Libertas 'Say no' reasons, is this true?

nobodythere

Just wanted to know if these reasons were true or if they're scaremongering:
http://www.libertas.eu/en/policies/reasonslisbontrreaty
Five Reasons Why the Lisbon Treaty is Bad for Europe
1. It is self amending. The European Council can change the way the EU operates without the need for further treaties (or a referendum in Ireland) provided there is a majority vote.

2. A new role of President of Europe is created. The President would represent you on the world stage, yet would not be elected by you. The President’s exact powers are unknown - they have not yet been drawn up.

3. The national parliament that you elected becomes devalued. If a national parliament believes that a proposal is outside of the remit of the EU, the unelected European Commission can decide to maintain, amend or reject the proposal.

4. EU law will take primacy over a member state’s law if there is a difference between the two.

5. You will have a common EU citizenship. You will have a duty of obedience to the European Union’s laws and loyalty to its institutions. Members of the European Parliament no longer represent “peoples of the member states” but will represent “citizens of the Union”.
__________________

BlitzKrieg

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055561123

two of the answers there.

and more

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055561717

I think we might need a sticky soon.

Hope that helps.

Scofflaw

grasshopa wrote: »

Just wanted to know if these reasons were true or if they're scaremongering:
http://www.libertas.eu/en/policies/reasonslisbontrreaty
Five Reasons Why the Lisbon Treaty is Bad for Europe
1. It is self amending. The European Council can change the way the EU operates without the need for further treaties (or a referendum in Ireland) provided there is a majority vote.

That's untrue. The simplified procedure for revising the treaties includes exactly the same requirement for ratification by the member states as the current version - that any amendment to the treaties must be ratified by all member states in accordance with their constitutional requirements.

Reference is Article 48.6 - simplified revision procedure:

Lisbon 48.6.ii wrote:

The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.

Yes they can decide, no they can't implement unless we ratify it. Also, any national parliament can object to certain decisions, in which case the decision is null.

grasshopa wrote: »

2. A new role of President of Europe is created. The President would represent you on the world stage, yet would not be elected by you. The President’s exact powers are unknown - they have not yet been drawn up.

Also false. The President's proposed duties are detailed in the Treaty. Sadly, I have a 2 page document containing all the proposed duties that I did during the referendum. I'll put it in a separate post.

grasshopa wrote: »

3. The national parliament that you elected becomes devalued. If a national parliament believes that a proposal is outside of the remit of the EU, the unelected European Commission can decide to maintain, amend or reject the proposal.

The initial bit is certainly false, since the ability for national parliaments to object to EU legislation is created by the Lisbon Treaty. There is currently no such mechanism, so I don't know how one can honestly claim that this is a "devaluation" of the national parliaments!

They're correct that the Commission don't have to withdraw the proposal. They have to give a defence of their position if they do want to maintain the proposal, and the proposal also thereby becomes much easier for the Council or Parliament to reject (Protocol 2).

That last, of course, raises another point that Libertas are glossing over - the Commission cannot pass legislation by itself, except for market regulations (definitions of cheese, for example) - it has to pass the Council, and in 80% of cases the Parliament (90% under Lisbon).

grasshopa wrote: »

4. EU law will take primacy over a member state’s law if there is a difference between the two.

Has done since 1973. We even have a specific amendment to that effect in Bunreacht.

It makes sense, alas, because there's no point in passing what is supposed to be a common law for all the EU, and then having it countermanded in half the countries by conflicting national laws. Without such a proviso, there's no point in having EU legislation at all.

It doesn't affect as much legislation as one might think, though - the thing about "80% of our legislation comes form Brussels" has been debunked by recent research done on the Irish Statute Book. Apparently only 27% of Irish legislation even mentions Europe!

grasshopa wrote: »

5. You will have a common EU citizenship. You will have a duty of obedience to the European Union’s laws and loyalty to its institutions. Members of the European Parliament no longer represent “peoples of the member states” but will represent “citizens of the Union”.
__________________

You have EU citizenship already - have done since, I think, Maastricht. However, all you have is rights - the word 'obedience' doesn't appear anywhere in the treaty! Theoretically, you have duties, but there aren't any.

Lisbon Article 20.1 wrote:

1. Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship.

