Role of the Oireachtas in European Affairs

Scofflaw

The Report of the Sub-Committee on Review of the Role of the Oireachtas in European Affairs is out today - obtainable here.

The changes are technical, and as the report itself says, hardly the stuff of heated public debate, but depending on what measures (if any) are adopted, it could represent a worthwhile change in the relationship between the Oireachtas and the Government. The job of the Oireachtas, after all, is to hold the Government to account, but holding the Government to account in respect of its actions and decisions in the EU has been difficult, and has contributed to a sense of disconnect (the 'democratic deficit') between the EU and the citizens.

From the introduction:

The Lisbon Treaty has wide-ranging effects on the relationship between institutions of the European Union and the national institutions of individual member states. This Sub-Committee was entrusted with the task of examining the crucially important relationship between the Houses of the Oireachtas and the European institutions.

The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty provided the impetus for change, but this review goes further than merely recommending those changes mandated by the Treaty. The terms of reference of the Sub-Committee recognised that the task of re-balancing of the role of the Oireachtas presented an opportunity, as well as presenting a challenge for the Houses of the Oireachtas. This opportunity was to re-evaluate how European issues are examined by the National Parliament, and how the Parliament works with the Executive to maximise democratic accountability at both national and European levels. Neither the internal workings of the Houses of the Oireachtas nor their relationship with the institutions of the European Union get much media attention. They are not the stuff of heated popular debate. Yet the low profile of the institutional issues belies their enormous importance for democracy at both national and European level.

The Oireachtas can lead the way in bridging a disconnect that has often been felt between the people and the European Union. An enhanced role for the Oireachtas in European Affairs can only enhance democratic participation and democratic accountability. Measures and policies shaped in Brussels play an increasing role in our daily affairs, and for that reason this Report recommends that the Houses of the Oireachtas play an increased role in shaping, scrutinising, overseeing and implementing those measures. Should the committee’s recommendations be substantially implemented, I am confident that a more engaged and transparent relationship between the Oireachtas and the EU will inevitably follow.

The Report makes a number of recommendations, listed below. JCEA is the Joint Committee on European Affairs, JCES is the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny.

1. current interim arrangements to be made permanent with annual review
2. weekly report on EU documents to be published
3. documents to be laid electronically
4. division of legislative proposals to be scrutinised into minor and major impact for Ireland
5. six-monthly report by each Dept on EU developments, measures proposed and progressed
6. Commission Annual Policy Strategy to be debated in JCEA and both Houses
7. Commission Annual Legislative Work Programme to be debated in JCES and report laid before the Houses
8. Ministers should be obliged to attend relevant sectoral Committee in advance of Council meetings
9. that statements and Q&A take place in the Dáil prior to Council meetings
10. that the Government should, as a matter of urgency, bring forward proposals on how EU budget scrutiny will happen
11. a scrutiny reserve is recommended - that a Minister not agree to EU legislation before the Committee has finished its scrutiny. Allowance is made for an 'urgency clause' allowing a Minister to over-ride the reserve if required, but to have to justify doing so
12. that a Memorandum of Understanding be agreed between the Oireachtas and the Government on the operation of such a system
13. JCEA and JCES to be amalgamated
14. that the Houses of the Oireachtas should host an interparliamentary meeting on an annual or bi-annual basis to discuss a topical EU policy area or legislative proposal
15. that the JCEA and JCES have regular meetings with the Irish MEPs to discuss issues of mutual concern on the EU’s agenda
16. that the JCEA and JCES, as well as appropriate sectoral committees, consider holding consultations with the Rapporteur of the European Parliament Committee dealing with the policy or legislative proposal under scrutiny
17. that the powers of referral of EU documents by the JCEA and JCES and the powers of consideration by the sectoral committees are rationalised and strengthened
18. that a Rapporteur system be introduced for the consideration of important EU policy and legislative proposals
19. that reports of the JCEA and JCES which are recommended for debate are taken for debate within a certain period of time
20. that selected sectoral committees would be obliged to report to the Seanad periodically in respect of its EU related work
21. that the week of 9 May, Europe Day, each year should be set aside by the Dáil as a week for debates and events on EU related topics
22. that Regulatory Impact Assessments prepared by Depts for Directives should be giev to the JCEA and JCES
23. that all SIs should be circulated to all Oireachtas members six weeks before they are signed by the relevant Minister
24. that the Seanad play an important role in the area of monitoring the transposition of EU Directives
25. that the JCEA should be briefed on infringement actions taken or pending against Ireland for the non-transposition or improper transposition of EU Directives
26. that the JCEA should undertake a study of selected EU Directives transposed in Ireland which have caused the greatest concern in terms of regulation
27. that an EU information kiosk is established in the lobby entrance of the visitors’ gallery of Leinster House
28. that the Oireachtas should form a more formal link with the Representatives Offices of the Commission and the European Parliament in Ireland in order to maximise their joint remit to communicate Europe

