Lisbon II: should we really bend over?
Read more about: Ireland, Lisbon Treaty 
The Irish political parties seem to be set on advising the Irish people to go begging to the EU to be please “let in”. The number of politicians and public figures who have spoken out recently about the “need to be part of Europe” has multiplied at an astonishing rate. All and sundry seem to predict economic hell & damnation if we reject the Lisbon treaty a second time.
Earlier this week Tony Killeen the Junior Agriculture Minister noted:
“that a second rejection of the Lisbon Treaty would have serious consequences for Irish agriculture and other business sectors. He added that a ‘Yes’ vote would deliver increased access to European Markets.”
He goes on to say that:
“Ireland is a small open economy which exports over 80% of every product and service it produces. Through our membership of the EU and the creation of the single market Irish business can now sell all of its goods and services to 486 million customers throughout the EU on an equal footing to any other company in the EU. In the past 10 years Irish companies have doubled their exports into EU member states from EUR44 billion to EUR87billion. However, the European single market is not yet fully realised particularly in the area of services. A yes vote on the Lisbon Reform Treaty would result in the single market project becoming more efficient and Irish business securing further business opportunities”
One can deduct several points form these statements:
- A 2nd no-vote would limit our ability to sell into other EU countries.
- A 2nd no-vote will quite possibly negatively affect the grants we currently receive from the EU.
- Because we (possibly) might make more money from voting yes for Lisbon we should let the EU also control our political & legislative systems.
All this in the end seems to evolve around the importance of making or getting money. Now while I am all in favour of making money (being an entrepreneur at heart) I also have certainly principles and standards. And I expect others to have the same. In the words of John C. Mellencamp: “you’ve got to stand for something or you will fall for anything”. Now if I am a member of what is supposed to be a democratically ruled club and when we vote for a significant change in the way the club is run, does the threat from other members that I will be punished if I vote different than them not throw that democracy right out of the window?
Really this is all about selling out our principles & autonomy for money, plain and simple. Most of the Celtic Tiger economy was funded by EU money, most of our farming sector has been atificially kept alive by massive agricultural grants etc. And yes, the establishment of the EU in it’s current form has done wonders about establishing a pan-european free market. However while the EU makes perfect sense as an economic and trading entity I do not think it should be allowed to extend into legislative and political areas. There is simply no need.
The EU as a legislative body will not benefit anybody but the bureaucrats in charge of the various departments, ministeries and workgroups etc. There will be rule making for the sake of rule making and the executive bodies will be far removed and out of touch with the people and issues they are supposed to regulate. I am of the opinion that a Dublin based government has a hard enough time managing issues important to the area where I live so I can’t see how a governing body based in Brussels could do any better.
The fact is that the EU is fine the way it is now. There is no (real) need to expand the powers of the EU government and limit those of the individual national governments.
The EU is not fine the way it is Evert. In fact the Nice treaty made a shambles of it and means from this year will be run very unfairly to small nations like Ireland. Its one of the reasons I opposed Nice. Under Lisbon things are fairer to small states. We get treated the same as the larger member states unlike at the moment. do you want to keep us disadvantaged to the larger member states?
Stephen, I disagree.
The Lisbon treaty has a gloss of making matters more equal but underneath it all it doesn’t.
The actual wording of the treaty is ambivalent and full of duplicity.
As far as I can understand it (and I doubt that anyone understand the whole treaty) it also gives the EU the right to change existing legislation or enter new laws without the say-so of all member states.
But again besides all that; we already had a referendum..
Evert, disappointingly empty post. Assertions without facts to back them up. I’m up for a debate. But if this is the level of it… yawn.
If you read Kennedy’s Profiles in Courage, the point you raised are brought up. Standing up when it matters. Lots of the senators he spoke of realised the time to pick a fight on an issue that matters. You’ve done nothing to say this matters. Its jumping on a bandwagon of ‘nos’.
Lisbon is largely a treaty that cleans up the rest. Not very exciting either positively or negatively, but necessary none the less. It does do one thing that is important – put an end to the need for another treaty.
The EU has always meant to be a Union of people and states. Lisbon engrains that principle into the decision making structure of the EU. The people through their directly elected represenatives will have a check on the Government they have elected and vice a versa. Dynamic, no. Giving over “control [of] our political & legislative systems,” hardly.
