Lisbon and sovereignty

greeno

turgon wrote: »

How so? It certainly states that 4 member states can block a proposal.

Here is so:

191) Article 205 shall be amended as follows:
(a) paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be replaced by the following:

[FONT=EUAlbertina+20][FONT=EUAlbertina+20]

‘[/FONT][/FONT]1. Where it is required to act by a simple majority, the Council shall act by a majority
of its component members.
2. By way of derogation from Article 9 C(4) of the Treaty on European Union, as
from 1 November 2014 and subject to the provisions laid down in the Protocol on
transitional provisions, where the Council does not act on a proposal from the
Commission or from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and
Security Policy, the qualified majority shall be defined as at least 72 % of the members of
the Council, representing Member States comprising at least 65 % of the population of
the Union.
3. As from 1 November 2014 and subject to the provisions laid down in the Protocol
on transitional provisions, in cases where, under the Treaties, not all the members of the
Council participate in voting, a qualified majority shall be defined as follows:
(a) A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the members of the Council
representing the participating Member States, comprising at least 65 % of the
population of these States.
A blocking minority must include at least the minimum number of Council
members representing more than 35 % of the population of the participating
Member States, plus one member, failing which the qualified majority shall be
deemed attained;
(b) By way of derogation from point (a), where the Council does not act on a proposal
from the Commission or from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign
Affairs and Security Policy, the qualified majority shall be defined as at least 72 % of
the members of the Council representing the participating Member States,

comprising at least 65 % of the population of these States.[FONT=EUAlbertina+20][FONT=EUAlbertina+20]’[/FONT][/FONT].

Nietzschean

turgon wrote: »

How so? It certainly states that 4 member states can block a proposal.

from your previous reference, the lisbon exposed link

Article 238 (ex Article 205(1) and (2), TEC)

1. Where it is required to act by a simple majority, the Council shall act by a majority of its component members.

2. By way of derogation from Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union, as from 1 November 2014 and subject to the provisions laid down in the Protocol on transitional provisions, where the Council does not act on a proposal from the Commission or from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the qualified majority shall be defined as at least 72 % of the members of the Council, representing Member States comprising at least 65 % of the population of the Union.

3. As from 1 November 2014 and subject to the provisions laid down in the Protocol on transitional provisions, in cases where, under the Treaties, not all the members of the Council participate in voting, a qualified majority shall be defined as follows:
(a) A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the members of the Council representing the participating Member States, comprising at least 65 % of the population of these States. A blocking minority must include at least the minimum number of Council members representing more than 35 % of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained;
(b) By way of derogation from point
(a), where the Council does not act on a proposal from the Commission or from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the qualified majority shall be defined as at least 72 % of the members of the Council representing the participating Member States, comprising at least 65 % of the population of these States.

4. Abstentions by Members present in person or represented shall not prevent the adoption by the Council of acts which require unanimity.

I don't see how the 2 references can really be reconciled? which one is correct?

looking at that site both quotes are there,

one is in 16 TEU
and the other 238 TFEU

they seem to be contradicting, which one will be the case?

Nietzschean

greeno wrote: »

Here is so:

Could you stop with the bolding huge sections of text, it just hurts the eyes, please.

greeno

Nietzschean wrote: »

where does it say that exactly? don't think the EU can stop us from changing our own constitution, and our government must obey it....and we indeed elect our government to represent our views.....


If the government would have to agree to any such move, and we control the government(well at least in theory, but thats still an internal issue)...then how do we loose sovereignty ?

Ireland is the only country holding a public vote on Lisbon because we will have to amend our national constitution to accept the Treaty's provisions. Which for the first time will make it transparent via delaration 17 that EU law is officially binding on ireland.

It now makes it clear that EU law would have primacy over and be superior to the Irish Constitution and laws in any case of conflict between the two.
. The Lisbon Treaty would give the EU the power to make laws binding on us in many new areas and would take that power away from the Irish Dáil and from Irish citizens who elect the Dáil.

