Citizens' initative - ideas

View

Just to throw a topic out for discussion as it looks like we might be within sight of the end of the entire "ratification of Lisbon" saga. One of the changes wrought by Lisbon will be the introduction of the Citizens' Initiative.

Anyone have suggestion for topics for such an initative bearing in mind that such an initative:
a) needs 1 million signatures, and,
b) these would need to have support from multiple member states, and,
c) should probably be directed towards either:

i) changes in policy in a particular field, or,
ii) new initatives within the existing EU Treaty framework.

(In other words, asking for the EU Treaties to be radically changed is not going to be a runner, nor is asking for the member states to all modify their constitutions to suit your viewpoint)

One idea I'd personally like to see is that the next EP elections use a common voting system in each member state (rather than the multiple systems currently used). Mind you, that idea probably falls foul of one of the criteria that I outlined above.

SkepticOne

What I would suggest is that you lobby the commision directly with your ideas initially. If they think it is not a good idea then no amount of signatures is going to make a difference. If they think it is a good idea then they may run with it and there's no need for signatures.

ei.sdraob

I think the EU making use of internet to expose data and policies in a more accessible manner and advertise the initiative better would be a nice idea for petition

something like opengov project in US under Obama

actually alot of EU information is out there already, its just matter of better presentation and making the people aware

as we seen from lisbon, lack of knowledge about how eu works is the single biggest threat to eu, ignorance is bliss they say

evercloserunion

A petition to reform intellectual property law to strengthen the right to free expression as against intellectual property rights.

Also a petition to improve transparency and accountability would be an obvious choice.

Scofflaw

Climate change initiatives!

cordially,
Scofflaw

simplistic

So let me get this straight you have to go get 1 million signatures and then the politicians may have a debate on the issue. HAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that is funniest thing I have heard in a long time really hahahahaaa made my day thanks guys!!!

ei.sdraob

simplistic wrote: »

So let me get this straight you have to go get 1 million signatures and then the politicians may have a debate on the issue. HAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that is funniest thing I have heard in a long time really hahahahaaa made my day thanks guys!!!

:rolleyes:

Noreen1

I'll second the public accountabilty and transparency suggestion.

I'll also add a suggestion that the Electorate be given the power to force a Government to stand down in times of a: extreme crises, b: when they no longer have the confidence of the Electorate, or c: if they force through a law that is against the wishes of the majority of the electorate.
That should strengthen the accountabilty option considerably.:D

Noreen

evercloserunion

Noreen1 wrote: »

I'll second the public accountabilty and transparency suggestion.

I'll also add a suggestion that the Electorate be given the power to force a Government to stand down in times of a: extreme crises, b: when they no longer have the confidence of the Electorate, or c: if they force through a law that is against the wishes of the majority of the electorate.
That should strengthen the accountabilty option considerably.:D

Noreen

The national government or the government of the EU?

If it's the former, there's no way the EU could ever dictate the terms on which national governments are to stand down.

Noreen1

evercloserunion wrote: »

The national government or the government of the EU?

If it's the former, there's no way the EU could ever dictate the terms on which national governments are to stand down.

Ideally - Both

Call me paranoid, but there seems to be a trend sweeping through Politics, whereby Politicians have become the Masters, not the Servants of the people.

eg NAMA in Ireland, Bank Bailouts in the USA, The current Abortion legislation in Spain (I heard on the News today that there are massive protests).
Why were the British electorate denied the promised Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty? (No, I'm not trying to start another Lisbon debate - I'm just citing cases where the electorate are apparently deeply unhappy with the policies of their respective Governments.)

Now, I realise that these suggestions are a potential minefield, and that mid-term unpopularity is not a good enough reason to oust a Government, but current reality seems to suggest that real democracyis a thing of the past.(Or did it ever really exist? - Maybe I'm just an idealistic fool?)

So, I'm throwing these ideas into the public arena, and hoping that somehow, a solution might be found that will make things better for everyone.

Noreen

Purple Gorilla

Noreen, the EU has no competence there.

