Archive for July, 2009
Why Not!
Posted by Michael in The campaign on July 27th, 2009
Durchgebratenes Deutschland
Posted by Michael in EU Law, The campaign, Uncategorized on July 21st, 2009
Well it’s not many times we say that but reading the judgement of the German Constitutional Court (in summary form at least) gives some very clear insights into EU integration and the Lisbon Treaty. It should also be noted that, around the internet anyway, the judgement has received plaudits form Lisbon yes and no supporters alike.
Most importantly of all the Karlsruhe Court audited Lisbon and the process of EU integration from a democratic standpoint an area where both often come in for unfair (in my view) criticism. The court places a huge emphasis on the concept of conferral which is of course more explicit in the Lisbon Treaty.
It has made some pithy summaries of how EU democracy works and how it does not
“in some fields of policy, the European Union has a
shape that corresponds to that of a federal state,
i.e. is analogous to that of a state. In contrast,
the internal decision-making and appointment procedures remain
predominantly committed to the pattern of an international
organisation, i.e. are analogous to international law;”
The Court is clear that Lisbon does not create a superstate and maintains the foundations of integration in the member state. It even has some interesting points to make about EU and U.N. involvement (the latter in the field of peacekeeping and military operations)
“it is a voluntary, mutual commitment pari passu, which secures
peace and strengthens the possibilities of shaping policy by
joint coordinated action”
For those who believe Lisbon will lead to the sky falling in the Karlsruhe judges opine
“The authorisation to transfer sovereign powers to the European Union
pursuant to Article 23.1 GG is, however, granted under the condition that
the sovereign statehood of a constitutional state is maintained on the basis
of a responsible integration programme according to the principle of
conferral and respecting the Member States’ constitutional identity, and
that at the same time the Federal Republic of Germany does not lose its
ability to politically and socially shape the living conditions on its own
responsibility…It is not a federal state but remains an association of
sovereign states to which the principle of conferral applies. ”
Key to the German courts ruling was that the democratic nature of the EU principally through the European Parliament was not enough to “compensate” for powers that Germany had and was giving up but that critically the solution to this lay in changes to national law and practice in Germany and greater involvement of it’s national parliament.
The Irish courts have dealt with similar questions but obviously in a different context given our constitutional set up. The Crotty case was of course the seminal one which is believed to require a referendum on all EU Treaties in Ireland; however this also bears some more analysis. Crotty was principally decided on the issue of European Political Co-operation (the forerunner of CFSP) and the courts narrowly held that this was a new and innovative area for the EU and therefoe not envisaged by the accession referendum. Whether all treaties since would have passed or failed this test we will never know because the decision to have a referendum was made.
Politically the issue of parliamentary involvement in EU matters and legislation has figured in debates here although perhaps not enough in public debate. The interregnum between Nice 1 and 2 saw work in this area and the National Forum on Europe gave the subject a few outings. A new EU scrutiny Act was introduced and an Oireachtas Committee is dedicated to the task. Many may wish for more an if they do they need to look to Dublin not Brussels
http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg09-072en.html
Abortion…difficult to understand?
Posted by Michael in Charter Fundamental Rights, Uncategorized on July 14th, 2009
This seems to be hard to understand for some reason (Maastricht Protocol)
“THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES
HAVE AGREED upon the following provision, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European
Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Communities:
Nothing in the Treaty on European Union, or in the Treaties establishing the European Communities,
or in the Treaties or Acts modifying or supplementing those Treaties, shall affect the
application in Ireland of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland.”
Thus the latest ruse is the Charter on Fundamental Rights. However the charter itself states that it can only be used in relation to the EU Institutions and the implementation of EU law. The Charter states
“Article 51. Scope
- The provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions and bodies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. They shall therefore respect the rights, observe the principles and promote the application thereof in accordance with their respective powers.
- This Charter does not establish any new power or task for the Community or the Union, or modify powers and tasks defined by the Treaties.”
Therefore it cannot be used in relation to matters where the EU has no competence. EU law cannot be contradictory to the treaties. This is the most simple issue there could be in this debate and continuing attempts to misrepresent the position are clearly designed to ensure people are less not more informed in this debate.
European Defence Agency
Posted by Michael in Security and Defence, Uncategorized on July 2nd, 2009
EU Supported Police in Kinshasa
For a number of people the European Defence Agency has become the bogey man of the Lisbon Treaty. Given the perceived complexity of the whole thing and perhaps due to the legally binding guarantees received by the Government this body provides an easy target after all it’s to do with guns and things so must be bad, right?
As with most aspects of European policy a closer examination provides a different picture. The European Defence Agency already exists having being established in 2004. The purpose of the Lisbon Treaty is to give a solid legal basis to the agency, rather like many agencies in Ireland which have existed on an administrative basis before been put on a statutory footing.
