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

[Reinier Bakels]

> We should make a joint statement about this Lisboa Treaty process, to 
> claim for transparency and real democracy; rejecting statements like the 
> ones made by Durao Barroso, Cavaco Silva -the problem is, according to 
> him, not the text but consulting people- and others. Regards
>
> 
> Carlos Ayala (Aiarakoa )

Do you know precisely what should happen? At the risk of being considered a 
fifth column: Ik don't think referenda are a good solution. Yes, the 
legislative machine of the EU suffers from a serious democratic deficit (as 
is apparent in particular in "intellectual property" matters!), but I do not 
believe a referenda are the way to to remedy this deficit.

One must be an expert in European law to appreciate the content of the 
Lisbon treaty, and its differences vs. the Nice treaty that it was supposed 
to replace. People may think that Lisbon *introduces* a "constitution", 
thereby creating effectively a European super-states eventually to replace 
the traditional nation states. The reality is that the Nice treaty already 
was some sort of "constitution", and its predecessors. The contents matter, 
not the idea of a "treaty" or "constitution".

My analysis is - to mke a long story short - that no one really knows what 
the EU does, and how it decides on legislation. Ask anyone to name five 
European parliament members - people don't know. The EU is eventually 
supposed to be controlled by the Council of (national!) Ministers. That is 
how the EU is "architected". Here the difference between theory and practice 
is particularly apparent. Afaik Council Meetings are "wine and dine" events, 
and the actual decisions are prepared by officials e.g. in COREPER. There is 
no media coverage whatsoever of Council Meetings, and the ministers are 
seldomly askedin parliament to explain what they did in the Council.

Creating a united Europe should not be a drawing board exercise. It is not 
just a legal problem. That's why I don't expect referenda to improve the 
process. Referenda are only useful perhaps for very concrete and explicit 
questions. See the Swiss tradition. The question whether "Lisbon" is an 
improvement over "Nice" is impossible for a referendum.

Needless to say, this situation creates marvelous opportunities for PP. 
Remember the "Europe Transparent" party that participated in the last EP 
elections? They very very successful they increased by temselves the voting 
percentage from 30 to 40%. Now they no longer exist, due to internal 
trouble. But PP could exploit the same mechanism: no one is interested in 
"Europe", so if there is an appealing issue, as an exception, you get a lot 
of attention instantlly.

reinier