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

[Carlos Ayala]

----- Mensaje original ----
De: Reinier Bakels <r.bakels at planet.nl>
Enviado: miércoles, 18 de junio, 2008 22:16:52
> > 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
> 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

Well you're welcomed to not believe in referendums as solutions; however, and besides consultational traditions like Swiss one, when you find a Constitucion like Spanish one, with 60 % of eligible voters supporting it, then you have no doubt about the foundations and legitimacy of such text; on the other hand, when you have a text like Lisboa Treaty which has been rejected in the only country where people has been consulted -and some polls hint that the same would may happen in countries like France or Sweden-, then you have no doubt about the total lack of foundations and legitimacy of such text.

> 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", hereby 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".

It's not just about the contents, it's also -even mainly- about procedures; it's about France avoiding to make a referendum to secure the YES by not consulting people like in 2005; it's every Member State except Ireland also avoiding referendums; it's the mere idea -whatever they finally do it or not- of repeating the Irish consultation, or punishing Ireland because of Irish people's will; it's the behaviour of people like Durao Barroso, like childish tricky ones that when playing heads or tails -and getting the undesired result- says "best of three", and after having again the same result says "best of five". 

> My analysis is - to mke a long story short - that no one really knows what the EU does, and how it decides on
> legislation.

Actually you're going to describe one of its main deficits:

> 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.

Who cares about Montesquieu? European Parliament hasn't been conceived like national parliaments, as long as it hasn't the same legislative attributions:

"Although the European Parliament has legislative power that such bodies as those above do not possess, it does not have legislative initiativelike most national parliaments. While it is the "first institution" of the European Union (mentioned
first in the treaties, having ceremonial precedence over all authority
at European level[5]), the Council has greater powers over legislation than the Parliament where codecision procedure(equal rights of amendment and rejection) does not apply. It has, however, had control over the EU budgetsince the 1970s and has a veto over the appointment of the European Commission."

So, the supposedly executive body of the EU becomes too often also the legislative body.

> That is how the EU is "architected".

Unfortunately, it is.

> 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.

Unfortunately, it is what happens. Did Nice's or does Lisboa's change this?

> 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.

Yes, I see the Swiss tradition of semi-direct democracy, with people deeply involved in national politics; I also see Spanish Constitutional rules, which require support of a nationwide eligible voters -by the way: as long as 1978's text was passed by 60 % of eligible voters, I think the Spanish Organic Law for referendums should require a minimum turnout for the referendums to become valid, but that's another story- that, as I said at the beginning, gives nonetheless an unquestionable support to the voted text when such support exceeds half of eligible voters.

Which kind of legitimacy are you going to expect from a parliamentary voting of Lisboa Treaty, Reinier? I expect zero legitimacy. Why? Because when in Spain, France, Netherlands, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Finland, etc ... the most important parties are blindly supporting the text, it puzzles voters -for tiny parties like us, we can achieve some seats from such scenario, but I think that barely known parties are not going to become outsiders because of this- as ... which big party should be punished, if all of such parties supported the text?

That's it: I find no legitimacy in representatives from theoretically antagonist parties who miraculously agree in disagree with citizens -being sure that most citizens won't be able to handle such event to punish their irrepresentatives-; on the other hand, I find full legitimacy in referendums celebrated within the law, about proposals within the law -even if such proposals are conceived to change the law-, with the eligible voters defined by the law, and with rules that grant that the result will be representative of people's will. This is not going to be like Switzerland -not yet-, it's simply about letting people decide their (our) destiny.

> The question whether "Lisbon" is an improvement over "Nice" is impossible for a referendum.

The referendum's question is not if Lisboa's improves Nice's; the question is if Lisboa's results acceptable for EU citizens. And Irish citizens have said NO; and French, Swedish and others would be expected to also say NO if questioned.

> 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

Yes, I agree, that's why I suggested to make a joint PPI statement. Are we going to work on it? Regards


                                                                                    Carlos Ayala
                                                                                    ( Aiarakoa )

                                                             Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman



      ______________________________________________ 
Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! La bandeja de entrada más inteligente.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20080618/23df13e6/attachment.htm