I'd definitely love to see the EU introduce legislation on Net Neutrality to ensure the Internet stays free and fair.

Dinner

Noreen1 wrote: »

(No, I'm not trying to start another Lisbon debate - I'm just citing cases where the electorate are apparently deeply unhappy with the policies of their respective Gov

The thing is though, that governments must do what is necessary, not what is popular. Any NAMAesque scheme that a government does will never be popular, but it may be necessary. I don't know enough about either NAMA or the current situation to make an educated decision on what is best, but it seems like something must be done, even if it is unpopular.


Fuel tax, road tax, licence fee, DIRT and any other number of taxes fees and fines are all going to be deeply unpopular, but the money needs to come from somewhere. Would you rather the government pissed away millions every few weeks to hold a referendum to see if the public agree with new legislation? Would the electorate pass a referendum on the budget this December?

What is necessary > what is popular.

Scofflaw

Stay on topic, please, people. Noreen1, your suggestions are at risk of derailing the thread into a discussion of EU competences, because what you're calling for is nothing to do with the EU - what you're looking for there is constitutional change in the member states (in particular, perhaps, Ireland).

cordially,
Scofflaw

evercloserunion

The current Abortion legislation in Spain (I heard on the News today that there are massive protests).

About a million people protested, in a country of nearly 47 million. A million people at a protest must be a mind-boggling sight but it doesn't mean the Spanish people are opposed to the legislation.

Jk_Eire

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

Noreen, the EU has no competence there.

I'd definitely love to see the EU introduce legislation on Net Neutrality to ensure the Internet stays free and fair.

Good one.
Also, the citizens initiative could be useful in backing up the European Parliament when faced with opposition from the Council. For example, the Telecoms Package as amended by the European Parliament to include better rights and guarantees for citizens is still facing tough opposition from the Council, which do not want the amendments from the Parliament included in the package.

The amendments are inherently good for EU citizens, but horse trading and pressuring by some member states is blocking these positive amendments (notably by France who whose 3 strikes law would be in conflict with the parliaments amendments).

More reading here : http://www.laquadrature.net/

Taking advantage of the citizens initiatives to support the Parliament in an area like this would be fantastic and could easily garner 1million signatures given the right publicity.

jonoftheburns

the first attempt at this: www.right2bet.net

The Saint

jonoftheburns wrote: »

the first attempt at this: www.right2bet.net

Looks more like a gambling industry initiative rather than a citizens initiative. Hopefully this tool doesn't become usurped by private interest groups as another form of lobbying.

jonoftheburns

Well the www.right2bet.net campaign is certainly backed by bookies/online casinos because the proposed changes to the law will benefit them by letting them operate across the EU (which, to be fair, they should be able to anyway under EU law). But it still requires 1million signatures from "ordinary" people. It's being pitched as a campaign for people to have the right to choose goods and services from anywhere in the EU, not just ones from their own country, which, again they probably should be able to anyway.

I think the citizens initiative is, on balance, a good idea. Of course it's likely that individual initiatives are going to be partly organised (even financed) by so-called interest groups, because these are the only civil society group with the means to do it. You're not going to get 1million farmers, mums, teachers, children, trade unionists, online gamblers spontaneously deciding to sign a petition - it takes organisation. I don't see a problem so long as it's an open and democratic process! Isn't that what pluralist democracy is all about...?

The Saint

jonoftheburns wrote: »

Well the www.right2bet.net campaign is certainly backed by bookies/online casinos because the proposed changes to the law will benefit them by letting them operate across the EU (which, to be fair, they should be able to anyway under EU law). But it still requires 1million signatures from "ordinary" people. It's being pitched as a campaign for people to have the right to choose goods and services from anywhere in the EU, not just ones from their own country, which, again they probably should be able to anyway.

Well if they think that it's a violation of competition rules why don't they take a case to the ECJ?

If there are states that are opposed to this then it's unlikely that anything will be changed. It would be like arguing that weed should be available throughout the EU since it's allowed in the Netherlands and not allowing it would be a violation of competition rules. I'd imagine that areas such as drugs and gambling are left to member states to decide their policies on given the pereived social impact of such things.

