EU agrees to share banking data with USA...

Boskowski

...of course bypassing any controlling bodies like the commission or - god forbid the parliament.

That's one of the reasons why Lisbon is a 'No'. The whole attitude of the EU executives is far away from being a democratic one. It's only going to get worse if anything. Therefore 'No' to Lisbon. Not because of the actual treaty, but because any aspiration to 'hammer home' the political system as it's currently taking shape within the EU we must attempt to stop by all means.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/019-58612-201-07-30-902-20090720IPR58611-20-07-2009-2009-false/default_en.htm

PopeBuckfastXVI

Your linked Article wrote:

this justifies negotiating a new agreement, "under the aegis of Lisbon"

The Commission "will request a negotiating mandate only after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty" by all Member States, "so that, in particular, Parliament can co-decide".

realcam wrote: »

...of course bypassing any controlling bodies like the commission or - god forbid the parliament.

That's one of the reasons why Lisbon is a 'No'. The whole attitude of the EU executives is far away from being a democratic one. It's only going to get worse if anything. Therefore 'No' to Lisbon. Not because of the actual treaty, but because any aspiration to 'hammer home' the political system as it's currently taking shape within the EU we must attempt to stop by all means.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/019-58612-201-07-30-902-20090720IPR58611-20-07-2009-2009-false/default_en.htm

yeah...

turgon

realcam wrote: »

Therefore 'No' to Lisbon. Not because of the actual treaty

If I was inclined to use dismissive smileys I might put a rolleyes here.

Will voting No change this issue? No. So your wasting you vote.

ei.sdraob

actually

thats one reason to vote YES

almost everyone in EU parliament (directly elected by the people MEPs) oppose this

The German Greens are at the forefront of opposition to the plans to share such sensitive information, stressing that the outgoing Commission was trying to bypass the European Parliament.

source: see http://www.euractiv.com/en/justice/eu-us-data-sharing-causes-uproar-germany/article-184443?Ref=RSS

but European Parliament MEP's have no power to do anything about this currently, power that they they would get under Lisbon (see reason # 1 @ http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055633086 )

so there ya go

vote YES if you want to be better represented by the people you elected

bijapos

If the MEP's are all against it, it stands to reason that national parliaments and governments of which these MEP's are members must also be against it.
If so could someone tell me whose idea this was and how did it get so far up the agenda if nobody seems to be in favour of it?

ei.sdraob

firstly lets get the story on this right, something that is needed in order to understand this


* SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Transactions) are located in Belgium, but their servers and database were/are in the US

* Since 2001 US government had access to this database "to fight terrorism"

* It was decided by SWIFT for whatever reasons to move the database and servers to EU

* EU privacy and data protection laws are much stricter

* 27 Foreign ministers of each EU state (yes that includes the Irish minister!), agreed to continue allowing temporary access to this database by US until an permanent agreement in place, "The move was described as necessary for fighting international terrorism. "

* MEPs are not happy about this at all and kicked up a fuss, and rightly so, more than likely they got alot of concern expressed from various constituents

* MEPs have frack all power in the EU scheme of things to stop this, but this would change if Lisbon is passed as they would get more power



a quote from the link posted by me

Commission Vice-President Jacques Barrot, who is responsible for the justice, freedom and security portfolio, issued a statement downplaying the scope of the possible decision concerning the access to SWIFT data.

"It is no question of giving the US a blank cheque as some critics seem to suggest. As it is already the case, the US authorities would continue to temporarilyy access the relevant data only after legal verification and under strict judicial control," Barrot stated.
He added that the agreement in question was only temporary, insisting that a definitive agreement with the US would be negotiated with the European Parliament's involvement once the Lisbon Treaty had entered into force.
"It would be extremely dangerous at this stage to stop the surveillance and the monitoring of information flows," Barrot insisted.

If you have issues with this matter

1. bug your MEP
2. bug the minister @ http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/home/index.aspx?id=73691 or Telephone: (01) 4082139

3. vote YES at the referendum so MEPs elected by you can represent you more

lostexpectation

how much more power?

PopeBuckfastXVI

lostexpectation wrote: »

how much more power?

Nice video explaining the changes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCUF5t1kRlI

Scofflaw

bijapos wrote: »

If the MEP's are all against it, it stands to reason that national parliaments and governments of which these MEP's are members must also be against it.
If so could someone tell me whose idea this was and how did it get so far up the agenda if nobody seems to be in favour of it?

MEPs aren't members of national parliaments or governments - that's the point of them. It's why MEPs are elected in a separate set of elections. Of all of Ireland's MEPs, only a quarter even belong to government parties. Irish MEPs aren't under any obligation to vote for Irish government policy, and regularly don't. The Parliament is a separate system from national governments, not an extension of it.

As to who wants this - governments want it. Most European governments like being chummy with the US government, whereas the European Parliament doesn't care, because the EU has enough clout to make the US pay attention without having to suck up to it. Most governments also like having more surveillance capability, and can usually get surveillance measures through the parliaments because they have a majority, whereas the European Parliament doesn't have surveillance or police capability anyway, and so tends to vote in favour of increased privacy, because that's what most of the electorate would prefer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

bijapos wrote: »

If the MEP's are all against it, it stands to reason that national parliaments and governments of which these MEP's are members must also be against it.
If so could someone tell me whose idea this was and how did it get so far up the agenda if nobody seems to be in favour of it?

No such conclusion can be drawn. The important difference in EU governance relative to member states is the separation of the executive/Commission from the parliament. A Commissioner cannot be a member of the European Parliament. That sometimes creates a tension between the institutions not present in parliamentary-systems where the Prime Minister and/or usually his/her ministers have to be members of the parliament. Cowen can whip his backbenchers into line, whereas Barroso has no such prerogative with respect to the European Parliament, of which he is not a member. You also have to remember that the dates of EP elections are not synchronised with national General Elections and that in that context, the connection you draw between the attitude of the EP and those national parliaments is further undermined.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Cowen can whip his backbenchers into line, whereas Barroso has no such prerogative with respect to the European Parliament, of which he is not a member.

I can see an advantage in that. I'm sure you can too.