Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

Scofflaw · 21-08-2009 01:49PM

Certainly the German judgement explicitly stated that Lisbon did not create a state.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Freeborn John · 21-08-2009 01:54PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's true. Lucky for us we're about 43 treaties away from that stage

I don't think it is anywhere that many. The federal aspect of the EU is the community method which becomes the norm in Lisbon, which 'collapses the pillar structure' that limited federalism to the first pillar of common market law.

In any case, unless you support the end why would support each salami-slice towards that goal?

“The founding fathers of the United States admitted from the outset that the Constitution as drafted was not the final word. Far from over-selling the text as the ultimate settlement, as some Europeans have done with Lisbon, the Americans were bold enough to admit that further amendment would be both desirable and necessary…”

“So the Treaty of Lisbon is not the last word… Europe can decide whether it wants to be more united or more divided: it neither can nor will stay as it is. The challenge is to manage this federalisation process with similar skill and boldness to that evinced in their time by Messrs Madison, Hamilton and Jefferson.”

Andrew Duff MEP ('Saving the European Union')

http://www.shoehornbooks.com/SavingtheEU/author.htm

Sam Vimes · 21-08-2009 01:57PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

I don't think it is anywhere that many. The federal aspect of the EU is the community method which becomes the norm in Lisbon, which 'collapses the pillar structure' that limited federalism to the first pillar of common market law.

In any case, unless you support the end why would support each salami-slice towards that goal?

I don't support allowing children and drunk people drive but I support allowing competent adults who have passed a test. Certain aspects of federalism can be beneficial without going the whole hog.

To be honest, I'd rather have some decisions in the hands of Europe than in those of the gobsh!tes in Leinster house, assuming we still have some say over them, which we do

Scofflaw · 21-08-2009 02:02PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

I don't think it is anywhere that many. The federal aspect of the EU is the community method which becomes the norm in Lisbon, which 'collapses the pillar structure' that limited federalism to the first pillar of common market law.

In any case, unless you support the end why would support each salami-slice towards that goal?
“The founding fathers of the United States admitted from the outset that the Constitution as drafted was not the final word. Far from over-selling the text as the ultimate settlement, as some Europeans have done with Lisbon, the Americans were bold enough to admit that further amendment would be both desirable and necessary…”

“So the Treaty of Lisbon is not the last word… Europe can decide whether it wants to be more united or more divided: it neither can nor will stay as it is. The challenge is to manage this federalisation process with similar skill and boldness to that evinced in their time by Messrs Madison, Hamilton and Jefferson.”

Andrew Duff MEP ('Saving the European Union')

http://www.shoehornbooks.com/SavingtheEU/author.htm

There are federalists, who wish each step to lead towards what they regard as an inevitable union. You are quoting one, and you seem to feel that settles the debate - but, as has been pointed out to you before, federalists are in a minority in the European dialogue, much as you are. The only thing you agree on is that Europe will inevitably become a federal state, but neither of you are in a position to dictate that this is a universal truth. The majority of those who support the EU support the current limited pooling of sovereignty, making us neither federalists nor sovereigntists - and because we are in the majority, we do not share your hysterical fear that the EU will inevitably become a federal state, because we do not intend that it should.

There is no inevitability in politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Macha · 21-08-2009 02:04PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

In any case, unless you support the end why would support each salami-slice towards that goal?

Oh the slipperly-slope argument. You may remember this from other debates such as same-sex marriage ("shur they'll be marrying animals next") and the legalisation of cannabis ("what's next? heroin?")

Freeborn John wrote: »

“So the Treaty of Lisbon is not the last word… Europe can decide whether it wants to be more united or more divided: it neither can nor will stay as it is."

Who are you to decide what future generations may or may not want Europe to become? Why is it you feel you should have the "last word" on Europe for the forseeable future?

hatrickpatrick · 21-08-2009 02:11PM

Since Scofflaw is not in fact speaking from a nationalist point of view as I certainly am, can I just ask someone who is a nationalist AND a supporter of Lisbon to answer this question... and since, as Oscar has already pointed out everyone is being so unbelievably long winded in their answers, can we just have a yes or no answer to this one, please?

