|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 18/09/2009 00:49:27
Posts: 7,
Visits: 19
|
|
If anyone can please tell me if these 13 facts are incorrect and why?
On Friday 2 October we will be voting on exactly the same Lisbon Treaty as Irish voters rejected last year. Not a dot or comma of it will be changed.
1) Would radically shift control of the EU towards the Big States by basing EU law-making post-Lisbon primarily on population size, just as in any State. At present EU laws are made on the basis of a 'double majority' system - a simple majority of the 27 EU States (14 or more), as long as between them they have a qualified or weighted majority of 255 out of a total of 345 votes (Art.205 TEC*; Declaration on Enlargement).
Under this system the Big States have 29 votes each and Ireland has 7. Under Lisbon EU laws would be made by a majority of States (at least 55%, 15 or more), as long as they have 65% of the total EU population between them (Art.16 TEU). This change would double Germany's voting power in making EU laws from its present 8% to 17%, increase Britain's, France's and Italy's from 8% each to 12% each, while halving Ireland's vote to 0.8%. Instead of the Big States having 4 times Ireland's voting weight, as now, under Lisbon Germany would have 20 times Ireland's weight and France, Britain and Italy would each have 15 times.
The Government White Paper tells an untruth when it speaks of the 'change to a double majority voting system in the Council' (p.44). A double majority of States and weighted votes already exists for EU laws. What Lisbon does is to replace the weighted votes by population size as the key criterion for future EU law-making - thereby hugely advantaging the Big EU States at the expense of the Small. Actual votes are not that frequent on the EU Council of Ministers, but a process of "shadow-voting" takes place all the time, whereby Ministers assess which States are for or against a proposed EU measure and whether it is worth pushing it to a vote or not. The tendency is to go along with the "consensus", without a vote, especially if the Big States favour the measure in question.
2) Would abolish our present right to 'propose' and decide who Ireland's Commissioner is (Art 214 TEC), by replacing it with a right to make 'suggestions' only for the incoming Commission President and the Big States to decide (Art.17.7 TEU). The EU Prime Ministers have promised each State a permanent Commissioner, but what is the point of us continuing to have an Irish Commissioner post-Lisbon when the Irish Government can no longer decide who that Commissioner would be? The Government White Paper makes no mention of this shift from a bottom-up to a top-down appointment process.
3) Would abolish the European Community which Ireland joined in 1973 and replace it with a legally new European Union in the constitutional form of an EU Federation. This post-Lisbon EU would for the first time be legally separate from and superior to its 27 Member States and would sign international treaties with other States in all areas of its powers (Arts.1 and 47 TEU; Declaration 17 concerning Primacy). In constitutional terms Lisbon would thereby turn Ireland into a regional or provincial state within this new Federal-style European Union, with the EU's Constitution and laws having legal primacy over the Irish Constitution and laws in any cases of conflict between the two. Ireland would thus formally cease to be a sovereign independent State in its own right in the international community of States, and become like a provincial state inside an EU Federation.
4) Would turn us into real citizens of the constitutionally Federal post-Lisbon European Union, owing obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority over and above our obedience and loyalty to Ireland and the Irish Constitution and laws in the event of any conflict between the two. One can only be a citizen of a State and all States must have citizens. The Irish people were not that happy when they were citizens of the UK State. Although as citizens of the post-Lisbon Federal EU we would still keep our Irish citizenship, this would be subordinate to our EU citizenship and to the rights and duties attaching to that in any cases of conflict between the two (Art.9 TEU, Declaration 17 concerning Primacy).
5) Would give the EU Court of Justice the power to decide our human rights by making the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding for the first time (Art.6 TEU).
This would give power to the EU judges to lay down a uniform standard of rights for the 500 million citizens of the post-Lisbon Union in the name of their common EU citizenship in the
years and decades to come. It would open the possibility of clashes with national human rights standards in sensitive areas where Member States differ from one another at present, e.g. inheritance and property rights, trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, habeas corpus, legalising hard drugs, euthanasia, abortion, labour law, marriage law, children's rights etc. Ireland's Supreme Court and the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights would no longer have the final say on what our fundamental rights are.
