EU Referendum, Treaty of Lisbon etc:I don't understand it, anyone care to explain it?

[Zak33]

Hi guys,

I've just spent a little while over the last week trying to get my head around the European Referendum and the Treaty of Lisbon. Wikipedia was helpful, but my brain has just gone into meltdown.

I swear I don't know why I can't grasp this one, but I just can't.... I think it's because I keep not wanting to know about it.. but I feel I should.

So.. from the top... anyone care to fully and simply illucidate it?

Assume that I am TOTALLY naive,, cos I really am. I don't even know how much of our country is controlled by anyone in Europe.

Please.. I beg.. don't cut and paste. Just explain it in short, easy to grasp lumps. And if someone says something that's 99% right.. just let it go (as far as is possible) and don't argue it. I really want a basic grasp of it.. and right now.. I am bemused

Basic please

Thank you

(If you are bemused too.. simply admit it... I have )

[dave87]

I have my notes around here somewhere - give me some time & I'll stick up some pointers

[Clunk]

I'm bemused, but I think it's like this....When a woman loves a woman....

[Funkstar]

I am glad I'm not the only one then Zak.

I feel I should know about it, but I don't think there is actually a way to express my sheer lack of motivation to trawl though pages of, basically guff, about the subject.

[peterb]

Some discussion here:

http://forums.hexus.net/general-disc...-else-has.html

[dave87]

Well, first things first. The Lisbon Treaty is not a renamed European Constition. The European Constitution was a political disaster as even the title gave Euroskeptics ammunition - and it only got worse from there. Lisbon is attempting to drive forward the EU, through administrative changes first and foremost, but also some necessary political ones - a reform of types.

I don't know how many of you followed the construction of the EU over the years, or how we've interacted with it, but most of the stuff is more than likely on Wikipedia to view, so I'll not go through all of it. Suffice to say the current system (before the changes ratified in Lisbon go into effect) is largely the result of cumulative legislation culminating in the Treaty of Nice (2000), whereby the EU structurally is tripartite:

European Community Domain, Common Security & Foreign Policy, and Police & Judicial Co-operation.

They form relatively separate pillars in administrative terms and interact on various elements of EU Policy. They are based on the two major treaties (which most of the subsequent treaties amend in one way or another) - The Treaty on the European Union and Treaty establishing the European Community (a legacy of its heritage as originally a purely trade orientated community).

The institutions of the EU are the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament, and they each have a role to play in the administration of the EU and its policy objectives in the longer term. Then you have the European Courts, so the European Court of Justice has the separate role of Jurisprudence in the EU.

The Lisbon Treaty will do away with the distinction between Community and EU law and be founded on the basis of two distinct treaties - Treaty on the European Union, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. One establishes, one sets out the practical matters (as far as I'm aware).

The main aim is to reduce costs, administration and delays of avoidable bureaucracy, whilst providing greater democratic credentials (the EU has often been criticised as having a democratic deficit) and allowing for the expansion of the European Union without increased stagnation as a result.

So for instance, the size of the European Parliament has been adjusted to 751 seats with no one nation holding more than 96 seats (so Germany will have to lose at least 3 from the current system) and with an expansion of the role of Qualified Majority Voting in the decision making institutions of the EU. Alongside this, the European Parliament is now on the same administrative level as the Council for budget considerations (previously the EP could veto the budget, but did not have a true interaction in its creation - so had influence but no fine control), and can co-adopt legislation jointly with the Council. How that legislation is then controlled and implemented becomes a joint task between the Parliament and the Commission.

I believe also the Presidency of the Parliament will change from 6 monthly terms to a single term of 18 months whereby joint presidency is held between 3 nations. The idea being that the consistency and resillience to purely national interests of policy would increase - for the benefit of the European Union.

The Council will gain a full time president who has a 2 and a half year term, renewable only the once - a permanent post and the person who fills it is required to be independent - i.e. not holding a national office. The council also becomes a membership composed of Heads of State (supported, if they so wish) by ministers, the HR for FASA and the President of the Council. They can create legally binding effects in relation to 3rd parties, but they would also fall under the ECJ for Judicial Review. Their conditions for Qualified Majority Voting also change, requiring at least 55% of the memberstates, with at least 65% of the membership population must be in favour, and in contrast a blocking minority must have at least 35% of the population, plus one member of the Council. It is designed to reduce the imbalence between large and smaller nations with regard to power in the Council.

