Kurt Sansone
Lisbon Treaty not radical, just right
The EU project remains "essentially one of the elite" even with the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, according to an Irish academic.
Deemed to be a leading authority on the Lisbon Treaty, John O'Brennan, a lecturer in European Politics at the National University of Ireland said the new treaty does attempt to allow national parliaments greater involvement in the decision-making process and also opens the possibility for citizen initiatives. But it remains essentially a project of the elite.
In Malta to address the Euro-Mediterranean seminar organised by the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies a few days ago, Dr O'Brennan said Lisbon was not a radical treaty.
"It is a modest treaty when compared to the Maastricht Treaty, which had created the euro and the single market project. Lisbon is a tidying exercise to bring coherence to policy processes," he said in an interview with The Times.
The more important aspects, he added, were the creation of an EU high representative to deal with foreign affairs and the election of a council president for two years.
"These will help solidify the EU brand on the world stage but other than this the treaty just tidies things up and that is how I think it should have been," he said.
Asked about speculation on Tony Blair becoming EU council president, Dr O'Brennan said he had signed the "Stop Blair" petition.
"Tony Blair had come to power in the UK on the premise that he was Britain's most pro-EU Prime Minister but we never got that. He constantly went to the EU council with his red lines and allowed the highly sceptical Murdoch press to dictate the UK's EU policy," Dr O'Brennan said.
On a more positive note, he added, Mr Blair did show an ability to mediate between different factions when bringing about peace in Northern Ireland and that could be useful to mediate between the differing interests of member states.
"Mr Blair is also a global figure, which could give the EU a stronger global presence, but it is difficult at this stage to speculate about names because first and foremost the roles of president and high representative have to be better defined," he said.
The Lisbon Treaty does give specific definition as to the role of high representative but is vague when it describes the President's role.
A lot of factors would come into play before any names could be talked of with certainty, Dr O'Brennan said.
"One such factor is the UK's semi-detached member state status. The UK's scepticism will become more intense if the Conservatives come to power next year. If Tony Blair is at the helm of the EU we would have to see how comfortable he will be dealing with a conservative government," he said.
With a keen interest in EU enlargement, Dr O'Brennan said the Union's largest ever single enlargement in 2004 did not create the institutional breakdown many thought it would with the new member states "adapting well".
The decision-making structures have been tried and tested over the past five years and in his view further enlargement in the Western Balkans should not create institutional problems.
The academic shot down the argument that the EU faced enlargement fatigue and had to allow more time to pass before accepting new member states.
"The EU has functioned with 27 members and I suspect that the argument about enlargement fatigue is a convenient excuse for some people in the EU who do not want the Western Balkan states to join."
"I have seen little serious engagement, except for Croatia, by the EU to negotiate in earnest with other Western Balkan countries and I suspect we will not see any new member states from the region in the next five years," he said.
It was "appalling", he added, that Iceland's membership process was being fast-tracked despite the level of domestic scepticism while that of Balkan states was dragging along very slowly even though the level of enthusiasm was much higher.
8 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Robert Scullion
Oct 28th 2009, 10:57
@lgalea
sigh
you didn't answer my question before.
Please explain why no media organisation has mentioned the death penalty aspect of the Lisbon Treaty?
Also why wasn't the death penalty aspect part of the No Campaign in the recent Irish referendum?
Why hasn't the UK Conservative Party, so against the Lisbon Treaty mentioned the death penalty aspect?
Why hasn't the Czech President used this as an excuse to refuse to sign the Treaty?
Answers please or can you not think-up a story?
You must have a really low opinion of all Europeans if you think like this.
lgalea
Oct 27th 2009, 23:09
Robert Scullion
I have already answered you extensively before and I am not going to continue to repeat myself for your benefit since you do not want to understand or rather you want to mislead readers as an eu servant.
D. Scerri
I'll make it even easier for you. Your document is 1998. The documents I referred to are 2007. Furthermore, why does the explanatory document refer to the negative aspects of the convention? As for Protocol 6, why don't you quote Article 2 referred to in the explanatory document?
Article 2 Protocol 6.
Article 2 – Death penalty in time of war
A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions. The State shall communicate to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe the relevant provisions of that law.
This is why the explanatory document to explain the “CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (2007/C 303/01)” refers to the negative aspects of the ECHR.
Robert Scullion
Oct 27th 2009, 15:03
@lgalea
If the EU was going to introduce the death penatly, can you explain why aprt from yourself it hasn't been mentioned anywhere else? I don't recall any newspaper/or tv article about it. It wasn't even an issue during both public votes on the treaty in Ireland. If Sinn Fein (leading anti-EU party in Ireland) are so against the Lisbon Treaty, wouldn't you think that they would highlight this insane proposal. Or are we suppose to believe (which I sure will be your response) that the EU controls everything like some big bogeyman?
D. Scerri
Oct 27th 2009, 13:52
@lgalea
I'll make it really easy for you:
"EU campaign for worldwide abolition of capital punishment"
...and:
"The EU Guidelines on the Death Penalty were the first set of human rights guidelines adopted by the Council in 1998. This guideline underlines the priority the EU attaches to the fight against the death penalty as a strongly held policy view agreed by all member states. The EU is opposed to capital punishment in all circumstances and considers that abolition of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement of human dignity and the progressive development of human rights."
Source: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id=1702&lang=EN
Now, if *you* read the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 2.2, you will observe the following entry:
"No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed."
In your second link, this is explained further:
"The second sentence of the provision, which referred to the death penalty, was superseded by the entry into force of Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR, which reads as follows:
‘The death penalty shall be abolished. No-one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.’"
All clear?
lgalea
Oct 27th 2009, 12:41
D. Scerri
If you think so then I suggest that you read the “CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (2007/C 303/01)” downloadable from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:303:0001:0016:EN:PDF
Read the EXPLANATIONS RELATING TO THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (2007/C 303/02). explanatory document downloadable from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:303:0017:0035:EN:PDF./
They are both part and parcel of the lisbon treaty. When you read them and understand them you will understand that the eu is being given the same rights as states that have signed and ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, namely the right to introduce the death penalty in case of civil disturbances, insurrection etc.
Perhaps then you will understand why the eu can introduce and order the introduction of the death penalty and why I said that our own politicants did not even smell the cheese in the trap, something which was smelt by the UK and other Parliamentarians who opted out of the Charter. Do you think that the UK and other politicians are as naive as our politicants?
John Spiteri
Oct 27th 2009, 11:07
"John O'Brennan, a lecturer in European Politics at the National University of Ireland". In a few words another EU propagandist who lives off the EU gravy train. One cannot really expect him to bite the hand that feeds him.
D. Scerri
Oct 27th 2009, 10:01
@lgalea
The EU prohibits the use of capital punishment and states wishing to join must remove it from their penal code. EU law prohibits people being extradited to countries that have the death penalty as a possible sentence for charged crimes.
So what makes you think (if you are indeed thinking) that the EU would introduce the death penalty in all 27 member states?
I'm certainly not pro-EU, but your comments are preposterous.
lgalea
Oct 27th 2009, 09:04
The lisbon treaty is the next step in the creation of the eu as the united states of europe. This is apart from the lisbon treaty making it possible for the eu to introduce the death penalty as elaborated in the explanatory document interpreting the charter of fundamental rights which is considered as part of the lisbon treaty. No wonder the UK and others got an exclusion from the charter while our politicants did not even smell the cheese in the trap when they approved the ratification of the treaty.