6) Would abolish the national veto which Ireland has at present in over 30 new policy areas by handing over to the EU the power to make laws binding on us as regards public services, crime, justice, policing, immigration, energy, transport, tourism, sport, culture, public health, the EU budget, international moves on climate change etc.
7) Would reduce the power of National Parliaments to decide 49 policy areas or matters by shifting their powers to the EU, and increase the influence of the European Parliament in making EU laws in 19 new areas (See euabc.eu for the two lists).
8) Would be a self-amending Treaty in that it would permit the EU Prime Ministers and Presidents to shift most remaining EU policy areas where unanimity is required and a national veto still exists - for example on tax harmonisation - to qualified majority voting on the EU Council of Ministers, without the need of further EU Treaties or referendums (Art.48 TEU). Lisbon would also extend the so-called 'Flexibility Clause', which allows the EU to take action and adopt measures to attain one of the EU's objectives even if 'the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers', to all areas of the Treaty and not just the internal market rules as at present (Art.352 TFEU). This would open the floodgates to more political integration, i.e. centralisation, by means of this article, which is already widely used.
9) Would permit the post-Lisbon EU to impose its own EU-wide taxes directly on us for the first time in order to raise its own resources for the EU itself, without the need of further EU Treaties or referendums (Art.311 TFEU).
10) Would copperfasten the Laval and related judgements of the EU Court of Justice, which put the competition rules of the EU market above the right of trade unions to enforce pay standards higher than the minimum for migrant workers. At the same time Lisbon would give the EU full control of immigration policy (Art.79 TFEU).
11) Would amend the existing treaties to give the EU exclusive power as regards rules on foreign direct investment(Arts.206-7 TFEU) and give the EU Court of Justice the power to order the harmonisation of national indirect taxes if it judges that these cause a 'distortion of competition' (Art.113 TFEU, Protocol 27 on the Internal Market and Competition). These steps could threaten Ireland's 12.5% company profits tax.
12) Would enable the 27 EU Prime Ministers to appoint an EU President for up to five years without allowing voters any say as to who he or she would be, thereby abolishing the present six-month rotating EU presidencies (Art.15 TEU).
13) Would militarize the EU further, requiring Member States 'progressively to improve their military capabilities' (Art.42.3 TEU) and to aid and assist other Member States experiencing armed attack 'by all the means in their power' (Art.42.7 TEU).
_______
*TEC= European Community Treaty; TEU = Treaty on European Union as amended by the Lisbon Treaty; TFEU = Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by the Lisbon Treaty. These two Treaties together would become the Constitution of the new post-Lisbon European Union.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Guru
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 12/11/2009 11:42:47
Posts: 51,
Visits: 44
|
|
educated_citizen (09/09/2009)
If anyone can please tell me if these 13 facts are incorrect and why?
I think because you've used the word 'fact' that your mind is already made up and you're just using this thread to rant. Do you really want people to take time to answer or are you just scratching an itch?
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 14/11/2009 09:03:06
Posts: 19,
Visits: 22
|
|
| educated_citizen: I think you'll be waiting till 2 October for a reply unfortunately. zozimus: I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to expect a reply to a few questions posted on a website forum called "Talk to EU", do you?
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 18/09/2009 00:49:27
Posts: 7,
Visits: 19
|
|
zozimus:
Yes I would like some answers. As for "FACTS" being in the title of the post maybe thats because I copied and pasted it from somewhere else that had the same title name and I was wondering if anyone can refute the claims.
Clearly they can't!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 24/10/2009 02:43:54
Posts: 3,
Visits: 18
|
|
Hi there,
I have seen this leaflet before. Most of these claims are incorrect or inaccurate, though some are true. I don't have much time (it is late!) but I'll try and respond to the ones which are easier to answer. I'm not affiliated with talktoeu by the way.
