Thread: EU Positions Announced

Originally Posted by rampant

Iolis, it has been with some enjoyment that I have followed your exposition on the benefits of Europe to the assembled sceptical members of Arrse.

Would it not be an idea to suggest a proposition by Arrse (or a group of its members) in order to prove the worth(lessness) of the European System t0 those who are sceptical.

For example:- James Shortt ,he of waltyness?

A European directive (law) that prohibits an individual from using false claims of military service in order to procure pecuniary advantage?

Or would our walt hunter friends have better luck luck persuing a Stolen Valour Bill/Act through Europe rather than Westminster?

Thank you for your comment :o

In my personal opinion, it might succeed as a legislative proposal if the impeached activity complained of was a problem which needed to be addressed throughout the 27 states of the Union as a whole.

If, for example, in additon to the British, the Italians had a problem with their Walts wearing an unusually high number of bravery awards or the German Walts claiming to be the holders of an unusually copious awards for efficiency at Dachau or Bergen Belsen! You can see the problem here given the distinct lack of European participation in post-war military activity of any particular note :D

It is usual for Regulations, Directives and Decisions issued by the Commission or the Council to be issued only when harmonisation in any specific area of competence is necessary throughout the Union as a whole.

The proposal you advance although a perfectly valid one within the United Kingdom may be found objectionable on the grounds that it offends against the principle of subsidiarity. This principle holds that a member state must be free to legislate for itself because the EU is only empowered to intervene only to the minimum necessary to advance a provision in the treaty. If it were otherwise, it would create genuine hostility among the populations of the member states giving them real and substantive grounds to complain of unnessary and unwanted inteference from Europe.

Interestingly enough, the Lisbon Treaty provides that the Commission is empowered to consider legislative proposals if advanced by at least one million citizens in a 'significant number of member states' and if this is an idea that is worth pursuing to that level and to that extent then the Commission would be bound to consider it.

Regards

Originally Posted by Iolis

Originally Posted by Schaden

Angela Merkel - might be German and a bit odd looking but I'd buy her a drink.



Tony Blair warned Gordon Brown a week ago that his campaign to become the first president of the European Council was doomed after a decisive intervention by the German chancellor Angela Merkel, according to senior Whitehall sources.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...n-brown-eu-row

The report is accurate but the timing is out. Angela Merkel hates Blair's guts and campaigned openly nearly 18 months ago by writing to each of the heads of state lobbying against his selection. Some may recall an internet signature campaign over a year ago against his selection.

I can understand her objection. His post would have been to represent the EU yet, he is from a country that does not enjoy a happy relationship with it, that has refused to join the Euro, does not belong to the Shengen area, has opted out of the charter of fundamental rights and has continually used its veto in the Council of Ministers.

As Henry Kissenger once said: "Who do I telephone when I want to speak to Europe?"

Now he has his answer!

Angela Merkel?

For those among you who complain that you are neither informed, consulted nor have any influence over the shaping of EU Law, then perhaps I might draw your attention to the Regular Green Papers published by the Commission inviting you to participate.

Most ten-year olds in the other states in the Union learn about this process in their schools. Unfortunately the 'Sun' and the 'Mail' and your own government think it is rather a step to far as far as you are concerned and besides, it does not sell newspapers does it!

You might, for example like to take part in the public consultation regarding the protection of personal data which closes at the end of December which is a concern at the moment across the Union, albeit not to anyone in our own 'Duckhouse' Parliament whose members are too busy agonising over whether they should have included anything in the Queen's speech regarding their expenses.

My Dear Feckwit,

I appear to have fallen into error and misjudged you!

It appears to me that you have separated yourself from the 'Parrots' and have made some serious and genuine attempt at some research that extends to something more intelligent than the Daily Mail

I therefore discontinue argumentum ad hominem and will be delighted to address your concerns when I return to this forum.

Dear Feckwit,

Dealing with your first issue.

Before the Treaty of Lisbon, there were three treaties. The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) Treaty which was the original treaty of Paris 1951 which set up the first supranational body designed to merge the coal and steel industries of France and Germany. This was originally designed to last for 50 years and is now lapsed. In 1957, two further treaties came into existence, both arose out of the Treaty of Rome in 1957, the first was the European Economic Community (EEC) Treaty designed to liberalise trade between the original six member states and the second, was the Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) Treaty.

All of these bodies were administered by a separate supranational High Authority empowered by the member states pooling their sovereignty in specific areas to allow the High Authority to act independently of pressure from the member states and in the interests of the Communities as a whole as it was designed to do. Each of these authorities was presided over by a separate Council of Ministers drawn from the member states. These, in turn were presided over by a single ‘Assembly’ of delegates nominated by the National Parliaments representing the original member states and a single Court of Justice. In 1967 these three community higher authorities merged into what is now the Commission, the Councils were merged into one collegiate body and a single Assembly which formally became the Parliament under the SEA.