Don't be confused by the "is hereby established". That phrase is not changed by Lisbon - it's part of the treaties already.

Lisbon Article 20.2 wrote:

2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the Treaties. They shall have, inter alia:
(a) the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;
(b) the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, under the same conditions as nationals of that State;
(c) the right to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that State;
(d) the right to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the European Ombudsman, and to address the institutions and advisory bodies of the Union in any of the Treaty languages and to obtain a reply in the same language.

These rights shall be exercised in accordance with the conditions and limits defined by the Treaties and by the measures adopted thereunder.

Those are fleshed out by articles 21-25, but that's all that's in the Treaties. You are free to be as disloyal and disobedient to the EU as you like - EU laws are applicable to the citizen where they are enforced by national law, but there is no mechanism for the EU to even prosecute a private citizen as far as I'm aware.

hope that helps,
Scofflaw

Hitman Actual

1. It is self amending. The European Council can change the way the EU operates without the need for further treaties (or a referendum in Ireland) provided there is a majority vote.

This is a huge lie by Libertas, and I'm not sure why they haven't been taken up on it. Paragraph 4 clearly states that "The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements." So if the Irish AG decides that the amendments contravene the Crotty Judgement, we can only ratify by referendum. I'm not sure what Libertas are talking about re. "majority vote" at the end of their claim; there is nothing in the paragraphs below that gives any substance to their claim. So number 1 is a LIE.

Article 48 Lisbon consolidated wrote:

1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.

Ordinary revision procedure
2. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties. These proposals may, inter alia, serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties. These proposals shall be submitted to the European Council by the Council and the national Parliaments shall be notified.

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. The European Council may decide by a simple majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, not to convene a Convention should this not be justified by the extent of the proposed amendments. In the latter case, the European Council shall define the terms of reference for a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States.

4. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

5. If, two years after the signature of a treaty amending the Treaties, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.

On the off-chance that Libertas are misrepresenting the Simplified Revision Procedure referenced in paragraph 6 of Article 48 (below), this procedure cannot increase the competences of the EU, and it's generally accepted that Crotty does not apply in these cases, so we wouldn't be entitled to a referendum anyway. Also, the European Council must act by unanimity, so Libertas' claim of 'majority vote' doesn't apply here.

Article 48 (6) Lisbon consolidated wrote:

Simplified revision procedures
6. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union. The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.

---

2. A new role of President of Europe is created. The President would represent you on the world stage, yet would not be elected by you. The President’s exact powers are unknown - they have not yet been drawn up.

Lies based on a tiny element of truth. It's not a new role of 'President of Europe', it's the President of the European Council, and the role already exists. Currently the role changes every 6 months, being held by the head of state of the government holding the EU presidency (e.g. the Czech prime minister is the current president). Lisbon would change this to a 2.5 year role (with a possible extra 2.5 year term), elected by the European Council by QMV. As regards the 'exact powers being unknown', paragraph 6 below deals with the role of the president. So number 2 is not quite an out-and-out lie by Libertas, but it's still a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

Article 15 Lisbon consolidated wrote:

5. The European Council shall elect its President, by a qualified majority, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once. In the event of an impediment or serious misconduct, the European Council can end the President's term of office in accordance with the same procedure.

6. The President of the European Council:
(a) shall chair it and drive forward its work;

(b) shall ensure the preparation and continuity of the work of the European Council in cooperation with the President of the Commission, and on the basis of the work of the General Affairs Council;

(c) shall endeavour to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the European Council;

(d) shall present a report to the European Parliament after each of the meetings of the European Council.

The President of the European Council shall, at his level and in that capacity, ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

---

3. The national parliament that you elected becomes devalued. If a national parliament believes that a proposal is outside of the remit of the EU, the unelected European Commission can decide to maintain, amend or reject the proposal.