3) Would abolish the European Community which Ireland joined in 1973 and replace it with a legally new European Union in the constitutional form of an EU Federation. This post-Lisbon EU would for the first time be legally separate from and superior to its 27 Member States and would sign international treaties with other States in all areas of its powers (Arts.1 and 47 TEU; Declaration 17 concerning Primacy). In constitutional terms Lisbon would thereby turn Ireland into a regional or provincial state within this new Federal-style European Union, with the EU's Constitution and laws having legal primacy over the Irish Constitution and laws in any cases of conflict between the two. Ireland would thus formally cease to be a sovereign independent State in its own right in the international community of States, and become like a provincial state inside an EU Federation.
As far as I know, it is correct that the EC is replaced by the EU under Lisbon, but the consequences of this are nothing like what is suggested. Lisbon would not turn the EU into one giant federal state; in terms of its constitution and powers, the EU would look very much like the one we have now. Ireland would retain its residual national sovereignty and constitution; it would still be a nation-state like before, and not merely a region or province of a larger state. That's an utterly bizarre claim really.
Regarding EU law being superior to Irish law, this has been the case really since we joined the European Community in 1972. There is already a clause in our constitution stating that no provision of our constitution may be enacted to invalidate laws necessitated by our membership of the EU. So, technically, EU law is not superior to our constitution; it is expressly endorsed by our constitution. The EU, of course, can only legislate within its own competences which prevents it undermining or usurping our national sovereignty or constitution.
4) Would turn us into real citizens of the constitutionally Federal post-Lisbon European Union, owing obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority over and above our obedience and loyalty to Ireland and the Irish Constitution and laws in the event of any conflict between the two. One can only be a citizen of a State and all States must have citizens. The Irish people were not that happy when they were citizens of the UK State. Although as citizens of the post-Lisbon Federal EU we would still keep our Irish citizenship, this would be subordinate to our EU citizenship and to the rights and duties attaching to that in any cases of conflict between the two (Art.9 TEU, Declaration 17 concerning Primacy).
This again is a lie. The Irish people have been citizens of the EU since 1992, when we voted to ratify the Maastricht Treaty. That treaty made several reforms to the EU, and one such reform was to introduce a European citizenship that is held by all citizens of EU member states alongside their national citizenship. Since then there has been a substantial body of case-law on this citizenship from the ECJ, and it has been used to advance several rights such as the right to move and work anywhere in Europe and the right not to be discriminated against. The only changes made by Lisbon to the citizenship provisions are minor changes to the wording. Whereas EU citizenship was formerly said to "complement" national citizenship, after Lisbon the text will say that EU citizenship is "additional to" national citizenship; not a very sinister or evil development, as you can see. The line about EU citizens having rights and duties by virtue of their EU citizenship has also been there since 1992 and is not new to Lisbon. So if you haven't been a slave to an evil EU empire for the past 17 years, that's not going to change now!
5) Would give the EU Court of Justice the power to decide our human rights by making the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding for the first time (Art.6 TEU).
This would give power to the EU judges to lay down a uniform standard of rights for the 500 million citizens of the post-Lisbon Union in the name of their common EU citizenship in the
years and decades to come. It would open the possibility of clashes with national human rights standards in sensitive areas where Member States differ from one another at present, e.g. inheritance and property rights, trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, habeas corpus, legalising hard drugs, euthanasia, abortion, labour law, marriage law, children's rights etc. Ireland's Supreme Court and the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights would no longer have the final say on what our fundamental rights are.
The Lisbon Treaty would give the Charter of Fundamental Rights the same legal status as the treaties. However, the COFR would only be binding on EU law. It is made very clear in the Lisbon Treaty that the application of the COFR shall not in any way extend the competences of the EU or alter the functions of any of its institutions. In other words, the incorporation of the COFR changes the way the ECJ makes its decisions, not what decisions it is allowed to make. The ECJ will only be able to rule in exactly the same areas as before, it's just that now it will have to take into account human rights and social justice in its rulings instead of just strictly economic rights.