My personal stance is that I will not vote for anything which removes the power of decision over any Irish domestic policy from the Irish parliament or the Irish citizens and gives it to any other entity. I'm basicallyu fine with the amount we've done so far in terms of the UN and the EU but I really do believe that any more will compromise our ability to govern ourselves.

So my question, and a yes or no answer would be very much appreciated, is this:

Does the Lisbon treaty transfer any new powers from our national parliament to any larger organization, in any way, shape or form?

Yes or no?

oscarBravo · 21-08-2009 02:15PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

In any case, unless you support the end why would support each salami-slice towards that goal?

Because those "salami-slices" also lead towards different goals?

If I want to go to Mullingar but don't want to go to Dublin, should I avoid the N5 because its ultimate destination is Dublin?

Far from over-selling the text as the ultimate settlement, as some Europeans have done with Lisbon...

I know you're quoting Duff here, but who has described Lisbon as the "ultimate" EU treaty? I've certainly never seen it described as such.

Sam Vimes · 21-08-2009 02:16PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Does the Lisbon treaty transfer any new powers from our national parliament to any larger organization, in any way, shape or form?

The treaty gives the EU no new areas of exclusive competence; however, it establishes joint competence in the areas of space and energy. It also gives the EU the role of supporting competence in several new fields including health, education, tourism, energy and sport.

http://www.independent.ie/special-features/your-eu/the-lisbon-treaty-for-dummies-1376340.html

oscarBravo · 21-08-2009 02:18PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

... Oscar has already pointed out everyone is being so unbelievably long winded in their answers...

I don't have an issue with verbosity per se, as long as something is being said. The use of long-winded posts as a technique to obscure the fact that the poster is refusing to answer straight questions - that I have a problem with.

ei.sdraob · 21-08-2009 02:26PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Does the Lisbon treaty transfer any new powers from our national parliament to any larger organization, in any way, shape or form?

Yes or no?

from what i gather National governments get more power transfered to them in the form of "yellow card facility"

also Ireland gets its particular concerns met in several areas and reinforced

and the citizens initiative is a way of giving more power to the people

so i have to say YES, correct me if im wrong of course anyone

Macha · 21-08-2009 02:31PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The treaty gives the EU no new areas of exclusive competence; however, it establishes joint competence in the areas of space and energy. It also gives the EU the role of supporting competence in several new fields including health, education, tourism, energy and sport.

http://www.independent.ie/special-features/your-eu/the-lisbon-treaty-for-dummies-1376340.html

And I can tell you about 10 reasons why more co-operation in energy is a very, very good idea for Ireland.

Scofflaw · 21-08-2009 02:35PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Since Scofflaw is not in fact speaking from a nationalist point of view as I certainly am, can I just ask someone who is a nationalist AND a supporter of Lisbon to answer this question... and since, as Oscar has already pointed out everyone is being so unbelievably long winded in their answers, can we just have a yes or no answer to this one, please?

My personal stance is that I will not vote for anything which removes the power of decision over any Irish domestic policy from the Irish parliament or the Irish citizens and gives it to any other entity. I'm basicallyu fine with the amount we've done so far in terms of the UN and the EU but I really do believe that any more will compromise our ability to govern ourselves.

So my question, and a yes or no answer would be very much appreciated, is this:

Does the Lisbon treaty transfer any new powers from our national parliament to any larger organization, in any way, shape or form?

Yes or no?

Yes...and no (you knew I would). More yes than no, though. Lisbon would create shared EU competences in energy and space, supporting competences in sport and tourism, detail as follows:

Article 194 establishes a specific legal basis for energy policy, and gives the aims and objectives of energy policy:

(a) ensure the functioning of the energy market;
(b) ensure security of energy supply in the EU;
(c) promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy;
(d) promote the interconnection of energy networks.

Paragraph 2 makes explicit that this will not affect a Member State's rights in specified areas:

(a) the conditions for exploiting its energy resources (so no impact on Irish oil and gas licensing);
(b) its choice between different energy sources (so Ireland cannot be forced to use nuclear energy)
(c) the general structure of its energy supply
Measures to be adopted by co-decision, but measures primarily of a fiscal nature are subject to unanimity and consultation with the EP.