There's a lot in that, and some of it will seem abstruse or a little 'theoretical' to some, but implementation of the recommendations would strengthen the Oireachtas' role in controlling and making accountable the actions of the Government in the EU - and the implementation of almost any of the recommendations seems positive to me. Many of the measures explicitly flow from Lisbon, and the greater scrutiny powers accorded to national parliaments in it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Macha

Thanks for the heads up.

I wonder how long it might take to get these recommendations into law?

Also, what do they mean by "important role" for the Seanad in monitoring directive transposition? Sounds very woolly.

Scofflaw

taconnol wrote: »

Thanks for the heads up.

I was afraid I'd frightened everyone away!

taconnol wrote: »

I wonder how long it might take to get these recommendations into law?

Good question - I suspect the answer is the traditional comment about string. Not for the next three months, anyway!

taconnol wrote: »

Also, what do they mean by "important role" for the Seanad in monitoring directive transposition? Sounds very woolly.

It is a bit woolly, but there are more specifics in the report:

It is also recommended that the Seanad play an important role in the area of monitoring the transposition of EU Directives. To facilitate such a role, the recommendation of SCIFE that a new Seanad vocational panel of 5 members be established should be actively considered. Alternatively, the Taoiseach’s nominees for the Seanad should be influenced by a desire to appoint individuals with a background in EU affairs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

whatisayis

Scofflaw wrote: »

that an EU information kiosk is established in the lobby entrance of the visitors’ gallery of Leinster House.

Maybe this kind of initiative would generate a bit more interest if an EU information Kiosk was established in the lobby entrance of the Dole offices in Ireland.

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Report makes a number of recommendations, listed below. JCEA is the Joint Committee on European Affairs, JCES is the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny.

