No campaigners cry foul over Lisbon guide

Sully

Opponents of the Lisbon Treaty have accused the European Commission of deliberately interfering in the Lisbon Treaty referendum campaign in order to secure a Yes vote.

Former Green MEP and chairwoman of the People’s Movement, Patricia McKenna, said the inclusion of a 16-page guide in national newspapers today was both "an unlawful use of taxpayer's money" and a breach of Irish law.

The insert, entitled Your Guide to The Lisbon Treaty has been produced on behalf of the European Commission's Publications Office.

Referring to the McKenna judgement established by the Supreme Court in 1995, which ruled that taxpayers’ money can not be used to promote one side in a referendum, the People's Movement called on the head of the European Commission office in Dublin to make a statement on the matter.

“This interference by the EU Commission flies in the face of public assurances given last year by the head of their Dublin office, Martin Territt who said that they were not taking part in the campaign," said Ms McKenna.

" It is now incumbent on the EU Commission to justify the placing of these Pro-Lisbon supplements in all today's Sunday newspapers," she added.

The People's Movement said it will be seeking legal advice on the Commission's guide this week.

“The public deserve a full breakdown on all monies spent by the European Commission since last year’s referendum on pushing directly or indirectly the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland. This is public money and its expenditure should be open and transparent,” she added.

Ms McKenna called on Minister of the Environment John Gormley to investigate the matter without delay.

Source: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0927/breaking36.htm

Desperate times for the No side? This seems to be the second legal threat from McKenna & Co. Must have a look for the booklet in my Sunday paper, dont recall getting it at all. Can someone shed some light on the actual problem - or is it just the obvious one that the EU Commission should not be involved in such matters full stop? McKenna annoys me since Lisbon and the move from Greens - I used to respect her, but find her annoying now.

Slideshowbob

apparently the leaflet was put in beside the lidl/aldi flyers as people would associate Europe with cheap quality goods and therefore there would a positive feeling about voting yes

ei.sdraob

Sully wrote: »

Source: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0927/breaking36.htm

Desperate times for the No side? This seems to be the second legal threat from McKenna & Co. Must have a look for the booklet in my Sunday paper, dont recall getting it at all. Can someone shed some light on the actual problem - or is it just the obvious one that the EU Commission should not be involved in such matters full stop? McKenna annoys me since Lisbon and the move from Greens - I used to respect her, but find her annoying now.

is there an online version of the guide available?

/

Rb

Deperate times call for desperate measures indeed.

Poor Patricia, the woman needs to retire from public life and live out the rest of her days in peace and with sufficient counselling.

MavisDavis

At least this guide is made up of FACTS, rather than the fiction McKenna and her cohorts are trying to force-feed us.

K-9

OK, they give people more information. What is the problem here?

Did she anything about UKIP?

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

is there an online version of the guide available?

/

From the Commission Representation's website, surprisingly: link (PDF).

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

From the Commission Representation's website, surprisingly: link (PDF).

cordially,
Scofflaw

thanks I will add it to my sig!

quite a nice and informative leaflet, they even explain how the EU works

now compare this to UKIP leaflet and one has to wonder

/

Jk_Eire

It's one of the more approacable guides out there.
Short, but lays out the basics, and gives a nice run down of the EU institutions and the history of the European Union, which is essential in fostering any kind of understanding on the Lisbon Treaty.

Apart from understanding the treaty , a lack of understanding of the EU itself is a major problem.

sceptre

Jk_Eire wrote: »

Apart from understanding the treaty , a lack of understanding of the EU itself is a major problem.

Definitely a fair point that and one that's often ignored. We don't all have to understand the three pillars or the difference Lisbon makes to them (for the uninitiated, it combines them) but some basic understanding of the EU is definitely desirable.

Interesting to compare this leaflet with the one I got in my door today from the "Europe of Freedom and Democracy group in the European Parliament[1]", who are pulling the same Cóir-style Questions format in places ("is your job safe?"; "will we get euthanasia?"; "would you like MUCH more immigration?"), which is as low as those idiots in Cóir-land.