One of the big issues in the evolution of security and defence policy in the EU has been the difficulties in getting forces from several different countries to work together for example in peace-keeping missions in the Balkans. This can be down to different cultures, traditions and languages. However one of the main issues is the lack of interoperable equipment. This can lead to one set of communications systems not been compatible with another, troop transporters being unable to take equipment or radar or reconnaissance equipment not functioning correctly.
When we examine the historical tendency of cold war forces to be trained and orientated towards large scale battles on the plains of Europe as opposed to the inter ethnic strife that they have had to grapple with in the Balkans we can see that despite the rhetoric the EU is far form a military superpower. If it is to provide any assistance in solving conflict it needs to change. The entire point of defence and armaments co-operation in the EU is to address these problems, no more and no less.
Again as with all decisions of the EU the legal basis must be clear and the documentation establishing the EDA is available for all the see and read if they care to. The European Council acting under then Article 14 of the Treaty of European Union adopted Council Joint Action 2004/551/CFSP
On the 12th of July 2004.
The text of the founding document makes it clear that the EDA is subject to the Council of Ministers so cannot get involved in the military adventurism suggested by some. Such meetings will of course be totally open to the public on major matters should Lisbon be adopted.
Critically Article 2 of the founding document makes clear the mission of the Agency namely
“The mission of the Agency is to support the Council and the Member States in their effort to improve the EU’s defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the ESDP as it stands now and develops in the future”
The European Security and Defence Policy is again set out in the Treaties, at the heart of it are the Petersberg Tasks which prioritise peace-keeping and crisis management, areas where Ireland has a considerable background and involvement. Thus the entire role and function of the EDA is to support the EU missions, not wantonly to sell arms around the world. Irish troops serve in several ESDP missions with Dail approval and under a U.N. mandate. Thus the work of the EDA is of critical importance to Ireland and to our foreign policy which informs our participation in such missions.
The ESDP currently has a number of active missions where Irish troops serve and many former ones. For example the provision of policing and security services in Bosnia, Policing and monitoring missions in Kosovo and Georgia. The list goes on to include the Congo, Chad, The Palestinian Authority. One might well ask where is the war mongering here? All these missions involve recovering societies from conflict and providing a new start. They are generally aligned with generous aid packages. This is the essence of the EU’s approach to security policy. It is in support of these missions that we have an EDA.
As with many aspects of the Lisbon debate the Government has moved to reassure the public about a variety of issues. Many people who have followed the integration process for a number of years do not see a great need for this but if these reassurances effectively reaffirm what people knew already what harm. Media reports suggest that legislation on the EDA is to be one of these. Insofar as this makes it clear that as with all aspects of ESDP participation is voluntary, such reassurance are helpful.
The Defence Agency in co-ordinating the defence activities in the member states in the areas of procurement and joint projects can also create more efficiencies and value for money. Despite constant repetition this does not necessarily incur extra expenditure; in many areas it will simply mean a different type of expenditure. For example the reduction in infantry and tank based divisions in favour of smaller special forces to deal with urbanised ethnic conflict and force separation would probably mean less cost. A greater emphasis on technology and dual use resources such as tactical transporters and close air support may also create efficiencies.
The United Nations Brahimi report on peace keeping in 2000 placed a particular emphasis on devolving these duties to regional actors. The EU has taken up the challenge. The U.N. and peacekeeping is at the centre of Irish foreign policy. The EDA assists Europe’s and Ireland’s efforts in this area and is a positive rather than a negative aspect of the Lisbon Treaty.
Angus must try harder!
Posted by Michael in Security and Defence, The campaign on July 2nd, 2009
It is hard to know where to start on reading Angus O’Snodaigh’s views on the current situation with regard to the Lisbon Treaty recently in the Irish Times. Rather like Ian Paisley of old and the latter day rejectionist unionists Sinn Fein see the need to say No in so many different ways regardless of what is on offer.
Maybe we will start with the greatest inaccuracies and work our way down.
I was stunned to see Mr. O’Snodaigh regurgitate the discredited Article 48 argument. He says “This article allows the Council of Ministers, by unanimous decision, to alter the text of existing EU treaties” and then goes on to imply this is some major change. He completely ignores the fact that it is clearly stated in the same article (48.4 and 48.6) that in relation to the ordinary and simplified revision procedure “The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements”
In Ireland this means a referendum. Furthermore the EU currently has no competence in the area of direct taxation, so such a revision would give rise to a new competence. It is clearly stated later in 48.6 “The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties”
So all these procedures need a referendum in Ireland and the Government has said it is opposed to harmonization, the EU has no competence in the area, the text says it can’t happen and the guarantees reinforce this, but still Sinn Fein cry wolf!
