You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Lisbon Treaty' category.
As Ireland’s second vote on the Lisbon Treaty nears, concesssions won by the Irish government coupled with a resurgent civil society ‘yes’ movement could see the ‘No to Lisbon’ camp face an uphill struggle in the coming weeks
Source: EurActive [edited]
As Ireland’s second vote on the Lisbon Treaty nears, concesssions won by the Irish government coupled with a resurgent civil society ‘yes’ movement could see the ‘No to Lisbon’ camp face an uphill struggle in the coming weeks, experts told EurActiv.
Background:
Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum in June 2008, effectively stalling the reforms contained in the treaty and causing widespread consternation among European politicians.
Following the result of the referendum, the Irish government conducted detailed research into why the public voted against the treaty and found concerns over military neutrality, the potential impact on Ireland’s corporate tax rates, workers’ rights and ethical issues related to the position of the family and abortion. Question marks over whether Ireland would lose its European commissioner were also said to be of concern.
Leaders meeting in Brussels in December 2008 agreed to find a legally-binding solution to clear up confusion over how the treaty would affect Ireland in the hope that this would allow a second referendum.
Following June’s European elections, where only one of Ireland’s 12 MEPs was elected on an anti-Lisbon platform, EU leaders reached a compromise in offering Ireland legally-binding guarantees on the Lisbon Treaty without requiring other countries to re-ratify the text.
The Irish government set Friday 2 October as the date for the second referendum.
There is a precedent for Ireland having a second vote on a European treaty, as two referenda were required to pass the Nice Treaty.
With the second referendum six weeks away, both pro and anti-Lisbon campaigns are grinding into gear.
While many of the 2008 arguments from both sides are being re-circulated this time around, experts told EurActiv that the political backdrop to this year’s referendum is profoundly different to that of last year.
According to the sources, who did not wish to be named given the politically sensitive nature of the current debates, many of the grounds for argument raised by the ‘no’ camp in 2008 are no longer in play, given that the guarantees and concessions granted to Ireland by EU leaders appear to have assuaged many of the fears expressed by Irish ‘no’ voters last June.
As a result, they indicated, the ‘no’ campaign could face an ‘uphill struggle’ to recreate its 2008 success.
Given the changed context, the ‘no’ camp will largely have to base its arguments on issues they feel have not been addressed by the EU guarantees, using, in particular, workers’ rights as a spearhead for its campaign.
Indeed, the combined ‘no’ campaign was launched earlier this week with a warning that the treaty would leave workers worse off and more exposed to spending cuts.
A profoundly undemocratic document, says ‘no’ camp
Speaking at the launch, Ireland’s sole anti-Lisbon MEP, Socialist Joe Higgins, argued that the Lisbon Treaty “is a profoundly undemocratic document, which seeks to turn right-wing economic policies into the only show in town”.
According to the MEP, if Lisbon is passed, “the EU Commission would uphold the right of big business to profit from public services, over and above the rights of workers to take action to defend these services”.
However, Andrew Byrne, Chief of Operations for pro-Lisbon advocacy group Ireland for Europe, dismissed the ‘no’ camp’s claims, arguing that its “scattergun approach” continues to falsely portray Lisbon as part of a “neoliberal economic agenda”.
According to Byrne, the ‘no side’ “will continue to misrepresent and distort the truth, playing on peoples’ fears and anxieties”.
Groundswell of groups adds legitimacy to ‘yes’ camp
But pro-Lisbon Byrne believes that despite what he sees as the fear-mongering on the ‘no’ side, the emergence of a plethora of civil society ‘yes’ bodies are giving a stronger legitimacy to the overall pro-Lisbon campaign.
“You only have to look at the number of groups out there to see that there is a groundswell of people who are not part of the normal political scene, who care about the future of the country and feel that Lisbon is a big part of that,” he said.
This “shows that there are people throughout Ireland who feel this issue is too important to leave to politicians and traditional groups”.
Byrne argued that the proliferation of civil society ‘yes’ groups “takes the wind out of the ‘no’ camp’s sails”, in that “it doesn’t allow the ‘no’ groups to paint Lisbon as merely an ambition of the political establishment”.