Article 189 establishes a specific legal basis for developing a European space policy:

"To promote scientific and technical progress, industrial competitiveness and the implementation of its policies, the Union shall draw up a European space policy. To this end, it may promote joint initiatives, support research and technological development and coordinate the efforts needed for the exploration and exploitation of space.
2. To contribute to attaining the objectives referred to in paragraph 1, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish the necessary measures, which may take the form of a European space programme, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States.
3. The Union shall establish any appropriate relations with the European Space Agency.
4. This Article shall be without prejudice to the other provisions of this Title."

Article 165 sets out that the EU shall contribute to the promotion of sport:

The Union shall contribute to the promotion of European sporting issues, while taking account of the specific nature of sport, its structures based on voluntary activity and its social and educational function.

– encouraging the development of youth exchanges and of exchanges of socio-educational instructors, and encouraging the participation of young people in democratic life in Europe,
– developing the European dimension in sport, by promoting fairness and openness in sporting competitions and cooperation between bodies responsible for sports, and by protecting the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen, especially the youngest sportsmen and sportswomen.

Article 195 establishes a specific legal basis for tourism measures, complementing action by the Member States, and with the following aims:

(a) encouraging the creation of a favourable environment for the development of undertakings in this sector;
(b) promoting cooperation between the Member States, particularly by the exchange of good practice.
Harmonisation of legislation is excluded. Measures to be adopted by co-decision.

Now, supplementary competences mean that the state has first right to act, so one can say that the Oireachtas is gaining influence here, since it gains input to a larger (European) policy field without surrendering any control over national policy. I would see that as a gain, but of course one could say that one has no interest in having a European energy policy, or no interest in there being Irish input to it.

For space policy, the EU "shall have competence to carry out activities, in particular to define and implement programmes; however, the exercise of that competence shall not result in Member States being prevented from exercising theirs." Since there isn't an Irish space policy...

The shared competence in energy means that where there is a European policy there will be no national policy, so in the field of energy the Oireachtas can be said to be both gaining a European dimension and losing specific (limited) rights over the Irish policy.

I know, it's not a simple Yes/No answer, but then just because you want a one-word answer doesn't mean a one-word answer is appropriate. However, from the point of view you've laid out, the answer is "yes, the Oireachtas loses the sole right to set energy policy in specific areas" and your vote is therefore a "no".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Freeborn John · 21-08-2009 02:36PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Since Scofflaw is not in fact speaking from a nationalist point of view as I certainly am, can I just ask someone who is a nationalist AND a supporter of Lisbon to answer this question... and since, as Oscar has already pointed out everyone is being so unbelievably long winded in their answers, can we just have a yes or no answer to this one, please?

My personal stance is that I will not vote for anything which removes the power of decision over any Irish domestic policy from the Irish parliament or the Irish citizens and gives it to any other entity. I'm basicallyu fine with the amount we've done so far in terms of the UN and the EU but I really do believe that any more will compromise our ability to govern ourselves.

So my question, and a yes or no answer would be very much appreciated, is this:

Does the Lisbon treaty transfer any new powers from our national parliament to any larger organization, in any way, shape or form?

Yes or no?

The answer is a definite Yes. When you talk of "removes the power of decision over any Irish domestic policy from the Irish parliament" it means not just additional competences for the European Union, but also moves from unanimity (such that Ireland can decide) to qualified majority votes (such that things can be decided for Ireland, even against her vote). The following document on the European Commission website shows Lisbon moves 50 such areas to qualified majority.

http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/lisbon_treaty/questions_and_answers/new_cases_of_qmv.pdf

marco_polo · 21-08-2009 02:50PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Since Scofflaw is not in fact speaking from a nationalist point of view as I certainly am, can I just ask someone who is a nationalist AND a supporter of Lisbon to answer this question... and since, as Oscar has already pointed out everyone is being so unbelievably long winded in their answers, can we just have a yes or no answer to this one, please?

