[pp.int.general] Lissabon Treaty: very bad news
aiarakoa at yahoo.es
Fri Jun 20 16:34:42 CEST 2008
----- Mensaje original ----
De: Reinier Bakels <r.bakels at planet.nl>
Enviado: jueves, 19 de junio, 2008 11:10:48
> I wish it were true. In my observation, the debate in The Netherlands was *not* about the actual substance, it was just
> very confused. The actual contents hardly played a role. People were upset about giving more power to "Brussels",
> about an emerging European "super state", about the loss of national identity, about the poor government campaign,
> and about the government in general (= local politics).
Legitimate fears and doubts, specially if that super state has different decision-making procedures from their country's. Were Irish folks supposed to simply say yes, bwana?
Also, is crucial for YES-supporters to make enough efforts to convince voters, why should voters vote YES? If one who defends a stance does nothing to justify it, to give arguments supporting it, why should anyone be convinced to join that one and support such stance too? Maybe, as I said in my former mail, YES-supporters from Member States governments have behaved like lazy dogs, only using politics of fear with EU citizens.
> I agree with people who noted that the very idea of a referendum bypasses the parliament.
That's a very, very bizarre notion of democracy that I would hardly -if ever- share. Referendum bypasses parliament? How, if sovereignty does not lie in parliament, but in citizens -who are the ones who vote-? Parliaments make use of citizens' sovereignty as they're formed by citizens' representatives, and such political regime is chosen because of being pretty difficult to get together 5,10,25,45,60 million people daily debating and making decision. However, never forget it: sovereignty lies in citizens, and if such enormous change like one brought by Lisboa's has to be decided, the normal procedure is to consult sovereigns ... EU citizens.
The very first parliament in brand new democracies is the Constituent Assembly, with members elected by -that's it- the sovereigns, the citizens of the nation who turns itself into a democracy; that Constituent Assembly debates a Constitution Draft and finally presents it to sovereigns to make them decide whether they accept such text or not. And only after having accepted sovereigns that Magna Carta, the State constituted by such text starts its daily work according to the people's will. So, as I said, the notion of a parliament bypassed by citizens is too bizarre for me.
> However cynical one can be about politics, parliament debates still serve a purpose. A debate in parliament woud have
> allowed an articulation of arguments, and *concrete* proposals for improvement. As there were no concrete proposals
> for improvement(*), the only thing that happened was that the "Constitution" was renamed to a "Treaty", together
> with several other *cosmetic* changes.
> (*) Perhaps I am not aware of them. I believe the debate should concentrate on concrete proposals for improvement,
> rather than dwelling endlessly about the formalities of the adoption of the treaty.
Who's against parliamentary debates? The complaint is about lack of transparency in such debates, about the antidemocratic -as long as democracy is to fulfil sovereigns' will- procedure followed to pass Lisboa's, and about the lack of proposals for improvement that, let us remember, it's due to Sarkozy and Merkel, the almighty bosses of EU -they've imposed their vision of EU, probably (as seen with Ireland) by threatening anyone including Poland and others-.
> And - as I have writte in my previous mail - the focus on *rules* is perhaps bound to be unproductive anyway as long
> as the *mentality* does not change.
And mentality perhaps won't never change if rules are not properly set.
> The Council of Ministers should be held responsible by national parliaments for their decisions in Brussels. This rule
> does exist today, on paper. It only does not happen. Why? Because the electorate is not interested? Our Minister of
> Justice was not fired after he ignored a parliament resolution NOT to vote in favour of the Data Retention Directive!!
> And so on
Your Minister of Justice wasn't fired because of the menaces I commented before. What would have such sacking been, but just a cosmetic measure? If Netherlands had been forced to accept Data Retention despite Dutch Parliament's resolution, it would have been useless to sack that minister -specially if he/she's a main piece in Dutch government-. I respect that the voice of the most important countries -France & Germany- sound loudly because of their pivotal role in EU, but that doesn't mean that their will must always be fulfilled -specially because, as we can check with Florian, Valentin, Jens, Ricardo, etc ... French & German folks' will doesn't match quite often with Sarkozy & Merkel decisions-, turning the rest of EU Member States into vassals. I cannot imagine my country, Spain, with 17-18 autonomous regions making the other 1-2's will; neither imagine it nor accept it.
Which must be the decision-making procedure in EU? One vote per country? Proportional votes according to population? Another option? There can be some acceptable alternatives, as long as they doesn't mean two governments subduing 25 governments. Regards,
( Aiarakoa )
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman
Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! La bandeja de entrada más inteligente.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the pp.international.general