While Sinn Fein’s position on militarisation gives rise to a wry smile what is it that they mean? Irish troops currently serve in Bosnia, Kosovo and Chad under the EU and with a U.N. mandate; these are the operations that the EU security and defence policy and the Defence Agency are designed to support. Believe it or not these forces have guns, use troop carriers and are “militarised”
Should the people of these countries not have the chance of reconciliation that Sinn Fein worked so hard for in Northern Ireland? Sinn Fein seem quick to forget how EU member states supported our peace process the least they could do now is to support the EU as it seeks to do the same elsewhere.
Neutrality says Mr. O’Snodaigh is not only what you do with your troops; it is also about alliances you form. Indeed, we can clearly see what alliances Sinn Fein formed when neutrality was developed during World War Two and they were not pretty ones.
Where are the reduced voting weights at Council that he speaks of? Gerry Adams at the Forum on Europe couldn’t stand up this argument either. The double majority voting changes some aspects of population but maintains the idea that for something to become law it must have the support of 55% of the member states, as is the case today! The only Treaty that guarantees the loss of a Commissioner is Nice, only Lisbon gives a legal basis to the member states to change this.
Sinn Fein will have to do a lot better than this critique to persuade people of their view on such a momentous decision for our country.
Yes Campaign Need to Avoid Sleep Walking Into another Referendum Defeat
Posted by Michael in The campaign on July 1st, 2009
While opinion polls have been positive for the Yes side everything is to play for in the forthcoming Lisbon campaign. Generally there appears to be an in built 60:40 majority for EU treaties in Ireland. Many factors may impact on this most notably the position of the farming community and perhaps the Trade Union movement. The speedy re-establishment of the broad coalition that has persuaded a yes vote must be top of the agenda for the yes side.
It’s not as if we haven’t been here before, following Nice 1 we saw a real re-awakening of a campaigning movement in support of EU integration. Back then the yes side showed they had leant some key lessons in how to communicate their case for a treaty. If it could be done then why not now? For some reason yes campaigners and voters always appear to be more lethargic, lazy and most of all complacent. They unfortunately give off the air of the elite, well educated, well spoken and well connected. We never seem to recognise we need to do a positive sales job on the actual Treaty and what is in it. Platitudes and name calling are simply not enough when No campaigners are passionate, dedicated and committed. The brief period of awakening between Nice 1 and 2was instructive, can it be recovered? Achieving a high level of debate and knowledge of the issues is a must for Yes campaigners and a close run race may focus the minds to some degree.
There are 5 key lessons that may help avoid an unnecessary defeat for Yes campaigners
Stop the name calling and scare tactics: Regardless of how off the wall or ridiculous the No arguments often appear it is the duty of those who know these arguments to be false to explain why they are wrong and give the positive side of the argument. Simple name calling turns off floating voters and don’t knows. Similarly claiming that the sky will fall in if there is a No vote is patent nonsense when we examine the Nice experience and the votes on the failed Constitution. It is more accurate to point out this will lead to uncertainty and the same questions will still need to be dealt with.
Show Passion and Belief: One of the best contributions to the debate form the “Yes” side last time was not by an Irish person and hardly ion public at all. Commission President Barrosso in taking questions at the National Forum on Europe spoke about freedom and growing up in a dictatorship. Unfortunately the pro integration message in Ireland was always based on very narrow grounds connected with structural funds and related matters. Irish people do care about the big picture. For example we need to stop seeing security and defence issues as things to be rebutted and disproven, rather yes campaigners should illustrate the critical and indispensible role that the 21 EU security and defence missions to date have played. Irish defence forces and Gardai have been central to these. However it is always the No side that appears most vigorous and passionate in their rhetoric. Treaties may be technical and boring in nature but they are part of a broader picture and his again needs to be pointed out.
Mobilise on the Ground: While the national media is critical to all campaigning the sound bite approach is not always satisfactory when people see the issues as complex and difficult. Of course there are big picture issues but many people wan to talk to people who know what it is about and to have the issues explained in everyday terms. The only real way to do this is to get local units of political parties and other groups out into communities and indeed on to doorsteps to explain the issues and listen to any concerns. However the political parties will not be up for this so soon after the local and European elections. At least public meetings and “what the Treaty means” events can play a role
Build a civic coalition: “This is too important for the politicians” said a leading Yes campaigner in advance of Nice 2. Despite their links to local communities and civic groups politicians can only do so much. It is vital that other groups in society who deal with European issues on a regular basis come out and give their views. For example development organisations have pointed to many improvements in the way humanitarian issues will be handled under the treaty
Most people believe that there is an inherent Yes majority in Ireland but this can never be taken for granted. All those who believe that Lisbon finally improves the democratic deficit and improves Europe’s efficiency must start acting like this is a real campaign or they may come to regret it.