Nietzschean

greeno wrote: »

Ireland is the only country holding a public vote on Lisbon because we will have to amend our national constitution to accept the Treaty's provisions. Which for the first time will make it transparent via delaration 17 that EU law is officially binding on ireland.

It now makes it clear that EU law would have primacy over and be superior to the Irish Constitution and laws in any case of conflict between the two.
. The Lisbon Treaty would give the EU the power to make laws binding on us in many new areas and would take that power away from the Irish Dáil and from Irish citizens who elect the Dáil.

but this was already the case via EU Case law I gather from reading here? So we haven't lost any more power, and we only give the EU power in area's we would like to make decisions on in a block. I don't see how anything really has changed other than explaining the EU becoming simpler since we wouldn't have to refer to case law to explain EU law supremacy?

greeno

Nietzschean wrote: »

from your previous reference, the lisbon exposed link


I don't see how the 2 references can really be reconciled? which one is correct?

looking at that site both quotes are there,

one is in 16 TEU
and the other 238 TFEU

they seem to be contradicting, which one will be the case?

I wont copy it over. But if you look at the link I sent earlier. It states at the top that it is an article amending the original treaty

Purple Gorilla

greeno wrote: »

We as the people or the govt as our representatives?

Our constitution explicitly states that any treaty where we confer more competencies to the EU, it must be put to a vote by the people. So it'll be us, the people, who decide if we should give up areas such as Taxation, Economic Policy, Education etc. to the EU.

greeno

Nietzschean wrote: »

but this was already the case via EU Case law I gather from reading here? So we haven't lost any more power, and we only give the EU power in area's we would like to make decisions on in a block. I don't see how anything really has changed other than explaining the EU becoming simpler since we wouldn't have to refer to case law to explain EU law supremacy?

Because it now amends our constitution to accept as much. As a result we are signing over the law making rights to the EU and taking them totally out of the control of our govt. For the first time the Irish people will be accepting that large chunks of our constutitution are irrelevant and that all the power to make the said laws lies with the EU not our own national govt.

Tarobot

Apologies, greeno, it looks like both requirements need to be met for a blocking minority so it must make up 4 member states and 35% of the population.

As Purple Gorilla states, the EU cannot decide to adopt any new areas of competence without a new treaty. You're confusing changing from unanimity to QMV with new areas of competence.

Edit: for anyone reading through the thread top sentence is incorrect - 35% population only needed when not all members of Council are voting!

Nietzschean

greeno wrote: »

Because it now amends our constitution to accept as much. As a result we are signing over the law making rights to the EU and taking them totally out of the control of our govt. For the first time the Irish people will be accepting that large chunks of our constutitution are irrelevant and that all the power to make the said laws lies with the EU not our own national govt.

Is this not effectively the case already in these area's? does it being in our constitution change anything? did we have an opt out to ignore the eu case law if we so felt? I'm honestly just still confused as to how its changed other than a clarification of 'the way it is'.

greeno

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

Our constitution explicitly states that any treaty where we confer more competencies to the EU, it must be put to a vote by the people. So it'll be us, the people, who decide if we should give up areas such as Taxation, Economic Policy, Education etc. to the EU.

One of my concerns is also will Ireland in fact sign a blank cheque if it gives the go-ahead to the treaty. Lisbon introduces “simplified revision procedures”, meaning that the treaty is self-amending. Ireland will no longer have referendums because amendments will be made without any further need for treaties or ratification procedures. Article 48 (6) has been called the “ratchet cl au se” and allows treaty amendments to be made without the necessity of a new, amending treaty and ratification. The supposed intention of this provision is to simplify the revision of the treaties. It will completely remove the Irish people from their say over Europe .
The simplified but wholly undemocratic revision procedures represent a significant increase in the power of the Union, at the expense of Ireland .

