The Power to Change Existing Treaties?

Dr. Baltar

Hi people,

Just doing some research on Lisbon and think I'm either going to say "yes" or abstain because I disagree with a second referendum.
I would like someone to please explain the "Power to Change Existing Treaties" Clause that comes with Lisbon.

My question is simply this; should the EU be entitled to the power of amending existing treaties, would an amendment require a referendum in this country or would the Council be able to change the rules governing the EU without one?

Scofflaw

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Hi people,

Just doing some research on Lisbon and think I'm either going to say "yes" or abstain because I disagree with a second referendum.
I would like someone to please explain the "Power to Change Existing Treaties" Clause that comes with Lisbon.

My question is simply this; should the EU be entitled to the power of amending existing treaties, would an amendment require a referendum in this country or would the Council be able to change the rules governing the EU without one?

The 'simplified revision procedure' covers a very specific set of changes that can be made. All that can be done with them is to move from unanimity to QMV or co-decision under certain sections of the EU treaties. Anything else requires a full new treaty and an Irish referendum.

Specifically, the simplified revision procedure doesn't grant "the EU" the power to award itself new competences, or add or subtract anything from the Treaties.

Even the use of the simplified revision procedure requires unanimity amongst all the member states, the consent of the European Parliament, and national ratification or the absence of opposition from any national parliament. In our case, it's stipulated in the proposed Constitutional amendment that any such move will require a vote in both the Dáil and the Seanad. Even with all that, it would still be open to challenge on the grounds of unconstitutionality, because the Crotty case didn't rule out QMV changes as a reason to require a referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dinner

Article 48 is usually mentioned whenever someboy brings up the argument of self amending treaties. It specifically states that any change must be amended according to each countries constitutional requirements.

So in our case that can mean a referendum.

marco_polo

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Hi people,

Just doing some research on Lisbon and think I'm either going to say "yes" or abstain because I disagree with a second referendum.
I would like someone to please explain the "Power to Change Existing Treaties" Clause that comes with Lisbon.

My question is simply this; should the EU be entitled to the power of amending existing treaties, would an amendment require a referendum in this country or would the Council be able to change the rules governing the EU without one?

The member states remain the only entities with the power to amend the founding treaties of the EU, and such changes must be ratified by all member states in accordance with their constitutional requirements as is currently the case.

Dr. Baltar

Thanks!

Jk_Eire

Yup. Can agree with all off the above.

The no-campaign often spin this as the EU forcing changes without consulting Ireland or by-pass our constitutional requirement of referenda.

One of the Sinn Fein flyers specifically states that Article 48 removes our right to referenda on EU issues. Filthy lies.

Unanimity among all states, approval from the EU Parliament, and if an amendment is required to our consistution we shall go to the ballot box.

roosh

Scofflaw wrote: »

The 'simplified revision procedure' covers a very specific set of changes that can be made. All that can be done with them is to move from unanimity to QMV or co-decision under certain sections of the EU treaties. Anything else requires a full new treaty and an Irish referendum.

Just trying to understand this better myself. My understanding is, that it moves even more issues under the QMV or co-decision umbrella, but it also changes the QMV for a raft of existing decisions.

QMV does seem to favour the bigger countries, particularly France and Germany as it requires a 35% population quota in order to block legislation. The population of France and Germany combined is not far off 35%, giving them a lot more power to veto decisions, and us, and countries like us, less power to do so, on a wider range of issues.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Specifically, the simplified revision procedure doesn't grant "the EU" the power to award itself new competences, or add or subtract anything from the Treaties.

It doesn't give it any new competencies, but it does give it the power to amend treaties, not really add or subtract, but change, doesn't it?

Scofflaw wrote: »

Even the use of the simplified revision procedure requires unanimity amongst all the member states, the consent of the European Parliament, and national ratification or the absence of opposition from any national parliament. In our case, it's stipulated in the proposed Constitutional amendment that any such move will require a vote in both the Dáil and the Seanad. Even with all that, it would still be open to challenge on the grounds of unconstitutionality, because the Crotty case didn't rule out QMV changes as a reason to require a referendum.

Effectively, all that would be needed is for those who tried to get this treaty pushed through, to be in agreement. If the same logic was applied to the Lisbon Treaty then the treaty would already be ratified, thus circumnavigating our constitutional right to a referendum. Am I right in saying that?

roosh

Jk_Eire wrote: »

Yup. Can agree with all off the above.

The no-campaign often spin this as the EU forcing changes without consulting Ireland or by-pass our constitutional requirement of referenda.