[1] I assume this is the infamous UKIP leaflet - apart from the UKIP the leaflet was also issued by the DK/FR/FI delegations of the EFD group, which are basically the Danish People's Party, True Finns and People For France. The hint is in the names.

ei.sdraob

Jk_Eire wrote: »

Apart from understanding the treaty , a lack of understanding of the EU itself is a major problem.

thats what it boils down to

as we found out last year people had (and still dont) no idea of what the likes EU Commission does, or EU itself for that matter

ignorance and complacency are the biggest threats to democracy

no wonder we have fascists, fundamentalists, communists and conspiracy theorists all loving this referendum, as it gives an opportunity for them to plaster their crap on lamp posts all over the country


/

Sully

Got a copy of it. Was done in a paper-print style rather then the glossy magazine. Was not in with my Lidl/Aldi magazine - think I found it past the business section (Sunday Indo). Yet to read it myself.

Max Factor

Nice Document. Pro European.

Nice timing too.

Tipsy Mac

We must vote yes, if the majority of the people in this country decide on a No this time around then we must vote again next year and the next year and the year after that until we get our way :rolleyes:

K-9

sceptre wrote: »

Definitely a fair point that and one that's often ignored. We don't all have to understand the three pillars or the difference Lisbon makes to them (for the uninitiated, it combines them) but some basic understanding of the EU is definitely desirable.

Interesting to compare this leaflet with the one I got in my door today from the "Europe of Freedom and Democracy group in the European Parliament[1]", who are pulling the same Cóir-style Questions format in places ("is your job safe?"; "will we get euthanasia?"; "would you like MUCH more immigration?"), which is as low as those idiots in Cóir-land.


[1] I assume this is the infamous UKIP leaflet - apart from the UKIP the leaflet was also issued by the DK/FR/FI delegations of the EFD group, which are basically the Danish People's Party, True Finns and People For France. The hint is in the names.

It's a pity it took a No vote to get this though.

It should become a regular thing.

Sully

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

We must vote yes, if the majority of the people in this country decide on a No this time around then we must vote again next year and the next year and the year after that until we get our way :rolleyes:

Doubt it. Would be a long time before we were asked to Vote again and I would expect something to actually change, if thats what were to happen. The likelihood is though, is we would be put to the side while still somewhat being part of the EU - letting everyone else get on with it and leaving us do our own thing. Cant really see the Treaty being re-written.

Plus, 99% of what the No side have said does not apply within the Treaty. So asking someone to re-write an area that rules something that is not in it out - would be a tad hard to do. Clearly Sinn Fein are clueless to this - they have been telling us to "Vote No for a better deal" since Lisbon I and this is something we have yet to receive.

Everyone seems to be forgetting this is not the first time we have been asked to vote twice on something and wont be the last. Its not as clear cut as a "Vote for party X or Party Y" job. Lisbon/Europe is a little bit more complicated.

Jk_Eire

ei.sdraob wrote: »

thats what it boils down to

as we found out last year people had (and still dont) no idea of what the likes EU Commission does, or EU itself for that matter

ignorance and complacency are the biggest threats to democracy

no wonder we have fascists, fundamentalists, communists and conspiracy theorists all loving this referendum, as it gives an opportunity for them to plaster their crap on lamp posts all over the country


/

When discussing Lisbon with people, the moment they say the EU does this and that etc... I ask them if they understand how the law comes to be within the EU. Usually they say no, and I try to fill them in using an example like :
New law on the environment is proposed by the Commission, John Gormely as min for environment goes to vote in Brussels on our behalf, then our elected MEPs vote. So it's our elected representatives voting to pass laws, not unknowns in the Commission or the EU.
People are usually surprised by this, and remark that they never new national governments had such a role in passing laws.

I think people would view the EU so much more favourably and trustingly if they understood the nature of the fact the it is member states who decide the direction of the EU, and that it's a union of pooled resources and sovereignty, as opposed to a bunch of people in Brussels passing down laws.

finbar10

ei.sdraob wrote: »

thats what it boils down to

as we found out last year people had (and still dont) no idea of what the likes EU Commission does, or EU itself for that matter

ignorance and complacency are the biggest threats to democracy

no wonder we have fascists, fundamentalists, communists and conspiracy theorists all loving this referendum, as it gives an opportunity for them to plaster their crap on lamp posts all over the country

Interesting link about the EU Commission. According to the linked Wikipedia article:

The Commission was set up from the start to act as an independent supranational authority separate from governments; it has been described as "the only body paid to think European".The members are proposed by their member state governments, one from each, however they are bound to act independently – neutral from other influences such as those governments which appointed them.