The Single European Act (SEA) 1986 was an amending treaty which created the single market under a massive harmonisation of laws within the member states. The Treaty on the European Union (TEU) aka, the Maastricht treaty was a further amending treaty which apart from amending the EEC Treaty and creating the European Union, created two new spheres of competence – Justice and Home Affairs, and Common Security and Foreign and Security Policy. However, these latter to pillars of Justice and Home Affairs and Foreign and Security Policy were exercised not by the European Union, but by the heads of government themselves by common agreement. In other words, the Parliament, the Commission and the Court of Justice had no jurisdiction over them.

Following the amending treaty of Lisbon, the European Union now , looks like this.

The EC now becomes the EU and the EC Treaty is now renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Justice and home affairs which was previously intergovernmental, is now absorbed into the TFEU, while the Maastricht Treaty dealing with Foreign and Security Policy remains outside of the EU jurisdiction and remains intergovernment – in the hands of the heads of state.

Thus two amended Treaties now regulate the Union as at the end of December:

The consolidated post-Lisbon TEU,

The consolidated post-Lisbon TFEU

Turning now to the points you have made.

Firstly, there is NO President of the European Union! No King, Dictator, Overlord or anyone else of that nature. Those who think otherwise fundamentally misunderstands the institutional structure of the EU which were specifically designed to avoid being dominated by the ‘cult of the leader’ as we have in the United Kingdom when we vote for a leader who wins the prettiest baby contest and then, through a party stucture allow him complete control over the executive and the complete domination of Parliament destroying the separation of powers which supposed to exist as a constitutional check on unlimited discretionary power.

The EU has a different structure. It was formed by people who, unlike us lived under totalitarian dictatorship for five years. They designed their institutional stuctures rather differently than ours with the constitutional checks and balances being found in the way that no one single institution dominates the other with the constitutional separation of powers being operated in the way that these institutions interact with each other.

If you use the links above, you find the institutions of the EU are listed at Article 13(1) TEU whose powers are confined to the four corners of the Treaties at Article 13(2).

The so-called ‘President of the EU’ is actually the President of a single institution - the European Council (not to be confused with The Council – formerly the Council of Ministers). You will find his powers, such as they are, under Article 15 TEU. You will see that under Article 15(1), that the European Council has no legislative powers whatsoever. It comprises the heads of government of each of the member states with The President of the Commission and the High Representative taking part in its work under Article 15(2). The European Council meet twice every six months or was the President so directs: Art 15(3). The President of the European Council is elected by the heads of state of government by qualified majority voting for a term of two and a half years, renewable once: Art 15(3), and may be removed for serious misconduct in exactly the same way. Thus, if the electorate of the United Kingdom do not want him, then it is up to our Prime Minister to vote to remove him.

His role and function are governed by the provisions under Article15(6) TEU. He chairs the European Council and drives forward its work: Article 15(6)(a). He does so in cooperation with the Council and the President of the Commission: Article 15(6)(b) by way of consensus in the European Council: Article 15(6)(c) with supervision being exercised by the democratically elected European Parliament to whom the President is required to submit a report following each meeting id of the European Council: Article 15(6)(d).

His function, under the first ident of Article 15 is to represent the Union in External Relations on issues concerning its common Foreign and Security Policy, without prejudice to the work of the High Representative.
Thus, common and security policy remains, intergovernmental between the heads of state of the European Union. Democratic control over his appointment is exercised by the citizens of the Union through their Head of State who is acccountable to his own Parliament which in turn, is accountable to you. It is also exercised through your MEP who is accountable to the citizens of his Member State who elect him and bears the responsibility of supervising the work of the European Council.

Thus, in answer to your first question, you may remove the President of the European Council by exercising the extent of your democratic participation through your own domestic MP if you have cause to believe through your own MEP that the President is not up to the job.

When Henry Kissenger wanted to know who he could pick up the telephone to when he wanted to 'talk to Europe', there was no coherent response. When trouble flaired up in the Balkans, and relief effort was needed after the Tsunami, there was no Captain at the wheel of the SS Europa directing and coordinating an EU-wide response.

Now we have one.

Having explained how you remove him, in answer to your first question, you may now choose to exercise your discretion at eating your words.

I will address your other questions as soon as I return.

Originally Posted by Iolis

....
When Henry Kissenger wanted to know who he could pick up the telephone to when he wanted to 'talk to Europe', there was no coherent response. When trouble flaired up in the Balkans, and relief effort was needed after the Tsunami, there was no Captain at the wheel of the SS Europa directing and coordinating an EU-wide response.
...

Well argued but I think you are exaggerating on this point.

Chairman Van Rompuy will likely have much less clout with DC than Merkel or even the whatever poor supine bozo is in No 10. Even with these new institutions I doubt if you'd see any more coherence among Yurps powers than in the 90s. There are interests and old alliances at play. The Germans would still back the Croats and the Brits would be very reluctant to get in the Serbs way and create a level killing field.

