Lisbon Treaty- Greater Efficiency? Democracy?

by Alan Bunbury Thu May 01, 2008 04:09

You can't point to a couple of times that the EU have f*cked up and use this as proof that the EU hates efficiency and freedom. The EU is, contrary to the beliefs of the Eurosceptics, a human institution; that it may err occasionally only serves as further proof of that. Furthermore, it is illogical to discredit the EU's attempts to make itself more efficient and less bureaucratic by pointing to the fact that our own Dáil is bloated and inefficient. The EU cannot determine the size of our parliament, it doesn't have that competence. So why would you blame the mechanics of our system on the EU when the EU has no say in how our system works?

The fact of the matter is that the Lisbon Treaty will greatly reduce the bureaucracy within the EU, and in doing so will also greatly reduce the amount of taxpayers' money that goes towards the EU. Furthermore, the Lisbon Treaty commits the EU, for the first time, to combatting climate change and puts a focus on sustainable development. So if it's material waste you have a problem with, then you should definitely vote Yes in the Lisbon Treaty referendum to give the EU the power to enforce environmental protection measures.

Regarding the fact that two thirds of our laws come from Brussels, there is no major problem or "democratic deficit" here since the European Parliament, which we democratically elect, has a vital part in the EU law-making process. Unfortunately, to date, the value of our MEPs has been greatly underestimated by the public but hopefully this will change, and in any case it does not logically follow that our elected representatives are not shaping our laws.

A more general point I'd like to add about the EU is that it really gets an excessively hard time from the left, and I say this as a leftist. The EU has been the single most successful peace project in the history of mankind, putting an end to European wars the likes of which cost the lives of millions of workers in the centuries prior to the creation of the EU. Furthermore, the EU has made possible the free movement of workers (one of its four "fundamental freedoms") which is vital in ensuring and achieving workers' rights (it being a fundamental right in itself) and in uniting the European working class. This free movement of workers, as well as the erosion of national barriers in general (which is also one of the main aims of the EU) also does much to erode xenophobic, nationalist and racist sentiments in society.

Also, the EU has done wonders from a general human rights perspective. The incorporation of the European Charter of Human Rights in 2003 gave Irish citizens, for the first time, a strong and extensive list of human rights which must be protected by the State. The advantages of the ECHR are obvious; take, for example, the case of Steel and Morris v UK, stemming from the infamous "McLibel" case (Wiki it), in which the European Court of Human Rights held that the denial of legal aid to underpriviledged parties in libel cases was a breach of the right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the ECHR) of the defendants in the McLibel case, two impoverished anti-McDonalds activists. The European courts also have quite a liberal view of human rights in general, especially when compared to the Irish superior courts; for example, the Irish courts do not appear to recognize indirect discrimination while the European courts do. Consider also the cases of Norris v Attorney General, in which the Irish Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Irish laws criminalizing anal sex, and the follow-up decision Norris v Ireland, in which the European Court of Human Rights found in favour of Norris and declared the laws to be repugnant to the ECHR. Furthermore, the Lisbon Treaty, for the first time, gives the European Charter of Fundamental Rights the same legal status as the treaties, which means that for the first time a citizen of the EU will be able to directly challenge an EU law in a European court if it is believed to violate his her her human rights.

As a leftist I think it's a shame that there is not more debate within the left on this treaty, as it has many benefits for the working class, for the environment and for society in general.

by Justin Morahan Thu May 01, 2008 13:27

So, what is the Irish Government saying? "Take the power from us and give it to Europe - you can see how poorly we have performed on our own?" I smell a rat somewhere.

Remember Mary Harney during her last term of office: "We are the Government; we make the decisions"

In other words (my interpretation of her words at the time): "those elections in which you elected us by the slimmest of majorities gave us the power to legislate, and we will legislate what WE think, not what you think to be best for you, poor idiots. We bamboozled you with advertising, made promises that we don't have to keep, visited you on your doorsteps, got the most powerful elements of the media on board, paid loads of money for brilliant election strategists, and you bought into voting for us. Or for me. Not that many for me, but see how the wonderful system that we have lands me with the second biggest job in Government. And, don't be bothering me now with second thoughts, especially I will not tolerate second thoughts on neutrality or our participation in the Iraq war, sure didn't you leave all those decisions in our capable hands by going out and purposely voting for a Coalition Government composed of Fianna Fáil and the PDs and (as you so astutely amd precisely contrived with your peann luaidhe in that little cubicle where you made the grand decision). Oh, for the wonder of the peann luaidhe. You might have even done better if they had allowed you to vote electronically, and returned us in more respectable numbers, but never mind)"

What I'm desperately trying to ponder is: Why are they now asking us now to take all their great powers away from them and hand them over to Europe?