Given that the commission is appointed rather than being actually elected (unlike the council and parliament) the expectation of independence and neutrality seems a reasonable one. But another page directly linking off of the one referenced argues that in recent years there has been a trend towards an increased politicisation of the commission and an erosion of this neutrality/independence. I guess the recent involvement of the commission in the Irish referendum campaign is a manifestation of this. That would include its campaign about how wonderful the EU is that is currently running in cinemas, newspapers and other media running up to our referendum. I'm sure that all stays just within the letter of the law. Wouldn't be so sure about whether it adheres to its spirit though. I got the "Your Guide To The Lisbon Treaty" with my newspaper today. Sure, it gives information on the Lisbon Treaty. But it also unabashedly tries to use that information to sell the treaty. It certainly could be argued that selling the treaty is within the ambit of elected politicians. But the political involvement of a supposedly neutral and independent EU institution makes me uncomfortable, especially when it is urging support for a treaty which in many ways increases the powers of the Union of which it is a part.

sceptre

K-9 wrote: »

It's a pity it took a No vote to get this though.

It should become a regular thing.

The leaflet?:p

I've seen similar leaflets in the last, though this is probably the most informative one. Printing costs have dropped so much in the past decade and especially in the past two years in particular (gloss costs have halved in that period from my limited experience of multiple print runs for non-politically motivated glossy stuff) that it's probably only justifiably cost-effective now. A few years ago, one could legitimately argue that making this many multipage leaflets and just dropping them out in Sunday papers (as opposed to having them available for pickup by people who definitely wanted one) whre there wasn't an actual commercial return would be a waste of cash but it's so cheap now that it probably makes a big cash difference.

I totally agree that it needs to be something more regular though - it's obvious that most people aren't willing to go looking for information unless it's dropped in their laps.

BlitzKrieg

But another page directly linking off of the one referenced argues that in recent years there has been a trend towards an increased politicisation of the commission and an erosion of this neutrality/independence.

I thought that referred more to individual commissioners not keeping national self interests seperate from the interests of Europe as a whole. which in the case of bringing greater awareness of its work, making information clearly available etc would fall under that heading. This politicisation is the centre of the argument of having a smaller commission or not. Encoruging the idea that he is *our* commissioner is a bad idea by either side.

Max Factor

sceptre wrote: »

The leaflet?:p

I've seen similar leaflets in the last, though this is probably the most informative one. Printing costs have dropped so much in the past decade and especially in the past two years in particular (gloss costs have halved in that period from my limited experience of multiple print runs for non-politically motivated glossy stuff) that it's probably only justifiably cost-effective now. A few years ago, one could legitimately argue that making this many multipage leaflets and just dropping them out in Sunday papers (as opposed to having them available for pickup by people who definitely wanted one) whre there wasn't an actual commercial return would be a waste of cash but it's so cheap now that it probably makes a big cash difference.

I totally agree that it needs to be something more regular though - it's obvious that most people aren't willing to go looking for information unless it's dropped in their laps.

OK so it is cheap to do now. That is ok ...so.

It does need to be something more regular too, not just when there is a Euro Vote happening?

Funny how it came about now. Not that any of you Yes people will acknowledge that.

Scofflaw

Max Factor wrote: »

OK so it is cheap to do now. That is ok ...so.

It does need to be something more regular too, not just when there is a Euro Vote happening?

Funny how it came about now. Not that any of you Yes people will acknowledge that.

Because it might perhaps be important now? Because most of the time people would pay no attention whatsoever to EU stuff?

amused,
Scofflaw

Max Factor

Scofflaw wrote: »

Because it might perhaps be important now? Because most of the time people would pay no attention whatsoever to EU stuff?

amused,
Scofflaw

You state people pay no attention to EU stuff? Can you back that up with facts?

I say this has been released now ONLY because of the Lisbon vote. You agree but fall back on some suggestion that the populace of Ireland don't care unless there is a referendum?

finbar10

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I thought that referred more to individual commissioners not keeping national self interests seperate from the interests of Europe as a whole. which in the case of bringing greater awareness of its work, making information clearly available etc would fall under that heading. This politicisation is the centre of the argument of having a smaller commission or not. Encoruging the idea that he is *our* commissioner is a bad idea by either side.

I guess I'm uncomfortable because the commission is making a foray into national politics. I know our referendum decision will have much broader European implications. But the EU is still supposed to be about individual national governments delegating power to this supranational organization in Europe. This kind of intervention blurs the lines. I'd feel ratification of a treaty is a matter for each of the member state themselves. Maybe it's even valid for other countries in the same club to exert some pressure. But I'd have issues with the commission getting involved.