Given the distinctly low wattage of these two appointees it may even be a step backwards from the days of Javier Solana who was well respected within The Beltway.

Indeed. It is early days and we will see how this post 'beds in' after the first low-key first term with an appointment which appears to have been intended by the heads of governmment not to scare anyone to death.

Given the UK Press reports, you would be forgiven for beliving that 'Pol Pot' had just been apppointed!

Regards

Originally Posted by Iolis

For those among you who complain that you are neither informed, consulted nor have any influence over the shaping of EU Law, then perhaps I might draw your attention to the Regular Green Papers published by the Commission inviting you to participate.

Most ten-year olds in the other states in the Union learn about this process in their schools. Unfortunately the 'Sun' and the 'Mail' and your own government think it is rather a step to far as far as you are concerned and besides, it does not sell newspapers does it!

You might, for example like to take part in the public consultation regarding the protection of personal data which closes at the end of December which is a concern at the moment across the Union, albeit not to anyone in our own 'Duckhouse' Parliament whose members are too busy agonising over whether they should have included anything in the Queen's speech regarding their expenses.

Further, in addressing the allegation of the lack of democratic participation and accountability of the European Union
Title II of the Consolidated Treaty on the European Union (TEU) sets out provisions on democratic principles to be followed in ensuring that EU citizens may fully participate in the democratic life of the Union.

Article 11 TEU places the European Commission under an obligation to consult widely with EU citizens. Article 11(4) provides that not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission within the limits of its powers to submit a legislative proposal on matters which EU citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purposes of implementing the Treaties.

The procedures and conditions required for this citizens initiative to be accomplished is set out at the first paragraph of Article 24 of the Consolidated Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

This requires the ordinary legislative procedure under Article 294 TFEU to adopt by means of Regulation which has general application, binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all member states under the second paragraph of Article 288 TFEU.

Accordingly on 11 November 2009, eight days after the accession of the Czech Republic to the Lisbon Treaty on 3 November 2009, the Commission issued a Consultation Document (a Green Paper) throughout the Union inviting citizens of the EU and Representative Bodies to respond by 31 January 2010 either by email or by post the questions set out in the Green Paper.

Contributions will be published on the internet unless contributors object. Contributors may also be invited to a public meeting.

As far as I am aware, there is not a single media or government source within the United Kingdom who has promulgated this information to any of its citizens.

That you and others may not have personally voted for it does not deprive it of democratic legitimacy since, like all international Treaties they are entered into by Governments that do have democratic legitimacy.

You cannot pick and choose your Treaties and decide which will and will not have democratic legitimacy any more than you can vote on which laws you will or will not have or will or will not be bound by.

You did not get the opportunity to vote on the 1966 International Covenenant on Civil and Political Rights, nor the 1960 Treaty concerning the establishmment of Cyprus or the 1961 Vienne Convention on Diplomatic Relations nor the 1967 Outer Space Treaty or the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages or the 1988 UK-France Agreeement or the UK-USA Extradition Treaty signed by David Blunkett on behalf of the Government.

Our constitution does not provide the right of a referendum on International Treaties. Other more mature democracies do, but not ours. That France or Ireland or the Netherlands have referendums does not in any way, shape or form affect the legal and constitutional right of the Government that you elect to enter into international treaties without the requirement of seeking a popular mandate to do so.

The last I heard, none of the LibLabCon party have given any manifesto commitment to seek the permission of the public to enter into any external treaty nor are they likely to do so.

Originally Posted by exile1

I've always looked to missives from Iolis to put into simple language matters that seemed incomprehensible.
Does the EU concord now mean that if I can get a couple of million of signatures from across the member states to put forward a proposal that we hold a referendum to disolve said EU and it's constitutions then this will be allowed under Article 11?

We would have to see the results of the Commission's consultation in how a 'significant number' of member states is to be interpreted as a criteria of eligibility and even if accepted as a serious proposal it would have to be subjected to the democratic process involving the Commission, the Council and the Parliament. The Parliament does, of course, have the power of veto over legislation proposed by the Commission or the Council.

But why bother when the Lisbon Treaty so despised by many has provided the Eursceptics with a 'wet dream' exit route under Article 50 TFEU:

"Article 50

1, Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutonal requirements.

2, A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In light of the guidance proided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conlude an agreement with the State, setting out the arangements for its withdrawal, taking acount of the framework for its future relatinship with the Union......etc etc......"

I do not anticipate any LibLabCon government either now or at any time in he future making an application under Article 50.

Originally Posted by Iolis

. . the Lisbon Treaty so despised by many has provided the Eursceptics with a 'wet dream' exit route under Article 50 TFEU:

"Article 50

1, Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutonal requirements.

2, A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In light of the guidance proided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conlude an agreement with the State, setting out the arangements for its withdrawal, taking acount of the framework for its future relatinship with the Union......etc etc......"

I do not anticipate any LibLabCon government either now or at any time in he future making an application under Article 50.

But, it is nice to know it is there !!

Just in case . . . :D