Lisbon Treaty - Day 3

So from an Irish perspective the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) parts of the Lisbon Treary are perhaps one of the more controversial parts. The common fear is the creation of some sort of EU-super army that will have thrilling adventures in places that most people would have difficulty spelling. Lisbon provides nothing to worry about in this regard, because the EU already created it in 2004, it's called the European Defence Agency.

My primary concern is that it would require us to actually spend money. I know, you were thinking about neutrality. Face it our health service is wonky and the Ireland's finances are a fairy story (we seem to have misplaced a billion in tax revenue somewhere, perhaps Bertie could save the day with some hot gee-gee money, but I digress) - do we really want to spend money on shiny new tanks? Here's EDA's information about how much we spend on defence-note how low we are as a % of GDP. This is a good thing. Unfortunately, Lisbon Treaty states:

"member states shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities".

That sounds expensive. Now Lisbon supporters say that there are no targets / requirements being set so we shouldn't worry, but that's pretty cold comfort. Once an objective like this is agreed to, targets may not too far behind. However, we can be pragmatic. we are already part of the EDA and so we have to commit to some spending (our guys walkie-talkie things need to be able to the Germans' talkie-things for instance). It seems unlikely that we can be forced to commit high-levels of GDP spending to the military, either theoretically or practically - but it is a bit unclear.

What Lisbon does is interesting. It sets out two stalls. The first is a wide brief where the EU as a whole can get involved in defence activities outside its borders, but this is subject to unanimous decisions by all states. The second more worryingly is called Structured Co-operation, basically a subset of Member States banding together to go on jolly foreign jaunts again under a pretty wide brief (UN-sanction actions, stabilisation of states, defence, etc). Within 3 months of the passing of the treaty, states can band together to create a new combined force. This is inherently a new militaristic focus to the EU, there really isn't another way to look at it. How you view this is up to you. I'm hot-n-cold on the issue. I remember Kosovo, where the EU failed to act and UN personnel failed to protect lives. So I'm suspicious, but not totally against the idea.

In any case Ireland cannot be forced to join. It would require a goverment decision, Dail approval, and UN authorisation for us to get involved.

I would prefer if this whole aspect of the Lisbon Treaty simply wasn't there. It is definitely a genuine concern. Not because it commits Ireland to any given action, but because it involves a ramping up of the militarisation of the EU (which started off as a purely economic union). I am enough of a realist to recognise that there are already a number of supra-national mechanisms by which member states can already engage together and that having such engagements inside the EU makes them to some degree more accountable.

Lisbon Treaty - Day 2

The main criticism about the EU is that it is pretty undemocratic This is mainly because

• The Commission, you know the brain-trust which controls policy and alone has the power to initiate legislation, is completely unelected. This will not change under Lisbon.
  
• The Council (of ministers) which is one of the two legislative bodies meets in secret - this will not change under Lisbon.
  

The Eurpean Parliament, the place where politicians go to die, is being cast as the big winner from Lisbon. The Parliament is the only directly elected part of the EU, but its powers aren't terribly impressive. Basically the drill is, the Commissioners, those clever, unelected people such as Charlie McCreevy, propose new legislation, then the Parliament and the Council (I know I'm losing consciousness too) which is made up of ministers from national parliaments both must agree (codecision).

So the Parliaments powers are: propose amendments and say no. Not entirely stunning, but certainly not useless - afterall by simply refusing to sign-off the EU budget (due to massive fraud allegations) they forced the Santer Commission to resign. Try getting the Senate to do that.

Under Lisbon, the main change is that codecision is extended to most policy areas. Which means you might not want to be so flippant when next voting for your MEP. Do you really want Dana voting on energy policy? However, they still cannot propose legislation - so not ushering in a new democratic dawn.

Another change is that the Parliament gets to elect the President of the Commission (where the real power lies - the ability to make new laws). This is a good thing in terms of balancing power between elected and unelected officials.

There are some sops to making the EU more democratic. For example:

• A citizens initiative where 1Million citizens (v. Austin Powers) can petition the Commission to bring forward legislation on a particular issue (such as an immediate ban on Westlife) . What the Commission has to do at this point is undefined and this smells like a populist measure that was tacked on to make the treaty more touchy-feely.
  
• A role for the National Parliaments, not content making a mess of their own legislation, they now have the right to vent their spleens at EU legislative proposals.. If enough of them are against it then the Commission must review (that doesn't actually mean anything has to happen, the Commission can re-present exactly the same legislation, but they are required to say why the National Governments should mind their own business). Seems pretty toothless.
  

So overall if you were hoping that Lisbon was going to make the EU more democratic I'm afraid I don't have entirely good news for you. It does make it a little bit more democratic by extending the areas which the Parliament has oversight on, but this should be thought of as reform (with a small 'r').

Lisbon Treaty - Day 1.

So after reading the rather helpful referendum commission documentation on Thursdays upcoming lisbon treaty, it seemed pretty straightforward. If (and only if) you wanted a more integrated EU, reform of the institutions was necessary. If you aren't interested in tighter EU integration, then you should vote no on Lisbon.

Okay, first hurdle passed, I am generally in favour of more integration and would like EU-decision making to be reformed. So the next question is: Is the Lisbon treaty:

• going to help streamline decision making.
• be more democratic (it would be difficult for the EU to be less democratic).
• generally be in Ireland's favour.

