Faceless Bureaucrats part I
Posted at 9:39 pm by Adam SinclairOne of the many criticisms levelled at the EU is that it's run by faceless bureaucrats who are unaccountable to the people. There is a partial truth to it, but of course it is exaggerated and sensationalised beyond recognition. So to counter this claim I will start with the facts.
There are four institutions responsible for setting the direction of the EU, drafting legislation, passing legislation and implementing legislation. They are the European Council, The European Commission, The Council of Minister and The European Parliament. In a addition The European Court of Justice interprets and rules on the legislation.
The logical place to start is the European Council, it consists of the heads of government of all 27 member states in our case An Taoiseach Brian Cowen. It is the European Council which laid down the foundations of the treaties which establish all other institutions and the EU itself and as such it is the most powerful institution of the EU. It more resembles an international summit than an institution as it has no formal role in the daily business of the EU; as the heads of government for all 27 members states it essentially gives the EU it's direction and it's impetus through their cabinet ministers who sit at the Council of Ministers and through electing the head of the European Commission.
The Treaty of Lisbon only contains one major reform of the European Council, it will no longer have a rotating presidency but instead the position will be elected by the European Council for a 2.5 year term. The six month rotating presidency is flawed in many ways. With 27 states it will take 13.5 years for one full rotation. With terms of only six months the presidency is constantly in a rush to accomplish everything they set out, which can often lead to mistakes. But the main flaw in the rotating presidency is the major conflict of interest caused holding both EU and national office as the same time. The president should not be obligated to do what is best for his country as part of his national commitments and to do what is best for the EU as part of his European commitments, for while they will be compatible most of the time they can't be compatible all of time and whenever there is a conflict no doubt the national obligations will take precedence to the loss of every other country in the EU. Making the President of the European Council a permanent elected position solves all of these problems.
The new position has no formal or executive powers it is simply a glorified chairmanship. Duties of the position involve tabling discussions, presiding over meetings and acting as the European Councils external representative. It has no vote and no mandate to push it's own agenda, it is completely beholden to the European Council. Of course in their usual fashion many NO compaigners and Euro sceptics have picked up on this reform and completely misrepresented it as some sort of President of the EU similar in power and stature to the US president and then point to this as evidence that Lisbon creates a federal superstate which is of course complete nonsense.
In part II, I will deal with the European Commission and the new position of High Representative for Foreign Affairs.
On Workers’ Rights
Posted at 5:14 am by Conor SloweyIn an earlier post I asserted that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will increase the protection of workers' rights in EU law, and Owen has written a great article on the misinterpretation of past cases. If the Lisbon Treaty is rejected, then the position of workers' rights in EU law stays the same.
So it's hard to see exactly how workers' rights can be used as a reason to reject the treaty: the No campaigners on the left have yet to produce a convincing alternative, and it's hard to see how the political shape of the EU and the member states could support their demands.
Barroso at Shannon is appropriately inappropriate, or something
Posted at 2:08 am by Conor SloweyAfter reading Hugh's article on PANA's campaign style, I came across this Irish Times article on PANA's reaction to Barroso appearing in Shannon later today, and it gives us another example of the kind of strange arguments PANA is coming up with:
"Pana's international secretary Dr Edward Horgan said: “In view of the fact that Ireland was specifically criticised for its unwillingness to co-operate with EU Parliament’s investigation in to the rendition for torture activities of the CIA, it is very appropriate that the EU Commission President should be reminded that this is the airport that was heavily involved in that rendition programme"."
So the government's to blame for not co-operating with the European Parliament's investigation, and is responsible for the policies it pursues. With you so far.
""The fact that he is holding this meeting in Shannon Airport in particular is also disturbing since the airport has been, and continues to be, the scene of a gross abuse of Irish neutrality in spite of the so called legally binding guarantees on Irish neutrality promised by EU leaders,” Dr Horgan said."
