Ireland's Referendum Commission misleading the voters
Monday, 26 May 2008
By Jens-Peter Bonde, President of the EU Democrats, Danish member of the two constitutional conventions, and author of a Reader-Friendly Edition of the Lisbon Treaty.
They have a very good tradition in Ireland of letting a neutral body, the Referendum Commission, explain the meaning of the proposed changes to the Irish Constitution before referendums. The Referendum Commission has a website at the address: www.lisbontreaty2008.ie
It has also sent out a booklet to Irish voters about the referendum and has advertised this widely.
Here you can see how the Irish voters are informed before their referendum on 12 June. It looks nice and very professional. But important parts of it are directly misleading the Irish voters before their referendum. Some of the most important changes made by the Lisbon Treaty are not explained at all. I find 8 altogether.
1. The Irish Commissioner
'Changes to how the EU is Governed' is the first chapter at the site - and the most misleading. Today the governments of the Member States nominate their national commissioner and negotiate his or her portfolio with the appointed Commission President.
The Treaty at present allows the Irish government to 'propose' the Irish commissioner. Until now all Irish commissioners have been appointed by the different Irish governments. I have personally known all of them and they have been rather good at defending Irish interests in Brussels.
The Lisbon Treaty changes the important word 'propose' into 'suggest'. If the Lisbon Treaty is ratified the Irish Government will thereafter only be able to suggest to the appointed Commission President different Irish names for the periods where there will be an Irish citizen on the Commission.
It is no longer the Irish Government which would 'nominate' the Irish Commissioner. He or she would be nominated by a qualified majority of the EU Prime Ministers and the appointed Commission President. The explanation from the Referendum Commission on this point is directly misleading as regards one of the more important changes provided for in the Lisbon Treaty.
After Lisbon it will be a majority in Brussels picking the Irish name. National Commissioners will be appointed top-down instead of bottom-up from the member states. Commissioners will be part of a genuine federal government and there will no longer be a guarantee that there will be an Irish commissioner at all to ensure that Irish interests are taken into in Brussels in making proposals for EU laws.
This new system is not a problem for the big member states. They can always find a civil servant of their own nationality to inform them of what is being proposed, or to investigate why a subsidy or whatever has not arrived in time. For small and medium-sized companies and for the many local communities with no lobbyists of their own in Brussels, the new system would be very bad.
Under the Lisbon Treaty they would have no guarantee of being able to phone an Irish citizen in the national cabinet of the Irish commissioner and obtain the necessary help.
In the Convention which drafted the EU Constitution I collected 123 signatures for a proposal to give every member state one commissioner each. 60 % of the members supported it - including all the Irish members and 23 of the 28 governments (Turkey also participated).
Together with Irish Green Minister John Gormley and others we produced a minority proposal to keep one commissioner for each state and allow member states to have commissioners elected directly by the voters. This would be a democratic improvement in EU affairs. Unfortunately, it was rejected strongly by the biggest member states.
The big states want a small commission that is easy to control by an alliance of big member states. As an improvement, Irish Minister for Europe Dick Roche and others then forced the big states to accept the principle of equal rotation between the member states as regards the commissioners. It may look a good compromise between small and big, but I cannot see it as a sustainable compromise. What will happen, for example, when Malta will take over as a commission member instead of France?
In reality the rotation system proposed in the Lisbon Treaty opens the way for a different model entirely: where the entire Commission would be appointed just as a government is in Ireland. First, the Commission President would be appointed by 20 of the 27 Prime Ministers and Presidents of the member states and a majority in the European Parliament. Then the President would appoint his ministers - the Commissioners. Then in due time, the equal rotation principle may be abandoned because the practical value of the national representation is gone when it is no longer the Irish who will nominate the Irish representative.
May I suggest to the Referendum Commission that they correct their explanation and tell the Irish people the important difference between 'proposals' and 'suggestions' which the Lisbon Treaty makes.
2. The Democratic deficit disappears - from the Referendum Commission's explanation
The Referendum Commission explains the decision-making methods in the EU a manner where all the democratic problems disappear. The Commission 'proposes' EU laws, Yes, but it is not mentioned that the non-elected members of the Commission are the only citizens in Europe with a right to propose a law.
Under all the national constitutions of the 27 member states elected members of parliament have the right to propose - and decide - the laws. This fundamental change as regards democracy in all our nation states is not explained by the Referendum Commission.
Co-decision between the Council and the European Parliament is explained by the Referendum Commission as if the two partners are equal. They are not. The proposal from the European Commission is necessary first. Then the proposal requires 255 of the 345 votes in the Council to be adopted at present.
The European Parliament has an increased influence on law- making under the Lisbon Treaty, but it does not have legislative power as in the member states. MEPs can only propose amendments to the Commission proposals (and block a law by absolute majority of the members).
The non-elected people in the Commission then decide whether this is a good amendment or not. Only if the Commission approves the amendment from the MEPs, will it have a realistic chance of being adopted.If the Commission does not approve the MEPs' amendment it can only be decided by a unanimous decision among the 27 member states in the Council.
If this is a good way to decide laws, why has no one proposed to cancel the right of the Irish Dail to propose and decide purely Irish laws? And instead give the Dail a right to suggest amendments to laws that are proposed by the top civil servants in the different ministries? Then the civil service heads could meet behind closed doors and decide what amendments from the Dail they would approve!