One of the Sinn Fein flyers specifically states that Article 48 removes our right to referenda on EU issues. Filthy lies.

Unanimity among all states, approval from the EU Parliament, and if an amendment is required to our consistution we shall go to the ballot box.

If we look at the practicality of it, it does effectively remove the need for referenda on EU issues, other than new treaties, which would only really applies in Ireland. The thing is, the amending of existing treaties does not require a referendum under the Irish constitution, therefore the need for a referendum to change various treaties is circumnavigated.

With Lisbon we have the case where all the political representatives of the memeber states would have ratified this already, if it weren't for the Irish constitution. Under Lisbon this would be acceptable, all that would be needed is for all the political leaders to be in agreement, and it wouldn't have to go to a referendum.

turgon

mangaroosh wrote: »

QMV does seem to favour the bigger countries, particularly France and Germany as it requires a 35% population quota in order to block legislation.

So you would prefer to keep vetos where only ONE of France and Germany can block a decision? + the blocking minority need 4 states.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Effectively, all that would be needed is for those who tried to get this treaty pushed through, to be in agreement. If the same logic was applied to the Lisbon Treaty then the treaty would already be ratified, thus circumnavigating our constitutional right to a referendum. Am I right in saying that?

No.

roosh

Co-decision also favours the bigger countries because they have more MEPs than we do

turgon

mangaroosh wrote: »

it wouldn't have to go to a referendum.

Yes it would:

The amendments must be ratified in line "with each member states constitutional requirements." So a referendum in Ireland. I know its really hard to admit that the big bad EU cant in fact take power of its own accord but you cant really argue with the actual treaty.

roosh

turgon wrote: »

So you would prefer to keep vetos where only ONE of France and Germany can block a decision? + the blocking minority need 4 states.

Well that effectively reduces our power to Veto, but maintains the Franco-German alliances (which does exist), power. So if you are aksing me if I want to maitain a stronger say, I will say yes. Try and think practically, rather than idealistically

turgon wrote: »

No.

Now would be a good opportunity to explain why not.

turgon

mangaroosh wrote: »

Co-decision also favours the bigger countries because they have more MEPs than we do

Are you saying that France should have the same power as Malta?

Also, if you knew anything about the EU you would realize the European Parliament is operated under idealogical groupings, not national ones. The French MEPS's don't sit together; the European Socialists do.

turgon

mangaroosh wrote: »

Well that effectively reduces our power to Veto, but maintains the Franco-German alliances (which does exist), power. So if you are aksing me if I want to maitain a stronger say, I will say yes. Try and think practically, rather than idealistically

So you want a stronger say for Ireland, but not a stronger say for the supposed Franco-Germanic alliance? Your kind of falling over yourself now. One of your criticisms of QMV is that France has more blocking power than Ireland and your solution is to give France even more blocking power.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Now would be a good opportunity to explain why not.

^^^

marco_polo

mangaroosh wrote: »

If we look at the practicality of it, it does effectively remove the need for referenda on EU issues, other than new treaties, which would only really applies in Ireland. The thing is, the amending of existing treaties does not require a referendum under the Irish constitution, therefore the need for a referendum to change various treaties is circumnavigated.

With Lisbon we have the case where all the political representatives of the memeber states would have ratified this already, if it weren't for the Irish constitution. Under Lisbon this would be acceptable, all that would be needed is for all the political leaders to be in agreement, and it wouldn't have to go to a referendum.

Yes it would because how do you amend a treaty? Why with an amending treaty. Sort of like Lisbon. And what are we doing this Friday?

roosh

turgon wrote: »

Yes it would:

The amendments must be ratified in line "with each member states constitutional requirements." So a referendum in Ireland. I know its really hard to admit that the big bad EU cant in fact take power of its own accord but you cant really argue with the actual treaty.

Ireland doesn't require a referendum for treaty amendments, it requires it for new treaties, therefore treaty amendments do not require a referendum.

I know its really hard to admit that possibly, just possibly, the political elite of Europe are more motivated by their own self-interest, than the interest of those they represent. I mean, historically we have absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever, so the leap of faith is pretty big

prinz

mangaroosh wrote: »

Co-decision also favours the bigger countries because they have more MEPs than we do

If the number of MEP's were assigned based on a per-head-of population basis we'd be far, far, far worse off. Irish citizens are very well represented in fact, compared to some of our fellow member states.

oscarBravo

mangaroosh wrote: »

Ireland doesn't require a referendum for treaty amendments, it requires it for new treaties, therefore treaty amendments do not require a referendum.