“We’re making the point to people that there is a new deal on the table and their concerns have been addressed. The loss of the Commissioner, for example, was a huge concern to people,” said Byrne.
The Ireland for Europe representative concluded that in his opinion, the ‘no’ camp is weaker this time around, but urged against “complacency,” among pro-Lisbon activists, arguing that all groups should remain active on the ground until the referendum.
The Pirate Party received 7.13% of the total Swedish votes in the 2009 European Parliament elections, which resulted in one seat in the European parliament.
By: Daniel Östlund, MEP, Pirate Party member, Sweden
I am a member of the Pirate Party and I am proud of it. I joined early this year and would consider myself a grass roots supporter. I have been following their development from day one. For a long time I have been unable to find a party that I feel represents my beliefs and me as a person.
On January 1, 2006, the founder of The Pirate Bay, Rickard Falkvinge, opened a website for people interested in forming a new political party. His goal was to receive as many names as possible in order to form a party that would focus on preserving the immaterial rights and privacies of the individual.
Within 48 hours the site had received 3 million hits. It quickly became clear that The Pirate Party was something many people had been waiting for. It was ready to ask the questions that people like me wanted to see on the agenda in the Swedish parliament as well as the EU. The Pirate Party is often portrayed as being a party of discontent or a ‘one question’ party. I disagree and I feel their campaign agenda and what they stand for is so much more than that.
I strongly feel they will be able to make a difference and will bring a more current and socially relevant view to politics in Europe. Laws such as the recently enacted IPRED-directive” (Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive) which makes it possible for copyright holders to obtain a court order demanding the release of personal information related to users and organisations suspected of copyright infringements as well as IP addresses. The copyright holders will then be able to use the information to bring cases for compensation against the suspected individuals.
I feel this has significantly impacted the basic freedoms of the Swedish people. I strongly believe that had The Pirate Party been present when this law was first being debated there would have been a greater understanding of its impact on individuals and on industry itself.
The internet is an integral part of Swedish society today. The majority of the youth including myself have been instrumental in its growth and its place in our personal and professional lives. This is something I have always been extremely proud of. We are one Europe’s most connected nations.
Swedish politicians have clearly proved to me and many others with their recent actions that they are completely out of touch with today’s society. The Pirate Party has grown immensely recently. Every time issues regarding subjects such as file sharing, personal integrity or when our legal security has been compromised by private interests, The Pirate Party has stood up where others have not, and have been the voice we have needed. I feel this trend is set to continue and I am certain The Pirate Party’s support will continue to grow. The Pirate Party recieved 7.1% of the votes in the election, and will get 1 seat in the European Parliament. If the lissabon treaty goes through, it is possible that they will get a second seat.
In recent weeks in the run up to the elections other parties have begun to take notice of the support The Pirate Party is gaining with their agenda and have started adopting similar policies of their own. However, I feel they lack the understanding and the conviction that The Pirate Party has shown to me and many others in Sweden and across Europe.
I share the beliefs of The Pirate Party. Their goals to preserve our integrity and our security are fundamental issues to me and I feel it is extremely important that they are addressed now. When the Swedish government enacted the IPRED law they gave private interests the right to information that was previously reserved for the police and security services. This information is supposed to protect our rights and our privacy.
Private companies are being handed warrants to search and seize information on anyone they deem to be infringing upon their corporate agendas, such as suspected file sharers who have recently been very publicly targeted by the entertainment industry here in Sweden. File sharing has been an integral part of internet growth in Sweden and has been widely accepted by all as being part of everyday life. I feel the government has been influenced strongly by the private sector in such matters and have neglected the wishes of everyone else. Many people including myself are extremely dissatisfied and we feel we are being marginalised by the politicians and the private sector.
It is time we stood up and stopped allowing the private sector to dictate our politics. I believe The Pirate Party will do everything in the power to achieve this. That is why I joined them. They represent me and they understand my concerns.