COUCH WARRIOR

I think this tread is taking a wrong headed approach to the citizens initiative. It's in effect we have this power how can we use it. i.e using powerjustbecausewecan. Where as I think the spirit of the initiative is if I believe as a citizen that proposal X to be right how do I get my voice to be heard.

COUCH WARRIOR

sorry about the spacing and party pooping, just backfrom the pub:o

Scofflaw

The Saint wrote: »

Well if they think that it's a violation of competition rules why don't they take a case to the ECJ?

If there are states that are opposed to this then it's unlikely that anything will be changed. It would be like arguing that weed should be available throughout the EU since it's allowed in the Netherlands and not allowing it would be a violation of competition rules. I'd imagine that areas such as drugs and gambling are left to member states to decide their policies on given the pereived social impact of such things.

That's very much the case - regulated industries like gambling, particularly those with moral/social implications, remain the preserve of the member states.

Again, to quote the German constitutional judgement, the essential division between the EU and the member states is that the EU should only handle issues of common interest, leaving each state (and people) free as far as is possible to shape its own individual course in terms of public morality and social environment. Not everyone agrees that the line is always drawn in the right place, but that is the essential line. Something like gambling, which is often considered as a tolerated vice, is unlikely to be able to win a case purely on business terms.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

COUCH WARRIOR wrote: »

I think this tread is taking a wrong headed approach to the citizens initiative. It's in effect we have this power how can we use it. i.e using powerjustbecausewecan. Where as I think the spirit of the initiative is if I believe as a citizen that proposal X to be right how do I get my voice to be heard.

Well, that is a valid criticism but I was actually interested in seeing what ideas people felt interested enough in that they might contemplate using the citizens' initative. I have to confess to being a bit surprised - given a lot of the hoo-haa that characterised the Lisbon debates - at how few ideas there have been. Maybe people believe the EU's policies are perfect?

jonoftheburns

I'm 99% sure that the ECJ has ruled that Member States should not be able to ban foreign providers of gambling services on grounds of nationality, they can only ban gambling outright on moral grounds just like they could anything else, but they would have to stop domestic providers as well (which most offending states don't do; instead, they shelter their state-owned monopolies!). The reason the Commission has not been more active in implementing this judgement and others like it is simply because there is a lack of political will. The right2bet petition aims at changing that by forcing them to take notice via the citizens initiative.

jonoftheburns

For a good overview of the messy and contradictory ECJ rulings on this, see http://www.bettingmarket.com/eurolaw222428.htm - the right2bet petition aims at clearing up that mess and allowing for a situation where at least there is a definitive decision either way: either the principle of free trade and freedom of choice/movement is implemented, or it isn't.

SkepticOne

If a corporation uses a public petition to bolster their back room lobbying of the Commission then I don't see anything wrong with that. At least it is a way for the public to know what is going on behind the scenes in Brussels. Where I would have issue with some of the posters here is that they think it is a new power for citizens. It is not.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

If a corporation uses a public petition to bolster their back room lobbying of the Commission then I don't see anything wrong with that. At least it is a way for the public to know what is going on behind the scenes in Brussels. Where I would have issue with some of the posters here is that they think it is a new power for citizens. It is not.

While the power to submit a petition to the European Commission undoubtedly exists in a physical sense, such a petition would currently have no standing at all. Are you not perhaps confusing it with a petition to the European Parliament?

cordially,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

While the power to submit a petition to the European Commission undoubtedly exists in a physical sense, such a petition would currently have no standing at all.

Effectively no standing after Lisbon either. If the commission is against a particular petition, it does not proceed.

View

SkepticOne wrote: »

Effectively no standing after Lisbon either. If the commission is against a particular petition, it does not proceed.

No, the Commission does not get to decide whether a petition proceeds or not. That is up to the citizens who may or may not back it.

The Commission does get to decide what to do in response to the petition. The Commision must respond but it's response can be "We are going to do nothing about this".