Wait a minute - the guarantees were only drawn up months ago; how were they supposed to have an effect here? Also, my reading of this seems to suggest a hint of the idea that PANA would like to see something in the Treaty to tie down Ireland's foreign policy to a certain stance. Because it doesn't make sense to suggest that a Treaty isn't preventing a state from taking certain actions in foreign policy unless you want that treaty to have a great impact on foreign policy...
"The former Irish Army Commandant added: “And, no doubt, while Mr Barroso is holding his meeting in Shannon, some of the US troops who pass through Shannon every day on their way to Iraq and Afghanistan will be in the airport at the same time. What more evidence does he need that Irish neutrality continues to be compromised while there is nothing in the Lisbon Treaty to suggest that this will change even after another referendum?”"
Ok, and what exactly is Barroso supposed to do here? Should the Commission have the legal power to intervene and reverse foreign policy decisions made by the Irish government? Should Ireland's ability to set its foreign policy be changed in a future EU treaty; is the fact that this one doesn't the problem?
Past - and current - foreign policy decisions made by the Irish government aren't affected or caused by the Lisbon Treaty, and its ability to make those decisions in the future won't be affected by it either.
Letter on Lisbon and public services
Posted at 1:24 pm by Owen RooneyThere was an excellent letter in yesterday's Irish Times by a man named Colm McClements, who has lived and worked in many EU countries, on claims that the Lisbon Treaty would adversely affect our public services.
As people see when they go abroad, other EU states who have ratified the Lisbon Treaty – France, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Italy and Germany to name but a few – enjoy infinitely better public service and local government than we do. Does anyone believe that politicians of these countries, rooted in many cases in municipal government themselves, would have agreed to a treaty that threatens the public services they cherish so much?
I'd advise everyone to read it, which they can do here.
A Brief Study of Campaign Tricks or Bullshit Bingo
Posted at 2:06 am by Hugh HamillI came across this article on RTÉ news today. It's about the 'No to Lisbon' campaign launch of PANA (The Peace And Neutrality Alliance).
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0907/eulisbon.html
It's not very interesting in and of itself, but serves as a good example of some tricks we have seen in the campaign so far.
I'll go through them here, you can take note of them and watch for them in future press releases, and play a sort of bullshit bingo to spice things up!
Note that I've nothing against either Peace or Neutrality, but I've plenty against cheap tricks and attempts to fool people.
So here we go...
Laval, Lisbon and workers’ rights
Posted at 4:51 pm by Owen RooneyWorkers' rights are undoubtedly one of the central points of the campaign, and depending on who you ask, Lisbon will either enhance workers' rights, or usher in a capitalist dystopia where multinational corporations squeeze the life out of workers for pennies a day. Joe Higgins is clearly of the latter opinion, but it's his repeated linking of worker's rights in the Lisbon Treaty to the so-called "Laval" judgement of the European Court of Justice that I'm going to turn my attention to today.
My 10 reasons for voting yes to Lisbon
Posted at 3:44 pm by Adam SinclairUnderstandably there is much confusion surrounding the Lisbon treaty. This I believe is mainly due to debaters from both sides failure to publicly differentiate between their opinion and facts. For instance arguments along the lines of 'Lisbon will be good for the Irish economy' are opinion, not established facts and so can be disputed, after all everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However everyone is not entitled to their own facts so when selecting my 10 reasons to vote yes I decided to stick to the facts and to only give my opinion as to why they are good.
1. Increase of power to the European Parliament
The European Parliament is the only directly elected body of the EU and as such is the most democratic; the Treaty of Lisbon will increase the power of the European Parliament. The parliament currently votes on only 80% legislation, the Treaty of Lisbon increases this to 95%; this is known as the ordinary legislative procedure.[Many Articles, TFEU] The parliament currently only approves 20% of the budget; this will be increased to 100%.[Article 314, TFEU]
2. Permanent President of the European Council [Article 15, TEU]
The current system for President of the European Council rotates between states every six months. The head of government of each state fills the roll; this can cause the President to push his/her countries national agenda often against the will of other states. The Lisbon treaty replaces this system with a more permanent position elected by the European council for a two and a half year term. The new President will be obligated to do what is best for everyone not just one individual state and will act on direction from the European Council. The president has no formal powers beyond co-ordinating the affairs of the European Council.