If anyone can correct me on this please do go ahead

Tarobot

greeno wrote: »

One of my concerns is also will Ireland in fact sign a blank cheque if it gives the go-ahead to the treaty. Lisbon introduces “simplified revision procedures”, meaning that the treaty is self-amending. Ireland will no longer have referendums because amendments will be made without any further need for treaties or ratification procedures. Article 48 (6) has been called the “ratchet cl au se” and allows treaty amendments to be made without the necessity of a new, amending treaty and ratification. The supposed intention of this provision is to simplify the revision of the treaties. It will completely remove the Irish people from their say over Europe .
The simplified but wholly undemocratic revision procedures represent a significant increase in the power of the Union, at the expense of Ireland .

If anyone can correct me on this please do go ahead

This is incorrect. To steal the European Movement's explanation (because I'm lazy):

The Lisbon Treaty does not create creeping federalism. In fact, the German Constitutional Court when judging on the specific constitutionality of the Lisbon Treaty, categorically stated that the Lisbon Treaty does not transform the EU into a federal state.

A passerelle is the ability for the European Council, basically our Taoiseach and his counterparts that meet a number of times a year, to agree to move one area of the EU’s authority from unanimity to QMV. We have passerelles in the system so that the European Union and its member countries to respond with more flexibility to possible future problems without requiring an entirely new Treaty to change how the matter is decided on – by unanimity or QMV.

There are a couple of important points to make about the passerelle:
• A decision to invoke a passerelle requires all-country consent. Therefore, if we don’t want something to move to QMV, it won’t happen.
• Under Lisbon, it will now also require the consent of the European Parliament and our Dáil and Seanad.
• Passerelles are only about moving from unanimity to QMV. They cannot be used to extend the powers of the Union, or take away any powers from any EU country.
• Passerelles cannot be used in the area of military or defence.

The claim that the passerelle clause can be used to sidestep national parliaments is objectively incorrect. Firstly, national parliaments, such as the Dáil in Ireland, have to be consulted (see overleaf). Also as stated, no new competences can be given to the EU by the operation of this clause. And finally, anything that requires a constitutional referendum in Ireland will always require a referendum.

http://www.europeanmovement.ie/index.php?id=8936

greeno

Tarobot wrote: »

Apologies, greeno, it looks like both requirements need to be met for a blocking minority so it must make up 4 member states and 35% of the population.

As Purple Gorilla states, the EU cannot decide to adopt any new areas of competence without a new treaty. You're confusing changing from unanimity to QMV with new areas of competence.

What is your opinion on it being self amending as per Article 46 as I outlined above? I do also feel that to require 35% of popultion makes this blocking minority seem a poor deal for the smaller states as the largr states make up a huge percentage in population. So to reject a proposal we would need help of a larger state

greeno

Tarobot wrote: »

This is incorrect. To steal the European Movement's explanation (because I'm lazy):



http://www.europeanmovement.ie/index.php?id=8936

That is interesting, however, the article in the treaty seems fairly clear on it. Is there any gaurantees written into the treaty that back the above up or is it just a verbal gaurantee.

Tarobot

greeno wrote: »

What is your opinion on it being self amending as per Article 46 as I outlined above? I do also feel that to require 35% of popultion makes this blocking minority seem a poor deal for the smaller states as the largr states make up a huge percentage in population. So to reject a proposal we would need help of a larger state

To be honest, I think practice is as important as theory in these matters. In what areas in the past have things been pushed through in the Council against Ireland's wishes? The overriding preference is to make sure everyone is happy with the legislation.