My personal stance is that I will not vote for anything which removes the power of decision over any Irish domestic policy from the Irish parliament or the Irish citizens and gives it to any other entity. I'm basicallyu fine with the amount we've done so far in terms of the UN and the EU but I really do believe that any more will compromise our ability to govern ourselves.

So my question, and a yes or no answer would be very much appreciated, is this:

Does the Lisbon treaty transfer any new powers from our national parliament to any larger organization, in any way, shape or form?

Yes or no?

Why is shared sovereignty acceptable to you, in many areas such as monetary, social, environmental and immigration policy. And yet is a bridge too far for Energy, Tourism, Sport and Space Exploration.

K-9 · 21-08-2009 02:52PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

In any case, unless you support the end why would support each salami-slice towards that goal?

Because people can say Yes to Lisbon and No to future Treaties if they so wish, just as people would have said Yes to Maastricht and No to Nice or Lisbon.

Freeborn John · 21-08-2009 02:58PM

marco_polo wrote: »

Why is shared sovereignty acceptable to you, in many areas such as monetary, social, environmental and immigration policy. And yet is a bridge too far for Energy, Tourism, Sport and Space Exploration.

The definition of 'shared competence' in Lisbon means 'shared in time', i.e. until the EU gets around to creating law in that area. So even in the existing areas of shared competence the EU will be increasing its powers over time with every new EU law. The voting rule changes will speed that process up.

marco_polo · 21-08-2009 03:04PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

The definition of 'shared competence' in Lisbon means 'shared in time', i.e. until the EU gets around to creating law in that area. So even in the existing areas of shared competence the EU will be increasing its powers over time with every new EU law. The voting rule changes will speed that process up.

Way to not answer the question (Which was not even directed at you in any case).

I was not tallking specifically about 'shared competence', more the general principal of sharing power.

djpbarry · 21-08-2009 03:09PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

My personal stance is that I will not vote for anything which removes the power of decision over any Irish domestic policy from the Irish parliament or the Irish citizens and gives it to any other entity. I'm basicallyu fine with the amount we've done so far in terms of the UN and the EU but I really do believe that any more will compromise our ability to govern ourselves.

You’re fine with the EU as it is? So does that mean that you supported Nice, Amsterdam, Maastricht, etc. and the associated loss of “sovereignty”? But now you’re staunchly opposed to conferring the EU with any further competence, regardless of what that might be?

That makes absolutely no sense to me.

hatrickpatrick · 21-08-2009 03:28PM

To make it very simple, I'm not opposed to the economic union, it has obvious benefits for everyone and has worked very well.
I do, however, believe that domestic social policy should be left entirely in the hands of the national government (I actually believe it should be directly in the hands of the people but I realize I'm in the minority there). I wasn't aware that the EU had any major powers over national social powers already, and if it does I would greatly appreciate a quick summary of them - but up until recently the EU was definitely geared towards economics.

I can understand the need for the EU to have some immigration control since once you're a citizen here, you're a citizen everywhere else in the EU. That makes a lot of sense.

If Ireland still has the right to choose its own energy policy, how exactly has the EU gained any control over our energy policy?

Space: I really don't see how we could have any impact in that area on our own either way, we don't really have any sort of official space policy. That's something which undeniably needs a bigger entity to drive.

The promotion of sport doesn't exactly remove any power from the Irish government the way I read it.

Tourism worries me just slightly. I think in this economic climate it should be paramount for us to promote tourism, and I oppose any restrictions being put on this in the interests of competition or anything like that. IMO, we need as much of a tourism drive as possible.

It's social and environmental policy which worries me. Those are definitely areas in which the people should have much more control, not less.

For the record, I didn't necessarily support Nice. I was too young at the time to understand it, but looking back I most likely would have opposed. The larger an entity becomes, the less of a voice each member has. That's specifically why I oppose transferring sovereignty out of Ireland - even if every Irish MEP voted the same way, we'd still have no actual control over it if everyone else voted against us.

Macha · 21-08-2009 03:36PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If Ireland still has the right to choose its own energy policy, how exactly has the EU gained any control over our energy policy?

