Citizens' initative - ideas

SkepticOne

View wrote: »

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.

Basically you are agreeing with me that the citizens initiative confers no power upon the citizens. You are merely seeking to justify this fact.

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.

Just to add to my previous comment on this. The citizens initiative is put on the same footing as requests from the likes of the parliament as far as initiating legislation is concerned which is none. The parliament has no power to initiate legislation, all it can do is make a request. This is not power. If it were the exclusive power of the parliament to request legislation then this might be something (though still short of proper democracy in my opinion). What power the parliament does have lies in its ability to reject legislation, which the citizens initiative does not have.

Mario007

SkepticOne wrote: »

Just to add to my previous comment on this. The citizens initiative is put on the same footing as requests from the likes of the parliament as far as initiating legislation is concerned which is none. The parliament has no power to initiate legislation, all it can do is make a request. This is not power. If it were the exclusive power of the parliament to request legislation then this might be something (though still short of proper democracy in my opinion). What power the parliament does have lies in its ability to reject legislation, which the citizens initiative does not have.

well if you start off with a democratically elected commission or a parliament initiating legislation as you've suggested then we'd indeed move away from soveirgn states in a union to a federal state of europe. this change, though i would indeed probably not mind it, is horrendous for many people across the europe(just think back to lisbon). so you cannot expect these institution to act like the ones in a state with the powers like in a state unless you would then infer, albeit indirectly, that europe thus becomes a state.

SkepticOne

Mario007 wrote: »

well if you start off with a democratically elected commission or a parliament initiating legislation as you've suggested then we'd indeed move away from soveirgn states in a union to a federal state of europe. this change, though i would indeed probably not mind it, is horrendous for many people across the europe(just think back to lisbon). so you cannot expect these institution to act like the ones in a state with the powers like in a state unless you would then infer, albeit indirectly, that europe thus becomes a state.

Again this is trying to rationalise the situation rather than argue against the fact that the citizens initiative is meaningless in terms of the power it has over EU institutions.

oscarBravo

SkepticOne wrote: »

Again this is trying to rationalise the situation rather than argue against the fact that the citizens initiative is meaningless in terms of the power it has over EU institutions.

I'm curious about your use of the term "meaningless". Is it your position that the existence of the Citizen's Initiative will have precisely zero effect whatsoever? In other words, that having the Citizen's Initiative will be perfectly indistinguishable (in terms of effect) from not having it?

SkepticOne

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm curious about your use of the term "meaningless". Is it your position that the existence of the Citizen's Initiative will have precisely zero effect whatsoever? In other words, that having the Citizen's Initiative will be perfectly indistinguishable (in terms of effect) from not having it?

In terms of power over the commission, it does not seem to grant any. Meaningless in that sense.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

In terms of power over the commission, it does not seem to grant any. Meaningless in that sense.

It grants the power to put citizen proposals on the Commission agenda. Power doesn't consist solely of the ability to force someone to do something.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

It grants the power to put citizen proposals on the Commission agenda. Power doesn't consist solely of the ability to force someone to do something.

What you are saying is that the commission are compelled to consider the proposal but not act on it. If that is power it is very minimal power.

Klingon Hamlet

Family law needs a serious update; specifically:

Strengthening the role, responsibilities and rights of the unmarried father

Recgonising all unorthodox family units as equal to orthodox family units

Removing the "primary carer" bias

Granting automatic guardianship to both sexes

Recognizing and suporting homosexual marriages

Legalising abortion within specified and carefully regulated parameters

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

What you are saying is that the commission are compelled to consider the proposal but not act on it. If that is power it is very minimal power.

I would say that they are compelled to act on it, such consideration of possible legislation being a major legislative function of the Commission - however, they are not compelled to initiate legislation. Compelling them to initiate legislation would require that anything desired by a million citizens is automatically worth legislating on, which, given that a million citizens is 0.2% of the EU, isn't anything like the case.

I've pointed this out before, but the Commission cannot simply ignore every request made by Citizens' Initiative, because to do so will be extremely unpopular and highly visible, given that at least a million people will have a stake in any such initiative. Nor was there any reason whatsoever to include the Citizens' Initiative in Lisbon if it was going to be routinely ignored, since of all the votes on Lisbon, only Ireland held a referendum, and so the only electorate it could be aimed at as a "selling point" would be Ireland, since it's irrelevant to the political representatives who voted on Lisbon in the rest of the EU - and the Irish have no tradition of such initiatives, making it a useless selling point.