I'd ask you to back this up with reference to the relevant constitutional law, if I thought you hadn't just made it up.

I know its really hard to admit that possibly, just possibly, the political elite of Europe are more motivated by their own self-interest, than the interest of those they represent. I mean, historically we have absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever, so the leap of faith is pretty big

Who are the "political elite of Europe", and what have they got to do with the thread topic?

turgon

mangaroosh wrote: »

Ireland doesn't require a referendum for treaty amendments, it requires it for new treaties, therefore treaty amendments do not require a referendum.

The Treaty of Lisbon is an amending treaty itself, of two existing treaties (TEU and TFEU). You do realize that right?

roosh

turgon wrote: »

Are you saying that France should have the same power as Malta?

Also, if you knew anything about the EU you would realize the European Parliament is operated under idealogical groupings, not national ones. The French MEPS's don't sit together; the European Socialists do.

€1.84 wage for migrant workers is the height of Idealism alright.

If you had a clue about how the EU actually operates, it is on a practical basis, not an ideological one. All the ideals in the world won't change that.

And no I don't mean that Malta should have the same say as France, what I am saying is that Lisbon is not the best way to solve the problem. Do you think that France and Germany should have more say than nearly everyone else? Before you answer, think of the practicality of what it would mean, not the ideological one

turgon

mangaroosh wrote: »

And no I don't mean that Malta should have the same say as France, what I am saying is that Lisbon is not the best way to solve the problem.

What is?

roosh

turgon wrote: »

The Treaty of Lisbon is an amending treaty itself, of two existing treaties (TEU and TFEU). You do realize that right?

You do realise that the Lisbon Treaty is exactly that, a treaty, that conveniently ties up a few loose ends, that largely negates the requirement for subsequent other treaties. You do realise that right?

roosh

turgon wrote: »

What is?

Give me some time and I'll come up with something, until then I suggest you keep things as they are

oscarBravo

mangaroosh wrote: »

€1.84 wage for migrant workers is the height of Idealism alright.

€1.84 wage is a myth. By continuing to propagate it, you lower yourself into the same gutter of despicable lies from which it originated. Shame on you.

roosh

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd ask you to back this up with reference to the relevant constitutional law

am I wrong in saying that?

oscarBravo wrote: »

, if I thought you hadn't just made it up. Who are the "political elite of Europe", and what have they got to do with the thread topic?

They are the people who will have the power to change existing treaties, thats what they have to do with the thread topic.

oscarBravo

mangaroosh wrote: »

Give me some time and I'll come up with something, until then I suggest you keep things as they are

That's about right.

"What hundreds of people spent the better part of a decade negotiating is crap. I'll single-handedly come up with something better. In the meantime, what we have is self-evidently better, even though hundreds of people felt a need to spend the better part of a decade improving it."

The arrogance is breathtaking.

oscarBravo

mangaroosh wrote: »

am I wrong in saying that?

Yes. Can you back it up with reference to constitutional law?

They are the people who will have the power to change existing treaties, thats what they have to do with the thread topic.

The people who have the power to change existing treaties are the governments (and in some cases the electorates) of the member states.

Are you saying that everyone in Ireland with a polling card is a member of the European elite?

prinz

mangaroosh wrote: »

€1.84 wage for migrant workers is the height of Idealism alright.

That's already been dealt with, yet here you are again . Do you actually have anything new, or any realistic problems with what is actually in the Lisbon Treaty?

Furious-Dave

€1.84 is the average minimum wage of 10(?) accession states, as calculated by Cóir. Didn't they already admit to this?

prinz

Furious-Dave wrote: »

€1.84 is the average minimum wage of 10(?) accession states, as calculated by Cóir. Didn't they already admit to this?

IIRC they did admit that Lisbon had in reality no effect whatsoever on the minimum wage in this country.

roosh

oscarBravo wrote: »

€1.84 wage is a myth. By continuing to propagate it, you lower yourself into the same gutter of despicable lies from which it originated. Shame on you.

They were drawing attention to the Laval case is not a myth. I take it you didn't quite get the subtelty of the poster then.

the EU found in favour of a Latvian company paying its workers €1.84 an hour in Sweden. That happened. The poster, could be misinterpreted to read that they are suggesting the same could happen in Ieland, or it could be correctly interpreted as drawing attention to that case and the "ideals" of the EU.


I also take it you didn't quite give it the level of scrutiny that you would try and claim, nor, I believe have you actually given any scrutiny to the lies and scaremongering of the Yes campaign.

Shame on you for being so biased