Most people would probably agree with that. Most of us don't actually want a situation where, should a million extremists sign a petition in favour of, let's say, racism, that, the Commission's response must be to initiate racist legislation in response to their petition.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

Effectively no standing after Lisbon either. If the commission is against a particular petition, it does not proceed.

The Commission is not required to initiate legislation on foot of requests from the other institutions either, yet 95%+ of Commission legislation is the result of such requests, while, as View points out, requiring the Commission to produce legislation on foot of a Citizens' Initiative would actually be a terrible idea. Further, the role of the Commission is to filter requests for legislation, and only to proceed with them if they are necessary and European in scope, without prejudice to any of the member states or subsidiarity.

Lisbon puts a Citizens' Initiative on the same footing as a formal request from the other EU institutions - it shares the same features as such requests, and it undoubtedly is a new power for European citizens.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Lisbon puts a Citizens' Initiative on the same footing as a formal request from the other EU institutions - it shares the same features as such requests, and it undoubtedly is a new power for European citizens.

This is one of the problems with the EU as it stands. Democratic institutions must request legislation from the non-elected body acting as a gatekeeper.

SkepticOne

View wrote: »

The Commission does get to decide what to do in response to the petition. The Commision must respond but it's response can be "We are going to do nothing about this".



Most people would probably agree with that. Most of us don't actually want a situation where, should a million extremists sign a petition in favour of, let's say, racism, that, the Commission's response must be to initiate racist legislation in response to their petition.

Basically you are agreeing with me that the citizens initiative confers no power upon the citizens. You are merely seeking to justify this fact.

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Lisbon puts a Citizens' Initiative on the same footing as a formal request from the other EU institutions - it shares the same features as such requests, and it undoubtedly is a new power for European citizens.

Just to add to my previous comment on this. The citizens initiative is put on the same footing as requests from the likes of the parliament as far as initiating legislation is concerned which is none. The parliament has no power to initiate legislation, all it can do is make a request. This is not power. If it were the exclusive power of the parliament to request legislation then this might be something (though still short of proper democracy in my opinion). What power the parliament does have lies in its ability to reject legislation, which the citizens initiative does not have.

Mario007

SkepticOne wrote: »

Just to add to my previous comment on this. The citizens initiative is put on the same footing as requests from the likes of the parliament as far as initiating legislation is concerned which is none. The parliament has no power to initiate legislation, all it can do is make a request. This is not power. If it were the exclusive power of the parliament to request legislation then this might be something (though still short of proper democracy in my opinion). What power the parliament does have lies in its ability to reject legislation, which the citizens initiative does not have.

well if you start off with a democratically elected commission or a parliament initiating legislation as you've suggested then we'd indeed move away from soveirgn states in a union to a federal state of europe. this change, though i would indeed probably not mind it, is horrendous for many people across the europe(just think back to lisbon). so you cannot expect these institution to act like the ones in a state with the powers like in a state unless you would then infer, albeit indirectly, that europe thus becomes a state.

SkepticOne

Mario007 wrote: »

well if you start off with a democratically elected commission or a parliament initiating legislation as you've suggested then we'd indeed move away from soveirgn states in a union to a federal state of europe. this change, though i would indeed probably not mind it, is horrendous for many people across the europe(just think back to lisbon). so you cannot expect these institution to act like the ones in a state with the powers like in a state unless you would then infer, albeit indirectly, that europe thus becomes a state.

Again this is trying to rationalise the situation rather than argue against the fact that the citizens initiative is meaningless in terms of the power it has over EU institutions.

oscarBravo

SkepticOne wrote: »

Again this is trying to rationalise the situation rather than argue against the fact that the citizens initiative is meaningless in terms of the power it has over EU institutions.

I'm curious about your use of the term "meaningless". Is it your position that the existence of the Citizen's Initiative will have precisely zero effect whatsoever? In other words, that having the Citizen's Initiative will be perfectly indistinguishable (in terms of effect) from not having it?

SkepticOne

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm curious about your use of the term "meaningless". Is it your position that the existence of the Citizen's Initiative will have precisely zero effect whatsoever? In other words, that having the Citizen's Initiative will be perfectly indistinguishable (in terms of effect) from not having it?