The rational conclusion, therefore, is that the CI is neither a gimmick nor a piece of window-dressing, but a perfectly standard petition mechanism entirely in line with the historical tradition of such mechanisms in many continental EU countries.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

SkepticOne wrote: »

Just to add to my previous comment on this. The citizens initiative is put on the same footing as requests from the likes of the parliament as far as initiating legislation is concerned which is none. The parliament has no power to initiate legislation, all it can do is make a request. This is not power. If it were the exclusive power of the parliament to request legislation then this might be something (though still short of proper democracy in my opinion). What power the parliament does have lies in its ability to reject legislation, which the citizens initiative does not have.

Parliament can sack the Commission anytime it wants. It would be a very foolish Commission that decided to ignore the Parliament's requests. Moreover, why should they?

Incidentally, you do realise that (just about) all the legislation that gets passed through the Oireachtas is initated (i.e. drafted) by unelected Civil Servants at the request of members of the Oireachtas (Ministers to be even more specific)? Presumably, therefore Ireland shouldn't be regarded as a "proper democracy", right?

View

SkepticOne wrote: »

Basically you are agreeing with me that the citizens initiative confers no power upon the citizens. You are merely seeking to justify this fact.

No, I am not seeking to justify the fact. I have explained why it is not a good idea to be able to force legislation irrespective of its merits.

Moreover, the primary point is that post-Nice there is no formal mechanism for citizens to petition the Commission, post-Lisbon there is - and the Commission must formally respond to such petitions. Hence, this does constitute a change that will no doubt be used by citizens over the years ahead.

Incidentally, if you really feel strongly enough that Parliament should also (or exclusively) have the right to initate legislation, there is nothing to stop you starting a petition on the topic. I'd probably even sign such a petition as I am in favour of strengthening Parliament's role as much as possible.

Likewise, I am sure there is a petition there about a more democratic Commission just waiting to be started...

SkepticOne

View wrote: »

Incidentally, if you really feel strongly enough that Parliament should also (or exclusively) have the right to initate legislation, there is nothing to stop you starting a petition on the topic. I'd probably even sign such a petition as I am in favour of strengthening Parliament's role as much as possible.

Likewise, I am sure there is a petition there about a more democratic Commission just waiting to be started...

I'm pretty sure both of those would be rejected on the grounds that the citizens initiative does not deal with those issues.

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would say that they are compelled to act on it, such consideration of possible legislation being a major legislative function of the Commission - however, they are not compelled to initiate legislation. Compelling them to initiate legislation would require that anything desired by a million citizens is automatically worth legislating on, which, given that a million citizens is 0.2% of the EU, isn't anything like the case.

Again, this is rationalising the lack of power of the citizens initiative.

I've pointed this out before, but the Commission cannot simply ignore every request made by Citizens' Initiative, because to do so will be extremely unpopular and highly visible, given that at least a million people will have a stake in any such initiative.

But the commission is not a democratically elected body so popularity does not come into it to any great extent.

Nor was there any reason whatsoever to include the Citizens' Initiative in Lisbon if it was going to be routinely ignored, since of all the votes on Lisbon, only Ireland held a referendum, and so the only electorate it could be aimed at as a "selling point" would be Ireland, since it's irrelevant to the political representatives who voted on Lisbon in the rest of the EU - and the Irish have no tradition of such initiatives, making it a useless selling point.

It was a carry over from the constitution which did require "selling":

constitution wrote:

Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Constitution. European laws shall determine the provisions for the procedures and conditions required for such a citizens' initiative, including the minimum number of Member States from which such citizens must come.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

I'm pretty sure both of those would be rejected on the grounds that the citizens initiative does not deal with those issues.

True - those would be matters for treaty negotiation by the member states, not legislation by the EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

Again, this is rationalising the lack of power of the citizens initiative.

It's explaining the reason for not allowing the initiatives to compel legislation - since you use that as the only measure of the initiative's power, you find that it has none, but that's a tautological finding.

SkepticOne wrote: »

But the commission is not a democratically elected body so popularity does not come into it to any great extent.

The Commission, being an unelected body, is probably more consciously concerned with the popularity of specific acts than an equivalent elected body would be, because it is aware that it starts from a position of lacking a popular mandate.