They're talking about the principle of subsidiarity here, but I have a problem in proving that it's a direct lie because I've been struggling to work out the exact Article they're butchering. Someone else should be able to give you a better answer. However, what I do know is that National Parliaments actually have much better control of legislation through Lisbon. Firstly, the period allowed to examine draft proposals has been increased from 6 weeks to 8 weeks. Secondly, rather than allowing the Commission to ignore the concerns of member states over draft legislation, the Treaty actually gives the power to MS's to collectively cause draft legislation to be dropped (55% of member states who disapprove and/or majority of votes in the EU parliament). [Ref. Protocols (1) and (2) of Lisbon Treaty]

It also has to be pointed out that these are improvements in Lisbon; if what Libertas are claiming is true, it's something that's already in the Treaties! So this is not a reason to vote No, it would just mean that things stay exactly as they are, and the improvements in subsidiarity would not be gained. So I take this as a lie as well: it's not a reason to vote No.

---

4. EU law will take primacy over a member state’s law if there is a difference between the two.

This is an easy one: This situation exists already, at least for Ireland. We already have the following in our Constitution: "No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection xx of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.’" The only change in Lisbon is that the amendment is renumbered, iirc. So it's definitely not a reason for us to vote No: it already exists.

Also, afaik, we're the only member state to have such a clause in our Constitution, but even if it wasn't there, our laws would be subject to this primacy issue anyway, just like in all other member states. This has been borne out in several key ECJ rulings over the years. I think Lisbon may just set this in stone, but it doesn't actually change anything. So is this a reason to vote No? Absolutely not, especially for Ireland.

---

5. You will have a common EU citizenship. You will have a duty of obedience to the European Union’s laws and loyalty to its institutions. Members of the European Parliament no longer represent “peoples of the member states” but will represent “citizens of the Union”.

I guess this one is literally true, as I think there are some new articles with this type of wording. But I don't get why it's a reason to vote No. It won't radically change my life anyway. [Edit: ignore this one, read Scofflaw's responses above and below.]

Scofflaw

These are all the duties of the proposed President:

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.

A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties. The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The President of the Council and the Commission shall report to the European Parliament on the results of multilateral surveillance. The President of the Council may be invited to appear before the competent committee of the European Parliament if the Council has made its recommendations public.

Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance to the Member State concerned. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decision taken.

As long as a Member State fails to comply with a decision taken in accordance with paragraph 9, the Council may decide to apply or, as the case may be, intensify one or more of the following measures.....The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decisions taken.

The Council shall, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Central Bank and the Committee referred to in this Article, lay down detailed provisions concerning the composition of the Economic and Financial Committee. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of such a decision.

The Council may, acting by a qualified majority either on a recommendation from the European Central Bank or on a recommendation from the Commission, and after consulting the European Central Bank, in an endeavour to reach a consensus consistent with the objective of price stability, adopt, adjust or abandon the central rates of the euro within the exchange-rate system. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the adoption, adjustment or abandonment of the euro central rates.

Where the European Council decides by vote, its President and the President of the Commission shall not take part in the vote.

The Council shall meet when convened by its President on his own initiative or at the request of one of its Members or of the Commission.

A vacancy caused by resignation, compulsory retirement or death shall be filled for the remainder of the member’s term of office by a new member of the same nationality appointed by the Council, by common accord with the President of the Commission, after consulting the European Parliament and in accordance with the criteria set out in the second subparagraph of Article 9d(3) of the Treaty on European Union

The Council may, acting unanimously on a proposal from the President of the Commission, decide that such a vacancy need not be filled, in particular when the remainder of the member’s term of office is short.

The President of the Council and a member of the Commission may participate, without having the right to vote, in meetings of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank. The President of the Council may submit a motion for deliberation to the Governing Council of the European Central Bank.

If, within three months of receiving the European Parliament’s amendments, the Council, acting by a qualified majority: (a) approves all those amendments, the act in question shall be deemed to have been adopted; (b) does not approve all the amendments, the President of the Council, in agreement with the President of the European Parliament, shall within six weeks convene a meeting of the Conciliation Committee.

Legislative acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure shall be signed by the President of the European Parliament and by the President of the Council.

If, within forty-two days of such communication, the European Parliament: (a) approves the position of the Council, the budget shall be adopted; (b) has not taken a decision, the budget shall be deemed to have been adopted; (c) adopts amendments by a majority of its component members, the amended draft shall be forwarded to the Council and to the Commission. The President of the European Parliament, in agreement with the President of the Council, shall immediately convene a meeting of the Conciliation Committee. However, if within ten days of the draft being forwarded the Council informs the European Parliament that it has approved all its amendments, the Conciliation Committee shall not meet.