Daniel Östlund
Pirate Party member
Pirate party – http://www.piratpartiet.se/
UK Election Day : 4 June 2009
About the author : Emily Robinson is Research and Publications Officer at Unlock Democracy and has previously worked at the New Local Government Network and the Institute for Public Policy Research. Her publications include My Election: A Voters’ Eye View of the 2007 Scottish Elections (with Patrick Casey, Unlock Democracy, forthcoming); General Election 2005: What the Voters Saw (with Justin Fisher, New Politics Network, 2005); Living with Regions: Making Multi-level Governance Work (NLGN, 2004) and The Benefits of Community Engagement (with Ben Rogers, ippr/Home Office, 2004). Emily is also the series editor of New Politics, Unlock Democracy’s regular discussion paper.
Source: UnlockDemocracy.org [edited]
Author: Emily Robinson
British Citizens and the European Union : Findings from a deliberative process
Britain’s relationship with the European Union excites a great deal of emotion. It is a staple of the tabloid press and one of the few political topics that is regularly discussed in pubs and offices. However, this does not necessarily mean that we know much about the EU or how it works.
British citizens are less confident that they know about the EU’s policies and institutions than the people in any other member state, except Hungary. In a Eurobarometer poll conducted in Autumn 2005, only 46% of British respondents were aware of the UK’s Presidency of the EU and MORI research found that 82% of those
polled do not feel they have enough information to make an informed decision on whether or not to adopt the Constitutional Treaty.
Lack of knowledge leaves us vulnerable to misinformation and myth-creation. This is worrying, not only because it leads to frustration and alienation but also because political parties shape their policies on Europe according to what they believe the public will accept. If the public do not have enough information to engage in a serious debate about the future of the European Union and our relationship to it, then it is likely that our policies will be unsound.
This project was designed to gauge informed public opinion on Europe. We wanted to find out what citizens would think when all the information had been presented to them.
…
The [research] highlighted a sense of unease about the way that the European Union is governed. Even the most Europhilic panellists complained about a lack of democracy, transparency and accountability.
The panellists felt very strongly that, as the only directly elected body, the European Parliament should be at the centre of European decision making. It was also suggested that the Commission should be made in some way accountable to the Parliament. Important steps to enhance the transparency and accountability of European procedures could be taken at the national level. For instance, it was suggested that British members of the Council of Ministers should have to report back to Parliament and that the House of Commons Select Committee on Europe should meet in public. We think these are both important proposals, which would place Europe more clearly in our existing democratic framework and create a new layer of accountability.
Another problem identified by many of the panellists was a lack of reliable accessible information about the EU and its activities. This was seen to be partly a problem with the information made available by the European institutions, but also the result of a lack of media interest in the workings of the EU. It was suggested that the broadcast and print media should cover the European Parliament in the same way as Westminster.
Download the full report here: http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/british-citizens-and-the-european-union.pdf
Sarkozy proposed to create a large joint economic area, noting that a similar concept might work to bind Russia closer to the EU.
Source: EuroActiv [edited]
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has strongly rejected German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s idea of a “privileged partnership” between the EU and Turkey, saying his country would not accept any alternative to full membership of the European Union.
Speaking at a gathering of young conservatives on 10 May, Merkel said it does not make sense for the EU to continuously expand if it leaves the Union unable to operate. She added that she would prefer Turkey to receive a privileged partnership from the EU, rather than full membership, echoing recent comments made by French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the launch of his EU election campaign (EurActiv 8/05/09).
At the same meeting, Sarkozy told German newspaper Bild am Sonntag: “We need a well-organised Europe [...] That means we cannot expand without borders. We shouldn’t make any empty promises to Turkey.” As an alternative, Sarkozy proposed to create a large joint economic area, noting that a similar concept might work to bind Russia closer to the EU.
The Turkish press expressed widespread dismay at the statements, made by the two EU leaders during a young CDU (Christian-Democrats) activists’ event. The daily Milliyet wrote that “Merkel has officially shocked Turkey”. Before being elected president in May 2007, Sarkozy frequently spoke out against Turkey’s EU accession, but softened his stance after his election (EurActiv 28/08/07). In the case of Germany, Merkel’s unfavourable view of Ankara’s accession is tempered by the more positive attitude of her foreign minister and Social Democratic coalition partner Frank-Walter Steinmeier.
The French press, for its part, interpreted Merkel’s statements as a veiled attack on the UK Conservative party. “Those who refuse the Lisbon Treaty – which would allow us to work better and to take aboard new members – but who still talk about enlargement, we refuse to shake their hand,” the AFP agency quoted Merkel as saying.
