Something for the democratic deficit people

nesf

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0c9a964e-3bc8-11dd-9cb2-0000779fd2ac.html

I wouldn't agree with his analysis personally, but it's better argued and more consistent than the majority of democratic deficit pieces I've seen. Interesting points on pan-European vs National politics too.

biko

Good read imo

Scofflaw

It's an interesting read. My problem with it is statements like this:

But the sop to national parliaments in the treaty is feeble. They would not be able to amend European legislation, nor would they gain new powers to block it. It is the Brussels institutions that truly gain power.

No attempt is made to back up that statement - it's taken as read. Kind of "of course they're gaining power, why else would we have a treaty? D'oh!"

What does it mean that the "Brussels institutions...truly gain power"? Is that another way of saying that the member states have agreed to handle more things at an EU level? Which institutions? The Parliament and the Council and the Commission?

Anyway, it annoys me - obviously!

annoyed,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

No attempt is made to back up that statement - it's taken as read. Kind of "of course they're gaining power, why else would we have a treaty? D'oh!"

What does it mean that the "Brussels institutions...truly gain power"? Is that another way of saying that the member states have agreed to handle more things at an EU level? Which institutions? The Parliament and the Council and the Commission?

Anyway, it annoys me - obviously!

annoyed,
Scofflaw

It's a general Euro-sceptic viewpoint isn't it? The FT is trying to be balanced between the two I think. They ran an article a few weeks back about how Britain should join the Euro for instance.

There is a genuine scepticism, especially in Britain, about the bureaucracy in Brussels and the benefits it brings. Any movement of competency from the national Government to the EU can be viewed as diluting national power and increasing power in Brussels. The thing is, decisions in Brussels are for the most part dealt with by either democratically elected individuals (i.e. MEP's or Ministers) or individuals appointed by democratically elected individuals (i.e. Commissioners), i.e. arguably still democratic institutions. Arguably the ECB isn't very accountable to individual voters, but economically speaking this could be a good thing for price stability in the Eurozone, which is the purpose of the body anyway. Government intervention in monetary policy is viewed, in many economic traditions, as a bad thing by and large.

I don't know, it really comes down to whether your initial premise is for or against the EU being granted competencies. There's a minority on both sides who believe in the two extremes (i.e. it shouldn't happen or it should apply to everything). Most people, and analysts I think, fall somewhere in the middle. Having the EU handle some stuff is beneficial, other stuff not so much (for me, for example, fiscal policy is something I never want to see in the hands of the EU).

nesf

Another democratic deficit article: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7238e13e-3d46-11dd-bbb5-0000779fd2ac.html

I'm adding these because I figure that people might get something out of reading articles on this stuff from papers without an "electoral agenda".

redspider

I agree with some of the things written in that first article.

What is frightening about this latest EU Treaty is that Ireland was the only country that had a referendum, not by choice, but because it was required by our laws. Other countries that could have used a referendum refused to do so. And furthermore, Lisbon was a re-run of the failed EC Constitution. I think that both Yes and No voters should be able to see this as fact.

What is additionally galling is that the Lisbon treaty is supposed to enhance citizens participation in the EU where 1m citizens can have a voice. Well, there are 860 thousand that have expressed that voice to reject the treaty in Ireland alone, and I’m sure we could muster up 140 thousand more from the other 26 countries. Will the Lisbon Treaty rejection be allowed on that basis alone?

Another problematic area is that these treaties identify veto's and their use. Well, as it turnsout Ireland has a veto on the Lisbon Treaty and has just expressed it! Are the other 26 countries now going to override that veto, to ignore it? And if they do, what value and what power is there in the other remaining veto’s laid down? In Tax? In Military? etc, etc. Is this the proof of the pudding that so-called veto powers in and of themselves are not really veto's at all if they cannot do as they are supposed to?

Ireland is supposed, by EU rules, to have a VETO on whether the Lisbon Treaty is passed or not. Fact. End of. QED.

Is it any wonder that people are sceptical of the EU when as soon as we as a sovereign nation exercise a veto that the rest carry of the EU carries on as if nothing happened! I think that should make many Yes voters wake up to what the EU in this instance would seem to be saying and implying.

The EU reaction to Ireland’s Lisbon Treaty rejection will be an interesting test of the EU and its processes, and also of the resolve of the Irish people. Lets see who has backbone and who hasnt.

Redspider

hmmm

redspider wrote: »

Ireland is supposed, by EU rules, to have a VETO on whether the Lisbon Treaty is passed or not. Fact. End of. QED.

And we have, without our agreement Lisbon cannot be passed, thems the facts. The EU are continuing to ratify the treaty in the hope we change our minds, but they cannot force us to. If needs be the other 26 countries can decide to implement Lisbon by a separate treaty of their own.

Why do you think Ireland should be able to block 26 other countries from deciding to do a deal amongst themselves?

ixtlan

redspider wrote: »

Ireland is supposed, by EU rules, to have a VETO on whether the Lisbon Treaty is passed or not. Fact. End of. QED.