Nobody in the EU--not us, or France or Germany or anyone--wants the EU to legislate centrally in nationally sensitive areas. This is why the way the EU works dictates that it cannot rule in such areas. The EU lacks exclusive competence in many such areas of sensitivity, and in others unanimity is required. On top of this, Irish abortion law in particular is protected by a protocol in the Maastricht Treaty which says that nothing in the treaties shall affect the application of Ireland's constitutional guarantee of the right to life of the unborn.
6) Would abolish the national veto which Ireland has at present in over 30 new policy areas by handing over to the EU the power to make laws binding on us as regards public services, crime, justice, policing, immigration, energy, transport, tourism, sport, culture, public health, the EU budget, international moves on climate change etc.
It is true that many areas in which we had a veto (that is, areas in which all member states must agree unanimously) will be transferred over to qualified majority voting. But the importance of this is exaggerated. Vetoes are rarely, if ever, used in the EU decision making process. This is because, as anyone who has represented Ireland in the EU will tell you, the EU works more on goodwill, cooperation and compromise than hostility and shooting down each other's proposals. It is easier to come to to a mutually beneficial solution when it is clear that both sides want to cooperate and work together, and vetoing a proposal without trying to reach a compromise sends the opposite message and makes cooperation harder. That is why Ireland has only ever used its veto once as far as I know.
Besides, qualified majority voting contains important safeguards for smaller states.
7) Would reduce the power of National Parliaments to decide 49 policy areas or matters by shifting their powers to the EU, and increase the influence of the European Parliament in making EU laws in 19 new areas (See euabc.eu for the two lists).
All I can say about this is that there are two sides to this coin; many problems are solved better and more easily when all 27 member states come together and agree on a uniform solution than when each nation tries to go it alone.
8) Would be a self-amending Treaty in that it would permit the EU Prime Ministers and Presidents to shift most remaining EU policy areas where unanimity is required and a national veto still exists - for example on tax harmonisation - to qualified majority voting on the EU Council of Ministers, without the need of further EU Treaties or referendums (Art.48 TEU). Lisbon would also extend the so-called 'Flexibility Clause', which allows the EU to take action and adopt measures to attain one of the EU's objectives even if 'the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers', to all areas of the Treaty and not just the internal market rules as at present (Art.352 TFEU). This would open the floodgates to more political integration, i.e. centralisation, by means of this article, which is already widely us
This is not true. Article 48 provides for a revised procedure for enacting legislation, but it specifically provides that any EU legislation must be ratified by each member state "in accordance with their constitutional requirements". In Ireland, after the Crotty decision in 1987, this means that we must have a referendum before our government ratifies anything which would alter the EU so that in essence it would be a different Union than the one we had been voting on in previous referendums.
9) Would permit the post-Lisbon EU to impose its own EU-wide taxes directly on us for the first time in order to raise its own resources for the EU itself, without the need of further EU Treaties or referendums (Art.311 TFEU).
Unanimity is required in respect of all taxation issues, which means that Ireland could veto any tax proposals that it did not like.
12) Would enable the 27 EU Prime Ministers to appoint an EU President for up to five years without allowing voters any say as to who he or she would be, thereby abolishing the present six-month rotating EU presidencies (Art.15 TEU).
This is true, and it is a good thing. A six-month presidency is silly because you can't get anything done in six months. A longer term for the presidency would allow for more consistency in policy making.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Guru
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 12/11/2009 11:42:47
Posts: 51,
Visits: 44
|
|
FACT!
Anything that has to declare itself a FACT is probably not a FACT in the first place. The OP seems to be worried that the FACTS he posted about and pointed out as FACTS might not be taken as FACTS. And gosh, I bet the FACTS are thanking their lucky stars that they have the OP to stand up and defend them.
|
|
|
|