<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div style="font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">----- Mensaje original ----<br>De: Reinier Bakels <r.bakels@planet.nl><br>Enviado: miércoles, 18 de junio, 2008 22:16:52<br>> > We should make a joint statement about this Lisboa Treaty process, to claim for transparency and real democracy;<br>> > rejecting statements like the ones made by Durao Barroso, Cavaco Silva -the problem is, according to him, not the<br>> > text but consulting people- and others. Regards<br>> Do you know precisely what should happen? At the risk of being considered a fifth column: Ik don't think referenda are<br>> a good solution. Yes, the legislative machine of the EU suffers from a serious democratic deficit (as is apparent in<br>> particular in "intellectual property"
matters!), but I do not believe a referenda are the way to to remedy this deficit<br><br>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 <span style="font-weight: bold;">Lisboa Treaty</span> which <span style="font-weight: bold;">has been rejected in the only country where people has been consulted</span> -and some polls hint that the same would may happen in countries like France or Sweden-, then you have no doubt about the <span style="font-weight: bold;">total lack of foundations and legitimacy of such text</span>.<br><br>> One must be an expert in European law to appreciate the content of the Lisbon treaty, and its differences vs. the Nice<br>> treaty that it
was supposed to replace. People may think that Lisbon *introduces* a "constitution", hereby creating<br>> effectively a European super-states eventually to replace the traditional nation states. The reality is that the Nice<br>> treaty already was some sort of "constitution", and its predecessors. The contents matter, not the idea of a "treaty" or<br>> "constitution".<br><br>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 "<span style="font-style: italic;">best
of three</span>", and after having again the same result says "<span style="font-style: italic;">best of five</span>". <br><br>> My analysis is - to mke a long story short - that no one really knows what the EU does, and how it decides on<br>> legislation.<br><br>Actually you're going to describe one of its main deficits:<br><br>> Ask anyone to name five European parliament members - people don't know. <span style="font-weight: bold;">The EU is eventually supposed to be<br></span>> <span style="font-weight: bold;">controlled by the Council of (national!) Ministers</span>.<br><br>Who cares about Montesquieu? European Parliament hasn't been conceived like national parliaments, as long as it hasn't the same legislative attributions:<br><br>"<span style="font-style: italic;">Although <span style="font-weight: bold;">the European Parliament</span> has legislative power that such bodies as those above do not possess, it <span style="font-weight:
bold;">does not have </span></span><a style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_initiative" title="Legislative initiative">legislative initiative</a><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> like most national parliaments</span>. While it is the "first institution" of the European Union (mentioned
first in the treaties, having ceremonial precedence over all authority
at European level</span><sup style="font-style: italic;" id="cite_ref-Protocol_4-0" class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#cite_note-Protocol-4" title="">[5]</a></sup><span style="font-style: italic;">), <span style="font-weight: bold;">the Council has greater powers over legislation than the Parliament where </span></span><a style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_legislative_procedure" title="European Union legislative procedure">codecision procedure</a><span style="font-style: italic;"> (equal rights of amendment and rejection) <span style="font-weight: bold;">does not apply</span>. It has, however, had control over the </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_budget" class="mw-redirect" title="EU budget">EU budget</a><span style="font-style: italic;"> since the 1970s and has a veto over the appointment of the </span><a
style="font-style: italic;" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission" title="European Commission">European Commission</a><span style="font-style: italic;">.</span>"<br><br>So, the supposedly executive body of the EU becomes too often also the legislative body.<br><br>> That is how the EU is "architected".<br><br>Unfortunately, it is.<br><br>> Here the difference between theory and practice is particularly apparent. Afaik Council Meetings are "wine and dine"<br>> events, and the actual decisions are prepared by officials e.g. in COREPER. There is no media coverage whatsoever of<br>> Council Meetings, and the ministers are seldomly askedin parliament to explain what they did in the Council.<br><br>Unfortunately, it is what happens. Did Nice's or does Lisboa's change this?<br><br>> Creating a united Europe should not be a drawing board exercise. It is not just a legal problem. That's why I don't<br>> expect referenda to
improve the process. Referenda are only useful perhaps for very concrete and explicit questions.<br>> See the Swiss tradition.<br><br>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.<br><br>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?<br><br>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 <span style="font-style: italic;">ir</span>representatives-; 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 <span style="font-style:
italic;">simply</span> about letting people decide their (our) destiny.<br><br>> The question whether "Lisbon" is an improvement over "Nice" is impossible for a referendum.<br><br>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 <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">NO</span>; and French, Swedish and others would be expected to also say <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">NO</span> if questioned.<br><br>> Needless to say, this situation creates marvelous opportunities for PP. Remember the "Europe Transparent" party that<br>> participated in the last EP elections? They very very successful they increased by temselves the voting percentage<br>> from 30 to 40%. Now they no longer exist, due to internal trouble. But PP could exploit the same mechanism: no one is<br>> interested in "Europe", so if there is
an appealing issue, as an exception, you get a lot of attention instantlly<br><br>Yes, I agree, that's why I suggested to make a joint PPI statement. Are we going to work on it? Regards<br><br><br> Carlos
Ayala<br> ( Aiarakoa )<br><br> Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman<br></div></div><br>
<hr size=1><br><font face="Verdana" size="-2">Enviado desde <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mailuk/taglines/isp/control/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=52431/*http://es.docs.yahoo.com/mail/overview/index.html">Correo Yahoo!</a><br>La bandeja de entrada más inteligente.<br></font></body></html>