“also gives the EU the right to change existing legislation or enter new laws without the say-so of all member states”
What? The memembers states ARE the EU – what do you call the Council of Ministers?
Evert, the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU very few extra powers and in no way changes the relationship between European and Ireland law. The former has been superior to Irish law since we joined and Lisbon wont change that one iota
Evert come on like “gives the EU the right to change existing legislation or enter new laws without the say-so of all member states.” Its called QMV and is in very limited areas. The EU wants to things by consensus. QMV has been around for awhile and is rarely used. Anything agreed by QMV at council of ministers must still be agreed by Parliament.
Stop trying to stir things up with misinformation.
Guys, thanks for proving my point.
We are all reading the same treaty but all reading different things in it.
That is *exactly* the duality, duplicity and lack of transparency that I am referring to.
As for the supposed lack of facts; I have in previous post, articles and comments used extensive factual references. This post is mostly about matters such as interpretation, principles and respect. All very hard to support by facts.
Whatsmore, beside the actual treaty I have no faith in those in charge of it’s implementation be it on national or EU wide level.
The have across the board proven themselves to be either incompetent, working for a hidden agenda or only concerned with preservation of their position.
No we are not reading different things from it Evert, you are taking your own view which is not in the treaty! There is a reality to how the EU works. While I agree there is a lack of transparency at EU level, the same can be said for how the Irish Government and its quangos work. Your different reading of it may come from not reading the treaties that it amends. The Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the functioning of European Union.
There is no hidden agenda. There is no preservation of position. If you have no faith, thats not a reason to vote no, thats a reason to vote for people you do have faith in.
Stephen, I will humor you and dig up details over the weekend…
oh another thing Evert “expand the powers of the EU government and limit those of the individual national governments”
This treaty does not in any way limit the power of any national government. In fact the treaty gives National Parliaments more power in the EU and gives them a defined role. In fact the proposed constitutional amendment gives the Dáil and Seanad a great say over what the the Government can and can’t agree to at European Council so if anything the Lisbon Treaty is taking power from the Executive and is giving it back to the Parliament. I wouldn’t call that limiting national governments.
Expanding the powers of the EU? Yea right, this treaty says that will agree to things at the EU level in a few more areas where under the Principle of Subsidarity it makes more sense to act together then seperately. This Principle is re-enforced by Lisbon.
It’d be good if both sides could quote, or at the very least cite, the areas of the treaty they’re referring to in their posts. Otherwise this site will add little to the debate – which is the last thing we want, everywhere else is doing just that.
Evert, I’ll try and put this as nicely as possible: we may have different interpretations of the Treaty, but they are not of equal validity by any means.
The Treaty does make things more simple, it does provide more democracy (EP powers), it does provide more transparency (Council meetings in public) it does provide more rights (Charter of Fundamental rights), it does reduce the power of bureaucracy (EP having a greater say in the comitology procedure).
Sorry, but these are not subjective viewpoints, these are objective facts. If you are getting a different interpretation then you are reading the Treaty wrong.
Andrew,
Please feel free to include quotes from the treaty in your future comments. Those would be facts. Until that point your comments & interpretations are as devoid of facts as you accuse my post to be…
Eh… you do know the EU already exists? Why is your post written in the future conditional? Why do you make no reference to the real world? Looking forward to a follow-up post where you engage with the real world.
Lorcan,
Thank you for your very well structured comment.
My post is written in the future conditional because, as you might have noticed, we are discussing a treaty that still hasn’t been ratified. Hence I am referring to actions and/or condition that might occur in the future pending on a large number of subjective conditions.
I might not refer to *your* real world but that’s probably because everyone else live sin this world.
And yes, please feel free to read and comment on any of my future posts. You are also welcome to read any of my past posts, either here or on my own blog. They might (maybe) enlighten matters a bit.
The unknown truth about EU: The Irish would be pleased to know that it was an Irishman who wrote about EU – how it would develop, its character and future prospects even bgefore the French founding fathers of EU – Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman – were born in 1888 and 1886. Whatever this Irishman wrote about EU has to come to pass. The Irish should examine what the native of Dublin wrote about the future of EU before they decide on the Lisbon Treaty – whether to adopt it or reject it.
