Citizens' initative - ideas

View

Just to throw a topic out for discussion as it looks like we might be within sight of the end of the entire "ratification of Lisbon" saga. One of the changes wrought by Lisbon will be the introduction of the Citizens' Initiative.

Anyone have suggestion for topics for such an initative bearing in mind that such an initative:
a) needs 1 million signatures, and,
b) these would need to have support from multiple member states, and,
c) should probably be directed towards either:

i) changes in policy in a particular field, or,
ii) new initatives within the existing EU Treaty framework.

(In other words, asking for the EU Treaties to be radically changed is not going to be a runner, nor is asking for the member states to all modify their constitutions to suit your viewpoint)

One idea I'd personally like to see is that the next EP elections use a common voting system in each member state (rather than the multiple systems currently used). Mind you, that idea probably falls foul of one of the criteria that I outlined above.

SkepticOne

What I would suggest is that you lobby the commision directly with your ideas initially. If they think it is not a good idea then no amount of signatures is going to make a difference. If they think it is a good idea then they may run with it and there's no need for signatures.

ei.sdraob

I think the EU making use of internet to expose data and policies in a more accessible manner and advertise the initiative better would be a nice idea for petition

something like opengov project in US under Obama

actually alot of EU information is out there already, its just matter of better presentation and making the people aware

as we seen from lisbon, lack of knowledge about how eu works is the single biggest threat to eu, ignorance is bliss they say

evercloserunion

A petition to reform intellectual property law to strengthen the right to free expression as against intellectual property rights.

Also a petition to improve transparency and accountability would be an obvious choice.

Scofflaw

Climate change initiatives!

cordially,
Scofflaw

simplistic

So let me get this straight you have to go get 1 million signatures and then the politicians may have a debate on the issue. HAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that is funniest thing I have heard in a long time really hahahahaaa made my day thanks guys!!!

ei.sdraob

simplistic wrote: »

So let me get this straight you have to go get 1 million signatures and then the politicians may have a debate on the issue. HAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that is funniest thing I have heard in a long time really hahahahaaa made my day thanks guys!!!

:rolleyes:

Noreen1

I'll second the public accountabilty and transparency suggestion.

I'll also add a suggestion that the Electorate be given the power to force a Government to stand down in times of a: extreme crises, b: when they no longer have the confidence of the Electorate, or c: if they force through a law that is against the wishes of the majority of the electorate.
That should strengthen the accountabilty option considerably.:D

Noreen

evercloserunion

Noreen1 wrote: »

I'll second the public accountabilty and transparency suggestion.

I'll also add a suggestion that the Electorate be given the power to force a Government to stand down in times of a: extreme crises, b: when they no longer have the confidence of the Electorate, or c: if they force through a law that is against the wishes of the majority of the electorate.
That should strengthen the accountabilty option considerably.:D

Noreen

The national government or the government of the EU?

If it's the former, there's no way the EU could ever dictate the terms on which national governments are to stand down.

Noreen1

evercloserunion wrote: »

The national government or the government of the EU?

If it's the former, there's no way the EU could ever dictate the terms on which national governments are to stand down.

Ideally - Both

Call me paranoid, but there seems to be a trend sweeping through Politics, whereby Politicians have become the Masters, not the Servants of the people.

eg NAMA in Ireland, Bank Bailouts in the USA, The current Abortion legislation in Spain (I heard on the News today that there are massive protests).
Why were the British electorate denied the promised Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty? (No, I'm not trying to start another Lisbon debate - I'm just citing cases where the electorate are apparently deeply unhappy with the policies of their respective Governments.)

Now, I realise that these suggestions are a potential minefield, and that mid-term unpopularity is not a good enough reason to oust a Government, but current reality seems to suggest that real democracyis a thing of the past.(Or did it ever really exist? - Maybe I'm just an idealistic fool?)

So, I'm throwing these ideas into the public arena, and hoping that somehow, a solution might be found that will make things better for everyone.

Noreen

Purple Gorilla

Noreen, the EU has no competence there.

I'd definitely love to see the EU introduce legislation on Net Neutrality to ensure the Internet stays free and fair.

Dinner

Noreen1 wrote: »

(No, I'm not trying to start another Lisbon debate - I'm just citing cases where the electorate are apparently deeply unhappy with the policies of their respective Gov

The thing is though, that governments must do what is necessary, not what is popular. Any NAMAesque scheme that a government does will never be popular, but it may be necessary. I don't know enough about either NAMA or the current situation to make an educated decision on what is best, but it seems like something must be done, even if it is unpopular.