1. current interim arrangements to be made permanent with annual review
2. weekly report on EU documents to be published
3. documents to be laid electronically
4. division of legislative proposals to be scrutinised into minor and major impact for Ireland
5. six-monthly report by each Dept on EU developments, measures proposed and progressed
6. Commission Annual Policy Strategy to be debated in JCEA and both Houses
7. Commission Annual Legislative Work Programme to be debated in JCES and report laid before the Houses
8. Ministers should be obliged to attend relevant sectoral Committee in advance of Council meetings
9. that statements and Q&A take place in the Dáil prior to Council meetings
10. that the Government should, as a matter of urgency, bring forward proposals on how EU budget scrutiny will happen
11. a scrutiny reserve is recommended - that a Minister not agree to EU legislation before the Committee has finished its scrutiny. Allowance is made for an 'urgency clause' allowing a Minister to over-ride the reserve if required, but to have to justify doing so
12. that a Memorandum of Understanding be agreed between the Oireachtas and the Government on the operation of such a system
13. JCEA and JCES to be amalgamated
14. that the Houses of the Oireachtas should host an interparliamentary meeting on an annual or bi-annual basis to discuss a topical EU policy area or legislative proposal
15. that the JCEA and JCES have regular meetings with the Irish MEPs to discuss issues of mutual concern on the EU’s agenda
16. that the JCEA and JCES, as well as appropriate sectoral committees, consider holding consultations with the Rapporteur of the European Parliament Committee dealing with the policy or legislative proposal under scrutiny
17. that the powers of referral of EU documents by the JCEA and JCES and the powers of consideration by the sectoral committees are rationalised and strengthened
18. that a Rapporteur system be introduced for the consideration of important EU policy and legislative proposals
19. that reports of the JCEA and JCES which are recommended for debate are taken for debate within a certain period of time
20. that selected sectoral committees would be obliged to report to the Seanad periodically in respect of its EU related work
21. that the week of 9 May, Europe Day, each year should be set aside by the Dáil as a week for debates and events on EU related topics
22. that Regulatory Impact Assessments prepared by Depts for Directives should be giev to the JCEA and JCES
23. that all SIs should be circulated to all Oireachtas members six weeks before they are signed by the relevant Minister
24. that the Seanad play an important role in the area of monitoring the transposition of EU Directives
25. that the JCEA should be briefed on infringement actions taken or pending against Ireland for the non-transposition or improper transposition of EU Directives
26. that the JCEA should undertake a study of selected EU Directives transposed in Ireland which have caused the greatest concern in terms of regulation
27. that an EU information kiosk is established in the lobby entrance of the visitors’ gallery of Leinster House
28. that the Oireachtas should form a more formal link with the Representatives Offices of the Commission and the European Parliament in Ireland in order to maximise their joint remit to communicate Europe

cordially,
Scofflaw

I would be interested to know which of these flow directly from lLisbon and not the German Constitutional court ruling on Lisbon. As far as i can see all 28 recommendations were possible before Lisbon.
The only power the oireachtas gained under Lisbon was the "red card" on article 48.7 revisions which wasnt necessary before Lisbon.
The "yellow card" is where 1/3 of national parliaments get the commission to review a proposal, the commission is perfectly free to carry on regardless.
The "orange card" is where 5)% +1 of national parliaments ask the COM and EP to consider their objection. Again the COM and EP are free to carry on regardless.
So in reality national parliaments have gained very little under Lisbon and in fact have conceded a hell of a lot with the concession of 60 vetoes.

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

holding the Government to account in respect of its actions and decisions in the EU has been difficult, and has contributed to a sense of disconnect (the 'democratic deficit') between the EU and the citizens.

But wasnt the point of the european project to take decision making away from joe soap as he cant be trusted as he went along with Hitler, Mussolini etc. But a powerul intergovernmental council would be able to restrain a new Hitler.
This view was perhaps understandable coming out of the ashes of WW2 but certainly not today and thats why genuine democratic reform in needed not cosmetic and piecemeal changes.

View

I have to confess that a lot of these proposals seem more than a little theoretical to me. At the moment, the Oireachtas essentially just rubber-stamps Government decisions - hence, the odds of the Oireachtas ever disagreeing with the Government is essentially nil.

evercloserunion

BetterLisbon wrote: »

But wasnt the point of the european project to take decision making away from joe soap as he cant be trusted as he went along with Hitler, Mussolini etc. But a powerul intergovernmental council would be able to restrain a new Hitler.
This view was perhaps understandable coming out of the ashes of WW2 but certainly not today and thats why genuine democratic reform in needed not cosmetic and piecemeal changes.

No, that wasn't the intention of the European project. The point was to protect against a future World War by integrating the economies of Member States to the extent that it became economically suicidal to attack your neighbour. Nothing about doing away with democracy at all.

McDougal

evercloserunion wrote: »

No, that wasn't the intention of the European project. The point was to protect against a future World War by integrating the economies of Member States to the extent that it became economically suicidal to attack your neighbour. Nothing about doing away with democracy at all.