The Commission has some changes which are important - the president of the Commission is elected by the European Parliament, based on a recommendation by the Council, intensifying the scrutiny and checks and balances in the system. Each institution has the ability to challenge the other before the court (and in the past has done so). In terms of inhouse administration, the President of the Commission can dismiss a member of the Commission itself.

The Lisbon treaty also changes the competencies (areas of responsibility) of the the European Union, and not all in a direction towards Brussels - some are being returned to member states. So the EU is striking a balance between policies determined more effectively at a national level, and those established more effectively at a supanational one. For instance, pollution control is better tackled at a supanational level than a domestic one, as pollution does not respect national borders, but there are many examples of policies which are better decided at a national level (regional policing for example, local council rates, and the list continues).

Furthermore, the way in which the EU interacts with other nations, organisations et al. is to change. For instance in the Georgian crisis (when Russian tanks were on the horizon) many different people turned up claiming to speak for the EU, when in fact they did, but different parts of it - hence there is the creation of a new post - The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and External Action Service (don't you love the EU?) - HR for FASA. Appointed by the European Council and approved by the president of the Commission. The idea is that any serious policy issues that are EU wide are dealt with through a single European representative, who as a result is easy to identify and consistent in implementation.

The ECJ also gets some modest changes - it is renamed to the Court of Justice of the European Union, and gets additional powers to rule in regard to matters relating to the 'establishment of the area of freedom, security & justice'. Furthermore the Court of First Instance becomes the General Court and can be expanded by a co-decision by the European Parliament and Council to establish specialised Courts. We also get 3 extra Advocates General, bringing the total to 11.

Perhaps most significantly, the EU can chose to amend its treaties, it does not need to wait for a prompt from the member states. It can put together its own conventions composed of the relevant figures within the EU to administer its treaties, and revise them as necessary. And on a different track, the EU finally becomes bound by the European Convention on Human Rights.





So, the simple summary (shamelessly paraphrased from Alina Kaczorowska's book European Union Law) the Lisbon Treaty:

Abolishes the artificial and confusing distinction between the EU and EC.
Abolishes the 3 pillar structure of the EU, blurring distinctions between the three pillars for greater cooperation.
Makes the European Parliament a real co-legislator in the EU. CoDecision becomes the ordinary procedure for adopting law and decisions on budget.
Introduces greater consistency in the EU's activities by producing single points of contact - EU President and HR for FASA.
Reforms the EU institutions to increase efficiency in the face of greater membership. Less stagnation = more effective EU.
Clarify division of competencies between state and EU, to draw distinction on where the state is free to act without EU intervention.
Adding the EU as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.


So, not too bad eh?

[Funkstar]

Good post Dave. Lots to read over again I think

[Knoxville]

Cracking post Dave, I wasn't really clueless but that's filled in a few blanks for me too

[0iD]

Epic post Dave, or as he is soon to be known, Saracen Jr

[peterb]

Essentially it is ceding more powers from our own elected government to a monolith comprising of many different nations and cultures and attempt to legislate for the supposed benefit of all.

Do we need a supra ustice system? One where citizen of one country can be arrested may extradited for committing an act that is not a crime in his own country, but may be a crime in another member state?

What was sold to the British people as a mutual economic trading zone is morphing into a political superstate.

[Englander]

What was sold to the British people as a mutual economic trading zone is morphing into a political superstate.

I wouldn't want to get revolutionary or anything about this, but it seems to me like massive deception was used to get us to vote yes in the first place by not revealing the true extent of the EU. Is this large scale deception really legal or can we as a country sue our government for false advertisement Joking aside, this is quite a serious point I'm trying to make. Did the politicians even know back then that the ultimate goal was to create a political entity?

[nichomach]

Do we need a supra ustice system? One where citizen of one country can be arrested may extradited for committing an act that is not a crime in his own country, but may be a crime in another member state?

Not being picky, but it's probably easier for the US to extradite a UK citizen from the UK than for an EU member state, and any state with whom we have an extradition treaty may extradite someone for an act which may be a crime in that state but not here. Note, also, that aside from the US (who have so far not enacted any reciprocal arrangements to mirror the concessions that we've given them - basically, extradition on demand from the UK on the say-so of just about any arm of the US government) we have reciprocal rights with those states.