The Irishman made a specific prediction about EU. According to him the next major political feature in history after the restoration of the Jews to Palestine would be a political alliance of European nations. The nation of Israel was created in May 1948. The EU was born in 1950 – exactly as he had predicted about 70 years earlier. I call this Irishman the “Seer of Dublin”
Yes we should bend over….
again and again…
An Irish Bedtime Story for all Nice Children and not so Maastricht Adults
http://ceolas.net/#eu7x
The Happy Family
Once upon a time there was a family treaty-ing themselves to a visit in Lisbon.
On the sunny day that it was they decided to go out together.
Everyone had to agree on what they would do.
“So”, said Daddy Brusselsprout “Let’s all go for a picnic!”
“No”, said Aunt Erin, “I don’t want to”.
Did they then think of something else, that they might indeed agree on?
Oh yes they did?
Oh no they didn’t!
Daddy Brusselsprout asked all the others anyway, isolating Erin, and then asked her if instead, she would like to go with them to
the park and eat out of a lunch basket….
Kids, we’ll finish this story tomorrow, and remember, in the EU yes means yes and no means yes as well!
My oh my. It is ludicrous to suggest that the Lisbon Treaty does not in any way limit the power of national governments. I think it’s worth quoting what the German Constitutional Court had to say about Article 352 of the Lisbon Treaty in paragraph 328 of their ruling:
“As regards the ban on transferring blanket empowerments or on transferring Kompetenz-Kompetenz, the provision (Artcle 352 TFEU) meets with (German) constitutional objections because the newly worded provision makes it possible to substantially amend Treaty foundations of the European Union without the mandatory participation of legislative bodies beyond the Member States’ executive powers (see on the delimitation of competences: Laeken Declaration on the Future of the European Union of 15 December 2001, Bulletin EU 12-2001, I.27 ). The duty to inform the national parliaments set out in Article 352.2 TFEU does not alter this; for the Commission need only draw the national Parliaments’ attention to a corresponding lawmaking proposal.”
Michael, Thank you for posting a factual reference,actually the only factual reference in all comments so far.
Evert.
No worries Evert. Very good piece above. Love the picture!
Evert, Michael,
Greater coordination doesn’t mean less independence, so long as the power lies not only with the Government. I feel that the EU has been a shield for national politicians who have not wanted to admit that they are behind tough decisions – “The EU is making us do this”. When in fact they are part of unanimous decision by all Member State governments.
My earlier comments were in reference to the growing role of National Parliaments through the Lisbon Treaty, which will engrain a bit more accountability in the way the Irish use the EU system.
Here is just a few of the new roles that National Parliaments will play in the EU decision making:
COMMON PROVISIONS
Article 3b [5] [new article, replacing ex Art. 5 EC]
3. … “The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of subsidiarity as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. National Parliaments ensure compliance with the principle of subsidiarity in accordance with the procedure set out in that Protocol.”
PROVISIONS ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES
Article 8 C [12] [new article]
National Parliaments contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union:
(a) through being informed by the institutions of the Union and having draft legislative acts of the Union forwarded to them in accordance with the Protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union;
(b) by seeing to it that the principle of subsidiarity is respected in accordance with the procedures provided for in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;
(c) by taking part, within the framework of the area of freedom, security and justice, in the evaluation mechanisms for the implementation of the Union policies in that area, in accordance with Article 61 C [70] of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and through being involved in the political monitoring of Europol and the evaluation of Eurojust’s activities in accordance with Articles 69 G [88] and 69 D [85] of that Treaty;
(d) by taking part in the revision procedures of the Treaties, in accordance with Article 48 of this Treaty;
(e) by being notified of applications for accession to the Union, in accordance with Article 49 of this Treaty;
(f) by taking part in the inter-parliamentary cooperation between national Parliaments and with the European Parliament, in accordance with the Protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union.
FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 48 [ex Art. 48 TEU, replaced]
3. If the European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, adopts by a simple majority a decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments, the President of the European Council shall convene a Convention composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament and of the Commission. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. The Convention shall examine the proposals for amendments and shall adopt by consensus a recommendation to a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States as provided for in paragraph 4.
…
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.
AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE
Article 61 B [69] [new article]
National Parliaments ensure that the proposals and legislative initiatives submitted under Chapters 4 and 5 comply with the principle of subsidiarity, in accordance with the arrangements laid down by the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
This continues throughout the Lisbon Treaty.