So if the Belgian and Italian economies weren't integrated then they would go to war? Or maybe France and West Germany would have started WW3 in the 1970s while the Soviets looked on and laughed?

But I take your point. When every nation is controlled by German bankers then why would they go to war with eachother?

evercloserunion

So if the Belgian and Italian economies weren't integrated then they would go to war? Or maybe France and West Germany would have started WW3 in the 1970s while the Soviets looked on and laughed?

You really think the idea of two or more European powers going to war with one another is that silly? How short is your memory exactly?

But I take your point. When every nation is controlled by German bankers then why would they go to war with eachother?

*sigh*

McDougal

evercloserunion wrote: »

You really think the idea of two or more European powers going to war with one another is that silly? How short is your memory exactly?

Yes it's completely silly. The world order had completely changed after WW2. The western european nations were bankrupt, had lost their empires and had become subserviant to the US and Soviet Union in the new world order. The so called "red threat" from the east forced european powers into co-operation and alliances. It was illogical for them to fight eachother. How bad is your history exactly?

The idea that WW3 would have broke out if it wasn't for a glorified free trade agreement is absolutely ridiculous and only a deluded europhile would use that argument to justify the Brussels bureaucracy.

Scofflaw

McDougal wrote: »

Yes it's completely silly. The world order had completely changed after WW2. The western european nations were bankrupt, had lost their empires and had become subserviant to the US and Soviet Union in the new world order. The so called "red threat" from the east forced european powers into co-operation and alliances. It was illogical for them to fight eachother. How bad is your history exactly?

The idea that WW3 would have broke out if it wasn't for a glorified free trade agreement is absolutely ridiculous and only a deluded europhile would use that argument to justify the Brussels bureaucracy.

Sure, because nobody needs positive reasons to develop trust or goodwill - it happens automatically when faced with an external threat, and certainly doesn't fall to bits the moment that threat is removed at all.

The Greek cities and the Persian threat is a particularly fine example of the lasting amity and co-operation developed through facing a major external threat - I'm sure the European powers, despite having fought like cats in a bag for centuries, needed only a generation of external threat to make them permanently friends.

Or, you know, not. It's been 20 years since the Berlin Wall fell - and yet still you find the idea of a European war unthinkable.

regards,
Scofflaw

evercloserunion

McDougal wrote: »

Yes it's completely silly. The world order had completely changed after WW2. The western european nations were bankrupt, had lost their empires and had become subserviant to the US and Soviet Union in the new world order. The so called "red threat" from the east forced european powers into co-operation and alliances. It was illogical for them to fight eachother. How bad is your history exactly?

Ridiculous. So because, immediately after WWII, Europeans were not in a position to go to war with one another, it was unthinkable that another war would ever occur? I don't know if you're really that naive or just being disingenuous.

Don't know if you've noticed but the red threat is *gone*. The USSR has fallen, Europe is no longer subservient to either cold war power and there are now several European countries which are more than developed and powerful enough to go to war on their own account. So either:
- this would have happened without an EU, in which case your argument about there never being a European war again after WWII is silly; or
- the EU was necessary to break Europe out of subservience to the US and the USSR, which is a good thing in its own right.

I strongly suspect that it was the former. But then that's because I know a little about history; not much, but enough to know that alliances based on fear of a common enemy don't necessarily last forever, and that nations weakened and disempowered by war don't necessarily stay that way.

Scofflaw

evercloserunion wrote: »

Ridiculous. So because, immediately after WWII, Europeans were not in a position to go to war with one another, it was unthinkable that another war would ever occur? I don't know if you're really that naive or just being disingenuous.

Don't know if you've noticed but the red threat is *gone*. The USSR has fallen, Europe is no longer subservient to either cold war power and there are now several European countries which are more than developed and powerful enough to go to war on their own account. So either:
- this would have happened without an EU, in which case your argument about there never being a European war again after WWII is silly; or
- the EU was necessary to break Europe out of subservience to the US and the USSR, which is a good thing in its own right.