3. The Council will meet in the open [Article 16, TEU]
At present the Council of Ministers meets behind closed doors. This arouses suspicion in the public as they do not get to see how deals are reached. Under the Lisbon treaty the Councils must meet in the open when deliberating on draft legislative acts providing valuable transparency. Hopefully this will have the added benefit of engaging the public conscious, giving greater insight to EU affairs and raising the level of knowledge.
4. New powers of oversight for national parliaments [Article 12, TEU]
National parliaments are to be provided with all draft legislation and other documents produced by the Commission at the same time as they are provided to the Council of ministers and the European Parliament. There will be a period of 8 weeks before any decision can be taken by the Council and EP to allow national parliaments to provide input. They must also be provided with the Councils agendas and decisions. This enables the parliamentary opposition a chance confront the government on its activities at the EU.
5. More clearly defines the competences of the Union & Enshrines the principal of subsidiarity [Article 5, TEU]
The treaty for the first time clearly defines and sets limits on the competences held by the European Union. Under the principle of conferral only those competencies explicitly conferred by the member states in the treaties can be dealt with at EU level. All other areas are off limits and remain under the sole jurisdiction of the national governments e.g. family law (abortion, divorce), direct tax (corporate tax, income tax).
The treaty introduces the principle of subsidiarity. This means that legislation which falls under the competence of both the EU and national governments will only be enacted at EU level if individual states can’t do so as efficiently or effectively on their own. The national parliaments will be able to interject if it is felt that any legislative proposal does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. If 1/3 of national parliaments do so the proposal has to be reviewed (1/4 for proposals in the area of Justice & Policing).
6. Introduces simplified revision procedure [Article 47, TEU]
The treaty introduces a new simpler method of amending the treaties in areas of internal EU policy (i.e. concerning the functioning of the EU’s institutions). This method allows for individual amendments to be passed separately without the need to hold an Intergovernmental Conference and draft an entire new international treaty, which is extremely time consuming and expensive. The new procedure still requires the amendments to be ratified by each nation in accordance with their constitutional requirements, which still will require a referendum in this country if it’s not compatible with our constitution. Hopefully this will cut down the complexity of future EU referenda as rather than having to vote on a huge number of changes at once, it will enable us to vote on individual treaty amendments. The simplified revision procedure cannot be used to increase the competences of the EU that will still require a entire new treaty.
7. Increases the Unions foreign policy ability
The Treaty creates a new role known as the ‘High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs’ [Article 18, TEU]. It merges many existing positions including the 'High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy' and the 'European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy' into one position. This is to provide a more coherent and consistent voice for Europe in the international sphere. Currently there are so many people representing the foreign policy of the EU, foreign governments are confused about who to contact in regards to specific areas and the unions’ voice is disjointed and less coherent. The Lisbon treaty also creates an EU diplomatic corps know as the External Action Service to better facilitate the EU’s foreign policy.[Article 27, TEU]
8. Creates new Citizens Initiative [Article 11, TEU]
The Treaty creates a new avenue for citizens from across the EU to have their voice heard. An initiative requires one million signatures (0.2% of the EU’s population) and then the Commission will, if it is within its competence and in keeping with the treaties, draft legislation for consideration by the Council and the Parliament. The Commission can only draft legislation if the initiative is within the competence of the EU and is fully compatible with the treaties, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The legislation will then have to be passed by the ordinary legislative procedure in both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament for it to become a directive.
9. Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes legally binding [Article 6, TEU]
For the first time all EU legislation will have to be legally compatible with a charter protecting the fundamental rights of EU citizens. The CFR will apply to all EU directives and national legislation which implements EU directives. It will not apply to legislation instigated by national legislatures i.e. all non-EU Irish Law. The CFR does not expand or create new areas of competencies for the EU. It only binds EU from enacting legislation which is contrary to the fundamental rights laid down.