In terms of power over the commission, it does not seem to grant any. Meaningless in that sense.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

In terms of power over the commission, it does not seem to grant any. Meaningless in that sense.

It grants the power to put citizen proposals on the Commission agenda. Power doesn't consist solely of the ability to force someone to do something.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

It grants the power to put citizen proposals on the Commission agenda. Power doesn't consist solely of the ability to force someone to do something.

What you are saying is that the commission are compelled to consider the proposal but not act on it. If that is power it is very minimal power.

Klingon Hamlet

Family law needs a serious update; specifically:

Strengthening the role, responsibilities and rights of the unmarried father

Recgonising all unorthodox family units as equal to orthodox family units

Removing the "primary carer" bias

Granting automatic guardianship to both sexes

Recognizing and suporting homosexual marriages

Legalising abortion within specified and carefully regulated parameters

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

What you are saying is that the commission are compelled to consider the proposal but not act on it. If that is power it is very minimal power.

I would say that they are compelled to act on it, such consideration of possible legislation being a major legislative function of the Commission - however, they are not compelled to initiate legislation. Compelling them to initiate legislation would require that anything desired by a million citizens is automatically worth legislating on, which, given that a million citizens is 0.2% of the EU, isn't anything like the case.

I've pointed this out before, but the Commission cannot simply ignore every request made by Citizens' Initiative, because to do so will be extremely unpopular and highly visible, given that at least a million people will have a stake in any such initiative. Nor was there any reason whatsoever to include the Citizens' Initiative in Lisbon if it was going to be routinely ignored, since of all the votes on Lisbon, only Ireland held a referendum, and so the only electorate it could be aimed at as a "selling point" would be Ireland, since it's irrelevant to the political representatives who voted on Lisbon in the rest of the EU - and the Irish have no tradition of such initiatives, making it a useless selling point.

The rational conclusion, therefore, is that the CI is neither a gimmick nor a piece of window-dressing, but a perfectly standard petition mechanism entirely in line with the historical tradition of such mechanisms in many continental EU countries.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

SkepticOne wrote: »

Just to add to my previous comment on this. The citizens initiative is put on the same footing as requests from the likes of the parliament as far as initiating legislation is concerned which is none. The parliament has no power to initiate legislation, all it can do is make a request. This is not power. If it were the exclusive power of the parliament to request legislation then this might be something (though still short of proper democracy in my opinion). What power the parliament does have lies in its ability to reject legislation, which the citizens initiative does not have.

Parliament can sack the Commission anytime it wants. It would be a very foolish Commission that decided to ignore the Parliament's requests. Moreover, why should they?

Incidentally, you do realise that (just about) all the legislation that gets passed through the Oireachtas is initated (i.e. drafted) by unelected Civil Servants at the request of members of the Oireachtas (Ministers to be even more specific)? Presumably, therefore Ireland shouldn't be regarded as a "proper democracy", right?

View

SkepticOne wrote: »

Basically you are agreeing with me that the citizens initiative confers no power upon the citizens. You are merely seeking to justify this fact.

No, I am not seeking to justify the fact. I have explained why it is not a good idea to be able to force legislation irrespective of its merits.

Moreover, the primary point is that post-Nice there is no formal mechanism for citizens to petition the Commission, post-Lisbon there is - and the Commission must formally respond to such petitions. Hence, this does constitute a change that will no doubt be used by citizens over the years ahead.

Incidentally, if you really feel strongly enough that Parliament should also (or exclusively) have the right to initate legislation, there is nothing to stop you starting a petition on the topic. I'd probably even sign such a petition as I am in favour of strengthening Parliament's role as much as possible.

Likewise, I am sure there is a petition there about a more democratic Commission just waiting to be started...

SkepticOne

View wrote: »

Incidentally, if you really feel strongly enough that Parliament should also (or exclusively) have the right to initate legislation, there is nothing to stop you starting a petition on the topic. I'd probably even sign such a petition as I am in favour of strengthening Parliament's role as much as possible.

Likewise, I am sure there is a petition there about a more democratic Commission just waiting to be started...