Hmm. Tricky. I downloaded the Lisbon Treaty and tried to read it, but I and most of the country simply aren't qualified to have a real opinion on the basic text. Now I don't necessarily have a problem with that, I have probably never read the text of any legislation, it has never seemed necessary for me to do so in the past, relying like everyone on summary information - so I don't see this as a problem which negates one of the common memes circulating 'It's too complicated to vote on'. I don't buy it, practically everything is 'too complicated to vote on' - but that rarely stops anyone. Other memes I'm discounting are:

• There's no Plan B, Plan C. - Like I care.
  
• Our European Overlords will be deeply unhappy if we vote 'No' - scaremongering (plus at times it seems nigh impossible not to upset the French).
  
• The No lobby are a bunch of borderline crazies, US MilitaryIndustrialComplex Stooges, crypto-Catholics - Well would you want to marry into that family? I'm watching the Question and Answers debate and the tag-team of Declan Ganly (libertas) and Mary Lou (Sinn Fein) on the No side are frankly unnerving - Declan Ganly wins on mis-information terms. OK I admit it, I would probably have been guilty of a little of this sentiment - but actually lots of people are against the treaty.
• Corporation Tax will be raised (despite us having a veto). Senator Shane Ross uses this fear to encourage a No vote on the treaty. Now I'm no fan of Senator Ross, he is annoying, but he is not insane. His argument is that those trickster French are simply biding their time until the dullard Irish vote Yes and then they'll be raising corporate tax rates so fast it will make your little potato-shaped head spin. His argument is this, yes we have a veto on tax matters under Lisbon, but the French will use some Jedi mind-trick to to make us forget to use the veto when they propose harmonizing tax-rates. This doesn't make sense - we have a veto now and we will have one post-Lisbon, if the French have such Jedi powers, they can force us to do it regardless of Lisbon.
  
• Enhanced Cooperation will be a back-door to raising corporation tax - the "Your veto is useless" argument. No it won't. First-off enhanced cooperation doesn't directly involve countries that do not want to take part in the enhanced cooperation. Secondly enhanced cooperation has never been used (people mention Euro and Shengen, but these didn't actually use this facility). Thirdly, to use this procedure requires agreement from all members. Finally, this power already exists.
  
• We'll lose a European Commissioner for Five out of Fifteen Years - OK this seems like a good thing - have you seen Ireland's contribution so far? So we get exactly slice of this action as all other countries. Seems overwhelmingly in our favour.
  
• The Qualified Majority Voting - QMV of The Council (see below) will halve Ireland vote. Our vote will remain the same (7 votes), but larger states will get proportionally more votes (based on population size). This had led to a lot of commentators claiming that our influence will be diminished. This is mis-information. QMV involves a double-majority. Those claiming "halving" are conveniently forgetting that it requires at least 55% of votes and 65% of member states (this second part gives us equal status with other countries).
  
• SIPTU, the Farmers, The Union of Tap-dancing Plumbers are calling for a No vote - none of these groups is voting on what is contained in the treaty. They've ruled themselves out of consideration.
  
• All the other countries have already agreed to it - so if we reject it, we are rejecting the wishes of 26 other national governments (John Bruton's line). Tough - that is precisely the decision you are asking me to make.
  

So that all seems pretty simple, right. Onto the Forum on Europe - a non-directive counselling service for crisis voters. This was essentially an extended talking shop where people actually got to debate the Lisbon Treaty. Now it provides a much more comprehensive summary on Lisbon. So I started reading this and then realised that my total ignorance of EU structures was a hurdle. So here's a quick summary:

• Council of Europe - this is actually the oldest EU organisation and has 47 members (so a lot of non EU-members). It worriesabout human rights and has the EU court of Human Rights at its centre. This is not affected by Lisbon.
• Council of the European Union, a.k.a Council of Ministers, a.k.a The Council - This is one of the two legislative bodies of the EU (the other being the parilament). We will continue to have one minister from each country. This is the main body that will be affected by QMV (see above) the main additions are a new High Representative on Foreign Affairs (and a dip corp to support it). I think this is generally a good idea. The EU is a powerful organisation that consistently punches far below its weight on an international stage. It is time to fix this.
  
• European Council - okay at this point you probably think they are taking the piss - were they stuck for collective nouns for European politicians? The European Council is the highest body of the EU made up of heads of state/government and President of the European Comission. This has no formal powers, it is not even an official institution of the EU, but it defines the policy agenda and is arguably the centre of power. The rotating president will be replaced by a President elected for 2.5 years at a time (max 5 years).
  
• European Commission - this is the executive branch of the European Union - currently one comissioner per member state. They represent administrative areas, e.g. Charlie McCreevy is Commissioner for the internal market - which somehow involves proposing Software Patent Legislation whenever he's bored. This clearly is affected by Lisbon - but in a good way. The other alternative would be to invent some new administrative areas (Commissioner for Fun, Commissioner for decent Television, Commissioner in charge of investigating rigging of Eurovision voting) at tax-payer expense.
  

OK that is enough for Day 1. So far I think round 1 to the Pro-Lisbon camp, there seems very little that is scary (and quite a few useful things).