But to answer your question, I think it's only fair that if a % of the population is important in passing a law, that the same type of criteria applies for blocking the law. Again there is a 'Double Minority' as such with blocking - at the first stage Ireland is on equal footing with all other member states and at the second stage we are rated on population. If you don't have a problem with the Double Majority, then I can't see how you could have a problem with this - they both work off the same principle.

greeno

Article 46 of the Lisbon Treaty states: “The Union shall have a legal personality.” This is a major change to the legal basis of the EU because it transforms it from an arena of co-operation between democratically-elected nation states to a legal entity in its own right.
‘Legal personality’ would enable the EU to operate in the international area like a state, which it currently does not have the power to do. It could have its own diplomatic corps, negotiate and sign international trade agreements, incorporate existing international treaties into its own law and seek a seat at the United Nations.

greeno

Tarobot wrote: »

To be honest, I think practice is as important as theory in these matters. In what areas in the past have things been pushed through in the Council against Ireland's wishes? The overriding preference is to make sure everyone is happy with the legislation.

But to answer your question, I think it's only fair that if a % of the population is important in passing a law, that the same type of criteria applies for blocking the law. Again there is a 'Double Minority' as such with blocking - at the first stage Ireland is on equal footing with all other member states and at the second stage we are rated on population. If you don't have a problem with the Double Majority, then I can't see how you could have a problem with this - they both work off the same principle.

I do have a problem with double majority where 10 states can oppose a proposal but it will still go through this stage

Tarobot

greeno, I'm sensing a pattern here. You throw out a No argument, debate it until it's proven a non-runner and then you just jump straight onto your next one.

Edit:As I said, can you show me examples of where laws have been pushed through with a significant minority against it?

BlitzKrieg

One of my concerns is also will Ireland in fact sign a blank cheque if it gives the go-ahead to the treaty. Lisbon introduces “simplified revision procedures”, meaning that the treaty is self-amending. Ireland will no longer have referendums because amendments will be made without any further need for treaties or ratification procedures. Article 48 (6) has been called the “ratchet cl au se” and allows treaty amendments to be made without the necessity of a new, amending treaty and ratification.

*cough*
article 48

section 4:

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.

and for simplified revision process

article 48

section 6

6. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may
submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the
Union.
The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after
consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case
of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is
approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

So what is the irish constitutional requirement?


oh thats right

A REFERENDUM!

greeno

Apologies it is Article 48 I should be referring to in relation to the self amending treaties.

From Lisbon treaty.org:
Article 48
1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.


Thereby gives the EU powers to amend its own treaties, without recourse to an inter-governmental conference, a new treaty or a process of national ratification. Until now, revisions of EU treaties required these three stages, ensuring that national governments and, in the case of Ireland, national populations are involved in the decision-making process. Article 48 dispenses with this and allows the European Council to make amendments by unanimity, without any process of national ratification. This means that, in the future, significant changes could be made to the structure, procedures or competencies of the EU without any recourse to a referendum.

marco_polo

greeno wrote: »

Apologies it is Article 48 I should be referring to in relation to the self amending treaties.

From Lisbon treaty.org:
Article 48 1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.


'Article 48
1. The treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.


Article 48 Thereby gives the EU powers to amend its own treaties, without recourse to an inter-governmental conference, a new treaty or a process of national ratification. Until now, revisions of EU treaties required these three stages, ensuring that national governments and, in the case of Ireland, national populations are involved in the decision-making process. Article 48 dispenses with this and allows the European Council to make amendments by unanimity, without any process of national ratification. This means that, in the future, significant changes could be made to the structure, procedures or competencies of the EU without any recourse to a referendum.

And you have just been shown by about 3 seperate people that that is completely and utterly false.

turgon

greeno wrote: »

Thereby gives the EU powers to amend its own treaties, without recourse to an inter-governmental conference, a new treaty or a process of national ratification.

Wrong. In both these procedures the amendments must be ratified according to each member states constitutional requirements. In Ireland: a referendum. Please stop with these lies, they are becoming increasingly frustrating.

greeno

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

*cough*
article 48

section 4:



and for simplified revision process

article 6



So what is the irish constitutional requirement?


oh thats right

A REFERENDUM!