SkepticOne wrote: »

It was a carry over from the constitution which did require "selling":

And could easily have been dropped for Lisbon, which didn't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would say that they are compelled to act on it, such consideration of possible legislation being a major legislative function of the Commission

You are I think inadvertently misusing the word act here. Most people would not view the consideration of something an act. The act (if it happens) comes after the consideration. Consideration does not imply action.

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's explaining the reason for not allowing the initiatives to compel legislation - since you use that as the only measure of the initiative's power, you find that it has none, but that's a tautological finding.

We disagree on the meaning of the word power, however I think we can both agree that you are rationalising the lack of ability to compel that the citizens initiative confers on the citizen.

The Commission, being an unelected body, is probably more consciously concerned with the popularity of specific acts than an equivalent elected body would be, because it is aware that it starts from a position of lacking a popular mandate.

But then on the other hand they are not seeking election.

And could easily have been dropped for Lisbon, which didn't.

But why bother?

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

We disagree on the meaning of the word power, however I think we can both agree that you are rationalising the lack of ability to compel that the citizens initiative confers on the citizen.

No, as pointed out already, I consider that a reasonable thing.

SkepticOne wrote: »

But then on the other hand they are not seeking election.

If one believes that an unelected body has no concerns over its own legitimacy, then I can see that point as seeming reasonable. However, unelected bodies in democracies do have such concerns, and respond to them by either being very cautious in the exercise of their powers (the Seanad, the various monarchs and upper houses) or by hiding from the public eye (quangos). The latter isn't an option for the Commission.

SkepticOne wrote: »

But why bother?

Because it's a ready-made PR disaster if the Commission is simply going to ignore it. If they did intend ignoring it, it would have been easier all round to take it out.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

You are I think inadvertently misusing the word act here. Most people would not view the consideration of something an act. The act (if it happens) comes after the consideration. Consideration does not imply action.

'Consideration' is an action, as is issuing a formal response - you're trying to make 'act' synonymous with 'initiate legislation' here, which is begging the question.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

SkepticOne wrote: »

I'm pretty sure both of those would be rejected on the grounds that the citizens initiative does not deal with those issues.

You may well be right as the wording dealing with it does seem to imply within the existing framework.

However, that doesn't mean that the Commission need just say "Sorry, get lost". It could just as easily in response to a petition refer it upwards to the European Council and/or "seperately" make a formal request for a Convention of the member states to look the area. That would put the issue on the negotiation table...

Incidentally, if memory serves me correctly the Commission's proposal to the Convention on the EU constitution (way back in 2001 or so) did include the proposal that in future the Commission would be elected by the European Parliament. Don't, therefore, assume that the Commission is hostile to the idea of it being elected by the EP.

PS I think I have breeched my own guidelines in my original post on the initative.

Reilly616

SkepticOne wrote: »

Again this is trying to rationalise the situation ...

God forbid we try to rationalise anything!

View

The Commission has produced a green paper on how the citizens' initative could work in practice. Comments on the green paper are invited from interested parties (including the general public). Link to the relevant web page with the paper on it is: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/citizens_initiative/index_en.htm

At first glance the proposals seem okay altough I wouldn't necessarily agree with all of them (The voting age of the signatory one seems a little off as Austria allows people to vote from 16 on, whereas other member states allow people to vote from 18 on).

Also, you'll all be glad to know the paper does include a section on the response time of the Commission...

jonoftheburns

I think your analysis of how the CI constitutionally slots into the post-Lisbon framework is interesting, but I would say it's kind of missing the point. The CI provides a organised and recognised way for ordinary citizens to leapfrog their national governments and speak directly to the Commission on policy issues. I agree with the previous poster that it doesn't matter so much about whether or not these petitions are legally binding or even enforceable. What's more important is the moral weight or publicity that these things can create. It's just important that citizens are able to engage with the Commission.

Again, look how the Right2Bet petition links things like the the Ireland v France game, which matter to ordinary people, to European issues and and the CI: http://bit.ly/1iAoxj - without a mechanism like the Citizens Initiative, how could a campaign like Right2Bet channel peoples' concerns? By waiting 5 years for an EP election? By lobbying its national government over Commission appointments?

SkepticOne

jonoftheburns wrote: »

By waiting 5 years for an EP election? By lobbying its national government over Commission appointments?

Or by lobbying the commission directly.

View

SkepticOne wrote: »

Or by lobbying the commission directly.

Since you seem to be of the opinion that the Citizens' Intitative was introduced solely so that the Commission could ignore the resulting petitions, it is hard to see why you believe that lobbying the Commission directly would have any effect...