The Lisbon Treaty would enhance Ireland's interconection with other networks (TENs) thus allowing us to export our surplus renewable energies and make money of them. It also allows us to import renewables from other countries when our wind isn't blowing/sun isn't shining. It also brings us a step closer to a Europe-wide supergrid (the larger the grid the more the generation load is levelled out).

We can choose our own energy policy, we just have to make sure we're in line with EU renewable targets and CO2 reduction targets (that we played a part in creating and agreed on). These are also aimed to minimise the payment of carbon credits through Kyoto.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's social and environmental policy which worries me. Those are definitely areas in which the people should have much more control, not less.

Argh, who are this "the people"? If you ask people if they want environmental policy they also say "sure sure good thing, right"? Reality is no one would actually do it if they weren't required to by the government. Water charges? I've never seen such hissy fits in my life. Recycling? Pah.

marco_polo · 21-08-2009 03:48PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To make it very simple, I'm not opposed to the economic union, it has obvious benefits for everyone and has worked very well.
I do, however, believe that domestic social policy should be left entirely in the hands of the national government (I actually believe it should be directly in the hands of the people but I realize I'm in the minority there). I wasn't aware that the EU had any major powers over national social powers already, and if it does I would greatly appreciate a quick summary of them - but up until recently the EU was definitely geared towards economics.

I can understand the need for the EU to have some immigration control since once you're a citizen here, you're a citizen everywhere else in the EU. That makes a lot of sense.

If Ireland still has the right to choose its own energy policy, how exactly has the EU gained any control over our energy policy?

Space: I really don't see how we could have any impact in that area on our own either way, we don't really have any sort of official space policy. That's something which undeniably needs a bigger entity to drive.

The promotion of sport doesn't exactly remove any power from the Irish government the way I read it.

Tourism worries me just slightly. I think in this economic climate it should be paramount for us to promote tourism, and I oppose any restrictions being put on this in the interests of competition or anything like that. IMO, we need as much of a tourism drive as possible.

It's social and environmental policy which worries me. Those are definitely areas in which the people should have much more control, not less.

For the record, I didn't necessarily support Nice. I was too young at the time to understand it, but looking back I most likely would have opposed. The larger an entity becomes, the less of a voice each member has. That's specifically why I oppose transferring sovereignty out of Ireland - even if every Irish MEP voted the same way, we'd still have no actual control over it if everyone else voted against us.

Social policy would touch on areas such as discrimination, employment law, Health and Safety etc. The majority of Eu laws in these areas and in Environmental Protection have been far more progressive in general than anything enacted by us at a national level in my opinion.

The worst example of all is that before we joined the EU married women had to give up their jobs in the civil service.

Freeborn John · 21-08-2009 03:56PM

marco_polo wrote: »

Way to not answer the question (Which was not even directed at you in any case).

Ah, my apologies; I just thought hatrickpatrick might like the correct answer.

marco_polo · 21-08-2009 03:59PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

Ah, my apologies; I just thought hatrickpatrick might like the correct answer.

Considering you seem to have only one point to make in 100 odd posts rest assured everyone has recieved your message loud and clear.

Scofflaw · 21-08-2009 04:02PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To make it very simple, I'm not opposed to the economic union, it has obvious benefits for everyone and has worked very well.
I do, however, believe that domestic social policy should be left entirely in the hands of the national government (I actually believe it should be directly in the hands of the people but I realize I'm in the minority there). I wasn't aware that the EU had any major powers over national social powers already, and if it does I would greatly appreciate a quick summary of them - but up until recently the EU was definitely geared towards economics.

These are the EU's competences:

Exclusive Competences
Lists the areas and circumstances in which the EU has exclusive competence, meaning that the member states do not legislate on these areas:
(a) customs union;
(b) the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market;
(c) monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro;
(d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy;
(e) common commercial policy.

These competences already exist, and are not being granted by Lisbon. Previously, these were listed as "activities", and it was not clear the extent to which they were exclusive to the EU or not.