The agency quotes an unidentified member of the French government as saying that Merkel was referring to the Conservative party led by David Cameron. The Eurosceptic tone adopted by the British Conservatives, who decided to leave the centre-right European People’s Party, is “worrying” Paris and Berlin, the source added.
European Health Insurance Card
Protection Of Cultural Heritage
Human rights throughout the world
Conference theme: In June 2009 European citizens will elect a new European Parliament, some of them who joined the European Union only recently for the first time.
17 – 18 September 2009
The conference will be organised by the ECREA Political Communication section, the Centre for Digital Citizenship and the Jean Monnet European Centre of Excellence at the Institute of Communications Studies.
Conference theme: In June 2009 European citizens will elect a new European Parliament, some of them who joined the European Union only recently for the first time.
2009 will also see numerous national elections throughout Europe. The Political Communication section will take this important election year in Europe as an opportunity to revisit one of the key areas of political communication research – how democratic participation is shaped and transformed by processes of mediatisation and what consequences this has for the nature of contemporary citizenship.
The nature of democratic citizenship is presently undergoing fundamental changes, which are assumed to have far-reaching consequences for the way democracy works. The relationship between citizens and their elected representatives seems to be characterized by growing distance, mistrust and ignorance. Long gone are the days of an ideal (or idealized) Athenian polity where political engagement was regarded a virtue and daily life was permeated by political debate.
Instead, a growing number of citizens has withdrawn from politics and doesn’t even find it worth the while to follow the news or to cast their vote. Meanwhile, the enthusiasm that initially inspired the citizens of the new democracies in Eastern Europe has evaporated and we now see similar patterns of disenchantment in these countries like in their established counterparts. Media organisations and political actors have responded to these developments in various ways – so far without significant success. Turnout continues to drop, and news programmes, in particular current affairs programmes, are losing their audiences.
Are modern democracies, then, left without citizens, as Robert Entman suggested twenty years ago? The question is even more urgent with regard to the European Union, which for a long time has been largely ignored by its citizens, but is now at risk to be rejected altogether, as the recent No votes in the referenda in Ireland, France and the Netherlands demonstrate.
However, the situation might be more ambiguous and complex. While citizens are withdrawing from institutionalized politics and established channels of communication new arenas of participation and new forms of communicating political ideas have emerged, which for many – in particular the young – appear more meaningful and more trustworthy. In particular the Internet has opened up new spaces for democratic citizenship from the local to the global level that could not have been dreamed of twenty years ago.
The ECREA Political Communication sectional workshop aims to provide a forum to discuss these themes with scholars who are working on the changing nature of citizenship, political involvement and the media both in the European and the national context.
Call for Papers
We invite empirical as well as theoretical papers that contribute to understanding contemporary democratic citizenship and the role of the media, old and new, in shaping the way it is experienced and practiced. We are particularly interested in papers that address the following aspects:
* European citizenship: media and perceptions of Europe; Participation and vote choice in European elections and referenda.
* The ballot box and beyond: media and national electoral politics; non-institutionalised participation; non-voting and political disengagement.
* Communicating to citizens: Mediated and mediatised political messages; implications for political information and participation.
* Making sense of politics: citizens’ response to political information; information processing and civic knowledge.
* Conceptualizing citizenship (European, national): relationship between media and citizenship; lay understanding of citizenship.
Submission of contributions: Abstracts of not more than 500 words should be sent to ics-conferences@leeds.ac.uk, mentioning ‘Mediated citizenship’ in the subject line. Deadline: 15 May 2009 If you wish to propose a whole panel please get in touch with Dr. Katrin Voltmer at k.voltmer@leeds.ac.uk
Key note (Thursday afternoon) Prof. Peter Dahlgren – Lund University, Sweden: “Mediated Democracy and the Centrality of Civic Identities and Practices”
Please download registration form and send to ics-conferences@leeds.ac.uk
Contact: Dr. Katrin Voltmer (academic organiser) Houldsworth Building, Room 3.50 Institute of Communications Studies University of Leeds Leeds, LS2 9JT United Kingdom Email: k.voltmer@leeds.ac.uk Tel: +44-(0)113-3435829 Fax: +44-(0)113-3435808
What has Europe ever done for us?