I'm pretty sure both of those would be rejected on the grounds that the citizens initiative does not deal with those issues.

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would say that they are compelled to act on it, such consideration of possible legislation being a major legislative function of the Commission - however, they are not compelled to initiate legislation. Compelling them to initiate legislation would require that anything desired by a million citizens is automatically worth legislating on, which, given that a million citizens is 0.2% of the EU, isn't anything like the case.

Again, this is rationalising the lack of power of the citizens initiative.

I've pointed this out before, but the Commission cannot simply ignore every request made by Citizens' Initiative, because to do so will be extremely unpopular and highly visible, given that at least a million people will have a stake in any such initiative.

But the commission is not a democratically elected body so popularity does not come into it to any great extent.

Nor was there any reason whatsoever to include the Citizens' Initiative in Lisbon if it was going to be routinely ignored, since of all the votes on Lisbon, only Ireland held a referendum, and so the only electorate it could be aimed at as a "selling point" would be Ireland, since it's irrelevant to the political representatives who voted on Lisbon in the rest of the EU - and the Irish have no tradition of such initiatives, making it a useless selling point.

It was a carry over from the constitution which did require "selling":

constitution wrote:

Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Constitution. European laws shall determine the provisions for the procedures and conditions required for such a citizens' initiative, including the minimum number of Member States from which such citizens must come.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

I'm pretty sure both of those would be rejected on the grounds that the citizens initiative does not deal with those issues.

True - those would be matters for treaty negotiation by the member states, not legislation by the EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

Again, this is rationalising the lack of power of the citizens initiative.

It's explaining the reason for not allowing the initiatives to compel legislation - since you use that as the only measure of the initiative's power, you find that it has none, but that's a tautological finding.

SkepticOne wrote: »

But the commission is not a democratically elected body so popularity does not come into it to any great extent.

The Commission, being an unelected body, is probably more consciously concerned with the popularity of specific acts than an equivalent elected body would be, because it is aware that it starts from a position of lacking a popular mandate.

SkepticOne wrote: »

It was a carry over from the constitution which did require "selling":

And could easily have been dropped for Lisbon, which didn't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would say that they are compelled to act on it, such consideration of possible legislation being a major legislative function of the Commission

You are I think inadvertently misusing the word act here. Most people would not view the consideration of something an act. The act (if it happens) comes after the consideration. Consideration does not imply action.

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's explaining the reason for not allowing the initiatives to compel legislation - since you use that as the only measure of the initiative's power, you find that it has none, but that's a tautological finding.

We disagree on the meaning of the word power, however I think we can both agree that you are rationalising the lack of ability to compel that the citizens initiative confers on the citizen.

The Commission, being an unelected body, is probably more consciously concerned with the popularity of specific acts than an equivalent elected body would be, because it is aware that it starts from a position of lacking a popular mandate.

But then on the other hand they are not seeking election.

And could easily have been dropped for Lisbon, which didn't.

But why bother?

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

We disagree on the meaning of the word power, however I think we can both agree that you are rationalising the lack of ability to compel that the citizens initiative confers on the citizen.

No, as pointed out already, I consider that a reasonable thing.

SkepticOne wrote: »

But then on the other hand they are not seeking election.

If one believes that an unelected body has no concerns over its own legitimacy, then I can see that point as seeming reasonable. However, unelected bodies in democracies do have such concerns, and respond to them by either being very cautious in the exercise of their powers (the Seanad, the various monarchs and upper houses) or by hiding from the public eye (quangos). The latter isn't an option for the Commission.

SkepticOne wrote: »

But why bother?

Because it's a ready-made PR disaster if the Commission is simply going to ignore it. If they did intend ignoring it, it would have been easier all round to take it out.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

You are I think inadvertently misusing the word act here. Most people would not view the consideration of something an act. The act (if it happens) comes after the consideration. Consideration does not imply action.

'Consideration' is an action, as is issuing a formal response - you're trying to make 'act' synonymous with 'initiate legislation' here, which is begging the question.

cordially,
Scofflaw