A veto is not an opportunity to say no and leave the table. If we or someone else (say France, which is likely) vetoes the WTO talks do you expect the EU will go back and say "Sorry, can't do it. We're not doing a deal this year. Come back in maybe 5 years and we might feel more inclined.....................and the incredulous response is.... "but what's your position, can't we change something?..... and the EU replies... "sorry the French say no, and no means no, and they won't be ready to say yes until.... well can't say when. Just put the WTO talks into Mothballs..."

A veto means we need to talk more, not less. I'll say again for the umpteen time, countries continued ratification following the referendum failure in France of the constitution. Multiple countries ratified, including Luxembourg by referendum. Even Bertie wanted the ratification to continue and while we suspended our plans for a referendum we indicated that we were ready to proceed to ratify the constitution as soon as the "problem was resolved".

Ix

Scofflaw

ixtlan wrote: »

A veto is not an opportunity to say no and leave the table. If we or someone else (say France, which is likely) vetoes the WTO talks do you expect the EU will go back and say "Sorry, can't do it. We're not doing a deal this year. Come back in maybe 5 years and we might feel more inclined.....................and the incredulous response is.... "but what's your position, can't we change something?..... and the EU replies... "sorry the French say no, and no means no, and they won't be ready to say yes until.... well can't say when. Just put the WTO talks into Mothballs..."

A veto means we need to talk more, not less. I'll say again for the umpteen time, countries continued ratification following the referendum failure in France of the constitution. Multiple countries ratified, including Luxembourg by referendum. Even Bertie wanted the ratification to continue and while we suspended our plans for a referendum we indicated that we were ready to proceed to ratify the constitution as soon as the "problem was resolved".

Indeed. If you have to agree something with 26 other people, the usual immediate response to a No from one of those people to something the other 26 want is not "oh well then, that's that". It is usually to say "let's talk about it, then".

Redspider appears to be suggesting that the right response to "let's talk" is simply repeating a flat No, refusing to discuss it, and telling people to stop asking you - otherwise they're not respecting your No. I appreciate I run the risk of sophistry here, but respect is a two-way street: what are you doing to respect the concerns of the other 26?

cordially,
Scofflaw

redspider

nesf wrote: »

Another democratic deficit article: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7238e13e-3d46-11dd-bbb5-0000779fd2ac.html
I'm adding these because I figure that people might get something out of reading articles on this stuff from papers without an "electoral agenda".

That's another good article, and I agree with most of it. More an "EU deficiency" article that purely "democratic deficit", but it does highlight the undemocratic system that the EU has established and the problems that poses for EU citizens. The Lisbon Treaty does little if anything to resolve these issues, which were there before Nice and many other treaties as well of course.

Redspider

redspider

hmmm wrote: »

(1) If needs be the other 26 countries can decide to implement Lisbon by a separate treaty of their own.

(2) Why do you think Ireland should be able to block 26 other countries from deciding to do a deal amongst themselves?

(1) Well, this is where it all gets a bit murky. Yes, 26 countries can decide to implement a treaty, akin to the Lisbon Treaty, on their own, BUT like a mutual cooperation treaty, it would have to reside within and under the EU rules, and be implementable under them and not break them, and this would be very impractical if not impossible, if the exact same scope was to be maintained. For example, EU Commissioners: the legal status would be that the number of commissioners would be selected for the EU as they are now, and according to Nice, and how that is worked out going forward, yet the 26-club, the sub-club of the EU, would somehow have a new treaty for having their own quasi-Commissioners to legislate and manage what exactly? There can only be one EU, not an EU with a sub-club EU within it, which encompases the same set of competences and powers that the EU have. There are many areas where a 26-country club just wouldnt work. It would only work if Ireland were to leave the EU. There is no mechanism set-out (pre Lisbon) which defines how this process would work (ejecting Ireland).

(2) I dont think its 'nice' or comforting for any country to hold others 'back'. However, that is what the power of veto is. We normally dont come across it that much in real life. A sporting analogy would be where 50,000 people might think that something is a try (or not), yet the officials decide. Ireland cant stop the other 26 from agreeing a treaty of co-operation among themselves, but it wont be the all encompassing Lisbon Trearty which 'fixes' many of the previous treaties. It would have to be something new and not clash with the competences.

Redspider

redspider

ixtlan wrote: »

A veto is not an opportunity to say no and leave the table.

A veto means we need to talk more, not less. I'll say again for the umpteen time, countries continued ratification following the referendum failure in France of the constitution. Multiple countries ratified, including Luxembourg by referendum. Even Bertie wanted the ratification to continue and while we suspended our plans for a referendum we indicated that we were ready to proceed to ratify the constitution as soon as the "problem was resolved".

I agree, a veto when used (or threatened) is an opportunity for discussion and to 'stay at the table'. The problem for us is that unlike say 'normal' discussions with representatives, the people deciding on whether to veto or not are the electorate, not our represenatives. With the vote just held, it is de facto a veto enacted on what was proposed in Lisbon. The only way to get around the veto is not to put it back to the people unchanged (I dont think our politicians are that bad although some soundings from hardliners in the E are of that mind) but to make 'some changes' to it, ala Nice-II in structure, whether that is different proposed changes to our Constitution (eg: additonal assurances text), attached protocols, etc, commitments from the EU (for example on the no of Commisioners), etc. That would be a change sufficient to put to the people again to see if they will veto Lisbon-II.