Source: European Movement
The European Dream
source: Wise Enterprise
Nicolas Sarkozy “Turkey is not European!”
As unemployment is the priority campaign issue, it is absolutely clear that it is the areas associated with the daily and personal life of Europeans which are paramount.
Source: Eurobarometer [edited]
Background:
The European Parliament regularly commissions surveys on public opinion in the Member States. They are intended to give a better idea of the public perception of its activities and the perception within the European Union as a whole. The surveys provide valuable guidance for preparing and assessing its work and decision-making. The surveys tackle questions such as what the public expects from the European elections in June 2009 and the issues that they think should be given priority.
The results of this survey on the elections should be considered in the context of the current international situation. In fact, the survey’s fieldwork (January/February) coincides with highly-charged international events: the inauguration of Barack Obama, the launch of his first recovery plan, the situation in Gaza, etc.
There are a number of important trends to note:
Campaign issues:
Unemployment is by far the campaign issue which Europeans wish to see tackled as a priority during the European electoral debate. This result confirms the enormous concern of Europeans in the face of the present situation and that which is to come, especially as regards their personal situation.
Level of awareness of the elections:
The increase in awareness of the date is confirmed in comparison with the last two surveys. On the other hand, interest in the elections is not increasing and the likelihood of voting or not voting remains the same. The factors influencing the voter’s choice in the election (candidates’ experience both in the European and national domains, electoral program etc.) as well as the factors which cause them to abstain from voting are practically the same as those which were analysed in the EB/PE69 (Spring 2008).
The role of the EP:
Opinion is polarising gradually as we get closer to the election. Practically half of Europeans want to see it play a more important role while one sixth states the contrary. The number of “don’t know” answers is decreasing.
The EP and the expectations of European citizens:
The demand for greater protection of the consumer and of public health as well as a better coordination of economic, budgetary and fiscal policies are the issues citizens most want to see addressed as a priority by the EP. As unemployment is the priority campaign issue, it is absolutely clear that it is the areas associated with the daily and personal life of Europeans which are paramount. This leads to a demand for greater protection at EU level in the face of a crisis, the end of which no-one currently knows. In parallel, we note from these results that the international role of the EU is perceived as less important for European citizens. There is currently an increase in those who would like the Union to address, as a priority, their everyday problems. As regards values, the protection of human rights in the world is still in first place with a jump of 4 percentage points. The international context, marked by an intensification of certain conflicts and by increasing repression in many regions of the world, undoubtedly has a bearing on this. It is also presumably the reason why the defence of freedom of expression, evaluated for the first time, is found in 4th place (30%) of the values which the Parliament should defend as a priority.
EU enlargement and election rules : a paradox?
Source: Euroactiv [edited]
As it continues to enlarge, the European Union needs to review its current vote weighting and abandon the veto system, Erhard Busek, special enlargement advisor to the Czech EU Presidency, told EurActiv in an interview.
Pressure is mounting to change decision-making systems in the European Union, said Busek, who until recently was special coordinator for the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe. He said fears that decision-making is becoming more and more difficult were behind the reluctance of a number of countries to proceed with further enlargement.
“Personally, I’m convinced that the current voting weight repartition, as well as the lack of qualified majority vote in most of the situations, is the real background of these hesitations. It has nothing to do with region, because it’s completely clear for all member states that all the Western Balkan countries should become members of the EU,” Busek said.
“My personal opinion is that […] there could be a bloc of entering countries. Because the real danger is – and we have to learn from the experience of Slovenia and Croatia – is that one country blocks the neighbouring country because of bilateral problems. It’s a real nonsense and I think it’s better to do it all together,” Busek said.
The Austrian politician did not hide that his own country was opposed to enlargement with respect to Turkey, but he said he believed that Vienna favours enlargement to the Western Balkans. As for Germany, he said the election campaign ahead of the national elections in September was blocking any decisions or discussions regarding EU enlargement.
Asked whether Albania would follow the example of Montenegro and file an official EU membership application against the advice of Brussels (EurActiv 10/03/09), he indicated that this could indeed be the case, with the government using the move as an “asset” for the 28 June parliamentary elections.
Recent Comments