That said, I wouldn't be against also having an EU referendum as an extra requirement to ratify European treaties. That would require some countries to modify their constitutions (e.g. Germany) to do this, but should be possible. In such a situation I'd still feel uncomfortable about the EU institutions (especially the commission) getting involved in selling a new treaty. That should be a duty of the national governments themselves, or maybe even the European parliament.

Arguments surrounding the size of the commission were never of that much concern to me. I think the real changes in the power structures occur elsewhere in Lisbon. I guess though if it is going to become increasingly politicised we'd be better off with a representative there. But I hope this isn't a trend that will continue. Not sure making it smaller would make much difference re politicisation though.

sceptre

Max Factor wrote: »

OK so it is cheap to do now. That is ok ...so.

It does need to be something more regular too, not just when there is a Euro Vote happening?

Funny how it came about now. Not that any of you Yes people will acknowledge that.

Of course if you read a bit more you'd notice that I'm not sitting on either the yes or no side for a start. But finger pointing is unfortunately almost compulsory this week so I can understand your mistake.

The other side is that it's also cheap for the EFD group to do their own leaflet, which as I mentioned I got in my door. Cheap enough as it happens for everyone with a few grand to spare to knock out enough to fill a large town. Do it in newsprint and you can give the entire population of Limerick their own personal copy (each) for about six grand or so if you're organised. Assume one per household is enough and you can do Cork and suburbs for the same money.

I know people keep on saying that print is dead. But for something like this, with costs dropping they way they have been, it's probably only beginning. I know we have to consider the trees but one less copy of the Sunday Times in paper format is enough for a street of leaflets.

Of course I'm passionate about information and believe that an informed electorate is always a better electorate. So yes, obviously I'd much rather that this leaflet was pimped out this week than in two week's time. Who wouldn't. There's enough information out there about our political system and how things work on a local, national and pan-European basis but people aren't inclined to look or don't know where. We still have threads started on how to force a general election for example and that's one of the things I'd assume that everyone would have the answer to if I didn't know they didn't based on the number of times it's been asked lately (go look for the answer if you don't know). And short of educating people on how to use google searches and maybe learn how to refine boolean searches, it's going to have to be dropped into their laps in this way.

Scofflaw

Max Factor wrote: »

You state people pay no attention to EU stuff? Can you back that up with facts?

I say this has been released now ONLY because of the Lisbon vote. You agree but fall back on some suggestion that the populace of Ireland don't care unless there is a referendum?

Yes, I do. I would have said that the abysmal state of knowledge about the EU is a pretty good indicator, as would be the low uptake of anything European bar the CAP, but you could argue that that's, say, the result of deliberate concealment.

I can certainly say that outside times like this, this forum is not busy - indeed, until this referendum campaign, there wasn't a separate EU forum, because there wasn't sufficient European material to warrant it. I'm expecting that to be the case after Christmas again. The same seems to be true of any other discussion forum I've ever looked at.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Sully wrote: »

The likelihood is though, is we would be put to the side while still somewhat being part of the EU - letting everyone else get on with it and leaving us do our own thing. Cant really see the Treaty being re-written.

And therein lie the facts of the biggest issue with the "vote".

If the EU is democratic, then they should respect our vote.

If it were another country voting no and we wanted to go ahead, we would have to accept their vote and negotiate a new treaty.

So forcing this through and leaving us on the sidelines would show up the EU as a setup that is undemocratic; if it doesn't get its way, it will go ahead anyway.

I know it isn't as black-and-white as that, but that's the impression it is giving; whether it's the idiots "representing" us that are wrong (not negotiating properly in the drafting, and not representing us properly) or whether it's an EU issue in itself, is a discussion in itself.

e.g. re "militarisation" - did it come up and did the Irish representative do what the Dail did with the U.S. abuse of Shannon, and say "couldn't be arsed looking into it; we'll sell it to them somehow"; if so, then the problem isn't the EU itself, it's the low standard of politicians and representatives that now seem endemic in this country.

K-9

Max Factor wrote: »

OK so it is cheap to do now. That is ok ...so.

It does need to be something more regular too, not just when there is a Euro Vote happening?

Funny how it came about now. Not that any of you Yes people will acknowledge that.

I acknowledged it. Jaysus! I give up.

