Comments on: why I would probably vote no http://jaeweb.cantr.net/2008/06/10/why-i-would-probably-vote-no/ snapshots of yet another chaotic mind Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:14:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: jos http://jaeweb.cantr.net/2008/06/10/why-i-would-probably-vote-no/#comment-18465 Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:15:48 +0000 http://jaeweb.cantr.net/2008/06/10/why-i-would-probably-vote-no/#comment-18465 Ad 1) The Lisbon Treaty is a big step towards more democracy. In the perception of the European peoples, the major democratic deficit in the EU lies not on the EU-level, but in the domestic realm: national parliaments systematically lost influence in the course of integration. The Lisbon Treaty adds value to the parliamentary model of democracy: it strengthens national Parliaments (scrutiny rights) and also the European Parliament. In that regard, the Lisbon treaty clearly improves matters and we are all better off than without it. (Just a footnote, the Lisbon treaty also improves direct democracy (citizen's imitative)) Ad 2) The Lisbon Reform Treaty is not a constitution (and the Constitutional Treaty was none, either), but normal international treaties. In that sense, domestic constitutional procedures apply (depending on whether countries are monist or dualist). In addition, whether one should opt for a direct democratic plebiscite if it were a constitution (or require plebiscite for all national constitutions in place without a plebiscite, such as the German), is debatable. I personally would not opt for a direct democratic measure, because constitutional matters are just too complex. Ad 3) Can there be a better deal for Ireland? I personally don't think so. Ireland already opted out from everything they don't approve. Also, if we look on what the no campaigners demand - such as an Irish Commissioner - we are save to say that this cannot be achieved. If you would do that, you would have to guarantee a Commissioner to every member state, which instantly would juxtapose the reform purpose: achieving higher decision-making effectiveness in an EU that has been designed for a considerably lower number of member states than its 27. In addition, Commissioners do not represent national interest on the EU-level, but European ones - this is a misunderstanding, very prominent in the debate. Diana Panke Ad 1) The Lisbon Treaty is a big step towards more democracy. In the perception of the European peoples, the major democratic deficit in the EU lies not on the EU-level, but in the domestic realm: national parliaments systematically lost influence in the course of integration. The Lisbon Treaty adds value to the parliamentary model of democracy: it strengthens national Parliaments (scrutiny rights) and also the European Parliament. In that regard, the Lisbon treaty clearly improves matters and we are all better off than without it. (Just a footnote, the Lisbon treaty also improves direct democracy (citizen’s imitative))

Ad 2) The Lisbon Reform Treaty is not a constitution (and the Constitutional Treaty was none, either), but normal international treaties. In that sense, domestic constitutional procedures apply (depending on whether countries are monist or dualist). In addition, whether one should opt for a direct democratic plebiscite if it were a constitution (or require plebiscite for all national constitutions in place without a plebiscite, such as the German), is debatable. I personally would not opt for a direct democratic measure, because constitutional matters are just too complex.

Ad 3) Can there be a better deal for Ireland? I personally don’t think so. Ireland already opted out from everything they don’t approve. Also, if we look on what the no campaigners demand - such as an Irish Commissioner - we are save to say that this cannot be achieved. If you would do that, you would have to guarantee a Commissioner to every member state, which instantly would juxtapose the reform purpose: achieving higher decision-making effectiveness in an EU that has been designed for a considerably lower number of member states than its 27. In addition, Commissioners do not represent national interest on the EU-level, but European ones - this is a misunderstanding, very prominent in the debate.

Diana Panke

]]>