10. Energy and the Environment become greater EU competencies [Article 4 & 194, TFEU]
Ireland has a minuscule amount of power and influence in these areas. The EU can provide better legislation and act more effectively for our benefit than we can on our own. Russia, Europe’s main gas supplier consistently takes advantage of the divided energy market, playing one country against another, cutting off supplies and effectively bullying individual states. Russia will have a much more difficult time if it faces a united EU energy policy, the EU will be the one dictating the terms. The treaty also affirms that combating climate change is a major objective of the Union, which was actually negotiated for by the Irish delegation.
All references refer to the consolidated treaties as amended by Lisbon which can be found here.
*TEU = Treaty on European Union
*TFEU = Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
The Undemocratic Democrats.
Posted at 7:20 am by Jason O'Mahony
Seriously: Think the Dail scrutinises legislation better than the European Parliament?
It's fashionable in eurosceptic circles to declare that the EU is undemocratic and unaccountable. The thing is, they tend to be a bit hazy about what the EU needs to do to be democratic. It seems to involve Germans having less rights than Irish people, which doesn't seem very democratic to me.
The other example they tend to give is of the "unelected" commission. It is unelected. like the Secretary General of the Department of Finance, or the head of the ESB, or the HSE, or Iarnrod Eireann. What's the point? Ah, but they cry, the Sec Gen and others are answerable to a minister! Which is true. As is the commission. 27 ministers, actually. What's the point?
The parliament is dismissed by eurosceptics as an irrelevence, yet the Lisbon treaty gives the parliament more powers than it has ever had. They can't have their cake AND eat it, unless they don't really believe what they are saying in the first place. And bear in mind the fact that the commssion, the bete noire of the "democrats", takes the parliament seriously.
I'd also say that the parliament does a better job of holding the executive to account than the Dail does.
The EU does not work like a nation state, with an elected government, because it isn't. We've never said that we wanted it to be.
Ireland’s Voting Weight under Lisbon
Posted at 12:06 pm by Hugh HamillIt seems Sinn Féin are going to be the latest party to propagate the voting weight myth, with a new poster that claims the following voting weights under Lisbon:
Germany 17%, Britain 12%, Ireland 0.8%.
This quite accurately describes the 'population' requirement of Double Majority QMV, however it is a lie of omission as it does not tell the full story.
Click below the fold to find out the real deal...
Updated to remove mistaken info [16-09-2009]
5 Reasons to vote Yes including a polar bear. And The Da Vinci Code.
Posted at 11:27 am by Jason O'Mahony1. We really have enough problems as it is without getting more by voting No. I mean, NAMA, An Bord Snip, tax rises, the economy, Jordan single again, and now we want to go and piss on our generous German aunty's apple strudel?
2. The mysterious faceless Coir are against it. Yeah, the "We live in the same house as Youth Defence but we have never met the fella" crowd. Coir: The people who thought Tom Hanks was the baddy in The Da Vinci Code.
3. For the polar bears. We can either have global climate change treaties negotiated by major players like the EU, the Chinese and the US, or we can watch Ringsend go under water. And run out of polar bears. Not in Ringsend, obviously. I mean generally. You can't move for polar bears in Ringsend, all over the place, standing on clear mints and pontificating.
4. It improves the EU in loads of technical ways which you really don't want me to list here. I mean, we'll get them for you if you want, but only if you promise to read them. There'll be a test.
5. The sky won't fall on our heads if we vote No. But the rest of Europe will probably respect our decision, believe us, and move on to integrate without us and the Brits. Great, we're effectively back in the UK. Nice one, Mary Lou. See, this is where the No campaign falls apart. They hint that they can stop the rest of Europe moving on. They can't. And anyway, would you really rely on the shinners to negotiate? The one time they were sent in to negotiate with anyone, they went in looking for a united Ireland and came out with a food safety board. Bag of magic beans, anyone?