Shared Competences
Describes the circumstances and principal areas in which competence is shared between the EU and Member States, and where when decisions have been taken through the EU the State will not exercise its own powers:

(a) internal market;
(b) social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty;
(c) economic, social and territorial cohesion;
(d) agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources;
(e) environment;
(f) consumer protection;
(g) transport;
(h) trans-European networks;
(i) energy (new);
(j) area of freedom, security and justice;
(k) common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in this Treaty.

and makes explicit those areas in which the exercise of the EU's competence does not prevent Member States from exercising their own powers:

(a) research
(b) technological development
(c) space (new)
(d) development cooperation
(e) humanitarian aid

Again, these competences are not new, unless they are marked as such. Previously, these were listed as "activities", and it was not clear the extent to which they were exclusive to the EU or not.

Supporting Competences
Sets out areas in which the EU has competence to support, coordinate or supplement actions of the Member States at European level, but where the member states have full competence to legislate:

(a) protection and improvement of human health;
(b) industry;
(c) culture;
(d) tourism (new);
(e) education, vocational training, youth and sport (sport is new);
(f) civil protection;
(g) administrative cooperation.

Except where noted these are not new competences.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I can understand the need for the EU to have some immigration control since once you're a citizen here, you're a citizen everywhere else in the EU. That makes a lot of sense.

If Ireland still has the right to choose its own energy policy, how exactly has the EU gained any control over our energy policy?

Space: I really don't see how we could have any impact in that area on our own either way, we don't really have any sort of official space policy. That's something which undeniably needs a bigger entity to drive.

The promotion of sport doesn't exactly remove any power from the Irish government the way I read it.

Tourism worries me just slightly. I think in this economic climate it should be paramount for us to promote tourism, and I oppose any restrictions being put on this in the interests of competition or anything like that. IMO, we need as much of a tourism drive as possible.

That's good, because all the EU is being given responsibility for is supporting national tourism policies and initiatives.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's social and environmental policy which worries me. Those are definitely areas in which the people should have much more control, not less.

Environmental policy is definitely better set at the European level, and specifically is not something I would ever consider in a blind fit leaving to the muppets in the Oireachtas. I wouldn't even consider the Irish Green Party reliable.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

For the record, I didn't necessarily support Nice. I was too young at the time to understand it, but looking back I most likely would have opposed. The larger an entity becomes, the less of a voice each member has. That's specifically why I oppose transferring sovereignty out of Ireland - even if every Irish MEP voted the same way, we'd still have no actual control over it if everyone else voted against us.

MEPs virtually never vote by country, though. Nor are they the only bar to the creation of legislation that negatively impacts Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob · 21-08-2009 04:04PM

taconnol wrote: »

Recycling? Pah.

didnt i read in the independent yesterday that we met our recycling targets ahead of time ?

marco_polo · 21-08-2009 04:05PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

Ah, my apologies; I just thought hatrickpatrick might like the correct answer.

So what in your opinion is the fundamental difference that makes pooling sovereignty in areas of common market law 'democratically legitimate' and not so in other areas?

Macha · 21-08-2009 04:07PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

didnt i read in the independent yesterday that we met our recycling targets ahead of time ?

Oh yes, those recycling targets that haven't been revised since we knew we were ahead of time a few years ago?

Those same targets that also reveal the staggering amount of waste we create (thus making it quite easy for us to reach our targets)?

The same recycling targets that don't reveal that we put most of our non-recycled waste into landfills - generally accepted as one of the worst things you can do with it?

Ah those recycling targets.

Freeborn John · 21-08-2009 04:17PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Shared Competences
Describes the circumstances and principal areas in which competence is shared between the EU and Member States, and where when decisions have been taken through the EU the State will not exercise its own powers:

(a) internal market;
(b) social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty;
(c) economic, social and territorial cohesion;
(d) agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources;
(e) environment;
(f) consumer protection;
(g) transport;
(h) trans-European networks;
(i) energy (new);
(j) area of freedom, security and justice;
(k) common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in this Treaty.

