parts were they, then? And what legal effect did they have? And were the French and Dutch people asked if they were happy with the new version?

Removal of state like symbols, the softening of free market language requested by the French, addition of the Orange Card system requested by the Dutch.

Nearly everybody has acknowledged that their have been changes, except you and Nigel Farage.

I have no idea whether the French and the Dutch people are happy with the changes, but the election of Sarkozy who openly said he wouldn't have a referendum added to the fact that the French public, who are not afraid of a good protest, haven't had any sort of public outcry at not having a referendum.

The Dutch, I believe, couldn't have another one because of a ruling made by their courts on non-binding referenda actually being binding and therefore illegal, but I may be open to correction on that. Regardless, the issues that the French and Dutch people had with the Constitution have been removed, most notably the state like terminology.

JustSomeone wrote: »

Just out of interest, did you bother to read the analysis I linked to?

No I did not. As soon as saw Jens-Peter Bonde's name I knew I could disregard it as unimportant. As a well known euroskeptic and Libertas bag man he has nothing of any value (or truth) to contribute to the debate.

JustSomeone

Dinner wrote: »

Removal of state like symbols, the softening of free market language requested by the French, addition of the Orange Card system requested by the Dutch.

Are we getting rid of the EU Flag, then? Will Ode to Joy cease to be the EU Anthem?

On the other points, are you saying that when the Constitution was rejected in French and Dutch referenda, they got changes made - but when the Treaty was rejected in an Irish referendum, not one word was changed?

Nearly everybody has acknowledged that their have been changes, except you and Nigel Farage.

I acknowledge that some changes have been made between the constitution and the treaty. I have even linked to a document which discusses them. I was merely hoping that you might enlighten me as to what your understanding of the technicalities of the changes were. Your response doesn't really shed much light on that.

I have no idea whether the French and the Dutch people are happy with the changes

Indeed you don't. Enough was changed so that there was no need to ask them a second time. Your original post referred to changes to "suit the French and the Dutch people". A more accurate way to describe the changes would be to "avoid having to ask the French and the Dutch people".

No I did not. As soon as saw Jens-Peter Bonde's name I knew I could disregard it as unimportant. As a well known euroskeptic and Libertas bag man he has nothing of any value (or truth) to contribute to the debate.

And there we have it. Attack the reputation of the messenger rather than dealing with the message. Play the man and not the ball. A rule to live by, no doubt.

PopeBuckfastXVI

JustSomeone wrote: »

And there we have it. Attack the reputation of the messenger rather than dealing with the message. Play the man and not the ball. A rule to live by, no doubt.

To be fair Bonde can hardly be considered an authoritative impartial source on anything to do with the EU, you're just arguing from authority by pointing to his analysis, a very flawed authority at that.

Scofflaw

JustSomeone wrote: »

Are we getting rid of the EU Flag, then? Will Ode to Joy cease to be the EU Anthem?

They will remain informal, rather than becoming the formal registered flag and anthem. "Ireland's Call" rather than The Soldier's Song.

The dropping of state-like language was pretty much across the board - that's why we have a High Representative for External Affairs, not a European Foreign Minister.

It's surprising that much of the opposition to Lisbon gets quite hysterical about anything they say involves a claim on the part of the EU to be state-like (such as legal personality) yet simultaneously claim that the dropping of all the state-like claims from the Constitution is meaningless. Well, I say 'surprising', but it isn't really.

JustSomeone wrote: »

On the other points, are you saying that when the Constitution was rejected in French and Dutch referenda, they got changes made - but when the Treaty was rejected in an Irish referendum, not one word was changed?

That reflects the fact that we're getting our concerns addressed, and many of them had nothing to do with the Treaty. The one that did - the Commissioner - can be done without a change of wording.

JustSomeone wrote: »

I acknowledge that some changes have been made between the constitution and the treaty. I have even linked to a document which discusses them. I was merely hoping that you might enlighten me as to what your understanding of the technicalities of the changes were. Your response doesn't really shed much light on that.


Indeed you don't. Enough was changed so that there was no need to ask them a second time. Your original post referred to changes to "suit the French and the Dutch people". A more accurate way to describe the changes would be to "avoid having to ask the French and the Dutch people".

Neither the Dutch nor the French have any legal requirement for referendums - it's entirely a political decision, and not even binding in the first case. The claim that Lisbon was "designed to avoid referendums" is obvious drivel, because only Ireland and Denmark have any legal triggers for referendums anyway - and we're having one or two anyway. So unless the whole exercise in Lisbon was a redesign entirely to avoid a Danish referendum, that's a claim that sounds good, but is entirely fact-free.

JustSomeone wrote: »

And there we have it. Attack the reputation of the messenger rather than dealing with the message. Play the man and not the ball. A rule to live by, no doubt.