I take your point Alan. Europe has dragged our Government kicking and screaming into some specific performance of their spoken and written election promises and pushed them further. But Europe in the main bowed down before the rampaging George Bush, as he sent his First Lieutenant Anthony Blair galloping across Europe and beyond to initiate and perpetrate one of the most disastrous and deceptive and outrageous wars ever carried out by a Superpower. Ireland too bowed down before Mr Bush. We participated in this war to our shame. We still do. Mr Ahern told Congress that "Ireland is at peace" and got a standing ovation. But this was untrue. He did not say "the United States is at war". He didn't say "And Ireland is at war too on your behalf" He used other euphemisms.

We should never forget: Freedom of Information, Partnership for Peace, NATO, Iraq war, militarisation. . .. (John Fitz doesn't)

And since the arrival of the present Government, just think of all the abandoned promises, dismantled, crushed, torn to shreds and dumped into tipper trucks like the camp materials of the brave protestors against the destruction of our heritage in Rath Lugh http://www.livevideo.com/tarapixie

Be careful about believing promises and entrusting your power to others. Subsidiarity may have its faults but it strengthens accountability.
Lisbon, sponsored by all our main parties, for me, is not an answer.

by Sarah - OWC Thu May 01, 2008 14:42

Alan, the European Convention on Human Rights is not an EU institution - the Council of Europe run it and its only brief is human rights law- the court in Strasbourg does not rule on anything except Human rights law. The Lisbon Treaty brings a set of rights in- the fundamental charter that will be decided upon in a court (ECJ) that rules in the interests of the Eu- that could be human rights or could be free markets and competition. In Ireland the ECHR is sub constitutional - ie. we cant use it to challenge aspects of our constitution we have to exhaust all domestic remedies before taking a case to the Court as Norris et all did.Therefore the ECHR is no reason to vote for the Treaty because it will make no difference to its application. Under Lisbon all countries must sing up to the ECHR but actually thats just newspeak because all of them already have.

On climate change- there are no binding provisions only a statement of principles and also at article 32 d of the treaty on the functioning of europe there is a commitment to use the customs law of the EU to ensure 'an expansion of consumption in the EU' .

by Sceptic Thu May 01, 2008 16:00

The reference to an “expansion of consumption” is a jurist linguist’s term for the removal of barriers to trade into the community from third countries. Trends in that direction allows impoverished nations to get started on economic development. Very often these products are less energy intensive than those produced in Europe so that even with shipping costs factored in there would be a positive effect as regards global warming. For instance some products can be grown openly in Africa that are presently grown in greenhouses in Europe.

by Alan Bunbury Thu May 01, 2008 19:52

Sarah, you are of course correct that the ECHR is not an EU institution and I was not trying to imply that it was. My point was that the European courts in general tend to be quite human rights-oriented and liberal. In my opinion, the jurisprudence excercized and developed in the interpretation of the ECHR, and the excercized and developed by other European and EU courts are quite similar and in some cases overlap. Apart from the ECHR though, there is still the stronger argument that the Lisbon Treaty brings in the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms, which must be adhered to in the drafting of EU law. Considering the big deal that is made about the fact that two thirds of our laws are made in Brussels I would think it quite important that we have a list of human rights and freedoms with strong legal status to keep the lawmakers in check. And this would be the first human rights document to be legally binding on EU lawmakers.

Regarding the lack of specific provisions on climate change, treaties are not generally meant for specific technical provisions on such topical areas of law. Generally the treaties contain relatively specific provisions on how the EU is to function (especially the Treaty of Rome), but other than that it's mostly enumerating the commitments and competences of the EU. The more technical and specific aspects of these commitments are to be dealt with at a later date through directives and regulations.

by Sarah - Owc Thu May 01, 2008 23:47

Sceptic- expansion of consumption as it is in the TFEU only refers to within the EU- that is bad enough!! those of us who are already overdeveloped get to consume more- Take water for instance- Europe is home to 10% of the worlds fresh water, we currently consume 13% of the worlds fresh water so if we expand our consumption whose water are we going to take?
That is the main reason I can see for all the insistence on opening markets which the treaty writers call 'progressive abolition of restrictions ' on trade capital etc

Alan, The ECJ when it rules on the charter on fundamental rights is obliged to rule in the general interests of the EU( see the explanations paper that art 52 of the charter refers to) these interests include for some reason a commitment to liberalisation and militarisation both of these ideologies or in fact any ideology are exactly what should not be in a treaty to improve the structural functioning of the EU.
The charter itself says that it does not cover any expansion in the areas of competence of the institutions of the EU. Also the charter is divided between principles and justicable rights -what you see written may be aspirational not actionable. It will not extend rights protection.

by law is an ass Thu Jun 12, 2008 14:13

I am very concerned about the ridiculous leniency shown towards child abusers. There should be no such thing as suspended sentence and reducing time on "good behaviour"! Of course they will behave well in jail to get a lighter sentence . I can't understand how they can say they were of good character when their deeds prove otherwise!
As 2/3 of the law comes from Europe,will the other 3rd of law give more realistic sentences IF we vote "yes" for Treaty?????? I hope so. I won't vote if I don't know.