One of the worst aspects of the EU is the way ‘shared competence’ is defined. Article 4 of the Lisbon treaty has been worded very carefully (note the use of the word principle below) such that the list you provide above are only examples, and not the full list, which is actually open-ended.

Article 4.2. Shared competence between the Union and the Member States applies in the following PRINCIPAL areas:
(a) internal market;
(b) social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty;
(c) economic, social and territorial cohesion;
(d) agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources;
(e) environment;
(f) consumer protection;
(g) transport;
(h) trans-European networks;
(i) energy;

And Article 2 TFEU defines ‘shared competence’ as “When the Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with the member states, member states shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence”. So we see that under Lisbon powers in an open-ended list of policy areas are only shared in time!

The presumption is very much that 'shared competences' belong to the EU unless and until it decides to use them, which is the wrong-way around. The long-term consequence is that the EU will gradually take over law-making in all areas of so-called shared competence.

Furthermore there is nothing in Lisbon to prevent the EU using the powers it has in areas of ‘shared competence’ in matters of a purely domestic nature. Environmental policy for example is a shared-competence, which the EU has used to create EU law superior to national on things like the rules that must be followed when collecting waste from outside your house. The EU is thus able to use its ‘shared competences’ to take over domestic law-making.

Scofflaw · 21-08-2009 04:26PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

One of the worst aspects of the EU is the way ‘shared competence’ is defined. Article 4 of the Lisbon treaty has been worded very carefully (note the use of the word principle below) such that the list you provide above are only examples, and not the full list, which is actually open-ended.

Article 4.2. Shared competence between the Union and the Member States applies in the following PRINCIPAL areas:
(a) internal market;
(b) social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty;
(c) economic, social and territorial cohesion;
(d) agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources;
(e) environment;
(f) consumer protection;
(g) transport;
(h) trans-European networks;
(i) energy;

And Article 2 TFEU defines ‘shared competence’ as “When the Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with the member states, member states shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence”. So we see that under Lisbon powers in an open-ended list of policy areas are only shared in time!

The presumption is very much that 'shared competences' belong to the EU unless and until it decides to use them, which is the wrong-way around. The long-term consequence is that the EU will gradually take over law-making in all areas of so-called shared competence.

Furthermore there is nothing in Lisbon to prevent the EU using the powers it has in areas of ‘shared competence’ in matters of a purely domestic nature. Environmental policy for example is a shared-competence, which the EU has used to create EU law superior to national on things like the rules that must be followed when collecting waste from outside your house. The EU is thus able to use its ‘shared competences’ to take over domestic law-making.

In fact, the word 'principal' applies to the areas described, each of which is the principal heading of the competence. The EU's powers in energy, for example, are extremely limited, but nevertheless the principal description of the competence is "energy".

Still, feel free to make up your own interpretation, as usual, even if, also as usual, it's patent nonsense and directly contradicted by the Treaty text ("competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States").

amused,
Scofflaw

Freeborn John · 21-08-2009 05:00PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

In fact, the word 'principal' applies to the areas described, each of which is the principal heading of the competence.

That explanation cannot be true because the word principal does not appear when defining exclusive or supporting competences in Article 3 and 6.

Article 3: The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas:
(a) customs union;
(b) the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market;
(c) monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro;
(d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy;
(e) common commercial policy.

Article 6: The Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the
actions of the Member States. The areas of such action shall, at European level, be:
(a) protection and improvement of human health;
(b) industry;
(c) culture;
(d) tourism;
(e) education, vocational training, youth and sport;

And we can see that Article 4 (see below) says all powers mentioned in the treaties that are not listed in Articles 3 and 6 are shared. Therefore 'shared competence' is open-ended and the list you provided is only indicative, i.e. examples. That is why the word principle only appears against the list of shared competences.

Article 4.
1. The Union shall share competence with the Member States where the Treaties confer on it a competence which does not relate to the areas referred to in Articles 3 and 6.
2. Shared competence between the Union and the Member States applies in the following principal areas: (example list follows)

And as i described in my earlier post the EU can legislate in any area where there is a shared competence with unlimited scope, so the competence is only shared in time. This is indisputable.

Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

Comments