And one applied relentlessly by the No campaigns to Fianna Fáil. It's perfectly relevant, though, to point out that someone (a) always opposed to EU treaties, and (b) lacks intellectual honesty, because both those points bear directly on whether they're likely to be telling the truth in respect of an EU treaty. Bonde is probably not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dinner

JustSomeone wrote: »

Are we getting rid of the EU Flag, then? Will Ode to Joy cease to be the EU Anthem?

Eh..no
They won't be enshrined in law giving the EU a more statelike appearence, no.

JustSomeone wrote: »

On the other points, are you saying that when the Constitution was rejected in French and Dutch referenda, they got changes made - but when the Treaty was rejected in an Irish referendum, not one word was changed?

If you can point to any article of the text that can be amended to change issues like:

- I don't know what I'm voting on.
- I don't want conscription
- I don't want neutrality compromised.
- I don't want the EU taking control of all our taxes.

Then you might have a point, but since they aren't in the treaty the best thing to do is to give guarantees which will be lodged with the UN and later turned into protocols. It's far cheaper and more efficient than having every country reratify the treaty to solve problems that can be solved with guarantes.

JustSomeone wrote: »

I acknowledge that some changes have been made between the constitution and the treaty. I have even to a document which discusses them. I was merely hoping that you might enlighten me as to what your understanding of the technicalities of the changes were. Your response doesn't really shed much light on that.

Ah.. so when you said;

The Treaty of Lisbon is the same as the rejected constitution. Only the format has
been changed to avoid referendums.

You knew that changes were made and you neglected to mention it?

JustSomeone wrote: »

And there we have it. Attack the reputation of the messenger rather than dealing with the message. Play the man and not the ball. A rule to live by, no doubt.

When the messengers message is dishonest it is perfectly fair to comment on the man himself.

JustSomeone

Scofflaw wrote: »

That reflects the fact that we're getting our concerns addressed, and many of them had nothing to do with the Treaty. The one that did - the Commissioner - can be done without a change of wording.

Maybe your concerns were addressed. Mine certainly weren't. The "guarantees" have no legal standing. Not one word of the treaty shas been changed. Not one comma.

we're having one or two anyway.

Apparently we're going to have as many as it takes until we vote Yes.

And one applied relentlessly by the No campaigns to Fianna Fáil.

I fail to see the relevance to this thread, but I'll let you have your whinge.

It's perfectly relevant, though, to point out that someone (a) always opposed to EU treaties,

That's not what you said originally. You chose to use a prejudicial term.

and (b) lacks intellectual honesty,

Isn't that second allegation rather libellous? Unless you have some device to measure a man's intellectual honesty?

because both those points bear directly on whether they're likely to be telling the truth in respect of an EU treaty. Bonde is probably not.

Alternatively, you could argue the substance of what he says. Rather than resorting to name calling and libellous accusations.

I still challenge you to comprehensively list the differences between the treaty and the constution, as requested by the original post. I don't claim to know. I only found this thread when googling the same question.

You, however claim to know. So, is there any hope you can elaborate on your answer with some detail?

Also, maybe you could rest my concerns about Declaration 17?

PopeBuckfastXVI

JustSomeone wrote: »

Maybe your concerns were addressed. Mine certainly weren't. The "guarantees" have no legal standing. Not one word of the treaty shas been changed. Not one comma.

The guarantees have the same legal standing as the Good Friday Agreement, and the Anglo-Irish Treaty before it.

Your concerns may not have been addressed, but some other peoples may have been. There's no requirement to get 100% satisfaction with the treaty, only 50%+1. That's democracy for you.

PopeBuckfastXVI

What's your concern about a declaration which reiterates that Union Law has primacy over National Law?

It's already the case that's why it's worded thusly:

The Conference recalls that, in accordance with well settled case law of the Court of
Justice of the European Union, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the
basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States, under the conditions
laid down by the said case law.

This isn't a new situation brought about by Lisbon.

JustSomeone

Dinner wrote: »

- I don't know what I'm voting on.
- I don't want conscription
- I don't want neutrality compromised.
- I don't want the EU taking control of all our taxes.

And these are the things which the guvment says were our concerns. Concerns which they made go away by bringing some worthless "guarantees" with them the second time around.

guarantees which will be lodged with the UN

which means what, precisely?

and later turned into protocols.

maybe someday, if they get around to it, and if still agree to do it. If they meant anything, why didn't they just add them in to the treaty instead of putting them off into the future someday?

can be solved with guarantes.

except they can't.

You knew that changes were made and you neglected to mention it?

Those weren't my words, it was a quote. It didn't feel right to change someone else's words. At least not to me. I linked to a doc which discussed the changes. Probably a partisan doc, I'll grant you, but it's still an interesting read. But I get the feeling you won't allow yourself to know that.