K-9

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And therein lie the facts of the biggest issue with the "vote".

If the EU is democratic, then they should respect our vote.

If it were another country voting no and we wanted to go ahead, we would have to accept their vote and negotiate a new treaty.

So forcing this through and leaving us on the sidelines would show up the EU as a setup that is undemocratic; if it doesn't get its way, it will go ahead anyway.

I know it isn't as black-and-white as that, but that's the impression it is giving; whether it's the idiots "representing" us that are wrong (not negotiating properly in the drafting, and not representing us properly) or whether it's an EU issue in itself, is a discussion in itself.

e.g. re "militarisation" - did it come up and did the Irish representative do what the Dail did with the U.S. abuse of Shannon, and say "couldn't be arsed looking into it; we'll sell it to them somehow"; if so, then the problem isn't the EU itself, it's the low standard of politicians and representatives that now seem endemic in this country.

I would accept that is the impression.

If the Czech Republic or the UK say No, your point is valid.

France voted No to the Constitution and it carried on ahead. Once a second country voted No it died.

You see the difference?

If we vote No again, they are in serious bother.

On the militarisation point, any links?

ei.sdraob

finbar10 wrote: »

Interesting link about the EU Commission.

yes it is

we blew our chance to reduce the size of this bureaucracy in last referendum

if i had my way i do away with commissioners altogether and give more power to meps

/

hobochris

Reading through the booklet that came out in the post Ive one thing to ask:
2014, what relevance does this year have to the Lisbon treaty? This year is mentioned in the literature,but it does not say what will happen after this year(2014)?

Scofflaw

hobochris wrote: »

Reading through the booklet that came out in the post Ive one thing to ask:
2014, what relevance does this year have to the Lisbon treaty? This year is mentioned in the literature,but it does not say what will happen after this year(2014)?

The agreements in Lisbon on matters like the QMV changes largely apply not to this EU 'term' (2009-2014) but the next one - 2014 on. For example, the reduced two-thirds Commission was due to kick in in 2014, according to Lisbon. That has now been superseded by the European Council agreement to retain the full Commission. Other changes, like QMV changes, are still due not to take effect until 2014.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

hobochris wrote: »

Reading through the booklet that came out in the post Ive one thing to ask:
2014, what relevance does this year have to the Lisbon treaty? This year is mentioned in the literature,but it does not say what will happen after this year(2014)?

IF THE LISBON TREATY DOES NOT COME IN TO FORCE


The present rules provide that the number of Commissioners must be less than the number of member states once the number of member states reaches 27. There are currently 27 member states so, if the Lisbon Treaty is not ratified, then the next Commission must have less than 27 members. The current rules provide that the Council must decide, unanimously, how many Commission members there will be. The members must be chosen according to a rotation system based on the principle of equality and the Council must decide, unanimously, how exactly this is to be implemented.


IF THE LISBON TREATY DOES COME IN TO FORCE


If the Treaty comes into force then all member states will nominate a Commissioner for the period 2009 – 2014. The Lisbon Treaty provides a mechanism for the possible reduction of the size of the Commission from 2014. This mechanism, if used, would result in two-thirds of the member states, rather than all of them, nominating a Commissioner in 2014. There are 27 member states at present. So, if the number of member states remains the same, there would be 18 Commissioners in the period 2014 – 2019.


Under this mechanism the right to nominate a Commissioner would rotate among the member states on an equal basis. This means that each member state would nominate a member of the Commission for two out of every three Commissions (that is, for 10 years out of every 15 year cycle).


However, the European Council has decided that, if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, it will not implement this mechanism in 2014 and will instead continue the present arrangement whereby each member state nominates a Commissioner.

http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/lisbon_treaty_european_commission.html

Liam Byrne

Sam Vimes wrote: »

However, the European Council has decided that, if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, it will not implement this mechanism in 2014 and will instead continue the present arrangement whereby each member state nominates a Commissioner.

And yet the treaty that we're voting on does not include this change ?

oscarBravo

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And yet the treaty that we're voting on does not include this change ?

Indirectly, it does. It allows for the change to be made by unanimous decision, and it has been agreed that that decision will be taken.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And yet the treaty that we're voting on does not include this change ?

No change to the text is required. The Treaty allows for the setting of the number of Commissioners by unanimous agreement of the European Council, and the European Council have unanimously agreed that if Ireland ratifies Lisbon, the number they choose will be a full Commission.

cordially,
Scofflaw