[pp.int.general] Lissabon Treaty: very bad news

[Mårten Fjällström]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:19:20 +0200, Reinier Bakels <r.bakels at planet.nl>  
wrote:

>> 2008/4/23 Arend Lammertink <lamare at tuks.nl>:
>>
>>>  First of all, we're gonna have to stop this new treaty, which means
>>>  minimally *one* EU country will have to reject the ratification of  
>>> this.
>>>  Best changes would be Ireland, because these at least have a  
>>> referendum,
>>>  but in other countries there's always the parliament. Second best
>>>  chances would be The Netherlands and France, since their population
>>>  already said "No" to basically the exact same shit.
>>
>> Too late for us :(
>>
>> (who said "democracy?)
>>
> It is very confusing. There is actually no reason whatsoever to be  
> opposed against ANY constitution for the EU (as the Dutch thought): a  
> constitution is similar to the statutes of a club: it regulates the  
> internal
> organisation.
>
> ...
>
> For the EU, the devil is in the details, not in the principles. The  
> European
> Parliament is disfunctional: it is invisible, no one knows hat they are
> doing, and media coverage is minimal. This leads to the "democatic  
> deficit"
> problem. And the sensitivity of the EU to lobbyists. Another issue is the
> Commission which is a kind of government that is no government. Those
> problems must be attacked.
>
> reinier

If I have understood correctly (and it is a big if), we presently have a  
system with two ways of legislative decisions in the EU. One on trade and  
such (codecision) where Parliament has a little bit of influence, Council  
has more, but almost all power rests with the Commission, which is  
essentially appointed by the Council. The other for other issues, such as  
criminal laws and police cooperation, foreign policy and military  
cooperation, where unity is demanded in Council.

None of these two are good. The first hands the power to a group (the  
Commission) far removed from any elections. It is not surprising that  
lobbyism is going rampart in Brussels. Who should you believe, the people  
throwing good seminars and paries or the far away citizens that has no  
influence? The second - with liberum veto - is prone to chicken races  
where the government of one country holds up an issue because they have  
demands on a totally different issue.

As I understand the constitution and the Lissabon treaty (essentially  
being the same), the second process will be scrapped and those issues -  
police cooperation, foreign policy and military cooperation - will be  
placed under the first process. This has been marketed as giving the  
parliament more power, which it does, at least a little. But really it  
gives the Commission lots of new power.

Faced with the choice of placing criminal law etc under the first or  
second set of decision processes, I prefer the second because that way  
fewer bad decisions will be made. Fewer good ones too, but I can live with  
that.

So if I had a vote, I would vote no on the Lissabon Treaty. Good luck to  
the irish.

Mårten Fjällström