Fuel tax, road tax, licence fee, DIRT and any other number of taxes fees and fines are all going to be deeply unpopular, but the money needs to come from somewhere. Would you rather the government pissed away millions every few weeks to hold a referendum to see if the public agree with new legislation? Would the electorate pass a referendum on the budget this December?

What is necessary > what is popular.

Scofflaw

Stay on topic, please, people. Noreen1, your suggestions are at risk of derailing the thread into a discussion of EU competences, because what you're calling for is nothing to do with the EU - what you're looking for there is constitutional change in the member states (in particular, perhaps, Ireland).

cordially,
Scofflaw

evercloserunion

The current Abortion legislation in Spain (I heard on the News today that there are massive protests).

About a million people protested, in a country of nearly 47 million. A million people at a protest must be a mind-boggling sight but it doesn't mean the Spanish people are opposed to the legislation.

Jk_Eire

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

Noreen, the EU has no competence there.

I'd definitely love to see the EU introduce legislation on Net Neutrality to ensure the Internet stays free and fair.

Good one.
Also, the citizens initiative could be useful in backing up the European Parliament when faced with opposition from the Council. For example, the Telecoms Package as amended by the European Parliament to include better rights and guarantees for citizens is still facing tough opposition from the Council, which do not want the amendments from the Parliament included in the package.

The amendments are inherently good for EU citizens, but horse trading and pressuring by some member states is blocking these positive amendments (notably by France who whose 3 strikes law would be in conflict with the parliaments amendments).

More reading here : http://www.laquadrature.net/

Taking advantage of the citizens initiatives to support the Parliament in an area like this would be fantastic and could easily garner 1million signatures given the right publicity.

jonoftheburns

the first attempt at this: www.right2bet.net

The Saint

jonoftheburns wrote: »

the first attempt at this: www.right2bet.net

Looks more like a gambling industry initiative rather than a citizens initiative. Hopefully this tool doesn't become usurped by private interest groups as another form of lobbying.

jonoftheburns

Well the www.right2bet.net campaign is certainly backed by bookies/online casinos because the proposed changes to the law will benefit them by letting them operate across the EU (which, to be fair, they should be able to anyway under EU law). But it still requires 1million signatures from "ordinary" people. It's being pitched as a campaign for people to have the right to choose goods and services from anywhere in the EU, not just ones from their own country, which, again they probably should be able to anyway.

I think the citizens initiative is, on balance, a good idea. Of course it's likely that individual initiatives are going to be partly organised (even financed) by so-called interest groups, because these are the only civil society group with the means to do it. You're not going to get 1million farmers, mums, teachers, children, trade unionists, online gamblers spontaneously deciding to sign a petition - it takes organisation. I don't see a problem so long as it's an open and democratic process! Isn't that what pluralist democracy is all about...?

The Saint

jonoftheburns wrote: »

Well the www.right2bet.net campaign is certainly backed by bookies/online casinos because the proposed changes to the law will benefit them by letting them operate across the EU (which, to be fair, they should be able to anyway under EU law). But it still requires 1million signatures from "ordinary" people. It's being pitched as a campaign for people to have the right to choose goods and services from anywhere in the EU, not just ones from their own country, which, again they probably should be able to anyway.

Well if they think that it's a violation of competition rules why don't they take a case to the ECJ?

If there are states that are opposed to this then it's unlikely that anything will be changed. It would be like arguing that weed should be available throughout the EU since it's allowed in the Netherlands and not allowing it would be a violation of competition rules. I'd imagine that areas such as drugs and gambling are left to member states to decide their policies on given the pereived social impact of such things.

COUCH WARRIOR

I think this tread is taking a wrong headed approach to the citizens initiative. It's in effect we have this power how can we use it. i.e using powerjustbecausewecan. Where as I think the spirit of the initiative is if I believe as a citizen that proposal X to be right how do I get my voice to be heard.

COUCH WARRIOR

sorry about the spacing and party pooping, just backfrom the pub:o

Scofflaw

The Saint wrote: »

Well if they think that it's a violation of competition rules why don't they take a case to the ECJ?

If there are states that are opposed to this then it's unlikely that anything will be changed. It would be like arguing that weed should be available throughout the EU since it's allowed in the Netherlands and not allowing it would be a violation of competition rules. I'd imagine that areas such as drugs and gambling are left to member states to decide their policies on given the pereived social impact of such things.

