Lisbon Treaty- Greater Efficiency? Democracy?

national | eu | opinion/analysis Thursday May 01, 2008 02:30 by John Fitz

Subsidiarity a foundation of active and engaged citizens

We're told Lisbon is to make the EU efficient. Why then haven't the parliamentarians that want this efficiency reduced their numbers (to about 60 TDs in Ireland) to reflect the fact that two thirds (80% reported for Britain & Germany) of their law-making functions are already transferred to Europe. TDs are rapidly making themselves powerless, redundant, and sidelining democracy and the Constitution.

We're told Lisbon is to make the EU efficient. Why then haven't the parliamentarians that want this efficiency reduced their numbers (to about 60 TDs in Ireland) to reflect the fact that two thirds (80% reported for Britain & Germany) of their law-making functions are already transferred to Europe. TDs are rapidly making themselves powerless, redundant, and sidelining the constitution. Before the Lisbon vote we should insist on reducing the number of TDs to 60 for efficiency and pro rata for MPs in other countries. If they don't believe in efficiency themselves are they interested in it in Europe? Why pay TDs to do work they've transferred to the EU. Why should we believe the EU people when they allow this gross inefficiency in member states parliaments. Workers are being pushed for greater efficiency and the OECD wants them to work longer for fheir pensions. How long must TDs and ministers work for their, often multiple, pensions? How many workers get 100,000 a year, about 50,000 in expenses including a daily allowance for turning up for work.

[b]Other examples of EU efficiency requirements[/b]

Make money creating waste so others can in recycle it
Every household in the country must, by EU fiat be given a telephone directory, whether they have a phone or not, whether they want it or not. It took 6 months to have the directory and Golden Pages taken back after I insisted, in many phone calls and emails prior to delivery, that I didn't want them. The message from Eircom and Golden Pages always "Throw them in the green bin, the EU insists all must get the phonebook". The real message- we make money creating waste, others in recycling it, 5,000 tons of paper, 20 million Euro to produce (and they're free of course) God knows how much it costs to recycle this waste. see Race against Waste http://www.indymedia.ie/article/69254 and exercise "The Power of One" to end this ridiculous situation. The Regulator and now 2 ministers for the Environment haven't shown enough interest to change this no brainer.
Mobile phones and EU efficiency criteria
There was much protest when the 3rd Mobile phone licence was proposed partly due to fear of the increased radiation levels. The protestors were treated as nuisances, anti progress. The Regulator was asked not to issue the 3rd licence for a number of reasons
1. unnecessary increase in radiation levels increasing risk to health
2. National infrastructure is very expensive in low population density countries. Ireland is amongst the lowest density in Europe.
3. Multiplying all the costs (capital, adminsistration, maintainance etc by 2 to 3 times must increase cost to the very small customer base
4. Multiple systems provided no benefit and was environmental madness
The response- The EU insists that licences be issued to all (suitable?) applicants if channels are available. The message- to hell with people's fears, the excessive costs and inevitably higher customer charges and the environmental costs. The Department of Health asked to intervene on the health issue refused. It admitted that the World Health Organisation had a 5 year study ongoing on the short term effects of this radiation. So much for the precautionary principle. It's worth remembering how long it took to establish the effects of smoking as there were so many experts prepared to take big money to supply false evidence. This process is repeated over and over again.
The government takes in hundreds of millions for these licences. The principal operator of one system and a colleague made a cool 320 million Euro after a few years. If competition keeps down costs how come such gross gain in a few years?. What use is competition or the Regulator to ordinary citizens

[b]Electricity Deregulation[/b] [b][/b]
Most people will remember how government authorised Electricity price rises at least twice "to prepare for competition". Is that not odd when the mantra is "competition is good for the consumer" Again the EU insists on competition in a tiny country with a population about equal to that of the Greater Manchester area but spread over 26,000 square miles. This is utter madness and particularly for vital infrastructure. Look at what happened with privatised electricity in Callifornia (see Palast's book The Best Democracy Money can buy), and the effects of World Bank and IMF enforced privatisation of electricity, water etc in poverty stricken countries causing riots because of gross overcharging and renationalisation at huge cost. etc. see SCHUMACHER UK MANCHESTER LECTURES April 2002 http://www.schumacher.org.uk/lecture_archive.htm John Bunzl article on the Simultaneous Policy and Destructive Competition
.
[b]Subsidiarity[/b]
Subsidiarity is, & was put forward in1972 pre joining as, an important characteristic of the conditions of membership of the EEC. The Report of the Government Taskforce on Active Citizenship (March 07) says-
Subsidiarity is a foundation of active and engaged citizens by enabling and empowering decision making as close to the citizen as possible. Each treaty further erodes this concept exacerbating the "Democratic Deficit".. "Two thirds of our laws are now made in Brussels". If the Lisbon Treaty is passed that'll be greater.
Should we be throwing away even more of our ability to influence our future when there is nothing to be gained and a significant loss of local control. If Europe was interested in Subsidiarity and Democracy it wouldn't have made the absurd regulations mentioned above.

If really concerned about efficiency it would have pushed for major reductions in membership of national parliaments. If interested in the environment it wouldn't have given us a derogation on our Kyoto committments at a time when the economy was booming and we could best afford to meet those committments.

Virtual incomprehensibility has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform. Dr Garrett FitzGerald.