I strongly suspect that it was the former. But then that's because I know a little about history; not much, but enough to know that alliances based on fear of a common enemy don't necessarily last forever, and that nations weakened and disempowered by war don't necessarily stay that way.

The UK, France and Germany remain great powers - they've dropped very slightly behind India and China on sheer manpower availability, but for most of the past 50 years they've been top of the great powers league. There's an inbred idea in some quarters that the European countries are somehow old and feeble, which I suspect plays into this whole "they couldn't have fought each other anyway" idea. Countries, though, don't actually get old.

cordially,
Scofflaw

McDougal

evercloserunion wrote: »

Ridiculous. So because, immediately after WWII, Europeans were not in a position to go to war with one another, it was unthinkable that another war would ever occur? I don't know if you're really that naive or just being disingenuous.

Don't know if you've noticed but the red threat is *gone*. The USSR has fallen, Europe is no longer subservient to either cold war power and there are now several European countries which are more than developed and powerful enough to go to war on their own account. So either:
- this would have happened without an EU, in which case your argument about there never being a European war again after WWII is silly; or
- the EU was necessary to break Europe out of subservience to the US and the USSR, which is a good thing in its own right.

I strongly suspect that it was the former. But then that's because I know a little about history; not much, but enough to know that alliances based on fear of a common enemy don't necessarily last forever, and that nations weakened and disempowered by war don't necessarily stay that way.

Well that's a load of BS and is best ignored but tell me this, are you honestly saying the EU was formed to prevent war and that if it wasn't for the EU WW3 would have broken out?

evercloserunion

McDougal wrote: »

Well that's a load of BS and is best ignored but tell me this, are you honestly saying the EU was formed to prevent war and that if it wasn't for the EU WW3 would have broken out?

Fail. If you're not going to address my points I'm not going to entertain you any longer.

Scofflaw

Also we're now rather heavily off-topic. If people want to discuss the historical point of the EU, then start a thread for it, and I'll move the posts there.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Or, alternatively, I could delete off-topic posts and infract people who aren't paying attention.

Not my preferred option, but there you go.

moderately,
Scofflaw

rumour

So months after the Treaty and years after two referendums this country is now trying to figure out how it will work........???

Is it any wonder this nation is in such a crap state. I don't want to reopen Lisbon but this is exactly the crap that I knew we were doing, walking blindly into something without a notion of how it will work. On the back foot again as a country.

I guess I should be satisfied that they are doing something constructive, but all this should have been done before the treaty. Why are we always put in a position of having to accept failure. I guess there will be 100's of reasons why it wasn't, but I'll just consider them excuses. This is exactly the kind of planning and work that ought to have been done in advance. Explained rationally to people I believe they would have said yes.

Our brilliant nation decided to focus on abortion and jobs, talk about Roger irrelevant.

Anyway thanks for news.

View

rumour wrote: »

Explained rationally to people I believe they would have said yes.

The problem in that sentence is the 'rationally' part. Referenda campaigns are not conducive to rational debate.

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

The problem in that sentence is the 'rationally' part. Referenda campaigns are not conducive to rational debate.

Unfortunately so - our referendums are instead decided by competitive advertising, without even the benefit of the Advertising Standards Authority as a referee.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately so - our referendums are instead decided by competitive advertising, without even the benefit of the Advertising Standards Authority as a referee.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I know. I don't see an obvious solution though.

One would be that the Referendum Commission gets the right to ban blatantly false statements and/or issue warnings on off-topic/unsupported claims. That, though, runs the risk of discrediting the Commission and indeed the use of referenda themselves.

On the other hand, we continue the current system where - based on past evidence - various parties deliberately set out to create confusion and/or lie right from the start. In that case, the results are largely meaningless.

I, honestly, believe that we should probably abandon them and move to allowing the Oireachtas to make the decisions based on a 2/3 majority. I don't particularly like that idea but it, at least, has the merit of ensuring politics ends up focused on the importance of the Oireachtas.