[pp.int.general] Lissabon Treaty: very bad news
lamare at tuks.nl
Wed Apr 23 17:24:43 CEST 2008
Reinier Bakels schreef:
>> 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
No, but it is wrong to adapt a constitution that crosses the rubicon in
the sense that it puts all the legislative power into the hands of three
institutions (Parliament, Council and Commission) of which only one is
effectively democratically controlled *and* at the same time over-rules
the constitutions of the member states. That basically ends democracy in
As we have seen in the softwarepatent debate, the Council has never ever
re-voted on a so-called A-item and in our particular case it simply
ignored the expressly stated wish of two national parliaments at a way
basically breaking about all of their procedures. According to Prof.
Lenz they even voted without voting!! :
"Of course, maybe Mr. Krecké possesses some extraordinary telepathic
powers we don’t know about. He might be able to read the minds of all
other delegates. In that case, their vote would reach him in this way,
and he was not just stating his personal opinion about the result of a
It would also be interesting to find out if at that particular moment
the results of a vote were "indicated by visual means" as required by
Article 8 Paragraph 1 b) of the Rules of Procedure.
If we rule out the telepathy possibility, I would like to ask some
When and how exactly did Spain vote against this proposal in Monday’s
When and how exactly did Austria, Belgium and Italy abstain from their
vote in Monday’s Council session?
When and how exactly did Poland, Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark
vote for this proposal in Monday’s session?
The answer to these questions does not seem to be easy.
They are crucial however for the further debate in those Member States
where the delegates are counted to have voted against the expressly
stated wish of national Parliaments."
> Due to the incorrect focus, no attention was paid to the content of the
> proposed constititution. But given the complexicty of any constitution,
> could the citizens be expect to have a proper judgement about its contents?
Can the members of the Council be expected to have a proper judgement
abouts its contents, when there is no *consolidated* version available
at the time of signing?
The English version is dated april 15, 2008:
"This publication contains the consolidated versions of the Treaty on
European Union and of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, together with the annexes and
protocols thereto, as they will result from the
amendments introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, signed on 13 December
2007 in Lisbon. It also contains the
declarations annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental
Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon."
So, at the time of signing, no minister even READ the treaty, because it
couldn't be read at that time, since it consisted of about 300 pages of
amendments to multiple documents totalling over 3000 pages, according to
> Well, no politician will ever say that citizens lack the knowledge to judge.
> But I do. I am a lawyer and even I find it utterly complicated. How to solve
> such a problem? The standard solution is *representative democacy*: elected
> politicians are supposed to digest law proposals and to pinpoint problems in
> the publica debate.
At least you can make sure to actualle *tell* the public what the
supposed constitution actually *does*, which is to create a European
federation in which democracy is no longer guaranteed, but optional. The
Council and the Commission have the power with this treaty to decide for
themselves wether they want to obey to the wish of the elected
representatives or not. That is not a democracy, that is a dictatorship!
> Still I am no an unconditional supporter of the EU, far from that. Yes, I
> acknowledge the need for more cooperation between EU member states. I am
> strongly opposed against the return of nationalism. History has shown than
> nationalism is bad. It is a reason to make war. Still there is no reason to
> oppose against a federal Europe per se. Federal states like Germany and the
> US ae characterised by loose rather than strong ties between their
> (internal) member states, as opposed to non-federal states such as The
> Netherlands or France. Belgium and Spain have become federal states fairly
> recently in order to solve internal problems, by giving more power to their
> internal member states.
> 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.
Exactly. And as long as the treaty cannot "prove" to experts as Prof.
Anthony Coughlan <http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2773> that it
guarantees proper democratic principles, the treaty should not be
-- Arend --
More information about the pp.international.general