In the constitutional convention I proposed, along with John Gormley and others, that ALL laws in the EU should be adopted by a majority in the European Parliament. That proposal was not accepted. Therefore we will continue with the existing system with its big democratic deficit.
In 19 policy areas the European Parliament gains more influence under the Lisbon Treaty than it has today. That is progress. In 49 new areas legislative power is moved from 27 democratic National Parliaments to Brussels. That is not progress. It means that the National Parliaments and the voters lose much more power than is gained by the European Parliament.
The net result is an increased democratic deficit - not an improvement. The core of democracy is the right to go for elections, to have a new parliamentary majority and then to be able to legislate a new law. This core feature of democracy does not exist in the EU today and the position is not improved by the Lisbon Treaty.
3. Voting differences between small and big member states
The Irish Referendum Commission explains the EU voting system correctly. But it hides the most important fact: that under the Lisbon Treaty small member states like Denmark and Ireland would halve their vote in the Council.
Today Germany has 4 times the vote of Ireland - 29 as against 7. With Lisbon the German minister or civil servant will have 20 times as many votes as the Irish minister or civil servant. Why does the Commission not outline this important change?
4. The role of national parliaments
The Referendum Commission writes that National Parliaments are not involved in EU decision-making to day. That is wrong. Since September 2006 the European Commission has sent all proposals for new laws to the National Parliaments. The National Parliaments can then scrutinise them as regards subsidiarity and proportionality. The Irish Parliament has used this right on only one occasion over the past eighteen months. But the right exist already.
The Lisbon Treaty introduces an 'orange card' system where 55 % of the parliaments can block a law. This step changes nothing since all laws anyway can be blocked by 45 % of the member states.
5. Taxation
The Referendum Commission assures Irish voters that there will still be unanimity on taxes. This is true, but not as relevant as, for example, the new wording of a new Protocol on competition in the Internal Market and Article 113 TFEU which gives the European Court in Luxembourg the right to outlaw any 'distortion of competition' - such as the very low Irish corporate tax.
6. Direct investments
Ireland has always had its own laws on direct foreign investments, inviting American companies and others to settle in Ireland. The Referendum Commission does not tell people that direct foreign investment is added to the EU trade competence under Article 207 TFEU and that decisions will now move from unanimity to majority voting as regards this sensitive area.
7. The EU Constitution
I have offered good bottles of red wine to anyone who can give me an example of where a law could be passed under the rejected EU Constitution but not under the Lisbon Treaty. I have not been given any.
The Referendum Commission does not explain in what areas Irish citizens can decide things on their own after the approval of the Lisbon Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty is identical to the rejected EU Constitution as regards legal obligations.
The Referendum Commission does not explain what differences there are between Lisbon and the rejected Constitution. It does not explain that that the Lisbon Treaty will give the constitution of the European Union primacy over the Irish constitution, as indicated in Declaration No 17 - which has been moved from the Constitution's Article I-6.
The Referendum Commission does not explain that the European Union after Lisbon would constitutionally be very different from the European Union that we know today. Yet the Amendment that is proposed to the Irish Constitution clearly recognises this when it gives permission in the first sentence of the Amendment for Ireland to become a member of the European Union 'established by virtue of the Lisbon Treaty'. This Union is obviously legally different from the Union established by the Maastricht Treaty, which we are members of today.
8. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is explained by the Commission as if making it legally binding has no consequences. After Lisbon the Charter would enable the EU Court of Justice to decide what are the rights of EU citizens, If there is any conflict between the rights and duties of EU citizens as compared with the rights and duties of Irish citizens, it is the EU rights and duties would prevail and it is the EU Court which would decide the boundaries between EU and national civil rights and duties.
I asked the Danish Government if they could give me one example of a Danish law which could not be touched by the Lisbon Treaty, including the Charter of Rights. I have not got one example. They have even admitted that the Lisbon Treaty could open the way for an EU Ministry of Defence and a Minister or Commissioner for the Churches.
The truth is that the Lisbon Treaty will be our new constitution - whether for good and bad if it is adopted in the only referendum now permitted: the one in Ireland.
Prime Ministers did not read what they signed
I have now published a Reader-Friendly Edition of the Lisbon Treaty with a 3000 word alphabetical index. It can be downloaded for free at: www.euinfo.ie (or the EUD website) or bought as a book for €20. It is a Consolidated Version where you can read in bold what will be added to the existing treaties if the Lisbon Treaty is approved.
Ireland's Referendum Commission publishes the Lisbon Treaty on its web-site in a version which cannot be read and understood by citizens. I have not yet met a Prime Minister who has read and understood what they signed in Lisbon on 13 December.
Even the Irish Commissioner has admitted he did not read what he recommends. This is the best argument for all voters to read it on their own before they make up their minds. They should read the final Treaties as they would be when amended by the Lisbon Treaty. This can now be done through the Reader-Friendly Edition. The index to that makes it possible for an interested voter to find out anything they want.
I have left the European Parliament after 29 years membership there. During that time I took part in 100 meetings in the two conventions. It was only when I made the alphabetical index for the Reader-Friendly Edition that I properly understood the full contents of the Treaty.
I do not make any recommendations on how the Irish voters ought to vote. I just urge them to read the text of the Treaty and understand it before they do vote.
Read the Reader-Friendly Edition of the Treaty HERE