So it only the ratification of the Lisbon treaty itself that is to be done in accordance with National constitutions. No such gaurantee is given for amendments

The article 6 you refer to actually states:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:0042:0133:EN:PDF

Article 6

1. This Treaty shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties in accordance with their respective
constitutional requirements. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Government of
the Italian Republic.
2. This Treaty shall enter into force on 1 January 2009, provided that all the instruments of
ratification have been deposited, or, failing that, on the first day of the month following the deposit of
the instrument of ratification by the last signatory State to take this step.

greeno

Tarobot wrote: »

greeno, I'm sensing a pattern here. You throw out a No argument, debate it until it's proven a non-runner and then you just jump straight onto your next one.

Edit:As I said, can you show me examples of where laws have been pushed through with a significant minority against it?

No but without a veto which all states had before! The fear of this happeneing in the future is greatly increased.

BlitzKrieg

my mistake thats section 6 not article 6, section 6 of article 48.

Purple Gorilla

greeno wrote: »

One of my concerns is also will Ireland in fact sign a blank cheque if it gives the go-ahead to the treaty. Lisbon introduces “simplified revision procedures”, meaning that the treaty is self-amending. Ireland will no longer have referendums because amendments will be made without any further need for treaties or ratification procedures. Article 48 (6) has been called the “ratchet cl au se” and allows treaty amendments to be made without the necessity of a new, amending treaty and ratification. The supposed intention of this provision is to simplify the revision of the treaties. It will completely remove the Irish people from their say over Europe .
The simplified but wholly undemocratic revision procedures represent a significant increase in the power of the Union, at the expense of Ireland .

If anyone can correct me on this please do go ahead

You're not getting it. The treaties can be revised but no new competencies can be conferred without a new treaty. That means a treaty having to be agreed unanimously by all member states and then ratified. Our process of ratification is through referendum.

BlitzKrieg

So it only the ratification of the Lisbon treaty itself that is to be done in accordance with National constitutions. No such gaurantee is given for amendments

section 1 of article 48

1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may
also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.

and I have shown you that both ordinary and simplified revision procedure requires ratification by constitutional process.

marco_polo

greeno wrote: »

No but without a veto which all states had before! The fear of this happeneing in the future is greatly increased.

We ashed for an example from the current areas which fall under QMV of a piece of legislation passed against our wishes by qualified majority.

Also which veto losses in particular are cause you most concern?

greeno

marco_polo wrote: »

We ashed for an example from the current areas which fall under QMV of a piece of legislation passed against our wishes by qualified majority.

Also which veto losses in particular are cause you most concern?

The loss of the veto itself. I said how could domething be passed by QMV against our wishes when member states had a veto to prevent this!

I have asked a barrister friend of mine from my college days about Article 48 and my interpretation of it. He points to Article 48(7) which states that national parliaments will only be referred to for 48(1) or 48(2) initiatives.
48(7) allows the council to amend without recourse in all areas if it sees it necessary with the exception of military and defence.

Copied below for your reference:

7. Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Title V of this Treaty provides for the Council to act by unanimity in a given area or case, the European Council may adopt a decision authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority in that area or in that case. This subparagraph shall not apply to decisions with military implications or those in the area of defence.

Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for legislative acts to be adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, the European Council may adopt a decision allowing for the adoption of such acts in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.

Any initiative taken by the European Council on the basis of the first or the second subparagraph shall be notified to the national Parliaments. If a national Parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification, the decision referred to in the first or the second subparagraph shall not be adopted. In the absence of opposition, the European Council may adopt the decision.

For the adoption of the decisions referred to in the first and second subparagraphs, the European Council shall act by unanimity after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall be given by a majority of its component members

greeno

marco_polo wrote: »

We ashed for an example from the current areas which fall under QMV of a piece of legislation passed against our wishes by qualified majority.

Also which veto losses in particular are cause you most concern?

For a case where the EU even tried to and still are ignoring our veto check out the adoption by the Council of Ministers of what became Directive 2006/24/EC in March 2006. If they didn't respect our veto then and used underhand tactics to get around it, what hope do we have for the future.