[pp.int.general] Lissabon Treaty: very bad news
aiarakoa at yahoo.es
Sat Jun 21 16:03:00 CEST 2008
----- Mensaje original ----
De: Reinier Bakels <r.bakels at planet.nl>
Enviado: sábado, 21 de junio, 2008 15:07:59
> > 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?
> There were just two options: YES or NO. Which oversiplifies the problem ...
Actually is the own decision-making procedure which simplifies the problem: as long as contents of Lisboa's are decided not by citizens nor by national parliaments, the only thing one can make with a given text is to accept it or reject it.
> Sorry, now we really get confused. Yes, parliaments are based on the sovereignty of people just as referenda are. But
> parliaments are instituted because they add value (not just because it is technically infeasbible to vote every day on
> everything). Firstly, professional politicians have the skills (or at least the infrastructure) to articulate arguments. Now
> the government (at least in NL) made flyers (I guess an advertising agency did) and people said it was all nonsense,
> and no true exchange of arguments took place. Secondly, parliaments can be held responsible for results of policy.
> Proper policy always requires a mix of popular and unpopular measures: e.g. lowering taxes *and* increasing
> government spending are perhaps popular measures, but will not work in the end: the state will go bankrupt. Usually,
> people do not like change, because change is a risk. But change may be needed in the end for improvement. yes, it is
> pretty basic.
That's wrong, starting with the idea of us being confused. In Spanish Constitution we can read, article 67.2, "members of the Cortes Generales shall not be bound by any compulsory mandate" ... ¡nor even the mandate of the voters who elected those MPs! To make this idea understood, a MP can nail his/her seat by promising something, a promise that after being elected can easily break without consequences; so are not citizens who bypass the parliament, but MPs who bypass citizens, staining and disgracing citizens' sovereignty.
Is it the added value you talk about? I suppose that the added value you talk about is citizens -with general, non specialized knowledge- demanding some projects, and MPs -with higher level of knowledge in specific areas- crystallizing such projects in a law-like, down-to-earth form; and I want to suppose it because one thing cannot be forgotten regarding parliamentarism: the less people with the power to decide, the higher risk of such people become corrupted. Is it about corruption -when MPs change their mind because of assessment of some lobbies-? Or simply the promises made during the campaign were a bunch of lies?
Political parties like we want to be must stick to their ideas, to their political platforms, to the compromises acquired during the political campaigns and through the elections; you say "proper policy always requires a mix of popular and unpopular measures: e.g. lowering taxes *and* increasing government spending are perhaps popular measures, but will not work in the end: the state will go bankrupt", and I say no, sir. If people demands you something and you think it's a bad idea, your job as a politician, as a representative of the citizens that choose you, is to explain that people the disadvantages of such idea; if you're unsuccesful explaining it, and it's part of your political platform, you have two choices:
- not to offer yourself as a candidate MP or, if already elected, resign -to not implement a measure you don't believe in-
- stay in your office and fulfil the people's will -and later if you were right and it doesn't work, assume the responsibility and try to explain (if you are not punished by voters) that it's time to change people's mind-.
Promising A after an election to finally do B is deceiving your voters, and it's not acceptable. PPI must stick loyal to the political platform, as the compromise with our voters will be the most important thing. Let's return to one thing you said:
> Usually, people do not like change, because change is a risk. But change may be needed in the end for improvement.
> yes, it is pretty basic.
So you mean that a change must be applied whether the eligible voters want it or not, becauseit's the best for them? Sorry, that's the opposite from democracy. If it's really the best, if actually change may be needed, your job as a politician is to explain people the reasons for change to be required, so people allow you to make the changes; if you're succesful you'll have the legitimacy to make such changes and, if you're not, you'll have to fulfil people's will or resign from your office. Making changes against the consent of the sovereigns is not anything new in politics, Reinier.
> Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Right now, the DRD is a given, and the national government can only "fill in the
> blanks" for its implementation. I actually referred to the process leading to the adoption of the DRD by the Commission
> *and the Council*. Here our Minister (Donner at the time) simply ignored the majority vote of the Dutch parliament and
> voted in favour.
Actually I understood you: Dutch parliament told Dutch Minister of Justice to say no to DRD; Dutch Minister of Justice said YES to DRD in Brussels.
> Well, to sack the minister is an extreme measure, but the fact of the matter is that the democratic system failed
> completely here - bacause the parliament was ignored.
After checking Dutch parliament's composition and current Dutch cabinet, I have to disagree. According to Montesquieu, separation of powers is required to achieve a healthy democracy, and one has to separate the legislative branch from the executive branch. If legislative branch thinks A and executive branch thinks B, and legislative branch has the ability of making a recall election to the executive branch, legislative branch has to do it or merely protest, as executive branch is a separate power.
If Balkenende rules allied with PvdA and CU -80 from 150 seats-, and Dutch Parliament voted no to DRD, I have to guess that PvdA, CU or even both voted against DRD. If both parties are part of current cabinet, they might:
- vote against Minister of Justice decision within the proper cabinet meeting
- exhort Balkenende from Tweede Kamer to undo such decision or face a recall election
Maybe that Tweede Kamer decision against DRD was a cosmetic operation from PvdA and/or CU to appear as the hero in front of Dutch citizens? It wouldn't be surprising, as Spanish Government defined themselves as commanders of the opposition against the 60/65 hours per week decree ... though Spanish representatives' vote was abstention. Remember, Reinier, that traditional politicians are the masters of the shell game; so we have to be careful as the hand is quicker than the eye, and distrust the apparent until properly checked.
> Well, it is not against the strict rule of the game, because a *resolution* is not binding on the minister, but that is
> merely a formal comment. Could this have been remedied by better regulations? In any system, ministers are not just
> the puppets of the parliament. I think it is really a mentality problem. No one is interested in "Brussels" (and no one is
> interested in privacy in particular. Same for "intellectual property" in general). No news whos on television ever pays
> attention to "Brussels".
As I said before, when you have a cabinet with 8 CDA ministers (41 from 150 MPs), 6 PvdA ministers (33 from 150 MPs) and 2 CU ministers (6 from 150 MPs), Tweede Kamer resolutions are quite binding if cabinet allies want to ... unless resolution against DRD was a cosmetic trick from PdvA and/or CU.
> But now there is a curious paradox. One the one hand, newsmedia are not interested in the "Brussels" policy making
> process, because people are not interested. On the other hand, now that it comes to a change in view of the "Lisbon
> Treaty", there *is* all of a sudden a public interest. I wish the Commission, Council and EP would exploit this attention
> in a positive way. Why not?
What would that positive way -that EC and EP would follow to exploit this media attention- mean? 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