Regular meetings between the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission shall be convened, on the initiative of the Commission, under the budgetary procedures referred to in this Chapter. The Presidents shall take all the necessary steps to promote consultation and the reconciliation of the positions of the institutions over which they preside in order to facilitate the implementation of this Title.

Exciting stuff. Chairing meetings, reporting to the Parliament...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

5. You will have a common EU citizenship. You will have a duty of obedience to the European Union’s laws and loyalty to its institutions. Members of the European Parliament no longer represent “peoples of the member states” but will represent “citizens of the Union”.

I guess this one is literally true, as I think there are some new articles with this type of wording. But I don't get why it's a reason to vote No. It won't radically change my life anyway.

No, there's nothing new. We still have no duties, only rights, because only duties in the treaties would apply, and there are none. The main change that people went on about was the change from "complementary" to "additional" here:

1. Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall complement be additional to and not replace national citizenship.

There are some wonderful conspiracy theories built on top of that change, but the best explanation I've been given (by someone from Foreign Affairs) was that certain states objected to "complement" on the basis that it implied national citizenship was in some way insufficient or inadequate. Strange people.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hitman Actual

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, there's nothing new. We still have no duties, only rights, because only duties in the treaties would apply, and there are none. The main change that people went on about was the change from "complementary" to "additional" here:

1. Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall complement be additional to and not replace national citizenship.

There are some wonderful conspiracy theories built on top of that change, but the best explanation I've been given (by someone from Foreign Affairs) was that certain states objected to "complement" on the basis that it implied national citizenship was in some way insufficient or inadequate. Strange people.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks for the clarification. Tbh, it's such an innocuous point (to me anyway), that I've never had any interest in checking it out properly.

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

It makes sense, alas, because there's no point in passing what is supposed to be a common law for all the EU, and then having it countermanded in half the countries by conflicting national laws. Without such a proviso, there's no point in having EU legislation at all.

And that's why I'm anti Lisbon. We're not part of a federal government. We are a free and independent country, and the Irish people should make Irish laws. And the Lisbon treaty increases the number of areas which the EU considers EU issues as opposed to national issues.

The EU is supposed to be an economic union, not a federal government.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And that's why I'm anti Lisbon. We're not part of a federal government. We are a free and independent country, and the Irish people should make Irish laws. And the Lisbon treaty increases the number of areas which the EU considers EU issues as opposed to national issues.

The EU is supposed to be an economic union, not a federal government.

Well, let's go back over that point. We can't have a common market without common regulations. We can't have common regulations that are subject to contradiction by each national law - they're immediately no longer common regulations.

This was illustrated very concisely by another poster (apologies, I will check), who I'll paraphrase: if we are to trade sausages on equal terms, we must have a common definition of sausages, and both of us must have the same health and safety requirements governing them. Further, we must have the same standards for the pigs, including environmental contamination, pesticide residues in their feed, nitrates in their water, etc etc - otherwise, one countries sausages will consist of sawdust and offal from poisoned pigs, while the other countries sausages will consist of totally clean meat from cherished animals. It is impossible, in a common market, to describe both of those by the same term.

That's the essence of the EU, and it accounts for maybe 90% of the legislative output of the EU - it has nothing to do with federalism, and everything to do with ensuring that trade inside the common market happens on common terms, to common standards. The economic union you're willing to accept is the source of the common legislation you reject. You'll need to square that circle yourself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ionix5891

One thing i don't understand about Libertas

right hand side parties are usually business oriented, but this crowd want us to be isolated (or back under British control?) and the EU to fall apart

but in this case i don't understand what are they at, without EU Ireland would loose access for a huge chunk of its exports (the only things generating wealth, and no public sector, dole, banking and construction do not generate "wealth")

tho considering Ganley's military background, a divided Europe would mean better prospect for selling military related stuff

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ganley missed out on a very lucrative mobile phone infrastructure contract in Iraq, due to the Iraqi's opting to use European technology, over Ganley's U.S. backed technology.

Now I'll leave it to you to figure out why he might want a weak and disparate Europe...