When the messengers message is dishonest it is perfectly fair to comment on the man himself.

Please, educate me, point out the lies in the document. I came here to learn.

JustSomeone

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

To be fair Bonde can hardly be considered an authoritative impartial source on anything to do with the EU, you're just arguing from authority by pointing to his analysis, a very flawed authority at that.

I was offering it as a discussion point. I wasn't arguing much at all. I'm perfectly aware that it's coming from a particular point of view. The OP wanted to know what the differences are between the Treaty and the failed Constitution. I linked to a document claiming to give a history and a comparison.

If you know more than I do, and you may very well do, then please point out the errors in the doc.

Alternatively, if you want to link to a similarly detailed, but editorially opposite, treatment of the same subject that would be fine too.

If you're just going to dismiss the man's work as "flawed" or having no "integrity" or whatever, without justifying your claims with reference to the document - then you'll excuse me if I just ignore your bluster. To be fair.

PopeBuckfastXVI

JustSomeone wrote: »

I was offering it as a discussion point. I wasn't arguing much at all. I'm perfectly aware that it's coming from a particular point of view. The OP wanted to know what the differences are between the Treaty and the failed Constitution. I linked to a document claiming to give a history and a comparison.

If you know more than I do, and you may very well do, then please point out the errors in the doc.

Alternatively, if you want to link to a similarly detailed, but editorially opposite, treatment of the same subject that would be fine too.

If you're just going to dismiss the man's work as "flawed" or having no "integrity" or whatever, without justifying your claims with reference to the document - then you'll excuse me if I just ignore your bluster. To be fair.

I've no interest in reading Bonde's 'analysis'

Here is the actual text of the consolidated treaties, annotated with what is new in Lisbon and what was in the Constitution and is still included. I don't think it includes stuff dropped from the Constitution, but then it seems no one is interested in that anyway.

http://www.rte.ie/news/features/lisbontreaty/treaty_sections.html

Enjoy...

Sam Vimes

JustSomeone wrote: »

Maybe your concerns were addressed. Mine certainly weren't. The "guarantees" have no legal standing. Not one word of the treaty shas been changed. Not one comma.

I think if this is said once more it might just become true

JustSomeone

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The guarantees have the same legal standing as the Good Friday Agreement, and the Anglo-Irish Treaty before it.

I'd be interested to see an authoritative reference for that claim, it's not one I've heard before. Incidentally, even if it's true, what does that even mean? If either Ireland or the UK had rolled back on commitments what implications would that have had on them?

Your concerns may not have been addressed, but some other peoples may have been. There's no requirement to get 100% satisfaction with the treaty, only 50%+1. That's democracy for you.

I would have been more inclined to agree with your definition of democracy last year. But when the same treaty comes back again for another go, I'm not so sure.
Will we vote on it again in 2010? Or will that only happen if it loses this year?

JustSomeone

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think if this is said once more it might just become true

Please point to something in the treaty which has changed. Anything. Anything at all.

The treaty, now. Not the worthless "guarantees" which have no legal standing, unless they become protocols. Even if a move is made for them to become protocols at some point in the uncertain future, they can be challenged under the actual Treaty. Remember the Treaty? At that point it will be the European Courts who will decide whether or not the guarantees are valid. These "guarantees" are just legal opinions from those who really want you to vote Yes. They are no more than that. They can't be.

PopeBuckfastXVI

JustSomeone wrote: »

I'd be interested to see an authoritative reference for that claim, it's not one I've heard before. Incidentally, even if it's true, what does that even mean? If either Ireland or the UK had rolled back on commitments what implications would that have had on them?

No problem, here you go:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0617/eulisbon.html

What would happen? Nothing short of us invading each other with our armies and duking it out old school. There'd probably be condemnation by the UN also, as guardians of the treaty, and no-one would ever trust the Government that reneged ever again. The last leader in Europe who signed up to a treaty in bad faith and tore it up later was a guy called Adolf Hitler.

If the French or Germans want to come over and abort us and conscript us and tax us, and they are willing to tear up a treaty to do it, then they're pretty unlikely to have signed that treaty in the first place, they're as likely to just roll their tanks in as soon as we vote 'No'.

Or to put it another way, if they tear up the treaty to get something from us we're under no obligation to give them so much as the steam off our breath, and short of invading us there'd be nothing they could do about it.

How likely do you think that is?

PopeBuckfastXVI

JustSomeone wrote: »

Please point to something in the treaty which has changed. Anything. Anything at all.

The treaty, now. Not the worthless "guarantees" which have no legal standing, unless they become protocols.

Again, that's just not true, please read the RTE link I've given you.