But all that said, it does not change the fact that Ireland has veto'd hte Lisbon Treaty in the format that it was in. The EU needs to accept that and work with us, and Plan B is the discussion.

Redspider

Otacon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Redspider appears to be suggesting that the right response to "let's talk" is simply repeating a flat No, refusing to discuss it, and telling people to stop asking you

The important part of that comment is the "let's talk".

I do not see a problem with going back to the negotiating table and ironing out some of the legitimate issues people had with the treaty and then asking us to vote again on Lisbon Treaty v1.1.

I have a major issue with us being asked to vote on the exact same treaty, with more of the issues being addressed, and told "Make the right decision this time!".

In my mind, this 'veto' says, "No, that's not right/good enough, we must do better"

nesf

redspider wrote: »

That's another good article, and I agree with most of it. More an "EU deficiency" article that purely "democratic deficit", but it does highlight the undemocratic system that the EU has established and the problems that poses for EU citizens. The Lisbon Treaty does little if anything to resolve these issues, which were there before Nice and many other treaties as well of course.

Redspider

One point that I thought was interesting was on the problems of pan-European elections. It's a step towards federalism that many people don't want to take and would oppose, so while it would be "more democratic" it isn't necessarily the best idea. It's a double edged sword, a move towards stronger democratic institutions on a pan-European level also brings with it the problems of federalism. Is the idea of a President of the EU more troubling for a non-federalist if they are elected by the people rather than agreed on by the Governments? I honestly do think so. The biggest issue for me with a full step towards a democratic EU is that it's going very close to the EU as a nation which is not a step I'm sure I'd like to see. Also, as a citizen of a small country, a step towards direct democracy would hugely dilute our influence in the EU, which again is not something I'd like to see.

redspider

Scofflaw wrote: »

Indeed. If you have to agree something with 26 other people, the usual immediate response to a No from one of those people to something the other 26 want is not "oh well then, that's that". It is usually to say "let's talk about it, then".

Redspider appears to be suggesting that the right response to "let's talk" is simply repeating a flat No, refusing to discuss it, and telling people to stop asking you - otherwise they're not respecting your No.

The other 26 do have 'difficulties' of their own and need to reflect on their own position. For one thing, we are in a unique position as being the only one of the EU27club that have put this to the people. It would have passed straight through if it was Oireachtas only. We would have been first in the queue as good EU club members to ratify. That is one reason that our vote has to be looked at perhaps differently than the other 26 that will(?) ratify, and in recognition as well that Lisbon = EU Constitution, in more or less everything except name which failed under several referenda (not all) and where the process was stopped. So, Lisbon needs to be looked at as EU Constitution-II, not as something separate.

With that in mind, there is not a 26 versus 1 scenario. It is not as if they have all said Yes, and we are the only ones in spirit to say No. The background is more complex. But it has to be recognised that we DO have a veto, we have the right to exercise that veto, and in this case we have exercised it. So, in pure legal terms, yes, that is that for Lisbon in its current format. As I wrote above, it can of course be put to us again with slight amendments.

I think that people should talk, yes, even if its 26 facing 1, but in this case, the concerns that the 1 has are mirrored elsewhere within the other 26. This is in fact an opportunity for the EU to put in more fixes to the EU bodies and processes, and the EU should take this opportunity up, not only to 'appease' the one, but to make the other 26 more 'happy' as well.

More reform wont be a bad thing .....

Redspider

nesf

A scathing article by the Economist aimed at the EU: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11580732

And another: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11580212

The EU's various reactions at various levels pissed off the editors it seems..

redspider

I agree with most of what's written in that 2nd Economist article.

I think the EU is clearly going for option 3, now that the emotion of 'anger' has been expressed, it will be a case of Ireland and the EU carefully working together to add 'text', protocols, assurances, etc, but essentially orchestating it so that it will be seen as something different and special for Ireland. All involved in the process will be bouyed by the fact that Nice-I was rejected yet Nice-II passed with flying colours. And 53.4% to 46.6% is not an insurmountable gap and is far from a 70-30, so it is doable. I am sure Cowen will be saying this as they quaff the wines down in Brussels.

Whether Lisbon-II will be succesful or not will depend on how it is presented, what is said, the posturing, the orchestrating, the 'spin', etc. If Irish people feel the 'love' of the EU, that they are being made a special case of, that some of the concerns are being addressed, etc, many that voted No may be inclined to vote Yes. The timing for a Lisbon-II would be in early 2009 I would expect as the Czech situation would be clearer by then, and Lisbon-I could be seen as something form last year and not seen as a re-run. I understand the deadline for the treaty process as a whole is July 1st 2009, correct? Maybe that can be extended if need be.

Redspider