[dave87]

Essentially it is ceding more powers from our own elected government to a monolith comprising of many different nations and cultures and attempt to legislate for the supposed benefit of all.

Do we need a supra ustice system? One where citizen of one country can be arrested may extradited for committing an act that is not a crime in his own country, but may be a crime in another member state?

What was sold to the British people as a mutual economic trading zone is morphing into a political superstate.

Not quite, though it can be perceived as such.

The aim, as far as I understand it, is to provide clarity in which areas the EU expresses its right (under the treaties all member states signed up to) to legislate for the common good. For instance, there was (and is) no formal bill of rights in the UK, yet many of the freedoms we enjoy were loosely incorporated in Common Law, with notable exceptions. Come the start of the EU and its pushing of the EHCR (European Convention on Human Rights) we enjoy more clearly itemised freedoms as a result.

Furthermore, the unification ideal (if you subscribe to the United States of Europe end goal) need not remove all national sovereignty - which is what UKIP et al derive their support from the fear of its loss - as there will always be tangible differences between nations. The EU merely provides a structured framework for the collective achievement of those shared ideals. Whilst we may not be a huge fan of the fact that the ideas of one nation will directly affect our own, there is the flipside that Europe may not like our ideas either. What has gone as a result of this legislation is the potential stagnation that categorised early EU/EC history, and remove the reliance on the ECJ to push forward European Development.


Do we need a supranational state like entity? For instance we would all suggest that common security policy would be a good idea - it is no good the French holding the cards close to their chest when it could help prevent attacks on London, Lisbon etc. Or would you like the ability to be tried by a higher court should you decide that the highest court in this land has incorrectly assessed the facts? There are issues with the implementation of that, but as far as I am aware, none that so irrevocably void any gains that membership brings.


As to the changing nature of the EU, well that is something that has grown and developed over the years, but nonetheless is directly designed by the elected members of the respective governments of each nation state - it is our government, with every other that has decided, negotiated and implemented the structure and composition of the EU as a functional entity. As a result, if we should be blaming anyone, then it would be the politicians past and present that signed us up. However in this particular case, I feel that the decisions they have made, irrespective of any short term injury to political popularity have been in the long term interests of the UK, both in terms of its economy and its peoples.

Take for example the right to work abroad - you can do, in the EU, without any additional hassle as you would need in the UK. You can travel to France without a Visa, or even some countries have no formal borders for their citizens with certain other nations (France, Germany and a couple of others). Freedom of movement has only been facilitated by the presence of the EU. The prices of goods in stores, the variety and range of products is also directly related to the EU - as the reduction in tarriffs and barriers to trade that have come from the European Union (and previously the European Economic Community) may have had political strings attached, but none so insurmountable it was worth dissenting from the European ideal.

Anyway, enough from me - I will probably read that back tomorrow when I'm awake and wish I had said it differently, but c'est la vie.

[Zak33]

oih..no nit picking Nicho...

I still don't understand the first posts

OK... this is still to complex for me,. Really. I just cant' read it.. my mind goes blank and numb, like in Math's A level.

From the top... right back.. to WW2 or something.. when did Europe begin to exist as a thing, a power? I have NO IDEA what half of dave's excellent post means. Nothing. I prolly do.. but I can't read it all... my mind just stops working.

[Zak33]

let me bring a question to the fore:
Am I , in the UK, a part of all or some of this EU thing? If so, how? I mean, clearly we're hovering just off the coast of Europe like a large Americasn Aircraft carrier but right now, how is my country realted to the EU? In fact.. is the EU the right word? Do I mean EU?

Ya see.. I have no idea at ALL

[Lucio]

let me bring a question to the fore:
Am I , in the UK, a part of all or some of this EU thing? If so, how? I mean, clearly we're hovering just off the coast of Europe like a large Americasn Aircraft carrier but right now, how is my country realted to the EU? In fact.. is the EU the right word? Do I mean EU?

Ya see.. I have no idea at ALL

It is all confusing because a lot of it's hidden away in vast swathes of legal text. A good starting point is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Maastricht; as that's the point that the EU came into being.

Basically the biggest issues are that prior to this treaty being signed, the UK had unequal power in that we could veto European laws being passed within certain categories and more importantly, we got a generous kick back to even out the fact that a lot of the EU money is spent on farming and the UK doesn't do a lot of that.