Michael,
On your point of the German Constitutional Court, my understanding (I’ll look for the detail) is the problem cited was the lack in the German system to have the clause agreed by the domestic parliament. In Ireland, the mechanism are in place for the Dail to review any Government decision on changes to the voting mechanism used. So before any thing changes unanimity of the Irish Government and Dail a required, not to mention the rest of the EU member states.
“The EU is not fine the way it is Evert. In fact the Nice treaty made a shambles of it and means from this year will be run very unfairly to small nations like Ireland. Its one of the reasons I opposed Nice. Under Lisbon things are fairer to small states. We get treated the same as the larger member states unlike at the moment. do you want to keep us disadvantaged to the larger member states?”(Stephen)
Nice a shambles? Funny how they weren’t telling us that in 2001/2. No sooner had Nice 2 passed, Romano Prodi was lambasting it. Small countries treatment is “fairer”? Get real. Our voting-strength on the Council of Ministers is going from 2.1% (7 out of 345 weighted votes) to 0.9%. To form a blocking minority, the no side on the Council of Ministers will need 4 countries with over 35% of the EU’s population between them. If 11 small countries got together they would still be in no position to breach that threshold, while 4 Big States would. This also has to be seen in a context where the veto is being abolished in 60 areas, including asylum and immigration, border-controls, judicial cooperation, policing, the powers of Europol and Eurojust, energy etc. Eaxh veto surrendered equates to reducing Ireland’s negotiating strength to 0.9% in that area. Now the Government is telling us we have an optout from Justice and Home Affairs, but Paragraph 7(iii) of the referendum-legislation) in fact states that the Oireacthas may surrender it by giving up the Protocol on the position of the UK and Ireland with respect to the European Area of Justice and Freedom. These are very sensitive areas in which to rely on the kindness of strangers for support to determine the law of the land in this small country. Too sensitive in my humble opinion.
“My earlier comments were in reference to the growing role of National Parliaments through the Lisbon Treaty, which will engrain a bit more accountability in the way the Irish use the EU system.”(Pat)
All these powers are consultative. If Brussels is serious about strengthening the role of national-parliaments in the EU decisionmaking process, then they ought to allow for binding veto-powers for a certain quota of national parliaments. As things stand in the Lisbon Treaty, 9 countries will have to agree in order to as much as ask the Commission to withdraw or amend proposed legislation. Indeed so weak is this role that it is questionable whether they can even be called “powers” at all with a straight face. I certainly couldn’t manage it.
“Really this is all about selling out our principles & autonomy for money, plain and simple. Most of the Celtic Tiger economy was funded by EU money, most of our farming sector has been atificially kept alive by massive agricultural grants etc. And yes, the establishment of the EU in it’s current form has done wonders about establishing a pan-european free market. However while the EU makes perfect sense as an economic and trading entity I do not think it should be allowed to extend into legislative and political areas. There is simply no need.”(Evert)
It’s actually worse than that, and I question the Gospel of the elites which is to inform us that the credit for the Celtic Tiger can be laid at the door of the EU. Where was the EU in the 1980’s when 600,000 left these shores? The Establishment want us to believe that the first 20 years of EU membership, when the country was blighted by mass-emigration and mass-unemployment was in no way the fault of the EU, but that the 12 year boom was. When the Government goes down that road, they undermine their credibility as those whose policies created the boom, while when the Opposition do so, they undermine public confidence in their capacity to change the situation. They can’t have it both ways.
“Our voting-strength on the Council of Ministers is going from 2.1% (7 out of 345 weighted votes) to 0.9%.”
@FutureTaoiseach actually it goes up to 3.7% (1 of 27) in the case of member state requirement on Double Majority voting (Article 9 C [16]).
The previous system combined the two requirements – member state and population.
The new system creates two separate checks to ensure both the people and the states of the union are protected.
If you want to combine the two in some sort of way (don’t know why you would want to only the highest one matters most), you could take the average of the two = 2.3%….
So even if you calculated it with out understanding the mechanisms, you’d still find that Ireland’s voting power increases under Lisbon Treaty.
On your comment re: National Parliaments
In your previous post you commented about vote weighting. If one in nine is needed to stop this legislation then doesn’t that raise our weight. Also it engrains responsibility for legislation with the National Parliament so ignorance can not be an excuse.