That's very much the case - regulated industries like gambling, particularly those with moral/social implications, remain the preserve of the member states.

Again, to quote the German constitutional judgement, the essential division between the EU and the member states is that the EU should only handle issues of common interest, leaving each state (and people) free as far as is possible to shape its own individual course in terms of public morality and social environment. Not everyone agrees that the line is always drawn in the right place, but that is the essential line. Something like gambling, which is often considered as a tolerated vice, is unlikely to be able to win a case purely on business terms.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

COUCH WARRIOR wrote: »

I think this tread is taking a wrong headed approach to the citizens initiative. It's in effect we have this power how can we use it. i.e using powerjustbecausewecan. Where as I think the spirit of the initiative is if I believe as a citizen that proposal X to be right how do I get my voice to be heard.

Well, that is a valid criticism but I was actually interested in seeing what ideas people felt interested enough in that they might contemplate using the citizens' initative. I have to confess to being a bit surprised - given a lot of the hoo-haa that characterised the Lisbon debates - at how few ideas there have been. Maybe people believe the EU's policies are perfect?

jonoftheburns

I'm 99% sure that the ECJ has ruled that Member States should not be able to ban foreign providers of gambling services on grounds of nationality, they can only ban gambling outright on moral grounds just like they could anything else, but they would have to stop domestic providers as well (which most offending states don't do; instead, they shelter their state-owned monopolies!). The reason the Commission has not been more active in implementing this judgement and others like it is simply because there is a lack of political will. The right2bet petition aims at changing that by forcing them to take notice via the citizens initiative.

jonoftheburns

For a good overview of the messy and contradictory ECJ rulings on this, see http://www.bettingmarket.com/eurolaw222428.htm - the right2bet petition aims at clearing up that mess and allowing for a situation where at least there is a definitive decision either way: either the principle of free trade and freedom of choice/movement is implemented, or it isn't.

SkepticOne

If a corporation uses a public petition to bolster their back room lobbying of the Commission then I don't see anything wrong with that. At least it is a way for the public to know what is going on behind the scenes in Brussels. Where I would have issue with some of the posters here is that they think it is a new power for citizens. It is not.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

If a corporation uses a public petition to bolster their back room lobbying of the Commission then I don't see anything wrong with that. At least it is a way for the public to know what is going on behind the scenes in Brussels. Where I would have issue with some of the posters here is that they think it is a new power for citizens. It is not.

While the power to submit a petition to the European Commission undoubtedly exists in a physical sense, such a petition would currently have no standing at all. Are you not perhaps confusing it with a petition to the European Parliament?

cordially,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

While the power to submit a petition to the European Commission undoubtedly exists in a physical sense, such a petition would currently have no standing at all.

Effectively no standing after Lisbon either. If the commission is against a particular petition, it does not proceed.

View

SkepticOne wrote: »

Effectively no standing after Lisbon either. If the commission is against a particular petition, it does not proceed.

No, the Commission does not get to decide whether a petition proceeds or not. That is up to the citizens who may or may not back it.

The Commission does get to decide what to do in response to the petition. The Commision must respond but it's response can be "We are going to do nothing about this".

Most people would probably agree with that. Most of us don't actually want a situation where, should a million extremists sign a petition in favour of, let's say, racism, that, the Commission's response must be to initiate racist legislation in response to their petition.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

Effectively no standing after Lisbon either. If the commission is against a particular petition, it does not proceed.

The Commission is not required to initiate legislation on foot of requests from the other institutions either, yet 95%+ of Commission legislation is the result of such requests, while, as View points out, requiring the Commission to produce legislation on foot of a Citizens' Initiative would actually be a terrible idea. Further, the role of the Commission is to filter requests for legislation, and only to proceed with them if they are necessary and European in scope, without prejudice to any of the member states or subsidiarity.

Lisbon puts a Citizens' Initiative on the same footing as a formal request from the other EU institutions - it shares the same features as such requests, and it undoubtedly is a new power for European citizens.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Lisbon puts a Citizens' Initiative on the same footing as a formal request from the other EU institutions - it shares the same features as such requests, and it undoubtedly is a new power for European citizens.

This is one of the problems with the EU as it stands. Democratic institutions must request legislation from the non-elected body acting as a gatekeeper.